Bush's War on the Poor

Bush is declaring War on the Poor. No doubt about it. This began in his first administration, when the first thing he did was grant humongous tax cuts for the wealthy. Some might ask, "how does this affect the poor?" After all, tax cuts were given to the poor as well as to the wealthy, weren't they? Well, no, not really. There's a big difference between a several hundred thousand dollar tax cut and one that averages out to be less than $100 for the average low-income tax payer.

But even that's not the biggest problem with those tax cuts. Despite the fact that the federal government derives its income from the people in the form of taxes, Bush thought it was just fine to reduce the federal coffers by billions of dollars per year. That would have been bad enough, but Bush's popularity was waning, even after just 8 mos. in office. What's a guy who likes to spend the majority of his time on vacation looking for bugs on his ranch in Texas to do? After all, he wasn't really needed all that much in Washington; Bush is just the pretty boy front man for the men who really call the shots - Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and quite possibly Paul Wolfowitz, and Big Daddy himself, George H.W. Bush. Never underestimate the old man's power.

Of course, it just doesn't look good for the President to be absent from his job so often, and the people know when they've made a mistake. How to fix it? According to Bush Sr.'s and Wolfowitz's pet project - A Project for the New American Century, as www.newamericancentury.org - the best way to get the people to rally around the President is to have a war and win decisively. Enter the plan to allow 9/11 to go forward. I happen to be one of those firm believers that Bush and Co. allowed 9/11 to happen. I do not believe in coincidences. I never have. At first, I didn't want to believe that our President, Vice-President, and others in the present administration could have conspired to even allow such an attack upon American soil, but eventually I had to face the facts, which were too many. To believe otherwise, I would have had to accept too many coincidences, and as I said, I don't believe in coincidence.

I'll even go so far as to entertain the possibility that Bush and Co. not only allowed 9/11, but actually invited it, orchestrated it.

After all, Osama bin Laden is a member of the same Saudi family with which the Bush family has close personal and business ties. Bush "doesn't think about him [Osama] much", curious for the "war president" to say about a man who killed 3,000 American citizens in one fell swoop.

Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but they're the ones who were invaded. Afghanistan doesn't have any oil. Whoever controls the world's oil supplies, controls the world. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with lowering oil prices in the U.S.

The main goals of the Bush administration are all about business and rewarding the rich. Business is all that matters. Whether it's Haliburton in Iraq or Haliburton in Louisianna, it's all about profit.

Bush won't go after illegal immigrants, which has some conservatives scratching their heads. They can't understand why he doesn't do something about border control. What they can't grasp is that Bush seeks to create a pseudo-slave society. Illegal immigration fits perfectly into this scenario. CHEAP LABOR. Bush doesn't care about Americans without jobs. He only cares that big business gets cheap labor.

And with all those wealthy tax cuts, which we all know has done and will do nothing to stimulate our economy, Bush deprives the federal coffers of monies needed to fund things like education, food stamps, housing, medicaid, etc. All those social programs that the wealthy do not believe in. Not if you want to keep the poor subservient. Why should tax dollars go to help the elderly, the disabled, and the poor?

Anyone who questions Bush's intent to dismantle Social Security should think again.

People should only get what they work for. Anything goes in business, nothing is illegal, and laissez-faire is the attitude of the federal government, and of any State and local governments run by Republicans. It's all about rewarding those that are just as ruthless and heartless as they are.

Americans need to learn once and for all that there is NO SUCH THING as compassionate conservativism. Make no mistake, Bush's War is on the Poor.

Don't let him get away with it. Beginning in 2006, vote Democrat. Get the Republicans out of office. Demand election reform and paper trails. Demand publicly financed campaigns, thereby eliminating much fraud and deceit.

Demand Democracy. Otherwise, we are left with a Totalitarian form of Nazism.

Controversial Iraq Porn/Dead Bodies Site

I've read about this site, but never imagined that I would ever see it. After all, these sites usually get shut down as soon as too many people know about them, right? Not in this case.

I was going through one of my email inboxes a few hours ago, and came across an email that I hadn't opened. I belong to a good many internet discussion groups, and this one I had joined, but had not yet read any of the emails from the group. In fact, this email was sent on Sunday, and today is Tuesday, so I usually just delete most of the groups' emails older than a couple of days, whether I've read it or not. After all, I can always go to the website and read the messages there, if I really want.

Well, for some reason, I clicked on this email, and saw only three messages. I wanted to get a feel for the group, which is what I usually do, to see if I might be interested in participating in a discussion, or even if I want to read the emails on a regular or semi-regular basis. The first email was from a professor at CUNY, lamenting the state of academic affairs. I read it with semi-interest, noting it's veracity, and then proceeded to the other two emails. I never made it to the third email, because the second email riveted me.

As I said, I had heard of this "gory picture for porn" scandal, and never thought I'd ever hear much more about it, let alone see it with my own eyes. But see it I did. And I'm going to post the link here for you to see, too. The writer of the email ventured that the public needs to see this, and gory as it is, I have to agree. "Support our troops" has taken on a whole new meaning for me. If this is what our troops are up to, we're in deep fucking shit, excuse my English, because we have some very sick puppies serving over there in Iraq.

Here's the link to the article in East Bay Express: http://http://www.eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news_print.html

The article is bad enough, but to really see what our soldiers are up to, you have to go to: http://nowthatsfuckedup.com/ and click on "enter this site". But beware, you might never be the same. It will (or should) shock, disgust, and sicken you. Upon entering the site, you can browse around. There's alot of porn, in fact, that's purportedly what the site is for. That's bad enough. I hate porn, and for the life of me, I can't understand any soldier putting his wife/girlfriend on a site like this, nor can I imagine her agreeing to it. I guess it just goes to show you the extent of our troops' moral decadence. I have to wonder if that is an accurate reflection of our society. I also have to wonder what the religious right would think about their beloved troops if they saw this site.

Anyway, the porn isn't what I went there for, and if it isn't what you're there for (hopefully), then you'll have to browse around and look for folders that say something like "Iraq and Afghanistan pictures", and there are a few of them scattered around. You can also click on the "Search" button at the top of the site and enter "Iraq" and you will be redirected to a page with folders and pictures of Iraqis that are not only dead, but that obviously died tortuous, violent deaths at the hands of our American soldiers.

And you gotta read the captions our brave soldiers have put on these pictures of theirs.

I'm so proud. NOT.

If this is what it means to be an American soldier today, then as I said, we're in deep shit. It's no wonder we're hated by the Iraqis. I have no doubt that our karma is going to take a deep kick in the ass sometime in the near future. It is inevitable.

But don't take my word for it. Go see for yourselves. Be forewarned, though, it is not for the squeamish or the faint-hearted. This is some hardcore shit. And I'm not talking about the porn. It will change the way you think about our military, and our soldiers. It may even change the way you think about our government and a military that supports this kind of thing. It's worse, much worse, than we ever imagined. This is BushWorld.

This is what happens when we have a "war President".

Just do me one favor. Spread the word. Copy the urls. Make sure everyone you know, and even those you don't, see these pictures. The world has got to know.

What About Harriet Miers?

What about Harriet Miers? I've never heard of her before today, but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing that she has had no judicial experience. That's what seems to be the focus of the media.

But should this be the focus of the media? I believe what the media should be focusing on is the fact that this is a woman who has close, personal ties to Bush.

What do we know about Harriet Miers? We know that she is about 61 years old, we know that she is unmarried, we know that she was born and raised in Texas, we know that she received both her undergraduate and graduate degree in law from a Southern Methodist University, we know that she was Bush's personal lawyer when he was Governor of Texas, we know that Bush brought her to Washington, we know that she was appointed White House council in 2004.

And there is much here that disturbs me.

She is roughly 61 years old and has never been married. Neither of these things, in and of themselves, are necessarily bad. I'm not worried about someone of that age being appointed to the Supreme Court. She will have roughly only 20-25 years, give or take, on the court. That's not as serious as say, Roberts' tenure of a possible 40 or more years to influence Supreme Court decisions in a conservative way.

She's never been married. Also not terribly important, on the face of it. I don't necessarily think one has to be married to understand how marriage might impact one's personal views and life. She can still understand reproductive issues, domestic issues, etc. And in this day and age, it is not so unusual to find that a woman might have invested more heavily in her career than in her personal relationships. Maybe she just never found anyone she wanted to marry. If there was one thing I might be worried about here, it would be that because she has so devoted herself to her career, that's where her loyalties lie. More about that later.

She was born and raised in Texas. Ok. It's not Texas' fault that Bush chose it to adopt as his home State. But it does seem that alot of people from Texas seem to run in the same circles, and boy, they sure do seem loyal to those that have helped them along the way. Keep that in mind.

She attended a religious university. I'm a Methodist. I know people who have attended Methodist Universities. It may not be Oral Roberts, but it's not that much different. A religious university is just that. While it's true that Methodism, as it is called, is not the same as fundamental evangelicalism, it still has its own brand of fundamentalism. The plus is that Methodism is well known for its stance on social justice. The minus is that Southern Methodism is much more conservative than United Methodism.

She was Bush's personal lawyer during his tenure as Governor of Texas. This concerns me. Bush has identified her as a personal friend. He has a long-term working relationship with her. Therefore, she most likely knows him well. She most likely knows his beliefs, thoughts, and desires. She may quite likely know his agenda.

In fact, she was so liked by Bush that he brought her to Washington, D.C. with him and eventually appointed her White House council. Obviously, she is a bright and competent attorney. That's a plus.

But again, just as in Roberts' case, what's not a plus, and what's most disturbing to me, with both of these individuals, is their close proximity to Bush himself.

This is glaringly obvious in the case of Harriet Miers.

How objective would she be? Would she follow Bush's wishes? Is her ultimate loyalty to Bush? Or to the American people? She has said she is a strict Constitutionalist. Bush has said she will not legislate from the bench.

All of these are alarm bells.

I think there is a very real possibility that this woman will reward her benefactor, Bush. He seems to have done much for her career. Now we're into murky waters. She's not married. Is Bush a substitute husband for her? I'm not suggesting any impropriety; I'm merely suggesting a possible emotional attachment on her part to a man whom she has known for decades, and is quite possibly one of the only men with whom she has had a close, personal relationship.

She has a conservative background, witnessed by her choice of universities. Yes, she was the first woman to serve as President of the Dallas and Kentucky Bar Associations, but we all know that sometimes it's who you know that further one's career. That she comes from a State that seems to produce more than its share of politicians who practice cronyism and patronage is not comforting. And even if that weren't true, at most, these could only testify as to her acumen as an attorney, and leadership ability.

It is my opinion that the media should be focusing on two things: Her ability to express an opinion independent of Bush's wishes; and just how conservative this woman might be.

One can only hope that when questionned, she will be more forthcoming than her predecessor, John Roberts.