Michael Moore – An insult to the Left.

In the late 1700s the Queen of France, Marie Antionette was quite possibly the most hated woman on the Continent. Monarchical discontent had been building for quite some time, François Fénelon’s “The adventures of Telemachus” provided the lining for the future revolution in the reign of Louis XIV, but by the time Louis XVI was removed, along with his family and the Queen from Versailles, the anti-Monarch sentiment was deep and profound, but ultimately it was whipped up in the first place, by lies. Pamphlets had spread, like tabloids, printing and shaping the public mood, moulding public sentiment, guiding the people like sheep, printing lie after lie about the Queen. Eventually, her reign and her life were taken, and history began to judge her as a monster. History now, is less vicious on her. History actually quite likes her. An awful and ignorant Queen, but a harmless woman who loved her children. The power of the press was born.

Interestingly, in 2004, the press really had taken on an anti-George Bush tone. Tabloids depicted him as a monster who was only interested in oil. The people followed suit. Joke after joke was aimed at his apparent lack of intelligence. The anti-Bush tone was set firmly against a tide of anti-Iraq war sentiment. The common wisdom now, seems to be that Bush was only interested in oil. Now, having recently came out as a left wing supporter of the Iraq war, and being quite the critic of George Bush on many policies, not least his frivolous tax cuts which simply quickened the onslaught of recession; I tend to cringe endlessly when George Bush jokes are made; they seem too simple, and too ‘milked’. The lack of understanding many on the anti-war Left have, when it comes to the horrific nature of the Saddam regime, and their willingness to allow that particular regime to continue and calling it ‘peace’ simply affirms my belief that they are the real war criminals. One of the heroes of the anti-war left is horrendous documentary maker, Michael Moore. To sit and watch Fahrenheit 9/11, is to be shocked at its content when taken at face value. Though, when one sits and questions every point Moore makes, and investigates them for oneself, on even the most basic of levels, one is presented with a whole host of inaccuracies bursting out of that film. I will talk you through a couple.

One of the main claims by Moore in the film, and in fact most on the anti-war Left in the US and Britain, and a key theme of Fahrenheit 9/11 is that Iraq;

“never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.”

- Leaving aside the fact that Hitler didn’t attack the UK, nor did Milosovich attack the US, the point that Iraq had never killed American citizens or threatened to attack the US, is simply untrue. Whilst it might be true that Iraqi soldiers were not waiting for the command to storm Pennsylvania Avenue, to say that Saddam had never murdered a single American citizen is disingenuous at best and a complete manipulation of the audiences emotions, jumping on the bandwagon of anti-Iraq war sentiment at worst. It is a fact that the Saddam regime had funded suicide bombers against Israel, which killed Americans. It is a fact that the Saddam regime paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who targeted Americans and Israelis. It is a fact that the Saddam regime gave refuge to terrorist Abu Nidal, a man who ordered the deaths of 16 people at Leonardo Da Vinci Airport in Rome from gunfire and killing two more when his men threw grenades at people boarding a flight to Israel. A man who said of himself:

“I am the evil spirit which moves around only at night causing … nightmares.”

It is a fact that Nidal’s men hijacked Pan AM flight 73 in 1986, and killed 7 Americans on board. It is a fact that Saddam hatched a plan to assassinate George Bush Sr in 1993 during his visit to Kuwait, with a massive car bomb that would have killed many many more, had the plot not been foiled. It is a fact that the Iraqi newspaper Babel, run by Saddam’s sun Uday, printed an article in 1997 an order to:

“American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces.”

- That sounds like a threat to me.
Another publication run by Uday, called Al-Iqtisadi, said:

“…The confrontation with the aggressors should transcend the means of condemnation and rejection, particularly in the Arab and Muslim street. They should use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors, including boycott, closing air and sea ports to civilian ships and airplanes that belong to the U.S. and its allies, striking their economic interests and establishments, and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships…

- Also sounds like a threat to me. It is bizarre that Iraq would have the nerve to refer to the US as aggressors, given the history of the Saddam regime in relation to the absolute genocide of the Kurds (the only war crime we can accuse the US of, in my opinion, is leaving Saddam in power for far too long)
Michael Moore played on his quote as if Iraq were innocent victims of American Imperialist aggression. He was wrong. Moore should apologise to the families of any American killed by an Iraqi funded Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel, for his crowd pleasing bullshit.

One wonders how the anti-war brigade would have responded during World War II. There is a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 that show Baghdad before the invasion; a thriving city filled with people sitting at cafes and laughing in a care free manner. A happy child flies a kite. Everything seems lovely and joyful. And then the bombs hit! The insinuation is that media simply ignored the fact that Saddam’s Iraq was actually full of joy and that now you, having watched Moore’s film, know better! You are of course, not invited to investigate for yourself, nor are you given a picture of life elsewhere in Iraq. You are just asked to believe subliminally, that Iraq was a place of wonderment before the evil Americans destroyed it. The problem is quite severe here. Moore is responsible on the Left, for what we on the Left deplore institutions like Fox News for; total and utter misrepresentation:
If Moore had have focused on the Marsh Arabs instead of Baghdad, we would have seen a beautiful garden of Eden in the 1980s, filled with fishing communities and the most stunning natural wonders on the face of the Earth. Tiny islands, with one or two huts on each, like the waterways of Venice, but wider and lit up with the homes of families who had inhabited the marshes for centuries, floating between neighbours on tiny little home made rafts. He could then have contrasted that view of paradise, with now. In 1991 Saddam firstly had the water supply poisoned. This resulted in hundreds of deaths. Then, drained the marsh lands, purely because the Marsh Arabs were Shi’ites. He then rounded up the majority of the inhabitants, and had many tortured and killed. Paradise had suddenly turned into hell. It is now a desert. Since the 2003 invasion, there has been an effort by the Americans to reinvent the marshlands, and it is working. The Hammar and Hawizeh Marshes especially, accoring to USAID is back to 50% of 1970s levels, which is remarkable given the absolute destruction Saddam caused. Moore chose to ignore this.
To show a film reel of people drinking coffee and flying kites in Baghdad in 2002 is irrelevant beyond comprehension. It’s imagery is simply used to convey a prevailing theme, which is misguidance on a grand scale. Similarly, we could show film of happy Germans during the Holocaust, or happy Serbians during Milošević’s reign, it would be meaningless.

One of the bigger manipulations in the film, is the part where Moore says:

“out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq.”

- Technically, the statement is true. Though it is true simply because of the emotive language. It is spoken by Moore in a sombre and disappointed tone, designed to provoke outrage. He is then seen stopping members of Congress and asking them if they’d be happy to send their children to Iraq. One of those Congressmen stopped by Moore was Republican Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN). Kennedy responds by pointing out that his son was en route to Afghanistan and his nephews had already served in the forces. This response was cut, and instead Kennedy is shown looking bewildered. When asked about this omission, Moore said:

“He mentioned that he had a nephew that was going over to Afghanistan, So then I said ‘No, no, that’s not our job here today. We want you to send your child to Iraq. Not a nephew.’”

- This is wholly disingenuous of Moore who absolutely knew exactly how the interview would come across, and that he was presenting one side of the story; in which Congressmen are selfish and evil, whilst other people’s families die in war. He had no reason to edit out Kennedy’s response, other than to promote his frivolous and sanctimonious crap. Further, Kennedy, whilst looking bemused by Moore in the film, actually offers to help Moore in the actual, unedited version:

Moore: Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.

Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?

Kennedy: How would I help you?

Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.

Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.

Similarly in the film, Delaware Republican Michael Castle is seen on his phone waving away Moore’s calls to send his children to Iraq. He seems ignorant and refusing to answer the point Moore is making. The thing that Moore doesn’t tell you, is that Delaware Republican Michael Castle doesn’t have any children.

101 veterans served in the US House of Reps in 2005. 101 put their lives on the line for America. They should now stand outside Moore’s house and ask if the film maker is willing to do the same.

Aside from the glaring omissions and manipulations, the premise that Iraq was no threat and pretty peaceful before the invasion is itself gravely disturbing and bordering on criminal. Iraq under the Ba’athist regime was one of the most vicious and genocidal regimes in history. Perhaps the last great dictatorship of the 20th Century. To have followed the advice of the Michael Moore’s of the World, would have been to ignore the humanitarian disaster that was Iraq, and shout ‘peace’ on the streets, turning our heads to the suffering in the process.

The anti-war stance of Fahrenheit 9/11 was slowly blurred with an anti-Bush stance, as if the two are one in the same. As if being a supporter of the war means we must also support Bush, or vice versa. For example, in yet another sombre tone, Moore, sounding close to tears, says that the Bush regime:

“supported closing veterans hospitals.”

- This is vastly manipulative on so many levels. It is used to perpetuate the nonsensical idea that the Bush regime cared little about the soldiers sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, because their minds were on other things; oil. The problem is, it isn’t true. The Administration’s Department of Veteran Affairs did indeed propose to close certain Veteran hospitals, but only in areas with rapidly declining populations and under utilised equipment, where patients could be served better in hospitals close by. Along with this, the Administration proposed building new Veterans hospitals in areas with growing demand, and building new blind rehabilitation centers and spinal cord injury centers. None of this was mentioned in Fahrenheit 9/11.

I am slowly learning that even those who you believe have the same fundamental values as myself; a sense of social justice, redistributive wealth, freedom of expression, a desire to get to the truth – are often the people one should be most weary about. The black and white premise that the Left seems to attribute to the Bush regime; one of great evil, or to the Iraq war; one based on a lie, for oil, is often so disastrously simple and despairingly unconsidered, that it must not detract you from forming your own conclusions rather than pulling you into its merky waters of over reaction and over simplification, such as those on the Left who call constantly for Blair to be tried as a war criminal. The policy of non-intervention must be followed to its natural conclusion; Hitler would now rule Europe. Milosovich would have succeeded in genocide. Saddam would rule Kuwait. The Taliban would be funding terrorism and suppressing democratic change in Afghanistan viciously. That would all be the legacy of non-interventionism. It is a war crime in itself. I am almost certain that non-interventionism in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Serbia, in Hitler’s Germany, would have led to far more cruelty than interventionism.

Those in 18th Century France who had wholly legitimate complaints about the nature of the Bourbon dynasty, were unfortunately manipulated into a heartless and uncritical acceptance of every lie published by the anti-Antionette pamphleteers. Their simplistic acquiescence of everything they were told, by those whom they believed could never possibly distort the truth, or lie to them, because they seemed to be on their ‘side’, brought upon a decade or more of anti-intellectualism and what would have seemed like the death of the intellectual superiority of the Enlightenment.

We on the Left must learn to form our own opinions as individuals, as well as collectively. We must be able to disagree profoundly on matters that have for so long seemed so central to our uncodified doctrine. That is how we progress. We must engage on issues, and not just resort to blind acceptance of the prevailing wisdom of those on the Left who are most heard. That is how we unify. And unification of the Left, in a World that seems to be ever more dominated by the Right – in the UK, in Europe, slowly advancing in Australia, the Islamofascist regimes throughout the Middle East, and the dehabilitating and vicious nature of the American Republicans – is absolutely essential. We must not cling on to what can only be described as false prophets who perpetuate simplistic, one sided explanations and post them as objective truth. We must ignore the Michael Moores of the World. They absolutely damage and insult the intelligence of the Left.

Multiculturalism in England

At the Student protest rally in London last November, I saw a group of people marching together; laughing and joking, holding a sign saying “Jewish and Muslim Students Unite“. A Jewish guy was holding the hand of a Muslim girl. Sadly, I didn’t manage to take a photo of those two. But I got a photo of the banner. I cannot think of a better symbol of the success of multiculturalism in this country, than that group of young people. Whilst the older generation (and a few crazed extremists) likes to cling on to some oddly indefinable nostalgic sense of “Britishness”, the rest of us are getting on with each other, just fine.

David Cameron today has claimed that Britain has become too tolerant of extreme Muslims. It is an unfortunate speech because it comes on the same day as the biggest EDL rally in its history in Luton, later today. Cameron’s mistake is that he mentioned Muslim extremism particularly, and not English Nationalism too.

Both are intolerable thugs, yet both are just not important. They should be ridiculed and ignored.

Cameron makes this speech a year after Merkal of Germany made pretty much the same speech in which she argued that German Multiculturalism had failed, and argued for a strong German national identity……… a strong……. German…. national identity…………. I wont point out the obvious flaw there.

He claimed that too many Muslim organisations are showered with public money, without doing anything to combat extremism. The question is, are the extremists part of these groups showered with public money? If they are, then of course they should be trying to combat the extreme element. But if they aren’t, then why should they? It’s like claiming that all middle aged men should be using their time and influence to combat the fact that a large number of paedophiles, tend to be middle aged men.

It would be terribly ignorant to suggest that there isn’t an extreme element of Islam in the UK. There is. Is it a threat? No. It is a fringe group of fundamentalists, just like the EDL, or should not be acknowledged or given a platform whatsoever. When either EDL or Muslim groups start to propagate violence, then it is up to the security services to make sure they don’t make good on their pathetic threats. But whilst they keep talking about “the word of God”, we should shake our heads, wondering how humanity hasn’t managed to progress past the middle ages, philosophically.

There are many many English Nationalist bloggers who blog exclusively concerning Islamic fundamentalism. They never mention violence and racial discourse by English Nationalism, because they are a part of that propaganda machine intended to imagine Englanders as the great victims. It is of course nonsense, but it isn’t just English Nationalists who play that card….

The Islamic Standard takes fairy tale delusions to the next level. It is religious folk like he, that I despise. They are the cancer of the Earth. He states of a soldier who has recently died in combat:

The family said in a statement: “Martin was proud to be in the Parachute Regiment and serving his country. He served three years as a Police Community Support Officer in West Yorkshire Police before joining the PARAs.”

So not only was he in it for the money like many soldiers, but actually believed in this war against Islam and though anyone can change whilst still alive and become a better person, I can’t help feeling the world is a better place without this nationalistic enemy of Muslims on the planet.

One wonders why he thinks we should be a “friend” of his brand of Islam, when he preaches the total overthrow of our entire culture, and replacement by his.
It’s an ugly sentiment. It makes me angry to read it. But knee-jerk reactions, to Religious Fascism is what leads to the rise of National Fascism, and that’s fucking horrendous too.
It is ironic that he uses the term “nationalistic”. Nationalism is the mirror image of Religious fundamentalism. Both are fighting for a silly little concept, an outdated, human invention. A non-divine, delusion. He lives in a Country that allows him the freedom to wish death upon anyone who isn’t the biggest fan of his fairy tale delusion, and yet he condemns it. As an Atheist, I do not condemn him to death, I do not want to impose my ways on him. I’m sure he can be a nice, civilised, loving person, when he isn’t being a massively racist thug. Whether the man who died was a soldier or not, is irrelevant to Islamic Standard, because in his “about” section, he states:

We also don’t condemn our brethren who do violent acts in the UK, they have their evidence, we have our’s and we love them for the sake of Allah, they are our brothers and sisters and we would never agree to hand them over to the kufr Taghoot authorities and believe to side with the Kuffar, aid them in their war against Islam by either spying on the Muslims or joining their crusading armies and police forces are acts of Kufr Akbar (major disbelief).

- He does not condemn terrorism. He loves them, actually. For the sake of a fairy man in the sky, he loves terrorists. But he doesn’t love Western terrorism. The terrorists have to be Muslims. Violence and murder is perfectly acceptable, as long as you’re slightly Arabic. Because his God apparently differentiates between the skin colour or culture of his murderers. He condemns Western aggression throughout the World (which I do too), but he does not condemn Muslim extremism, when its aim is to install its punitive religious bullshit on those of us who would rather drink our own piss than submit to religious “values”. What if his “brethren” (a word that always makes me laugh, a product of religious delusion) who “do violent acts” kill a child? Is that not condemnable? What about an innocent old lady (I know extremists like to try to justify their inherently violent nature, by suggesting that no one is “innocent”, but that’s a cop out)? is that okay too, because it’s a fight for a massively overrated religion?
He, in short, is a thug.
But he is entitled to his bullshit, in this country. I entirely disagree with him. I find him a virus that the immune system of humanity should be intent on weeding out with logic and reason. But I will always defend his right to be a Fascist, in the same way that his mirror image – the EDL have the right to believe the bullshit that they believe. They are a very small minority who do not condemn violence against those who entirely disagree with them, but want others to understand, believe and treat them like our superiors. It isn’t ever going to happen from me. He condemns me for who I am. He condemns me, because I am not a Muslim.

Cameron argues that Multiculturalism has failed.
He’s wrong.
It hasn’t failed.
Thirty years ago, the Tories ran a campaign in Birmingham with a leaflet stating “If you want a nigger as a neighbour, vote Labour”. Thankfully, that sort of far right Nationalist bullshit is past us. Now, your kids could be white and Christian, playing football in the street with their black, Muslim and Sikh friends. My dad coaches youth cricket teams; the young players are all very very good friends, and are all mixed culturally. Cultural integration is a slow process that takes a generation or two to take hold. This new generation of children are far more culturally aware and integrated that we ever were. Cameron’s speech is inflaming a culture of suspicion of the “other” that until now has been left to the idiots on the far right. He is giving a credible face to that intolerance, especially by not referencing the anti-British values of the EDL.

That being said, I am no fan of organised religion, and if I had my way, no religious organisation would be receiving public funds, and I absolutely wouldn’t tolerate religious schools. I do not want Christian influence on politics and law, just like I don’t want Islamic influence on politics and law. I do not want fairy tales to influence reality. Cameron would do us all a credit, if he is taking a swipe at Islam, to also take a swipe at extreme Christians. Contrary to Christian belief, Western law is not based on Christian reasoning. It is based on social evolution and common sense. Law should be based on irrefutable fact, not on largely discredited miserable fairy tales from 1500-2000 years ago, in the desert. Whilst religious people like to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural, I would suggest that religious belief, is the most unnatural and vicious pessimistic invention humanity has ever had the misfortune to invent. The moment we no longer need such bullshit, is the day when we have evolved to the level that we can truly call ourselves civilised. Fundamentalist Islam, like Nationalists in the EDL are not civilised. They are barbaric thugs and nothing else. Do not let them convince you otherwise.

Multiculturalism has not failed.
The experiment of Nation States has failed. The experiment of one overriding National identity has failed. The experiment of organised religion has failed.
Nation States are a left over from Colonial days. They have nothing but a violent history. They are like a market place, always looking for resources to plunder. It doesn’t matter if it is Western Nations or Middle Eastern Nations; the rich ones always want more. It isn’t Islam vs Christianity. It is the rich vs the poor. Always will be. Religion is used as a way to separate the poor Westerners from the poor Easterners, when actually they have more in common with each other than they think. They should be joining hands and fighting back. Racism has always been used as a divisive tool to stop popular uprisings.

We are all a product of multiculturalism. A British identity has always been a little bit obscure. For most of our history, since the year 0, we were a Catholic country, in which the majority of our citizens considered themselves loyal to Rome before loyalty to the Nation. Protestants and Catholics fought for their vision of what it meant to be British. The English fought the Scots. The Royalists fought the Republicans. The Enlightenment thinkers struggled against the “traditionalists” of the elites. Darwin struggled to find a time to reveal the greatest discovery in the history of mankind, in the face of religious fundamentalists, so backward in their thinking, so dogmatic in their delusions, who would have liked him to have been silenced. We are a land of multiculturalism. I guarantee my idea of what it means to be British is far away from what David Cameron thinks it means to be British. Perhaps, in a very broad sense, we can deduce that to be British, is to believe in Democracy, the rule of secular law, and socially liberal values of acceptance. And tea drinking. Lots of tea drinking.

I have always argued that mass migration is linked entirely to global inequality. We, as a Western State had a foot up the ladder of global Capitalism long before Middle Eastern countries started to climb. We used our days of Empire to secure great wealth, that has kept us relatively privileged ever since. We pillaged the World and then blocked our borders to them. We stole resources and labour supplies, and gave nothing back. Now we are complaining that the people we left behind, want a better life for themselves and their families in the UK. That to me, is irrational. The balance has to be tipped toward the centre economically. Flooding the World with American and British multinational companies, is not fair. It is perpetuating the problem, it results in war and in hatred. Always will do. Especially when mixed with religion.

Fundamentalism in religion, is built on a bedrock of intolerance, hate, violence, delusion, anger, and whilst their mindset is undoubtedly influenced by their religious beliefs; they also must have psychological issues in the first place, to allow themselves to condemn large sections of humanity, who have done nothing personally to upset or hurt them, to a violent, miserable death. This is the legacy of religion. To call any religion, the “religion of peace and love” is a contradiction in terms.

George Bush said he had heard the voice of the Christian God, who told him to go to war in Iraq. Absolute madness. And very very worrying, that a man who has such strong delusions can acquire the position of the most powerful man in the World. It is the 21st Century and our leaders are no different from the 16th Century European leaders who were raging wars based entirely on religions. It is almost beyond comprehension that our history for the past 2000 years has been plagued by the dictatorship of a work of fiction. Christian fundamentalism has been the driving force behind the power of the Catholic Church for decades.

If those of us who are sensibly minded, and optimistic for the future of humanity, those of us who are not infected with the disease of organised religion, all accept that it isn’t Islam itself or Christianity itself that are the problems, that they are just systems for spirituality; and we accept that it is indoctrination into extreme tendencies that are the problem, throughout the World of organised religion, we are sure to prevail. Logic, reason, and fact always prevails.

Moderate Christians, Muslims, Jews, English, Middle Eastern etc should be banding together, and enjoying each others company, learning from each other, and progressing. We should not be suspicious of each other, and we should not be condemning each other, purely for the beliefs one has.

Be black, be white, be gay, be straight, be Muslim, be Christian, be Jewish, be Atheist, be female, be male, be fat, be thin, be happy, be miserable, be sporty, be artistic, be eccentric, be philosophical, be left, be right, and live together.

I do not want to see people as being Muslim first. David Cameron is pointing and saying “look, a Muslim, be suspicious“.

The power of rhetoric

When I was a toddler, I decided normal human words were not good enough, and so I invented my own words, for reasons I am unable to provide an adequate reason for. The remote control for the TV, I referred to as an ‘Ah Ah Ah’. My dad still calls it that. A spider, was a buru. And Santa, was Ge-a. I do not understand what made me see a spider, and say “Oh, there’s a buru.” It isn’t even like I attempted to say spider, and got it wrong. Buru sounds nothing like spider. There is no species of spider called a Buru. In fact, Buru is a tiny island in the Maluku Province of Indonesia.

In my defence, I was creating my own language. I didn’t need your English bullshit language, in which the plural of house is houses but the plural of mouse isn’t mouses. I wonder, how far would I have gone, had I not been taught English as soon as I started school? Would I have came up with my own vocabulary? Would I have came up with my own words, for situations that even the English language doesn’t have words for? I would absolutely love a word for the fact that the only door in the history of the World that doesn’t have a top or a bottom, is a door to a public toilet cubicle; the one door you want a top and bottom to exist, through fear that a friend might appear over the top, with a Phone camera, and ending in you having to close your facebook account. Surely that situation is enough to warrant a word? I would have came up with a name for that situation, had I been able to develop my own language.

Instead, I would just make my dad sing ‘heartbeat’ from behind the door, whilst he held my baby sister above the door, so it looked like she was really tall and singing. I was 2. Apparently, I found it fucking hilarious.

I was awesome.

Anyway, the point of this blog is the power of the spoken word. The Greeks and the Romans knew exactly how important it was. It was a tool used by the political and religious classes, to manipulate the population into doing exactly what they wanted. Cicero perfected the art of rhetoric. The three main devices used by the Orator, are pathos, logos and ethos. They are all features of manipulation. Pathos is defined as an appeal to the emotion of the audience. Logos refers to reasoning and logic. Ethos means to appeal to an audience’s sense of National pride, or Religious beliefs, or a Political ideology…. in other words, appealing to an abstract sense of community.

We see it politically all the time. John McCain during the run up to the 2008 Presidential Election gave a speech against Universal Healthcare in which he claimed that the British NHS refuses to treat patients over 75. Gasps of shock from the audience resonated throughout the hall. Political rhetoric that is simply untrue. I know it was an horrendous lie, and a manipulation of the audiences naivety, because my 83 year old grandma was being treated by the NHS, on that very day. To get away with such a ridiculous lie, and not be booted out of politics for it, shows just how nonchalent we have become politically. We don’t bother to check our facts, we simply wait for a politician to tell us. And the politicians know how useful this tool has become.

The Conservate-Lib Dem coalition defends every pointless cut it makes, by starting the answer with “as a result of the legacy of debt left by Labour”. Seriously, when you see a Tory or Lib Dem being interviewed, see how long you can count before they mention the “legacy of debt“. Simon Hughes of the Lib Dems got to 23 seconds today. Record! It is an attempt to justify, what they clearly are not comfortable justifying using the truth; their own ideology. BBC News asked a guy in a pub, what he thought so far of the Coalition. He said that they need to desperately get the debt reduced quickly. The journalist asked him why he thought that was. He couldn’t answer. Now, to me that suggests that he had simply heard time and time again the right winged rhetoric of the Tory Party, and thinks he sounds intelligent, if he simply repeats it. It shows that the Tories really did win the political discourse war, not with reasoned debate, but with easy terms, idiots can understand. He doesn’t bother checking facts for himself. Given that the Tory Party won the most seats at the election, it suggests that a large majority of people who will be badly hit by the cuts to public services over the next few years, voted Tory because they kept hearing the apocalypse-type rhetoric that public spending needed cutting immediately, or we’d all die. The Labour Party were useless at providing a differing opinion; a progressive narrative, and they paid for it. The current Labour leadership battle is nothing of any worth. The same centrist politicians who have been on the scene for at least the past five years, using the same rhetoric they use to win votes rather than challenge the centre-right monopoly on political and economic discourse that has become prevalent in recent years. None of them seem to be real progressives. On subjects like immigration for example, they pander to the Right and the media perception. It is a supremely complex issue, that deserves more than one view that only ever says there is a huge problem. They aren’t putting forward different, progressive views, or challenging the mainstream opinion. They are pandering.

On immigration, from both sides of the political scale, all we hear is that it is a problem. Immigrants are labelled illegal and dangerous. They apparently take our jobs and the only way to deal with it, is to ‘secure the borders’. That isn’t progressive. That is simply tying a weak bandage over a very deep wound. To truly deal with immigration, you have to work internationally to find out why mass migration occurs. Firstly, you have to accept that if your borders are open to capital and goods, closing your borders to labour is always going to cause huge Global inequality. Capitalism and Nation States are vastly incompatible. You need to truly be committed to eradicating poverty. You have to work internationally to force working standards across the World based on human rights. You have to allow smaller producers a better chance at survival against huge Western Corporations. You have to spread democracy that isn’t just about creating puppet governments who will open native markets to America business interests. There has to be a joint effect across the World, to fight global inequality. Then, migration will fall. Guaranteed.

What worries me, is that there has been an obvious systematic attempt to undermine all sections of the public sector, whilst keeping the failings of the private sector as quiet at possible. The vast majority of the British Public quite obviously felt uneasy at this, and didn’t buy into it at first, because during the most unpopular Labour government in generations, the Conservatives STILL didn’t manage to secure a majority. I would argue that they have no mandate to push through tough cuts now. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party both ran their election campaign on the idea of slower and less vicious cuts that the Tories proposed. The combined votes of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party added up to just over 15,000,000. The Tories vote count, was just over 10,000,000. Therefore, 5,000,000 more people in the UK wanted slower and less vicious and less deep cuts than is now happening. We are hardly a beacon of democracy right now. So the idea that the British public felt that Labour had forced this horrendous debt that needed cutting deeply, immediately, was wrong.

The rhetoric works. The constant “We’re all in this together” from George Osbourne makes me squirm, and yet apparently people lap it up. I cannot understand why.

The reason people are so easily political manipulated, is because we simply don’t have time to understand and investigate for ourselves. We rely on what the politicians tell us around election time, and the Party with the loudest voice becomes the voice of truth, which is surely a logical fallacy. The loudest voices in the corridors of Whitehall, are those who represent money interests. Rich interests. Therefore those who tax avoid will always be less important to the political classes, than those who have no voice yet scrounge a few extra pound every month in benefits. And then the rhetoric starts. You’re an evil socialist if you think differently. You’re a communist if you suggest Big Businessmen should express some responsibility and not walk away with millions upon millions in bonuses whilst making thousands of workers redundant. It stinks of bullshit. Joined with our lack of time, and our indifference toward the continuously projected rhetoric (I believe it’s known as an appeal to ridicule), we are also……ya know……like……. totally……. like……….not bothered…….ya know………. because….. like we just…………want to……….get well drunk and stuff……..like……yeah? The poet Taylor Mali sums up what I am getting at beautifully, with:
<blockquote>
“And so actually our disarticulation . . . ness
is just a clever sort of . . . thing
to disguise the fact that we’ve become
the most aggressively inarticulate generation
to come along since . . .
you know, a long, long time ago!”
</blockquote>
An inarticulate mass, is a disinterested mesh of people whose lives consist of jobs they don’t like, long hours they wish they had more to themselves in their short lives, and one holiday for two weeks a year to look forward to and nothing else. It is no wonder we allow Politicians to presume to tell us that things will get better when they are in power. We will never be happy because our economy which is based almost entirely on consumerism (hence the easy credit bubble) ensures that we believe we will only be happy if we buy more shit we don’t need. Happiness can never depend on how much you own, only on how little you need.

I wonder if those poorer people who voted Tory know that the Tories wanted to ride the recession out with no stimulus or help for them. A large majority of them would have lost their jobs, and their homes had the Tories been in power. Not only that, but David Cameron voted against minimum wage legislation. He didn’t want minimum wage. I wonder if those poorer people knew that before they voted for him. The rhetoric worked, because it was the loudest and most coherently constructed. It didn’t matter that it was full of illogic and lies, because there was no opposite coherent message to counter it. And it has been that way for generations. Before elected politicians; we had Kings and Nobles; Cardinals and Popes who had supreme power, and they used Religious rhetoric (the Pope still does) to scare, and coerce, and manipulate at will. No one opposed it, because to do so would have meant certain death for heresy.

In 1517, Pope Leo X offered to sell pardons for sin, in exchange for a lot of money, in order to build St Peter’s. So poorer people, thought this was an easy way to heaven. It was actually just a way for the Catholic Church to build it’s power, and actually quite a novel way, given that it had spent the previous few centuries building it’s power, on violence and blood.

Skip a few centuries down the line, and the Pope has the nerve to refer to people like me as being a problem because I don’t believe in Organised Religion; whilst at the same time, telling people in AIDS ridden African Nations that hang on his every word, that condoms actually spread AIDS, and that God doesn’t accept condom use. Church rhetoric is far more dangerous than political rhetoric, because people do not do there own research, or think for themselves when it comes to politics or the Church, the difference is that the Church promotes ignorance, and unquestioning acquiescence.

World War II was the era of big, lasting, epic speeches filled with manipulative rhetoric. Hitler was arguably the king of propaganda through speech. He managed to turn an entire Nation against a minority, in much the same way as the American Right are doing with Islam right now, only better. Churchill was an excellent speaker. In a speech to the House of Commons in 1940 he said:
<blockquote>
You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.
<blockquote>

What Churchill decided to ignore, was that he was correct in referring to the Nazi regime as a monstrous tyranny, the British were at that time an Empire ourselves. The lands we owned were won by enslaving populations, murder and rape of the land. The reason I, and the rest of the UK is in a strong economic position in relation to most of the World, is due to the fact that we had a solid grounding based on exploitation that was still going on quite horrifically in Churchill’s time, and of which he was a supporter. We carved up Africa into Nations, based not on the hopes of the population, but on what best suited our imperialist vision and that of France.

We are made to believe that one ruler in government, telling us how to run our lives, is bad. It is big bad intrusive government; tyranny. But, when big business does it, and when our workplace tells us what it means to look and act in an abstract concept of “professional”, how to talk, how our faces should look, what jewellery we can wear, it is perfectly fine. It is the height of human freedom. When we work hard and government taxes us, we consider it to be a great evil. When business takes the money we have earned in a shift, and the majority goes to the man at the very top whilst we receive the bare minimum; it is great, it is ‘free’. Business is in essence, pretty totalitarian. It is a dictatorship. It is lots of little Stalinist states run by megalomaniacs. It certainly isn’t freedom.

In Australia, all I heard from Tony Abbott, was “Omg Labor’s debt is awful ARGH! Vote for me, to save you all from economic ruin“. The problem was, within three minutes of research, one comes to the inevitable conclusion, that the right winged Mr Abbocare if the way we carved up the map of Africa would provoke countless tribal wars and ethnic cleansing over the decades, we cared only for what suited us economically. If Africans suddenly rose up and wanted out of British control, we suppressed them with violence. We favoured dictatorial ethnic minorities in African nations because they had vicious hierarchical systems and so could be brought on side to help the Colonialists; the Fulani in Nigeria is a good example of this at work. The entire Empire, even during Churchill’s time, was based on the idea of social darwinism; we believed we were superior to the Africans and so had every right to exploit them. Would Churchill not consider this a ‘monstrous tyranny’ also?

Cicero would not be proud of the American Right Wing. The Tea Party brigade. The Glenn Beck obsessed idiots. They are playing the rhetoric game all wrong. It is not subtle, or intelligible, or even well crafted manipulative bullshit. It is just utter bullshit. Almost laughable. The Tea Party brigade have referred to Obama as a Nazi, a racist, a Communist, a Socialist, an immigrant, and an anti-American terrorist sympathiser. It stinks of bitterness, because this level of anger was never thrown at the most evil and horrific President America has had, well, ever: Bush. They seemed to keep quiet then. It feels simply that big business has funded a campaign to suggest that any universal benefit to the entire population that inevitably bites into their immense profits, is only turn America into some new USSR. It isn’t. But the voice of the enraged Right Wing is the loudest, and so history is rewrote to the will of the loudest.

The American Right Wing has a thing about rewriting history, in their favour. Any fact that seems to contradict them, they suggest is just Marxist propaganda. In Texas, the school board voted in favour of a curriculum that teaches the superiority of American Capitalism. No economists or historians were asked for their opinion on the curriculum. It will also try to inject creationism into science teaching. This annoys me the most. Purely because evolution is not a Right vs Left issue. It is fact. It is like trying to suggest in a school text book that actually, gravity might not exist at all. The religious fundamentalists do not seem to be able to differentiate between the word ‘theory’ in every day use, and ‘theory’ in scientific use. ‘Theory’ in scientific use is the explanation to explain the fact. So, gravity is the fact – that everything falls to earth if you drop it. Einstein’s theory, is currently what we use to explain why that happens. Similarly, evolution – being the idea that we are all descended from a common ancestor, is the fact. The theory that we currently use to explain it, is Natural Selection. In fact, the entire field of modern biology and medicine, is based on this. So when those board of education members get sick, they should perhaps pray instead of being treated by evil leftie evolutionary heretic doctors. To implant their skewed understanding of the World into a text book, for future generations to be indoctrinated with, is surely wrong at best, and pretty damn abusive at worst.

Southern America during the Civil War managed to convince very poor people, to fight for the right of their rich counterparts to own slaves. They billed it as a war over States rights. Yes, States rights to own and exploit black people. It’s odd because the North wanted slaves to be free. For some reason, southerners believed this would flood them out of the jobs market, and black people would now take all the work. The irony of the situation is that the black slaves already had their jobs. If i’m a rich man in Southern America and I can get a black slave to work my land for free, or pay a poor white man to do it, i’m obviously going to pick option one. So i’m so far unaware of why poor white people were so up for fighting on the side of the rich white folk. I’d suggest it was purely racist reasons. A form of racism that was created specifically to stop the poor white folk from joining hands with the poor black folk and fighting these rich bastards who held them both down.

President Bush spent eight years telling Americans that if they didn’t support the horrific imperialist ideals of the Republican administration, the torture, the innocent deaths and the illegal expensive wars; they were un-American. And now, we have a generation of Americans who seem to think that keeping quiet and waving a flag chanting U.S.A whilst their President wastes billions of killing innocent people in multiple countries, is the American way; but trying to correct a healthcare system that benefits no one but insurance companies, is un-American and Marxist. The power of rhetoric.

I have a new policy, of assuming that all politicians are the pocket of business and so will never say or do anything to benefit the population. That all business men are bastards from the day they are born, and have some kind of deeply totalitarian needs. And that spiders should be renamed ‘buru’.

A game played by “adults”

According to several sources, our wondrous new coalition government of nasty bastards, are to spend £4m on new “reintegration” centres in Afghanistan, to send unaccompanied Afghanistan child asylum seekers back to Afghanistan. This was announced, on the very same day that BBC News reported the deaths of 10 Nato troops, as fighting in Afghanistan escalated.

In an horrendous move to the right, it isn’t just immigration that the Tories intend to clamp down on, but now quite horrifically, it is children they have taken aim at. Overall, I find the idea of limiting immigration whilst further opening our borders to trade and capital, a silly idea based solely on the Colonial model of Nation States. But then, I find Nation States to be an outdated, and damaging principle. A silly social construct of National pride, that really has its origins around 1534 here in the UK, and is wholly inconsistent with a postmodern World built on Capitalist principles. But children, who really do not have a notion of this largely fatuous and arbitrary system of National borders, or trade, or capital flows, are now becoming the innocent victims of a game played by “grown ups“. I read the article, and just sat thinking how evil the whole idea of Nation States really is.

The Western World has spent decades destroying Afghanistan. We have armed the Taliban against the Soviets, because it suited us. In fact, in 1985, American President Ronald Reagan referred to the Taliban as;

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.”

Current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted recently, that the creation of the Taliban, was pretty much entirely down to the US. Which in turn, means the problems that Afghanistan, and in a sense, Pakistan now face, are largely due to the policies of the USA, in its vain attempts to defeat whomever they have designated an “enemy” in that particular decade:

“It seemed like a great idea, back in the ’80s to– embolden– and train and equip– Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help, and with the Pakistani support– this group– including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union.”

A decade later, an American oil company called Unocal attempted talks with the Taliban in an effort to secure the rights to a major oil pipeline that would shoot through Afghanistan. Unocal were forced to back out, after they were criticised for dealing with the Taliban.

Add another decade, and George Bush bombed the entire Country back into the stone age, for no real reason whatsoever, whilst referring to the Taliban, as part of an axis of evil (it’s ironic that a fucking evil President, has the balls to refer to another regime as evil). The very same well equiped, and fundamentalist Taliban, that the US created and armed in the first place. The US didn’t seem to give much of a shit about the Taliban’s human rights record when Reagan was funding them. But then, the same can be said for the rather evil right winged groups throughout Latin America that Reagan’s administration funded. Reagan, should have been thrown in prison, and left to rot miserably in a cell for the rest of his life. Bill Clinton, is just as to blame.

According to the Times of India, 2001;

“In the 1980s, the CIA provided some $5 billion in military aid for Islamic fundamentalist rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, but scaled down operations after Moscow pulled out in 1989. However, Selig Harrison of the DC-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars recently told a conference in London that the CIA created the Taliban “monster” by providing some $3 billion for the ultra-fundamentalist militia in their 1994-6 drive to power.”

Apparently Americans are not too keen on their money being spent on keeping their population healthy, but are perfectly fine with $5bn being spent on arming crazed Religious fundamentalists, who are now responsible for mass oppression and child sex trafficking.

Given the not-too-surprising violence that is rife throughout Afghanistan, why would any genuinely decent person, suggest sending children anywhere near a country like that? If I were Prime Minister, not only would I not give two shits about the moronic English Nationalists who must now be at home wanking furiously over this; i’d happily tell them they are scum; i’d also publicly state that there is absolutely no way I am sending any child into a Country whose child sex trafficking market is one of the biggest in the World, regardless of our pathetic sense of National Pride. Regardless of our immigration and asylum policies, regardless of the “burden” to tax payers. Regardless of their skin colour or what language they can or cant speak. They are children. And I could not live with myself, if I had openly agreed to hand a child back to a Country in the midst of war, and losing a battle against child sex trafficking. Especially given that the UK, has had a helping hand in destroying that Country in the first place. It strikes me as being a fundamental problem with the way the World works, that we have billions to give to dirty banks and bad business practice, which in turn contributed to the huge pension packages of people like Sir Freddy Goodwin, who fucked the entire system and now lives in luxury; but we complain incessantly about any money from the tax payer, going to help children who happen to have a different skin colour.

A US State Department Report on Human Trafficking, from 2009, reported:

Afghan boys and girls are trafficked within the country for commercial sexual exploitation, forced marriage to settle debts or disputes, forced begging, as well as forced labor or debt bondage in brick kilns, carpet-making factories, and domestic service. Afghan children are also trafficked to Iran and Pakistan for forced labor, particularly in Pakistan’s carpet factories, and forced marriage. Boys are promised enrollment in Islamic schools in Pakistan, but instead are trafficked to camps for paramilitary training by extremist groups. Afghan women and girls are trafficked within the country and to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation and temporary marriages. Some Afghan men force their wives or daughters into prostitution. Afghan men are trafficked to Iran and Pakistan for forced labor and debt bondage, as well as to Greece for forced labor in the agriculture or construction sectors. Afghanistan is also a destination for women and girls from Iran, Tajikistan, and possibly China trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Tajik women are also believed to be trafficked through Afghanistan to Pakistan and Iran for commercial sexual exploitation. Trafficked Iranian women transit Afghanistan en route to Pakistan.

Not only that, but according to the World Fact Book:

Much of the population continues to suffer from shortages of housing, clean water, electricity, medical care, and jobs. Criminality, insecurity, and the Afghan Government’s inability to extend rule of law to all parts of the country pose challenges to future economic growth. It will probably take the remainder of the decade and continuing donor aid and attention to significantly raise Afghanistan’s living standards from its current level, among the lowest in the world.

It does not matter how the children found their way to the UK. Whether they were trafficked here, whether they were sent by their parents, or whether they found their own way here out of desperation, it is irrelevant. Motives, are irrelevant. They are children. They are not a pawn in an adult game of economic warfare and its obsession with labeling people “illegal” if they weren’t born here. If a couple of pence in every pound of tax money goes to helping these children, rather than sending them to hell, then good! We are a decent country, with a sense of compassion built into us. We are not a country of the social Right. The Liberal Democrats, should be utterly ashamed of this.

This represents a major shift to the social Right, for the Tories. It shows that they have indeed wore a moderate mask for the past few years; hidden behind moderate centre-right rhetoric, but scratch gently below the surface, and we are confronted with the same old vicious, nasty party of old. A party without a sense of human decency, who focus solely on economically driven policies rather than human policies.

Left Wing Progressives, should work together to force real economic and social policy change. We need to understand how much the West is to blame for the hellhole of Afghanistan. We cannot simply exploit countries for the benefit of our business interests, rip the country to shreds, and then throw their children onto the scrap heap. Afghanistan has spent decades as a pawn in a game played by “adults“.

The Reagan Legacy

Ronald Reagan, in my estimation, was a nightmare. He is adored as a grandfather like figure who transformed America, whilst his equally as evil minion, Thatcher “transformed” Britain. A Corporate bitch at best, a war criminal for what he did with Guatemala at worst. Reagan once commented on Guatemala:
“President Ríos Montt is a man of great personal integrity and commitment. … I know he wants to improve the quality of life for all Guatemalans and to promote social justice.”
President Rios Montt, staunch anticommunist, and funded almost entirely by the Reagan administration, was according to a Roman Catholic investigation, guilty of commanding widespread torture, rape, political murders and genocide against the indigenous population if they happened to show left wing sympathies.
Greg Grandin, a reputable historian found that:
“In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.”
Quite ironically, one of America’s most wanted terrorists, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was funded almost exclusively by the Reagan administration, whilst also given full immunity for cocaine trafficking, people trafficking and other horrific offences, purely because he didn’t really like the Soviets either.

Whilst Reagan was quite happily knowingly funding rape, death, and genocide over in Latin America; back in America he was launching an all out assault on organised labour. His Chief of Staff (ex-chairman of Merrill Lynch, and vice chairman of the New York Stock Exchange) Donald Regan helped build policy around this new Neoliberalist ideal. In 1981, air traffic controllers went on strike to demand better working conditions. 12,000 in all. When 12,000 people go on strike, ones instant reaction is that perhaps management isn’t all that great. 12,000 people are not holding the industry to ransom; the management is holding the people to ransom. Reagan didn’t see it that way. He had them all fired. As a result, management could now just replace striking workers, meaning workers didn’t dare speak out against poor working conditions. Which meant that management could do whatever the fuck they wanted. The median real wage did not grow, during the entire 1980s. But, the gap between rich and poor more than doubled, and the homeless rate was at the highest in decades. As a result of his tax cuts for the rich, the deficit reached record highs. After forcing a recession on the American public, he then managed to cut Federal low income household funds, by 84%.

What about the middle class? According to research undertaken by Wallace Peterson, author of “The Macroeconomic legacy of Reaganomics“, The middle class share of the economy in 1980 was 61.7%. In 1985, that had shrunk to 58.2%. Similarly, the poverty rate under President Carter reached a peak of 12.1% before falling to 11.9% by the end of his term in Office. Under Reagan, between 1981-1986, the poverty rate shot up to 14.7%. Unemployment under Carter started falling and finished at 7.5% by the end of his term. Between 1981-1986, under Reagan, unemployment shot up to 8.1%.
Under Obama, the unemployment rate has dropped from 10% to 9.7%, whilst U.S. Department of Commerce states that 4th quarter GDP growth went from 5.7% to 5.9%, the best rate of growth in seven years. Obama doesn’t have Fox News on his side, Reagan still does. That’s the difference.

What Reagan essentially did, with his ideal of cutting the size of government and slashing aid to those who needed it most, was to bankroll the rich, spit on the poor, create a new class of homeless people, and use this new smaller government (which in fact, had more federal employees than any government before it) to undertake the task of destroying any left wing opposition in Latin America. That was the American Government’s new mission. Constitutional? Apparently so, if you ask Republican America.

Economist Mark Weisbrot is quoted as stating that Reagan’s economic policies were “mostly a failure”. Free-market-failure-denial-sufferers, will never accept that Reagan was an utter failure. Weisbrot goes on to point out that: “The median wage was flat, and there was a massive redistribution of income, with wealth going to the top one or two percent of the population“

Was he the most popular President of the past century as some conservatives would have us believe? No. He never reached the 90% approval rating that even George W Bush and his father achieved, and Bill Clinton managed roughly the same rating during his two terms, surpassing Reagan in the second half of each of their terms.

The hysteria about the debt and stimulus across the U.S, is crippling the recovery. America needs more stimulus. As does Britain. It didn’t go far enough. What the World doesn’t need, is another Reagan or Thatcher propagating the rumour that neoliberalism is the only way out of recession, because for millions upon millions of people, it certainly isn’t. During a recession of such huge proportions, a lack of easily affordable healthcare (a universal system), lack of a safety net, and lack of foreclosure federal help, means the majority is far more at risk from financial ruin and psychological depression. One of the many reasons i’ll never vote Conservative.

Reagan’s legacy was one of homelessness, selfishness, arrogance, lack of compassion or empathy, hate, Corporate greed, death, and misery. All in the name of an economic policy disastrously known as “trickle down”. History will remember both him and Thatcher as little beacons of horror and misery. That’s all.

Obama now needs to man up, recognise that he’s President, recognise that the Democrats control Congress, and make sure the Republicans – as well as being a laughing stock for the entire World – know that they are largely irrelevant now.

Iran’s Tiananmen Square

Twenty years after the massacre at Tiananmen, the situation in Iran could soon find itself on the same course. The Republic of Iran, this week appears to be in the midst of quite the civil uproar. The streets of Tehran are on fire. The Iranian people have a crazed dictator, rigging elections, beating protesters, restricting media communications, and making his mission in life the acquisition of nuclear arms; and yet the pro-reformers, who have quite obviously been screwed over, demonstrate on the streets in their thousands, blissfully unafraid. Conflictingly over here in the UK, we have an unelected Prime Minister, whose cabinet fell apart, who helped create a financial mess, who allowed Lloyds Group to employ Andy Hornby for £60,000 a month despite the fact that he lost over £10bn at his previous job, and despite Lloyds group making thousands more jobless. A Prime Minister who the entire Country doesn’t like. And yet, even our Labour MPs backed down from a political fight to oust him, through fear. It’s quite the difference. Perhaps we really have given up on politics entirely.

It is without doubt that Iran needs reform. It cannot survive as it is. It is estimated that by the end of the year, Iran’s fiscal deficit would rise to 18% of GDP. And given that Iran relies heavily on oil revenue, if and when oil prices start to fall, Iran will struggle. That isn’t to say that the Country is completely in ruins. Healthcare in Iran has improved rapidly in the past 20 years. Life expectancy is well above the World average, and above Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkmenistan, in the region. It is just a pity, they have a crazed dictator running the show.

The 2009 Election was never going to be free and fair. The members of the Guardian Council along with the Supreme Leader do not want to see Iran in the hands of a reformist urging less State intervention in the media and closer ties with the U.S. And no strict fundamentalist Muslim wants to see their Country fall largely under American influence. For them, this election was between Islam and America. Mousavi never stood a chance. The outcome, showed quite dubiously, that President Ahmadinejad had secured 62.63% of the vote whilst the reformist, Mir-Hossein Mousavi secured just 33.75%. According to secret Iranian polls conducted before the election, by the Revolutionary Guards, showed that Mousavi was set to take the election by quite the landslide, of up to 10 million more votes than Ahmadinejad. Between a ten and twenty point lead. The result came back, and was actually the other way around; Ahmadinejad secured more than 10 million more votes. That’s quite the swing! Not only that, but the President of Iran managed to win Mousavi’s home town of Tabriz, with 57% of the vote, which was so unlikely, one wonders why the Ahmadinejad team wasn’t more subtle in it’s quite obvious election rigging.

Iran has gone further, by arresting leading civil rights activists since Friday’s disputed election, activists who have all called for a complete recount. They have cracked down further on media outlets who suggest election fraud. A camera man for Italian media outlet, RAI was beaten in the Iranian capital on Saturday, and had his equipment confiscated. Iranian State Media, have condemned the demonstrations as the acts of “thugs” and “illegal“. Iranian State newspapers have been told not to report on the violence conducted by State officials against protesters. Text messaging services and internet use have been cracked down to prevent much communication getting to and from the Capital. Over 100 important opposition leaders have been arrested since the protests began, simply for showing opposition to the result. Protesters then gathered outside a military base at Azadi Square, in Tehran, and were seemingly fired on in what appears to be the attempted suppression of the right to protest.

Within moments of the polls closing, The Ministry of Interior announced that of the 25 million votes counted so far, 16 million had been cast for Ahmadinejad. Highly unlikely, given that the highest voter turnout in a very long time, anywhere in the World, had occurred primarily as a protest against Ahmadinejad. Within hours, the Interior had announced that if anyone attempted to approach the Ministry, the police had orders to shoot. Quite the response, given that they’d just announced that the Country absolutely loves Ahmadinejad. The Ministry of Interior is the body that controls how voting is conducted and how the votes are counted. It is also primarily under the control of Ahmadinejad, and The Supreme Leader.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whilst originally claiming that Ahmadinejad’s victory was “divine“, has now called for the Guardian Council to investigate allegations of fraud. The outcome, doubtless, will favour Ahmadinejad. Given that the Supreme Leader was a leading figure in the Islamic revolution, he’s unlikely to favour a reformer like Mousavi, who once claimed he wanted to reduce the influence of the Islamic Clerics in Iran, and supported closer ties with America. It would be quite the political and influential suicide for Khamenei.

I echo the thoughts of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, when he said of the election result; “If Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate… why has this violence erupted?”
I cannot imagine, if a candidate is as popular as the results appear to show, that full scale mass protests would ensue. George W Bush was the most unpopular President in history. If he were allowed to stand for a third term, a landslide victory over Obama, would be the Western equivilant to what is currently happening in Iran.

To sum up, Iran has blocked media communication, restricted web and text message services, banned anyone from coming within feet of the Ministry of Interior, put armed guards on the streets with orders to kill, arrested opponents, and released an incredibly illogical election result, and yet they’re still claiming it was free and fair. Islamic Fundamentalist Dictatorship, under the mask of democracy.

Senatus Populusque Americanus

It would be naive to think that on the surface, the United States model is entirely original and without precedent. From the architecture of the Government buildings, to the idolising of it’s founders, the influence of the Roman Republic can be seen throughout American politics. From it’s conception in the late 18th Century, America has retained much of it’s Roman influence. John Adams modelled his own style of writing on the great Roman Orator Cicero, often quoting him. Adams viewed Cicero’s political decline, as a mirror image of his own. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton – Romulus and Remus’ American counterparts – wrote a collection of 85 essays promoting the new U.S Constitution, they signed it using the allonym, “Publius” after Publius Valerius Publicola, the joint first Consul of the newly found Roman Republic, in 509bc. The Plebian Council of Rome acted as an dubiously elected House of Representatives, the Tribune could propose legislation and call the Senate, a Speaker of the House, if you will. The Roman Senate, acted almost as a supremely powerful Senate, filled with members of rich families (The US Senate, in 2003, was found to have 40 millionaires). The business class of the day, the Equites, grew ever more rich and politically influential as the territories and provinces increased (similar to the advancement of Oil opportunities with the “liberation” of Iraq). Whilst the Tribunes did indeed work in favour of the public (Tiberius Gracchus for example), the shadowy Equites influenced policy from behind the curtains.

Split powers, term limits, the veto, and the Senate itself are all aspects borrowed from America’s imperial predecessor. Of course there are substantial differences between the two (party politics isn’t particularly Roman, the two consuls of the Senate was not adopted in America), which is more down to the problems facing the founders in 1776, their need to create something different, something that broke away from previous English rule, but did not emulate to the core, the failings of previous Republican systems, such as the Republic of Rome. The Roman system was, after all, original and so had many, many flaws. Ultimately, the Roman Republican, the principle of the SPQR on which it stood, crumbled into Empire, because the Republican system of checks and balances just could not cope with such a widespread Empire.

The importance and the Patriotism of belonging to a particular National identity, the largely insular attitudes, their belief in the Republic, their military might, and their insistence that their way is superior and so should be spread across the World, their international cultural influence; all are derived from Rome, and passed on to it’s successor, a contemporary Renaissance, if you will, the United States of America.

There is one less obvious claim America has to be the new Rome.
Stoic Philosopher Panaetius left Athens and headed for Rome, with his new powerful friend; Roman Consul Scipio around 138BC. Earlier Stoics and Romans had decided long ago, that true Virtue came from knowledge, and so only the wisest of men could be considered virtuous in the eyes of the Gods. Panaetius introduced a new idea into the Roman every day life. He would offer help and teachings to those people who requested a life of virtue, he would provide the knowledge needed, he would be the way. And so suddenly, the idea that anyone could potentially become a supremely virtuous human being, in the eyes of the Gods, gave Politicians who sought advice from the teachings of Panaetius, a divine purpose for their serving in Rome. They would insist that the God’s had empowered them, which ultimately gave them much control over the public. This, directly influenced the notion a century later, that Caesar had a divine calling to “save” the Republic. Cicero drew heavily on the teachings of Panaetius. Suddenly individual “virtue” in the eyes of the population, became more important than the protection of the Republic.

In 2005, George Bush claimed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disastrous wars in which thousands upon thousands of innocents have died, was a “calling from God“. He is quoted as saying “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” A grotesque manipulation of the emotions of Christendom in it’s entirety. Those soldiers, those innocent Iraqi’s appear to have died for a reason none of us are aware of. Perhaps a lavish extension of Western Oil investment opportunities, perhaps the need to revert Iraq back to trading Oil in U.S Dollars. Certainly not a “war on terror“, certainly not a vengeful attack for the horror of 9/11. They died, because Bush thinks he’s ordained by God? The idea that the most powerful man on the Planet, turned the Republican White House into a Theocratic mess, by claiming he felt he had a calling from the mythical God of the Christian faith to destroy a Nation, is no different to Julius Caesar embarking on a mission from the Gods of Antiquity, to “save the Republic“.

Ex-White House Press Secretary, under Lyndon Johnson, Bill Moyer said:
“What is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.“

Suddenly, politicians of a particular persuasion, simply because they consider themselves Christians, have decided that morality comes directly from their apparent virtuous Godly knowledge, and that the rest of us just aren’t privy to their misguided “wisdom“. They try to discredit the faith of opponent politicians, purely for their own political ends. They embarrass themselves and then say “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God“, which translates to “I forgave myself, and that’s all that matters“. Republican Congressman Trent Franks, whilst trying to justify torture, starts with a quite depressingly inaccurate claim that “America’s distinguishing hallmark, its bedrock foundation, is that we hold to the self-evident truth that all men are created by God”.
Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice Scalia, is quoted as saying “..Government…derives its moral authority from God.“.
The Anti-Abortion lobby use phrases like “We will not stop until this nation once again honors God—or we die trying“, Theocracy by any means necessary? Why do you need to include an unprovable God in your argument?

The concept that as a politician, you are doing the work of God, or that your playing a part ordained by God, is an incredibly powerful concept. The race for the Minnesota Senate seat between Republican candidate Norm Coleman and Democrat candidate Al Franken, took a turn to the Religious Right, when Coleman stated “God wants me to serve“, as if to suggest a vote for Franken, would be a vote against God.
Gary Mcleod, running for House of Representative seat against Jim Clyburn, in South Carolina’s Sixth Congressional District, writes on his home page “Socialism is immoral because it requires the violation of God-given property rights“. A horribly manipulation of Biblical principles to support Political gain.
Rumsfeld would send memo’s around, regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, filled with Biblical Quotes.
It is an incredibly manipulative environment, to bring Religion into the political landscape. It shouldn’t happen. One disgruntled blogger writing on the Huffington Post site, suggests that the Republicans just cut out their religious dogmatic nonsense, and run God for President.

The use of Religious propaganda and manipulation was utter nonsense during the height of the Roman Empire, it similarly possesses the same utter nonsensical “qualities” during the height of the American empire. The influence of the fallen Rome, is far more widespread than may seem on the surface.

Extremism strikes

Not too long ago, Right Winged Americans everywhere were complaining that the Department of Homeland Security had a document entitled “Rightwing Extremism:Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“, of which I wrote an article about. The American Right interpreted the document in an incredibly odd way, much like they do with the Bible. They appeared to have decided that the DHS document labelled all Right Wingers as extremists, which it doesn’t. They twisted the logic, they exploded in a fit of irrational hysteria, they made themselves look terribly ridiculous.

The document itself caused lunacy amongst the bitter American Right Wing, with the mention of:
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a abortion or immigration.“
Seems a perfectly reasonable summary from the DHS, to me.

The document merely pointed out that certain white supremacist groups, or disgruntled ex-soldiers, or single issue protesters such as anti-gay rights and anti-abortion protesters may be dangerous. It does not take a genius to work out that the Department of Homeland Security is tasked, with protecting the homeland and so will have documents relating to ideological extremism.

I’m sure you see where i’m going with this. For all the hopeless bitching the conservative brigade indulged in, since the document was leaked, attempting to suggest that anti-abortionists did not pose a physical threat, they appear to be silent over the recent, right winged extremism anti-abortion fuelled killing of late term abortion doctor, Dr George Tiller, in front of his wife, in a church in Witchita, Kansas.

Whilst I myself do not approve of late term abortion, (it is a dreadful procedure, although only accounts for around 0.17% of the 1.3m abortions performed a year in the U.S) killing the Doctor; a husband, father and grandfather, is just not in any terms acceptable, and to stop this sort of thing happening again, the Department of Homeland Security should be taking the threat from Right Winged extremist groups far more seriously than a document that annoys a few ignorant conservatives.

Since 2005, the O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, has used Tiller’s name on 28 episodes, with Bill O’Reilly calling Tiller, “Tiller the baby killer”. O’Reilly has called Tiller a Nazi, a Soviet, willing to kill children for $5000, and that Tiller’s “Judgement day would come“. Whilst Fox often complains about the bias shown within the “liberal media”, the conservative media and Fox, in this situation, have a lot to answer for. They portrayed Tiller as an evil elitist hell bent on destroying children, up there with paedophiles and rapists. Despite Fox not directly advocating violence, they surely knew that the anti-abortion lobby was responsible for killing of Dr Barnett Slepian in 1999, a blast at a clinic in Alabama in 1998, two dead receptionists in a clinic in Boston in 1994, attacks on clinics in the West in 1994 by Rachelle Shannon, and the killing of Dr John Britton along with his clinic escort and the serious injury of his wife, also in 1994. Fox knew how dangerous it would be to continually publicise the work of Tiller, especially when using such strong emotive language.

Pro-life advocates have long confused me. Pro-life conservatives. Anti-abortion, But pro-guns. Anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty. Anti-abortion but pro-torture. Anti-abortion, but pro-Iraq war. Anti-abortion, but anti-welfare. It seems that once the foetus is born, it’s on it’s own, conservatives aren’t that fussed. You may say that the death penalty involves those who are not innocent, whereas an aborted foetus is innocent. True. But then, you have to move on to say that for all the complaining the conservatives do about government interference, they don’t seem all that angered by the ultimate in government interference; government sponsored murder.

In 22 years, between 1979 and 2001, 90,000 children have died as a result of gun crime in the United States. According to The National Education Association, “The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” Not only that, but “American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.” Gun ownership, is strictly anti-life. Advocating gun ownership is anti-life. It is that black and white.

President Bush, signing the ban on late term abortions in 2003, said the ban “will help build a culture of life in America“. Read that again. President Bush, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, including children, soldiers, and women, torturing people on dubious charges purely to extract a link between Iraq and 9/11, wanted to help build a culture of life in America? A man who once described himself as a War President? I’m not entirely sure how anyone can reconcile support for a war designed to let anyone know that if they live within the walls of a City that America thinks is evil, they will be slaughtered, with pro-life.

The pro-individual wealth of the West by any-means-necessary brigade have redefined the meaning of “life” it would seem. Bi-lateral trade deals allegedly favouring stronger economies such as those of America and the EU whilst detrimental to less fortunate economies do not seem to worry the apparent “pro-life” brigade. Whilst hundreds of thousands die every day across the globe, the pro-life brigade advocate the right for a man to suck up the wealth and the resources that could otherwise be used to sustain life on dying continents; whilst 40+ million have no health insurance including 10+ million children, Republicans and pro-lifers would rather not have universal health care purely because of their irrational fear of anything even slightly “socialist” If universal health care could save just one child who would otherwise suffer without insurance, surely by definition, pro-lifers should welcome it? The pro-life Right Wing, but not be less pro-life if it tried.

My position on abortion, is one closer to pro-choice. Religion should not enter into this discussion. No one has the right to push their religious nonsense onto the body of anyone else. I do not believe life begins at conception. I believe life begins when both the heart is beating and the brain is functional. This can be as early as 40 days after conception. After the heart is beating and the brain is active, I believe that a late term abortion is nothing but a horrid way to dispose of a human being. I believe a woman has the right to choose whether or not she is to keep on with pregnancy, up until a set date. It is 24 weeks here in the U.K. That is far too long. I’d drop it to six weeks maximum. In cases where the woman’s health is at risk, or the pregnancy is the result of a rape, or incest, then abortion must always be an option. Abortion must not be made illegal, because when forced to choose an unsafe route, 80,000 women die every year.

The killing of Dr Tiller, is right winged terrorism. Nothing more. Whilst extremist Muslims may suggest that they strike Western citizens in response to the killing of family members and friends in Middle Eastern Countries at the hands of the West; it is no different to a Christian fundamentalist killing a doctor for his abortion practices. Tiller’s practice, was ethically flawed, that is undeniable. American foreign policy, is fundamentally flawed, that is also undeniable. But the response to both of those, be it Islamic terrorism, or the murder of Dr Tiller, is equally as flawed, and as dangerous, and as unethical and as despicable as the practice they are fighting against.

Right Winged extremism is alive and well in America. I applaud the Department of Homeland Security for pointing it out so bluntly.

The Right to Love

August 27th 2009 will mark the one year anniversary of the death of Dorothy Martin. Mrs Martin was a pioneer for lesbian rights, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the 1960s and 1970s across America. Dorothy Martin died two months after fulfilling the dream of her fifty year relationship with girlfriend Phyllis Lyon, by marrying in June 2008, in California. They should be commended for their work. Anti-discrimination laws, the right for a gay lady or gentleman to visit a loved one in hospital, work place regulations in support of gay rights, society as a whole owes both Lyon and Martin a great debt for their courage and their relentless fighting.
I cannot think of a more pro-marriage fight, than that put up by Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon.

Currently, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all allow same sex marriage. Vermont is soon to follow on September 1st 2009, and Maine will join that list of States on September 14th 2009. And whilst I welcome the right of the State to provide it’s own definition of marriage ahead of the Federal Government, I’d suggest further that it is the individual’s right to decide what is and isn’t acceptable. It is not the State’s legislature who decide the arrangement of love. If you do not think homosexual couples should be allowed to be married, then simply don’t attend a gay wedding. Legally consenting couples, whether straight or gay have a right to express their love for each other via a ceremony of vows and commitment. It has the business of no one else. It does not impact your daily life. It does not undermine “traditional marriage” (a subject I shall come on to later).

The Defence Of Marriage Act is quite clearly anti-homosexual. I’m not entirely sure what Marriage needs defending from? It’s a thriving business as far as i’m aware. The Defence of Marriage Act, is simply a bigoted few, denying the rights of a section of society, that simply doesn’t conform to the narrow minded Republican view of what is decent and correct. It is indefensible that Congress simply assumes it has the moral authority to decide who should and shouldn’t be recognised as “married”. I’m unsure why same sex marriage is even a question any more, why it’s even debated. It is surely for the two people in any relationship, to decide if they want to take a vow of devotion or not? It is the jurisdiction of politicians on any side of the political divide to decide. As “rights” and as “freedom” goes, the freedom to fall in love and to commit to whomever you so wish, is one of the most basic rights any of us is entitled to, without being punished or alienated.

A rather vicious little group, ironically named “Alliance for Marriage” in 2001 announced it’s intention to create an Amendment to the Constitution that would have ultimately destroyed the right of homosexual couples to be married, whilst alienating them further, as they were sub human. The Amendment was referred to as “The Federal Marriage Amendment“. It would have meant that every State would be forced to recognise, the description of the FMA, which happened to be “SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” A nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation.

In short, the Amendment would have been a step backward, for diversity, tolerance, acceptance and difference. The homosexual community is not an alien race hell bent on destroying America. The homosexual community is no different to the heterosexual community, other than possessing a different preference when it comes to love. They are the Police officials who keep you safe, doctors who keep you alive, fire fighters who save you from burning to death, teachers who prepare your children for the future, they are the Oscar Wilde’s, and the Leonardo Da Vinci’s. It is simply a case of personal preference when it comes to love. Banning same sex marriage is as ridiculous a notion to me, as banning marriage between those with different coloured eyes or hair. It makes no sense. The Federal Marriage Act was a disgusting piece of legislation. The Federal Bigotry Act would have certainly been a more apt name. The Constitution is not a tool for discrimination.

Shockingly, Gallup reports that 40% of people asked, believe Homosexuality itself (not gay marriage) should not be legal. 40% of people asked would like to criminalise people, purely for being gay.

In order to pass into law, and become a Constitutional Amendment, the proposal had to attract the votes of two thirds of each House, and ratification by three fourths of the States. On July 18th 2006, a vote took place in the U.S House of Representatives, and failed by 236 yea to 187 nay votes. It needed 290 votes to pass the House. Whilst I welcome it’s failure, 236 yeas is slightly worrying, for perhaps the World’s most powerful and apparently “free” nation. The deeply held bigoted attitudes still in force.

The Constitution of the United States thankfully possesses the clause, Article IV, Section 1, which states quite unequivocally “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” States are required, by the Constitution, to recognise the marriage rights of those who were married in other States. George Bush, said at the time “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people“. A statement that is quite frankly regressive, and a product of the eight years of the Presidency of Bush – fear. Why is it “critical to American families and American society” that same sex marriage be banned? Given the past eight years, i’d suggest that letting Texans run for President is critical not just to American society, but Global society as a whole. George Bush would have decided that because he doesn’t approve of the relationship between Dorothy Martin and Phyllis Lyon, that it is therefore “un-American” by the standards of the Constitutional Amendment, he shamefully backed. For the 21st Century, I cannot believe an Amendment was even discussed.

Ex Republican Congressman, Richard Curtis voted against banning discrimination against Homosexuals, he also voted against domestic partnerships for Homosexual couples. In 2007, Curtis (who is married and has two daughters, and is very very anti-gay rights) was forced to resign his position, because he was found to have dressed in women’s clothes, and had sex with a male gay porn model named Cody Castagna, in a hotel room, in Washington. A smile was brought to my face when I read this story.

It seems the American Right is unwilling to move forward. Although, that’s nothing new.

In 1924, the Virginia Legislature passed a law entitled “The Racial Integrity Act” which made interracial marriage illegal. The idea, was to kill off any It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving V Virginia, that the United States Supreme Court overturned the ruling, when interracial couple Mildred and Richard Loving were sentenced to a year in Jail, simply for marrying. They worked tirelessly to overturn the Racial Integrity Act and were successful in 1967. To us here in 2009, the entire idea of blocking interracial marriage, is abhorrent. The Judge presiding over the case of the Loving’s, which sentenced them to a year in Prison, is quoted as saying:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Religion. Of course it’s Religion. Whenever someone feels the need to discriminate, or impose bigoted judgements on others, they tend to use the Bible to help justify the unjustifiable. As with the Lovings case, the fundamental argument against same-sex marriage, comes from the frankly ridiculous religious notion that traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, and nothing more. It sounds as if the Bible is strict and straight forward in it’s proposals on marriage. It simply isn’t. It is therefore perplexing as to why those with such deeply held Christian principles of the Religious Right, are wasting their time focusing on same sex marriage, when they should also be focusing on Biblical insistances they otherwise tend to pretend don’t exist?
1 Corinthians 11:8-9, which states “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” is pretty straight forward in suggesting that women should exist simple to serve men. Can I expect a “Role Of Women in Society Act“?
David is admired, by Christendom, and so perhaps those with such strong opinions against Gay marriage from a Religious stand point, could help introduce legislation to allow polygamy, because as 2 Samuel 5:13 quite clearly states, the role model that is David “…took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.“
I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time before those guardians of all that is moral and decent in the World, over at “Alliance for Marriage” really do themselves proud by truly sticking to what the Bible says of family life, especially in relation to Genesis 19:31-32, which says:
“One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Only recently has marriage started to become more about love, than strengthening family ties. Nobles throughout 16th Century Europe would almost invoke Exodus 21:7, by “selling” their daughters into prominent Catholic families, to strengthen relations. A great example of this, would be of Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, who was set aside to marry Arthur Tudor, the son of Henry VII of England, purely to strengthen the claim of the Tudor’s to the throne of England due to Isabella’s Royal English ancestry. This wasn’t a match made out of love. Neither was Catherine’s subsequent marriage to Arthur’s brother Henry, who of course became the tyrant, Henry VIII. Love and marriage (whilst a fantastic Sinatra song) did not go together like “a horse and carriage“, until very very recently. “Tradition” is irrelevant.

Opponents of same-sex marriage suggest that homosexuality is unnatural and damaging to society. No it isn’t. Religious intolerance though, now that’s damaging to society. Wars, death, torture, inability to accept the diversity of humanity, is so disastrously detrimental to the future of society, to blame homosexuality is pathetic at best and shockingly ignorant at worst. And surely it is not unnatural to disagree in principle with Aquinas’ teachings on the theory of Natural Law. It is surely unnatural though, to repress your desires and your very human needs, just to suit the narrow minded, homophobic views of a few bigoted individuals and their pretty damn evil God. Religion, is far more unnatural.

I’m not entirely sure that dogmatic Religious nonsense is to blame though. I’d suggest that homophobia comes is simply an illogical prejudice, and that the Bible is purely used to apply justification for such ridiculous prejudices. The Bible is nothing more than a tool to advance individual bigotry.

If the opponents of same-sex marriage could give me legitimate reasons why homosexual couples, in loving relationships, should not be allowed to marry, i’m more than willing to debate this with you.

Justice Sotomayor

Regardless of whom the President nominated for Supreme Court, there was going to be sections of the Republican Party (For those of you who have no idea who the Republicans are, they’re an insignificant regressive party from the old days) that complained. Short of the President nominating a fat, grey haired, slightly racist, anti-gay white man famed for singing the National Anthem before bed, Republicans were always going to complain.

As it happens, the President positively confused Republican opinion, provoking even more right winged nonsense that we’re all becoming used to from people like Cheney and Limbaugh; by nominating Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court, to replace the retiring Justice David Souter.
Of course the conservative wing of America isn’t happy. Former Republican Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s statement of opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination, is just more bitter ramblings of a dying Party. Romney states “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling.” He goes on to say “Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary.” He is in fact referring to the harmless remarks Sotomayor made in 2005, in which she stated that that the Court’s, are “where policy is made“. And so Romney, like other Republicans, is attempting to portray Sotomayor as a radical, as wanting to expand the limits of the Judiciary. As wanting to destroy the foundations of the Republic! Julius Caesar Sotomayor! Probably socialist and gay too.

It’s funny that Republicans should get all worked up about this, for two reasons. Firstly, because Sotomayor was right. Whilst the House and the Senate may make the rules, the Courts have to fill in the fine detail, when the rules are simply too ambiguous. The rulings of the Court, influence policy to a high degree. Hofstra University’s Professor of Law, Eric Freedman says “She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals… It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.“
And of course, precedent is set by the Judiciary, it is a product of it’s time, and by that account, is policy making.
Secondly, it’s funny Romney should bring this apparent talk of expansion of the Judiciary into the spotlight now, given that he didn’t seem to have a problem when the Supreme Court dubiously gave the 2000 Presidential Election to George W Bush, despite the fact that Gore had over 500,000 more popular votes. Which of course, led to George Bush quite ironically “spreading Democracy” across the World. Isn’t that the greatest influence on policy the Supreme Court has ever applied to America? Apparently Romney had no issue with the Supreme Court handing elections to those who don’t actually win the vote. Romney also doesn’t appear to be at all bothered that Justice Scalia, the conservative crusader, appears to have a deeply conservative agenda of his own going on, an activist in all but name. But Sotomayor making a comment four years ago, he has a problem with.

Fat idiot Rush Limbaugh also had something to say on this, but his comments, as always, are even more irrelevant but equally as pathetic, as Romney’s, so I wont get into it.

Meanwhile, in the World of the sane, Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed without problem. Whilst Democrats do not hold a filibuster-free majority, 59 Senators is more than enough to secure confirmation. It is unlikely that Congressional Republicans will attempt to block her nomination, because from a Party that is about as popular as cancer right now, attempting to block an Hispanic female candidate for Supreme Court. Research shows that the Republicans gained 31% of the Hispanic vote in the 2008 Presidential election. Traditionally, the Hispanic vote has been overwhelmingly in favour of the Democrat candidate. In 2000 Bush managed took 35% of the Hispanic Vote. In 2004, he managed to attract a 10 point rise to 45%, of the Hispanic vote. In both 2000, and 2004, the Hispanic vote was crucial for the Presidential race. Judging by 2008 standards, the Republicans cannot afford to lose the confidence of the Hispanic voters any more than they already have. And so attempting to block the confirmation of the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court Judge Nominee, would be a disaster. Paradoxically for Republicans, if they do not try to block the nomination, the fact that Democrats have even nominated a Hispanic, will be a huge boost to their mid-term campaigns, and 2012 Presidential race.

The fact remains that the President could have nominated Moses for Supreme Court, and Republicans would have said he held deeply racist views over Egyptians and that his nomination is “worrying“. What Romney meant to say, was “Sotomayor isn’t white, or male, or middle aged, and she might even believe that gays aren’t the spawn of satan, which is worrying.“

To sum up, great choice for Supreme Court.

Republican Day III

Now, I could just about cope with the BIG INFLATED SOCIALIST state en acting laws preventing me from stoning my dad, for working on the Sabbath, clearly going against the Bible and Exodus 35:2. I was even able to cope with the fact that the Commie Atheist law tells me that whether my slave dies today, or in two days time, it’s still punishable, even though the rightful word of my loving God tells me in Exodus 21:20-21 that if he dies in two days time, it’s okay and that I shouldn’t be punished (did you know, that the State in it’s increasing attempts to block my religious freedom, have ACTUALLY banned slavery? It’s outrageous. What next, a ban on laughing except for black people and gays?).

However, I cannot quite believe what i’m hearing, when a friend informed me that Gayowa, ConnetiAIDS, Bummingchusettes And Homont aren’t the only States to be allowing those who want to give AIDs to my children, to get married. New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine (notice they’re all in Satan’s part of the U.S.OF Awesome) are all expected to vote in favour of the homogays very soon.

In 2006, the greatest President the USAwesome has ever known, George W Bush (Whose first name, begins with the same letter as God’s. Coincidence?) called for a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. He said quite beautifully, and tolerantly that “A constitutional amendment will put a decision that is critical to American families and American society“. And he’s right!!! American Heterosexual families in Gayowa are now victims. They can’t go outside without men in pink shorts and leather BDSM clothing chasing them with their cocks out and the butt flap on their shorts wide open, forcing them to listen to George Michael. Is this what you want America? You want your children exposed to this?

It’s just unnatural. So horribly unnatural. Nothing about homogay marriage is natural. But my belief in a man who was born to a Virgin, who was visited by three men who followed the words of an angel, and who grew up to perform miracles, was crucified but rose from the dead, walked around for a few days and then flew up to a bearded man in the sky (Who by the way, supported the election of John McCain in 2008….. which means Democrat voters are going to hell)… will allow me to beat those unnatural bastards.

By allowing Homofags to get married, the U.S Senate is undermining the marriage between man and woman. Before the queers were allowed to marry, no men or women ever got divorced. FACT. Britney Spears would not have felt forced into marrying a man for twenty four hours. FACT. Anti-gay Republicans like Richard Curtis would not have accidentally fallen on top of a man in a hotel room whilst they both just happened to be naked (there clothes were stolen by gay democrats!!) and then dressed up like a woman. FACT! And Fox News’s (the only fair and impartial news channel in the World) Sean Hannity would not have been FORCED by the Gays to pose with hookers even though he’s married. FACT!

This is all part of the Gay agenda, designed to destroy heterosexual marriage eventually. Did you know for example, that every time a gay couple marry, a heterosexual couple have to divorce. Heterosexual people are being forced to give up their Religious principles based on Jesus spending a lot of intimate time with twelve male disciples, in order to accept that gayism as anything but a disgusting child abusing aids spreading society killer.

Well I for one wont let it happen any more. And i’m not the only one! Over at the insightful and fully FACT based freedom loving website Americans for Truth have opened my eyes to the truth. They are the “leading resource for exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda. ” And that’s exactly what it is! An agenda! A Satanist agenda at that. Heterosexuals have no agenda. We just want to be able to get married, whilst oppressing preventing those who engage in sexual acts that we deem inappropriate. (and for those of you who say that truth is subjective…. erm… WAKE UP! ….. The Bible says otherwise…. take that Liberals!!).
They highlight an email they received from a liberal Christian (which is just another way of saying “working undercover for Satan)…

“Grow the [f–k] up. My god your an [a–shole]. I can see that look on your balding head. Probably in the closet all these years trying to deny your mysioginistic [sic] way. God can\’t save you from the [f–cking] miserable choices you make in interpretating his rules as literal, not figurative mesaages [sic] on ways to live your life. I went to sunday school for half of my life – I should know. The name of this site should not be Americans for Truth, but Americans for Lies. People do not force themselves to like other people, amd [sic] only a thickheaded person like you deserves to rot in the depths of hell if there is such a place. Another good name for this site would be mainly [yourana–hole.com]. Perfectly suits you afterall.”

First of all, Satan worshipper, bald men can use their heads to absorb more of God’s light. So what do you have to say now? He then appears to suggest that the word of God is up for interpretation. Which it isn’t. It clearly states that Gays are an abomination. Notice he refers to the “A-hole” a couple of times? Do you know why that is? That’s right, it’s because he loves men. He seems to be suggesting that “Americans for Truth” are picking and choosing what they wish to take literally from the Bible. Which is false again!!! Because I happen to know for certain, that their new website, entitled “Americans for giving AIDs to Atheists” is going to be a massive hit! It’s based purely on Exodus 15:26, which clearly states that if you disobey God, you should be punished with horrible disease. To be fair though, it’s only a matter of time before they get AIDs anyway, given that they’re all gay anyway.

The gay days are numbered! Republicans are going to kick ass!

Republican Jamie Day II

Oh very funny Liberals.
That’s all you Liberals are isn’t it? Joke after joke. Never serious! Well was Jesus funny? NO! Is it funny that Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian? NO! Was it funny when George Bush was hit with a shoe? NO! Is Glen Beck funny? NO! I don’t need to be funny. We Republicans don’t need humour. Humour is for Socialists.

I’m sure you’re all familiar with the passage in the Book of ultimate Truth:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.“
Quite clearly the perverts who made the above photo are baby killing homosexuals. Because either you support the God inspired work of President Bush and the Republican Party, or you’re a Liberal, and Liberal means homogay in the Republican Language. (If there were actually a Republican Language, we’d spread it around the World, just like we’ve spread McDonalds Democracy!!).
Is it a coincidence that the homogay San Francisco is the homeland of Nancy Pelosi? I don’t think so! Much like it’s quite clear that it isn’t a coincidence that Abomber isn’t white….. neither are terrorists. The Liberal Agenda is being exposed!!! They want to control the media, control the minds of innocent Christian children into believing that Gays are anything but disgusting, and control the idea that George Bush was a terrorist, rather than a Christian hero. WE SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHIT LIBERALS! America is waking up to the idea that we’re the true party of Christ (he hates muslims, we hate muslims, he hates gays, we hate gays, he performed miracles, we got George Bush election… twice!… see a pattern?), we’re the true party of freedom….if you’re white, heterosexual, a Republican, a Christian, and hate abortion…. you’re entitled to as much freedom as you could possibly want! We’re an open book, filled with blank pages for you to fill up with whatever you want (as long as it’s not hippy gay muslim evolutionist jewish lies) freedom! Open your eyes! Abomber’s approval ratings accoring to Gallup have gone down from 63%, to a measly, pathetic 62%…… you’re days are well and truly numbered, Liberals.

The above picture, made by homogay jewish muslimists is just another attempt to divert attention away from the real Issue. Barack Isane Abomber has pledged to cut the taxes of anyone earning less than $250,000 a year. So that means that ordinary families keep a larger chunk of their hard earned money, whilst Abomber continues to waste money on those scumbags who don’t have a job and homofaggays. Well we showed him!!! We struck back against wasteful spending, by using the money he saved us, to buy one million tea bags. That will show Washington that we’re serious about cutting wasteful spending!

What about those people earning above $250,000. They’re people too! How the fuck do you think they’re going to be able to afford another Yacht now? The Yacht they have at the moment is going out of date. It doesn’t even have a built in heater in the on board swimming pool. And now they can’t afford a yacht WITH a built in heater? It’s like the Third World has came to America!! Barack Obama? Barack Stalin more like.

As for the above picture of George Bush; the Liberals are clearly trying to suggest that he’s the terrorist we should all be aware of. Oh really Liberals? Well I’ve got news for you! George Bush has been a truly courageous leader, fiscally responsible, a uniter or people, and warrior of Christ! Those people in Iraq weren’t even Christian. Do you think they deserved to live? He tried to convert them! He gave them the chance to find Jesus, and they just threw a shoe in his face! WELL YOU WORSHIP THE WRONG GOD MUSLIMISTS! Why do they worship Alliyah anyway? Her songs aren’t even that good.

Abomber seems to be apologising for America’s actions over the past eight glorious years. Why? We don’t need a President to be “tolerant”. Were the muslimists tolerant when they refused to accept Jesus as their lord and saviour? NO! Were the homogays tolerant when they refused to accept that they’re disgusting? NO! Were countries filled with natural resources tolerant when The United States of Awesome freed them and made it cheaper for them to live, by blowing the hell out of some of their family members? NO! Were the Darwinists (Satan worshippers) tolerant when we beat them with logic and intelligence by showing them the Bible? NO! Were Liberals tolerant when you voted for a black man (AKA criminal) even though Sarah Palin has much better eyesight and can see Russia from Alaska? NO! Were the panzy Lefties tolerant when we rightfully supported Pinochet? NO! At least George Bush gave the military something to do! Liberals would be happy to see the military not in the middle of a war zone. Soldiers without jobs… what does that remind me of….. oh yes…. the STUDENT HIPPY UNEMPLOYED SOCIALISTS!! Why don’t you Darwin lovers do us all a favour and evolve into a hard working Republican!!

Checkmate Liberals!

Republican Jamie

For one day only, i’ve decided to embrace the art of being a Republican.
And so for all you lefties (closet homosexuals) and those of you who like to engage brain activity (Satan worshippers) it’s probably best you look away now.

Thank god for Texas Gov. Rick Perry (A true Patriot, perhaps even the ACTUAL 2nd coming of Christ), who suggested Texas could secede from the Union. Texans should be proud! They don’t need evil socialist gay loving social security, medicaid, highway repair, medicare and anything else the Union offers them. Texas doesn’t need to be included in the same list of States as Gayowa. Take your Socialist Federal infrastructure back! Take back Department of Defence funding! Texas doesn’t need that commie bullshit. God will replace it all! And as for the new Texan economy, it’d be amazingly strong! Because we’re the party of fiscal responsibility you know! Plus, Bush is a Texan, so considering he’s been a fiscal genius over his eight years (I like to call them, America’s Golden Years), he can be the brand new Nation of Texas Treasury Secretary. YEAH! Texas doesn’t need your commie Union.

For the past three months a black man (I believe they are referred to as “bruvas“) has occupied George Bush’s house. It seems a little unfair. Bush had successfully managed to lower house prices SO much, that anyone (including lazy “bruvas from da hood“) can afford to buy, so much so that a bruva has taken Bush’s house from him. That’s gratitude for you. The lying liberal media (with the exception of the totally fair and unbiased Fox News) have lost control when it comes to Barack HUSSAIN (yes, Hussain!!! It sounds like insane!!! Coincidence?) Obama (YES!! Obama!! It sounds like a bomber!! Coincidence?…. Barak insane Abomber*….. God warned us!!). They’re everywhere. The BBC over here with it’s Trotskyist approach to news reporting …… i’ve never once seen them refer to homosexuals as dirty sinners, who shouldn’t be allowed near children, and are on their way to hell… even though that’s exactly what they are. The liberal media with it’s homosexual agenda must go!

Earlier I pointed out that Bush had managed to destroy push down house prices so much so that even those weird coloured people bought them up. Which in turn, lead to the crises we’re in today. George Bush, Dick Cheney and Phil Gramm just tried to help. The Liberal media and it’s muslim loving homosexual agenda will have you believe that those three helped deregulate so much that the entire market became one big mess. Well it wouldn’t have become a mess if blacks hadn’t started paying for things they couldn’t afford bringing their crime and “shiz” into crime free happy joyful white neighbourhoods!!!! We all know that the only way to deal with a fire is to set it on fire. And so logic dictates that the only way to deal with this crises is more deregulation!! Much like the only way to deal with increase in gun crime is more guns!!!

Liberals will have you believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. As an outsider looking into the Freest country on the Planet, I wonder, where is the freedom for a Christian to block a woman deciding what she thinks is best for her body? She’s clearly wrong if the she wants an abortion. She’s going against God. Like the gays and the jews and brown people. The true followers of Jesus Christ (Republicans) have a moral duty to correct this. It wont be long before they actually want to abort children AFTER they’re born, have left college and got a job. The liberals will say it’s the mothers right. Could they be any more in cahoots with the anti-christ (who, coincidentally, is Barak Insane Abomber)? Liberals would allow a child to grow up, and indulge in premarital sex…… homosexual sex nonetheless, with same sex hookers, and then for fun, they’d go out and perform an abortion.

We fight for the right of life! Children are precious and should be treated as such! Even before birth. In fact, even before conception. Every time you masturbate you’re killing potential children, and God hates you for it, you fucking murderers. And don’t tell me that we’re baby killers just because a few Iraqi children died in our bombing. They don’t even believe in Jesus. And, they’re Iraqi, so they’d only grow up to be terrorists anyway.
We protect children! Which is why we vetoed the SCHIP program, an evil leftie commie hippy program designed to give five million poor children health insurance. Do you know how Clinton wanted to pay to cover those poor lazy kids? That’s right! He wanted to raise tax on cigarettes. Which, in turn would lead to less smoking, and less State tax revenue. He actually thought it was Constitutional to help lazy kids whilst at the same time cut smoking. All it’s doing is teaching kids to be commies and that’s un-American. “Help” is un-American.
Luckily Senate Majority Leader at the time, Trent Lott said that it was just a large inflated Government program that would not pass! Hate lazy kids but love cigarettes? Vote Lott! Perhaps if the children weren’t lazy or black or muslims, Jesus Christ would love them enough to give them more money for health insurance. But he didn’t. Because they’re lazy. And the money I spend on cigarettes I DO NOT want going to helping Satan’s children, who will probably grow up to be homosexuals or criminals any way.
Luckily Bush was on hand to veto any attempt to pass such a bill, saying that it would “federalize health care” and we don’t want no fucking evil commie healthcare system like the gayropeans in countries like Gay Britain have.
But then Barack Insane Abomber became President (America’s first Terrorist President, who will undo all the humanitarian work that Bush has achieved), and suddenly four million more children including (and this bit sickens me) the children of legal immigrants are now covered!!!! Commie Mexican kids, taking up YOUR tax dollars to fund their health care? What next? A Socialist police force covering all areas regardless of who can afford it? Some of those kids don’t even believe in Jesus. Should we be paying for them to recover? Boo hoo, they’re ill…… if they weren’t so heretical and lazy, perhaps they wouldn’t need your tax money!!

What if those kids grow up to be scientists (faggot Jesus deniers)? How guilty will you feel if you helped cure a kid who insists on Darwin’s idea that your grandma was an ape? What if he teaches YOUR kids that gays are not evil satan worshippers? What if he teaches that the Earth isn’t 6,000 years old? What if he grows up to tell us all that Polar bears are worth saving instead of letting Dick Cheney grow richer from his oil ventures? What if he grows up to support action on climate change (it’s really cold here today, Global Warming? More like Global liberal homosexual jesus hating bullshit) Could you live with yourself if all that happened? I certainly couldn’t. The liberal media would win, and that can’t happen!! Why haven’t they questioned where Abomber gets his suits from? I tell you why…. because he gets his suits from terrorist homosexuals in Iran which is near Eurogaycommieland. That’s why!

The fact remains that Abomber wants to let muslims with bombs straight from Gitmo (liberals say that some of those inmates are “innocent”….. they come from outside the U.S.of.AWESOME, so they’re not fucking innocent. They deserve it! The Satan worshipping homos) live next door to you. It’s no surprise. He’s never once came out in public and denied that he’s a terrorist, which means he’s a terrorist. Like all muslims are terrorists. He wants to let homos into the military. Yeah that’s just what they need, whilst the REAL men are killing as many dirty terrorist arabs as possible, suddenly a man dancing to George Michael records sits next to them and starts talking about shoes.
He wants your kids to be bummed in school by the gays. He thinks it’s ok to allow teachers to say “Darwin” instead of “Satan” and teach that farfetched ridiculous impossible concept of evolution. Luckily It wont last long, we have Jesus on our side….. he was the son of a virgin and God, who was killed for our sins, rose from the dead, walked around for a bit, and then ascended into heaven. And worst of all Barack Insane Abomber has never once said “I’m not a muslim and i’m not an atheist“. Logic must conclude that because he’s never said those words, he must be a muslim and an atheist aswell as being a homosexual, a jew and black (so much for racial equality, change we can believe in?). We need to stop this. Already “Gayowa” has given into to the fags and given them the right to get married (which means I never want to get married, because if I did, i’d be a bit like the gays, and that’s disgusting) turning their state into as Humanevents calls it “A mecca” for aids lovers. Our children are the real victims here (not the lazy ones mentioned earlier, they’re already going to hell). They’re going to grow up thinking that it’s acceptable for two men to get married (two women is hott!), and so rejecting Jesus Christ in the process. And everyone knows if you reject Jesus our lord, you’re going to hell. As this chart shows.

See that! Satan is a pacifist. A leftie. A liberal. A homosexual. He doesn’t believe in violence. We have God on our side. He isn’t afraid to kick ass! FUCK YEAH!

Do I feel safer with Barack Insane Abomber in the White House? No. Whilst he and his home boyz sit chillin’ to 50 Cent, talking using a teleprompter (Bush didn’t have to do that, and his speeches are just as awe-inspiring and beautifully eloquent – even more so than the terrorist who took over) the World is laughing at America because we’re the wimps now! At least Bush and Jesus kept us in the West safe from terrorism (Madrid, London, 9/11, Turkey, Tunisia, and Morocco don’t count as proof that the World is more unsafe because if the Gayocrats had been in charge since 2001, those places wouldn’t even exist now!!! They’d all be muslim….. London would now be Londonstan… Bush stopped that from happening). Barack Insane Abomber is one of those who want to hurt Americans. When end of days is upon us (Republicans vs atheist homosexual muslim jews), Insane Abomber will have a lot of explaining to do.

Thank goodness for Republican bloggers! Like Sure Sense, who rightfully warns that after the Homeland Security Document covering Right Winged extremism (it is my freedom and the freedom of the other Republican bloggers, to completely ignore the fact that a report was also released on Left Wing Extremism) is bringing about THE END OF THE WORLD! Sure Sense doesn’t like that the DOHS Document, especially line “It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration“
Sure Sense, tries to analyse the line, with his own magical synopsis…..
“So what this is saying is that all Evangelical Christians, who hold homosexuality and abortion to be a sin are now potential terrorist threats. “
- YES! That’s exactly what it says. I didn’t notice it before, because I was too busy focusing on the actual words. When I read it over and over, that’s exactly what it says! They are putting all Christians down as terrorists! Which we’re not! That’s the muslims! Luckily Sure Sense is on track to be much more understanding toward us Christians, much more accepting, much less vile…
” I do not hold that Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammad can get people to God. Sure, they may help you be “religious”, but all of their teachings are about how you have to be good enough, and you can’t be.”
- That’s fucking right! How dare the DOHS attack us. Those damn intolerent, ignorant bastards. It’s everyone else, who aren’t American Christians, who’re going to hell!!! We tried to tell that to the Iraqis, they hate us for it. So fuck them!
He doesn’t stop there! He continues with his well thought out logic!!…
” From there, we’ll see Christians being jailed, and eventually martyred.“
That’s right!! As well as being a gay loving commie, Abomber is also a big fan of the works of Emperor Nero. I fear for the future of Christians.

The only way to clean up the mess that Abomber has created (It’s a new mess, totally unexpected, definitely was not the fault of the previous incredibly competent Administration, despite what Liberals might tell you), is by having tea parties and talk of secession!!! That’s the way forward for the glorious GOP! Chuck Norris/Rush Limbaugh for President/Vice President of Texas!!!!!

Right, i’m off teabagging with the other ten Republicans (which the Liberal media wont cover by the way!!!) We don’t want our children inheriting such a huge tax burden!!!!(that’s not to say we wont accept the tax cut they’re giving us… the biggest in middle class U.S History apparently…..which makes them SECRET communists or fascists. One of the other!) Our children have a right to inherit an overly polluted earth free from tax burden!! We’re revolting for the sake of FREEDOM and that makes us Patriots! Unlike when those Lefties protested the Iraq war, the un-American homosexual Jesus hating muslims.

For true freedom (we freed Iraq baby!!) vote Republican in 2012. If you don’t, then you’re going to hell.

*Watching too much Abomber increases the risk of cancer.

Right Winged Extremism

So whilst Conservative America still hasn’t come to terms with the fact that it is no longer in control (of anything, including a grip on reality), the rest of us sit back and watch with joy as poll ratings show President Obama higher than any President in recorded history two months into their Presidency.

It would appear that Republicans across America have suddenly decided that they, and only they know how to deal with the economy. “More spending is wrong!!” they shout. As if they have had a change of heart, given that they twice empowered a President in George W Bush who spent billions of Dollars killing over 1,000,000 people in Iraq, whilst doubling the deficit in the process. They were okay with that. But suddenly, they’ve had a change of heart, bless them.

They’ve complained daily since January, about everything. From Obama not wearing a jacket in the Oval Office to Obama being some sort of warrior addicted to letting Cuban Communists take over the World (rather than rightfully hoping to lift failed sanctions that have contributed to Cuban misery for fifty years). Oh and not forgetting those Republicans who seem to have drank a bottle of “over dramatic juice” when they explode in a fit of blogging rage with statements such as “Barack Obama has declared WAR on the youngest members of our human family!” over at Rationshed (I can’t seem to find the blog where they defend the hundreds of thousands of dead children as a result of the Iraq War, perhaps i’m missing something).

I think I outlined Republican bitter misery beautifully in a previous blog, situated here. He’s pro-choice, Republicans refer to him as a murderer. He’s a democrat and not a Conservative, so Republicans label him a Socialist. He’s liberal, and so Republicans suggest he’s destroying the rights of men and women by being pro gay marriage. To sum up, they’re ridiculous people. And now, they’ve gone further into the realms of pathetic, with their attack on the recently published “Rightwing Extremism:Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” from the Department of Homeland Security. Now bare in mind the same Republicans didn’t seem to have a problem when Bush was spending billions of dollars on an unjust war leading to the unnecessary deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent people; that, they were fine with. But this latest publication, they seem to feel is an attack on their rights. They didn’t seem all that concerned when Bush was tapping phones of whomever he wished. The Conservatives have had no problem in labelling anyone who disagreed with Bush for the past eight years; a “commie” or “anti-American” or even worse an “extremist”, all the time referring to themselves and only themselves quite ridiculously as “patriots” and now suddenly the tables have turned, they cannot control their bitter rage. So, let’s examine what they appear to be angry at……

“This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.”
- Sounds reasonable to me. The transparency that “must” be present when domestic policy is to be influenced would never have existed in a Bush document.

“(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”
- This is true over here in the UK too. With recession, comes anti-immigration sentiment. Suddenly people start calling for protectionism, for immigrants to be sent home, and the British National Party is gaining such growing support that Labour’s Deputy Leader Harriet Harman even mentioned the BNP threat to the Independent. I can only imagine it would be a hell of a lot worse if our Prime Minister were black. And given that race relations in the UK are not even half as tense as the U.S, it’s no surprise that this has been included. Ridiculous White Supremacists, like a guy I have argued with on a Facebook group recently, he I can quote as saying…..
“It is an historical fact that every nation in the history of the world in which the White population mixed its gene pool with that of the lower races lost its civilization. While we do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race.”
….. it’s this kind of attitude that is monstrously dangerous within modern, civilised society and which leads to rational Centrists and Lefties having to fight.

“(U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.”
- Again, perfectly logical. They are fighting groups that may potentially contribute to acts of extreme violence.

Every item on the document I read, I found myself agreeing with, not understanding why any Conservative (unless they’re white supremacists recruiting easily influenced kids and planning some violent attack on government buildings) would have a problem with it? I’m certain they wouldn’t have complained if Bush had issued a similar document against Left Wing extremists. So I decided to search the Blogosphere for reasons that Conservatives have resulted to bitter online crying once again. Kelly Conaty MD.MBA.NFL.WWE.YOUCANDOITIFYOUBnQIT didn’t seem to want to highlight the part she disagreed with, choosing instead to appear to disagree with the entire document, and so seems to support white supremacists. She refers to the people villified in the document as “Patriots”. How very manipulative. I was hoping Right Winged America would stop using that word now that their eight year reign of terror is over. But apparently not.

Samsoldier goes one step further, and as he claims to (quite over dramatically seeped in ridiculous typical Right Winged hysteria) have become “imbued with a creeping feeling of dread” whilst reading the document, he marks out his issue with the document, which is on page two……

“The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”
- Samsoldier interprets this passage in quite an odd and obscure way (but then, later he admits he’s a Christian, so obscure interpretation is his way of life)….

“Excuse me, but I am a returning military veteran. You have just told me that I am damaged goods”
- No they didn’t. That’s not what it said at all. They did not say “Military veterans are not to be trusted.” They were merely outlining potential threats, of which pissed off military veterans could on occasion, even the odd occasion (as they have in the past) certainly be part of that. It is worth preparing for every possibility.
“You are telling communities that I am dangerous and some sort of raging lunatic. “
- No they didn’t. Given that the document was leaked, it was supposed to be secret, and so communities were not supposed to be told anything. They merely stated that returning military personnel could be a threat, now that’s not all of you. I know Republicans like to make sweeping judgements about gays, atheists and anyone with a slightly darker skin complexion, but this document did not make any sweeping judgement.
” Now you are inciting the nation to treat me with suspicion and fear. “
- No they’re not. That’s almost ingenious a suggestion as when Christians say “Are you saying somewhere along the line my granny fucked a chimp?”. It isn’t what was said, it was your obscure reading of a perfectly legitimate document. What if a returning Veteran shoots someone tomorrow because he’s finding it difficult to reintergrate? What if there is another Timothy McVeigh lurking in the darkness? What if he explodes a bomb killing thousands, wouldn’t you want to know that there were precautions in place just in case the worst were to happen? The document is not saying that all military personnel returning from duty are fearless killing lunatics, it’s saying that the odd one or two may pose a threat. And so surely it’s only right that the Department of Homeland Security, the very machine which exists to secure the Homeland from ANY potential threat, do just that? I’m pretty sure most Republicans wouldn’t have a problem with a similar document that stated Muslims may pose a threat.

Other bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin appear to have ignored the content of the document itself, and just decided to invent their own document to comment on. Michelle says…. “The piece of crap report issued on April 7 is a sweeping indictment of conservatives.”
-Yes, yes it is…….. that is if Conservative America consists of white supremacists hell bent on destroying government buildings.

Another major bone of contention is…
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”
- And yet, it makes perfect sense. Firstly, it’s a side note, it’s explaining right winged in terms of the asterix present in the phrase “domestic rightwing* terrorists“….and so, logic tells me that it isn’t stating that you shouldn’t believe in local authority over federal authority, as the ridiculously named “Nobama” blog claims it to mean. It is merely suggesting that if you have Right Winged beliefs, and you intend to cause terror in the name of those Right Winged beliefs, then you’re an extremist. I would have thought that is pretty self explanatory. It isn’t stating that Jefferson is an extremist because although Jefferson may have been pro-state, he did not condone acts of terror to achieve that goal. The document is not anti-Jefferson (like the rather naive CSBurks suggests in a fit of melodramatic idiocy). The document is anti-Bomb-strapped-Jefferson.
The word “rejecting” makes this particularly clear to me. If you suddenly decide to stop paying taxes, reject all federal laws, start plotting a revolution based on splitting up the Union, then you’re an extremist. The dictionary defines “reject” as “refuse to accept or acknowledge” and so yes, if you refuse to acknowledge or accept federal authority, i’d say you’re an extremist. Rejection is different from disagreeing with. But why should I have to explain that, when the report itself explains it here…
“(U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.”

So having said all of this, bloggers like Generic rant, Cdat 88, Nukegingrich (whose point, I can’t decipher especially when he appears to claim that the document is suggesting that all heterosexuals are considered extremists) and every other Republican blogger who now identify themselves as “extremist” by their interpretation of the Homeland Security Document…… which by my interpretation, is merely all of the right winged angry bloggers merely agreeing that they’re white supremacists who intend of rejecting all federal authority and instigating attacks on government buildings.

It appears to be just another Republican bitter attack on a President far more popular than any one the Republicans could have put forward to run the country. A few days ago, they were all complaining that Obama bowed to the Saudi King Abdullah, that he “embarrassed” America rather than a show of respect and decency not heard of over the past eight years of bombs and secrecy. Obama bowed to the King out of respect. George Bush metaphorically masturbated the Saudis for eight long years, but that doesn’t seem to bother Republicans. Instead, they waited for the black guy to do it, and then insisted that he must be a Muslim. You couldn’t make this shit up.

Does anyone take Republicans seriously any more? Do Conservatives really matter nowadays? Or are they all just hypocritical, bitter, ignorant little people left over from the past eight years of bully tactics, hysteria and fear? Where were these outcries from Republicans when Rush Limbaugh said “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” Limbaugh suggests an entire race of people are inherently violent and that slavery wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, and Republicans cannot wait to defend this overweight, uneducated, bigoted, repugnant turd. But when the tables have turned, they cry out in mass hysteria. It’s so hypocritical, it’s almost amusing.

One thing is for sure, every time a Republican whinges like a bitter child throwing a tantrum in a store, it goes to show that Obama must be doing something right. It makes me proud to be Liberal.

Russell Brand Live

“To me a heaven would be a big bull ring with me holding two barrera seats and a trout stream outside that no one else was allowed to fish in and two lovely houses in the town; one where I would have my wife and children and be monogamous and love them truly and well and the other where I would have my nine beautiful mistresses on 9 different floors” – Ernest Hemingway

Please…. please… tell me the man above, does not represent Conservative America as a whole?
Brand said of those who keep saying “he’s our President, not yours!!! Sort your own politics out before insulting ours!”…… If that’s the case, stay out of the affairs of the rest of the World. And they speak as if we don’t think our own politicians are just as shit as America’s politicians.

****

Americans are not exactly renowned throughout the rest of the World for their edgy sense of humour, which acts as no surprise when I remember seeing the headline in our papers over here in the UK that Russell Brand’s performance as the host of the 2008 MTV VMA awards didn’t go down too well with our American cousins. England however, loved it.

The VMAs aren’t popular over here. There is nothing more cringeworthy than seeing a bunch of over paid minimally talented musicians thank Jesus for a largely pointless award (Although given that Jesus is spending his time helping Chris Brown win best video at a ridiculous award show, it helps to explain his lack of interest in global poverty around the World). However, Russell Brand (with the exception of those who read The Daily Mail) is incredibly popular over here. Sell out tour after sell out tour, fast selling DVDs and known for his incredibly friendly yet child like nature. We know he has a salacious mind, we know he’s sexually liberated, and we know when you put him in a room with horrible little Christian pop star idiots who have a problem with anyone who likes sex, he’s going to have a field day.

This weekend, my beautiful girlfriend and I went to see Russell Brand perform live in Nottingham. This tour is off the back of the scandals he’s recently been involved in. These involve Sachsgate, which in my childish mind, and those like me, was very funny. And of course, the fantastic digs during the VMAs last year. Namely, calling George Bush, “that retarded cowboy fella, who wouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors in our country” and the Jonas Brothers for their ridiculous yet very public vow of celebacy and those horrible rings they wear. When the Bush joke didn’t go too well in America, Brand said he went back stage and he along with his writing partner had to scrap the jokes they’d written, knowing that the Americans just don’t understand our humour.

However, in Nottingham, Brand told us those jokes. They had the audience laughing for a very long time. He certainly made the right choice not to use them at the VMAs, if the American Right can’t handle Bush jokes and the Jonas’s “Professional Virginity jokes” they would have exploded in a fountain of humourless droplets when hearing the other jokes he had planned. Whilst we were in tears of laughter, Brand said “Yeah thanks, could of done with you there on the night though!” Which I thought was a nice little touch.

I will keep them to myself, just in case 14 year old American Girls who seem to think the Jonas’s are heroes, decides it’s wrong to be taking the piss out of the Kanye West, and Michael Jackson. Or in case Jordin Sparks decides to say, with much cringe worthiness again … “I just wanna say, it’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not every guy and girl wants to be a slut, OK?“….. I guess in her mind, i’d be classed as a slut…… which, i’m now even more proud of. As Brand said “A bit of sex never hurt anyone“. I’ve never labelled anybody a slut for enjoying sex. If you want to have sex with as many people as possible because you enjoy sex, like Hemingway enjoyed sex, like Brand enjoys sex…. then go for it! Sexual liberation is a beautiful thing!

Yahoo Questions revolving around whether all Americans now hate Brand, have comments (which really do fall into the realm of disbelief) like….” I’m from America and personally this guy was the worst piece of crap to host the VMAs. I could’ve stood up there and made better jokes than that unknown goofy looking idiot. ” ……… These kinds of incredibly ridiculous comments, add to the reason why those of us who understand his humour, his quick witted comments, his incredible mind, are slowly coming to consider Russell Brand, like Ricky Gervais, to be a comedy genius.

Brand, on Friday night read us all a list of his favourite death threats from Americans after the VMAs.
One guy, sent a rather amusing death threat, to which Brand amusingly replied to with…

The show focused a lot on how he was perceived in America and the crazy death threats he received. If Right Winged America doesn’t like anybody insulting their ex-President; and if Right Winged America doesn’t like the idea of sexual freedom, I think it’s best that pretty much all of our comedians and our Comedy shows don’t try to cross the Atlantic any time soon.

For us, Russell Brand is possibly the most intelligent yet naive, brilliant yet child like in his mannerisms, sex crazed yet civil and polite, able to poke fun at himself but with such egotism and self awareness it’s beautifully crafted. It seemed from his live show that the past year of controversy he has caused, was part of a design. The nice things Brand has done, have not been widely publicised (like here and here) instead largely going unnoticed.

He speaks for a generation of Brits who do not view the World through the hate filled specs of the Right Wing. He speaks as a Libertine, who accept that sex shouldn’t be a taboo and shouldn’t be strictly confined to ‘loving couples’ that it should be embraced and enjoyed and the scare tactics attached to it by institutions like the Church should not be taken seriously.. He speaks as someone from a Working class background whose vocabulary and vast literary knowledge outweighs that of most English Masters students. And his ability to destroy the arguments of those Far Right Winged Patriots and Nationalists is beyond that of any Politician throughout the Country. America doesn’t understand, because America has never understood our humour, much like we don’t understand their often misplaced and slightly ignorant Patriotism.

I wont tar every American as being devoid of all humour. Because that would be untrue and harsh. A lot of Americans “get it”. A lot just don’t find him funny, not because they hate him, but purely because Brand is not to their taste, which is fair enough. But those Americans who find him offensive and actually took the time out to complain that he insulted Bush, should be ashamed that they find comedy insulting, yet a President who lies and cheats his way through eight years they have no problem with.

British humour has always stood way above American humour for my taste. I find light hearted Sein Feld-like comedy boring, predictable, and replayed over and over again in shows like Frasier and Friends. I love controversy. I love intelligent comedy that isn’t just catering to a Conservative audience. I love “different”, and for that reason, Russell Brand remains one of my favourite comedians.

Still, I had a fun weekend. Here’s me with a few friends. If you happen to be a Christian pop star, it’s probably best you avert your eyes, because you’re about to see me, being kissed by a female friend, who then in the next picture, grabs the breast of my lovely girlfriend. THE FIENDS!