The State of the Republicans: 2013

The end of the Romney campaign ushered in a new era for the Republicans…. apparently. They insisted they must change. Their appeal must broaden. Their hate-filled, politics of over-the-top Glenn Beck style fear had to go. They had to be presentable. Change or die! The old days of a Party of old, white, male, Christian, heterosexual, angry-at-everyone-who-isn’t-EXACTLY-like-them, funded by big corporations had to go. And so we were informed that a new breed of Republicans would appear. Ready to present a reformed GOP to the electorate. They were radically different from their predecessors.

So how’s that going?

Well, in November 2012, the residents of Texas’ first district re-elected Louie Gohmert for a fifth term in the House of Reps. If the Republicans are intending to break from the past, surely we’d expect Gohmert to perhaps be a little more moderate than his more radical Tea-Party-esque contemporaries. That’s what we’d expect. However, when asked about his opposition to any gun control legislation, Gohmert gave this rather odd answer:

“In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this week on the issue of, well, they said “surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn’t you? How would that be problematic?”

And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What’s wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit ; it’s kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?

There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it’s the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it’s just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal.

- You read right. In a discussion about gun control, Gohmert managed to take a shot at same-sex marriage, by employing the insufferably weak slippery slope fallacy. I cannot work out which is more impressive; his ability to link gun control and same-sex marriage… two completely separate issues that in no way overlap, or his intense lack of sensibility in recognising that there is no reason to believe a slippery slope with either of the issues he’s commenting on. I could equally say “If we let women vote, what next, letting camels vote?” or “If we ban cocaine, why not ban cough medicine? Where does it end!!” It’s absurd and it is baseless. He isn’t the only Republican to use this fallacy recently. John Cornyn, the new Senate Minority Whip said:

“It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right…. Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife.”

- Yes. the Republican Senate Minority Whip has just compared a loving couple wishing to express that love via marriage, and wishing only to be considered equal under law….. to a man marrying a turtle. That’s the standard of top Republicans in 2013.

Back to Gohmert. The man who tried to link gay marriage to gun control, also claimed that the liberals are going to make Churches:

….hire whatever Satan-worshiper, whatever cross-dresser you think might be immoral, that’s against your religious belief. You are going to be forced to abandon your religious beliefs, and we’ve been seeing that with some of the requirements under Obamacare.

- Yes! Someone had to say it! Obamacare is simply a mask to make Churches hire cross-dressing Satan-Worshippers! It’s SO obvious. Wake up America!
The fact that this man gets the privilege to vote on gun legislation; a vote on the safety of your children in school, would be laughable if it weren’t so utterly terrifying.

Bobby Jindal won a 2nd term as Louisiana Governor in 2011. Since then, he’s been rather excitable at promoting misleading figures to promote an agenda of fear. Whilst one fifth of all residents of Louisiana lack health insurance, Jindal refuses to expand Medicaid expansion, claiming it would cost Louisiana $1bn over the next ten years. Quite where he gets this figure from, I’m not sure. Especially given that a Department of Health Report noted that Louisiana would actually save around $400mn over the next ten years, by expanding Medicaid. He appears to have invented his own figure, to scare people. Despite this, and despite a petition signed by…

Advocates for Louisiana Public Healthcare.

Advocacy Center.

Capitol City Family Health Center.

Capital City Alliance.

Citizens United for In-Home Support.

Coalition of HIV/AIDS Nonprofits and Governmental Entities.

Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Harvard Law School.

Children’s Defense Fund-Louisiana.

Children’s Bureau of New Orleans.

DEAF Louisiana.

Doctors for America.

Depression & Bipolar Support Alliance, Northeast Louisiana.

Health Law Advocates of Louisiana.

HOPE For Homeless.
Along with 30 other groups, and countless more individual signatures….. Jindal refuses to expand Medicaid.

And then there is the apparent darling of the Republicans new bid for power in 2016; Marco Rubio.

“We’re bound together by common values. That family is the most important institution in society. That almighty God is the source of all we have.”

- Here, Rubio is subtly promoting the myth that America was founded a Christian nation, and that religion must be considered part of the fabric. A subtle hint that non-belief, cannot be considered an American value. Thus, in a single, tiny quote, we see the saviour of the Republicans alienate anyone who isn’t slightly obsessed with ‘God’ being a key component to Patriotism. So that’s 15% of Americans who claim no religion. That’s a lot of people to alienate, for a man promoted as the key to solving the Republican Party’s problem of appealing to minorities. Rubio is following the conservative trend of telling people who should and shouldn’t qualify as ‘American’. This in itself, is divisive.

Rubio also still appeals to tradition when dealing with same-sex marriage, insisting that marriage cannot be redefined. Seemingly ignoring all evidence that the current definition of marriage, is just one that has evolved over time, based on modern Christian understanding of the term, and differs from other cultures entirely. So, that’s gay people alienated, as well as non-believers.

Brand new Senator for Senator for Arizona, assuming office in 2013, Jeff Flake also doesn’t like the idea of two people in love getting married. Whilst despising ‘big government’ and the intrusion of the State into people’s lives, Flake voted in favour of a Federal Marriage Amendment, Constitutionally banning same-sex marriage. For someone so obsessed for getting government out of people’s private lives, Flake seems more than happy to use government power to ban love.

Back to Rubio. As well as not particularly liking gay people, Rubio voted against the Violence Against Women Act, stating:

“I have concerns regarding the conferring of criminal jurisdiction to some Indian tribal governments over all persons in Indian country, including non-Indians.”

- Essentially, a non-Native American male being tried under the law for sexually assaulting a Native American woman, concerns Rubio, because he doesn’t trust Indian Tribal Governments. And yet, he puts his full faith in the States to fund programs properly:

“These funding decisions should be left up to the state-based coalitions that understand local needs best.”

- So trustworthy are local areas in dealing with domestic abuse cases, that due to budget cuts, the Topeka, Kansas City Council and Mayor actually repealed the Domestic Abuse law, in a bid to start a bit of a war with the County Prosecutor. This came about after Shawnee County D.A Chad Taylor, moved to stop investigating domestic violence entirely due to budget cuts. This meant that the City of Topeka would have to take up the cases, which they couldn’t afford to do either. So their Council voted to repeal the domestic abuse act. Which, forced it back into the hands of Shawnee County. Taylor said:

“My office now retains sole authority to prosecute domestic battery misdemeanors and will take on this responsibility so as to better protect and serve our community. We will do so with less staff, less resources, and severe constraints on our ability to effectively seek justice.”

Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence said:

“I really do not understand this. It’s really outrageous that they’re playing with family safety to see who blinks first. People could die while they’re waiting to straighten this out.”

- All of this comes down to budget cuts. Shawnee County DA Chad Taylor refused to prosecute domestic violence cases, after facing a 10% budget cut, despite half of all cases being domestic abuse cases, which increased substantially in the past three years, without any extra funding from the County. How very trustworthy! Interestingly, Rubio voted against the Budget Control Act in 2011, and the Fiscal Cliff 2012. Rubio evidently trusts the localities to make funding decisions, which is much easier, if those localities don’t have any funds in the first place.

Rubio isn’t the only Republican with odd reasons for voting against the Violence Against Women Act. Steve Stockman, Representative of Texas’ 36th District announced his shameful reasons for voting against:

“This is a truly bad bill. This is helping the liberals, this is horrible. Unbelievable. What really bothers—it’s called a women’s act, but then they have men dressed up as women, they count that. Change-gender, or whatever. How is that—how is that a woman?”

Stockman also voted to repeal Federal laws that ban guns in schools. Why so? Well, given that among his campaign contributors are the ‘National Association for Gun Rights’ and ‘Gun Owners of America’, it perhaps isn’t that surprising that Stockman feels the need to put their interests above the safety of children. Just to make sure we all understand where his allegiances lie, here is incredibly ridiculous, almost comical campaign bumper sticker, tweeted for the World to see, by the man himself.

- I’m not sure if Stockman is calling for semi-automatic rifles to be inserted into the vaginas of every pregnant woman. I wouldn’t be surprised.

The scientifically illiterate are still abundant in the Republican Party. Marco Rubio once announced that he didn’t know if the Earth was made in 6 days or not, and that we’re never likely to know. But Georgia’s 10th District Rep. Paul Broun (planning to run for Senate in 2014) and, quite horrifyingly, serving on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology once took Rubio’s toying with Creationism one step further:

Earth is about 9,000 years old, it was created in six days as we know them”

- Broun also said of embryology, genetics, evolution, and the Big Bang theory:

“they’re lies straight from the Pit of Hell … lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

- Broun also said of climate change:

“Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus.”[

- Echoing his scientific illiteracy, Broun gives us enlightening views on politics, when brief mention of a National Security Force by President Obama, before the 2008 election:

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force, I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may _ may not, I hope not _ but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism. That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did. When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

- Yes. A US Representative, thinks the Earth was made in 6 days, evolution is a lie from the pit of hell, climate change isn’t man made, and convinced President Obama was going to create his own Hitler Youth, to take over America and create a Marxist haven.

Now to move on from bat-shit crazy, to slightly less crazy, Paul Ryan. The spritely Paul Ryan. You may think he’s irrelevant as a symbol of this great new era for Republicans, given that his ticket lost the Presidential election. But let’s not forget that Ryan is the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, in 2013. A pretty important position. He’s also Wisconsin’s 1st District House Representative. He looks young, he seemed fresh, he wasn’t the grey haired typical old Republican. Nor was he the gun tottin’ Sarah Palin slightly vacant Republican. He was paraded on the networks as a hero of fiscal conservativism, brave to speak out against Obama overspending! His brand new House Republican Budget released in March this year, which the brave, fiscally conservative hero claims will:

“end cronyism, eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and returns the federal government to its proper sphere of activity”

- So it is worthwhile to note that the anti-big government, pro-deficit reduction Paul Ryan voted for the two Bush tax cuts (both considered a great failure, and added significantly to the deficit), the $700 bailout of the banks, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, whilst voting against Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Most of Paul Ryan’s economic voting record, has added significantly to the National deficit.
His House Republicans Budget, unveiled by Republicans on March 12, noted that $931 billion of the creatively accounted $4.6tn apparently savable over the next ten years, will come from counting the savings from ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars…. wars that Paul Ryan voted for in the first place. Economically, Paul Ryan doesn’t know where he stands.
Socially, despite absolutely no evidence to back up its claims, in 2009 Paul Ryan cosponsored the ‘Sanctity of Life Act’. A very odd little Act that sought to protect fertilised eggs, stating that the eggs:

“shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood”

Ryan also believes that abortion, in all cases, including rape and incest, should be made illegal, and States given the right to criminally prosecute women who have abortions, including for rape and incest.

Before being elected as Senator for South Carolina in 2013, Tim Scott was House Representative for South Carolina’s first district. During his time in the House, Scott cosponsored a truly horrifying Bill that would deny food stamps to poorest families, if a family member was taking part in strike action. The right to strike – a key component of a democratic society – used by the weak against the powerful, used to secure freedoms and security for generations, Tim Scott voted to essentially end. Threatening the poorest people in society; you either strike, or you eat. Scott is also convinced that the private health care system in the US is the greatest in the World, and that the Health Reforms of 2010 should be repealed. This is no surprise given that one of his main campaign contributors, has been Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the health insurance company. Among other campaign contributions, he has received donations from Goldman Sachs. Tim Scott is a politician, for the wealthy, by the wealthy. The Insurance Industry Candidate.
Speaking of complete contempt for the less wealthy, Mark Meadows, a member of the January 2013 intake for The House, and Tea Party favourite, representing North Carolina’s 11th District voted against the Sandy Relief Fund.

Dean Heller, the Senator for Nevada, who will hold that position until 2019, voted against the Health Care Reform, and against Fair Minimum Wage Act. Heller has also voted against subsidising renewable energy, whilst voting to support development of oil, gas and coal…. two of his top campaign contributors, are Alliance Resource, and Murray Energy…. two coal companies.

So, gay marriage leading to marrying an animal, Church’s having to hire crossdressing Satan-worshippers, manipulating figures to suit an agenda, a refusal to expand Medicaid to help the most vulnerable, evolution a myth from the pits of hell, refusal to protect victims of domestic abuse, including transgendered people, a desire to see women who have been raped imprisoned for having an abortion, guns in schools funded by the gun lobby, Obama trying to raise an army to enforce a Marxist Utopia, anti-renewable energy, candidates wishing to disenfranchise poor people and their right to strike, and wishing to repeal health reform whilst taking campaign contributions from the wealthiest insurance companies in the country.

This new Republican breed sound, and act, and speak, eerily familiar to the old breed.

Bad day for bigots II

The President today gave a far more forceful and progressive Inaugural Speech than that of four years ago. He mentioned the word ‘gay’ for the first time in inaugural history, whilst discussing equality. He mentioned climate change. He mentioned equality in diversity, and being a friend of the poor along with support for the undocumented immigrant community. Words are of course, cheap. It would now be great if he backed up his words with actions, took on the insane American Right Wing, and left an enduring legacy.

After election night, I became aware of a vast array of tweets from those seemingly unhappy that Obama had been re-elected. You can see the flurry of right winged bigotry from election night, right here. As for today, it seems there has been another outpouring of insane, bigoted, putrid right winged sentiment coming out of the Twittersphere that i’ve come across. Here are a few of my favourites:

- Where would these far right lunatics be, without referring to someone they don’t like as either Hitler or Stalin? This genius goes one step further and suggests President Obama is both Hitler and Stalin. Communist and Fascist. Quite the achievement!

- Oh and Marx too. Obviously. What with bailing out the auto industry and the banking system. EXACTLY as Marx demands.

- Oh and Saddam too.

- YES! FACT! Except, it isn’t. The Nazis inherited gun restrictions from the former Weimar Republic. Actually, one of the first things Hitler did on coming to power, was to destroy all Union Power. Mitt Romney signalled his support for Ohio’s anti-Union laws in 2012. If you’re going to draw weak links to Hitler, at least get your research straight.

- This is sensible from Ken Stephens. Politics, and whom we elect should not be based on the candidates personal life.

- Oh Ken. The sensibility has suddenly been reduced to a big pile of bigoted ashes.

- It’s true. One mention in Leviticus that homosexuality is ‘abominable’. And it’s not like the Bible also endorses slaver….. oh wait: “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)“. I guess I can count on anti-gay Christian Americans to campaign for the re-introduction of slavery.

- Spirit of the Civil War still alive and well in 1860s/2013 Texas, I see.

So. That’s Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Muslim, Communist, Fascist, Marx, Socialist, Kenyan, and Gay. The Right Winged Nut Jobs really did come out in force today to express their delusions. They provide great material, and i’m always thankful for them.

As to the Obama speech; I am inclined to be far more sceptical than four years ago. He still has to contend with a viciously regressive Republican Congress, and I’m a little concerned that his mention of climate change, and gay rights was simply a way to make the progressives sing his praises. In four years time, I hold out very little hope that there will have been any advancement in dealing with climate change, and no Federal recognition of the right to marry for homosexual couples. The President’s rhetoric really needs to be backed up by strong action, in spite of the opposition from the abusive far right.

Why the Republican Party lost

Ohio. An important State for any Presidential candidate to win. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. And so you’d expect Republicans to be a bit less malicious in their campaigning tactics when trying to win over potential key voters. And yet, in 2010 Medina County Republicans put out this leaflet. You should probably cast your eyes down to the most telling part, and the epitome of the problem with the Republican Party today:

- Not only is the problem in the horrendous sexism, but it’s also in that…… it isn’t surprising.

Republicans are reeling, trying to figure out what went wrong. From calls that the Romney campaign was not right winged enough; to calls that the Romney campaign was not moderate enough; to calls that Obama rigged the election. To Karl Rove not convinced that Obama actually won the election; To calls that Republicans need to appeal to minorities more. All of which do not address the actual problem; the Republican Party has an ideology problem, both economically and socially. Appealing to ‘minorities’ means nothing unless the underlying bigotry and ignorance is addressed. Cloaking inherent racism, sexism and homophobia behind more creative language hides nothing. The country is more liberal than they think. It is not a suspicious, homophobic, sexist country of multimillionaires.

In the UK the Conservative Party is quite generally known as the Nasty Party. They alienate, they belittle, and they discriminate. They open their mouths to say pretty vicious stuff, and nothing else. The Republicans are no different.

The fact that Republicans manage to attract any female voters strikes me as incredible. Republican news anchor Ann Coulter, reflecting a general Republican anti-women stance once said:

“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. ”

- Even female Republicans, are anti-women. This is a paradox of right winged America. They seem to insist as much as possible that they are true Patriots. Real Americans. Defenders of the Constitution. And yet, they apparently call for secession whenever a democratic decision does not go their way, they call for the right to vote for women to be revoked, and then they completely ignore the distinct separation between Church and State as laid out by the Founders and their enlightenment thinking, with things like this…..

“We’re bound together by common values. That family is the most important institution in society. That almighty God is the source of all we have.”

This is Marco Rubio. Apparently, he is the Republican answer to appealing to alienated minorities. Here, he is promoting the myth that America was founded a Christian nation, and subtly hinting that non-belief, cannot be considered an American value. Thus, in two quotes, we have seen both women and atheists alienated. So that’s 155.6 million women, and 15% of Americans who claim no religion. That’s a lot of people to alienate. Rubio is following the conservative trend of telling people who does and doesn’t qualify as ‘American’. This in itself, is divisive. It works against the Republicans, because not only are their policies seen as having racist, sexist undertones; the rhetoric confirms it. They are shooting themselves. Rubio is also reflecting the Biblical free will myth. In the Bible this myth is simple; you are free to believe in the Christian God, but if you choose not to, you will be punished for eternity. Suddenly there is force, which means there is no freedom in choice. Republicans are similar. You are FREE in America to believe whatever you wish. But if you don’t believe what Republicans tell you, then you’re not American.
We’re not finished with Coulter yet. She of course, can alienate more people pretty quickly. On the subject of 9/11, Coulter needlessly and baseless-ly said:

If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York’s defense. New Yorkers would have been like, “It’s tough for them; now let’s go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows.”

- So now, that’s women, Atheists and the entire State of New York.
It may be unfair to pick on Coulter. She is not representative of the Republican Party. She describes herself as conservative, which of course the Republicans are also. But she isn’t a Republican congress person or Presidential candidate. She says ridiculous shit, because she has books to sell. She perpetuates stupidity, for financial gain. It isn’t Patriotism it is right winged anti-democratic solypsism, with its very very narrow understanding of what is decent and correct. The abusive levels these people will stoop for commercial purposes is possibly more telling that their disturbingly outdated views themselves.
Another commercial bigot, is Rush Limbaugh. On the subject of women, Limbaugh said:

“So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch

- Wealthy white conservative attitudes to women are simply a reactive response from a modern liberal inclusive culture that they very much dislike, because it threatens their unjustifiably privileged position in life.

We can however find just as much disturbing sentiment from Republicans in congress and Presidential candidates pretty easily, along with groups that support and fight for them. They are very dogmatic. Like a religion that never updates with the times. The Republicans, are a religious ideology unto themselves.

The Republican controlled State Senate of North Carolina voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Their main support group, “North Carolina Values Coalition”, whose benevolent overlord Tami Fitzgerald said this:

“the people of North Carolina would rise up and vote to keep the opposition from redefining traditional marriage.”

As i’ve noted before, using the term ‘traditional marriage’ comes with an intense amount of problems. Hopefully (and I will email and ask them this) they are going to be consistent and support Biblical marriage in its entirety. As I noted in a previous entry:#

Republicans must be against marriage, if the woman isn’t a virgin. As advocated in Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
Republicans must support the right for a man to have multiple concubines as justified in 2 Sam 5:13 and
2 Chron 11:21.
Republicans must support the right for a man to marry his kidnapped captive (though, only after shaving her head, obviously) as permitted in Deut. 21:11-13.
Republicans must support the right for a man to trade his wife, as property. As advocated in RUTH 4:5-10.
Republicans must support the right for a man to marry his rape victim, if he pays for her: Deut. 22:28.
Let’s be consistent Republicans!

- I look forward to seeing the bigoted bullshit of Tami Fitzgerald support the right for a man to trade his wife as property. Though, judging by Republican attitudes to women, it wouldn’t actually surprise me.
Her organisation went on to just invent ‘facts’:

“….the overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that children do best when raised by their married mother and father.”

- This simply isn’t true. Along with the idea that sexuality is a choice, or can be cured this is an assertion completely discredited by the American Psychological Association. Here:

Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents?For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity?For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems, or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept, and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships?For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members, and friends.

Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent’s friends or acquaintances?There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents’ gay, lesbian, or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

- So, what we are saying is that Tami Fitzgerald is simply homophobic. Her baseless bullshit is nothing but prejudice dressed up as reason. To ban two loving people from marriage, on the grounds of nothing but a book of fairy tales and private prejudice, is disgusting.
Similarly, Paul Ryan said that Mitt Romney would be a great “defender of marriage”. Against what? We all know he means against gay marriage. Which suggests he means that a gay couple willing to get marriage, let’s say, these two sweet old ladies, Cathy Glass and Carmeh Lawler….

….. are trying to ‘attack’ …. ‘traditional’ marriage. The language is important here. ‘Attack’. It suggests there is a purpose behind the desire of Cathy and Carmeh to get marriage… who have been together for 30 years….. other than just for love. Again, the prejudice is disgusting. The Republicans are on the wrong side of history, again. The opposition to gay equality will be viewed in much the same way as the opposition to civil rights 50 years ago is now viewed. Regressive, bigoted, hate filled and wrong.

So far….

Women.

The entire State of New York.

Atheists.

Gay people.

Children of gay parents.
Republicans are really racking up the list.

Of course we know Republicans main claim this election was to be on the side of the middle class. The mask slowly begins to slide when you note the way that Republicans have dealt with labor unions in the GOPs quest to turn Capitalism back to the industrial revolution. Firstly, we should take a look at the advancements made by labor unions and we should also note that these advancements were certainly not made with the support of people like Mitt Romney…
End of child labour; healthcare insurance; collective bargaining for wages; minimum wage; paid over time; 8 hour work day; outlawing of job discrimination based on race, colour, sex, or national origin; workers comp benefits for people injured at work. All of these gains would be entirely erased tomorrow, if Romney’s entitlement society for the wealthy were to prevail. They certainly had to be fought for.

So how to Republicans treat unions? The Republicans in 2011 voted through a number of bills with the express intention of weakening unions. Given that their main donors are massive corporate entities famed for shipping jobs abroad and keeping wages as low as physically possible, it isn’t a surprise. But these were not all bills designed to attack union leaders, or excessive union power (of which, there isn’t any). These were bills strictly designed to make it more difficult for workers to join unions in the first place. And it is all hidden behind the idea that only big business has a workers best interests at heart. Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan said that unions:

“….taken actions that directly oppose American job providers.”

- The problem is, those ‘job providers’ main concern is profit, not person. Unions provide the person, not profit counterbalance. They are essential. To undermine unions, to underfund unions, to make it difficult for people to join unions – the very backbone of the middle class – is, well, a Corporate/Romney wet dream.
If we were to travel back to the 1950s labor unions were a positive part of everyday life. Corporations and unions acted together in a balanced way, as to be beneficial to everyone. Around the 1970s, that changed, and corporate America took on unions viciously. Mainly Republicans. And mainly for two reasons; large Corporate backing demanded it, and it weakened the Democrat Party. Interestingly, the media helped to distort or ignore the viewpoint of organised labor…. On the subject of the Delphi buyout, Progressive Review published how many paragraphs in the Washington Post, Detroit News and NY Times you had to read before reading the viewpoint of a union;
NY Times: 26 paragraphs.
Detroit Times: 22 paragraphs.
Washington Post: 11 paragraphs.
There has been a concerted effort to undermine unions for the past thirty years, and a Republican Party will not stop until unions have virtually no power. For some reason, even after the biggest economic crises bought on by deregulated greed of the ‘job creators’… the Republican Party is insistent that these people are our saviours.

Interestingly, nations with the highest Union membership; Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Belgium….. all came out of the economic crises, pretty strong. And Denmark, Finland and Norway all came top of the UNs ‘World Happiness Report’, which takes into account job security, quality of work and life, and opportunities. Also, they are the most Atheist countries in the World, and have universal healthcare. I’m afraid the US comes in at 11th place. Perhaps looking to that EVIL SOCIALIST EUROPE! for inspiration isn’t all that bad an idea afterall.

Federal Judge James Leon Holmes, nominated by the Bush administration, once said of rape:

“Concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.”

- That’s right. He made a joke. He of course is only one of many Republicans who don’t particularly like rape victims. And it isn’t a new phenomena of stupidity either. In 1995 Republican Rep. Henry Aldridge told the House Appropriations committee:

“The facts show that people who are raped — who are truly raped — the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work and they don’t get pregnant. Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever.”

- There’s that appeal to ‘facts’ again. Republican facts. Not regular ACTUAL facts. And what was the context? That’s right, cutting funds to help poorer women get access to abortion. A disgusting manipulation of facts, to achieve a disgusting end. In fact, all medical institutions entirely refute the extraordinary claim Aldridge made here.
We all know that this line of reasoning is still alive, after over fifteen years since Aldridge made his ridiculous statement. Todd Akin said:

If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something.

- I’m not sure what qualifies as ‘legitimate rape’, other than exposing Akin’s own prejudicial lack of trust in women. And also, AGAIN with the inventing ‘facts’. Really, stop that!
The Republican position on ‘life’ seems to be pretty clear.

Onto race.
Usually I am not surprised by Republican racist quotes. But I must confess, this one shocked me. Arkansas State Rep. Jon Hubbard wrote a book in which he refers to slavery as:

A blessing in disguise.

He goes on to say that it is a blessing, because African Americans were:

“Rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.”

Rewarded! He actually said that. Rewarded. By their superiors.
And so it goes on….
Kansas State Senate Speaker Mike O’Neal sent an email to House Republicans which referred to Michelle Obama as “Mrs YoMamma”. This is the same Mike O’Neal who sent an email to friends regarding the President, quoting a Biblical passage which states:

7 When he is judged, let him come forth guilty,
And let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless
And his wife a widow.
10 Let his children wander about and beg;
And let them seek sustenance [a]far from their ruined homes.

He isn’t the only slightly insane racist Republican. Marily Davenport, an elected member of the Orange County Republican Party and central committee sent an email with the title “No birth certificate… now you know why!” with this picture attached:

- As well as this blatant racism, there is an underlying and subtle institutional sentimental racism behind certain Republican shows of disrespect from the moment Obama was elected. From heckling him in Congress, to refusing to meet at the White House for budget negotiations, to storming out of negotiations, to John Boehner being the first Speaker in history to deny the President’s request on a specific date to address a joint session of Congress. There is a mass of disrespect, as if the President simply isn’t worthy of their respect.

During the 1970s, the Nixon Administration employed the Southern Strategy in order to win over white voters who traditonally voted Democrat in the past, by appealing to Southern racism. The Nixon strategist who came up with the Souther Strategy, Kevin Phillips, in 1970 said this:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

- This has been the position ever since.
The Senator for South Carolina Lindsey Graham in 2012 echoed the Southern Strategy of the Nixon years with this little gem of racist wisdom:

“The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

Though it is now masked more creatively; economic opposition to affirmative action. Or Bill O’Reilly’s underhanded racist and sexist remark that:

“The white establishment is now the minority, and the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”

…. the stoking of the racist flames for electoral purposes is still a strong tactic of the Republican Party. O’Reilly went on to say that 20 years ago a candidate like Romney would have beaten Obama. And it’s true. We were still getting used to the idea of Neo-liberalism. Everyone loved it. It was going to trickle wealth down. Everyone was going to benefit. Communities would be lifted out of poverty…blah blah.. utter bullshit. We now know what that economic plan actually achieved; the wealthy like Romney got wealthier, exported jobs oversees, put most of their money into off-shore accounts to avoid actually having to help sustain a social safety net and ladder for others to climb, and then investing in destructive stock market deals that eventually collapsed and plummeted America into a deep recession. The only people who actually believe they are entitled to government handouts, are the very wealthy who for some odd reason have it into their minds that they made their wealth themselves, did not require a stable infrastructure of roads, policing, fire protection, schooling, health protection etc as a framework for wealth to be amassed, and so now having taken everything the well funded system offered them, insist they should not have to pay back into it to sustain it for the next generation. This is the entitlement society.

And do we really believe that Goldman Sachs, Adelson Drug Clinic, Bain Capital, Crow Holdings, Las Vegas Sands and other top corporate Republican Party donors didn’t want ‘stuff’ had Romney been elected? Did they simply donate out of the goodness of their heart? Las Vegas Sands spent $20,512,550. Pretty sure they could have ‘created’ thousands of jobs with those wasted funds.

We know that the by-product of tax cuts for the wealthy, especially in the south, is that African Americans get hit the hardest. From the 1960s to today, blatant racism through political process is deplored. So there are more abstract ways to achieve essentially the same racist policies based on white privilege. There is the subtle hint by people like O’Reilly that minorities like African Americans are the problem, due to Welfare. And so cutting entitlements and safety nets certainly has a racial element. We forget that the very reason welfare payments have risen, is because poorer African American communities were targeted for sub-prime mortgages that eventually pushed millions of people out of work, and unable to find work. This has nothing to do with a ‘culture of dependency’ it is simply a safety net for when the very Social-Darwinist system that people like Romney advocate so vehemently, fails miserably, but does not affect those who amassed fortunes when times were good.

As I noted in a previous article on race in America today:

Public Policy Polling of Raleigh North Carolina, found that 46% of Republican voters in Mississippi think interracial marriage should be illegal. 14% said they weren’t sure. I cannot comprehend that number. It does indeed show that race is an issue, and specifically with Republican voters.

- Whilst it is more subtle racism, the Republicans still give of the atmosphere of racism.

And of course, it is impossible not to mention Mitt Romney’s description of half the American electorate being those who want to live of the Government.

So, that’s

Women.

The entire State of New York.

Atheists.

Gay people.

Children of gay parents.

Anyone in a Union.

Anyone who has had an abortion.

Anyone who isn’t white.

Anyone who isn’t rich.

And then there is of course… appealing to irrational fear. Evolution will end my religious freedom ARGH!!! Gay people will end my religious freedom also ARGH!!!! Universal healthcare will kill my nan ARGH!!!! Putting top rate of tax back to what it was before Bush IS COMMUNISM ARGH!!! They are taking away my freedom!! ARGH!!! And you ask “How are they taking away your freedom” to vacant expressions from empty heads who simply repeat what Fox News has told them. Thinking people do not like being associated with a party of irrational fear.

The most disturbing thing about the Republican Party is their outward claim to be the party for freedom, liberty and individual rights, yet their complete abhorrence of anyone who isn’t like them. They are therefore willing to restrict the most fundamental rights; love, marriage, control of ones own body, as well as opportunity. To achieve this, there are three points of attack:
1. Subtly claim that the privilege currently given out to white, rich, heterosexual, christian males may be under threat. Offer no evidence for this. For example, there is no reason for anyone to believe that allowing Cathy and Carmeh to marry would somehow destroy Bill O’Reilly’s marriage.
2. Link it to “Being American”. Again, pose the anti-thesis of this line of reasoning, as ‘anti-American’. As if your life, or your freedoms are under threat.
3. Read selected Biblical passages. Ignore all context of passage, ignore surrounding passages, ignore all passages that you do not like.
4. Know that your audience is probably too busy to look up the evidence for what you’re saying, so just say every so often “the research is clear!” and apply it to your argument. Whether it’s clear or not.
They are willing to invent ‘facts’ and distort scientific research for their own horrid little bigoted agenda. It isn’t that they don’t know how to talk to minorities; it is simply that those minorities have long been defined as the enemies of America, by a very hostile Republican Party.

To appeal to a wider audience, they can’t just change Republican Party rhetoric to be a bit less vicious. They must change their fundamental principles. The idea of what an “American” is, they must no longer be so arrogant as to claim a monopoly on. They cannot keep up attacks on unionised labor. They must not speak of women as if they are 2nd to men. They must not allow Christian fundamentalism to take over the party. And most of all, they must not act and speak like they are the landlords of America, simply allowing African Americans and Latinos to live in their US. They must, in short, completely change. I am going to say this will take far longer than four years.

Tea Bagging

Somewhere between 1500 and 1600, an unknown Author penned The Voynich Manuscript. It has over 250 pages, is incredibly detailed, and has many illustrations to accompany the writing. The one problem is, no one knows what it says. Its language, its place of origin, as well as its author, are completely unknown. Top cryptographers spanning the last century have been unable to decipher the manuscript. It remains one of Humanities great secrets. It is not a coded manuscript, because the writing flows beautifully, like elegant prose, which suggests the author knew what he/she was writing, as it was written. A mysteriously unknown language, that perhaps, we’ll never know.

That being said, the Voynich Manuscript is not even half as baffling as the current American “Tea Party” movement. Essentially, what the tea party movement is, for those of you who are unaware, is a group of redneck protesters who think they know how to run a Country far more impressively than the current administration. What is striking though, is that most of the tea party brigade themselves, don’t know what they’re angry about….

According to cbs, 44% of the Tea Party movement, believes that their taxes have gone up under Obama. Which, they haven’t. Somewhere along the line, these mad tea party people have decided that tax cuts, equals Socialism. Which, is doesn’t. So what do they want?

They want liberty for all!!!! – unless you happen to disagree with them. Or you’re gay. Or a left winger. Or you can’t afford healthcare. Or you’ve had an abortion. Or you’re from Mexico.

They are, for all intents and purposes, Neo-Cons. Which means, they are Reaganite Republicans. They seem to have an issue with the idea of universal Healthcare (We in the UK have universal healthcare – mainly because we still care for our sick and injured – and our standard of health is ranked 18th in the World by the World Health Organisation, whilst America is ranked 36th. The USA also spends more than the UK on healthcare, and has a higher infant mortality rate, and a lower life expectancy than the UK…. but still, they insist Socialised healthcare is bad…….. although socialised policing, fire protection, and road building, they don’t seem to have a problem with) They are also, very undemocratic by nature.

The Tea Party Website, has the following to say…
“ Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.“
All Right Winged proposals. Why do these people assume that the entire Country wants to live in a Right Winged Nation? They may as well just say “We want a Constitutional amendment banning any political party unless they’re Republicans and very Right Winged…. oh and the gays aren’t allowed to marry either, they’re all icky and stuff… oh and God is real“. Not everyone puts all their faith in a free market system.
Constitutionally limited Government is also an interesting point. Why is this being raised now? Why not under Reagan? Reagan increased the number of Federal Executive Employees by 0.10% during his two terms in Office. In fact, he was the only President to increase the number of Federal Executive Employees, from the era of Kennedy, to Obama. The guy who shrunk Government the most, since the 1960s…was Bill Clinton. A Democrat. The number of Federal Employees is at its lowest, in over 70 years. So where is this huge scary socialist government?

Fiscal Responsibility? Were these Republican homophobic racist redneck idiots Tea Party attendees asleep over the past eight years? Record deficits under Bush. Where was the complaining then? Why aren’t they complaining about the amount of money being spent on defence? I’d guess it’s because the Right Wing says it’s acceptable to spend tax payers money bombing Nations and torturing on the basis of a lie…….. but if that money was being offered to help sick people get treatment, they take to the streets to complain.
And how ironic it is that fiscal responsibility, includes paying Sarah Palin, the laughing stock of America, £100,000 to read notes off the palm of her hand live on TV. Very responsible. Palin went on TV, to announce that Republicans had defeated Democrats “3-0″ in elections in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Virginia recently. “3-0″ she proudly exclaimed. Clearly the lady who can see Putin from her house in Alaska chose to ignore Bill Owens win in New York, the first time a Democrat had won that district in over 140 years recently. Or John Garamendi’s California 10th Congressional District win. Or Terry Mills’ winning Kentucky’s 24th State House district. 3-3 so far. Scott Murphy wins in New York. 4-3 Democrats. But then, do we really expect more from a woman who made numerous complaints about Obama using a teleprompter, whilst she herself had notes written on her hand to prompt her throughout the night? Perhaps if George Bush had used a teleprompter once or twice, he wouldn’t have single handedly turned the GOP into a party of the mentally disabled.

“A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty.“
Why are they posing subjective opinion, as objective reality? There are millions upon millions of us who would disagree with the statement they make there. Millions of Americans would disagree. How democratic is it, to suggest these people should be shut out of Political America?

“The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible.”
No they didn’t. American Capitalism put huge limitations on Corporations. Limitations that no longer exist today. If Obama were to suggest reintroducing these limitations, Well, Glenn Becks head might explode in a fountain of “OMGZ COMMUNIZM IS HERE!!!!!!!!!” rage. Corporate charters had fixed periods of time to operate. If Corporations were thought to cause harm to the public good, they’d have their licence revoked. Corporations had to obey certain operational duties that fulfilled their charter pledges. If they failed to, they’d have their licence revoked. Owners of Corporations could not own stock in other Corporations, because they were only allowed to be in business in order to fulfill the role they had been set up to fulfill, and nothing more. They were not allowed to interfere with elections, or influence public policy in any way. In fact, incorporation was only available to those who wished to set up a company that would benefit the public, rather than for mere profit. Corporations could not make any long term decisions, without the agreement of legislators.
These rules were employed across State governments, and because the founders feared another East India Company emerging, they were always very suspicious of unchecked free markets. So no, the founders did not believe that personal and economic freedom are indivisible.
In fact, early America, the colonies, was a very egalitarian, community based, supportive economy.

The Tea Party movement takes the Founders sentiments out of context. It would be easy for me to start a Socialist movement and claim the Founders were Socialist, given their apparent adversity toward the power and wealth of Corporations. But it’d also be naive of me. The truth is, opinion among the founders was deeply divided. Capitalism was still a very young idea. Socialism, was a very young idea. They had no evidence as to which system is better….. neither do we, now. They could only work with what they knew at the time. And what they knew at the time, can not, in any such way, apply to what we know today.

James Madison, arguing in Federalist Papers Number 10, stated that a strong central government was needed to protect citizens against controlling, partisan, extreme factions. Madison says:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
No one is suggesting that the Tea Party brigade are not entitled to their opinion. They are. Regardless of how abhorrent I find their views, they are entitled to them. But, to suggest that the USA was built on their views, is strictly not true. It’s a manipulation of the American sense of Patriotism. Madison warned against these people.

I don’t want to be the one who suggests racism has a part to play in this, but right from the word go, the far Right had decided Obama was the worst President in history. They wanted his birth certificate, they called him a muslim, they said he was a terrorist sympathiser, They said he was indoctrinating kids when he spoke at their school. They said he hated the white race. And now, they’re attacking him, because he bailed out a failed Capitalist system.
The Tea Party brigade is not fighting for American values. The Tea Party brigade is fighting for insurance companies, who are without a doubt directly responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people who simply couldn’t afford to pay their health insurance needs.

The irony of the situation is that whilst these idiots have such distrust in Government and such trust in the free markets; the free markets have allowed a situation to arise in which Government is effectively fun by big business. The Republicans attempting to tell people what it is to be a “Patriot” in terms of political and economical opinions, is so horrendously manipulative, but vaguely familiar. One recalls the Republicans during the early months of the Iraq War making everyone aware that if you didn’t support the War, you weren’t a Patriot. Fox News referred to Anti-war demonstrations in 2003, as those of the “loony left“, yet referred to the tea party demonstrations of 2009, as “true Patriots”. It’s despicable. But then, that’s the nature of the right wing.

I have no idea why anyone takes the far right seriously; they shouldn’t be trusted with a pair of scissors. And whilst they are certainly less understandable than the Voynich Manuscript, the Republican supporting rednecks who are still ridiculously bitter than they aren’t in a position of power any more, should DEFINITELY be allowed to keep their signs…………..

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.

We do not torture (except when we torture)

The despicably teleological former U.S President George Bush once told the American people, “We do not torture“. Now, we know that America under Bush, did torture. Whether you mask the word “torture” behind “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” or not, torture is torture. It is a step too far. For example, according to an official memo a man named “Abu Kenami“, died whilst in an American detention facility in Iraq.
The memo states:

“on the day he died, Kenami had been punished with ups and downs several times . . . and had his hands flex cuffed behind his back (1285). He was also hooded, with a sandbag placed over [his] head. (1284).Ups and downs are apparently a correctional technique of having a detainee stand up and then sit-down rapidly, always keeping them in constant motion(1284). He was found dead in the morning after having been placed in his bed cuffed and hooded.”

If that had been the description of how an American soldier had died in the hands of a nation such as Iran, wouldn’t the American public be outraged, rather than a useless GOP keeping quiet and playing politics by choosing to shift the spot light onto Pelosi?

Torture does not combat terrorism, in fact, it pretty much does the opposite. It encourages negative feeling toward America to sweep the Planet. In the same way that destroying a Middle Eastern Country, displacing millions of people, creating thousands of orphans and killing thousands more, whilst shouting “Mission Complete” does not endear an entire destroyed culture to your cause. Combating Terrorism, by using Terrorism, will never work. Bypassing international laws and human rights laws, will never keep a country safe.
It does not matter how many times Dick Cheney insists that torture has helped to keep America safe, because as it turns out, the worst terror attack in American history took place on his watch, along with the deaths of thousands of troops. His tactics didn’t save American lives, it ended American lives. Dick Cheney is not Jack Bauer.

It’s quite obvious that these techniques amount to torture. For those who suggest that it isn’t torture, then hopefully I can count on your support when I try to suggest it be used in schools to deal with uncontrollable children? What if these techniques were used against American soldiers? I’m guessing the American Right would be insisting how terrible it is. But these people are Arabs, and so whether or not they’re terrorist, is usually beyond the point, they’re Arab, and so they’re not Christian! Or American! (See: BritishRepublican)

Philip Zelikow, advisor to Condoleeza Rice, sent a memo to his boss setting out his objections to the legal backing for torture “Enhanced interrogation techniques” way back in 2002. The use of these techniques is quite clearly cruel and unusual, which exists as a bullet in the brain of the Eigth Amendment of the U.S Constitution (Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted). Zelikow tried to point this out to the Secretary of State, having himself studied Constitutional Law. The memos he claims, were rounded up and destroyed by the Bush administration who were at the time trying to inflate the importance of strict interrogation techniques against high valued prisoners such as Abu Zubaydah, who happens to have been waterboarded 83 times without any further information being extracted from him. They did not want Zelikow’s memo gaining too much support or influencing the minds of too many people.

Retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell Lawrence Wilkerson, who was in charge of reviewing the information and evidence for War, in preparation of Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N in 2003, was not told the evidence was obtained via interrogation. Wilkerson has since stated that the use of torture for intelligence “was not aimed at preempting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al Qaeda“. Suddenly, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it, seems irrelevant.

U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Charles Burney, investigators in 2006, that interrogators at Guantanamo were under pressure to produce a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Burney is quoted as saying “While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq,” Burney told staff of the Army Inspector General. “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.” And yet the GOP want to focus on what Pelosi might have been told?

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could very well be lying (as could the CIA) to some extent, as to how informed she was over the Bush Administration’s use of torture. Last month she claimed that in a 2002 briefing with intelligence experts, whilst she was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, that she had not been informed of waterboarding, stating “In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used”. However this month, a report from the Director of National Intelligence’s office, appears to suggest otherwise. The same 2002 meeting was described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.” Clearly contradicting Pelosi.
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, DemocratBob Graham was among many other leading Democrats to be briefed on Waterboarding and various other techniques, according to ABC. President Obama was right to release the memos, and he was right to refer to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques as torture. Regardless of the political problems it may cause the Democrats, they only have themselves to blame. Obama was right.

And so whilst it seems obvious that the Democrats in Congress who appear to be taking he moral high ground, are actually nothing more than pawns in the Bush Administrations ruthless oil game, it should detract from the fact that the three who actually plotted and authorised such criminal and anti-Constitutional acts of barbarism and terrorism, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are just being left to live a happy quiet life, whilst their crimes and the cover ups taking place behind close door, go largely unpunished. The suggestion appears to be that the Bush Administration effectively legalised torture, to gain “confessions” and “evidence” linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and 9/11, in preparation for war. And so if it becomes clear that war was waged, lives were lost, countries destroyed, and billions of dollars wasted, on the basis of dodgy evidence obtained via torture, then Republicans should really back off Pelosi (The Democrats answer to Sarah Palin?), because she’s going to be the least of their worries if all out investigation is to take place. It’s a little odd that the GOP appears to be attacking the morality of Pelosi for what she knew….. about what they were doing. They appear to be more concerned about whether a Democrat was briefed on torture, rather than who actually ordered torture, effectively pissing on the Geneva Convention.

Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner (whose tan is just wonderful!), stated that Pelosi should either provide evidence that the CIA had lied to her over use of waterboarding, or apologise to the CIA for accusing them of lying. Firstly, as if we’re all under an illusion that the CIA has never lied to the World. Of course they have. Secondly, If that’s what Boehner wants, then I want Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Rove to publicly apologise for a war based on lies, four thousands U.S deaths, thousands of Iraqi deaths, and a destroyed economy.
Boehner also claimed stated this weekend that “Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime“. Clearly lying to the American people, leading to thousands of deaths, isn’t. Otherwise the claims made by George Bush, that “We do not torture” and the claim that “The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” or the claim to the UN in 2002 that “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” would have been punished, long ago.

Nothing short of a full, de-ontological investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration over the past eight years, the decisions and intelligence gained leading up to the war, who ordered the use of torture, who knew and did not object to the use of torture, and whether or not the Geneva Convention and/or Constitutional Law was broken, will do.

The Sinking Republican Ship

You have to feel slightly sorry for Republicans recently. They’re like a collective version of Elliot Roosevelt. Useless. Unable to admit just how useless they have been, and still are. A terrible role model for their youthful counterparts. Unable to accept responsibility for anything. And seemingly attempting to commit suicide. Looking on at their much more loveable brother with jealousy and rage. Whilst that much more loveable brother, the Democrats act as the pragmatic force behind the reinvention of America. Or, Theodore Roosevelt, if you will.

Surely someone in the Republican Party must be thinking to themselves “Please Cheney, just let it go. The damage is done!“. If they aren’t crossing their fingers that Bush doesn’t turn up with an equally insignificant opinion aired across the media, then they should be.

Whilst the GOP attempts to deal with the fact that Republican of 29 years Senator Arlen Specter has lost complete faith in a Party slipping further to the Right every day, choosing instead to move to the Democrat benches, Democrats look set to start work on complete (Oh MY GOD SOCIALISM ARGH!) healthcare reform after their $3.4tn Budget passed through the House beautifully by 233 to 193, marking Obama’s 100th day in spectacular fashion.
Specter’s move means the Democrat Senate Majority is taken to 59. When Minnesota’s Supreme Court finally votes in favour of Democratic Senator Al Franken, that takes the Democrats in the Senate up to a lovely round 60. And if that lovely round 60 is reached (which it will be), that means the Democratic controlled Senate becomes filibuster-free. Which is fantastic.

Specter leaving the GOP is two fold in the damage it’s likely to cause. Firstly, it makes the GOP look weak, disunited, out of touch and relatively pointless. Secondly, it seems to have sparked off a fight between Republicans themselves. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch blamed Chris Chocola (who ran a campaign based on the slogan “Fuck the environment” – or words to that affect, when he voted to allow oil companies to drill in the protected Arctic National Wildlife Reserve)and the rest of the rather comically named “Club for Growth” for imposing strict right wing rules over the party. Chocola himself, a big fan of President Bush, which suggests that “Club for Growth” must be an ironic term. The equivilant to calling a tall man “shorty”. “The Club For Growth” themselves blamed Specter for ruining the GOP and then leaving. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham blamed Michael Steele and the RNC for pushing moderates out the way. And Michael Steele himself, decided to take on the role of a new WWE superstar named “The Black Republican” (again, another ironic name) and said …
“If Sen. Specter survives in the fall — get ready to go to the mat, baby, because we’re coming after you and taking you out“
I’m not joking, he actually did say that, to CNN. Look.
So obviously, this was also a chance for that perfectly round headed orange ignorant idiot Rush Limbaugh to have his say. Limbaugh on his radio show, is quoted as saying:
“Well, Specter, take McCain with you. And his daughter. Take McCain and his daughter with you if you’re gonna…”
Good idea! Take all the moderates to the Democrats. Meghan McCain is far too intelligent to be a Republican anyway. Take the few popular Republicans, and hand them to the Democrats. For once I agree with the fat prick. If that were to happen, the Republicans wouldn’t see Government for a very long time. You’d essentially have a popularly elected Democrat Dictatorship for decades. It’s perfect. Perhaps Rush could go live in the soon to be New Republic of Texabillies. Republicans in this new Republican are free to be as “Conservative” as they please. They can be as racist, homophobic, small government, guns to every man, woman, child and pet as they could possibly imagine.
It amuses me greatly, that the GOP has now taken to discrediting Specter by releasing a video, that shows how Specter was close to George Bush. It’s almost poetic that the only way the Republicans can discredit an ex-Republican, is by aligning him with a failed Republican President. You really couldn’t make this shit up.

Not only that but Republicans are finding themselves in a tough position when it comes to Democrat plans for new regulations placed on Wall Street. On the one hand, they could follow their out of date principles, keep yelling Socialism, and decide to ignore the problems that 25 years of Reaganomics has created deciding instead to obstruct any form of recovery. Or, they could put aside their wasted ideology, tell Glenn Beck that if he’s trying to be the Right Wing’s version of John Stewart… it’s never going to happen, and accept the need for regulatory rules as soon as humanly possible. That would of course risk hurting the feelings of apparent Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh, and be forced to apologise from the heart at a later date. So it’s a tough situation for Republicans.

We all knew torture is wrong, but we needed something to confirm our belief. Enter Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. It’s like meeting someone who thinks they might be gay, and then pushing them over the edge. Did Cheney and Rove really think anyone would take their side in this? The moment he showed his murderous little face, we all squirmed. Obviously there are those like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh “Conservatives” who think the way to defeat terrorism, is by being a terrorist, but in the real World there is no way a human being with any moral compass would ever consider using the phrase “You know, I think Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are right.”

The only way to cope, is to have an insignificant “Tea Party” (nothing strikes fear into the enemy more than words “Tea Party“) to complain how Obama is both, paradoxically, a Socialist (3% tax increase on the rich, bringing it still beneath that of the first six years of Reagan……… Barack Stalin, obviously!) and a Fascist by announcing the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Or, just continue to fight amongst themselves until they push everyone other than the actual Right Wing Extremists (Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck) out of the GOP for good. Either way, it’s so incredibly entertaining, i’m just as happy as ever. Whilst the majority of Americans significantly approve of President Obama’s running of domestic policy, foreign policy, economic policy and now with the outbreak of Swine flu, 66% approve of how the Administration is dealing with the outbreak – you have to come to the conclusion that in a Nation finally embracing Liberal principles, the GOP moving further to the Right and edging out moderates is going to be the ultimate death of the Party. (I literally had a smile on my face as I typed that, weird).

The GOP Ship is sinking more and more every day. It’s crew are now fighting each other and appear to have decided that only the most extreme Republicans, the most racist, anti-environment, homophobic, fox news worshipping crew members are good enough. Fine by me. It means those ignorant shits go down with the ship.

At the start of this entry, I mentioned feeling sorry for Republicans. I take it back. Bask in the entertainment of a dying breed of ignorance, is what I meant to say.

Special Olympicsgate

I called one of my friends retarded, two days ago. I’m wondering if the new found moral compass of the Republican blog-o-sphere are now shaking their heads in utter disapproval and outrage. I suppose I should make up for it by invading a Nation, torturing and killing it’s people and then lying about why I did it. They seem to respond well to that.

Torture, dead soldiers, over 1,000,000 dead innocent Iraqis, the Worst economic disaster in American history, the death of the World economy, spitting in the face of the Geneva convention, making the World twice as unsafe as ever before, making America the laughing stock of the World, the destruction of the planet purely to enrich oil buddies, the lies such as “Mission Accomplished” whilst more troops died, and not forgetting shooting a man in the face without a hunting licence….. And Republicans have decided now’s the time to take the moral high ground and cry over Obama’s “Special Olympics” joke which he made about himself (which, I found quite funny)? They appear to have spent the last eight years in a dark room, and missed everything. The death, the destruction, the torture; all ignored. Well done guys!

The War Crimes Act of 1996, makes it a Federal crime to inflict “killing, torture or inhuman treatment” on a detainee. In a leaked memo to Bush, written by Alberto Gonzales before the invasion of Iraq in which over a million people have died, he says that the President should try to get round the Geneva convention, because it would “substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act.” So it became easy to torture a new set of prisoners who were not covered by the Geneva Convention, because they were not called “Prisoners of War“; Bush’s team created the term “enemy combatants” and shipped them off to Guantanamo…. which meant they suddenly had no rights – whether they were guilty or not.

I mean, Obama could invite a Special Olympian to defeat him at a game of bowling, or he could just run the Country better than the retarded fellow and his “Special Administration” that fucked up the Country……..nay………. the World, for the past eight years.
If Haliburton could profit from “offensive” jokes, Republicans would have set the bar incredibly high a decade ago, and this Obama gaffe wouldn’t have even made Fox News. But then, if the joke were aimed at Iraqi Civilians, it wouldn’t have even made Fox News.

If anything, Sean Hannity is going to have something meaningless to talk about for the next week. And it gives Republican bloggers another reason to yell “IMPEACHMENT!!” for no good reason. But then again, if 100,000,000 dead innocents can be killed; thousands tortured; the Geneva convention ignored; a war started on the basis of a lie leading to the deaths of thousands of U.S soldiers; doing nothing as an entire city sinks under a tsunami; the economy plunged into darkness; if all that can happen without being impeached, then calling yourself retarded at bowling live on TV, isn’t going to be a problem…… unless you’re Sean Hannity obviously.

Obama shouldn’t have said what he said. He should be Politically Correct in public. He is, and should be held to a higher standard. He apologised immediately (which is refreshing; i’m sure the families of the dead Iraqis would appreciate a “sorry” from Republicans; I fear that wont be happening any time soon). The entire Leno interview showed Obama as a person rather than a mythical robotic leader. It quite obviously wasn’t made with malice, it wasn’t intended offensively, it was poking fun at himself. However, he should have known better. End of story. But for all the Republican hysteria over this, one has to wonder; if this was the only thing George Bush had fucked up on over the past eight years, millions of people would still be alive and with their families, the economy wouldn’t be a mess, and people like Benyam Mohammed wouldn’t have spent seven years being tortured for a crime he didn’t commit, whilst the Bush administration now sits in relative comfort enjoying retirement. Republicans everywhere appear to have grew halos in the past three months. It’s an amazing advancement….. or maybe not….. given that Rush “Magic Negro….. Michael J Fox is playing up with his Parkinsons” Limbaugh is running the show and the GOP never feels the need to take the moral high ground against him (when they do, they immediately apologise to him). The only advice I can offer Republican bloggers on here…. never EVER watch Family Guy. Your head will explode. Now shut the fuck up, and let him try and fix the World that you people destroyed.

The Gopfather

For the past couple of weeks i’ve had a pain in my lower back. I let the angel on my shoulder cry out with shame, when I listened to the devil on the opposite shoulder telling me that picking up a box twice as heavy as the planet Jupiter, about half as heavy as Rush Limbaugh, was a clever idea. Since then, my back just gave way. I didn’t take any pain killers. I let it fester. Holding me back. My lackadaisical approach to fixing the source of the problem has merely served as a foundation for further problems.

Speaking of a pain that wont go away, festering, revelling in causing more problems than were originally there, pointless, useless, masochistically rigorous in destroying any chance at recovery; why are the Republican Party bending over backwards to accommodate Rush Limbaugh? The man has never said anything of worth. He exists on the far right on the political spectrum, expressing his ill advised melodramatic opinions seeped in unfounded hysteria to an audience of equally pointless red necks.

Every time he says something so overly offensive, even Fox News start condemning him, he feels the need to go on TV and twist his original comment to sound less like foul mouthed moronic sentiments. He tries to twist when he should be apologising. The moment he referred to Obama as “the magic negro” he should have been sacked, fined, the Republicans should have condemned him and refused him any stage. Instead, he explains that it’s the Networks fault, and suddenly everything is all right.

The moment he suggested there wasn’t a link between CFCs and the breaking of the Ozone layer, despite mountains of evidence (yet he’s a Christian, go figure), he should have sat on his radio show with leading experts on Climate Change, and asked to prove them wrong, to show his evidence, and offer his own conclusions based on facts he’s picked up along the path of research, rather than taking the typical Republican “I don’t believe it, so it must be false” route. As Best of Maui so rightly puts it, Limbaugh is……

“……in opposition to the views of the most eminent scientific experts, as reflected in the conclusions of such esteemed bodies as the National Academy of Sciences and the World Meteorological Organization. Though Limbaugh likes to frame the debate as a contest between him and the “environmental wackos“, it is really Limbaugh’s word against the overwhelming tide of scientific knowledge.“

The moment he accused Michael J Fox of playing up his Parkinson’s Disease to appeal to Stem Cell research, Limbaugh should have been sacked. Limbaugh, Using his clearly extensive research on the subject, and talent for medical science said of Fox “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act”…. because you and I both know that Parkinson’s Disease involves and I quote the Limbaugh’s official sensitive medical term … “moving all around and shaking” is obviously just an EVIL LEFT WING CONSPIRACY!!!

Recently, Rahm Emmanuel referred to Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican Party. This statement has caused a hell of a lot of controversy. Firstly, Limbaugh is under the entirely misguided assumption that by saying what Emmanuel said, he’s promoting Limbaugh’s cause. Limbaugh told Politico…

“They are expanding my profile, expanding my audience and expanding my influence. An ever larger number of people are now being exposed to the antidote to Obamaism: conservatism, as articulated by me”

I don’t know what makes anybody assume that just because they’re heard louder, they’re somehow less of a cunt. Hitler is still talked about vehemently, it doesn’t mean we all support Nazism as a credible opposition to the World we live in. All it’s doing for Limbaugh, is that for every new person who agrees with him, another thousand think he’s a moron. And given that he’s now clearly the voice of the mentally disabled wing of Conservative America, it’s like a dream come true for Democrats.

And so what do the Republicans do to combat this? The leader, Michael Steele takes the initiative by suggesting that Limbaugh is not the leader of the RNC, and that Steele himself is the leader of the RNC. That alone should have put the matter to bed. But no, of course it didn’t. Some ingenious strategist who MUST have been secretly working for The White House, told Michael Steele, the leader of the RNC, the big man on campus, the king of the Republican Castle, to apologise to Limbaugh, to grovel, to bow, to kiss his feet. As if it isn’t bad enough that Reagan once referred to Limbaugh as “The voice of the Conservatives in America”, but for the leader of the RNC to bow down to a racist, lying, misinformed, bigot is beyond brilliant. So how does Limbaugh respond to Republicans not knowing what to do, whilst their ship sinks deeper into the Political abyss? Whilst his stupidity gets worse and worse every time he opens his mouth? Does he accept responsibility this time, instead of refusing to do over the magic negro comments, or the Michael J Fox incident, or the “I want Obama to fail” comments? No of course not, he does what Limbaugh does best….. makes a ridiculous statement…. and then blames someone else. Limbaugh has blamed the recent problems he’s causing, on the Obama White House, stating on his website “…they need a demon to distract and divert from what their agenda is.” Judging by what Limbaugh says and does publicly, the Obama White House doesn’t need to do any distracting, Limbaugh is doing a good enough job of that himself. According to page 16 of a poll conducted by Democracycorps.com, 58% of all those polled dislike Limbaugh, whilst only 21% have warm feelings towards him. Even though only a scout hut full of people actually like Limbaugh, his ridiculous arrogance (some arrogance is a beautiful thing, but when you’re hated, let it go..) forced him to say that Obama (a man with, to this day, a 61% job approval rating), was…. “obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell.” I’m guessing that with his measly powerful and commanding 21% fan base, Obama wakes up in cold sweats because of the evident Limbaugh threat.

Limbaugh has this one wrong. Democrats aren’t scared of him. Democrats find him fantastically entertaining. The GOP are clearly more scared of Rush Limbaugh than anyone else. The rest of us don’t give a shit. We just sit back whilst the GOP stands in line to apologise to him, like Don Corleone and those in his debt.
For example, we’ve already discussed Michael Steele unable to lead without having to apologise to Limbaugh, but then of course there’s Republican Congressman Phil Gingrey, who suggested that it’s easy for Limbaugh to “throw bricks” around, because he doesn’t have to represent anybody. A few days later, Gringrey said “I just wanted to tell you, Rush, that I regret those stupid comments.” Obviously Rush doesn’t need to apologise for his entire book of stupid comments though. Next we move on to Republican Governor Mark Sanford who said that “anybody who wants President Obama to fail, is an idiot“, just before saying that he …. “… wasn’t referring to anyone in particular“, except that this was just after Limbaugh stated he wanted Obama to fail.. but you know, i’m just a crazy liberal, of course it’s just coincidence that Sanford happened to say what he said.

If you do feel the need to apologise to Limbaugh for anything you’ve said that may cast a negative light on him (as i will be doing later today, in shame), please go to this beautifully created “I’m Sorry Rush” website for full details.

I hear now that Limbaugh offered to debate with Obama on his show. Obviously Obama has more pressing matters than to accept a debate between a well educated Harvard law graduate and Constitutional Scholar, with political experience and the Presidency under his wing, against a racist three-time divorced, failed Sports Commentator, whose mother once said … “flunked everything, even a modern ballroom dancing class“, who most of his own party and 21% of the American Public can’t even stand.

Limbaugh once referred to Obama, not as African, but as Arab, because he’s from Arab parts of Africa, in Kenya. With some basic research techniques (i.e – Google) anyone is able to pull up the simple fact that Kenya is less than 2% Arab . In fact, only 33,714 Arabs exist in Kenya, of the 30,000,000 population. I think we can safely assume that Obama is not Arabian. According to the 2001 Census England, is 2% Indian. If we stick by Limbaugh’s logic, he’d consider me to be Indian. I make a fucking awesome Curry. He might be on to something. Or, he’s just unequivocally moronic. Even if Obama’s dad was considered Arab African by Kenyan Authorities, that doesn’t make Obama Arabian in the slightly. And even if it did, anything is better than another nut case from Texas.

If those Republicans who actually support Limbaugh think that there future success lies with a man who once said of slavery… “I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” I’d have to say that those Republicans are the best advert for voting Democrat I think there has ever been.

The more the problem persists, the more the Democrats have never been so lucky. Like my back problem, Limbaugh just wont go away, but for us Liberals, unlike my back problem, that can only be a fantastic thing.

The Minority Republicans

It was the first time i’d heard of Bobby Jindal, and my instant reaction after his speech was “And this man is actually allowed to talk?” He should be banned from talking, he’s an insult to those of us who can talk without sounding patronising. He’s an insult to oratory. Cicero died all over again last night, this time with shame.

So President Obama made a great speech again, oozing with the same confidence that helped win him the White House, to a joint session of Congress. Fantastically eloquent, and full of exactly what needed to be said. He was absolutely right in blaming the problems America faces, on the greed of short term gains. He was right when he suggested that the distorted world of International Capitalism has lead to making the rich richer instead of investing in the future.

And the Republicans response? Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. A man who once said “Transparency inspires confidence, and confidence promotes cohesion” and then his own office ranked last in the Country’s transparency ratings. A man who was referred to by The Wall Street Journal as…. “a boy wonder of the party. At 25, he was appointed to fix Louisiana’s failing Medicaid program, and succeeded.“… despite the fact that since taking over Healthcare in Louisiana, they dropped from 48th in the league, to 50th largely due to the fact that all he did, was cut spending, and made it harder for poorer patients to see a doctor. A man who voted against Gay marriage. There’s nothing like the Civil rights of one minority gaining the right to oppress another. He’s totally against abortion, and voted against all forms of stem cell research. So, to sum up, he’s against gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, helping the poor, and because he refused to take some of the bail out money to help workers in his state claiming it will lead to tax rises on the wealthy, he’s also a big business suck up. So wait, isn’t that pretty much what the Republicans have stood for all the time? This guy isn’t new or exciting or different. He’s the same shit. He’s begging for the same failed policies. He’s asking to restore confidence with the American people, by offering nothing new. He’s basically saying “We set the country on fire, so I propose we put the fire out, with this new and exciting ….. fire.”

Jindal would only be “new” if he recognised the hypocrisy of stating just how wonderfully pro-life you are, but then cutting all costs that help sustain life for those who are less fortunate than the horribly rich.
He basically said “Hey, The Republicans understand ordinary Americans…….. and that’s why we wont support any plan that is made to help you!!! But we WILL help the rich become even richer!!…..oh, and i’m black by the way, in case you didn’t notice.”

So I wonder, of all the people who could have spoken for the GOP, and knowing their track record on disastrous eloquence, surely Jindal isn’t the best they have? I mean, watching his response to Obama was cringe worthy. He spoke as if addressing a class room of five year olds. Even Fox News didn’t like it. When Fox News don’t like something a Republican has to say, then you know you’re in trouble.

So given that he’s no different to every Republican who came before him, given that he’s offering nothing new, given that he claims his health reforms were some how magnificent because it saved money rather than measuring the level of healthcare on the fact that people, actual humans, not money, but people – suffered more under him than they did previously, and given that he’s a horribly patronising speaker, why did the GOP choose him? I suspect for the same reason they chose Palin when Hilary Clinton was commanding the vote of the Female population. I suspect for the same reason that they chose Michael Steele when Obama had commanded a landslide of the vote of the Black population. Because they represent minorities. There is no other reason why Jindal would be chosen ahead of all the Republicans out there, other than he’s young (to counter the idea that the GOP is full of old men) and of a minority (to counter the idea that the GOP is full of old… white men). It really doesn’t matter how utterly detestable the man is, he’s a minority and that’s the GOPs way of yelling “LOOK WE’RE NOT RACIST!!!.. Despite the fact that we’ve spent decades ignoring anyone who isn’t rich and white“. Jindal started his speech, stating all his minority status credentials. To me, this proved just how important it is to Republicans that they have a spokesman who happens to have a different skin colour, to counter the love for Obama. They failed massively to chose someone of a minority who is actually talented in the field of Politics. The Democrats chose wisely with Obama. The Republicans failed to chose wisely with both Palin and now with Jindal. It’s like they’re saying “Well he’s black, what more do you want?” The alternative of course, is that they picked Jindal for his intelligence, which makes me think that if he’s the best they have, if Palin is one of the best they have, if Michael Steele is one of the best they have, if George Bush was the very best choice the Republicans had eight years ago, the rest of the Republicans must share the combined intelligence of a goat, a retarded goat…. as unfair to retarded goats as that is.

The Democrats should counter with a gay Atheist guy at the top. The GOP could never match that. A gay GOP member (i’m not talking about those many, many undercover Gay GOP members like Glenn Murphy who found his mouth accidentally around a penis. Or Bob Allen who mysteriously offered to give a cop $20 to suck him off) would have to start every speech with “I realise i’m unnatural, disgusting, and God hates me, but…..“

Obama clearly has a talent for eloquence, and I think we’d all agree, also has a great mind. Similarly, although he doesn’t have the talent for oratory that Obama has, John McCain has a great mind. By comparison, Bobby Jindal is a disaster, much like Sarah Palin was a disaster. The GOP need to stop trying to show just how inclusive and diverse they are, and start showing that they understand why America didn’t want them anywhere near Government for at least the next four years.

Good luck to them.

The Miliband East

It would appear that swarmy nobhead David Miliband is single handedly trying to end the problems in the Middle East by asking Abbas (Which isn’t code to suggest that there is a new member of Abba, but if it were, it would explain why the Middle East is killing itself rather than listen to Abba again) to uphold the Gaza truce.

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration, a letter of support by the Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, for a Jewish state in Palestine, stated “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People….”

And so in one swoop, the British had decided we’d create a nation, in a land that wasn’t actually ours in the First place. It’s the same, in principle, as me going into France now, and saying “ok, i’m setting up a new nation of Jamie, right here in France” (If I were to do that, it certainly wouldn’t be in France). And so the Palestinians, who lived there, were quite understandably pissed off. And the Jews, who have been persecuted where ever they’ve lived, chased out and killed of every land they’ve settled, were now becoming the hated people of the middle East.

The Arabs then revolted, in disgust, in 1936 for three years, against all the commissions that came out of Britain. They killed Jews, they boycotted Jewish and British goods. All hell broke loose.
In 1937, the Jews were given 20% of Palestine, the rest went to the Arabs, who still, understandably weren’t happy. It’s their land! Arab killed Jew, Jew killed Arab, Arab killed Brit, it was a lawless mess. And we created it.

skip 70 odd years, since the year 2000, 1062 Israeli innocents have been killed by Arab forces. 4876 Arab innocents have been killed by Israeli forces. An Israeli force that may not have existed, if it weren’t for The British. A war that will never end, over land that both groups consider themselves the rightful heirs of. Holy Land that people on both sides of the conflict are willing to die to protect for their people.

Some Palestinian media outlets even promoting violence against Jews. It’s just how it is. Whoever manages to sort the problem and create lasting peace will be remembered forever as a political giant. Greater than Churchill, greater FDR, greater than any other political legend. It will be the defining moment of the century.

Since the creation of Israel, 4 million Arabs have been forced out of Israel. Palestine wants a right of return for those people and their descendants. They also want Jerusalem, as does Israel. Until those issues are sorted, which never will be sorted, then the war will continue.

But it’s ok, because Miliband has asked them to be nice to each other.