RSS

Author Archives: PEB

Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful?

07 Jun

ann_coulter

The right wing’s lead banshee, Ann Coulter, used the murder of abortion Dr. George Tiller to attempt to claim that pro-life extremists are peaceful, and that Muslims are not. Not Muslim extremists, Muslims; All Muslims.

“Why aren’t liberals rushing to assure us this time that “most pro-lifers are peaceful”? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful,” Coulter said.

In an attempt to justify her claim, she compared 9-11 to just “five abortionists” killed since Roe v. Wade became law.

“According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion – which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade,” Coulter said. “In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.”

A halftime score? I’m not sure how to take that analogy. We’re going to flippantly compare the number of abortions performed in the past 36 years, all legally performed, to the number of people murdered who performed abortions, and do so with a sports analogy? How characteristically feeling of you Ms. Coulter.

But wait, she’s not through. Coulter went on to tie all Muslims living in the United States, almost all of them patriotic, tax paying citizens to the terrorist responsible for the murders of 9-11.

“Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.

“So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life – and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller – only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.”

Isn’t it interesting that Coulter never uses the term, “Muslim Extremist”; she prefers to just throw all the followers of Islam into one big group. Much the same way Islamic Terrorists throw all non-Muslims into the same bag, or the same way Adolf Hitler and his thugs threw all the Jews of Europe into one group. I think this is very revealing in deed.

I also find it very interesting that Coulter claims only the five actual killings count as acts of violence by right to life extremists. In fact, there have been 22 documented cases of violence carried out by pro life extremists in this country. Now using your own twisted logic Ann, let’s see? Twenty two (22) acts of violence committed by right wing, pro life extremists here in the United States, and only two attacks by extremist Muslims in America, counting the first bombing of the World Trade Center, and then the 9-11 attacks. Now, who exactly appears to be more violent?

Coulter doesn’t just limit her attacks on Muslims however, but also goes after the largest Lutheran organization in America, as well as comparing Dr. Tiller to a notorious serial killer.

“Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America – coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller’s fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer,” she said.

Ms. Coulter, like many right wing extremists seems to have forgotten that a woman’s right to an abortion is a protected right in this country. It’s legal. While someone may not agree with abortion, or like Dr. Tiller because he was performing abortions, he was not a serial killer, not was he an executioner.

Coulter continues her rant by questioning whether Tiller had a right to live.

She said, “The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: “A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born.” As long as we’re deciding who does and doesn’t have an “absolute right to be born,” who’s to say late-term abortionists have an “absolute right” to live?”

Ms. Coulter, inciting someone to commit murder would make you as guilty as the person who acts based on your words. When you make such a statement you are inciting others to act violently. And, oh by the way, who are you to decide who has an absolute right to live? While I may think you’re a right wing extremist nut job, I would defend your “absolute right” to live. Yes, even you have an “absolute right” to live.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on June 7, 2009 in Abortion

 

Tags: , , ,

Point/Counter Point with Michael Steele for 4 Jun 09

05 Jun

michael-steele-2

Today I received a lengthy e-mail from sometimes head of the Republican Tea Party (GOTP) Michael Steele, wherein he berated, bemoaned, and whined about the Federal Government’s bail out of General Motors. I thought I might present this e-mail to you in a point/counter point style for your information and enjoyment. We’ll begin with Mr. Steele.

Steele: Thirty-eight years ago, the federal government nationalized passenger rail lines, creating the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak.

LT: Let’s see, 38 years ago was 1971, that would mean that the federal government’s nationalizing of passenger rail lines would have been under Republican President Richard Nixon.

Steele: At the time, it was expected to be profitable within three years. Almost 4 decades later, the original $340 million investment of public funds has grown to $30 billion, with no profitability in sight.

LT: I’m sorry Michael, that investment was hoisted upon the American people by whom again? Oh yeah, Republican President Richard Nixon. Wasn’t he the only President in the history of our country to have ever resigned from office?

Steele: On Monday, General Motors was forced to declare bankruptcy.

No matter how much the President spins GM’s bankruptcy as good for the economy, it is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.

President Obama will now own 60 percent of GM, and his union buddies will own almost 20 percent. And what do we — the American taxpayers –get? We’re stuck with up to a $50 billion tab for the taxpayer dollars Obama is using to pay for his takeover of GM.

LT: Michael, do you sit around a speaker phone each morning and get your talking points from Rush and Hannity? You know very well, or at least you should know, that it’s the United States Government, not President Obama, who now has control of GM. I like the fact that you – along with Rush, Hannity, et al – keep claiming it was his own personal takeover?

Steele: General Motors needed restructuring, and it has been clear for months that bankruptcy was inevitable. But instead of letting the company cut its losses, the Obama Administration has strung the process along, politicizing it at every step.

LT: Michael, it has been clear for a lot longer than months, it was clear well into the Bush Administration that GM was going under, and as we recently learned from former Vice-President Cheney, former President Bush refused to address this issue, thus leaving it for President Obama to have to handle. Gee, just one more left over failed policy, program, and war, things like Iraq, Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, GITMO and Pakistan. But who’s counting?

Steele: With an Administration with almost no business background and with zero experience in the auto industry calling the shots, Obama has seized the opportunity to feather his UAW supporters’ nests and dictate the type of cars GM will now build — not consumer desired, profitable vehicles, but tiny, “eco-friendly” cars whose lack of safety will endanger Americans’ lives.

LT: Here we go with Rush talking points, straight out of El Rushbo’s playbook. He really is running the party now isn’t he? No business background? Endangering American lives? You’re absolutely right Michael, because putting Americans into rolling death traps is the dream of every American President. Well, Bush did send American troops into combat in soft skinned vehicles, but why go there?

Steele: Now, instead of emerging leaner and meaner, GM has fallen into the same trap as Amtrak — all to benefit the Big Labor bosses who helped Obama into the White House with union workers’ dues.

LT: Not emerging leaner and meaner?

Steele: Since when does the American government choose the market’s winners and losers? Since when does the White House decide what model of car Americans must buy?

Britain nationalized its automotive industry in the 1970s to disastrous result — the government-run, union-saddled companies were finally sold off again under Margaret Thatcher after years of dismal performance.

LT: I’m sorry Mr. Steele, at what point did PM Thatcher “sell off” the so-called “government-run, union saddled” companies?

PM Thatcher never “sold off” the so-called “government-run, union saddled” companies.  She actually continued subsidizing the failing British Leyland Motor Company to the tune of 900 million additional pounds beyond the 1 billion pounds pledged by the previous administration.

Where PM Thatcher failed was in allowing her government to continue to pour money into a failing company and yet never taking control. She allowed the failing leadership of British Leyland to continue motoring down the same old path until it eventually drove right off an economic cliff.

Steele: But Barack Obama and his henchmen have no desire to learn from the past — they are too eager to get government control of America’s means of industrial production — regardless of the consequences. Were Karl Marx alive today, he couldn’t be prouder.

LT: President Obama is learning from Britain’s mistakes. He has insisted that there be accountability, and restructuring, whereas PM Thatcher just continued to pour more and more money down the same rabbit hole.

Karl Marx couldn’t be prouder? So, your solution would be to allow GM to go belly up, completely out of business, closing all its plants, all its dealerships, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work, and in addition to GM, there are thousands of suppliers, dealers and other interdependent firms which face collapse. In fact Michael, analysts project that a failed GM could have cost hundreds of thousands or even a million jobs worldwide. If that’s the GOTP solution, were Harpo Marx alive today, he couldn’t be prouder.

Steele: First it was the mortgage and banking industry, then automobile manufacturing. Next up are health care providers and energy producers. What’s next? Whose businesses will they takeover next? Where does it end? The Democrats want to control every facet of your life.

LT: I’m sorry Michael, who left the economy in such a screwed up mess that President Obama had to intervene? Hello? That wouldn’t have been Republicans George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would it?

Steele: Americans shouldn’t be fooled. This is the real ‘change’ President Obama has in mind for America — government ownership of our economy financed with irresponsible and reckless government spending and debt and no jobs to show for it.

LT: Reckless spending? How about accountable spending. For the first time since the United States invaded and occupied Iraq the cost of that war has been included in the federal budget, not hidden away as under Bush/Cheney.

Debt? You want to talk about debt? Who threw our country under the debt bus? Anyone? Bush and Cheney. Government grew out of control, the deficit grew out of control and the national debt grew out of control during the eight disastrous years of George and Dick, and now someone has to pay for it. The Republican Administration went on a crazy spending spree and now the bill has come due.

Steele: This is a very sad day for the autoworkers and their families whose financial well-being will be directly affected by this clear act of an overreaching UAW and overbearing government.

LT: I agree that it is a very sad day for the autoworkers and their families, however, let’s talk about overbearing government.

Would that “overbearing” government be the government of President Obama?

Or would it be the government of President Bush? You remember that government don’t you?

The government that invaded a foreign country based on lies and made up intelligence; the government that approved torture and mistreatment of prisoners; the government that said it would be OK for active duty United States soldiers to enter your home and search it without a warrant; the government that approved, and used, warrant-less wire taps against its own citizens; the government alienated a large portion of the world due to its short sighted and reckless policies.

Is that the overbearing government you’re referring to Michael?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 5, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: , , , , ,

America is a Muslim Country?

05 Jun

Is America a Muslim Country? Yes and no; it all depends who you listen to. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, then the answer is yes and no. Yes because that’s what he claims the President said; and no because that’s what he says.

Wednesday morning during his daily blab-fest, Rush said, “Obama said that the United States could be considered a Muslim country. There are 1.6 million Muslims in this country, less than one percent of the population. Now what is going on? I mean, he lies about something that is easily demonstrated to be false. This is an out-and-out lie.”

Well, it really isn’t a lie Rush. Why isn’t it a lie? Because President Obama didn’t say that.

Greg Sargent of the Washington post had this to say about what the President allegedly said, “Hard-core rhetoricians will note that Obama was employing an obscure tense known as the ‘conditional,’ and an arcane rhetorical device known as a ‘hypothetical.’ He said that if you were to take the number of Muslims in America, then one could see America as ranking up there with other Muslim countries — in numerical, hypothetical terms.”

So, what did President Obama say?

During an interview with French television station Canal Plus, President Obama said: “[I]f you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

So, how many Muslims are there in the United States? It depends who you ask. Estimates vary greatly from 1.5 million Muslims in the United States to more than 12 million.

Now working with the lowest percentile figure – which Rush favors – in countries in the world with more than 2 million Muslims, the United States comes in at #56 out of approximately 195 countries in the world. fifty six divided by 195 = 28%. So, even using Rush’s numbers America is in the top 28% population wise of Muslim nations worldwide.

If we take the middle estimate of 6 million Muslims in the United States, in countries in the world with more than 6 million Muslims, the United States comes out at #35 of 195 countries. Thirty five divided by 195 = 18%. So, using the middle number we rank in the top 18% population wise of Muslim nations worldwide.

If you take the top estimate of more than 12 million Muslims in the United States, in countries in the world with more than 12 million Muslims, the United States ranks 22nd worldwide. Twenty two divided by 195 = 11%. Using the top figure we weigh in population wise in ther top 11% of Muslim nations worldwide.

We have either the 56th largest Muslim population in the world, or the 22nd.

The President didn’t lie, as Rush has tried to say, we’re either in the top 28 percent or the top 11 percent of Muslim population, either would surely place us as “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

What’s the issue? Bigotry. Rush is once again showing his disdain for Muslims and for the religion of Islam. Rush cringes at the thought that we might have a large Muslim population. It scares him. He needs someone to blame. That’s how right wing extremism breeds new followers. It worked for Hitler. Here in America in the 21st century instead of blaming Jews the right wing blames illegal aliens and Muslims for the country’s ills.

Beyond his bigotry and racist views, fact of the matter is Rush doesn’t have anything of substance to attack the President on, so he just keeps on throwing everything he can hoping something will eventually stick.

Good luck with that.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 5, 2009 in Foreign Policy, Politics

 

Tags: ,

Is Associate Justice Samuel Alito a Racist?

30 May

sam alito

Following his nomination by President George W. Bush to the post of Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, Judge Samuel Alito’s membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) was raised.

So he belonged to an organization at Princeton, what’s the big deal?

Well, normally membership to organizations might not mean anything, but what if a future member of the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, one of nine lifetime appointments, was to have belonged to an organization which had as its expressed goals the limiting of admissions of women and minorities to a college or university?

Under today’s standards for choosing members of the Supreme Court as outlined by Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, Justice Alito’s membership in such an organization would have been seen as “overtly racist” and as a certain “disqualification”.

Using the standards of R, H, B et al, we would be forced to make the following comparison: “What if a Latina nominated to the Supreme Court had belonged to an organization which stated as one of its founding principles the exclusion of men and especially white men from a college campus?

“We would have to conclude that such a membership was racist, and that she should be excluded from serving on the highest court in the land; that she should be excluded from being rewarded with one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court”.

But what if that Associate Justice had forgotten about his membership in this nefarious organization? Or at the very least claimed to have forgotten? When questioned by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about his involvement, his membership, in CAP Alito claimed to have no memory of being a member of the group. It was pointed out however, that in his 1985 ‘Personal Qualifications Statement’ when applying to be an Assistant Attorney General, he listed his membership in CAP as a qualification.

So, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court claims on an application in 1985 to belong to a campus organization, but 20 years later says he can’t remember belonging to the group? It can only be concluded that Mr. Alito lied. He either lied when he applied to be an Assistant Attorney General, or he lied under oath during his confirmation hearing when he claimed he couldn’t remember belonging to CAP.

Seems to me that a nominee to the United States Supreme Court not only appears to have belonged to a racist, sexist organization while attending law school, but that he also lied about his membership in the same organization.

Under the newly constitued rules for determining a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rules as imposed by the esteemed legal team of Rush, Hannity, Beck et al, it would appear that Associate Justice Samuel Alito is not only a racist, but also a liar. Either of which, or both of which, would certainly be a disqualification.

You can’t have it all one way fellas. A standard of qualification is a standard. You can’t have your judical cake and eat it too.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 30, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , ,

Are Obama and Sotomayor Racists?

29 May

So, Rush has declared that Sotomayor is a racist. Thus she must be a racist. At least that’s what Rush and his 14 million listeners believe. Thank God it’s only 14 million, because that means the majority of the Republican Party is still in control of its senses. Maybe one day the adults will once again run the GOP.

El Rushbo declared today, “I said this on Tuesday, to tell the American people who Obama is. She is a reflection of Barack Obama’s own racial identity, his own bigotry. That’s why she was chosen.”

On her qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court Rush said, “Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment is absolutely disqualifying.

“When a nominee for the United State’s Supreme Court, one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, one of only nine makes an overtly brazen racist comment about tens of millions of American citizens while she is a judge and that nominee is rewarded for it with a nomination to the Supreme Court, we don’t need lectures. I don’t need lectures from any columnist or any commentator on TV about decorum.”

On commenting about opposing President Obama’s pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter Rush said, “But Republicans are supposed to sit by and watch this person who is utterly unqualified be confirmed? The only reason the Republicans are putting duct tape on their mouths is to appease critics. They’re being told that shutting up and holding back is smart politics.”

There’s something “self-destructive,” Rush said, about Republicans not challenging Sotomayor, adding: “Letting Sonia Sotomayor get away with her statement is renouncing decades of progress in civil rights. Do you understand what a setback this is?”

Rush Limbaugh is going to lecture President Obama about “renouncing decades of progress in civil rights”? You’ve got to be kidding me. The only “setback” occurring from this nomination is the setback to the Republican Party if it actually listens to the likes of Limbaugh, Levine, Beck, et al.

Maha Rushdi continued his attack on Sotomayor saying, “A woman as a judge makes a blatantly racist, bigoted comment and she is rewarded with a promotion to the Supreme Court?”

“So we have made a lot of progress with civil rights but now, with this? How do you get promoted in the Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do or that they’re not good — put them down, whatever.

“However, those who do vote for her are voting to enshrine bigotry on the Supreme Court and to renounce decades of racial progress.” The question needs to be asked, said Rush: How could a president nominate such a candidate? Rush added: “That’s what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive.”

So, to get promoted in the Obama Administration you have to either be a racist or do something racist? If you are Barack Obama anything you do is questioned as racist against white Americans. Did I hear correctly? Is Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of the Republican Party actually comparing a very respected, highly qualified judge to Daivd Duke?

How can someone like Rush, himself a sexist, bigoted, racist, call someone else a racist? And make no mistake, Rush is a sexist, bigoted, racist. He routinely calls women “babes” and “feminazi”, and once told a Black caller to “remove the bone from her nose” and to call him back.. He most recently claimed it must have been hard for President Obama to order the Navy to shoot the Black teenage pirates. Rush is a racist, and he and others like him are leading the GOP to its own destruction.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 29, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , ,

Is Judge Sotomayor a Racist?

28 May

Tuesday, President Barack Obama made history – once again – when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Almost immediately, numerous right-wing radio talk hosts began smearing Judge Sotomayor as a racist and a bigot.

These hosts have been citing remarks Judge Sotomayor made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2002, when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a “reverse racist”; radio host Mark Levin called her a “bigot”; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard. … She sure sounds like a racist.”

Well, if Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine and Glenn Beck said it then it must be true.

Of course what the right-wing doesn’t do is say under what circumstances Judge Sotomayor made her allegedly racists statement.

Judge Sotomayor was specifically referring to the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Something a woman, and especially a woman of color, might have just a little more practical knowledge about than a white male.

So, if Judge Sotomayor is a racists for daring to suggest that a Latina might be better qualified than a white male regarding race and sex discrimination cases, then what about Justice Clarence Thomas’ comments made during his Senate confirmation hearings responding to the question of why he “want[ed] this job,” Thomas responded, “I believe … that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.”

How can Justice Thomas “bring something different to the Court”? Is his educational background significantly different than the other Justices? No. What about his legal or judicial background, is it significantly different from the other Justices? No. So the difference must be, maybe, his race?

In making such a statement, according to the standards put in place by Rush, Levine and Beck, Justice Clarence Thomas must be a racist and a bigot.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of Sotomayor: “So here you have a racist. You might — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.  Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

So, according to Rush, not only is Judge Sotomayor a racist, but President Obama is a racist as well?

Rush continued his theorizing, “In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it’s appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, ‘their experiences as women and people of color’ — reverse racism. She’s a minority. Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed — and they’re not. The court is where the law is dealt with.

“In the same speech, Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ If that’s not a racist statement, I don’t know what is — reverse racist or whatever.

During his Tuesday radio show broadcast, Levin claimed of “so-called moderate” Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: “These people  need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist — and I  will now say what I actually believe — who is a bigot — that’s right, I  said it — then they need to pay a political price for this.”

Levin later said, “Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted.” He continued, “Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She said, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Now I’m sure they’ll spin it. I’m sure they’ll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way — there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That’s not based on somebody’s content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That’s based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone — that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.”

So, would Mr. Levine also say that based on his “generalized statement about race and ethnicity” that Justice Clarence Thomas, based upon “that statement alone – that statement alone should disqualify him. Period?”

On Tuesday’s edition of his Fox “News” program, Glenn Beck said Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comments “smacks of racism” and is “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard.” Beck later claimed, “I don’t like the charges of, ‘Oh, you’re a racist. They’re a racist.’ Very few people are racist.

“There are racists and they’re bad people. And — but it’s — most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this — I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here.”

Would Beck ascribe the same standard to Clarence Thomas? If he were to listen to Justice Thomas’ statement would he say, “But when I hear this — I mean, gee. He sure sounds like a racist here?”

So, is Judge Sotomayor a racist as Limbaugh, Levine and Beck claim she is?

Well, first, considering the source; and second, looking at what was said in context, and from the position of thinking adult; The only possible answer is no she is not a racist, anymore than Justice Clarence Thomas is a racist, and the conservatives are extremely hard pressed to oppose her if this is their best shot.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 28, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , , ,

Lest We Forget

25 May

sf cemetery on memorial day 07.5

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother…”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 25, 2009 in Patriotic

 

Tags: , ,

Cheney is not a Patriot

24 May

87880040MW002_DICK_CHENEY_S

Darth Cheney comes out of his lair to justify a failed presidency, and a tarnished legacy, and he does it while not wearing a flag pin anymore? Has anyone else noticed that?

The man who claims to be trying to protect America by attacking the current President’s policies is no longer patriotic? Or was his flag wearing patriotism just for show?

Cheney doesn’t love his country. He doesn’t give a damn about America, or about what America is, or ever has been. To Cheney, the first and most important person, place or thing is me, myself and I.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2009 in Politics

 

Tags: ,

Democrats won’t fund Gitmo closing?

20 May

GOP Spokesman Rush Limbaugh, reading from an Associated Press story yesterday said, “President Barack Obama’s allies in the Senate will not provide funds to close the Guantanamo Bay prison next January, a top Democratic official said Tuesday.  With debate looming on Obama’s spending request to cover military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the official says Democrats will deny the Pentagon and Justice Department $80 million to relocate Guantanamo’s 241 detainees.”

Limbaugh immediately questioned why the Democrats in Congress would turn on the President, “Now, why would this be?” he asked. “Obama said he’s going to close Club Gitmo in January 2010.  Now, the Democrats say sorry, pal, we’re not going to give you the money for that.” 

Problem is El Rushbo, under his usual motus operandi (MO for all you ditto heads), only told a sliver of truth about what was actually said. Had Maha Rushdi dug a little deeper he would have found that what Democratic Party leaders in the Congress actually said was that the Senate was not going to fund closing Gitmo until it saw what the administration’s plan was., “The administration has not come up with a plan at this point,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, or No. 2 Democrat in the Senate. “I think Guantanamo should be closed and we have to wait for the president’s direction on what happens to the detainees.”

Durbin said that he could support transferring detainees to U.S. prisons. “Our prisons are filled with dangerous people, including terrorists. And not a single one (terrorist) has escaped.”

Durbin said the Congress simply wasn’t going to fund the closing blindly, “The feeling was at this point we were defending the unknown. We were being asked to defend a plan that hasn’t been announced. And the administration said, ‘Understood. Give us time to put together that plan and we’ll come to you in the next appropriations bill.'”

Rush further bloviated on the topic asking, “Why would the Democrats turn on Obama on this?  Why?  They don’t want to lose in 2010, and the polling data on closing Guantanamo must not be on the same page with Obama’s desire to do so.”

Well Rush actually polling data shows just the opposite, there’s a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that 53 percent of Americans said the United States should shutter the controversial facility in Cuba and find another way to deal with the prisoners there. While 42 percent of those polled, including 69 percent of Republicans, said terrorism suspects should remain at the prison. Most Democrats (68 percent) and independents (55 percent) said they would prefer another way to handle the detainees.  So basically the country seems to fall in line on this issue along the same political lines as the last presidential election. No surprise there. One side wants to try to do things the right way, the legal way, while the other wants to do everything based on fear mongering. You figure out which party fits which description.

Rush said, “Fear is the reason, because the word is out that if we close Gitmo that some of these clowns are going to be released in the United States, and people are not excited about that.”

No one Rush, repeat NO ONE has ever said that anyone convicted, or currently suspected, of being a terrorist at Gitmo were going to be released in the United States. Some of the prisoners may be transferred to federal prisons in the U.S., but no one has said they would be released here. This is once again Rush playing on the fear of his listeners.

Rush, Hannity, et al jumped on the story some time ago that some of the Chinese Muslims known as Uighurs held at Gitmo might be permitted to live in the United States, Chinese Muslims cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists. The part of being cleared by the Bush Administration as not being terrorists is the part Rush, Hannity, et al always conveniently leave out when discussing the release of terrorists into America.

So, what have we learned today?

First, Democratic Party Members of Congress have not refused to fund closing Gitmo; it said they want to see the Obama Administration’s plan for doing so before it will discuss funding.

Second, Rush only tells his listeners what he wants them to hear, what he hopes and wishes to be true. That the Democratic Party is splintering, and that Americans are living in fear. You hold on to those happy thoughts Rush, those and some fairy dust and one day you’ll fly. Oh wait, you have oxycotton for that.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 20, 2009 in GITMO, Politics

 

Tags: , ,

Did the United States of America Torture Prisoners?

19 May

During the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” did United States personnel torture, or abuse, prisoners in violation of international treaties prohibiting such torture or abuse?

torture1

This prisoner had electric wires attached to his genitals, and was forced to stand like this for hours. If he dropped his arms or moved from the box, he was shocked.

torture2

Why would American soldiers take a prisoner, strip him of his clothes, and then threaten him with guard dogs?

torture3

Stripping a prisoner; forcing woman’s underwear on his head, and tying him to a metal bunk. The purpose of this interrogation technique would be?

torture4

Forcing prisoners to lie on top of each other naked. This would be necessary because?

torture6

And here we have an example of the non-torture technique known as waterboarding.

torture5

Forcing an injured prisoner to lie naked on the cement floor. This is humane treatment of the wounded?

torture7

And the purpose of tying a prisoner, naked and upside from a metal bunk would be?

The above images point out quite clearly that American personnel, under the Bush Administration, committed criminal acts in violation of international treaties regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. There is no valid reason for this. Someone ordered our country off of this cliff, and the only way to place the United States back on the moral high ground is to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 19, 2009 in Torture

 

Tags: , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →