You are listening too: C&L Premiere: Rickie Lee Jones sings “Have You Had Enough?”
I spotted an interesting post on the democrats.org party builder today. It was titled "TO MY FRIENDS, THE REPUBLICANS" I thought WOW, this sounds interesting, someone is reaching out to the ones responsible for the neo-con take over of our government. The ones who are partners in crime (albeit, indirectly) with the neo-cons to bring about America's nemesis. Someone, is trying to make nice, nice with the red stater's, the group that holds a Virtual Monopoly on non-thinking.
As I read this well, thought out piece by Mr. Bezark, I kept thinking, "maybe I am wrong about these people who maintain a delusional Horatio Alger myth of pulling oneself up by one's own bootstrap, in which ONE SIZE FITS ALL. Maybe, they are just like us liberals who only wish the best for America's people and all the people of the world." BUT UPON READING SNAKELIPS REPLY... I AM,WITHOUT A DOUBT, CATEGORICALLY NOT WRONG ABOUT 'THEM' ONCE SO EVER!
The republicans are marinated in myths, they repeat these myths over and over to themselves and to others, to legitimize their bigotry. The one myth they spout out above all others is called THE AMERICAN DREAM, where they firmly believe that if one works their fingers to the bone... they will become a 'SUCCESS"! How naive they are in this myth, they believe all the poor folk in America are poor because they don't want to work and are lazy bums.
I wish all those who believe in the AMERICAN DREAM, BOOTSTRAP MYTH would read this enlightening essay: Myth of American dream is misleading (but I know they won't because it may allow a ray of knowledge to shine through into their dark, narrow, closed minds...) Here are some examples from the writer Duncan Moench
When a person comes from a poor, working-class background and manages to "rise" through hard work and determination to a wealthy, upper-class position in society, this person is said to have accomplished the American dream.
It has been said that people must "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" in order to fulfill this dream. Ironically, if one were to pull oneself somewhere by one's bootstraps, that person would only end up planting his or her face in the dirt.
Do Americans idealize those who work tirelessly with little reward? How many admire a man or woman who spends 20 years without complaint cleaning hotel rooms for minimum wage? Do Americans admire the "entrepreneur" who works persistently on his or her project, only to end up in debt? If hard work is valuable to the American public in and of itself, then admiring hard workers, whether they are financially successful or otherwise, is the logical consequence.
Obviously, this is not the case.
Not only does the American dream foster a poor value system, but the whole concept is built on the myth of easily accessible social mobility. Many Americans enjoy repeating the cliché that "this is the land of opportunity."
Whose opportunity?
America offers no more social mobility than most other industrialized nations. Certainly, Western European nations can argue they offer greater opportunity for an individual to improve their wealth considering that almost every nation has free education, even at the highest level.
The American dream, however, was always a useful and manipulative myth used to enforce the status quo. Unfortunately, the ability to "rise above" one's economic background is becoming even more difficult, making the American dream myth even more destructive.
If the American dream is such a realistic and viable option, why do so few actually fulfill the dream? The media loves to cover the one-in-a-million individual who came from a poor family and, through hard work, built a multimillion-dollar company.
Why doesn't the media cover the not-so-inspiring stories of millions of individuals who come from poor backgrounds and never escape poverty? Certainly, one can understand why not. Can you imagine the reaction if they did?
"Ten years ago, John Anderson was living in a run-down apartment on the south side of Chicago. Through hard work and creativity, Mr. Anderson managed to keep his run-down apartment and boost his wage 50 cents an hour; now to a similar story in Los Angeles." READ MORE HE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But, this isn't the only misconception the republican diehards adhere so desperately to, another myth or catch phrase of theirs is... "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment..."
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
This myth is so dangerous and so debilitating to The American Way Of Life, it defies logic. Yet, you will hear some 'COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE' get up on his soapbox and DEMAND that this so called 'RIGHT' is part of the American Dream Mythology... Read a small portion from: What does the Second Amendment Mean?
How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.
Our nation suffers from an epidemic
of gun violence.
Guns take the lives of 105 Americans every day
— 15 of them are children and teenagers.
In the four years between 1988 and 1991,
more Americans were murdered with firearms
than were killed in battle during the eight years of the Vietnam War.
Sensible national gun control laws are urgently needed to stem this
violence.
READ MORE HERE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The next REALLY
BIGGIE MYTH the right-winged ones believe...ARE YOU READY FOR THIS...
THE
LIBERAL MEDIA... don't laugh too hard! thinkingblue
PS: One more thought to those who believe the neo-cons are conservative... IF YOU JUST READ THE WORDS BELOW AND YOU WILL OR SHOULD REALIZE THEY ARE NOT!!!
Just because someone calls him or herself a conservative doesn't make it so. I regularly hear critics of the Bush Administration and its policies referred to as "conservative." Well, here's a news flash:
George W. Bush is not a
conservative.
The tendency to hate, really hate,
opposing politicians surely is not good for American democracy. It is not
rational to hate George W. Bush, just as it was not rational to hate Bill
Clinton. But after spending eight years hating Clinton, conservatives who
complain about the Bush-haters appear to be hypocrites.
George W. Bush enjoys neither royal nor religious status
that would place him beyond criticism. Whether or not he is a real
conservative, he is no friend of limited, constitutional government. And for
that the American people should be very, very angry...
Richard B. Cheney is not a conservative.
Donald Rumsfeld is not a conservative.
Karl Rove is not a conservative.
Paul Wolfowitz is not a conservative.
John Bolton is not a conservative.
Grover Norquist is not a conservative.
Bill Bennett is not a conservative.
Pat Robertson is not a conservative.
James Dobson is not a conservative.
Jerry Falwell is not a conservative.
Rush Limbaugh is not a conservative.
And Bill O'Reilly is not a conservative.
No, indeed, this is a list of radical, regressive, and often reckless political partisans who have exhibited careless disregard for other people, often ignored traditional or established policies, and many of them have flouted the rule of law or have had their hypocrisy publicly exposed (Bennett and Limbaugh, for example). In the mouths of these people, the "conservative" mantle (with or without its alleged compassion) merely supplies the sheep's clothing to cloak their wolf-like avarice. READ MORE HERE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW PLEASE READ TODAY'S VERY INTERESTING DIALOG BETWEEN A LIBERAL AND A CONSERVATIVE and the WINNER IS... you decide. thinkingblue
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To my friends, the Republicans
By
Adam Bezark
I don't know if any of you
are reading this, seeing as this is a Democratic website and all. But if
you're a Republican, and you've found this blog, I just want to say:
WELCOME BROTHER:
I'm not here to kick your ass or call you nasty names. The time for
insults is over, and the stakes are too high to act like a bunch of
schoolyard juveniles. Instead, I want to speak to you sincerely... as a
friend, a neighbor, and an American.
I'm not kidding.
Interested? Click the link to keep reading.
*******
Hey there. Glad you came.
Here's my point. Things in this country have reached a terrible, ugly
impasse. It seems like everything we say, write or do is pulled apart,
dissected and eventually vilified by the "other side." It's impossible
to discuss politics at work or with friends, for fear of sparking an
angry confrontation.
But I submit that we're not so very different, you and I. Democrats and
Republicans have much more in common than we normally admit. Let's start
with these two assumptions, shall we?
- We both love our country.
- We both love our children.
That's really all we need in order to have this conversation. We're both
good Americans who care deeply about leaving our children a better world
where they can be happy, be prosperous, and leave an even better world
to their children. That's pretty much it, isn't it?
And I deeply respect the original values of the Republican party. You
believe people should help themselves and not depend on the charity of
the government. I believe in paying taxes to help those less fortunate
than me. Fine. Great. That's an important debate we can carry out as
civilized, respectful adults. You'll score some points, I'll score a
few, and things will work out in the long run.
But these people -- these madmen -- who have taken over the reins of
government? They're not real Republicans. They're not real Americans.
They're not you. They sneaked into power under the guise of the
Republican party. They spouted enough catchphrases about lowering taxes
and shrinking government to convince you they were just good
old-fashioned Reaganites.
But that's not who they are.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld -- these are scary, scary guys. After a few years
of pussyfooting around, they've recently made their intentions clear.
They believe the President of the United States should have absolute,
unchecked power.
The power to tap any phone in America. The power to arrest anyone,
without charging them, and put them in a secret prison, forever, without
ever seeing a lawyer. The power to torture those prisoners as much as
they want.
Sure, they tell us these powers will be used solely to combat terrorism.
But do you believe that? I don't. History has shown it doesn't work that
way. Rember that Stalin guy? He was just protecting his beloved Soviet
Union from "enemies of the state." Used it as an excuse to get rid of
anyone who didn't toe his line. Banana Republic dictators have used this
excuse for decades. Sorry about killing that entire neighboring village.
We're just protecting you.
The White House knows this. (Heck, they've spent years setting up some
of those dictators.) There's nothing in these new "anti-terrorism" laws
that says they can't use this power on anyone they want. Political
enemies... Environmental Activists... Waiters Who Spill Soup On Them.
Who's to say I won't be labeled an "Enemy Combatant" and suddenly
disappear, simply because I wrote this column? Go ahead. Complain about
that parking ticket. You might be next.
Republicans -- real Republicans, good-hearted Republicans -- give their
allegiance first and foremost to The Constitution of the United States.
Remember that pesky Bill of Rights? The thing that says we're not
allowed to search people's homes without cause, or arrest them without
charges, or deny them a fair trial, or mete out Cruel and Unusual
Punishment? That Bill of Rights? It's gone. Vaporised by these monsters.
I know that, as a loyal Republican and a good American, this scares you
as much as it does me.
Sadly, the problem doesn't just stop at the White House. While there are
still a few good-hearted, honest Republicans in the Congress, far too
many of them have been seduced and corrupted by the temptations of
absolute power. They act as a blind, uncritical rubber stamp for Bush's
tyrannical desires, giving him more and more power when they should be
providing the needed checks and balances to stop him. Under the guise of
being "good Christians," they perform some of the most un-Christian acts
in modern history. They accept bribes; cater to big corporations (like
the oil companies) while ignoring normal people; block any debate or
disagreement; sexually harrass children entrusted to their care.
Are these your values?
Didn't think so.
If you truly are a good-hearted Republican, as I believe you are, the
time has come. It's time to stand up to the people you helped elect.
It's time to tell them: "I want my party back." The trick is: in order
to get your good, honest Republican Party back, you have to do something
that seems insane.
You have to vote Democratic.
Only by unseating these maniacs can we get back to a semblance of
Government as our founding fathers intended it. If we throw out the
spineless wonders who blindly support Bush, the President's
power-grabbing schemes will fail. If we reject the current Republican
party of corruption and greed, they'll be forced to step back and
rebuild themselves... hopefully as the good, honest Republican party of
genuinely American conservative ideals. And then we can get back to the
honorable, respectful debate between true Republicans and true
Democrats.
So I'm begging you. Let's be friends. Let's get rid of the madmen who've
kidnapped your beloved Republican Party, and let's start over.
And who knows? Once you try voting Democrat, you might actually like it.
Reader Comments Write a Comment on this Post
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for the invite Reply
By snakelips Yesterday at 6:57 pm EDT
Thank you for the invitation. I like having these discussions. Your post
starts off nice enough but then descended into name calling. I much
prefer to discuss the issues and what they mean and how they effect us.
Besides, you couldn't kick my ass! :-)
I think we are stuck between two evils. So, what I do in situations like
this is base my decisions on the level of risk.
Firstly, I am very concerned about my loss of rights. I am uncomfortable
with the idea of indefinate detention without legal recourse, but I see
a great risk in allowing probable terrorists access to our lenient court
system and classified information. So, I defer to our elected leaders.
It's a hard call all around. It almost makes me want to summarily
execute those caught...then we wouldn't have to deal with what to do
with them. I do believe that right now the sole intent is to combat
terrorism, but your concerns about what happens next is very valid. When
does it stop, right? I think the sunset provisions congress puts on laws
like the patriot act are about the only and best way to handle this.
Your way is not perfect and neither is mine...so we muddle through. The
goal is to come out the other side with the least amount of damage. I
see the republican's tract less harmful than the democrats.
Secondly, I have a hard time imagining that democrats in power would be
any less prone to accept bribes, cater to big business, sexually harass
children, block debate, or ignore normal people. Without going into a
lot of endless examples, can we not agree that both side are guilty of
similiar things. Politicians are after power. That's their common
denominator.
Ok, tapping phones... I don't like the idea that my phone could be
tapped without court approval, but since I don't call any potential
terrorists OUTSIDE the country, I don't have to worry about it.
(OH BOY... THIS IS HILARIOUS... "I don't have to worry about
it"...INDEED! thinkingblue)
The
Echelon program listened to every INTERNAL and external phone call and
EMAIL. Do you see the difference? You on the left hardly made a peep
about that. I don't like either program, but I see the necessity at this
point in time for them. Again, I choose the lesser risk option.
Your goal in all this seems more to get rid of Bush out of hatred than
protecting your rights. Of course we should be concerned about these
programs, and of course Stalin was an evil controlling dictator, but
Bush at this time in our history really is engaging an enemy who wants
to kill us. It's a hard thing to get our minds around, but we need to do
something.
It's really hard to comment more on what you said because there was so
much ranting and name-calling...and I thought you wanted to be friendly.
I can't vote democratic because I believe they are the worse of two
evils. I believe they will immediately raise taxes. I think taxes should
be lowered, and/or a flat tax imposed so that everyone can pay the same
proportion. The rich shouldn't pay more just because they have it. They
earned it. And the poor should have to pay their fair share as well.
I believe democrats will pull us out of Iraq before it's time. I'd
rather fight terrorists over there than on our streets here in America.
Let's beat the terrorists. They don't want to be appeased, they only
have two choices for us - convert or die. I'd rather not do either.
I believe democrats spend too freely on social programs. I think people
should be responsible for themselves. In my view the democrats need
voters, so they tell people what all they will give them or do for them,
so to pay for that, they tax the rich, who then have less money for
investments and new businesses. Your real goals seems to me to be
government ownership and control of everything - socialism! I don't get
how you complain (rightly so) about your loss of rights, but you'll
defer all your decisions in life to the government. You want all the
benefits of our society, but you're willing to kill the golden goose to
get it. It's unsustainable.
I believe democrats will work to increase gun control until we are all
effectly disarmed. Do you not realize that the 2nd ammendment is the
final insurance for all your other rights? But if your goal of socialism
is right, then it stands to reason that you would want a disarmed
citizenry. That scares me.
So, anyway, I appreciate the invitation, but I'll pass. I think
democrats don't have a big picture long-term view of our country (or
maybe they do and would just prefer it pass into history) and are more
concerned with building their own power by holding others down. As a
conservative, I want everyone to succeed and do well, but not
artificially. I want them to earn it by hard work on a level playing
field. But, ablility and personal committment do matter. Some will
succeed and some will fail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And thanks for the reply! Reply
By Adam Bezark Yesterday at 8:06 pm EDT
Hey, snakelips (great name, btw) -
Wow! I'm so glad you stopped by, and I'm honored that you took the time to
respond thoughtfully. Let's see if I can respond respectfully to some of
your comments.
First, about the name-calling. I said I wasn't going to call YOU names. I'm
reaching out to good-hearted, honest Republicans to engage in a meaningful
dialog. I have enormous respect for you and your views. But I can't help
voicing my feelings about the extremists who are currently sitting in the
White House. In other words, you're not the enemy, pal -- they are. I think
we're in this together.
Loss of Rights: it doesn't get bigger than this. You can't defend the 2nd
amendment (which I reluctantly support) without defending the others as well
-- it's a package deal. You can't just trust our elected officials to know
what's best for us. It's our duty to question those in authority, whichever
party they're in. Believe me, if a Democrat president was doing this, I'd be
screaming just as loud.
I hadn't heard about the Echelon program before you mentioned it, but I just
looked it up. (Remember, I'm new to this.) If Echelon was (or is) tapping
phones without legal process, they should be stopped too. One wrong doesn't
justify a second. You say you don't have to worry because you don't call any
terrorists. But what if they tap your phone anyway? You do indeed need to
worry, brother.
I also think you've bought into the old line that Democrats are somehow weak
on terrorism. Despite what you saw on ABC last month, Bill Clinton tried
like hell to kill Osama. Is it really realistic to say that Democrats want
to offer hugs and therapy to terrorists? Come on. What we DO believe is that
the justice system must prevail over all. EVERYbody deserves a fair trial --
including child molesters, serial killers and even terrorists. Why? Because
let's just suppose for a second that we catch the wrong guy. Is that
conceivable? Yep, wrong guys get caught all the time. Is it right to throw
him in the slammer for all eternity without the right to a lawyer, trial or
appeal? That's the complete antithesis of everything our country was built
on. Do we like it when bad guys occasionally get off the hook? Of course
not, it's infuriating. But the alternative -- throwing Americans in jail
without the chance to defend themselves -- is unthinkable. Again, just ask
yourself: how would I feel if it happened to me?
I also haven't seen any persuasive reason why the new laws are necessary.
Phone tapping without a court order? Why? The President says "if you're
really innocent, you have nothing to worry about." I say "if you're really
guilty, we shouldn't mind giving you a fair trial -- you'll still go to
jail."
Abuses of power: I agree that all politicians are subject to corruption and
abuse. And despite my feelings about which party is more trustworthy, I'm
actually not suggesting that we take the Republicans' unlimited power and
hand it over to the Democrats. I'm just looking for a little restoration of
balance. I actually liked it when we had a Republican President and a
Democratic legislature, or when the House and Senate were split. It meant
the sensible ideas got through, while the extreme stuff got filtered out.
So as I said, we're not that far apart, you and I. We can disagree on taxes
and social programs and still be buddies. (Though I should point out that
no, I'm not a socialist -- just an enlightened -- and prosperous --
capitalist.) But we should both agree that when our freedom is threatened by
power-hungry politicians, it's our mutual duty to throw the bastards out. I
promise I'll do it if we ever get a crazy dictator Democrat. Will you help
us do it now?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks again for the dialog. :-)
Still a pass, but we're talking... Reply
By snakelips Yesterday at 11:00 pm EDT
Thanks for the response. I understand your rigor about wanting to defend
your rights - that's a great thing, so I'm glad you eased off on the name
calling.
You're absolutely right about needing to defend all of our rights equally.
The difficulty comes in on the interpretation of those rights. I thought
about this and it seems to me that just as we agree that the 2nd ammendment
doesn't give us the right (necessarily) to own a 20mm anti-aircraft cannon,
and we have background checks, waiting periods, and carry laws, we could
also agree that maybe, concerning the 4th ammendment, the congress and
president have determined that in certain cases tapping phone calls is a
reasonable search. Of course it's our duty to question our leaders and hold
them accountable at the ballot box. I have questioned this area, and I think
this is a reasonable thing. I understand you feel differently. To pour some
gas on the fire I'd like to add that the more quickly we defeat terrorism
and instill democratic values and capitalism in those peoples' minds, the
sooner we can end these programs. So, perhaps you could consider joining the
republican team and smash our enemies.
The only reason I said I wasn't worried about my calls being tapped is
because I'm only going by what they are telling me they are doing. Hell, we
have no idea what they are doing! We had no idea about what all Echelon was
doing, so all we can do is take it at face value. If all they are doing is
listening in to foreign calls made or recieved by Americans, and they don't
have time to obtain a warrant, then I think that's a reasonable thing and I
accept it. That does not mean they get a blanket pass for whatever they want
to do. We should always be vigilant about these kinds of things! I think
what the president is saying is that if he takes the time to get a court
order, the conversation was over 4 days ago. A phone call is a fleeting
thing.
I didn't see the show on TV last week. I've got it TIVOed though and I plan
to check it out. I don't know if I buy that Clinton tried really hard to
kill Osama or not. I do know that he is dishonest though and I take
everything he says with a grain of salt. Regardless of how hard he may have
tried, he did not kill Osama. So that remains to be done. Without getting
into the quagmire of comparisons of administrations, I do feel that Bush has
made a lot more strides in the direction of hitting back at terrorists.
I think we differ greatly on who deserves a fair trial. To my way of
thinking, terrorists caught in the field shooting at us or aiding those who
are, if caught, are prisoners of war. They should be held without trial
until the end of the war. Furthermore, since they are not, nor if offered
would they agree to be, signators of the Geneva Conventions, they are
granted those rights only at our pleasure. Being good Americans though, we
usually treat any prisoners far better than we could expect from them
(remember those beheadings and draggings and burnings)? Of course innocent
people will be detained and I wouldn't want it to happen to me, but I can
tell you, I would thank my lucky stars I was caught by an American!
As far as throwing Americans in jail without trial, I do hate the thought of
it, but have to say that the good of the many must outweight the good of the
one in cases like that. Sometimes you just can't afford to put those people
on trial and have classified evidence revealed. It could cause so much worse
harm. It's really a bad deal. There is no good answer and I don't like have
to decide one way or another what I think about it...
I kind of agree that it was good having a president on one side of the aisle
and a congress on the other...A lot less got done! There are fewer laws
passed and fewer regulations on everyone and everything.
I wonder about that enlightenment you talk about. If you are indeed a
capitalist, do you not see the danger of liberal wealth redistribution? It
ends up killing incentives for people to do well and strive to succeed. Why
would someone work if they got a free place to live and all their bills
paid? (HO, HO, THE WORKING POOR WORK, TOIL AND LABOR EVERYDAY AND
STILL CAN'T PAY THEIR BILLS!!! THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED WORKING POOR!
thinkingblue)
Someone is paying for those things. Why not the one laying on his ass
doing nothing? (YES, LIKE THE SICK, THE OLD AND THE WEE LITTLE
ONES... yup, they are all sitting on their lazy butts... thinkingblue) That's what I mean about the whole liberal ideal being
unsustainable. If you keep taking from the withs and giving it to the
withouts, you eventually lose the economic growth. (ECONOMIC
GROWTH like minimum wage earners who are not paid their worth and worked to
death in sweatshops so the FAT-CATS can keep their high profits they earn
off the backs on the destitute...thinkingblue) If you are prosperous, do
you just put all your money under your mattress? I bet not. You go out and
spend it, which puts it in someone elses (probably poorer) pocket.
(HUH??? Oh Yeah, the SUV GAS GUZZLING purchaser is really helping the
poor... GOOD CREEPY LOGIC... thinkingblue) But you
both benefited! You got a good or service and they got money. (WHO
GOT THE MONEY??? thinkingblue) I see liberals
and democrats wanting to skip the free market benefits in the middle and
just take it from the rich and give it to the poor. (Of course,
the other way around which capitalism is based on... "TAKE, BORROW AND STEAL
FROM THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH", in other words...They
help us (wealthy) stay rich, and in return, we help them stay poor...works
a hellova lot better... AGAIN, HUH??? thinkingblue)
The only ones that
benefit are the politicians with the power to create those rules! Then you
end up with a very powerful politburo and millions of peons. (FOR
PETERS SAKE... WHEN WILL THEY STOP FEARING THE COMMUNISTS... without
possessing an open mind, I guess the answer is NEVER!!! thinkingblue)
Do you follow me? Come on over and join me on the right and see how cool it
is! (Doesn't it get a bit stinky over there with so much BULLPOOPY
flying around...??? SORRY BUT WE COULD NEVER JOIN YOU, STINKY ODORS MAKE US
GAG!!! thinkingblue)
A Warmonger Educates A Peacenik
More Reading:
Defeat the Right in Three Minutes
Conservative? No. Radical, Regressive, and Reckless? Yes.
THE ONE WORLD ORDER: THE CONSERVATIVE CHARADE
The NSA Spy Engine: Echelon
Thinkingblue