Health Care in this country

OK, some might say I'm obsessed with the health care system in this country. They wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I get so frustrated with people. People like my mother. She complains and complains about all the same things I complain about and then she tells me that we shouldn't change health care in America. Her reasoning? We would have to wait for care. I have 3 things to say about that. First, why would we have to wait for care? She claims people in Canada have to wait for care. That may or may not be true. We, however, won't have the same system as Canada so it is irrelevant. Second, if the sicker people went first and the healthy people had to wait longer that would make sense to me. Right now we have a system where if you are healthy or sick it doesn't matter. What matters is that you have money and insurance. If you have money and insurance you are seen by someone eventually. If you are poor and have no health insurance you never get seen and you die of curable illnesses. To me, as a christian, but also as a caring individual, I think that is wrong. Third, I have health insurance and I still have to wait. I have to see certain doctors that are approved by my insurance company. Right now I have a rash on my face and I can't get in to see anyone. The insurance company only approves certain doctors and they aren't taking new patients until August or September. I'm one of the rich folks that has health insurance and I still can't be seen for a rash on my face! If I were in Canada I would go down to the local doctor's office and I may have to wait for awhile but they would look at my face and give me some cream that I would buy for $5. Now, if I do ever get in to see someone, I will pay $15 for the privilege and then they will charge me $100 for the same cream that I need to put on it to clear it up. Imagine if I were not insured but had a job. If I ever got in to see someone I would be charged $150 for the privilege and would be charged $200 for the cream. And if I were poor. Working minimum wage 60 hours a week but still making below the poverty line and with no insurance. I wouldn't ever get to see anyone for the rash on my face. I would have to live with it. IN AMERICA this is unbelievable!



My mom's friend just lost her health insurance at work. This is going to happen more and more to people who work full time but aren't in a union. They can yank your benefits whenever they want to people! She can't get new insurance because she is on medication that she has to take every day. She doesn't have a deadly disease, she doesn't have a disease that requires regular doctor visits or costly treatments. She has something that requires daily medication. She can't get health care! Here in America she can not see doctors because they don't see people who aren't insured. If she does get in with a doctor she will have to pay hundreds of dollars each time she is ill. The right wing would suggest that she must be lazy if she doesn't have health care. I actually had a guy at my daughter's gymnastics class a few weeks ago tell me that we should round up all the people who don't have health care and make them go to a separate hospital. He said the government should have hospitals to deal with those people who don't have health insurance. One would find this shocking except it is a normal belief of right wingers. Only lazy people who don't work don't have health insurance. They are less than human and therefore don't deserve proper medical attention. The people who work hard should be served first and THOSE people without insurance should get the minimum of care if any. Even my mother, by saying that our health care system shouldn't change to cover everyone because that would make us have to wait longer, is really saying that the rich should get the care and the poor should not.



I have a friend whose husband has changed jobs several times over the years. He is in a field that has high turnover. When a project is done he must look for a new job. Frequently he is self employed. They aren't poor. I don't know how much he makes but for a long time he made more than my husband did. They have been paying cobra as health insurance for many many years. $1200 a month. That is a mortgage payment. They have to pay this just to remain insured. They have 2 children. They are afraid to just let their insurance go because someone could get a catastrophic illness and they would be bankrupt. 80% of bankruptcies in this country are due to medical expenses. Every 30 seconds someone goes bankrupt in America due to medical bills. Thanks to the republican congress 6 years ago you can now lose your home if you owe medical bills. So instead my friends pays $1200 a month and then pay the copays and medical bills that I pay (because cobra is just your regular insurance so you still have to pay for health care as much as you did before). Should good, hardworking people get stuck paying $1200 a month just to insure themselves so they can get care when they are sick?



What about the family that works hard but doesn't make more than minimum wage per hour. What about the family of four where both parents work, one may work 2 jobs, but still barely make the rent and food payments. Millions of Americans work hard (longer hours than most middle class folks work) but can't afford more than the basic needs. Health care is out of reach for these people. These are the people you see in the emergency room at 11 pm with their children. Right wingers like to paint them as the lazy losers in the population. The people "living off of the rich". Really, many of these people work harder, work more hours, and are more committed than those who have insurance. Then there are the people who have major medical problems and can no longer work and are forced to "live off of our tax dollars." Many of those illnesses are caused by their poverty and their lack of medical care either as a child or as an adult. This could have been prevented by providing health insurance or health care to all Americans. They would then be able to work and would not be forced to live off of the system. They are victims of our system yet are seen as lazy loafers who just want to live off of all the hardworking Americans in our country. Not all of the people who live off the system are hard workers. There are certainly people out there who take advantage. However, the majority of people in our country and in our world want better lives and are willing to work to get a better life. They don't want to be poor,they don't want to be sick and they don't want a hand out. Their circumstances have put them where they are. Our health care system is helping to keep them where they are. It is time to change that.

The oddest twist to this issue is the people who vote against democrats and don't want health care for everyone but who are actually voting against their own most important issues. For example, pro-lifers vote against democrats and therefore health care for everyone. Health care for everyone, however, would significantly reduce the number of abortions in this country. Ironic. If everyone had access to birth control there would be less unwanted pregnancies and less abortions. If women had access to free prenatal care, free hospital visits for the birth and free medical care for their children there would be fewer abortions. Many women have abortions because they know they won't be able to pay for the birth and the medical care of the child after the birth. A massive portion of family debt in this country is health care costs. Women who have other children may choose not to abort if they weren't so far in debt with their current health care bills.

The most misguided group of people in this country are the small business men. They consistently are talked into voting against themselves and are frequently irrationally angry about the democratic viewpoint. Maybe they are so angry because they realize subconsciously they are voting against their own best interests. It may just be the personality of small business owners (although I do know some very nice rational small business owners). It just seems I've had the worst experience with the republican small business owners who consistently vote against their own best interests. I mentioned the crazy loud guy at my daughter's gymnastics. (He is one of those guys who believes if you are loud then you must be right). He said that he owns a company that makes electrical systems for cars. He is the guy who wants to round up all the poor lazy folks without health insurance and make them go to one hospital. So I asked him how much he pays for health care. He pays $5000 a month for health insurance for himself and his top employees (I assume the other peons in the company don't get health insurance...they are replaceable right?) He doesn't want Obama to make health insurance available to everyone because that would be socialist. He doesn't want Obama to force insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions because that would be socialist. I will address the socialist craziness in a moment. First, lets look at loud guy's bottom line. If health care were affordable to people who are self employed and available to people individually rather than through work this guy would save his business $5000 a month. His employees could find insurance on their own and his employees that currently don't have insurance would be healthier. Those same employees would have more money to possibly go buy something like a CAR that would ultimately help his business. As it is now this guy may not even have a business much longer because of what his party, that he so rabidly (and loudly) defends, did to the economy, and therefore the car sales in this country. This guy is totally voting against his own best interest but he is so worked up because Rush calls Obama's plan socialism that he hasn't stopped to read the plan or think about what socialism is. The funniest part of this story is that this guy suggested I read the socialist health care plan because I must not know what it says. It is obvious he hasn't read anything because the plan isn't anything like the plans of other countries that are more socialized. Obama's plan still goes through the insurance industry.

Socialism is an economic theory of government. It involves government owning all business and passing out the money from those businesses to the people so that everyone is equal. The equality part is what is throwing off the right wingers with the health care system. They are thinking that since all people will have equal access to being healthy then in must be a socialist plot. (actually, the leaders of the party such as Rush know this isn't true but if they say "socialism" to their sheeple followers then their followers will believe and repeat). Equal access to being healthy appears to puzzle people who thrive on the idea that they are the haves and they need to keep the have nots sick and poor. Ironically these are also the people who claim to be the most christian. Apparently they believe that Jesus would have liked the idea that the rich folk get medical care and the poor folk live under a bridge so they can afford their heart medication. I digress. The system of health care in most countries might be considered socialized in that everyone has access to it and the government pays for it (although they pay for it through taxes not by selling goods). However, it involves the health and lives of the citizens not their economic status so these countries are not socialist countries. They are capitalists with health care for everyone. Obama isn't even proposing this type of plan. If loud conservative dude had actually read the plan he would know that Obama's plan continues to work through the insurance companies. He is proposing regulating the system so that everyone can afford to buy health care from an insurance company if they want it. It would not even be required. If you have health care nothing would change for you! If you lost your insurance at work or lost your job or work for a business that doesn't provide insurance you would now be able to purchase health insurance from a company. You would not be able to be excluded just because you are sick. This is not a socialist system at all. The only socialist type event that has occurred recently is when George W. Bush decided to start buying banks. Again I digress.

The most important part of this entire issue is the way the christian right has lobbied against health care for everyone. As mentioned above, I have difficulty believing that Jesus would have been against access to medical care for everyone. I really have a problem with Christians who claim that republicans are the more christian party and overlook this issue completely. I believe that Jesus wants Christians to fight for the poor. I believe he wants us to fight for the sick. I believe Jesus wants us to fight for equality for everyone when it comes to health care. More babies die in this country per capita than in 39 other countries. That is because people may care a lot about fetuses but those same people vote against providing the mothers who choose not to abort with prenatal care! How can people vote for someone because they believe women should CHOOSE life but then vote against providing prenatal care, vaccinations, and health care for those same babies after they are born? How can people claim to be "for the troops" and then vote against increasing money to care for their health when they return? How can people brag about their superior christian beliefs but then vote against providing health care for every person in our country regardless of their economic status? People die from curable illnesses because they can't afford to see a doctor (or can't find one to see them) and that is OK with some Christians as long as they don't have to wait longer for care themselves. How can Christians say that poor people deserve to be sick because they are too lazy to get good paying jobs? It is time to make health care a christian issue in America. It is time for Christians to stand up and say that every person deserves the same chance to live healthy. Jesus walked among the lepers and made them healthy. Jesus knew that lepers are people. Lepers are not sick through any fault of their own and God loves them. God still loves the poor and we, as Christians, should follow his lead.

Frank Schaeffer's letter to the Republicans

If you've read my blog at all you know that I believe the religious right is responsible for ruining the Christian religion (and will ultimately be the cause of it's downfall in America), ruining the Republican party and ruining our country. I just love it when I find articles by former religious right republicans who have seen the light and the error of their ways. This is a particularly good one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/open-letter-to-the-republ_b_172822.html
Enjoy!

Wake up America!!

I'm so tired of listening to conservatives spout off republican talking points without thinking about them first. I can't take it anymore. OK, so that sounds melodramatic. Really, though, these are intelligent people who obviously have not actually thought about what is best for the country or themselves but they listen to conservatives tell them what to think and then they repeat it to whomever will listen. I just want to smack them and say, "THINK FOR YOURSELF!" Rush, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich and all the other talking heads don't care about you. You are middle class. When they are talking about what is best for America they are not talking about YOU! Let me be more specific.

My current pet peeve is this "socialist" or "communist" talking point and the no taxes talking point. I must point out that taxes are a necessary part of our society. Our forefathers fought against taxation without representation which is why we have to vote on tax levies and bonds and why we send representatives and senators to congress to vote on our behalf. Taxes pay for most of what your family has done today. They pay for your child's school, books, teachers, buses and probably their sports programs. They pay for the bridges you drive on and the roads you drive on and all the signs and stop lights and the planning that went into creating those. Taxes pay for the police officers and all of their equipment and programs and cars and the firemen and all of their trucks and equipment. Taxes pay for 911. Taxes pay for our judges and elected officials and all of their staff. Taxes pay for the EPA, the FDA, homeland security and FEMA and every other federal agency that makes sure you have clean drinking water, safe toys and cribs and cars. Taxes pay our for our military. They pay for our tanks and planes, they pay for every bullet. They pay the salaries of the men and women who fight for us and they pay for their care when they return wounded. Taxes pay for veteran's benefits when they retire. Taxes pay for your mother's stay in the nursing home and her medication and visits to the doctor. Taxes pay for services for children who are born disabled so they can get a wheelchair or visit the doctor or learn how to take care of themselves when they are grown up. We need taxes to function as a country. So if you think you shouldn't be paying any taxes at all you already have a serious problem in my opinion.

Now, I do agree that we don't want to pay more taxes than we have to pay. This could be the point that we argue about. Too many conservatives, however, don't want to pay any taxes at all and I'm tired of hearing from you people. Now, for the past 8 years republicans have cut taxes for people making more than $250,000 per year. No, that is not you!!! When Rush and Sean and Newt say that "we" are going to pay more taxes under Obama they mean themselves. The people who make over $250,000 per year. Not you!! Everyone who calls the radio or who talks to me on the street thinks they were getting a tax cut from the republicans and that they are going to lose this cut under the democrats. I think it is safe to say that if you are talking to me about taxes or you are calling a radio show you are not the person who was getting the tax cuts! Stop believing these talking heads that are telling you that repealing this tax cut is going to effect you. It is not going to effect you because you aren't making enough money! Nor will you be. Only the top 1% of our population is effected. They are running the company you work for or running the company your company is servicing. It isn't you. And, if by chance it is you, then shame on you for bitching about paying your fair share of taxes for the fist time in 8 years. We have a deficit higher than all the deficits that we have ever had added all together. WE have this deficit because the republicans spent more money than the Clinton administration but collected less taxes. (Clinton left office with a SURPLUS after inheriting a huge deficit from Reagan/Bush). If you have less income as a government you can't spend more or you get a deficit. Simple math!!! If you have less income personally but you spend 100x more than you are spending now then you will have a deficit as well. They call democrats tax and spend liberals but the republicans have become don't tax but keep spending "conservatives." How are you going to run the government with no tax income? 95% of Americans will get a tax cut under Obama's plan (those making under $250,000) and 97% of businesses are getting a tax cut. That must be made up by repealing the tax cut for the rich people. They have money and are doing fine in the recession. They have the money to pay taxes and they are simply going back to paying the taxes they were paying in the 90's. Chances are that under this plan you will be paying less tax or the same tax you are paying now. Wake up and think for yourself!!

Next, I must address this trickle down theory that was put forth in the 80's and has never ever worked. The theory is that you cut taxes for the rich folks and then they save so much money that they hire people to work for them which creates jobs. If you have paid attention at all we have discovered in the past 30 years that it does not work. Cutting taxes for rich people just makes rich people richer. They don't hire more people, they move their business overseas and hire people to work for 25 cents an hour and they keep all that extra cash for themselves. Crazy conservatives call Stephanie Miller every day and complain about the CEO's who are making 60 million dollars a year and flying private jets and collecting bonuses while they fire Americans because their company is going under. Those people are making so much because of laws and tax cuts created by conservatives!! I know Rush blames liberals but he is lying. It is conservatives that have made the wealthy become more wealthy by giving them tax cuts and loopholes to hide their money and by actually giving them money to move their companies overseas. If you think it is the liberals then you are the victim of the biggest snow job of our lifetime. The current conservative party built on the idea that you make the wealthiest people more wealthy in order to help our economy and you are voting for it if you are voting for a republican. Wake up! Look at the "stimulus" that George Bush tried. He gave each of us $500 2X in his presidency. We all paid it toward our huge credit card debt and continued on with our lives. That didn't stimulate anything but it did fool people who aren't paying attention into believing they are getting a tax break. In the meantime your medical bills went up 70% in 2001, you started paying 3X more for gas and the republicans made it possible for you to lose your house if you can't pay your medical bills. So rather than gaining $500 twice you really lost thousands of dollars to the big rich oil, insurance, pharmaceutical companies. These companies all paid huge bonuses to their CEO's (who already make tens of millions per year) and they cut back middle class jobs. They did so well under Bush that they paid for his inauguration the second time (as well as is re-election). What other stimulus did Bush offer? He gave money to help the oil companies in every single budget. They made record profits and got government money because they needed "help." He also handed out cash to big businesses including AIG and the car companies. Somehow the conservatives have turned this around as if it were Obama handing out money to business. It was BUSH. Once Bush started that plan Obama has had to carry it out. He inherited this mess and he has to continue with the plan to bail out banks until he can implement his plan.

What is Obama's plan? The conservative talking heads have done a great job of getting out misinformation and of talking the sheep that listen to them into believing it is a bad idea. In reality, Obama does not want to just pass out money to companies and trust that they will do the right thing. He doesn't want to just pass out money to people and hope they will go buy a new TV (which is what Bush did). These conservatives keep saying that he is just passing out money to poor people and that is socialist. They keep saying he is passing out money to companies and that is communist. In reality it was Bush that passed out money to people, not Obama. Obama's plan doesn't pass out money to anyone (except the addition that the REPUBLICANS added). Obama's plan says that if you are going to get money from the government then you have to work. He is putting money into jobs. The government will hire companies (thus helping all of those businesses that are hurting and forcing them to hire employees) to work on America's infrastructure. These jobs can't be shipped to other countries, they will have to hire Americans. These people will work to repair bridges, start green technology, and build the medical records technology in America (among other things). All of those people who get hired to work will then have money. They will spend that money to buy things that other companies make. They will buy a car from Ford and a sofa from Macy's and food from a local restaurant. This will help Ford and Macy's and the restaurant afford to hire people and those people will have money to buy stuff like cars and clothes and furniture. In the meantime our roads and bridges and levies will be safer and updated, our country will move into the 21st century with green technology and people will be able to afford to buy stuff. All of these conservatives pretend like they don't know how this job creation bill will stimulate the economy and people believe them. I promise that my 11 year old daughter could understand this simple job creation plan and you could too if you would just pay attention!!

I must talk about health care here too. I absolutely do not understand people who do not want health care for everyone. OK, so some people don't care that we are 39th in the world for health care here in America. Some people don't care that newborn babies are more likely to die here than they are in 40 other countries around the world. Some people don't care that people in America die every single day of curable illnesses because they don't have access to health care because we are THE ONLY industrialized nation that has a for profit health care system. Perhaps people don't care about all of THOSE people. As a christian I frankly can't grasp how people don't care but they don't so I won't use compassion and empathy and just plain doing what is right as a reason for health care for everyone. What about money as an argument? Now there is an argument conservatives can sink their teeth into. Why are car companies having trouble competing with Japanese and European car companies? Is it really labor unions as the conservatives claim? No. Japanese and Europeans pay their people just as well. The average union worker makes $12 an hour to start and $25 an hour by the end of their life. Those inflated numbers you hear on Rush are including the benefits and health care of the workers!! It is the millions of dollars of health care costs that make it impossible for car companies to compete. They have to pay health care for all of their people whereas the other companies don't have these costs. Why do companies open factories in Canada rather than the US? Health care costs. Why do companies move factories overseas? Health care costs. Why do small businesses have trouble making ends meet? Health care costs. If you own your own business how much are you paying for health insurance for your family? How much are you paying per year for health care for your employees and their families? If you don't offer health care for your employees then how much are they paying out of their salary to get health insurance or to pay the enormous medical bills for their families? We work for a big company and have great health insurance. I have asthma but other than that we have no major illnesses in our family. We paid $9,000 for health care last year. That is $9,000 out of our pocket after insurance paid their share! We just moved and I called a pediatrician's office to make an appointment. The first question they ask is, "Do you have insurance?" If not my kids wouldn't be seen. We would have to wait until they got really really sick and then we would have to take them to the ER and pay huge sums of money to try to heal them. This is unacceptable in America and it is bringing down America's businesses and America's families. Each time you vote for a conservative you are voting for this. Wake up America!!

I know, Rush starts screaming socialist whenever we talk about health care for everyone and the conservatives get all nervous that socialism is coming to America. What exactly what does that mean? If every person in America can see a doctor when they are sick is that socialism? Does that mean our entire financial system will be socialist? Every other industrialized nation in the world offers health care to whomever needs it. Are they all socialist nations? Is England scary? I can just hear the music sting in the background when Rush says socialism. It wasn't until Nixon that we started thinking that companies should make millions of dollars off the illnesses of the American people. England started national health care while fighting the Nazis yet Rush and other conservatives are now saying that national health care would make us Nazis. This name calling doesn't have any validity yet it scares conservatives into spouting the party line of no health care in America. Stop being scared by this BS. If we are a so called "Christian Nation" and we all are Christians then how can we say that only rich people and upper middle class people should have access to health care? Obama's health care proposal doesn't even make health care free to everyone. His plan only makes it possible for everyone to buy health insurance. How could that possibly be seen as socialist? Everyone would still be paying for health insurance and paying for health care. The insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and doctors will still be making millions a year off our sick population. I wish his plan were more like that of England, France and yes even Canada. Unfortunately Obama's plan is still a for profit health care system that at least provides an opportunity for people to see a doctor but still, ultimately, provides money for big business. Another good thing about the system, however, is that I believe eventually people will buy cheaper health insurance on their own and companies won't go bankrupt trying to provide health insurance for employees. Ultimately small business will benefit the most (yet small business owners everywhere don't realize they would benefit because they listen to the talking points instead of using common sense).

I've already talked at length in other posts about my aversion to the "Bush kept us safe" argument but I must briefly reiterate my opposition to this crazy talk. On April 9th, 2004, Condoleezza Rice, acting as the national security advisor, testified before the 9/11 Commission. She admitted that President Bush had received a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States" as early as August 6, 2001. She said that the president did not act on this information although the memo mentioned the possibility of terrorist sleeper cells in the United States. This report also suggested that the terrorists may be interested in flying airplanes into US buildings including the Twin Towers. President Clinton and his staff also stated that they attempted to brief Bush and his staff about the dangers of Osama Bin Laden but Bush would spend those briefing attempting to get information about Saddam Hussein and would ignore information about Bin Laden. Clinton's staff became very frustrated with Bush and his staff and their disregard for what they saw as the largest threat to national security. Clinton had spent years tracking Bin Laden and attempting to kill or capture him and tried to express his concerns to Bush as the transition took place. Bush ignored him as he continued to focus on Saddam Hussien.

Bush oversaw the worst terrorist attack in US history. On September 11th over 3000 American citizens were killed because he refused to pay attention to security memos and briefings. Bush did not keep us safe from terrorists while he was President. Bush oversaw the largest national security failure of our generation. Rather than be embarrassed by this failure the Republicans have chosen to tout this failure as a wonderful thing that Bush did to save our country. Bush then diverted the forces away from capturing those involved in Sept. 11th and send them to Iraq to go after an old, benign dictator who hated Al Queda and who had not had any power since the Iraq war. By doing so, Bush created a terrorist haven in a country that had no terrorists, and he emboldened Iran and Syria. Bush also successfully helped to destabilize Pakistan (who has nuclear weapons), left Afghanistan so early that it destabilized, and pushed for elections in Palestine which resulted in the democratic election of Hamas. Bush did not attempt any peace negotiations until his final year therefore helping to cause the Israeli/Palestinian conflict several years ago. During Bush's term in office terrorism around the world increased. No, there were not any other attacks within our country during those 7 years but that doesn't mean we were safer nor does it mean that we should overlook the tremendous failure that resulted in 9/11. The world is much less safe thanks to Bush's foreign policy decisions. Wake up America!

Finally, I must question the thought process of those people who say that democrats are going to take away our rights. To what rights are you referring? Democrats are all about giving rights to everyone and making sure everyone gets a fair shake in this world. Just think about the ACLU that conservatives love to complain about. They were the ones that got Christians the rights they have in our country and they are trying to help other religious groups get the same rights. Democrats are saying that homosexual people should have the same rights as heterosexual people. Republicans are the ones trying to make government in charge of moral decisions and your personal rights. Republicans are supposed to be against big government yet they want the government to decide who can get married. They want the government to force women to have babies. They want the government to be involved in decisions to turn off life support when our loved ones are kept alive by machines. They want government to make moral decisions and tell us what our kids can learn about birth control and how to protect themselves from diseases. Republicans are for government control of our moral and personal decisions which means more government not less in our lives. I really want to know one right that democrats are trying to take from the American people. Just because the republican talking heads say that democrats are taking away your rights doesn't make it true. People say these things without really thinking through what they mean or whether it is a fact. I need Americans to wake up from their daze and their zombie like following of Fox news talking points and use their brains to make decisions. See these "facts" as what they are. They are lies. No child left behind teaches kids to memorize facts for a test and not think for themselves. This fits in exactly with the Republican ideology. Pay no attention to the truth of what is happening in America. Simply listen to what we say is going on and then go repeat it to the world. If we say it enough it won't have to be true, it will become "fact".

The fact is that we need taxes to function as a country. The fact is that if you make less than $250,000 a year you will pay the same tax or less tax than you did before. The fact is that investing government money to build infrastructure is not a communist or socialist program. It is actually a lot like FDR's new deal. The fact is that you are more likely to die in this country of a curable illness than you are in 39 other countries. The fact is that Obama's health care plan is far from socialist and just makes health insurance premiums affordable and available to all Americans. The fact is that Republicans would like the government to become bigger and more involved in your personal decisions and personal lives while the democrats would like you to be in charge of your own life and let government focus on governing. The fact is that we are not as safe as we were 8 years ago and that is a direct result of the decisions made by George W. Bush and his cronies. The fact is that many Americans don't know these facts because they listen to people who lie to them all day so they will follow an ideology that keeps them poor, dependent on government and hate filled.

Please wake up! Read the stimulus plan for yourself and see what it really does. Read Obama's health care plan for yourself and see that it will benefit big business, small business, and regular Americans equally. Read the national security reports and see that all 21 intelligence agencies have agreed for years that we are less safe because of our decisions. Don't just listen to me. Go and read and think for yourself. The information is out there if people would care to stop listening to the talking heads and getting frightened by words like "socialism" and "Nazis." I have a bumper sticker that says "Nov. 4th, 2008, Hope won over fear." Don't let words and lies scare you into not thinking. Let the truth help you wake up.

Religious right should put politics aside

Once again I found a writer who wrote exactly what I was thinking but better than I could say it.

Cal Thomas commentary: Religious right should put politics aside
Saturday, November 8, 2008 3:21 AM
By Cal Thomas

When Barack Obama takes office in 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called religious right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, it was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those movements, from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful), had mixed results.
Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren't anywhere near as successful as those that focus on changing hearts.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative evangelical image has failed. So, should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for something else.
Too many conservative evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
Too many conservative evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?
The answer depends on the response to another question: Do conservative evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to more of the same?
If results are what conservative evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus. Suppose millions of conservative evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans," not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God's love for the whole person in order that people might seek him?
Such a strategy could be more transformational than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, write books and make gobs of money.
Scripture teaches that God's power (if that is what conservative evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow's mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of oneself, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior kingdom?
Evangelicals can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the one they claim to follow. By following his example, they will decrease, but he will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for but can never achieve in and through politics.
Cal Thomas writes for Tribune Media Services.
tmseditors@tribune.com

Comment on today's Christianity

My husband sent me a link to an article in PC USA magazine by Charles March entitled "What it means to be a Christian after George W. Bush." You can link to the article below. You may have noticed I haven't been writing my own stuff on my blog lately. That is because people like this can write what I'm thinking so much better than I can. Finally Christians in America are coming to their senses and realizing that they are Christian first and Americans second. Finally Christians in America are realizing that following the teaching of Jesus should trump party loyalty and national pride. Finally Christians in America are speaking up and taking back their faith from those who have twisted it into something violent and vengeful and sick.

The following is one paragraph in this remarkable article. It highlights that Christians frequently have become misguided in history. Christians have used the Bible to support ideas and beliefs that are actually not supported by the true meaning of the Bible.

March wrote:
"I came of age in the American South in the 1960s, and the moral values shared by most families in the churches of my childhood were deeply interwoven with our culture’s hold on white supremacy. The vigilant and quite often neurotic defense we made of the Southern Way of Life blinded us not only to the sufferings of African-Americans — the victims of our collective self-righteousness — but also to our spiritual arrogance and group pride. We believed that our conception of Christianity and our cherished family values were the most wholesome and pure the world had ever known. Inside this serene delusion, we presumed ourselves to be paragons of virtue, although we rarely lifted a finger to help anyone but our own."

How insightful! This is the perfect example of how our own beliefs and values can be supported by verses in the Bible and by the church when infact they are contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. When we overlook the true meaning of the Bible and simply try to support our own agenda and belief system we will certainly find evidence to back it up but we will lose the true meaning of the word in the long run. Christians have advocated this war for 6 years now stating that we are spiritually better than them. Christians have believed that we are better because we have democracy or we have Jesus or we have values or we have "freedom" and therefore we have virtue. In reality we have no virtue when we worship our country and our flag and our President and ignore our God and His words to us. It truely is the great delusion of our time. Read more by following the link below!


http://www.pres-outlook.com/tabid/2282/Article/7231/Default.aspx

The Truth about the War in Iraq

Finally the press has put all of the information about how the United States ended up in a war with Iraq into one news story. The lies and misinformation have always been out there individually but no one has ever been able to put them together so that people can really grasp the breadth of the deception that was perpetrated upon the American people. Apparently it took the foreign press, Canada, to put it all together for us. The American press, although they have apologized for helping to spread the lies that led up to the war, continue to be too afraid of the administration to compile all of the information and let their viewers watch it. It is no wonder that the world is baffled by our complacency.

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/lies/video.html

The scariest quote ever

This is officially the scariest quote I've ever read. This man wants to be the next President of the United States.

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards."

Mike Huckabee, January 14, in Warren Michigan

Fight'm Over There!?!

Is the American psyche really so fragile? Do we take on view and beliefs based on a bumper sticker type sound bite that have been repeated millions of times by our government and its’ propaganda machine? “Fight’m over there so we don’t fight’m over here” is one such sound bite that has penetrated the American psyche and become truth to millions of Americans. This sound bite, however, has no basis in reality and does not even make sense on multiple levels. It doesn’t stop millions of Americans from repeating it ad nauseam as a reason to continue a war seemingly forever. “Fight’m over there” has become the mantra of conservatives all over the United States.

First I must point out that 9/11 happened not because of terrorists “over there” but because of terrorists already here. There were people being trained by United States citizens to fly planes. Yes, they may have been acting on orders from people “over there” but taking over any number of countries would not have stopped this act. There was no single country that was responsible for this attack. 9/11 was planned by a few individuals and carried out by a handful more. Most of these individuals were from Saudi Arabia.

Sometimes the government and the media like to pretend that they have no idea why the terrorists attacked us. In fact, these individuals carried out this attack because of our policies and interference with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other middle eastern nations. We know this because they told us. We helped them drive Russia from Afghanistan and then we ignored them while the Taliban took over. We attacked Iraq and drove them out of Kuwait and then we left them with permanent basis in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We have left troops in their countries and they don’t like it. Fighting “over there” actually caused the attack over here.

Our recent efforts to fight over there have destabilized the entire region much more than had we left it alone. Everyone in this country supported the invasion of Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden. Everyone in this country supported the U.S. troops’ use of force to oust the Taliban government in Afghanistan. President Bush, however, pulled our forces out of this country in the middle of the operation in order to begin another war. The direct result of this decision was the destabilization of Afghanistan and the escape of Osama bin Laden. Our brave and heroic military had Osama bin Laden on the run and hiding. All they had to do was go find him. Rather than finish the job Bush ordered that they let local groups capture him so that Bush could pull the troops out and send them to Iraq. This resulted in Osama bin Laden paying off the locals so that he could escape. Now, if Bush was really out to get the 9/11 terrorists “smoke’m out, dead or alive, head on a silver platter” then why would he allow bin Laden to escape? By leaving Afghanistan prematurely it allowed the Taliban to come back in and retake much of the region. Right after 9/11 the conservatives were suddenly so concerned with women’s rights in Afghanistan and the horrendous living conditions imposed by the Taliban for women in the region. Then they left those women to suffer the same fate at the hands of the same group so that they could go fight in Iraq. The irony is that the U.S. did the exact same thing after we helped free Afghanistan from Russia and this is why Osama bin Laden first started to hate us. The United States trained bin Laden to fight the Russians and we promised him support. When the Russians left we did not support the new government and this allowed the Taliban to take control and made Osama bin Laden our enemy. This is not ancient history. Why did we not learn from it?

We have also destabilized Pakistan because of our meddling. The Pakistani President supported the U.S. and let the U.S. use his country to attack Afghanistan. This left him vulnerable to extremists who are anti-American and paint him as a collaborator with the United States and the west. As our reputation as an inhumane conqueror of middle eastern countries grows the Pakistani President’s enemies gain ground politically. Destabilization in this country is extremely dangerous because they have nuclear capability. If terrorists or even an unfriendly elected government takes over Pakistan the region could be in BIG trouble. It would be our fault.

Then there is the entire Arabian Peninsula. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some people, who aren’t paying attention, still believe that they were somehow involved even though Bush and Cheney both have said clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It is another example of saying something enough that it becomes true in the minds of citizens. The media and the conservatives have linked Iraq and 9/11 in sentences so many times that people are confused. It is obvious that this was intentional. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He did terrible things to the people of Iraq. Everyone agrees that this is a fact. The problem is that there are many evil leaders in the world. At what point does another country need to step in and stop this evil from taking place? International law says that we cannot invade another country unless they are a threat to us. The Downing Street minutes made it quite clear that we did not have any evidence that Iraq could in any way be a threat to the United States. The Iraq inspectors said that Iraq was not a danger to the United States. To solve the problem the United States deliberately fabricated evidence to make it seem like we had evidence that Iraq was a threat to us so that we could invade. There is a mountain of evidence that the United States deliberately deceived the people of the world into believing that Iraq was a threat when in fact it was not a threat to anyone.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with saving the Kurds. Saddam did attack the Kurds with a terrible nerve gas but this was before the first Gulf War. My husband and others fought in this war so that Saddam would no longer have the power to do such a thing. It worked. He was no longer a threat to his neighbors and did not posses any weapons of mass destruction that he could use against his own people, his neighbors or especially not us. Saddam also was an enemy to the Taliban, Al Queda and Osama bin Laden. Any one in Al Queda would have been in grave danger in Iraq. Had we played our cards differently Saddam would have probably helped us round up any Al Queda members in Iraq … if there were any. Evidence shows that there were not any because Saddam was careful not to let anyone like that in his country live. Again, not necessarily a positive trait however it ruins any argument that we were going after the terrorists who caused 9/11 when we attacked Iraq.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with protecting the Iraqis from torture. I think we proved this when we started torturing them even using some of the same techniques that Saddam used. If you are going to claim moral superiority as a reason to take over a country then you have to maintain moral superiority during the fight. We have not.

Another argument about Iraq that I have heard a lot from conservatives is that Saddam was thinking about making weapons of mass destruction. International law does not really allow you to bomb or take over a country because of what they might be thinking about doing sometime in the future. They created this law so that countries could not invade other countries claiming that there might be a threat at some time. If all countries ignored the law as we have then everyone could invade whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without consequence. When Pakistan developed their nuclear weapons program we stopped China and India from wiping them off the planet by using the argument that you can’t bomb a country just because they may be a threat sometime in the future. Actually, Hitler used the argument that he could invade Poland because he thought they might be a threat sometime in the future. Hitler also had his own army fake attacks against Germany and blame Poland in an attempt to show a reason to attack Poland. Look how that worked out. Maybe these international laws were created for a reason!

The destabilization in Iraq was the biggest miscalculation and mistake (if it was a mistake) in military history. The country of Iraq was glued together with gum and twine, which was only held together by Saddam. As evil as he was, he was the only thing that held together the Sunnis the Shiites and the Kurds in relative peace and tranquility. These three groups shared neighborhoods, shopped at the same markets and worked together peacefully under Saddam. Christians and Jews, although in the minority, were also a part of these communities. Iraq was not an ideal situation, however the sectarian violence that we see today was not present. Even after the start of the Iraq War the sectarian violence did not exist until the U.S. started it. I saw an entire PBS special about this very topic. Top military and diplomatic leaders from the United States made serious mistakes after the invasion that resulted in the current sectarian violence. Those responsible admit this freely. Why does the mainstream American public not recognize this? Also, by starting this war in Iraq we have let Al Queda come into a country where they could not exist before. They continue to be a very small part of the problem in Iraq, however before we opened the door for them they were not a part of the equation at all.

Iran was the next country who was changed by our involvement in the region. Iran has an extremely young population (mostly because of the war with Iraq years ago). This population of young people is one of the most progressive populations in all of the middle east. They overwhelmingly like and approve of the United States and western culture and have many more individual rights and freedoms than their middle eastern counterparts. Although they elected their current prime minister, Ahmadinejad, public opinion was against him. He had been trying to take away some of the freedoms that the younger generation had come to enjoy and they were ready to get rid of him. Not only that but one must remember that he actually has very little control over foreign policy in Iraq. He is the figure head of the government. He is not the one in control. According to the constitution, the supreme leader of Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has the last say in internal and foreign policies including the commandment of the armed forces and the declaration of war.

Public opinion was so negative toward Ahmadinejad that many people expected that he would not continue to be Prime Minister much longer. Unfortunately, the United States has succeeded in changing much of this public opinion and has instead helped Ahmadinejad remain Prime Minister. First Bush identified Iran as the “Axis of Evil.” This served to scare the Iranians into believing that Bush may just start attacking them for no reason just as he had done to Iraq. Then, when Ahmadinejad started to stand up for Iran and faced off with Bush this helped him gain popularity with Iranians who had been ready to get rid of him. Nothing helps secure your popularity like standing up to a bully in support of your country. It makes no difference that the man is crazy and a loose cannon. To the Iranians, he is willing to protect them and stand up against the United States which is necessary now that the United States is ignoring international law and randomly attacking other countries.

Now, if you were a country that had been identified as belonging to the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and North Korea what would you do? Iraq could do nothing because they had been sanctioned for 15 years so they were invaded and taken over. First Jimmy Carter and then Madeline Albright had negotiated with North Korea to keep them from developing a nuclear program. North Korea had been cooperating for years (although they occasionally flexed their muscles and had to be “dealt with”). North Korea decided to stop cooperating with those agreements the day after the axis of evil speech. They turned off the agreed upon cameras and started their nuclear program back up again. Bush ignored North Korea because he was distracted by Iraq and because he refuses to speak to North Korea and now North Korea has a nuclear program. Now Bush would not dream of invading North Korea.

The Iranians were left with little choice but to start talking about nuclear technology. Bush refused to speak to Iran diplomatically and instead continued to call them names and attempt to provoke them. Bush has placed huge war ships in the Persian Gulf in an obvious attempt to provoke Iran and even forced a false flag episode between Iran and Britain. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad has not been easily provoked. He returned the British seamen after the false flag event and put all nuclear interests on hold after diplomatic talks with several countries (NOT the United States) in 2003. Bush was informed by all 16 intelligence agencies in August (or even before) that Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003 because of diplomatic pressure by other countries. Bush, however, continued his bomb Iran, axis of evil rhetoric until November when the NIE became public. Joe Biden said it best when he stated that Bush was either lying or incompetent and asked Bush to pick which. Bush has known for many months, if not years that Iran was no threat to us and had no nuclear program yet he continued to try to mislead Americans into believing that we were about to go to war with Iran. Had the NIE not been made public by the intelligence agencies Bush may have even started World War III with the blessing of many Americans who did not know the truth. When Ahmadinejad begins to look like a reasonable man seeking peace and stability compared to your own leader you must begin to wonder what we, as Americans, are doing.
The entire situation becomes even more muddled when you consider the role of CIA agent Valerie Plame in the mix of events. Most people have assumed that Valerie Plame was revealed as a CIA agent and her career ruined as retribution for her husband, Joe Wilson’s, revelation that a sentence in the President’s state of the union address was false. Wilson had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from this country. Joe Wilson found no such evidence and reported this to the President. The President, however, included the claim that Iraq had yellow cake uranium from Niger in his state of the union address. Joe Wilson publicly announced that this was not true. His wife’s cover was then blown by the administration including Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Although the right wing propaganda machine insists Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, the CIA, congressional hearings and other public records show that she was, indeed, a covert agent working on nuclear proliferation cases. She was traveling around the world as a covert agent attempting to keep the United States safe by reporting on nuclear activity in other countries including Iran. This brings a new question to mind. Was Valerie Plame’s identity revealed in order to ruin the CIA’s ability to monitor nuclear activity in the middle east and especially in Iran. By outing Valerie Plame the Bush administration not only ruined her long career but also endangered her contacts and put in jeopardy the entire web of contacts and informants of the CIA. This most certainly hindered their ability to accurately inform the President of nuclear proliferation for several years while they re-built their informant list and undercover web. That entire ordeal may have been an attempt to begin another war based on false intelligence and fear.

Iran is intimately connected to our invasion of Iraq in another even more important way. Iraq was formerly controlled by the Sunni sect. Although the sects were able to live together under Saddam it was the Sunni people that were the leading class while the Shiites had little power. Iran is a Shiite nation. When the United States invaded Iraq and created a new government the United States backed the Shiite people to run the country. They tried to set up a democracy where all people could have a say in the government but it was the Shiites that would have controlled the government if everything had gone the way the United States had planned. It does not take a genius to figure out how this fact may influence the future of that region. Iran would love to have Iraq led by Shiites. That would be their dream come true. The conservative talking heads keep complaining about Iran giving weapons to Iraqis. They would only be giving them to the Shiite’s who were originally on our side. We should have seen that one coming and should expect nothing less. The Saudi’s, on the other hand, are supplying more weapons and people than any foreign non-allied nation in the entire war. Saudi Arabia backs the Sunnis who were the original group fighting AGAINST the United States. The Sunnis are the ones who did not participate in the original elections and fought our troops. Why didn’t we hear the administration and the conservative talking heads complaining about Saudi Arabia’s involvement? Bush never mentions Saudi Arabia’s involvement and the fact that they are fighting against us in Iraq because he is friends with the royal family and needs to remain their friend for their oil.

Bush has also destabilized Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. The last thing Clinton did before leaving office was to have peace talks and work out an agreement with Israel and Palestine. I’ve seen him speak extensively about his decision to make this a priority in the last months of his Presidency and his struggle to bring peace to that region. Everyone, of course, understands that peace is tenuous at best in that region and that these peace talks were but a first step. Bush, however, has not continued this effort. He has deliberately avoided any peace talks with any country in the past 7 years. He pushed for elections in Lebanon even though several other countries cautioned him that it was too soon. Other leaders understood that elections in Lebanon would mean Hezbollah would win. Bush ignored them and Hezbollah and another anti-Syrian group won most of the seats in Parliament. This election then led to the war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006. After the war began the United States refused to force peace talks between the nations and allowed the fighting to continue until the U.N. finally put a stop to the violence.

Another factor in that war was Iran. Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran all felt much more comfortable that they could “get away with” violence in the region with the United States bogged down in a quagmire of violence in Iraq. Lebanon’s newly formed government was overwhelmingly Shiite and supported by Iran. The government was also anti Syria. With the United States preoccupied and without their usual moral authority (it is hard to tell people not to fight each other when you have invaded a sovereign nation without cause or provocation) it was the perfect time for Lebanon to provoke Israel. After the short war, southern Lebanon was left destroyed. The United States offered money to the government to rebuild but Iran gave cash to each person whose home was destroyed by the war. Iran sent contractors and equipment and started the rebuilding efforts the next day. Ahmadinejad may be an extremist with some crazy ideas but he knows how to turn popular opinion.

Attacking Iran at this point would be the final nail in the complete annihilation of a stabile middle east. The United States does not have the military force to sustain an attack against Iran. Right now we could still undo some of the damage and preserve the support of the Iranian people. They like the west and western ideas. If we bomb them we have lost it forever. We would also gain nothing by bombing Iran. Ahmadinejad would become more powerful. Syria, Lebanon and even their arch enemy Iraq would support them instead of us. China would even be angry with us and they hold all of our war debt and have the capability of crashing our entire economic system. It is time for diplomacy with Iran and it is time to stop the threats of more war that we can not possibly sustain. Iran has a much stronger army than we do at this point. We would have to reinstitute the draft to sustain a war with Iran. All of this to stop a country from gaining nuclear capabilities in possibly 10 years that they could never ever hope to use. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. Iran will never be stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon toward Israel. They would be just like Pakistan is now. They would have a nuclear weapon that they could never use. It would simply be insurance that no one would mess with them. More nuclear weapons is certainly not the best idea. The more there are the more chance there is that some terrorist will have access to one. Now, however, is the time for diplomacy to stop the further development of these weapons. Threats of war will only encourage countries to develop them to protect themselves.

Finally, and most important to our safety AT HOME, all of our policies in the middle east have increased terrorism around the world. If our goal was really to fight terrorism we have done a terrible job of achieving our goal. The United States has helped Al Queda in ways that they could have never previously dreamed possible. On 9/11 we had the sympathy of every nation in the world. Even our enemies offered to help us and were willing to give us the perpetrators. The United States has turned many of those countries against us. By invading a sovereign nation with no means to defend itself we did not look heroic and strong but like a bully picking on a child. By lying and ignoring international laws we have become hated and maligned. By stooping to the level of the terrorists and torturing people, we have helped fuel an insurgence and a groundswell of support for Al Queda. Al Queda makes 100 times the amount of money they used to make and that money is coming from Iraq. Most of the money supporting Al Queda is coming from United States tax dollars in Iraq says a recent national security document. Contractors pay off Iraqis who then fund Al Queda. There could have been no better recruiting tool for Al Queda than to start another war in the middle east. Bush has given Osama bin Laden another gift. The gift of another generation of extremists who hate the United States more than the first and who are willing to die for that hate. Osama bin Laden is still alive to gloat because we let him go. Americans are much less safe because of our policies abroad and everyone in the world knows it but us.

There are things that would make us safer at home. Increasing border security would make us safer. Inspecting all cargo entering the United States would make us safer. Developing a better system for identifying foreign citizens who have stayed longer than their visa permitted our who have come to America on a student visa but have never attended a class would make us safer. There are hundred of ways to make our country safer here at home. The 9/11 commission had many suggestions that the administration has completely ignored. Bush is convinced the only way to fight terrorism is to ignore the problems at home and invade countries abroad. This has only made us more vulnerable. Fighting them over there does not mean they will not come over here. It only gives them more reason to come over here. We need to stop listening to this nonsensical rhetoric and adopt the suggestions of the 9/11 commission. Now that democrats control congress they have started this very process but they need a veto proof majority to do it. Bush would rather veto bills that adopt 9/11 commission recommendations than admit that he should have done them 5 years ago.

Another thing that would make us safer at home would be to have our troops home. They would be here to help us during natural disasters such as Katrina. They would be here to help patrol our borders and inspect cargo. They would be here to defend us during an attack. They would be stronger if they were well rested and trained properly. They would be ready to defend us abroad if needed. They would be stronger if they could buy the proper vehicles and armor and build up their forces. We would be safer at home if we had a strong military that was ready to defend against a real enemy.

Finally, the best way to defend America is to stick to the ideals that made us a great nation. Our nation condemned the use of torture during World War II. We should not use it now. When asked whether water boarding is torture Rudi Giuliani replied that it depends on who is doing it. This is exactly the attitude that any torturer takes. Every country could justify what they do because they have a “good reason.” Water boarding was wrong during the Spanish inquisition, it was wrong when Japan did it to our soldiers and it continues to be wrong even if we have a really good reason. We hung the Japanese torturers who used this technique on our soldiers. If we do not want other people to torture our soldiers then we must refrain from torturing. It is the best way to help protect our soldiers and our citizens and it is the best way to protect the law.

We also have laws against domestic spying. If law enforcement officials suspect terrorist activity they can get a warrant to listen to phone calls before they listen or even within 3 days after they do. The FISA court was specifically designed for this purpose and has worked for years. Bush argues that getting a warrant is not “fast enough” but this makes no sense considering warrants can be obtained retroactively. The only reason to skip getting a warrant would be if you were spying on someone that the court would not approve such as a political opponent, a peace activist or other citizen who opposes you politically. This is in violation of our civil liberties as Americans and should not be tolerated. Republicans who deny that this is a big deal would certainly feel differently if Bill Clinton had done the same. This is exactly why we have laws. So that some things are wrong regardless of who does it or why they do it. If laws did not apply to everyone then people would take the law into their own hands all the time. If someone abused your daughter would you be allowed to go kill him or torture him? That would be a good reason to kill or torture someone yet it is still against the law. If you think your neighbor took your favorite hammer should you be allowed to break into his house to look for it? That would be illegal because you need more than just a good reason.

Americans need to pay attention and pay attention now. Fight’m over there is a bumper sticker and a lie. Fight’m over there is nothing more than the U.S. poking a hornets nest with a big stick. It is not working and it will not work. It makes the U.S. weaker by taking away our allies, our moral authority, our military strength, our peace keeping capabilities and our civil rights. Fight’m over there is a myth that needs to be busted just as the myth of Iran’s nuclear weapons was busted. The U.S. intelligence agencies knew that if they did not come out with the truth their leader would start a war. It is time for us, as Americans, to stand up and say “No more lies.” Americans need to stop believing the myth and instead seek the truth before the most beloved and strongest nation in the world becomes the most hated and weakest nation.

Fight'm Over There!?!

Is the American psyche really so fragile? Do we take on views and beliefs based on a bumper sticker type sound bite that have been repeated millions of times by our government and its’ propaganda machine? “Fight’m over there so we don’t fight’m over here” is one such sound bite that has penetrated the American psyche and become truth to millions of Americans. This sound bite, however, has no basis in reality and does not even make sense on multiple levels. It doesn’t stop millions of Americans from repeating it ad nauseam as a reason to continue a war seemingly forever. “Fight’m over there” has become the mantra of conservatives all over the United States.

First I must point out that 9/11 happened not because of terrorists “over there” but because of terrorists already here. There were people being trained by United States citizens to fly planes. Yes, they may have been acting on orders from people “over there” but taking over any number of countries would not have stopped this act. There was no single country that was responsible for this attack. 9/11 was planned by a few individuals and carried out by a handful more. Most of these individuals were from Saudi Arabia.

Sometimes the government and the media like to pretend that they have no idea why the terrorists attacked us. In fact, these individuals carried out this attack because of our policies and interference with Iraq, Afghanistan, and other middle eastern nations. We know this because they told us. We helped them drive Russia from Afghanistan and then we ignored them while the Taliban took over. We attacked Iraq and drove them out of Kuwait and then we left them with permanent basis in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We have left troops in their countries and they don’t like it. Fighting “over there” actually caused the attack over here.

Our recent efforts to fight over there have destabilized the entire region much more than had we left it alone. Everyone in this country supported the invasion of Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden. Everyone in this country supported the U.S. troops’ use of force to oust the Taliban government in Afghanistan. President Bush, however, pulled our forces out of this country in the middle of the operation in order to begin another war. The direct cause of this decision was the destabilization of Afghanistan and the escape of Osama bin Laden. Our brave and heroic military had Osama bin Laden on the run and hiding. All they had to do was go find him. Rather than finish the job Bush ordered that they let local groups capture him so that Bush could pull the troops out and send them to Iraq. This resulted in Osama bin Laden paying off the locals so that he could escape. Now, if Bush was really out to get the 9/11 terrorists “smoke’m out, dead or alive, head on a silver platter” then why would he allow bin Laden to escape? By leaving Afghanistan prematurely it allowed the Taliban to come back in and retake much of the region. Right after 9/11 the conservatives were suddenly so concerned with women’s rights in Afghanistan and the horrendous living conditions imposed by the Taliban for women in the region. Then they left those women to suffer the same fate at the hands of the same group so that they could go fight in Iraq. The irony is that the U.S. did the exact same thing after we helped free Afghanistan from Russia and this is why Osama bin Laden first started to hate us. The United States trained bin Laden to fight the Russians and we promised him support. When the Russians left we did not support the new government and this allowed the Taliban to take control and made Osama bin Laden our enemy. This is not ancient history. Why did we not learn from it?

We have also destabilized Pakistan because of our meddling. The Pakistani President supported the U.S. and let the U.S. use his country to attack Afghanistan. This left him vulnerable to extremists who are anti-American and paint him as a collaborator with the United States and the west. As our reputation as an inhumane conqueror of middle eastern countries grows the Pakistani President’s enemies gain ground politically. Destabilization in this country is extremely dangerous because they have nuclear capability. If terrorists or even an unfriendly elected government takes over Pakistan the region could be in BIG trouble. It would be our fault.

Then there is the entire Arabian Peninsula. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some people, who aren’t paying attention, still believe that they were somehow involved even though Bush and Cheney both have said clearly that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It is another example of saying something enough that it becomes true in the minds of citizens. The media and the conservatives have linked Iraq and 9/11 in sentences so many times that people are confused. It is obvious that this was intentional. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He did terrible things to the people of Iraq. Everyone agrees that this is a fact. The problem is that there are many evil leaders in the world. At what point does another country need to step in and stop this evil from taking place? International law says that we cannot invade another country unless they are a threat to us. The Downing Street minutes made it quite clear that we did not have any evidence that Iraq could in any way be a threat to the United States. The Iraq inspectors said that Iraq was not a danger to the United States. To solve the problem the United States deliberately fabricated evidence to make it seem like we had evidence that Iraq was a threat to us so that we could invade. There is a mountain of evidence that the United States deliberately deceived the people of the world into believing that Iraq was a threat when in fact it was not a threat to anyone.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with saving the Kurds. Saddam did attack the Kurds with a terrible nerve gas but this was before the first Gulf War. My husband and others fought in this war so that Saddam would no longer have the power to do such a thing. It worked. He was no longer a threat to his neighbors and did not posses any weapons of mass destruction that he could use against his own people, his neighbors or especially not us. Saddam also was an enemy to the Taliban, Al Queda and Osama bin Laden. Any one in Al Queda would have been in grave danger in Iraq. Had we played our cards differently Saddam would have probably helped us round up any Al Queda members in Iraq … if there were any. Evidence shows that there were not any because Saddam was careful not to let anyone like that in his country live. Again, not necessarily a positive trait however it ruins any argument that we were going after the terrorists who caused 9/11 when we attacked Iraq.

Attacking Iraq had nothing to do with protecting the Iraqis from torture. I think we proved this when we started torturing them even using some of the same techniques that Saddam used. If you are going to claim moral superiority as a reason to take over a country then you have to maintain moral superiority during the fight. We have not.

Another argument about Iraq that I have heard a lot from conservatives is that Saddam was thinking about making weapons of mass destruction. International law does not really allow you to bomb or take over a country because of what they might be thinking about doing sometime in the future. They created this law so that countries could not invade other countries claiming that there might be a threat at some time. If all countries ignored the law as we have then everyone could invade whomever they wanted whenever they wanted without consequence. When Pakistan developed their nuclear weapons program we stopped China and India from wiping them off the planet by using the argument that you can’t bomb a country just because they may be a threat sometime in the future. Actually, Hitler used the argument that he could invade Poland because he thought they might be a threat sometime in the future. Hitler also had his own army fake attacks against Germany and blame Poland in an attempt to show a reason to attack Poland. Look how that worked out. Maybe these international laws were created for a reason!

The destabilization in Iraq was the biggest miscalculation and mistake (if it was a mistake) in military history. The country of Iraq was glued together with gum and twine, which was only held together by Saddam. As evil as he was, he was the only thing that held together the Sunnis the Shiites and the Kurds in relative peace and tranquility. These three groups shared neighborhoods, shopped at the same markets and worked together peacefully under Saddam. Christians and Jews, although in the minority, were also a part of these communities. Iraq was not an ideal situation, however the sectarian violence that we see today was not present. Even after the start of the Iraq War the sectarian violence did not exist until the U.S. started it. I saw an entire PBS special about this very topic. Top military and diplomatic leaders from the United States made serious mistakes after the invasion that resulted in the current sectarian violence. Those responsible admit this freely. Why does the mainstream American public not recognize this? Also, by starting this war in Iraq we have let Al Queda come into a country where they could not exist before. They continue to be a very small part of the problem in Iraq, however before we opened the door for them they were not a part of the equation at all.

Iran was the next country who was changed by our involvement in the region. Iran has an extremely young population (mostly because of the war with Iraq years ago). This population of young people is one of the most progressive populations in all of the middle east. They overwhelmingly like and approve of the United States and western culture and have many more individual rights and freedoms than their middle eastern counterparts. Although they elected their current prime minister, Ahmadinejad, public opinion was against him. He had been trying to take away some of the freedoms that the younger generation had come to enjoy and they were ready to get rid of him. Not only that but one must remember that he actually has very little control over foreign policy in Iraq. He is the figure head of the government. He is not the one in control. According to the constitution, the supreme leader of Iraq, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has the last say in internal and foreign policies including the commandment of the armed forces and the declaration of war.

Public opinion was so negative toward Ahmadinejad that many people expected that he would not continue to be Prime Minister much longer. Unfortunately, the United States has succeeded in changing much of this public opinion and has instead helped Ahmadinejad remain Prime Minister. First Bush identified Iran as the “Axis of Evil.” This served to scare the Iranians into believing that Bush may just start attacking them for no reason just as he had done to Iraq. Then, when Ahmadinejad started to stand up for Iran and faced off with Bush this helped him gain popularity with Iranians who had been ready to get rid of him. Nothing helps secure your popularity like standing up to a bully in support of your country. It makes no difference that the man is crazy and a loose cannon. To the Iranians, he is willing to protect them and stand up against the United States which is necessary now that the United States is ignoring international law and randomly attacking other countries.

Now, if you were a country that had been identified as belonging to the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and North Korea what would you do? Iraq could do nothing because they had been sanctioned for 15 years so they were invaded and taken over. First Jimmy Carter and then Madeline Albright had negotiated with North Korea to keep them from developing a nuclear program. North Korea had been cooperating for years (although they occasionally flexed their muscles and had to be “dealt with”). North Korea decided to stop cooperating with those agreements the day after the axis of evil speech. They turned off the agreed upon cameras and started their nuclear program back up again. Bush ignored North Korea because he was distracted by Iraq and because he refuses to speak to North Korea and now North Korea has a nuclear program. Now Bush would not dream of invading North Korea.

The Iranians were left with little choice but to start talking about nuclear technology. Bush refused to speak to Iran diplomatically and instead continued to call them names and attempt to provoke them. Bush has placed huge war ships in the Persian Gulf in an obvious attempt to provoke Iran and even forced a false flag episode between Iran and Britain. Fortunately, Ahmadinejad has not been easily provoked. He returned the British seamen after the false flag event and put all nuclear interests on hold after diplomatic talks with several countries (NOT the United States) in 2003. Bush was informed by all 16 intelligence agencies in August (or even before) that Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003 because of diplomatic pressure by other countries. Bush, however, continued his bomb Iran, axis of evil rhetoric until November when the NIE became public. Joe Biden said it best when he stated that Bush was either lying or incompetent and asked Bush to pick which. Bush has known for many months, if not years that Iran was no threat to us and had no nuclear program yet he continued to try to mislead Americans into believing that we were about to go to war with Iran. Had the NIE not been made public by the intelligence agencies Bush may have even started World War III with the blessing of many Americans who did not know the truth. When Ahmadinejad begins to look like a reasonable man seeking peace and stability compared to your own leader you must begin to wonder what we, as Americans, are doing.
The entire situation becomes even more muddled when you consider the role of CIA agent Valerie Plame in the mix of events. Most people have assumed that Valerie Plame was revealed as a CIA agent and her career ruined as retribution for her husband, Joe Wilson’s, revelation that a sentence in the President’s state of the union address was false. Wilson had been sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that Iraq had sought yellow cake uranium from this country. Joe Wilson found no such evidence and reported this to the President. The President, however, included the claim that Iraq had yellow cake uranium from Niger in his state of the union address. Joe Wilson publicly announced that this was not true. His wife’s cover was then blown by the administration including Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Although the right wing propaganda machine insists Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, the CIA, congressional hearings and other public records show that she was, indeed, a covert agent working on nuclear proliferation cases. She was traveling around the world as a covert agent attempting to keep the United States safe by reporting on nuclear activity in other countries including Iran. This brings a new question to mind. Was Valerie Plame’s identity revealed in order to ruin the CIA’s ability to monitor nuclear activity in the middle east and especially in Iran. By outing Valerie Plame the Bush administration not only ruined her long career but also endangered her contacts and put in jeopardy the entire web of contacts and informants of the CIA. This most certainly hindered their ability to accurately inform the President of nuclear proliferation for several years while they re-built their informant list and undercover web. That entire ordeal may have been an attempt to begin another war based on false intelligence and fear.

Iran is intimately connected to our invasion of Iraq in another even more important way. Iraq was formerly controlled by the Sunni sect. Although the sects were able to live together under Saddam it was the Sunni people that were the leading class while the Shiites had little power. Iran is a Shiite nation. When the United States invaded Iraq and created a new government the United States backed the Shiite people to run the country. They tried to set up a democracy where all people could have a say in the government but it was the Shiites that would have controlled the government if everything had gone the way the United States had planned. It does not take a genius to figure out how this fact may influence the future of that region. Iran would love to have Iraq led by Shiites. That would be their dream come true. The conservative talking heads keep complaining about Iran giving weapons to Iraqis. They would only be giving them to the Shiite’s who were originally on our side. We should have seen that one coming and should expect nothing less. The Saudi’s, on the other hand, are supplying more weapons and people than any foreign non-allied nation in the entire war. Saudi Arabia backs the Sunnis who were the original group fighting AGAINST the United States. The Sunnis are the ones who did not participate in the original elections and fought our troops. Why didn’t we hear the administration and the conservative talking heads complaining about Saudi Arabia’s involvement? Bush never mentions Saudi Arabia’s involvement and the fact that they are fighting against us in Iraq because he is friends with the royal family and needs to remain their friend for their oil.

Bush has also destabilized Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. The last thing Clinton did before leaving office was to have peace talks and work out an agreement with Israel and Palestine. I’ve seen him speak extensively about his decision to make this a priority in the last months of his Presidency and his struggle to bring peace to that region. Everyone, of course, understands that peace is tenuous at best in that region and that these peace talks were but a first step. Bush, however, has not continued this effort. He has deliberately avoided any peace talks with any country in the past 7 years. He pushed for elections in Lebanon even though several other countries cautioned him that it was too soon. Other leaders understood that elections in Lebanon would mean Hezbollah would win. Bush ignored them and Hezbollah and another anti-Syrian group won most of the seats in Parliament. This election then led to the war between Israel and Lebanon in 2006. After the war began the United States refused to force peace talks between the nations and allowed the fighting to continue until the U.N. finally put a stop to the violence.

Another factor in that war was Iran. Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iran all felt much more comfortable that they could “get away with” violence in the region with the United States bogged down in a quagmire of violence in Iraq. Lebanon’s newly formed government was overwhelmingly Shiite and supported by Iran. The government was also anti Syria. With the United States preoccupied and without their usual moral authority (it is hard to tell people not to fight each other when you have invaded a sovereign nation without cause or provocation) it was the perfect time for Lebanon to provoke Israel. After the short war, southern Lebanon was left destroyed. The United States offered money to the government to rebuild but Iran gave cash to each person whose home was destroyed by the war. Iran sent contractors and equipment and started the rebuilding efforts the next day. Ahmadinejad may be an extremist with some crazy ideas but he knows how to turn popular opinion.

Attacking Iran at this point would be the final nail in the complete annihilation of a stabile middle east. The United States does not have the military force to sustain an attack against Iran. Right now we could still undo some of the damage and preserve the support of the Iranian people. They like the west and western ideas. If we bomb them we have lost it forever. We would also gain nothing by bombing Iran. Ahmadinejad would become more powerful. Syria, Lebanon and even their arch enemy Iraq would support them instead of us. China would even be angry with us and they hold all of our war debt and have the capability of crashing our entire economic system. It is time for diplomacy with Iran and it is time to stop the threats of more war that we can not possibly sustain. Iran has a much stronger army than we do at this point. We would have to reinstitute the draft to sustain a war with Iran. All of this to stop a country from gaining nuclear capabilities in possibly 10 years that they could never ever hope to use. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear weapons. Iran will never be stupid enough to launch a nuclear weapon toward Israel. They would be just like Pakistan is now. They would have a nuclear weapon that they could never use. It would simply be insurance that no one would mess with them. More nuclear weapons is certainly not the best idea. The more there are the more chance there is that some terrorist will have access to one. Now, however, is the time for diplomacy to stop the further development of these weapons. Threats of war will only encourage countries to develop them to protect themselves.

Finally, and most important to our safety AT HOME, all of our policies in the middle east have increased terrorism around the world. If our goal was really to fight terrorism we have done a terrible job of achieving our goal. The United States has helped Al Queda in ways that they could have never previously dreamed possible. On 9/11 we had the sympathy of every nation in the world. Even our enemies offered to help us and were willing to give us the perpetrators. The United States has turned many of those countries against us. By invading a sovereign nation with no means to defend itself we did not look heroic and strong but like a bully picking on a child. By lying and ignoring international laws we have become hated and maligned. By stooping to the level of the terrorists and torturing people, we have helped fuel an insurgence and a groundswell of support for Al Queda. Al Queda makes 100 times the amount of money they used to make and that money is coming from Iraq. Most of the money supporting Al Queda is coming from United States tax dollars in Iraq says a recent national security document. Contractors pay off Iraqis who then fund Al Queda. There could have been no better recruiting tool for Al Queda than to start another war in the middle east. Bush has given Osama bin Laden another gift. The gift of another generation of extremists who hate the United States more than the first and who are willing to die for that hate. Osama bin Laden is still alive to gloat because we let him go. Americans are much less safe because of our policies abroad and everyone in the world knows it but us.

There are things that would make us safer at home. Increasing border security would make us safer. Inspecting all cargo entering the United States would make us safer. Developing a better system for identifying foreign citizens who have stayed longer than their visa permitted our who have come to America on a student visa but have never attended a class would make us safer. There are hundred of ways to make our country safer here at home. The 9/11 commission had many suggestions that the administration has completely ignored. Bush is convinced the only way to fight terrorism is to ignore the problems at home and invade countries abroad. This has only made us more vulnerable. Fighting them over there does not mean they will not come over here. It only gives them more reason to come over here. We need to stop listening to this nonsensical rhetoric and adopt the suggestions of the 9/11 commission. Now that democrats control congress they have started this very process but they need a veto proof majority to do it. Bush would rather veto bills that adopt 9/11 commission recommendations than admit that he should have done them 5 years ago.

Another thing that would make us safer at home would be to have our troops home. They would be here to help us during natural disasters such as Katrina. They would be here to help patrol our borders and inspect cargo. They would be here to defend us during an attack. They would be stronger if they were well rested and trained properly. They would be ready to defend us abroad if needed. They would be stronger if they could buy the proper vehicles and armor and build up their forces. We would be safer at home if we had a strong military that was ready to defend against a real enemy.

Finally, the best way to defend America is to stick to the ideals that made us a great nation. Our nation condemned the use of torture during World War II. We should not use it now. When asked whether water boarding is torture Rudi Giuliani replied that it depends on who is doing it. This is exactly the attitude that any torturer takes. Every country could justify what they do because they have a “good reason.” Water boarding was wrong during the Spanish inquisition, it was wrong when Japan did it to our soldiers and it continues to be wrong even if we have a really good reason. We hung the Japanese torturers who used this technique on our soldiers. If we do not want other people to torture our soldiers then we must refrain from torturing. It is the best way to help protect our soldiers and our citizens and it is the best way to protect the law.

We also have laws against domestic spying. If law enforcement officials suspect terrorist activity they can get a warrant to listen to phone calls before they listen or even within 3 days after they do. The FISA court was specifically designed for this purpose and has worked for years. Bush argues that getting a warrant is not “fast enough” but this makes no sense considering warrants can be obtained retroactively. The only reason to skip getting a warrant would be if you were spying on someone that the court would not approve such as a political opponent, a peace activist or other citizen who opposes you politically. This is in violation of our civil liberties as Americans and should not be tolerated. Republicans who deny that this is a big deal would certainly feel differently if Bill Clinton had done the same. This is exactly why we have laws. So that some things are wrong regardless of who does it or why they do it. If laws did not apply to everyone then people would take the law into their own hands all the time. If someone abused your daughter would you be allowed to go kill him or torture him? That would be a good reason to kill or torture someone yet it is still against the law. If you think your neighbor took your favorite hammer should you be allowed to break into his house to look for it? That would be illegal because you need more than just a good reason.

Americans need to pay attention and pay attention now. Fight’m over there is a bumper sticker and a lie. Fight’m over there is nothing more than the U.S. poking a hornets nest with a big stick. It is not working and it will not work. It makes the U.S. weaker by taking away our allies, our moral authority, our military strength, our peace keeping capabilities and our civil rights. Fight’m over there is a myth that needs to be busted just as the myth of Iran’s nuclear weapons was busted. The U.S. intelligence agencies knew that if they did not come out with the truth their leader would start a war. It is time for us, as Americans, to stand up and say “No more lies.” Americans need to stop believing the myth and instead seek the truth before the most beloved and strongest nation in the world becomes the most hated and weakest nation.