Category Archives: Terrorism

Can an entire political party be sociopathic?

Posted on by

A sociopath is defined as one who has no conscience; someone who’s every action is intended to help themselves.  Now, I ask you.  Does that not describe the Republican Party and its media whores?

Consider the following: 

Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration want to close Guantanemo and try those imprisoned there.  Republicans go ballistic that these “illegal combatants” don’t deserve to be treated as criminals.  How naive for President Obama to believe in our justice system!

Or how about the “underpants bomber”?  A confused young man from Nigeria decides to stash explosives in his underpants in order to blow up a plane.  The Republican response is to point fingers at the Obama administration for Mirandizing him.  Despite the fact that the Obama administration acted exactly as the Bush administration did in response to Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, Republicans pretended to be outraged that the young man was read his Miranda rights.  Never mind that the “underpants bomber” cooperated with authorities with torture.

Or how about health care reform?  A bill that regulates health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and provides health care to 33 million Americans is, according to Republicans, a socialist or communist plot.  The census?  According to Republicans, it’s an Obama plot to round up conservatives and place them in internment camps.  (Of course that’s wrong.  Instead, Obama should use the data to round up Republicans and put them where they belong – in insane asylums.) 

Financial reform?  Despite the fact that Republicans allowed the “free markets” to send our economy into a death spiral while those responsible made millions in bonuses, Republicans would have us believe that reform is a Socialist plot leading to a government takeover of banks.  The worst oil disaster in the history of America (or maybe the world)?  According to Republicans, it was caused by environmental terrorists.  And the government’s response was delayed so the Obama administration can put an end to off-shore drilling. 

A failed terroist bombing of Times Square was, in twisted Republican minds, the result of the Obama administration being soft on terrorists and reaching out to Muslim nations.  Pay no attention to the fact that the suspect was quickly caught and provided information that led to the arrest of at least one Pakistani national without our resorting to torture.

One wonders how Republicans can make these accusations without laughing out loud.  Are they secretly biting their tongues in order to keep a straight face?  Or are they, as I suspect, clinically sociopathic?  You decide.

© LaMaster Propaganda – All rights reserved.

The Black & White Case Against President Obama

Posted on by

The Tea Party members say their anger has nothing to do with racism.  Well, if their issues are big government, big deficits and corporate bailouts as they suggest, why all the anger now?  Why not aim the fury at the people who created our recession and debt?  Why not direct their fury at Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and the Republicans who created trillions of dollars of national debt?  Why no anger against George W. Bush for drastically increasing the size of government with his Department of Homeland Security?  Why no fury against George W. Bush for bailing out Wall Street?  Why the belief that President Obama was not born in the U.S.?  Why did no one demand to see Ronald Reagan’s, George H.W. Bush’s and George W. Bush’s birth certificates?  And why were they so willing to look the other way when Richard “The Dick” Cheney was allowed to skirt the Constitutional prohibition on the President and Vice-President being residents of the same state by claiming Wyoming as his residence instead of Texas where he actually lived? 

What has this President done to generate such anger? 

Since taking office, he has brought the nation out of the worst economic times since the Great Depression.  Since taking office, he has actually lowered taxes.  Indeed, taxes have rarely been lower.  Since taking office, President Obama has rebuilt our relationships and stature with all of our allies.  He has rid the world of more nuclear weapons to protect us from terrorism.  He has certainly not tried to ban guns as the Tea Party suggests.  As a matter of fact, he signed a bill permitting guns in National Parks, an act that prompted the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to give Obama an “F” with regard to gun control issues. 

Then why the Tea Party claims that President Obama is un-American, a Socialist, a Communist and a Nazi? 

What is so unique about this President to generate so much anger and hate?  Hmmm, let me think … maybe it has to do with the fact that he is part Irish.  No?  Well, it certainly couldn’t be that he is half African-American.  That would be racist, wouldn’t it?

Is Fox News Channel Owned By Terrorists?

Posted on by

Let us know what you think.  Does Sean Hannity side with Nazis?  Take our poll.  Is Bill O’Reilly a fascist?  You decide.  Did Glenn Beck have a sex change operation?  What do readers think?  Many say that Sarah Palin is a biggoted sociopath?  What is the real truth?  Did Michelle Bachmann meet her husband while a patient at his mental health clinic?  Vote now.

If you haven’t spent much time watching Fox News Channel, you might think that all of this is a joke.  But it’s what passes for journalism on Fox.  The only difference is that all of the innuendo and snide questions are about Democrats and liberals.  Even when the few journalists on Fox are trying to present their version of news, the type crawling across the bottom of the screen continues to raise absurd questions about the political opposition.  In fact, the bias of the “fair and balanced” network became so obvious, that Fox News finally admitted that the majority (two-thirds) of its programming is “political commentary.” 

Right-wing theater would be a more accurate description.

More recently, the owner of Fox, Rupert Murdoch, was asked to name one Democrat on his “fair and balanced” noise network.  He was unable to.  But he was sure “they had one.” 

If ever there was a rational argument for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, this is it.  If you aren’t familiar with it, the Fairness Doctrine was introduced in 1949 as a policy of the Federal Communications Commission” (FCC).  It required broadcasters to present issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, fair and balanced.  Unfortunately, the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, likely the result of Republicans unhappy with the media’s treatment of their policies to redistribute wealth upward.  

Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, we’ve seen a constant rise in right-wing radio and television with no limits on the lies that can be told.  No prohibitions against inciting hatred.  And no restrictions against using the public airwaves to promote political ideology and candidates.  This puts the power in the hands of a few, very wealthy (and largely conservative) media owners, especially since the ratings for liberal media tend to be lower than for conservatives.  After all, for many, it’s more entertaining to listen to some angry, white blowhards rail against government, social programs, minorities, immigrants and taxes than it is to listen to someone promoting equality and social responsibility. 

It’s time for Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  Without it, the only alternative is to spend hours each week researching political issues to determine the truth – assuming, of course, that you actually care about the future of the nation.

American terrorists.

Posted on by

What if I told you that there’s an organization in America that’s responsible for more than 30,000 deaths a year?  That’s nearly ten times the number of people who died in the attacks of 9/11.  And what if that organization was responsible for tens of thousands more deaths overseas from 2003 through 2008?  Would you want to declare war on such an organization?  Would you commit trillions of dollars to defeat it as we have to defeat al Qaeda? 

Would you be willing to disrupt and refashion an entire industry as we have transportation?  Would you expect to make individual sacrifices to defeat such an organization? 

Now, what if I told you that you could defeat these terrorists for much less?  What if you could defeat them merely by speaking out and committing a few dollars a year to benefit yourself?  What if your efforts not only saved lives; maybe your own; but also saved your hard-earned money? 

It’s possible.

All you have to do is to force Republican Senators and Representatives to accept a nationalized health care program.  They don’t even have to vote for it.  Most Democrats are willing to push it through themselves and they could if they didn’t have to worry about achieving a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

That act, of creating nationalized health care, could eventually save millions of American citizens.  It could save many more from bankruptcy as a result of serious illness.  It could save many of our small businesses, corporations, and even our state, county and city governments from financial ruin.  It could save hundreds of thousands of jobs and create many more.

So far, American citizens like you have been willing to spend “whatever it takes” to kill or capture al Qaeda members and stop them from killing more Americans.  Why wouldn’t you spend a few minutes calling your elected officials to save your neighbors, your friends, your family or yourself?

The cost of tax cuts.

Posted on by

Everybody complains about paying taxes.  But Republicans and Teabaggers have turned their complaints into an art form.  Indeed, just last week, they were whining that the Obama administration allowed a number of Bush-era tax cuts to lapse.  Yet these people are the first to complain when our government entities don’t work as they expect.  Somehow, they seem incapable of seeing the connection. 

For the past 40-plus years, Republicans have been cutting taxes on the wealthiest U.S. citizens and U.S. corporations.  They’ve even cut estate taxes (the so-called death tax). 

All of this tax-cutting has had a profound effect on our infrastructure. 

Except in our largest cities, our highways haven’t been substantially improved since the 50s and 60s.  As evidenced by the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, many of our nation’s bridges are in woeful repair.  Contrary to popular belief, it wasn’t Hurricane Katrina that caused the disaster in New Orleans.  It was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s archaic levee system.   And in California, another levee system responsible for much of Los Angeles’ water is eroding making it highly vulnerable to a catastrophic event. 

Our electric grid needs to be replaced.   Many of our largest cities’ sewer systems are collapsing.  Security at our airports is incapable of stopping all terrorists, and the security for our ports is much worse.  Our schools are falling behind those in many other nations.  And, unlike most wealthy nations, we can’t provide basic health care to all of our citizens (although that is, hopefully, about to change).

What’s the reaction of Republicans when faced with these facts?  Not surprisingly, they merely call for more tax cuts.

The return of Dick Vader?

Posted on by

Liz Cheney has stated that she hopes her father will run for President in 2012.  Even allowing for the admiration that a daughter naturally feels toward her father, I have to respond, “Are you out of your @%#^ing mind?! “

This week’s most popular movie at the box office is a disaster epic entitled “2012” which portrays the end of the Earth.  If Dick Cheney were to be elected President, reality could well be more awful than fiction. 

Just imagine, in a Cheney presidency, there would no namby-pamby diplomacy with other nations.  No dithering with our enemies.  Indeed, we’d likely attack every nation that wouldn’t kowtow to Cheney.  We’d treat all Americans as suspected terrorists and spy on their phone calls and emails.  We’d jail our political enemies and hold them for years without trial.  We’d cut taxes on the rich.  We’d virtually eliminate taxes on large corporations.  We’d transfer even more wealth to our overlords.  We’d conduct all government business with no-bid contracts.  We’d privatize our military.  We’d politicize everything.  And we’d centralize all power in the executive branch. 

Wait!   Isn’t that what happened when Cheney was running the country with Bush as a figurehead?

“An electronic Pearl Harbor”

Posted on by

Last Sunday, a report by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes discussed the threat of cyber terrorism.

At the center of his report, Kroft interviewed Jim Lewis who directs the Center for Strategic and International Studies. According to Lewis, the United States has already experienced “an electronic Pearl Harbor.” Lewis continued, “Some unknown foreign power, and honestly, we don’t know who it is, broke into the Department of Defense, to the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, probably the Department of Energy, probably NASA. They broke into all of the high-tech agencies, all of the military agencies, and downloaded terabytes of information. Someone was able to get past the firewall and encryption devices of one of the most sensitive U.S. military computer systems and stay inside for several days,” he stated. The system he referred to is the CENTCOM network, which is our military’s control center for fighting wars. Lewis said that the hackers sat inside the network, tracking information and documents “like they were part of military command.” According to Lewis, this is the “most significant” breach of security ever “acknowledged by the Pentagon.”

Proof that the Obama administration is weak militarily and soft on terrorism? No, wait!

Why different standards for ACORN and Halliburton?

Posted on by

Recently, Congress voted overwhelmingly to suspend funds for ACORN.  Never mind that the bill violates the Constitution’s prohibition on Bills of Attainder (singling out a single group or individual for punishment).  According to Republicans, ACORN must be punished for the actions of a few of its staffers.

Why suspend funds from an organization that has a long history of helping the poor?  The short answer is that ACORN has made it more difficult for Republicans to be elected, and Democrats are simply afraid to be painted as too partisan. 

During last year’s presidential election, ACORN invoked the fury of conservative talk radio and Fox News by registering voters.  Since most of these newly registered voters were minorities and/or poor it is assumed that they voted for President Obama.  Of course, the conservatives cried foul.  They accused ACORN of helping to steal the election.  They claimed that ACORN had registered tens of thousands of illegal votes.  There were widely publicized registration forms for Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck, etc., which seemed to point to widespread voter fraud. 

The problem with that argument is that ACORN pays members to register voters.  Since the members are paid by the number of registration forms filled out, some of these people inevitably try to scam the system.  ACORN recognizes that possibility, and since it has to account for every single voter registration form, the organization sorts the forms into three categories before submitting them to the local voter registration office:  Those that can be confirmed, those that cannot be confirmed, and those that are obviously fraudulent.  Therefore, if there is fraud, it occurs at the voter registration office.  ACORN should not be held accountable.

Nevertheless, Republicans felt they must do something to rid the country of ACORN, so a few enterprising conservatives went looking for evidence that ACORN is a renegade organization defrauding the American public.  Two young people posed as a pimp and a prostitute and visited ACORN offices looking for advice on how to run a brothel and funnel the money into a Congressional campaign.  In three offices, ACORN volunteers provided advice.  In another, the ACORN volunteers recognized the scam and “punked” the actors. 

There is no question that those who provided the advice should be fired.  And they were.  But attacking an organization of more than 500,000 members for the bad behavior of a few is ridiculous.  If we’re going to use that standard for all organizations receiving money from the federal government, then why not suspend all further contracts with Halliburton?  After all, the sloppiness of a few employees in its KBR subsidiary caused numerous soldiers to be electrocuted in Iraq.  There are also accusations that several Halliburton employees gang-raped a woman in Iraq.  When the woman tried to sue Halliburton for her treatment, she was told that the fine print in her contract prevents lawsuits.  Finally, there is alleged evidence that Halliburton has defrauded the government out of millions of dollars.  Yet there is no parallel outcry against Halliburton such as that against ACORN.  No legislation to withhold funds.

Or how about Blackwater, aka XE?  Blackwater mercenaries have been accused of murdering Iraqi civilians and raping Iraqi women.  Yet XE still receives lucrative contracts with the Defense Department.

There can be only two explanations:  Money and influence.  Halliburton and XE have them.  ACORN does not.

Like father like daughter.

Posted on by

When Dick Cheney held the office of vice-president, we all held our breath (and our noses) whenever he emerged from his dark cave.  We knew that his emergence could only mean trouble for the free world.  Either he was going to start another war, announce a new surveillance scheme for innocent Americans, or he was going to devise new ways to torture suspected terrorists and/or Democrats.

Now that the election of President Obama has sent the Dark One scurrying back to his badger hole, it appears that his offspring has taken it upon herself to remind us of how lucky we are that he’s no longer in office.  No one to rattle sabers?  Liz Cheney will show up on Fox News to promote war against somebody.  No one to promote torture?  Liz Cheney will torture us with her opinions.  No one to blame the Bush administration’s failures on Democrats?  Liz Cheney knows who’s really at fault.

Most recently, she appeared on Fox News to react to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.  (After all, who would know more about peace than someone whose father is so versed in war, torture and draft deferments.)  Not surprisingly, she believes that Obama is totally undeserving of the award.  She explained that Obama has not proven anything yet – he hasn’t invaded Iran or North Korea.  Why he hasn’t even acquiesced to the military’s request for more troops in Afghanistan yet. 

The Dark One’s offspring even had a suggestion for President Obama.  Instead of traveling to Oslo to pick up the Peace Prize, she announced that the president should send the mother of a dead American soldier in his place.  (Perhaps Ms. Cheney hasn’t yet realized that any mother we would send is likely grieving as a result of a decision by Dick Cheney.)  Liz said she believes it would make a great statement to let the world know that it’s the lives of American soldiers that keep the world safe.  Apparently, in the Cheney family, nothing says peace like a grieving mother and the promise of more wars. 

Sowing the seeds of violence

Posted on by

In the early 70s, Nixon and Agnew began a culture war.  They rightfully guessed that they could win the White House by dividing the nation into the Far Left, the Far Right and the Great Silent Majority.  By labeling the educated who opposed many of their ideas “effete intellectual snobs” and castigating the media as biased, they essentially declared war on those who were educated, anti-war or anti-big business.

Since then, there have been many right wing politicians to continue the fight:  Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.  They have been gleefully aided by those who learned how to make money by siding with them.  Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have made millions by inciting the angry rabble to “take back America.”

Their actions have (either directly or indirectly) resulted in the threat of violence against those who they politically oppose.  Timothy McVeigh reportedly was whipped into a murderous rage by the Turner Diaries and the ranting of conservative talk radio.  It’s likely that O’Reilly’s constant references to Dr. Tiller as a “baby killer” and websites, such as that operated by The Army of God, incited Scott Roeder to act.  Glenn Beck, Fox News and Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks rallied the torch and pitchfork crowd to interrupt town hall debates on health care.  And, on several occasions, right wingers have been inspired to bring guns to Presidential events.

Most recently, a part-time Census worker was found hanged with “Fed” scrawled on his chest.   That wouldn’t have anything to do with Congresswoman Michelle Bachman’s rant against the Census as an administration plot to spy on conservatives would it?

It appears the constant verbal attacks on the Left are increasingly becoming violent attacks.  Gun and ammunition sales have skyrocketed following the election of President Obama.  The Secret Service, which is charged with defending the President, has disclosed that threats against the President are at an all-time high.  And the rhetoric is angrier than ever.

Where does it stop?  When does freedom of speech become incitement to riot? 

Before deregulation, radio and television stations were held to higher standards.  Stations were forced to show that they were acting in the public interest in order to keep their broadcast licenses.  The necessity to prove their worthiness precluded stations from knowingly broadcasting lies and hate speech. 

But Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck and company are mere megaphones in this assault on political opponents.  As a result of its constant drumbeat against regulation and government intervention, the organization most responsible for the current level of public discourse is the Republican Party.