Category Archives: Terrorism

The Radicalization of Christianity in America.

Posted on by

This Thursday, Rep. Peter King will convene a Congressional committee to examine the radicalization of Islam in America.  But why stop there?  If Republicans insist on holding hearings on the radicalization of religions in America, shouldn’t they also look into those who attend churches and synagogues as well as mosques?

Shouldn’t we investigate the church that Timothy McVeigh attended?  How about the Columbine shooters? Maybe we should look into their family churches. Or how about the fundamentalist televangilists who actually prayed for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices so that they could be replaced by Justices who would overturn Roe V. Wade?

Shouldn’t we form a Congressional committee to look into the Westboro Baptist Church, the Kansas-based organization that so plainly demonstrates hatred toward gays and our military?  Does that not qualify as a radical group? What about the “Christian” white supremicist groups and the “Christian” organizations that actively promote the murders of abortion providers?  Are they not just as responsible for violence and terrorism as radical Muslims? 

And don’t forget the Catholic Church, of which Congressman King is presumably a member. The Vatican was responsible for the Inquisition and the slaughter of untold thousands of alleged “heretics.” If it happened once, could it happen again?

As the old saying goes, people in glass houses (or churches) shouldn’t throw stones.

Republican Leaders Provided Fertilizer For The Seeds Of Hate.

Posted on by

We don’t yet know why an armed lunatic chose to shoot Congresswoman Giffords.  But we do know that the seeds of violence have, for years, been sown by commentators such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk.  Moreover, we can be certain that those seeds were well-fertilized in the 2008 presidential campaign, most especically at the Republican National Convention.

I watched both national conventions gavel to gavel and was shocked by the vitriol prominently displayed in every speech by Republicans.  Rather than focus on policy, Republicans chose to focus on personal attacks.  From the snarky comments by Sarah Palin to the snide diatribes of Senator McCain, the conservative venom was unrestrained.  We were treated to derisive questions about President Obama’s citizenship and his service as a community organizer.  By contrast, I heard no such attacks from speakers at the Democratic National Convention.

And when the results were in, Republicans suggested that they didn’t lose the election, ACORN helped the Democrats “steal” it.

Since then, the ugly rhetoric from the right has only gotten worse.  Republican leaders have used every conceivable legislative trick to block Democratic initiatives.  They railed about the “big government takeover.”  They talked about “death panels.”  And they howled about Democrats trying to “push through their liberal agenda.”  Then, leading up to the mid-term elections, we were treated to the sight of Tea Party demonstrators carrying signs portraying President Obama as Hitler and as the Joker.  We were also forced to witness demonstrators bringing guns to rallies and threatening to “exercise their 2nd Amendment rights” if Republican Tea Party candidates didn’t get their way.

Here in Arizona, I have often been forced to bite my tongue as local Republican leaders referred to President Obama as “illegitimate” and Nancy Pelosi as “a disgusting pig.”  I have listened to McCain, Governor Brewer and State Senator Russell Pearce vilify latinos.  And, like most people, I have been the recipient of a seemingly endless variety of ugly, untruthful chain emails against our President and his supporters.

Now I know that those on the right will suggest that liberals are just as bad.  But any comparison of Rush, Beck or Fox News Channel with MSNBC is a false equivalency.  Certainly many on the left have contributed to the unpleasantness but, unlike their right-wing counterparts, I have yet to witness a Democrat talking about committing violent acts such as “taking out” an opponent.  I have never heard Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz call for Democrats to take weapons to rallies, or to “target” those with whom they disagree.

In any case, we all must change the way we discuss politics.  We must try to respect those with whom we disagree even when we disagree with their opinions.  We must try to separate the policies from the person.  And we must politely, but firmly, tell those who make outrageous statements that they are not acceptable.  We must refuse to vote for candidates who invoke hatred.  And when we hear political commentators make disgusting, violent statements, we must switch channels and inform the station or network that we will no longer tolerate the rhetoric of violence and hate.

If not, the event in Tucson is likely to be repeated across our nation.

Who Do Republicans Really Represent?

Posted on by

As most of you know, the Republican mantra is “lower taxes, less government.”  But for whom?  The past couple of years have revealed the Republican agenda as never before.

Take the Bush taxes cuts.  Democrats want the tax cuts for millionaires to expire, which would save $700 billion over the next 10 years.  But Republicans have made an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy their top priority.  And Republicans are willing to filibuster an extension of unemployment benefits to get their way.

This past election cycle, Republicans and their phony Tea Party candidates ran as populists, claiming to represent all Americans.  Yet Republican legislative votes tell another story.Just today, Republican Senators voted against a bill that would provide health care to 9/11 responders.  They have consistently voted against extensions of unemployment benefits for those struggling in the recession created by Republican policies.Republicans fought against regulation of Wall Street.  They fought against health care reform that would limit the obscene profits of large pharmaceutical companies and giant health insurance while providing health care access to more than 30 million working Americans.  They fought against stricter regulation of oil companies following the Gulf oil spill, and even apologized to BP when the Administration held BP accountable.

Republicans have successfully fought to eliminate estate taxes on large inheritances.  They have fought to lower capital gains taxes on investments.  They have voted against closing tax loopholes on large corporations that ship jobs to other countries.  They have fought against regulations against large corporations that create P.O. Box “headquarters” in other countries in order to avoid paying U.S. income taxes.  They have promoted no-bid contracts for private contractors to take over military functions such as “security”, transportation and food preparation.

Republicans have reduced funding for public schools while increasing funding for private and parochial schools.   They have made it easier for corporations to clear-cut our forests, for large mining operations to remove mountain tops, and for large electric generating companies to pollute our air and lakes.  At the same, they have refused to support alternative energy that would create competition for Big Oil and Big Coal.

Republicans claim that all of these actions create jobs and reduce taxes – a theory that has been thoroughly disproven.  So why do working class Americans continue to support the party that has so obviously sold its soul to large corporations and the wealthy?

You tell me.

Time For Bush And Cheney To Do The “Perp Walk”

Posted on by

Not long ago, Richard The Dick Cheney extolled the benefits of waterboarding U.S. prisoners. And during a speech in Grand Rapids last week, George W. Bush publicly admitted to the same crime. Bush said, “Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I’d do it again to save lives.”

The problem for these unrepentent inquisitors (and for the United States) is that the U.S. signed the Geneva Convention against torture. Labeled the “Convention Against Torture And Other Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading Treatment Or Punishment,” the document states that the parties to this Convention, have agreed as follows:

“…torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession…”

The document further states, “Each (signator) shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. Each (signator) shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law…each (signator) shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.”

That doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room for our smug former president and former vice-president, does it?

Just to be clear, The U.S. tried and hanged some Japanese soldiers for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding. As a result, our nation should not take Bush’s and Cheney’s confessions lightly. Otherwise the world community will forever label the U.S. as the renegade hypocrites we probably are.

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?