Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Religious Right Propels Michele Bachmann, the 'American Margaret Thatcher,' Over the Top in Iowa
AMES, Iowa—Michele Bachmann has just won the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, edging out Ron Paul by less than 200 votes. In all, 16,892 voters cast their ballot, with 4,823 going to Bachmann, 4,671 to Paul, and 2,293 to third-place finisher Tim Pawlenty. Rick Perry, who announced his candidacy today in South Carolina and was a write-in candidate here, received 718 votes, finishing sixth; Rick Santorum, who appeared to largely draw voters attracted by his hostility to gay marriage, finished fourth, just ahead of Herman Cain.
“Bachmann’s faith-based organization was over the top,” said a campaign staffer who said he was not authorized to speak for the campaign and so could not give his name (he donned a shirt embroidered with the phrase, “Jesus is Lord Over America”). He said that “members [of churches], pastors, an extraordinary turnout. At the end of the day, the story is going to be the faith-based turnout.” The staffer, who said he’d worked on other presidential campaigns in Iowa, added, “I’ve never seen anything like it.” He attributed her success to a “very effective grassroots operation,” and that religious voters saw her as “genuine. She wasn’t ashamed. She boldly shared everything.”
Bachmann supporters I spoke with were attracted to her religious rhetoric but also saw her as a champion for their hardcore economic concerns, and many told me they admired her stance (due to a “titanium spine,” her campaign parlance repeated by supporters) against raising the debt ceiling. Dan Kahlstorf, at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, with his wife, Ren, on Friday, called Bachmann the “American Margaret Thatcher.”
Paul’s strong second-place finish is a result of his enthusiastic base, which was out in large and characteristically noisy force. Doug Wead, the long-time Bush adviser and confidant who devised the faith outreach strategy for both Bushes, is now advising the Paul campaign. At Paul’s tent here in Ames, he declared, “This is the best campaign I’ve ever been a part of,” adding that Paul isn’t “phony.”
Looming over the straw poll was Perry’s announcement. While many voters I talked to shrugged it off, David Fisher, co-chair of Paul’s state campaign, said, “Iowa Republicans believe he deliberately tried to steal the limelight.”
Perry’s announcement speech was shown on televisions in the tent organized by 501(c)(4) group Strong America Now, which hosted it for the 527 group, Americans for Rick Perry. Strong America Now executive director Peter O’Rourke, who said there was no formal affiliation between his group and Americans for Rick Perry, said Perry introduced legislation in Texas based on the organization’s “Six Lean Sigma” cost-reduction program, which passed in the last legislative session. (The other major GOP candidates signed the group’s debt reduction pledge in advance of the straw poll).
Newt Gingrich called the SAN program the “biggest idea of how to run government in 130 years, since the creation of the civil service.” Gingrich claimed the program, if implemented on the national level, would save $5 trillion in federal spending over ten years. It “transcends presidential politics,” he said, and will “shrink power in Washington, and grow citizens to fill the vacuum.” Or at least it will give Gingrich, who finished eighth with just 385 votes in the straw poll, something to do.
But for Iowa voters, it appears that Bachmann’s Christian rhetoric was the primary motivator. In her speech inside the coliseum this afternoon, she said, “God has mightily put his hand, a blessing upon this nation. We can never think we did this ourselves. It was an Almighty God that gave it to us.”
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
89 Comments so far
Show AllShe's no Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher is a saint compared to her.
Thatcher had some brains, whereas Bachman makes Palin look like a genius.
Or is it the other way around?
will Bachmann close the coal mines?
Found a positive. :~D
IF a bona fide Christian theocrat takes office, I urge CD readers to check out what Chris Hedges had to say about this. An authoritarian religion is ANTITHETICAL to the remotest premise of freedom, or any variation on human liberty. It's all about obedience to rules which are to human beings, what monoculture is to nature. One size fits all. Sickening and deadly! Persons who comply with these rules are often raised in strict households, and because they actually become "contents under pressure," they have no tolerance for any views or lifestyles that depart from their own. It was GRANNY D who was most insightful on this particular ilk. John Dean ("Conservatives Without Conscience") and Chris Hedges ("American Fascists") also do their moral crimes justice. There's a reason why this nation was launched based on a separation of church and state, largely to prevent the control of citizens that this group is committed to invoking. And the clock turns back to the battles of yesteryear... where only an evolution in weaponry is seen!
I believe Chris Hedges claims that the theocrats (right wing fundamentalist christians) will come to power, and that liberals are to blame.
Excellent, Siouxrose! However, I would urge readers to check out Chris Hedges book American Fascists BEFORE any more of the Christian theocrats take office to rule over us. Hope you are right about the "if" part of your opening sentence, but they are nonetheless numerous, well funded, organized and all around us and Hedges has some powerful and thoughtful, as always, things to tell us about Christian fascism. All of Hedges books and essays are well worth reading and I am glad that CD often carries them. His Death of the Liberal Class is also worth reading in the present political climate. There he is pondering the collapse of the press/media, labor, universities, liberal religion, and the Democratic Party as any counter to the corporate militarized state which now imperils us all and the planet itself.
Great post - Anathema to the normative teachings of JC as well, picking up where the emperor Constantine and Nicean creed left off.
Folks are generally unaware that in the Catholic church, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) articulated the preferential "option for the poor" which gave rise to Liberation Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology in Latin America and its strength in Brazil inspired fear in powerful US circles, which then gave massive support for the fascist dictatorship in that country. Chomsky and Galleano present pretty good bookends on this ongoing evolution.
Siouxrose,
I agree with youi on this and as the onemoretgought says we who aren't fundamentalist religious zealots will be to blame. I wrote this (its only a rough) and was going to complete it with references and links but it applies here.
The left needs to wage a war that many are probably loath to wage. A war against evangelical Christianity as it currently exists in the United States. Waging such an open war will without a doubt be viciously attacked by both the media and the conservative right. The hate speech directed at liberals from the right wing television and talk radio shows will only intensify and this will be offered as proof from the likes of Glen Beck that liberals are Godless and out to destroy Christianity.
Why is it necessary for the left to not only battle evangelical Christianity but actually defeat it?
This goes way beyond abortion or homosexuals which by themselves is reason enough for the left to fight them. This battle must be waged because the fundamentalist Christian right wants nothing less than to turn this nation into a Christian theocracy based on their own narrow interpretation of the Bible.
An interpretation that would preclude the teaching of science and history in our public schools. Evolution, climate change, geology, and anthropology are all in direct contradiction to their religious beliefs. History that portrays Christianity in a bad light would be purged. The Salem Witch Trials, The Spanish Inquisition, and The Crusades, among other historical events would be either not taught or taught in a way would not cast a bad light on Christianity.
These people are fanatical in their beliefs, well funded, and politically connected and they are no different than Afghanistan's Taliban or Iran's Ayatollah's. Their goals are basically the same; to establish narrow religious beliefs into law.
I don't care what people believe, even if it's batshit crazy and ignorant.
I do care when they use those beliefs as a basis for social and economic policies that will drag the west back into the pre-enlightment.
KRAZY: I agree with the I ching, that whenever one gets embroiled in a battle, they end up forced into using the very tactics they despise. So the answer is not to battle the Christian Reich, after all, as per my MANY posts, it has substituted the war god Mars for the would-be precepts of Jesus, its alleged Teacher. Rather, the issue is one of TRANSCENDENCE. And the sickness of fundamentalism, itself, as it walls off any opposing concepts or philosophy, is found in Judaism, Islam, and I would suspect, even the Hindu faith. What replaces such fanaticism is explaining that a free, i.e. democratic society, can at best barely tolerate any authoritarian creed. That is the issue with what Hedges terms the Left. How does one extend tolerance to the very group that would expunge it? There is no equal playing field. These people play for absolutes, AND for keeps! (PARAGRAPH)------------------ While Hedges makes a good case (I've read both books) as to the complicity of what he calls liberalism, he doesn't talk enough about how the making of a model of societal interchange based ONLY and exclusively upon capital (Mammon) forces universities, newspapers, TV pundits,and Progressive types into making concessions to evil. Evil being the current US establishment, aided and influenced by its international corporate sponsors and enablers. Essentially, only money talks. (PARAGRAPH)--------------------------------------The ignorance of too much of the American public, a status contributed to in a major way by the MSM and its subliminal forms of indoctrination, added to the pseudo-spiritual authority espoused by the make-war churches, is not a factor that's easily overcome. My faith in a different future is based on an understanding of the evolving patterns of the astro-logos, more than my belief that any hero/heroine will show up in the nick of time to lead the lost out of the moral wilderness. (PARAGRAPH)-----------------------There are those in this forum who just want to give Christianity a pass. When news is sounded about the Evangelicals trying to bypass the consciences of young cadets in demanding that they prove their fealty to the US military, with the purported endorsement of Jesus, by showing a willingness to drop missiles or bombs on enemies-by-design, they say nothing. When they learn that there are Christian insignias placed on weapons' sights, they say nothing. When they watch these bigots PRETEND TO PRAY, like this latest Mr. Handsome who looks as phony as a B-grade actor, cast to his part in order to gain the vote of this credulous flock, they say nothing. When they hear how the Christian Reich has bent political will to defund birth control, even in impoverished 3rd world nations, they say nothing. When they learn that Eric Prince is a proud Christian, whose business just happens to be that of efficiently murdering others, they say nothing. When Bush let the Freudian slip pass, that this was to be a Crusades, they say nothing. (PARAGRAPH)--------------------------------------- The so-called tolerance on the Left can be seen as a passivity that lends evil a free pass. So many factors, likely the sum total of many past lifetimes, are coalescing.Therefore our analyses can be nothing short of superficial, at best. My concern is to educate, and lay the spiritual foundations for the type of society that might come next. You know, as in, "Another World Is Possible." (PARAGRAPH)---Thank you for the acknowledgement, and engaging conversation.
Thank you for taking the time to educate us people as to what is and isn't spiritual and giving us the benefit of your boundless wisdom.
Here is a sample of yours:
Posted by Morticia
Aug 14 2011 - 6:43pm
Change must come through the barrel of a gun. -------------------------------------------------
I've noticed that apart from your "pack," no one really answers your posts because they are seldom worthy of a response. Yet you insinuate yourself into discussions that I share with others? No one invited you. And free speech, although this would be hard for you to take in, is not the same thing as hate speech. ---------------------------------------------------
Those who do not understand The Light, as you repeatedly evidence, are THREATENED by it.
There's a difference between disagreeing with another poster, and engaging them with respect. You are incapable of the latter... and seem to enjoy trying to take me down a peg, as you do it quite often. I find you UGLY. Spiritually evolved people look for reasons to support others, while ego-driven types try to destroy others. ----------------
And yes, I do take the time to educate. When one is published and acknowledged in their craft, their learned opinions carry more weight (in their field of expertise) than the fool in the bleachers who is best at throwing used bubble gum.
Siouxrose,
Whether we desire it or not, eventually we're going to have to stand up to not only these fundamentalist Christians but the very top 1-10% of this nation who control our corporations and virtually all our wealth. Speaking truth to power and peaceful resistance is worthy in and of itself but most likely won't be enough. Battling the religious right probably won't take violent means but it will take a willingness to openly deplore them, something many have been loathe to do since they would be called intolerant of religion at the mildest or more likely outright hateful bigots. What I find sad is the fact that the moderate Christians who don't wish to force these narrow views on everyone else haven't spoken up in much more public fashion.
Battling the economic elite of this nation, as well as around the world will take violence I fear. There are far too many well documented cases where they are currently using violence up to and including murder against those of the working classes who are actively resisting them. The murder of South American union organizers with the full knowledge and support of some of our largest corporations has been firmly established. Here in this nation, along with many of the European ones, when the people finally do rise up I don't doubt for an instant that the ruling elite won't hesitate to use force to stop true fundamental change. Our own labor history is chalk full of the violence perpetuated against the workers and the union organizers who attempt to challenge the entrenched business interests.
As sad as it is, there are far too many people willing to perpetuate violence on behalf of money. Not just those hired by those controlling these international corporations, we see it every single day in the horrific carnage that is the drug wars with cartels. We see it in the misuse of national militaries the world over. And we see it in the individual isolated cases of murder over sums ranging from just a few dollars to millions. Knowing this, I don't see how we are ever going to convince each and every working class person to unite as one front against those at the top and the policies which are bringing so much misery to the world.
Virtually all the gains people have made against the ruling elites throughout history have come at the price of bloodshed. Even what we would consider non violent resistance such as Ghandi fighting the British in India or Martin Luther King Jr and the US Civil Rights Movement required the marginal radical and sometimes violent groups to actually accomplish their goals.
Our nation, and the world, is at a crossroads of sorts. We can either sink further into the outright neoliberal economic nightmare which will surely destroy both the working classes and the very viability of our natural environment or we can move away from this unsustainable capitalistic driven system of profits and personal wealth gathering to something new and really untried. A economic system who's purpose is to both provide for the well being of each and every member of society and to preserve the earth, and all of its biodiversity for future generations.
If I remember correctly,Maggie Thatcher was not a Christian fundamentalist, nor did she make her views on abortion known, and had no public opinion about Gays that I know of. She was smart, and tough, and nasty. For the rest of it, she was famous for stating: "There is no such thing as society-a point of view which was the source of her political evil-doing. Cameron is her direct descendant. Michell Bachmann is a featherweight compared to her.
Margaret Thatcher was essentially an Ayn Randite - even though I'm not so sure she was all that familiar with Ayn Rand. But even Thatcher didn't dare touch some aspects of the 'society" that she didn't believe exists - like the NHS.
In Maggie Thatcher's day, Ayn Rand only got attention from a handful of campus wingnuts, so it's unlikely she had read her, or, as you suggest, even heard of her. But now "serious people" have given Ayn Rand's teachings credibility. Go figure.
She had. Malcolm Fraser, the then Prime Minister of Australia recommended it to her.
Yer right. I googled Malcolm Frazer and Ayn Rand, and the first thing that came up was an article linking the two. Wonder when he read her. The article is a pretty good hatchet job on Frazier and his ghost assisted political autobiography.
Sioux Rose
......very well said. I am really at a loss of words, when it comes to the idea of someone like Bachman actually winning and becoming president...... I just can't see her getting enough votes......but then again...... I'm still terrified....it could happen..... I feel like I'm in the twililght zone.... Sometimes, I think the only reason someone like her actually gets any where, is that the mass media gets wind of a crack pot like this and THEY MAKE THE PERSON INTO NEWS..... So, people think they are credible and of course are lead by the nose .........
I'm no Thatcherite fan, but do ask yourselves this question? Why is it that she never once would allow her party, as was her preragotive as party leader, to support repeal of gun control, abortion rights pushed through if I'm not mistaken under Labor when Haroald Wilson got in, nor bring back the death penalty? She also did oppose the Gipper on Grenada and was even a bit of peacenick on the Balkans, more than can be said of Blairite Labor or phony Labor which has no relation to real Labor.
Don't worry. The Rovian Repugs probably won't allow her to be the candidate. The main reason McCain lost to Obomber is because he had Bachman's twin on the ticket. Although Obomber turned out to be their wet dream, instead of ours,they'd probably prefer Perry or Romney( if they can get Xians to vote for a Mormon). Then again, they might prefer Obomber...
The "Controllers" hand a lot over to their marketing departments. In a culture as commercially driven as ours, never under-estimate those powers. Palin got a lot of support, but all the limelight went to her head and she spoke in an unscripted way too often. Given her splendid ignorance, she lost all credibility. Now I realize she never had ANY cred with intelligent persons, but remember, the nation has a lot of people who do NOT read, get their news pre-fab from the MSM machine, and attend authoritarian churches, or belong to the military. The contollers decided to try their hand with another attractive woman with strong Christian Fundamentalist leanings. That's why Michelle Bachman suddenly was thrust into the media limelight and became a virtual overnight phenomenon. The media holds the powers of past kings in its capacity to anoint celebrity; and in our culture, celebrity serves as the modern version of royalty. Consider the article suggesting that Matt Damon run for office. In this densest of Yugas, where materialism trumps the Truth of Spirit, brand name (or name recognition) is where it's at... if you want to run for office. And winning? Hey, that's up to "the machines," (that count the vote), and/or what the media "experts" tell us is the case. Think 2000/Florida and 2004/Ohio...
Thanks Siouxrose.
Instead of 'controllers' I think of them as directors: they write the script, set the stage, choose the actors, train the chorus, control the lights and tell us "extras" where to go and what to say. Then they impede access to the obscured exits, while closing them one by one. ------------------------------------------------------------------Last week I was in Europe and was struck by how lively and engaged people were, how proud their bearing, and how careless- yet well-cared for- they looked. When it came time for me to go back, it felt like going back to the USSR. I really hope that they will be spared the Dickensian play that we are now engaged in.
But but but... She's not crazy enough!
Are there no intelligent Repubs?
To invert the title of one of Ann Coulter's books, _If Republicans Had Any Brains They'd Be Democrats_.
Old-school Republicans (Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter) seem to be leaving party because of its hard-right stance that the old-schoolers say conflicts with their conception of conservatism. Unfortunately, that abandons the party to the extremists. The language to describe these extremists, which is reinforced by the mainstream media, only underscores the Orwellian impact: "conservative Republican."
They are more honestly described as reactionaries, and they have been reactionaries since Reagan: They want to reverse and repeal every gain made in the last fifty years. These reactionaries give conservatism a bad name, at the very least because they have co-opted the term and have made it an anodyne description of their agenda: Plunging the nation back to a pre-civil rights, pre-consumer protection, pre-job security, pre-environmental security, pre-Roe v. Wade era. "Morning in America," Reagan called it, and if you think the Reagan reference is quaint, he is still the patron saint of this movement.
>>These reactionaries give conservatism a bad name, at the very least because they have co-opted the term and have made it an anodyne description of their agenda: Plunging the nation back to a pre-civil rights, pre-consumer protection, pre-job security, pre-environmental security, pre-Roe v. Wade era. "Morning in America," Reagan called it,<<
I would not dispute that one bit; I agree with it. What I cannot figure out for the life of me is how these people become so brainwashed into supporting policies that are directly detrimental to their own well being.
It seems to me that the Tea Party phenomenon, this alleged "grass-roots movement" that is unwittingly serving the agenda of the elites, is Thomas Frank's _What's the Matter with Kansas?_ writ national. As detailed by Frank's book, it's not as if this faux-populism arose out of nowhere--to simplify a bit, it started in Kansas. One of the salient images in Frank's book is of average, workaday Americans, fed up with the economic squeeze and all the other everyday problems, marching as a lynch mob in a horror movie toward a gated community of McMansions, pounding on the door of the first one they come to, and when the occupant timidly opens the door, declaring, "We are here to lower *your* taxes!" It illustrates how average Americans will work against their best interests.
The $64 question is why. I've heard Ian Masters, host of a show on Los Angeles's Pacifica Radio station KPFK, speculate that it might be because there persists among the populace the "lottery fantasy," that you can strike it rich in America, and if that happens, you don't want there to be an onerous taxation policy and other restrictions and barriers to wealth that would impinge upon your benefiting from that new-found wealth. I'd want to see some evidence of this claim before I (ahem) take it to the bank, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Certainly, Horatio Alger stories of rags to riches have been a staple of the American imagination--and, in truth, reality--for some time. Just as certainly, cultural artifacts from _Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous_ to _MTV Cribs_ celebrate not just the affluence but also that often it is ordinary Joes and Josephines who have in fact become wealthy whether through business acumen, athletic prowess, or entertainment talent that stemmed from hard work and night school, the inner-city basketball court, or singing in the shower before trudging off to the drudge job. It is a powerful myth in America, sustained by the reality that some *do* strike it rich, so perhaps that is one of the driving factors: I might become rich someday, so I'd better support the conditions that would continue to make it favorable to me even if I'm not there yet. (As I post this, I do have in my head an image of "Sanctuary" from the sci-fi movie _Logan's Run_.)
She had 28.55% of the vote and the anti-war candidate, Ron Paul, had 27.65% of the vote. If magazines would examine Paul's stances on issues like ending the wars and keeping Social Security and Medicare for people who depend on it, he'd probably be a real challenger, but that won't happen. They'd just as soon have the only anti-war candidate go away, so they can play their same old, tired "Democrats are better" game, and we'll be stuck with the evil Obama.
Why doesn't The Nation do an interview with Ron Paul, so people can see what he actually does stand for?
Is this "vile slander" of Maggie Thatcher going to be allowed to go unchallenged?
Actually Thatcher supported gun control, abortion rights for women, and opposed the death penalty while keeping the social safety net which the USA could never match.
Well, I suppose it would be interesting to hear Ron Paul's opinions on such matters as environmental regulation (opposed) and gay rights (opposed), but The Nation is a Dim Party shill rag, and won't deal with folks like Paul anyway. Which I can't say bothers me much. :-)
I think we should be paying attention to and to some extent support Ron Paul's candidacy. It's somewhat amazing that so many Republicans supported an anti-war, anti-empire, and anti-banksterstheft candidate. His rejection of all the features of the welfare state and abortion rights would make it hard for me to vote for him, but I think Republicans at least deserve credit for voting for him and I think we should do all we can to encourage them to prefer someone like Paul to the rest of the scurvy lot.
And, frankly, if it came down to choosing between Paul and Obama, who represents more war and more police state repression, I might have to vote for Paul.
-- sorry: doubled posted by mistake --
What she'll do, should she actually win (or be anointed - oops, sorry. I meant appointed) by the Supreme Court, will depend on the number of christians in Congress. What a scary thought.
The "American Margaret Thatcher" ? I lived through the British MT's reign - surely I'm not destined to live through a US reincarnation of it . ....lightning doesn't strike twice (does it?)
See http://youtu.be/k2DnW5uC1_A
It does strike twice, or more, but only in different places, never in the same place. Returning to England is your only safe bet! :)
there was a tree at the bottom of our small valley which showed signs of having received several lightning strikes throughout its life - the final one killed it a few years ago.
vdb ~~ Hmmmm..... because it presented one upright target ? - I shall stay inside of CD among a virtual forest then. ;-)
". because it presented one upright target ?"
no - that was the strange part - it stood right next to another oak of similar age, and size, which shows no signs of having ever been struck
Thanks for the empirical evidence contradicting the old adage about lightning. Now it would be interesting to hear from the climate change deniers just exactly how dumping CO(2) into the atmosphere (not to mention methane) doesn't lead to an increase in the temperature of the biosphere of our planet.
Considering events this week, in English cities, maybe Thatcher US style would at least be safer, the lesser of two you know whats. ;-)
(http://www.counterpunch.org/maher08122011.html).
I found an article in CP at the above website, on riots and the current riots in England a very engaging and informative read.
Halleluiah!! Our Savior-ette has arrived!! If this is the future of the USA, I'm packing for Mongolia. I shudder at the thought of someone like her and /or Rick "Praise the Lord!!" Perry at the reigns of this nation. Their foaming at the mouth, barely beneath the radar "lets get rid of the Negro in the White House" attitude has me scared to death. And that's what this is all about, mostly.
Chris Hedges is, again, so right in his writings, warning us about the Theocratic state this nation is poised to become. Are there no truly reasonable, non-"Born-Again" Republicans who can repect the separation of Government and Theocracy?
I agree with the foaming mouths about getting rid of the negro in the white house; replacing him with Cynthia McKinney, Congresswoman from Georgia who ran for President in 2008 under the Green Party.
onemorethought,
I totally agree with both your posts but I would ask you one thing. Please don't refer to Obama's race unless its relevant to the topic at hand. I've tried my best not to unless it relates to such topics as black unemployment or incarceration rates and how his racial background should have made him more sensitive to these issues. The one thing I hope can still come out of this abysmal presidency is the fact that people can ignore race when voting for our elected representatives.
Really it doesn't matter if the occupant of the White House is black, white, or even purple or green. The only thing that matters is their character and their views on how we should build the world we are going to leave to our future generations.
We should also remember that the President is only half black, should it matter. In truth he's just another miserable human being like the rest of us.
sad that the bleating blind believing from childhood in supernatural forces cannot be swayed by empirical evidence and never able to question how our actions determine favorable or unfavorable results. global warming? climate change? in the subjective mind humanity's destruction of land, sea, jungles, mountaintop removal as well as spewing poisons into the air for godly profits have no affect whatsoever on the earth. financial collapse? surely man-made. nope divine punishment for the lefty disease of social justice. having created a me-me little god in their own image who in his unquestionalbe wisdom hates the very same people "i hate" is the one who rains climate terror upon this 3rd rock. "jesus is lord over america!"? what an insult! blame god, blame jesus, blame the democrats, blame the liberals, blame the limp-wrested peaceniks means never having to question oneself. the hagee xian zioists and related fundie zealots may never think problems through, but they can be a massivie voting block. they have a sacred duty to destroy those who disagree with their provincial parochial litmus test, so do not doubt the possibility of brown shirts in your face!
hummingbird, you should deliver this at your local poetry slam. I'm not being sarcastic; I'm serious. This has got the ring of Gil Scott-Heron to it; I can even hear Cornel West's voice and cadence as I read it.