McCain's Women's Clinic

McCain - We're talking about a man who has voted anti-choice 123 out of 128 times. A man who wouldn't require prescription coverage for birth control. A man who voted against allocating $100 million to preventative health services that would have reduced unintended and teen pregnancies. A man who could irreparably damage women's rights in our country unless we get the word out about him now.

This series of videos gives the viewer/voter a view of "McCain's Women's Clinic", a sneak peek at what a women's health clinic could look like if McCain were elected.

Why do women give McCain a Zero?

McCain's Women's Clinic Part II

McCain's Women's Clinic Part III - John McCain knows what's best for women. He's not a doctor, he's the president...you don't have a CHOICE!

Here's what you can do: send this video to everyone you know and Digg It! By taking these steps, you can help educate female voters in battleground states about McCain's anti-choice record.

More at http://TheREALMcCain.com/

Blogged with the Flock Browser

McCain's Stance on Women's Health: Get to Know the Facts

Don't keep this to yourself...pass it on, remind people that real change comes from popular dissent...protect your rights...use your voice...know the candidates...cast your vote!

To access the "Brave New Films" website for this and other important films visit:

Planned Parenthood's Bush-McCain Challenge
Brave New Films

Criticism of the President Un-Patriotic?

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.""Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149May 7, 1918

Is America becoming a fascistic nation?

The excerpt below is worth considering as so often history has a way of repeating itself and often we don't educate ourselves to see the similarities between historical and contemporary times.  Bearing this in mind can we as Americans see any relationships between what Hitler accomplished in Germany in the 30s and what we are experiencing today in the USA?  If we see similarities and do nothing or if we don't notice the changes because they happen little by little, I think in many ways this answers the question "How could what happened in Germany happen?"  However, even more importantly do we want to let it happen again, but now in the USA and can we say we didn't know this time?

THE END OF AMERICA [?/!]

 

Hitler's Germany was no anarchic state: He used to law to legitimate virtually everything he did. Hitler often boasted that "We will overthrow Parliament in a legal way through legal means. Democracy will be overthrown with the tools of democracy." "I can say clearly," he announced at a Nuremberg rally in 1934, "that the basis of the National Socialist state is the National Socialist law code." He called Nazi Germany "this state of order, freedom and law:"'

Dictators can rise in a weakened democracy even with a minority of popular support. Hitler never won a majority: In the election in 1932, only 13.1 million Germans voted for the Nazi party. Although National Socialism was the largest single party, the Nazis had fewer seats in government than the combined opposition parties did. At that point they could still have been defeated." Their numbers declined further in the next election.

 

At that critical time, Brownshirts waged a campaign of violence against Nazi Party opponents in the streets. A sense of crisis descended on the country. A coalition of conservatives united to provoke a constitutional crisis in Parliament as well. Lawmakers then engaged in frenzied negotiations to head off civil war. The conservative majority still believed at that point that if Hitler were appointed Reich Chancellor they would be able to control him. They made a deal: Hitler was sworn in as Reich Chancellor entirely legally on January 30, 1933.

 

But Nazis directed events to cascade rapidly after that: They staged torchlight marches while all marches by the Communist opposition were forbidden. When thousands of citizens marched against the new government nonetheless, police arrested their leaders. Twenty opposition newspapers took issue with the new Nazi leadership-but then the papers were banned; local authorities cracked down on free assembly across the country.

Hitler told the Cabinet that an amendment to the Constitution was required, the Enabling Act, which would allow him permanently to circumvent some powers of the Parliament. It was now legal for the state to tap citizens' phones and open their mail."

 

Appalled at the terrorist threat, and not wanting to be seen as unpatriotic, there was little debate: lawmakers of all parties passed the Enabling Act by a wide majority: 441 to 94. The constitution remained, but from then on, Hitler could govern by decree.

Excerpt from: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/End_Of_America.html, pp. 41-42. Naomi Wolf. 04/11/08.

Five Year Anniversary of the Iraq Invasion: What is it good for?....sing along now...Absolutely Nothin'

Five years on, Bush says Iraq war will end in victory (WHAT ???)
"US President George W. Bush on Wednesday defended his decision to go to war against Iraq five years ago, vowing no retreat as he promised the battle would end in victory." - quote source: from Aljazeera Magazine/AP

If you're like me, you're asking yourself how exactly staying is a good idea for Americans or for Iraqis, Afghanis or really the the world in general since everyone is feeling the impact of this war in greater or lesser degrees.

So, on the anniversary of the Iraq invasion, though not a happy one, I thought to myself why not assess the "Battle of the Bush" and determine whether "the Decider" has made the right decisions.

There are many articles online, but I believe that that the one selected below really sums up the broad reaching impacts of this war in a digestible format.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq: A debacle for US Imperialism

Five years after Washington inaugurated its “shock and awe” campaign, striking Baghdad with cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs, it has become abundantly clear that the war of aggression against Iraq has produced the greatest geo-political disaster in American history.

The war’s costs, in terms of both US imperialism’s global position and sheer dollar amounts, have eclipsed the immense damage wrought by the protracted intervention in Vietnam nearly four decades ago. It has already lasted longer than the American Civil War, World War I, World War II and the Korean War. Even in Vietnam, after five years of major troop deployments, the withdrawal of American forces had already begun.

A “war of choice” that was launched as a demonstration of the overwhelming and irresistible force of American militarism has turned into an operational debacle that has strained the US armed forces to the breaking point and eroded the strategic position of the United States in every corner of the world.

For the Iraqi people, the war has produced a catastrophe. For the American people, as well, it has yielded nothing but suffering and tragedy. It unquestionably constitutes the single greatest war crime of the twenty-first century. In both its motivation and execution, it embodies the essential characteristics of similar crimes carried out in the last century.

Read full article at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/mar2008/iwar-m19.shtml

- excerpt from www.wsws.org 19 March 2008

Demographic Winter? More White Babies - The Religious Right is at it again...

"The only reason this is a crisis is if you're overly focused on which babies are being born and if they're the "right" religion and race."

"Christian conservatives are predicting a looming catastrophe as birthrates fall in Europe. But writer Kathryn Joyce, author of Missing: The Right Babies in this week's Nation Magazine, argues that the campaign to promote Europe's "Demographic Winter" is really a xenophobic effort to confront rising Muslim populations, and to export the U.S. culture wars to a new battlefield." - Quote & video taken from Feb. 18, 2008 post at http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/joyce_video

Liberation Takes More Lives than Genocide

A recent study published in Lancet places the total death toll resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq at 655,000 people as of 2006. In Darfur the total deaths are estimated to be 450,000 resulting from genocide. The USA states that one of its overall purposes for being in Iraq is to liberate the people from an oppressive regime and install democracy. However, when we look at the numbers it appears that even genocide takes fewer lives from a country than liberation.

In both cases the number of lives taken is outrageously high and similarly in both cases it can be equally argued whether the ends justify the means. If the world’s nations are united in saving the people of Darfur, then where are they assembling to save the people of Iraq?

All nations have common interests in the Middle East, however the military solution has already proven fatal for more than 2.5% of the population of Iraq, 4 million Iraqi’s have been displaced (14%), 60,000 people continue to be displaced every month, and scores of others are wounded. It seems prudent at this point to consider a multi-lateral diplomatic approach to the achievement of our goals, lest we find ourselves with no one left to liberate.

UNHCR - UN Refugee Agency - Iraq Situation

Read Full Lancet Study Here – (Sign up for free)

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

September 2, 2007 --- The Sunday Times --- Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of...(read full article here)

War Cannot be Justified to the Dead

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Ghandi

Former Head British Army Attacks US Handling of Iraq War

By Tim Shipman in Washington

01/09/2007

General Sir Mike Jackson, the former head of the British Army, has come under fire from America for his outspoken criticism of the US handling of the war in Iraq.

One of Washington's leading commentators on the transatlantic alliance warned that Gen Jackson's denunciation of the US government would damage the special relationship at a highly sensitive moment.

In an interview ahead of the serialisation of his memoirs in the Daily Telegraph from Monday, Genl Jackson said the approach taken by former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld was “intellectually bankrupt” and “one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq”.

He described Mr Rumsfeld's insistence that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".

(Read more - click link)
Gen Sir Mike Jackson's attack draws US ire - Telegraph