Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina

By SEANNA ADCOXThe Associated PressApril 21, 2006

COLUMBIA — Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys.

But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."

"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous."The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.

People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

South Carolina law borrows from a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling to define obscene as something "contemporary community standards" determine as "patently offensive" sexual conduct, which "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

Sugar ‘N Spice manager Pat Irons says a proposal to outlaw the sale of sex toys in South Carolina is outrageous.

While Davenport’s proposal is probably aimed at shutting down X-rated adult bookstores, Ms. Irons said, it hurts customers of "couples-oriented" stores such as her West Columbia shop, which sells everything from lingerie to bridal shower novelties to lotions.

At Sugar ‘N Spice, sex toys are displayed in a separate room. Buyers include men and women who "need a little help" because surgery or medical problems are affecting their marriage, Ms. Irons said.

"We’ve been selling these sex toys for 27 years," she said Friday. "Even pastors shop in here. They send couples in here they counsel for marriage problems. It’s probably going to hit people like that harder than people realize."

A Townville sex shop owner questioned the proposal’s legality.
"I don’t think that would be fair," said John Terezakis, owner of Paradise! in Townville. "It’s depriving people of their freedom of choice. I don’t think the customers would appreciate it very much."

Rep. Davenport, who is from Spartanburg County, did not return several messages Friday to talk about his bill, which was introduced last month. No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor and its passage this year seems unlikely.

Recent police raids in Rep. Davenport’s county have targeted adult-oriented businesses.

The sheriff’s office there seized movies, sex toys, sexual-enhancement pills and surveillance tapes from two businesses in January.

One of the stores, Priscilla’s, sued the sheriff’s office, claiming the raid violated constitutional rights and asked for the return of the seized items. Sheriff Chuck Wright refused.

The case has not yet gone to trial, Maj. Dan Johnson said.

Maj. Johnson said he knew nothing of Rep. Davenport’s proposal and was unsure how it could help their investigations, which involve undercover detectives renting movies or buying magazines and prosecutors determining whether they’re obscene.

"We’re focused on the hard-core magazines, videos ... the hard-core porn," he said.
Other states that ban the sell of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas, said Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Alabama’s law banning the sale of sex toys has been circulating through the courts since its passage in 1998. U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith Jr. twice ruled against the law, holding that it violated the constitutional right to privacy, but the state won both times on appeal.
In February 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which is back in the lower courts.

"People think it’s distasteful. It makes for good campaign fodder and panders to the conservative side of people. That’s why we see the laws in the South," Mr. Lopez said.
The ACLU got involved in the case, he said, to "keep the government out of the bedroom."
Though the laws don’t punish people for owning sex toys, banning their sale is a backdoor attempt to discourage their use, Mr. Lopez said.

"People have a fundamental right to engage in lawful sexual practices in the privacy of their home," Mr. Lopez said. "It’s not like this stuff is available in Macy’s. Kids aren’t allowed in. You or I wouldn’t accidentally walk into one."

Anderson Independent-Mail reporter Samantha Epps contributed to this story.





* Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
* Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
* Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
* Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
* Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
* Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
* Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
* Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
* Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
* Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.
* Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
* Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
* Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
* Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
* Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
* Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
* Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
* Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
* Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
* Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
* Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
* Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
* Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
* Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
* Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
* Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency. See excerpt of one prisoner's report here and his full report here.

VIGGO

Forrest Gump's Evil Twin

Forrest Gump's Evil Twin
By Stephen Pizzo, April 21, 2006,

How extraordinary. Something is happening here that has never happened in America's history. A consensus is sweeping the nation. Not that the war in Iraq is wrong, or that oil companies are screwing us blue, or that the climate is going to hell, or that good-paying jobs are being replaced by low-paying jobs, or that our national health care system is a disgrace, or that that the rich are getting a lot richer while the middle class gets poorer.

While all that's true, and more and more folks are getting it, that's not the consensus of which I speak. Nope. This one is bigger, enormous, huge!

Here it is: The president of the United States is a moron.

Yes, stupid, dumb as common road gravel. And not figuratively, but literally. George W. Bush, president of the world's last remaining superpower, is a moron. Forrest Gump's evil twin.
I broached this possibility one year ago in a post entitled, "Bush: The Worst President Ever?" I was a bit early with that one. But what a difference a year makes! The cover story of this week's Rolling Stone Magazine reads, "The Worst President in History?"

So the jury is in: Bush is a moron. If stupid is as stupid does, he's stupid. A botched war on terror, exploding debt, his "what me worry" response to Katrina -- and the ongoing mismanagement of the recovery, North Korea has the bomb and Iran is on its way to its own nuke. Think about that for a second because it is definitive proof Bush is a moron. First he identifies three nations as his "Axis of Evil" in the world: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Then he as a chance to whack one of the three, and he picks the only one that had no WMD. The only way he could look worse is if it were only two countries -- a coin flip -- and he still got it wrong.
Yes, Virginia, the current occupant of the Oval Office is no longer a crook or an adulterer. He's a moron.

As if that were not bad enough, we still face two and half years with this man at the controls. NFR reader Philip Bourgeois suggested an intervention launched by former Presidents Clinton, Bush Sr. and Carter. Not a bad idea, Phil.

Poppa Bush must be beside himself watching his kid screw up decades of diplomacy in just five short years. He could take sonny into that Oval Office alcove where Monica used to dispense her favors and administer a few long overdue dope slaps.

Bill Clinton could sit the moron down and give him a short course on how to balance a checkbook, teach him the difference between capital investment and undisciplined spending, and the virtues of saving for a rainy day.

Jimmy Carter could teach Junior the actual meaning of the word "compassionate," and how to walk that walk. Carter could reveal to him that giving the already comfortably rich even more money is not compassion. Giving more money to the growing number of those who work 60 hours a week or more, and still can't get by, is "compassion." And he could figure out how to cover the nearly 50 million Americans who cannot afford health insurance.

But none of that is likely to happen. One of the trademarks of a moron is contempt for facts that challenge the simple but comfortable fictions that rule their daily routines. You can drag a moron to a library, but you can't force him to learn.

In fact morons get downright testy when someone challenges what they think they know. We saw this trait earlier this week when Bush was asked if he thought Don Rumsfeld should resign. The moron lashed out at the questioner, dashed into his imaginary phone booth and emerged as The Decider. "I'm the decider," he pronounced, with Mussolini-like swagger. You see, scratch a moron and beneath that smirking, ignorance-is-bliss exterior, you discover a fundamental truth: Beauty may be only skin deep, but moron goes right to the bone.

I'm staying close to home until this guy is gone. Keeping my head down, my nose clean, and watching what I say in emails for friends. And I have a piece of advice for the Iranians too -- this guy really is crazy enough to "decide" that bombing the shit out you is a good idea. Yes, Bush is exactly as stupid as he looks, sounds and acts.

Doubt that at your peril. Fifty-one percent of American voters doubted it. And now we're screwed.

We like to think of advanced societies and empires throughout history unraveling and tumbling over when they are overrun by an unruly and unwashed mob camped outside the gate, as in the French masses toppling the monarchy and Atilla the Hun threatening Rome. Hence the frequent use the term 'barbarians at the gate.' Will America change this trend, and will its undoing be not because of barbarians at the gate, but rather due to 'hooligans in the halls of power?' It is at the same time fascinating and alarming to see our decisionmakers, and those invested with power, take America forever closer to the precipice of global irrelevance. Getting us in America to wake up to this possible outcome is a task and then some, given the fact that we in America think of ourselves as the world rather than as a part of the world. This trait is extremely pronounced in those invested with power, be it political, military, diplomatic, or entrepreneurial power. Now back to the idea of 'hooligans in the halls of power.'

The front page of The Washington Post of April 9th screams 'Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism: US Experts Wary of Military Action Over Nuclear Program.' No kidding! Well duh! I am no expert but I could have told them that. Iran is no Iraq. It is not run by one strongman on which everything depends as it did in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, making it a cake walk to dismantle. Iran is run by councils of powerful men who decide policy. Attacking such a system would unleash a most unpleasant response on America from that country, along with a firestorm of Muslim anti-American sentiment from the whole region. America would be fighting a whole region and a whole religion. This would not be another Vietnam. It would instead be another Crusades. In short a disaster.

The article goes on to make reference to a recent statement by an Iranian government official Javad Vaeedi who said of this country 'it may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wants to pursue that path, let the ball roll.' When this statement was made initially the immediate response from the White House was that it was 'highly provocative.' But scant days before, the Pentagon had issued a statement that attacking Iran with mini nukes would be safe and not have too much of an untoward effect on the civilian population. Before that the Bush Administration admitted that top military planners were brainstorming scenarios for attacking Iran, even admitting that the Israelis were involved in these undertakings. Notwithstanding this, our leaders think that such a statement by Iran, a country whose borders we have breached before, is 'provocative.' Who's provoking who? One has to seriously question whether our leaders are of sound mind and body.

Not very long ago George Bush came out and, in addressing our dependence on oil, declared 'America is addicted to oil.' This was somewhat odd given the fact that Bush and his family have built their financial empire on oil. I got to see Ralph Nader in a packed Washington DC church a few years ago. In his dry style of humor he jokingly asserted that the Bush family did not just have interest in oil, but they were practically marinated in it. I thought this was funny and well said. Having George Bush voice concern about America's addiction to oil is like Jack The Ripper lobbying the London municipal government for safety measures to be put in place to protect women on the streets at night. Right after his 'addicted to oil' pep talk Bush promptly announced to America that he would vigorously support World Ports Dubai taking over control of America's oil port terminals because it would facilitate the industry. Incredible! I rest my case for using the Jack the Ripper analogy.

But Bush is not the only one. He has company. In selling the war, Dick Cheney, someone who has never been to war, assured America that Iraqi citizens would be so grateful to be delivered by our forces from Saddam Hussein that they would welcome our soldiers as conquering heroes and throw flowers at their feet. They throw something at our soldiers feet all right, but it not flowers. It is Improvised Explosive Devices, IED's that kill, maim, and forever alter the lives of our young men and women fighting in Iraq. In selling the war, Bush, Dick Cheney, Condeeleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and various others, saturated us with the concept that attacking Iraq was a capital idea because it would stabilize and bring democracy to Iraq and cause democracy to break out all over the region. Instead of stabilizing, Iraq is in a washing machine spin cycle of violence that is fast becoming a civil war. As for the democracy pitch, Bush and his people are the laughingstock of the world. The reason is this:
The recent Palestinian elections swept Hamas into power with a convincing win of more than sixty percent. Observers considered it to be without question free and fair. The people spoke clearly. This election made the Palestinian government the most democratic in the Middle East. More democratic than any Muslim state in the region, and it can be argued even more democratic than the Israeli elections where Ariel Sharon's new party came out ahead of the others with a paltry twenty five percent. Barely room temperature figures. That party will now have to form coalitions and offer compromises that will make the Israeli government fractured at best. Not a good situation. But back to the Palestinian elections. Immediately as the results were announced, Bush, Rice and other spokespersons for the Administration announced that it was having nothing to do with the new government, that it was canceling whatever paltry aid it gave, and demanded that the government promptly recognize Israel. Their reason for cutting off ties with the Palestinians was because Hamas was on its terrorist list. Let me get this straight. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers that killed over three thousand Americans and destroyed the World Trade Center, one of this nation's most enduring symbols of power and achievement, hailed from Saudi Arabia which is not on America's terrorist list, yet a fledgling government that in its years of armed struggle made a point of not targeting Americans, is. Astounding! What an insult to America and all its honest citizens. There is a saying 'Be careful what you wish for. Bush and his people roaming the halls of American power wished for democracy. They got it. Then promptly began to howl that that was not what they wanted. The world is quietly snickering. Now Nader's funny comment about Bush and his family being marinated in oil does not seem so funny after all. It is deadly serious. The man knew what he was talking about.

So the next time Bush comes out doing his Chicken Little the-sky-is-falling routine we should call a time out and take a break from our American Idol show, stop surfing through our infinite number of satellite TV channels, haul our iPod earphones from our ears, step outside our Internet chatrooms, and really listen. When he warns us, as he always does, that 'barbarians are at the gates' of America, (for him its 'terrriss') we should ask ourselves if its really the 'barbarians' who are about to do us in. Or is it instead the 'hooligans' running amok in our halls of power signing our children's death warrants in Muslim lands, refusing to be part of a global co-op to ensure that our air and environment does not become poisoned and unlivable, threatening nations to join our cause or else, spying on us, exposing and endangering the lives of patriotic Americans who silently work on the firing lines secretly ensuring our security, abducting nationals of other countries at will and indefinitely incarcerating them on fake charges, and turning us from a nation used to being treated with goodwill by the rest of the world into one that is highly despised.

Coulter claimed to be "anti-murder" and "anti-false accusation"

In her April 18 nationally syndicated column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter claimed, "I have always been unabashedly anti-murder, anti-rape and anti-false accusation." Coulter's past statements, however, tell a different story.

Anti-murder?

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he [Bill Clinton] 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate." [Coulter's book High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998)]

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." [Coulter's December 21, 2005, column ("daisy cutter" is a nickname for the 15,000-pound BLU-82 bomb -- the largest conventional bomb in existence)]
"Would that it were so! ... That the American military were targeting journalists." [February 7, 2005, edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer]
"I'm getting a little fed up with hearing about, oh, civilian casualties. I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning." [Quoted in a January 10, 2005, article in the New York Observer]
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." [Quoted in an August 26, 2002, article in the New York Observer]
"We should invade their [Muslims'] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." [September 13, 2002, column]
Anti-false accusation?
Much of Coulter's career as a writer and TV pundit is marked by false accusations. For example:
She falsely accused University of Chicago professor Steven D. Levitt and Stanford University professor John J. Donohue III of "defending Roe v. Wade."
She falsely accused the Arizona Daily Star of anti-conservative bias for its decision to drop her syndicated column.
She accused Time magazine of liberal bias for its decision to feature an "elongated funhouse photo" of her on the cover of its April 25, 2005, edition.
She falsely accused The New York Times of "gratuitously out[ing]" gay children of prominent conservatives.
She called a white New York Times media critic an "Uncle Tom."

Theocons and Theocrats

by KEVIN PHILLIPS

May 1, 2006 issue

Is theocracy in the United States (1) a legitimate fear, as some liberals argue; (2) a joke, given the nation's rising secular population and moral laxity; (3) a worrisome bias of major GOP constituencies and pressure groups; or (4) all of the above? The last, I would argue.

The characteristics are not inconsistent. No large nation--no leading world power--could ever resemble theocracies like John Calvin's Geneva, Puritan Massachusetts or early Mormon Utah. These were all small polities produced by unusual migrations of true believers.

As a great power, a large heterogeneous nation like the United States goes about as far in a theocratic direction as it can when it meets the unfortunate criteria on display in George W. Bush's Washington: an elected leader who believes himself in some way to be speaking for God; a ruling party that represents religious true believers and seeks to mobilize the nation's churches; the conviction of many rank-and-file Republicans that government should be guided by religion and religious leaders; and White House implementation of domestic and international political agendas that seem to be driven by religious motivations and biblical worldviews.

As several chapters in American Theocracy make clear, this kind of religious excess has been a problem--indeed, a repeating Achilles' heel--of leading powers from late-stage Rome (historian Gibbon thus explained Roman decline and fall) to the militant Catholicism of Habsburg Spain and most recently the evangelical and moral imperialist Britain that saw 1914 as something of an Armageddon against the German Kaiser's Antichrist and wound up in 1917-18 crusading in the Middle East to liberate Jerusalem. But although this facet of historical decline constitutes a major caution regarding the future of the United States, this essay will concentrate on the domestic political aspects--the theocratic tendencies in the GOP and the notable "religification" of American politics across a spectrum from life and death to science and medicine to climate change and biblical creationism.

The Growth of Theocratic Sentiment

The essential US conditions for a theocratic trend fell into place in the late 1980s and '90s with the growing mass of evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal Christianity, expressed politically by the religious right; and the rise of the Republican Party as a powerful vehicle for religious policy-making and eventual erosion of the accepted degree of separation between church and state. This transformation was most vivid at the state level, where fifteen to twenty state Republican parties came under the control of the religious right, and party conventions in the South and West endorsed so-called "Christian nation" platforms. As yet nationally uncatalogued--a shortfall that cries out for a serious research project--these platforms set out in varying degrees the radical political theology of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, ranging from the Bible as the basis for domestic law to an emphasis on religious schools and women's subordination to men. The 2004 platform of the Texas Republican Party is a case in point.

So are the political careers of Pat Robertson and John Ashcroft, two presidential aspirants whose careers were milestones in the theocratization of the Republican Party. Robertson's 1988 presidential bid brought huge numbers of Pentecostals into the Republican Party. Missouri Senator Ashcroft, who explored a presidential race in 1997-98, got much of his funding from Robertson and other evangelicals. Picked as Attorney General by Bush after the 2000 election, Ashcroft was the choice of the religious right. Earlier in his career Ashcroft had decried the wall between church and state as "a wall of religious oppression," and his memoir describes each of his many electoral defeats as a crucifixion and every important political victory as a resurrection, and recounts scenes in which he had friends and family anoint him with oil in the manner "of the ancient kings of Israel."

But the national political emergence of Bush was equally relevant. "Born again" during the mid-1980s, he came up during the same period and in the same intense mode. As Newsweek noted in 2003, "As a subaltern in his father's 1988 campaign, George Bush the Younger assembled his career through contacts with ministers of the then emerging evangelical movement in political life. Now they form the core of the Republican Party, which controls all of the capital for the first time in a half century. Bible-believing Christians are Bush's strongest backers."

More telling still, in the years since 1988 dozens of reports have quoted Bush the Younger telling ministers, supporters and foreign officials that God wanted him to run for President and that God speaks through him. In mid-2004 one Pennsylvania newspaper reported his telling a local Amish audience, "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." Reports that he told Middle Eastern leaders that God told him to invade Iraq have been denied by the White House, but this is clearly the sort of language he uses from time to time.

Since Robertson's run for the White House in 1988 and the victory that same year by Bush the Elder, the Republican Party has clearly moved closer to this constituency--and the process was speeded by Bill Clinton, whose politics and personal conduct offended the churchgoing South, in particular, enabling George W. Bush to pose as the standard-bearer of moral restoration in 2000. This metamorphosis gained further momentum after September 11, 2001, when the younger Bush responded to the terrorist attacks by declaring the start of a war between good and evil, speaking in a relentlessly religious idiom that several biblical scholars have described as double-coding--only mildly religious on the surface, but beneath that full of allusions to biblical passages and Christian hymns. They, too, suggested that Bush cast himself as a prophet of sorts--one who spoke for God.

The upshot of this escalating religiosity on the part of the Republican national leadership has been an escalating and parallel religiosity on the part of the Republican rank and file. Those voting Republican for President since 1988 have become increasingly religious in motivation. After 9/11 pro-Bush preachers described Bush as God's chosen man while hinting that Saddam Hussein, whose Iraq was the biblical "New Babylon" of fundamentalist preacher Tim LaHaye's eerie Left Behind series, was the Antichrist or at least the forerunner of the Evil One. In 2004 a further wave of evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal turnout helped to cement the Republican transformation, even as moderate mainline Protestants shuddered and turned in a small Democratic trend between 2000 and 2004.

As early as 1988, Ohio academician John Green, a specialist in religious political behavior, had commented on how the growing correlation between frequent church attendance and Republican presidential voting was starting to raise a US parallel to the religious parties of Europe, most notably the Christian Democrats in Germany and Italy. By 2000-04, this correlation was much stronger, and political journalists began to speak of the "religious gap" that was replacing the "gender gap." The less discussed but even more significant aspect of this upheaval lay in a second set of polls that showed the increasingly theocratic inclinations of the Republican electorate.

These sentiments did not spring from nowhere. A majority of Americans take the Bible literally in many dimensions, including subjects ranging from the creation and Noah's Ark to the Book of Revelation. Within the ranks of Republican voters, the ratios are lopsided. For example, in 1999 a national poll by Newsweek revealed that 40 percent of American Christians believed in Armageddon and virtually as many thought the Antichrist was already alive. Because such believers were most numerous in the Republican electorate, I would calculate that roughly 55 percent of Bush 2004 voters believed in Armageddon--and it could be higher.

Such voters are especially prone to theocratic views, and foreign policy is by no means immune. In 2004 a survey by the Pew Center found that 55 percent of white evangelical Protestants consider "following religious principles" to be a top priority for foreign policy. Only a quarter of Catholics and mainline Protestants agreed, but given the makeup of the Bush coalition, I would guess that about half its voters would favor that position. This explains both why so many of Bush's core supporters cheered the first-stage US involvement in Iraq--and why Bush bungled things in the Holy Land so badly.

The Bible, Theology and American Politics

This is a bit of a chicken-versus-egg situation. Have the issues that matter most to Americans become more theological because religion has become more of a political force--or has the growth of issues with a religious dimension spurred the increasing religious divisions? Probably some of each, but the list is frighteningly long.

First and foremost are the issues involving birth, life, death, sex, health, medicine, marriage and the role of the family--high-octane subject matter since the 1970s. These are areas where perceived immorality most excites stick-to-Scripture advocates and the religious right. Closely related is the commitment by the Bush White House and the religious right to reduce the current separation between church and state.

Topics such as natural resources, climate, global warming, resource depletion, environmental regulation and petroleum geology mark out a third important arena. Organizations such as the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty have enlisted a fair amount of conservative religious and corporate support for preparing what amounts to a pro-business, pro-development explanation of Christian stewardship. The institute's director, Roman Catholic Father Robert Sirico, contends that left-tilting environmentalism is idolatrous in its substitution of nature for God, giving the Christian environmental movement a "perhaps-unconscious pagan nature."

Then there is the subject matter of business, economics and wealth, in which the tendency of the Christian right is to oppose regulation and justify wealth and relative laissez-faire, tipping its hat to the upper-income and corporate portions of the Republican coalition. Christian Reconstructionists go even further, abandoning most economic regulation in order to prepare the moral framework for God's return.

The last arena of theological influence, almost as important as sex, birth and mortality, involves American foreign policy, bringing us to the connections among the "war on terror," the rapture, the end times, Armageddon and the thinly disguised US crusade against radical Islam. Since Islam and Christianity began fighting in the seventh century, the Holy Land has often brought disillusionment: after the Crusades (all nine of them); after the fall of Constantinople in 1453; and five centuries later for the British, in particular, after World War I. Unmindful Western nations may still be playing out the Crusader hand. In the months before George W. Bush sent US troops into Iraq, his inspirational reading each morning was a book of sermons by a Scottish preacher accompanying troops about to march on Jerusalem in 1917.

Controversies over life and death--often pivoting on precise definitions of each--can only continue to burgeon. The arguable rights of women (or parents) are being displaced by the rights of embryos or by the prerogative of sperm and egg to join, decisions rooted largely in theology, not science. Perhaps the preoccupation involves maximizing the potential soul count for the hereafter, in the manner of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century inquisitors who ordered that heretics must die even if they repented, yet pursued repentance to save their souls first.
The theology of death is cloudier and also riskier politically. Although Bush took a bold and ultimately unpopular stand in the Terri Schiavo case, bending over backward to insist on continuing her life support, blocking death is not the theological equivalent of enabling birth. The Bible abounds with the killing of those already born, both by God and by lawful authorities. Bush himself, as governor of Texas, sent hundreds of prisoners to the electric chair.

The next throbbing cluster of issues involves church-state relations. The nonradical theocon wing of the GOP demands a more conservative judiciary and an expanded role for religion in education, social services and the constraining of what they consider to be immoral behavior--abortion, homosexuality, pornography and contraception--but avoids spelling out any grand revolutionary mandate. The Christian Reconstructionist movement, by contrast, proclaims ambitions that range from replacing public schools with religious education to imposing biblical law and limiting the franchise to male Christians.

The federal judiciary is the arena in which the battles most critical to incipient theocrats will be fought out judge by judge, court by court. Signs of their anxiety to control the federal judiciary burst into view in an early 2005 meeting at which conservative evangelical leaders were addressed by Tom DeLay and Senate majority leader Bill Frist. The focus of the strategy session was how to strip funding or jurisdiction from federal courts, or even eliminate them. James Dobson of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family named one target: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. "Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court," Dobson commented. "All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone." A spokesman for Frist said he did not agree with the idea of defunding courts or shutting them down, but DeLay, who had once said, "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts," declined to comment.

Beyond the judiciary, pressure for theological correctness became overt in federal government relationships with the varieties of science--from climatology to geology, and even entomology--that can conflict with the Book of Genesis. For the growing number of elected officials who uphold Genesis, the Almighty, not carbon dioxide, brings about climate change. The consequences here go far beyond the evolution-doubting books being sold by the National Park Service or inconvenient information about climate change or caribou habitats in oil lands being deleted from government websites. In Texas, where the cotton industry is plagued by a moth in which an immunity to pesticides has evolved, a frustrated entomologist commented, "It's amazing that cotton growers are having to deal with these pests in the very states whose legislatures are so hostile to the theory of evolution. Because it is evolution they are struggling against in their fields every season." Meanwhile, the bigger message--depressingly reminiscent of our imperial predecessors--is that science in the United States is already in trouble. Irving Weissman, a stem-cell researcher, told the Boston Globe, "You are going to start picking up Nature and Science and all the great [research] journals, and you are going to read about how South Koreans and Chinese and Singaporeans are making advances that the rest of us can't even study."

Part of the explanation involves the religious right's larger view of economic matters and dismantling of government. In the radical Texas Republican platform adopted in 2004, the Lone Star GOP was not content to call for abolishing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department; it also demanded abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and elimination of the income tax, the inheritance tax, the gift tax, the capital-gains levy, the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and state and local property taxes.

Evangelicals, Southern Baptist Convention adherents and others oppose government social and economic programs because they interfere with a person's individual responsibility for his or her salvation. Others were diverted by rapture and end-times possibilities. "Overall, this kind of teaching has certainly stifled social consciousness among evangelicals," said Tim Weber, professor of church history at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. "If Jesus may come at any minute, then long-term social reform or renewal are beside the point. It has a bad effect there."

These are divisive issues, and they divide both parties, but survey data suggest that they divide the Republicans somewhat more than the Democrats. True, liberals were front and center in trying to shrink the role of religion in the public square, and they have paid the price. However, the more important confrontation is now within the GOP, as the essential tensions shift from the unpopular derogation of religion so prevalent decades ago to the theologization and theocratic excesses of the conservative countertide.

Three prominent Republicans have staked out the boundaries. Former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri complained in 2005 that "the only explanation for legislators comparing cells in a petri dish to babies in a womb is the extension of religious doctrine into statutory law." Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee suggested that George W. Bush's "I carry the word of God" posture ought to be a 2004 election issue. And Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut regretted that "the Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy."
Unhappily, that's the direction in which it's been trending.

Despite his repeated efforts to provoke one, O'Reilly conceded "there is no attack on Easter"

Despite his repeated efforts to provoke one, O'Reilly conceded "there is no attack on Easter"



Summary: Despite his repeated attempts in recent weeks to suggest that "secular progressives" have waged a "war on Easter" resembling the purported "war on Christmas," Bill O'Reilly admitted that "there is no attack on Easter." Further, O'Reilly congratulated himself for the lack of Easter attacks, stating, "[A]fter the thumping that the department stores and all-over crazies took over Christmas, these people say, 'You know, I don't think we want to come up against O'Reilly and these other people on Easter. Let's just let it go.' "

Despite his repeated attempts in recent weeks to suggest that "secular progressives" have waged a "war on Easter" resembling the purported "war on Christmas," Bill O'Reilly conceded on the April 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that "there is no attack on Easter." Instead, according to O'Reilly, there have only been "two dumb incidents, one in St. Paul, Minnesota, where a secretary was asked to take down decorations featuring the Easter Bunny, and one in Georgia, where an Easter event was changed to a Spring event." Further, on the April 13 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, O'Reilly not only stated that "there hasn't been a war on Easter," but he congratulated himself for the lack of Easter attacks, stating, "[A]fter the thumping that the department stores and all-over crazies took over Christmas, these people say, 'You know, I don't think we want to come up against O'Reilly and these other people on Easter. Let's just let it go.' " But, if O'Reilly is correct in noting that there is no "attack on Easter," it is not for his lack of trying to promote one: Since March 1, O'Reilly has repeatedly cited the St. Paul "incident" and other unnamed "attack[s] on Easter" as evidence of an ongoing "assault" on Christianity.

On March 22, at the request of St. Paul Human Rights Director Tyrone Terrill, City Council President Kathy Lantry reportedly ordered the removal of Easter decorations from the City Council's lobby out of concern for offending non-Christians. Although O'Reilly described the St. Paul incident on April 13 as "dumb" and apparently not evidence of "attack[s] on Easter," in previous episodes of his television and radio shows, he repeatedly pointed to this event to declare, as he did on the March 29 broadcast of his radio show, that there is a "culture war" in the United States featuring "well thought-out ... assault[s] against any kind of Christian symbol[s]."

For instance:
While promoting a segment devoted to the St. Paul controversy on the March 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly warned: "Look out, Easter Bunny. The secular progressives are gunning for you." Later in the program, O'Reilly asserted, "[T]here is a movement in the USA to ban displays of so-called religious holidays in the public square" and added that "this is going on all over the country."

On the March 29 broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly mentioned the St. Paul incident as an example of "this war" against Christianity "being waged very bitterly," and later asked: "[W]hy are we kicking the Easter Bunny in the head?"

During the March 28 broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly again highlighted the controversy to ridicule the "left-wing print press" for allegedly "saying that I'm making up the culture war."
O'Reilly has also more generally referred to "attack[s] on Easter" to prove the existence of his alleged "culture war":

When discussing the alleged culture war, O'Reilly has often aired on-screen graphics showing images of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny above the headline "Under Attack."
During the April 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly declared, "Although some left-wingers in the media deny it, we have documented a number of cases where Christian holidays, like Christmas and Easter, have been attacked by secular interests." Later in the broadcast, O'Reilly and Newsweek managing editor Jon Meacham agreed that a "secular battle against Christmas, against Easter ... is taking place" in America.

The weblog Think Progress has also noted O'Reilly's apparent Easter flip-flop.

From the April 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: Now, I really got to thank the far-left Atlanta Journal-Constitution and its editorial writer, Cynthia Tucker. Madam, you continue to give me A-line material, and I appreciate it.
Just in time for Holy Week and Passover, Ms. Tucker writes an editorial entitled "Hippity Hoppity Easter Hypocrites." Quote: "It's a bit surprising to hear conservative talk radio rush to the defense of the Easter Bunny and Easter eggs. Rabbits and eggs, after all, have never been Christian symbols. Still, fresh from their holy war against 'holiday trees' and 'the fat guy in the red suit,' talk show hosts are taking up arms in defense of an embattled Easter, which they claim is under attack by the same political correctness that supposedly menaced Christmas trees and Santa. ... The real threat comes from conservative Christianity, which is attempting to rebrand Easter as 'Resurrection Sunday.' "

Wow. The real threat is Resurrection Sunday? Hide the kids. OK, let's walk through this nutty diatribe. First of all, there is no attack on Easter. Only two dumb incidents, one in St. Paul, Minnesota, where a secretary was asked to take down decorations featuring the Easter Bunny, and one in Georgia, where an Easter event was changed to a Spring event. After pressure, it's back to an Easter event.

So unlike Christmas, the secular left has avoided fostering Easter controversies this year.
From the April 13 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Now, I have to say to be honest, there hasn't been a war on Easter. OK, that, that has not happened. This is just two things that have happened here. We even watch after the thumping that the department stores and all-over crazies took over Christmas, these people say, "You know, I don't think we want to come up against O'Reilly and these other people on Easter. Let's just let it go."


From the April 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: "Factor Follow-up" segment tonight. Although some left-wingers in the media deny it, we have documented a number of cases where Christian holidays, like Christmas and Easter, have been attacked by secular interests. Lawsuits and corporate policies have proved this point over and over again.
With us now is Jon Meacham, an editor at Newsweek magazine and author of the brand-new book American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation.
Here is the kind of exciting guy I am. On vacation in the Bahamas last week, I read that book.
[...]

MEACHAM: I have a theory that -- first of all, that the secular battle against Christmas, against Easter, against these kinds of things that you're talking about, against "under God" in the pledge --

O'REILLY: You don't deny that battle is taking place?
MEACHAM: No.
O'REILLY: OK. Some of your ilk do.
From the March 29 broadcast of The Radio Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, the latest -- and this is amusing -- is in St. Paul-Minneapolis. [Laughing] And we reported it on The Factor last week. A toy rabbit holding a sign that read "Happy Easter," pastel-colored eggs, and green plastic grass were removed from the desk of a St. Paul City Council secretary by the St. Paul Human Rights Director Tyrone Terrill. Terrill told the St. Paul Pioneer Press the removal happened because those things -- the bunny, the eggs, and the plastic grass, and the sign Happy Easter -- might offend non-Christians.

Now, did I make it up? No. That actually happened. So the poor woman, who's a nice woman, we did the story and she brings in -- every holiday she brings in little things to cheer up the office. All of a sudden, she can't do that because it might offend non-Christians. This is insane. This is insane. OK? If anybody's offended like by that, there's something wrong with them. OK?
So you're basically looking at something that happened in St. Paul that should not have happened. Certainly a violation of this woman's freedom of expression. Now they'll say well, she can do it at home. She shouldn't do it in the workplace. There's -- that's not a crazy argument, but surely -- surely this is unnecessary. This kind of ideological, politically correct nonsense is unnecessary. It's not going to offend any sane person, and if it brings a little joy to the woman in the office, that's a good thing. Believe me when I tell you, there isn't one religion in the world that if somebody had a happy whatever -- happy Wiccan day -- I don't care. If it makes them happy, I'm happy. If you like Wiccan day, I like Wiccan day. Doesn't matter to me. If it's happy. Shinto day. Buddhist day. Good. Good. I'm happy. Am I impressed? No. Not impressed.
So, you've got this war, and it's being waged very bitterly. Very bitter attacks. And they had a conference in Washington, D.C., about this. All right? So we're going to bring you somebody who was at the conference who's going to tell us what happened there. And then we'll take your phone calls on the war. The culture war, with religion as the centerpiece.
[...]

O'REILLY: You know, there are so, so many -- look, I hear this all the time from fallen Catholics. I hear it all the time. And they basically say what you're saying, [caller]. They say look, Father McGillicuddy is a nut. He's up there, and he's screaming and yelling, and he's doing X, Y and Z, and I'm leaving the church. And I'm going -- I'm looking at them going, "You're probably right. Father McGillicuddy is a nut." In every organization, you have nuts. I mean, there are 65 million Catholics in the United States. You're going to have some nuts. And you're going to have them in the Lutheran faith, and the Episcopal faith, and the Baptist. Wherever you go you're going to have crazy people. But that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater, to use a cliché. You just go to another church. You find something that is compatible with your beliefs. And, you know, in the United States we have so, so many. Which is great. So, so many. So you have a wide variety of places to go to worship. And if you don't want to go, then you can stay home and worship. You can do whatever you want to do. All that is good.
So why are we kicking the Easter Bunny in the head? You know? What -- give the Easter Bunny his due. All the Easter Bunny does is make people smile and little kids happy. Why do you want to remove the Easter Bunny from anywhere? It's just insane.
[...]

CALLER: Good afternoon. I'm calling about uh, the misconception of what Easter is. Easter is not a bunny rabbit, Easter egg, quote, "family time," and that's what it is. Easter is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is the basic founder of the Christian religion. If you go back to the time of [George] Washington, [Thomas] Jefferson, they didn't roll Easter eggs on the White House lawn. And just like Christmas that we've had a long discussion about being secularized, Easter is the same thing. It's an attempt by the left -- or I don't want to sound conspiracy theory malarkey -- but it is a movement in this country to get away from the values that founded this country, and to become secularized and pushed, specifically Christians, away from and out of the picture.

O'REILLY: Well, I agree with you on that point, but there's a difference between Christmas and Easter. And the difference is important to know. Christmas is a federal holiday. Christmas is honoring the philosopher Jesus. Not the God Jesus. The philosopher. All right? So it's a holiday that Congress passed and U.S. Grant signed into law that has to be respected if you have any regard for your country at all.

Easter is a religious holiday. It doesn't have anything to do with the USA other than the fact that most Americans celebrate it. Because most Americans are Christian, as we mentioned. But I don't -- see, I don't object to the Easter egg hunt, or the secular things that surround the celebration of Easter. I think it makes it fun for little kids, engages them. Makes them curious about the wider theme of Easter. All of that is good. But you are absolutely right, [caller]. That all of this assault against any kind of Christian symbol is well thought-out. There is a reason behind it.

From March 28 broadcast of The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY: You know, I get a kick out of when I read the left-wing print press saying that I'm making up the culture war. That I'm making it up. That I fabricated the war on Christmas deal. Even though lawsuits were filed, and companies had memos -- I made it all up. And now if you watched The Factor last week, in St. Paul they banned the Easter Bunny in the St. Paul, Minnesota, City Council. But I made it up. [Laughing] You know, I make all this up.

From the March 24 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: When we come back, Easter coming up, as you know. And you what that means. Look out, Easter Bunny. The secular progressives are gunning for you.
[...]

O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight, Easter is coming. And look out, Easter Bunny. You're not wanted in some places.

As you may know, there is a movement in the USA to ban displays of so-called religious holidays in the public square. We went through this at Christmastime.
Now some on the left deny that's even happening. Writing today in The Kansas City Star, liberal columnist Mike Hendricks called reporting on this trend "hysteria."
But in St. Paul, Minnesota, the city's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, apparently asked the city council secretary to remove decorations, including a stuffed rabbit, Easter eggs, and a happy Easter sign that she had put up in her workspace.
The woman complied, and a controversy ensued.
Joining us now from St. Paul, City Council member Dave Thune. This is just dumb. OK, would you agree with me? It's just dumb?

[...]
O'REILLY: I'm going to wish everybody in St. Paul right now a Happy Easter.
THUNE: Thank you. Happy Easter to you.
O'REILLY: I hope you don't hate me, St. Paul people. But this is going on all over the country. It is an absurd, nuts, intrusive. And it is funny we're mocking it, but it has a serious undertone.
We appreciate you taking the time, Mr. Thune. Thank you.

PAUL KAGAME, << THE BIGGEST KILLER ALIVE>> TO VISIT CANADA.

PRESS RELEASE
For immediate and wide distribution
PAUL KAGAME,THE BIGGEST KILLER ALIVE TO VISIT CANADA.

Toronto, Canada, 26 March 2006 (GLAC) - The Canadian government led by the conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in association with several Canadian multinationals, has invited the African Hitler, the dictator Paul Kagame, for a visit to Canada on April 25th and 26th 2006, Great Lakes Confidential has learnt from very reliable sources.
On his way to Canada, Paul Kagame drags with him the blood of millions of people. According to a diplomat who confided in Grands-Lacs Confidentiel, "Beyond any doubt, Kagame is the greatest african killer of all times". The gesture of the Canadian government to invite such an individual affects greatly the respect the whole world has for Canada in terms of human rights and democratic values.

"Canada often played a foreign politics of hypocrisy. A true Pharisee, pretending to be a prophet of light" the source said.

Early 1990's, some Western powers, among which the United States (Clinton's administration), the British and Belgian governments, appointed Paul Kagame to head a war that aimed at " reshaping the heart of the African continent". It is with this precise objective that Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni accepted to be in command of "the darkest page of the African history of the last 50 years" our source, a diplomat, said.

Paul Kagame is the main trigger of the Rwandan genocide of april 1994. With Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, he also is the main architect of the war of occupation, depopulation and exploitation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This war has caused the death of more than 5 million people since 1998. It is also Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni the engineers of the assassination of Melchior Ndadaye, the first President democratically elected in Burundi since the independence. Mr. Ndadaye was butchered on October 21st 1993.

Why are Canadian multinationals interested in Paul Kagame who rules Rwanda, one of the poorest countries in the world with no natural resources what so ever to offer them?

These multinationals with their Canadian lobbyists play at two levels :
1. They financed a conference held exclusively about the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), entitled "Gouvernance et secteur minier : le défi congolais" (governance and mine sector: the challenge of the Congo" which took place in Montreal on march 30 - 31, 2006. To view the program of the conference click on the following hyperlink:
http://www.unites.uqam.ca/grama/pdf/Colloque_RDCongo_programme.pdf
2. At the second level, those lobbyists are organizing another conference under the fallacious theme "Education and economic Development in Africa". The conference pretends to use the analysis that the experts have made at the conference to put in action plans for the future of the Congo.

When one would expect a guest from the concerned country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo; it is Paul Kagame who is officially invited by the Canadian Government to meet the multinationals and sign mineral deals that will affect the lives of thousands in the DRC. Our source, a member of the conference organizer committee warns that the impact of Kagame's deal with the Canadian multinationals in the Congo could be effective as early as 2006 for the 20 years to come.

"Paul Kagame's arrival in Canada meets the multinational's need to refinance the military option so as to perpetuate the looting of the resources in Africa. The DRC will be sold in pledge. What is determinant is the level at which Paul Kagame will meet the executives of the Canadian multinationals. The Canadian policy to keep on supporting such a mass killer, meaning the continuity of the depopulation of Africa, is simply a shame" affirms our source.
Several Canadian and American business men, high level political personalities, heads of diplomatic missions accredited in Ottawa, representatives of Canadian and American multinationals will inevitably be at the meetings of the 25th and 26th of April in Montreal, to listen to the "guest speaker", the greatest living war criminal.

When inviting Paul Kagame, the government of Stephen Harper :
1. Tramples on the democratic values and human rights that many canadians want to protect.
2. Gets openly involved in a new war of conquest of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as in a new wave of massacres of the Congolese population.
On the African level, the meeting of Paul Kagame with Western powers coincides with a disturbing situation occurring in Burundi and DRC which manifests itself in the following manner:
· The recent visit of James Kabarebe, the head of the Rwandan army, to Burundi and Tanzania.
· The arrival of many mercenaries in Bujumbura en route to invade the DRC.
· The uncompromising stand of the Rwandans living in the DRC, threatening the Congolese government in order to obtain a "tutsiland" at the gunpoint.
· Early March this year, a failed coup attempt took place in Bujumbura aiming at toppling the second democratically elected regime of Burundi. Overthrowing the democratic regime in Burundi is the price Burundi will have to pay to serve as a corridor to Kagame's mercenaries to invade the DRC. The chaos in Bujumbura will be a favourable opportunity for this new invasion.
· The first democratic elections planed for June 2006 in DRC might put an end to the looting of the Congo's abundant natural resources. This will not be good for the multinationals who financed the war for "reshaping Central Africa".

A specialist of strategic Issues in the Great Lakes region of Africa, from his office in Toronto, specifies that this visit "must be cancelled by any possible means. It is a question of Congolese people living in Canada, in association with other Africans, to get organized, to put pressure, write to Canadian government's representatives to cancel the visit of this criminal".
In order to disguise this visit which is crucial for the future of Central Africa, pro-Kagame lobbyists invented from scratch, the so-called conference on education in Africa, whereas the true intentions of the Harper government are to :
- Keep for ever the free access of multinationals to the huge mining ressources of the DRC as well as the chaos and the abuse on populations that goes with it.
- Sign new agreements between the Canadian multinationals and Kagame so as to start the war over again and stop the coming elections in DRC.
- Show the Canadian government's support to Paul Kagame to have him continue with his favourite mission consisting of plunging Central Africa into mourning.

If the Canadian Government had honest intentions towards the DRC, it would first appear by its respect for the democratic elections planned for June 2006, the first elections since 1960. The Canadian government would wait for the elections of the new government to initiate connections between the new government and mining companies.

On the contrary, the speed of the invitation, between Stephen Harper's elections at the end of January 2006 and before the Congolese elections in June, is a true insult for the Congolese people that prepares for elections with so much enthusiasm.

To hide its support to the criminal, the conservative government of Ottawa, chose to invite Kagame in Montreal, far from the capital city, to give the impression that it is simply a business visit. But there again, what business could be discussed between Rwanda and Canadian mining companies, except for Congolese business? The liberal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to receive a visit from Kagame.

Among the multinationals that financed and still support the war of the depopulation and looting in DRC, one can name the following Canadian companies: Barrick Gold, American Mineral Fields (AMF), Tenke Mining, Banro Resource, Consolidated Trillion, First Quantum Minerals, International Panorama Resource, Melkior Resources, Samax Gold and Starpoint Goldfields. The above mineral companies obtained very lucrative mineral concessions of copper, cobalt, gold, platinum, zinc and many more.
1. American Mineral Field (AMFI) : On the board of directors are Georges Bush Senior and Brian Mulroney ( conservative former Prime Minister of Canada and spiritual father of Stephen Harper).
2. Banro : George Bush Senior and Brian Mulroney are on the board of directors.
3. Barrick Gold: Is it a mere coincidence that the key organizer of the meetings is PLACERDOME, a subsidiary of Barrick Gold?
In an article entitled "The Western Heart of Darkness " published by the "Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Monitor" of October 2001, Asad Ismi informs us that : <>
In the same article, Asad made curious revelations to readers about the attitude of Canadian conservative governments in the Congo war. One can notice the link between Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney, two Canadian Prime Ministers from the conservative party who chose to collaborate with Rwanda concerning the natural resources of the Congo.
In another article signed by a Montreal based organization <> and entitled "Untold suffering in the Congo", intriguing connections are revealed between Barrick Gold, American Mineral Field and various personalities from the international political scene such as Georges Bush, Brian Mulroney, Andrew Young, George H.W. Bush, Edward Neys (former american ambassador in Canada and president of the private firm PR firm Burston-Marsteller), ex american senator Howard Baker ; J. Trevor Eyton (a member of the canadian senate) and Vernon Jordan (one of Bill Clinton's lawyers). To read this article, click here :
http://www.alternatives.ca/article2396.html

At the time when Paul Kagame is accused from everywhere around the world for being the one who triggered the Rwandese genocide, can we assume his invitation to Canada happens by chance? Or could it be a recurrent factor in the politics of the Canadian conservative party? One can then fully understand the fact that Louise Arbour, the then Attorney General of the TPIR (Tribunal Pénal International for Rwanda), received from M. Hourigan, investigator at the Uniited Nations, documents incriminating Paul Kagame as the one who triggered the rwandese genocide and decided to make them disappear. This action is in total agreement with the Pharisee's culture of Canadian politics in Africa.

The National Post, a Canadian newspaper, in its march 1st 2000 edition, exposes this mafia conspiracy against justice by the exact same people who claim they represent justice.


To read the full text by Stephen Edwards (of the National Post) please click here:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/36/441.html

Let's remind the readers of Grands-Lacs Confidentiel, some high war actions of Paul Kagame.
· In the Democratic Republic of the Congo: In an article dated march 17th,2006 published by the NGO " Alternatives ", the number of deaths due to the war imposed by the international mafia on Congolese people now reaches over ten million people

(http://www.alternatives.ca/article2396.html ). Among those one counts the massacres of Kasika (where women were buried alive), Makobola, Kahungwe, Kisangani, and so on. Reaction of the International justice: Null.
· With the help of the American government under the Clinton administration, Paul Kagame was placed at the head of the Rwandan Patriotic Front by his masters in London and Washington for a double mission: topple the Rwandese government of Juvenal Habyarimana and redefine the map of Central Africa.
· In the north of Rwanda (Byumba, Kagitumba and other villages) where the attack started, many hutu were killed cold bloodedly and their body thrown in common graves. Many reliable non-governmental organizations report on this.
· In order to get ready for his raking of the heart of Africa, Paul Kagame prepares, with the help of tutsi extremists, the toppling of the first democratically elected government of Burundi. Melchior Ndadaye is savagely murdered on October 21st 1993. This crime plunges Burundi into a war that goes on up to now.
· Paul Kagame is now officially accused by his own body guard, Abdul Ruzibiza, to be the person who triggered the Rwandese genocide. The coup war planned at Bobo Dialousso (Burkina Faso) by Kagame himself. A few months later, the plane bringing the Rwandese president Juvenal Habyarimana, the burundese president, Cyprien Ntaryamira, and several other political personalities is shot down when it was ready to land in Kigali. Abdul Ruzibiza confirms he was on the site where the missile was sent to shoot the plane of President Habyarimana. M. Ruzibiza finished his testimony at the Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda (TPIR) in the first half of the month of march 2006.
· Contrary to the naked lies that President Habyarimana's assassination was perpetrated by hutu extremists, reliable accusations abound and weight heavily on Paul Kagame for his crimes in Rwanda, Burundi and DRC. What does the attitude of Canada reveal to us, in welcoming such a criminal, with blood from head to toe?
· The whole world still remembers the massacres of thousands of Rwandese refugees in the DRC, in the region of Tingi-Tingi. Over 340 000 people died there under the boots Kagame (Stephen Smith of the journal Libération reports: http://ospiti.peacelink.it/bukavu/znews024.html ).
WHAT CAN WE DO TO OPPOSE PAUL KAGAME'S VISIT TO CANADA?
Grands-Lacs Confidentiel appeals to all the African organizations based in Western countries and more specifically in Canada and the United States, to get organized and mobilized against the arrival of the African Hitler in Montreal, Canada. Concrete actions may include:
- To protest by writing a letter directly addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada, Right Honourable Stephen Harper and to the Minister of foreign affairs.
- Write to the Member of parliament in your area.
- Address a letter specifically to the Minister of Citizenship and immigration, l'Honorable Monte Solberg, requesting him not to deliver an entry visa to Canada for Paul Kagame. It is the minister of citizenship and immigration who holds the final decision on the visa to be issued. The letter must be sent to him three weeks before the arrival of Kagame.
- Contact other Africans and friends of Africa to organize demonstrations in Ottawa and Montreal.
- Join the groups determined to ban the criminal Paul Kagame from Canada through legal procedures.
- Please remember to attach photographs of crimes committed in the DRC by Kagame and his team.
Grands-Lacs Confidential appeals to all associations of Congolese, Burundian, Rwandan and Ugandan people, as well as all friends of Africa to support by financial contributions the present initiative to get an order against Kagame through the law.
THE AGENDA OF PAUL KAGAME'S VISIT IN CANADA
L'AGENDA DE LA VISITE DE PAUL KAGAME AU CANADA
· To obtain the program of Paul Kagame's visit in Canada (html format) click here :
http://www.ccafrica.ca/events/ccaf/education/day1_e.htm

· To obtain the program in pdf format, click here:
http://www.ccafrica.ca/events/ccaf/education/Education_Conference.pdf
· To understand the connections between those who organize the event and Barrick Gold, one of the Canadian multinationals that was around during the war in the DRC, click here :

http://www.placerdome.com/Home.htm
When accepting to give an entry visa to the " greatest living criminal ", the canadian government proclaims its choice: getting access to minerals in Congo at any cost even if this means the total elimination of the Congolese population in all exploitable areas.

When accepting to give an entry visa to Paul Kagame, the Canadian government confirms its prostitution with the " Africa Hitler", affirming the continuity of the war and the looting of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to make that country ungovernable and easy to dismember.

This alliance between Canada and the criminal Kagame proves the statement of Asad Ismi in his article : "The destruction of the Congo says much more about the West than it does about the Central African country. It reveals most clearly that the West is largely a criminal enterprise, the prosperity of which is based on the genocide of Third World people and the theft of their resources."

Toronto, March 26th 2006.
- 30 -

US plots 'new liberation of Baghdad'

US plots 'new liberation of Baghdad'

American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad” to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed. Pacifying the lawless capital is regarded as essential to establishing the authority of the incoming government and preparing for a significant withdrawal of American troops. Strategic and tactical plans are being laid by US commanders in Iraq and at the US army base in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, under Lieutenant- General David Petraeus.

He is regarded as an innovative officer and was formerly responsible for training Iraqi troops. The battle for Baghdad is expected to entail a “carrot-and-stick” approach, offering the beleaguered population protection from sectarian violence in exchange for rooting out insurgent groups and Al-Qaeda. Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces would take the lead, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.

Helicopters suitable for urban warfare, such as the manoeuvrable AH-6 “Little Birds” used by the marines and special forces and armed with rocket launchers and machineguns, are likely to complement the ground attack. The sources said American and Iraqi troops would move from neighbourhood to neighbourhood, leaving behind Sweat teams — an acronym for “sewage, water, electricity and trash” — to improve living conditions by upgrading clinics, schools, rubbish collection, water and electricity supplies. Sunni insurgent strongholds are almost certain to be the first targets, although the Shi’ite militias such as the Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, and the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade would need to be contained.
President George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, are under intense pressure to prove to the American public that Iraq is not slipping into anarchy and civil war. An effective military campaign could provide the White House with a bounce in the polls before the mid-term congressional elections in November. With Bush’s approval ratings below 40%, the vote is shaping up to be a Republican rout.
morehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136297,00...

Since 1991, the United States has been directly responsible for the deaths of over one million Iraqi civilians, more than half of them children. They still run daily bombing missions, flattening entire blocks of buildings where resistance fighters are alleged to be hiding, yet were innocent people also live. This is a form of collective punishment, and is illegal under the Geneva protocols. Cities known to be centres of the Sunni resistance have become ghost towns; the worst example is Fallujah, where some seventy percent of the buildings are now rubble, under which bodies still lie crushed. Of the 350,000 inhabitants living there before the U. S. military launched its campaign of terror in which even the quisling Allawi government admitted at least 2,000 civilians were slaughtered, only 25,000 have so far returned to occupy their homes, or to pick through the rubble for whatever can be salvaged of their possessions and whatever remains to be buried of their loved ones.

Iraq is still largely a tribal society, where traditional codes take precedence over everything, including religion. When a brother, sister, mother or father is murdered – no matter why or by whom – these codes dictate that the remaining sons or brothers must avenge the death or else bring shame upon the family. With 100,000 civilian dead, a large number of them killed by American bombs or guns, it is not hard to do the arithmetic and work out where Iraqi resistance groups are getting their recruits. As Time magazine’s correspondent in Baghdad reported late last year, “the U. S. military here are merely acting as wet nurses to the next generation of al-Qaeda terrorists.” The devastation of Iraq’s cultural heritage by U. S. forces has also continued.

The National Museum’s irreplaceable treasures have vanished forever – perhaps one percent were recovered or returned; the library of ancient manuscripts at Ur was looted by U.S. soldiers, who also sprayed ancient scrolls with graffiti; the ceremonial road of Babylon, made from bricks bearing a cuneiform inscription by Nebuchadnezzer, has been completely destroyed by U. S. tank treads; and 2,500-year-old tiles from the ancient city’s gateway were pried out by army souvenir hunters while their commanders looked on. Babylon is a World Heritage Site, so the barbarians are stealing from all of us and from generations unborn. This is also the case with the latest cultural casualty, Samarra’s unique ninth-century spiral minaret, which Omar had once so proudly shown me. It was partially destroyed in a mortar attack after U.S. troops had been using the roof as a sniper position – yet another war crime according to the Geneva protocols, which provide for the protection of historic sites by occupying armies. Omar and his brother Zaid are also believed to be dead now, victims of the city’s siege by U. S. forces last year. The reader may recall that Samarra was the one city ready to welcome the invaders, and Omar and Zaid had freed American soldiers held hostage there. I can only imagine these good men’s final thoughts as the people for whom they had once risked their lives laid waste to their home town. Whatever happens to Iraq, no American will be welcome there for decades to come. If something good is to come out of all this misery, it ought to be a recognition that, in an increasingly multicultural world, where few nations do not contain large populations of non-indigenous peoples, war and military force of any kind are no longer viable solutions to political problems and need to be removed from the quivers of leadership. In a sense, all future wars will be evil.

The wars already waged will forever remain as the most shameful aspects of our communal past, and their lessons must be studied and learned until the end of time. We are better than this now, I believe, and we will need to be in order to deal with the more global concerns that lurk in the shadows beyond time’s bend. We all live on this beautiful blue and white ball, and the sooner we realize it is our only home the better off both we and the planet will be. There are no unilateral actions in the Third Millennium. Anywhere is everywhere, and the effects from any cause hit us all. I think, too, that America is going to need the world’s help and goodwill sooner than anyone believes is possible. That help would be so much easier to guarantee if Washington awoke from its evil enchantment, remembered its Constitution and once-glorious destiny, and became determined to lead the world in eradicating the scourge of war -- if only as penance for its deeds over the past half century. It needs only to be added here that the money spent on destroying Iraq could have been used instead to give Americans the kind of health care and education systems that most other civilized nations regard as basic rights, not privileges for the oligarchy. Of course, it would also have been sufficient to permanently end AIDS in Africa and feed for a hundred years every one of the world’s two billion human beings who go to sleep each day hungry.

“Defending democracy” sounds fine…but to defend democracy by military means, one must be militarily efficient, and one cannot become militarily efficient without centralizing power, setting up a tyranny, imposing some form of conscription or slavery to the state. In other words the military defence of democracy in contemporary circumstances entails the abolition of democracy even before war starts.
— Aldous Huxley (1894–1963)