Bush Wants Newcomers to Learn English

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press WriterSat May 20, 6:01 AM ET


The White House took both sides in a dispute over English being the national language Friday as a broad immigration bill moved toward a final Senate vote next week with one conservative predicting it will never become law.

Bush's support for the dueling sides doesn't stray from his long-held view on learning English, said White House press secretary Tony Snow.
"What the president has said all along is that he wants to make sure that people who become American citizens have a command of the English language," Snow said. "It's as simple as that."

The Senate on Thursday approved an amendment sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., that would declare English the national language. But it also approved an alternative proposal sponsored by Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., designating English the nation's "common and unifying language." Before the vote on the alternative, Inhofe warned his colleagues, "You can't have it both ways."

The White House seemed to. "We have supported both of these," Snow said of the two amendments.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, speaking Friday in Houston, added to the confusion.
"The president has never supported making English the national language," Gonzales said, adding, "I don't see the need to have legislation or a law that says English is going to be the national language."

As governor of Texas and a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush supported bilingual education programs. He sprinkles Spanish into his presidential speeches and has released political commercials in Spanish. But he also has said the national anthem should be sung in English.

The president plans to address immigration reform in his weekly radio address Saturday. He has generally favored a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and a guest worker program that would bring more foreigners to the U.S. to fill jobs. Both are central elements of the bill before the Senate.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., an ardent opponent of the bill conceded Friday it is likely to pass next week. "The Senate should be ashamed of itself," he said. But he also predicted to reporters that it won't become law unless House and Senate negotiators rewrite it.

The adoption of Inhofe's amendment drew a heated protest Friday from Latinos.
John Trasvina, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the amendment could be misinterpreted and lead to a cutback in services for those not proficient in English.

"Latinos don't need a law passed to say we ought to learn English. There are long waiting lists for adult English classes," Trasvina said. "It's false patriotism to pass an amendment to say you ought to learn English and not fulfill your responsibility of providing the opportunities."

New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), the only Republican to reject the Inhofe proposal, said the country should "move beyond the notion that English, and English only, will ensure the future of the United States."

Bush & Friends off supporting the Troops AGAIN

House Conservatives Cut $500M Off Vet Bill

WASHINGTON (AP) - House conservatives, rejecting protests from fellow Republicans who said they were depriving troops of needed support, stripped $500 million in military projects from a veterans spending bill Friday.

Democrats in turn said GOP-backed tax cuts and a tight budget passed two days ago were behind a fiscal crisis leading to the cuts.

"I don't know why they (the troops) should be stuck in the middle of a family squabble within the Republican Party," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

The conservatives, led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, used parliamentary procedures to delete some 20 projects worth $507 million from the $94 billion spending bill for military construction and veterans programs in fiscal 2007, which will begin Oct. 1. The overall bill passed 395-0.

Writers of the legislation, seeking to meet limits outlined in the just-passed budget, had taken the money for the projects from a $50 billion war reserve to fund urgent projects, a move characterized by both conservatives and Democrats as a budgetary gimmick.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a fiscal hawk, asked how $18.1 million for a bachelor enlisted quarters at Camp Pendleton in California or $102 million for a brigade complex at Fort Lewis, Washington, could be considered emergency spending.

"The ink is not even dry on the budget and we are already attempting to violate it, and that's simply not right," said Hensarling.

The conservatives also noted the bill contained some 66 other earmarks, or projects requested by individual members, costing the same $500 million.

But Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., chairman of the subcommittee that wrote the bill, slammed Hensarling, saying, "He does not understand that we are at war."

"Please don't come out here and lecture us," Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, another GOP member of the Appropriations Committee, told the conservatives. "Pick another bill, not this one."
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leader of the conservatives, told reporters this would not be the last spending battle. "I think you are going to see an ongoing effort by House conservatives to see this Congress live within our means."

Democrats also pointed out that, while the bill approves record levels of spending for veterans' and active duty health programs, it falls $735 million short because the House did not go along with a White House request for fee increases for military retirees eligible for Tricare, the Defense Department's health care system.

Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, top Democrat on the military quality of life and veterans affairs subcommittee, said that shortfall, coupled with $316 million in underfunding for base closings and the $507 million cut from construction projects, left the bill $1.5 billion short of what was needed.

"This sends a terrible message to our troops here at home, in Iraq, and Afghanistan," Edwards said.

Democrats proposed paying for the 20 projects, the $735 million for active duty health care and the $1.82 billion increase in veterans' health care by trimming tax cuts for those making over $1 million annually. The proposed amendments were ruled out of order.

The White House, while expressing support for the legislation, issued a statement questioning some of its components. It criticized the use of war reserve funds for military construction projects, and urged Congress to eliminate the 66 earmarks that the administration had not requested.

It also opposed cuts in spending to carry out the 2005 base closing act, and urged Congress to consider administration proposals to increase copayments and enrollment fees for higher-income non-disabled veterans and for military retirees under 65 using Tricare.
The bill provides $25.4 billion for veterans' health programs, up $2.6 billion from the current fiscal year, and $21 billion for the Defense Department health program, up $1 billion. Some $5.5 billion is funded for base closing activities, $6.6 billion for military construction and $4 billion for family housing construction.
---
The bill is H.R. 5385.
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb

Mother do you think they'll like the song

Mother do you think they'll break my balls

Mother should I build a wall

Mother should I run for president

Mother should I trust the government

Mother will they put me in the firing line

Mother am I really dying?
Hush now baby don't you cry

Mama's gonna make all of yourNightmares come true

Mama's gonna put all of her fears into you

Mama's gonna keep you right hereUnder her wing

She might let you fly but she won't let you sing

Mama will keep baby cosy and warm

Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe Ooooh BabeOf course

Mama'll help build the wall.
Hush now baby, baby don't you cry

Mama's gonna check out all your friends for you

Mama won't let anyone dirty get through

Mama's gonna wait up till you come in

Mama will always find out where you've been

Mama's gonna keep you healthy and clean

Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe Ooooh Babe

You'll always be a baby to me.

Mother, did it need to be so high?

The Real Assault on America

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change



The neoconservative Bush regime has adroitly used 9/11 to create fear of terrorism among Americans that blinds Americans to the Bush regime’s assault on our constitutional system. Americans have meekly acquiesced to the Bush regime’s brutal assaults on civil liberties, human rights, the separation of powers, and statutory law, because Americans have been brainwashed to believe that the “war on terror” takes precedence and cannot be waged under the rules established by the Founding Fathers.

By elevating its “war on terror” above the US Constitution, the neoconservative Bush regime has made itself a far greater threat to Americans than are foreign terrorists. Two constitutional scholars, Timothy Lynch and Gene Healy, document the Bush regime’s forceful assault on the US Constitution in “Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush” released May 3 by the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

Lynch and Healy show that Bush has failed in his most important responsibility “to preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and, thus, is in violation of his sworn oath of office. The two scholars document the Bush regime’s “ceaseless push for power, unchecked by either the Courts or Congress” on issues ranging from war powers, habeas corpus, and federalism to free speech and unwarranted surveillance. Bush’s assault on the Constitution “should disturb people from across the political spectrum.”

Alas, it doesn’t. Many Americans believe that Bush’s dictatorial powers will only be applied to terrorists. This belief is extremely foolish, because it means that “the liberty of every American rests on nothing more than the grace of the White House.”

It has become commonplace to hear Americans dismiss the Bush regime’s illegal and unconstitutional exercise of power on the grounds that only those implicated in terrorism have anything to fear. These Americans need to ask themselves why, if only evildoers have anything to fear from government, the Founding Fathers bothered to write the Constitution?

If we can trust the government the way Americans seem prepared to trust the Bush regime, we don’t need the Constitution. Indeed, why is a president inaugurated with his oath to defend the Constitution if we don’t need the Constitution to protect us from our government? If we can trust government, why go to all the trouble to have elections? Why not just get a dictator or a king or contract with a company to provide government?

The question presents itself: Are Americans guilty of treason when they turn their backs on the Constitution? Treason is betrayal of country. And what defines country? In the United States the Constitution defines country. The Bush regime’s assault on the Constitution is an assault on America.

Moreover, it is a far more dangerous and deadly assault than a terrorist assault on buildings.
Ask yourself, gentle reader, what are we without the Constitution? Without the Constitution, how do we differ from the hapless subjects sent to Soviet and Nazi death camps? The Constitution protects our rights, and without our rights we are nothing.

It has been widely reported, apparently without causing Americans any unease, that the Bush regime has awarded Halliburton $385 million to build concentration camps in the United States. Who are to be the inmates? Certainly not terrorists. The Bush regime has proven inept at catching terrorists, and those few who are captured are kept offshore out of the reach of the courts where they can be tortured and abused. The camps are certainly not for illegal aliens who both political parties want to give amnesty and citizenship.

Concentration camps epitomize the horrors and inhumanity of the Stalin and Nazi era. Why is the Bush regime building concentration camps in America?

The Bush regime’s war on terror is the equivalent to the Nazi regime’s Reichstag fire. It serves to blind people to the real assault.

According to Bush, America is under terrorist attack because “they hate our freedoms.” But, as Lynch and Healy show, it is the Bush regime that is attacking our freedoms, removing their institutional protections, and making our liberties subject to the grace of the executive.

Ernie Fletcher Sometimes it seems like indictments of high-ranking Republicans are becoming so common these days that it's almost unremarkable to hear about a new one. Rather than asking "which of them are indicted?" it almost makes more sense to ask "which Republicans haven't been indicted?" And if you were to ask that question, you wouldn't be able to answer: "Ernie Fletcher.

"The Republican Governor of Kentucky was indicted last week on charges of conspiracy, official misconduct and political discrimination. Fletcher is accused of conspiring with his buddies to pack the Kentucky government with his own political supporters, while demoting those who supported his opponents. There's even a "hit-list" of employees slated to be demoted or fired.In a classic example of Republican personal responsibility, Fletcher blamed the Democrats. In particular, the Democratic Attorney General, whom Fletcher accuses of conflict of interest.Of course, if Fletcher wants to get out of trouble, he could simply pardon himself. While he insists he won't do that, he already pardoned his administration staff back in August. Republican values: Do the crime, don't do the time.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) who never even knew who President Bunnypants was.

What happened to the Fed's M3?

If one endorses small government and maximum liberty, one must support commodity money.

One of the strongest restraints against unnecessary war is a gold standard.

Deficit financing by government is severely restricted by sound money.

The harmful effects of the business cycle are virtually eliminated with an honest gold standard.

Saving and thrift are encouraged by a gold standard; and discouraged by paper money.

Price inflation, with generally rising price levels, is characteristic of paper money. Reports that the consumer price index and the producer price index are rising are distractions: the real cause of inflation is the Fed’s creation of new money.

Interest rate manipulation by central bank helps the rich, the banks, the government, and the politicians.

Paper money permits the regressive inflation tax to be passed off on the poor and the middle class.

Speculative financial bubbles are characteristic of paper money-- not gold.

Paper money encourages economic and political chaos, which subsequently causes a search for scapegoats rather than blaming the central bank.

Dangerous protectionist measures frequently are implemented to compensate for the dislocations caused by fiat money.

Paper money, inflation, and the conditions they create contribute to the problems of illegal immigration.

The value of gold is remarkably stable.

The dollar price of gold reflects dollar depreciation.

Holding gold helps preserve and store wealth, but technically gold is not a true investment.

Since 2001 the dollar has been devalued by 60%.

In 1934 FDR devalued the dollar by 41%.

In 1971 Nixon devalued the dollar by 7.9%.

In 1973 Nixon devalued the dollar by 10%.

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. They recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."


Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle.For the same reasons they push the impression that government is bad, they also promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the public interest. What's important to them is private interests. And what they really mean is that those who have a lot of wealth should be left alone, rather than be called upon to reinvest in society through taxes.Perhaps the biggest false impression of all lies in the hidden social objectives of this Administration that are advertised with the phrase "compassionate conservatism" -- which they claim is a new departure with substantive meaning. But in reality, to be compassionate is meaningless, if compassion is limited to the mere awareness of the suffering of others. The test of compassion is action. What the administration offers with one hand is the rhetoric of compassion; what it takes away with the other hand are the financial resources necessary to make compassion something more than an empty and fading impression.Maybe one reason that false impressions have a played a bigger role than they should is that both Congress and the news media have been less vigilant and exacting than they should have been in the way they have tried to hold the Administration accountable.Whenever both houses of Congress are controlled by the President's party, there is a danger of passivity and a temptation for the legislative branch to abdicate its constitutional role. If the party in question is unusually fierce in demanding ideological uniformity and obedience, then this problem can become even worse and prevent the Congress from properly exercising oversight. Under these circumstances, the majority party in the Congress has a special obligation to the people to permit full Congressional inquiry and oversight rather than to constantly frustrate and prevent it. The administration hastened from the beginning to persuade us that defending America against terror cannot be done without seriously abridging the protections of the Constitution for American citizens, up to and including an asserted right to place them in a form of limbo totally beyond the authority of our courts. And that view is both wrong and fundamentally un-American.But the most urgent need for new oversight of the Executive Branch and the restoration of checks and balances is in the realm of our security, where the Administration is asking that we accept a whole cluster of new myths:

For example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was an effort to strike a bargain between states possessing nuclear weapons and all others who had pledged to refrain from developing them. This administration has rejected it and now, incredibly, wants to embark on a new program to build a brand new generation of smaller (and it hopes, more usable) nuclear bombs. In my opinion, this would be true madness -- and the point of no return to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- even as we and our allies are trying to prevent a nuclear testing breakout by North Korea and Iran.Similarly, the Kyoto treaty is an historic effort to strike a grand bargain between free-market capitalism and the protection of the global environment, now gravely threatened by rapidly accelerating warming of the Earth's atmosphere and the consequent disruption of climate patterns that have persisted throughout the entire history of civilization as we know it. This administration has tried to protect the oil and coal industries from any restrictions at all -- though Kyoto may become legally effective for global relations even without U.S. participation.Ironically, the principal cause of global warming is our civilization's addiction to burning massive quantities carbon-based fuels, including principally oil -- the most important source of which is the Persian Gulf, where our soldiers have been sent for the second war in a dozen years -- at least partly to ensure our continued access to oil.We need to face the fact that our dangerous and unsustainable consumption of oil from a highly unstable part of the world is similar in its consequences to all other addictions. As it becomes worse, the consequences get more severe and you have to pay the dealer more.And by now, it is obvious to most Americans that we have had one too many wars in the Persian Gulf and that we need an urgent effort to develop environmentally sustainable substitutes for fossil fuels and a truly international effort to stabilize the Persian Gulf and rebuild Iraq.

Study: Alligators Dangerous No Matter How Drunk You Are

BATON ROUGE, LA—In a breakthrough study that contradicts decades of understanding about the nature of alligator–drunkard relations, Louisiana State University researchers have concluded that people's drunkenness does not impair the ancient reptiles' ability to inflict enormous physical harm.Alligators

Alligators exhibit the potential to inflict serious harm, regardless of the blood-alcohol levels of their victims.

"Our data strongly indicates that human intoxication does not transform an alligator into a docile creature that enjoys wrestling," said professor Ryder McCrory, chair of the Wildlife Taunting Department of LSU's prestigious Center For Bullying And Hazing Studies. "Despite its slow-witted demeanor and tendency to bask motionlessly in the hot sun, it's a mistake to believe that an alligator will passively tolerate a half nelson, no matter how much Southern Comfort is fueling it."

McCrory said the study yielded statistics that speak for themselves.



"In 10 out of 10 documented cases of violent alligator–drunkard encounters, the reptile was not influenced by the fact that the victim was 'just kidding' or 'just having some fun,'" McCrory said.
To an alligator, McCrory explained, a human forearm, even drunkenly dangled between the creature's casually opened jaws, still appears to be prey.

In field experiments, members of the control group performed no better-—and often far worse—than their sober counterparts in defending themselves against a 300-pound, seven-foot bull alligator. Even when armed with an empty tequila bottle.

"At best, the bottles bounced harmlessly off the alligator's snout," said LSU research assistant Tracy Sawyer.

When placed in water, the drunken volunteers fared even worse, and the alligator markedly better, Sawyer said.

In addition, the alligators far outperformed their inebriated human counterparts in the following areas: lunging, biting, crushing, dismembering, and swallowing.Alligator and Drunk
Drunkard Jim Boudreaux taunts the alligator he called "a total pussy" in front of friends.
According to the study, an alligator's characteristic grin should not be interpreted as a lighthearted reaction to the outrageous nerve of an alcohol-addled human. "Don't let an alligator's easygoing appearance fool you," Sawyer said. "These creatures have no empathy for drunken pranksters looking for fun. They are not black bears."

McCrory recommended that alligator wrestling be undertaken solely by professionals, specifically roadside-attraction proprietors. For drunkards interested in proving their mettle with alligators, the researchers proposed these guidelines:

Instead of baiting an alligator, seek another form of drunken recreation, such as attending a strip club, burning a pile of tires, or painting one's buttocks with a funny face and videotaping it.
Sick or infant deer are considered a far safer match for most inebriated humans; kicking a raccoon or squirrel already dying by the side of the road is also recommended.

Experts suggest that those who become aggressive after consuming alcohol would be safer channeling that energy into more constructive behavior, such as calling an ex-lover.
And McCrory warned drunkards who "absolutely must assault an alligator while inebriated" to first make sure it is not a John Deere Gator cargo utility vehicle. This oversight "is a common occurrence," he said.

The Spies Who Shag Us

I know your shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that George Bush is listening in on all your phone calls. Without a warrant. That's nothing. And it's not news.


This is: the snooping into your phone bill is just the snout of the pig of a strange, lucrative link-up between the Administration's Homeland Security spy network and private companies operating beyond the reach of the laws meant to protect us from our government. You can call it the privatization of the FBI -- though it is better described as the creation of a private KGB.



The leader in the field of what is called "data mining," is a company, formed , called, "ChoicePoint, Inc," which has sucked up over a billion dollars in national security contracts.

Worried about Dick Cheney listening in Sunday on your call to Mom? That ain't nothing. You should be more concerned that they are linking this info to your medical records, your bill purchases and your entire personal profile including, not incidentally, your voting registration. Five years ago, I discovered that ChoicePoint had already gathered 16 billion data files on Americans -- and I know they've expanded their ops at an explosive rate.

They are paid to keep an eye on you -- because the FBI can't. For the government to collect this stuff is against the law unless you're suspected of a crime. (The law in question is the Constitution.) But ChoicePoint can collect if for "commercial" purchases -- and under the Bush Administration's suspect reading of the Patriot Act -- our domestic spying apparatchiks can then BUY the info from ChoicePoint.


Who ARE these guys selling George Bush a piece of you?


ChoicePoint's board has more Republicans than a Palm Beach country club. It was funded, and its board stocked, by such Republican sugar daddies as billionaires Bernie Marcus and Ken Langone -- even after Langone was charged by the Securities Exchange Commission with abuse of inside information.


Do you wonder where Katherine Harris just happened to find the names she had ordered removed from Florida's voter rolls before the election. Virtually every voter purged was innocent of any crime except, in most cases, Voting While Black. Who came up with this electoral hit list that gave Bush the White House? ChoicePoint, Inc.


And worse, they KNEW the racially-tainted list of felons was bogus. And when we caught them, they lied about it. While they've since apologized to the NAACP, ChoicePoint's ethnic cleansing of voter rolls has been amply assuaged by the man the company elected.
And now ChoicePoint and George Bush want your blood. Forget your phone bill. ChoicePoint, a sickened executive of the company told us in confidence, "hope[s] to build a database of DNA samples from every person in the United States …linked to all the other information held by CP [ChoicePoint]" from medical to voting records.


And ChoicePoint lied about that too. The company publicly denied they gave DNA to the Feds -- but then told our investigator, pretending to seek work, that ChoicePoint was "the number one" provider of DNA info to the FBI.


" And that scares the hell out of me," said the executive (who has since left the company), because ChoicePoint gets it WRONG so often. We are not contracting out our Homeland Security to James Bond here. It's more like Austin Powers, Inc. Besides the 97% error rate in finding Florida "felons," Illinois State Police fired the company after discovering ChoicePoint had produced test "results" on rape case evidence … that didn't exist. And ChoicePoint just got hit with the largest fine in Federal Trade Commission history for letting identity thieves purchase 145,000 credit card records.


But it won't stop, despite Republican senators shedding big crocodile tears about "surveillance" of innocent Americans. That's because FEAR is a lucrative business -- not just for ChoicePoint, but for firms such as Syntech, Sybase and Lockheed-Martin -- each of which has provided lucrative posts or profits to connected Republicans including former Total Information Awareness chief John Poindexter (Syntech), Marvin Bush (Sybase) and Lynn Cheney (Lockheed-Martin).


But how can they get Americans to give up our personal files, our phone logs, our DNA and our rights? Easy. Fear sells better than sex -- and they want you to be afraid. Back to today's New York Times, page 28: "Wider Use of DNA Lists is Urged in Fighting Crime." And who is providing the technology? It comes, says the Times, from the work done on using DNA fragments to identity victims of the September 11 attack. And who did that job (for $12 million, no bid)? ChoicePoint, Inc. Which is NOT mentioned by the Times.


" Genetic surveillance would thus shift from the individual [the alleged criminal] to the family," says the Times -- which will require, of course, a national DNA database of NON-criminals.

It doesn't end there. Turn to the same newspaper, page 23, with a story about a weird new law passed by the state of Georgia to fight illegal immigration. Every single employer and government agency will be required to match citizen or worker data against national databases to affirm citizenship. It won't stop illegal border crossing, but hey, someone's going to make big bucks on selling data. And guess what local boy owns the data mine? ChoicePoint, Inc., of Alpharetta, Georgia.


The knuckleheads at the Times don't put the three stories together because the real players aren't in the press releases their reporters re-write.
But that's the Fear Industry for you. You aren't safer from terrorists or criminals or "felon" voters. But the national wallet is several billion dollars lighter and the Bill of Rights is a couple amendments shorter.


And that's their program. They get the data mine -- and we get the shaft.

And now, a message from the President of the United States.

Announcer:And now, a message from the President of the United States.

President Al Gore:Good evening, my fellow Americans.

In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.
In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.

As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.
We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.
I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.

I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.

On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.

But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.

And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.

Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.
But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.

There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?

What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.

But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!

As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.

There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.
Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"

In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.

Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?

And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is ... Live From New York, its Saturday Night!

John Gibson of FOX News, one of the “War on Christmas” knights, had one of the most disturbing bits I have watched in a long time. Media Matters has the video and transcript of Gibson’s The Big Story calling on white people to “make more babies” to outpace the Hispanic birthing rate. As a Hispanic citizen of this country, I take offense to this:


JOHN GIBSON: Now, it’s time for “My Word.” Do your duty. Make more babies. That’s a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days.

First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call “gabachos” — white people — are having fewer.

Now, in this country, European ancestry people, white people, are having kids at the rate that does sustain the population. It grows a bit. That compares to Europe where the birth rate is in the negative zone. They are not having enough babies to sustain their population. Consequently, they are inviting in more and more immigrants every year to take care of things and those immigrants are having way more babies than the native population, hence Eurabia.

Why aren’t they having babies? Because babies get in the way of a prosperous and comfortable modern life. Peanut butter fingerprints on the leather seats in the BMW. The Euros are particular — in particular can’t be bothered with kids. Underscore that second point.

A second story, today, reports that [Russian President] Vladimir Putin is so concerned about the declining and imploding population of Russia, he is paying couples to have babies. Imagine, procreating for cash in Mother Russia. Putin has taken this step because at the rate things are going, Russia will lose close to 45 million in population in the next 45 years. Russia will be two thirds of today’s population.

This is not a good trend for Russia and it won’t be here either if that should happen. To put it bluntly, we need more babies. Forget about that zero population growth stuff that my poor generation was misled on. Why is this important? Because civilizations need population to survive. So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can’t carry the whole load. The rest of you, get busy. Make babies, or put another way — a slogan for our times: “procreation not recreation.” That’s “My Word.” (emphasis from Media Matters)

Gibson’s call to white genitals speaks volumes about how he thinks, and perhaps even what FOX believes to be its audience. I don’t even know where to begin but I will try anyhow.

It seems to me that this is nothing more than a xenophobic/bigoted-based call to white nationalism and defense of the white majority of the U.S. in the face of a brown horde (Illegal immigrants and Hispanic-American reproduction rates - yes, they are not synonymous). Through the use of innuendo and alarmist rhetoric, Gibson is calling on whites to produce more babies to counter the growing Hispanic population. For you see, America is a nation of mixed races and cultures led by the white majority. As Gibson notes, the rapid pace at which Hispanics are having children will challenge that majority, and we certainly cannot have of that.

To support his thesis, Gibson invokes the immigrant card and points to Europe, or “Eurabia,” and says, “You see? We’re next.” Hispamerica, here we come!

In fact, Gibson appears to be trying to create a clash of cultures to further energize whites to hop between the sheets and defend their Aryan white nation. You know, “do [their] duty.” To create this clash, Gibson is insinuating that all Hispanics call white people “gabachos,” a pejorative term along the lines of the more infamous “gringos.” I’m sure there are some that do, much in the same way there are still some white people that use the N-word, etc., but to generalize in such a way is journalistically dishonest and misleading, however, advances an anti-Hispanic/Latino agenda. Imagine if a black television personality said, “Notably, the ones whites call ‘niggers’ — black people — are having fewer.” People would demand his/her resignation.
Moving forward, Gibson seems to have a mistaken view of what a “comfortable modern life” actually is. Leather seats in a BMW? That’s just “comfortable”? People who drive BMWs are more than just “comfortable” financially. (New BMWs range from $31,000 to $117,000. Perhaps this is how we get tax policy along the lines of the Bush tax cuts.) Furthermore, he is essentially arguing that white people are largely living “comfortable modern [lives],” which are reasons why they are not having children, but Hispanics are having all they want children because they are not burdened by these. Essentially, Hispanics do not live comfortable modern lives. Instead of the leather upholstry in the BMW, it is the cloth-covered Aerostars.

In the end, Gibson tries to make it sound like he’s on Hispanics’ side after bashing us as a threat to white American dominance of this country. The insertion of Russia’s population issues appears to be cover for his real message of maintaining the white majority in America. By doing so, he is trying to confuse his viewers that this is about survival of all Americans, but in reality, it is a call to save BMW-driving white America from the Aerostar Hispanics that would unseat them from their throne of dominance.