On the public's confidence in Bush's ability to handle a crisis, 51% had been the previous low in September 2005. That figure is now at 50%. The President's handling of the Hurricane Katrina crisis is tied to that decrease.

There is also concern that Mr. Bush is spending too much time on foreign policy issues: 55% think so. Also, on the issues that are most important to Americans, Iraq and gas prices, Bush's ratings have dropped.

On handling the issue of rising gas prices, Bush's performance rating dropped four percentage points from what it was a month ago (from 17% to 13%).

With the Iraq war, Bush's approval rating dropped one percentage point (from 30% to 29%) since last month. Similarly, only 30% of poll respondents said they have some degree of confidence Bush will be able to end the war successfully. The poll also reveals that 56% of those polled said that United States should have stayed out of Iraq; this number is the highest it's been since the start of the war.

The only area where Bush's approval rating is not at an all-time low is fighting terror: approval is at 46%.

Congressional Republicans get an eviscerating review in this poll. The GOP gets a favorability rating of 37%, exactly 20 percentage points lower than where it was in 1994. Inversely, Democrats in Congress had a favorability rating increase of 11 percentage points over what it was in 1994.

On the issues of Iraq and gas prices, the poll shows that the public believes Democrats are doing a better job. For instance, on Iraq, 48% said the Democratic Party is better while only 30% thought the Republican Party is. On keeping gas prices low, the disparity is even more pronounced: 57% say the Democrats perform better, while only 11% say the Republicans do.

Democrats also surpass Republicans in their work on issues such as prescription drug cots, improving health care and immigration, among others.

However, Republicans get a better assessment than Democrats in dealing with terrorism: 40% prefer the GOP's handling of the issue while 35% prefer the Democratic Party's.

The overall approval of Congress' performance has diminished vastly since 2001; only 23% approve now while 67% did in 2001. This figure reflects frustration over Congress' ability to challenge the President since 67% think Congress does not question his policies enough.

Also, 39% say that Congress would be in better condition today if Democrats were in charge, an increase from last month.

Heading into the 2006 elections, Democrats look to have quite an advantage. For instance, if the elections were held today, 44% of registered voters said they would support the Democratic candidate in their congressional districts, while only 33% would support the GOP candidate.

Hopkins works in sanitation. He's an ex-con, and he's worried about fallout from talking to us, so he's asked us not to say exactly where he's employed. But he also felt it was his civic duty to tell somebody about what he'd found.

"We're going through a war, and if it would have fell into the wrong hands at the right time, it would have been something really messy for the President's sake," he said.

The documents details the exact arrival and departure time for Air Force One, Marine One and the back up choppers, Nighthawk 2 and Three.

It lists every passenger on board each aircraft, from the President to military attaché with nuclear football. It offers the order of vehicles in the President's motorcade.

We faxed a copy to the Secret Service, which as usual rule declined to say much, other than insisting that it was a White House staff document, not a Secret Service document.

And while it is marked official the Secret Service says it is NOT classified. But you don't have to be in Presidential security to figure out the big mistake here.

What do you think the message is that comes out of this? Shred the important papers.

The Secret Service referred us to a White House spokeswoman, who declined to comment on the record. Some of this information in the document goes out to the media before every Presidential trip. But we're always told not to publish it.

And there are a whole lot of details in it that we do NOT get.

The events of 9/11, and the fear those events engendered in the American people who, because of our unquestioned military superiority had for decades felt almost impervious to danger from other countries, made many Americans so afraid, their new feeling of vulnerability to danger made them psychologically open to a bellicose leader promising not only "justice," but also vengeance. Never mind that this same leader was unquestionably negligent in doing nothing to guard against terrorist attacks even after being strongly warned from the beginning of his presidency that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were a real threat and must be taken seriously. We now know that on January 25, 2001, Richard Clarke sent an urgent memo to Condi Rice saying it was imperative that a principals meeting on Al Qaeda and terrorism be held as soon as possible. There were warnings all summer. And then there was the PDB warning on August 6th, "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S."

Following 9/11 many Americans needed a show of American military might to make them feel "in control" and "on top" again. We bombed Afghanistan. And then there was the "shock and awe" of our invasion of Iraq. For awhile all was glorious. But then, unlike we had been promised, the Iraqi people did not just roll over and let us take over their country, and the real resistance began. Now it has been three years of almost unremitting bad news and at least four times as much money as we were told it would cost, with no end in sight. And now some are talking about occupying Iraq for ten or fifteen years of more. The violence and deaths do not end, and the people are tired of hearing "bad news." It seems they want the press to ignore what is actually happening if it is not good news.

Last night I had a conversation with a friend of mine. One of the kindest women I have known in my lifetime. Keep in mind this woman has had to listen to me for more than three years. Like a lot of Americans, she is sick of hearing about Iraq. Last night she said something to the effect of "Why don't we just kill them all!"

She was in a bad mood, and she did not mean it, of course. But because the war is not going well, because the American people are sick of bad news - especially regarding a war that was sold to the American people as something that would be simple, over in a few months - something that would be welcomed by the Iraqi people, would only cost $50 billion dollars most of which cost would be offset by Iraqi oil revenue -- the whole episode leaves a bad "taste" in her mind. And she has projected that bad taste onto the whole concept of Iraq, the war, the coverage of it. Everything that has to do with the Iraqi "adventure."

The frightening thing is a lot of people are thinking like that. A lot of redneck Bush supporters, among others, are actually saying it. My friend is a Republican, but she is neither stupid nor willfully delusional. She voted for Kerry.

Because of their frustration, many Americans are beginning to blame the people of the Mideast, and, let's be honest here, Muslims, for the fact that the rosy picture the people in the administration painted about what the war would entail has turned out to be lies. What is frightening is that is exactly what happened under Hitler. The Jews became the scapegoats. Over a period of years, they became the reason for all bad things that had happened to Germany, anyone who lived in Germany and also in the rest of the world.



Hitler fostered those ideas and fanned the resentment and hatred of the masses. And, after Hitler had successfully dehumanized the Jewish people the Germans could be made more willing to rationalize the fact that these people who they had been conditioned to perceive as less than human were being exterminated. After all, as Hitler had reminded them, it was the Jews who had killed Jesus Christ.

Whether they admit it or not, to many Christians, Muslims are not equal to Christians because they don't believe "Jesus saves." To most fundamentalist Christians, that is blasphemy. They would convert Muslims by force if they could. If they cannot be converted, then, many believe, they are destined for "Hell" anyway. How much "conditioning" over how long of a period of time would it take for them to believe that killing Muslims is actually okay? More "conditioning" than Hitler used to convince good Germans it was somehow sort of "okay" to kill Jews?

Militant Christians and militant Muslims are nearly identical in that kind of thinking. Both sects believe (although some do not admit it publicly) that the "enemies" of "Christianity/Islam" the "heathens/infidels" must be eliminated because their false beliefs contaminate the world for the "true believers."

Bush's ability to feed his greed, expand his power trip and satiate his blood lust has been made easier for him because our irresponsible media, particularly the broadcast media, has been very careful not to show us the truth of what Bush, in our name, is doing. They did not question the words and the motivation of the people who occupy the seats of power before the people were misled into war. Almost no voices against the wisdom of war -- and there were many experts who said invading Iraq would be the worst thing we could do if we wanted to cut down on terrorism -- were featured in the run up to war. Additionally, the media has not made us witness the truth of the misery of war for the Iraqi people. We have not seen photos of dogs eating bloated, rotting corpses in Fallujah. We have not seen bits and pieces of our own soldiers scattered over a foreign landscape, nor have we been introduced to the lives of the soldiers who have come home to "live" as vegetables.

In the beginning, the media portrayed the war as a pretty Nintendo light show. "Shock and awe." We saw no video of terrified children screaming in fear at the other end of the missile tracers.

Because it has protected us from truth, the media is implicit in the fact that we went to war, and implicit in all the death and misery brought about because of that war. They have now been found implicitly guilty by an international tribunal. link

Before the Iraq War began, 1000 veterans, many of them high-ranking, wrote a letter to the president telling him that going to war with Iraq would be the worst thing he could do if he wanted to stabilize the Middle East. Leaders of the Clergy tried to meet with Bush before the war to tell him they believed war with Iraq was not a "just" war, and so would be against God's will? Bush refused to meet with them. How many reading this article remember seeing either of those important stories covered by the media before the war?

And now in covering the situation with Iran the media is once more being complicit more in what it is omitting than what it is reporting. Physicists have written a letter to Bush telling him bombing Iran would be madness. How many people reading this article have seen these people or their letter featured on the news?

Interestingly enough, Langer also blamed the press for its part in Hitler's success. "When we try to formulate a conception of Adolph Hitler as the German people know him we must not forget that their knowledge of him is limited by a controlled press." (L. p. 47.) "In addition the press, newsreels, and so forth, are continually flooded with carefully prepared photographs showing Hitler at his very best." (L. p. 49.)

Think of Bush in uniform before cheering soldiers, always in front of an American flag, or standing with Mt. Rushmore in the background, or with a cross and a crown behind and above him. Think of the "journalists" paid to spout the party line. Think of Jeff Gannon, planted to ask softball questions of Bush and McClellan even though Bush holds almost no press conferences and very seldom speaks spontaneously because when he does the results are often disastrous. IF they are not ignored by the press.

Clinton should have been so lucky.

In 2003 in answer to a reporter's question about the justification for war when no WMD's had been found, Bush said "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Almost no press was given to that outrageous lie. Had it been uttered by a Democrat, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have feasted on it, and ridiculed the person who said it for weeks. Virtually everyone in the country would have been made aware of it. But, because talk radio and television is made up almost entirely of voices from the right, almost no one knows about it. Most people do not even know about the purging of names from the Florida voter rolls prior to the 2000 election. Again, had such a travesty been committed under a governor who was a Democrat, Rush and Sean would have been on it, to borrow a phrase from Jim Hightower, "like a gator on a poodle," and most Americans would be aware of it, at least in a vague way. As it is, if they know about it at all, they think it had something to do with the recount, which they perceive as being dishonest because of machinations by the Democrats.

Military analyst Bill Arkin attended the Veterans' Day commemoration at Arlington National Cemetery in 2003. He said that Bush talked and laughed and bopped his head to the music during the presentation of the colors. Had that been shown on television, Bush would have lost not only the veterans' vote, but the election. But, it was not shown.

Bush seems unable to realize what war entails. Or else he simply does not care. Before the war, the BBC (but not American television) showed video of Bush clowning before his entourage minutes before he went on television to make the announcement America was about to invade Iraq. He actually pumped his arm and said "feels good," before he announced the beginning of a bombardment which undoubtedly meant the death and maiming of thousands of people, including many of our own soldiers, and the destruction of the infrastructure and homes and businesses of the Iraqi people. He is in such denial about war that, according to Pat Robertson, Bush told him there would be no casualties. According to the White House, Bush said he never said that. But, why should we believe him? His modus operandi is deliberate deception, and his lies fill volumes. He has consistently lied or side-stepped questions about his past. He was indisputably - authenticity of CBS documents notwithstanding -- AWOL - absent for 30 days - from his National Guard service. He delights in his "cunning" and ability to be devious. His fortune was built on unethical business deals. Honesty and a high standard of ethics is nowhere to be found in his life's history. We now know from Weade's tapes that had he lost the primary to Steve Forbes, he would have done nothing to help Forbes defeat Gore. He also said Forbes could forget Florida as well as Texas, which indicates Jeb would have done nothing to help Forbes. Hmm. Perhaps the Florida voter rolls would not have been purged. Of course it is extremely unlikely Forbes would have defeated Gore. After all, even Bush did not defeat Gore in the popular vote, and Bush does have a tad more charisma than Forbes. But, can anyone imagine a candidate with any decency acting in such a manner?

Contrast the differences in the 2004 presidential campaign between Bush and Kerry.

A former Republican Judge and Senator from Kentucky, Marlowe Cook, repudiated Bush's morals in an article for the Courier-Journal before the election:

"I hope you all have noticed the Bush administration's style in the campaign so far. All negative, trashing Sen. John Kerry, Sen. John Edwards and Democrats in general. Not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all..."

Even the Washington Post in "He Ought to Know" said it took a lot of "chutzpah" for the Bush campaign to accuse the Kerry campaign of being beholden to special interests when the Bush campaign was at least four times more beholden to special interests than was Kerry. "During the 2000 contest, the Bush campaign assigned an industry code to givers so it would know precisely how much it was beholden and to whom. As electric utility lobbyist Thomas Kuhn explained in a 1999 letter to fundraisers, putting the code on the check "does ensure that our industry is credited, and that your progress is listed among the other business/industry sectors." Mr. Kuhn's progress may well have been noted; he met at least 14 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force."

However, even Bush was not as arrogant in the early days of his presidency as he has become since. Hitler, also, did not begin his rule by killing people. First (and Bush suffers in this part of the comparison) Hitler lifted people out of a depression. He greatly reduced unemployment. He built roads and buildings. He seemed to work miracles. Because he did, the German people began to perceive him as almost godlike. They began to look upon him as a kind of Messiah. So did he. "His references to the Bible became more frequent, and the movement took on a religious atmosphere." (L. p. 36.)

"It is not clear from the evidence whether the new State religion was part of Hitler's plan or whether developments were such that it became feasible...it may be that his series of successes were so startling that the people spontaneously adopted a religious attitude toward him...In any case he has accepted this Godlike role without any hesitation or embarrassment...when he is addressed with the salutation, "Heil Hitler, our Saviour," he bows slightly and believes it." (L. p. 40.)

"All the stagings were designed to create a supernatural and religious atmosphere, and Hitler's entry was more befitting a god than a man. Notes appeared in the press to the effect that, "As he spoke, one heard God's mantle rustle through the room!,, On the side of a hill in Odenwald... "We believe in Holy Germany. Holy Germany is Hitler! We believe in Holy Hitler."" (L. p. 62.)

With Bush, we have had all the religious and patriotic "God equals America" speech and imagery from the very beginning. Recall how the news covered the man in Florida who said 'for the first time he felt God was in the White House.'

"At the Nuremburg Nazi Party Rally in September 1937, there was a huge photograph of Hitler underneath which was the inscription, "In the beginning was the Word..."The Mayor of Hamburg assured him, [Teeling] "We need nor priests or parsons. We communicate direct with God through Adolph Hitler. He has many Christ-like qualities." (L. p. 62.)

"A Rhemish group of German "Christians" in April 1937 passed this resolution: "Hitler's word is God's law, the decrees and laws which represent it possess divine authority." And Reichsminister for Church Affairs, Hans Kerrl, says: "There has arisen a new authority as to what Christ and Christianity really are - that is Adolf Hiter... is the true Holy Ghost." (L. p. 63.)

After his stunning successes, and the fact that he seemed to lead a simple life almost wholly dedicated to his work, and, to all appearances, almost sexless, the Germans came to perceive Hitler in much the same way.

"He [Hitler] is the acme of German honor and purity; the Resurrector of the the German family and home." (L. p. 59.)

But, based on testimony by people who knew him well, including some of his sex partners, Langer describes a very sick and perverted sex life.

Bush was the "family values" candidate. Many people perceive his "piety" as an antidote to the "godlessness" they see all around them, and believe he will lead us back to the values of our "Christian" past - a past that itself is largely a myth. link

I have written in many articles, one of them being "Standing in Awe of Bush's Christianity," that I believe Bush is sincere in his belief in God and Christ. However, GREED, which is the linchpin of this administration, concern for the rich at the expense of the poor, war-mongering, fear-mongering, constant lies and deceit, bearing false witness against one's "enemies," always putting profits for corporate campaign contributors ahead of the environmental concerns of the earth God commanded us to be good stewards of, are not generally considered Christian principles.

What this religiosity in the White House is actually leading us to of course, is the hypocrisy, self-righteousness, pride, selfishness, greed and lack of concern for our fellow man which are the only aspects of human nature Christ ever really railed against.

To be continued...

[Read Part One]

Some have evolved over the course of many administrations, some come as a result of legislators who are really clueless, and others come from a purposeful agenda. Sometimes that agenda may come from corporate America, as evidenced by heavy campaign financing and lobbying of their interests. I am not talking about any kind of conspiracy to enslave us all, but perhaps it is time for our legislators to re-read our Constitution and stop relying on the judiciary to tell them when something is wrong, unethical, or unconstitutional. Unfortunately, people are asleep enough and busy dealing with their own problems that they don't have time to see what's going on, or even check up on the people they voted for, if they voted at all.

It is necessary to recognize that there are very real socialist and fascist factions working in our government, and they can take a miserable idea and make it look like a really good one. It's easy enough to build a socialist infrastructure if you lay the groundwork under the guise of helping those in need. After all, programs designed to help the sick and needy could benefit us all, right? Propaganda done well can push any agenda, especially if there is money behind it. Taking a look at even a few things like eminent domain, education, immigration, surveillance, and censorship, and a picture begins to unfold that is not very pretty, and it certainly doesn't come close to what our founding fathers intended.

Just examining education and its relation to healthcare, we ought to be very mindful of the path we are traveling in this country. As we speak, legislatures around the country are considering legislation
1. that establishes health center and clinics in our schools
2. that deals with "early intervention" of mental health issues of children - utilizing screening programs for all
3. that deals with "school readiness" and universal pre-school, which is government run/funded education and institutionalization of 3 and 4 year olds
4. that places more psychologists, therapists and other "psych" professionals in our schools
5. that removes certain authority and rights of parents
6. that places more government mandates on education

On top of this, the federal government is exercising the power of the purse to mandate how education should be run overall.

Let's take a look at some examples based on a paper describing the Third Reich:

"Even during the war, there was so much unrest and so many appeals that in 1941, Hitler intervened with an edict that prohibited parents from bringing charges against hospitals and asylums."

Are we not seeing "middle of the night legislation" inserted to protect pharmaceutical companies and institutions from lawsuits for autism", etc? Parents are being forced to medicate their kids in some cases, and then they can't turn around and do anything when the drugs damage their child.

"Nazi bioscience and racialism were woven into all aspects of the social, health, and educational policies."

Are we not seeing states like Illinois instituting Social/Emotional Learning Standards for the purpose of having children be "school ready"? Who decides these Social/Emotional Learning Standards? What studies are they based on? Is anyone interested in the conflict of interest and questionable ethics of these studies, some of which were funded by pharmaceutical companies?

"In 1934, 181 Genetic Health courts and appellate Genetic Health Courts were created for the sole purpose of enforcing Nazi health laws and decrees (Peukert, 1987). These courts were attached to local civil courts and presided over by two physicians and a lawyer. All physicians were required to register every case of genetic pathology with the courts and failure to do so was punishable. The reports were filed in specially created data banks (Burleigh, 1994). Public health officials, teachers, and social workers were also required to report children suspected of having a disability or emotional problem. The search for people with hereditary illnesses was relentless; every large institution became a regional catchment area and sent officials to the homes of every person reported to have a hereditary illness (Burleigh, 1994)."

Does the program/mandate of Child Find fit this description? The inter-agency networking of government entities per the New Freedom Commission, and No Child Left Behind legislation offers up some very unsavory comparisons here. Schools are implementing screening tools like Wested, and TeenScreen and a host of other programs to identify kids with problems.. even if they don't really have one. And no one seems to take notice that these programs were funded in part by the pharmaceutical industry in order to get more customers and sell more medication. Additionally, databases are being set up to keep track of information. Parents are being coerced into putting their children into treatment. Some lose custody and their children become wards of the state.

"Public health officials, responsible for enforcing the institutionalization of children with disabilities, persuaded dubious parents with promises that their children would receive the most advanced and expert therapy on open wards (Heiniansberg and Schmidt, 1993).

Parents who refused to put their children into institutions were accused by these same officials of neglecting and depriving their children of needed treatment. Persistent refusal often resulted in threats; parents were told that if they did not institutionalize their children they would lose their guardianship rights (Burleigh, 1994). Single mothers who refused to part with their children found themselves assigned to contractual labor, which in the end, forced them to surrender their children (Freidlander, 1994)."

Parental rights and guardianship have been removed from many parents by the courts in this country for similar charges. IDEA legislation allows the school districts and State departments of Children and Family Services to coerce parents into treating children, despite clauses regarding parental consent. In this country a parent does not necessarily have the last word, and they are usually dragged through court in "due process hearings" with little financial resources behind them to sustain them through relentless charges. Of course school districts and state agencies have enormous financial resources, your tax dollar, at their disposal to pay for ongoing legal fees. Parents will most likely succumb to school and DCF demands and hope for the best for their child. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen and children end up drugged, institutionalized, or both. We are constantly reminded that the "experts" know best.

"Under the Nazis schools were a primary target for control and their administration was placed in the hands of the party faithful. By 1938, the German school system was brought under the total control of the central government and removed from the jurisdiction of the individual states or Lander (Huebner, 1962)."

One cannot ignore No Child Left Behind and the pervasiveness of federal mandates on state and local schools. We may say that we still have states rights in this country, but what state is willing to give up the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Title 1 money and not institute the federal mandates? There is no freedom here for states as long as they are being coerced and bribed to put federal mandates in place. Now states are so sucked into the flow of money that they cannot give it up even if they wanted to without an extreme cut in their operations. They have become slaves to the federal government.

"Comprehensive schools that included classes for children with learning problems were closed, parent-teacher associations were made powerless, corporal punishment was reintroduced and progressive teaching methods were discouraged. Early childhood and kindergarten systems were also brought under government control and church and privately sponsored kindergartens were banned. The Froebel Association which pioneered early childhood education in Germany was forced to disband (Tietze, Rossback and Ufemann, 1989). It was a common sight to see three year olds marching and waving flags in a military parade. "

Universal preschool and efforts to have state sponsored, taxpayer funded, public education for 3 and 4 year olds, in addition to state funded birth to three programs, are now being pushed nationally. You might be interested as to what is included in the curriculum planned for these kids. It isn't just crayon drawings and how to hold a scissor. While we may not be banning church and privately sponsored programs, we will be mandating that they possess certain credentials through the National Association for the Education of Young Children. The fact that the state is feeding, and in some instances clothing and caring for these kids the majority of the day, is of concern. Where is parental control and responsibility? Why is the state becoming so involved in taking care of our young? Have we really embraced outsourcing our parenting to the government?

Oh yeah, maybe they are unfounded comparisons and way too extreme, or maybe they aren't, but lets check the roadmap and see where we are headed. Are legislators looking to pass laws based on their campaign contributions or because of ideology, or because of a vision of how things should work? Are we passing laws to control people, or help people? Perhaps we are passing laws to control people under the guise of helping them. Should we be passing these kinds of laws at all? When is government "help" voluntarily received and when is it forced upon us? Should we allow laws that will dictate mental screening, recording and even perhaps micro-chipping of our population? How does that measure up to what our founders intended in the name of freedom? You decide.

Screw us and delude us. Gouge us and remove us from the ravages of destructive hurricanes. Chocolate cities and not anymore, white makes right then reconstruction. The South WILL rise again. Lie to us, spy on us, and take away our rights. Freedom is just another word for border security.

Give us liberty to live in denial, then take away our pensions. Health care is for the rich and son-of-a-bitch, my child has cancer. Give us prescription relief and affirm the belief that legislation only benefits big pharmaceuticals. Corporate coronations and severance packages walk hand in hand with corrupt politicians. Special interest is concerned, but not with Americans and isn't that what makes America great.

Give us our military and the ravages of war that is far from our glorious shining shores. Sacrifice the children and America has lots of those that are expendable as the cost for preemptive war. Kill the enemy but do it over there and by the way, my child's not available. Take my neighbor's child to defend America's freedom, there's a budding little criminal already. Take the Mexican kid and take the black kid and take that white trash girl lives over there. My child's in school and plays at soccer and the little darling is on a fast track to Harvard.

Pile on America massive consumer debt. We couldn't pay it all off were it necessary. Deficit spending is the wave of a future that looks bleak even on a good day. Out source the jobs and slash all the taxes especially for America's well to do.

Give us a "decider" that way we don't have to think about the consequences or repercussions that are inherent in political insanity. Give us an illusion and the politics of compassionate conservatism. Our "decider" speaks with 'God' and isn't that marvelous. 'In God We Trust' and all the rest will surely rust on an altar of Islamite heresy.

Give us 'ten commandments' dummied down and gussied up in the finest marble we can plant on public display. Give us evangelicostal intelligent design and never mind if it flies in the face of sound science. Science is for unbelieving heretics and there's inquisition waiting at the next political convention. Burn them at the stake the godless disbelieving and of course the gays and liberals and Democrats and United Arab Emirates.

'We the people' don't want to hear it and not from a lying liberal media. Give us violent video and survivors on parade and tell us again about the pedophiles preying on our children. Give us distractions, any damn distractions that can hide the reality we should face. Presidential treason and corrupt politicians and the failure of America's Congress. Lies about illegal war and more illegal war and this next one will uncork the nuclear nightmare. Dangers to the left of us and dangers to the right of us and Israel says so and the president says so and some deranged politician with a shotgun.

In order to form a more perfect delusion, we can surrender whatever it takes.

"The majority of people were Republicans who were supporters of Bush and his policy and supporters of Rumsfeld," Tatum said.

The activists represented the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, World Can't Wait, and the International Action Center, among other groups.

Rumsfeld sounded "defensive against someone with authority [Ray McGovern], a CIA person, someone he can't lied to, someone who calls him on it. Someone he couldn't just flippantly lie to. Of course he said he's not lying, but I've read several places were the Niger uranium that they talked about, they got that from someone named Curveball that the CIA told them that that information wasn't credible and they used it anyway," Tatum told Atlanta Progressive News.

"So it's not so much they got bad intelligence, the Bush administration," Tatum explained of her protest.

"It's that they chose intelligence that fit their policy. The Downing Street Memos state that they were going to do that and they did that. Some of the intelligence came from some rightwing graduate student thesis paper. They came from sources that weren't credible that they were told they weren't credible but they used it anyway because they fit their policy," Tatum said.

"I don't know why the news media didn't talk about this," Tatum said.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern questioned Rumsfeld at length during the unusual public question and answer session. McGovern asked Rumsfeld why he lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and Rumsfeld said he didn't lie, CNN clips show.

"Well, if he's saying that he's a psychopath, that he doesn't know the difference between truth and lies, then I don't know what to think of that. If he tells a lie and he thinks it's the truth. Does he not know they difference between a lie and the truth?" Tatum remarked.

McGovern's exchange with Rumsfeld was fascinating.

Rumsfeld started talking about how Colin Powell and President Bush said Iraq had WMDs and how the troops believed it. So, implicitly, it's not a lie if you believe it?

McGovern asked about Rumsfeld saying he knew where the weapons were. Rumsfeld first denied saying that, but the quote has been confirmed.

McGovern asked about the purported tie between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Rumsfeld replied that Al- Zarqawi had been in Iraq. McGovern stated he had only been in a desolate area in the north and only went to Baghdad once to visit a hospital.

"Well, this is the first time to my knowledge in Atlanta that the public has been able to buy tickets and enter one of the events, when Bush or Cheney or someone like that is in town," Tatum told Atlanta Progressive News.

"Normally it is by invitation only. So only people who give money to the Republican party and are hardline supporters of Bush," Tatum said.

"This is what happened when they opened it up to the public and the people who have been locked out for the past few years get in," Tatum said.

The tickets cost $40.00, Tatum said.

"I got mine about 2 weeks in advance, the minute I heard about it. I mean, I couldn't believe they were going to let non-Republicans in," Tatum said.

"The Republican crowd, they were very pro-Rumsfeld. They don't want to hear what other people have to say. They kept telling us to shut up. One man told me as I was leaving, he said, you go home and stay at home " Tatum recalled.

"The media coverage has been unbelievable. I never expected this. I feel like a genie has been let out of the bottle or something. It's taken on a life of its own. Normally, we work so hard to do stuff and we get such limited coverage," Tatum said.

"I mean, like the April first march, we worked 4 to 5 months on that, most of the coverage was really good, and the AJC said only a couple hundred people were there and they mostly interviewed this Rightwing woman from Marietta. She didn't do any of the work and she got most of the coverage," Tatum said.

"Hopefully, what comes out of this, the media starts talking about, well, what about the prewar intelligence? Are they saying the prewar intelligence wasn't credible? I hope that's where the debate starts going," Tatum said.

"I think they all lied, I think they deliberately lied," Tatum said. "If we all believe it, it must be true. If we all say it, and we all say it enough, and we all believe it, it must be true," Tatum said of Rumsfeld's insistence he didn't lie.

"I heard a mother of a soldier who said, Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. And I feel bad for them [the people who think that]. And I support the soldiers, but I feel heartbroken that they believe this, I want them to get the truth," Tatum told Atlanta Progressive News.

"I screamed, You lied to the American public You lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction. You lied about Iraq having a nuclear program. You lied about Iraq having ties to Al-Qaeda. You lied about Iraq oil paying for the war. And the CIA told you that these were not credible stories but you chose to cherry pick intelligence..." Tatum recalled.

"I was out in the hall at that point. Above the roar of the boos," she said.

"They didn't call on us, we stood up and interrupted Rumsfeld," she said.

"He was interrupted three times by people. One was accusing him of war crimes and torture. Another person stood there with his back to Rumsfeld and stood there the entire time with his back to him. Every 10 minutes he was interrupted. It was about an hour," Tatum said.

"The police told me to leave or they would put me in jail. They allowed me to leave," Tatum said.

"I had my toothbrush. I had some socks, so my feet wouldn't get cold. I was planning on going to jail. And I was very happy when they didn't [arrest me]," she said.

"I hope that the discussion in this country is going to start about prewar intelligence," Tatum said.

Matthew Cardinale is Editor of Atlanta Progressive News. He has written previously for the Sun-Sentinel Newspaper, Shelterforce Magazine, The Advocate Magazine, The San Francisco Bay View, and the Berkeley Daily Planet Newspaper. He has also written for numerous online publications including OpEdNews, BuzzFlash, CommonDreams, AlterNet, RawStory, and TruthOut. He may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com

And then, an odd but revealing thing happened. Some of the chattering class commentators, mainstream media writers and columnists, and Democratic officials didn't get it: Not very funny, rude, not respectful of the president, and so on. Are they kidding? How could they not understand they were witnessing one of the bravest, most subversive performances in memory, which thrilled and gave hope to untold viewers and readers, and will be a huge marker when people look back on the Bush era?

Colbert's speech had a huge impact for two reasons: First, he spoke truth to power right to the face of the president, in front of the entire news media. No one could miss, sidestep or deny it. It wasn't a scene from a movie, book or talk show -- it was live. It reminded me of Edward R. Murrow's famous address to the Radio and Television News Directors Association (recently depicted in the film "Good Night and Good Luck"). It gave me goose bumps. Colbert's performance shamed every Democrat or columnist who has been too afraid, too timid, or just too worried about losing his or her own power and access to go out on a limb and tell the truth that this administration is a disaster beyond our wildest nightmares. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove have gotten away with murder … and worse. And many of the people in that room that night who squirmed in their seats -- it was in part because of the internal indictment they were feeling for not doing what they should have done, countless times, long before. Maybe now they will do the right thing, but I won't be holding my breath.

The second reason Colbert made such a huge splash is the rapid advance of video on the web. Almost overnight, the media world has irrevocably changed as video is increasingly becoming as important as print and still images on the web. When, in a matter of hours, dozens of websites can post or link to a video and get the word out about a spectacular event, the role of the gatekeepers and the corporate media shrinks big-time. And it doesn't matter if the networks or CNN or Fox decides that they don't want you to see it -- they can't stop it. The people's network is now in working order. Progressives now have a television capacity; still rudimentary, perhaps, but powerfully effective.

The press leaks

The press coverage of the Colbert performance was illuminating, according to the popular blog, democratic underground: "Expect nothing less from the cowardly American media. This demonstrates powerfully the ability of the media to choose the news, and to decide when and how to shield Bush from negative publicity. Sins of omission can be just as bad as sins of commission."

The AP's first stab at it, as well as Reuters and the Chicago Tribune, tell us everything we need to know: In these reports, Colbert's performance is sidestepped and marginalized, while President Bush is depicted as lighthearted, humble and witty.

Salon's Joan Walsh points out, "Colbert's deadly performance did more than reveal, with devastating clarity, how Bush's well-oiled myth machine works. It exposed the mainstream press' pathetic collusion with an administration that has treated it -- and the truth -- with contempt from the moment it took office. Intimidated, coddled, fearful of violating propriety, the press corps that for years dutifully repeated Bush talking points was stunned and horrified when someone dared to reveal that the media emperor had no clothes. Colbert refused to play his dutiful, toothless part in the White House correspondents' dinner -- an incestuous, backslapping ritual that should be retired. For that, he had to be marginalized. Voilà: 'He wasn't funny.'"

On the Democratic political front, as John Aravosis wrote on AmericaBlog, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., actually stepped up to defend President Bush, saying, according to The Hill:

"I thought some of it was funny, but I think it got a little rough … He is the president of the United States, and he deserves some respect."

"I'm certainly not a defender of the administration," Hoyer reassured stunned observers, but Colbert "crossed the line" with many jokes that were "in bad taste."

Criticizing Colbert for being rude would be pretty funny if it weren't so depressing. Rude? Since when has politics in this administration used the Marquis of Queensbury rules? Is Dick Cheney sweet and accommodating? When, in their march to power, has the right wing had good manners -- about abortion or gay marriage, or in the push for invading Iraq? Sure, mention decorum and one thinks immediately of Karl Rove, of Pat Robertson calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, of Jerry Falwell blaming America's bad morals for 9/11.

The fact is, Stephen Colbert is at the acme of rising independent voices -- in the blogosphere, on the internet, in publishing and independent filmmaking -- who are being aggressive and playing hardball the way the right does. And guess what? The establishment is getting nervous. The powers-that-be know that people respond to passion, anger and resistance, emotions that convey meaning and seriousness, and the will to fight hard for important issues.

In a smaller way, but showing similar guts, Cindy Sheehan spoke truth by traveling to Texas and demanding that the president explain, please, just what "noble cause" her son died for. Ray McGovern did it recently when he publicly challenged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in Atlanta, and so did Harry Taylor, the man who confronted George W. Bush at a town meeting in North Carolina.

Perhaps the most important lesson we have learned from the divisions laid bare by Stephen Colbert is that the big split isn't so much between Democrats and Republicans or between the media and the people and events they cover, but rather between the powerful and the angry, between those basking in power and those fighting for change. The kiss-ass media, the revolving-door congressmen, the sycophant lobbyists and congressional staffers, the greedy media consultants -- all are dependent on and addicted to the trappings of power, whether it's their next book, TV appearance, consulting contract, ride on Air Force One or junket to play golf at St. Andrews. Stephen Colbert turned the heat up on them all:

… let's review the rules. Here's how it works: The president makes the decisions; he's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people, the press, type those decisions down. Make, announce, check. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kickin' around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know: fiction!

It's getting hotter in the kitchen, and some of those who have the most to hide are getting closer to a meltdown.

Mrs John, 68, and Mrs Boyes, 62, who have been told to report to Harrogate police station to hear their fate, were arrested on 2 April after setting out to highlight the law, which civil liberties groups believe will criminalise free speech and undermine the right to peaceful demonstration, under the guise of the war on terror. If the Attorney General does exercise his right to charge them, he will hand the women a welcome boost to what has become an increasingly lonely struggle to highlight concerns about Menwith Hill, the shadowy American communications interception unit in the Yorkshire Dales where they were arrested.

Mrs Boyes demonstrated her disdain for the threat of charges, which could bring a year's imprisonment or £5,000 fine, by returning to Menwith for a "celebration picnic" within a week of her arrest. Mrs John has equal resolve - though it has been constrained by problems with her van, which gets her to Menwith from her small terraced home in Keighley, west Yorkshire.

"This will not stop me, whether they charge me or not," said Mrs Boyes, a Quaker whose philosophy is more pacifist and less overtly political than her friend's. "I am still utterly dumbfounded that we were arrested like that, straight away, under legislation designed to counter international organised crime and international terrorism. Terrorists attack buses and the Underground - places where people are - not remote bases. And since when did drug traffickers go to military bases?"

Mrs Boyes also has a track record for making a fool of prosecuting barristers. After going on trial in 2001 for causing criminal damage to a Trident submarine docked at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, she argued that her actions were preventing a greater evil and was acquitted.

Mrs John, a former midwife, moved to Yorkshire in 1993 and set up a permanent women's peace camp at Menwith Hill to try to draw attention to claims that commercial espionage was being pursued there.

World Can't Wait just announced their next major protest - October. Anyone else think that's a little funny?

Last year the Downing Street Memo came out on May 1st, soon after UFPJ announced the big rally for Sept 24th. Why do they always skip over the summer months? Because that's when the weather is nice, and people might actually have the time to camp and stay.

The crooks in power don't care if we schedule another weekend protest- the one thing they don't want is an extended protest like the Ukranians had. Several weeks of peaceful demonstration led to their President stepping down. That's what we need.
We sure as hell don't need this pathetic Congress to investigate anything else - at this point asking for another committee is just plain insanity.

Let's think about this - do George Bush and Dick Cheney and the complicit fools in Congress want 500,000 Americans camping out on their front porch? No. So why are we appeasing them? They don't want us camping on the Capitol mall- so we should do just that.

Thursday May, 18th Cindy Sheehan and Ray McGovern are meeting at Lafayette park near the White House, then Marching to Rumsfeld's personal residence. Wouldn't it be great if someone brought a video cameda, and it's thousands of people standing outside Rummy's house, singing along to #3 from Neil Young's new album, "Don't Need- No More Lies!" In fact that ought to be on repeat over at the big protest camp going up on the DC Capitol Mall- with the speakers turned to Congress and cranked to 11.

The DC Capitol Mall was created as a place for citizens to gather and protest their grievances to the government- that is it's purpose.

Isn't it time to use that space for an extended protest?

If not now when?

For nearly two decades a part of the city's jails known as Area 2 was the epicenter for what has been described as the systematic torture of dozens of African-American males by Chicago police officers. In total, more than 135 people say they were subjected to abuse including having guns forced into their mouths, bags places over their heads, and electric shocks inflicted to their genitals. Four men have been released from death row after government investigators concluded torture led to their wrongful convictions. [includes rush transcript] Extraordinary rendition. Overseas prisons. Abu Ghraib. Guantanamo Bay. Practices and places that have become synonymous with the abuse of detainees in US custody are getting renewed attention at the United Nations this week, where the UN Committee Against Torture is holding hearings on U.S. compliance with its international obligations. But there is one name expected to arise this week that few people in this country will have heard about - and it's the one that's closest to home.

It's called Area 2. And for nearly two decades beginning in 1971, it was the epicenter for what has been described as the systematic torture of dozens of African-American males by Chicago police officers. In total, more than 135 people say they were subjected to abuse including having guns forced into their mouths, bags places over their heads, and electric shocks inflicted to their genitals. Four men have been released from death row after government investigators concluded torture led to their wrongful convictions.

Yet the case around Area 2 is nowhere near a resolution -- to date, not one Chicago police officer has been charged with any crime.

The most prominent officer, former police commander Jon Burge, was dismissed in the early 1990s. He retired to Florida where he continues to collect a pension. Today, a special prosecutor is now in the fourth year of an investigation. Just last week, a group of Chicago police officers won a court ruling to delay the release of the prosecutor's preliminary report.

David Bates, one of dozens of men to come forward with allegations of abuse at the hands of the Chicago police.

Flint Taylor, an attorney with the People's Law Office in Chicago, which he helped found in the late 1960s. He has represented many of the torture victims and was directly involved in spearheading the special prosecutor's investigation.

John Conroy a journalist and author who has covered the case for over a decade. He has written several articles for the Chicago Reader, and is the author of the book "Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture."