The New Face of Fascism
Topic: Bush

Click the picture of Il Duce for more...

Apparently the first published online copy of this poem originated at RHLSchool.com. Which is a curious supplier of free children's worksheets. According to their website they are,

"Your place to get free ready to use quality worksheets for teaching, reinforcement, and review. Worksheets that are truly unique! Many of these worksheets can serve as the basis for lessons."

The Indy Voice would be curious to know who RHLSchool.com is. If they aren't the author, then who?

Happy Holidays!!!
Topic: Satire
It's that time of year again when conservatives unionize to create the illusion that liberals are evil godless people out to destroy all that is good in the world. And there's nothing that The Indy Voice delights in more than dispelling the myths of the do-dos over at conservative central. So without further ado The Indy Voice would like to re-post what is sure to become a holiday favorite in liberal land. Enjoy and have a "Happy Holiday!"

Jeremiah 10:2-4: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not."

This is the original pre-emptive strike at the ignorance that may spew from the unending faucet of misinformation such as those self-important ding-a-lings like Bill O'Reilly, et al.

Christmas is not under attack by liberals, it's under attack by those trying to force it into the halls of government and commerce with disinformation and ignorance. (And by the way O'Reilly, Jesus wasn't a philosopher.) Additionally, there is so much misinformation and incomplete understanding of the origins of Christmas and it's traditions that The Indy Voice believes that it requires some clarification.

Christmas, which is the modern term which comes to us from the late Olde English cristes masse, or "Christ's mass", is celebrated all over the world by both Christians and non-Christians. It is usually celebrated on December 25th, but some celebrate it on January 7th. Some people, such as fundamentalists Christians, believe that Christmas should be celebrated without the heathen accompaniments, such as a tree decorated with lights. Some devout Christians DO NOT celebrate "Christmas".

In ancient Babylon "The Feast of Isis" was celebrated on December 25th and it involved partying, feasting and gift giving; this is more than just a coincidence. Additionally, the Christmas tree tradition, originally called "Paradeisbaum" or paradise trees, dates back to Western Germany in the 16th century. Trees were brought into homes to celebrate the annual "Feast of Adam and Eve" on December 24th. The Christmas tree tradition was brought to America in the 1700's by German citizens but it did not become popular until the 1850's when President Franklin Pierce arranged to have the first Christmas tree in the White House. It was not until 1923 that President Calvin Coolidge started the National Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony on the White House lawn. This ceremony doesn't break the wall of separation between church and state because the act of lighting a "Christmas tree" is entirely pagan in nature even though those doing the lighting are most likely unaware of this.

The Christmas holiday is under attack by the likes of Macy's, not because they will no longer wish their customers a "Merry Christmas" but because they have infiltrated this religious holiday by convincing people that they MUST exchange goods as a show of faith. There is nothing anywhere in the bible that calls for this, yet many secular and non-secular Christians and non-Christians believe that gift-giving is a Christmas imperative. The fact is that all of the Christmas traditions including the Christmas tree, the Christmas ham, the Yule Log, holly, mistletoe, Santa Claus and the giving of presents come directly from pagan traditions.

As to the artificial problem of wishing people a "Merry Christmas" after a purchase of goods, this stems from the belief that "Christ is the reason for the season". He's not. Man is the reason for the season. December 25th (or January 7th) and all the things that go along with the modern day, pagan adopted and man-made traditions, are the reason for the season. In addition to Christmas, Ramadan, Chanukah and Kwanzaa are all being celebrated around the same time this season. Should merchants qualify their customers religious beliefs to make sure that they don't offend? Should merchants wish Jews a Yummy Yom Kippur on the 10th day of Tishri, the Babis a Happy New Year on March 21st, the Jains a Merry Mahavira-mas on April 3rd, and Buddhist a dazzling Dharma day on August 31st? What about the dozens and dozens of holidays, from the dozens of different religions that are celebrated by citizens of this country all year long? How do we address them? Should they be offended when their religious holiday isn't acknowledged by the local purveyor of gifts?(Index of Major Religious Holidays)

Understanding the secular and non-secular origins of Christmas and its relationship to government should make it clear that Christmas should NEVER be entangled with government and self-serving corporations (and TV show commentators). Both are equally capable of destroying a perfectly good religious celebration.

(For more information check out Religious Tolerance)

Just A Thought...
Topic: Bush
As the President of the United States leeches the appearance of paternalistic power standing aside an admiral of the Navy while he awaits his introduction to a throng of identical looking cadets at the bastion of American nationalism, the Naval Academy, and as he is greeted with grand patriotic music as he stands directly underneath the banner that reads “PLAN FOR VICTORY” it is hard not to conclude, amidst the cadence of the seamen’s arms waving in gesticulations of power, that the United States, led by the Republican party, is in the midst of a uniquely American proto-fascism.

Quotes for Thought
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public."

- Theodore Roosevelt, Republican President

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

- Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure... The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to frame the Constitution so that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

- Abraham Lincoln, US Representative

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."

- Theodore Roosevelt, Republican President

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

- Mohandas K. Gandhi, lawyer

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

- Sir Winston Churchill

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Herman Goering (NAZI) at the Nuremberg trials

"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."

- Mohandas K. Gandhi, lawyer

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God."

- Jesus of Nazareth, carpenter

Convenient Convention
Topic: Iraq
Where the Riverbends there is a place where conventional ignorance meets "Conventional Terror."

(Click the video at the beginning of the article after you read it.)

A Picture Says...
Topic: Hopefully Humorous

I think that says it all!

Thanks Kev!

Cut And Run, PLEASE!
Topic: Iraq
There is another term that we can use instead of "cut and run" when referring to Iraq and it's called leaving. We can and should leave Iraq and the people that are saying that we shouldn't are the same people that said that Iraq possessed WMD prior to the start of the war. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

In order to understand the argument for leaving Iraq you need to understand the breakdown of the players that are involved in the fighting there. On the one hand there are the Iraqis who are made up of both the Shia and the Sunnis and on the other hand there is a numerically insignificant but highly motivated and violent group from outside Iraq.

The primary issue to understand is that the people that are fighting U.S. forces in Iraq are doing so because we remain there. The common sense of this statement is lost on politicians of both the Democratic and Republican persuasion. The greatest fear is that because Democrats continue to regurgitate the fallacy that if we "cut and run" all hell will break loose the potential change of Congressional makeup in the 2006 elections will mean no change in our policy of our illegal occupation of Iraq which would result in the most dire of consequences. The most important aspect of this fact is that the Shia and the Sunnis who are presently fighting U.S. forces do so because they want revenge for our continued unjustified occupation and killing of their friends and family and the destruction of their communities. Both the Shia and the Sunnis recognize that without the U.S. presence in Iraq they have nothing to gain by a civil war.

The majority of the other group presently fighting U.S. forces were recently radicalized by the U.S. occupation. They have become battle hardened on the streets of Iraq, ensuring that they'll be capable of teaching further generations of newly radicalized Middle Easterners better ways of killing Americans and westerners. This group is the most dangerous to American interests around the world and only grows in size when American imperialism and hypocrisy becomes U.S. foreign policy. This group would be left utterly powerless and without cause if the U.S. were to immediately leave Iraq. This group is also well aware that without the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq nothing is gained through provoking a civil war. Without U.S. forces as an antagonist this group is powerless in using the situation in Iraq as a impetus for radicalizing more moderate Muslims around the globe.

Our continued presence in Iraq is strengthening this worldwide radicalization of moderate Muslims into violent anti-American and anti-westerner forces and more importantly is the direct cause of the anarchy that is presently reigning there. If we do not leave Iraq things will only get worse. U.S. forces leaving Iraq is the only logical course of action for anyone who desires a stable Iraq. Furthermore, removal of our occupying forces from Iraq would result not only in advancing U.S. interests but also in reducing the numbers of radicalized Muslims both in Iraq and around the world.

Question?
Topic: Iraq
I just have one question for those of you advocating staying in Iraq until the job is done, what do you define as "winning the war?" I'm just curious because not one person in this country's leadership has told us what that means.

The answer is an abstraction and not questioning this reality is a distraction. If you occupy a country of people in loin cloths with modern day weaponry they're going to fight back. Don't believe me? Ask the Brits about it or open up a freaking history book.

There is no winning. Winning isn't a real concept. Think about it.

Perilous Ignorance: The War In Iraq
Topic: Iraq
I hope to never see such misery and bloodshed ever occur in my lifetime over such easily remedied things as ignorance. I have so many things that I want to say about the slew of false assumptions that were made in the run up to the war and continue to this day but I'll keep my words brief because I think Representative Murtha said it very well and I ask that you read his words.

First of all, Iraq is not and was never involved in the "war on terror" unless you allow for our military fighting any country that NEVER perpetrated an act of terrorism on the United States.

Secondly, once the excuse for the invasion ("weapons of mass destruction") was not found in Iraq, the new ambiguous reason became the "war on terror." The "war on terror" has no clear goals or plan of achievement. We might as well call it the "be there forever" or the "many people will die needlessly" policy.

Thirdly, questioning the war has nothing to do with supporting our troops who take orders. The orders should change and that's what we are working on.

Fourth and most important, if you want to protect this country from terrorists it is of extreme importance to national security that we remove our troops from Iraq immediately, as it has become a breeding ground for the creation of NEW terrorists who see our irrational act against the Muslim people of Iraq as an action to steal their wealth (oil) and a war against the Muslim world. Our illegal act has only solidified worldwide public opinion that the United States is the greatest threat to world peace.

The Honorable John P. Murtha
War in Iraq (Full Text of Speech)
November 17th, 2005

(Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region.

General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, "the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency." General Abizaid said on the same date, "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

For 2 ? years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait—the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction—but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear.

We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused.

I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S.

Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.

I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq.

My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering.

Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That's why I am speaking out.

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME!!!

We ignore these realities at our own peril.

Please call or right your Congress people and send a message to Rep. Murtha that you support his position on Iraq,

Honorable John P. Murtha
2423 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Honorable John P. Murtha
P.O. Box 780
Johnstown, PA 15907

Washington, DC Office of Rep. Murtha
202-225-2065

Johnstown Office of Rep. Murtha
814-535-2642

Find your Representative HERE and your Senator HERE

Hillary Out, Jesus In
Topic: State Of The Union
What the hell is wrong with Democrats? I mean you have the most incompetent set of bozos that have ever run this country (into the ground) and Democrats can't seem to find a way to say "THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WITH REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP."

Hillary's tripping over herself to appear like she's appetizing to voters she'll need in 2008. Rove, Libby, Cheney, the 3 musketeers, are performing acts of treason right out of the Oval office directly under fucktard's nose and Republicans are trying to finish the hatchet job they started, there is no budget, the deficit is ballooning to proportions that our great-great-great-great grandchildren will surely thanks us for and let's just get one other thing straight, the intelligence about Iraq wasn't fucked up, it was mucked up, and not a single Democrat has the balls to just say so.

The Bush administration fucking lied. Plain and simple. End of story. Just say it already and while you're at it say your sorry for trying to be Republican-lite so that you can win elections. And you're damn right you should say you're sorry for voting for the authorization for war, some of us are sorry for voting for your sorry asses.

And another thing, if you nominate Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for President I'll vote Republican for the rest of my life. Alright, I was just bullshitting and I went a little overboard about the voting Republican for life thing but let me just say this as plainly as I can, Hillary is (thankfully) the past, not the future of the Democratic party.

Here's my advice, "go left young man," (And Woman). Whether right or wrong the people of this country are longing for leadership and a clear direction. Pussyfooting around certain key issues is not how leaders do things. Of course people care about values and if you heed my advice and "go left" you can finally start putting those sanctimonious and immoral Republicans in their rightful place observing from the sidelines.

Even a simple mind like myself can come up with ways to explain to people that when you say that you're pro-elderly and therefore against the Republicans plans for destroying Social Security you're doing so because of your values. So kick all those capitulating DLC ding-dongs back to the dark side where they belong and try explaining to people how politics affect their lives everyday, in real, tangible ways and they can either choose for their leaders to be moral or Republican but at least let 'em know what the choice is.

Is it moral to ask the people of this country to sacrifice nothing while our soldiers sacrifice their lives?

Is it moral that we preach freedom and democracy and then run hand in hand with Kings and violent tyrants when it suits our self-interests?

Is allowing U.S. based companies to outsource jobs to other countries that abuse children in sweatshops so that stockholders in this country can make a few pennies more a share in profit moral?

Is it moral that many of us can have the opportunity to gorge ourselves to the point of obesity while people in this country and around the world go hungry?

Is it moral to continually destroy our environment and poison the environments of others around the world when they neither created or benefited from the processes which created the destruction?

Is it moral to allow people to die early deaths from a lack of health care when the private sector is doing absolutely nothing to help them?

Is it moral to see a difference when someone explodes a bomb strapped to their back which kills innocent people then when we drop a bomb out of plane which has the same affect?

Is it moral that CEOs in this country make 1000 times more than what the lowest paid worker makes?

Is it moral that the poor of this country get a disproportionate share of justice in both the civil and criminal justice systems?

If you want to offer a doctrine that's in direct opposition to the Republican money changers in Washington look no further than the guy these hypocrites circle up to during election times,

15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves;

16 and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.

17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer but ye have made it a den of thieves.

18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.

How about a house of democracy where we cast out the Republican big business money changers and finally start addressing the people's needs? Now there's a novel idea.