destruction

Igloo can't read. Igloo can't think. His brain is controlled by the likes of nazi reich wing nutters named David Horowitz. Or he may have ran out of insults then jumped off a skyscraper.

I dare you to call US Army Major General Eldon Bargewell a traitor because if you do, you are condoning mass murder. http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail....5021&con_type=1

*crickets*

I don't support organized slavery unlike you who supports a fascist government who allows US corporations to manufacture goods in countries where slavery is legal but you don't have any problem with that as long as it's the good ol' USA doing it, do you?

This coming from a jingoistic flag waving anti american bush bot. Translation: You know, the above valid data concerning horowitz is comparable to the nazis of the 30s but you don't care because you, hate freedom and you hate your country. Time to get back on the boat, yeah? YEAH! I bet you're an illegal immigrant anyhow. You don't belong in America. Get the fuck out. And no, I won't shut up. What are you gonna do about it? Fucking dumb spic with a stolen computer.

MOre proof how the "Bush Corp" and the far right, cheerleadered by David Horowitz and other morons like him and the asshats who bottom feed from their bile hate america.

Thanks for Nothing An Open Letter to David Horowitz Mr. Horowitz, I find your stories of leftist “persecution†of conservatives to be a joke. Why? Because I live in America, the real America, and I have gone to public school for 13 years, and I know where the bias lies. You say you are for Academic Freedom, but where were you when I got called to the office and threatened with disciplinary action simply for arguing about the Iraq war with another student? Yes, Mr. Horowitz, this actually happened my freshman year. I certainly didn’t hear you screaming in defense of my freedom. Mr. Horowitz, where were you when I came out? When I got threatening notes calling me a “faggot,†and a teacher took me aside and gave me a social-Darwinist lecture about why “homosexuality is a weakness� Where were you Mr. Horowitz, when my fourth grade teacher read us “The Chronicles of Narnia,†and followed each reading selection of it with a lecture about how the book preached values similar to the Bible, which we should follow? Where were you when my first-grade teacher started school everyday by reading us selected Bible passages, along with pre-written sermons from a Sunday school book? Where were you Mr. Horowitz, when my government teacher called four other students' parents, hoping to intimidate them into standing for the pledge of allegiance, even though they didn’t believe in God? Where were you Mr. Horowitz in my Jr. High Social Studies class where we learned about how at Kent State in 1970, the students were to blame for getting shot and got what they deserved? Where were you when Marine recruiters came into my senior Government class and preached about how the media was lying about Iraq, and why students should sign up to go fight over there? Where were you when a preacher came to my school right before the 2000 election, and told a group of us who were getting out of study hall that Lieberman shouldn’t be allowed to run for vice-president because he was “a Jew who didn’t believe in our lord Jesus Christ� Yeah, your rhetoric about how the educational system in America is run by a liberal conspiracy is on the same level with those who think Wall Street is run by a Jewish Conspiracy. That level is called hate-sponsored insanity. If you were really in favor of academic freedom, you would be in the small towns across America getting religious indoctrination out of the classroom. You would be challenging the teachers who bully and harass anti-war students and call them “traitors.†You would be out trying to make sure kids knew the truth, and weren’t being told lies about how “condoms don’t work†and “homosexuality causes AIDS.†I look at the number of girls at my high school who have been knocked up thanks to mis-education about birth control and I know where the bias is, and I know who you are really serving. Thanks for Nothing. http://rwor.org/a/048/horowitz-correspondence.html

Close Encounters of the Horowitz Kind: Part 1 by Alan Goodman There were some surprises in store for me when I heard David Horowitz speak recently at the University of Chicago. For one thing, I didn’t necessarily anticipate ending up being encouraged by a Republican student into an impromptu debate with Horowitz himself—which I’ll tell about later. But even beside that, there were surprises in store. I've been writing in Revolution about how Horowitz is a self-described “battering ram” for an agenda that would turn academia in the U.S. into a deathly reactionary, airless vacuum. I've been among those raising the alarm that Horowitz has powerful backing from the White House, a dangerous cadre of campus brownshirts dedicated to turning in professors who make an “off topic” comment in class. I’ve been exposing his racism and his efforts to forbid some well-established truths about this society and its history from being taught—or even discussed—on campus. So, I know some things about Horowitz. But it was an eye opener to see him “live,” and to observe (and interact with) the response he got at an “elite” university. Surveying the audience—something like 300 people, almost all UC students—was interesting in its own right. The guy in front of me wore a shirt saying “But does it work in THEORY?” Not exactly a hotbed of good ol' boy pragmatism! Next to me, a row of five or six students had all opened the current issue of Revolution to the first installment of the series, “The Basis, The Goals, and The Methods of the Communist Revolution,” by Bob Avakian. And they filled the twenty-minute wait for Horowitz by reading through it. I learned during and after the event that at least most of them were far from radicals. Quite a few other students were reading the article on Horowitz in the last issue of Revolution (and at least one drew on the articles to confront Horowitz during the Q & A that followed his talk). But Bob Avakian wouldn’t be the only one talking about communism that night. I actually wasn't quite prepared for how much anticommunism figures into Horowitz's spiel. Horowitz began his one-hour talk with an updated version of the “I Was A Commie Dupe” ’50s movie confessional. It starts with a young David Horowitz, idealist, activist, Marxist, and supporter of the civil rights movement, who thought that Black people were oppressed. Ah...those values don't sound so terrible...at first! But as we follow the “reefer madness”-like story, it ends with Horowitz's bookkeeper, who he says he had assigned to assist a Black Panther program, being murdered. “I knew that the Black Panther Party had murdered her,” Horowitz asserted to his audience. Do you find it intolerable, or at least very disturbing, that Black people are living in oppressive conditions in this country? Well, once upon a time, David Horowitz did too—and then “they” killed his bookkeeper. “Everything I believe about social justice,” Horowitz summed up, “about oppressed people in inner cities, everything I said...about the Panthers, that the police were fascists and were attacking them...was a lie.” No, instead the Panthers were a “murderous gang.” You don’t believe it? Well, “I was there,” claims David Horowitz. A few things have to be said here. First, no criminal charges were ever brought against anyone associated with the Black Panther Party for the death of the woman Horowitz refers to. Second, the Black Panther Party—in the face of incredible repression and with tremendous personal sacrifice—put revolution on the agenda in this country for millions of people. Several dozen members of the BPP were killed—including, in the very city where Horowitz was speaking, Fred Hampton. Hampton, as Horowitz ignores, had been drugged by a police informant and then slain in his bed by police while he slept. And many more were framed up for long terms in prison, with some—like Geronimo Pratt—only released decades later when active government frame-ups were brought to light. Third, the Panthers, for various reasons, could not sustain their revolutionary direction; by the time this incident took place they had long since given up on revolution and were involved in opening shoe factories, and their strategy for change had gone from revolutionary to relying on and working within the system. To impute anything they did or did not do in this period to revolutionary ideology is conscious distortion. But as I surveyed the room while Horowitz told this story, the atmosphere reminded me of experiences as a kid at camp, when the counselors would scare the shit out of us with stories of young campers who wandered off into the woods to be eaten alive by some monster, ghost, or dead former-camper. Over two million people in jail, a majority of them Black or Latino or other oppressed nationalities? The epidemic of police murder and brutality, with the stories of Amadou Diallo, Abner Louima, or Rodney King concentrating the experience of millions? The whole shameful history of slavery and Jim Crow and the terrible inequality and oppression that exists today, as exemplified in what happened after Katrina? “Don't go there! Stop thinking about that! Black thugs will kill you,” says counselor Dave. To say that Horowitz had a subtext is almost giving him too much credit—it was a very blatant attempt to get his audience to identify with Horowitz’s younger, white liberal self and to walk them into a very ugly, very racist place. And this became even more clear later. From Racism to Anticommunism in a Single Bound But first Horowitz went somewhere else. His experience of momentarily aligning himself with the Black Panther Party, he told us, was part of a much greater horror: “All my leftist writers and prophets were telling me that there was going to be a revolution in the world and on the other side of that rainbow was going to be what? ‘A future of social justice. Equality. No more poverty. No reason for war, because people would have gotten rid of private property, which of course is the root of all evil.’ That's why I devoted my services to a street gang.” And, where does that all lead? “The utopias of the left, the illusion which every leftist who is a faculty member of this university put their energy behind, ended up in absolute catastrophe. One hundred and twenty million people slaughtered since 1917 in the name of social justice. Billions made poor, poor behind anyone's imagination, artificially poor.” Let me turn around here, and address readers who do have some sense of what Horowitz is about. To you, there is a challenge to confront, one that was driven home to me by both Horowitz's opening tirade, and the widespread confusion this seemed to create in what is, after all, a very well-educated audience. There is a critical need for a scientific atmosphere of investigation and debate about the actual experience of the world communist revolution on college campuses, and on opinion-making, influential campuses in particular. You can't evade that. Fundamentally, you can't evade it because it is an experience that represents the highest achievements of humanity so far, by far, and if you flush it down the toilet, you give up all that. That’s the main thing. But in addition, unless the hegemony of lies, distortions, and a ruling out of scientific inquiry into this experience is challenged, very broadly, Horowitz and those he represents will pound this into people's heads, and in the process, by “logical extension,” rule any questioning of or opposition to the status quo out of order. The Set the Record Straight project is sponsoring Raymond Lotta's speaking tour “Socialism is Much Better Than Capitalism, and Communism Will Be a Far Better World.” Revolution has been serializing that talk, and it is interesting that the very excerpt in the issue students were reading as they waited for Horowitz's act to start addresses the lie of the “100 million deaths” issue, exposing that if the same methods and standards were applied to deaths in capitalist countries, and countries dominated by imperialism, then the “democratic capitalist experiment” in India alone killed more people since 1947 than all the deaths anti-communists (falsely) claim were caused by communism. But Horowitz had a “scared straight” type impact with the anti-communist horror stories. During the Q & A period, at least a couple of students who wanted to challenge Horowitz felt compelled to preface their objections to his talk by disassociating themselves from communists and their alleged misdeeds. Channeling George Wallace Once Horowitz had linked any concern for the oppression of Black people to an inevitable murder of innocents, he spent a substantial portion of his talk attacking Black people. Particularly ugly was his attack on the progressive Black intellectual Cornel West. Here he combined the old Dixiecrat race-baiter George Wallace's attacks on “pointy headed intellectuals” and Black people. Of West, Horowitz sneered, “There isn't an idea in that head. And yet he charges like $35,000 a speech.” That stupid comment was met with a disturbing amount of laughter, as well as visible anger on the faces of the small number of Black people in the room. There was less applause, and some murmurs of disagreement when Horowitz called West “lazy,” and awkward silence when Horowitz called West an “overpaid, underworked fool.” I have to say that my blood boiled. It shouldn’t need to be said—but evidently it does—that Cornel West is remarkable for the breadth of his scholarship and his thinking, his concerns for justice, and his continual attempts to link up with masses of people who are locked out of the world of ideas by this system. No ideas? I don’t have to agree with everything Cornel West writes to find him provocative, engaging, and challenging. To be called someone with “no ideas” by a demagogue like Horowitz, who specializes in hackneyed and recycled McCarthyism, would almost be a compliment—if it were not the fact that Cornel West has been under attack from numerous quarters in recent years in an attempt to deprive him of his platform, and if it were not for the fact that Horowitz is not some iconoclast but a very highly connected and well-supported ideological hitman of the rulers of this country. On top of that, to descend into the most ugly racist stereotyping, to pander to and stir up whatever resentment might exist in his mostly white audience, was even more ugly. It is frankly only a step or two, if that, to the demagogue in the movie “Rosewood,” who whips up a lynch-mob against a Black man because the man has “taken on airs” and owns a piano! Just as there is an intolerable amount of ignorance about what communism is about, there is also a tremendous amount of ignorance—even on an elite campus like UC, and in a crowd like this—of the reality of national oppression and white supremacy. Horowitz told the story of the lynching of Emmett Till, only to contrast it with a fabricated account of how Kobe Bryant was supposedly treated as a hero for being charged with raping a white woman (a Latino student later challenged and refuted this in the Q & A). Horowitz claimed that “In America, in the 21st century, a Black man accused of rape, or a big Black man accused of rape by a little white woman will get his day in court, and innocent until proven guilty.” And, on the other hand, Horowitz claimed that white Duke students charged with raping a Black woman got “hung in the media.” “You have a better chance,” Horowitz claimed, “if you're accused as a Black person, in certain settings, than you do if you're white.” To take just a very brief reality check, the following from the Rush Limbaugh show is typical of the way the victim and the Duke Lacrosse team have been treated in the media: LIMBAUGH: “[Al Sharpton is] trying to figure out how he can get involved in the deal down there at Duke where the lacrosse team— CALLER: Yeah. LIMBAUGH:—uh, supposedly, you know, raped, some, uh, ho’s. One could find similar examples, including going back to the hysteria created around the case of the “Central Park jogger” in New York in 1989. A white woman was brutally raped, and a group of Black and Latino teenagers, ranging in age from 14 to 16 years old, were seized by police, interrogated (in some cases without lawyers or parents present), and tricked and coerced into videotaping false “confessions.” Intense racist hysteria against Black and Latino youth was whipped up and Donald Trump spent nearly $100,000 on full-page ads calling for the youth to be executed! Though there was no physical evidence and the youths' “confessions” did not match known details of the case, they were convicted and one youth served nearly 13 years in prison. Not until 2002 did the truth come to light when another man confessed to the rape—it turns out he had raped another woman in similar fashion only two days before. There was good evidence that the police themselves knew about this, had refused to investigate it, and instead proceeded with their frameup. The state was finally forced to expunge the youth's records. But there is method to the madness. On the other hand, Horowitz wants to utterly distort the history of communism and lump it together with any progressive impulses at all, in order to rule out of order any dreams of a better future. All in the service of shutting down critical thought on the campuses. Nothing less than the truth can answer this—and we have to fully master and muster that truth. In part 2 of this article, I’ll talk about what happened when I began to bring out some of the truth to his followers—and ended up confronting Horowitz himself. Horowitz got over to a great degree with both the anti-communist lies and the racist stereotypes, distortions, and outright lies about Black people. There was a tense and sharp divide in the audience between how the small number of Black and Latino students reacted to his racist rants, and the way most of the other students reacted. Very few in the audience seemed to agree with him on the war in Iraq, his sexist attacks on feminism, or his claims that he is under siege and denied the right to express himself. But the racism and anti-communism that he ran was and is poisonous in its effect and besides, people don’t have to agree with everything Horowitz runs in order for him to set the terms of debate. The Shtick... and THE STICK Beyond the way he played on and whipped up anti-communist mythology and racist stereotypes, most students I spoke with after the event were not aware that Horowitz is not just full of shit—his agenda is about silencing critical thinking and dissent. Nor was there much, if any, awareness of his connections to Bush, Karl Rove, and the top officials of the Republican Party. Students I talked to had no idea that Horowitz's tract “The Art of Political Warfare,” was assigned reading for 2,000 key players in the last Bush election campaign and to top Republican congressmen. They didn't know that he and his followers are demanding dissenting professors get fired and prosecuted. And Horowitz didn't bring any of that up in his talk. As dozens of students milled around after the Q & A ended, I was able to share some of the things I learned reviewing his book [see Revolution #42, April 9, 2006]. No student I talked to, including several of the campus Republicans, had read his latest book, The Professors (and I called out for anyone who had to speak up). They didn't know that he wants people who disagree with him fired, and that his followers have called for prosecuting professors under California's law against “communist indoctrination.” As discussion developed in the lobby after the event, many students—including some of the campus Republicans—were quite disturbed by what they learned from what has appeared in Revolution about the essential repressive edge of Horowitz's campaign. He's not trying, mainly, to argue with his opponents; he wants them fired and jailed. As I pointed to things in Horowitz's book that prove this, one of the campus Republicans asked me to “raise what you are saying to David.” So off we went. Horowitz was chatting with a group of students, accompanied by a couple of bodyguards. I introduced myself and explained I was very familiar with his book, and I told him that his own followers didn't know that he calls for firing teachers who disagree with him. “Why don't you and your followers,” I asked, “debate and argue with people you don't agree with instead of demanding they get fired? If there is anything to what you are saying about how Black people owe a debt for being enslaved, which there is not, then why won't you argue that out. Why do you demand that people who disagree with you be fired and prosecuted?” “You didn't read my book!” Horowitz cut me off. I said yes, I read the introductory “disclaimer” that you don't care about a professor's politics. And I read what you wrote about how you just want professors to keep politics outside of the classroom. But those are lies. I said: “You attack most of the professors in the book for things they say outside of class, and you have overtly called for firing Ward Churchill and the Colorado high school teacher who was taped by a snitch inspired by your so-called Students for Academic Freedom.” I pointed out that Horowitz called for firing this high school teacher, among other places, during an appearance with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. I told the students there that Horowitz had said that Robertson was doing important work for the same cause as him. “If Robertson is doing important work for your cause,” I said to him, “what does it tell us about your cause? Robertson's Christian fascist university does not allow gay students, gay visitors, or any discussion of homosexuality (in any kind of rational way) on campus, and when a group of gay rights activists symbolically stepped onto school property, the school had them arrested. Is this your model,” I asked, “of free speech and academic freedom? And then you call for the firing of a Colorado high school teacher who engaged his class in discussion of capitalism, the causes of the Iraq war, and comparisons of Bush and Hitler.” This teacher—according to the tape provided by a snitch student and played on a Colorado radio station—repeatedly provides an opportunity for a student with Horowitz's views to argue his case in class. And this teacher tells his students, “I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me...but what I'm trying to get you to do is to think about these issues more in depth.” What does it tell you when Horowitz says that Pat Robertson is doing “important work” for academic freedom (!), and then demands this teacher be fired? People listening had never heard any of this. “Horowitz wants professors fired? Isn't he for free speech?” Horowitz defended calling for the firing of the Colorado high school teacher (on Robertson's 700 Club show, Horowitz called the teacher's classroom discussion “child abuse”). Horowitz lied about what the teacher said in class. One of the UC students commented that it would seem hard to believe this teacher was a tyrant when 150 students walked out of school in protest when he was suspended. Horowitz sensed that the association with Robertson was not playing well here at all, and that even his own people were somewhat freaked out that he called for firing this Colorado high school teacher. Horowitz said he doesn't agree with Pat Robertson on gays. I said, “That may be true, but so what? Did you go on his show and call for the firing of this Colorado teacher or not? And did you applaud Robertson's work as contributing to your cause? How is that anything but upholding a model of draconian repressive censorship, and opposing free speech that questions authority and encourages student discussion? Did you join Robertson in inciting his audience saying things like the professors attacked in your book are killers, beat children, are ‘sexual deviants’ and terrorists?” Horowitz claimed that one professor in his book advocated sex with children. I said, “You know as well as I do that what Robertson means is that these teachers are openly gay, or they explore homosexuality in a way that does not start from Christian fundamentalism, and that is what Robertson was inciting his audience about. And that is just one example of what you would ban in classrooms.” This is a very uncomfortable area for Horowitz, and before we could explore other examples of his alignment with the Christian fascist agenda, his “bodyguards” placed themselves about six inches in front of my face, while Horowitz wheeled around and stormed out of the room. After this exchange, the level of turmoil went to a whole other level. Even before my encounter with Horowitz, the campus Republicans had placed the issue of Revolution with the review of Horowitz's The Professors on their table, and it stayed there until they packed up. One guy, who described himself as a math geek, an evangelical Christian, and a conservative campus activist, wouldn't let go of me. He kept insisting he didn't agree with what he had learned Horowitz stood for. He thought students should be exposed to different ideas, and didn't feel threatened by political arguments in class. He was upset that by being an evangelical Christian Republican, he would be perceived as agreeing with Robertson. I told him that if he is concerned about that, he should draw a sharp line of demarcation between what he believed in, and Horowitz, Robertson, and Bush. He was in a great deal of angst when I finally said goodbye, and told me he would think about what we talked about and read Revolution. Lessons There is much to try to process from this live encounter with Horowitz, but a few things stand out in my mind. One is that if anyone thinks Horowitz is a marginalized liar, they're only half right. Three hundred students turned out to hear him at University of Chicago, and they weren't, overwhelmingly, there to expose and refute him. Second, Horowitz's full repressive agenda, which is serious and dangerous, is something he feels he needs to keep in the closet in front of audiences like the one at University of Chicago. This is an Achilles heel for him when it is exposed. Third, we have to take on Horowitz with substantial, hard-hitting arguments that expose what he is all about. We have to go after him with facts, using his own words to damn him, and drag out and expose his real agenda to his followers. Anything less than that won’t cut it and will even play into his hands. I was impressed by the openness on this campus to engaging in big questions. This was evidenced by the students who challenged Horowitz, and by the interest in a communist newspaper, and exposure of Horowitz that does not just refute what he says, but exposes what he serves. It struck me how important it is that we do the work to get a positive dynamic going, where on the one hand the right to critical thinking on campus is fought for, and Horowitz is exposed and refuted and his campaign to suppress critical thinking is beaten back; and on the other hand, there needs to be—in concert with this—much more engagement in academia with what communist revolution and socialism are really about. And finally, very central to Horowitz's mission are his racist attacks on Black people. A substantial part of his speech involved upholding the enslavement of Black people by this system, and denying and reversing the present-day reality of racism, white supremacy, and the oppression of Black people. I'll return to this, and its dangerous implications, in future articles and meanwhile I encourage reader correspondence on this component of the Horowitz agenda. http://rwor.org/a/048/close-encounters-horowitz-2.html

The “Border Crisis†And Revolution: Stepping Back on Some Strategic Dimensions This week George W. Bush gave a major speech on immigration. Two things must be said about this speech, right from the start: One: While Bush may pose as a “moderate†on this issue, a study of his speech—and more than that, a real look at the bill he is pushing—shows a raft of very ominous and new repressive measures. Taken together these will amount to a radical change for the worse in the lives of millions, even tens of millions, of people. Two: The struggle for immigrants’ rights must continue and intensify, reaching out more broadly and refusing to compromise on the fundamental rights of the immigrants. Especially in the face of the reactionary storm being whipped up against it in both the Congress and the airwaves, it is very important for this movement to renew its offensive and get the truth out there. And with those two points, a third: there is a larger dimension at work in Bush’s proposal to further militarize an already-militarized border, this time with National Guard troops and a leap in electronic surveillance, and to force undocumented workers to carry government-issued, biometric ID cards. And that has to do with the real fear this government has of political upheaval, even revolutionary upheaval, that could “cross the border.†How Did We Get Here? Mexico today is an extremely oppressed and extremely complex nation going through breakneck changes. The 1994 NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Act) enabled U.S. capital to even more deeply penetrate, and twist, the Mexican economy, and it accelerated the upheaval in Mexican society. NAFTA drove even more peasants from the land and into the shantytowns of the cities. There has been industrialization and de-industrialization, and the old “social compactâ€â€”in which the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) basically ran the country’s political institutions—has been racked by turmoil and change. Now it’s important to understand and never forget, especially when there’s so much talk about “defending ‘our’ borders†(both from open reactionaries and even some people who should know better), that this domination by the U.S. stretches all the way back to the U.S. military invasion of Mexico in 1846, and its robbery of half of Mexico’s territory. And note as well that the U.S. felt no hesitation about sending troops again to cross the border, this time in 1916, in an attempt to crush the Mexican Revolution. This whole history and structure of exploitation and domination, combined with the intensified ravaging of Mexico today—along with U.S. capital’s drive to maximize exploitation of workers within the U.S.—has driven the big increase in undocumented workers from Mexico in the past decade. The money these workers send home plays a very important economic and social role in Mexico now—right now, it is the second largest source of foreign revenue in Mexico, right after oil. And the ways in which these workers are outlawed and suppressed within the U.S. makes them essential to the U.S. economy. They are “skinned twice†by the U.S. capitalists—and then skinned yet a third time when they are blamed for society’s many ills. The U.S. ruling class needs to maintain this section of the proletariat in extremely exploited conditions, and they also fear even greater instability in Mexico if this situation were upset. At the same time, as they themselves say, “the system is brokeâ€â€”the way that things are set up now is unleashing too many forces that the imperialists feel can threaten them, and so they are moving to make very radical and severely repressive changes in the whole setup. The “Shadows†. . . and The Fascist “Solution†Bush in his speech talked about how “illegal immigrants live in the shadows of our society. Many used forged documents to get jobs. . . They are part of American life, but they are beyond the reach and protection of American law.†Over the past 25 years the state in the U.S. has qualitatively heightened its control over people; with Bush, this has taken a further leap, with the wiretap scandals being just the latest outrage. This is designed to both deal with dissent and protest that does not rise to the level of revolution, but it is also being done with the possibility of bigger things in mind. Among other things, these people remember the ‘60s. . . and if you think that they do not see the potential for upheaval, including revolutionary upheaval, that not only reaches but goes far beyond that era . . . and if you think that they are not readying this whole apparatus to do a very rapid and very thorough repressive clampdown should a situation arise in which they think they need it . . . then you may lack both imagination and realism. Now the fact that 10 to 20 million people must live outside the law, lacking in any basic rights and liable to be arrested and deported at any moment, gives the capitalists huge power over the undocumented workers. This is why they are forced to “live in the shadows,†as Bush put it. But there is also a way in which this comes into conflict with the imperialists’ strategic aim for a qualitatively greater level of repression in society as a whole. What does it mean, in light of that aim, for there to exist, right within the borders of the U.S., a population of 10 to 20 million people who have mastered the capabilities involved in “living outside the law†as a fact of daily life? How does that affect what the imperialists perceive to be their strategic need to straitjacket the population as a whole? And yet they can’t just kick everyone out overnight—even Tom Tancredo, as much as he may agitate for it, knows that such a move could cause massive social and political upheaval and possibly rebellion, both within the U.S. and Mexico too. So the imperialists wonder: would it be better for them, at this point, to “regulate†the immigrants in a different way—finding a way to bring them “out of the shadows†legally, while still keeping them in a highly vulnerable and exploited position as “guest workersâ€? (See box “The Brutal Reality of ‘Guest Worker’ Programs†in this issue.) Think about Bush’s call for “a new identification card for every legal foreign worker,†using “biometric technology, such as digital fingerprints, to make it tamperproof.†First off, no one should be forced to put up with that level of invasive control from this state. The people who run this society have proven over and over again that they will use anything open to them to spy on people and worse, and they will definitely use this to hound and more tightly control immigrants. When you add in the fact that many immigrants come to the U.S. with some important direct experience with and political understanding of what this empire does all over the world, and when you further add in the ways in which the recent upsurge has shown their potential to influence the political terrain very broadly, you can see even more clearly why these new, highly repressive measures are being pushed. Not only that, there is no doubt that everyone with brown skin will suddenly be asked to prove their legality, and that only this new “biometric†card will do for them. On top of that, these fascists have unleashed a hysteria where there are now laws being passed where, for instance, anyone who rents to “an illegal†can be fined. So we will soon have a situation in which anyone who “looks like a Mexican†or “looks like a foreigner†will find themselves in a new version of South Africa: forced to “show their papers†whenever they want to do anything. And so yet another section of people becomes “presumed guilty.†And think about this, too: how will such an ID card for “guest workers†even be useable unless all workers, documented or not, have such a card—for otherwise, couldn’t people just forge documents claiming that they were citizens? And once you need such a card for a job, how long before—in the name of “security†or even “convenienceâ€â€”such cards become mandatory for everyone? How long before we’re living the movies Gattaca, Minority Report, or Enemy of the State? (http://rwor.org/a/v23/1130-39/1132/ids_gattaca.htm) If people resist these moves, they could boomerang. And note also that Bush is calling for a huge expansion of “detention facilities†for undocumented workers—so-called “facilities†in which the conditions are often even worse than in the prisons of this country. These detention centers will be used for people who have already been categorized as criminals without trials, “aliens†not deserving of the most basic rights. And this will be brought to you courtesy of the same people who gave you Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo—not to mention the ugly, illegal repression that has been going on against Arab immigrants since 9/11. Finally, Bush is calling for MORE repression on the border—National Guard, more INS agents, etc. So let’s remember here too that this will translate into more deaths of people attempting to cross the border in even more remote and dangerous places. Since 1994 over 400 people a year have died trying to cross; that is an outrage and a crime, which will now grow worse if Bush and his “coalition of Democrats and ‘pro-business’ Republicans†get their “moderate†bill passed. These proposals of Bush are not “moderate†at all; they are vicious attacks on immigrants and very ominous steps in the further fascization of U.S. society. At the same time, they are full of potential risk for Bush and the class he represents. Already this move has created even greater anger against the U.S. in Mexico, as well as other countries. The Sensenbrenner bill politically awakened the masses of immigrants in an unprecedented way, and where this all will end up is far from settled. There are problems that this is causing in the border regions of the Southwest, where the peoples and economies on both sides are very intertwined; these new measures will tear all that apart. And there is the question of what all these changes will do to the families of people who are here, where half the family is “legal†and half is not. On the other hand, there are all these “America über alles†types who have been unleashed who don’t want to settle for anything short of what would amount to ethnic cleansing; their ruling class masters can’t, and don’t necessarily want to, just put these people back into the bottle. So you have people like Tancredo or Sensenbrenner threatening to “break ranks†with Bush; part of that is a show designed to placate these people and “give Bush room†to make the “final compromise†even more extremely repressive, but part of it reflects the real difficulties in pulling this off and real conflicts over how to do it. In short, there are many different ways in which this could backfire right in the faces of the imperialists. And that is why they are having problems actually pulling themselves together on this. Polarization . . . It’s important to get this point... The needs of the U.S. imperialists for immigrant labor on the one hand, and the ways in which the presence of millions of immigrants undermines the uniformity and “cohesiveness†of American culture, politics and thinking, forms a sharp contradiction for the U.S. rulers; and their very efforts to deal with this, as we showed above, can give rise to further centrifugal forces. It’s not for nothing that Bush demanded in his speech that people speak English and “respect the flag†as a symbol of “shared ideals,†and that the Senate followed up by passing a law declaring English the “national languageâ€; and it’s not for nothing that both the open enemies, as well as some of the friends (both well-meaning and false) of the immigrants make an issue out of people flying flags other than the U.S. imperialist rag. The U.S. rulers have real concern over holding this country together, on a reactionary basis, and they are using this crisis to push a very ugly xenophobia (that is, hatred of foreigners). They are using immigrants as scapegoats for all the insecurities and problems and fears of the future that their system has forced on the majority of people in this country. And at the same time, they are trying to make the immigrants feel alone and isolated. “Blame them for your lives,†the rulers tell the native-born, pointing to the immigrants. “They’ll never help you,†these same rulers say to the immigrants, pointing to the native-born. This is a very ugly game, one that has historically led to death camps, and it has to be understood for what it is and opposed. ...And Repolarization for Revolution Left to itself, this polarization will not end up anywhere good. We need to RE-polarize what now exists, and repolarize it for revolution. But this repolarization is not a one-size-fits-all thing; it has a lot of dimensions to it. There is the continued need to help set the right demands and dividing lines in the movement for immigrants’ rights, struggling against those lines and programs which would lead the masses’ demands for freedom into a dead end—showing people with substantial arguments where the different positions will lead. There is the need to go among those people, both in the middle classes and in the working class, among all nationalities, who are holding back from or even opposing this movement, and speak to their questions and what is hanging them up and even driving them into backward stands, and win them over through debate and struggle. And while we are doing all that, we have to be bringing the full communist solution, and the real potential for revolution, out very broadly—in society overall and also within this movement itself. Which gets us, finally, to our last point. The current crisis shows the potential for something way heavier to emerge. A few years back Caspar Weinberger—the Secretary of Defense under Reagan, a man who stood out even among imperialists for his vicious cold-bloodedness—wrote a novel set in 2003 that included a future U.S. military invasion of Mexico. Part of what precipitates the U.S. invasion in the novel is a massive influx of Mexican immigrants over the border. This gives a little bit of a window into the kinds of calculations being made by the imperialists, as well as what they want to begin getting the public to think about and accept. Could that happen? Are they really considering this? Well, ask yourself this: what would it mean in today’s situation if a truly revolutionary movement, one that challenged the foundations of the existing imperialist relations with the U.S., were to emerge in Mexico? Or, what would it mean if even a figure like Hugo Chavez—i.e., someone who is not revolutionary and not trying to rupture with imperialism overall, but who would nonetheless seek to change some of the ways in which Mexico fits into the imperialist system in a way that conflicted with U.S. plans and objectives—what if someone like that took the reins, and there was big political ferment in Mexico? What would it mean, in this situation, for the U.S. to do what it has attempted to do with its coups, both successful and not, in places like Venezuela and Haiti? In fact, that is exactly the scenario envisioned in Weinberger’s book that leads to a U.S. invasion. But again, there are many different things that can happen. Better forces, targeting imperialism itself and going for real liberation, could be in the mix of something or even in the lead. The point is that when you have the kind of social instability and crisis we have today as a backdrop, with the ruling class here moving to radically affect the ways that tens of millions of people both north and south of the border have survived, it becomes a political tinderbox. In that context, seemingly random events could become political flashpoints, and something that started out as one thing could develop into an uprising aimed against imperialist domination in Mexico. For some years now, Bob Avakian has pointed to the potential links between revolutionary struggle in Mexico (and Central America) and the United States, and has argued that revolutionaries should be working toward genuinely revolutionary struggles in both places mutually influencing each other, with revolutionary struggles on both sides of the border giving political support to one another. [see, for example, “Bob Avakian: Two Talks on Preparations and Possibilities,†Revolution, Summer/Fall 1988; see also A Horrible End, or An End To the Horror?, 1984, pp. 64-65.] In that light, it is quite possible to envision a scenario in which, on a qualitatively greater level than today, the development of the social situation and of revolutionary struggle in Mexico would interpenetrate with and have repercussions on the development of social contradictions and social struggles in the U.S. This could have a tremendous impact, this can influence native—born people in positive ways towards a more internationalist view. It would hold the potential for further igniting and positively interacting with rebellion, and with more conscious and organized revolutionary struggle, in the U.S. itself. And certainly, the imperialists, with their greatly heightened repression, are reacting in part to this possibility, as well as the more immediate concerns we’ve outlined. Class-conscious proletarians and people of any strata who want justice would welcome an upsurge from south of the border, and would build massive political resistance against any attempts to suppress it or to intervene on any basis. And they would welcome, and lead others to welcome, the influence of that upheaval and turmoil finding political expression within the U.S. Within that, immigrants could very likely play a pivotal role, one that could express itself in many different forms—which is yet another reason why the U.S. ruling class now is intent on isolating and demonizing immigrants. All that—again, including Caspar Weinberger’s novelistic scenario—has to be kept in mind when you think about Bush’s proposal to station the National Guard on the border. Clearly, there is a real element of attempting to “gain control†of the border here. But there is this larger dimension at work as well. The whole contradiction around immigrants, along with other intense contradictions these imperialists face, could, as things develop, become part of a larger opening in society which could pose a possibility of making a revolution. But wrenching a revolutionary opening out of this whole calculus, even as it applies to the particular “faultline†of struggle around immigrants, would hardly be easy and certainly not automatic. The rulers are whipping up a fascist movement against immigrants, they are using this crisis to force further repressive measures into place, and they are in fact further militarizing the border—and they are doing all this on two tracks, so to speak, both dealing with the crisis of today as well as preparing for a bigger crisis tomorrow. We have to confront this fully—both the weaknesses that are driving them to take these radical measures and the ways in which this can exacerbate some of their problems; as well as the ways in which they aim to and could strengthen their hand by doing this, if they succeed. Only through more deeply understanding this in all its motion and complexity—and on that basis mobilizing people to resist this, in different ways and dimensions—can we work in such a way so as to hasten the possibility of a possible opening for revolution...and develop the capability to seize on it should it occur. That means hard work and hard struggle and risks. But when you think about what is bound up in just this one outrage of imperialism—the way that people are driven from their homes to be exploited and oppressed in foreign lands, and then hounded and humiliated and persecuted, the way that lives are torn apart and even destroyed—when you think of that... And when you think of how the world really doesn’t have to be this way, and what kind of world people could bring into being, rising above the dog-eat-dog with a whole new way of living, cherishing diversity and building unity, when you think of what possibly could be won... And when you think about the possibilities for revolution that are pregnant within these very contradictions, if we relate to this with a truly communist stand and method... When you think of all that, then...isn’t it worth it to give everything you have to make it happen? http://rwor.org/a/048/border-crisis-revolution.html

Do you know me personally? How would you know what I support and not support. For the record, I am pro choice and to point out, only 25% percent of South Dakotans are against abortions. http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060312/NEWS/603120303/1001 Try clicking on the supporting links in the above "rant" next time. It will surprise you.

America was put together by immigrants you morons.

I dare you to call this decorated US Marine Colonel a traitor. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/18/murtha.marines/

Whats the matter? Can't get a gambling casino on the reservation? Hey shit for brains, have you ever lived in a nazi society? Get out of your teepee and look at your back yard. DId it ruffle your head-dress? Oh, do some squat thrusts on a totem pole.

Nothing.

Translates to: Secondly moron, you disgrace your country when you defend the criminal acts of your nazi in chief. The elements of a nazi: "It's just a goddammed piece of paper" - Bush http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bush+%22goddamned+piece+of+paper%22&btnG=Google+Search Hitler disposed of the german constitution and replaced it with the enlightenment act which is in simulatiry of the patriot act, defiling and attacking the civil rights of americans the same way the enlightment act defiled the rights of germans. Bush also violated over 750 laws claiming he has the power to any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. He also asserted he can he can "gnore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws?mode=PF Here is the rundown on all the laws he has broken. I thought I post it all in entirety since neocon nazi fascist loving shitstains like you will most likely ignore this important and informative data, so I decided to ram it in your face knowing you won't click on the above link: url]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws?mode=PF Which translates to "Fuck the constitution of the USA" See, to him the constitution is a "goddammed piece of paper". Proves how much he respects the very document put forth by our forefathers like he gives a sweet fuck because he thinks he's above the law and that he deserves special treatment because his name is Bush. If that was Al Gore or John Kerry, you'd be all over them like flies on road kill for the same reason and you know it. In conclusion, you don't give a shit about the constitution, therefore you are no patriot. You are a (what they call in England) a torrie. Blow away. You are a moron. Case closed. PS: Here's a present: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm Really... how much do you like your dictator in chief?? Do you see the simularities now or are you going to ignore them, watch fox news and pretend all is rosy?

You hate peace.

Losers.

yes. blender boy I don't do drugs. what? Again, learn to spell. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faggot And learn to read... http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-05-12T131704Z_01_N12361390_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-POLL.xml LOSER.

THE RANT George W. Bush: An American Hitler By DOUG THOMPSON May 3, 2006, 06:42 In George W. Bush's petty, pathetic, partisan world, laws he doesn't agree with don't have to be obeyed, Congressional actions that differ from his political agenda can be ignored and the Constitution of the United States is just a "goddamned piece of paper." Charlie Savage of The Boston Globe brought this point home Sunday when he revealed Bush has chosen to ignore more laws passed by Congress than any President in history, appending more than 750 laws with "signing statements" that say, in effect, that he doesn't give a damn what the law says because he will do whatever he pleases as a "wartime president" and "commander-in-chief." Of course it doesn't matter to him that he became a "wartime president" because he lied out his ass to justify an illegal invasion on Iraq based on fake intelligence and a determined policy of ignoring facts that disproved his lies. With every revelation, we learn more and more just what a dangerous despot Bush is, a madman with the power to wage war at will, destroy the Constitution on a whim and invoke is own perception of unchecked Presidential power by ignoring the system of checks and balances that used to be part of our system of government. Sadly, nobody in Congress or the courts has the balls to stop this American Hitler. He rides roughshod over the laws of the land, safe in the assumption that his arrogance will leave opponents cowering in fear and an apathetic populace willing to wait until 2008 to rid itself of this festering boil on the body politic. I'm not sure we can wait. With every passing day we see an elected official who acts more like a dictator than a President. Even worse, he is backed by a Congress driven by a lust for power and corrupted by a system where money and politics rules. As Savage reports in The Boston Globe: "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research." Bush proved he can successfully ignore the law of the land with his domestic spying program where he ordered the National Security Agency to wiretap phones of Americans. "Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military," Savage writes. "Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts." But knowing Bush is going too far and doing something about is where the rub lies. Congress is controlled by the same party of despots who support Bush's dictatorial actions and he has stacked the courts with judges willing to ignore the Constitution to support his seizure of power. As Savage reports: Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments. Instead, he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work. Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register. In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed. ''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power. Political scientist George Harleigh, who served in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations where Presidential power became major issues, says Bush's actions place the country on a dangerous course. "Presidential authority, once assumed, is seldom relinquished. The Constitution prevailed when Richard Nixon ignored the laws that govern his actions," Harleigh says, "but this President neither obeys nor upholds his oath to support the Constitution. He sees the document as an obstacle to his power and has chosen to ignore it. If no one else is willing to uphold the Constitution then it becomes, as attorney general Alberto Gonzales has written, an 'outdated document' and places this Republic in grave peril." Harleigh believes this nation faces more than a battle for which political party controls the White House and/or Congress. "This is now a battle for the soul of America," he says. "The very future of this Republic may well rest on whether or not anyone can, or will, stop George W. Bush." © Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_8534.shtml

Been hitting the bottle again? At least my "pig sister" doesn't blindly rally behind a moron with a 29% (and falling fast) job approval rating, blender boy.

AIDS can't live outside the body. http://www.avert.org/howcan.htm A little research doesn't hurt. Learn to spell. Who cares?

Ah... Maybe he got arrested for kid touching.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 13 - The FDA has approved a monthly injectable formulation of Vivitrol (naltrexone for extended-release) for treatment of alcohol-dependent patients, the drug marketers, Alkermes and Cephalon, announced today. The drug, intended for use by outpatients who are not actively drinking, should be used in combination with psychosocial support, the announcement said. The companies said they will market the drug in 380 mg IM doses and expect the product to be available by June. "Vivitrol is the first once-a-month medication for alcohol dependence that ensures patients get the benefit of medication over the entire month," said Richard Rosenthal, M.D., chairman, of psychiatry at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York, in the companies' statement. Vivitrol binds opioid receptors in the brain and preclinical data suggest that binding results in blockade of neurotransmitters that promote alcohol dependence. That blockade is thought to be the mechanism by which Vivitrol reduces alcohol consumption in treated patients. In a six-month phase III trial, patients treated with Vivitrol (380 mg) and psychosocial support demonstrated a reduction in days of heavy drinking compared with patients treated with placebo and psychosocial support. In a subset of patients who were abstinent for a week before starting Vivitrol treatment, the drug was associated with continued abstinence in a significant number of patients (without relapse). Moreover, patients who were abstinent before receiving the initial injection of Vivitrol had a greater reduction in drinking days and heavy-drinking days. Although Vivitrol was generally well tolerated, with the most common side effects being nausea, vomiting, headache, fatigue, and injection site rejections, high doses of naltrexone have been reported to cause hepatocellular injury. The drug was contraindicated in patients with acute hepatitis or liver failure, and its "use in patients with active liver disease must be carefully considered in light of its hepatotoxic effects." But the company said that at recommended doses Vivitrol does not appear to be hepatoxic. "Patients should be warned of the risk of hepatic injury and advised to seek medical attention if they experience symptoms of acute hepatitis," the companies said. Vivitrol is contraindicated in patients receiving opioid analgesics. Likewise, it contraindicated in opioid-dependent patients and patients undergoing opioid withdrawal. http://www.medpagetoday.com/ProductAlert/Prescriptions/tb/3095

Hey Igloo!!! Come out to play!!! Actually, I get the feeling he's retreating.