As I stated on The Peace Tree a while back, it seemed a bit funny that the verdict and sentencing of Saddam Hussein took place right before the election. You know that Bush had his hand in Saddam's murder. I just think that it is terrible and hypocritical that we will kill someone as punishment for murder. Mr. Bush has killed more people than Saddam Hussein has-- he (Mr. Bush) has killed 2,983 American troops, at least 52,060 innocent Iraqi civillians, and he holds the record for the most executions by any governor in the history of the United States (and some of the people who were executed were mentally disabled). Mr. Bush is far more dangerous than Saddam ever was or would have been.

Of course all of the right-wing wackjobs will be celebrating the hanging of Saddam. I just think it is sad that they don't know any better. When will people learn that killing for profit is wrong whether it be killing the leader of a foreign country, the people of that country, or our own troops?

Posted by Progressive American at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments

As I lay in bed last night, the only thing on my mind was sorrow for the poor men and women who are going to be sent to Iraq next. I just couldn't stop thinking about how Bush is continuing to feed us all that 'we need to stay the course in Iraq' crap. Everyone knows that we don't need to stay there. That's why only 28% of Americans approve of his handling in Iraq.

As I thought about it last night and today, it occurred to me that Bush seems to be the only one who wants to promote the Iraq war. There are so many things that are proving him wrong that it just makes me laugh. First the Iraq Study Group says that we can, should, and need to pull out of Iraq, several studies show that there is no threat and that we should bring troops home, 72% of the active troops think that they need to be brought home and they've begun to start petitions and speak out against the war, most Americans oppose it, and now Colin Powell says that the "active army is nearly broken."

So even though it has been proven by studies that the best option is to pull out of Iraq, Bush insists on sending more troops. Even Rumsfeld has always been reluctant of the idea of sending more troops. The only person on Bush's side anymore is Bush.

So in early 2007, more troops will be sent to Iraq (if Bush gets his way). But he really doesn't have reason to care. He's using our troops to pay for his oil. "What's a few thousand lives matter I can get richer?" seems to be his mindset.

I just think it is very sad that when it is clear that most Americans, soldiers, and politicians (including Bush's own supporters) are against the war, Bush is still feeding us the same BS lies. This country is growing closer and closer to a dictatorship each day.

Thanks for reading while I vented those thoughts.

Posted by Progressive American at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments

The Conservative Voice, a conservative news website, ran an article yesterday entitled Hillary Clinton Struck By Lightening. The article is another one of the right's pathetic attempts to bash Hillary Clinton. I just had to laugh at how churlish and evil these conservatives can actually be. Here are some of the things that the article had to say about Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of every divorced man's first nightmare. The witch that pointed her finger at them, scoldingly as if talking to a child, or a moron. She is the epitome of the opposite of all things feminine, of all things soft, kind, and alluring. She is the reason why a man divorces his first wife.

Pretty harsh words coming from the people of "moral values" huh? Well, it didn't stop there. The article went on to say:

Will anyone vote for Hillary? Yes. Lesbians will vote for her because she reminds them of themselves. A handful of bratty Scarsdale Lib housewives whose entire life revolves around the pre-school soccer practice schedule will vote for her.

And the best part of the article . . .

They [the conservatives] better take advantage of the situation and run Duncan Hunter. No Dem can outwit Duncan. ...little old ladies from Miami will vote for Duncan because he will not put their granddaughters on the front lines; Hillary will.

Why is that part so great? Because of the praise Amy Barath (the author of the trash-talking conservative article) gives Duncan Hunter, a Republican congressman from California. "No Dem can outwit Duncan." I just think it is so funny that the article goes on and on about how bad Hillary is, and then praises Hunter despite his background. Background? Oh, yes the dreaded "b-word" in politics. When I looked up Duncan Hunter's backgound, I found it to be full of fraud and scandals, which is not uncommon for a Republican. Here is what I dug up on Duncan:

* Duncan had his house listed on the tax rolls as a two-bedroom, 2 and a half bathroom house that was around 2,946 square feet. It was a lie. That home was actually a six bedroom house with around 6,200 square feet of living space. Included on the property was a 2,000 square foot guest house, a tennis court, and of course a pool.1

* The San Diego Union Tribune ran an article about the house in question in October (2006). In December, the house suspiciously burned down.2 (Whether you look at this as a coincidence or not is up to you, but you cannot ignore the fact that he was cheating to get lower taxes)

* Connection to the Cunningham scandal3

Well there ya have it. I think that The Conservative Voice might want to get their facts straight before they post another article like Hillary Clinton Struck By Lightening. But the truth is-- that article that was written in The Conservative Voice because the conservatives feel threatened. They are scared that Hillary--or Barack Obama, who is also mentioned in the article--has a chance at winning the 2008 Presidential race. The conservatives know that they are dying out. And as Michael Moore says, we should actually feel sorry for them instead of being angry.

---

Sources and further information:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter#Size_of_home_and_taxes_paid
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter#Size_of_home_and_taxes_paid
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter#Connection_to_Cunningham_scandal

Posted by Progressive American at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments

First of all, I just want to say that I apologize for not posting for a few days. My computer wasn't functioning properly and I was unable to sign online. However, the computer is fixed and regular posting will continue. So, to begin posting again, here is "The Newest assault On Freedom Of Speech . . . "

Filmmaker, Oliver Stone, is being fined by the US government. Why? Because he made Comandante, a film about Fidel Castro. According the the government, the making of Comandante, in which Stone meets with and interviews Fidel, is a violation of America's "economic embargo" against Cuba.

Because Stone used his freedom of speech, he is having to pay a $6,300 fine.

Isn't it funny that no one in the mainstream "liberal media" has reported this? Luckily, Granma, the Communist party daily newspaper in Cuba, reported on this whole incident:

The message, obviously, is directed against all those who, defending their right to the liberty of creation and expression, want to objectively reflect the island's reality.

This is a new low for the US government. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is not unusual in the dictatorship that America is becoming and this is just one of the many attempts by the US government at trying to hinder freedom of speech.

What's next? We're not allowed to travel to Cuba?

And while I'm on the subject I just want to wish Mr. Fidel Castro well-- Get Well Soon, Fidel!

Posted by Progressive American at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments

Today, the New York Post reported that Hillary Clinton will be running for President in 2008. Hillary, who is now hiring a national fund-raising director, a senior campaign spokesman, and a key operative, told a New York lawmaker over the phone that she is 'really going to go for this.'
Finally, the cat's outta the bag. If Hillary gets nominated, this could be a great victory for the Democratic Party. She also has the support of Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois). Obama, who has a slightly (or significantly higher) 'electability' factor than Hillary, might give Hillary an extra boost. I believe it would be a wise decision for Hillary to make Obama her running mate, which is very possible. It is the perfect combination. They are both "moderate" left-wingers who have very similar stances on the issues. The fact that people love Obama, and the fact that Hillary's supporters are loyal and devoted would almost guarantee a win. The first woman President and the first black Vice President. What a great step that would be for America's future. Not to mention a victory for justice, considering that Obama and Hillary greatly support doing what's right. And as a bonus, this would be a great way to tick off the right-wingers.

Whoever Hillary does chose to be her running mate, she has my full support. Hillary 2008!

Posted by Progressive American at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments

AOL recently did a poll asking people to grade Hillary's 'electability' for President in 2008. The majority of the people gave her an "F." For the longest time, I've been trying to figure out what people, especially people who call themselves Democrats, have against Hillary. I'll admit, I'm not a moderate. Far from it. I'm as progressive and as far left as one could possibly get. Yet, I'll say that Hillary, a "moderate," would be a great choice. She's pro-choice, for affirmative action, gay rights, believes in the separation of church and state, her views on health care are good, she is staunchly against the privatization of social security, very much against vouchers, she does not believe in the death penalty, she is a very big advocate of gun control, and she understands that the wealthy do have the ability and an obligation to pay more taxes to help those less fortunate. That's not all . . . She supports immigrant rights, she is for fair trade, she knows that the Patriot Act puts our civil liberties at risk, she is for stricter campaign restrictions, and despite her controversial comments on Iraq, her voting record shows that she supports immediate redeployment, and thinks the war is wrong. She has a good record when it comes to alternatives to coal and oil, and she is against the drug war. That sounds like a great candidate and a great leader to me. She is farther to the left than her husband was and he made it to Presidency. Then why can't she? I would really love to know what people have against her. Please send me your comments or email me at Chipps54@aol.com If you email me, put "Hillary" in the subject box. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Posted by Progressive American at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments