In a speech to ministry students Sarah Palin stated that the United States deployed our troops to fight in Iraq on “…a task that is from God.” George W. Bush once said, “I believe God wants me to run for president,” then later said, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.” Well then, I say it’s high time that this god guy starts chucking in some much needed cash to fight it. Since he hasn’t sent a flood to wipe out Baghdad in some Sodom and Gomorrah type disaster, or sent any kind of heat storm that melted al Qaeda terrorists in their tracks, I think we should at least be requesting some assistance. I don’t know, maybe a hundred and fifty billion dollars so we don’t have to borrow more from China. Or maybe he could give back the thousands of troops that Bush and Cheney gave away. Maybe this miracle worker could perform a limb regrowth on even one vet who now controls his wheelchair with his tongue.

I understand that he’s a busy guy, what with having to tend to boxers knocking out their opponents, and helping receivers snag touchdown passes. I understand he has a full plate in keeping holy that first commandment “Thou shall not kill”… wait… I’m sorry, scratch that. Regardless, since the guy tasked us with a war in Iraq, at least he could act as the project manager, and pay his employees with some added benefits. Maybe put up an invisible wall to deflect the next detonated IED, or better yet, detonate it while its being planted. Whatever he, she, or it does, it needs to do something fast, because Sarah Palin also said that building a natural gas pipeline through Alaska “…is the will of God.” She is now adding more to his plate, and if I’m right in believing this god has truly poor time-management skills, we’ll see a gas pipeline being built through Alaska before any alternative fuel research is funded, before our children can be treated in a hospital without having their parents lose their home in paying for it, and before our troops ever make it home to their own families.

The invasion of Iraq was never about Weapons of Mass Destruction, we know. The redeployment of troops from the war in Afghanistan to Iraq was never about a war against terrorism, as is made obvious from our lack of troop deployment to Sudan, or Zimbabwe. The move to topple Saddam Hussein, was never about bringing peace and democracy to a nation which supposedly suffered under the tyrannical rule of the man we found hiding in a crudely dug hole in the desert. George Bush gave us a number of excuses as to why he allowed Dick Cheney the attempt at implanting an Iraqi government with whom it would be easier to cut business deals. Cheney couldn’t inflate the coffers of Halliburton with rulers too stubborn to be bullied into giving up their oil. He had eight years to try, and as we can see from the recent news coming from the leader of Iraq, the invasion was never about toppling a dictator to bring peace and democracy to a nation we sympathize with.

Nouri al Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, vehemently denounced the continued occupation of Iraq by our forces, and demanded that all foreign troops leave his country by the year 2011. The promise that our troops would come home when the Iraqi security forces were able to secure their country seems to have been forgotten now that George Bush and Dick Cheney have balked on their promise, and are now paying lip-service to al Maliki. The plan presented by the Bush Administration shows only combat forces returning to America, but leaving up to 40,000 troops to remain embedded in Iraq indefinitely.

John McCain once told us that it is a general understanding that American forces have the right to invade to occupy a nation that we deem is harmful to world order and peace. Perhaps world order is the dream of the optimist that George Bush would love to be, instead of the straw-man on strings that Cheney stores in a lock box each night. Perhaps the man who mistook an adrenaline rush for the voice of his god telling him how great he is actually is as innocent as one of the many mentally retarded murderers he had executed during his stint as the Texas governor. Perhaps, but as Ted Kennedy said during his speech last night at the Democratic Convention, “…young Americans in uniform must never be committed to a mistake.” As long as George Bush remains suffering from Multiple-Excuse Disorder, and refuses to give Iraq back to the Iraqi’s, then he is committing the treasonous act of committing our troops to a mistake, and will forever wear the bruise that should be shining beneath a cold steak under Dick Cheney’s eye.

by Brian Burns

With the recent claim of pseudo-victory in Iraq by the AP’s Robert Burns and Robert H. Reid, anyone with enough common sense to understand how resistance to invasion works could easily assess that these two have fallen off the deep end of reality. As if birthed from faulty Republican think-tanks, the two have written an analysis piece that tells of the tide of war in Iraq and how it has turned to when we can now say we’re “winning the war that two years ago seemed lost”. With Burns being AP’s chief military reporter, and Reid as AP’s chief of bureau in Baghdad, it would be difficult to say that anyone else could have more experience on this particular subject matter other than the troops themselves, and possibly anyone who has ever invaded to occupy a sectarian nation. What the latter has over that of our troops, and apparently Burns and Reid, is the knowledge of the outcome of such a foolish endeavor. And just as history repeats itself, unless Barack Obama wins the presidency and follows through with his promise to bring our troops home, we will undoubtedly see trillions of dollars being spent on a security investment where our military personnel will be continuously picked off a few at a time for many years to come.

The Burns-Reid analysis for the Associated Press contradicts itself from the beginning, where after saying we’re winning the war they admit, “Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years.”

It is important to understand that the “War in Iraq” was never a “war” as western logic defines it. It was an invasion of primarily American forces to take down a leader that wouldn’t play ball with our leaders who desperately wanted to make business deals over their vast supply of natural resources. Initially met with resistance by a militia that fled from an obvious onslaught, our troops had hardly any problem clearing a space large enough to setup a small militarized village from where they could stage their operations. From there the stages of ousting the invaders became more of an opportunity to attack than one of resistance, in that our failure to secure the borders of Iraq gave way to terrorist groups who were able to rush in once Saddam Hussein was gone from his position of power. They would act out their will to take out as much ‘westernization’ as they could, being fully aware that only the allied forces could stop them.

Once George W. Bush declared war on terrorism the Iraq invasion could be considered a “war”, but only to those who bought into the rhetoric. To those Iraqi’s who were suddenly faced with stray bombs killing innocent family members, what the Republicans were calling a “war” was only an invasion to occupy. They were citizens of the communities that dealt with the dictatorship under Saddam Hussein, and though they might not have been happy, they weren’t about to let the Bush Administration replace what they had with a westernized iron fist. They were patriots to their country and a new resistance upwelled. Though they did not want terrorist groups like al Qaida running their country, the citizens didn’t want the U.S. making their laws either, and al Qaida took advantage of this by staying back and planning their attacks in smaller, more precise, bursts. The population was now in resistance in greater numbers than ever, and so Bush thought it would be smart to enact the “surge”. By adding additional forces to patrol the streets, the Iraqi’s who had taken up arms against our troops were forced to retreat to their homes, where they now have to plan their attacks in smaller, more precise, bursts as well. This is what the Burns-Reid analysis is showing us. They are unknowingly spelling out ‘oppression’, but in a different form than they had 5 years ago.

Those lacking common sense believe that peace can be made between religious factions that have spent two thousand years perfecting their hatred for one another, when Saddam Hussein realized the only way to keep order in Iraq is with that said ‘iron fist’. Though even the Bush Administration, after being schooled by our military in the knowledge they’ve gained over the years, has come to understand that to occupy Iraq means to forcibly keep them in order. Instead of Iraqi’s embracing the prospect of peace, they are instead having peace being sold to them from the American government.

In the Burns-Reid analysis they state, “They (Sunnis) launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.” It is now well known that a good portion of the $150 billion the Bush Administration borrowed from China went to paying off Muqtada al Sadr for his agreement to a cease fire against his Sunni rivals. In other words, the only war that was ever going on inside of Iraq’s borders prior to the American invasion was the sectarian war between the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Now that the terrorist cells are moving on to take advantage of the lack of security in Afghanistan, in Iraq the sectarian war that’s been two thousand years in the making is becoming our main concern. But like oil, our monetary supply also has limitations.

What Burns and Reid are trying to show us is now that the dictatorship in Iraq has been replaced with a parliament, and now that the usurping power of terrorist groups have left to fight elsewhere, Iraq can begin to form a peaceful democracy. They call it “winning the war”. As we can plainly see by their own words the attacks on our forces will undoubtedly continue, as there will always be citizens that want to expel a military occupancy from their country. It is assumed that a foreign military ultimately has control, and as long as there are outside forces dictating the course of their lives then they are no better off than they were prior to the invasion. With that said, it is impossible to say we’ve won the war, or are winning the war. As stated, they are citizens of Iraq and they are home. They have all the time in their lives to sit back and pluck away at our military.

Only a couple decades ago Russia learned the lesson that an attempt at occupying a Middle East nation is a waste of lives and money, for they too felt the pang of continuous casualties from small arms fire and occasional bombings, until they finally fled Afghanistan. Using the words of Burns and Reid, “It’s not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace,” we can see that the Bush Administration has obviously embedded our troops in a situation very similar to what the Russians faced. And it appears that people like John McCain never learned from their lesson in which the outcome was an utter failure. So we’re stuck in a country where the leaders are asking us to leave, and those sympathetic to the expulsion of foreign occupancy will give us the task of managing a “perilous peace”. Aside from the rogue gangs that rushed in and have now moved on, this perilous peace is what Iraq has been dealing with for centuries.

But with all that aside, with sticking to their claim that we’re winning the war, we have to recall that the only war in Iraq was the one that was waged against terrorism. With the terrorists moving on to a new territory it seems that we aren’t winning any war really, but only letting them get away as Bush did with Osama bin Laden. There never was a war waged against Iraq, and so there was never a war to win. And as long as there are people who consider America occupying their nation as further oppression, they will make sure we can never claim victory for a war that was never waged.

After nearly ten years of terrorizing the people of Darfur, where which over 600,000 people have been killed, and approximately 2.5 million have been displaced, Sudan’s president Omar al Bashir pointed the finger of blame toward the international community. “Every time we take a step forward, make progress and signs of peace emerge, those people try to mess it up, return us to square one and distract us with marginal issues and false allegations,” al Bashir told a group of supporters in the Darfur region, in reference to his July 14th indictment by the International Criminal Court. The charges of genocide pinned against him brought on this public display of lies and deceit that we Americans have grown used to over the past five years, with the only difference coming in the form of civil strife as opposed to our Bush Administration’s Middle East invasion that was formulated and carried out using the same tactics. With the Darfur situation being far worse in the human rights arena, al Bashir was trying to play the role of the Wizard behind the curtain. He was trying to show his sympathy for those run from their villages by the government-backed forces known as the Janjaweed, and at one point said, “The real sickness here is the suffering of the displaced, because they are the ones who lost their sense of security and safety in their hometowns.” Though in one faux-pas he revealed how little he truly cares and showed his defiance toward those who are seeking to help curb the situation by stating, “We will only bow to God, who is the sole provider.”

by Brian Burns

It’s difficult to stimulate our nation’s economy when most of what our leaders collect from our earnings is immediately sent to foreign nations. One might think that investing in our nation, the $700 billion that the Bush Administration has spent so far in the Middle East, could have had a positive effect on our rotting job market, our failing health care, and our overly packed public schools. Maybe it would help to reinvest some of the war-money in private sector incentives to remedy our headache over energy costs, and our insatiable desire for alternative fuels. One would hope that eight years in office would buy the time needed to enact any pro-American policy, but domestic policy was seemingly another one of those things George W. Bush forgot back at the ranch.

It has been eight years of arguably the worst policy making in the history of our country, and the American ignorance towards that fact is astounding. Even though the majority of Americans have accepted that Bush’s presidential run was as close to an utter failure as anyone could imagine, the desire to rid ourselves of an administration whose partisan politics, corporatist policies, and self-serving ideals was seemingly short lived. Now, with presidential hopeful John McCain gaining enough support to where he is running a close race against a man whose campaign slogan includes the word “change”, it’s apparent that a great number of Americans would choose to forego changing our country’s policies for the better, and simply find happiness in knowing the name Bush is no longer carrying the tag ‘Commander in Chief’.

With regard to America’s economic situation, it seems that we’re stuck floating slowly downward like a feather in an abyss. Last Tuesday, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, gave us the forecast in which we were told we would be continuing our descent right around the time our president announced that our economy is stable. This is important to note because John McCain agrees with the president’s assessment, and his campaign co-chairman went so far as to call Americans a “nation of whiners” who were stuck in a “mental recession”. They listen to Wall Street, and their economic advisors who believe that our degenerating housing market has already hit the bottom, and say that it will undoubtedly take a u-turn. They use the logic behind economics that shows how bad can actually be good. They say that our plummet to the housing market floor will bring out those who want to buy homes at rock-bottom prices. Consequently, the housing market will reverse itself and will once again grow strong. Their logic only works when employment opportunities are strong, however, since it takes a steady income to maintain the cost of owning a home. But with our job market being dragged down by our failing economy, and the misguided trust in free-trade policies, it seems our economists are either reporting their aspirations, or have lost the ability to think beyond step 1 in the process of coming to a realistic conclusion when thinking through a problem. Though both are things we should be used to after listening to the predictions from the Republicans over the past eight years.

We were told that our troops would be celebrated as liberators, and that they would be greeted with roses in Baghdad, while we were pointing out step 2 in the process of thinking that showed what happened to Russia when they tried occupying a Middle East nation. We were told Bush’s tax cuts would stimulate the economy, while we again pointed to step 2 which clearly shows that his Republican predecessors, both Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr., helped drive our economy further into recessions with tax cuts. We were told NAFTA and CAFTA are beneficial for Americans, but once again, that pesky step 2 is showing that the federal government has regulations enacted that make it more expensive for foreign companies to operate here than in nations where they can setup shop without providing healthcare benefits, a safe work environment, and where they can pay the worker a pittance in comparison. Therefore, their prediction that there would be as much insourcing as there is outsourcing seems to be one dream through which John McCain seems to still be sleeping.

The problem Americans now face is who to choose to hasten the upswing. Barack Obama chants, “Change,” while John McCain claims he’s the “Best to lead since day one.” And though it appears McCain wants to continue upon the same trail from which Bush is preparing to flee, his supporters are coming out of the Kudzu in droves. The citizens are feeling the pressure from the cost of living, and are aware that it’s one of the few things on the rise. They’ve lost sight of our children’s education as it fell from their view of the price at the gas pump. They’ve forgotten about our troops in the Middle East because they can’t take their eyes off the price stamped on a milk jug. John McCain is fully aware of this and so he is doing what most Republicans do during their presidential campaigns - they avoid talking about their policy and scare the American public by threatening that their opponent in the donkey costume will raise their taxes. Judging by the numbers of supporters McCain has managed to recruit, the scare tactic apparently works well. 

John McCain’s plan on spending trillions of dollars in an attempt at occupying Iraq, for what he said could be a hundred years, is a wad of spit in the eyes of Americans who want the war to end and for our troops to return home safely. It’s an upturned middle finger aimed at the faces of us who want to reinvest our earnings into bettering our own country, and who can read where step 2 tells that the best method of securing our nation is not by trying to eliminate everyone who opposes our views. And like his predecessor, McCain has no plan on how to go about occupying Iraq. He avoids telling us that the money could only come from raising taxes, or by borrowing from foreign nations like the $150 billion loan Bush took from China. While we lose jobs, and watch the economy break beneath our feet, they spend our money building walls in Baghdad in their efforts to keep the local Muslim factions separated from each other. We’re led to believe that we’re giving them freedom, but creating tiny enclaves and setting up Baghdad to look like Algernon’s maze is hardly the blueprint for a free land.

It’s apparent the Republicans are back to their old selves - those who refuse to think their way through to step 2. If they read further to where it says that ending the war in Iraq would help our economy a great deal, even if it means the corporations backing the war having to lose out on hundreds of millions in annual profit, they might see that John McCain’s ‘tax and spend on foreign nations’ policy has no way of helping to regrow our economy. If they were to find a true sense of patriotism, unlike those they hang from flagpoles or stick to their bumpers, they might find that it’s best to vote for the candidate who is not wearing the elephant costume, but for the donkey-guy who at least wants to end the war and reinvest that money and our tax dollars into our own nation.

With a heap of issues to talk about, the G8 leaders are proving their annual summit is a waste of jet fuel and travel expenses. In what could be an annual meeting through video-conferencing, the leaders would rather spend their people’s money to gather for 3 days to bicker and cut business deals.

President Bush, a lone trooper on the issue of war, played out his usual childishness when he told the world that he will not help cut back on global pollution unless China and India agree to do the same. And as the job market in the U.S. continues to shrink he reiterated his belief that the only way to help the impoverished in the world is through free trade agreements.

Though he was able to boost the value of a buck by speaking highly of the world’s need of a strong dollar, the boost was less than one-hundredth of a cent against the Euro. And though he spoke out against the situation in Zimbabwe, calling Robert Mugabe’s election a “sham,” he is pushing for India to accelerate their nuclear development program, without signing anti-proliferation agreements, to where it can be in full swing before Bush leaves office.

With more issues yet to talk about, like the inflated cost of food and oil and the loss of wildlife and the environment, it appears that the G8 leaders are taking care of business the hard way. When they could be at home prioritizing their seemingly screwed up policies and taking action, they instead waste more time and money with words. Of course, that is assuming that government leaders can do more than setup walls of red tape and botch the processes in addressing global concerns.

Click here to read how mixed up the gene pool could be in the evolution toward a One World Government.

It is difficult for us to imagine the desperation one must experience before taking their own life. Even those who have had someone close to them commit suicide, we often hear them speaking rather dumbfoundedly about the matter, with themselves questioning, and rather clueless to the depth of their loved one’s state of depression. Though we see the numbers of suicides in our own country add up every day, it is still a very foreign matter to us, because most of us simply cannot imagine that life could ever be that bad.

When news of ’suicide bombers’ first became widespread during the Iraq invasion we were astounded. Many Americans couldn’t believe the enemy would sink so low as to use their own lives as weaponry in their attack on western forces. Others couldn’t believe how little they valued their lives. To the rest of us who thought beyond the act of ’suicide bombing’, we realized that having been promised the riches of an afterlife in the realm of Allah the value they placed on their current lives was minimal in comparison. The truth is that none of these female suicide bombers are angrilly strapping bombs to themselves and running into the public-square to blow up unwanted foreigners, as much as they are doing it because they are severely depressed individuals, whose life beyond that of the present is much more promising.

The women in rural areas of Iraq, who have lost their loved ones to either imprisonment or that have been killed find themselves in such deep depression they become easilly preyed upon by the men trying to expel the western forces from their country. Because of their lack of rights in certain regions, they often feel as if they have no hope left in this life, and so are willing to take their own lives to help gain access into their holy afterlife.

Click here to read about the motivations of suicide bombers, and why their lives were already over before ever committing the heinous act.

There has been a lot of talk recently about our involvement in the war in the Middle East and which of our candidates would be best in handling it. Yesterday the media launched news that the American voters actually prefer John McCain over Barack Obama on this issue, stating that he has more experience than Obama because of time served in the military. The question the pollsters should be asking is, ‘Which candidate will be best at pouring our earnings and our troops into a foreign nation?’ It’s basically the same question with only the semantics being changed.

At the start of this year citizen support for ending the war and bringing our family members home from the Middle East was overwhelming. In fact, McCain’s Achilles’ heel grew from his unabated support for the war, and his plans to occupy Iraq for “maybe a hundred years.” John McCain believes America’s troops belong in Iraq because of what he calls a “generally accepted policy of America’s multilateralism.” By “generally” he could only mean by those who believe we have a right to invade sovereign nations, and forcibly change their government to one that will act as we say. Multilateralism comes best by way of diplomacy, not by bombs and subversion. The plan to occupy Iraq for as long as we say is a unilateral decision. Iraq’s newly birthed version of a parliament has already expressed their want for our troops to leave, as they feel our presence is only bringing out more sympathizers to the opposition, as more of the innocent civilians are harmed or killed there. We know the insurgency is mostly made up of Iraqi citizens and not members of terrorist cells, and with every stray bullet we fire, and with every accidental bombing of a neighborhood, we create more ‘freedom fighters’ against McCain’s ‘multilateralism’. At the start of this year we Americans had to suddenly change focus.

It was realized that with all our leaders’ focus being poured into the health and welfare of foreign nations, there was mold and mildew growing on the walls in our own home, though it wasn’t recognized until it was too late. Now we find ourselves stuck in the bathroom with rubber gloves pulled up to our elbows and wearing masks to keep from inhaling the stench the Bush Administration is leaving behind. Our housing market may repair itself, but only if the job market booms again, and with McCain’s idea that NAFTA and CAFTA are great because it allows for our corporations to leave our country, providing less jobs for Americans, it appears we may surpass our record of over one million homes on the foreclosure list in no time. Our dollar has tanked in the world economy, falling below the Canadian Loonie, and we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China to continue paying for the Iraqi occupation. It was reported that a good portion of that money went to paying off Muqtada al Sadr for a ceasefire. Our children are watching their education funding flushed, and over a million of them are without any health insurance. Without touching on our energy or environmental issues, it is already obvious that John McCain has an idea but no way to see it through to fruition.

Now is a time for our media moguls to invest in the nation which grants them the freedom to do the job they love most. Instead of lobbing loaded questions, and influencing our populous to vote for more anti-patriotic policies, they need to realize that the Bush Administration stunk up the bathroom so much that it may just take one hundred years before we can breathe again. We need to close it down and have it sterilized before we should let McCain sit in there, since his plan is to stink it up for another hundred years. Instead of asking which candidate loves our flag the most, maybe the question the pollsters should ask is which candidate’s policies will best help America.

By Brian A. Burns

Back in 1999 John McCain lambasted the special interest groups who tried to secure offshore drilling contracts, saying he swore he would “…never lose sight of the fundamental principle that federal land management decisions affecting local communities must be made in cooperation with the Americans who call those communities home.” Now, with his proposal to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, it appears he’d rather forego the health concerns of U.S. citizens so he could sell our environment for votes and campaign dollars. Meanwhile, the pots have shifted on McCain’s stovetop and our need for a new source of sustainable energy has been pushed to the back burner.

Even with George W. Bush admitting that offshore drilling would take years to produce any noticeable effect, John McCain’s plan to cure our energy crisis is to go ahead and drill. If we were to wait what most experts say would be close to 5 years for a price cut at the gas pumps, during which time we will still be relying on oil as our primary fuel source, we could be in serious trouble. When we consider the steady increase in population, which will undoubtedly have a large impact on reserves, and the rate at which our oil supply declines, it is easy to see why focusing on drilling offshore is coming only from the eyes of the profiteers. There is only so much oil we can reap from the Earth, and the gas companies have no intention of lowering their prices, but are increasing them instead on a day by day basis.

While it’s obvious that something as simple as the rebirth of the electric car would take a long time to overrun gas powered vehicles as our primary source of transportation, it is stupid to think we should run serious health risks by potentially poisoning our shorelines and nature preserves. The people are screaming for an alternative energy resource, and we want it yesterday. But with billions invested in their production equipment, and billions returned in profits the oil-giants refuse to change their focus, and will do anything they can to continue squashing alternatives to their cash-cattle until they have run completely dry.

With the same reluctance the Republicans have shown toward caring about the health and welfare of the American population, they are now scrambling to secure their personal investments before their time in absolute power runs out. Being nothing more than the Corporatist Party of kick-backs and cronyism, the non-conservative neo-Republicans have only ever cared about their foreign policy. Through 8 years Bush and his staff focused very little on domestic issues, to the point where he even turned a blind eye to the situation in New Orleans directly after Hurricane Katrina left bodies floating in the streets and women being raped at the Superdome. He had nothing to say when Dick Cheney ordered workers, who fought to restore power to hospitals, to divert their attention to restoring the oil supply from a downed pipeline that runs through Mississippi.

Republicans have a knack for losing focus on the American priority - whatever it may be at the time. In Iraq they sent the troops in without ever securing the border, then came back saying, “Hindsight is 20/20.” They repeated the adage after warnings from our climatologists told of the devastation that would befall New Orleans if and when a category 5 hurricane hit. “Hindsight is 20/20,” was repeated after the Iraqi population formed an insurgency, and even again when they realized that Bush Senior and his predecessor were responsible for arming the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mostly they tried passing the buck, but the beneath-the-breath-mumblings of ‘Hindsight is 20/20′ was heard after we found out that a week prior to 9/11 Condoleezza Rice was given a warning of imminent attack from Osama Bin Laden. From Kim Jong Il and “Bring it on!”, to Saddam Hussein and “They’ll greet us a liberators,” the Bush Administration seems to have less hindsight than a bat.

John McCain is following in Bush’s footsteps to where one could swear he stole the president’s cowboy boots. While Barack Obama speaks of a progressive America with a progressive energy policy, John McCain is stuck in the mud trying to score points for his cronies, while overlooking the potential disaster of an oil spill along our coastlines, and the serious health issues that would accompany such a catastrophe. John McCain would gladly risk the lives of Americans to build oil platforms off our coasts for what he believes would produce enough to alleviate the headache we currently face at the pump. It sure would be a sad day if our coasts turned black with crude muck and we had to watch our food and water supplies turn to poison only to hear John McCain speak half-brained about hindsight being 20/20. And in 5 years from now, when the gas prices are at $9.80 a gallon, just when we would begin to feel the effect of having lifted the offshore drilling ban, I would imagine that we won’t find much headache relief in the price cut from $9.80 to $9.50 per gallon. So, to John McCain, thanks but no thanks. I’d rather we spend our tax dollars on contracts that will go directly toward finding a truly sustainable energy source.

Beyond the last ditch effort to retain total power in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has announced that the democratic process of electing a ruler in his country is farcical at best, and now must resort to the threat of war.

After losing the March presidential election to opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, Mugabe embarked on a campaign of cheating and intimidation in hoping he could manipulate the people and the voting process to equal a victory, regardless of how blatant his methods were. After numerous atrocities seen first hand by much of the interested world, Mugabe has come to understand Morgan Tsvangirai’s resilience, and has now stated that he will wage war against any party that tries to take over power from his ruling Zanu PF party.

Click here to read about one man who can care less how many eyes are studying his tyranical behavior through the proverbial microscope.