Ward Churchill: Revolutionary or Rube?

Here in Colorado, there is quite a controversy over a C.U. professor, Ward Churchill. Here is one of his essays:
Dark Night Press – Dubai, UAEI expect Contracycle to like him, and, oddly enough, I think he makes some sense! What do you all think?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.Pretty thin content (basicly a bare link), but what the "beep", it's going to the "Coffee House".AdminnemooseusThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 02-04-2005 01:31 AM

I have great respect for Ward Churchill - I have even cited his arguments on this board, specifically his work on American pacifism as pseudo-praxis. I'm not expert on his work or career though; but I do note that he appears on an "anti-terror" blog as a "9/11 celebrator" for the sheer arrogance of failing to fall in line with Americas persecution complex, on the basis of this very article.This message has been edited by contracycle, 02-04-2005 10:49 AM

Having now read some of the article, I thank you for raising it, as it gives the lie to Holmes and Schrafinators allegation that comparisons between modern America and the Nazi's are not so absurd that they would only be raised by someone who has never set foot in that blessed land.

I had never heard of the guy until Denver local press began dumping on him. When G.O.P. Governor Owens demanded his ouster, I thought that I should read up on some of what he wrote and listen to what he said. As it turns out, Churchill has a world view that I have thought to be entirely plausible, yet one that fits within my Christian one as well.The Bible mentions a great fallen empire known as Babylon the Great. Kings of the earth committed fornication with her, which to me is equating to the notion that "politics makes strange bedfellows" and that a few world leaders such as the house of Saud are basically sleeping with Dubya and his Western alliance.I have never been fond of manmade solutions such as communism, perhaps because I fear the outcome as it relates to my comfort zone.
I do know that the Apostles in the book of acts had a form of socialism, however, and it is clear that Jesus would never be a Capitalist!

I respect Ward Churchill’s right to free speech, and I’m in agreement with him about many of his criticisms of short-sighted US jingoism. I thought the exact same thing about 9-11 as he says here: the hope was — and maybe still is — that Americans, stripped of their presumed immunity from incurring any real consequences for their behavior, would comprehend and act upon a formulation as uncomplicated as ‘stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe.’"However, the rest of his reaction to 9-11 is far less insightful. Churchill’s diatribe deserves to be reviled not for anti-Americanism, but for its incoherence and shallowness. This man is a university professor, after all, but he spews embarrassingly simplistic rhetoric in the guise of a historical critique. For instance, he rightly points out the disgraceful decades-long Iraq policy that the current and former administrations carried out, which visited unimaginable suffering upon the Iraqi people but caused little worry to its brutal dictator. Churchill asserts that this is the rationale for the 9-11 attacks.This is ridiculous. Churchill must realize that the terrorists involved in the 9-11 attacks were virtually all Saudis. I didn’t support either Iraqi war, but it cannot be gainsaid that American lives were laid on the line (and plenty of Iraqi ones as well) during Bush Sr.’s folly in order to protect the Saudi regime and reinstate the Islamist Emir of Kuwait. It’s absolutely certain that Iraqis owe the USA plenty of grief, but no one has ever put forward a convincing theory explaining why Saudis (especially wealthy ones like Osama bin Laden and the rich contributors to the al Qaeda coffers) should feel any animosity toward the USA for its actions in Iraq. What sort of desperate circumstances motivated these educated, middle-class Saudis to teach the USA a lesson?As if the past fifty years of sickening bloodshed in the region are of no concern to him, Churchill paints the entire Middle East as a cozy love-in: it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life — all lives, not just their own — far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts. Since I condemn the USA for waging war against other nations, I’m certainly going to do the same for nations like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Saudi Arabia itself flagrantly violates the human rights of even its own citizens. Who does Churchill think he’s kidding?Predictably, Churchill’s characterization of Americans as a perpetrator population only muddles what he considers a clear-cut issue. He deplores that only peaceful protests were waged against the US government for its war crimes in Iraq, though he himself seems to have resisted the moral urge to sacrifice his cushy tenured professorship and take up arms against the Man. He considers that everyone killed on 9-11 had it coming (he refers to them as Eichmanns), since they actively condoned and benefited from the USA’s genocide: The building (sic) and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. However, by Churchill’s logic, literally any target in the USA would have fit that bill, since we are all a nation of perpetrators who have done nothing real to oppose our government’s murderous agenda. This is so puerile it boggles the mind.Churchill’s view of 20th century history is just as incomprehensible: Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker, he warns, adding, (ask the Germans). If I understand his point, Churchill seems to approve of the Germans getting their comeuppance. But who does he think defeated the Nazis, and through what means? The fact that Churchill can equate a pot-shot like the 9-11 attack with a systematic military offensive like the Allied liberation of Europe demonstrates his denial of reality. He believes that humanitarianism motivated the masterminds of the 9-11 attacks. Couldn’t the same logic be used to condone the USA’s incineration of hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which Churchill, like me, condemns), as payback for the rape of Nanking and the brutal subjugation of most of the Far East by the Imperial Japanese Army? Why is payback justified in some cases, but not in others?I’m not going to take issue with Churchill’s call to assassinate various American politicians, but in the context of his entire argument it seems beside the point. If we’re all perpetrators, should it matter who runs the show? He scoffs at the ineffectiveness of the intelligence community as if anyone has recently made the case that the FBI and CIA are worthwhile, responsible agencies. Anyone who looks at this exhaustive 9-11 timeline realizes how both agencies are still stuck in a Cold War ratcatcher mentality, and their obsolete bureaucratic outlook makes them helpless to fight against their new enemies. However, it’s open to debate whether Churchill thinks we even deserve to be defended against attack, since we all (except, of course, Churchill) seem to be guilty of the US government’s war crimes and genocide.Like I said, Churchill deserves to speak his mind. I agree with his condemnation of US aggression throughout the world. However, I take issue with his canonization of the 9-11 attackers and the insidious networks that Churchill can’t even bring himself to label terrorist.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I despise Churchill's characterization of the 9/11 victims but he shouldn't be fired for it. I don't see how his rhetoric is any more hateful than that of Jerry Falwell when he blamed gays and abortion doctors for the 9/11 attacks. Or for that matter I don't see how it's any worse than Pat Robertson passing blame onto various groups for such natural disasters as hurricanes and tsunamis. Last time I checked, Falwell and Robertson were still at their posts, influencing young minds at every chance they get. No one's calling for them to be fired, why should Churchill be fired?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

The big issue with Churchill is that he is being paid by the state of Colorado. The flap is over tax dollars being used to support a teacher with anti American views. Personally, I think its great! The conservatives need to have a voice against them. We are not Nazis.

And that is the real question. When you speak out against the actual current policies of your country, in this case America, when you call for a change in policies, is that anti-country, anti-American or is it in fact Pro-America?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Phatboy writes me:

quote:

---

The flap is over tax dollars being used to support a teacher with anti American views.

---

The comparison still holds. Falwell and Robertson both run churches. Churches don't pay taxes. You and I do pay taxes. When you consider the number of churches we have and the amount of tax-free property those churches own, it's pretty clear that if churches did pay taxes, yours and mine would be significantly lower than what they are.It therefore follows that we taxpayers are subsidizing the rhetoric of Falwell and Robertson. I for one am sick and tired of subsidizing their hate-speech and I want them fired!

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

I just took a Christian online test on world views and I surprised myself by my rating, which was: And all this time I thought I was a thumper! If anyone of you wants to take the test, go here:http://www.worldviewweekend.com/test/register.php
I guess that I am not conservative enough for them! No wonder I like Ward Churchill!

quote:

---

his is ridiculous. Churchill must realize that the terrorists involved in the 9-11 attacks were virtually all Saudis. I didn’t support either Iraqi war, but it cannot be gainsaid that American lives were laid on the line (and plenty of Iraqi ones as well) during Bush Sr.’s folly in order to protect the Saudi regime and reinstate the Islamist Emir of Kuwait. It’s absolutely certain that Iraqis owe the USA plenty of grief, but no one has ever put forward a convincing theory explaining why Saudis (especially wealthy ones like Osama bin Laden and the rich contributors to the al Qaeda coffers) should feel any animosity toward the USA for its actions in Iraq. What sort of desperate circumstances motivated these educated, middle-class Saudis to teach the USA a lesson?

---

Hambre, for all I think you are badly wrong-headed, I am surprised you present this illogical position. Your entire construction here is in terms of *nationalism*... what would a Suadi National have against the US? Well several things, but thats beside the point: the US is an aggressor state dangerous to everyone. People can and do generalise the specifics - if the US under a Democratic government is willing to bomb hospitals and sundry venues in other countries on nothing but its own say say, then that is a problem that transcends the boundary of the state attacked or the state attacking. And in company with the easily observable christian hate-speech about Islam, it is clear (to them) that the US seeks to stamp out Islam. Furthermore, Bin Laden prdeicted that the US would invade Iraq, a prediction now proved correct. The Islamist analysis of the US as aggressor state is fundamentally correct.And of course that is not counting Israel. As long as the US funds a terrorist state in illgal occupation of Palestine, all people with an interest in human liberty must oppose the USA. This is of course especially pertinent in the region itself, which must daily deal with the deaths inflicted by US policy.This also applies to the allegation about rich Saudis. The fact of the matter is that nearly any movement is going to be lead and articulated by the middle classes, becuase the working classes often have their noses too close to the grind-stone to formulate an ideology or develop a big-picture strategy. OBL and hi ilk are exactly what one would expect a developing internaitonal resistance to American aggression to look like: grass roots at the base, bourgeoius at the top, and unified by an internationalist ideaology. Just becuase you are unwealthy does not mean you are unmoved by the plight of the Palestinians.

quote:

---

East as a cozy love-in: it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life — all lives, not just their own — far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts. Since I condemn the USA for waging war against other nations, I’m certainly going to do the same for nations like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Iraq. Saudi Arabia itself flagrantly violates the human rights of even its own citizens. Who does Churchill think he’s kidding?

---

Well, who do you think you are kidding? What Churchill is pointing out is that Middle Eastern states have gone to war over territorial claims, claims of legitimacy, or even sure pursuit of regional power, but this is nothing like the US invading Granada merely because Granada democratically voted in a government that threatened to nationalise American assets. He does not make any claims here to blanket virtue, only points out that Middle Eastern states, probably because they are rather more traditional, do not use the military as an arm of economic power in the way that America does and has. Also, whatever regional disputes may go on, no Middle Eastern state makes it its business to intervene all over the globe, to pass comment and opinions on such disputes.

quote:

---

Churchill’s view of 20th century history is just as incomprehensible: Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker, he warns, adding, (ask the Germans). If I understand his point, Churchill seems to approve of the Germans getting their comeuppance. But who does he think defeated the Nazis, and through what means? The fact that Churchill can equate a pot-shot like the 9-11 attack with a systematic military offensive like the Allied liberation of Europe demonstrates his denial of reality. He believes that humanitarianism motivated the masterminds of the 9-11 attacks. Couldn’t the same logic be used to condone the USA’s incineration of hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which Churchill, like me, condemns), as payback for the rape of Nanking and the brutal subjugation of most of the Far East by the Imperial Japanese Army? Why is payback justified in some cases, but not in others?

---

This paragraph is a mishmash of non sequiturs. The point about Germany is that even today they have not been forgiven - Don't Mention The War, as they said in Fawlty Towers. Approving of such come-uppance is not identical to acknowledging the probability of such come-uppance and the veehemence with which it will be presecuted. In fact I think its easy to argue a round of revenge is counterproductive in the long run but this does not mean we have to treat the desire for revenge as inexplicable. Certainly in the case of the US in the middle East, the desire for revenge, for some sort of justice, is explicable, normal, and human.Yes, the 9/11 bombers were motivated by humanitarianism. They sacrificed their lives on behalf of others, trying to make a difference.

quote:

---

I’m not going to take issue with Churchill’s call to assassinate various American politicians, but in the context of his entire argument it seems beside the point. If we’re all perpetrators, should it matter who runs the show? .... However, it’s open to debate whether Churchill thinks we even deserve to be defended against attack, since we all (except, of course, Churchill) seem to be guilty of the US government’s war crimes and genocide.

---

The point is, you can do something about it but choose not to. Not only that, the AMERICAN PEOPLE re-elected the self-same criminal who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and have exhibited no significant criticism of Clintons sundry bombings. The American populace as a whole turn a blind eye to the deaths of non-Americans, and construe all resistance to the American imperial project as Evil. Certainly there are a few - a very few - Amercians without this nationalist conceit, among whom Churchill numbers (and you do not Hambre), but there is no getting away from the fact tnat as a democratic nation you must take responsibility for your own democratic will. The public of America support American invasions - it is only right that the American public do some of the dying.

quote:

---

I agree with his condemnation of US aggression throughout the world. However, I take issue with his canonization of the 9-11 attackers and the insidious networks that Churchill can’t even bring himself to label terrorist.

---

No, you do not share his criticisms, becuase you aregu as an apologist for them and claim that no American should ever be held to account for the criminaltiy of the government THEY ELECTED. Secondly, he is correct not to label them terrorist, as the real perpetrator of violence for political ambitions is the US. AQ (if it it exists - another intelligence claim so far unverified) and related local bodies (if there is anything to be related to in a meaningful sense) are fighting for human freedom, and to label them terrorists is imply emotive propaganda.Wards arguments are profoundly reasonable; if you do not like being held accountable for your antisocial and homicidal behaviouor, change your behaviour - don't whine when you receive punishment for your crimes.This message has been edited by contracycle, 02-07-2005 07:22 AM

It’s just this sort of facile rhetoric that makes you and Churchill so easy to dismiss. The hijackers you and Churchill canonize sacrificed some three thousand other people on 9-11 too. Only your holy belief that all Americans are evil allows you to handwave away any concerns that a conscientious human being may have about whether their punishment was deserved.In typical fundie style, you accuse me of claiming that no American should ever be held to account for the criminality of the government THEY ELECTED. I’ve never said this. I did say that I take no issue with Churchill’s call for assassination of US leaders responsible for its disgraceful Middle East policy, since at least here his anger is directed at undeniably worthy targets. This seems much more reasonable than his characterization of every single person inside the WTC as a military target, supported only by his wish that it be so. Similarly, you’ve made it your holy belief that all Americans are culpable (ignoring the massive opposition that actually exists here to the government’s violent interventionist policies) just to soothe your conscience that your hero hijackers can only conceivably kill evil people in the USA. Blanket generalizations always compensate for your unwillingness to confront ethical complexities you may be unequipped to understand. Anyone who can read realizes that that’s exactly what Churchill does, comparing the moral virtue of Middle Easterners to the sadism of all Americans. His exact words are: Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life — all lives, not just their own — far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts. Like I said, there are too many examples of cold-hearted slaughter that have taken place in the Middle East to accept this fact. Perhaps the suffering of the Armenians or the Kurds doesn't count? Again, your holy dogma is that all Americans are degenerates, so this kind of comparison doesn’t have to be supported by anything other than a scornful smirk and we are all supposed to accept it as fact. And this is what your argument boils down to, a puerile schoolyard threat that can be applied in literally any instance you find it necessary. Why not apply it to the victims of Hiroshima, since the Japanese people supported their theocracy throughout its brutal conquest of China and the Far East? Well, because any thinking human being would realize the logical bankruptcy of such a critique.This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-07-2005 10:24 AM

quote:

---

It’s just this sort of facile rhetoric that makes you and Churchill so easy to dismiss.

---

and its just that sort of dismissal that gives the criticism its bite. The fact remains that you choose not to even acknowledge Americas relationship with the world, nor take responsibility for its actions.

quote:

---

nly your holy belief that all Americans are evil allows you to handwave away any concerns that a conscientious human being may have about whether their punishment was deserved.

---

Wrong - its the abundant hypocrisy in which non-American dead are either ignored, or presumed to be "Evildoers". You will note I have never claimed that all Americans are evil, as that is a meaningless term: but I have said that Americans must take responsibility for the crimes of their state.

quote:

---

This seems much more reasonable than his characterization of every single person inside the WTC as a military target, supported only by his wish that it be so.

---

Nonsense - long before this article of Churchills, I pointed out that the WTC victims were indeed valid targets. That is because the doctrine of military humanism advanced exactly such claims in the bombings of Iraq in Gul 1, Serbia, Somalia et al. As I said, all you got was a tiny proportion of what you dish out. Did you like it?

quote:

---

he hijackers you and Churchill canonize sacrificed some three thousand other people on 9-11 too.

---

Thats war, Hambre. Is that even many, seeing as the US killed 100,000 in Iraq? And how many in Afghanistan? Remember, your side can't even be bothered to count civilians, as it kills so many and doesn't like to own up to its actions. America has the moral low ground, and you have not got a leg to stand on, hypocrite.

quote:

---

Similarly, you’ve made it your holy belief that all Americans are culpable (ignoring the massive opposition that actually exists here to the government’s violent interventionist policies) just to soothe your conscience that your hero hijackers can only conceivably kill evil people in the USA. Blanket generalizations always compensate for your unwillingness to confront ethical complexities you may be unequipped to understand.

---

Huh, such arrogance, YOU lecturing ME on moral maturity, what a laugh.Where are your tears for Iraqi dead? The Afghan dead? The Vitnemaes dead? The Serbian dead? The Somalian dead? Where are your crocodile tears, Hambre?Where is this "massive opposition"? I look at Rices confirmation hearings, I asee a row of stooges rubber stamping her appointment. WHere is this resistance, when the Butcher-In-Chief was REELECTED? Bush is NOT operating against the will of the US people, or even against the trend of Us history. He is doing what America does, and he is doing it with the consent of the American populace. That makes you culpable, you and all the amoral murderers in uniform you sent to Iraq.Of course civilians die in war. Thats why its a bad thing. Maybe you should try quitting, Americas military addiction is dangerous for us all.

quote:

---

Anyone who can read realizes that that’s exactly what Churchill does, comparing the moral virtue of Middle Easterners to the sadism of all Americans. His exact words are: Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life — all lives, not just their own — far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts. Like I said, there are too many examples of cold-hearted slaughter that have taken place in the Middle East to accept this fact. Perhaps the suffering of the Armenians or the Kurds doesn't count? Again, your holy dogma is that all Americans are degenerates, so this kind of comparison doesn’t have to be supported by anything other than a scornful smirk and we are all supposed to accept it as fact.

---

Well yes. I think thats a common view in external observers - Americans don't consider non-Americans to be real people. Thats why I persist in describing America as a racist state - this has been my consistent experience of Americans in person, and serves as a good predictor of foreign policy too. It's quite clear, when even Vietnam has been made respectable and Kerry for denounced for daring to admit that Americans did bad things. When there is no discussion about the human suffering of Iraq, but only the numbern of saintly Americans killed. Just like Vietnam, you're happy to wade in blood and build mountains of skulls, but if a single American stubs a toe the whole country is outraged.Yes, I certainly consider the inhabitants of the Middle East to be more moral than the inhabitants of the US. I have explained that the US has an abundant history of killing large numbers of people merely for commercial interests, and there is no equivalent among the middle eastern states. Certainly, ethnic slaughters and so forth - but what we do not see is the same degree of contempt for non-nationals, for the alien Other that so permeates Amercian culture.

quote:

---

And this is what your argument boils down to, a puerile schoolyard threat that can be applied in literally any instance you find it necessary. Why not apply it to the victims of Hiroshima, since the Japanese people supported their theocracy throughout its brutal conquest of China and the Far East?

---

Ah, so that would be the ELECTED emperor Hirohito, would it? The man elected by a free vote of all japanese people, so therefore they retain culpability for his actions? Yes?you're error, Hambre, is to assume I think on the same nationalist lines that you do. I do not conflate the Japanese with their state, nor do I assume a Saudi is only interest in the concerns of the Saudi state. I suspect your are projecting your own nationalistic dogma onto others here. The American people claim to be a democracy*; in a demkocracy, the people are responsible for their government. You will note that it was only AFTER the re-election of Bush that the opinion polls started showing international opinion hardening against the actual American people: because choosing Bush to be president again meant that his behaviour was no an aberration, not a weird outlier, but what the American people wanted and approved of.American cannot continue to get away with murder. Fascism cannot be appeased; we learned that in WW2.* Bush said the other day that bringing Irtaq to democracy will bring about peace. However thats manifestly untrue, as America is democracy that manufactures wars. So presumably, if Iraq does become a democracy on the American model, it will be very pro-active in invading its neighbours.

Responsibility by nationalism is dangerous regardless of the direction of the assignment. It is even more precarious when you get into the situation of a democratic government because it is so easy to say, "you all voted the bastard into office." Nothing good can come when people can start becoming mortally responsible for so much more than their own actions. If I get blown up by an AQ attack during a rally protesting the government do I still count as deserving it because I am just an American feeling the responsibility of my choice to live in a democracy? It is almost like you are saying in some cases that align with your political beliefs that killing is okay. If so then I would not call that a morally superior position as you often do. Political support is often motivated by more than knee jerk reactions based on morals. Democrats are in a precarious position of having to defend many core tenants of democracy over the next 4 years and pissing off the moderate Republicans is not going to help them. That is why you have a ton of Democrats voting for Rice, knowing that she would be getting in regardless of their vote, so they are in a better position to support their constituency and their platform. Rice was going to be confirmed no matter how many Democrats spoke up.Where is the resistance? It was there in force but simply impotent in the area it counted most, organization. I was part of a huge multi-state campaign that was very effective in its capacity to motivate the voter force of our common interest. Our turnout was actually more than the winning margin in a couple of the blue states. The problem was that this campaign was one of dozens of groups that pale in comparison to the structure of the GOP. If you had been here involved in the unreported trenches of the election you would have noticed a rather vigorous resistance that simply is not as good at mobilizing the people. Equally bad on both sides of the issue. You can't condemn one and not the other. "He started it!" was not a good justification when I was 6 and is not one now. Agreed which is why we need to support legitimate and realistic opposition rather than just more killing. The only Americans you have ever met have mostly been racist? If so then that sucks. I personally know very few people who are racist and of those that are nearly all of them were born and raised outside of the US (the rest are from Texas). In fact, they are mostly Arabs seeing as though half of my family is Palestinian. If I didn't know better my whole image of the level of racism among Non-Americans would be terrible. The current administration is racist and fundamentalist wannabe-Christian though which is apparent any time you watch the blithe evil they produce when they interact with the public. So yes it is a racist state but not because of the majority of its people but rather the minority that is better at organizing vote and preventing opposition from voting or caring. You need to understand that most people in the US don't like the administration and many like me are fighting it. The reason we loose elections is because we cannot organize properly, cannot get the people who matter to care, or are plain ol'e disenfranchised by Ohio/Florida state governors. Primary support from the commoner will almost always be for the troops. How could you expect different? I personally know 5 people one way or another who serve in our armed forces. I have a much bigger emotional investment for my friends then of people I have never met even if I don't agree with the war. That doesnt mean I don't cringe when I read about X number of Iraqis killed in some event. Its terrible all of it but you seem to be just stretching a simple fact of reality for your own rhetorical purposes. First off, how is killing for ethnic reasons any more mature than killing for commercial reasons? The only superior moral that can be assigned to killing is when it involves self defense.Second, have you actually been to the Mid East? I think you have a pretty distorted image of the area if you think it is less contemptuous of non-nationals. Ethnic and cultural conflict in America is more pronounced simply because we have a state that is so heterogeneous in comparison to your average Mid East country. To think that the same can't/doesnt/hasn't happen there in similar circumstances is pretty shallow. Elected or not, the fervent nationalism that existed in imperialist Japan cannot be denied. Just because a leader is not elected does not mean he is not supported by the populace. Democracy does not exclusively spawn nationalism or responsibility by nationalism. I was unaware that opinion polls were what justified the mortal condemnation of an entire nationality. Agreed. The American administration must be changed to that which is actually representative of the population. Down with a fascist America. Just because America in its imperialism is also a democracy does not leave that democracy causes imperialism. The one constant throughout human history has been imperialism regardless of the social structure of the physically dominant society. Also, you shouldn't take too much of what the weed in office says to heart. He is, as you might not know, anti-American.

---

By the way, for a fun second-term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase, "...contentious but futile protest vote by democrats." By the time Jeb Bush is elected president you will be so wasted you wont even notice the war in Syria.
-- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show