Home / Imagine A Second American Revolution — Should The People Rise Up To Kick The Ass Of A New King George?

Imagine A Second American Revolution — Should The People Rise Up To Kick The Ass Of A New King George?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Let me ask you to undertake an exercise in pure imagination.

Imagine an America in which a new King George can steal from the poor to give to the rich.

Imagine this new King George can attack another country that presents no imminent threat to us.

Imagine this new King George can listen to your phone conversations, go through your mail, read your email, arrest you, torture you, and jail you for life without the intervention of the courts.

Imagine this wasn’t England a few centuries ago. Or Stalin’s Russia. Or Pinochet’s Chile. Imagine this was America in the 21st century. The actual country you live in, that people call a democracy.

Imagine some blogger wrote that it’s time for you to wake up and smell the royalist takeover. Imagine this blogger claimed a royalist coup was taking place in the name of a so-called “war on terror.”

Imagine this “war on terror” was a total hype. Imagine it could not be called a war, because the terrorists didn’t have a country to have a war against. Imagine the terrorists were simply a bunch of bad guys – no more than 10,000 criminals – hunted by the world’s cops.

Imagine that the number of Americans killed by international terrorists since the 60s, including those killed on 9/11, was about the same as those zapped by lightning, or by accident-causing deer, or by allergic reactions to peanuts.

Imagine a certain John Mueller wrote: “In almost all years, the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States.”

Imagine that this scattered, limited phenomenon was hyped by the new King George into a huge and scary thing.

Imagine that when the US was threatened by something far worse than a few thousand terrorists — to wit, countlesss nuclear warheads aimed at our cities — our leaders never felt they needed the right to lock up people on their say-so alone, or the right to put prisoners beyond the reach of our courts with the legal trick of calling them “enemy combatants.”

Imagine our country occupied another country, and some of the people in that country kept on fighting against us, because they wanted us out of their country. If foreigners occupied America – wouldn’t you want to fight against them?

Well now, imagine there WERE people occupying your country. Imagine they called themselves Americans, but there was this blogger who called them royalists. Heck, he said he sometimes felt like calling them “enemy combatants.” Imagine they had actual names like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales, as well as a few other names not fit for children’s ears.

Imagine this blogger said it was appropriate to call them royalists because they were assuming royal powers with the Patriot Act, warrantless spying on US citizens, extraordinary rendition, torture, the locking up of innocent people, and so on.

Imagine this blogger reminded you that former US presidents tried similar power grabs. John Adams had his Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 with which he threatened newspapers and deported foreigners. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War. Roosevelt rounded up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in WW2.

These actions were undertaken against scarier threats than a few thousand terrorists, yet today they look somewhat unbalanced. In fact, they look downright hysterical. A blot on the names of Adams, Lincoln and Roosevelt — good men who gave in to popular fears, and brought themselves shame for this.

Imagine we had leaders today who were bringing shame on themselves — and us — again, this time because of fears manufactured by these leaders themselves.

Imagine these leaders were royalists who said America needed an executive of “unitary” power. Imagine these royalists believed the President had the right to turn Congress and the courts into lackeys, and could sign a law with a “signing statement” that claimed the law did not apply to him. Imagine these royalists declared a long and permanent “war on terror,” to make us believe we needed a president who was permanently above the law.

Imagine, finally, that America started with a document called the Declaration of Independence, which contained the following kicker, capitalized for your reading convenience, about what the people could do if they felt they were being abused:


Now that you’ve imagined all this, here are two questions:
1) How long will you let this design evince itself?
2) How much will you have to suffer before you exercise your right and your duty?

Just asking.

(ENJOYED reading this? More stuff like it on my irreverent blog at Adam Ash.)

Powered by

About Adam Ash

  • I’m ready for it. Of course it’s not going to work out quite the way you hope, because those who support the president are far more likely to be armed and ready to rebel than those who don’t. But that’s okay, because they want revolution too, and they are better armed and more numerous. But of course, the BEST armed and most likely to revolt are those who despise the president and absolutely loathe the American left. So as was the case in the original revolution those extreme reactionaries would likely be the vanguard and it would be their agenda which came to dominate in the new republic.

    So we’d have a revolution. The Constitution would be cut back to the first 15 amendments. The federal government would be virtually dissolved. The national military would be reduced to a simple Department of War which would coordinate the efforts of the state militias. Concealed carry would be legal without permit in every state as would the ownership of fully automatic weapons. These new amendments would be added to the Constitution:

    An amendment declaring the end to any federal role in determining the legality of abortion, leaving it entirely up to the individual states.

    An amendment guaranteeing the right of states and institutions to recognize and acknowledge a Christian god.

    An amendment guaranteeing the right to school choice and unorganized personal prayer in school.

    An amendment requiring the federal government to divest itself of all land and mineral rights through private auction.

    An amendment prohibiting all foreign humanitarian aid and membership in or acknowledgement of the authority of any international governmental or juridical body within the borders of the united states.

    An amendment requiring the forced repatriation of all illegal immigrants and financial compensation from their home governments for any past services rendered to them. Plus closing and fortifying the borders.

    An amendment prohibiting any kind of racial or other quotas in hiring or the assigning of contracts.

    An amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

    Some of this would be good, some of it would be less appealing, but in a nutshell this is the agenda which would come to dominate if we actually had a revolution – so be careful what you wish for.


  • Maurice

    We live in a representative republic – not a democracy.

    Bush is done in 3 years. You have nothing to fear but another election.

  • Maurice


    I would think we would also have term limits and something to force the elected leaders to be subject to whatever laws they wrote.

  • RedTard

    Imagine we had a chance to vote on this new king and the people reelected him. Your in the leftwing nutjob minority. Get over yourself.

    Almost every single statement you made from the outset is a complete and utter lie. It’s a good thing you used the words ‘imagine if’, that is the only way someone could experience the world that only exists in your mind.

  • troll

    Dave – you left out the one about a ban on the use of federal funds for public education


  • troll

    Adam – care to fill in the blanks (speculate) about how US citizens might go about this ‘throwing off’ process – ?


  • Bing

    You had an extra glass of Kool Aid with breakfast this morning didn’t you Adam?

    If you keep drinking so much what will all th e other left wing nutcases drink?

  • Adam:

    Great article. There are many right-wingers who will try to defend or dilute the facts you stated but in the end the truth can only be supressed for so long.

    I am anxiously awaiting the revolution in this country, though I don’t believe it will be of the armed conflict type. I think that eventually the government will become so overbearing that the pendulum of American politics will swing the other way as it does every so often.

    As for me personally, I have been planning on emigrating to Switzerland for the last few years. The principles of this country are worth fighting for, but few people in government these days place any value on those principles (limited government, right to privacy, etc.)

    I can’t wait for the revolution.

  • I am all for nonviolent revolution, though I know any such occurence will involve arms. Then again, I am convinced that any hope of a decent US is doomed. Sure, I will do my duty to try to help an honest, just America to emerge, but it does not escape me that the effort is destined to faill. Still, people with integrity will do what is right whether or not there is hope of success.

  • Bing

    Dilute what facts Mr. Drake?

    The fact that you liberals keep implying that this administration has conducted rampant and random wiretaps on innocent American citizens and that Bush is hitler like?

    Where is the proof of these so called facts? Give me the names of a few innocent Americans who have had thier telephone conversations wiretapped. please provide information regarding these cases.

    Give me the names of innocent American citizens who have had thier civili liberties infringed upon because of actions taken by this administration. Tell us all about these cases. Dates, locations, who was involved, what exactly happened.

    Hitler used his military to attack numerous nations in Europe and occupied them. Bush has been in office for 6 years and has he attacked numerous nations and sought to occupy them? Hitler sought to commit genocide aginst the Jewish people. Has Bush said or done anything that could lead one to believe that he desires to commit genocide against an entire group of people based on race, ethnicity, or religion? How is Bush like hitler?

    You guys come on here day after day screaming about how our rights are being taken away and how we are living in a police state but you never offer any examples. I’m asking that you please do this. If you can’t I suggest you shut the fuck up.

  • RedTard

    Bing, we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan at this moment. Resolutions 1483 and 1511 from the UN recognize and reinforce our status as occupying power.

  • Bing #10:
    Who said Bush is like Hitler? You say people say so, but it’s only in your own mind. I said Bush was like King George, for chrissake — can’t you read? Bush is no way like Hitler at all in any way whatsoever, starting with this big difference: Hitler was elected by a majority.

    As for names of innocents who’ve been tortured, we know it happened to a Canadian who was sent to the Middle East by us and tortured there, to a German who was extraordinarily renditioned, and that an Italian was kidnapped in Italy by CIA guys whom the Italians want to prosecute.

    Why don’t you ask these guys if they don’t feel their rights were taken away?

    Then there’s one American who was held for terrorism as an “enemy combatant” and now they’re trying to bring him up at long last — on far lesser accusations than the ones they originally arrested him for.

    These examples have been offered freely in the national press. So again I have to ask — can’t you read?

    Are there any innocent Americans being held against their will? Well, the scary thing is, how can we know we’d know?

  • HazeMac

    Liberals. Conservatives. Pro. Con. The parties dictate what goes on in this country. The parties are supported by businesses. Businesses have interests to uphold and develop, money to make; they have a responsibility to their shareholders. Shareholders own shares to make money. Shareholders, along with their respective businesses, dictate what the parties do. I would love to see a country that is run by individual thoughts – by intelligent, informed individual decisions, uninfluenced by a larger economic cloud – but I don’t believe that is a reality. That is an ideology, a daydream, not a possibility. Remember two things: the Roman Empire, and that a candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long.

  • zingzing

    okay right-wing fucknuts–obviously, adam was overstating, putting things in a terrible light. even in the days of the real king george, some people supported him (although they wouldn’t admit it a few years later). adam was viewing things from an angle, and not a flattering angle. everything he said is based in the truth, even if it is just the form of his choosing. that’s the beauty of it all: this wasn’t a “news” item, it was an opinion piece–although it’s more of a satire really. like “brazil” is a satire, a fiction, a possible future, not unbelievable. you view things from your own angle, and your version is as warped as this is. you have no more of a claim to the “truth” than he does, and while adam’s “truth” makes me laugh, it’s a nervous laugh… while your’s just makes me giggle.

  • Thank you, zingzing. Well zung.

  • Damn do the right-wingers come out and play when their divinely inspired leader is criticized.

    Nice piece Adam. And I’ve been asking myself these very questions ever since JUNIOR (or King George) started crapping on the constitution with his USA Patriot Act.

    Being Canadian I have a less patriotically blurred view of his presidency and he scares the crap out of me. But what scares me more is the amount of support he gets and the lack of protest he gets. All he has to say to gain points in polls is state that he just averted a terrible terrorist attack in somewhere-America and he’s back in good with the crowd.

  • Ted

    Imagine if all the past Presidents ignored terroist threats.

  • Ted #17: Hey, this President ignores terrorist threats himself. Osama is still free, Bush attacked Iraq instead (who didn’t attack us), and look how prepared he was for disaster when Katrina struck.
    Adam Ash.

  • Dave Nalle

    Adam Drake: you might want to research emigration to Switzerland sometime. Unless one of your parents is Swiss by birth you basically can’t become a citizen there. Plus it’s the most heavily armed society in the world – doesn’t that scare you ooooooh guns, boogey boogey!


  • tommyd

    I pray and wait for American Revolution II. It must happen, it will happen, and it’s going to happen. The corrupt, kleptocratic, corporate-ruled, oligarchic, tyrannical, fascist-zionist politicians that firmly control United States, Incorporated are frantically trying to keep a lid on the pressure cooker they’ve created. They use their media and their police to keep the masses afraid, subdued, and docile. However, their plan to enslave the people is doomed and the people will once again have the power to decide their own destiny again, as proscribed in the US Declaration of Independence.

    “The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike from time to time.” Thomas Jefferson

    President Jefferson, I think the tree is badly withered, but not completely dead, so we’ll water her for you and keep the dream alive!

  • RedTard

    As a person with much experience with guns and a past explosives expert I can tell you that taking down the right wing will not be as easy as you think. We always were better shots. (Cheney excepted of course)

  • JR

    The Left has better biologists. How good is your aim when you’re vomitting out your vital organs?

  • Justin Berry

    I see adam saved a little Kool-Aid for Tommyd.

    An armed revolution definately does not bode well for the left. The NRA is definately pro Bush.

  • zingzing

    hey dave, guns don’t go “boogey boogey,” they go “boo-ya, blam!”

  • troll

    zingzing – when the bullet’s got your name on it you won’t hear anything….arrrgghh


    ps nothing personal

  • As a person with much experience with guns and a past explosives expert I can tell you that taking down the right wing will not be as easy as you think. We always were better shots. (Cheney excepted of course)

    This is part of my original point. The left are fundamentally disinclined to actually rebel in any meaningful way, much though they may talk about it. Their idea of rebellion is carrying signs and chanting slogans. Just as the democratic party is a party of no policies, the American left is a left of only mild convictions, which tends to blow with the wind of political opportunism. They would much rather try to weasel their way into power than overthrow the establishment directly. They are inherently toothless and unwilling to do the work and take the risks required for a revolution.

    If there’s going to be a true radical revolution by arms or by total political upheavel in America it’s going to come from the right, motivated by the extreme right and legitimized by the moderate right. They were responsible for the Contract with America which is the closest thing we’ve had in recent years to a new revolution, and there are plenty on the right who’d like to go a lot farther. They are ultimately more motivated, more pissed off – especially after 8 years of whiney divisive factionalism and power-grabbing opportunism from the left. Half of them may hate Bush, but all of them hate his opponents more, and I don’t think most people have any idea of how truly alienated and betrayed most of them feel. And unlike the left, they’re pragmatic folks who when they see a problem tend to look for a way to do something about it.


  • Armed revolution does not bode well for anyone. Not anymore. Most who think they would benefit by it will turn out to be sadly mistaken if it ever comes to pass. The few who actually would benefit by it are either already living in isolation from modern civilization, or are not the sort of people anyone sane would ever want to see in a position to rule by force of arms.

    In the past, it was sometimes possible that a violent uprising could lead to real improvements for the general populace. Those days are long gone. Any such revolution now would bring nothing but misery and death to millions of people.

    Not only that, it would also cause a setback to human progress more vast than anything George W. Bush or Osama bin Laden could ever cause through any combination of incompetent blundering and vicious plotting.

  • Right you are, Victor. Especially true for a country the size of the US. But I do think that a radical non-violent revolution is possible, but it would require the same kind of level of commitment to the possibility of violence and the reality of an oppressive counterreaction, that an armed revolution would demand. And chances are there would be violent incidents on the periphery of such a change of political realities.


  • Guppusmaximus

    Sensationalism at it’s finest….

  • kissmyass

    Dave, I look fowared for a liberal revolution. Lib soilders marching in pink panty hose and threating me with their purses. Im so scared. [Deleted] Cant we all just get along. [Deleted]

  • Well, KMA, it would probably at least be more fun.


  • What makes you people so goddam sure that the rightwing would make better soldiers in a revolution than the leftwing?

    In a gunfight between Kerry and Cheney, who would you put your money on? The guy who fought in a war, or the ‘five deferments’ guy who can’t tell a man from a bird?

    And in a bar fight, would you bet on the buff gymrat homo or the fat beerbelly Nascar drunk?

    Just asking.
    Adam Ash.

  • Or in a catfight, who’d tear out the most hair — the dainty Southern belle or the butch leather dyke?

    Bring it on, you rightwing pussies.
    Adam Ash.

  • adam, Dykes on Bikes vote Republican, including Cheney’s daughter.

    And the contest wouldn’t be one of the ones you describe, it would be the high school english teacher and NEA labor organizer (D) vs. the ex special forces security consultant (R) – at least if you want to be realistic.


  • JR

    adam: What makes you people so goddam sure that the rightwing would make better soldiers in a revolution than the leftwing?

    Same thing that makes them rightwingers: inability to think critically and question cherished assumptions.


  • Dave:
    It would more likely be the fat-assed neocon armchair warrior vs. the Iraqi vet turned Dem Party candidate.
    Adam Ash

  • Not based on percentages since more than 70% of Iraq war vets have stated that they’re Republicans.

    And JR, if you want to experience lack of critical thinking, just review some of the comments from your left-leaning compatriots on this thread. Well, maybe it’s unfair to call it lack of critical thinking, since you have to at least be thinking before you can strive for critical thinking, and as far as I can tell Terry Schiavo and most of these lefties have a lot in common.


  • It’s the [Deleted] righties who thought Terry Schiavo had a brain in her head. They have as lot in common with her, not the lefties.

  • There are many ways to prove you and your allies are badasses who’d win a serious fight. Posturing on the Internet is not one of them.

  • Victor has a Prissy Nanny attack.

  • I never knew you were a Prissy Nanny, adam. You’re the only one attacking me here, so you must be using that phrase to describe yourself.

    But returning to the point (and I do have one), anybody who thinks a revolution would be a good idea is a dumbfuck, right or left notwithstanding.

    This is especially true of the people JR mentioned, those who would release engineered biological weapons in such a conflict. That would be stupidity of a scale never before seen on this planet.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    I’ve been watching you all tear at each other. If you guys can’t get a revolution off the ground and call each other names like bad little kids in a schoolyard, how do you think you’ll succeed, anyway?

    I mean don’t get me wrong. Adam, I think your idea for a second revolution in your country is fantastic. It would get your soldiers out of here trying to defend (or revolt against) the imperial regime you have now.

    That means we could get rid of OUR trash on government hill without your country’s interference and get on with the business of exterminating the Wahhabis, making peace with our other cousins here and building a prosperous Middle East WITHOUT REFERENCE to Europe or America. And then you guys could come to US for the foreign aid.

    Shabbat Shalom,

  • td

    The revolution is coming….

    Oops, sorry. Did I say revolution.

    I meant recession.

    And if there is going to be a major shift in the political mindset of the middle then it will be when people are faced with choosing War on terror, or major reductions in services that effect them. Right now Bush hasn’t had to raise taxes, or cut programs. He’s just run up the debt.

    But soon enough the economy will slow down and the reigns will be pulled back on this type of spending. This is when the people will be forced to choose between fighting wars and health care, social security, etc.

    Whether it is Bush or his predesessor, the war on terror will not be sustainable without significant cuts that the middle will not tolerate.

  • Nancy

    What really tears me up is all the fools, halfwits, & idiots who actually BUY this load of fearmongering crap from BushCo, LONG after it’s become Old Hat, worn out, sooooo 2001, a cliche, etc. etc. etc. If they’d just develop a few brain cells, a bit of backbone instead of spaghetti for their spines, and some courage, & shed some of their Chicken Little panic/fear responses, we’d all be better off … including them.

  • RedTard


    The sad thing is that if you replace ‘Bushco’ with ‘the American left’ and you have an equally valid statement.

  • Nancy

    I’m sure if they were the ones in power, that would likely be true; but they’re not, therefore your proposal is moot. The problem is, a) both parties are corrupt, & almost entirely peopled by wealthy, overprivileged, self-perpetuating elites, and b) too many people who can vote are idiots, easily panicked & directed by sound bites instead of thinking for themselves & matching political posturing with actual behavior. We need to do something to eradicate a), and frankly I wish bird flu would eradicate b).

  • zingzing

    fear is bush’s greatest tool redtard, you know that. the left wing is afraid that bush’s fear-tactics are taking away from the quality of american freedom. so, the left wing IS fearful, but only of, you know, “fear itself.”

    but, really, you can’t blame politicians. they are just americans living out the american dream of manipulating stupid fucking jockstrap-sucking morons who vote based on single issues and cower in their barns with their cattle or in the studio apartments with their lizards. stupid fucking americans. we suck.

  • Nancy

    Most Americans are unable to carry out critical thinking. First, it isn’t taught in schools, and second, marketers, business, government, and the media have all been busy over the past few generations (especially since the advent of ubiquitous TV) training Americans into a Pavlovian consumer-response mode, rendering them incapable of thinking for themselves, thinking analytically when presented with a “product” (in this case, fearmongering), or responding to anything presented in more than 30-second soundbites. The present generations, raised from birth oriented entirely to TV/computers/ipods/cell phones/all other modes of spoon-fed, constant, unrelenting ‘entertainment’ & infomercials, are psychologically & mentally tied to having everything given to them – including opinions & ideas. Those who do manage to escape this modern mental miasma are few and very, very far between.

  • Josh

    Let’s first establish that the War in Iraq is about oil, 100%. Secondly, Afghanistan and Iraq are ways of getting at the US’ biggest threat in the Middle East — Iran, the world’s second largest producer of oil. We now have Iran surrounded: Afghanistan to the east, Iraq to the west, Russia is allowing US military bases in Uzbekistan (and Turkmenistan as well, I believe). It’s only a matter of time.

    Before everyone gets whipped into an even bigger Bush-hating frenzy, it’s important to look at this in the context of the US’ history. From the very beginning US foreign policy has been about securing our *OWN* interests. Here’s a couple examples (not in chronological order):

    War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish American War, Panama Canal, Manifest Destiny and now. . .

    the Middle East. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but before you judge Bush to harshly look at it in the broader context of our history.

  • Josh

    Also, add Roosevelt’s and his occupation of almost the entire Pacific Ocean.

    And as for the Patriot Act, remember that Lincoln did the same thing during the Civil War (suspension of habeus corpus, etc) and he’s now one of our most beloved presidents. I’m not saying Bush will be, but there may still be some longterm justification for Bush’s current policies.

  • gonzo marx

    to all you history “buffs”…let me give ya a little Clue that might change your Perspective a bit

    ALL the “incidents” you have cited from the Past came with something we do NOT have now

    a Congressional Declaration of War

    now, scope yer Constitution and see the difference that very real and legal step sets in motions…

    for more modern shit, try the War Powers Act…still requires Congress to formally declare War tho

    yes, yes..i know about the two “Authorizations to Use Military Force”…but have a read…they STILL reserve all rights and powers to Congress under the War Powers Act…

    sez it very specifically

    so…ya got no legal “war”

    try harder


  • Josh

    Good point, but you missed mine.

    From my list, although Congressional OK was given for those wars, most of them were still unjustifiable by today’s standards (read: built around imperialism). Same thing with Iraq today, just without Congressional authority.

    All I was saying was that events today are following a pattern set from the very beginning and that imperialism of this kind is a part of our national identity (ask any of the Latin American countries).

  • beast

    king George, and the royal white house, allied with the royal house of Saud…. bring antichristian laws perfectly lined up with the way islamics oppress christians in muslim countries. If you look at the way Jesus and christians are treated in america, and the picture of King George holding the hand of king Saud, and Al “the internet” Gore, (presidential material?), suntanning in saudi arabia, you should hear alarm bells going.

    Read this:



    Freedom House, a Washington based organization founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, and now chaired by former C.I.A. Director, James Woolsey, conducted a survey of literature found in America’s leading Mosques. They came to three conclusions, two of which were accurate. The Saudi government and royal family are the primary purveyors of Islamic religious materials in America and worldwide. The overwhelming majority of the Islamic literature printed by the Saudi government and distributed in American mosques and Islamic schools is uncivilized, hateful, violent, and treasonous. But then they claimed, without evidence or reason, that such materials were reflective of Wahhabi extremism, and were therefore a corruption of Islam.

    Freedom House’s stated bias for religious tolerance may have contributed to their error, but I suspect their deceptive view is more likely born of complete ignorance. They analyzed 200 books and pamphlets but didn’t bother reviewing the only five that actually mattered: Ibn Ishaq’s Sira (the only biographical account of Muhammad written within 200 years of his death), Tabari’s Ta’rikh (Islam’s earliest and most authentic history of Muhammad and his formation of Islam), the topical Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim (Islam’s most revered collection of Muhammad’s words and deeds), and the Qur’an (a book devoid of context and chronology and thus dependent upon the Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith accounts). These prime sources contain all that is known about Muhammad, his god, and his religion. They are fundamental Islam.

    I am pleased that Freedom House conducted this survey, translated these documents, and made the incriminating evidence available to everyone for free. The very survival of the civilized world is dependent upon us understanding that Islam is mankind’s greatest enemy. Yet, I am deeply disturbed by their continual positioning of Islam’s uncivil and treasonous rhetoric as representing a corrupted and extremist view when most every word of what they uncovered came directly out of the Qur’an, Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith–collectively the Islamic scriptures. To infer that Saudi Wahhabism is an inaccurate view of Islam is equivalent to saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul presented an inaccurate and extremist view of Christianity.

    If America is going to survive, average Americans must do two things our religious leaders, politicians, scholars, and media are either unable or unwilling to accomplish simultaneously. We must come to know and then think. Freedom House was generous in making this vital information about the nature of the Saudis and Islam available, but their unthinking commentary on it renders it unusable.

    When we don’t know, we can’t think–as understandin…

  • beast

    Read the rest yourself…
    Before going to war, one must first have a plan, and a solution to offer, for men to fight for. When you fight for nothing, you die for nothing. What is Bush fighting for? Don’t get me wrong, I am a right wing conservative, I just question Bush’s allegiance. It’s no secret that the US government is under muslim control. From Pol Pot and his muslim henchmen, which the CIA propped up the US caused the death of millions of Cambodian christians, same goes everywhere the US is, always on the side of islam. Chechnya, Kosovo, Saudi arabia, and hte antichristian ACLU, where is the christian mr.Bush when it’s time to speak for christians? Nowhere to be seen. When he speaks about christ and christian values, it’s under a gag order, no press, no recording machines, and don’t anyone dare quote the president on this… it’s all BS, that’s why. It’s all feel-good rethoric designed to con the sheep into sheepishly following the muslim into a war where christians kill christians, or get killed for nothing, like the mobster freemasons always do. Christians are always the ones getting murdered… even in your cities, have you noticed how the “religious” make-up of the crime scene is always downplayed? Two satanists go on a shooting rampage, well you never hear about satanism, they’re portrayed as good christians boys gone berzerky. Why did the CIA not inform of the intention of Tim McVeigh since they had him under 24/7 surveilance, instead, they quietly left the building. Because they were just going to kill some christians. 9-11, same scenario, just a few miserly christians gonna die, nothing to worry about, just sell your AA shares 9-9, and pretend to look surprised.