per wikipedia:
"N.W.O." (New World Order) is a song by the Industrial metal band Ministry, released as the second single off the album Psalm 69. The single was Ministry's biggest hit, topping out on the Billboard Modern Rock chart at #11.

The song is a protest against then President George H. W. Bush. The song features audio samples of his voice, with him repeating "A new world order" over and over again at the end of the song. At this point of the song in the video, Bush is portrayed by an actor with an enormous papier-mâché head, grabbing his crotch and waving his arms. The majority of the video is a mix of police beatings, riots, and gunfights. It also includes a scene in which a woman dressed as the Statue of Liberty is beaten by police in a manner similar to the famous amateur video of Rodney King being beaten by police.

The music video was featured on Beavis and Butt-Head along with Just One Fix off the same album, although the credits for each song call the album "Psalms 69".

"N.W.O." was featured in the soundtrack of the film Cool World (Songs from the Cool World).

"It's alright! It's alright!" in the song is a clip of Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now when he first greets the PBR boat.

It's become part of the Sift, not unlike Westy's spelling and QuantumMushroom finding a rightist slant that blames leftist forces for everything.


Oh, not EVERYTHING. After all, 98% isn't a 100%.

Liberals' 50 years of dreadful domestic policy
Posted: December 23, 2010

by Larry Elder

For the past 50 years, the Democrats – and many Republicans who should know better – have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:

Taxes

The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.

President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue. President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35 percent.

President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them. If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true. Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90 percent to 70 percent, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right – and most of the Democratic Party knows it.


Welfare for the "underclass"

When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.

The percentage of children born outside of marriage – to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women – exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."

Education

The federal government's increasing involvement with education – what is properly a state and local function – has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.

Where parents have choices – where the money follows the student rather than the other way around – the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.

Gun control

Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas – where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun-control laws.

Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent and robberies by over 2 percent."


"Affirmative action"

Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.

Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters – even in liberal states like California – have voted against them.

Minimum-wage hikes

Almost all economists agree that minimum-wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled – the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.

Economist Walter E. Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary. That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends, and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."

Obamacare

This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care – all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.

Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas Solstice.

Liberals' 50 years of dreadful domestic policy
Posted: December 23, 2010

by Larry Elder

For the past 50 years, the Democrats – and many Republicans who should know better – have been wrong about virtually every major domestic policy issue. Let's review some of them:

Taxes

The bipartisan extension of the Bush tax cuts represents the latest triumph over the "soak the rich because trickledown doesn't work" leftists.

President Ronald Reagan sharply reduced the top marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent, doubling the Treasury's tax revenue. President George H.W. Bush raised the income tax rate, as did his successor. But President George W. Bush lowered them to the current 35 percent.

President Barack Obama repeatedly called the current rate unfair, harmful to the country and a reward to those who "didn't need" the cuts and "didn't ask for" them. If true, he and his party ditched their moral obligation to oppose the extension. But they didn't, because none of it is true. Democratic icon John F. Kennedy, who reduced the top marginal rate from more than 90 percent to 70 percent, said, "A rising tide lifts all the boats." He was right – and most of the Democratic Party knows it.


Welfare for the "underclass"

When President Lyndon Johnson launched his "War on Poverty," the poverty rate was trending down. When he offered money and benefits to unmarried women, the rate started flat-lining. Women married the government, allowing men to abandon their moral and financial responsibilities.

The percentage of children born outside of marriage – to young, disproportionately uneducated and disproportionately brown and black women – exploded. In 1996, over the objections of many on the left, welfare was reformed. Time limits were imposed, and women no longer received additional benefits if they had more children. The welfare rolls declined. Ten years later, the New York Times wrote: "When the 1996 law was passed ... liberal advocacy groups ... predicted that it would increase child poverty, hunger and homelessness. The predictions were not fulfilled."

Education

The federal government's increasing involvement with education – what is properly a state and local function – has been costly and ineffective at best, and counterproductive at worst. Title I, a program begun 45 years ago to close the performance gap between urban and suburban schools, burns through more than $15 billion a year, and the performance gap has widened. The feds spend $80 billion a year on K-12 education, as if money is the answer. States like Utah and Iowa spend much less money per student compared with districts like those in New York City and Washington, D.C., with much better results.

Where parents have choices – where the money follows the student rather than the other way around – the students perform better, with higher parental satisfaction. But the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party continue to resist true competition among public, private and parochial schools.

Gun control

Violent crime occurs disproportionately in urban areas – where Democrats in charge impose the most draconian gun-control laws.

Over the objection of those who warn of a "return to the Wild West," 34 states passed laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. Not one state has repealed its law. Professor John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime," says: "There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate: As more people obtain permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent and robberies by over 2 percent."


"Affirmative action"

Race-based preferences have been a disaster for college admissions. Students admitted with lesser credentials are more likely to drop out. Had their credentials matched their schools, they would have been far more likely to graduate and thus enter the job market at a more productive level.

Preferences in government hiring and contracting have led to widespread, costly and morale-draining "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. Where preferences have been put to the ballot, voters – even in liberal states like California – have voted against them.

Minimum-wage hikes

Almost all economists agree that minimum-wage laws contribute to unemployment among the low-skilled – the very group the "compassionate party" claims to care about.

Economist Walter E. Williams, 74, in his new autobiography, "Up from the Projects," describes the many low-skilled jobs he took as a teenager. "By today's standards," he wrote, "my youthful employment opportunities might be seen as extraordinary. That was not the case in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, as I've reported in some of my research, teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends, and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another."

Obamacare

This ghastly government-directed scheme will inevitably lead to rationing and lower-quality care – all without "bending the cost curve" down as Obama promised.

Any party can have a bad half-century. Merry Christmas.

Which is why advocating for the wholesale slaughter and destruction of a country A, because 19 people from countries B, C, D and E, flew an airplane into a skyscraper is an appalling, disgraceful, revolting thing.

Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Orchestrated by someone who's family has long-standing ties to the Bush family and the CIA. (lest we forget to mention Bush calling off a full-scale attack at Tora Bora).


"In 1978, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, founded Arbusto Energy, an oil company based in Texas.

Several bin Laden family members invested millions in The Carlyle Group, a private global equity firm based in Washington, DC. The company's senior advisor was Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush. After news of the bin Laden-Bush connection became public, the elder Bush stepped down from Carlyle.

Interestingly, on Sept. 11, 2001, members of the Carlyle Group - including Bush senior, and his former secretary of state, James Baker - were meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., along with Shafiq bin Laden, another one of Osama bin Laden's brothers.

While all flights were halted following the terrorist attacks, there was one exception made: The White House authorized planes to pick up 140 Saudi nationals, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, living in various cities in the U.S. to bring them back to Saudi Arabia, where they would be safe. They were never interrogated."


>> ^xxovercastxx:

Like it or not, this is fairly true. Not that you have to intentionally target civilians, but you have to be willing to accept massive civilian casualties to hit important targets.

Here's something Lee Atwater, the architect of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush campaigns and mentor to Karl Rove, said in 1981:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The idea is to package conservative ideas in such a way to attract racists, and provide them with a cover story so they have plausible deniability. In other words, so people like Southern Avenger here can claim "all they're doing is taking a principled stand based on their well-reasoned philosophy", even if they seem to be tolerating outrageously racist commentary and signage within their midst, and espousing a policy set that is generally condoned by racists due to its negative impact on non-whites.

These days it's less about racism per se, and more of a generalized form of xenophobia. It's the fear of people you don't know, don't understand, and who you don't want to have to care about or feel responsible for. It's why attempts to formally establish a legal responsibility to others (strangers!) are seen as intolerably intrusive.

Personally I think a lot of the rhetoric today is about dehumanizing the poor. It's often an expression of the belief that people who're poor have individually made some sort of choice that directly warrants things like losing their house, not having money for food, being unable to pay for medical care, etc. People who want on the government dime are all lazy leeches who're dragging all of society down, and if we give them help, they'll just stop trying to be productive, and try to leech more.

That started with racism, but I think just like the rhetoric, the emotional core got a lot more abstract -- it's not about demonizing black and brown people anymore, it's more about demonizing anyone who's different, so that the idea of having to take responsibility for them seems tyrannical.

I know that there's a huge percentage of moderately conservative people who don't buy into that emotional core, and want conservative-ish things done for pragmatic reasons. There's also a group of people who are True Believers, and think that the conservative ideology is morally superior to the alternatives, or that a libertarian policy set would benefit everyone greatly, even (especially?) the poor.

Those guys I like, and truly hope they find a way to purge the racists from their political organizations (i.e. the Tea Parties and the Republican party). That is, assuming they cool off on the calls for political violence (but that's a whole other conversation).

Building on what dft said, charges of racism wouldn't really stick if you guys stopped responded to it by saying "we condemn what you're talking about, and we'll take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again because racism won't be tolerated in our movement", instead of always saying "there's no racism here, and you're a racist for calling me a racist, racist!"

"Fiscal Conservatives"

Ronald Reagan (R).......$200+ billion Deficit
George W. W. Bush (R)...$300+ Billion Deficit
George W. Bush, Jr (R)..$480+ Billion Deficit

"Tax & Spend Liberals"

Bill Clinton (D)........$200+ Billion SUPRPLUS

You know, if I wanted to see my goverment's budget balanced, and in line with the viewpoint that its OUR money that we are spending. Why, O'Lord, do idiots keep voting for republicans?!?!?!?!

Yeah, that health care bill will cost us $1 Trillion over a decade under Mr. Obama. But the Iraq war, costed Americans $500 billion over sixs years (that's $3 trillion dollars for the mathametically inept). And we didn't find any WMDs or Osama bin Laden (or his henchment that were supposively *IN* Iraq).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.


Funny. Hospitals, nursing homes, hospice programs and other medical facilities are already mandated to counsel patients on end of life issues. Why doesn't Fox news mention that part? Probably because it was signed into law by George H.W. Bush (hint: not a liberal democrat) back in 1990.

The proposal you misquote simply allows reimbursement when the Medicare patient talks to their actual doctor (who normally wouldn't be able to be paid for their time) instead of hospital staff.

>> ^rougy:
What do you think the families of terrorist attacks would say about that?


I've always wondered what they'd think about finding out that the "mastermind" of the attack that took their loved ones, would still be a mostly harmless religious nutjob Saudi socialite had he not been recruited by family friend and then CIA man George H.W. Bush to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Funny how things come around to bite us in the ass. Will we ever learn?

The U.S. Department of the Treasury had warned Fischer beforehand that his participation was illegal as it violated President George H. W. Bush's Executive Order 12810 that implemented United Nations sanctions against engaging in economic activities in Yugoslavia. In front of the international press, Fischer was filmed spitting on the U.S. order forbidding him to play. Following the match, the Department obtained an arrest warrant for him. Fischer remained wanted by the United States government for the rest of his life and never returned to the United States.

(Wikipedia)

I think it's a crime what they did to him.

Hey, since you're into checking out stuff that other people have to copy and paste because no one wants to google, here's a quiz:

1. According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor. President Bush himself is an heir to these profits from the holocaust which were placed by his father, former president George Herbert Walker Bush in a
a)will
b)blind trust
c)custodial account

2. Throughout the Bush family's decades of public life, the American press has gone out of its way to overlook one historical fact – that through Union Banking Corporation (UBC), Prescott Bush, and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, along with German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, financed Hitler
a) before WWII
b) during WWII
c) before and during WWII

3. A classified Dutch intelligence file which was leaked by a courageous Dutch intelligence officer, along with newly surfaced information from U.S. government archives, "confirms absolutely," John Loftus says, the direct links between Bush, Thyssen and genocide profits from
a) Auschwitz
b) Belsen
c) Dachau
d) Buchenwald

4. In 1988, then Texas governor George Bush Jr., reportedly telephoned Rodolfo Terragno, Argentina's Public Works Minister, to ask him to award this company a contract to build a pipeline from Chile to Argentina.
a) Halliburton
b) Carlyle
c) Enron
d) Harken Energy

Get back to us on those please.

Mr. Reich never was charged with any crime...the line about convictions does need to go under poindexter.. but hey, if I say it enough it will become true anyway, right.. but I'm ok with just this info:

From 1983 to 1986, Reich established and managed the inter-agency Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean. He was accused by Congress of engaging in "prohibited, covert propaganda activities" in his efforts to promote the Reagan administration's policies toward Nicaragua.

The OPD declassified Central Intelligence Agency information and disseminated it to influence public opinion and spur Congress to continue to fund the Reagan's administration's campaign against Nicaragua's Sandinista government.

The OPD was highly controversial and was criticized by numerous government sources, including a staff report by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which characterized it as a domestic political and propaganda operation.

The OPD also violated “a restriction on the State Department’s annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by Congress.”

He also helped terrorist Orlando Bosch gain entry into the U.S. after being imprisoned in Venezuela for bombing a Cuban airliner, killing its 73 passengers. Bosch spent time in a U.S. prison for attacking a Polish merchant vessel bound for Cuba. Thirty countries have refused Bosch asylum because of his criminality.



You saw the part of : "Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush " .. not too shabby a deal. then his son could hire him!

and re: Poindexter "The convictions were reversed in 1991 on technical grounds ". which means what it says... technicality, not that he wasnt actually a scumbag liar.

So, go ahead and apologize for these liars. I'm sure they can't get enough republican hugs and free jobs.

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Central_America/Iran-Contra_Felons_Get_Good_Jobs_from_Bush

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-bush-appoints-former-criminals-to-key-government-roles/

http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/iran-contra-us-criminals.htm

Now, remember, my mistake immediately means GWBUSH never appointed any criminals. That's logical. I guess not getting caught = good behavior in your book, too...

>> ^vairetube:
You know what, I'll just google the phrase: convicted criminals appointed by bush .
Here's a start for you:
John Poindexter, Convicted of conspiracy, lying to Congress.
Appointed to head DARPA by Bush [...in December 2002]

"The convictions were reversed in 1991 on the technical grounds that the prosecution's evidence may have been tainted by exposure to Poindexter's testimony before the joint House-Senate committee investigating the matter, in which Poindexter's testimony was compelled by a grant of 'use immunity'. The prosecution was not able to re-try the case."

Elliot Abrams, Pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information from Congress in the Iran-contra affair. Appointed as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy by Bush [...in June 2001]

"Instead, Abrams entered into a plea agreement that ultimately led to a conviction without imprisonment on two misdemeanors of withholding information from Congress. He was fined $50, placed on probation for two years, and assigned 100 hours of community service. Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush as he was leaving office following his loss in the 1992 U.S. presidential election."

Otto Reich, Convicted in 1990 on five felony charges of conspiracy.
Appointed by Bush to direct Inter American affairs at the State Department. President Bush used the tricky recess appointment procedure to bypass potential hostile and damaging questioning by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

can't find any evidence as to your otto reich contention - cite, please?

And that's just the stuff we already know they did.

What does the 41st president have to do with this?

>> ^StukaFox:
I hate to kick a man when he's down, but I'd make an exception for George Herbert Walker Bush.

I hate to kick a man when he's down, but I'd make an exception for George Herbert Walker Bush.

>> ^NetRunner:
@GeeSussFreeK, you sure sound like a Bush fan.
I think that he probably should've come home from China sooner.
I think that he probably shouldn't have made assurances to Georgia that we would protect them from Russia before fighting broke out.
I think he should at least mention that Georgia started the fight.
I think he shouldn't start off with accusations of a potential escalation that didn't happen, and then instead of using the usual "The United States condemns the actions of Russia", says "Invading a sovreign country is unacceptable in the 21st Century".
I think rather than letting Condi finish out her vacation, he should tell her that her country needs her to be in Moscow, ASAP.
He doesn't mention it in this video, but I think we should stop pushing the idea of Georgia joining NATO for the moment (something Bush/McCain express a need for in other statements).
Toothless outrage followed by a mumbling of diplomacy is exactly the wrong message to be sending. It should be diplomacy first, with a mumbling about standing for our allies if necessary.
Bush isn't Clinton. Setting my bar as low as it will go, I will say at least Clinton avoided committing human rights violations during his 8 years, while Bush seems to have gotten rolling with them in 2002, and hasn't looked back since.
If you meant to compare George H.W. Bush with Clinton, I think that's pretty fair, since they were both pretty moderate and capable (while still managing to piss off people from the other political party).


Let me more precise then. I dislike bush and his bending of the constitution to the highest degree. Of all the presedents of my life time, no one has expanded the policing powers of the government more than he. With that bias in the clear, let me retort some of these things, and agree with you on others.

I also think he should of come home from China sooner. Even more so since he pleagded support. However, in that, NATO does not accept members with territorial disputes, and as long as this still has the PR of a territorial despute, his hands are tied.

The jury is still out on who fired first, and you will never really know who it was. Why are Russia claims more valid than Georgian ones?

Invading a sov sovreign country was the grounds of the first gulf war with had support from the UN and a large portions of the nations of the world united and fought against, this being the same kind of situation would tend to suggest the same kind of action could be warrented.

Yes, I also agree that condi should be in moscow ASAP. It is his call, he knows more about the details then we do, so I can't be to desisive on my own opinion.

I don't see why he should stop talking about them joining NATO. It would seem they need protection from large powers more than ever? Why do you think they should take this off the table, and don't you think that would undermine our position of loyalty to the Georgians in their minds of us?

I think the leasons from the cold war need to be explained again. Always come out bold, then digress later. Even Kenedy knew the most ancient rule of nation states, never apear weak or your enimies will take advantage. Taking a strong stand by your allies IS a diplomatic method of resolution that workd for 50 years in the cold war till Russia evaporated.

Your right, bush isn't Clinton, that was a poor analagy as to the president can't stop doing his job because of something. And I would say I hate bush's evaporation of the rights of america far more than lusting after the ladies.

However, I don't see this as a mistake or any kind for the prez to react in this way. In fact, I was hoping it would happen sooner than it did.


edit: BTW. I hope none of this comes off as condicending, I always appriticate anothers point of view.