Political Bashing

Daniel Ortega has become el Presidente of Nicaragua. Another leftist president in Latin America and another blow to the Bush Administration. The last thing the Bush administration wants is another socialist government in Latin America. To understand this, it is necessary to go back to the 1930's.

1930's-Augusto Sandino leads a peasant army against the US backed military government. The US installs Somoza as the leader of Nicaragua, who eventually defeats and executes Sandino. Four decades of Somoza rule begins

1951-Jacob Arbanz Guzman is elected President of Guatemala and begins political and economic reforms that threaten US interests in the region

1954-A CIA led coup ousts Guzman and the military takes over Guatemala

1959-Fidel Castro and his guerilla army oust Cuban President Batist. The new communist government ceases all American property in Cuba

1961-Cuban exiles, under American direction, land at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba in an attempt to overthrow Castro. However they are defeated by Castro's army and are imprisoned

1966-A 30 year civil war between the US backed military government and Marxist rebels in Guatemala

1979-The last Somoza to rule Nicaragua is forced out of office. Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista Army defeat the Guardia Nacional and then cease power. US President Jimmy Carter refuses to aid Somoza after some of his soldiers execute an American journalist

1980's-President Ronald Reagan orders the CIA to train and fund the Contras. The Contras are former members of Nicaragua's Guardia Nacional and their aim is to overthrow Ortega and the Sandinistas. Both sides commit atrocious acts of human rights violations

1990-Daniel Ortega is voted out of office

So the US has quite a history of conflicts with socialist/Marxist/leftist governments in Central America; they see leftist governments in the region as a threat to their regional interests. The thing to remember is that many of the US backed governments were only interested in serving their own, as well as, US interests. The leftists enjoyed widespread support amongst the general population who suffered political and economic oppression. When a leftist leader says he/she will work for the interests of the common person, then most people will vote for that person. The US needs to realize that supporting corrupt leaders does not win them any friends.

Recently CNN has been running a series of programs called Broken Government. This program has been looking at what the American Congress has been doing since George Bush entered the White House, and CNN has been very critical over what has been happening. At the bottom of the screen the emails people have sent to the show are posted so that viewers can see what ordinary Americans are saying. For the most part, these emails show that there are a lot of angry people in the USA.

Frankly, I do not blame them. Americans should be on the street protesting what has gone on.

1)Bush has used the 9/11 attacks to promote his agenda. Over the past 5 years, with Congressional support, Americans have watched this government take their civil liberties away (Patriot Act).

2)Record deficits-the US has gone into massive debt since Bush came into office. His great-grandchildren will feel the effects of this debt.

3)Theocracy-Bush takes his advice from people who wish to turn America into a theocracy like Iran (except it would be based on Christian-Judeo values).

4)Iraq-need I say more.

5)Donald Rumsfeld-how does this man still have a job? Two years ago he said that the Iraqi insurgency was at its last breath, yet the number of attacks have increased dramatically. At one point in history, the President would of fired him for his incompetence.

6)Corruption-politicians from both parties have been involved in corruption scandals and there is no accountability. Both parties have resorted to covering up the scandals.

I hope the Americans are smart enough to vote these politicians out of office.

President Bush is looking to have Congress approve a border wall aimed at keeping illegal immigrants from slipping across the US-Mexican border. The Mexican gov't says that this wall is a sign of racism and xenophobia. They can hide behind that all they want, but here is the reason why they do not support the wall:

Mexico has a population of 106 000 000, many of whom are uneducated and poor. These are the people who choose to move to the United States by crossing the border. As a result, Mexico gets rid of these poor and uneducated people, meaning they are not a burden. But if there is a wall, then it is kind of hard for these people to leave.

But they can not say this as it is not politically correct.

Recently President Bush compared the growing Insurgency in Iraq to the Tet Offensive in 1968.

In January of 1968, the Tet (Vietnamese lunar new year) Offensive was launched. All over South Vietnam, communist forces attacked US and ARVN military bases as well as many provincial and regional capitals. Communist forces also penetrated the US Embassy and the Presidential Palace in Saigon.

Here is something to consider: Tet was a military victory for the Americans. In less than three months they had recaptured all lost cities and bases. The communist forces lost more than 58 000 men, the same amount of men that America lost during its total time in Vietnam. The Viet Cong ceased to exist as a major fighting force.

However, it was a public relations victory for the communists. They knew that 1968 was an election year and the President Johnson required public support for the war. Americans were shocked by the bloody footage they saw on t.v. that many began to oppose the war. Johnson then announced that he would not seek the Democratic nomination for the 1968 Presidential election. Seven years later, the communist forces captured Saigon and re-united Vietnam as a communist country.

Now let us look at Iraq. In a matter of days, Americans go to the polls for the midterm congressional elections. The war in Iraq is becoming very unpopular with the American public and the Iraqi insurgents know this. What Bush is saying is that the current spike in violence is an attempt to turn voters against the war, thus they will vote for people who want to withdraw troops from Iraq. If that happens, then the insurgents win. See the similarities between 2006 and 1968? I normally do not say this, but Bush does make a good point.

Three years after same sex marriage was approved by Parliament, the issue is back before the Federal government. As promised, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will hold a free vote on the issue. This means that each Member of Parliament will be able to vote however they wish. Both supporters and opponents of same sex marriage are on the hill trying to rally support for their view.

The main fear of opponents is that religious institutes will be forced to perform same sex marriages. Hello, where have they been? When the issue was put before the Supreme Court, they ruled that religious institutions would have the right to refuse to marry a same sex couple.

How exactly is the institute of marriage under attack? Or better yet, what does that mean?

This movement can be traced back to the American Civil War. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and it was Honest Abe who freed the slaves. In response, the racist south began voting Democrat. Then one-hundred years later came L.B. Johnson, a Democrat from Texas. After Kennedy was killed, Johnson took over as President and then won the 1964 election. Struck by the Civil Rights movement in the south, Johnson began to pass legislation, approved by congress, that established racial equality. He also managed to have congress approve Thurogood Marshall as the first black member of the Supreme Court. Well down in the Bible Belt, the evangelicals were not happy. They became more angry with the legalization of abortion in 1973 by the Supreme Court. Now the mobilisation began. They believed that America was loosing its moral ways and that it had to be saved from itself.

In the 1980's, the Evangelical right supported Ronald Reagan and his conservative ways; especially his desire to strike down the abortion law. Then they supported Bush I in 1988 and 1992. However, after Clinton won thw 1992 Presidential election, the neo-conservative movement began to completely take over the Republican Party. There are 3 groups that combined to form this political movement. First is the neo-conservatives. These are rich guys who believe that America has a moral calling to spread freedom and capitalism around the world, although it is probably more about money than freedom. The second is the Christian Coalition, a movement of evangelical Christian fundamentalists whose aim is to preserve the moral fibre of America. Lastly is the Zionists, those fundamentalist Christians and Jews (this does imply that all Jewish people are pro-Israel and fundamentalist) who support Israel and its 'right' to expand. With their support, the Republicans regained control of congress for the first time in 40 years in 1994, as well as the Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. They have an agenda, as well as the votes and the money to back it up.

These people have an agenda that includes expanding American influenece and establishing laws that preserve their version of morality in America. Kids should be forced to give the Pledge of Allegiance and recite the Lord's Prayer in school, homosexuality should be illegal and people should support Israel. Basically they wish to tell you how you should live your lives and what you should believe. If you go against them, then you go against God; it is their way or the wrong way.

Now traditional supporters of the Republican Party have had to go elsewhere as their beliefs are not the beliefs of the party they once supported. If they stood up in a Republican convention and talked about how they believed that the government needs to stay out of people's personal affairs and that America should change its forerign policy, they would be jeered of the stage by unimpressed evangelicals.

A once proud party has now found itself taken over by people who will end up running the party right into the ground.