Can American Leadership be Restored?

The War on Drugs (or Crime) apparently just doesn't have the same appeal to the political right as does an international crusade.

Could that be because we know how to effectively combat violent crime (see the successful law enforcement actions and their results of the 1990s) - and there is more political benefit in an un-ending war on terrorism?

The War on Drugs has not ended, and it has not done anything to change the behaviour of people who sell or use drugs. I think declaring a War on Terror has about as much chance for success at ending terror as the War on Drugs has for ending illegal drug usage. Both have no goal or end in sight, and both have heavy carrying costs. Both create much money for gov't and give the gov't more authority, and take away from citizens' rights, all for the illusion of security.

I don't believe the author buried his head in the sand regarding militant islam. Basically what he saying is that we have made up a word to describe it. What is islamofascism really? For the sake of honest debate here's a link examining this so called new ideology. My interpretation of it is the religious separation of ideas of how/who rules their government.

By invading Iraq we are trying to impose our interpretation of democracy, thus the author stating they just want us to go home.

As far as examining root causes,

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

The US and other countries will always be plaqued with different religious sects attempting to inflict harm, but perhaps if we had paid more attention to statements and threats like Bin Laden and taken different political stances we would be in the pickle we are in now.
But for the author of your article to say that mainstream Muslim wants to exact mass murder globally is over the top.

So what, we caught a few wannabe's at JFK with a drug addict working for the FBI.

First, the editors did not state that mainstream Muslims want to exact mass murder. They said the idea was mainstream in Islamic countries (for more on that see the article below). I find it disgraceful that you downplay our authorities stopping an attack before it happened. Even if the culprits were ?wannabe?s?, they could have inflicted significant civilian damage even if they bungled the overall plot.

For islamofacism, I don?t care what you call it, the speaker in Timmy?s thread is the one that brought up the term. Militant Islam, Islam that is strict to sharia, is the problem. You can call it Al for all I care.



?The World?s Gravest Terrorist Threat?
It isn?t Islamophobia that?s keeping Muslim nations down.

By Fred Gedrich


Foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) recently held a meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan, where they declared, ?Islamophobia is the world?s gravest terrorist threat.? The term connotes an irrational fear or prejudice toward Muslims and the Islamic religion.

While a legitimate concern for many Muslims, Islamophobia pales in comparison to the long-standing problems within OIC member countries. Thirty-eight years after the organization?s founding, a large number of Muslims suffer still from oppression, poverty, illiteracy, genocide, and locally bred terrorism. The principals most responsible for perpetuating these conditions are an assortment of authoritarian rulers and Islamic extremists.

The OIC is currently comprised of 56 nations plus the Palestinian Authority. One of its main missions is to ?ensure the progress and well-being? of the world?s estimated 1.4 billion Muslims (about 85 percent Sunni and 15 percent Shiite) mostly residing in Middle Eastern, North African, Central Asian, and Southeast Asian countries.

Freedom House, a nonprofit group dedicated to monitoring global freedom and cofounded by Eleanor Roosevelt, reports that only five of 57 OIC members (Benin, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, and Suriname) provide their citizens the full panoply of political rights and civil liberties to qualify as truly free countries. And only four members provide the necessary legal environment, political influences, and economic conditions to guarantee that news provided by national media outlets has been fully accessed, objectively reported, and accurately disseminated.

OIC residents lag far behind much of the world in terms of sustainable income, despite enormous wealth in several countries like Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The per capita gross domestic product for residents of OIC countries is $4,100, compared to $11,600 for residents of non-Muslim countries. In nations like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen, most residents live on $2 a day or less.


About 35 percent of the OIC?s residents, age 15 and above, cannot read or write. Conversely, the illiteracy rate for similarly-aged residents of non-Muslim countries is only 13 percent. In two of the group?s largest countries, Bangladesh and Pakistan, more than half of the combined population is illiterate. And one-third of men and half of all women in the 21 Arab states and Palestine are illiterate as well.

Genocide has been raging in Sudan?s Darfur region for several years, with 200,000 killed and 2.5 million displaced. Other OIC nations will not intervene. Its leaders seem to prefer honoring a provision in the organization?s charter requiring each member to ?not interfere in the internal affairs of member states? above protecting innocent life.

Two-thirds of the world?s 42 foreign terrorist organizations, according to the U.S. State Department, have gestated and operate from areas governed by OIC members. While the primary aim of most of them is to destroy Israel and greatly diminish U.S. regional and global influence, the vast majority of their victims have been innocent Muslims. Radical Islamists use a dangerous mix of politics and religion to target for recruitment the abused, misinformed, impoverished, under-educated, and others to become participants in various jihad movements.

Islamic terrorists affiliated with the likes of al Qaeda (Sunni) and Hezbollah (Shiite) disguise themselves as civilians, hide in civilian populations, use civilians as shields, indiscriminately slaughter civilians, and torture and kill captives. Their actions clearly violate the laws and customs of war specified in Geneva conventions and soil the Islamic religion. If left unchecked, these non-state actors threaten the very foundation of the nation-state system. Respectable Muslims are appalled at their conduct. The OIC shouldn?t brand non-Muslims as Islamophobes for simply expressing their outrage and concern at, and for taking reasonable action against, this barbarity. Its specious claim of a worldwide Islamophobic scare is only an attempt to mask its greater failing to help its Muslim citizens.

After 38 years of failure, it?s doubtful that the current OIC majority will deliver all Muslims a better future as stated in its charter. Authoritarian rulers are unwilling to loosen their grip on power. Radical Islamic extremists, whose activists and sympathizers represent up to 20 percent of the Muslim population by some accounts, offer a trip back to the seventhth century under sharia law as a cure to current maladies ? which law, among other things, treats women unequally and represents a major human-rights violation.

Freedom-seeking Muslims must take control of their governments and ensure much-needed changes to political, economic, and educational institutions occur. And if they do, free countries should be willing to help. When freedom flourishes, war abates and people prosper.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation, is showing the way forward. This former Dutch colony recently transformed into a true democracy. Hopefully, others will soon follow. Such a development can?t come soon enough for most residents of OIC countries.

? Fred Gedrich is a foreign policy and national security analyst. He formerly served in the U.S. Departments of State and Defense and has traveled extensively throughout the Muslim World.

First, the editors did not state that mainstream Muslims want to exact mass murder. They said the idea was mainstream in Islamic countries (for more on that see the article below). I find it disgraceful that you downplay our authorities stopping an attack before it happened. Even if the culprits were “wannabe’s”, they could have inflicted significant civilian damage even if they bungled the overall plot.

For islamofacism, I don’t care what you call it, the speaker in Timmy’s thread is the one that brought up the term. Militant Islam, Islam that is strict to sharia, is the problem. You can call it Al for all I care. .

6th Gen, IMO the JFK plot was overly dramatized by the media to capitulate on our fears and to market the airport security program.
Anyone with any engineering knowledge knew this, and here the experts state such
"Experts Cast Doubt on Credbility of JFK PLot"


It is the plots by well organized and funded terrorists that worry me and the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were not watched by the FBI.
The plots that you don't hear about that may have been foiled that scare me.

You would not be so naive to believe that if a terrorist was caught making biological weapons in his home that the government and the media would be publicizing that do you?

6th Gen, IMO the JFK plot was overly dramatized by the media to capitulate on our fears and to market the airport security program.
Anyone with any engineering knowledge knew this, and here the experts state such
"Experts Cast Doubt on Credbility of JFK PLot"


It is the plots by well organized and funded terrorists that worry me and the fact that the 9/11 terrorists were not watched by the FBI.
The plots that you don't hear about that may have been foiled that scare me.

You would not be so naive to believe that if a terrorist was caught making biological weapons in his home that the government and the media would be publicizing that do you?

Fair enough - but here's proof that you don't have to be competent to inflict damage. I'd assume the JFK folks were more competent than mentally retarded children, who killed five in one example sited.

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=71257

As for the question on publicizing biological weapons, given the fact that a bust would pass through so many hands, I'd guess we would hear about it. You would not be so naive to believe that if a fair number of people were involved in foiling such a plot that the government and media would not be publicizing is, would you? But I get your point.

Best description of W I have ever read.



>>> This is circulating from the mail of ALLAN SCHNAIBERG, Professor of
>>> Sociology & Faculty Associate, Institute for Policy Research,
>>> Northwestern
>>> University.
>>> He says: Here is an interesting perspective from Dr. Paul Minot, a
>>> psychiatrist in Waterville, Maine.
>>> George Bush's "irrational" consideration of a "surge" in the wake of the
>>> Iraq Study Group report -- which apparently defies all credible
>>> counsel -
>>> has begun to generate speculation regarding his sanity. References to
>>> Bush's "delusions" have appeared in the mainstream media and throughout
>>> the
>>> blogosphere.
>>> As a psychiatrist, I understandably get concerned when I see clinical
>>> terminology bandied about in political discourse, and thought it might
>>> be
>>> of interest to share a professional perspective on this question. I have
>>> a
>>> distinct clinical impression that I think explains much of Mr. Bush's
>>> visible pathology.
>>> First and foremost, George W. Bush has a Narcissistic Personality
>>> Disorder
>>> (NPD). What this means is that he has rather desperate insecurities
>>> about
>>> himself and compensates by constructing a grandiose self-image. Most of
>>> his
>>> relationships are either mirroring relationships - people who flatter
>>> him
>>> and reinforce his grandiosity -- or idealized self-objects -- people
>>> that
>>> he himself thinks a lot of and hence feels
>>> flattered by his association with them. Some likely perform both
>>> functions.
>>> Hence his weakness for sycophants like Harriet Miers and powerful
>>> personalities like Dick Cheney.
>>> Even as a narcissist, Bush knows he isn't a great intellect and
>>> compensates
>>> by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of
>>> Gore's
>>> bookishness and any other intellectual that isn't flattering him. Bush
>>> knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal
>>> affability
>>> and he tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings.
>>> That's
>>> why he gives impromptu back rubs to the [female] German Chancellor in a
>>> diplomatic meeting -- he's insecure intellectually and tries to make
>>> everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure.
>>>
>>> The most disturbing aspect about narcissists, however, is their
>>> pathological inability to empathize with others, with the exception of
>>> those who either mirror them or whom they idealize. Hence Bush's
>>> horrifying
>>> insensitivity to the Katrina victims, his callous jokes when visiting
>>> grievously injured soldiers, and numerous other instances. He simply has
>>> no
>>> capacity to feel for others in that way.
>>> When LBJ was losing Vietnam, he developed a haunted expression that
>>> anybody could recognize as indicative of underlying anguish. For all his
>>> faults, you just knew he was losing sleep over it. By the same token, we
>>> know just as well that Bush isn't losing any sleep over dead American
>>> soldiers, to say nothing of dead Iraqis. He didn't exhibit any sign of
>>> significant concern until his own political popularity was sliding --
>>> because THAT'S something he CAN feel. This brings us to his recent
>>> "delusion." To be blunt, I don't see any indication that Bush has any
>>> sort
>>> of psychotic disorder whatsoever. The lapses in reality-testing that he
>>> exhibits are the sort that can be readily explained by his
>>> characterological insensitivity to the feelings and perceptions of
>>> others,
>>> due to his persistently self- centered frame of reference.
>>> Mr. Bush knows that things aren't going his way in Iraq, and he knows
>>> that
>>> it is damaging him politically. He also sees that it is likely to get
>>> worse
>>> no matter what he does, and in fact it may be a lost cause. However, he
>>> recognizes that if he follows the recommendations of the Iraq Study
>>> Group,
>>> that Iraq will almost certainly evolve into a puppet state of Iran, and
>>> given his treatment of Iran he will completely lose control of the
>>> situation -- and he will be politically discredited for this outcome.
>>> The ONLY chance that he has to avoid this political disaster and save
>>> his
>>> political skin is to hope against hope for "victory" in Iraq. Advancing
>>> the
>>> "surge" idea offers Bush two political advantages over following the ISG
>>> recommendations. One is that if it is implemented, maybe, just maybe, he
>>> can pull out some sort of nominal "victory" out of the situation. The
>>> chances are exceedingly slim, granted, but slim is better to him than
>>> the
>>> alternative (none). Alternately, if the "surge" is politically rejected,
>>> he
>>> gains some political cover, so when things inevitably go bad, he can say
>>> "I
>>> told you so" and blame the "surrender monkeys" for the outcome. Most
>>> people
>>> probably won't buy it, but some (his core base) will.
>>> Now, I know what many of you are thinking -- is George Bush willing to
>>> risk
>>> the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands, more American soldiers, on an
>>> outside chance to save his political skin, in a half- baked plan that
>>> even
>>> he knows probably won't work at all? Yes, he is. Because George Bush is
>>> that narcissistic, that desperate, and, yes, that sociopathic as well.
>>> Especially interesting about Mr. Bush, but quite common, Narcissistic
>>> Personality Disorder is frequently associated with alcoholism. The
>>> insufferable "holier than thou" attitude associated with "Dry Drunk
>>> Syndrome" is indicative of underlying narcissism.
>>> Also, the way that Bush embraces Christianity is characteristically
>>> narcissistic. Rather than incorporating the lessons of humility and
>>> empathy
>>> modeled by Jesus, Bush uses his Christian faith to reinforce his
>>> grandiosity. Jesus is his powerful ally, his idealized "buddy" who gives
>>> a
>>> rubber stamp to anything he thinks.
>>> Finally -- and this will sound VERY familiar to many readers - those
>>> persons with NPD are notoriously unable to say they're sorry. Admitting
>>> error is fundamentally incompatible with their precarious efforts to
>>> maintain their sense of order. Anyone having this particular character
>>> flaw
>>> almost certainly has NPD.

The author makes the point:

So, we're in a war whose origins it is taboo to examine

I agree.

As an example, Mango posted:

As far as examining root causes,

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

But Bush has stated many times:

?I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is active and is lethal. They are threatened by free societies. They can't stand the thought of freedom being the prevailing attitude in the world because their view is, if you don't believe in what I believe in, you probably shouldn't be around.? ?G.W.Bush.

What?

So the author concludes: How can we win a war with an enemy so ill-understood that we must invent a nonexistent ideology of "Islamofascism" for it? How can we mobilize our people to conduct a long-term struggle with a violent movement once they realize that its objective is not to conquer us but to persuade us to stay home, leaving its part of the world to decide on its own what religious doctrine should govern its societies?

The author is correct. Bush has invented a threat, Islamofascism which doesn?t exist because no realistic threat of the Armies of Militant Islam sweeping across the globe and eventually undermining western civilization exists.

The threat of terrorism exists, of course; but I believe that our response to it is out of all proportion to the threat. I supported our actions in Afghanistan, and I will continue to support police actions designed to thwart future attacks.

But I also believe that it is in our best interests to understand the root causes of terrorism, and when a review of our national policies is warranted by this understanding, then we need to have an open debate about these policies. Especially our Mid-East policy.

A carrot and a stick approach if you will.

The author is making it clear that the world sees thru this ruse, (our all stick approach justified by falsifications) and we have lost enormous respect for it. I agree

"I told you so" and blame the "surrender monkeys" for the outcome. Most people probably won't buy it, but some (his core base) will.

I agree.

I have observed a growing trend within conservative media to create a future 'blame the weak liberals' for the failure in Iraq' opinion.

A disturbing analysis of Bush's mentality to be sure, Gypsea.

I'm sure Mr. Schnaiberg's political position has nothing to do with his diagnosis of a man he's probably never met. Does he offer any diagnosis of Alec Baldwin? I'm sure that as a sociology professor at a major northern university, his conversations never delve into how stupid and mean he thinks Bush is. He just padded his word count from his coffehouse conversations.

The profile of W is very entertaining, but reads a bit Psych 101. It's hard enough to get an accurrate psych assessment, let alone when you never have any one-on-one time w/ someone and your only information comes from how he is presented in the media.

Self-involved and doesn't like to admit he's wrong............how many people does that describe?

I agreed w/ 6thGen................think I need to go lie down, I feel faint 😀

The author makes the point:

So, we're in a war whose origins it is taboo to examine

I agree.

As an example, Mango posted:




But Bush has stated many times:

?I realized that there is an enemy of the United States that is active and is lethal. They are threatened by free societies. They can't stand the thought of freedom being the prevailing attitude in the world because their view is, if you don't believe in what I believe in, you probably shouldn't be around.? ?G.W.Bush.

What?

So the author concludes: How can we win a war with an enemy so ill-understood that we must invent a nonexistent ideology of "Islamofascism" for it? How can we mobilize our people to conduct a long-term struggle with a violent movement once they realize that its objective is not to conquer us but to persuade us to stay home, leaving its part of the world to decide on its own what religious doctrine should govern its societies?

The author is correct. Bush has invented a threat, Islamofascism which doesn?t exist because no realistic threat of the Armies of Militant Islam sweeping across the globe and eventually undermining western civilization exists.

The threat of terrorism exists, of course; but I believe that our response to it is out of all proportion to the threat. I supported our actions in Afghanistan, and I will continue to support police actions designed to thwart future attacks.

But I also believe that it is in our best interests to understand the root causes of terrorism, and when a review of our national policies is warranted by this understanding, then we need to have an open debate about these policies. Especially our Mid-East policy.

A carrot and a stick approach if you will.

The author is making it clear that the world sees thru this ruse, (our all stick approach justified by falsifications) and we have lost enormous respect for it. I agree

Despite the fact that Bush lacks communication skills that really, really help if you plan on leading the free world, what he said was basically right. See the article on the OIC on Muslims demonstration of their willingness to progress towards free societies. Do I believe that we should liberate the countries to give Muslims freedom? Hell no. Do I believe that we should treat state-funded terrorism with the same disdain as the terrorist himself? Yes. Do I believe that free societies are far less likely to publicly support terrorism? Yes. I also believe that there is more than one way to skin a cat, so don?t take this as a desire to put boots on the ground in every totalitarian country that supports terrorism.

Assuming you have a basic understanding of Islamic law, which notes no difference between church and state, here?s the definition for fascism:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

I think the Islamofascism term pretty much nails the ideology, since you can add religion to ethnic, cultural and racial based on definition alone. Isalmofascism is the marriage of the Islamic religion and the political ideology. Proponents of strict Islamic law, although thankfully not mighty enough in force to forge large armies and march across the globe, are at war with us and are doing everything in their power to undermine western civilization. I believe that if we clearly articulated our enemies views, our enemies would be less able to undermine the American psyche that is necessary to fight their planned world view.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

I think the Islamofascism term pretty much nails the ideology.

That is a trivial excuse for Bush?s actions.

We can label the Klan WASPfascism by your definition.

I think most people can see that the intent here was to invoke the struggle against Nazism and justify a ?war? out of all proportion to the threat.

On the topic of Islam, here's another good article from Maji ("Problem with Islam" author).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010164&mod=RSS_Opinion_Journal&ojrss=frontpage

Muslim Melting Pot
Once again, America beats Europe on assimilation.

BY IRSHAD MANJI
Monday, June 4, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Against the backdrop of civil war, Abraham Lincoln stirred Americans by appealing to their "better angels." Now some of those angels appear in an unprecedented study about Muslims in the United States--and they may show us how to prevent civil war in Europe.

"Muslim Americans," released by the Pew Research Center, contains moments of bad news. For example, one in four respondents under the age of 30 accepts suicide bombing. As a reformed-minded Muslim, I say that honoring any religion of peace through violence is like preserving virginity through pre-marital sex. Think about it.

But the Pew report offers a lot more good news. Political Islam has not caught on in America as it has in Europe because most Muslims in the U.S. are--dare it be said--treated with dignity.

The vast majority of those surveyed like their communities and describe their lives as "pretty happy" or "very happy." Which means lobbyists do not speak for Muslim Americans when they cry that the U.S. hates Islam.





In Berlin recently, an audience buzzed nervously when I suggested that Europe can learn from America about integrating Muslims. Afterwards, several people confided to me that they know the U.S. is getting something right. What is that something? As I engage with young Muslims on both sides of the Atlantic, I see three factors: economics, diversity and faith.
? For plenty of Muslims in the United States, ambition and initiative pay off. The Pew survey reinforces this lesson, telling us that 71% of Muslim Americans believe most people in the U.S. "can make it if they are willing to work hard."

Meanwhile, in Europe, young Muslims face blatant discrimination in employment, educational and social opportunities, even when they are citizens. Many subsist on welfare, which only gives them time to stew and surf the Web for preachers who spew a rigid identity. This is the path that led Mohammed Bouyeri to murder Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

? In much of America, diversity is a reason to intermingle. The Pew study reveals that most Muslims are close friends with non-Muslims.

In much of Europe, diversity has become an excuse to self-segregate. Many of Europe's mosques, and the Muslims who attend them, refuse to communicate in the language of their new surroundings. As a result, young Muslim men drift away from moderate religious authorities and fall for online opportunists. That is how Mohammad Sidique Khan, mastermind of the London transit bombers, fell under the sway of "Sheikh Google," the collective nickname for Islamist Web sites.

? To Americans, it is not the fact of having faith that invites scrutiny, but what one is perceived to be doing with that faith. Western Europeans, still steeped in a backlash against the Catholic Church, often show suspicion or outright contempt to people of faith. Such "secular fundamentalism" leads some Muslims to believe that they will never be accepted by their adopted countries. So why integrate?

Small wonder that young Muslims in Western Europe whisper to me, "I wish I lived in the United States." The honesty doesn't end there. Muslim men, in their twenties, have complained to me that in an effort to appear sensitive, Europeans downplay shared values. This confuses many Muslim youth and creates a vacuum that radical clerics can exploit.

Translation: A common aspiration such as the American Dream is crucial to giving Muslims a sense of belonging to something larger and more dynamic than cultural enclaves.

But what about the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay? The answer always comes back that these are unfortunate and unjust exceptions. In America, they say, you can be more than a Muslim. You are a member of the wider public.

Na?ve? Not according to the Pew study. More than half of Muslims in the U.S. identify themselves as Americans first, easily eclipsing patriotism among Muslims in Germany, Spain or Britain. Clearly, the U.S. has retained its genius as a nation of immigrants.





To be sure, there is a long way to go in giving non-immigrant Muslims, especially African-Americans, a sense of belonging. Most are not among the better educated, wealthier and politically influential Americans that so many South Asian, Iranian and Arab Muslims are.
However, that gap is the product of America's persistent racial battle. It has almost nothing to do with a fear of Islam.

For the all the slogans, accusations and fulminations of the Islam industry's lobbyists, fear is not what mainstream Americans feel about Muslims. Just ask the 73% of Muslims who told Pew that they have never been discriminated against in the U.S.

Europe, take notes. America, take a break from self-flagellation. Reformist Muslims, take your cue. In the U.S., you have the possibility of a voice. Islam's better angels depend on it.

Ms. Manji, a senior fellow at the European Foundation for Democracy, is author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith" (St. Martin's, 2005).

Assuming you have a basic understanding of Islamic law, which notes no difference between church and state, here?s the definition for fascism:

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes.

Islamic law was written back when there wasn't a difference between church and state........theocracy......just like European kings used to have a divine right to rule and Queen Elizabeth is technically the head of the Church of England.

This definition of fascism is pretty broad .......... depending on your interpretation, I am currently living in the fascist state of America w/ Christians dictating my medical care and values.