WASHINGTON (AP) - John McCain says he has earned the trust of Hispanic voters by championing an immigration reform bill that nearly killed his presidential bid. 

The Republican presidential candidate also says, in remarks prepared for delivery Monday in San Diego, that Democrat Barack Obama failed to take a similar stand on the politically explosive issue of illegal immigration.

McCain will speak to the annual convention of the National Council of La Raza. Obama appeared before the group on Sunday, another indication of the fierce jockeying for a critical pool of voters, a quarter of them undecided in a recent poll.

McCain, a senator from Arizona, saw his White House bid nearly collapse from conservatives' anger over his effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which opponents branded "amnesty" for millions of illegal immigrants.

"I took my lumps for it without complaint. My campaign was written off as a lost cause. I did so not just because I believed it was the right thing to do for Hispanic Americans. It was the right thing to do for all Americans," McCain said in the prepared remarks.

"I do ask for your trust that when I say, I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform, I mean it. I think I have earned that trust," McCain said.

Since the defeat of the immigration reform bill, McCain has tried to make peace with critics in his party by stressing the need for border security before creating a path to citizenship.

While he worked with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy on immigration reform, McCain said, "Senator Obama declined to cast some of those tough votes. He voted for and even sponsored amendments that were intended to kill the legislation."

Hispanics could play a critical role in the voting in such battleground states as Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico.

A recent AP-Yahoo News poll showed Obama leading McCain among Hispanics, 47 percent to 22 percent, with 26 percent undecided.

On Sunday, Obama told La Raza he would push a tax credit for small businesses that provide health insurance to their employees, a program he hopes has special appeal to Hispanics and other minority groups.

"Make no mistake about it: The Latino community holds this election in your hands," Obama told the group.

Where My Book Fails....

Jim Ryan of Philosoblog writes in:

As time goes by I think in the end the main objection to your book which you should ruminate on for the paperback is this:

You can't take the brutal oppression out of fascism and have it still be "fascism"; it just twists the colloquial sense of the term. Therefore, the book's thesis that there is something called "liberal fascism" is impossible to maintain.

I don't buy this argument (I made it and replied to it over at Philosoblog last winter.) But I feel its force far more than any other, now that it has been many months since I've read the book. I think the brutality of Hitler and Stalin was accidental, not essential, to their status as fascists (for reasons which make Stalin count as a fascist, btw.) But there is some force to the objection that the man on the street just means something brutal or violent when he uses the term "fascism." I don't think I buy it, but it's no slouch of an argument.

I agree entirely with Jim that this is a problem. I disagree entirely that it's much of an argument. I've encountered this objection all over the place. People say fascism means brutality, therefore liberalism isn't remotely fascist. It works as a debater's trick, and it's certainly a source of real opposition to some of my arguments, but it doesn't work as an actual argument in the true sense of the word.

One can use the same "argument" about Communism. "Communism is about brutality. Liberals aren't brutal. Therefore liberalism has nothing to do with Communism." The only difference here is that for reasons discussed at length in this space and in my book, the man in the street doesn't equate Communism with brutality to the same extent he equates fascism with brutality, even though Communism is just as brutal as Fascism. I think that's a problem that needs to be combated rather than surrendered to.

I simply don't think the woeful state of popular ignorance should be considered a powerful argument against the accuracy of historical truth.

For instance, the popular conception is that the Tuskegee experiments were some sort of rightwing racist effort to infect black men with syphilis. That's not the case. But according to this thinking, I should cave to the popular misconception simply because it's popular.


In other words, simply defining away your ignorance so that it's no longer ignorant shouldn't be considered "no slouch of an argument."

That said, this really is a problem, one that I didn't fully anticipate, even though I knew better than most folks how entrenched the misunderstanding of fascism has become.

One, very partial, answer to some criticisms along these lines (how's that for hedging?) would be this: Simply forget liberalism and focus on fascism — i.e. put aside the question of what fascism's true nature says about liberalism and instead ask what contemporary liberalism's true nature says about fascism. Liberal critics can't get passed the idea that I think the fascist fetishization of the organic might say something important about contemporary liberalism. Fine. Well, maybe they can take baby steps by grappling with what it says about fascism that fascists sound so liberal? If they could deal with that with an open mind, ignoring the political reverberations, we could at least move the debate beyond this "fascism means thuggery and nothing more" nonsense.

Much of the difficulty Jim points to stems from the fact that the book makes — at least — two distinct but related arguments. Argument One is an effort to clarify the nature of fascism as a form of Leftism (or Rousseauianism). The other is to illuminate the hidden assumptions within liberalism (and contemporary society generally) that draw directly from this Leftist tradition, even though they are sold as something completely different. For instance, we're told that nationalized medicine is the opposite of fascism — because fascism was capitalistic — when in fact nationalized medicine is fully in the wheelhouse of fascism. The net effect is that the liberal argument for ever-expanding statism is that it will move us away from fascism when in fact it will do the opposite. That's why I see the two arguments as dependent on each other.

Yet, it's fascinating (to me!) that most liberal critics had very little to offer by way of rebuttal to Argument 1. The New York Times, for example, skipped the introduction without substantive objection, as well as the chapters on Mussolini, Hitler and for the most part Wilson. But when the book turned to contemporary liberalism, these critics go splenetic, dismissive or ad hominem refusing to believe that Argument 1 could in any way be enlisted to support Argument 2. No doubt some of the blame lies with the author. But I'm fairly comfortable saying most of it doesn't.

Friendly critics (like RJ Pestritto and Fred Smith) who complain that I should have referred to "liberal statism" instead of liberal fascism generally agree with or concede Argument 1. But they are primarily concerned with Argument 2 and think, understandably, that the use of the F-word gets in the way.

I think they underestimate the importance and necessity of Argument 1. Why? Because as I tried to illustrate with my example of nationalize medicine, contemporary liberalism benefits enormously from the popular misconception of fascism as the natural culmination of rightwing will-to-power. Discussing statism instead of fascism might have made Argument 2 more persuasive to some, but it would have defenestrated much of Argument 1. Maybe that would have been worthwhile, but not only is that not the book I wanted to write, but there are plenty of excellent books that merely expose the statist assumptions of contemporary liberalism.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. So let me offer a brief rejoinder instead: If popular misconceptions of fascism have made my job harder, so be it: My job is harder.

Instead of wisely utilizing our abundant energy, America has been strangled by various federal government bureaucracies, untold reams of burdensome government regulations and counterproductive policies, corrupt environmental special interest groups, and professional politicians who will bend whichever way the prevailing political winds blow.

These are the reasons America hasn't built a new oil refinery or new nuclear reactor in thirty or so years. Instead, as billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens accurately stated the other day, we are transferring hundreds of billions of our national treasury to other nations. Even to our enemies. Truly bizarre.

Call me crazy, but I thought the goal of America was to be independent. It’s time to call a spade a spade. We are energy slaves to lesser countries. They own us. And unless we resurrect that unstoppable, mighty spirit of rugged independent individualism of our forefathers and throw off the energy shackles, these nations can permanently cripple, if not kill, our economy. The situation is that grave.

I’m not concerned whatsoever that America doesn't have vast reserves of ingenuity, entrepreneurship, and intellectual capital that could make us energy independent. My concern is that we have become so reliant and dependent on Fedzilla (aka the US government) to solve all of our problems that we will once again rely on the bureaucratic blob in DC to solve this problem, too. That could be a career ending injury.

Fedzilla isn't the solution, it’s the problem. Continuing to feed Fedzilla and expecting it to become lean, responsive and efficient is the definition of lunacy. As Milton Friedman " If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." If there are any statesmen left in DC, I challenge them to stand before their fellow professional politicians in the US Capitol and state that Fedzilla -- not the energy companies, not energy speculators and not our energy slave masters -- is America’s number one energy problem.

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) – The arrest of two Israeli Arabs charged with helping al Qaeda plan terror attacks in Israel is a sign that global jihadist groups are working step by step to take over the Middle East, a counter-terrorism expert here said.

Israel’s Shin Bet security service announced this week that it had arrested Taher Abu Sakut, 21, and Omar Abu Sakut, 22, residents of the southern Israeli Bedouin town of Rahat, on suspicion of having joined al Qaeda and of acting on the organization’s behalf to harm Israeli citizens and the state of Israel.

It is the first time that Israeli citizens have been accused of cooperating with al Qaeda.

The arrests demonstrate the “virtual” process al Qaeda is using to build an infrastructure in the Middle East, including in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and now Israel, said Eitan Azani, deputy director of the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel.

The two suspects, who were described in local reports as cousins, were accused of membership in a terrorist organization, aiding the enemy in wartime and delivering information to the enemy in order to harm national security.

MARACAIBO, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday touted a pact delivering fuel to Caribbean nations and loosened the financing terms to aid countries struggling with high oil prices.
 
Chavez said nations taking part in the Petrocaribe initiative will now be required to pay just 40 percent of the bill within 90 days—down from the current 50 percent. He said the rest can be paid over the next 25 years at a fixed interest rate of 1 percent as long as oil prices are above US$100 a barrel.

"That could compensate for the horrible curve of the jump in oil prices," Chavez said. He added that 70 percent of payments may be deferred if oil rises above US$200 a barrel.

Chavez said Venezuela aims to continue strengthening the Petrocaribe accord and make it into an "anti-hunger shield" for countries in the Caribbean and Central and South America.
Three years after Petrocaribe began, though, figures released by officials show the initiative is still not operating at full strength because of transportation and storage problems.

Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said member countries other than Cuba are receiving a total of 86,000 barrels of oil a day—significantly less than their quota of 125,000.

Ramirez said Venezuela expects performance will improve with the expansion of an oil distribution network in the Caribbean, including installing storage tanks and rehabilitating Cuba's Soviet-era Cienfuegos refinery.

St. Vincent and the Grenadines expects to complete construction of a storage facility next year with Venezuelan help, allowing it to boost the 300 barrels a day it currently receives—less than a third of its Petrocaribe quota, said Thornley Orsino Myers, who heads a St. Vincent electrical utility and accompanied his country's delegation.

The pact has helped Chavez promote his vision of regional independence from the United States. He used the summit to blame Washington for international economic problems, and called U.S. military spending in Iraq "madness."

He also denied criticism from Venezuelan opponents who say he is giving away Venezuela's oil wealth.

Reading from an opposition statement accusing him of "bribery diplomacy," Chavez mused: "It's very probable this was written in the U.S. Embassy."

(CNSNews.com) - An environmental group on Wednesday filed a lawsuit intended to stop the expansion of a BP oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. A shortage of oil refining capacity is often mentioned as one reason for soaring gasoline prices.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is challenging air permits granted to the refinery by the State of Indiana. It’s part of the “ongoing fight against excessive pollution in northwest Indiana and Chicago,” the NRDC said in a news release.

The permits granted to BP by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management “simply do not protect the public and do not live up to the law,” said NRDC attorney Ann Alexander. “The failure of Indiana and BP to take the public interest and the law seriously has forced the issue and required that this case be brought before the federal courts.”

The lawsuit argues that BP and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management have not properly accounted for increases in pollution that will result from the refinery expansion.

NRDC said the increased pollution requires the BP refinery to implement more effective pollution controls -- by operating under a more stringent “major source” permit.

KABUL, July 14 (AP) - (Kyodo)—At least 40 militants were killed in an ongoing operation by U.S.-led coalition and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan, the coalition forces said Sunday. 

The fighting started Saturday after militants ambushed a join patrol of the Afghan and coalition forces in the Sangin district of volatile Helmand Province, the forces said in a statement.

"At least 40 militants have been killed in the last two days, while over 30 enemy boats and several hand bridges were also destroyed on the Helmand River," the statement said.

Helmand is the country's most violent and largest poppy growing province.

More than 2,000 people have reportedly been killed in violence since the beginning of the year.

Asked how the United States ought to respond to last week's Iranian missile tests, Barack Obama told CNN that it was important "we avoid provocation." Just as last year, Obama criticized a Senate bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization because it was too "provocative." This has us wondering: Is the problem with Iran that the United States seems provocative?

Iran revealed to the world in late 2002 that it had been conducting a secret uranium enrichment program for 15 years. This was a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Uranium enrichment is the first step on the road to building an atomic bomb. Most everyone seems to agree that Iranian nukes would destabilize the Middle East. What to do?

Obama might not admit it, but for about five years now the Bush administration has followed a course of action rather similar to his preferred policy. Bush has pursued multilateral diplomacy through international institutions (the U.N., the IAEA) and through an ad hoc coalition called the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K., and the United States) in order to induce Iran to suspend its enrichment activities. Obama's policy would be a tad more unilateral, because he would prefer to have direct negotiations with the Iranians and thus remove our allies from the equation altogether.

But does any serious person believe that an offer of direct negotiations without preconditions would change the basic situation? Most reasonable advocates of such talks advocate them just so the United States can say it has "gone the extra mile" in trying to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program.

The Bush administration is considering withdrawal additional combat forces from Iraq, but a timeframe will depend on a report from newly-confirmed Central Command leader and Multinational Forces in Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus, the Pentagon said Sunday.

Citing administration and military officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that although no final decision has been made, additional troops could begin departing in September, and at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq could either be withdrawn or scheduled for withdrawal by the time President Bush leaves office.

The report references the need for additional troops in Afghanistan, where efforts by the Taliban have increased, as a cause for the consideration to withdraw troops.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have both said they want to begin shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and to withdrawal forces from Iraq based on conditions on the ground. If Iraq remains on the positive trends through September, removing additional troops would be the logical next step.

However, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said no timeframe for taking additional troops from Iraq has been set.

"Secretary Gates certainly hopes that conditions in Iraq allow for continued troops drawdowns this year and the steady security progress we have seen lately would suggest that may indeed be possible. However, no decisions have been made yet and won't be for some time," he said.

"The last surge brigade is still pulling out of Iraq. Once they have left the country, we will begin a 45 day period of consolidation and evaluation. At the end of that time, Gen. Petraeus will make a recommendation to Secretary Gates and President Bush about whether to continue the troop drawdown," Morrell said.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would "cut off the hands" of any foreign enemy that attacked the country, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"Before the enemies can put their fingers on the trigger, the armed forces will cut off their hands," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

The remarks, delivered Sunday, came just days after Iran conducted long-range missile tests and threatened to target "the heart of Israel" and 32 U.S. bases in the Middle East if those countries attacked Iran.

"This is only a small part of Iran's defense capabilities and in future we will unveil more of our defense capabilities if it is needed," he said.

Iranian officials said Wednesday that the country test-fired its Shahab-3 missile — a longe-range weapon that it says can reach Israel — and eight other missiles.

ZAKARIA: Do you believe, when looking at the world today, that Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of the 21st century?

OBAMA: I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face.

I don't think it's the only threat that we face.

ZAKARIA: But how do you view the problem within Islam? As somebody who saw it in Indonesia ... the largest Muslim country in the world?

OBAMA: Well, it was interesting. When I lived in Indonesia -- this would be '67, '68, late '60s, early '70s -- Indonesia was never the same culture as the Arab Middle East. The brand of Islam was always different.

But around the world, there was no -- there was not the sense that Islam was inherently opposed to the West, or inherently opposed to modern life, or inherently opposed to universal traditions like rule of law.

And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces.

It isn't to say that there is a direct correlation, but what is absolutely true is that there has been a shift in Islam that I believe is connected to the failures of governments and the failures of the West to work with many of these countries, in order to make sure that opportunities are there, that there's bottom-up economic growth.

You know, the way we have to approach, I think, this problem of Islamic extremism ... is we have to hunt down those who would resort to violence to move their agenda, their ideology forward. We should be going after al Qaeda and those networks fiercely and effectively.

But what we also want to do is to shrink the pool of potential recruits. And that involves engaging the Islamic world rather than vilifying it, and making sure that we understand that not only are those in Islam who would resort to violence a tiny fraction of the Islamic world, but that also, the Islamic world itself is diverse.

And that lumping together Shia extremists with Sunni extremists, assuming that Persian culture is the same as Arab culture, that those kinds of errors in lumping Islam together result in us not only being less effective in hunting down and isolating terrorists, but also in alienating what need to be our long-term allies on a whole host of issues.

ZAKARIA: If U.S. forces in Afghanistan captured Osama bin Laden, what would you do with him, and you were president?

OBAMA: Well, I think that, if he was -- if he was captured alive, then we would make a decision to bring the full weight of not only U.S. justice, but world justice down on him. And I think that -- and I've said this before -- that I am not a cheerleader for the death penalty. I think it has to be reserved for only the most heinous crimes. But I certainly think plotting and engineering the death of 3,000 Americans justifies such an approach.

Now, I think this is a big hypothetical, though. Let's catch him first. And the fact that we have failed to seriously go after al Qaeda over the last five years, because of the distraction of Iraq, I think we are now seeing the consequences of that in Afghanistan.

That's not the only problem we have in Afghanistan. We have not dealt with the narco-trafficking that's taking place there. We have not provided farmers there an option beyond poppy. I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped organize Afghanistan and government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence.

So, there are a lot of problems there. But a big chunk of the issue is that we allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda to regenerate itself when we had them on the ropes. That was a big mistake, and it's one I'm going to correct when I'm president.

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets. 

“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.

There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.

Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

 

Amidst the images of suffering and slain Palestinians, Iraqis, and Afghanis, the internationally (in)famous Arabic news station al-Jazeera today had an interesting five-minute segment that it played over several times: the fall of the Muslim city of Acre (Arabic: ‘Akka) to the Crusaders, which after a nearly two-year siege, occurred on July 12, 1191.

While the narrator was more or less objective regarding the facts of this battle—though much more emphasis was placed on the “atrocities” committed against the Muslim inhabitants of Acre than anything else—it was clear that it was being tied up with what was happening in the rest of the Islamic world: the hated Crusaders were back again, doing what they’ve been doing ever since the Crusades. Continuity was established. Millions of Arab viewers were reminded.

More interesting is the taken-for-granted Arab/Islamic epistemology that this anecdote reveals. While al-Jazeera portrays itself as a “secular” entity—at least the Western attired news-anchor teams, with their suits, ties, and female unveiled heads, would imply—it was a given that its viewers would empathize. The proof of this is that the opposite scenario would never occur: consider the general reaction of Americans or Europeans if, between news headlines mini-documentaries aired saying things like “Today in history Constantinople and the Hagia Sophia were conquered and defiled by invading Muslim forces,” elaborating the ruthless and barbarous treatment the Christian inhabitants of Constantinople experienced at the hands of the Muslim Turks?

What if on their respective anniversaries, Western news stations made it a point to remind viewers that, today in history—Arabia, or Syria, or Persia, or Egypt, or North Africa, or Spain, or Central Asia, or Anatolia, or the Balkans—fell to the sword of Islam, with all the gory details? Surely Western viewers, in general, would certainly find such “reminders” offensive and better left unsaid.

In the political white heat of the US presidential race, the truth cannot set a candidate free, it can only get them into trouble.

The most intense and expensive White House race ever is throwing up a rich catalogue of gaffes and unwisely uttered truths.

Republican candidate John McCain, and Democrat Barack Obama have seen their campaigns rocked in the last few days by supporters who planted their feet squarely in their mouths.

Former senator Phil Gramm, a top McCain advisor, undercut his boss's fervent efforts to show voters he gets their economic plight when he declared America a "nation of whiners" mired in a recession of the mind.

Civil rights icon Jesse Jackson insists he is a passionate Obama supporter -- but appeared to betray his real views in a whispered aside on an open microphone.

"I want to cut his **** off," Jackson said, accusing the Illinois senator of talking down to black people.

A few weeks back, Charlie Black, a top McCain advisor sparked a political furore when he suggested a fresh terrorist strike on the United States could hand McCain, who anchors his campaign on national security, a big advantage.

These are classic examples of people blurting out things they believe, but would be wise to keep to themselves -- or as columnist Michael Kinsley once famously put it: a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.

Sometimes the comments of a close advisor raise questions about the credibility of a candidate's campaign trail rhetoric.

Once upon a time, there was a little patch of filthy, dirty, grimy swampland sitting between the states of Maryland and Virginia. This magical kingdom, located on the bank of the Potomac River, was home to all sorts of mystical creatures. Wizards like Karl Rove lived in peace and harmony with other species such as elves (Dennis Kucinich), dwarves (Ross Perot), "white knights" (Robert Byrd), and ogres (Helen Thomas). The benevolent, yet dim-witted King George the 43rd, and his evil Queen Nancy of Botox, ruled them as best they could in these troubled times.

But the times were ever changing.

A new threat emerged from the furthest corner of the kingdom. The South Side, to be exact. Standing 12 feet tall, and built of solid muscle, the HopeChange Troll was unstoppable. Kingdoms cowered at his feet, rulers begged him for mercy, and his enemies were thrown under his giant chariot, trampled by warhorses. No one questioned his motives. No one questioned his tactics. No one questioned his lineage. For the answer to those questions was a sound thrashing. The HopeChange Troll's growing legions were rabid in the defense of their master. A more indestructible foe had never existed, and he was galloping his way to the kingdom on the Potomac.

On the opposite side of the kingdom, Sir John of Arizona was returning home. A lifelong soldier, he served his kingdom and his liege proudly, but after a half century, it was time to sheath his sword. Lady Cynthia missed her hero, and she believed his place was now by her side. Sir John agreed, and the couple retired to their modest estate, oblivious to the oncoming threat of the HopeChange Troll.

The royal messenger made it to the gates of the kingdom ahead of the HopeChange Troll, and gave warning to King George. HopeChange was coming, and it must be stopped. King George agreed, and sounded the alarm. Every peasant, serf, and page was to report to the kingdom's defenses to repel the irresistible force.

But the evil Queen Nancy of Botox would not have it. A woman who had been raised by witches, she cast a spell upon her husband, and convinced him that HopeChange was good. He must be allowed inside the kingdom's walls, and he must be allowed to speak. Helpless, King George gave the order, and the drawbridge was lowered. The HopeChange Troll would be given a hero's welcome into the kingdom on the Potomac, and Queen Nancy would sing his praises.