Sarah Palin & The 80%

Why would someone write about Sarah Palin but place an image of Marie Antoinette in the article?

Because Marie Antoinette was the quintessential "compassionate conservative." When informed that the people of Paris had no bread to eat, the empress is reported to have replied, "Then let them eat cake." The phrase has lingered in our language for several centuries now. And why? Because it's a perfect example of someone being completely out of touch.

Not out of touch with those within her "world," but those outside of her economic and social orbit. For someone enjoying the fruits of a fuedal-style form of life (at least on the rich side of it), keeping one's bearings is dependent soley upon checking the references of all those who live in nearby castles. The empress, if anything, understood her base.

The United States has had presidents who, although born into and raised with great wealth, fashioned a credible and sincere form of sympathy for the masses. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are two who come to mind. However, America has swung mightily towards the worship of wealth to the exclusion of government. The masses (as Coke Roberts likes to refer to us) don't exist. Oh, wait. Yes, at election time. But not at governing time.

Currently there is great swirl about Gov. Palin. The public conversation revolves around her inexperience, behavior as governor of Alaska, her NRA membership, her views on abortion, her physical appearance, et cetera......

What I haven't heard is that little "governing bit," which the Republicans still can't get the hang of in this century. It's not "the economy, stupid," but "economics, stupid." You don't have to have a professorship in the subject, just a decent grasp on reality. One needs to ask two important (actually critical) questions:

1: Who writes the rules for how we live in this nation?
2: Who enforces those rules?

Answer: The Congress. They write them....or their lobbyists do. And whatever president in power at the time enforces them. According the Constitution. If you believe in it.....ha ha ha. (hat tip to George W.)

Those said rules have changed...slowly but perceptively towards an America that is rich in both riches and poverty. At the current rate, each generation is going to have to accept lowered expectations than the generation before. That is, for the bottom 80%; those who don't really "count" to those accustomed to a plutacracy. A Kingdom of the wealthy unbeholden to anyone who is not.

During the Saddleback rodeo, John McCain jokingly answered a question as to what his definition of rich is by saying that anyone making $5 million a year or more. It is revealing...that sarcastic dismissal of what to me was the most important question asked.

John McCain has a similar approach to the healthcare of veterans. His plan is simple (as all "great" ones are): when you leave the service, find somebody really rich and marry them. By turning his back on his "comrades" McCain has proven in vote after vote that they were never comrades at all.

It is the votes that count. And how Gov. Palin approaches the subject of the general welfare is more important than any other topic that will be covered. Sadly, promoting the general wefare was a phrase used several centuries ago...and nowadays will be twisted by the Republicans (again) into a clarion alarm for getting deadbeats off the government teat.

Unless you're on acid and working at The Weekly Standard, you might figure out that the general welfare of the republic invovles everyone, not the top 20%.

There has not been enough sunshine in America for years. This election is either going to open the door to a new sunrise, or lead us into the shadows of twilight. Again.

Onto the stage of Karl Rove's Thousand Year Reich comes Sarah Palin. While charming, she does not appear to be deflected from the same banana republic agenda of the status quo. And if we should (God forbid) enter that economic darkness; should a President Palin ever be told that Americans don't have any bread, expect the predictable:

"Let them eat moose."

*****Reuters has picked up this entire post... Thank You!

A CAUTION FOR DISGRUNTLED CLINTON SUPPORTERS

Cross Posted from The Duke of Madness...

For Obama supporters, it is easy to dismiss the disenchantment of Clinton supporters as sore losers. However, such an approach is conducive to making a bad situation worse.

Hillary Clinton, love her or hate her, is the first truly serious candidate for the presidency who happens to be a female. It is not too much of a stretch to realize that while women as a whole have escaped the Stepford Wife existence expected of them not that long ago, there is more to attain. Sen. Clinton embodies that for a lot of women.

I think.

I say that because I am not a woman. But, I realize that while at this time enthusiastic about an Obama/Biden ticket, ignoring the deep-felt emotions of fellow humans is not the best way to proceed. Obama doesn't need to salve the feelings of Sen. Clinton so much as he does those of her followers. They deserve more than just "you lost!"

What DOES disturb me the greatest though, is the notion that a large number of Clinton supporters yearn to vote for John McCain this November. If it's to teach Sen. Obama a lesson, it might be considered a case of cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

A friend once remarked to me that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world. I sharply disagreed, saying that my daughter was the smartest person in the world. So I'm biased.....sue me. Or, it may be one of my two sisters. Or maybe it might have been my mother. I know it isn't my wife because she showed the poor judgment of marrying ME.

But seriously, I mention the above because I'm one of those men who grew up and have lived with a great deal of love and respect for women. My parents fought a lot...imagine George W. Bush and Ralph Nader trapped together in a life raft. That's nothing compared to the fireworks that went on between my mother and father.

It wasn't until the age of six or seven that I learned that "son of a bitch" wasn't one word. I learned lots of words growing up...mostly from the Old Man....and what gaps there were in my vocabulary were quickly filled by two drill instructors at Lackland Air Force Base.

Yet even as one as profane as myself has limits. There are certain words that go outside the bounds of what I consider acceptable. And that's really saying something.

So it came as a bit of a shock to learn that John McCain addressed his wife as a "stupid c***" in front of witnesses. To say it in the privacy of one of their homes would be bad enough, but to let loose such an epithet in public is beyond comprehension.

THAT is what ANY woman contemplating voting for John McCain should consider. It was not a faxu pas; it was a revealing statement of what this man thinks of women. And so what if he'd had a long day...is life in the White House not tiring?

Before pulling the voting lever this November for John McCain, I ask you to consider what your vote means. It would be an endorsement of someone who holds women in contempt. That means my wife, my daughter, my mother, and my sisters. Not to mention all the other women in my life (doctors, lawyers, nurses, waitresses). Not a one of them deserve the "c" word. Even in jest, because there is nothing to joke about here.

It's NOT a small point. It's the only point as far as this voter is concerned.

Women and men are very different. They are also very equal. Anyone who does not grasp that by adulthood hasn't really grown in their hearts or minds.

John McCain should know better. And so should you.

Duke of Madness

*****Gun Toting Liberal has kindly linked to this post... Thank you GTL!

HILLARY LOVES YOU

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Following this presidential race can have adverse effects on one's appetite. That might be good; perhaps by November I'll have shrunk to the weight the doctors say I should be. Thing is, I choose to be stupid and follow the path of personal health self-destruction. While not a consumer of alcohol or drugs, I do adhere to Oscar Wilde's quote that "I can resist anything but temptation."

So imagine my consternation when I read this piece in the NEW YORKER, THE IRON LADY by Ryan LIzza. True, the article is certainly not complimentary of Senator Clinton, but one part sticks out there all by itself. It was uttered by Senator Clinton during an "economic summit" during the campaign for the Ohio primary. It took place in Zanesville.

It was as if the sheer display of iron-pantsed discussion would further underscore her insistent theme: the hollowness of Obama’s charisma. When one speaker offered encomiums to Clinton rather than economic prescriptions, she gently reprimanded her, saying, “We’re going to put a moratorium on compliments.” Then, with the bonhomie of a high-school health teacher, she turned the conversation back toward government programs to help people “quit smoking, to get more exercise, to eat right, to take their vitamins.”

Is Ryan Lizza making this up? The comment is apparently not "newsworthy" because it doesn't have "substance." In the modern media glossary, "substance" is defined as that which can cause the greatest amount of childish interest within the political sandbox. It should be looked at further, and since the big boys and girls won't touch it, I will.

Many moons ago I read Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." 19th century English can be a handful to read, and Thoreau's prose adds to the challenge. But, what I gathered from his writing is that the individual is paramount. That is the acme of Western thinking. The government, or state, is secondary to the individual. In fact, our Constitution goes to some lengths in the Bill of Rights to expressly underline that notion.

When the state becomes the oppressor instead of the protector, then the individual has a choice: either submit or not. Submission is always less painful; at least in the short term. However, over time individuality will seek to assert itself no matter what the state says. What Thoreau wrote was studied by Gandhi and Martin Luther King. All three men were philosophers, pains in the backside to those who prefer people not to think. Thinking is painful, after all, and the struggle to maintain individuality in a politically correct word is an agony.

When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, a contemporary writer gave a good description of FDR as a leader. He was America's bus driver. With a grin and his cigarett holder at a jaunty angle, Roosevelt steered the country down some dangerous road and heart-stopping curves. Sometimes it was scary, but everyone knew that while he was in the driver's seat, he never stopped listening to the passengers.

That is apt, because we, the passengers on the national bus, are the sovereigns of this republic. Plain, simple citizens are the ultimate rulers of the nation. The past seven years there hasn't been a bus; we've had a spoiled brat in a soapbox derby car (that his daddy built) rolling downhill. And we've been expected to keep up with him while dragging bags of cement behind us.

And now....well, it looks like one candidate (or possibly all three right now) foresees her role as a herder; someone to herd those wayward souls who just don't get it. What I don't get is why the power of government has to be used to further a collective goal at the expense of the individual. The context within which I am speaking relates to personal behavior only. If the state declares that an individual's right to abortion, or sexual preferences, or religious preferences. THAT I can understand, as it is in the direction of government staying out of an individual's decisions. It does not matter whether I personally agree or not; the key point is that the individual is, again, to be protected by the state. No matter how stupid they are.

But smoking? Exercise? Eating habits? Vitamins? If this is the epitome of 220 years of a constitutional republic, then it is sad and disheartening.

We need another bus driver. And there ain't no room on the bus for a throne.
***********************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Will 2008 Be The Year The Democratic Party Is Assassinated?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Within my own lifetime I've lived through the assassinations (or attempted assassinations) of JFK, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan. All of them were so stupid; so pointless. Where the attempts succeeded history was altered, and not for the better. People think of Lee Harvey Oswald of killing Kennedy. But he also gave us Lyndon Johnson in the White House.

Johnson was a terrible president, yet historians seem to concentrate on what a great politician he was. The same is true of Bill Clinton; he knows how to politic but I don't think history is going to be too kind to his acts as president. Don't even think about comparing Mr. Clinton to Mr. Bush.....ANY president looks good, except maybe James Buchanan.

As sad and pointless an assassination of an individual is, the same act carried out against something greater than an individual is even worse. To be fair, it might be said that with the best of intentions the Bush administration has done a pretty good job of assassinating the Constitution.

After the March 4th voting, whereby Senator Hillary Clinton won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island, the question is being asked by many just how far the Clinton campaign is going to go. The "math" is clear in that neither Obama nor Clinton will have the delegates to win the nomination before the party convention in Denver. Obama can rightfully claim that he has an insurmountable lead.

The advantage Obama now has is this: while he may be human and not keep his promises, he represents a form of hope. That is, hope that we can finally crawl away from the corporate forces that have been turning the nation into a giant banana republic. Senator Clinton's handicap is her being a reminder of her husband's presidency, which was not exactly an arch-enemy of greed and corruption.

The real rub for the Democrats is do they proceed with a vision or accept the blandness of sameness? The Clinton campaign will not allow Barack Obama to continue to offer hope. Said hope must be dampened down or preferably destroyed.

In so doing, Hillary Clinton will win a nomination and lose any ability to go anywhere but backwards. It is admirable for anyone to follow the advice of Dylan Thomas and not go gently into that good night. But, what works for an individual does not translate into a group. Senator Clinton may or may not be that likable a person. That is not relevant. Franklin Roosevelt was not really a very likable person; he was an enigma to just about everyone around him. But he was a great president.

There comes a point where someone in Senator Cinton's shoes must ask herself if the goal is worth the cost. This year there is a good chance for a Democrat to win the White House. But it would be foolish to assume it's there for the taking. Lots of things can happen.

One thing that should NOT be happening is heaping dirt on an opponent as if he were a Republican in a general election. Worse, using LBJ-style tactics to convolute a convention would be fatal in many aspects. The outcome of the Democratic convention could hand the election to John McCain on a silver platter.

The next president is going to need one attribute more than any other: the ability to lead the American people. FDR did it, as did JFK and Ronald Reagan. Doesn't matter whether you agree with their policies, it's the fact that one individual can inspire people to draw from within themselves that which they didn't think was there any more.
*****************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

The Audacity Of DoubleTalk

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

The area of North Carolina I live in is used to be an area with large numbers of textile and furniture jobs. Several years ago I had to visit a local machinist to have some work done. While in his shop I noticed this huge machine sitting on the floor. He told me he was contracted to getting the machine in shape before its shipment to Mexico. With no pride in his voice he said that was the last textile machine in the county.

Several weeks ago I was in the local Walmart. I'm not making this up; it actually happened and the multiple ironies compressed in such a short time made me wonder iif some force was trying to tell me something. First, while browsing in stationary I hear on the official Walmart P.A. system a Bruce Springsteen song. "My Hometown" of all things. As I threw the graph paper in the cart I heard the lines that could be the anthem for this area:

Now Main Street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores
Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more
They're closing down the textile mill across the railroad tracks
Foreman says these jobs are going boys and they ain't coming back to your
hometown

Then at the checkout I'm delayed because the couple in front of me is tossing some kind of form on the counter. They are not speaking English and presumably were from Mexico. They had a small infant in the cart. Finally, the cashier did whatever she was doing (they had multiple transactions). Upon asking the cashier what that was all about, I was informed that the transactions involved W.I.C.

So, someone who is presumably in this country illegally (and don't even TRY to convince me of the odds that they are not), working illegally, and yet is receiving government assistance. By the way, one of the REASONS there are immigration laws is to prevent people from coming into the U.S. and receiving government benefits. Try sponsoring or marrying a foreign national and doing things legally. Been there, done that....got a bunch of T-shirts.

To top the whole shopping experience off, I passed this same couple coming out of the Walmart Money Store, where I presume (again, and correctly I believe) that these folks used the savings from their W.I.C. benefits to send some money back home. Yep, that's what welfare benefits are all about....propping up the sagging economy of Mexico.

As a human being I cannot condemn people for trying to take advantage of circumstances to better their lot in life. My problem lies in the fact that NAFTA is the keystone that supports a bridge of false promises, both to Americans AND Mexicans. Let us not forget that while successful in engendering corporate profits, NAFTA has succeeded in eliminating Mexican livelihoods far more efficiently than American jobs.

Yesterday I read an article by Jake Tapper of ABC News, Obama Knocks Clinton, But Wouldn't Ax NAFTA:

Appealing to union voters in a dry wall manufacturing plant in this crucial primary state, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sunday afternoon said that even though he has repeatedly said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country, he would not try to repeal it.

"I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.

He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."

In the fierce fight for votes here in Ohio, where NAFTA is not popular among many blue collar Democrats, Obama has repeatedly attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for the trade deal pushed by President Bill Clinton and passed in Congress in November 1993.

If one assumes that NAFTA has caused, shall we say, an allergic reaction in the U.S. economy, then it seems rather disingenuous to condemn it while at the same time emphasiing that doing anything about it would be too painful.

Senator Obama can make a talking point out of Hillary's husband and NAFTA. He can make a valid point about Sen. Clinton praising NAFTA in the past while condemning it now......

But what is the point if Sen. Obama is going to throw up his hands and say there's nothing he'll do about it since it's so "entrenched" into our economy? Tapeworms are entrenched too, but any expert will agree that getting rid of it is much healthier than living with it.

Bill Clinton got my vote 1992 based upon the notion that he would also bring "change." It meant a swing away from the worshiping at the feet of Wall St. and concentrating on the greater mass of people who actually live with the consequences of their own actions, let alone those of others in higher places.

Is Obama like Bill Clinton?....great at getting elected but suffering political amnesia as soon as he takes the oath of office? If that's the way it is, then so be it. The nation cannot afford it, but SOME level of honesty and promise-keeping must return or the whole thing is a joke.

And very few are laughing.
*******************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

The REAL Dirt On Barack Hussein Obama

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Let's just get this over with. Political campaigns are filled with the most childish innuendo...like knocking someone to the ground while batting eye lashes and giggling. It's not exactly straightforward. And so, having gleaned some of the aspirsions cast against Senator Obama, I thought it prudent to just list them all. That way there is no more guessing, no more sleight of hand.

Here is the list. Hopefully you will find it complete. However, I understand much more will be revealed if Sen. Obama continues to capture the attention of the American people.:

1. OBAMA CHOSE HIS NAME AT BIRTH!

This may be hard to believe, but if you don't, just ask Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. They KNOW what they're talking about. As baby Obama left his mother's womb, his first words were, "I want to have Hussein as a middle name!"

2. OBAMA DEMANDED TO BE MUSLIM AT BIRTH, TOO!!

It is a little known fact that right after baby Obama demanded Hussein as his middle name, he also specified that he be raised as a Muslim.

3. OBAMA RUINED HIS FAMILY LIFE AND IS A CONTROL FREAK

This allegation is obvious due to the fact that at age 3 or 4, young Obama kicked his father out of the house and forced his mother to move to Tanzania, or Indonesia, or someplace where weird people live. People who use names like "Barack" and stuff like that.

4. He drinks water from PLASTIC BOTTLES!!

5. He has hugged women WHO ARE NOT HIS WIFE!

6. He used to SMOKE CIGARETTES!!!

7. He has recited the pledge of allegience ..... AND HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE IT!!

8. He is a LIBERAL who believes that the Constitution ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING!

9. He doesn't put shopping carts back where they belong EVEN IF THERE IS A CART CORRAL NEARBY!

10. He has refused to GO QUAIL HUNTING WITH VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY!!

Thank God we at least have another 11 months of a God-fearing, pious man in the White House who is not intimidated by terrorists (whether they be foreign or domestic critics), due process of law, common sense, or any interference with the Presidential Sceptre by some dead crackpots having written a bunch of luney ideas on a scrap of paper and calling it a Constitution.

This nation doesn't need some egghead like Barack Obama as president. No, we need someone with the stalwart dedication to his goals like President Bush, no matter how deranged they may be. We need a fighter, or at least someone willing to let someone else fight for him.

America deserves order; it deserves protection from itself whenever it goes off on one of these wild tangents involving "representative government" and other such nonsense.

Now that you know the truth, the half-truth, and nothing approaching the truth.....you are better equipped to deal with the election process.

It's the least I can do.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com
***************************
This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

*****The Chicago Sun Times has picked up this post...

Playing History Scrabble To Help With The Future

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

With the presidential primaries reaching a climax on February 5th, I feel at this point that I am paddling in circles within the Sea of Insanity. At the time of writing, many candidates have withdrawn, essentially leaving four: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

The Republican race appears to be McCain's to lose. After Tuesday the pundits will start speculating on who McCain will choose as a running mate. Time will tell on that one.

The Democrats have a more interesting dynamic going on. One is the first serious woman candidate for the presidency; the other the first black American to do so. Both are very intelligent people; both have egos large enough to sustain them through the process they are now going through.

So, who would not only be the better candidate, but who would make the better president? Democrats seem split 50/50 on this right now. Sen. Obama is charismatic; he actually DOES transcend many things that heretofore have separated Americans. His problem is that he is still rather unknown on specifics. His rhetoric is wonderful; he's one of the finest public speakers I've heard in a long time. How that would translate into effectiveness as a president is obviously debatable.

Hillary Clinton has many attributes that would suit her well. She's determined, intelligent, and obviously not afraid of planting her boot in the backside of those who need a little motivation. Her being a woman with those characteristics may alienate those who prefer women who are demure and silent. I, for one, do not. Ego and aggressiveness are necessary for a chief executive. Margaret Thatcher had it in spades, and she is a lady nonetheless.

Sen. Clinton's millstone is her husband. And this is where the history scrabble comes in. Suppose that we could swap the terms of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. How would the two decades...the 90's and this one...have been different?

Here we run into a bit of a quandary. What makes the difference, the presidents or the times themselves? The 90's were to a great extent a fallow period, almost exactly spanning the fall of Soviet communism (but not communism itself) and the arrival of the Paranoid Period on 9/11/2001.

President Bush would have revelled in the 90's. Oil probably would have risen in price no matter world markets, but otherwise he would have been smack in the middle of a time that favored the conservative cycle. It's doubtful that he would have invaded that many countries, although what action he would have taken in Haiti or Afghanistan would have been more forceful than Mr. Clinton's was.

President Clinton, on the other hand, would probably have done much better in this decade. During his second term he would have been able to take advantage of the slow swing from the conservative to the liberal cycle. With all due respect, Clinton's savvy and intelligence far surpass that of George W. Bush, and his handling of many post 9/11 factors would have been much different, and more than likely better.

History might read like a story; all that happened in the past seems inevitable. Yet that is not so. History is flux; a constant change that requires adaptation by the people living it. We are not the same people we were at the time of our birth, and neither is our nation. A century from now the United States will be much more different still.

Our last two presidents were, in my opinion, the wrong people at the wrong times. THIS election is one of the most important in decades, because whoever it is must be the RIGHT person for the RIGHT time.

Sen. McCain I'll look at more carefully in the future. As for the choice between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton it's almost a toss-up. I have greater hope for Obama than Clinton. Yet all the same I've changed my mind about moving to Canada if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House.

Sen. Clinton's biggest failing is this: she has not developed her own identity. That is why Bill is a burden. For if she becomes the nominee....if she becomes the president, then it must be made clear that a Clinton II administration is politically divorced from her husband's.

If the odds favor a Democrat being our next president, then I would warn both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton of one thing:

Our best presidents made major decisions with an eye on history itself. It's a much better guidepost than polls or pundits. We, as individuals, come and go. The republic itself is sustained by wise decisions.

We've had enough bad ones lately.

Who Would Jesus Endorse?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

It is, of course, a ludicrous question. And somewhat offensive. I'm not the one asking, though. It seems to be permeating the candidacy of Gov. Mike Huckabee.

In this AP article by Libby Quaid, Huckabee eschews politics for preaching , there is a clear pandering to what are known as "conservative Christians."

SPARTANBURG, S.C. - Republican Mike Huckabee spoke from the pulpit Sunday, not as a politician but as the preacher he used to be, delivering a sermon on how merely being good isn't enough to get into heaven.

Huckabee is vying for support from the Christian conservatives who dominate the GOP in South Carolina, which chooses a Republican presidential nominee on Saturday. A former Baptist minister and Arkansas governor, Huckabee is competing for their votes with fellow southerner Fred Thompson.

As in Iowa, where he won the Jan. 3 caucuses, Huckabee is rousing pastors to marshal their flocks for him. He pitches himself as someone who not only shares their views against abortion and gay marriage but who actually comes from their ranks.

On Sunday in South Carolina, Huckabee avoided politics entirely, instead preaching about humility and trusting in Jesus to open the gates of heaven.

"The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That's the real challenge in it," he said at First Baptist North Spartanburg, a megachurch with 2,500 members.

"On that day, when I pull up, I'll be asked, `Do you have what it takes to get in?'" Huckabee said. "And if I ask, `Well, what does it take to get in?' 'Gotta be perfect.'"

"Well, I'm afraid I don't have that, but you know what, I won't be there alone that day. Somebody is going to be with me. His name is Jesus, and he's promised that he would never leave me or forsake me," he said.

Huckabee did NOT avoid politics at all. He brought politics into the church. And he'll bring the church into politics.

I'm reminded of the time my father was speaking to an elderly man in rural West Virginia. The subject came up about the different churches in the area, and the old curmudgeon used his 1st Amendment right rather bluntly.

"Ain't go no time for no preachers 'round here. Seems to me ever' time you see one of 'em coming out onto someone's porch they're either pickin' their teeth or zippin' up their pants."

A harsh judgment delivered harshly I suppose, but essentially the man was saying that preachers are human just like the rest of us. As a disclaimer I will freely admit to having been raised a Baptist. Belonging to what many would consider the Treasonous side, I do not believe in placing my beliefs on someone else. And I am very leery of those who do. And I am terrified of those who do and use the power of government to carry out their fervent wishes.

In my otherwise fruitless experience at the University of Florida, I retained a few nuggets. In a political science class, the professor asked, "Why do we have a Bill of Rights in the Constitution?" A very enthusiastic student answered immediately, "Because we believe in the rights of others."

"WRONG," said the professor, "We have them because we do NOT believe in the rights of others."

My own personal experience with this was in of all places, the Republic of Ireland. It is a wonderful nation with wonderful people. As an immigrant I learned enough of the culture to understand why Irish Catholicism is so strongly adhered to by the majority of the population. For centuries Roman Catholics were persecuted by the English. With independence being achieved only in the 20th century, the constitution reflected that struggle.

Problem was, and is, that there are many native Irish who are NOT Roman Catholic, yet must live as such in many ways. Granted, there never was the level of discrimination and resulting violence as in Ulster, but fair is fair. If you are not a Roman Catholic you can be made to feel foreign in your own birthplace. One example is the custom of have the Church Hierarchy review any social legislation before it proceeds in parliament.

So, with that in mind I think of the pitfalls that Gov. Huckabee is leading himself and his flock towards. I could speak for a long time about my beliefs as a Christian; how lousy a one I am and the imperfections of my soul and all the bad and sinful decisions I have made in my life. My faith tells me that Jesus will forgive me of much, if not most, of my transgressions.

But I could not forgive myself if I let stand unchallenged the preposterous notion that Christianity belongs in the White House; that Christians need to control any political party. I believe Jesus once said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

Mike Huckabee apparently wants to use the beliefs of a particular group of Americans to render Caesar's unto the "chosen few."

The whole point of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to spread His Word; to promote the teachings of Jesus. Outside of government I think that's fine. With government, there is a huge problem because, aside from that pesky Constitution, many Americans are NOT Christians. Many are atheists, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Muslims. Christianity is not their faith but the United States is THEIR nation, too.

Seems odd now when you consider a little history of early America. Massachusetts was run by Puritans. Maryland was a Catholic colony. Pennsylvania was for Quakers. And so on. Yet Roger Williams, a Baptist minister of all things, established the city of Providence and later the colony of Rhode Island. Williams' unique attitude ensured that Rhode Island became a haven for religious freedom. Rhode Island's example was the prime reason the Bill of Rights prohibited the establishment of a state church.

Gov. Huckabee might reflect a bit upon Roger Williams. Four centuries is an understandable amount of time to forget a hard-won lesson. But that's the magic of print; you can read and learn.

As elections approaches each primary state, and in particular the general election in November, I would advise Christians to do the following about those whose llves are not in accordance with what they believe to be righteous. This includes gays, non-Christians, adulterers, liberals, opponents of school prayer.........

Forgive them.

Now vote on some earthly issues.
**************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****The Chicago Sun Times has picked up this post...

Technorati Tags:
Religion, Huckabee, Reverend Huckabee, Roger Williams, Faith in Politics, South Carolina, Baptist Faith, Jesus Christ, Jesus Endorsement, Politics and Pulpits, Libby Quaid, AP, Politics and Religion, Religious White House, House of God, Republican Faith, Gay marriage, Abortion, Perfect follower, gates of heaven, Pearly Gates, Bible Belt, Thomas Jefferson, Catholic Faith, Mormon, Protestant, Church and State

Politics and Hillary

When it comes to politics and your name is on the ballot there is no female or male distinction on the actual ballot. Democrat, Republican, or Independent, those are the top three initials that will appear next to the candidates name. In politics your life, your history, and your entire past is luggage that you bring to the ballot whether you think it is fair or not. No topic in your public life is out of bounds. No political candidate for President should ever be immune from this process.

There is an inkling of fear in the MSM when it comes to confronting Hillary Clinton on the issues and pushing her just too far on the issues. Voters might see the reporting as bashing all woman and it is not. In some circles it is labeled as hitting a woman and abuse of the candidate but in politics it is and should be all about facing the hard questions even if she is a woman. There is also the thought out there since the near sob fest in New Hampshire that Hillary is out of bounds for the tough line of questions lest she cry. That is bull and if you think she can not face the same questions as Obama and Edwards then you are living a lie. A MSM politically generated lie.

Any candidate running for the highest office of the land is going to be vetted by the press and that is how we as a people decide who we will vote for. No matter what political party you are running from the bashing will come from every corner and it should be expected by all of the candidates. All of them need to be vetted and tears or near tears is not something that gives you a fast pass or fast track to the White House.

If the MSM is going to give Hillary a pass then they should do the same for the Black guy too! God forbid we offend African Americans on asking Barack Obama about issues concerning race relations in America. I personally can not speak for Senator Obama but he would probably tell the questioner that fear of your neighbor simply because of the color of their skin is wrong. Racism is not about the color of ones skin but the thought process and stereo type in your own mind. Get over it. Get real and hug a person that just happens to be black.

We can not piss off the Evangelical’s as well. Asking any candidate that puts God over country is way out of bounds and Huckabee gets a free get out of jail card. So do the parolee’s that he let loose on Arkansas. Forgive and forget or is it forgive and let them kill again?

If Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to run for President of the United States then her entire record and everything she has done that is good or bad is fair play in the press and in the bloggosphere. This is politics, this is America, this is where the election process goes and the people decide who will be the next President by asking tough questions and you better have a damn good response if you want thier vote.

Hypocrisy in reporting on all of the candidates can be looked at from many angles by the readers of the mains stream media. People are not idiots and soft questions to any candidate will be viewed as soft reporting and thus we have the bloggosphere. Real opinions from real people that speak from the heart. No canned speeches here from this political writer by any means.

Hillary Clinton has taken this political campaign for President out of the context of what it should be. The Clinton political machine lives and its latest plan is setting back womans equality back to the Archie Bunker days. Don’t attack my positions because I am a woman, I am fragile, but I want to be President of the most powerful nation in the world is wrong. That is not the route she should take simply because it weakens woman all across America that have fought so hard to get woman to where they are today. Politics and near tears do not mix. Either you are the toughest woman on the stage or you are the weakest link of American politics. Only Hillary can answer that question and the media needs to ask whatever questions we as voters might think important for the continuation of the Presidency.

Papamoka

Cross posted at Michael Linn Jones and Bring IT ON!

Feel free to link to or steal this post...

Technorati Tags:
Elections, White House, Politics, Republican, Democrat, Media, Television, News Links, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, Political Blogs, Womans Issues, Equal Rights, Running for President, New Hampshire, Iowa, voting for President, Clinton Machine, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, New York Times, Washington Post, Political Hypocrisy, Hillary cried, South Carolina politics, Michigan politics, RNC, DNC

All We Have to Fear Are Candidates Selling Fear

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

If one is fortunate they never experience the trauma of long-term and chronic fear. I agree wholeheartedly with the "fight or flight" syndrome; that is, when confronted with a threat we either avoid it or fight back if cornered.

But fear can also be used, manipulated. Very few Americans have ever heard of Bobby Sands. He was incarcerated at Long Kesh Prison for possession of firearms. Sands was a volunteer with the Irish Republican Army. Claiming that he and other IRA members were political, rather than criminal prisoners, he took part in a hunger strike. In May, 1981, Bobby Sands died.

Following his death there were numerous mock funerals for Mr. Sands. I was in the city of Limerick when one occurred there. It was the first time in my life that I saw fear on peoples' faces. Or trepidation. There was also anger, as the "funeral" was surrounded by an air of intimidation. If any business was open during the march down O'Connell Street, there were implied repercussions. What was eye-opening was the display of how civil authority could be so openly challenged.

That memory was the first thing to come to my mind when I read Bill Clinton Warns of "Unexpected", a Washington Post article by Alec MacGillis.

Addressing more than 100 supporters gathered at a VFW hall here, Clinton said that there were four reasons to vote for his wife: her vision, her plans, her experience -- the three reasons he has been giving in his stump speech until now -- plus, he said, a fourth, the threat of the unknown.

"Here's the other thing you need to know, the most important thing of all. You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough...to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than a 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama Bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign....And I think on this score she's the best of all."

I know that there are a number of endorsements for different candidates being offered. The best I can do is put forth a few "un-endorsements," specifically for two candidates. They are Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. Guiliani has been a fear-monger from the get-go, and now we have the one man in America we can all trust telling us that his wife is our only salvation. From "it," whatever "it" is or will be.

Before contemplating who would be the best person to sit in the Oval Office on January 20th, 2009, it behooves us to look at 16 years of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton(?) dynasty. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both scrambled for their "legacies" in the waning months of their presidencies. It can best be summed up thusly: 8 years of a very cynical con artist followed by 8 years of a very cynical bully.

With the death of Benizar Bhutto, the emphasis of the campaign is veering towards the appeal of fear. Fear is a very emotional and irrational reaction to a threat. Constant fear, promoted for political gain, is nothing more than subjecting an entire society to massive Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It's quite an effective technique in shredding the Constitution along with an extremely dangerous expansion of executive power.

But....but....there's a war on, ya know? Of course there is; there always will be. Orwell's 1984 describes the ever-changing alliances in the world, with allies and enemies constantly changing. And, with history itself re-written every few years to accommodate the agenda of "Big Brother." A common theme in Orwell's book is "Big Brother loves you."

Well, to hell with Big Brother. I don't want any government "loving" me to death because that's exactly what happens. Instilling fear into the populace is the key to the door of oppression.

Hatred is fear's roommate. Watch closely; see beyond the rhetoric and in most cases you'll see fear transformed into hatred.

In the meantime, the earth may be melting, Martians may conquer us, Islamic hordes may sweep across the world, and God forbid I might actually be mortal and die someday, despite the nanny state assuring me that this will not come to pass if I just fear everything.

How about a little encouragment? You know, the kind that tells us that we can make things happen; that tells us to believe in ourelves and our republic DESPITE the oafs who "serve" in the government.

But perhaps hope is too much to hope for.

************************ This post kindly featured at MemeOrandum

***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

Technorati Tags:
Hillary, Bill Clinton, Presidency, Iowa, New Hampshire, Politics, Fear, Campaigning on fear, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, Biden, Dodd, Obama, Des Moines, Caucus, January third, Favorite Candidate, running for president, oval office, washington post

Catch the Biden Wave

While Hillary and Barack think they have the lead tied in Iowa they are forgetting that the real substance of this election is stepping around their brow beating to get the folks attention. While catch phrases sound great on a commercial they really do not work when you actually talk to the people of Iowa. Studied answers to the obvious questions might make a candidate sound knowledgeable but it’s the 101st question that starts them to stuttering. That will eventually lead to the question never being answered because a twenty three year old staffer never thought of it.

Joe Biden is running for President because he does have the answers we as a nation need to hear. Sometimes the truth is better than total avoidance to our national dilemmas. As much as the main stream media would like you to believe that this election is a popularity contest or beauty pageant it is not that at all. America has some serious problems that have been growing for almost eight years now and pretending they do not exist will not fix the need to have them all rectified as soon as possible. Having a political candidate that can and has worked across party lines on the most difficult issues our nation has faced is what substance is all about. Joe Biden has shown that ability time and time again. There is a reason why the name Biden and McCain are linked on many hot political issues. They both have had the political guts to tackle them head on and work together to try and resolve them.

With that being said, Biden is pulling out of the ranks of non contenders and I’m sure he will pull close to second or even first in Iowa simply because he tells the truth. Iowans are big on the truth. Joe is full of it and he isn’t afraid to speak his mind. Real life is not television and our nations government is not Hollywood. Hillary and Barack Obama may be able to bombard the airwaves for canned reasons to vote for them but Biden still speaks the truth every single day. Over at the Washington Post they have this little linked to article on Joe Biden…

Biden Pushes for 3rd in Iowa Caucuses
By BETH FOUHY
The Associated Press
Friday, December 21, 2007; 5:02 PM

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Joe Biden's aides call it "Mo-Joe" _ a last-minute surge of momentum and good luck they hope could power the Delaware senator into a better-than-expected showing in Iowa's leadoff caucuses.

"There's a fingertip instinct that tells me something is going on. I feel like I'm still in the game," Biden said in a telephone interview as he traveled to a campaign event in Cedar Rapids.

Aides acknowledge it remains an uphill trudge for Biden, a Democrat whose distinguished 35-year Senate career has been eclipsed by the star power of rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

But with all eyes on those two candidates and former Sen. John Edwards as they compete for the lead in Iowa, Biden is on a high-energy sprint across the state hoping to catch on with enough voters to make a difference. - Washington Post

One of the things that I admire about Joe Biden is that he does not have to reinvent himself to make you want to vote for him. In one breath he can explain what we as a nation should be doing about foreign policy and in the next breath what we need to do about our growing energy needs. Skip a breath and he can tell us what our immigration policy should be and how we can fix the 12 to 16 million illegal aliens in our midst. Fast forward and he can talk monetary policy or rebuilding our nations crippled infrastructure. Miss a breath and he can tell us what realistically needs to be done to fix our nations education system. Take a deeper breath and he can recite from memory historical events that are relevant to our quagmire in Iraq. Only Joe Biden has an in depth plan to get us out from under Iraq that is realistic. At no time is he forsaking our military or our nations flag to do it either.

You may ask how Joe Biden can do all of this with full experience and not blink and eye or say “ummm?” when put on the hot seat for the hot questions. Simple answer to that is his many years of experience in the Senate trying to fix our nations problems. Even with overwhelming odds he has crossed party lines for the greater good without care for public opinion when he thought it was the right thing to do. Joe Biden lives for this nation because he is not a Wall Street bought and paid for candidate. He is obligated to none. His integrity is unquestionable. Can the other candidates from all political parties state that as a fact?

That all being said, voting for the truth when the primary elections hit my state comes down to experience and getting over the negligence of the past eight years. Moderate Liberals and Conservatives prefer real substance over a manipulated campaign based on what we need to hear. We just might have had enough of window dressing and canned responses from all of the political candidates from both sides of the race. Thus, Joe Biden is the moderate answer to both political parties and the chance for a change in the status quo. On both sides of the political aisle there is far to much rhetoric and excuses that point across the aisle. Maybe we just need a President that simply tells the truth to his people and is beholding to not one person other than you and I. Would that not be a total change in current politics or what?

I have faith in Iowans that they will know who is realistic and who is passing the buck on what our nation really needs. It does not take a political genius to see who the ones that are selling sound bites and who is just talking the truth. Joe Biden will be sipping a cup of coffee down at the corner luncheon with real Iowans while the rock star political rallies are happening over at the Clinton and Obama scheduled ticketed stops. Politics in America is not always about who has the most money to spend but whom has the most substance. Iowa is the proving ground for this election and I trust the people of Iowa. Joe does too.

Let me leave you with just this video from Joe and his heart about his dedication to this nation, ruled under God, ruled under men.



Courtesy of Bright Cove

Other folks talking about Joe Biden

Bleeding Heartland... on Joe Biden's latest endorsements...

Susan In Iowa on Joe Biden's much needed advertising in Iowa...

Papamoka

*****Buzz Tracker has linked to this post...

Technorati Tags:
Election, President, Primary, Iowa, Joe Biden, Debates, Issues, Democrat, Republican, Iraq, Veterans, Real Life, Senator Biden, Caucuses, New Hampshire, President of the United States, Election Process, Des Moines, Manchester, Bloggers for Biden, Campaign, Political Campaign, Biden, Vote Biden, Supporter, Support Joe Biden, Go Joe, Joe is Right, Moderate, Centrist

BUSH'S GREATEST LEGACY? THE SEEDS FOR A SECOND CIVIL WAR

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

Currently it is a real chore following the numerous candidates for the presidency. The process doesn't bore me so much as frustrate. To me, there is this treadmill of red herrings that citizens are supposed to chase after. Doing so facilitates the basic dishonesty of the process, enabling the triumph of the same sort of corporate-composite persona to sit in the Oval Office.

Recently I struggled through a book, THE LATE GREAT U.S.A. by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. The book deals with the quiet but persistent effort to unite Mexico, The United States, and Canada into a North American Union. Even if a fraction of the book's contents approach the truth, it is an alarming thing to learn that your nation is being co-opted into a foreign alliance/assimilation without the people knowing about it.

The one criticism Dr. Corsi is open to is that, after being instrumental in the re-election of George W. Bush through his efforts in the Swiftboat smearing of John Kerry, he has awoken a little late. But, better late than never I suppose.

The plausibility of Dr. Corsi's allegations is increased by the fact that much of what the book says explains some rather bizarre things. One, NAFTA is STILL being touted as a great success yet we are dealing with millions of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. looking for work. Secondly, President Bush's rather distant and blurred response to the border issue fits into the scenario outlined by Dr. Corsi.

NAFTA was, as it turns out, the "thin end of the wedge." It was not just a trade agreement, but a tool to further advance the eventual integration of 3 nations into one. Corsi compares the effort to the formation of the European Economic Union, and frankly it's hard to argue his point.

President Bush has done practically nothing to seal the border, which is nonsensical in light of the 9/11 attacks. However, it DOES make sense if you are just biding your time until a fait accompli is presented to the people of the 3 respective nations that the new borders are with Guatamala and....the Arctic Circle.

Those reading this will not live to see the full impact of George W. Bush's acts. The end result of a "North American Union" will be the disintegration of the United States. From time to time small glimpses surface. Recently a rapist/murderer in Texas cried foul on his prison sentence because he did not have access to the Mexican Consulate because belatedly he discovered he was born in Mexico. The uncanny aspect of this is when the Bush White House started issuing instructions to the Texas courts on how to handle the case.

Of course, a president accustomed to issuing orders to Congress doesn't have much of a problem issuing orders to a court.....and remember ANY court if he deems it necessary.

After a while, you have to stop listening to what some people say and concentrate on what they DO. George W. Bush has been an utter failure in many things, but not adhering to the faith in a constitutional American government is his greatest. President Bush has been riding his bike blind-folded through the minefield of misjudment. He always has someone to bail him out. But WE do not. We must live with the consequences of a president's actions. It helps if the president is at least OPEN and HONEST with the American people. But apparently honesty with the American people takes a back seat to maintaining and strengthening the bond between government and multi-national corporations.

A North American Union will not be announced at one particular event. It will be achieved through stealth, a little agreement here; a little agreement there, with the Congress being given little or NO notice.

Jame Buchanan is sometimes credited with being the worst president we have ever had. This is mainly due to the fact that he did practically nothing to prevent the Civil War. The Civil War was about many things, but mainly this: what type of nation are we going to be? Two opposing views of life and government came to blows that devastated the nation, but made the decision through armed struggle.

It would be naive to assume that what happened 150 years ago would never come to pass again. It will. By his policies President Bush is planting the seeds for a horrific harvest. The end result will be a struggle for what kind of nation we will remain, or become.

So whoever succeeds President Bush must "address the mess." Most issues are macro in scale compared to the actual life of this nation. But, that is not going to be discussed nor addressed. We will be reassured that "change" is coming.

Yeah, sure. In this sense I am quite conservative. I don't WANT the kind of change I see coming. A voice in the wilderness, perhaps, but a common currency, a common central bank, a "council of ministers" who will decide what laws and regulations are to be created and enforced.....no I don't want that.

It seems to me sad that a nation born in fire, in rebellion of a government thousands of miles away, should be devolving back to a collection of corporate colonies.

We need another George 1, not another George 43.
***************************
Cross-posted at Michaellinnjones.com

*****Buzz Tracker has linked to this post...
*****Reuters has picked up this entire post...

Is America Ready For A Black President?

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

My first reaction to such a question is, looking back over the last 16 years.....can we afford any more white ones? The political system has become so institutionally corrupt that those who control events in the now smoke-free rooms have no concept of how transparent their hubris is.

For the first time in American history, a man stands forth as a candidate for the presidency who is black. Barack Obama is not exactly a child of privilege, but his success in education and politics puts him firmly in the elite class.

Senator Joe Biden got blasted for commenting on the fact that Senator Obama is "clean, educated, etc." Poor choice of words maybe, but another way of putting it is that Obama is unique in that he is addressing ALL Americans, not just one particular ethnic group. With all due respect, the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot do this without "betraying" their traditional base.

Obama may be that fluke, that rarity that Jackson and Sharpton will tell us happens despite the ingrained racism of American society. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy were flukes also in that they carried certain convictions about the wealth of a nation being more than Wall Street and its boosters. In fact, FDR was castigated as a "traitor to his class."

Perhaps Obama may be cast as a "traitor to his race" since that is how he is supposed to run for office. Not as an American, but as a victim. But this man is not. He is an inspiration in many ways, and God only knows how his abilities and accomplishments might make his ego swell to planet-sized proportions. We always pray that no matter how far a person goes in life, they maintain a sense of equilibrium.....that they remember where they came from.

This is not an endorsement of Senator Obama. There are some points upon which I am uncomfortable such as immigration policy and gun control. The title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope" bothers me. It seems to me that if in the America we now live the word "hope" can be tied to "audacity" then we've lost something as a people.

Of course, we already feel that way. No matter one's political persuasion, there seems to be much out of kilter in how the nation's business is done. It is way past time for someone to offer the people as a whole something beyond platitudes. Platitudes, by the way, is a fancy way of saying "bald-faced lies."

Be prepared, however, for some racial slandering if Senator Obama attains success in Iowa. It will be subtle, of course, with enough innuendo to protect the slinger from charges of outright racism while at the same time doing just that. And, ironically, the first such use of such tactics will not come from Republicans, but Democrats. I won't say who, but if it takes a village (whatever that means) then said village should not be walled and gated.

Before George W. Bush, I always felt that Lyndon Johnson was the worst president in my lifetime. But he wasn't all bad...I do admire Johnson appealing to a Southern audience in the 60's with a plea for a "real" election, one that wasn't the usual chant of "nigra, nigra, nigra." It brought applause and in truth was a gutsy thing to say. Racism in the South was the most easily discernable in those days, although it wasn't until his march on Marquette Park in Chicago that Martin Luther King got belted with a thrown rock.

Racism exists everywhere, and is such a useful catalyst for the selling of fear and hatred. I grew up in Florida during the Jim Crow days; my parents hated it and were rather radical for their time in refusing to acknowledge the inherent goodness of segregation. It didn't make them many friends, but my Old Man always said that people liking you was nice but respecting you was necessary first.

Agree with Barack Obama or not, try to ignore the clouds of racial chaff that will be thrown into the wind. Even if just for the novelty of the experience, try to judge him by the content of his character.

If any candidate in 2008 appeals to the better Angels of our nature rather than the poisonous veins of suspicion and resentment, then we might actually be getting a little slice of our nation back.

And I don't think it matters a damn what his skin color is.
********************************
Cross-posted at Michael Linn Jones.com

Obama Lands Governor Patrick Endorsement

Picture courtesy of Boston Herald

Barack Obama landed the golden trophy of the new up and coming political star governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick. Tears I’m sure could be seen over at the Clinton campaign where they so much would have loved to put this endorsement in their “Must Have” endorsement folder. I’m sure that this decision to go with Obama over Clinton was a tough one for Governor Patrick.

As rock stars go in politics, Obama is to national politics what Governor Patrick is to Bay State politics. With the backing of Governor Patrick comes a plethora of uniting forces in both the Democrat’s and the middle of the road Republican’s. Governor Patrick has a way about him that unites people on issues rather than separating them and our nation needs more political leaders like him. If he puts his name behind Senator Barack Obama then it sends a loud voice of confidence on uniting our people once more.

Patrick gets behind Obama
Reveals plans for rally in Hub

By Casey Ross and Dave Wedge
Thursday, October 18, 2007

Rallying behind Barack Obama, Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday announced a major event in Boston next week to cement his endorsement of the Illinois senator’s presidential campaign.

The endorsement by Patrick, the nation’s only black governor, will help solidify Obama’s support from the African-American community and help boost his fundraising advantage among liberal Bay State campaign donors.

In an e-mail to political supporters yesterday, Patrick announced plans for a rally in the HubTuesday, and aides said he will stump for Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire following the end of legislative sessions in November.

“I believe we need unifying, visionary leadership,” Patrick wrote. “I believe we need a president who will level with the American people. I believe we need Barack Obama.”
The endorsement comes after months of quiet deliberation by Patrick, who has been torn between Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Former President Bill Clinton appointed Patrick to a top civil rights post in his administration in the 1990s. The Clintons also campaigned for Patrick during the gubernatorial election.

Both presidential campaigns made a bid for his support, and Patrick called Clinton and Obama yesterday to inform them of his decision, according to aides. - Boston Herald

I’m taking up a collection for all the political wounds the Governors endorsement is causing not only the Clinton camp but also many of the other contenders in this presidential race. Injuries of this magnitude can hurt the front runner but in the same sense give a much needed boost to the Illinois Senator. Being a compassionate political blogger I’m looking at the destruction and loss of political blood and we are going to need a ton of bandages, sutures and some boo boo kisses big time. Send your donations to the American Red Cross. We are an emergency network for political campaigns rapid response unit.

Papamoka

*****Buzz Tracker has linked to this post...

Technorati Tags:
Obama, Clinton, Hillary, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Democratic Party, Democrats, President Endorsement, African American, Politics, Barack, Deval Patrick, Governor Mass, Iowa, Illinois, New Hampshire, Primaries, Al Gore, Presidential Front Runner, Dems in Mass, Progressive, Liberal, Moderate, Obama for President, Boston, Beacon Hill, Governors Office, Oval Office, Senator Obama

THE PYRRHIC "VICTORY" OVER THE SOVIET UNION

Picture courtesy of Vet Friends.com

BY MICHAEL LINN JONES

It is repeated often enough that Ronald Reagan "won" the Cold War. True, his defense policies helped push them over the edge; an edge the Soviet economy had brushed against for decades. But if one were to give proper credit for presidents who "won" the Cold War, we'd have to start with Harry Truman and go right through to George H.W. Bush. Each of those men maintained the patient but remorseless bulwark against the totalitarian regime once headquartered in the Kremlin.

Those not around in those decades would find it hard to fathom what people lived with on a daily basis. The worst case scenario was a full-blown nuclear exchange which would have made moot any point about who was right or wrong since everyone would be dead. It was a very real thing; a threat that somehow people lived with yet still managed to carry on.

But then, it might be fair to ask if those born since 1990 do not indeed have a better understanding of living with the threat of the yoke of totalitarian government.

It is a misnomer to refer to the collapse of the Soviet Union as the "collapse of communism." To do so ignores the fact that the people of China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam live under communism. It's not quite two decades since the fall of the Soviet Empire, and yet here we are as a nation (and economy) in hock up to our eyebrows to China; a communist nation providing debt relief for a society that thinks itself some kind of "victor" over their form of government.

It might be said that the Cold War began in earnest in 1949. That was when China was "lost" to the communists. It was also then that the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. The Korean War would shortly follow in 1950. Communism WAS a real threat to the national security of the United States.

That, however, did not prevent the usual twisting of facts and reality by certain politicians for their own personal gain. The greatest alarmist in the early 50's was Senator Joe McCarthy, one of the all-time nihilists to serve in government. He pushed an atmosphere of fear and suspicion that lasted for years. Hence, the term "McCarthyism" to describe that era.

One example of how wacked out things were then was an experiment carried out by a political science teacher. He had his students re-word the Bill of Rights into modern language and sent them out to sign a "petition." Said petition was, of course, nothing more than what was already in the Constitution.

Amazingly (or not so amazingly if you study human behavior) very few people would sign it. It was too "controversial" for most people to sign onto. It would have put them outside the stream of acceptance, which was very important in those days. Individuality was not encouraged to say the least.

So here we are, again, at the start of a new Cold War. Calling it a "Global War on Terror" is a misnomer. It is, in fact, a war on freedom. On the face of it not many of us would argue that some freedoms might have to be "temporarily" forgotten in the overall struggle against a menace.

I don't know if you've noticed, but it seems as though every single one of the candidates for the presidency, whatever their party, do not speak of personal freedom. Oh, they might if we're talking about lowering taxes on the suffering top 1% of income earners. But not within the context of the "land of the free" America that we still worship in rhetoric but do our best to erase in deed.

There is always some group somewhere that insists that it cannot in any way, fashion, or form...be offended. And government power exists for the sole purpose of stamping out perceived affronts. And it's all so wonderful because people idiotically assume that THEIR agenda will never be touched. Too many people fall for that line of goat manure about some corporate or government entity being "on your side."

That is not so. A power granted to government by the governed is rarely returned. Government exercizes power for the benefit of itself. True, some may benefit financially but not within the realm of freedom.

This new Cold War, like the original, has a clear beginning; September 11, 2001 to be precise. Many agendas that had laid dormant burst forth like rotten Spring flowers seeking cross-pollination. And what did we do, as a people? We snored on.

This is what bothers me about the current crop of substandard candidates for the White House. NONE of them ring a bell of freedom, except to illuminate what they perceive to be a good lever for acquiring votes. It is NOT from the heart.

The fall of the Soviet Union led to a presumed sense of superiority; one that indicated no need to continue to compete with another ideology. That was the first, and perhaps biggest mistake.

We lurk in restaurants, waiting to be offended by someone using tobacco. We delight in those fast-food companies getting hammered for the fatty foods. Not only do we have "zero tolerance" for kids bringing aspirin to school, or drawing pictures of a gun, we have zero tolerance for kids, period. We must have instant adults....childish behavior is now unacceptable, even from children.

We live in an era of self-righteous prohibition that is nothing more than national navel-gazing. Yet it goes beyond that. Two examples come to mind. The first is Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R-NC) whose rhetorical question about the Patriot Act, "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" exemplifies a blindness to the dangers of expanded government power. What Ms. Myrick does not understand is that it all turns on what the word "wrong" means.

The other example comes from the Fox show COPS. I rarely watch it but it was one of those times when I couldn't look at a monitor very long or read a book, either. I see this policeman (in Broward County, Fla....it always seems to be in Broward County) cruising along.

He says something that stuck with me..."It's my business to get into other peoples' business." He pulls over a woman with a boombox system for being too loud. Then the 'ole "mind if I have a look in your car?" and within minutes he's found a whopping 22 grams of marijuana, the driver is handcuffed, weeping on the sidewalk.

I didn't feel safer watching this. It felt creepy. It was creepy because I had this flashback to the film "Dr. Zhivago." Zhivago is ripping down a wooden fence for firewood. His family is freezing. A policeman arrests him, telling Zhivago that he "has the right" to do so. Zhivago responds, "You have the authority, not the right."

I was raised with the notion that there are written laws (authority) and unwritten laws (the morally right and wrong). In the almost two decades since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has increasingly abandoned the unwritten for the written only. We've become obsessed with authority while placing the human condition in a straitjacket.

What a victory over totalitarianism. We are becoming that which we once defeated. Welcome to the brave new world, comrades.

Technorati Tags:
McCarthyism, USSR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Bomb Shelters, School Drills, Kruschev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Salt I, Salt II, STAR Wars, MAD, Nuclear Weapons, History, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Biden, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd