It's no secret that I'm no big fan of Hillary Clinton. I think that her becoming President would be disastrous for our Country. I even doubt that I would care for her if I met her face to face. All that being said though, I am just stunned by the treatment she is getting from many others, especially the media, who were deeply in love with her just a few short months ago.
It's not so surprising that Republicans and Conservatives has such a strong reaction to her, but I even object to some of that stuff. You see, I have no issue at all when people argue against the positions that she has staked out for herself on the issues, or disagree with the things that she has said. It doesn't even bother me that people have called her a liar in the past week, as she has been caught in several lies recently. Most notably the Bosnia flap, where she claimed to have landed under fire and having to run head down to the convoy, and not having a welcoming ceremony upon arrival. Of course, the video of the welcoming ceremony tells a differing tale, not to mention several eye witnesses. She also claimed at one time to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was 4 years old when he became famous, and she once claimed that Chelsea was right next door to the World Trade Center and heard one of the planes hit, even though Chelsea herself says that she was at home, and first learned of the attacks on the TV, just like the rest of us. So, the label of liar does seem to fit. These things I don't take issue with.
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. Many people insist on attacking the woman personally, and spreading rumors about her as if they are absolute truth. Perhaps some of what they say is true, but talking about it gains people nothing, and when the things that are said are not true, if this is discovered, it does her more good than harm. And some of the jokes are way over the top, and some of the doctored pictures are just flat out stupid. These things are not helpful.
Gary, who's blog is linked in my sidebar, mentioned a few weeks ago about how Christians are supposed to pray for our political leaders, and, if Hillary gets elected, a lot of Christians are going to have a serious problem doing that. That is very true. It's hard to pray for someone that you hate so passionately. As I've laid out here, I really don't care for Hillary Clinton, but I don't hate her. I hate what she wants to do to my Country, but not her personally. Hatred is something that Christians are not supposed to feel toward people. It can be hard, but we really need to not let ourselves fall into the trap of hating people, no matter how reprehensible we find their policies, or positions, or even personal actions.
What surprises me though is the reaction that she has drawn recently from liberals, especially those in the media. The hatred they have shown toward her has really been stunning. She's a far lefter, and so are they, but along came Barack Obama, who is even farther to the left than Hillary, and so the media abandoned her, now viewing her as nothing more than the person who is getting in Obama's way. It's crazy.
The media has been falling all over themselves apologizing for Obama regarding the fact that he has shown himself several times to be a racist, staying under the preaching of a "Pastor" who spewed racial hatred on a regular basis, and then accusing his Grandmother of being a racist, although we only have his word for that to begin with, then saying that no, she's not a racist, she's just a typical white person... yeah, that's not a racist statement. And yet, the media says that anyone who objects to this stuff is just over reacting.
They don't really mind Hillary being called a liar, and yet, Obama says that he never heard Wright say any of this stuff, and then, a few days later says that he did, which is admitting a lie, and yet they say nothing about it. Oh, and by the way, just like Hillary, Obama likes to drop some lies around himself. He said that it was the marches on Selma that gave his parents the courage to get married (her being white and him black) and have a child (him) but the truth is that he was born in '61 and the first march on Selma didn't happen until '65. He also claimed that Kennedy's Presidency gave his Grandfather the hope to send his father to the US. However, his father came to Hawaii in '59, while Ike was still in the Oval Office, and still long before the '60 election. But they don't call him on any of his lies.
There are even quite a few Democrats now calling for Hillary to drop out of the race. About the same amount are calling for Obama to drop out, but, for all her faults, Hillary hasn't shown herself to be a racist, so, it makes sense that people would want Obama to drop out, but I still can't figure out why they are so against Hillary, except for one thing, they have an option that is farther to the left in Obama, and therefore they have decided to try to get rid of her, so that the most socialist candidate possible can get on the ticket. It's the only thing that makes sense.
It doesn't bother me that the Democrats are fighting, but it does tell you something that they have so readily turned on each other, given how similar the positions are. This is not the same as what has happened on the GOP side. People, like me, who are unhappy with McCain as a candidate, disagree with him on the issues, and we don't like his stances. We are not trying to destroy him personally, we just don't like his politics. On the Dem side, it has become very personal.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Medical Marijuana
I have heard quite a few mentions recently regarding the whole controversy over medical marijuana, as they call it, even though it is, in fact, just regular marijuana being used as a medicine.
To be totally honest, I don't see why this should be such a controversial issue. I guess the reason that it is so, is primarily due to the fact that the entire issue has been so horribly mismanaged.
Let's take a brief look at what they have done in California. Basically, the supposed medical marijuana laws there were designed as an end run around laws that designate pot as an illegal drug. In California, you go to a special "Doctor" or clinic or something to get the "Prescription" and then have it "filled" at some sort of "Special Pharmacy" which is little different from an opium den of old.
Now, for me, I don't really object to marijuana being used for medicinal purposes, but I do object to the way that California has done this, basically with a wink and a nod, to allow any old stoner to be able to get their pot in a "legal" way.
The way I think that it should be handled is basically that if there is real merit to the entire idea, then the Prescription should be written by a real Doctor, the Marijuana should be produced under controlled conditions by actual Pharmaceutical companies, and dispensed by actual Pharmacies. That, to me, would make this a legitimate deal, and not just a way to skirt the laws, which, I think, are in place for very good reasons.
To be totally honest, I don't see why this should be such a controversial issue. I guess the reason that it is so, is primarily due to the fact that the entire issue has been so horribly mismanaged.
Let's take a brief look at what they have done in California. Basically, the supposed medical marijuana laws there were designed as an end run around laws that designate pot as an illegal drug. In California, you go to a special "Doctor" or clinic or something to get the "Prescription" and then have it "filled" at some sort of "Special Pharmacy" which is little different from an opium den of old.
Now, for me, I don't really object to marijuana being used for medicinal purposes, but I do object to the way that California has done this, basically with a wink and a nod, to allow any old stoner to be able to get their pot in a "legal" way.
The way I think that it should be handled is basically that if there is real merit to the entire idea, then the Prescription should be written by a real Doctor, the Marijuana should be produced under controlled conditions by actual Pharmaceutical companies, and dispensed by actual Pharmacies. That, to me, would make this a legitimate deal, and not just a way to skirt the laws, which, I think, are in place for very good reasons.
Monday, March 24, 2008
You Decide
Several apologetically liberal personalities in the media have made the statement that Obama's speech on race, which you can read (with my comments) in my last post, is the greatest speech on race ever given.
Below is the text of Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" Speech. After reading it, just ask yourself, was Obama's really the best ever? Is it even in the same league? You decide.
********************
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Below is the text of Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" Speech. After reading it, just ask yourself, was Obama's really the best ever? Is it even in the same league? You decide.
********************
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only". We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Speech
On another blog I saw some saying that we should consider the Obama Speech as a whole, so, I guess we can do that. Of course, can I add my own comments without being called a racist? Well, I hope so. Anyone who actually knows me, knows full well and good that I am in no way shape or form a racist. So here we go.
******************
******************
“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. (Actually, they formed a Constitutional Republic, rule by law, not a Democracy, rule by the majority, aka, Mob Rule.) Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787. (OK, that is basically true.) The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. (I have a few things to say about this, but it can wait just a minute.)
It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations. (Again, this is basically true, but there were those present who we vehemently against Slavery, but they knew that they couldn't win that fight at that particular time.) Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time. (Well, that's not exactly true. These men, our Founding Fathers, knew that the Union would not be "Perfected over time," they knew that it could never be made to be absolutely perfect, because man is not perfect. What Obama said here is a nod to the Communist doctrine that eventually, given enough Government control and influence, culture will become perfect, but it is, of course, nonsense.)
And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. (Partly what he is referring to here is that persons of color were defined in the Constitution as 3/5ths of a person, but this was actually a victory for the anti-slavery group, because counting those of color as a full person would not have given them any standing or rights under the law, all it would have done was to increase the slave-holders representation in Congress, which would have made fighting against slavery all that much more difficult.) What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time. (Again, this is primarily true.)
This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. (This part, however, is absolute nonsense. The nation is, at this time, equal, free, and very caring as a culture, sure there are a lot of people who don't care, but you can't force them to.)
I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; (And there it is, hope, of course, we still don't know what we are supposed to be hoping for, but we hope none the less.) that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction (Oh no we don't, he wants to move us toward pure communism, and I want us to move back to the Constitutional Republic, with huge emphasis on personal liberty, like our nation was intended to be.)– towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren. (Funny, but I don't see being enslaved to Communism as being a better future!) This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. (That remains to be seen.)
But it also comes from my own American story. I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. (I don't know what this has to do with Wrights comments, but I digress... or he digresses, or something...) I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners (How about some proof on this? How many people do we hear saying that they are descended from slaves but are not. I'm not saying it's not true, just that it needs to be qualified... besides, it's not relevant to the current topic.)– an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.
I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. (Maybe he should remind Wright of that.) It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one. (I'm sorry, is he saying that he is genetically superior? That because of his biracialness that he is better qualified to be President? Funny, I thought that had to do with things like character and ability.)
Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. (Actually, we saw how ignorant and gullible a lot of Americans are.) Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, (Actually, he may have had this issue, but I haven't, I don't like him because he wants to destroy our country, having nothing to do with race whatsoever, nor have I ever been tempted to view him in a racial context.) we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans. (Who cares? This is supposed to be about Wrights comments, not about how a bunch of ignorant dupes bought into a bunch of meaningless drivel.) This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” (Yeah, and mostly they were black, and or liberal, both of which he is, so what exactly is his point?) We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. (And of course his campaign was totally innocent in this...)
The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well. (And when he gets 90% of the black vote, you have to ask yourself, how much "scouring" does it really take?) And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn. (Right, sure, because people who disagree with Obama haven't been being called racists from the start or anything... wait, yes we have!)On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. (The only thing cheap there is cheap shot he just took at Ferraro, a liberal icon, and decidedly NOT a racist! Not to mention that he is about as liberal as they come.)
On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike. (Ok, so that is true.) I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. (But there he goes, that's not true at all. If you listen to all of this "condemnation" it all comes in the form of, "I disagree with some of what he said" without ever telling us what things he disagrees with. Hardly Unequivocal.) For some, nagging questions remain. (No, not nagging questions, glaring questions that must be answered.) Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? (Fierce critic?!?! Is he kidding? Calling for God to curse America is being critical? Making wild claims that whites started AIDS to kill blacks is being critical? Saying that we deserved 9/11 is being critical?) Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. (And yet, just the other day, he claimed that he had not heard these things. He stated in strong, UNEQUIVOCAL terms that he had never heard Wright, in public or in private, make any such statements, because, if he had, he would have confronted him about them. So here, he was caught in a great big lie, but is anyone talking about that? Not that I've heard.)
Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely (I don't think he did, or does, I think he just doesn't want this to sink his campaign, so he has to say now that he disagrees, but he, 20 years in that Church tell us a different story.)– just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. (No, not anywhere near on this level, and if I did, I would not stay in such a church myself, nor, more critically, would I allow my children to be exposed to that.)
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. (As shocked as I am to have to say this, this last part was absolute, pure, unvarnished truth... but don't get to excited, he didn't stop there.)
As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; (See, it isn't so much that they were wrong, he only cares because they were divisive, and we can't have that, we must have unity at all costs... or some such nonsense.) racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; (quite the laundry list of liberal propaganda) problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. (Maybe because they are weak and so clearly politically motivated!) Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? (Yeah, a very valid question.) Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, (Frankly, that's all you really need to know about this guy. It makes no difference what else he may have done, how nice or wonderful he is personally, or whatever, it is obvious that this racism and hatred of America is the driving force in his life.) or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, (or, you know, until recently self proclaimed on the church's own web site.) there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way (Obviously not! There are many places you can go to hear someone preach the gospel, you would only choose this kind of environment because it's views match your own.) But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. (And again I say, I don't care.)
The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, (And yet a man totally devoid of any notion of what being a Christian actually means.) a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; (Another subject that he obviously knows nothing about, as Christian love is totally incompatible with hate of anyone. Yes, we can hate actions, sins, evil, but not people, as hard as it can be sometimes, if you hate people, you have, at the very least, really lost your way.) to care for the sick and lift up the poor.
He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth (By spewing racist hatred and anti-American vitriol, while associating with well known racists and terrorists? Sorry, but this is not Gods work.)– by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. (OK, so that is all good stuff, and I'm glad that they do it, but it doesn't excuse the other stuff.)
In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity: “People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. (Note that he only imagined black people relating to those stories...)
Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. (Honestly, how much more blatantly racist can you get?) Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; (What does that even mean? Does it mean anything?) in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.” (rebuild what? He's talking like this was all happening in the immediate aftermath of segregation or slavery, but it wasn't, this was in the 1990 time frame... if they were only just starting to "rebuild" then they squandered a lot of time.) That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety (So much for Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.) – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. (Yeah, because that belongs in church.) They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. (Translation: Sorry, Whitey, you can't understand what goes on there.)
The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America. (Talk about racially divisive speech... why isn't anyone calling him out on this?) And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. (And therein lies the problem. You don't get to choose your family, be he did choose to have a close relationship with this man.) He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, (Wait a minute, he said earlier that he had heard these things... I wonder which it is?) or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. (And why should we believe that, coming right on the heels of a lie.) He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. (Which should be the full body of believers in Christ, but of course, he didn't mean that, he meant blacks. To clarify, there is no white Christianity, and no black Christianity, there is only Christianity, and everything else.)
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. (What if John McCain started talking about what he owed to the white community, what do you think would happen then?) I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. (A woman who, despite all she has done for him in his life, just got thrown under to bus by her grandson for the purpose of making a black racist seem not so bad. The truth is that even though he is trying to make some sort of equivilance here, these things are not related at all. His grandmother was the victim of ignorance, which is something that odler whites had a lot of trouble with, and some, sadly, still do, Wright only other hand goes to a much higher level in his racism, hating whites and even going so far as to call white people the enemy.)
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love. Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. (Yes they are, but that is exactly what this amounts to.) I can assure you it is not. (Yes it is.) I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. (No, that would work, because if it would he would have done it, but he knows this won't go away, nor should it.) We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. (Actually, that is what Obama did to Ferraro, so, what is he getting at, that we should be better than him and let his racist pastor off the hook in the same way he wouldn't let Ferraro off the hook for speaking the truth?)
But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. (Wrong. The problem is that liberals and media types won't let it go. We can't afford not to ignore it. Race isn't an issue at all with a vast majority of Americans. White racism is effectively impotent as a force in America today, it is totally not tollerated, nor should it be. Can some individuals engage in racist behavior to the detriment of others? Sure, but again, when discovered, it is not tollerated. So why should we accept racism from Wright... in short, we shouldn't.) We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America (No, we would be letting go of something that is nothing more than a liberal propganda issue, that needs to be removed from the American mind, so that we can finally have the color blind society that many of us have wanted for a long, long time.)– to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through (because the media and the race baiters won't let go of them. As my grandfather used to say, the best way to keep a cow flop stinking is to stir it.)– a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. (Again, it will never be perfect.) And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American. (And there we have all the liberal propoganda once more. Nobody is talking about retreating to our corners, like this is some kind of fight, we need people to stop telling us we are all racist, and that we can't get along because of things that happened far in the past, and just let us get on with our lives.) Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. (Distorted view of History anyone?)
As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Segregated schools were, and are, (Do any of you know of any currently segregated schools?) inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students. (Of course school vouchers and school choice would solve this, but Obama can't have that, it would mean students leaving Government indoctronations centers... errr... schools, and actually getting real educations that would help to prepare them for real life, but of course, that's not actually what' she after.) Legalized discrimination (Instituted and perpetuated by the left.) - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. (I thought he wasn't going to dwell on that stuff...) That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities. (And does anyone think that slave owners or segregationist bigots are going to come back from the dead and make everything right? I certainly don't, nor can the Government make everything right, the Government takes things that are already right and makes them wrong, so I don't think we want to turn to them for help. As Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most frightening words in the English Language are; 'I'm from the Government and I'm here to help.'")
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. (Policies put in place by, and perpetuated by, liberal Democrats just like Barack Obama.) And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us. (And will continue to until these communities take actions to make things better, because nobody is going to do it for them, not even Obama.)
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. (True as that may be, life, and espcially the Christian life, are all about growing, and being able to move past what was wrong with the past, certainly not about being bitter and spewing hate.) What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them. But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. (And there is some sad truth to this, no doubt that racism is an ugly stain on the history of the USA, but it's not an excuse.)
That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. (And that's where you have to question his validity as a spiritual advisor.) That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. (I don't know, the pulpit is pretty public.) But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. (Is he saying that blacks are fake in front white people, pretending to get along with them because they have to, but at home they really hate us just as much as Wright does? What a Crock, and how cynical can you get, really?)
At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, (Like Obama.) to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings. And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. (Nonsense. Any true Christian, black or white, or any other race, can never be more unified than when they are truly worshiping God.) That anger is not always productive; (Try never, buddy.) indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; (And it is deliberately perpetuated by the media and the politcal left.) and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. (Bull! We don't need to understand the roots of racism in order to condenm it. Racism is wrong, it is ignorant, it is stupid, it has no place in our culture, and need to be done away with in the hearts and minds of all who harbor it!)
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. (Of course not, because we haven't.) Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. (Oh, wait, so only the immigrants have done anything worth while, the rest of us have had everything handed to us. What a BIGOT!!!, and people are still listening to this!) They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. (Though cloudly, there is a little truth in that.) Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. (Not exactly, liberal agenda's that hurt any working class person, of any race, cause a lot of anger, it's not specific to whites.)
Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. (Though there is still some truth there, what he is not saying is that liberals are far more guilty of this stuff than Conservatives. And that anger over welfare, which damages just as many whites as blacks, and affirmative action, which takes race into account rather than who actually needs the help, are justified.)
Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. (OK, he just totally lost me. He really needs to qualify some of this stuff instead of just tossing it out there.)
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own. But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union. (I couldn't see interupting the liberal diatribe there.)
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, (If it's run by the Government, it will be far worse!) and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. (Right there alongside all the hate... how could you miss it?) But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change. The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. (Actually, that was a problem, but pay attention to this next part.) It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. (Regardless of being laced with his own campaign inanities, that last part was pretty good.)
In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. (In other words, keep stirring the cow flop, keep racial tensions high, so that liberal social programs can be instituted to deal with what needs to be a non issue.) Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; (That means taking our money away from us, so that they ever wise government can spend it where it sees fit... for our benefit of course.) by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.
It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper. In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well. For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. (The classic liberal possition, but of course, he didn't bother to say that.) We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. (Boy, he's shoveling crap at a phenomenal rate!)
We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. (Which he obviously does or else he wouldn't have listened to them for the past 20 years.) We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, (Or just accuse them of it because it benefits the Obama Campaign.) or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. (Of course, better that nothing changes than that Obama gets the kind of change that he wants.) That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. (Why didn't he just say, "All children" Oh yeah, he has to keep the race thing going...)
This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. (Boy, he sure does have a list of problems here, and even though he thought we should all be aware of why we should excuse racism from someone like Wright, he didn't seem to care that we should know that most of the issues listed are direct results of liberal policies that have been shoved down the throats of the American people over the years...)
I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election. There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta. There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there. And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat. She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.” “I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins. (HUH?)
***************
So, did anyone else notice how he danced all around what Wright actually said, devoting only one line in the entire 37 minute speech to the Anti-American comments? I guess that wasn't as important as spewing all the liberal lies about race relations. Must be those aren't the comments that he so strongly disagrees with. How can he say he loves this country, and then not defend it?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Vile Hatred
So, I've been taking my time in thinking about the words that were said by Barack Obama's pastor, and about Obama's response to the whole thing, and I have a few things to say.
First of all, if you haven't seen any of the clips from this mans "Sermons" I suggest you do so, so that you can see what exactly I'm talking about. You can find them at a plethora of web sites; www.foxnews.com www.hotair.com or, look them up yourself at www.youtube.com where you see them doesn't much matter, that you see them matters a great deal.
Much of what this man says is flat out untrue. Now, if he were just disagreeing about certain points, I might give him a pass, for instance, when he talks about how wrong America was to drop the two atomic bombs in WWII, he is free to have that opinion, I don't agree with it, but I don't begrudge him the right to have it. To explain myself a little bit here, I'm not saying that I don't think that it was a horrible thing that was done, just that lives, of both civilian and military personnel, would have been lost in far greater numbers had those bombs not ended the war, so, as horrific as they might have been, and indeed were, not dropping them would have constituted the greater evil. Again, I don't think that he has to agree with my view on this, but to turn it around and claim that, because we did that, that we deserved to be hit, as we were, on September 11th 2001, is not only offensive to any clear thinking, rational American, but in my view, is a morally reprehensible statement to make.
Some of the other stuff though, that the US Government (or possibly anybody who is white) started the AIDS virus as a means of killing black people, is simply one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Of course, right up there with it was his assertion that the Government gives drugs to black people, just so it can put them in prison. Of course, he never defends these positions, likely because they are indefensible. It's almost as crazy though as saying that Obama would be a better President than Clinton (don't get me wrong here, I think either one would be terrible) just because she doesn't know what it's like to be an oppressed black person. Well, I'd like to point out here, neither does he really. Might he have suffered some from racism throughout his life? Sure it's possible, but not like this guy is trying to get us to believe. Obama wasn't around for the Civil Rights era any more than I was. And let's be honest, whatever else the Clintons might be (and a lot of things could be said here) one thing that is for sure, is that they are not racist, nor are they trying to oppress black people.
And what's this nonsense about Jesus being a black man? Jesus was a Jew (Oh yeah, make sure you don't miss the comments that demonstrate how much this man hates Jews!). While it is true that many of the paintings that have been done of him (all of them artist impressions because, as we know, none of them actually know what Jesus actually looked like from a human standpoint) tend to show him as a European White man, which is also not true, but let's not get carried away and declare him to be black, just because it fits what someone wants to believe.
And one question I would like to ask Mr. Wright is how it is that, given his own admission that he is all about doing what is best for black people, that he can support anyone who supports Abortion, as Obama vehemently does? After all, it has been proven that the Abortion movement, right from the very beginning, was geared toward killing black children. Granted, many whites kill there babies in this way, but a disproportionate number of blacks are murdered in this way, and nobody seems to care. In fact, it was recently revealed by an undercover investigation that Planned Parenthood is perfectly willing to accept donations earmarked for an abortion by a black woman. Of course, most media outlets didn't utter a peep about this, but you can find it with a little digging (www.worldnetdaily.com).
Now, on to the question of whether or not Obama should be held to account for any of this, and, given the circumstances, the answer is yes.
I'm not suggesting that Obama could have stopped the man from saying these things, or that he put him up to it, or in some way controls what Wright says. It's not about that at all. What I am saying is that Obama is responsible for associating himself with this man and his radical views. Obama attended this man's "Church" for over 20 years, the Obama's were married by this man, and his children were baptised by this man, and he calls him his Spiritual advisor, and a close friend. At the very least this calls his judgement into question, but personally, I think it goes deeper than that.
How could someone stay in a Church where this kind of vile hate spewed repeatedly from the pulpit? I couldn't, and I don't think most people could... unless they agreed with it!! And that's what it comes down to, does Obama agree with this racist drivel, and hate filled vitriol? And if he doesn't, how does he justify staying in this Church? And he must. There is no problem with a black person being President, but there is a serious problem with a racist, of any color, being President. In example, look at Woodrow Wilson, a hero to some on the left, and yet, without question, one of, if not the, most flat out racist men to ever occupy the office of the President. A hard look at this man will show that he did far more to damage race relations in the country than many of the more well known villains, and we can't afford to go back there again.
Now, about Obama's "great" speech. I fail to understand how it is that anyone, except for the most dense, can think that Obama did himself any good at all with this speech. He basically came out, and flat out admitted that he knew about the stances and statements of this man, but could not disavow him. So, for all those idiots who have been saying that people like me were blasting Obama through guilt by association, how is it exactly that an admission of guilt is better than that? It seems crazy to me that people aren't pointing that out. To me, I think his speech made it worse, but that is mitigated by people in the media trying to spin it to his favor. Even Bill O'Reilly said that Obama had "stopped the bleeding" with this speech, which made me say, "huh?"
You also hear people talk about how great a job Obama has done at keeping race out of this election. I assert though that he has done a good job of pretending to keep race out of things. To see this, you don't have to look back that far, you only need to look at what happened recently with comments made by Geraldine Ferraro, (and whatever you may think of her, she is no racist) basically saying that Obama has done as well as he has in this election because he is a black man, and the Obama campaign, and even Obama himself, couldn't call her a racist, or at least accuse her of racist comments, fast enough. The fact of the matter is that she was right. Let me explain that now. If the entire field were white men, including Obama, then he would have had a very good chance to be doing as well as he is doing now, with his inane message of hoping for nothing, and just making people feel good about being too ignorant to see what he actually wants to do to our nation, however, if he were a white man, all other things being equal, running against Hillary, she would have crushed him, therefore, it is factual, and not racist to say that his race has served him well in this campaign.
In short, either Obama agrees with Wright, and is also a racist, or he his far too cowardly to stand up and confront him, or to even just walk out, either way, he is not President material.
Oh yes, and as to his assertion that we all have heard our Pastors say things that we disagree with, let me just say, some minor thing that I might have disagreed with, or been unsure of, is not even remotely the same thing. He claimed that people have been cherry picking what his Pastor says, but to that I say, you can Cherry Pick my Pastors Sermons all day long, and you aren't going to find this vile garbage anywhere, and honestly, if you did, I wouldn't stay in the Church... and I have no plans to run for President.
First of all, if you haven't seen any of the clips from this mans "Sermons" I suggest you do so, so that you can see what exactly I'm talking about. You can find them at a plethora of web sites; www.foxnews.com www.hotair.com or, look them up yourself at www.youtube.com where you see them doesn't much matter, that you see them matters a great deal.
Much of what this man says is flat out untrue. Now, if he were just disagreeing about certain points, I might give him a pass, for instance, when he talks about how wrong America was to drop the two atomic bombs in WWII, he is free to have that opinion, I don't agree with it, but I don't begrudge him the right to have it. To explain myself a little bit here, I'm not saying that I don't think that it was a horrible thing that was done, just that lives, of both civilian and military personnel, would have been lost in far greater numbers had those bombs not ended the war, so, as horrific as they might have been, and indeed were, not dropping them would have constituted the greater evil. Again, I don't think that he has to agree with my view on this, but to turn it around and claim that, because we did that, that we deserved to be hit, as we were, on September 11th 2001, is not only offensive to any clear thinking, rational American, but in my view, is a morally reprehensible statement to make.
Some of the other stuff though, that the US Government (or possibly anybody who is white) started the AIDS virus as a means of killing black people, is simply one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Of course, right up there with it was his assertion that the Government gives drugs to black people, just so it can put them in prison. Of course, he never defends these positions, likely because they are indefensible. It's almost as crazy though as saying that Obama would be a better President than Clinton (don't get me wrong here, I think either one would be terrible) just because she doesn't know what it's like to be an oppressed black person. Well, I'd like to point out here, neither does he really. Might he have suffered some from racism throughout his life? Sure it's possible, but not like this guy is trying to get us to believe. Obama wasn't around for the Civil Rights era any more than I was. And let's be honest, whatever else the Clintons might be (and a lot of things could be said here) one thing that is for sure, is that they are not racist, nor are they trying to oppress black people.
And what's this nonsense about Jesus being a black man? Jesus was a Jew (Oh yeah, make sure you don't miss the comments that demonstrate how much this man hates Jews!). While it is true that many of the paintings that have been done of him (all of them artist impressions because, as we know, none of them actually know what Jesus actually looked like from a human standpoint) tend to show him as a European White man, which is also not true, but let's not get carried away and declare him to be black, just because it fits what someone wants to believe.
And one question I would like to ask Mr. Wright is how it is that, given his own admission that he is all about doing what is best for black people, that he can support anyone who supports Abortion, as Obama vehemently does? After all, it has been proven that the Abortion movement, right from the very beginning, was geared toward killing black children. Granted, many whites kill there babies in this way, but a disproportionate number of blacks are murdered in this way, and nobody seems to care. In fact, it was recently revealed by an undercover investigation that Planned Parenthood is perfectly willing to accept donations earmarked for an abortion by a black woman. Of course, most media outlets didn't utter a peep about this, but you can find it with a little digging (www.worldnetdaily.com).
Now, on to the question of whether or not Obama should be held to account for any of this, and, given the circumstances, the answer is yes.
I'm not suggesting that Obama could have stopped the man from saying these things, or that he put him up to it, or in some way controls what Wright says. It's not about that at all. What I am saying is that Obama is responsible for associating himself with this man and his radical views. Obama attended this man's "Church" for over 20 years, the Obama's were married by this man, and his children were baptised by this man, and he calls him his Spiritual advisor, and a close friend. At the very least this calls his judgement into question, but personally, I think it goes deeper than that.
How could someone stay in a Church where this kind of vile hate spewed repeatedly from the pulpit? I couldn't, and I don't think most people could... unless they agreed with it!! And that's what it comes down to, does Obama agree with this racist drivel, and hate filled vitriol? And if he doesn't, how does he justify staying in this Church? And he must. There is no problem with a black person being President, but there is a serious problem with a racist, of any color, being President. In example, look at Woodrow Wilson, a hero to some on the left, and yet, without question, one of, if not the, most flat out racist men to ever occupy the office of the President. A hard look at this man will show that he did far more to damage race relations in the country than many of the more well known villains, and we can't afford to go back there again.
Now, about Obama's "great" speech. I fail to understand how it is that anyone, except for the most dense, can think that Obama did himself any good at all with this speech. He basically came out, and flat out admitted that he knew about the stances and statements of this man, but could not disavow him. So, for all those idiots who have been saying that people like me were blasting Obama through guilt by association, how is it exactly that an admission of guilt is better than that? It seems crazy to me that people aren't pointing that out. To me, I think his speech made it worse, but that is mitigated by people in the media trying to spin it to his favor. Even Bill O'Reilly said that Obama had "stopped the bleeding" with this speech, which made me say, "huh?"
You also hear people talk about how great a job Obama has done at keeping race out of this election. I assert though that he has done a good job of pretending to keep race out of things. To see this, you don't have to look back that far, you only need to look at what happened recently with comments made by Geraldine Ferraro, (and whatever you may think of her, she is no racist) basically saying that Obama has done as well as he has in this election because he is a black man, and the Obama campaign, and even Obama himself, couldn't call her a racist, or at least accuse her of racist comments, fast enough. The fact of the matter is that she was right. Let me explain that now. If the entire field were white men, including Obama, then he would have had a very good chance to be doing as well as he is doing now, with his inane message of hoping for nothing, and just making people feel good about being too ignorant to see what he actually wants to do to our nation, however, if he were a white man, all other things being equal, running against Hillary, she would have crushed him, therefore, it is factual, and not racist to say that his race has served him well in this campaign.
In short, either Obama agrees with Wright, and is also a racist, or he his far too cowardly to stand up and confront him, or to even just walk out, either way, he is not President material.
Oh yes, and as to his assertion that we all have heard our Pastors say things that we disagree with, let me just say, some minor thing that I might have disagreed with, or been unsure of, is not even remotely the same thing. He claimed that people have been cherry picking what his Pastor says, but to that I say, you can Cherry Pick my Pastors Sermons all day long, and you aren't going to find this vile garbage anywhere, and honestly, if you did, I wouldn't stay in the Church... and I have no plans to run for President.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Eliot Spitzer
I'm doing something for the very first time today, I'm using a guest blogger. Since the subject of this post is the (soon to be former) Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, I've asked my Mom, as a resident of the (once upon a time) great State of New York, to share some thoughts in this regard.
**************
Just some thoughts with regard to the political situation regarding Eliot Spitzer, Governor (soon to be ex-Governor) of New York State. Mr. Spitzer held the job of Attorney General before becoming Governor and in that position, he cracked down on crime in NY State, including prostitution rings. It is ironic that now he is embroiled in a scandal himself by using a call-girl service. With the amount of money involved, over $80,000, it seems that this has been an ongoing process. Such actions have far reaching effects including his political career and, sadly, his family.
Personally, I have not voted for Mr. Spitzer, as Attorney General or Governor. He has been Governor for just over a year and his ratings are very low, even among the Democrats. Legislators in Albany, especially Republicans, found it difficult to work with him. One agenda he tried pushing, very hard, was that illegal immigrants be allowed drivers’ licenses! There was much opposition and he had to put the idea aside but had planned on bringing it up again, and again.
In my opinion, I think he should resign as Governor (which will be effective on Monday, March 17th). I also think that if there are legal ramifications, he should be prosecuted; no deals because of his money and name. As an elected official, he should not be allowed to get away with a slap on the wrist or anything less.
The Press & Sun-Bulletin (our local newspaper) is reporting that Mr. Spitzer is worth millions because of his father’s real estate business. It is also mentioned that his wife may now divorce him. (That, of course, is always speculation in the media.) She gave up a lucrative career when he entered politics and he may have to pay dearly for the stupid mistakes he made. When he was Attorney General, no one else was above the law so he should not be either.
Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who will become Governor on Monday, is well liked on both sides of the aisle in Albany and Legislators feel there will be a good working relationship. That is a positive aspect that New Yorkers need right now. There are a lot of wrongdoings going on with politicians and they should all be held accountable for their actions. As a matter of fact, we will all be held accountable before God.
**************
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
**************
I was going to put in my e-mail yesterday, but forgot (imagine that!) - I was in the break room yesterday reading the paper (the comic section at that time) and one of our attorneys came in. He said, "Are you reading the comics or about Spitzer? It's almost the same thing." He is a Republican and this is just a little taste of how people are looking at the situation.
I noticed in yesterday's paper that Paterson is pro-abortion and for same-sex marriage. Hopefully, the Legislature will keep him in check. You have probably heard from the news that Paterson is black and legally blind. He has been in politics for many years, so he should be knowledgeable about how the office should be run. Our budget is due April 1st and I have heard comments that it will be easier to work with Paterson than it was with Spitzer. We'll see.
Love, Mom
*************
I want first of all to say thanks to Mom for sharing that. It answers a few questions for me. It appears that most New Yorkers don't feel betrayed, simply because they didn't really like, or trust, the guy to begin with.
Hopefully this will ultimately be a good thing for the people of New York. I mean, we don't know, but we do know that Spitzer was not a good thing for New York. Having grown up there myself, I can tell you that the State has been poorly managed for many years, doing virtually everything wrong, over-taxing the working people (and by that I certainly don't mean the rich, just regular working class folks who are living paycheck to paycheck) while creating a massive welfare system, and at the same time virtually chasing businesses out of the State through outrageous taxation and fees. Certainly the State Government could use a shake-up, so hopefully this shake-up will finally turn things around in the state... but being that Paterson is still a hard core Democrat, that may be overly optimistic.
On a side note, I see that Dr. Laura has made a rather silly statement about the situation, and I have been thinking about it quite a bit. If I have time in the next few days, I may take some time an analyze that.
Again, thanks for the contribution Mom!
**************
Just some thoughts with regard to the political situation regarding Eliot Spitzer, Governor (soon to be ex-Governor) of New York State. Mr. Spitzer held the job of Attorney General before becoming Governor and in that position, he cracked down on crime in NY State, including prostitution rings. It is ironic that now he is embroiled in a scandal himself by using a call-girl service. With the amount of money involved, over $80,000, it seems that this has been an ongoing process. Such actions have far reaching effects including his political career and, sadly, his family.
Personally, I have not voted for Mr. Spitzer, as Attorney General or Governor. He has been Governor for just over a year and his ratings are very low, even among the Democrats. Legislators in Albany, especially Republicans, found it difficult to work with him. One agenda he tried pushing, very hard, was that illegal immigrants be allowed drivers’ licenses! There was much opposition and he had to put the idea aside but had planned on bringing it up again, and again.
In my opinion, I think he should resign as Governor (which will be effective on Monday, March 17th). I also think that if there are legal ramifications, he should be prosecuted; no deals because of his money and name. As an elected official, he should not be allowed to get away with a slap on the wrist or anything less.
The Press & Sun-Bulletin (our local newspaper) is reporting that Mr. Spitzer is worth millions because of his father’s real estate business. It is also mentioned that his wife may now divorce him. (That, of course, is always speculation in the media.) She gave up a lucrative career when he entered politics and he may have to pay dearly for the stupid mistakes he made. When he was Attorney General, no one else was above the law so he should not be either.
Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who will become Governor on Monday, is well liked on both sides of the aisle in Albany and Legislators feel there will be a good working relationship. That is a positive aspect that New Yorkers need right now. There are a lot of wrongdoings going on with politicians and they should all be held accountable for their actions. As a matter of fact, we will all be held accountable before God.
**************
Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
**************
I was going to put in my e-mail yesterday, but forgot (imagine that!) - I was in the break room yesterday reading the paper (the comic section at that time) and one of our attorneys came in. He said, "Are you reading the comics or about Spitzer? It's almost the same thing." He is a Republican and this is just a little taste of how people are looking at the situation.
I noticed in yesterday's paper that Paterson is pro-abortion and for same-sex marriage. Hopefully, the Legislature will keep him in check. You have probably heard from the news that Paterson is black and legally blind. He has been in politics for many years, so he should be knowledgeable about how the office should be run. Our budget is due April 1st and I have heard comments that it will be easier to work with Paterson than it was with Spitzer. We'll see.
Love, Mom
*************
I want first of all to say thanks to Mom for sharing that. It answers a few questions for me. It appears that most New Yorkers don't feel betrayed, simply because they didn't really like, or trust, the guy to begin with.
Hopefully this will ultimately be a good thing for the people of New York. I mean, we don't know, but we do know that Spitzer was not a good thing for New York. Having grown up there myself, I can tell you that the State has been poorly managed for many years, doing virtually everything wrong, over-taxing the working people (and by that I certainly don't mean the rich, just regular working class folks who are living paycheck to paycheck) while creating a massive welfare system, and at the same time virtually chasing businesses out of the State through outrageous taxation and fees. Certainly the State Government could use a shake-up, so hopefully this shake-up will finally turn things around in the state... but being that Paterson is still a hard core Democrat, that may be overly optimistic.
On a side note, I see that Dr. Laura has made a rather silly statement about the situation, and I have been thinking about it quite a bit. If I have time in the next few days, I may take some time an analyze that.
Again, thanks for the contribution Mom!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Not So Shocking
I'm sure that pretty much everyone has heard the much hyped story in the press about drugs being found in drinking water. Please note that I didn't say that it was over-hyped. Truly, I don't think that you could take this revelation too seriously. A lot of people are asking a lot of very good questions that I think that we all need answers to. First of all, I don't think that we should take it at face value when people tell us that there is no harm in this, because these drugs are all well below medical doses. On that point I say, so what? What do I care if it's not a medical dose, if I don't need any of this medication, then even the smallest amount is too much. Beside which, even though we are talking about minuscule doses, who is to say that there couldn't be some sort of reaction, even from trace amounts, of multiple various drugs. And, even if this had no affect on full grown healthy adults like myself, what about kids? What about people who are sick already? What about people who are taking medication of some kind that this stuff might interact with? Personally, I think that these are all critical questions that we need to hear answers to.
However, I want to ask this, why are we so surprised? We live in a culture where people suck down medications like candy. All kinds of medicines, Prescription and non-Prescription, needed and un-needed, good and bad. We live in a culture where drugs are advertised on TV and radio, and in newspapers and magazines, where people see these ads and go to their Dr and demand that they be given this drug, and Dr's either don't care, or fear being taken to court, and so they go ahead and give in. We live in a culture where Pharmaceutical companies give money to Dr's for Prescribing their drugs, and so drugs are given to people who don't really need them.
What did we think was happening to all of these (in some cases very powerful) drugs? Are they all being taken? Obviously not. Did we think that when someone takes these medicines, even appropriately, that that is the end of them? Certainly it is not. Some of these drugs may be fully absorbed by the body, some only partially. Any unabsorbed portion is simply passed out of the body, but even the absorbed part eventually passes through, even if in a somewhat altered state. And some people flush some of their pills and such down the toilet whole. Where did we think that all of that stuff went to? I tell you, the toilet isn't a portal that sends this stuff into the nether regions.
I have seen some explanations that sewage is treated before being returned to the environment at large, which is true, but that the treatment doesn't remove all of these drugs from the water. Again, the water is also treated, and filtered and such, before it gets used for drinking water again, but that doesn't remove all of those drugs either. Again, I can't say that I'm surprised, I imagine that these substances are difficult to remove from the water. I don't know exactly what can be done about this, but obviously something needs to be done, and obviously, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.
I guess all I'm waiting for now is to see who they are going try to pin blame on, because you can be sure, it won't end up where it belongs.
However, I want to ask this, why are we so surprised? We live in a culture where people suck down medications like candy. All kinds of medicines, Prescription and non-Prescription, needed and un-needed, good and bad. We live in a culture where drugs are advertised on TV and radio, and in newspapers and magazines, where people see these ads and go to their Dr and demand that they be given this drug, and Dr's either don't care, or fear being taken to court, and so they go ahead and give in. We live in a culture where Pharmaceutical companies give money to Dr's for Prescribing their drugs, and so drugs are given to people who don't really need them.
What did we think was happening to all of these (in some cases very powerful) drugs? Are they all being taken? Obviously not. Did we think that when someone takes these medicines, even appropriately, that that is the end of them? Certainly it is not. Some of these drugs may be fully absorbed by the body, some only partially. Any unabsorbed portion is simply passed out of the body, but even the absorbed part eventually passes through, even if in a somewhat altered state. And some people flush some of their pills and such down the toilet whole. Where did we think that all of that stuff went to? I tell you, the toilet isn't a portal that sends this stuff into the nether regions.
I have seen some explanations that sewage is treated before being returned to the environment at large, which is true, but that the treatment doesn't remove all of these drugs from the water. Again, the water is also treated, and filtered and such, before it gets used for drinking water again, but that doesn't remove all of those drugs either. Again, I can't say that I'm surprised, I imagine that these substances are difficult to remove from the water. I don't know exactly what can be done about this, but obviously something needs to be done, and obviously, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.
I guess all I'm waiting for now is to see who they are going try to pin blame on, because you can be sure, it won't end up where it belongs.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Some Random Thoughts
OK, being that tonight is the night that we flop our clocks forward by an hour again, I think that I have to open up today by saying once again just how much I can't stand this entire concept of time change. I still think that it's utterly ridiculous, it's just outrageously annoying. I'm not complaining that I have an hour shorter shift at work, but it does mean that I have to use an hour of vacation time if I want to keep my normal paycheck. I guess though, that I should consider myself one of the least affected people by it at this point, since most everyone else will be losing an hour of sleep, and I'll be shortening my work day, so maybe I shouldn't complain too much.
My wife took our daughter to a "Kids in the Kitchen" class this morning, where the kids got to learn something about nutrition and cooking and such, and she had a really great time.
At the same time, my Father-in-law took my son fishing for the first time ever, and he had a blast too. I got up this afternoon and stumbled to the bathroom, and he couldn't wait for me to finish, he came bursting in and said, "Daddy, Daddy, I caught TWO Fish!!" As someone who had never gone fishing, I can't say that I know anything about it, but I'm glad that he enjoyed it and had a great time. I'm glad that he enjoys outdoor stuff, and I need to get myself to doing more outdoor stuff with him, because I'm not much of an outdoor type person, but I do think that it is a more healthy way to be.
Just to share, I have always liked http://www.blueletterbible.org/ which I still do, it is a great web site for looking up Bible verses an such, but if you would like something different, I have also discovered (much like Columbus discovered America even though there were already people living here, and other explorers got here first) another great site, http://www.biblegateway.com/ which has a few versions that Blue Letter Bible doesn't, and it's easier to copy and paste from than BLB is. Don't get me wrong, I still like Blue Letter Bible, but I'm happy for the new resource as well, and plan to go on using both of them in the future.
I still find myself amused by all the people who are supposed to be experts who are telling us that either Hillary made a huge comeback and will get the nomination, or she is still done and out of it, and didn't win Texas and Ohio by enough, and Obama now has it in the bag. The fact of the matter is that they just don't know. I don't know what's going to happen, and neither does anyone else. Of course, they keep spouting off enough possibilities, and no matter what happens they will be able to say that they said that this could happen. Of course they did, because they basically, at one time or another, put forth nearly every conceivable outcome. The truth is that they don't actually know what is going to happen any more than you or I do.
On the subject of elections, there is still a great deal of debate over the DNC's decision to exclude Florida and Michigan from their Convention because the State Governments violated Party rules by having their primary contests too early. If you've read here in the past, you will know that I feel that this is an outrageous thing for them to do. For one, I don't like the way the entire Presidential Primary system is set up to begin with, but that's a discussion for another day, but beyond that, the decision to move up the Primary was made by the State Governments, not the voters. The voters had no choice but to go to the polls on the day that we were told that they were open to us, or skip voting entirely. As for the Democrats in Florida, they had record turnout, so those results should stand, and the delegates should be seated, based on the January 29th Primary. To take a second vote would be to try to rig the election in Obama's favor, and is a monumentally stupid idea. As for Michigan, Obama made the decision to remove himself from the ballot, and therefore should have to suffer the consequences, and those delegates should be seated as well. The people showed up when they were supposed to, and did what they were supposed to do, and should not be punished for it, and certainly should not be ignored. The Dems always make such a big deal out of "every vote must count" and then they want to completely ignore two entire states because their little feelings got hurt. On the GOP side, it's pretty much a moot point, however, the entire Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at our convention as well.
I guess that's all the random thoughts for today. Have a good one.
My wife took our daughter to a "Kids in the Kitchen" class this morning, where the kids got to learn something about nutrition and cooking and such, and she had a really great time.
At the same time, my Father-in-law took my son fishing for the first time ever, and he had a blast too. I got up this afternoon and stumbled to the bathroom, and he couldn't wait for me to finish, he came bursting in and said, "Daddy, Daddy, I caught TWO Fish!!" As someone who had never gone fishing, I can't say that I know anything about it, but I'm glad that he enjoyed it and had a great time. I'm glad that he enjoys outdoor stuff, and I need to get myself to doing more outdoor stuff with him, because I'm not much of an outdoor type person, but I do think that it is a more healthy way to be.
Just to share, I have always liked http://www.blueletterbible.org/ which I still do, it is a great web site for looking up Bible verses an such, but if you would like something different, I have also discovered (much like Columbus discovered America even though there were already people living here, and other explorers got here first) another great site, http://www.biblegateway.com/ which has a few versions that Blue Letter Bible doesn't, and it's easier to copy and paste from than BLB is. Don't get me wrong, I still like Blue Letter Bible, but I'm happy for the new resource as well, and plan to go on using both of them in the future.
I still find myself amused by all the people who are supposed to be experts who are telling us that either Hillary made a huge comeback and will get the nomination, or she is still done and out of it, and didn't win Texas and Ohio by enough, and Obama now has it in the bag. The fact of the matter is that they just don't know. I don't know what's going to happen, and neither does anyone else. Of course, they keep spouting off enough possibilities, and no matter what happens they will be able to say that they said that this could happen. Of course they did, because they basically, at one time or another, put forth nearly every conceivable outcome. The truth is that they don't actually know what is going to happen any more than you or I do.
On the subject of elections, there is still a great deal of debate over the DNC's decision to exclude Florida and Michigan from their Convention because the State Governments violated Party rules by having their primary contests too early. If you've read here in the past, you will know that I feel that this is an outrageous thing for them to do. For one, I don't like the way the entire Presidential Primary system is set up to begin with, but that's a discussion for another day, but beyond that, the decision to move up the Primary was made by the State Governments, not the voters. The voters had no choice but to go to the polls on the day that we were told that they were open to us, or skip voting entirely. As for the Democrats in Florida, they had record turnout, so those results should stand, and the delegates should be seated, based on the January 29th Primary. To take a second vote would be to try to rig the election in Obama's favor, and is a monumentally stupid idea. As for Michigan, Obama made the decision to remove himself from the ballot, and therefore should have to suffer the consequences, and those delegates should be seated as well. The people showed up when they were supposed to, and did what they were supposed to do, and should not be punished for it, and certainly should not be ignored. The Dems always make such a big deal out of "every vote must count" and then they want to completely ignore two entire states because their little feelings got hurt. On the GOP side, it's pretty much a moot point, however, the entire Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at our convention as well.
I guess that's all the random thoughts for today. Have a good one.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Parking Humor
I went to the Gym this morning, and it was crazy busy there. I guess I should pick a better time of day next time. Anyway, I just parked a couple of rows out and way down on the end, and got out of the car to walk to the Gym. It struck me as pretty funny, as I was walking across the Parking lot, how many people were competing for the few spots that were opening up closer to the building. At first I thought that maybe they were going to a different place than they gym. After all, there is a physical therapy place right next door in the plaza, and I could understand why people going there might need a close parking spot, but as I watched, no, they went to the gym.
I couldn't help but find it funny that these same people who are inside going at their workouts just as fast and furious as can be, would virtually kill for a spot five feet closer to the building.
To be fair, and a bit more serious, this probably has more to do with our culture than it does with not being willing to walk. We have a very "me" centered, very fast paced culture. First of all, we are conditioned from the time we are very young to think that closer parking spots are better parking spots, and after all, don't "I" deserve the best? Don't I have the "right" to have the "best" available parking spot all for myself?
And as to the second part, I'm sure most people view going to the gym they same way that they view most everything else in life, which is with regard to how it will fit into their schedules. So often we have so much to do (other people usually more so than me) that we have to try to squeeze things in where ever we can. So that little extra walk across the parking lot could be the difference between getting to their next appointment, or whatever, on time or a few minutes late. And don't we all have the right to get the parking place that keeps us on schedule?
For the most part we are all so accustomed to this type of behavior that we consider it to be human nature, rather than a cultural abnormality. Of course, if you look at most of the rest of the world, you would find that there are very few cultures like ours. I'm not suggesting that they are doing everything right, while we are doing it all wrong, but maybe there is something to be learned from the idea of slowing down and enjoying life a little more rather than the full tilt, dead run, go, go, go!!! culture that we currently find ourselves in.
The whole thing is a little funny, but at the same time, maybe it bears some thinking about.
I couldn't help but find it funny that these same people who are inside going at their workouts just as fast and furious as can be, would virtually kill for a spot five feet closer to the building.
To be fair, and a bit more serious, this probably has more to do with our culture than it does with not being willing to walk. We have a very "me" centered, very fast paced culture. First of all, we are conditioned from the time we are very young to think that closer parking spots are better parking spots, and after all, don't "I" deserve the best? Don't I have the "right" to have the "best" available parking spot all for myself?
And as to the second part, I'm sure most people view going to the gym they same way that they view most everything else in life, which is with regard to how it will fit into their schedules. So often we have so much to do (other people usually more so than me) that we have to try to squeeze things in where ever we can. So that little extra walk across the parking lot could be the difference between getting to their next appointment, or whatever, on time or a few minutes late. And don't we all have the right to get the parking place that keeps us on schedule?
For the most part we are all so accustomed to this type of behavior that we consider it to be human nature, rather than a cultural abnormality. Of course, if you look at most of the rest of the world, you would find that there are very few cultures like ours. I'm not suggesting that they are doing everything right, while we are doing it all wrong, but maybe there is something to be learned from the idea of slowing down and enjoying life a little more rather than the full tilt, dead run, go, go, go!!! culture that we currently find ourselves in.
The whole thing is a little funny, but at the same time, maybe it bears some thinking about.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Trying to Lose?
Given John McCains private war against the Republican Party, I think we need to ask ourselves some questions. In a recent post, which I titled "Story Of Betrayal" which can be accessed from the list on the left side of the screen, I talked about how McCain was so angry with the GOP that he has betrayed the party, and done everything in his power to harm the GOP, even at the expense of the American People.
So, the question is, does he see his Presidential campaign as a serious return to Grace, or is it the final act in his war to damage Republicans?
Think about it. If he is looking to win, why is he running such a sloppy campaign? Why is he trying to alienate the base of the party, without whom he absolutely cannot win, unless he has no intention of winning? Could it be that he no longer actually wants to be President? Is he a spoiler? In the race now for the simple reason of making sure that a Democrat takes the White House? Maybe that's not what's going on, but don't you think it's worth thinking about?
I'm still making the case for working toward the election of a real Conservative on a Third Party ticket. I don't think that we can afford to stay with the two main parties anymore. The fact of the matter is that both the Dems and the GOP have moved significantly to the left, and either of them now stand for big Government, higher taxes, and decreased liberties.
The thing to remember is that we haven't lost our liberties yet. We will if we don't take some action, but that action is easily open to us through the voting box. That is the genius of our political system. We have the right to vote for good people. We don't need to be swayed by the ones with the money, unfortunately, most people are.
What we really need is for people to wake up. People have become so complacent because they don't think that their liberties can be removed from them, after all, they are protected by the Constitution, so why worry about it? Well, we have to worry about it because the overwhelming apathy in this nation has led us to the point where most people don't have a clue what the Constitution actually says, and if you don't know what the rules are, why would you expect people to follow them? We all know, and you hear it from a lot of people, that we can't trust the politicians for much of anything, so why do you trust them to uphold the Constitution if we don't hold them to it? Yes there are watchdog groups, and some very good ones, but if they don't have the backing, or even the attention, of the American people, they are basically toothless.
I guess the big question is, does McCain do more damage to us if he wins the Presidency, or by assuring it to the Democrats? It's a tough call. Either way, about the only thing that can mess up McCains plans from within the Republican party at this point would be a huge, not to mention unexpected, surge from Mike Huckabee. If you've read here much you know that I'm not Huckabee fan, but I can say, at least he would fight for the Fair Tax, and I've come to believe that that would be a good thing. I understand that Huckabee has nearly no chance of winning the nomination, but nearly no chance is not the same thing as no chance at all.
If Huckabee does end up pulling off the long shot and winning the nomination, I would give some consideration to throwing my support behind him, but I don't really expect this to happen. Unfortunately, I suspect that McCain will get the GOP nod, and that is not a good thing at all. If that happens, I don't see that we have any choice but to find a third party alternative. As I can not, in good conscience, even entertain the notion of voting for McCain, I will not back off of the Third Party idea if he does get the nomination. And no, I won't vote for Ralph Nader either.
Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us in quite a mess in this nation, and continuing to do so will do no good for anyone. We must choose a good person and get behind them, even if by doing so we run the risk of having the greater evil ultimately elected. Without taking some risk, there is no possibility of reward. Electing liberals under the guise of calling themselves Republicans has only served to keep us moving in that same old liberal direction that we are so against, and by continuing to do so because we have too much fear to take the kinds of risk that we need to take in order to turn things around.
One other thing that we need to do is to start ignoring the polls, and not let them make up our minds. Polls give the media too much power over the choices that people make, by deciding how they will tilt and report the polls, they make people think that opposition to what they report to be the mainstream point of view, would be pointless. A case in point are reports that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has a 71% approval rating. I still don't know anyone who likes the guy, and you would think that if he had that high of an approval rating, wouldn't it seem likely that I would know at least one person who likes him? And yet I don't. Makes you wonder if they just polled the newsroom. The problem is that this kind of poll report makes people think that there would be no reason for anyone to run against Crist in the next Republican Primary for Governor. We must think for ourselves.
So, the question is, does he see his Presidential campaign as a serious return to Grace, or is it the final act in his war to damage Republicans?
Think about it. If he is looking to win, why is he running such a sloppy campaign? Why is he trying to alienate the base of the party, without whom he absolutely cannot win, unless he has no intention of winning? Could it be that he no longer actually wants to be President? Is he a spoiler? In the race now for the simple reason of making sure that a Democrat takes the White House? Maybe that's not what's going on, but don't you think it's worth thinking about?
I'm still making the case for working toward the election of a real Conservative on a Third Party ticket. I don't think that we can afford to stay with the two main parties anymore. The fact of the matter is that both the Dems and the GOP have moved significantly to the left, and either of them now stand for big Government, higher taxes, and decreased liberties.
The thing to remember is that we haven't lost our liberties yet. We will if we don't take some action, but that action is easily open to us through the voting box. That is the genius of our political system. We have the right to vote for good people. We don't need to be swayed by the ones with the money, unfortunately, most people are.
What we really need is for people to wake up. People have become so complacent because they don't think that their liberties can be removed from them, after all, they are protected by the Constitution, so why worry about it? Well, we have to worry about it because the overwhelming apathy in this nation has led us to the point where most people don't have a clue what the Constitution actually says, and if you don't know what the rules are, why would you expect people to follow them? We all know, and you hear it from a lot of people, that we can't trust the politicians for much of anything, so why do you trust them to uphold the Constitution if we don't hold them to it? Yes there are watchdog groups, and some very good ones, but if they don't have the backing, or even the attention, of the American people, they are basically toothless.
I guess the big question is, does McCain do more damage to us if he wins the Presidency, or by assuring it to the Democrats? It's a tough call. Either way, about the only thing that can mess up McCains plans from within the Republican party at this point would be a huge, not to mention unexpected, surge from Mike Huckabee. If you've read here much you know that I'm not Huckabee fan, but I can say, at least he would fight for the Fair Tax, and I've come to believe that that would be a good thing. I understand that Huckabee has nearly no chance of winning the nomination, but nearly no chance is not the same thing as no chance at all.
If Huckabee does end up pulling off the long shot and winning the nomination, I would give some consideration to throwing my support behind him, but I don't really expect this to happen. Unfortunately, I suspect that McCain will get the GOP nod, and that is not a good thing at all. If that happens, I don't see that we have any choice but to find a third party alternative. As I can not, in good conscience, even entertain the notion of voting for McCain, I will not back off of the Third Party idea if he does get the nomination. And no, I won't vote for Ralph Nader either.
Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us in quite a mess in this nation, and continuing to do so will do no good for anyone. We must choose a good person and get behind them, even if by doing so we run the risk of having the greater evil ultimately elected. Without taking some risk, there is no possibility of reward. Electing liberals under the guise of calling themselves Republicans has only served to keep us moving in that same old liberal direction that we are so against, and by continuing to do so because we have too much fear to take the kinds of risk that we need to take in order to turn things around.
One other thing that we need to do is to start ignoring the polls, and not let them make up our minds. Polls give the media too much power over the choices that people make, by deciding how they will tilt and report the polls, they make people think that opposition to what they report to be the mainstream point of view, would be pointless. A case in point are reports that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has a 71% approval rating. I still don't know anyone who likes the guy, and you would think that if he had that high of an approval rating, wouldn't it seem likely that I would know at least one person who likes him? And yet I don't. Makes you wonder if they just polled the newsroom. The problem is that this kind of poll report makes people think that there would be no reason for anyone to run against Crist in the next Republican Primary for Governor. We must think for ourselves.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
What's in a name?
Ok, I'm sure you've all heard by now about the big flap that took place in the past week or so regarding Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein.
Virtually everyone has had something to say about this. After talk radio host Bill Cunningham used Obama's middle name during an introduction for John McCain, the Senator came out and condemned Cunningham, apologized to Obama, and stated that he would not engage in this kind politics, and accused Cunningham of "disparaging remarks."
McCain and a lot of other people seem to feel that saying, "Barack Hussein Obama," amounts to disparaging remarks. I have heard people say that this is the politics of fear, that it is trying to take the focus off of the issues, and that it was a dirty trick or political cheep shot. On the other side, I hear people saying that there is nothing wrong with it, and that Cunningham said nothing wrong at all, which, of course, he didn't.
At the heart of all of this of course, people seem to be missing the point. Don't get me wrong, I think that a lot of Conservatives get this, but so far, I haven't really heard anyone state it clearly, though I'm sure some have and I've just missed it. The most basic fact of the whole thing is this, Hussein is in fact his middle name. It is no kind of insult to refer to someone by their entire name. If his middle name were Henry or something like that, and people were inserting Hussein instead, then I could see where that would be problematic, however, saying his actual middle name, should in no way be offensive to anyone. In fact, I should think that Obama should be offended by those who are saying that it is inappropriate for people to use his middle name. In effect, those who are having such an adverse reaction to the mention of his middle name are saying that the implication that they are accusing middle name users of making are valid! If they weren't afraid that these alleged implications were valid, why would they give it any thought at all?
The fact is that there is nothing at all new about people calling political figures, especially at this level, by their entire name. For example, Ronald Wilson Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, Richard Milhouse Nixon, John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, just to name a few. Sometimes we just see initials, such as George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush, or Warren G. Harding. A lot of it depends on how well each option rolls off the tongue, and face it Barack H. Obama hardly has a ring to it.
Now, all that being said, there are a couple more things I want to address. First, I do think that Conservatives should avoid over use of Obama's middle name, not because there is anything wrong with using it, but simply because the other side uses such things as a smoke screen to stop people from getting a clear image of what it is Obama has in store for the Country, should he be elected. I don't think that we should provide cover for him. The fact is that the name alone is meaningless so far as politics go. It is his name, and so, shouldn't matter, but since his specialty is ducking any meaningful talk about anything, why should we give just one more avenue for his people to take in avoidance of the issues?
And as for John McCain not engaging in that kind of politics, what a crock! When he was in the midst of a hard battle in a crowded Republican Field, well, he couldn't get dirty enough. Name calling, tossing around innuendo, or telling flat out lies about his opponents was considered fair game. However, now that his the likely nominee for the GOP, and is looking at being pitted against a Communist, he's turned into Mr. Nice Guy. This is nothing new for John McCain, you can look at some of my older posts, as well as a goodly number of other sources to see just how badly John McCain has treated other Republicans, while always ready to reach across the isle to give the Democrats (who, in the name of honesty and fairness should really call themselves the "New Communists" or some such thing as that) anything and everything they could possibly want. And don't let his "83% Lifetime Rating" from the American Conservative Union fool you, looking at his record since 2000 his rating drops like a rock to an abismal 65%.
Having taken a hard look at Barack (to Hussein or not to Hussein, that is the question) Obama, and seeing his extreme Communist stances [and I'm not trying to be funny, if you don't believe me, look up the Communist Manifesto online and give it a read, then, if you can actually find it, look up where Obama stands, and you will see a shocking parallel] I readily admit that his being elected President would be a worst case scenario for the USA, even marginally worse than Hillary Clinton, who is marginally less Communist than Obama, and, as I've stated before, would want to keep some strength in the USA so that she could have her own personal power to play with, I'm still not so sure that Obama is that savvy. So, I fear, in fact I am already seeing it happen, that those who understood only too well who John McCain is, and what he really stands for, are starting to come out in support of him. I have held back and remained silent, just to see how far this would progress. Frankly, I'm disturbed that any Conservative Republican would so much as consider voting for this man for President. Don't people get it? The lesser of two evils (in this case a very minor difference at best) is still evil. The fact that McCain is considered an alternative to a Democrat is stunning proof of just how radically all segments of American Politics have shifted to the left.
The fact is that the plans that would be, at least attempted to be, put in place by McCain would ultimately lead us down the same path as the more radical plans proposed by Clinton or Obama. Regardless of whether you are hurtling toward the edge of an abyss in a bullet train, or a freight train, the simple fact of the matter is that you will fall off the edge of the abyss. The big difference though is that the bullet train may be somewhat less dangerous in the long run, for the simple fact that the danger is more obvious, and so action is much more likely to be taken while the train (in this case, the Country) can still be saved. It's like the old analogy of the frog, if you put him right into hot water he'll jump right out, but if you put him in tepid water and slowly bring it to a boil, he'll sit right there and die. If Obama (or Clinton for that matter) is elected, we are in the already boiling water, and maybe we'll see our way clear to jump out, but if McCain is elected, we are in the tepid, but slowly heating water, and may well be doomed.
Also, I'm pretty sick of hearing about how McCain is still relatively Conservative, compared to the democrats. Well, for that matter, Hitler killed very few people, relative to Josef Stalin or Chairman Mao, but he still killed millions. By the same token, McCain is still a Liberal.
To get a picture of just how far left these people are, think about Bill Clinton running for President in the 1990's. Now, think of John McCain as Bill Clinton, because McCain today is strikingly similar to William Jefferson Clinton of that era. Now, think of McCain/Clinton running against Karl Marx for President, because that is where Obama is ideologically. All of these are considerably left of center persons. None of these people can be considered options by Conservatives today.
Now, I know that I'm going to be told that this isn't even worth saying, but bear with me. It is my opinion that we need to find a Conservative to run on a third party. Personally I'm interested to see who the Constitution Party candidate is. Now, think about how low voter turnout in the US normally is. Then, think about all the Conservatives who do vote faithfully, year after year, if each of those got behind a good Conservative third party candidate, and could convince even just two other people, who normally wouldn't vote, to get out and vote for that person, we could have an easy majority, especially when you consider that McCain and the Democrat would be splitting the Liberal vote, as both are Liberals. I understand that it's a very long shot, and would take a lot of work, but isn't maintaining our liberties worth it?
Virtually everyone has had something to say about this. After talk radio host Bill Cunningham used Obama's middle name during an introduction for John McCain, the Senator came out and condemned Cunningham, apologized to Obama, and stated that he would not engage in this kind politics, and accused Cunningham of "disparaging remarks."
McCain and a lot of other people seem to feel that saying, "Barack Hussein Obama," amounts to disparaging remarks. I have heard people say that this is the politics of fear, that it is trying to take the focus off of the issues, and that it was a dirty trick or political cheep shot. On the other side, I hear people saying that there is nothing wrong with it, and that Cunningham said nothing wrong at all, which, of course, he didn't.
At the heart of all of this of course, people seem to be missing the point. Don't get me wrong, I think that a lot of Conservatives get this, but so far, I haven't really heard anyone state it clearly, though I'm sure some have and I've just missed it. The most basic fact of the whole thing is this, Hussein is in fact his middle name. It is no kind of insult to refer to someone by their entire name. If his middle name were Henry or something like that, and people were inserting Hussein instead, then I could see where that would be problematic, however, saying his actual middle name, should in no way be offensive to anyone. In fact, I should think that Obama should be offended by those who are saying that it is inappropriate for people to use his middle name. In effect, those who are having such an adverse reaction to the mention of his middle name are saying that the implication that they are accusing middle name users of making are valid! If they weren't afraid that these alleged implications were valid, why would they give it any thought at all?
The fact is that there is nothing at all new about people calling political figures, especially at this level, by their entire name. For example, Ronald Wilson Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, Richard Milhouse Nixon, John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, just to name a few. Sometimes we just see initials, such as George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush, or Warren G. Harding. A lot of it depends on how well each option rolls off the tongue, and face it Barack H. Obama hardly has a ring to it.
Now, all that being said, there are a couple more things I want to address. First, I do think that Conservatives should avoid over use of Obama's middle name, not because there is anything wrong with using it, but simply because the other side uses such things as a smoke screen to stop people from getting a clear image of what it is Obama has in store for the Country, should he be elected. I don't think that we should provide cover for him. The fact is that the name alone is meaningless so far as politics go. It is his name, and so, shouldn't matter, but since his specialty is ducking any meaningful talk about anything, why should we give just one more avenue for his people to take in avoidance of the issues?
And as for John McCain not engaging in that kind of politics, what a crock! When he was in the midst of a hard battle in a crowded Republican Field, well, he couldn't get dirty enough. Name calling, tossing around innuendo, or telling flat out lies about his opponents was considered fair game. However, now that his the likely nominee for the GOP, and is looking at being pitted against a Communist, he's turned into Mr. Nice Guy. This is nothing new for John McCain, you can look at some of my older posts, as well as a goodly number of other sources to see just how badly John McCain has treated other Republicans, while always ready to reach across the isle to give the Democrats (who, in the name of honesty and fairness should really call themselves the "New Communists" or some such thing as that) anything and everything they could possibly want. And don't let his "83% Lifetime Rating" from the American Conservative Union fool you, looking at his record since 2000 his rating drops like a rock to an abismal 65%.
Having taken a hard look at Barack (to Hussein or not to Hussein, that is the question) Obama, and seeing his extreme Communist stances [and I'm not trying to be funny, if you don't believe me, look up the Communist Manifesto online and give it a read, then, if you can actually find it, look up where Obama stands, and you will see a shocking parallel] I readily admit that his being elected President would be a worst case scenario for the USA, even marginally worse than Hillary Clinton, who is marginally less Communist than Obama, and, as I've stated before, would want to keep some strength in the USA so that she could have her own personal power to play with, I'm still not so sure that Obama is that savvy. So, I fear, in fact I am already seeing it happen, that those who understood only too well who John McCain is, and what he really stands for, are starting to come out in support of him. I have held back and remained silent, just to see how far this would progress. Frankly, I'm disturbed that any Conservative Republican would so much as consider voting for this man for President. Don't people get it? The lesser of two evils (in this case a very minor difference at best) is still evil. The fact that McCain is considered an alternative to a Democrat is stunning proof of just how radically all segments of American Politics have shifted to the left.
The fact is that the plans that would be, at least attempted to be, put in place by McCain would ultimately lead us down the same path as the more radical plans proposed by Clinton or Obama. Regardless of whether you are hurtling toward the edge of an abyss in a bullet train, or a freight train, the simple fact of the matter is that you will fall off the edge of the abyss. The big difference though is that the bullet train may be somewhat less dangerous in the long run, for the simple fact that the danger is more obvious, and so action is much more likely to be taken while the train (in this case, the Country) can still be saved. It's like the old analogy of the frog, if you put him right into hot water he'll jump right out, but if you put him in tepid water and slowly bring it to a boil, he'll sit right there and die. If Obama (or Clinton for that matter) is elected, we are in the already boiling water, and maybe we'll see our way clear to jump out, but if McCain is elected, we are in the tepid, but slowly heating water, and may well be doomed.
Also, I'm pretty sick of hearing about how McCain is still relatively Conservative, compared to the democrats. Well, for that matter, Hitler killed very few people, relative to Josef Stalin or Chairman Mao, but he still killed millions. By the same token, McCain is still a Liberal.
To get a picture of just how far left these people are, think about Bill Clinton running for President in the 1990's. Now, think of John McCain as Bill Clinton, because McCain today is strikingly similar to William Jefferson Clinton of that era. Now, think of McCain/Clinton running against Karl Marx for President, because that is where Obama is ideologically. All of these are considerably left of center persons. None of these people can be considered options by Conservatives today.
Now, I know that I'm going to be told that this isn't even worth saying, but bear with me. It is my opinion that we need to find a Conservative to run on a third party. Personally I'm interested to see who the Constitution Party candidate is. Now, think about how low voter turnout in the US normally is. Then, think about all the Conservatives who do vote faithfully, year after year, if each of those got behind a good Conservative third party candidate, and could convince even just two other people, who normally wouldn't vote, to get out and vote for that person, we could have an easy majority, especially when you consider that McCain and the Democrat would be splitting the Liberal vote, as both are Liberals. I understand that it's a very long shot, and would take a lot of work, but isn't maintaining our liberties worth it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
