Ay, as they say, there's the rub...
The Republicans keep talking about someone taking "their" money and giving it to lazy people who don't work. But it ain't "their" money once it hits the Uncle Sam Jackpot. It belongs to all of us. It's OUR tax money. Period.
These are the same people who want all the benefits and profits of American free enterprise, but don't want to pay the costs to keep the system rolling.
What is anti-American? A tax dodger or people who want to end a murderous and contentious war?
What is unpatriotic? Conservatives who want to shirk their civic duties as citizens and not pay taxes at all? Or a black Senator from Illinois who doesn't wear a simple flag pin to all functions at all times or display it properly on his campaign plane?
I realize runaway rollercoaster up-spiraling tax debits with no checks and balances are no good for anyone; but this is ridiculous. You don't get to scapegoat a certain sector of citizens ("welfare recipients," they call them) who happen to be the most overworked and underpaid and under-served and use them as an excuse for getting out of your responsibilities as a taxpayer.
That's not only unAmerican, it's downright inhumane and uncivilized.
We're down to the last two weeks before Nov. 4, and the nastiness continues. But, I think it's time to reflect on "Country First." Over the last 8 years, we have been told that in order to be patriotic and protect the country, we had to spend money here at home and fight in 2 wars, sacrificing thousands of lives, and billions of dollars a month. Somehow, the Republican party of family values seems to forget the families altogether. Divorce rates are at an all time high, and the answer is to ban same-sex marriage? Ban abortion? Lip service...
I am pledging to all out there to fight the last 2 weeks... saying "My Country Begins at Home." Much like everyone else, I am willing to protect the country at I love. But, that starts with protecting the people closest to me, my family. This means providing a home, food, heat in the winter, and an education. Putting country first isn't about fighting wars and national security... It's about being responsible and defending the people closest to us.
Unfortunately, after listening to Rep. Bachmann from Minnesota, I actually realized that there are anti-American elements amongst us. Sadly, it's not the terrorists...
Let me tell you what is Anti-American...
It is Anti-American to tax healthcare benefits
It is Anti-American to charge Americans a 30% interest rate on credit cards
It is Anti-American to defraud borrowers in the hope that they can foreclose on their homes
It is Anti-American to prevent a child from receiving healthcare
It is Anti-American to stop a qualified citizen from attending college
It is Anti-American to protect the richest 1% at the expense of everyone else
It is Anti-American to take away social security for seniors
It is Anti-American to leave the defenseless unprotected
Here's my pledge from here on out... "My Country Begins at Home" and yes, I put my Country First.
It used to be that if a politician said something stupid, he or she could deny, deny, deny. In the age of YouTube, that is no longer true.
Now Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC) just said something equally dumb. He said "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God." After denying repeatedly that he had made the statement, an audio recording turned up and he was forced to say that, yes, he had made the statement after all. It will be interesting to see the increase in fund raising by Rep. Hayes' opponent, Larry Kissell.
The AMERICAN FREE PRESS, not Al Jazeer [On September 16, 2001, Osama bin Laden issued the following statement in reference to the 9/11 attacks: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."]; MUST TRUTHFULLY REPORT to the American people. Let’s all of us really take this chickenhead’s comments very seriously… Turn the page from the economy as the Clue-Cluck-Clan General Chairman [Newt Gingrich] demands and lead the national discourse for the remainder of the general election.
The congresswoman freely and openly invoked Public Law Pub. L. 107-56: the USA PATRIOT ACT [commonly known as the Patriot Act… a controversial Act of Congress that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001"]
I think the intelligence community should FISA on and vigorously follow-up with due diligence on her claim of “anti-Americans” in Congress Assembled supporting Senator Barack Obama! This is no doubt a blinking red light.
Before we dismiss Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann as a chickenhead Clue-Cluck-Clan radical party extremist, let’s talk about the criminal corruption in government. Expose the criminal acts by the United States Congress. Expose the criminal corruption in ALL 513,000 or more offices of the American body politic. Expose the WAR Criminals [violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention].
The congressional performance ratings have never been lower. Corruption has never been higher. Congressional performance ratings in fact are lower than President Bush’s. It’s almost as low as the repugnant rhetoric of the Republican Trickette ticket to more of the same Bush-Cheney Administration [Governor Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain].
How many NOT-SEE card carrying clan members are there in the Senate and the House? How many NOT-SEE war criminals [accessory after the fact, violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention] are in Congress Assembled?
Are “anti-Americans” [the presidential candidates in Congressed Assembled] harboring war criminals and terrorists?
Is the 109th and 110th United States Congress complicit with government corruption?
Is the Republican Nefarious Cult [the Clue-Cluck-Clan of pundits, lobbyists, radio talk show hosts, supporters, organizations like American Solutions for Winning The Future, a 527 group; news reporters, journalists] TERRORIZING DEMOCRACY?
The congresswoman’s comments raises serious questions about the authenticity, judgment, temperament, character, honesty, and core values of the United States Congress and the presidential candidates. Bachmann has inferred to investigative journalists that John McCain and numerous Republicans are aiding and abetting war criminals and are presently involved in criminal activities, using scurrilous campaign tactics to disrupt the political process and corrupt the general election of 2008.
The American free press must investigate and report – who, what, when, where – ALL relevant information regarding the voting record of Congress pertaining to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Just be the American Free Press and fully cooperate with Federal prosecutors and law enforcement authorities investigating all 513,000 or more offices of our great nation’s body politic, criminally corrupted by the Bush Administration, Karl Rove, the Republican National Committee, Senator John McCain, Speaker Newt Gingrich, and American Solutions for Winning the Future.
The RED light is blinking! Don’t be “So!” “anti-American!” and NOT-SEE the truth... The United States of America is under attack.
Did anyone see Rep. Bachman on Chris Matthews Friday, 10/17/08? She accused members of congress to be un-american. She "assigned" the media the job of investigating congress to find these un-american members. She really believes that someone that is anti-american would run for national office and could win! Why does she believe this? How could she believe this? I disagree with her on every issue and think that following her policies would be disasterous for america. But, I do not believe she is anti-american, just stupid or mentally unbalanced. She belives in an america I don't know.
The only explanation I can come up with for this accusation is that anyone that does not believe as she does is anti-american. That these people should be excluded from the political process and silenced. Isn't that part of the definition of Fascism? I find it frightening that she can have these fascist beliefs and reconcile them with the ideals america stands for. Especially with the epethets being hurled at Palin/McCain rallies. This is what 8 years of "I'm a uniter not a divider" Bush's presidency has given us.
Please, Minnesotans, give us a representative that does not believe that anyone that disagrees with his/her point of view is un-american. Give us someone, regardless of view point, that believes we all love this country even if we disagree on how to best govern her.
I write @ http://richardowlmirror.gather.com/
I wrote TRANSCRIPT: Sarah Palin visits "pro-America areas of this great nation"
In the ensuing discussion, I answered a comment left by one of my readers.
I'd like to present it to you because I believe it answers Sarah Palin's accusations best.
Hi Richard. What's wrong with AIP? I mean she simply believes in State's rights. :-PSeriously, though, I think what she is meaning to say, is that she is visiting parts of the country that view the USA as a positive force in the world who believe in our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere without apology, instead of describing our great land as "evil war mongers hell bent on destruction for the sake of oil" as some have described us. Or those who say we get what we deserve. I don't know if this is pro vs anti Americanism, but I think that is what she is trying to say. I always try to focus on the message and not the words. Sveth Aris
Hi Richard. What's wrong with AIP? I mean she simply believes in State's rights. :-PSeriously, though, I think what she is meaning to say, is that she is visiting parts of the country that view the USA as a positive force in the world who believe in our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere without apology, instead of describing our great land as "evil war mongers hell bent on destruction for the sake of oil" as some have described us. Or those who say we get what we deserve. I don't know if this is pro vs anti Americanism, but I think that is what she is trying to say. I always try to focus on the message and not the words.
~@~
Hi Sveth Aris, so are you intimating that a Patriot who stands up against governmental abuses and corruption is Anti-American ? If that is the case then isn't McCain/Palin Anti-American in their quest to sweep out the corrupting influences called the American Congress ?Are all those who protested the "police action" known as Vietnam and have been proven right by history, anti-American ?Am I to understand that when a Patriot petitions their government for redress on issues such as being spied upon in violation of US Law, they are anti-American?I believe, an even more important question to ask is if Standing Bear (Ma-chu-nah-zah) was Anti-American ?One of the greatest events in human rights history occurred when a man stood alone, challenging the United States government and its constitution, demanding the right to be treated equal to any other. His name was Standing Bear, chief of the Ponca’s, and his heroic story rivals the likes of any other civil rights proponent in American history.Ponca Chief, Standing Bear: The First Native American Civil Rights ActivistHow about those in America who are Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11? Are they a part of that mystical, mythical portion of America which is Anti-American ?I don't know for certain but, I can confidently surmise that McCain/Palin view James Bamford as residing in that mythical land of Anti-Americanism.And most likely, Naomi Wolf when she talks about The End of America.Probably, even ME Richard Owl Mirror, Oct 18, 2008
Hi Sveth Aris, so are you intimating that a Patriot who stands up against governmental abuses and corruption is Anti-American ? If that is the case then isn't McCain/Palin Anti-American in their quest to sweep out the corrupting influences called the American Congress ?Are all those who protested the "police action" known as Vietnam and have been proven right by history, anti-American ?Am I to understand that when a Patriot petitions their government for redress on issues such as being spied upon in violation of US Law, they are anti-American?I believe, an even more important question to ask is if Standing Bear (Ma-chu-nah-zah) was Anti-American ?One of the greatest events in human rights history occurred when a man stood alone, challenging the United States government and its constitution, demanding the right to be treated equal to any other. His name was Standing Bear, chief of the Ponca’s, and his heroic story rivals the likes of any other civil rights proponent in American history.Ponca Chief, Standing Bear: The First Native American Civil Rights ActivistHow about those in America who are Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11? Are they a part of that mystical, mythical portion of America which is Anti-American ?I don't know for certain but, I can confidently surmise that McCain/Palin view James Bamford as residing in that mythical land of Anti-Americanism.And most likely, Naomi Wolf when she talks about The End of America.Probably, even ME
Did you happen to catch Hardball on Friday, the 17th of October? A guest -- Rep. Michelle Bachman made some pretty offensive statements about America, Americans and members of Congress.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27243547#27243547
To all:
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION TO CENSURE MS. BACHMANN
I urge you to use the form at the speaker of the house website and tell her what you think of Rep. Bachmann's despicable comments on Chris Matthews show yesterday:
Here is my letter, submitted using this form: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/
Dear Madam Speaker Pelosi,
Yesterday, I heard Michelle Bachmann, representative of Minnesota, make some of the most reprehensible and despicable remarks about our government and America on national television (Chris Matthews Hardball). Her rant about "anti-American" "liberals" in Congress and in our country -- as IF she had the final word on deciding just WHO is "American enough" -- could have been words uttered by Joe McCarthy -- a man who represents one of the lowest points in our country and our government. Michelle Bachmann (I won't give her the courtesy of a title, since I feel she is not deserving of it) spewed out demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations about Congressmembers -- public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents that seem to be the main strategy of John McCain, Sarah Palin and quite a few other REPUBLICAN surrogates... including members of the House and Senate.
It is easy to flame the fires of hate and few were better at it than Joe McCarthy. Another famous "leader" said:
"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Substitute "liberals" for "pacifists" and you have the essence of Ms. Bachman's statements. Who said that, you ask? Why, Hermann Göring - and the statements coming out of the Republican campaign resemble his type of remarks every day, from the rants at rallies of Sarah Palin and John McCain to the "robocalls" being made by the McCain campaign and the Republican Party in states like Minnesota, Pennsylvania, W. Virginia and other states. Some of these calls are about terrorism; some even use the vile "N" word, per this article on fivethirtyeight.com, made in a "fake Obama" voice as if Senator Obama were making the calls personally.
"Over in Indiana, PA and Northern Cambria, PA, volunteers fielded complaints of a massive wave of ugly robocalls both paid for by John McCain's campaign and those paid for by third parties. The third party call was interactive, and purported to be from Barack Obama himself. The call starts out reasonably, and then "Obama" asks what the listener thinks is the most important issue. Whatever the response, "Obama" then launches into a profane and crazed tirade using "n***er" and other shock language. From what we've seen, this IS the McCain ground campaign. Robocalls count as "touches" on voters, as do direct mail pieces such as this one. As David Plouffe said in today's fundraising letter to supporters, "These tactics are all that the McCain campaign and their allies have left."
"Over in Indiana, PA and Northern Cambria, PA, volunteers fielded complaints of a massive wave of ugly robocalls both paid for by John McCain's campaign and those paid for by third parties. The third party call was interactive, and purported to be from Barack Obama himself. The call starts out reasonably, and then "Obama" asks what the listener thinks is the most important issue. Whatever the response, "Obama" then launches into a profane and crazed tirade using "n***er" and other shock language.
From what we've seen, this IS the McCain ground campaign. Robocalls count as "touches" on voters, as do direct mail pieces such as this one. As David Plouffe said in today's fundraising letter to supporters, "These tactics are all that the McCain campaign and their allies have left."
As an American and a voter, I am appalled and I believe this woman deserves censure for her unfounded and defamatory accusations, on behalf of ALL AMERICANS, not just those in Minnesota.
Todd Palin was a member of an Anti-American Extremist - Terrorist group The Alaska Independance Party for 7 years. Palin and her husband attended the party's 1994 convention in Wasilla, Alaska, said former Chairman Mark Chryson. Palin also spoke to the party's convention in 2006 when she was running for governor, Chryson said.
2008 Sarah Palin prepared a video speech for The Alaska Independance Party convention where she stated that she is "delighted" to be addressing the group, that the party "plays an important role," and wishes them "good luck on a successful and inspiring convention."
Keith Olbermann's on Palin's Connection to the Alaska Independance Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qe0fgS7K8Q
Interestingly enough McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds side stepped the question of whether Sarah Palin favored a statewide vote on secession AND the question of whether her husband supported the secession of Alaska.
Joe Vogler founder of the Alaska Independance Party stated "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions." and "The fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government." Joe Vogler also asked that he not be buried underneath the American flag.
Lynette Clark, chairwoman of the Alaskan Independence Party stated that “I’ve admired Sarah from the first time I met her at the 2006 (AIP) convention,” ALSO stated “As I was listening to her, I thought she sounds like what we’ve been saying for years. I thought to myself, My God, she sounds just like Joe Vogler.”
Sarah Palin has ties to radical Alaskan Independence Party
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVUNFBFFZhQ
NEWSFLASH!!! Just in today an article at Salon.com By Max Blumenthal and David Neiwert revealed that Sarah Palin had a deeper relationship with The Alaska Independance Party then Sarah Palin or John McCain will admit! Chryson and Steve Stoll not only contributed to Palin’s campaign financially, they played major behind-the-scenes roles in the Palin camp before, during and after her victory.
To learn MORE about Sarah Palin's real-life anti-american terrorism connection with The Alaska Independance Party please read the indepth article at Salon.com link below!
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/
Juli Norwood
Lizza’s article, titled “Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama,” is not however the main focus of the rage set against The New Yorker - what is typically thought of as a liberal beacon. The cover of this week’ New Yorker, illustrated by Barry Blitt depicting Obama and his wife Michelle is what caused the main ruckus. By now, almost everyone has seen the cartoon-ish image of Barack and Michelle fist-bumping in the Oval office, Barack in traditional Muslim garb, Michelle wearing fatigues, strapped with an AK-47, next to a picture of Osama bin Laden hanging over a fireplace with the American flag burning inside.
Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times Blog, put it well when he wrote “A problem is there's no caption on the cover to ensure that everyone gets the ha-ha-we've-collected-almost-every-cliched-rumor-about-Obama-in-one-place-in-order-to-make-fun-of-them punchline.” Editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick added in an interview with The Huffington Post that The New Yorker rarely captions cartoons or explains the satire they have become known for alongside their journalism usually thought of as among the top echelon in the industry. I will say: the article is well-written, and the cartoon front cover is well-illustrated, as long as one understands Britt’s angle and humor.
It’s satire, people. Plain and simple. It is supposed to be poking fun of the people who make too much out of every rumor that ever comes out about Barack Obama, and I feel, like folks at The New Yorker, that it does that quite well in compiling almost all of them in one place. Sometimes satire will seem slightly tasteless, but that’s the point of humor and political satire – it doesn’t have to be held to the same standards as the journalism inside.
Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and Colbert Report do this on a nightly basis, and for some reason, people rarely, if ever, make much steam about those acts of “offensive” satire. Is it because those are television shows that can come in and leave the consciousness in a short amount of time? Compare that to The New Yorker cover that liberals will have to face day after day when they go into Barnes & Noble or walk down the street in Manhattan and see it on the corner newsstand. The New Yorker’s cartoons are not to be held to the same standards as the articles inside, just like the nightly programming on Comedy Central should not be held to the same standard as the nightly news on CBS, NBC, and ABC. They are making a satirical point.
Therein lies the biggest reason to be mad at the people who are so angry with the New Yorker cover: only liberal people read The New Yorker! The real thing people should be mad at is that there are actually super-conservative people out there that somehow believe every one of the rumors referenced on that cover (and I should know, my grandpa is one). Nobody gets mad at Stewart or Colbert for poking fun of Barack for being “un-American” or supposedly Muslim because there aren’t many conservatives watching that. Nobody should get mad at this cover either because there aren’t many conservatives reading this, although if they would, it could do some good, because the article does a tremendous job of explaining the truth about these rumors (FightTheSmears.com can’t do everything – remember: conservatives don’t like technology unless it’s wiretapping).
“Politicians don’t like satire because it's subject to differing interpretations.” – Andrew Malcolm, LA Times
To date, Barry Blitt has done nine covers of The New Yorker. They can all be seen here.
From: Rick Basora [the_dragonwolf@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 6:00 PM
To: letters@time.com; WebEditors@newsweek.com; Letters@newsweek.com; letters@usnews.com
Cc: 'Atlarge@foxnews.com'; 'Hannity@foxnews.com'; 'JER@foxnews.com'; 'Lineup@foxnews.com'; 'Martha@foxnews.com'; 'Ontherecord@foxnews.com'; 'Special@foxnews.com'; 'Cavuto@foxnews.com'; 'yourcomments@foxnews.com'; 'editor@ajr.org'; 'rrieder@ajr.org'; 'rsmolkin@ajr.org'; 'tkunkel@ajr.org'; 'president@nytimes.com'; 'executive-editor@nytimes.com'; 'managing-editor@nytimes.com'; 'washington@nytimes.com'; 'national@nytimes.com'; 'metro@nytimes.com'; 'news-tips@nytimes.com'; 'public@nytimes.com'; 'letters@nytimes.com'; 'CEO-CarolineLittle@wpni.com'; 'executive.editor@washingtonpost.com'; 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'; 'metro@washpost.com'; 'national@washpost.com'; 'wsj.ltrs@wsj.com'; 'a.murray@wsj.com'; 'a.latour@wsj.com'; 'd.pettit@wsj.com'; 't.cullen@wsj.com'; 'j.fry@wsj.com'; 'darren.mcdermott@wsj.com'; 'tips@tribune.com'; 'ctc-tribletter@tribune.com'; 'publiceditor@tribune.com'; 'EAchenbaum@tribune.com'; 'ctc-editor@tribune.com'; 'bdold@tribune.com'; 'TMcNulty@tribune.com'; 'gdelama@tribune.com'; 'JCWarren@tribune.com'; 'aaguilar@tribune.com'; 'aahmed@tribune.com'; 'KAlleynemorris@tribune.com'; 'LBAnderson@tribune.com'; 'rranderson@tribune.com'; 'kataiyero@tribune.com'; 'NBendavid@tribune.com'; 'lbowean@tribune.com'; 'SChapman@tribune.com'; 'LCohen@tribune.com'; 'JChase@tribune.com'; 'JCrewdson@tribune.com'; 'HDardick@tribune.com'; 'MDorning@tribune.com'; 'askamy@tribune.com'; 'national@latimes.com'; 'tvtimes@latimes.com'; 'op-ed@latimes.com'; 'letters@latimes.com'; 'ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com'; 'info@ap.org'; 'headlinenews@cnn.com'; 'mediainquiries@msnbc.com'; 'letters@msnbc.com'; 'Nightly@NBC.com'; 'Dateline@NBCUNI.com'; 'transnet87@aol.com'; 'countdown@msnbc.com'; 'race08@msnbc.com'; 'Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com'; 'views@phillynews.com'; 'letters@post-gazette.com'; 'opinion@tribweb.com'; 'mm-tips@mediamatters.org'; 'barrett_td@yahoo.com'; 'wholesalershoppers@yahoo.com'; 'karendillard@hotmail.com'; 'dplouffe@barackobama.com'; 'john@greenskydesign.com'; nancymillinger@theamericaninitiative.org; Blackberry Muppet; Mutt; Sis; Cousin Jeannette; Marmaduke's Office; Marmaduke ; Mike Beauregard; Rick Basora ; Tuneta; Gizmo Chula; Broomrider; The Wielder of the Wand; Wiccan Bride of the Elder God
Subject: Shawn Hannity - STOP the anti-OBAMA FOX VIRUS NOW
Dear Mr. Hannity;
By now you must certainly be aware that a NATIONAL MOVEMENT is in motion against you and against what America has come to know as THE FOX VIRUS that comes forth from the RADICAL EXTREMIST NEO-CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN mouthpiece that you and FOX have become. Presenting our voice to the media of America now comes in the form of the Robert Greenwald film “Fox Attacks Obama (Spreading the Virus)” which, as you can see, is the envelope sent “special delivery” and containing the national petition now underwritten by moveon.org and their Political Action’s Adam Green.
After the travesty of ethical journalism perpetrated by FEMA on October 26, 2007, where it hosted its own “staged” televised news conference reporting on the state of EMERGENCY SERVICES to victims of Hurricane Katrina, it was brought to the attention of America that, not only was the person addressing this “skit” a FEMA official, but so were those asking the questions who, while posing as reporters, were exposed by Al Kamen of The Washington Post in his article FEMA Meets the Press, Which Happens to Be . . . FEMA. The fact that the article alleges that you carried this charade LIVE, and then passed on the video to MSNBC and other news outlets, renders FOX Television, and its agents, complicit in the efforts of what Christy Hardin Smith, of FIREDOGLAKE, calls The Department of Planting Your Own Propaganda And Hoping No One Notices assigned to the Bush administration.
Mr. Hannity, neither you, nor your colleague-at-arms, Rush Limbaugh, can be allowed, by a nation on the very brink of social, economic, political and global chaos, to continue manipulating puppet strings, pushing buttons and pulling levers the outcome of which you CLEARLY know nothing about. Mr. Limbaugh’s disgracefully titled attempt at hijacking the current Presidential election has earned him the dubious distinction of being named WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23908634#23908634) by MSNBC's KEITH OLBERMANN. It now appears on his own website with the headline Operation Chaos Under Assault.
As you frantically attempt to continue the milking of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, synthetically created by your Conservative minions, you appear less than pathetic before an increasingly intolerant nation that, as you can see, by Senator John McCain’s attainment of the honorable position of The Republican Presidential Nominee, America has declared you and your Neoconservative “cult”, politically, philosophically, morally and subversively UNDESIREABLE.
I, and America, continue to observe your frenzied contribution to the engineering and staging of a premeditated and choreographed conspiracy aimed at discrediting the legitimacy of Senator Barack Obama as a Presidential candidate, as well as the WONDER of the grass-roots movement taking shape around him. We watch in dismay as you question your guests, carefully selected to provide the most desirable answers for the damming of the voice of HOPE that FOX radio has described as “sounding like Hitler.” Yet, when Democratic Analysts, Tanya Acker and Bob Beckel, as well as your own Alan Colmes, have asked you questions as simple as “So, are you saying that every child whose parents took them to the Trinity United Church of Christ is, therefore, disqualified from growing up to aspire to one day becoming President of the United States,” you conspicuously, and at every turn, refuse to answer the question. You are fully aware that, answering that question, honestly, would reduce you to the hypocritical contradiction of yourself that you are. Take note, Mr. Hannity, your refusal to respond implicitly convicts you in spite of you.
I was held in utter disbelief … which then slowly grew to anger when, last night, you summoned former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, to join in the spreading of THE FOX VIRUS. I found two things to be in poignant opposition with your intention of subverting America. The first was Mr. Gingrich’s repeated insistence that he did NOT question Senator Obama’s integrity, his loyalty to America or his non-alignment with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s apparent anti-American rants. Later in the same program, and despite your best efforts, this same opinion was echoed, with even greater emphasis and eloquence, by Senator John McCain, who insisted on addressing issues of legitimate concern to our country and clearly, refused to participate in your scripted outcomes. You must, as a consequence, Sir, be torn between wondering if the walls of correctness are closing in on you or whether they, in fact, are spreading so far apart that your only company would be the members of your own League of Liars.
The second observation, born of your program’s intentions, last night, was your patent set-up of “JUDGMENT” as the supposedly flawed characteristic displayed by Senator Barack Obama in his choosing to continue to attend Wright’s Trinity church. You spoke the word “JUDGMENT,” with diacritical accentuation, no less than a dozen times and consistently modified it with adjectives such as “flawed,” “poor,” etc in your transparent attempt to pre-empt the Senator’s platform of SOUND JUDGEMENT in the furtherance of his Presidential bid. I will excuse myself from redundancy and I will quote my own words from the letter that, on March 16, 2008, I sent to you and Fox Management titled SHAWN HANNITY - THE PINNACLE OF IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM AT ITS WORST:
“Gentlemen, if this was Shawn Hannity’s way of weaving “illusions of war-mongering” with which to surround a Presidential candidate who stands on a platform of DIALOGUE as his preferred weapon of pre-emption of war, you may want to advise him about the fact that we ARE, in fact, in a war unjustly started; a war that he endorsed and that he is a member of the political party that started it. Senator Obama was the legislator who attempted unsuccessfully to galvanize an effective movement to avoid it. History has proven him to have been STRATEGICALLY CORRECT and no degree of Mr. Hannity’s resenting him for it will grant him access to that elite minority reserved solely for the JUDGEMENTALLY SOUND.”
Last night, what achieved the “apex of the offensive,” Sir, was that you utilized former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, to assist you in making the point of presenting Senator Obama’s judgment as, somehow, flawed. Might I remind you that Newt Gingrich headed the 1998 charge to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton on charges stemming from the extramarital affair that he sustained with one Monica Lewinsky. In a March 8, 2007 Associated Press article featured on your very own FOX News, titled "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges ...Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment," we are presented with an interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family that reveals the following:
“Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.”
"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."
Sir, translated into common English, this says…There are rules and laws that apply to ALL, including the President of The United States, but that I, because my name is Newt Gingrich, a Neoconservative, reserve the right to exempt myself from them. No, Mr. Hannity, your show, your network, your self-righteous, pontificating ploys called supporting guests, your intentions, your manic obsession with imposing dynastic rule… but most of all, YOU… are tacitly UNACCEPTABLE as is your effort to present this morally diseased neoconservative “fowl” as someone qualified to “judge the judgment” of EAGLES. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this correspondence to Representative Henry Waxman, who, last year moved to have yours and Mr. Rush Limbaugh’s actions investigated, as well as to Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Kevin Martin, who, I am advised, has been put on notice of the nature of your endeavors, that now appear to many, as being contrary to our very national security.
America will NEVER belong to your minion of disguised patriotic indigence, Sir, and, least of all, to YOU. I would suggest that you listen to a song, considered by many of my generation as an American Anthem, and that I recently sent to the Democratic Superdelegates as well. In ’64 Bob Dylan spoke of times that were “a-changing. I submit to you, Shawn Hannity, that there is an unmistakable wind of CHANGE in the air and MILLIONS, like me, bear witness to its hopeful reality. To you, and to those like you, frantically trying to stop this will be like trying to stop the wind. We have paid for this campaign and for this movement, unlike the politicians of yesteryears and of today, with our own monies, 5, 10, 25 dollars at a time. I know that you must resent the force that such a movement presents. Your colleagues must , as well, fear the threat to their lifetime relationships with lobbyist dollars that will scatter like fallen leaves on this wind. Yes, Mr Hannity, make no mistake. More than times a-changing, Sir, the times …THEY DUN HAVE CHANGED!
Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'.
From the song The Times They Are A-Changin’ by Bob Dylan (1964)
Complete lyrics - http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times.html
Listen to it here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vou4qUu5YY
RICK F. BASORA
Fort Lauderdale, FL
" …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. -US Constitution, Article 6
" …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
-US Constitution, Article 6
As a former Divinity School student, in the 70’s, I have a fair amount of knowledge about the history of black religion and its inseparable association with the politics of social justice. Slaves were not allowed to worship with their white masters even though it was from them that the religion came. At best, they were allowed to sit in the balconies of the churches and keep their silence. It wasn’t long before slaves began to worship their own unique form of Christianity, seasoned with the religions of their African homeland. Soon, the black spiritual became a venue for secret messaging which aided and abetted the success of The Underground Railroad. The black spiritual, born in the spirit of black Christianity, became most useful as a communication tool for enabling the escape of slaves to freedom in Canada. From the moment it was taught to the slaves, Christianity became a beacon of hope and a tool of justification for throwing off the shackles of slavery and every social inconvenience that has come in the wake of it’s abolition in 1863.
This is not intended to be a lecture on black religion. It is my intention here, to describe the nature of black religion as expansive. It includes not only the worship of Christ and the hope of salvation, but in a very real sense, it accommodates just about all aspects of life in the experience of being Black in America. The black church became far more fundamental to the lives of African Americans than just a place to go on Sundays and worship God. The black church is the apex of the community. Its association with freedom movements and resistance to the government of the United States came with the package. In confronting the thinking of Barack Obama’s pastor, the more fundamental question even more primary than First Amendment consideration, is the interpretation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.
Article 6 came along because the founding fathers did not want the same restrictions placed upon Americans that they escaped from by fleeing the Anglican Church of England. A test of religion implies a prerequisite based on the choice a candidate has made regarding the manner in which he practices his religion. Article 6 is an open statement that could produce a great deal of intrigue at the level of the US Supreme Court as regards interpretation. In the Arizona Debates of 2004, the questioner was clearly testing the measure of belief. One could argue that since the moderator was not a government official, the tone of Article 6 did not apply. One could also argue that if the answers given by the candidates were not satisfactory to the voting public, they would be denied the ultimate public service position; the presidency of the United States. If by failing the test of religion, an aspiring candidate loses the election, then I personally believe Article 6 has been violated by the moderators. I would leave it up to the Supreme Court to make a final decision.
In the case of Barack Obama, who has, for his own reasons, chosen to belong to the church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, the exposing of Wright’s thinking in such a way as to inhibit Mr. Obama from succeeding to the presidency, brings up the same question regarding a violation of Article 6. I know it could be a stretch to see it this way, but for the last week we have been bombarded by Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, not as they apply necessarily to a judgement of Rev. Wright, but as they apply to the candidate that belongs to his church. Questioning Barack Obama’s affiliation with the United Church of Christ as he runs for president is administering a test of his religion. It is, in effect, saying "You, Mr.Obama, belong to the wrong kind of church with the wrong kind of pastor and therefore the public has the right to dismiss your candidacy on the grounds that you may, with your religion, be associating with Anti-American sentiment."
It seems that before we elect a person to the office of president, we want to know what his religious beliefs (or lack of such) are all about. The voting constituency of the American population acts as the administrator in offering the job of the presidency to the candidates seeking that office. If the US Constitution forbids a test of religion"as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", then any undue scrutiny of a candidate’s association with his choice of religion, church, synagogue, temple, mosque, tent in the open woods or whatever, raises valid issues regarding the meaning of Article 6.
Now obviously, one might raise the example of devil worship, or witchcraft and so forth as a valid reason to question a candidate’s association with those "religions". Chances are, a voodoo priest could get elected president if objections to the practice of Voodun were not allowed in debating forums.
How many times did the Mormonism of Mitt Romney get thrust into the consideration of his becoming president? Maybe Article 6 needs to be amended. Maybe it wasn’t intended to allow Satanists or Frog Worshippers to inhabit the office of the presidency, or any other office of the US Government for that matter. Maybe a test case, or a class action suit needs to be brought before the Supreme court if it can be concluded that Barack Obama’s candidacy was offended by questions pertaining to his pastor’s sermons or the church he chose to join.
Obama’s recent speech on racism, Jeremiah Wright, and the ills of American society, attempted to link the rhetoric of preaching to the overall experience of being Black in America, reaching back into slavery. Since there is a clear connection between black religion and social activism responding to accumulated consequences of the Black experience, it should come as no surprise that Jeremiah Wright chose the pulpit to exhort his opinions about American Policy at home and overseas. His sermons were not anti-American. They were "anti" the America that has ducked under the radar of the US Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. Wright’s sermons were a call to what America can and should be, in his opinion. They were a calling of American policies onto the carpet and a suggestion that quite possibly, the actions of American governments over the years have violated moral justice and the thought of the Founding Fathers.
Barack Obama became associated with Wright’s United Church of Christ when he was organizing and advocating for the rights of dispossessed, disadvantaged Americans, most of whom happened to be black. They lived in the worst areas of Chicago and were too poor to matter to that city’s government at the time. The United Church of Christ belonged, at that time, to a council of churches which funded support groups and active efforts to respond to issues of heat, asbestos contamination, single-parent familes, unwed mothers, incarceration issues, HIV-Aids administration and so on. Barack Obama gave up a promising legal career to work for those people and it was the churches in that area that provided money and meeting places as well as other support facilities. If Jeremiah Wright and his congregation hadn’t the heart and spirit to reach out and assist people whom the government ignored, perhaps the association would never have come to fruition.
It could be argued that the facilitation of Obama’s mission in the Chicago housing ghetto was a more fundamental reason for his joining that church. It could be argued that despite the flaming rhetoric of his pastor, he was attracted to the willingness of Jeremiah Wright to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Barack Obama found a comfort zone in the religion of the church he decided to join and enough political activism in the ideology of Reverend Wright to form a relationship with him, which suited Mr. Obama and his family. Now he is being handed a test of his choice as he continues to defend his religion against those who seek one thing: The discrediting of his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
The ongoing exposé of the ideas and sermons of Jeremiah Wright is a masquerade; a sleight-of-hand operation to deny the presidency to Barack Obama by manipulating the mind of the electorate. If the sermons of Jeremiah Wright were so caustic and abrasively damaging to the character of America, then why NOW are they being paraded in the media and on the opinion pages of publications all over the land? This is not even a violation of Wright’s right to speak his mind. It is simply an effort to obstruct the path to the presidency of Barack Obama, using a test of religion.
Somewhere in the future of presidential campaigns, an agreement of protocol is going to have to come about which adheres to the thinking of Article 6. Hinting at his Muslim and Atheist background was a clear consensus of the idea that a person cannot be president unless his religion satisfies the public conscience. Linking him, through Jeremiah Wright, to Louis Farrakhan, a proud and prominent practitioner of Islam was designed to motivate the fears inherent in the current age of terrorism and anti-Semitism. If religion is to play a deciding part in the election of a US president, then Article 6 must come to the attention of the Supreme Court in terms of revision or official interpretation because it sure sounds to me like we have an infringement here.
The attempt to derail Barack Obama’s candidacy with the ongoing debate over the content of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright has hit its mark. There has been a drop in the Nominating polls along with a rise in the general election polls favorable to Hillary Clinton. If this association between Barack Obama’s faith choice and his chances for winning the presidency prove to be detrimental then bringing a challenge before the Supreme Court regarding Article 6 could be a reasonable consideration.
RWH
