Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Monday, November 15, 2010

Obama Administration Stunned Human Rights Groups

"Obama’s memorandum may look jarring on paper, but it’s grimly consistent with Washington’s agenda of waging war indefinitely, without boundaries, against an enemy we can no longer really define. The U.S. supports warfare that uses children as weapons, warfare that kills civilian children indiscriminately, warfare that ultimately sends our own children to perish on foreign soil. And so America marches on in a world of conflict where the first casualty is innocence itself."

White House Says Child Soldiers Are Ok, if They Fight Terrorists

by Michelle Chen


“You cannot be completely happy with all these wounds—both in your body and in your mind.” —15 year-old child soldier


The phenomenon of child soldiers, like genocide, slavery and torture, seems like one of those crimes that no nation could legitimately defend. Yet the Obama administration just decided to leave countless kids stranded on some of the world’s bloodiest battlegrounds.


The administration stunned human rights groups last month by sidestepping a commitment to help countries curb the military exploitation of children. Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy reported that President Obama issued a presidential memorandum granting waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to four countries: Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen. The memo instructed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that it is in our “national interest” to continue extending military aid to those countries, despite their failure to comply with the rules Congress passed and George W. Bush signed in 2008.


A thumbs-up for child soldiers from the pen of President Obama? Whitehouse spokesperson P.J. Crowley explained it was a strategic decision to ease the 2008 law. The rationale is that on balance, it’s more effective for the U.S. to keep providing military assistance that will help countries gradually evolve out of the practice of marshaling kids to the battlefield, rather than isolating them.


According to the Christian Science Monitor, Crowley argued, “These countries have put the right policies in place… but are struggling to correctly implement them.” The New York Times reported that administration spokespeople also cited the countries’ crucial role in global counter-terrorism efforts.


Strategically granting certain countries a pass on child rights reflects Washington’s warped attitude toward the global human rights regime. The U.S. has failed to ratify, or simply ignored, numerous human rights protocols, and our ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has languished. Human Rights Watch points out, “Only the United States and Somalia, which has no functioning national government, have failed to ratify the treaty.” (Although we did ratify two optional protocols in 2002, relating to child soldiers and other forms of exploitation.)


Somalia, by the way, is one of just two countries that the White House allowed to be sanctioned under the 2008 law; the second was Burma. Presumably this is because Somalia is not receiving direct military funding, reports the Monitor. Yet the U.S. continues to support Somali government forces as they fight Islamic insurgents—with the help of a large force of child soldiers. (To their credit, Somalia has at least promised the U.N. they”ll stop arming kids eventually, according to the Washington Post).


Maybe you could argue that the U.S. is so “advanced” it needn’t bother with rules about children’s rights to education and whatnot. Obama’s waivers might be seen as realpolitik in areas like Yemen, whose military we support as part of our sprawling counter-terrorism operations. But the bottom line is that the administration has carved out an exception to a law intended to ethically guide the flow of U.S. aid money around the world.


According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, which holds America to the same scrutiny that countries like Uganda and DRC routinely face in the media, we benefit indirectly and directly from the exploitation of child fighters:


In 2006 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) registered 59 children in detention during 16 visits to five places of detention or internment controlled by the USA or the UK in Iraq. US soldiers stationed at the detention centres and former detainees described abuses against child detainees, including the rape of a 15-year-old boy at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, forced nudity, stress positions, beating and the use of dogs. Following US troop increases in Iraq in early 2007, US military arrests of children there rose from an average of 25 per month in 2006 to an average of 100 per month. Military officials reported that 828 were children held at Camp Cropper by mid-September, including children as young as 11. A 17-year-old was reportedly strangled by a fellow detainee in early 2007. In August 2007 the USA opened Dar al-Hikmah, a non-residential facility intended to provide education services to 600 detainees aged 11-17 pending release or transfer to Iraqi custody. US military officials excluded an estimated 100 children from participation in the program, apparently on the grounds that they were “extremists” and “beyond redemption”.

Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, remains trapped in a Kafkaesque quasi-judicial system without regard to the fact that he was a child when captured. Rights advocates like Monia Mazigh in Ottowa have called for Khadr to be recognized as a child soldier, but the administration seems to think securing a conviction in Kangaroo Court takes precedence over international law. And because Khadr, like the other Gitmo prisoners, is identified with that faceless dark horde the U.S. has branded “terrorists,” Americans aren’t even inclined to see him as a human being, let alone as a juvenile soldier deserving of sympathy.


So America’s hypocrisy on children in war has many layers. Obama condemns the practice in theory, then undermines federal law by issuing waivers for our partners in Africa and the Middle East. And of course, Washington sees no problem with punishing child soldiers as adults when they’re aligned with the terrorists who are bent on destroying America.


UN Treaties alone obviously won’t demobilize all the world’s child soldiers, but their main role is to put down a legal placeholder. And it’s that moral guidepost that the U.S. undermines every time it waives parallel U.S. laws based on the “national interest.”


Obama’s memorandum may look jarring on paper, but it’s grimly consistent with Washington’s agenda of waging war indefinitely, without boundaries, against an enemy we can no longer really define. The U.S. supports warfare that uses children as weapons, warfare that kills civilian children indiscriminately, warfare that ultimately sends our own children to perish on foreign soil. And so America marches on in a world of conflict where the first casualty is innocence itself.








Sunday, November 14, 2010

WHO WILL STAND UP TO THE SUPERRICH?


Photo by Damon Winter
Yesterday, Frank Rich, a columnist for the New York Times, wrote an opinion piece dealing with one of the biggest problems that we are currently faced with in this country and one that is grabbing a lot of headline attention - the Bush Tax Cuts and the corporate gurus who are really running this country.

As it appears that President Obama is waffling yet again in an effort to appease the right-wing elements of Congress, and signaling some sort of "compromise" on extending these tax cuts, many of us are becoming more and more incensed by his wishy-washy, mamby-pamby performance.

Frank Rich, questions who, then, will stand up against those who represent the upper echelon of the out-of-control economic ladder:

The wealthy Americans we should worry about instead are the ones who implicitly won the election — those who take far more from America than they give back. They were not on the ballot, and most of them are not household names. Unlike Whitman and the other defeated self-financing candidates, they are all but certain to cash in on the Nov. 2 results. There’s no one in Washington in either party with the fortitude to try to stop them from grabbing anything that’s not nailed down.



The Americans I’m talking about are not just those shadowy anonymous corporate campaign contributors who flooded this campaign. No less triumphant were those individuals at the apex of the economic pyramid — the superrich who have gotten spectacularly richer over the last four decades while their fellow citizens either treaded water or lost ground. The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 — up from less than 9 percent in 1976. During the boom years of 2002 to 2007, that top 1 percent’s pretax income increased an extraordinary 10 percent every year. But the boom proved an exclusive affair: in that same period, the median income for non-elderly American households went down and the poverty rate rose.

More here...

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

A Primer For Tea Baggers - Reposted

I love it when I run across an article that speaks volumes, is timely, and begs to be reposted. This is one of those times. You can read it all HERE. Personally, I think I'll make copies and hand them out throughout the course of my day.  

Posted by BitcoDavid at 9:58 pm



 A Primer for Tea Baggers

Critical thought depends on the concept of shared common language, and on an agreed upon set of terms and definitions. If two people are engaged in the building of a table, say, and one asks for a hammer, the success of the project depends on the other handing him a hammer. In the deeply polarized climate of modern American politics, the use of certain terms has reached a frenzied pitch. These terms are thrown about with abandon, but they do have actual meanings – predefined and agreed upon definitions. In other words, when we ask certain individuals, now, for a hammer, we get a wrench.


Let’s clear some stuff up.


Socialism refers to the common ownership, operation and distribution of industrial production and resources. It is characterized by equal access to goods and services for all individuals, with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. It derives from the late 18th century, and is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. Socialists were a driving force in the French Revolution. It is an economic structure, and although it tends to eschew religious belief, it does not seek to abolish religion amongst the masses.


Communism is a social structure. All classes are abolished and all property ownership is assumed by the Totalitarian State. Karl Marx, a sociologist – philosopher, and the founder of the ideology, believed that Communism would eventually replace Capitalism as the logical, scientific conclusion to society. This would be accomplished through a global, proletarian revolution. Further, he felt that this would only be possible after a three-step process. First, Capitalists would have to build the world’s infrastructure and methods of production. Then Socialists would take over, driving the industrial machine to a state of overproduction, providing a glut of goods and services. Finally, the Totalitarian State would emerge to eliminate classes and divide all goods and services amongst the masses. Marx lived from 1818 – 1883. Socialism predated him by the better part of a century. Communists are vehemently anti-religion and believe that it interferes with the requisite fealty towards the Totalitarian State.


Fascism is an Authoritarian political and military ideology that combines radical nationalism with a Capitalist oligarchic economic system. The word itself was first used in Italy as early as 1920. The Italian fascio means, “bundle.” The symbol in Italy for fascism was a bundle of wheat. The idea being, that a single straw is easy to break, but an entire bundle, at once, is near to impossible. This is a defensive and militaristic posture, not a social or economic structure. Fascism is a dangerous, nationalistic and ethnically intolerant political system. It tends to be extremely religious, but always in such a way as to maintain primacy of the Authoritarian State.


I saved this one for last, because this is my primary reason for writing tonight’s piece.


The word Nazism comes from the Anglicization of an acronym for the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. This was the deeply Authoritarian, Nationalist, Militarist Police-State, ideology developed by Adolf Hitler. Most political scientists and sociologists consider Nazism, to be a form of hysterical fascism. It derives from the farthest Right wing end of the political spectrum.


Suffering greatly at the loss and perceived betrayal of Germany after WWI, Hitler posited his 25-point ideology to the German public in 1920. These 25 points included a national policy of Pan-German-ism, vehement anti-Semitism, anti-immigration-ism, racism, social Darwinism, eugenics, anti-Communism, Authoritarianism and ruthless opposition to economic, and political Liberalism.


By 1932, his party held the majority of seats in the Reichstag, and by ‘33, He was Fuhrer of all Germany.


Nazi belief in religion was varied, some being devout Christians, others Nordic and Germanic pagans, and still others absolutely secularist. Similar to Fascism, Hitler saw religion as a sub-set of Nazi thought, where the people’s primary loyalty should be to the state, but where religion could serve to help bind that loyalty.


It is important to state here – to remember here, that Nazis marched across Europe in the 1940s, like the Black Plague did in the 14th century. As they did, they tortured, raped, enslaved and killed some 14 million Human beings. In pursuit of their “Lebensraum,” they crushed the bones of children, forced elderly women to stand, naked, in the snow for hours on end, and then hosed them down with ice water, to see if they would die. The Nazis performed horrific surgeries on innocent people, without even so much as anesthesia. They burned people with blowtorches, shocked them with electrodes, baked them alive, and gassed them – and all this, before arriving at their master concept, their “Final Solution,” Operation Reinhardt. During the year and a half, that program was in effect – the Nazis were murdering upwards of 20 thousand people per day, seven days a week. “Sonderbehandlung,” it was called – special treatment.


According to Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin – according to these people, I’m one. According to these people, I’m a Nazi. My political affiliation is not one of the ones I chose to define in tonight’s piece. My political affiliation is Progressive Liberal. We’ve been around since about the turn of the century, too. We believe in equal rights for all people. We believe in a fair and safe workplace, where hard work is justly compensated. We believe in the humane treatment of animals, in ethnic diversity and in fair and open immigration policies. In good stewardship of our mother-planet, and we believe in an end to war and famine, not just in the U.S.A., but also throughout the world.


It hurts me when I hear myself, or my President, referred to as a Nazi, because I know whom the Nazis were. It hurts me when I see skin-headed teenagers wearing SA uniforms and carrying swastikas, because I know whom the Nazis were. It hurts me when I hear revisionist Historians and religious zealots claim the Holocaust never happened, because I know whom the Nazis were.


I challenge Beck, Palin and the entire “tea-bagger” crowd to show me, based upon the above definitions, where Obama, actually, is any of those things. What policies of the current administration are you referring to when you call him a Socialist, a Communist or – above all, a Nazi? Moreover, for the love of God, what did I ever do to you, for you to call me one?





Saturday, February 13, 2010

Glenn Beck Is Cerifiable

Glenn Beck is certifiable, of that I am certain. He now claims that the youth of today are being hijacked.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=1559

Beck: Lenin had a phrase for people like these. They were called “useful idiots.” I think a lot of our twenty-somethings are becoming useful idiots. One of those useful idiots seems to be Meghan McCain. She is John McCain’s like totally awesome like daughter.
You see, Beck thinks that Progressives and Obama are attempting to turn children against their parents for the purpose of undermining the foundation of our society. Well, isn't it just like Glenn Beck to dream up this kind of rubbish. He must really be hurting for ratings. But then those who mindlessly follow this cretin are lapping it up.

Who was it that said, "Conservatives aren't all stupid people, but most stupind people are conservatives?" I would like to shake his hand.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

PATIENCE, MY DEAR...


You know, I have to be constantly reminded that patience is a virtue and that all good things come to those who wait.

In 2003, I remember telling the leaders of the local Democratic Party that the only way they could win in 2004, was to run someone who was the complete antithesis of Dubyah. Of course, that didn't happen and America is much the worse for it. But, what do I know, right?

Now, as one of the "lefties," as I have so often been labeled, I went to the polls one year ago today and filled in the box by the odd name of Barack Obama. Absolutely ravenous for the change he promised I stood and watched, tears streaming, proud, and hopeful as he accepted the office of President of the United States. I listened intently to his words:

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America -- I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you -- we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who wont agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government cant solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

Barack Obama,
November 4, 2008


Caught up in the moment, as were millions of others, I knew - at least I thought I understood - that change wouldn't be easy or instantaneous. I knew that there would be resistance and that there would inevitably be the set-backs of which this man spoke. Yet hope was all encompassing. But, that was then. That was one of those fleeting moments of which there are all too few in life that we all cherish with such special fondness.

As the months passed reality blurred the promise of change and impatience replaced hope - at least for me. That feeling of unease and edginess started to return. That awful dread that it was too late and that too much damage had already been done to this great country and to the American dream. Slowly, I started to doubt Obama's abilities, his agenda, and his efficacy.

Today, as I was feeling quite anxious about all things political, I came across an article on the Huffington Post written by Bob Cesca that pretty well brought it all home to me:


Hope, Change and The Long Road: One Year Later



November 4, 2009. It's been exactly one year since Barack Obama was elected, and it's becoming increasingly clear that the president hasn't fixed the whole world yet. Then again, he never promised such a thing. But despite some "setbacks and false starts," we're in considerably better shape than we were when the president delivered the above words on election night in Chicago.

One of his central goals, going all the way back to his 2004 convention speech, of building common ground between Americans of different ideologies and backgrounds is going to be more difficult than was previously anticipated. However, what's beginning to take shape is common ground between the far-right and the far-left insofar as they're both angrily lining up in opposition to this White House.

Of course the wingnut right -- the Beck-Limbaugh-Palin Industrial Complex -- has a significant head start. Plus, they're immovable. Nothing this president does, short of resignation, will ever be greeted positively and everything will be pegged as a Nazi-Communist-Nixon-Carter-Terrorist usurping of American exceptionalism. However, on the left, there's a growing discontentment that's rapidly metastasizing into a similarly virulent and unchangeable anger. It not only threatens to fracture the president's progressive base, but it could also force the president to retreat to the middle.

Everything for this president hinges on the promise of change. And, in many ways, he's delivered on that pledge, if you consider "change" to be a presidency both legislatively and stylistically different from Bush.

I'm not going to do the whole list, but the tent pole items include setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, opening up federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, equal pay for women, ending torture, passing a major economic stimulus bill, which has helped to boost economic growth and yank the Dow back from the cliffs of insanity, and it looks like we're going to have a fairly solid health care reform bill with a public insurance option sometime this year (unless Harry Reid fumbles it). Last week alone, the president signed historic new hate crimes legislation protecting the LGBT community, killed the useless F-22 program, ended funding for ineffectual abstinence-only education, and was able to ballyhoo the first quarter of economic growth since 2007. Plus, per the president's orders, the Senate finally voted to allow the Guantanamo inmates to be moved onto U.S. soil for imprisonment and trial.

Not too shabby on the change front compared with where we were on November 4, 2008. It's also important to underscore that these aren't merely good for the Obama administration, these successes are good for America. They should be celebrated as such without embarrassment or apology.

Even the most rabid wingnut in the throes of another schizoid embolism has to admit that these successes represent, at the very least, change.

But it's a perceived lack of change that's angering many activists on the left. For my part, I'm not in love with the old school DLC influence of Rahm Emanuel. There are growing indications that the moderation coming from the White House on the public option is mainly from Emanuel's office. The pledge for bipartisanship is also growing really old, really fast, though I understand the political calculus in at least saying that it's important. In reality, the only operational legislative bipartisanship we ought to be seeing is between the liberals and the conservadems -- together representing a de facto two-party apparatus while the Republicans tend to their conniptions.

Meanwhile, administration officials have made some minor yet frustrating moves in terms of state secrets, indefinite detention and civil rights issues like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). Changes on those fronts can't come soon enough, but at least we're being told they're on the way.

So we have some troubling sameness, but looking at the raw list of accomplishments, the "change" side of the ledger appears to be more robust at this point, especially given that it's only been a year.

But expectations have been unnaturally high, mainly because it's so damn easy to project both our highest hopes and greatest fears onto this president.

In terms of the wingnut right, they've shoehorned literally every boogie man into Obama's loafers. He's both Carter and Nixon. He's both a Marxist and a fascist Nazi. He's both Hitler and Chamberlain. The wingnut right has gone so far as to paint a Hitler mustache on a man who the real-life Hitler would probably have killed with his bare hands -- a mixed-race liberal with a Muslim name.

In terms of the left, we've set marble-man expectations, and then we're shocked when these expectations aren't met. Put another way, we want this president to be FDR meets Kennedy meets MLK meets LBJ meets Bobby Kennedy meets Rachel Maddow meets Superman.

We expect him to "get tough" and, I don't know, flip his shit. Snap some Republican necks on live television. We want the very pragmatic and even-tempered Barack Obama to transform into a roid-raging berzerker. But I don't think that's entirely necessary.

While I'd love to see the president go all elbows-and-fists on Glenn Beck's punch-me face, it's just not going to happen. The attacks and antagonism from the White House against the far-right are more nuanced and subtle. It's a gradual tweaking rather than a daily burst of rage. Over a four or eight year term, this could be much more effective than brute force. After all, it was this fighting style that defeated both the Clinton machine and a well-respected war hero.

My worry, though, regarding the left is that we're nearing a zero barrier of sorts. Unless the president is able to cajole some of the more pissed off activists on the left, they'll entrench and will become equally as immovable as the wingnut right. In other words, if the president is unable to win back a level of liberal support rivaling last November, nothing he achieves will be good enough to generate the same grassroots support he enjoyed during the 2008 campaign. The silence surrounding last week's list of successes was deafening. And that could congeal into a serious electoral silence in 2010 and 2012, not unlike what we saw in 2000 with the left retreating to support Ralph Nader.

So what next?

On Tuesday, Arianna wrote about the president's timidity. While I don't necessarily agree considering how, for example, no other president -- including one whose giant mustache is carved into Mt. Rushmore -- has ever gotten this far in terms of reforming health care, she's absolutely right in terms of style.

Perhaps the White House would be better served by simply bragging more. Take these achievements and really amplify them. The administration has a respectable syllabus of accomplishments, so why not get loud? Let fly. This isn't difficult to do, especially given the president's oratory skills. Ultimately, this could serve to further antagonize the right, driving them deeper into political irrelevance; it could also mobilize the left, possibly disarming some of the "not good enough" criticisms; and it could remind independents why they voted in record numbers for Barack Obama one year ago today.

As promised in Grant Park, the road is much longer and steeper than can be traveled in a single year. But I'm both encouraged and excited by the fact that we're moving in the right direction -- "calloused hand by calloused hand."

Sunday, October 11, 2009

GET A FREAKIN GRIP!

People Puhhhleeeazee - get a freakin grip! The comments on the previous post are proof positive that if Obama were to solve every world crisis in the next 30 days there would still be those who refuse to give him his just due. The right-wing is having a grand-mal seizure over the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the President of the United States and they are about to bite their tongues smooth off! Geeze...do you even read or listen or know why he was given this award? Or are you just hell bent on demonstrating your lack of abilities and knowledge?

This is the statement issued by the committee with my emphasis and comments in bold...

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Note that they cite "efforts," "vision," and "work for" things like international diplomacy and cooperation. This has been the case in the awarding of the prize to many other recipients. The committee often awards the prize based upon intentions and efforts rather than outcomes.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

There is an obvious reference here to a renewal of diplomacy over the past era of aggression that was endured under the Bush administration. Additionally, the emphasis in making the award was largely based upon Obama's efforts and dialogue which have both resulted in a more favorable view of the United States and in world stability and climate. Again, the award is not always based upon outcome. What part of that is so difficult for people to understand? It is irrefutable that with the election of Obama and his move toward diplomacy and negotiation rather than aggression and bullying that a more rational and peaceful tone is being set in the international sector.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

Can anyone argue the point that President Obama has captured the world's attention? Or that he has given millions upon millions of people around the world hope? Hope that peace will come. Hope that, perhaps, sanity will rule the day. Hope that the greatest country on Earth will no longer be the aggressor but the peace-maker.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Clearly, the intent of the prize is not to applaud or reward accomplishments or outcomes but to honor those who the committee believes are endeavoring to make this world a better place.


Across the nation, right-wing pundits and disgruntled Republicans, so-called "Patriots" and militia-minded individuals are denouncing the awarding of this honor to our President. Some on the left are joining with them in a chorus of disapproval citing his lack of tenure and actual accomplishments as a reason for their discontent.

But, is their disapproval really that benign? Perhaps it is rooted in their lack of true understanding of the prize itself. Or, perhaps it is simply another vehicle by which they can attempt to besmirch and belittle the man to whom they lost their power base. Maybe it's all of those things.

The whine of the right is a loud one, for certain. Pitiable, really. For, in all of their lamenting and bemoaning it appears they have lost all of their joy, all of their emotional appetite for happiness, all of their sense of pride, all of their dignity, and all of their self-respect. In all of their plans to "take this country back," they seem to have forgotten what it was like to be a "real" American who celebrates our victories, our recognitions, and our people.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Keep Your Eye On The Prize


AWESOME! That's exactly what I thought when I got the news that our President, Barack Obama, had been awarded the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. What a statement and a testament to a man who has only held the office of Presidency for ten short months! It's a proud moment, indeed, for the United States of America who had lost so much stature in world affairs over the last several years.

Then...my jaw dropped, my eyes teared, and my heart sank as pundits and the right-wing began wagging their necrotic tongues. Their effusive dialogue can only be said to belie their continuous postulations of patriotism and love of this country.

While, I guess, the reaction should have been predictable, my optimistic and hopeful nature evidently blurred any prescience I might have had at my disposal. My moment of pride was soon defiled by the vitriol unleashed by loathsome pseudo-patriots of the right-wing.

Understanding that much of the current rancor among right-wingers and Republicans is lodged in the bowels of abject racism it should have come as no surprise when Erick Erickson of Red State retorted "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an Affirmative Action quota, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news."

It was surprising, however, in that he should make such an overtly racist statement and be so blatantly ignorant as to the nature of the prize which has recognized individuals of every race and nationality worldwide. Through such an acerbic statement Erickson not only cheapened the coveted prize but himself as well.

Additionally, the reaction by Rush Limbaugh was one that should have been easily predicted as the voracious and disgruntled Republican has been spewing his hate-filled, right wingnuttery for months now. This morning was no different as he said, "The Nobel gang just suicide bombed themselves," and "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award."

The equally distasteful and repugnant Glenn Beck commented, "Obama doesn't deserve the prize but the Tea Party protestors do." Now, just what have the tea-baggers accomplished for world peace, I ask you?

With that, things got worse. Many suggest that he should not accept the prize while others question his "achievements," therefore whether or not he is deserving of such an honor. Still others belittle the prize itself.

In fairness, there are many who reside on the democratic and progressive side of the fence who believe that the awarding of the coveted prize to Obama came to quickly. Some question the timing and the validity of presenting him with such an award.

One can only imagine what the rest of the world is thinking. Last week, when the U.S. lost the bid for the 2016 Olympics, media personalities and people on the streets reveled in that loss. Today, as it was announced that President Obama would be the recipient of one of the greatest world-wide honors, the act was met with derision and denouncement.

From the Huffington Post we are told...

In its statement, the Committee said he had "created a new climate in international politics. ... Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." It continued, "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." That is, in other words, a true commitment to democracy.

You see, the Nobel Peace Prize isn't always about honoring a lifetime of achievement. Recipients aren't always determined upon criteria that requires concrete accomplishments or measurable outcomes. Sometimes it's awarded for the setting of a tone, the promise of change, or leadership and role-modeling.

Those who are hemorraghing and squealing like stuck pigs seem to lack the ability to think either in the abstract or deal with the reality that apparently the rest of the world prefers diplomacy, values, and character to a cowboy hat, boots, and a big belt buckle. The rest of the world would prefer leaders who are committed to solutions and peace to those with the "you're either with us or against us" mentality.

This isn't about who has the biggest and the baddest bombs or who can shock and awe the rest of the world into submission. It's about who has the ability and the acumen to recognize that we are all sharing this planet and that we must learn how to do so together and to lead us in the direction of peace rather than bullying people into submission.

As Robert Creamer so aptly noted...

" The Nobel Committee gave the prize to Barack Obama because he gave the world hope that its most powerful, wealthy nation would once again provide humankind with inspiration and leadership that can be trusted and admired.
Since his election, President Obama has launched a worldwide campaign to eliminate all nuclear weapons - recognizing that controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a practical impossibility unless we work to eliminate them from the globe. He has rededicated America to cope with the massive threat of climate change. He has reset our relationship with the Muslim world. He has rededicated America to the world's international institutions. And, he has begun to use all of the tools available to our country - including diplomacy - to create a more just and peaceful planet.

All of this is just the beginning of a long journey. But at least we have once again begun that journey down the right road. In and of itself that has made America safer, restored our respect in the world, and has begun to build a foundation for peace in the world over the long term.
Americans may not fully appreciate how completely they changed our relations to the rest of the world when they voted to elect Barack Obama last November. The rest of the world does. We should consider Barack Obama's Nobel peace prize as a giant gesture of gratitude.


I see it that way.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

COLD SHOT TONIGHT

AT 7:00 EASTERN COLD SHOT WILL BE COMING ACROSS THE BLOGTALK RADIO SYSTEM.

LISTEN HERE

TOPICS TO INCLUDE:

*AMERICA AT A CROSSROAD
*THE LATEST IN OBAMA SMEARS
*ARE THE RIGHT WING PUNDITS REALLY DANGEROUS?
*HAVE REPUBLICANS BECOME THE FIFTH COLUMN OF INSANITY?
*HAS OBAMA BEEN MARGINALIZED?
*THE NEW BLACK PANTHERS INTIMIDATION CASE
*MILITIA LEADER NORM OLSON RAISES HIS UGLY HEAD


PHONE LINES OPENED AT 7:45 EASTERN TIME

Friday, September 18, 2009

SWEET DREAMS AMERICA


This blog, and much of my life, has been dedicated to exposing and speaking out against racism and those who espouse and propagate the rhetoric of hatred and prejudice. Suffice it to say that throughout the years I have stood toe-to-toe with some very notable people on the racist right. In some instances, I managed to fly under their radar and they didn't even know who I was or what I stood for.

Likewise, on the internet I have met and disagreed with some rather prominent "leaders" in the so-called "movement." Much of the time the writings and the spewed beliefs of White Nationalists and neo-Nazi's yield nothing more than the usual and the predictable. Every once in awhile, however, one of their own offers something that is worthy of discussion - something that just smacks us in the face and calls for a response or even elicits agreement. This is one of those times.

Christopher Drake has been part of the White Nationalist scene for a number of years and has a pretty good reputation among them. He and I have had a few battles but today he had something important to say.

In response to my radio show, Cold Shot, which aired last night, Chris posted, what I believe to be an important essay in the comment section of this blog. You can read the uninterrupted text here.

Given the current climate and the recent events in this country, I think we should all be discussing this. I think we should open up this kind of dialogue from coast to coast. While I certainly disagree with some of what Chris says, it's a good start for both sides. My comments will appear in bold.


I've been meaning to comment on this for a while. Tom Metzger said in an interview a while back that if you could get Wall Street interested in the pro-white thing it would be huge. What he meant was that as long as the pro-white movement stayed as an under-funded grass roots thing, it was going to pretty much stay at a stand still. That's especially true while everyone is trying to stay legal.

Tom Metzger was right when he said that. Metzger has not only been a mentor and an activist for the whole pro-white movement for over four decades, but is one of the more politically savvy of the leaders. Many of the things he has "preached" have been dead-on. That's one of the reasons that he has been so feared by anti-racists.
Now money is involved. Now politicians see that whites are now ready to "vote white" again. Now there is money to be lost should your side lose. Like my fellow lefitst, Tom Metzger has pointed out again and again, if you start screwing with people's money, they start paying attention.
Again, that's very true. If you look at the racial make-up of the recent protestors you will see that 99.99% of them are white, mostly middle-aged to senior-citizen. That's what makes up a huge part of the voting block. The Republican campaign coffers are filling up quickly and a rallying cry is being sent out by white, Republican candidates for contributions.
How many of you have seen a flier that said, "wake up, white man!"? I've seen it said so many times, so many ways on so many websites, handbills, stickers, etc. I always wanted to say, "oh he's awake, just half asleep because of his last big meal."

"Where were all these people while George Bush was screwing up the country?" I heard that asked at least three times yesterday for some reason. It's a legit question. Where were they? Simple. They were at home, happy with their nice unessarily big house, spending their money like crazy and assumming their jobs would always be there. Most of them wouldn't noticed if you'd elected Joe Stalin, so long as he didn't grab their attention or threatened to make life more complex for the sheeple.


And, therein, lies the major crux of the problem. As long as there is beer in the fridge, two cars in the driveway, a meal on the table and the TV is hooked up to cable all is right with the world. That's America. That's been America for a very long time.
But then it came time to do the right thing and get Bush out of office. Bush ran around like a crazy animal, attacking anyone the Jews told him to. If they asked him to bomb his own mother, you can bet his cabinet would meet about it. He wasn't the blood thirsty tyrant the reds made him out to be. He was worse. At least a tyrant knows what he wants. Bush just let the Zionist direct his military while he took care of big money. He didn't say abortion was a good idea nor did he ever say he wanted to take anyone's guns away. Money still rolling in? Steady enough. We'll sit home. Immigration worse than under even the most leftist administration? Maybe I DO NEED a Mexican housekeeper...


Eliminate the anti-Semitic statements and much of this is pretty close to right. Bush was a puppet - a wooden-headed marionette with strings attached to some of the most sinister and malevolent corporate leaders the world has ever known. Bought and paid for by these puppeteers, George W. Bush was as happy as a pig in slop doing their bidding and making an ass of himself and everyone else in this country while three-hundred million Americans slept.
So America set out to do the right thing from their command stations on sofas across the country. As far as "the right thing" went, it was NOT voting for John McCain. McCain assumed then and still assumes now that if he offers to kill anyone the Jews need killed, they'll give him a ticket to the lift. Ten years ago, that might have been true, John. By 2008, too many people on both sides of the fence were calling Iraq and Afghanistan "another Jewish war." It was time to just hold what they had and wait on juicy targets like Iran.

So the road to hell got another on-ramp added.


And this is where your argument becomes somewhat sloppy - even sophomoric. Let's do a little backtracking here - actually, let's do a lot of backtracking.

America loves to scapegoat. That's just the way it is. We have to have someone to blame - other than ourselves, of course. It's easier that way. And racists and white nationalists always seem to want to blame "the Jews" or "the blacks," or the homosexuals or...well, you get the point. Others point their fingers at liberals, or conservatives, or the government...and so on. You do it. I do it. We all do it to one extent or another.

Things aren't quite that simple, however. Think back to the election of 2000. Dubyah didn't win that election - he was "appointed." Oh, there was an outcry for a little while about him not being legitimate and then came 9-11. Remember how you felt that day? Remember the weeks after? Remember the country uniting behind Bush and his f'ing "War On Terror" as we moved into Afghanistan?

Now, no one will ever, ever, ever convince me that 19 known terrorists were able to board four planes close to the same time on the same day and fly them into buildings without SOMEONE in our government knowing about it. No one can tell me that really happened.

It really didn't take long for the white supremacist crowd in this country to start pointing their fingers at Israel and our Israeli alliance, though. Of course, we were all in shock. We were afraid. After all, this is America and those kinds of things don't happen here. We're a civilized nation. We had to blame someone, now, didn't we?

Well, after the shock waves passed and we were extracting our pound of flesh from Al Queada, we were quite easily lulled back into our complacent states of materialism and apathy. The country was in pretty good hands and now we had the Patriot Act and Homeland Security to protect us. We still had our jobs and the mortgage payments had to be met along with the those other bills for the boat and RV that we proudly park in our driveways.

The puppeteers now saw their big opportunity, didn't they? And they pulled the Shrub's strings a little harder - gave him a little song and dance routine about weapons of mass destruction and put him back on the stage. It didn't matter that hundred of thousands of people marched on Washington - or millions around the world. Georgie had it all under control. Remember, you're either with us, or against us.

To the ultra-conservatives, the protestors were left-wing pacifists and un-American. To the liberals, the proponents of the attack were right-winged war mongers. And the white nationalists weren't sure where to light. Some took their cause to the streets with their "No More Wars For Israel" signs and got their butts kicked to the curb. Why? Because the anti-war protestors didn't want to be associated with anything racist or anti-Semitic. They didn't share that sentiment.

But, Dubyah's handlers weren't concerned with the numbers in the streets - you see, those numbers didn't equate to dollars. Certainly not the kind of dollars that could be made through an unconscionable war. So...they gave us Shock & Awe. And we sat in front of the TV with our microwave popcorn and a six-pack and cheered at the non-stop media coverage of bombs being rained down on innocent men, women, and children while the puppeteers rubbed their greedy palms together in great anticipation of the profits they would reap.

Oh, yes...we did that, and Oh, yes...they did that. And for millions of Americans life was still thought to be good.

There was little thought given to those less fortunate. So you're homeless and hungry - get a job. So you can't see a doctor - that's too bad. So, you got wounded in Iraq - welcome to understaffed and under-funded Veteran's hospital. So you want twice the house you can afford - here's the loan, it'll be ours in 10 years, ha, ha. So your kids can't pass the ACT - here's "No Child Left Behind." I've got mine - get your own. That's Capitalism, baby. Want the American dream? Go find it.

Then the Road To Hell On Ramp was completed. Fighting wars on two fronts, an economy that collapsed, unemployment reaching mammoth proportions, the stock-market crashing, the auto-industry going bust, businesses going bankrupt, a broken health-care system, an antiquated and ineffective educational system - and guess what...America finally gets it.

In came Barack Obama. What kills me is that he got elected on vague slogans, white guilt, and promises to end the genocide Bush started. Does it piss one single person off that he hasn't raised a finger to even so much as slow the rate of bodies piling up in the Middle East? Shouldn't some of you who blindly follow him because he's black, get pissed off because he lies like hell to you? Anyhow. This post is going to be long enough as it is.


It is unfortunate that even in the face of an election that was such an overwhelming statement by the American people that the White Nationalist must somehow try to justify our votes through suggesting that they were cast because of "white guilt." I clearly see that you have to have something to blame the election of a black man on. Perhaps you have worn your fingers out pointing them at others?

I am pissed off. There's no doubt about that. But, not for the reasons you suggest. Barack Obama's election had nothing to do with "white guilt," and everything to do with change. That's all Americans had to see and hear - "CHANGE." It didn't matter what the change meant. In our minds - anything was better than what we were experiencing - and we were right.

I'm pissed off because a man who has held the office of the President of the United States for less than ten months, a man who stepped into one of the most precipitous situations ever faced by any other is being vilified by smears and blatant fabrications by Americans who slept through the last eight years of this country's decapitation.

I'm pissed off because there are so many people in my country who have been sold a bill of goods by profiteers and puppeteers whose unscrupulous greed for money and power obscures any and all things possible.
So now people in Washington are paying attention to the new pro-white movement. Sorry to all you apologists but that's what it is. It's Stormfront come to life with the militias marching in near-lockstep. You can say it's not about race or whatever. Don't kid youselves. It's totally about race. "Oh we are just American Patriots." Take it from a pro, you can't be an "American Patriot" and not be racist.

Yes the people in Washington are paying attention - and some are paying a lot more than that. And all one has to do is look at the racial makeup of those "American Patriots" to suspect that there is something more afoot here than taxes and health-care.

There are many among them who will claim not to be racist - but racism is often a nebulous vagary shrouded in code-words or underlying intents.

A lot of people are coming to that conclusion though. "You're a bigot!" works about as good at slowing white people these days as calling Obama a "nigger" made him reconsider running for office. "People in the tea-party movement are tired of people calling them racists." Where? All I see are some people who claim to be some sort of leadership backpeddling on race to the media.


Let me be the one to inform you all: there is no such thing as a post-racial society. I guess if you destroyed the entire human race, then you might have a post-racial world. The white person who patted his affirmative action black on the head last year is now carrying on just like a middle-of-the-road racist did two years ago. The same thing you heard on Stormfront is now being chanted through the streets of DC by thousands, if not millions, of people. Someone screwed with their money.


Well, you know the old saying about money being the root of all evil.

Many right-wingers, especially the pundits, have been attempting to conceal their racism for years, yielding the floor to the climate of political correctness and for fear of losing the dollars that come from their corporate sponsors. The sheer numbers that have flocked to the right-wing airwaves as well as into the streets have, however, emboldened the talking-heads as well as the network CEO's. The tide is definitely turning.
Finally.

Moving on, a race war actually has a chance of happening now. I watched a frightened negro on TV who apparently dropped the Hollywood fantasy and admitted that blacks would get their asses stomped Samolia style should a war of such break out. Right now, people in Washington are actually sitting around wondering how to run a race war and how to put things back together after it's over. No boys, that isn't a good thing. First, you don't want any war, regardless of how much you think you do. Second, if there was one, you don't want anyone from the beltway on your side. YOU WILL BE SCREWED OVER IN THE END AND WORSE OFF THAN BEFORE. If a war had to happen, it needs to be white people against the feds, the Chosen and their pets.


What makes you think a race war is coming, Drake? Simple. The rats are already jumping ship. You are seeing a lot of Jews starting to support the tea-party crowd (which is what I used to call "the tea-cups"). Black man, don't think for a moment that Jews cared a shred for you and your advancement. It was a bigger joke to them than it was to us. Just like during the birth of Nazi Germany, Jews are attempting to get in on the ground level. Yes, they will turn on you and are about to enmass. That's one sign.
First, I must say that I understand that it is difficult for a neo-Nazi or white supremacist to discuss many political or social issues without laying everything off on "the Jews." In all honesty, any neophyte to the hyperbolic rhetoric of the white nationalist and their views would be led to believe that Jews make up 75% of the U.S. population, have an omniscient presence, and wield unbridled power over the populace. You guys really need to stop giving them so much credit.

For years I have been hearing white supremacists foretell the "Day of the Rope." I have laughed at their folly and their wishful predictions of a Racial Holy War. I have commented over and over again on their fantasies and their daydreams. Watching some of the actions, however, of the tea-party crowd and the drama that is unfolding, however, has given me pause. Not so much about a race war but, certainly, about a revolution and I concur - that's not something any of us want to see.

Another thing is that money, for the first time since big money told Hitler to disband the SA, is in the movement, if you can still call it that. Politicians smell votes around the tea-parties almost as much as big money smells trouble across the fence. They, not Nathan Furrows, can start a war.

Now...there is a statement worth chewing on. Let's face it, with the landslide election of Barack Obama and the usurpation of power by the Democrats in Congress - the struggling Republican Party was decimated. It has been gutted and filleted and now devoured. That's a hard pill to swallow for a lot of conservatives.

Money? Oh yeah...there's a lot of that at stake and one whole helluva lot being thrown into this tea-party thing. Just look at some of the names associated with this group - and those are just the ones who do the grunt work. The real money is very deep-pocketed and something I will discuss at another time.

While money might equal power, being in power makes one a lot more money - and that's precisely what we should all remember. We should remember it, because things are getting mighty scary.

It's highly unlikely that the power-brokers and the puppeteers are going to get another war on foreign soil because their big gun has already been fired and their shock and awe hand has been played in this round. They are just emerging from the throes of a grand mall seizure where much of the country united around the idea of "change." And they are pissed!

As much of a Patriot as I consider myself, I'm not excited about a race war or any other kind. You kids don't know what it's all about. I've had my taste of it and my stomach goes into knots each time I think about it. I know a lot of people are looking for payback towards non-whites and their associates. It's hard to try and tell them this: a race war is the last thing you should want if you love your people. But it looks like we're getting to "the last thing." Everytime we've tried to talk, we've been shut out, belittled, attacked, fired and jailed. A war in this country is horrifying still. 90% of you in the movement don't know what any kind of war is like and almost 99% of you can't imagine what a war at home would be. I've trained or been involved in low intensity conflict for a great deal of my life. Know what it's all taught me? That I want to sit at a cafe all day and type silly adventure novels. I want to play with my baby and never raise another rifle at anyone ever again. Politcs, basement commando photos, hard feelings and bad feelings aside, NOBODY but the sickest of you should want a civil war right here at home.

We ran a little mom and pop store for years, barely getting by. Now the mob (Washington) has an interest in our business. Great. Be careful what you wish far. And don't call an ill-thought wish a sucessful plan.

While I disagree that any sort of civil unrest will involve one race against another. I do believe that a war of any kind is the last thing we need. I fear, however, we are on the brink of something pretty disastrous. Something that we won't recover from for a very long time.

One of the things that has been accomplished is that Americans are slowly being pulled from that cocoon of comfort that they have gotten so used to. However, they still haven't fully awakened to the truth. Like a sleepy-headed child just emerging from her restful slumber, they haven't rubbed the sleep from their eyes or become acutely aware of the chaos that awaits them. I can only hope that they do so before running out into the path of an oncoming freight train.

As the white supremacist blames the Jew or the black man and the liberal blames the conservative and vice versa, this country is rolling right out onto those tracks. But, in the end, the ones really to blame are ourselves. We've been so busy with the name-calling, the labeling, the finger-pointing and the scapegoating that we have let our selves be manipulated and duped and, yes, pimped. It's cost us - it's cost us dearly. We all see that. We know that. Yet, we continue to allow it happen. Say goodnight - sweet dreams - God bless, America.

Monday, September 14, 2009

COLD SHOT COMIN ATCHA

Due to some renovations being completed here, Cold Shot could not be produced on Sunday. Consequently, it will air on Wednesday, September 16th at 7:00 Eastern. Topics of discussion include:

• Bill White - The Roanoke Nazi was ordered released on $25,000 bond but the prosecution has appealed. Tune in for the latest developments in the case.

• Hal Turner - The racist, radio shock jock out of New Jersey is in transit from his cell in Chicago to a new one in Brooklyn. Discuss the latest in the saga of this circus clown.

• A Pro-White Political Party - Would such a thing succeed in America?

• It's About Race - Or Is It? - Is all of the hoopla in America right now because of the election of the first African-American President or because of something else?

• The Tea-baggers and the March on Washington - What is this really all about? What has been accomplished? What next?

• Righting a Wrong - It seems that I might have grossly underestimated the right-wing nuts in this country. Some are actually preparing for and advocating an armed revolution. Could it happen? What would your response be?

LISTEN HERE

PHONE LINES OPEN @ 7:45

CALL-IN NUMBER: (347) 857-3972

Sunday, September 06, 2009

COLD SHOT COMING ATCHA


SEPTEMBER 7, 2009 COLD SHOT @ 7:00 EST

ON TAP:

^ WHY YOU CAN'T "TAKE AMERICA BACK" - (The myths of the right and their propaganda)

^ OBAMA'S ADDRESS TO OUR CHILDREN - INDOCRINATION OR EDUCATION?

^ THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON - (Right-wingnuts descend on the Nation's Capitol)

^ THE DERRANGED RIGHT AND WHY THEY JUST CAN'T GET OVER IT

^ NEWS & VIEWS





PHONE LINES WILL OPEN AT APPROXIMATELY 8:00 EST

NUMBER TO CALL: :(347) 857-3972

LISTEN HERE

Friday, August 28, 2009

Scary Times

These are very scary times. Times when we all need to find some common ground. Times when we need to look to each other for solutions. Yet...even in the very places that coming together should happen we are being factionalized and driven into a morass of violence and hate. Check it out...

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

HE BLINKED - BUT HE DAMNED SURE BETTA NOT CHOKE

President Obama has not walked softly but he has been carrying a pretty big stick. Exuding a fierce determination publicly, he has pushed the idea of health-care reform into the forefront of American society with a vengence - and then he blinked. In the face of public unrest and a misinformation campaign run by right-wing fanatics with an axe to grind, the stalwart and passionate leader might have lost some of his lustre when his resolve cracked.

With the House and the Senate sharply divided over a public option for health-care, Obama has waffled and his spokespeople are scrambling to do damage control - but many of us aren't buying it. Without a public option there is no reform. Period. End of story. The wingnuts win - and Americans lose.

President Obama was elected because he promised change - and God knows we need just that. The Health-Care Reform Bill, in its current form is a far cry from perfect. It certainly needs work. However, scrapping the public option should not even be an option and apparently isn't to the House of Representatives - good for them.

Waffling on the public option is only part of the problem, however. The larger problem lies within the fact that Obama, by virtue of his position and, sad to say his race, lives under a microscope with a very high-powered lens. Folks around the world have hung their hopes on the President and others would like nothing more than to see him fail. There's a lot at stake here - and he betta not choke now.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Are We There Yet? - Almost, Honey

I’m not about to mince words here or even try to play down the seriousness of what is happening in America at this point in time. As we, as a nation, try to heal from eight years of the most inept and bogus leadership ever to be chronicled in American history we find that the division in this country is ever-increasing. Disgruntled right-wing zealots are having none of the change that was promised to us. From behind their bully-pulpits, from their Congressional offices, from their radio microphones and television studios the ultra-right wing has raised its ugly head with a vengence. This vengence has generated much ire and downright ‘pissedoffedness’ from those of us seeking truth, integrity, and change.

While much has been written over the last few weeks about the disruptions and distortions engaged in by the radical right from the “birthers” and health-care reform opponents, for much of America the alarm bells haven’t really sounded yet – but they better. They better ring out and it had better happen soon.

Sara Robinson of Campaign For America’s Future has written a series of articles that really demand to be read by anyone who is concerned about what is happening in this country…here’s an excerpt from the first article:

All through the Bush years, progressive right-wing watchers refused to call it “fascism” because, though we kept looking, we never saw clear signs of a deliberate, committed institutional partnership forming between America’s conservative elites and its emerging homegrown brownshirt horde. We caught tantalizing signs of brief flirtations — passing political alliances, money passing hands, far-right moonbat talking points flying out of the mouths of “mainstream” conservative leaders. But it was all circumstantial, and fairly transitory. The two sides kept a discreet distance from each other, at least in public. What went on behind closed doors, we could only guess. They certainly didn’t act like a married couple.Now, the guessing game is over. We know beyond doubt that the Teabag movement was created out of whole cloth by astroturf groups like Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks and Tim Phillips’ Americans for Prosperity, with massive media help from FOX News. We see the Birther fracas — the kind of urban myth-making that should have never made it out of the pages of the National Enquirer — being openly ratified by Congressional Republicans. We’ve seen Armey’s own professionally-produced field manual that carefully instructs conservative goon squads in the fine art of disrupting the democratic governing process — and the film of public officials being terrorized and threatened to the point where some of them required armed escorts to leave the building. We’ve seen Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner applauding and promoting a video of the disruptions and looking forward to “a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress.”

This is the sign we were waiting for — the one that tells us that yes, kids: we are there now. America’s conservative elites have openly thrown in with the country’s legions of discontented far right thugs. They have explicitly deputized them and empowered them to act as their enforcement arm on America’s streets, sanctioning the physical harassment and intimidation of workers, liberals, and public officials who won’t do their political or economic bidding.

This is the catalyzing moment at which honest-to-Hitler fascism begins. It’s also our very last chance to stop it.

The articles can be found here…
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083205/fascist-america-are-we-there-yet

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083311/fascist-america-ii-last-turnoff


Read the articles – and take a stand.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Floyd To the Right of Me...

Somedays I just find myself walking around and shaking my head. Today I'm scratching my head as well. Last night's Lunatic Fringe show was, to say the least, that I won't soon forget.

Now, Floyd Cochran and I have worked together for a number of years in various capacities and we don't always agree. Yet, we share a mutual respect for each other and for our individual opinions. Our relationship is a good example of how people can come together for a common cause and work together toward a common goal while vehemently disagreeing in other areas. If you haven't listened to this show - you will hear some of that disagreement. You will also hear Floyd's right-wing side. (sigh)

Floyd to the right of me...Nikki to the left...here we are, stuck in the middle with no one but YOU!

LISTEN HERE

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

OBAMA'S SPEECH



TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Transcript of Obama's speech on race
Full transcript of Obama's speech on race as prepared for delivery
MSNBC
updated 10:11 a.m. CT, Tues., March. 18, 2008
PHILADELPHIA - "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. 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.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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; 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 - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. 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'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 - 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.

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.

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. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, 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.

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." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. 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 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.

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. 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.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

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 such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; 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; 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. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? 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, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; 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 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.

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. 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. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; 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."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - 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. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. 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.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. 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, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. 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.

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. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. 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.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - 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 - a part of our union that we have yet to 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.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. 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, 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.

Legalized discrimination - 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, 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. That anger is not always productive; 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 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.

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. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. 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.

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. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. 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.

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.

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, 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. 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. 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.

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. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; 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. 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. 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. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, 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.

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. 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.

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.