Religion And Politics (Part II)

Religion, the separation of Church and State, "In God we trust", are all words that bring out the best and worse depending on one's persuasion.  America, the land of tolerance, has been hijacked by the "holier than thou group" who question other people's faith and religion.  It has become a litmus test cast down on those who seek public office to explain their faith.  And no matter how much explaining is done, it is never enough.

 

This "group" is the extreme right, the neocons, and some evangelicals who demand proof of one's faith and religious beliefs.  They use one's faith and religion, or a lack there of, to judge a person's fitness for office or life itself.  They can't articulate what they themselves stand for, so they attack others to divide and conquer.

 

President Kennedy answered their warped minds after he became the Democratic nominee in 1960.  They wanted to know if he would take orders from the Pope or follow the constitution.  Of course, they knew the answer because he had  served in Congress and they already knew his positions.  But the zealots would not let go.  On the day he arrived in Dallas and was assassinated, the right wingers greeted him with a newspaper ad and poster that read, "Wanted for Treason." 

 

Now it's Mitt Romney's turn to have to answer questions about his religion, despite being a governor where his positions have been well known.  I have said before that when some one questions another person's character, it is the person who is doing the questioning that has the character problem.  Same is true for questioning one's religion or faith.

 

God gave Moses the 10 commandments of life and living.  There was no religion involved in following those words of wisdom.  In fact, we are told on the day of judgement he would be the one to judge.  But the "holier that thou group" wants to be judge and jury of one's faith and religion.  The American people need to realize them for what they really are. 

Politics And Religion (Part I)

The American people are their own worst enemy when it comes to politics and religion. Americans elect the same politicians over and over most of the time.  All one has to do is look at the make up of the Congress and State Legislatures.  The great majority are incumbents with many years of service.

 

Elected officials create the laws, regulations, tax codes and etc., that the people have to live with.  They create some bad ones, but the people still reelect them.  Has any one noticed how many times Senator McCain has said the tax code is unfair and has to be changed?  Yet it is he and Congress who create the tax code.  The people of Arizona have not called McCain down for this, instead he is elected and reelected over and over. 

 

The people have allowed the right wing neocons to divide the country.  They govern by fear, innuendo, character assassination, bigotry, and lies.  They do that because they know a lot of people can't make a decision and believe any thing they hear.  They have teamed up with the religious right to play God.  Many of the religious right even have T.V. shows that bring in millions of dollars.  They, along with the neocons, preach God and family, but God would surely not condone their hypocritical behavior.

 

Why  do people let themselves fall for this con game?  Do they realize these con artists are laughing at them everytime the people support them?  Because the neocons are so sure of themselves and their ability to control the people, I call your attention to the recent resignation of Karl Rove, Bush's  chief operative.  He resigned to write a book and rewrite the history and lies of the Bush administration.  The right wing T.V. and radio networks will give him center stage to continue the con job.  And worst of all, many people will continue to be conned.

 

Elected officials rub their power and greed right in the people's faces. They have no shame when accepting money from special interest, even though it is influencing their vote.  Neither is concerned about doing what is right and necessary for the country and the people.  Greed and power is their make up.

 

They preach no taxes and then turn around and give the people massive deficits and a massive national debt, and every year they waste billions of dollars paying interest on the deficits and debt they created.  That money could instead be used to further the quality of life for the American people.

 

Many members of Congress go to work for these special interest groups when they retire from Congress.  They are welcomed with open arms.  Is there any wonder why?

 

The people will elect a new president next year and also those in Congress who are up for reelection.  Time will tell  if the people can make a choice that truly changes the course of the con game.  One can only hope so.  

Des Moines Register Endorses Clinton

When I heard earlier this week that the Des Moines Register would be announcing their endorsement for President today, I, as many others, thought that the endorsement would surely go to either Obama or Edwards.   Surprisingly it went to Sen. Hillary Clinton and rightfully so.  Here is what the Register has to say:

"The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces - from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change?

The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.

That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

From working for children's rights as a young lawyer, to meeting with leaders around the world as first lady, to emerging as an effective legislator in her service as a senator, every stage of her life has prepared her for the presidency.

That readiness to lead sets her apart from a constellation of possible stars in her party, particularly Barack Obama, who also demonstrates the potential to be a fine president. When Obama speaks before a crowd, he can be more inspirational than Clinton. Yet, with his relative inexperience, it's hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.

...Determination to succeed and learning from her mistakes have been hallmarks of Clinton's life. She grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., graduated from Wellesley College and earned a law degree from Yale. As first lady in Arkansas, she was both strategist and idealist, borne out by her commitment to children and families. As the nation's first lady, she in essence spent eight years as a diplomat, traveling to more than 80 countries and advocating for human rights.

In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she's demonstrated strength, resolve and resilience.

...The times demand results. We believe as president she'll do what she's always done in her life: Throw herself into the job and work hard. We believe Hillary Rodham Clinton can do great things for our country."

And for those who say that this endorsement means nothing, all you have to do is look back in recent history to realize that it does.  In 2004, the Register endorsed John Edwards.  Many credit the Register's endorsement for Edwards quick ascent to a 2nd place showing.  With the race this close in Iowa, this can only benefit Sen. Clinton.

On a side note, the Register endorsed Sen. John McCain on the Republican side.  

Boswell Endorses Hillary---Caucus For Her

Here is a wonderful video I found of Iowa Rep. Leonard Boswell on why he supports Hillary and why America needs her.  As he says in the video, Hillary has over 15 years of experience standing up against the Republican attack machine and against the special interests.  She has and continues to stand for meaningful change---not because she "hopes" for it, but because she has the actual experience and leadership to make it happen.  

Obama's Electability

Quite a stir has been caused by Billy Shaheen's remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's past cocaine use.  In all honestly, I think the media has spun the story into somethings it's simply not.  Bill Shaheen was not saying that people should vote against Barack Obama for his drug use, but rather that the Republicans would use it heavily against him in a general election, which is undoubtably true.  So while I do not feel that Shaheen's comments were as terrible as they have been made out to be, I will admit that it was not necessary for a Democrat to bring up Obama's cocaine use.  But since he did bring into question Obama's electability, I think all Democratic caucus goers and primary voters should take Obama's electability into serious question before supporting him.

Facts are facts.  Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have been under national scrutiny from the Republicans for years.  Both are experienced with how to deal with those problems.  Their pasts have been vetted; everything that could be used against them is already out.  

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has not had his past vetted.  He has yet to run a serious campaign against a Republican or take hard hits from the right-wing machine.  This makes Obama a vulnerable candidate and calls into question his electability next November.  

Past drug use, although it matters nothing at all to me, is something that could prove to be a turn off to many swing voters.  The Obama campaign likes to put forth the fact that he has been open about it in his book and in public.  But that, in a general election campaign against the Republicans, won't matter.  Do you really think that ordinary Americans have read Obama's book?  Of course not.  The Republicans will use this against Obama and it will hurt him.  I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

And it's not just his past drug use either.  We, much less the majority of Americans, know very little about Barack Obama's past.  He has not been vetted.  There are surely things in his past that could hurt his electability.  Every candidate has problems no doubt, but candidates like Clinton and Edwards have had their "dirty laundry" aired a long time ago.  Their "dirty laundry" is old news to voters.  Obama's would be new news.  

Clinton and Edwards have both proven successful in winning over Republican voters and winning in strong Republican areas.  Obama does not have that experience.  His one major election, his 2004 Senate campaign, was against a very weak opponent, Alan Keyes.  I mean, seriously, let's face it, Alan Keyes is just about the weakest Republican in the country.  The '08 election, in much contrast to Obama's Senate campaign, will be far from a cake walk.  As a Democrat committed to getting a Democrat elected in '08,  I want to put my trust in someone like Edwards or Clinton, who know how to deal with the Republican dirt machine and who have proven to be winners in tough battles. 

The Only Way Barack Can Lose Iowa

Sen. Barack Obama, much to my dismay, looks poised to win the Iowa caucuses on January 3.  The big "Mo" (momentum) is on his side and he is leading in many recent Iowa polls.  Clinton and Edwards appear to be stuck in second and third place respectively, but with such a tight race and the volatile nature of the Iowa caucus, there is something that works to the advantage of Clinton and Edwards.  This same thing is the one and only way I could see Barack Obama losing Iowa.  So what is that "thing" of which I refer?  It's the youth vote, of course.

Sen. Clinton and Edwards have the top two traditional caucusing groups on their side.  Sen. Clinton has the 40+ women vote, which traditionally shows up in strong numbers on caucus night.  Edwards also has an important and consistent caucusing group---the labor, or union, vote.  And Barack's support.....the youth vote.  

Polls show Obama to have a tremendous amount of support among college students and other voters in the 18-34 demographic.  If Sen. Obama can get his many young supporters to show up, he will surely win.  The problem is that history is not on his side.  Only 10% of all caucus goers in 2004 were under the age 35; Obama draws much of his support from those same people.

We all remember what happened to Howard Dean in 2004.  At this point in 2003, with just 3 weeks until the caucus, Howard Dean was still the clear frontrunner.  The problem for Dean on the night of the caucus was that his core support consisted of voters under the age of 35 and they simply did not show up to caucus as the polls had suggested.  

As can be seen, the youth vote if far from reliable.  Many young voters show up at rallies for a candidate and even tell pollsters that they are "likely caucus attenders".  Yet, when the night of the caucus comes, the youth simply don't show up in big numbers.  Sadly, they often get distracted.  It should be noted that a big distraction for many young voters, particularly male, this year could potentially be the Orange Bowl, which will begin at about the same time as the caucus.  

Obama and his supporters have promised that this year will be different.  They say that the youth will show up and caucus.  Talk, however, is cheap.  Howard Dean and his campaign claimed the same thing in 2004 as did candidates in previous years.                                                                                                                               

My point: Obama is in the prime position to win the Iowa caucus, but he's not inevitable.  With a large chunk of his support being from younger voters, Obama leaves himself vulnerable.  If he can truly, as he says, bring in youth voters as has never been done before, Obama has this caucus in the bag.  But if only 10%, or even 15%, show up, Obama could be in deep trouble.  With the race so tight in Iowa, Obama, or any candidate for that matter, can not afford to not have their core supporters show up.  As Dean learned in '04, it's one thing to have supporters, it's a completely different thing to have them actually show up on a cold winter night to stand in a room for hours and caucus for you.  

Clinton and Edwards have reliable supporters who are traditional caucus goers; they should have no problem getting their people out.  The race in Iowa, and possibly the nationally, depends on how many of Obama's youth supporters actually show up.  If he gets them out there, he'll win.  If he doesn't, he could be the Dean of '08.  Only time will tell.  

Afghanistan: Failing Because of Iraq

The United States invaded Afghanistan over 6 years ago.  That was the right decision because Bin Laden's operations and training camps were there and were supported by the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, the people of the U.S. supported that operation as did most world leaders.  Our military leaders were convinced that we had Bin Laden trapped on several occasions, but we failed to capture him.

 

As of this writing Bin Laden is still at large.  The U.S. has approximately 26,000 troops in Afghanistan and NATO has about 28,000.  The U.S. has about 160,000 troops in Iraq.  Does that make sense when we knew Iraq was no threat to the U.S.?  Everyone knows who struck the U.S. on 9-11.  Our resources were and still are committed to the wrong war.

 

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Gates is blasting NATO for not doing enough in Afghanistan and that Gates wants to overhaul the alliance strategy in Afghanistan.  Violence is on the rise and the U.S. strategic goals for Afghanistan in 2007 have not been met.   In fact, senior administration officials have gone as far as saying that the country is backsliding.  

 

The bottom line is that we have not been fighting the war on terrorism.  We have turned that over to NATO and our rhetoric is hollow.  Our resources have been wasted in Iraq.  The President's self serving statement, "the War on Terror is centered in Iraq," is purely false.  The War on Terror can not be won when you have a faulty foreign policy.  The next President has to have the wisdom to recognize the real threat that terrorism poses, and have a foreign policy that deals with that threat.  Iraq is not a threat; Afghanistan and bin Laden are. 

The Inspiration That Is Hillary Clinton

I know that I often put on my partisan hat and give you my opinions on a candidate.  For this post, however, I'm going to take off that partisan hat and share with you, why Hillary Clinton, regardless of her politics, is a true inspiration to myself and surely others.

Hillary grew up in a conservative family in Chicago.  Although she never expressed thoughts about running for President, from a very young age Hillary knew she wanted to be in public service.  As she progressed through high school, Hillary became more and more interested in politics.  This growing interest led her to major in political science in college.  

Always considering herself "liberal at heart", Hillary finally broke away from her conservative roots when she realized the underhanded tactics and politics of the Republicans under Richard Nixon (the same tactics and politics that continue today).

One could speculate, as I do, that although Hillary never explicitly said that she wanted to be President, she always had the desire to serve her country in that utmost capacity.  The sad thing was that then, and arguably up to a few years ago, the idea of a female running for President, much less being President, was laughable to say the least.  

Then, Hillary's world changed.  She fell in love with Bill Clinton.  She cared so deeply for Bill that she selflessly gave up her career ambitions to move to Arkansas with him.  At that time Bill was a failed politician, in debt over $40,000 due to a failed run for Congress.  Little did she know that Bill would one day be President.

When Hillary got to Arkansas, she planned on joining the Marines.  She wasn't allowed though.  The recruiter told her, "You're too old and you're a woman."

A few decades later, Bill Clinton won the White House and Hillary changed the role of First Lady as it was then known.  Hillary, continuing to show her strong leadership qualities, refused to just sit back and "be quiet" as previous first ladies had been.  Hillary continued her tireless quest for women rights across the globe.  She continued to fight for American families and children.  Hillary, however, was even more than just a force in domestic policy; she used her position to travel to and influence foreign countries and their policies.  

When Bill left office, Hillary could have just let herself fade into the background.  But no, Hillary wasn't finished with public service.  She decided to run for New York Senator, and surprised many when she was able to overcome the many stereotypes to win the seat.  

Now, after serving in the Senate for almost 7 years, Hillary is running for President.  Why is this story so inspirational you might ask?  Simple.  It's not just about women, it is about every single person who was told that he/she could do something because of their age, skin color, ethnicity, physical appearance, gender, etc .  It's inspirational to know that you can break away from your family's ideals and traditions and be your own person.  It's inspirational to know that you don't have to sit complacently in the background and let someone else overshadow you.  That is what Hillary's story teaches----the lesson to be who you want to be and do whatever you want to do and to never let anyone discourage you from chasing your dreams because, who knows, those dreams might just become reality.  

Barack's Character Problem: A Follow Up

After posting a short article I wrote concerning Sen. Barack Obama and his inconsistency on several issues, I got slammed over at the Daily Kos website for twisting Sen. Obama's words and lying about his positions.  After I read those comments, I realized that indeed I should have given more substantial evidence to back up my claims.  So here is my evidence: quotes from Barack Obama himself, a top surrogate, and reliable, objective sources.

In 2004, Sen. Barack Obama said the following when asked on multiple occasions whether or not he would have voted for war in Iraq: 

"I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don't know."

  -New York Times, July 26, 2004

"There's not much of a difference between my position (on Iraq) and George Bush's position at this stage."

  -Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004

And then when questioned by Tim Russert about why he said the things above, Barack responded:

"(Those comments) were made during the convention when we had a nominee, both for President and Vice President, who had voted for the war.  It was probably the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against my party's nominee."

  -Meet the Press, November 11, 2007

That last quote, in my opinion, perfectly exemplifies the lack of leadership Sen. Obama exhibits.  He himself admitted that he essentially just went with the flow as to not upset the status quo.  I don't care what the circumstances are, a true leader stands up for what he believes in 100% of the time, regardless of what others, even his "elders" of "friends" may think of him.  Of course the case could be made that Barack did not exhibit poor leadership, but in fact truly didn't know whether he would have voted for or against the war.  So either a) Obama isn't a true leader as he claims, or b) Obama was telling the truth and in fact did agree with George Bush.  I'll let you decide which one is a more damning critique.

On Obama's healthcare plan:

"It's pretty much conventional wisdom that, without a mandate, a substantial portion of Americans would remain uninsured...15 million is an estimate...but at least a few well-respected authorities, none of them tied to one candidate, think it makes sense."

  -Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic, December 3, 2007

"(Obama's plan) does not include a mandate for adults, as Clinton's plan does. That likely means not as many people will be insured."

  -Kenneth Thorpe, professor of health policy and management at Emory University

"(When Sen. Clinton says Obama's plan leaves 15 million uninsured), Clinton is accurately quoting studies that estimate how many will be uninsured under Obama's plan."

  -St. Petersburg Times/ politifact.com

"What he may be saying is he supports the idea that everybody ought to have healthcare. He supports universal access."

 -Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Obama surrogate, December 11, 2007 on Tucker

So basically what you get when you put these quotes, from reliable sources, on healthcare together, is that Sen. Obama likes the idea of everyone having health care, but at the same time won't mandate it, which experts estimate will leave 15 million uninsured.  

There is my evidence that backs up the claims I made in my article a few days ago.  (Click here for that article)  People can say what they want and think what they want, but the proof is all right here.  

The Rosetta Stone To The War In Iraq (Part II)

Click here for Part I

The most important piece of the Rosetta Stone to the Iraq War was the U.N inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq.  They were there 7 straight years after the 1991 Gulf War and they returned prior to the invasion in March 2003.  Why was that important?  Because after no WMD were found by our own inspectors, Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer, the Bush administration, the CIA, and many military officers, especially those who appeared on the cable networks, were telling the American people the reasons we were so wrong were because the U.S. had no humint (human intelligence) on the ground in Iraq. 

 

Well there was the U.N. humint on the ground in Iraq doing their job.  That humint on the ground in Iraq were not only experienced weapons inspectors, but one among them was Scott Ritter, an outspoken American Marine who was on the ground in Iraq from the beginning.  He wrote a book about the inspectors in Iraq after the Gulf War and pointed out that the CIA tried to manipulate the U.N. inspectors and were more interested in spying on Iraq than the hunt for WMD.

 

The U.N. weapons inspectors went back before the 2003 invasion and said over and over again, in public and before the U.N., that they disarmed Iraq, destroyed the weapons they found, and destroyed the equipment used in the manufacture of weapons.  Scott Ritter was on television almost every night in 2002 and 2003 telling the country over and over again that Iraq had no WMD.  The Bush administration along with the others who clamored for the war tried to discredit him and the U.N. inspectors.  Bush would have no part of their "human intelligence" on the ground.  It should also be pointed out that despite Bush's rhetoric about WMD, the CIA could not provide the U.N. inspectors any useful information on these WMD. (Of course we all know why.)

 

George Bush and Dick Cheney tried to undermine the U.N. inspectors and the job they were doing by putting any obstacle in the way they could think of.  Our own inspectors, Kay and Duelfel, proved the U.N. inspectors were right.  Bush knew if the U.N. inspectors were allowed to complete their job as Germany and France wanted them to, there would be no war.  So Bush ordered them out and started a war that the neocons said would be a cakewalk.

Mr. Bush and his neocon team were bent on going to war with Iraq from the very beginning of his administration.  Paul O'Neill, Mr. Bush's first Treasury Secretary pointed out in his book, "The Price of Loyalty", that just 10 days in office and all the talk was about Iraq.  Getting Saddam was clearly the administration's focus.  Condi Rice, the National Security Adviser at the time, said that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.  

 

Then, still very early in office, O'Neill was reading a document that CIA director Tenent passed out.  It laid out a plan of covert activity around the globe.  At its core was the enabling provision that there be virtually no civilian oversight.  The concept was tell us (CIA) how you want to look Mr. President and we'll handle the rest. 

 

That was an astounding un-American document.  It of course led to the ultimate lie: WMD that did not exist.  The cover up of the truth dealing with the war is still going.  We also know, from all the other scandals of this administration, that they have the ability to escape oversight and disclosure. 

 

I was born during the WWII generation, so I have seen a lot of wars and how our past Presidents acted during those wars.  However, the way Mr. Bush used our military power in starting an unnecessary war and occupation over WMD that did not exist is shameful.  His arrogance, lies, and distortion of the truth and the covert way he has run the White House, have defamed the Presidency and what our country is all about.  Worst of all, he put our men and women in uniform at risk when our national security was not in danger.

 

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress took a stand against President Nixon and told him he had to resign or be impeached.  Those members of Congress put their country first.  It is time for Republicans and Democrats who make up the present congress to draw the line, face their responsibilities as Americans, and inform Mr. Bush he has to go, one way or another.  One more year in office is much too long for this reckless President.  It's time that the current members of Congress put Americans and their country first.