Tea Party Folks Did Not Vote In ‘08

“I was actually black before the election.”

-- President Barack Obama

I well aware of how vastly arrogant my headline for this post is.

I’m not a TEA Party ("Taxed Enough Already") person, nor a right-winger, nor a libertarian, nor a fringe radical. But I actually pay attention to both sides of the political spectrum, in fact all sides of the political spectrum, and I do it on my own without relying on the work of others to decipher it all for me.

I am stepping outside of my ‘box’ here, but what I’m telling you is based off of real comments of real people who didn’t get paid more if they screamed louder or lied harder.

And these people enraged with everything Obama does or says did not vote. Period.

They all sat home and decided that it was all a wash. Or the vast majority of them did at least. Maybe a few voted for the anti-American psychopath Alan Keyes.

Now Obama came out to say, in a very clever way, that the animosity against him is political and not racial.

I think very likely this is, for the most part, completely accurate.

A lot of these people are so angry because they didn’t vote. And that’s really it. There isn’t a lot more to understand.

Sure they are ‘anti-government‘, but not really. They are only anti-government when the government is run by mainly Democrats and their hatred for the government dissolves as soon as the Republicans are in power. It’s laughable and complete partisanship, but also not racist in any form.

The issue of this modern strain of racism is far more subtle and far more disguised than something so simple as overt anti-black statements.

This is part of why the rightwing cannot process the words of Jimmy Carter.

His courageous words involved looking at the world in more than a black-and-white, on-and-off, bumper sticker mentality. One must dabble in nuance and undercurrents to come to this conclusion.

It’s rather simple:

Some white people in this country are not willing to share power with non-whites.

If you actually read Carter’s comments, that is exactly what he said.

And it would be deplorable and insane if President Barack Obama was going to back up the words of Jimmy Carter. That would be completely wrong-headed and bad for the country.

So this whole issue has been a-swing-and-a-miss in terms of the conservative response to these charges. They constantly imply that Carter said that all rejection of Obama is based on race and everyone political knows that such a statement is completely false.

This example here of the TEA Party people and how they in fact placed no trust in democracy whatsoever during the election and then want to place faith in democracy through protest at this stage is just one of many examples that shows that it‘s not all racial motives.

Basically they came late to table and that’s part of their extreme bitterness. They are quite angry with themselves for the nonsense they were spouting, that I was listening to, that voting was completely pointless. Now they really wish they had gotten out there.

The big point a lot of people on the left fail to make about all this is that it is the failure to reject racialists like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and the failure to reject McCarthyist claims, that started long before Glenn Beck started repeating them, is the best example of racism in The Republican Party.

The howling silence from major ticket Republicans in regards to race-baiting and McCarthyism running wild in their party is pretty much the best evidence that exists that not only was Carter right, he understated the problem.

But I’m no brazen fool, I know exactly what I’m asking the GOP to do. I want them to throw away the Southern White Racists and throw away the White Nationalists, both of which really do vote Republican. So my request is for them to throw away votes.

And they won’t do that. Especially not now that they are wounded, limping party relying on media hounds to do CPR to their wrinkled husk.

But it’s about doing what is right for the country even when that might not be what is best for the party.

And this complete unwillingness to even admit that a boil of festering racism exists upon the fringe of the rightwing, makes me think that perhaps this veiled racism against any non-white leadership is actually present in a vast majority of cases.

Something Carter never said. Something I’ve never heard anyone say whatsoever.

But when many people won’t even explain why they believe Carter was mistaken and all they do is engage in bigoted insults against him, misrepresent what he said and just plain arrogantly insult anyone who backs Carter up; it truly does the beg the question if they just view the matters from a different lens or if they actually are so enraged because they know these statements are true and cannot abide by it being discussed openly in public.

People Who Voted McCain Hate Obama, Big Surprise

I follow politics on both sides of the coin.

In my view the turning point for the McCain Campaign was the selection of Sara Palin.
The Thinking Conservatives removed their support in droves while the Limited Conservatives found a new poster-child for Partisan Logic.

Aside from the racism allowed to crop up in the Republican Campaign and the market crash under a Republican President, the Conservative Americans who actually think about their positions for longer than the span of a thirty second sound byte could not accept the ‘Say it so, Joe’ Logic and the overall presentation of John McCain’s pick for VP.

Many asked themselves and openly begged the question:

“If John McCain made this bad a decision for Vice President, then how can we trust him to make the right decisions on the war on terror.”

I am trying to draw a connection between the Obama-Hate Committee found on right wing radio and FOX Broadcasting with the vague demagogue figure of religious and moral authority found in the Governor of Alaska and her bid for the vice-presidency in 2008.

I think this group is just loud, and well-funded. Most, if not all, popularity of extremist presidential bashing from the Media Republicans comes from people who want theocracy and the destruction of American Liberty in the name of unfounded ideologies.

There are of course exceptions and a rare pack of conservatives can formulate a fair review of the Obama Presidency thus far, but they increasingly move into the minority as Media Hacks and Partisan Pundits rule the conservative-media.

Dick Cheney is an American Disgrace

I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement that President Obama has made the country any less safe since entering office. The notion that immoral practices will make us any more safe from terrorism is counter-intuitive to my core beliefs.

The CIA Enhanced Interrogation Program was one of the most effective terrorist recruitment tools and a project expressly advocated by former-Vice President Cheney which is now noticeably absent from terrorist recruitment methods.

The approved torture methods of the Bush administration have presented one of the greatest threats to our continued national security to date.

Not only is it disgraceful for Cheney to criticize the current administration as a member of the former but also as to his own level of personal integrity to turn the issue of national security on it’s head by denying the immorality of torture tactics.

The Politics of Fear remain the only tool left to Neo-Conservative Americans.

I see a land of injustice where prosecutions of some order are not undertaken. Those who wrote the legal opinions used to justify these torture tactics must face consequences.

The Justice Department cannot dispense justice onto itself.

A Special Prosecutor must be appointed.

If anything, President Obama has yet to do enough to restore justice and security to our nation.

Safe Since 9/11?

President Bush wishes to express to the people of America that he has kept our nation safe since September 11th 2001 by means of his administration’s Middle-Eastern foreign policy.

It is true that this nation has not suffered any such tragedies in the past seven years and unfair to not recognize that President Bush has held our national security in high regard after the 2001 attack.

The question of his of readiness to assume the responsibility from the out-going Clinton administration in terms of national security and properly assimilating the depth of the known threats to American soil in 2000, is another issue. It is entirely possible and within reason that the Clinton administration failed in their presentation of relevant security matters and did not properly convey the gravity of said intelligence.

The responsibility to prevent an attack on America, if at all possible, still falls under the purview of the Executive Branch even in cases of possible faulty intelligence or possible inadequate representation of facts by previous administrations.

Prior to the 2001 tragedy in New York City often termed ‘9/11’ in mass media we had not suffered an attack to our mainland from a foreign source in more than one-hundred years.

Ultimately, the President is the President in-full from day one and is responsible for that day and every to come until out of office to the safety and prosperity of the American people.

Yet another issue to weigh is the effect of the Bush foreign policy agenda as a whole against the issues of the security of our national allies such as Israel, India and the European nations. The common interest of the American people always extends to their national allies in so far as the interests of commerce and mutual security.

While it is possible the Bush Doctrine may indeed provide the critical and necessary elements of effective national security that our nation must maintain, it is a possible outcome that continued use of this style of foreign policy in future administrations could cause permanent damage to our allies and thus effect the strength of the nation as a whole.

The issue of the responsibility of any current President in national security affairs extends beyond simply guarding against possible foreign attacks but also to guarding against national market failures and against stagnation in our legislature.

Economic strength provides higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within American interests. Inaction in the branches of our government during crisis or outcry sends a message of instability to foreign adversaries who seek to claim us a nation without legitimacy and without honor.

The Bush White House has not upheld the role of economic steward nor has President Bush personally been a vigorous advocate of significant legislation, with the exception of the credit market bail out totaling $700 billion and the No Child Left Behind Act.

President Bush has taken more total vacation time and made less total vetoes than any President of recent decades. In a televised interview aired tonight he explained that he was concerned about the auto industry crisis but took no significant stance on the proposed bail out negotiations.

Even a lame-duck President holds the power of office and working American families that were promised pensions and benefits under the major American automakers could face an employer contract-breach should the chief legislator continue to straddle the issue.

The House of Representatives and The Senate, to date, have also not upheld their role as intelligent regulators and legislators of our vital markets and industries. Congress is also not without blame in allowing a single branch to become unjustly-powerful in our system of checks and balances between the Three Branches of American government.

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
December 18th, 2008

The Markets and You

I cannot stress enough that each American can take easy steps to help our nation in tough times.

Many believe that spending the stimulus package funds exclusively on American products and services will serve to boost our markets more directly.

This may be true, but the bottom line is that using the funds along with savings to make wise investments or spending the money in American retailers and outlets is the only method by which any future packages would show any results.

Informing yourself on not only the best prices on the products you enjoy but which major retailers, energy companies and industries are of the best interest to our nation can lead not only to more stable markets but a greater degree of national security.

Economic strength and stability provides the higher quality intelligence services and personnel staying within the American interests.

For an informed American to claim they have their end of the economy handled in share, they would do well to understand a concept rarely addressed in any media format. The overall strength and robustness of any economy comes not from what is tracked as the DOW JONES or other market averages but rather within the actual number of jobs produced and inherent to that economy.

Also understanding that you are indeed putting real assets into the market by paying bills, or with a highly modest fiscal investment, and need not make rash expensive purchases or risky investments to help build the economy up. In fact such actions may further degrade the once monolithic American markets.

Building a smart economy from the ground up is not outside the ability of any single American to help contribute towards.

Starting a small business, taking on a second or third job and hiring on more staffers to an existing business are not easy options for most Americans in the recession of 2008.

Nonetheless, these three options pose the greatest chance of enhancing the American economy in a very real way in days to come.

The last aspect of the market discussions in American newsmedia that is mainly unaddressed, is that each President cannot be held as strongly in referendum over the number of jobs created or lost under their Presidency as to the issue of the national budget or foreign policy affairs.

Job loss, or creation, is a vital element of reviewing how well any President has governed over the United States of America but an epidemic of job loss, or explosion of jobs, could occur well outside the powers of office and at any time.

It is not to say that actions in office cannot hamper or stimulate job creation but rather that each job market is wholly unique.

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com
December 20th 2008

Four Stories Concerning America and You

“Taking the stories not covered or picked up out of fear by the mass media, The America Press.” -- The America Press Project

Everyday of our lives the newsmedia picks out certain stories to cover and certain stories to ignore.

This process is called playing the "Gatekeeper".

Here are four stories I believe all Americans should know about if they do not already:

1.

There is a running claim from the Bush Admistration that a large amount of yellowcake (chemical-based WMD) was found in Iraq. They have come forward that the intelligence provided in 2002 to Congress and the American people was in fact not as credible as they once believed it to be. Newsmedia groups have failed to find voice the source of this information and present the case to the American public thereby removing the running claim from fringe discussions in the rightwing media.

2.

Easter ‘08, yet more tragedy struck the Iraqi people as they came to the end of fasting under religious observance and were killed in large numbers while crowding to the supermarkets. In so far as a discussion of current Iraqi / American affairs, these bombings counter the strongly held contention of some that Arabic Extremism stems primarily from the Muslim faith. This story took only passing notice in newsmedia and is completely under-referenced in discussions of Middle-Eastern affairs.

3.

Two people were killed in a Knoxville, Tennessee church supposedly for their liberal beliefs in the past year. Is it pure the conjecture of liberals that this man was listening to right wing radio or sites to influence his actions or is there any evidence of this? The story has gone all but unnoticed and becomes increasingly ‘old news’ and less relevant each day in the ever faster and faster news-cycles. This again appears at face-value to be a strong case for the fact that the fear of political defacement or civil liability among newsmedia giants prevents certain ’taboo’ stories from reaching the proper level of amplification.

4.

An unknown individual leaked a false-credibility internet article claiming the credentials of Maureen Dowd during the 2008 presidential election. According to Snopes.com, this began in a chain e-mail and was picked up by certain low-credibility websites thereafter. Has any government agency investigated this matter or made any concerted effort to find this person who sought to interject false and illegal campaign coverage on contributions into the electoral process? Has not one newsmedia agency in America the will to run this story as a perfect example of the importance of credible information sources in an election year?

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 21st 2008

Rick Warren and Barack Obama

In the 2008 presidential campaign for The White House there was something referred to as a ‘polling anomaly’ surrounding Barack Obama.

The evangelical and Born-Again Christians, that took polls, showed significant support of the candidacy of Barack Obama and held numbers higher than Bush’s numbers from 2000 and 2004 to a very significant degree. [PEW Research]

Those who were watching closely know exactly why Obama picked up a recordable amount of support in these religious fundamental communities, in fact it is fairly obvious.

Obama, unlike McCain, never once shied away from the topics of faith in the media circus. Beyond that his words and visible convictions regarding religion, Jesus and God have been forward and direct instead of evasive and vague.

In the mind of many evangelicals the resistance to speaking openly about Christ translates to a resistance to Christ’s message in your life.

Essentially, if the name ‘Jesus’ or the word ‘God’ cause you any discomfort then you must be against spreading The Word.

Obama has never once spoken directly to the evangelical and born-again movements of America in his national rhetoric, yet he has somehow gained some amount of notable political support from them.

Any politician worth his salt takes every advantage afforded to him when it comes to being able to represent the people that elected him into office. Obama saw all the same numbers I did and I imagine found it confounding for a time that a group which normally doesn’t support Democratic Party agendas was showing support for his presidency.

This is a question I would ask of him among others should I ever have some of his time.

Rick Warren, along with hosting the second Presidential Debate, is a strong advocate for evangelical ideology and fundamental views of religion.

His rhetoric doesn’t provide equality for the gay community or for the views of the so-called radical religious movements of America (New Age ideologies.)

I completely disagree with his political positions and his opposition of Proposition 8 in California which I personally voted against.

This is what my point is in regards to the disgust expressed to his inclusion in coming public national events:

“Since when does agreeing with someone have anything to do with loving them?”

-Rick Warren, 12/21/2008

Rick said it for me. Since when does loving one another in a lawful and peaceful nation have anything to do with agreeing with your neighbor’s politics?

I believe that given time we will have legal same-sex marriage but it could take awhile. In the meantime we need to not rip each other’s throats out every time something like this happens in America.

If Rick Warren were to be presented with a ‘Religion Czar’ or ‘National Spiritual Adviser to America’ position or anything smacking of that … well then I’d be out in the streets throwing a whole big fuss about it.

Much love, as they say these days. Nobody gets left out when I say that.

Eric Lightborn
http://americapress.wordpress.com/
December 23rd 2008