I'm Mad At What 9/11 Has Become...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm mad at what this day has become, and how it's been exploited.

I'm mad that the Republicans have exploited this tragedy at every opportunity, and used it to perform an end-run around the Constitution and declare war on a nation that had nothing to do with these attacks.

I'm mad at that propaganda snuff film shown at the RNC. That so-called tribute was, and is, a disgraceful way to "honor" anything involving these attacks.

I'm mad that on the one hand, President Bush decided that Osama bin Laden wasn't important enough to focus his (and our military's) attention on, yet John McCain (through his own words and that snuff film) proclaim that he's the only one that can bring Osama to justice. Contrast this with the idiotic Bush press secretary saying that the U.S. doesn't have "super powers" needed to expedite Bin Laden's capture.

I'm mad that this administration chooses to "honor" its soldiers by sending them into conflicts that have nothing to do with this attack, and then subjecting them to the worst-possible care possible. Of all people, veterans of this war should NOT have any health-care woes, period. Veterans of this war should NOT have to deal with treasonously sluggish administrative hang-ups just to get the care they've earned and deserved. Veterans should not have a candidate like McCain claiming to be supportive of them when his criminally tragic voting record (ESPECIALLY considering that -- in case you didn't know -- he was a POW) says otherwise.

I'm mad that the American public fell for the okee-doke boogey man of gay marriage and allowed President Bush to get reelected, especially considering how he catastrophically botched all things post-9/11.

I'm mad that the talking head media nitwits and so-called journalists failed to do their job and allowed the Bush Administration to continue unchecked in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

I'm mad that the Democrats punked out when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House, granting this administration carte blanche to continue its disastrous foreign policy, all under the guise of a 'war on terrorism.'

I'm mad that there is more conversations about lipstick, pigs, fish and pitbulls while this administration "celebrates" 9/11 as "Patriots Day."

The Rebirth Of A Nation -- The RNC Propaganda Piece Disguised As A Tribute Video

Propaganda. It's defined as "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people." To add a little bit to the context of what I will discuss, I will take it one step further.

Hate Propaganda. It's defined as "...the systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumour or selected information to promote or injure a particular race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin."

The Republican Party just finished their National Convention, in which John S. McCain and Sarah Palin were officially nominated as the Republican candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Now, there is much to be said about McCain, Palin, how she was picked, whether or not McCain is ready, whether or not Palin is qualified, etc. ad nauseum. But this isn't about those two, specifically. This is about a piece of propaganda that aired during the Convention. The piece was propaganda on the same level as D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation." If you're not aware of the film, it was basically a recruitment film for the Ku Klux Klan. Don't believe me?
This is the poster.

So yes, "The Birth of a Nation" is not exactly progressive in it's approach to race relations. What does this film have to do with the Republican National Convention's "Tribute To 9/11 Video"? Absolutely everything. If you wish, you can click here to see it in its entirety. The link also has journalism's Prophet of Rage, Keith Olbermann apologizing on behalf of his network. Olbermann may have one of his patented Special Commentaries about this, but I decided that I couldn't wait for Olbermann to express what I was feeling. Let's begin.

The piece is supposed to be a "Tribute To 9/11."

See? It says it right there: "9/11 Video Tribute."

The house lights dim, and an ominous piano sets the stage for what we're about to see. So, how does this Tribute To 9/11 begin? Of course, it should begin with showing the courageous efforts of First Responders, the police, the military, and common everyday citizens showing remarkable courage in the face of an unforeseen catastrophe. That's what a tribute's supposed to be, right? Well, THIS piece of propaganda filth begins with...
A shot from the Iran Hostage Crisis. The ominous Narrator of Doom tells us "The first attack occurred in Iran... 444 days America held hostage."

Stop right there. My first reaction was that, as usual, the Republicans in this God-awful administration are tying together pieces that have nothing to do with each other. I first thought "What does the Iran Hostage Crisis have to do with 9/11?" If you said "nothing", then you get a silver star. However, if you dig a little deeper, you'll see that this video is designed to anger up the blood against Iran, who is on President Bush's "Axis of Evil." Pretty sneaky, sis. They are reminding us about how we were attacked by Al Qaeda by opening with images of Iranians holding Americans hostage. In other words, the Right is hammering the point home that Iranians are bad, too. The Republican Party sets the tone by tying an event from 1981 to the United States being attacked on 9/11. It's clever in its wickedness.

They move on from there to show all sorts of shots of terrorists rallying against the country, including this one:
...and the narrator reminds us that those big bad terrorists have been always pushing our buttons. The attack on the USS Cole is pictured, but the attack on U.S. troops in Beirut was oddly missing. My speculation is that since this attack happened under the watch of President and Patron Saint Ronald Reagan, it would undermine the current theme of this film. Even if it's not the case, it's strangely odd that an attack that killed 241 American servicemen was not featured as part of how "the terrorists" have been picking on poor ol' U.S.A. A shot of this terrorist is also featured in the video:
...you remember him, right? Osama bin Laden? The guy who actually ORCHESTRATED 9/11?!? The guy who is still making "Death To America" mixtapes in the caves of Afghanistan and/or Pakistan? Moving on...

Then, we get to the meat of this propaganda sammich.

Clips from the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are shown over... and over... and over again.
Is it really a tribute to show horrific catastrophes over and over again? That's not a tribute, to me. That's like showing a tribute to police officers by airing footage of them being killed in action, or showing a tribute to firemen by watching a burning structure collapse on them and entomb them. What's next? A tribute to Hiroshima by showing mushroom clouds and the entire region being vaporized? A tribute to JFK by showing the assassin's bullet ripping his skull open? The Ominous Narrator chimes in on the attacks, and accompanies the footage by saying "...and kill us, they did. This time, on American soil. The date was September 11. 9/11." To bring the point home, the Evil Narrator of Doom also reminds the good citizens of the Republican Party of some more points, that need to be analyzed and dissected before it's swallowed whole like the poison it is.

Quote: "This enemy sworn to our destruction has been at war with us for decades. This we now know."
Analysis: For one, "decades" is a bit of a stretch, especially in the context of this video. The video opens with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is about as far from 9/11 on every aspect as President Bush is from competence as a President. Remember, Al Qaeda is NOT based in Iran, and there wasn't even such a thing AS Al-Qaeda when the U.S. hostages were taken. Furthermore, it should be noted that the U.S. hostages were freed in the absolutely scandalous Iran-Contra Affair, in which "members of the Executive Branch (of the United States Government) sold weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages." It's not only disingenuous to paint Obama's ideas as appeasement, but it's downright hypocritical, seeing as how the Republicans TRADED WEAPONS WITH OUR "ENEMY."

The "decades" line is also a lie because the first public reference to Al Qaeda occurred in 1998, under an Executive Order from Bill Clinton, two weeks after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Furthermore, the first attack involving Osama bin Laden occurred around 1992, when bin Laden attacked a hotel.

This "decades" line is a propaganda piece because it lumps any Islamic faction that has anything to do with enmity of the U.S. into one lump of "Islamofascist terrorism." This video fans the flames of xenophobia wrapped in the comfortable blanket of Old Glory. It fails to underscore the differences between the Iranians that held the U.S. hostage, Al Qaeda, and Iraq. It also misleads the average person into ignoring how Americans' own actions precluded the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the attack on 9/11.

"We know this now" is another problematic phrase, because it misleads the average person into believing that we were blindsided and 'poor old Uncle Sam' was minding its own business when the bad guys attacked. But the Iranian Hostage Crisis...

...was seen by many as a blow against U.S. influence in Iran and its support of the recently fallen Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who had been restored to power by a CIA-funded coup in 1953 and who had recently been allowed into the United States for cancer treatment.

Furthermore, a little research into Al Qaeda shows that its origin started as a result of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, that began in 1978. At the time, and leading into the 1980's, the Soviet Union was the big bully on the global block. And the U.S., wanting to stop the spread of Communism, did its part by funding the mujahedeen and the Taliban through Pakistan. So, once again, the U.S. sowed the seeds of terrorism by funding groups that would eventually turn on her. But the U.S. has yet to reap the whirlwind.

Trouble began to brew according to this account:

Following the Soviet Union's withdrawal from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 had put the country of Saudi Arabia and its ruling House of Saud at risk as Saudi's most valuable oil fields (Hama) were within easy striking distance of Iraqi forces in Kuwait,^[60] and Saddam's call to pan-Arab/Islamism could potentially rally internal dissent. In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahedeen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy on Saudi territory.^[61]

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was quickly forced into exile to Sudan and on April 9, 1994 his Saudi citizenship was revoked.^[62] His family publicly disowned him. There is controversy over whether and to what extent he continued to garner support from members of his family and/or the Saudi government.^[63]

There's no need to get into further detail about the events that led to the attack on the World Trade Centers, but bear in mind something else: The Bush Administration had an explicit warning from the Clinton Administration about bin Laden's plans. The Bush Administration did nothing. Absolutely NOTHING. Research will also prove that the line from the film where the Evil Narrator says "It is a war we never chose to fight ...for too long, we looked the other way" is equally misleading. We only looked the other way after we interfered in matters that were none of our concern. We kicked the kerosene lamp onto a bundle of hay and we looked the other way when the structure burned to the ground. We lit the short fuse on a catastrophic bomb, and looked the other way when the bomb exploded. We looked the other way, like a bully would after wreaking havoc. We then feign surprise when the people we bully decide to fight back. "We never chose to fight"? Hardly. We chose to interfere. We chose to sow poisonous seeds, and we can't take it when we reap cataclysmic fruit.

And lest you forget just how low the Republicans will go in order to tug at the heartstrings of the simple minded, the film includes graphic photos like this:
What better way to show just how horrific the events of 9/11 were, than to show blood-stained signs where people were looking for loved ones or paying tribute? To say that this is in bad taste only marks the tip of the iceberg at my disgust for the Republicans. Again, would they show a tribute to a cop by showing a bullet-riddled uniform of a cop killed in a hail of gunfire? Of course not. But there is no problem with them including blood-stained images as a reminder of just how horrific and terrible the attacks were.

The video ends with this image:...and Darth Narrator saying "...the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. And we'll have a president that knows how. And... we will never let it happen... again."

Yes, to make sure that you're completely sold on the War on Terror, the propaganda spinmeisters end with footage of the World Trade Center, pre-9/11. And the Darth Narrator's screed underscores the necessity to understand the concept of cause and effect, actions and consequences. "We'll have a president that knows how"... the thinly-veiled implication is that Barack Obama's Presidency will give rise to more attacks on U.S. soil, and that the U.S. will surrender in the War on Terror. First of all, a war on a "belief" or "action" can't be won. You can have victory against Al Qaeda or any other group that's an enemy, but to win a war on "terror", you have to make sure that "terror" is destroyed across the globe. It is utterly impossible to do this, especially with this hamfisted approach to foreign policy.

For example, this criminally negligent administration decided to fight the war on terror (tm) by first circumventing the Constitution of the United States. The congressmen and Senators abdicated their ability to keep the President in check, by giving him the authority to invade Iraq. And as we all know, Iraq has been a complete disaster, even while Republicans crow about the success of "the surge." But what has toppling Saddam Hussein done, but create a power vacuum filled by Al Qaeda insurgents - who HAD NO PRESENCE IN IRAQ PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION - who then continued in their civil war. And while we were busy declaring "Mission Accomplished", the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (remember them?) has been not-so-quietly regaining strength.

"We'll have a president that know how"? Oh, you mean the same future President that declared the following:

How would American troops be greeted? "I believe...that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (March 20, 2003)

Did Saddam Hussein have a nuclear program that posed an imminent threat to the United States? "Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon." ( October 10, 2002)

Will a war with Iraq be long or short? "This conflict is... going to be relatively short." (March 23, 2003)

How is the war going? "I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical." (September 10, 2003)

How is it going (almost two months later, from the war's "greatest critic")? "I think the initial phases of [the war] were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise." (October 31, 2003)

Is this war really necessary? "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (August 30, 2004)

How is it going? (Recurring question for the war's "greatest critic") "We will probably see significant progress in the next six months to a year." (December 4, 2005)

Will the President's "surge" of troops into Baghdad and surrounding areas that the senator had been calling for finally make the difference? "We can know fairly well [whether the surge is working] in a few months." (February 4, 2007)

The same future President that knows how to win a war will be the same future President that declared that Iraq was safe by walking the streets of Baghdad... without mentioning the soldiers, helicopters, and gunships that accompanied him on his leisurely stroll. THIS is the man that the Republicans say "knows how to win." And his second-in-command is a woman whose "foreign policy experience" includes living in Alaska, because it's so close to Russia.

This propaganda is "The Rebirth of a Nation", because it caters to the lowest common denominator of demonizing "radical Islam" by tying all Middle Eastern conflicts to the spectre of the Islamic boogeyman. Just as "The Birth of a Nation" demonstrated how the valiant knights in shining robes known as the Ku Klux Klan will save virtuous White women from the scourge of Black men, "The Rebirth of a Nation" will show how the valiant knights of the Conservative Republican Evangelical movement will save virtuous White Christian citizens from the scourge of Islam, and the scourge of a Black American man with a funny name running for President.

We know better, so we should do better. If we don't act to stop a Bush III Administration, we have to make sure that propaganda such as this is nipped in the bud. It's up to us to understand this video, as well as the election, for what it is... a chance to begin correcting the wrongs of this administration, and an opportunity to return us to credibility on the world stage. This is one Rebirth that we should not allow to happen.

A Faux News Exclusive... Sneak Preview

Good evening, Great Americans. I'm Bill O'Reilly, and today the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes and John Gibson... who really doesn't have a job at Fox News... he just hangs around flinging slurs at homeless bums... have teamed up for this special roundtable discussion on Barack Hussein Obama and his hate-mongering speech at Trinity and...

...wait... he's not at Trinity anymore? @#$#@%@@!*!!! Why the f%#@! doesn't anyone tell me... you know what? Screw it... we'll do it live! Sean?



Thanks, Bill. You're a great American. As you know, I have been doing my best to expose Barack Hussein Obama as an unAmerican terrorist sympathizer who probably eats dog food under Louis Farrakhan's front porch. As much as I tried, I couldn't find anything except the Rev. Wright sermons that I proudly displayed, and to my own credit, I made a United States Marine look like a terrorist. But today, we are analyzing Obama's "Father's Day" speech at the Apostolic Church of God. Now, my minions couldn't find anything hateful about Bishop Arthur Brazier, but we won't give up.

We have two young men with us today, Jamal Pettigrew and Malik DeShae Brown, two urban youths and "baby daddies" who probably want their MF Iced Tea once they leave here. They are here to tell the world that they do not fall for the Obama hype, and that they don't drink the Obama Kool-Aid. Why, I haven't seen Negr- ...er, Black men this intelligent and independent since my good pal Jesse Lee Peterson. Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Brown have a lot to say about Obama's inciteful comments on Father's Day. Joining us is John Gibson. John?



Thanks, Sean. You're a great American. A great White American. Now, Obama's not a terrorist as far as we know, but his words of "parental responsibility" and "family values" did not resonate with all colore-- errr... African American men. It's no secret that Blacks across the country are voting for Obama because he's one of them. He's a "bro." So, it's quite refreshing to see that jungle bun-- ummm... these Black guys aren't like the rest of the blacks.

(to see the rest of Part 1 of this interview, go here: A Faux News Exclusive! )

Hillary And The RFK Connection...

...a collaboration of thoughts I expressed elsewhere:

I'm not sure which is worse... invoking something as horrible as RFK's assassination (I didn't know that she had a pattern of mentioning this), or her "apology"... to the KENNEDYS... because she said that she had Ted Kennedy on her mind.

Let I get this straight.

She says that she is staying in the election because there is precedent for campaigns running until June. To prove her point (on several occasions), she not only invokes Robert Kennedy's campaign, but also emphasizes the fact that he was ASSASSINATED in June... she then says that she apologizes for this 'gaffe' because of how it offends the Kennedys, and that Ted Kennedy's brain cancer somehow tragically transmogrified in her mind into "hey, ANYTHING can happen in June, so why SHOULD I leave?" This is despite the fact that assassination (especially of progressive Black men who are breaking new ground) is all too real in this country - so much so that Obama has to have Secret Service protection.

Am I missing something?

This woman is campaigning for the Presidency of the United States, and her once-inspiring (to some) campaign has now denigrated into catering to the absolute worst attributes of human nature, and a series of lies -- not mis-speaks, flat out lies.

The woman who was accused of murder has embraced the endorsement of her accuser, the man who orchestrated the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy against her and her husband.

The woman whose husband's activities mobilized activist Democrats to create a website to convince the country to not wast resources on Bill's impeachment has now expressed utter disdain for such activism, because it doesn't suit her.

The woman who once spoke lovingly in a prominent Black church about the impact of the Civil Rights movement and didn't "feel no ways tah'rd" has gone on record minimizing the front-line soldiers of the Movement, and is now clinging (yes, I said clinging) to the ignorance, venom and hatred of racists as her last-ditch effort to clinch the Democratic Party nomination.

The woman who, with her husband, earned over $100 million since Bill left the Presidency has made a Black man who grew up in a single-parent home and had to depend on food stamps at one time an "elitist."

The woman who feels that "every vote should count" is relying on the "independent judgment" of the superdelegates to overturn that very same vote, look beyond the metrics that are used to select the party's candidate, and use a very elitist system to anoint her as Grand Ayatollah the Democratic Party nominee.

After all of this, the most tragic thing of all is that it's still OBAMA that has to somehow "PROVE" that he's qualified to be President.

=-=-=-=

(after seeing Terry McAuliffe on Fox News, blaming the Obama camp for the firestorm of Hillary's RFK comments)

The arrogance of the Clinton campaign is appalling. Terry McAuliffe is on Fox News Sunday, and he's co-signing Clinton's assertion that stripping Florida and Michigan is similar to slavery and Zimbabwe.

"This election they're having is not going to count for anything."
-- Hillary Clinton, after agreeing to the DNC rules about stripping Florida and Michigan of its delegates.

Chris Wallace (one of the few voices of reason on Fox News) was also taking McAuliffe to task on the "assassination" issue. McAuliffe's arrogance was especially repulsive, saying that "hey, Robert Kennedy Jr. wasn't offended, so why should anyone else?" McAuliffe kept saying that Hillary's comments were strictly regarding the timeline, and had nothing to do with Obama.

Really?

The only way that she can win is if something catastrophic happens to either Obama's campaign or Obama himself (personally, I think that Hillary and her camp are banking on the former). She mentions RFK, assassination, and June on multiple occasions and her camp is surprised that people are looking at her sideways? She's surprised that people other than RFK Jr. are offended? She kept talking about "...we remember what happened in 1968..."... does SHE not remember that King was assassinated in that same year? She must have, since she spent time at the Civil Rights Museum. Even Charlie Rangel, a Clinton supporter, said that her comments were unacceptable.

McAuliffe, in true Rovian form, said that the Obama camp was all over this. That would be true, if it weren't a bold-faced, outright lie. Obama himself said that the comments had no place in the campaign. David Axelrod gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt, saying that he didn't believe that Clinton was harboring any sort of death-wish fantasies regarding Obama.

This woman who claims to be "Ready On Day 1" does not have the common sense to not utter the word "assassination" while in the middle of a very heated and very close campaign expects to be the leader of the free world? If she can't recognize how her choice of words will sound to people who have lived through those horrific moments in history, how can she expect to be effective in a post-Bush administration?

And given her zeal in which she feasted on "bitter", "clinging to guns", Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, Rezko, and Ayers, can she really be surprised that people are looking at her mentioning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy and saying "WTH did you just say?!?" McAuliffe expects everyone to "just get over" Clinton's comments regarding RFK, but it's a crying shame that when she had the opportunity to do so regarding Rev. Wright, she chose the opposite approach. As the Wright issue was dying down somewhat, and as she was being grilled about Bosnia, someone asked her about Obama and Wright. Rather than take the high road and talk about respecting someone's right to privacy regarding religion, she said that she "would've left that church."

Hillary's chickens... are coming home... to roost.

Why Do You Hate America? Part I

One of the topics that the presidential campaign brought up was people who hate America. That's who I want to talk about, people who REALLY hate America. The people that I'm about to introduce seem to have such a visceral hatred for this country and its citizens that they must want to see the country destroyed.

When I talk about people hating this country, I'm not talking about people like Jeremiah Wright or Michelle Obama. This country was founded on dissent from the voice of tyranny (hypocritically enough -- but that's not the point today). People like Barack Obama, who may or may not wear a flag pin, don't hate America. Rev. Jeremiah Wright doesn't hate America because he said 'God damn America.' He has said nothing different than what other (white) evangelicals said about the hypocrisy of America's foreign policy. Michelle Obama doesn't hate America because she "expressed pride for the first time in her adult life" due to the unity behind Barack. People speaking up about how this country failed them is true patriotism. "Loving America" has been reduced to jingoistic slogans, empty posturing, and issues surrounding costume jewelry on a man's suit. But before I get too deep into my rant, let's talk about people who REALLY hate America.

The Blue Dog Democrats
Who are these people? These conservative "Democrats" cling fast to conservative ideals, and are basically DINO's (Democrats In Name Only). But they don't hate America for being conservative Democrats. Click on the link, and you will see the story about how they are against the 21st Century G.I. Bill. Are they against it because it doesn't have Democratic support? That can't be it, seeing as how it has the support of both Obama and Clinton. Could it be because it's not "support the troops"-y enough for Republicans? That can't be it, because it has strong Republican support. But what about the troops themselves? They must be against it for some reason. But no, servicemen across all of the branches, and a variety of veterans groups support this bill. So, why did this esteemed group of conservative Democrats stall on something that is obviously so beneficial to the troops?

It's because they want to appear "fiscally responsible" and not support a bill that doesn't go through some "pay-as-you-go" system. By attaching the bill to some form of "emergency spending", the Blue Dogs reason that the 21st Century G.I. bill will "create some new entitlement program." Really, Blue Dogs? In a war that costs billions of dollars PER DAY, you want to show fiscal responsibility at the expense of the servicemen who are VOLUNTARILY making the ultimate sacrifice?

Blue Dogs, do you hate America so much that you would rather hold up a bill that obviously benefits and rewards the troops for their years of committment, than expedite this bill through so that it can get signed? Do you hate America so much that you would leave its men and women who are on the front lines stranded, because the bill runs the risk of becoming an "entitlement program"? Do you hate America that much, Blue Dogs?

John McCain
It may not be apparent that the presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States hates America, but he does. Oh yes he does. Why? Because as the de-facto leader of the Republican Party, he is setting example for the Republicans, and the example that he sets is that he has not endorsed the aforementioned 21st Century G.I. Bill. Why would a veteran, a former prisoner of war, and a man that's part of a military legacy stall on this important piece of legislature? It's not for petty reasons such as "fiscal responsibility" that the Blue Dogs are harping on. No, McCain's goals are loftier. He is withholding his support on this bill because it doesn't address or do enough to promote re-enlistment. As a veteran, I can tell you that the Montgomery G.I. Bill that I got had nothing to do with retention. It was a "thank you for your service" for 2 years of my life. The G.I. Bill was never designed to address retention, so why should it change now? McCain, do you hate America so much that you are selling out your fellow veterans because legislation that is designed to update their reward doesn't address retention? Do you hate America so much that you can't even separate recruitment incentives with retention issues? You must hate America, because otherwise, you'd leave the retention issues up to the Department of Defense, and lead the charge in getting this piece of legislation ordered. But let me guess... you're too busy floating around your ridiculous notion of a gas tax holiday to be concerned with trite issues such as the welfare and treatment of veterans.

White Evangelicals, Your Silence Is Deafening.

Everything seems to be "coming out" about Barack Obama, the level that Fox News and conservatives are willing to reach is approaching levels that have Chinese acrobats gasping in awe. I saw a blog that featured my former pastor, Rev. James T. Meeks, in a sermon where he railed against "house niggers" who are towing the party line and not doing what they can in regards to the quality of education in Chicago. Rev. Meeks (who's also a state senator from Illinois) also compared the mayor to a slave-master. Now, Fox News and Sean (Goebbels) Hannity are using a sermon from Meeks as a way to "prove" that Obama has "racist" spiritual advisers.

Once again, I must also bring up the fact that McCain's spiritual advisers, and those who he actively sought endorsements for, have said far more dangerous things when they mix religion and politics. I won't even get into all of the things that Rev. Meeks and his church have done FOR the community (all of which goes against the stereotype that a mega-church insulates itself from the community that it serves -- Meeks' church gets out in the streets and do the work of God quite a few times).

Something else that just occurred to me: All of these White evangelicals talk about how the Body of Christ is under attack from the enemy. Yet, they are silent when BLACK members of the Body of Christ are being scrutinized like this, while they get to enjoy their luxurious position of being able to say that God has ordained this unholy war that has now started it's 6TH YEAR with over 4,000 men and women killed. They are silent when Wright, Meeks, and God knows who else are being scrutinized, but if someone called them out, they'd be calling for their supporters to pray that "the librul media" gets cancer and dies or something ridiculous like that.

The Conservative Right Evangelical Movement, the Religious Right, the Moral Majority, Christian men who speak the word of God are being attacked, and you are silently letting them fend for themselves. You may not agree with Wright's belief that the war isn't just, and you may not agree with Meeks in regards to education, but the one thing that you are supposed to be in unity about is the Word of God. Your silence while men of God are being persecuted is very telling. But you keep on doing what you're doing. You keep on endorsing a politician who is testing the waters for an invasion of Iran because of an imaginary Al-Qaeda presence. You keep on endorsing a politician who expresses his love for his country by promising to send more and more men and women into a Middle-Eastern cataclysm that you created. You keep on telling people that this is a God-ordained function to "rid the world" of an "undesirable" faith. You keep on blurring the lines between Church and State, while standing silent when your opponent's CHRISTIAN spiritual adviser faces these accusations alone. No, really. Go right ahead and be silent while churches like Rev. Wright's continue to advocate the power of self-reliance and faith in God, and not in government, which you claim to corner the market on. As a Black Christian man, I don't need for your hypocritical Sadducee/Pharisee ilk to stand up when the Body of Christ is being attacked. We're in spiritual warfare, and you are sitting on the sidelines.

We, the men and women of God... we got this. Y'all just keep the bench warm and the Gatorade ready.

If Blagojevich Gets Re-elected, I'd Eat A Doughnut.

Last Sunday, Gov. Rod Blagojevich was a special guest at Salem's "House of Hope." Now, the line between church and politics has always been blurred, with the church being ground zero for social revolution. Also, the last Presidential election was definitely an exercise in faith-based politics. The Evangelical right-wing Christian movement did an effective job of making gay marriage a bigger issue than the economy and the war in Iraq. Now, I'm a Christian, and I am not a fan of gay marriage. But at the same time, if I'm electing a leader of the free world, I want to see what he's going to do to end this war and stabilize the economy. But I said all of this to say that at times, I can understand when politicians come into the church house.

This time, though, it was nothing but pure grandstanding. Gov. Blago used his time on Salem's pulpit and TV to announce his grand plan to save the CTA: Give free rides to the elderly! And in his most disingenuous moment ever, he asked questions like "Who wants to see their grandma get a free ride on a bus?" DUH! In a huge church like that, what... was someone going to say "Let them old folks ride for free!" But in an amazing twist, that's EXACTLY what happened. He presented his plan to a group of senior citizens, and they proceeded to verbally thrash him for his obvious pandering. One senior citizen said "Why shouldn't we have to pay?" Gov. Blago responded with this coalition-building statement: "Hold your nose and ride for free."

The most galling part of all of this was that the plan that the governor threatened to veto with his "Free Rides To The Elderly" plan was in front of him at least 9 months ago. So, instead of getting the deal done, or negotiating in good faith with the Illinois congressmen to get a budget passed, Gov. Blagojevich makes an end-run around the Illinois legislative branch, and tries to present his idea to a seemingly sympathetic public. To say it backfired would be an understatement. On the one hand, the deal was done, and another doomsday has been averted. On the other hand, Governor Blago's actions were so reprehensible to his fellow Democrats that they are going to create an Illinois Constitutional amendment to strip the Governor of these kinds of veto powers. Think about that for a second. You are so universally reviled by your party that not only are they not bonding with you, but they are going to add an amendment to the CONSTITUTION to take your toys away.

On the national scene, Billionaire Bob Johnson was forced to apologize for trying (yet again) to raise the spectre of Obama's drug use. The Clinton camp caught hell in a handbasket for trying to be slick with racial politics, and Bob's comments were nothing but political quid pro quo. After all, Bill Clinton put in a good word to NBA Commissioner David Stern to help Bob Johnson acquire an NBA franchise. Bob (and his ilk) was acting as a good soldier, mouthpiece, and front man would... throwing out comments, statements and jokes that would absolutely crucify Hillary Clinton if she or Bill made them directly. The supporters get to float the negative campaign ideas, and if it bombs, Hillary can threaten to distance herself from them unless they apologized... and if the public begins to embrace the idea, then Clinton can make it an official part of the campaign. The problem with that is that (at least I hope) the general populace is too sophisticated to fall for this okee-doke. I know that in listening to Roland S. Martin's show, callers were HEATED. Some Black women who supported Hillary were so disgusted with what has taken place that they pledged their support to Obama. Hillary needs to watch her step before any "Bill Clinton goodwill" has completely eroded to the level of hate reserved for Hannity and Limbaugh.

Obama Vs. Clinton -- This Time, It's Personal

The presidential race is starting to heat up, especially in the Democratic Primary. First of all, I wasn't surprised that Obama took Iowa. I was more surprised that Hillary Clinton finished third behind Obama and John Edwards.

Then, before the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton "broke down" and almost cried when talking about the rigors of the campaign. Now, let me get this straight. You are the wife of a two-term President... a President who actually was IMPEACHED. Not to mention that the last part of your husband's second term was spent fending off Republican 'moralist' douchebags left and right. You yourself are a two-term UNITED STATES SENATOR. And prior to New Hampshire, you're JUST FINDING OUT that 'OMG ONOEZ POLITIXX IS TEH HARDIST'? This is why it's hard to take Clinton's tears as anything more than a disingenuous political strategy to counter charges that she is "too aggressive." But wait, it gets worse.

Then came this:

In the interview with Fox News last week, Clinton said, "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done." She has argued repeatedly that her experience shows she can get more done as president than Obama.

What she did in this fell swoop was (1) diminish the actual work of front-line soldiers like Dr. King to that of "Dreamers" who were basically big on rhetoric and little on action, and (2) attempt to diminish Obama as a speechifying orator and not as a candidate for President of the United States. I've said elsewhere that her remarks make it seem like Obama is running for the President of the New Millennium Civil Rights Movement, as opposed to running for President.

The fallout from this comment was pretty huge. But it wouldn't be politics if it wasn't interesting. Clinton naturally blamed Obama for taking her words out of context. This isn't going to help Clinton one bit.

Get this: Former head of BET (and a man probably single-handedly responsible for setting the Black Power movement back 50 years) sided with Hillary Clinton and endorsed her. Yep... the man that brought "Blackberry Inn" to the American TV landscape, and the man that has no problem catering to the lowest common denominator and stereotype when it comes to the portrayal of Black people, has sided against Obama. Now, I'm not saying that because Obama's Black, that Black leaders should automatically side with him over Hillary. What I *AM* saying is that if you are going to side with Hillary, you should do so without sounding like a moron, a Klan-plant (thanks, Chris) or a puppet whose strings are being pulled by the Clinton machine.

Billionaire Bob then expressed this sentiment:

...“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood –­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book –­ when they have been involved.”

Moments later, he added: “That kind of campaign behavior does not resonate with me, for a guy who says, ‘I want to be a reasonable, likable, Sidney Poitier ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.’ And I’m thinking, I’m thinking to myself, this ain’t a movie, Sidney. This is real life.”

Take a look at the bolded comment, if you will. I'm under the impression that the Clinton Crew has been trying to float the "Obama Is A Drug User" balloon for the longest time. There's just one problem with it. It was revealed in OBAMA'S BOOK. *HE* came clean in his book about his drug use. A Clinton aide/worker was fired from the crew for making these remarks (methinks he fell on his sword to keep Hillary from looking like she was desperate). Now, Billionaire Bob sounds like he's on the payroll, trying to float the same balloon. And Bob Johnson is one of the LAST people to talk about the "real life" portrayal of a Black person.

Just how ridiculous it's getting? Before the primaries began, Andrew Young (a stalwart of the Old Guard Civil Rights Movement) said in a (half-)joking manner that Bill Clinton was "more black" than Obama because Clinton dated more Black women than Obama. Of course, this is a throwback to that hot wet sack of gobbige that Bill Clinton was "the first Black President" because he slept around with a buncha chicks and played the sax. Andrew Young and everyone else that invoked that crappy sentiment oughta be smacked. Young also said that Obama was "too young" to be President... but ignoring the fact that Clinton was younger than Obama when he (Clinton) ran. Young's claim that Obama needs a "network" to "protect" him sounds like Young (and other jerks) are worried that they are going to get frozen out should Obama get elected... while an active role in the Clinton campaign may be rewarded handsomely. This, in essence, is exactly what's wrong with the Old Guard. The formerly young guns and radical revolutionaries are so ensconced in their cushy lifestyles, that they don't want to make room for the next generation of leadership and spokesmen. And by sticking with the traditional Democratic base, these old warhorses are trying to make sure that they are remembered.

It's going to be really interesting how all of this pans out, especially after Super Tuesday.

I don't have time now, but next time, I am going to rant about Gov. Rod Blagojevich appearing at my old church gloating about his plan to give senior citizens free rides on the CTA, in hopes of staving off another CTA Doomsday scenario. It's not the free rides that I have a problem with, it's the blatant grandstanding and the continuing blurring of lines between church and state. And best believe that if a Republican politician was in a white Mega-Church like the Crystal Cathedral, bragging about some legislature that he wanted to pass, the liberal pundits would have a field day.