Steamd

Last night, as Barack Obama was elected President, I was reminded of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier speech. If you’ve never read or heard this speech then you should. Below you’ll find a full transcript of the speech.

I believe that we are entering yet another New Frontier. Last night a wind was blowing; not just a breeze but a strong wind blowing across our country. Obama captured an astounding two-thirds of the electoral college. It’s very clear that this President was elected for the people by the people. As JFK said: “For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.” Yes, folks, the election of Barack Obama as President is the start of another New Frontier ushering in a new era. Do you feel it? Change is coming!

John F. Kennedy (Democratic National Convention Nomination Acceptance Address):

Governor Stevenson, Senator Johnson, Mr. Butler, Senator Symington, Senator Humphrey, Speaker Rayburn, fellow Democrats, I want to express my thanks to Governor Stevenson for his generous and heart-warming introduction.

It was my great honor to place his name in nomination at the 1956 Democratic Convention, and I am delighted to have his support and his counsel and his advice in the coming months ahead.

Let me say first that I accept the nomination of the Democratic Party.

I accept it without reservation and with only one obligation, the obligation to devote every effort of my mind and spirit to lead our Party back to victory and our Nation to greatness.

I am grateful, too — I am grateful, too that you have provided us with such a strong platform to stand on and to run on. Pledges which are made so eloquently are made to be kept. “The Rights of Man” — the civil and economic rights essential to the human dignity of all men — are indeed our goal and are indeed our first principle. This is a Platform on which I can run with enthusiasm and with conviction.

And I am grateful, finally, that I can rely in the coming months on many others: On a distinguished running-mate who brings unity and strength to our Platform and our ticket, Lyndon Johnson; on one of the most articulate spokesmen of modern times, Adlai Stevenson; on a great fighter — on a great fighter for our needs as a Nation and a people, Stuart Symington; on my traveling companion in Wisconsin and West Virginia, Senator Hubert Humphrey; on Paul Butler, our devoted and courageous Chairman; and on that fighting campaigner whose support I now welcome, President Harry Truman.

I feel a lot safer with all of them on my side. And I’m proud of the contrast with our Republican competitors. For their ranks are so thin that not one challenger has dared to put his head up in the last twelve months.
 
I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk — new, at least since 1928. The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free and fair judgment and in my ability to render a free and fair judgment.

To uphold the Constitution and my oath of office, to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. My record of fourteen years in supporting public education, supporting complete separation of Church and State and resisting pressure from sources of any kind should be clear by now to everyone.

I hope that no American — I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will waste his franchise and throw away his vote by voting either for me or against me because of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant.

I am telling you what you are entitled to know: As I come before you seeking your support for the most powerful office in the free world — I am saying to you that my decisions on every public policy will be my own, as an American, as a Democrat, and as a free man.

I mention all of this only because this country faces so many serious challenges, so many great opportunities, so many burdensome responsibilities that I hope that it is to those great matters that we can address ourselves in the coming months. And if this statement of mine makes it easier to concentrate on our Nation’s problems, then I’m glad that I have made it.

Under any circumstances, the victory we seek in November will not be easy. We know that in our hearts. We know that our opponent will invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln on behalf of their candidate, despite the fact that his political career has often seemed to show charity towards none and malice for all.

We know it will not be easy to campaign against a man who has spoken and voted on every side of every issue. Mr. Nixon may feel that it’s his turn now, after the New Deal and the Fair Deal –but before he deals, someone’s going to cut the cards.

That “someone” may be the millions of Americans who voted for President Eisenhower but would balk at his successor.

For just as historians tell us that Richard the First was not fit to fill the shoes of the bold Henry the Second, and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear the mantle of his uncle, they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure up to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Perhaps he could carry on the party policies, the policies of Nixon and Benson and Dirksen and Goldwater. But this Nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation needed Lincoln; after Taft we needed Wilson; and after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt.

But we’re not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm do not need to tell us of their plight. The unemployed miners and textile workers know that the decision is before them in November. The old people without medical care, the families without a decent home, the parents of children without a decent school: They all know that it’s time for a change.

We are not here to curse the darkness; we are here to light a candle. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: If we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. New and more terrible weapons are coming into use.

One-third of the world may be free, but one-third is the victim of a cruel repression, and the other third is rocked by poverty and hunger and disease. Communist influence has penetrated into Asia; it stands in the Middle East; and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into neutrality and neutrals have slipped into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.

The world has been close to war before, but now man, who’s survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate his species seven times over.

Here at home the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations, but now this is a new generation.

A technological output and explosion on the farm has led to an output explosion. An urban population revolution has overcrowded our schools and cluttered our cities and crowded our slums.

A peaceful revolution for human rights, demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life, has strained at the leashes imposed by a timid executive leadership.

It is time, in short — It is time, in short for a new generation of leadership. All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power, men who are not bound by the traditions of the past, men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries– young men who can cast off the old slogans and the old delusions.

The Republican nominee, of course, is a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past, the party of memory. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard’s Almanac. Their platform — Their platform, made up of old, left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is to the status quo; and today there is no status quo.

For I stand here tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind us, the pioneers gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build our new West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, nor the prisoners of their own price tags. They were determined to make the new world strong and free — an example to the world, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from within and without.

Some would say that those struggles are all over, that all the horizons have been explored, that all the battles have been won, that there is no longer an American frontier. But I trust that no one in this assemblage would agree with that sentiment; for the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won; and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier — the frontier of the 1960’s, the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, the frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled threats.

Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises. It is a set of challenges.

It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride — It appeals to our pride, not our security. It holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

The New Frontier is here whether we seek it or not.

Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink from that new frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric — and those who prefer that course should not vote for me or the Democratic Party.

But I believe that the times require imagination and courage and perseverance. I’m asking each of you to be pioneers towards that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age–to the stout in spirit, regardless of Party, to all who respond to the scriptural call: “Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be [thou] dismayed.”

For courage , not complacency, is our need today; leadership, not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation — A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation. And the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more — more promises to this group or that, more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin as a substitute for policy, more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and the subsidies are always high. But my promises are in the platform that you have adopted. Our ends will not be won by rhetoric, and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand at this frontier at a turning-point of history. We must prove all over again to a watching world, as we said on a most conspicuous stage, whether this nation, conceived as it is with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives, can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure?

That is the real question.

Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction, but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space, and the inside of men’s minds?

That is the question of the New Frontier.

That is the choice our nation must make — a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline, between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of “normalcy,” between dedication of mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we shall do. And we cannot fail that trust. And we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from the first snowy day in New Hampshire many months ago to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes across the United States.

Give me your help and your hand and your voice.

Recall with me the words of Isaiah that, “They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary.”

As we face the coming great challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that He renew our strength.

Then shall we be equal to the test.

Then we shall not be weary.

Then we shall prevail.

Thank you.

Ann Coulter is at it again! Man, is this woman running out of things to talk about or what!? All she can do now is bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. I’m not even going to go into detail about what she wrote because, quite frankly, it’s the usual right-wing, damn near fascist bullshit that I expect from her. It’s a rant without any real substance because there aren’t any hard core facts. The facts are just whatever she makes them out to be. So I’m not even going to waste my time doing a run by run playback of her crap. Instead, I’m going to talk about why she and the rest of the right-wing nut jobs are running scared these days.

Seems to me that Ann and others like her are in panic mode. She and others just like her can see the writing on the wall: McCain’s campaign is over! And how exactly did this happen? Is it because McCain and Palin can’t keep their mouths shut and can’t run a campaign without getting seriously dirty to the point of lying about Obama? Well, that certainly didn’t help but that’s not entirely it.

No, the real reason is that the McCain campaign was poorly managed. The way I see it, management of a campaign starts with the candidate. As such, McCain has no one to blame but himself. The mood and vibe of the campaign starts with him and trickles down to everyone in the campaign. If he’s crabby, lashes out with nasty comments about Obama, and doesn’t want to answer valid questions about the economy and other important issues, what do you think happens to his campaign? Exactly the same thing.

The McCain campaign has wasted money on nasty TV ads that outright lie about Obama. Plus, they built a rather shitty website that says little or nothing about what McCain would really do as President. I know because I have visited the McCain website at least twice a month to see what’s new. You wanna know what’s really interesting? The site has morphed and changed so many times. In fact, the most recent modifications seem to be a desperate attempt to make the site’s design look more like Obama’s site. I guess imitation is the best form of flattery.

And that’s all I can really say about the way McCain is running his campaign. If the guy can’t run his campaign worth a crap how do think he’ll do in the White House? Umm, duh! Sorry, but his style of management doesn’t persuade me to believe that he’s a good leader and is capable of managing the White House in an effective manner.

Now, let’s look at the Obama campaign.

Obama’s TV campaign is far more focused on the issues. Take the most recent ad, a two-minute ad called “Plan for Change” that was release on September 16th and focuses on the most recent economic issues. Although there have been a few questionable ads here and there, the number of ads that cross the line are no where near the level of John McCain’s ads. Yes, Obama’s ads do attack McCain but is mostly what you expect from just about any politician.

The topper though and a direct counterattack for all of the smears from the McCain campaign is a 14 minute documentary called Keating Economics. This was funded by the Obama campaign and appears to be something they kept in their back pocket just waiting to pull out when McCain decided to get nasty. Smart move on Obama’s part. It’s a well put together little piece.Then there’s Obama’s website, a site that hasn’t changed much since day one. The design is rock solid and the content is well organized. Take a look at the Issues section. I’m very impressed by the fact that they offer a really neat PDF called The Blue Print For Change that explains in detail many of Obama’s policies. Every section is very clear and well written, outlining the problem followed by a plan with solutions.   

What’s even more impressive is that the Obama campaign actually came out with their own iPhone app. I about shit a brick when I saw it! What’s even more impressive is that the application is actually pretty good. The design matches his site and it offers some pretty useful features. I especially like the Issues part of the app. Anytime anyone claims that Obama doesn’t have any plans I can whip it out and prove them wrong.  :D

And here is the whopper of all campaign strategies: a 30-minute block of time on CBS and NBC six days before the election! Yep! The Obama campaign’s grassroots funding actually managed to land enough to fund a 30-minute long ad right before the election! 

So where is McCain in all this? Why can’t his campaign be as well managed as Obama’s? The way McCain has managed his campaign just shows that he’s clearly out of touch. I don’t know about you but I would much rather have Obama as the President because, let’s face it, he sure as hell knows more about running and managing a campaign better than McCain. I’ll take that kind of management experience and leadership any day!  :D

A woman get’s a visit from the Secret Service after telling an Obama volunteer that she won’t vote for Obama because she thinks he is a socialist who voted to let little babies die in hospitals? Is this true? Yes, this is a true story.

However, I wouldn’t be quick to blame the Obama campaign. This could just have easily happened to an Obama supporter getting a call from the McCain campaign. It’s clear that the campaign supporter calling this woman screwed up royally. There is always a bad egg here and there no matter what side of the fence you’re on. Don’t blame Obama on this one.

Do you know who you really need to blame? Blame Bush for allowing the Patriot Act to be passed and allowing for this sort of activity to happen in the first place! If you say anything to a campaign supporter over the phone that resembles a death threat, anything at all, no matter what campaign it is, you are subject to investigation. Even blog posts are subject to investigation. Your right to freedom of speech has been tampered with thanks to the Patriot Act and Obama doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it!

The problem is that 89% of the Senators voted in favor the Patriot Act: Biden, Obama, Clinton, McCain, Cornyn, Dodd, Hutchison, Kerry, and more. They all voted ‘Yea’ on the bill. There were only 10 ‘Nays’ and one ‘Not voting’. What they didn’t expect was that parts of the Patriot Act would be abused. What you’re seeing in the story below is the result of this very thing and there’s plenty of blame to go around for it.

This is just too freakin’ cool! Proof that Obama is clearly in touch with today’s times. The McCain campaign has nothing on Obama when it comes to the “cool” factor. Funny thing is that it’s a very well put together app. Very polished, clever, and just absolutely beautiful. If you’re an Obama supporter, it’s actually quite useful.  :)

In a recent blob post, I talked about an email I received that claimed that Obama had mocked the bible. This was based on Obama’s ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address. I recently have been chatting about this with a relative of mine about what Obama said in this address. I’m not going to say which relative because I feel that he/she is rightfully entitled to his/her opinion. I love my relatives no matter what they think. It’s ok to disagree, don’t you think?

What surprised me was that I received a response that said that Obama’s comments were the most arrogant comments ever made by a politician and that he’s so far off base that it’s scary. Furthermore, Obama describing the Sermon on the Mount,  one of the greatest sermons ever given, as being radical apparently is a sign of arrogance as well. But what really struck me more than anything is the notion that our nation is based on Christian principles.

My relative is not alone in this way of thinking. There are many other Christians out there who feel that their heritage is being taken away from them, that we as a nation have lost our identity, and that our world was a better place when it was under the influence of Christianity. Thus they feel we should bring back the Majority Rule, bring back prayer in public schools, and overturn any liberal interpretations of the Constitution that supposedly restrict religious practices. 

So who’s right? The Christian Right? Or Obama? Let’s look at what Obama said again:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Personally, I don’t think these statements arrogant at all. The main underlying point he was making is that he is a man of faith and his Christian beliefs and relationship in God is very important to him. One’s faith does have a role when making decisions in politics. However, the position a politician takes must be more universal in nature. Politicians can’t make decisions that are entirely based on their beliefs. There are other factors involved.

And Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount was referring to the fact that if our government was to run by the Word then Jesus’ words like “rest not evil”, “turn the other cheek” and the “Golden Rule” then we would seize to have a military. Well, maybe no seize but it definitely would be for defense only. It’s “radical” only because so many claim to believe it and yet their actions say otherwise. The Sermon on the Mount has been one of the main sources for Christian pacifism, wouldn’t you say? Given the activities of our Defense Department, the idea of running our government based on the Sermon of the Mount is a radical departure from how things are now. If they did then they would have never invaded Iraq, and action that went against the teachings of Jesus Christ in so many ways. Let’s look a little bit at what the Sermon of the Mount says:

Matthew 5:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Wouldn’t invading a country under the guise of imminent threat go against the principles of love your enemy and turn the other cheek? To me, imminent threat means that our enemy is going to attack our country directly. Was there any evidence at all that would suggest this in the case of Iraq? At all? No, there wasn’t. Then how can anyone who claims to be a Christian not find fault in this? It would seem that the Obama is merely pointing out the fallacy of many Christians: that they don’t read their Bibles and thus are hypocritical in many ways. The irony is that these principles are not shared with Christianity alone. Other religions have very similar pacifist teachings. Both the Quran and Torah have similar messages as well as the teachings of Buddha. To say that these beliefs and philosophies are unique strictly to Christianity would be a very arrogant notion.

Christianity has been split along many lines for years even before the United States won its freedom and drafted the Constitution. Religious persecution existed as well and thus minority Christians like Baptists, Mormons, and others struggled to maintain their religious freedom. John Leland may not have had direct involvement with the writing of the First Amendment but he was among many Baptists who was very vocal and campaigning for that freedom. He is just one example of someone who represented a group people who wished to have religious freedom. The intent wasn’t to create a wall where religion couldn’t enter politics at all. That would be unrealistic. Rather it was a separation by a more permeable barrier where everyone’s beliefs would be honored. The fear was that state sponsored religion would have caused an opposition to some of the more progressive ideas of the time…like folks who wanted to teach the Bible to slaves.

If we are a Christian nation based entirely on Christian principles then we are going down a very slippery and dangerous road. What parts of the Bible are to become the law of the land? The Old Testament? The New Testament? King James version? Or the New American Standard? And who decides how it should be interpreted? The Pope? Billy Graham? Al Sharpton? Jerry Falwell? And what about other religions? What if certain laws go against other people’s religion? Do we just say, “Tough tiddy! We’re a Christian nation! Get used to it!“? This is the sort of thing that our First Amendment is supposed to protect. And if our government is oppressing your right to practice your religion then maybe you should do something about it. Personally, I fight for the freedom to practice all religions and not just Christianity. American Muslims, Buddhist, Jews, Hindus, even agnostics and atheists; they all have a right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) by the rights granted to them as native citizens of the United States and the First Amendment. After all, if there’s one thing that Jesus Christ was about it was tolerance. And love of course.

Finally, the idea that “liberal” automatically means “lack of morals” or “godless” (as Ann Coulter would have you believe) is ridiculous. Not that that’s what all conservatives believe but lately I’ve heard this very thing from many, many others and it’s just a lie. Separate the religion from the politics for a second. The only thing that really separates a liberal from a conservative is the fact that one side favors a more progressive approach than the other. That’s it. Doesn’t mean that one side is less religious than the other or is more socialist over the other. It just means that one side wants to do things in a more traditional manner and the other side is open to more progressive ideas. However, just because someone favor a more liberal stance in politics doesn’t automatically mean that their religious beliefs are liberal in nature as well. There are many issues both politically and religiously that I could have a conservative versus a liberal point of view on.

Case point, the very same relative for which I’m basing the post on actually described John McCain, the Republican candidate for the President of the United States, as being too liberal. Aren’t Republican’s supposed to all be conservative? Does that mean that McCain is any less religious? No, it doesn’t. Just because McCain is being described as too liberal doesn’t automatically mean that his faith comes into question. It just means that McCain isn’t as traditional as maybe he should be in my relative’s eyes.

But that’s politics for you. Everyone has an opinion and just about everything is subject to interpretation. And, let’s face it, the Constitution isn’t the only thing that is subject to so much interpretation. So is the Bible, Quran, Torah, and just about every other religious book or document. Wouldn’t you agree?

Got this in my inbox the other day:

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin,
presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he
doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171,
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present
except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag
with the right hand over the heart.

‘As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking
sides,’ Obama said. ‘There are a lot of people in the world to whom the
American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a
war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should
be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song
‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might
salute it.’

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!!
I, for once, am speechless. He has absolutely NO pride in this country!!!!!
This is outrageous!!!! He doesn’t deserve to be dogcatcher!!!

(Oh, sorry dogcatchers, I mean you no disrespect.)

LET’S SEND THIS CLOWN DOWN THE ROAD KICKING ROCKS, AND HOPEFULLY HE WILL HIDE UNDER ONE OF THOSE ROCKS!

Outrageous? Absolutely outrageous because the problem with this is that Barack Obama never said that. The quote is actually from a satire written from a columnist. The only clown here is the guy who originally wrote this email.

Have a Coke and a smile!

Today, my mother forwarded me an email she received from a friend entitled Obama mocking the Bible. Included was a link to a YouTube video and the following words:

DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!

It’s clear that this person is ignorant, not just because he/she can’t spell but because his/her viewpoints are way out in left-field. And as Obama pointed out it’s as if people like this take pride in their ignorance.

Here’s the video in question:

The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. In no way did Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Anyone who has heard or read this speech would know that he was talking about the problems associated with religion and politics, the importance of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the importance religion has in many people’s lives including his own.  Below is a excerpt of his speech that includes the part shown in the video:

Excerpt from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge. 

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now, ask yourself: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can you name just one?

Last time I had jury duty, the judge who presided over the court gave us a little booklet that included a copy of the Constitution as well as a print out of an article from USA Today entitled “God and the Constitution“. A survey of about 1,000 people was taken in which they asked “What specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?”  Here are the results of that poll:

What shocked me was that 55% believed that the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation”. Even more disturbing is the assumption of special status of just one religion, that the Constitution protects only Christianity. Here’s some other startling results of the poll:

• 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.
• 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.
• 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

And exactly what does the First Amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition. These are rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

And you mean to tell me that we’re strictly a Christian country? Not according to our Constitution.

Here’s something else you probably don’t know: Before Barack Obama became a state Senator in Illinois, he was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and the University of Chicago Law School. Do you think maybe he knows a little something about our Constitution and how our government work? I can guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more than you and I do.

Keep in mind, I’m not just defending Barack Obama. I’ll defend any outright lies and misquoted statements made about John McCain as well. Context is important, folks. I want the facts, not a whole lot of propaganda and lies that don’t amount to anything. Before you allow anyone to simply tell you what to think (like the gentleman in this video), learn the facts and draw a conclusion of your own. Although an opinion does not have to be based on fact, it certainly helps.

In the case of politics, it greatly helps to have an educated opinion. Learn the facts about who the candidates really are. Rather than letting some left-wing or right-wing whackos tell you who they are, learn the facts for yourself. And I’m not just talking about Barack Obama and John McCain.  I’m talking about all candidates. When it comes time to vote, you won’t be voting just for the President. You’ll also be voting for other seats. Who are the candidates for state Senator and the House? What about your state government officials? Find out. That’s what being part of the process is all about.

From now on, I will go by the name Jeffrey Hussein Whitfield:

Obama Supporters Take His Name as Their Own

It’s ridiculous that some Republicans and other pundits use Barack Obama’s middle name in such a way as to associate him with Muslims and/or terrorists. Even members of my own family had stated their belief that he has Middle Easter ties. Complete and total bullshit. So, yeah, I love what these guys are doing. Great way to show just how ridiculous it is.

So my mom receives this e-mail the other day with an outlandish claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim:

The Jihad Candidate
by Rich Carroll

Conspiracy theories make for interesting novels when the storyline is not so absurd that it can grasp our attention. ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ and ‘Seven Days in May’ are examples of plausible chains of events that captures the reader’s imagination at best-seller level. ‘What if’ has always been the solid grist of fiction.

Get yourself something cool to drink, find a relaxing position, but before you continue, visualize the television photos of two jet airliners smashing into the Twin Towers in lower Manhattan and remind yourself this cowardly act of Muslim terror was planned for eight years. How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota? The same amount of time to create a large Muslim enclave in Detroit? The time it took them to build over 2,000 mosques in America? The same amount of time required to place radical wahabbist clerics in our military and prisons as ‘chaplains’? Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya’s history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barack Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of ‘racism’. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim middle east connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim controlled United Nations for use in Africa.

Install your candidate in an atmosphere of deception, because questioning him on any issue involving Africa or Islam would be seen as ‘bigoted racism’; two words too powerful to allow the citizenry to be informed of facts. Allow your candidate to employ several black racist Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan followers as members of his Illinois Senatorial and campaign staffs.

Where is the bloodhound American ‘free press’ who doggedly overturned every stone in the Watergate case? Where are our nation’s reporters that have placed every Presidential candidate under the microscope of detailed scrutiny; the same press who pursue Bush’s ‘Skull and Bones’ club or ran other candidates off with persistent detective and research work? Why haven’t ‘newsmen’ pursued the 65 blatant lies told by this candidate during the Presidential primaries? Where are the stories about this candidate’s cousin and the Muslim butchery in Africa? Since when did our national press corps become weak, timid, and silent? Why haven’t they regaled us with the long list of socialists and communists who have surrounded this ‘out of nowhere’ Democrat candidate or the fact that his church re-printed the Hamas Manifesto in their bulletin, and that his ‘close pastor friend and mentor’ met with Middle East terrorist Muammar Qaddafi, (Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)? Why isn’t the American press telling us this candidate is supported by every Muslim organization in the world?

As an ultimate slap in the face, be blatant in the fact your candidate has ZERO interest in traditional American values and has the most liberal voting record in U.S. Senate history. Why has the American mainstream media clammed up on any negative reporting on Barak Hussein Obama? Why will they print Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name but never write his middle name? Is it not his name? Why, suddenly, is ANY information about this candidate not coming from mainstream media, but from the blogosphere by citizens seeking facts and the truth? Why isn’t our media connecting the dots with Islam? Why do they focus on ‘those bad American soldiers’ while Islam slaughters non-Muslims daily in 44 countries around the globe? Why does our media refer to Darfur as ‘ethnic cleansing’ instead of what it really is: Muslims killing non-Muslims! There is enough strange, anti-American activity surrounding Barack Hussein Obama to pique the curiosity of any reporter. WHERE IS OUR INVESTIGATIVE MEDIA!?

A formal plan for targeting America was devised three years after the Iranian revolution in 1982. The plan was summarized in a 1991 memorandum by Mohammed Akram, an operative of the global Muslim Brotherhood. ‘The process of settlement’ of Muslims in America, Akram explained, ‘is a civilization jihad process.’ This means that members of the Brotherhood must understand that their work in ‘America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.’

There is terrorism we can see, smell and fear, but there is a new kind of terror invading The United States in the form of Sharia law and finance. Condoning it is civilization suicide. Middle East Muslims are coming to America in record numbers and building hate infidel mosques, buying our corporations, suing us for our traditions, but they and the whole subject of Islam is white noise leaving uninformed Americans about who and what is really peaceful. Where is our investigative press? Any criticism of Islam or their intentions, even though Islamic leaders state their intentions daily around the globe, brings forth a volley of ‘racist’ from the left-wing Democrat crowd.

Lies and deception behind a master plan - the ingredients for ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ or the placement of an anti-American President in our nation’s White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist run for President at the same time Islamic Sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations? Change for America? What change? To become another ‘nation of Islam’?

SOBERING THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
“When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I’m beginning to believe it.” (Clarence Darrow)

Pretty outlandish, isn’t it. So outlandish and such an outright lie that I felt that it bared a response to each and every person who received this e-mail in the chain. So here’s my response:

When I received this, I thought about simply just tossing it into my trash folder and calling it a day…which I probably should have done. But the problem I have with this is that so many people pass this stuff around and so may people actually believe it. As such, I’m doing the one thing that everyone should do when faced with something that is a lie: I’m telling you that it’s not true. There are multiple sources online, highly reputable sources that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama is not and never has been a Muslim.

This kind of writing is nothing more that the slinging of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The internet is a powerful thing and it’s so easy to fabricate things and convince people that it’s true. This sort of thing has been going on for ages even before the internet was around. The difference is that with just as many lies being thrown around there are even more sites that show the truth. They’re not hard to find. All it takes is a bit of searching.

So, is Barack Obama a Muslim? Let’s find out. I went to Google and typed in “barack obama muslim” as the keywords. Top two results are as follows:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

http://isbarackobamamuslim.com/

That pretty much covers it. There are enough reputable sources in just those two links enough to debunk this obvious myth.

So the next time you see or hear anything that might seem outlandish or possibly false, do a search and find out the facts. Don’t ever assume that what anyone tells you is 100% true and based on fact. Learn the facts yourself before you attempt to draw any conclusions or opinions on it.

Also, the next time you see an e-mail like this or someone telling you something you know not to be true, call them on it. Write back or respond and tell them it’s not true and show them the facts. When it comes to politics, this is the only way we can truly have an unfiltered discussion: without the lies, without the exaggerations, without the FUD, and without rhetoric. Say what you want, believe what you want…but always, always, always keep the facts straight.

Thank you.

Jeff Whitfield

I figured I’d get some kind of response from someone…and but a day later I did:

I would not go so far as to state as fact that Mr. Obama is or isn’t a Muslim. I will state as fact that he possesses Communistic and Socialistic ideals. That is not acceptable! In addition, Google, one of the most liberal institutions in America, is NOT my reference of choice. But thank you anyway for feeling that you were duty-bound to englighten the rest of us.

What? Google is “one of the most liberal institutions in America”? Wow. That in itself definitely required a response:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But those opinions need to be grounded in facts, not predicated on lies. Saying that Obama possesses communistic and socialistic ideals isn’t a fact…it’s yours and other people’s opinion. I’m not even going to attempt to try and sway you of that opinion because, frankly, that isn’t even my argument right now, nor am I attempting to “enlighten” anyone. This is just common sense I’m talking about here. Your perfectly entitled to your opinion and I will respect it. Just don’t try and pass off your opinion as a fact.

I’ve been a professional in the IT industry for almost 8 years now and a professional web developer for 4 years. I’ve had my thumb on the pulse of the internet industry for quite some time now. Knowing what’s going on in this industry is part of my job. That includes knowing a thing or two about the companies that make up this industry. So, when I hear someone saying that “Google [is] one of the most liberal institutions in America”, I’m sorry, I just have to respond.

There are many, many other companies that share similar philosophies to Google: Yahoo!, Apple, 37 Signals (www.37signals.com), Mozilla (of Firefox fame), Facebook, Flickr (owned by Yahoo!), YouTube (owned by Google), and many many others. To say that Google is liberal is to say that other companies that are remotely similar to Google are liberal as well. Problem is that Google is not a liberal company. Their philosophy and approach to the web is, in fact, highly conservative. How they treat their company might be one thing…but how they treat the internet is something entirely different.

Google’s mission statement is “Do no evil”. Google generates their revenue entirely off the sale of their search technology to other companies and online advertising on their site. I’m a big proponent on good software design. There’s a reason why Google has been successful…and it’s not because they are a liberal company, it’s because they create great products. Here’s some of the philosophies they follow with their products (http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html):

1. Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There’s always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without suit.
10. Great just isn’t good enough.

They’re also big proponents and contributors of open-source software and have one of the best development environments of just about any online software company. They promote innovation and creativity to the extreme, so much so that they have a company policy that encourages their developers to spend at least 25% of their time working on personal projects. Google is also about standards, something that web development and design is all about.

They also are firm believers in network neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) and don’t believe that any network or ISP has the right to treat your internet connection like it was cable TV.

Google tries not to be conservative or liberal. Google just tries to be Google regardless of what political stance any of the company leaders take. So based on this, how exactly is it that Google is “one of the most liberal institutions in America”? If it’s because they are “outside-of-the-box” thinkers and their management is different from the norm then maybe they are “liberal”. But their philosophy on how good web applications should be designed and how the internet should run is far from being a liberal point of view. With Google, it’s all about Google as a “product”, not what political slant they appear to take. Google is more of a philosophy…not a political movement.

But I digress. I use Google’s products and find them to be some of the best the internet has to offer. But just because I like them doesn’t mean you will. You might prefer Yahoo! or another site. And just like your opinion, you’re entitled to use whatever products you feel are the best solutions for you. Who was it that said that “variety is the spice of life”? There is no one perfect solution for everyone when it comes to the products and services available to us. But to get political with something like Google…man, that’s a stretch.

And, wouldn’t you know it…another crazy response:

I think you just proved my point of view. You are, indeed, trying to “enlighten” the rest of us lower animals on the food chain. However, you need to check your facts. If BHO gets elected, America will have some real problems similar to Jimmy Carter’s failed Presidency. But I guess this discussion is over…we will cancel out eachother’s votes in November. THAT’S AMERICA!

My first thought: “This bitch is crazy!” I didn’t say anything about my political preference for Obama. All I said was that the initial e-mail was bullshit and that Obama wasn’t a Muslim. Well…one last shot to get through to this person’s head:

Umm…what facts? I never said anywhere in my e-mails that I was voting for Obama or that I supported him. All I said was that Obama wasn’t a Muslim and that Google is not a liberal company. One is a fact (Obama not being a Muslim) and the other is a matter of opinion (Google not being a liberal company). No facts were stated other than Obama not being a Muslim. So, really, what facts?

And “lower animals on the food chain”? Sorry, but I honestly believe that no one is better than anyone else. I’m no better than you, you’re no better than me. This is a country of equals…though sometimes it doesn’t always feel like that.

You’re obviously passionate about this, but some friendly advice: If you’re going to argue your point, back it up with examples. You can’t say things like “Obama has communistic and socialist ideals” or “Obama is the next Jimmy Carter” without saying why. That’s not much of a debate. I’m not saying your wrong…I’m just saying that there are no facts to back it up. I could say a lot of things about both candidates…but I’m not going to because this isn’t about that. So, again, where are the facts?

One other person did get pretty sick of these e-mails though and felt it best to attack me:

Who are you and what makes you think that you can send me an e-mail? I do not know you so you don’t have the right to fill up my inbox with an opinion piece. If you were so confident about your opinion, then you wouldn’t need to do this. Mr. Whitfield, please delete my address from your distribution list and while you’re at it go and peel off one of your mindless, numb bumper stickers from your clunker.

So I do the right thing and attempt to correct a lie and this guy thinks that I’m the one who sent the damn thing in the first place. Right. Smart thinking. Maybe this guy should be bitching at the person who sent the “Jihad Candidate” e-mail. Gee, you think? After all, spreading lies is no way to have an opinion.

Oh, and he sent these responses as well:

A rant like this could only mean one thing…small penis.

Real intelligent. Hell, it isn’t even that creative.

I’ve never seen someone so insecure in their belief system as you are Mr. Web Designer, give it a rest. NO MORE paranoid rants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you and hopefully I won’t read a response.

Too late. Already sent a response to him.

Folks, this is the Lunatic Fringe at it’s finest, the gutters of the far right-wing Republican voting public. When they insist on lying or believing in the lies and you attempt to correct them they attack you. Back them into a corner and the best they can do is insult you and insist that you “get the facts”. Two things I can’t stand: ignorance and stupidity. The people who responded to my e-mails are both ignorant and stupid. I took the time to write a well thought out response to each e-mail and the best they can do is attack me and pass off their opinions as if they were fact.

Look, I don’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, whether you support Barack Obama or John McCain, but if you’re going to even have an opinion on something and/or debate with someone on politics, Google, or any other topic for that matter, make sure that it’s an educated opinion and that it’s not predicated on lies. That’s not fair to you or anyone else. You don’t have to be the most intelligent person to get an educated opinion. All it takes is the ability to listen and a bit of common sense.

Got this little political cartoon in my inbox earlier today:

Here’s the full quote:

We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.

Question is…what about this statement is wrong? Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, energy conservation is something that I think no one can deny is a good thing. Gas is at $4 a gallon and rising with expectations of it getting to $5 a gallon soon and the possibility of it going up to as much as $7 a gallon. At what point will people wake up and realize that there is something wrong? At what point will they stop and realize that they can’t keep pointing fingers at others and see that they are also a part of the problem? Face it…there are a ton of people in America (and many others around the world for that matter) waste so much energy out of pure convenience and materialistic reasons.

People drive big ass trucks, SUVs, and Hummers for no other reason than they just simply want one. Anyone owning a Hummer has no right at all to bitch about the cost of gas. Problem is that people who own Hummers don’t give a shit anyways. The cost of gas could be $10 a gallon and they’ll still keep driving the damn thing.

And judging from the sheer population of obese people in America, I’d say it’s pretty accurate that people do indeed eat quite a bit. Have you ever seen a fat homeless person? I have.

And, yes, we’re a country that believes in air conditioning. We have millions of people in this country that insist on running their air conditioners non-stop while wasting tons of wattage hours on 60 watt incandescent light bulbs when 15 watt fluorescents would do just fine. Do you remember the last time you bought a light-bulb? Did you buy a normal one? Or did you even consider a fluorescent bulb?

This is exactly the kind of mentality that Obama was talking about. Wasting energy isn’t doing a damn thing for gas prices. If you look at it from this perspective you can see how other countries might not look favorably on the United States when it comes to energy conservation. We’re a country of gluttonous waste. It’s about time we change that.

I’m not saying that we should tell people what to do…but I do think that people who want to abuse the energy use in this country should pay a premium.

Want to drive that Hummer? Then, yes, maybe you should pay $10 a gallon. Mark it up with a 100% tax. If you can afford it then damn skippy. Otherwise, shut up and drive something more sensible.

Wanna be fat? Wanna smoke? Then be prepared to pay more for health insurance. I quit smoking and I’m also going on a diet. I’m trying to prevent disease…not treat it. Why can’t you?

Wanna turn up that air conditioning and use 60 watt light bulbs? Then be prepared for some regulation on energy use. Use more and you’ll be taxed more.

This isn’t socialism folks…it’s just common sense. If you abuse and neglect the very things you take for granted then the cost will go up. The gas and economy situation in this country is serious and there’s no time for bullshit anymore.

You can joke about what Obama says all you want, but if you ask me he’s only telling you what you need to hear. I think the reason why people find this to be so offensive is that they simply don’t want to admit to themselves that it’s true. So the next time you hear about someone joking about comments like these, take a look at what kind of car they drive. It might surprise you.