Steamd

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.

Today, my wife sent me a link to a bumper sticker that said “All Your Fears Are Lies“. This made me think about a recent e-mail I received regarding a man in Canada who had problems receiving proper health care:

A Short Course On Brain Surgery Worth Watching…

A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems. Everyone who plans to vote for our new President in 2008 NEEDS to see this. Regardless of the person for whom they would vote. Please forward this to everyone you can think of as soon as you can.

The problem with e-mails like this is that it makes the bumper sticker seem a whole lot more true. People do indeed fear what is essentially a lie. There’s no doubt in my mind that the system of healthcare in Canada can cause many problems for many Canadians. I don’t think anyone can deny that. The part of this video I disagree with is the last part where the narrator says this:

“Isn’t it ironic that while the Canadian government’s monopoly on health care is slowly crumbling in the face of widespread suffering, liberal Democrats in the U.S. are pushing to adopt a system much like the one that has failed so miserably in Canada.”

Which Democrats want to create a true socialized heath care system like Canada? Obama? Nope. He doesn’t want to create a total socialized heath care system. He just wants to insure that everyone in America has access to affordable health insurance. Read the attached documents and tell me exactly what parts of it are not true and what parts make it a socialized system. Seriously, read each of these thoroughly and completely. These are taken straight off of Obama’s web site:

Barack Obama’s Plan for a Healthy America

Background Question and Answers on Health Care Plan

Now compare the very well thought out, highly detailed verbiage in these documents to McCain’s web site. Notice a difference? Not to knock on McCain but personally it looks like McCain is really good at identifying all the problems but not providing any real solutions…just band-aids.

The problem with health insurance in this country is that it’s not accessible and unaffordable to many Americans that are without health care insurance. Unless you work at a job that either provides full coverage or really cheap health insurance then you’re pretty much screwed if you can’t afford it on your own. I know this because I’ve personally been shopping for health insurance and, yes, it’s expensive!

Wal-Mart is a good example of a company that, although provides a health insurance plan, doesn’t follow through to insure that every employee can afford it. Here’s what it says straight off their own web site:

Every associate who works in the United States can become eligible for individual health coverage costing as little as $5 per month in some areas and as little as $8 per month nationwide. As soon as an associate becomes eligible for benefits, their children become eligible too.

Today, more than 92 percent of associates have health insurance–either through us or through other coverage. For our associates who choose coverage with Wal-Mart, we also offer more than 2,400 generic prescription drugs for $4. This includes prescription drugs to treat everything from diabetes to heart disease.

Wal-Mart associates will find more than 50 ways to customize their health coverage. They can select from a menu of deductibles, health care coverage options, and health credits and premiums.

We want associates and their families to have the peace of mind that their healthcare needs will be met, especially when they need it most. To ensure that peace of mind, Wal-Mart’s health coverage includes no lifetime maximums on most health care expenses.

92% insured? Really? So, by that measure, Wal-Mart went from only 50% insured to 92% insured in just 6 months. Check out this article on the New York Times website dated January 23, 2008:

Wal-Mart Says More Than Half Its Workers Have Its Health Insurance

This is a company that makes billions of dollars a year and 50% of their employees can’t even afford to buy the insurance provided to them. Granted, some of them probably have spouses that get insurance from their employer. But what about the ones that don’t? Where do they get health insurance? Right. Social services which consequently come right out of the taxes we pay. If even two-thirds of the estimated 1.4 million Wal-Mart employees have insurance that would still leave over 900,000 employees who are forced to used government provided programs for health care and other needs. Yeah, Wal-Mart sure is taking care of their employees alright.

This isn’t an Obama vs McCain, Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative, Socialism vs Capitalism issue. This is an issue that affects peoples lives. And, like the video about Canada, it can be a matter of life and death for some people. It’s one thing to claim that providing affordable healthcare is socialism. It’s another when doing virtually nothing to address the problem is the alternative solution. Millions of people in America can’t afford health care. What do we say to them?

I personally believe that regardless of whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Independant, Conservative, Liberal, or whatever that you can still look upon others who are on the opposite side of the fence and see eye to eye on the issues that effect our country. But its not till we can seriously talk about the issues and discuss the solutions till we can get to that point. It’s one thing to talk about the problems. It’s another to really address them and come up with worthwhile solutions. Not every solution is perfect…but if the politicians we are voting for can at least propose good, solid, well thought out solutions based on the facts then that is a step in the right direction. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m voting for who I believe to be the person who is trying to address the problems and come up with worthwhile solutions. Again, they may not be 100% perfect…but they’re solutions nonetheless.

My job as a web developer is much harder when ideas aren’t flowing. Each and every project has to start somewhere. Even if the ideas aren’t perfect you have to start somewhere. A good start on coming up with ideas, even flawed ones, is much better than no start at all. Wouldn’t you agree?

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.

I mentioned in my last post about a message from the Australian PM. Here’s yet another piece of propaganda bullshit that arrived in my inbox:

Subject: What a Guy…….We need a guy like that!

THE AUSSIES HAVE ALWAYS STOOD BY US IN THICK AND THIN….WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH THEY GET GOING…WHAT A GREAT LEADER…HOPE WE FIND A GUY LIKE HIM …..

This is the kind of president we need!!!

AMERICA Needs A Leader Like This!?

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote: ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.’

‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society. Learn the language!’

‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask, is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

As “cool” as this may sound and though we’d all like to cheer this guy on and say “way to go”, the problem with it is this: John Howard never said any of that:

The only part that’s true is the statement that Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law may not want to live in Australia. What you see in this e-mail is actualla re-working of an editorial written in the days after September 11, 2001, by Barry Loudermilk:

This is right on up there with the falsified Barack Obama quote I got recently. And all it took was a simple search on Google to find the facts.

This is just trash politics through and through. Spreading lies isn’t a good way to convince people, especially when you misquote or lie about what someone else said…it’s just stupid.

Earlier this morning, the following message lands in my inbox:

Don’t understand the big deal over deporting illegal aliens. It certainly was no problem for the past presidents HOOVER AND EISENHOWER.

Back during the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work.

And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican nationals! The program was called “Operation Wetback” so that American WWII and Korean veterans had a better chance at jobs. It took 2 years, but they deported them!

Now, if they could deport the illegals back then, they can sure do it today!! If you have doubts about the veracity of this information, enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and confirm it for yourself.

Reminder. Don’t forget to pay your taxes, 50 million illegal aliens are depending on you!

Ok, there are some problems with this way of thinking. Re-implementing a program like “Operation Wetback” wouldn’t work today for a number of reasons. First, “Wetback” is a derogatory term and using it would cause all kinds of chaos. Not a wise choice in terms. Second, although we’d all like to simply kick them back over the border and say “Not my problem” it doesn’t solve the bigger problem. Let’s look at the second reason a bit more.

Everyone talks about how illegal aliens are hurting our economy but no one thinks about why it is that they are over here in the first place. The reason? The Mexican economy is so bad that illegal aliens from Mexico come over here to make more money. The level of poverty and corruption is pretty damn bad. I can not blame anyone who tries to make a better life for themselves and their family. Can you?

To say to these people, “Get out! You’re not welcome here!” That’s an elitist attitude. What makes you or I any better than someone simply trying to make due? That ignores the very problem that is causing immigration problems to run rampant and it’s irresponsible. Why don’t you hear about problems with illegal Canadians? Cause, unlike Mexico, Canada actually has a pretty good economy. There is no motivation for Canadians to come into the United States illegally.

Look, this country was founded and created by rejecting the Old World and creating a New World. Problem now is that we’re no longer the New World. An even newer world is being created. We’re talking about globalization here. Another problem is that more than 80 percent of our economy is domestic. We react in horror to any Americans who speak a second language - God forbid, Spanish - as if the big problem is that we have too many people speaking foreign languages. Hell, as it stands we don’t really have a whole lot of foreign travel by Americans. As such, we have a whole bunch of people who don’t realize that things have changed in the world.

U.S. businesses get it though. They’re outsourcing like crazy in an effort to remain competitive in a world economy. American universities get it too. They’re bringing in students from all parts of the world. Research is being done everywhere as well. The people who really don’t get is is the people you’ve elected in Washington, D.C. We would rather rely on intelligence reports (which God knows are 100% accurate) to tell us what we need to know rather than simply talking with the countries we know little about. That kind of foreign policy does little to promote openness in a world economy.

What we have to do is talk to the Mexican government and see what we can do to help boost their economy. If you help them make their economy more strong and give Mexicans the opportunity at obtaining good jobs then you’ll see a great reduction in illegal immigration. But what you can’t do is say “Mexico is not our problem”. Every country that borders us is our problem. The relationship we have with Canada and Mexico is extremely important. The better we’re able to help each other build our economies the stronger we’ll be in the world economy.

As far as the immigrants that are here, I don’t see how we can realistically deport all of them. What we’re doing now is not pro-active and is not a healthy attitude for America. Perhaps we can look at encouraging those who are illegal to become legal. Help them understand what it is to be an American. Encourage them to learn English. If we don’t then they’ll continue to hide in the shadows.

Best way I can think of to give you a taste of what I’m talking about is to have you watch an episode of 30 Days that deals with immigration. Morgan Spurlock created the series and many of the episodes are pretty darn interesting. The one on immigration though was a real eye opener. In it, Morgan took a guy who was a Minuteman and has him spend a month with a Los Angeles Mexican family in a one-bedroom apartment. He ends up going to Mexico to see where this family originated from. What he sees shocks him.

If you can rent it and watch it, do it. Blockbuster should have it available to rent. It’s from Season 2, episode 2 I think. It’s also coming up as a rerun on FX as well. If you have a DVR, do a search and set it to record.

This is a hot button topic that unfortunately does not have a simple solution. The problem is much bigger and much different than you think. And in order to solve this we have to get past the kind of rhetoric and B.S. that is inherent in the kind of correspondence that was in that e-mail about the Australian PM. We have to look at the facts and not pre-judge. Otherwise we run the risk of making rash decisions on the basis of a gut-reaction rather than making educated decisions based on facts.