Yet Another Connection...

Between Bush and Obama. This one is prety shocking, I think. Well, it might be to Obamabots. Those of us still in the rational world aren't really surprised by ANYTHING this guy wil say or do, but still - this one is big. And, coincedentally, it also goes along with two other posts I had recently regarding Obama pursuing Evangelical Christians and his little spat with James Dobson.

Okay, Okay, I'll get to the point: Obama wants to continue the Faith Based Initiatives Program,and EXPAND the amount of federal dollars GOING to the organizations involves in it. But wait - it gets better! He wants to allow them to HIRE and FIRE on the basis of RELIGION!!! You read that right - this self-titling Constitutional scholar wants to allow YOUR tax paying dollars to go to faith-based initiatives, allowing them to decide if the person is religious enough, their KIND of religious, and to dismiss them should they decide the employee's belief system does not match closely enough to the organization. Hold on, there is even more! According to the AP Article, "Obama TO Expand Bush's Faith-based Programs,",

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Pay attention to that name change, so that you KNOW he is talking about faith-based programming using federal dollars in the future.

In a further pander to Evangelical Christians, Obama said,

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

Huh. I wonder if he thinks the "Lord's Work" includes character assassinations, and vote stealing??? Those two look mighty close to breaking a couple of Big Ones to me, but, hey, what do I know? But I digress...

You are going to LOVE this next quote! In it, he throws together a bunch of issues facing us, ending with a quintessential Naval metaphor (get it?):

"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Why, yes we do. To make sure you never become president!

Ironically, it was just the other day that Obama sent out Mrs. Obama to shore up his support among - Wait for it - GAY groups!! No, I am not kidding, and I am not making this us. (For those of you who might be unaware, Evangelical Christians, certainly those affiliated with organizations like James Dobson's "Focus on the Family," are not too keen on gay people. They kinda think of us as big ol' sinners, to cut to the chase!) According to the article,

Barack Obama will fight for equal rights for gays just as he fought to help working-class families overcome poverty, the Democratic presidential hopeful's wife told a gay Democratic group Thursday.

Recalling his past work as a community organizer to help struggling families, Michelle Obama said he would take the same approach as president.

HAHAHAHAHA!! Obama is going to help the LGBT Community the same way he has helped those folks during his Community Organizing days? Those people without heat and all of that in the Southside of Chicago? That's how well he is going to do for US? Oh, WHEEEEE!!!!

Believe it or not, there is still more.

Touting her husband's record pushing for workplace discrimination legislation as an Illinois state senator and his support of civil unions, Obama noted her husband also had brought a call for equality to conservative groups, telling churchgoers they need to combat homophobia in the black community.

His workplace discrimination legislation? As in what, PUSHING for workplace discrimination?? As Upppity Woman pointed out in her excellent piece, "Sexist Obama Pays His Female Staff Less Than The Males" in No Quarter, Obama is not exactly a prince in the Sexual Equality department, certainly in the realm of equal pay for equal work. It is more like the Sexual INequality department. Just freakin' spare me.

Okay, sure - he can tell conservative churches that they need to stop attacking LGBT people, and do more about HIV/AIDS, but when one of his BFFs is Senator Rev. James Meeks, a blatantly ANTI-GAY activist, and when he campaigns with Donnie McClurkin, a noted ANTI-GAY activist, it is just a little hard to take this seriously. He can SAY whatever he wants to say, but his ACTIONS clearly indicate otherwise. There is a world of difference between Senator Clinton's relationship with the LGBT community and Obama's - Clinton actually HAS a relationship with the LGBT community!! Just sayin'.

Oh - and no doubt, what Michelle Obama also said during this speech is just gonna PISS Donna Brazile off:

Michelle Obama also drew a connection between the struggles for gay rights and civil rights.

"We are all only here because of those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall, in the pursuit of a more perfect union," she said at the event, held days before the anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall riots between gays and New York police, and the city's annual gay pride parade.

"The world as it is should be one that rejects discrimination of all kinds," she said.

Whooey, is that ever gonna make Donna MAD!!!! Remember, Howard Dean got into some hot water (as in, faced a law suit) because of his firing of a gay man. In an article in the Washington Blade, regarding choosing Civil Rights delegates for the National Convention in August, and including gay people in the Civil Rights contingent to that convention,

Dean said some “influential individuals” within the DNC Black Caucus, such as Donna Brazile, opposed the plan because it was seen as “an affront to the civil rights movement.”

All righty. I bet Ms. Brazile might just have a little chat with Michelle on this. How dare she go against Donna's party line?!?!

Apparently, though, the 200 - 300 people there drank the Cult Aide - they raised over $1 million for him. I am going to make an unsubstantiated guess and say they MUST have been Log Cabin Republicans!! How else to explain it?! I certainly can't any other way. This man has done ZERO for our community - ZERO, actually, he has done NEGATIVES for our community, and while John McCain probably isn't going to be winning any GLAAD or HRC awards any time soon, neither is Obama. Oh, wait - someone DID win the HRC award, and coincedentally, her initials are HRC!!! But why bother with trivialities?!?!

Anywho, it sure will be interesting to watch the hoops Obama will jump through as he tells every single group, no matter how much their varying beliefs/realities may be diametrically opposed, that he suppports THEM, and will do everything possible for THEIR agendas. I guess this just highlights - again - the importance of the PUMA and Just Say No Deal coalitions, to point out Obama's bald-faced lies, flip flops, pandering, and frightening policies. Speak out, speak loud, and expose this charlatan for who he is! Power to the PUMA!

Dear Mr. President by Pink and the Indigo Girls

Just a reminder of why this election is so important, and why what the DNC has done is so disastrous...We need a president who really DOES care, who is aware of what our nation is facing, who has the right policies, and who has the commitment to do what needs to be done...

We need Hillary Clinton. We need the person who is best suited to help turn this nation around. Hounds be damned (and I am a dog lover, btw - just not the DNC dogs), what we need now are PUMAs and JUST SAY NO DEAL!

I am out of town for a brief overnight, and will be back home tomorrow night. So, this will be my post until then...

Mother Puma vs Grizzly Bear

Wow, Ed Rendell has apparently been drinking the Kool Aide (or Cult Aide, as some are now calling it). He has put out a statement regarding "HOUNDS," in reponse to PUMA08. Here is his Credo:

HOUND’S CREDO
By Governor Edward G. Rendell

We have formed HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided) in response to the creation of PUMA (party unity, my ass -- or its cleaned up moniker, People United Means Action).

PUMA advocated that Hillary Clinton supporters do not vote for Barack Obama just for the sake of party unity. Even though we in HOUND are loyal Democrats, we agree that no one should cast a vote for President because of a desire to achieve party unity. We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago, the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama, whose policies are almost identical to hers.

The Clinton-Obama plans on health care, the economy, energy, education and on ending the war in Iraq represent the core values that made us all Democrats – values and positions that are light years apart from the conservative policies enunciated by Sen. McCain (e.g., voting against S-CHIP, voting against raising CAF standards, voting against equal pay for women, voting for increased tax credits for big oil and against extending the credit for the production of renewable energy, expanding an increase in the Bush tax cuts, promoting a war without end in Iraq, etc.) If you care about these things, and we believe PUMA members do, then you must support Sen. Obama.

No one worked harder than I did for Hillary and I believe no one could admire her and what she represents more that I do. But we must get over our disappointment and, as Hillary said, not waste time looking back and thinking about what might have been. Our country’s challenges must be addressed immediately, not four years from now. Our beloved country simply cannot afford four more years of Republican do-nothing-for-people government. PUMA members risk just that – it could be a Ralph Nader 2000 redux. Don’t let that happen. Close your eyes and think about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton standing together united at a ceremony for the bill signing of legislation that guarantees every American affordable, effective healthcare.

One last point – HOUND is not anti-PUMA. We agree with many of your grievances. For example, we, too, believe that the Democratic Party’s nominating process is unfair and undemocratic. We must change the policy where some votes are more important than others and some areas receive more delegates than their number of voters would justify – it violates the spirit of “one person, one vote.” We must eliminate caucuses that are inherently undemocratic and disenfranchise seniors (no absentee voting for those who can’t go to the polls), shift workers and our military. Forcing people to declare their preference in public also violates another cherished principle that undermines our democracy.

So, we are asking all PUMA members to curb your disappointment, mute your anger and frustration and join HOUND to help change America. While the PUMA may be more swift and athletic, the HOUND is smarter and more perceptive. (http://www.padems.com/node/1368)

Well, Ed, I used to have respect for you. But your patronizing attitude, and dismissal of the REAL concerns of PUMA (and JUST SAY NO DEAL) to put forth your pithy credo have removed that respect. You no longer deserve it. Your sexist suggestion that we should just "mute" our anger, something women in particular have been told to do for far too long, shows your true colors. And you know what? I am pretty sick and tired of men trying to tell me what to do.

The REASONS we are members of PUMA are not just because we support Hillary Clinton, but because the DNC has lost its moral compass. When it games nominations; when it pushes out a candidate who has won the popular vote, whose name Howard Dean is not even planning to put on the first ballot despite the fact HIS was on there with his 167.5 delegates; when the DNC ROBS the voters by taking their votes to give to someone not even on the ballot, well, there is no way we are just going to swallow our anger, put aside our integrity and our conscience, to do your bidding.

If we felt Obama truly DID stand for the same things as Hillary, well, then why isn't SHE the nominee? She has the experience, the votes, and the POLICIES!! He is but a copycat of the original, and not a good one at that. We have no reason to believe he will stand with us on ANY policies as his constant flip-flopping has demonstrated he is INCAPABLE of taking a position. He is simply not qualified. Period.

Oh, and Ed? The puma in this video chased off a full grown grizzly bear - do you REALLY think a HOUND has a chance against a PUMA??

PUMA08!!!

RiverDaughter at Confluence has an EXCELLENT response to this "Credo," as does Pagan Power at No Quarter. Check them out!

"Why Do They Hate Us?"

Last night, I was reading Curve Magazine (Vol.18,#6, July/August, 2008). In it was an article by noted Lesbian activist and writer, Victoria A. Brownworth, "Why Do They Hate Us? How the Media treats Hillary is indicative of how the world sees women: as second class citizens." The title pretty much says it all. And what she wrote included startling facts, which I will list below. They are not for the faint of heart, let me warn you right now. As is my wont, I felt compelled to write the Editors:

I just finished reading Ms. Brownworth's piece, "Why Do They Hate Us." It moved me to tears. As one who has followed this election campaign VERY closely, I have been horrified, and furious, at the treatment of an attorney who worked for poor women and children, a Former First Lady of Arkansas, a Former First Lady of the United States, and a TWO TERM Sitting US Senator by the Mainstram Media, Senator Barack Obama, and the DNC. It is simply staggering how accepted sexism, even misogyny, is in this country. It is mind boggling that Main Stream Media can make demeaning, disparaging remarks about a US Senator because she is a WOMAN. I am a lifelong (50 yr old), straight party ticket Democratic voter, or I should say I was, until the treatment of Senator Clinton, and ALL women, by the DNC elite and Senator Obama. I have now left the party to which I have dedicated myself, my money, and my vote. (I might add, my decision was reinforced when the RBC/DNC decided to take actual votes cast for one candidate, Clinton, and give them to a candidate who was not even on the ballot, in addition to the sexism, even misogyny, in which the above three have participated this year.)

And I am saddened. As one who actively worked for women's equality for over 32 years, it is incredibly discouraging and disheartening to see how quickly people - men AND women - revert to blatant sexism, almost with GLEE. They act as if they have been holding back these comments and feelings, but are now free to let loose with their derogatory comments. There is not a DOUBT in my mind that if these same comments were expressed in a racist manner, they would - RIGHTLY - be decried far and wide. Yet, since they were *only* about a woman, well, haha," weren't they funny, and we all know they are true anyway, right? Nudge, nudge, wink wink," it was just fine. Sigh.

And now, the more qualified candidate (IMHO), the one who has been a STALWART supporter of women, children, the LGBT community, and numerous other groups as diverse as veterans and Native Americans, has been subjugated to the less qualified, far less experienced, male candidate. It seems we have not moved very far at all...

Thank you, Ms. Brownworth, for writing what many of us have experienced, and for pointing out the cruel facts of what it means to be a woman in this country, in this world. We have much, much work to do...

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

And juxtapose this to Obama's recent remarks about how Senator Clinton was "brutalized," equating the treatment his wife got during this campaign season to the treatment Senator Clinton has endured. No apology, no acknowledgement of his, and others, horrific treatment of her during this campaign. Just deflection, and "look over there." I'm sorry, but from where I sit, Michelle Obama has been treated pretty fairly by the MSM. The grief she has gotten has been more a DIRECT response to what she has SAID, not that she is an African American woman. There is a world of difference between the two.

And now seeing these articles and photographs of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama together, him with his hand on her back, just makes me cringe. Frankly, it makes me almost physically ill. See, I have done a lot of work in the Domestic Violence movement. And I have seen this cycle before: the man abuses, attacks, and lashes out at the woman. The woman makes excuses for, and accepts blame from, the man for his attacks. Not unlike Senator Clinton saying now that they are friends, respect each other, and support each other. I know what respect looks and feels like - Senator Obama has shown NONE for Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has, but Obama? No. Seeing these photos of her with him now reminds me of battered women wearing sunglasses to hide the bruises, and saying, "Oh, he didn't really mean it. It was my fault, really, I shouldn't have made him mad. He really does love me, in his own way, really! Don't be mad at him!" Not only did Obama make sexist remarks about Senator Clinton, INCLUDING at the fundraiser the other night, but he reaped the benefit of the sexist and misogynistic remarks made by others, the veiled death threats (talking to YOU, Keith), the threats of violence, the degradation, not on her record, or on her speeches, but because she was a woman. As Ms. Brownworth wrote,

Clinton was the focal point for American misogyny, writ long and large. She was tough enough to take it and not cry foul, but why do women and girls have to take it? Why are we called bitches and cunts if we speak the truth about our lives? We are treated as less-than-human in a myriad of ways in our society. We are victims of violence, discrimination, and hate, and that diminishes us daily as human beings.

(Vol. 18, #6, p 34)

And now, for the facts I mentioned above. These are not pleasant. Stop reading here if you do not want to be disturbed. Okay. Here I go, from Ms. Brownworth's article:
Vaginal destruction:

For over a decade, war has raged in the eastern province of Congo. Gangs of militia have preyed on women and girls and made rape and vaginal destruction major tools of that war. Vaginal destruction - an act so violent a woman can never again have vaginal sex or bear a child - was defined as a war crime in April...In Congo, women have been raped so brutally and by so many men at one time that some have been eviscerated. Eviscerated by rape. That is how much they hate us. (p 34)

Honor killings:

What has never made the news is that nearly all of the murders of women in Palestinian territory have nothing to do with the political situation there: They are the result of honor killings...Honor killings are a leading cause of death among women in the Middle East. Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the number of honor killings has risen exponentially because the once secular nation is now an Islamic theocracy. (pp34-35)

Lest you think all of this violence is only in other countries, here are some U.S. statistics:

One in six women will be raped in her lifetime. One in four has survived child sexual abuse or an incestuous relationship with a male relative. One in three has been the victim of domestic violence. Over 1.2 million women are forcibly raped by an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend each year. The leading cause of death among pregnant women is murder by a spouse or boyfriend. Four out of every five female murder victims in the United States were killed by men they knew: a spouse or boyfriend, a male relative, a co-worker...This means millions of American men - men we know, men we may love or have loved - hate us enough to rape, main, or kill us. Millions. It's a difficult reality to face: Women and girls are so hated that our lives and bodies mean nothing to these men.

(p34)
Brownworth continues,

Perhaps that reality and the inchoate knowledge of it is why it was easy for people to refer to Clinton with the vilest of hate speech and feel no remorse and receive no recrimination from either the general populace or the media... (p34)

Wow, Speaker Pelosi - it seems that SOMEONE wasn't too busy to document all of the sexism and misogyny, even if YOU were too busy to do so...(Ref: Pelosi's interview with Greta Van Susteren this past week on "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.)

As I said above, Obama did not even have to say despicable comments himself - having others do so as his surrogates was sufficient. That is the whole thing with domestic violence - the THREAT of it is sufficient to keep many women in line. Their partners may not engage in violence themselves (and psychological and emotional battery still counts as domestic violence, by the way. Some would argue, convincingly, I think, that they are worse as they are more insidious, and stay with the woman much, much longer than physical abuse), as other men engaging in this behavior is enough for the fear to be present in most, if not all, women.

More from Brownworth:

It doesn't matter if we are siting U.S. Senators or sitting at home taking care of our children or sitting by a stream getting water right before we are gang-raped. It doesn't matter if we are in the United States or Congo or Gaza or Iraq. The one common denominator for women, the thing that unites us, is that we are all hated equally for our gender.

"To some men - even the men who loved us before they raped us or beat us or murdered us - we are all cunts. For ourselves - and for the women and girls of Congo, Gaza, Iraq, and every other nation where women are being eviscerated in body and spirit - we must stand up and speak out against the global terrorism of women and girls. (p35)

And so, as much as I admire and respect Senator Clinton, I cannot, and will not, participate in this Party-, this Country's- sanctioned cycle of violence. Please stop asking me, us, to do so. I deserve better. YOU deserve better. We all deserve better than to keep feeding into this cycle. I, for one, will not.

USA or USSR?

There have been a spate of blogs on Blogspot that are favorable to Clinton, and critical of Obama, that have been locked. Apparently, they were flagged as "Spam," which means they are blocked until Blogspot gets around to checking out the claims, which can be WEEKS. A number of us, myself included, have opened alternative blogs at Wordpress, just in case. This is not a site I am using now, but WILL, should anything happen to this blog (please do not leave any comments there now, though - I am only posting at THIS blog for now).

Frankly, I do not know if this is connected or not, but my primary credit card was hacked this past weekend. Fortunately, I have a great bank that flagged it as fraudulent activity immediately, but there were a number of charges which I have had to clear up. Here's the thing, and why I think this was some form of harrassment - the items that were ordered were to be sent to MY home address, not anyone else's. As the Fraud Adviser said, they were either incredibly stupid (possible, but then how did they get my card number?), or something else was going on. I only use secure sites - ALWAYS - as my credit card was phished a couple of years ago. So, I have been incredibly protective of it since then, so someone had to work hard at this. So, I do not know how it happened - the Fraud Investigators have some leads on which to work, and I hope they catch them. Not only did these people try to steal money from me, but they have stolen a TREMENDOUS amount of time from me. The money is being restored; the time will never be. So, I honestly do not know if there is any connection between this form of harrassment and blogs being locked, but it does seem just a tad coincedental...

I find all of this to be incredibly disconcerting, especially with the blogs. As far as I knew, we still had free speech in this country, or we did until George Bush becamse president. Once that happened ANY derogatory remarks against HIM were labeled unpatriotic, particularly after 9/11. Now we have Barack Obama, not even president, much less not having completed his FIRST term in the Senate, but still somehow he has manufactured the concept that ANY criticism of HIM is racist. There is no way to question his record, or his words, or his background without being attacked as racist. This is quite a feat for someone who was a relative unknown, certainly as far as his record, or lack therof, would indicate. It is quite a feat that this relative unknown has been selected as the presumptive nominee of the DNC. It is quite a feat that he has achieved cult-like status in such a short time.

It really makes me wonder - it makes me wonder how in the world he had the INFRASTRUCTURE for all of this. How can someone who has been in the US Senate for less than 4 years have this level of national infrastructure? Many of us are convinced the fix was in from the very beginning, and the way the Washington Insiders have circled around him, the way the Media have circled around him, and the vast amounts of money has has been getting (and honestly, the possibliity that it is all in $5 - 10 increments from college students is hilarious), would certainly lend some credence to that concept.

Along those lines, it is also curious the way the online bloggers have joined in with this relative unknown, who has changed his positions more often than he changes his socks. The online community that originally was the more CRITICAL community has now become sheep in an incredibly short amount of time. The orgnaization that seems evident in the attacks by Obama followers is also suspect to me. Now, I know there are people who just have WAY too much time on their hands, but really - the attacks that have been leveled against Clinton supporters come from the exact same playbook at a number of different sites(and those efforts look VERY MUCH like the Republican playbook). This new level of attack, shutting down people's blogs, also seems pretty organized. Who is running this show? Who is supporting it? Who is FUNDING it???

These are all questions I would like to have answered, along with: WHY HASN'T OBAMA SPOKEN OUT ABOUT THE HARRASSING BEHAVIOR OF HIS FOLLOWERS??? Even last night, when given the chance, with Hillary Clinton by his side, he STILL could not bring himself to do the right thing (see NoQuarterUSA for the Breaking Story on the joint fundraiser last night). Basic civlity would seem to dictate that Obama, were he a civil person, would speak out against these attacks, against the sexism and misogyny, against the hatred being spewed toward Clinton supporters, or those who have left the DNC due to its immoral activities. But no - it is all about him. Not the kind of person I want running the country to be sure. None of the qualities he has demonstrated make himt he kind of person I want running this country, especially after George W. Bush. As I have previously written, they are two peas in a pod, no doubt about it. After seeing who we COULD have, who we SHOULD have, there is no way I can stomach this charlatan, this arrogant, egotistical, sexist, ill-mannered chameleon. No way.

One final thought - today is the annivesary of Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum, being beaten to death by a mob in Illinois back in 1844. No doubt, the mob was trying to silence them. This election season, Clinton was bludgeoned repeatedly in an attempt to silence her - she wasn't physically injured - we have come a little way since 1844 - but she suffered insults, distortions, attacks, and emotional assaults daily at the hands of the mobs, the MSM and the Obama campaign. And she was silenced. Now, the voices of some of her supporters are also being silenced by the mobs. What is it that Act Up said? Oh, I know: Silence = Death.

It is hard for me to know in which country I am now living - the USA or the USSR? When the voices of the people are silenced, when questioning is not tolerated, when appropriate critiicisms are squashed, when any form of dissent is not tolerated,when political candidates are selected, not ELECTED, when votes are stolen from one candidate and given to another in broad daylight, it is hard to argue that we still have a democracy. I never thought I would live to see this day, especially at the hands of the Democratic Party. But here we are...

Winning Hearts and Minds? - Amended

The other day, I wrote a post about James Dobson and Barack Obama, "Wheel...Of...Theology." Obama's camp has been trying to woo Evangelical Christians, youth in particular, including starting a "Jericho Generation" group or some such thing...

Okay - let's just stop right there. I hate to digress, but what does it say that the people he pursues the MOST are young, inexperienced people? I mean, really - the part of the brain that helps make good decisions isn't even fully set until one is into adulthood. I'm not kidding! (Here is but one article on the topic of Decision-Making - there are TONS available online.) That is why, so often, you will hear someone exclaim, "I can't believe SO-and-So drank and drove (or lied, or stole, whatever) - this seems so out of character for him/her," and they are in their late teens or twenties. It is that part of the brain that isn't fully formed that allows the Straight A, straight-laced student to go joy-riding, out of the clear blue sky, for example. Or to support a candidate because he seems "cool," not paying attention to what he actually says, or has done. I think you know what I mean. Anyway, it is VERY telling that he constantly pursues YOUNG people. Just sayin'.*


Anywho - to get back to the topic, Obama is trying to woo Evangelical Christians. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, had some criticims of Obama, particularly his biblical interpretation. Dobson said (quote from the article mentioned below), "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said."

I think we all know how well Obama deals with criticism. Ahem. He is not fond of it, and tends to lash out. Bear in mind that Dobson's responses to him are based on a speech Obama gave in which he said, "that people of faith, like himself, "try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us." Hang on a moment - I am so busy having my head explode at OBAMA talking about not having religion "divide us," that I can't type...Whew. OK. I think I am better. Can I just say, Obama attends a church that is INCREDIBLY DIVISIVE and he has the "audacity" to say this?! After attending TUCC, the Nation of Islam supporting church for TWENTY years, he says this??? Wow. Just freakin' wow. He added in his speech, "People aren't reading their Bibles."

Well, sure enough, he had THIS to say on Tuesday about Dobson's criticism in an AP article, "Obama Dismisses Dobson Criticism About Bible": ""I think you'll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes." Dobson is "making stuff up"? Gosh, he really IS eloquent, isn't he?!? And this: "Asked about Dobson's assessment, Obama said "somebody would be pretty hard-pressed to make that argument" that he was distorting the Bible." Way to go about winning the hearts and minds of the Evangelical Christians, Obama! Insult one of their foremost leaders! That oughta do the trick! (And may I say - again - I have absolutely NO love lost for Dobson, and completely disagree with HIS interpretation of the Bible, but I am not trying to get any of his people to vote for me, either! Just to be clear - not a fan of Dobson's.)

Honestly, I think Obama is unclear on the concept of bringing people into the fold, or has really internalized the hype about himself. He does seem to think he can say whatever derogatory comments he wants about leaders who represent millions of people, then get their people to fall in line behind him. That sure takes some nerve. Or something like that. Fill in your own word (hubris? Delusion?). I suppose this should come as no surprise to Hillary supporters, though - he pretty much reamed her time and time again, disparaging her character, making ad hominem attacks constantly, demeaning her, and women in general, with his sexist remarks, and overall responding with great arrogance - why WOULDN'T we just jump on board?!? Now he is trying it with James Dobson and Evangelical Christians! Let's just see how well this works out for him, even with the help of people like The Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, a former Bush supporter. I daresay, more people have heard of Dobson...Like I said, this Obama sure has a unique way to try and win the hearts and minds...

Oh, wait! Speaking of Obama's incredibly divisive church, and his claim that religions shouldn't divide us, Father Michael Pfleger said on "Good Morning America" that he stands by the message he preached against Senator Clinton, her whole "entitlement" thing, as he is now calling it. As if Senator Clinton EVER claimed she was entitled to anything, especially in the racist way he depicted. That was ALL Pfleger, and near as I can tell, he broke one of the Big Ten by "bearing false witness against his neighbor" with that one. Here's the link, in case you want to read it for yourself: Priest Who Mocked Clinton... What a piece of work, and how unfortunate that ABC is giving him any air time at all...Sheesh.

* And this is the problem with people like McCaskill and Caroline Kennedy, among others, allowing thier CHILDREN to convince them to vote for Obama! Their children's reasoning facilities are not yet physically or neuroogically set, and they are listening to THEM?? That is problematic on all sorts of levels, like why adults are acquiescing to their kids, for starters. I think we can all look back on our youth and remember how we were CERTAIN we were SO right about everything, and adults didn't know anything. We knew so much more, were so much more with it, and our arguments were better. As we look back, we realize we didn't know squat, cerainly not on the level we do now. And now there is scientific evidence that at least as far as reasoning is concerned, adults have better ability neuorlogically. So, yes, Claire and Caroline, by all means - let your KIDS tell you who to support! That's the most reasonable thing to do - not.

"I Own My Own Vote"

Courtesy of No Quarter:

Preamble

When you read the I Own My Vote Pledge, keep in mind that the demands it contains are not admissions of defeat, nor are they conditions precedent to your vote. Hillary's campaign is only suspended, not ended. And only you can decide when your vote has been earned. Whether you are a PUMA activist, a WomenCountPAC donor, a Just Say No Deal blogger, a Clinton Democrat for McCain, a yellow dog Democrat for VoteBoth, or simply a Hillary Clinton supporter who feels like the Party leaders and their presumptive nominee are ignoring everything that you value, the most powerful statement you can make right now is that YOU OWN YOUR VOTE. Only in finding that common ground will we be counted, for only in that common ground will we be able to count ourselves.
* * * * *
On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton suspended her historic campaign for President. To her 18 million voters, it may have seemed like an end, but I pledge to make it a beginning … a beginning of a movement to achieve the democratic and just country that Hillary has envisioned for America.

I stand together with Hillary Clinton’s 18 million voters to demand that Senator Obama and the Democratic Party:

• Bring us together by seating 100% of the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver with 100% of their votes, allocated in accordance with the popular vote of each state.
  
• Bring us together by adopting policies on the Platform Committee that Hillary Clinton has championed.
  
• Bring us together through reform of the primary and caucus system to reflect the basic principle of one person/one vote.
  
• Bring us together through outspoken denunciation of all gender bias, racism and other forms of discrimination.
  
• Bring us together by fairly and respectfully including Hillary and her supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver by, among other things, placing her name in nomination for President, conducting a roll call vote, and providing her a prominent speaking role during prime time on August 26th, the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage.

I own my vote. It does not belong to any party. It does not belong to any candidate. It does not belong to any mob that would impose its will on me. Only I can decide how to use my vote, and I can decide based on any criteria I choose. Therefore I pledge not to give my vote to anyone who does not earn it.

Click here to sign the pledge: http://iownmyvote.com/

Greta Van Susteren and Nancy Pelosi

Greta Van Susteran had a three part interview with Speaker Pelosi yesterday on her show, On The Record. Ms. Van Susteren does an excellent job in this interview. She does not let Speaker Pelosi get by with a whole lot. Take a look at the interview. My letter to Ms. Van Susteren in response to this interview is below:

Dear Ms. Van Susteren:

Thank you for your interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. You have consistently been one of the BEST interviewers during this campaign season. I have a lot of respect for you. And I should add, I have been impressed at your willingnes to allow the interviewee to actually answer your questions fully. That is a skill sorely lacking among many currently in the media.

As to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, let me say this: I am a 50 yr old, FAR left liberal, lifelong Democrat who has chosen to leave the Democratic Party after the actions of Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Nancy Pelosi, the DNC elite, and the RBC of the DNC. For Speaker Pelosi to blow off your question about the level of sexism in this campaign by saying, "well, I'm too busy being Speaker of the House, so I haven't been able to document this..." was reprehensible. DOCUMENT it??? She was part of the PROBLEM!! And she did not NEED to document it - it was blatantly OBVIOUS!! Since she seems incapable of acknowledging the sexism, the misogyny, with which Senator Clinton was met, perhaps this video by ShuttheFreudUp.com might give her a little clue: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM Feel free to pass it along to her.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Speaker Pelosi's derogatory comments toward Senator Clinton this Primary Season were born out of her own fear of having a woman who will show how INCAPABLE Pelosi has been by contrast. Senator Clinton works HARD on behalf of her constituents, and the American people. Her abilities, her intellect, her drive, would clearly show up Speaker Pelosi's horrible leadership as Speaker. No doubt in my mind.

And Speaker Pelosi is wrong. Obama is NOT the nominee YET, as you reminded her - the Convention is not until the end of AUGUST!!! And his "better ideas" are ALL ones he has copied from SENATOR CLINTON!!! Even his recent statements on gas prices are the SAME ones about which he criticized Senator CLINTON just last month! He has NO original ideas - he is merely a copy cat, of Patrick Duval, of Chicago poltiics, and of Clinton's policies. How many times did he say in the debates, "What she said"?? He has no firm stances, no firm policies, and certainly no NEW ideas. Seems we just went through 7 1/2 yrs of another candidate who was similar in many regards, except one - he was actually MORE experienced than Senator Obama is now, and we all thought BUSH was too inexperienced to be President! Oh, wait - Obama did take ONE stand - he voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill!!

And for Pelosi to claim that Obama is not a Washington insider with ALL of the Washington insiders who have been running his campaign is just laughable. Daschle? Kennedy? Kerry? Pelosi? Dodd? Leahy? Axelrod?? The list goes on and on. Not only is he not the blank slate she pretends he is, he comes from Chicago politics, politics in which he gets elected by getting EVERYONE else off the ballot! Politics in which the Republican contender for the Senate seat mysteriously has his divorce papers unsealed, thus forcing him to drop out, and he competes against ALAN KEYES!!! A State Senator who did NOTHING on his own, having his name attached to legislation on which he did NOT work by Emil Jones, legislation he neither earned nor deserved. He is a US Senator who has done NOTHING, including not chairing his OWN subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan, a Senator who has spent more time campaigning than working, a US Senator who won't even vote on issues when he is in the BUILDING! He has NO real experience, and compared to Senator Clinton, he is SINGULARLY unqualified to be President. I will never, EVER vote for this arrogant, sexist, inexperienced man who is SORELY lacking in good judgment - his closest associates bears that out (Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Wright, Auchi, et. al).

I won't even go into the behavior of Obama's campaign and his supporters except to say, the vitriol he has spewed about Senator Clinton in his speeches has given rise to a tremendous amount of acting out by his followers. It has become unsafe for people to speak out against him for fear of retribution. It is hard to believe this is still the USA...And it comes from teh TOP down, no doubt about it.

I won't bore you with all of my retorts to her ridiculous responses to your excellent questions, but her response about Obama's choice of church is absurd. People DO care about the kind of message to which he has been listening for 20 years! People DO care that he counts The Reverend Wright as family to him. People DO care about the connection between TUCC and the Nation of Islam! It is not enough that "at least he goes to church" - what KIND of church it is MATTERS!!!

Speaker Pelosi is COMPLETELY out of touch with the American people. And her behavior toward Senator Clinton will not be forgotten, OR forgiven.

Finally, the vote stealing by the RBC/DNC, voter fraud, and inaction by the DNC of numerous reports of unethical behavior at the least, and illegal activity at most, in the caucuses made it CLEAR that the DNC did not care who the people wanted, contrary to Pelosi's constant refrain that Obama is the people's choice. I never thought I would see the DNC disenfranchise voters , especially after the 2000 Florida debacle, never mind STEAL votes and delegates as they did in MI, and so blatantly go against the will of the people, but that is EXACTLY what they have done. Their actions, especially the theft of actual votes and delegates from Senator Clinton TO Senator Obama, who was not even on the BALLOT in MI, have proven to me that the fix was in to shove this unqualified candidate down our throats. I am ashamed of what the Democratic Party has become. I am ashamed of how they have conducted themselves in this primary. And I am sad that the Party to which I have belonged for decades has become one of such immorality. The DNC's candidate will get neither my money NOR my vote.

Thank you again for your outstanding work. You are a breath of fresh air in the Mainstream Media!

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
PUMA08
Just Say No Deal

Dirty Barack Obama

Who knew that CNN actually did some honest-to-goodness JOURNALISM during this primary season?!?! Not me - glad I saw this link at another site!

So, yeah - for those who have SOMEHOW missed this, Obama was able to get elected to the Illinois State Senate in Chicago because he got everyone ELSE taken off the ballot. Yep - that's the way to do it. Run completely unopposed after hiring a bunch of lawyers and getting a bunch of volunteers to help you help yourself. What a stand-up guy!! Oh, and near the end, a volunteer tries to claim that he did't enjoy throwing the woman who had been his mentor, Alice Paul, under the bus. Didn't stop him from doing it, of course. With friends like him...(He must have a fleet of buses by now, after all the people he has been throwing under them left and right, no matter WHAT they did for him, or WHO they were in his life. It would make me a little jumpy, if I was someone in his inner circle!)

Anyway, this gives a good synopsis about how he got into the State Senate. And for anyone who might think that despite how he got into the State, that at least his becoming a US Senator was a big acomplishment, bear in mind - HE RAN AGAINST ALAN KEYES! Alan Keyes, that batshit CRAZY guy who was thrown in there at the last minute after Obama's Republican opponent had some dirty laundry exposed (gee - was that "Chicago-style" politics, too?!?).

Should he somehow become the nominee after all of his recent flip flops and embarrassments, I wonder how he will fare having to run against an ACTUAL opponent?!? Time will tell, I reckon!

Anyway, enjoy this bit of real journalism!

Wheel... Of... THEOLOGY

Once again, Obama is trying to win over Evangelical Christians, an effort he made in Kentucky with seemingly little success, considering the landslide win for Hillary Clinton there. But that is not stopping him, oh no!! According to David Brody at CBN, he has even created a group to help him with this base, especially the young folk. His group is "The Joshua Generation Project." All righty - there's just one problem with that name, though - it is VERY close to the name of an already established wing of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a name they have had since 2003: "This is an improper invasion of our trademark and we've retained legal counsel to notify the Obama campaign to stop this," HSLDA's co-founder, chairman, and general counsel, Michael Farris, told Roll Call on Monday morning. The conservative group plans to notify the Obama campaign later today." Oopsie doopsie!! Once again, Obama is busted for using someone else's work. (Hey - maybe the Home School People can use this as a "teaching moment" on why it is important to do come up with your own ideas!!)

But that is not all. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, is also weighing in on Obama, and his theology. In this article, Dobson Accuses Obama Of 'Distorting' Bible, we get a pretty good feel for how The Rev. Dobson feels about Obama. And I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for this man, but he DOES represent a fair number of American Evangelical Christians. The article reports (and all quotes below on Dobson are taken from this article): "As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.

The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family."

Wowie zowie. "Fruitcake Interpretation" of the Constitution?? Apparently, The Rev. Dobson has not bought into Obama's spin that he is a Constitutional scholar!! But wait, there's more! Apparently, according to the article, Obama mentioned Dobson in a speech he made in 2006, and said: "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?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader. "

Well, I think we know where OBAMA falls on that, or at least we can extrapolate from his twenty years at TUCC (more on that below). But it seems to me that criticizing the leader of an organization with which one then wants to join hands and sing "Kumbayah" is not the smartest idea in the world. Because James Dobson isn't buying what Obama is selling: "Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy—chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

Now THERE'S some biblical interpretation for you! And what does Obama have to say about that? "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles"

Just bringing them all together, Obama is! Yep, Mr. Unity sure does have a way of doing that, doesn't he? He wants to insert himself into this group, and thinks insulting them is the way to do it! Once again, from the article, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

C'mon, Reverend Dobson! Tell us how you really feel!! Oh, wait - he does! The article continues: "Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality..."

Gee - The Reverend Dobson does not even MENTION how Obama claims to be Pro-Choice, then says about those of us who are, in his most patronizing way possible, do not understand how painful a decision abortion is. Wow, talk about insulting! How dare Obama assert such a demeaning statement! How many women has HE escorted to a family planning center through throngs of Operation Rescue people going after the woman making the hard choice?? Hearing horible things yelled at her, the taunting, the berating? Just wondering. But I digress...

The article concludes with this paragraph: "Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of "American Values House Parties," where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs."

Well, that is certanly interesting! What do you think those Conservative Evangelicals will have to say about Obama's personal theology? The theology of Black Liberation of which we have heard so much of late? How do you think they will respond to the following quote by Professor James Cone from the NY Times article,
A Fiery Theology Under Fire in which he states,
“You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm...”

Oh, yeah - THAT should go over REAL well! While we are in the midst of two wars, based (erroneously in Iraq, not in Afghanistan) on retaliation against religious militants, we have a presidential candidate who for over 20 years has been a member of a church whose services are based on a theology linking Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.

The article continues, "As a young, black and decidedly liberal theologian, James H. Cone saw his faith imperiled.

“Christianity was seen as the white man’s religion,” he said. “I wanted to say: ‘No! The Christian Gospel is not the white man’s religion. It is a religion of liberation, a religion that says God created all people to be free.’ But I realized that for black people to be free, they must first love their blackness.”

Dr. Cone, a founding father of black liberation theology, allowed himself a chuckle. “You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm,” he said."

Yes, that should really help that discussion along! How in the world could Evangelical Christians have a problem with a candidate who has supported, both by his presence and by his donations, this kind of theology? How long will it take for them to make the leap between Black Liberation Theology and its militancy with fundamentalist Islamic militancy?? I am in no way saying they are the same, mind you, just pointing out the leap many will make between the two, ESPECIALLY when Obama's relationship with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam is fully explored. It will not take long. Heck, I did it in two sentences! James Cone made the conection to militancy in one in the NY Times article: "“Deep down in all of us is that Malcolm X who cries out in such strong language,” said Dr. Cone, who is a professor of systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary."

The Ny Times article also makes the connection between religion and militancy: "...For a black audience, its theology spoke to the centrality of the slave and segregation experience, arguing that God had a special place in his heart for the black oppressed. These theologians held that liberation should come on earth rather than in the hereafter, and demanded that black pastors speak as prophetic militants, critiquing the nation’s white-run social structures."

For Obama to now claim that he did not always agree with his pastor, his mentor, his confidant, rings a bit disingenuous to me. In my experience, if parishoners do not agree with the message of the minister, or the church as a whole, and TUCC certainly seems to have embraced both Black Liberation Theology AND the Nation of Islam, they do not stay. They CERTAINLY do not contribute over $20,000 in one year, either. And if they do not agree with the message of the minister, I can also guarantee, they WILL say something, especially if the relationship is one of being in the Inner Circle, as it appears Obama was. His relationship with Wright was described by HIM as being familial. That he would have sat in the pew for 20 years, given large sums of money, been in the inner circle with the Senior Minister, and disagreed with the message of the minister and church all along seems far-fetched to me. People have left churches for a lot less, I can tell you. But Obama stayed - for years, only leaving when it began to hurt him politically. It wasn't that his THEOLOGY changed, it was that his political aspirations were facing challenges. Such integrity (that's sarcasm, by the way).

Once again, Obama is trying to reinvent himself, this time as a more mainstream Christian so that he can engage Evangelicals, and try to pull their votes away from McCain (again, assuming the Superdelegates do not come to their senses and nominate Clinton). Once again, he underestimates the intelligence of voters, as well as their communities, their belief systems, and their moral values.

And I am not just talking about white Evangelicals or even Pentecostals. The article claims that only about 25% of Black pastors adhere to some form of Black Liberation Theology. That leaves 75% who do not. The article continues: "Bishop Harry Jackson, a Pentecostal who presides over a 3,000-member church in suburban Washington, D.C., stands at the far pole from Mr. Wright. He defines himself as ultraconservative on matters of theology and politics and allies himself with conservative Republicans. He preaches a Prosperity Gospel, which holds that God wants black Americans to experience material success without guilt. (SIDE NOTE: evidently, given The Reverend Wright's retirement home, and Barack Obama' shome, they, too, ascribe to the theology of Prosperity!! Ahem.)

Most black liberation theologians revile this philosophy. Still Mr. Jackson would not deny the powerful currents of liberation theology; even his congregants put their toes in those waters from time to time.

“Most black church members want to see their ministers involved in defending the race and improving civil rights,” Mr. Jackson said. “The anger and bitterness that bleeds through in Reverend Wright’s comments are something that many blacks can sympathize with, even if they don’t want to hear it in the pulpit.” Black liberation theology may have taken modern flower in the 1960s, but its roots (no less than those of more conservative black theologies) extend deep into America’s historical cellar and its legacy of slavery."

I should add that there are some positives to Liberation Theology, both black, and other Third World theologies, especially as they operate to comfort the oppressed. That is no small thing, in my opinion. But when they are used to attack others, to denigrate, to demean, to humiliate, well, that to me does not speak for a theology that is essentially based on love, in the words of Jesus (Cor.13:13). And it does not speak well of its adherents or proponents. No, indeed.

It will be interesting to see how Obama spins as the Wheel of Theology spins. Will he continue to distance himself from his church home of 20 years as he attmepts to transform his image to a more mainstream branch of Christianity? Will his connections with Wright, Farrakhan, Meeks, McClurkin, et al, continue to find daylight and expose him for the chameleon he is? Will he (finally) get sued for using someone else's words? Will he finally be held accountable for his participation in, and support of, a theology that is exclusive and militant, which bludgeons those who have worked hard for the very community now attacking them? One can only hope. One can only pray, that truth will out, and Obama will get his comeuppance. "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." (Amos 5:24) Amen to that...

Obama and FISA

Well, another day, another lie from Obama. Yes, I am talking about his reneging on his promise to vote against FISA. This decision just goes hand in hand with his campaign finance flip flop, being for single payer insurance before being against it, allegedly being against the Iraq War before consistently funding it, and on and on. We all know the list. But that is because, by and large, we are Hillary supporters. Last night, I got an email from an old friend of mine. It was a letter his cousin, Bryan, had written to the Obama campaign about Obama and his FISA vote. But here's the catch - HE was an Obama supporter. And yes, I did say WAS. With his permission, I am reprinting his email below, without idenitifying informtion (though I can tell you he lives in Virginia), and with minor changes (italics were necessary, for example). I found it to be quite moving, and telling. My heart goes out to him as the scales drop from his eyes, and hope he will continue his scrutiny of the Man Who Would Be King. Here is Bryan's email:

TO: William Burton, Spokesman
Obama for President Campaign

Sir,

I am quite dismayed that Sen. Obama has decided not to oppose the FISA legislation pending in the US Senate. I really expected more from him. I had supported his candidacy up to now, voting for him in the Virginia Democratic Primary and contributing frequently to the campaign.

I am writing to tell you personally that I will not vote in the general presidential election and have removed the solicitation email address from my address list. Any future messages and requests for funds from Obama's campaign will bounce. I am frequently asked by friends and peers to weigh in on political issues, and as far as I am concerned, this position is a total sellout for conservative votes. I intend to actively encourage everyone I know to sit out the 2008 presidential campaign and withhold their vote. I have blind-copied them on this letter.

I find it incomprehensible that Democrats would bow to the Bush administration's now successful attempt to cover up their efforts to break the law and wiretap US citizens without a warrant. The telecommunications companies were being sued in federal court by US citizens who will now have their rights abrogated by the US Congress, all in the name of the phony war on terror. There is a minority of
folks in this country who see this sham war and the war in Iraq for what it really is: a means to subjugate dissent and enrich military contractors at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Sen. Obama has squandered a golden opportunity to explain why FISA in its present form is more than adequate to protect the nation from terrorism. He could have cleared up the obfuscation and misinformation being propagandized from the right. Sadly, Sen. Obama has chosen to forego honorable actions for political expediency.

I am fairly certain that the pending FISA legislation, which contains ex post facto attempts to allow illegal acts on the part of government officials and private companies, would not hold up if reviewed by an impartial Supreme Court. Sadly, the US Supreme Court is not impartial, as the 2000 Florida election debacle has proven. Our civil rights, fought for by our founding fathers, are being gradually eroded and discarded in the name of political expediency.

Perhaps Sen. Obama has forgotten that Martin Luther King was a victim of illegal wiretapping by the FBI. Words cannot adequately express my disappointment in the position taken by your candidate. Actions, however, can.

I expect to receive some kind of canned form letter response to this email, but at least I will have said my piece before pulling the plug on my support for your candidate's campaign.

Sincerely,

Bryan

Wow. Some letter, isn't it? Thanks to Bryan for allowing me to post it here.

I did mention to my friend that perhaps his cousin was unaware that Obama also supports the "enrichment" of military contractors with his desire to leave the mercenary organization, Blackwater, in Iraq, at a cost of thousands of dollars a day. So even if he does begin to draw out troops (and why would we believe him on that since he has also flip flopped on THAT idea?), he would keep this frightening organization in place, at the expense of taxpayer dollars, and heaven only knows how many deaths or maimings.

So, who knows? Maybe the Emperor's new clothes are finally being exposed for what they are - empty rhetoric and just words.

Or, maybe they are Versace! Yes, that is right - in the "It Has To Be True Because It Is So Damn Weird," Versace now has a line of clothes that have been "inspired" by Barack Obama. I swear, I am NOT making this up!! In an article out today, there is almost a third page article, with PHOTOS, about how Obama, "the man of the moment," on Versace's words, has inspired this new line of clothes. Hmmm - I wonder if everything is REVERSIBLE?!?!?

Finally, James Clyburn has a commentary in today's Post and Courier in which he takes umbrage at the accusations. And, predictably, he says his family has not benefitted financially. Moreover, he claims that these funds were all for community organizations. Okay - that is indeed what the original article stateded, but Clyburn does not refute that he has family members working in every single ONE of those places! Whatever - if he did come out and say, "Well, heck yeah - I'm shifting money to my family left and right," he knows he'd be in a heap of trouble. Rather, he is trying to attack the group that highlighted these budgetary requests as being a pro-McCain group. AHA!! "Pay no attention to what I am actually doing - because this group that mentioned it is BAD!!!!" Uh huh. So, this is about what I expected from him - excuses, obfuscations, denials, and blame. Sounds about right!

Debt

The number has finally been revealed - Hillary Clinton is abt $22.5 million in debt. Bear in mind that since February, she has won the lion's share of the primary contests. And she did it by being outspent up to 4 -1 by the Obama campaign. No amount of money could fool some people. Actually, no amount of money could fool the MAJORITY of the people. But still, somehow, in complete opposition to all of the facts, the most qualified, most intelligent, most prepared Democratic candidate has been shuttled to the side. And she has a lot of debt as a result.

She needs our help to retire this debt. I am on my way to give some more. I cannot bear that she would have to be indebted to OBAMA or the DNC in any way, shape, or form. I hope you feel the same way. So, go to her site, Hillary Clinton.com, and give what you can. This is NOT going to the Obama campaign - read the fine print at the bottom. It is definitely for the Hillary Clinton for President fund.

Do what you can. Help Hillary out - don't make her have to pander to those back-stabbers. And if you wish, for an added bonus, print out your receipt, and send it to the DNC when they ask you for money! Make sure to send it back in their postage-paid envelope!! What goes around, comes around. And the DNC is going to be getting its comeuppance for how it, they, treated Senator Clinton. This is a mighty fine way to both be empowered, and to do something positive for Senator Clinton. Go to it!

Another Bush/Obama Similarity...

His supporters. Recently, I wrote about how Obama and Bush are mirror images of each other. I would say this extends to the people who support each of them, too. Yes, I would have to say that Obama's supporters are EXACTLY like the Bush supporters from everything I have seen. For instance, Hillary Clinton has been VICIOUSLY attacked for allegedly supporting the war from the very BEGINNING of this campaign. Now, there is absolutely NO basis for that statement. There just is not. She never, ever said she supported the invasion of Iraq. In fact, she said the complete opposite. But hey - why should they bother to actually READ her speech (or listen to it, for that matter) when they can keep chanting, "She is for the War! She is HORRIBLE!" But, "Obama made a speech against the war!! He is AWESOME!" As if a speech is EXACTLY the same as a vote. As if a barely acknowledged speech by a state senator to a very select group of people should even COMPARE to the difficult decision Senator Clinton, and the other US senators, had to face. That is to say, they go on the offense lest they actually have to look at their candidate's record, attacking someone for something she did not even DO in an attempt to frame the debate. Sadly, the MSM did its part in supporting this line of attack against Hillary Clinton. Not unlike how Bush supporters claimed that all of us who opposed the war were unpatriotic, and that we HAD to go to war because of 9/11, despite the fact that not ONE of the terrorists was Iraqi, and that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. But once again, the MSM jumped on this bandwagon pushing this false attack.

Since the Obama supporters keep insisting that Clinton is a huge war monger, is there some basis for their constant refrain? Well, let's just take a look at some of what Clinton wrote in terms of the Resolution to Authorize Force: "Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak."

Huh. I didn't see anything there that screams, "Let's invade Iraq and blow the BEJSESUS out of them!!" So, what the heck else did she say that these Obamatrons are using to support this claim? Could it be this?

"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

Well, golly gee willikers, that doesn't sound like someone who is rushing to war either!! Hmmm. Maybe I just need to read this speech a little further to see just WHERE it is Obama and his minions got this idea that Senator Clinton was war crazy...

"While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise."

AHA!! There it is! She used the word "ATTACK"!!!!! Never mind that it is SURROUNDED by condition after condition!! Don't bother to read anything PRIOR to that word, or AFTER that word, and you can see, clear as a bell, why Obama has attacked her from the VERY beginning as a COMPLETE and utter war hawk!

Oh, wait, there's MORE?? Well, shoot - since we've come this far, might as well see what else that war-crazed woman said!

"I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

Just hold the phone, here - is she talking about getting the UN involved??! AGAIN?? Heck, she already mentioned them a few times, so why the heck is she involving them AGAIN here??? Good grief - what possible good could the UN do?!?! I mean, she already said that the CIA assured them there was a "clear and present danger," so why bother with the UN, getting a resolution, or even having weapons inspectors?!?! Sheesh! What a wimp!! Oh, wait - no - she is a war-monger! Obama SAID so!!!

Let's just finish this out, and see why he was SO insistent on this point! Oh, I bet it has something to do with pre-emptive invasions! Yeah, that's the ticket!!

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world."

Whaaaa???? Wait - if I can still read English correctly, it seems she is saying she does NOT want a pre-emptive invasion. That CAN'T be right, can it???

Dadgummit. There must be SOMETHING in this whole speech that screams she can't wait to rush into war against Hussein!! How else could Obama and the MSM keep claiming it was so???

All right - here is the VERY last paragraph: "So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Well, hell. OK, so she has the CIA, and the Secretary of State ASSURING the Senate, heck, the UN, and the WORLD, that Saddam Hussein had WMD. She received PERSONAL assurances from the President that he would go to war as a last resort. Her entire SPEECH is based on going to the UN, working with the world community, and against pre-emptive action. Yet, somehow, in this new Upside Down World, she, and she ALONE, is responsible for the US attacking Iraq! Wow - that's some nifty magic there!

So - clearly, Senator Clinton never supported the war flat out. Yet, Obama has gotten MAJOR traction, and major amounts of VOTERS, based on the LIE that she did.

Doesn't that sound like a Bush supporter to you??

And at No Quarter, we have seen - just in the past couple of days - instance after instance of Obama turning his back on former campaign promises (campaign finance, FISA), and yet, his supporters go through the most CONVOLUTED machinations to dismiss this blatant hypocrisy, just like Bush's supporters have done for him over the past 7 years (do I REALLY have to ennumerate all of the times and all of the ways Bush's supporters have stood up for him in the face of his numerous lies? I didn't think so, either.).

How does he get away with this? As with Bush, no matter WHAT Obama does, no matter how much fence-siitng ("Present!") or flip-flopping or flat out LIES he tells, his people will continue to march in lockstep behind him, not daring to admit to themselves that they have been had. Maybe that is the problem. Their ego is SOOOOO much more important than our country is. Or maybe they are just too invested now to admit out LOUD that they were wrong, and heck, Clinton has already started to help him, so it's too late anyway, right? Whatever their (flawed) reasoning is, they, along with Howard and Donna, have shoved Obama down our throats. That just makes me ill.

But you know what? Just like Bush being forced on to the country by a bunch of myopic, uninformed people, Obama is being forced on us by a bunch of people who are doing it for THEMSELVES, not the country, for them to feel "hip" or to assert it makes them more progressive. They are CLEARLY not looking at what he REALLY says, or what his record shows, or with whom he associates. So I, for one, along with Just Say No Deal, say No Deal. No Dice. No Way. I refuse to hear the Mea Culpas down the road from the people who were taken in by this Charlatan. Just say NO DEAL now, and spare the country another 4 years of Obama OR McCain. Really - it is in EVERYONE'S best interest. Really.

Bitter AND Clingy

OK, so maybe it's because I am older, bitter, and (yet) clingy to hope, that I just seem to have a hard time with Hillary Clinton essentially becoming Obama's handmaiden. Her site now has a place to join up for Obama as soon as you open it. That was freakin' depressing. And then there is the upcoming joint fundraiser Clinton is going to have with him. This is almost too much to bear. I sweear, this just seems to replicate what so many strong, qualified, intelligent women have had to endure for far too long now - being the Executive ASSISTANT to the lesser qualified Executive. Here she is now offering HER fundraisers and donors to the man who treated her like Pure T crap for MONTHS now. How does this HAPPEN?!?!

I guess I should have added "naive" to the list above. I naively thought the USA was better than this when it came to women. I don't know why I did. Maybe because I worked my BUTT off several decades ago for more rights for women. But I really should have known...Back then, people made an attempt at inclusive language. Not any more. Now it is "man" this, and "men" that when talking about BOTH men and women. Maybe it was getting spoiled at my seminary - Union Theological Seminary in NYC - yes, the same one where Jim Cone is a professor of Systematic Theology (and was MY professor, I might add). At Union, ALL discussions, all papers, all chapel services HAD to be in inclusive language. Why? Because language shapes our reality. It does. There is no doubt about it. But I have noticed over time that our commentators, newscasters, tv shows, movies, etc., have returned to exclusive language almost exclusively. That should have been a BIG ol' clue for me right there.

Another place where I have seen a PREPONDERANCE of exclusive language, and this has bugged the BEJESUS out of me, is in WOMEN'S SPORTS. Especially after HOW HARD we fought for Title IX, for girls and women to actually have some tangible scholastic support in athletics. I cannot TELL you how many times I have written ESPN or whoever is covering college and national soccer teams when the announcers are saying things like, "She has a MAN on and needs to get the ball away." Or, if someone is injured and off the filed, "they are playing a MAN down now." There is no MAN anywhere NEAR any of the WOMEN on that field. It is JUST as easy to say "One on" or "Player On!" or whatever. What this does is translate down to the WOMEN or girls that they are basically substitute men. That they are not quite men. That MEN are the gold standard and the women are just men-wannabes. What the heck kind of message is THIS to pass on to our young people, both men AND women?!? It shapes them - it shape US.

And it is just this kind of mindset that leaves us with the most qualified woman, hell the most qualified CANDIDATE, playing handmaiden to the lesser qualified but MALE candidate because he is male. To see Hillary having to submit to Obama is almost too much to bear. Check that - it IS too much to bear. I cannot watch this new drama unfolding, myself. (Heck, I haven't even been able to watch her speech from earlier this month.) And that is why I can only hope that as Obama becomes vetted, as his REAL stance on issues comes out, as his REAL relationship with TUCC comes out, or Rezko, or Ayers, or, oh, you know them all - I'll spare you, comes out, that the Superdelegates will FINALLY come to their senses and realize there is only ONE Democrat who can take back the White House, and that is the one who created all of the policy ideas herself, who knows the issues facing people, who is CONCERNED with solving the real problems that face us, and who WILL get us out of Iraq without all of the doublespeak and backpedaling on EVERY single position. Hey, it can happen!! I am CLINGING to that hope - that their eyes will be opened, and they will see; that their ears will be opened and they will hear (to paraphrase Matthew 13:9). I have to cling to that belief, because the alternative is untenable to me. I cannot stand to watch this great woman be subjugated to this man. So, I will bitterly cling to, and hope for, a revelation to the Powers-That-Be to do the right thing, and to right things, in Denver.

I still believe, I still HOPE, that Hillary Can Rise...

Such Associates...

As noted previously, I live in SC. And my state representative is none other than James Clyburn. Yes, that James Clyburn - the turncoat who stabbed the Clintons - both of them - repeatedly in the back. His traitorous behavior began shortly before the SC primary when he jumped on the "Bill Clinton is a racist" bandwagon for highlighting that Obama's claims regarding the Iraq War were simply a "fairy tale." Clyburn, rather than getting the back of the president titled America's first black president by none other than Toni Morrison, suggested he "chill out," never ONCE acknowledging that what Bill Clinton said was TRUE!! And he just went down from there as the primary season continued, concluding with throwing his superdelegate support to Obama (now THERE was a surprise - it doesn't take a genius to see that was where he was heading. His "neutral" stance was JUST as "neutral" as Donna Brazille's, and we ALL know how THAT went...). Clyburn's support of Obama is considered quite the big deal since Clyburn is the Chair of the Black Caucus, the House Majority Whip, and is quite influential in the Congress. Hence what made his comments about Clinton all the worse, in my opinion (how DO the Clintons sleep at night with all the knives sticking out of their backs?!).

So why am I bringing up Jim Clyburn (besides the opportunity to say HE will never get my vote again, either)? Because our local paper, the Post and Courier, just had a VERY interesting story about him on Monday. Here's the title, and this should give you a big ol' clue: "Rep. Clyburn Draws Fire For Earmarks." Now, I will say that I often look at these pieces with a critical eye because FAR too often, Democrats have gotten more scrutiny on their budgetary requests than Republicans. But when I read it, I could see that maybe, just maybe, they have a point. The research was done by the Myrtle Beach Sun Times (and I'll go ahead and spare you the suspense - Clyburn's office would NOT return their calls on these matters). All statistics below come from the above-referenced Post and Courier article. For starters, Clyburn had $38.8 million in earmarks budgeted, compared to the $45.5 million in earmarks of ALL other SC elected officials COMBINED. But wait- it gets BETTER!!! Guess who were some of the beneficiaries of his budgetary largesse? Just guess! Did you guess CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS??? If so, you WIN!! That's right!! Here we go: Clyburn got $784,000 for the design and planning of the African American Museum in Charleston. And one of the lead architects WAS? His NEPHEW!!! But, of COURSE!!!! The same one for whom he had $145,000 set aside for a community center in 2005. Yep! This one is good, and another two-fer: Clyburn set aside $990,000 for a Wellness Center in 2003, and has appropriated $229,000 for this year. Coincedentally (cough, choke), his daughter is the Marketing and Membership Director there! Next up, the South Sumter Resource Center. This year, it got $282,000. That is in addition to the $670,000 it has gotten in the past. His sister-in-law is the Housing Coordinator for the Community Development Division. How CONVENIENT!!!! Wowie zowie, no WONDER Citizens Against Government Waste once named him "Porker of the Month!" Know WHY he got that "distinction"? Because he earmarked $3 million, that is $3 MILLION, from MILITARY spending for a golf course named for him! Yes, he did. His "logic"? Military people would get good use of it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Isn't that a RIOT?!?! Military people would be using the GOLF course so instead of appropriating the money for, oh, I dunno, BULLET PROOF VESTS or something, he puts it into a GOLF course named for him!!!! Holy freakin' COW!!! So, this is the man, the backstabbing turncoat, who is one of Obama's BIG supporters!! Hmmm - seems like much of the other company Obama keeps to me.

Oh, one last thing about all of these earmarks. SC has one of the WORST educational systems in the COUNTRY. (Hey, don't look at me - I grew up in NC when public schools were still really, really good!) So, it makes PERFECT sense that money should be going to all of these family-related projects rather than toward the HORRIBLE eduactional system here. Right? Yeah. Sure. Right. So proud of my representative - not hardly. (OK, ok, I am sure these projects help some people OTHER than his immediatefamily, but really...)

Wow - What Timing...(Correction)

Ahem. So NOW these women want to do something about the blatant sexism and misogyny that has been RAMPANT for the past 18 months? and pick up on some of the issues Clinton addressed?? Yeah, Okay. Whatever. Here's an action from Clinton Democrats to a bunch of women Demcoratic Senators who figured that now it was SAFE enough to do so, they will speak up. Grrrr.

Dear Clinton Dem,

Today Senator Barbara Mikulski joined Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to announce their "Checklist for Change," a list of ten issues Congress can immediately address to improve the lives of the American people. They include: providing equal pay for equal work, keeping jobs in America, making health care affordable, taking care of our military families and veterans, restoring America's credibility in the world, protecting our environment, making America energy independent, preparing for future disasters, enforcing fiscal accountability and protecting the family checkbook. This is a blatant pander - a "checklist" of hot button items to women.

Call me cynical, but this sudden urge to "do something" about issues most important to women strikes me as "just words."

___________________________________________________

Please phone these leaders and tell them if they really care about the concerns of women they should stand up and endorse Hillary Clinton. If they care about equal rights and equal treatment that they should stand up against sexism in the Democratic party. If they care about women's rights they should investigate the treatment of Hillary Clinton by the media. If they care about reforming healthcare, they should help Hillary Clinton get into the White House. If they care about keeping jobs in America, they should not be endorsing the guy that once again has flip-flopped on NAFTA.

Specifically ask Senator McCaskill "Why, after accepting approximately $500,000 from Emily's List did you feel no obligation to back the more qualified female candidate for President?"

Sen. Klobuchar accepted roughly $300,000 from Emily's List. Why didn't she endorse Hillary?

Sen. Boxer was mum during this whole primary season. Why the sudden concern about women's issues now? Senator Boxer launched an investigation into the horrific treatment of the Dixie Chicks after one of them publicly criticized Bush. Where is that outrage about the treatment Hillary has received? Where is the investigation?

NOT ONE OF THEM called out the media for the sexism!

Here is a video Link. http://video.aol.com/video-detail/womens-checklist-for-change/1547201665

1. Senator Klobuchar
1200 Washington Avenue South, Suite 250
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Main Line: 612-727-5220


2. Senator McCaskill,St. Louis
5850 A Delmar Blvd
St. Louis, MO 63112
Phone:314-367-1364

3. Senator Debbie Stabenow
221 W. Lake Lansing Road, Suite 100
East Lansing, MI 48823
Phone: (517) 203-1760

4. Senator Mikulski
503 Hart Office Building, Washington D.C., 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4654

5. Senator Mary Landrieu
Washington, DC
Voice: (202)224-5824


6. Senator Boxer
Washington, D.C.
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3553

Los Angeles
312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1748
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-5000


7. Senator Cantwell - Address Corrections
915 Second Ave. Ste 3206
Seattle, Washington 98174
Phone: (206) 220-6400

511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3441

* special thanks to Jennifer Lee for work on this.

Keep Fighting!

"I also think it is important for women to help one another.

I have a saying: There is a special place in hell for women who don't"

~ Madeline Albright

MidWest Flooding - UPDATED WITH CLARIFICATION

I received the following letter today (via SusanUNPC at NoQuarter). With the author's permission, I am sharing it here. I am leaving it to Christopher, the author, to share my response to him (in the Comments section), should he so desire. But his letter is the point here, and I do not wish to diminish that in any way (it is reprinted as he wrote it with a few typo corrections, nothing that alters the substance of the letter, though):

Rev. Amy,

I write this letter through tears. Tears of empathy for those suffering in Iowa form the flooding. I am watching a report on the news of people in Iowa who have lost everything that are going back into their homes to find nothing worth saving.

I have seen this before. I was in the outer zone of impact from hurricane Katrina; Baton Rouge. I donated money and clothing, as did my family; poor as they are, they shared what they had.

During hurricane Rita, my spousal equivalent and I hosted four complete strangers, who were unrelated to each other, in our home for almost a week. My spouse's company sent out a memo, asking people in Baton Rouge to host employees from Houston who had nowhere to go. The employees could continue to work in the office in Baton Rouge, if they chose to do so, guaranteeing them a paycheck and a distraction.

The company was closed the day of the hurricane. We all huddled around the TV until we lost power. Then we listened to the radio by candle light. As Rita pounded Lake Charles and the state line between Texas and Louisiana , Baton Rougeans could only give thanks that we were not directly in the in the path of Rita's destruction and pray for those who were.

As our guests watched the houses around us lose half the shingles on their roofs and trees have their leaves blown off like one would blow to make a wish on a dandelion, we could see the palpable fear in their faces. Assurances that our house withstood Katrina's winds rang hollow. Several retreated to my two person prae dieu kneeler to pray, others sought privacy to cry themselves to sleep through the nightmare.

After the winds died down and the power was restored, everyone in the house breathed a collective sigh of relief. The reality of having to return to Houston through the destruction left by Rita sank in. The strangers, who were now inextricably joined together as a family, quietly packed their few belongings, gave us tearful goodbyes along with heartfelt words of appreciation, then headed out into the unknown.

Flash forward to today. The Midwest has been pounded by merciless tornadoes incessant flooding and an unfortunate loss of life. Not to mention those who have been displaced. Somehow the MSM and the politicians think it is business as usual, much like they did during Katrina and Rita. Where is the outrage, where is the empathy?

Has America become so desensitized to suffering that we just can't turn off our political minds for a few days to concentrate on our fellow (hu)man(s) and his or her needs right now? Is it because the victims are predominately white? CLARIFICATION HERE: What I was attempting to say in an inarticulate manner that really came off badly from my point of view, was: is Washington delaying their reaction so as to not offend the Katrina victims, in some sort of warped parity, they don’t want to be seen as rushing to the aid of whites? It will be the same amount of time that Bush visits Thursday as it was when he visited N.O. Am I just cynical and distrusting?

An example of this is the two emails I received from Al Gore and Howard Dean (Christopher had the two emails attached to his email - if anyone has NOT seent hem and wants to, let me know, and I'll post them in the Comments section). Why is the Global Warming Czar more concerned about Barack Obama's needs than those of America's heartland? Why is Howard Dean more concerned about sounding the alarm bells about the way John McCain raises campaign funds than sounding the alarm bells on human suffering?

I have yet to officially leave the Democratic Party but, I have, as you know, let them know where I stand and requested them to never contact me again.

My question to you is: what do I do? How do let them know that these actions are nauseating, not to mention morally reprehensible and indefensible? How do I send them a clear message?

Thank you for your time, and for your blog. I await your reply and humbly remain,

Sincerely yours,

Christopher
BlueDawgDemocrat

I concur with Christopher that there has been BLESSED little said by either politicians or political parties on the devestating flooding moving from state to state to state, at this point. Updated: I think there is a temendous disconnect between the majority of politicians and the people in this country. The politicians, and political parties, seem so removed from people's DAILY lives that when something of this magnitude happens, they have a difficult time comprehending the magnitude of these natural occurrences for these people. (Along those lines, remember when Bush talked mostly about being able to return Senator Lott's repaired home while people were literally without food and water?? Uh, yeah. Just to prove my point...)

Thank you, Christopher, for writing, and for sharing your story with me (and now, us). I appreciate your expressions of empathy, compassion, sadness, and anger, about this very important issue.