The Conflict Between God and State

By

Sarge

December 7, 1941. February 26, 1993. September 11, 2001: days to live in infamy. November 5, 2009: another anniversary created to commemorate a terrible crime.

Fort Hood, Texas. Doctor Nidal Malik Hasan, M.D. United States Army Major killed 13 people and wounding 30 more. What can be said? What’s understandable about spilling the blood of young people doing no more than preparing to do their jobs, serve their country and hoping to return from harm’s way safely, at some time in the future. They were gunned down in their own country by a member of their own ranks. The shooter is a man taught from the foundation of rational thought and Hippocratic ethics: to first; DO NO HARM. But his faith tells him he can’t raise arms against other Muslims. He was going overseas as a military officer, possibly in a combat zone. There’s his dilemma.

It all starts as a bifurcated tap root of schizophrenic development of the American Dream. America developed on the premise of religious and ideological freedom. We’ve welcomed any and all to stand beneath the American Flag and announce proudly to the world: I AM AMERICAN and I AM FREE! We experienced the hope of seeing our nation rise from the base of personal ethical discovery and knowledge. Who could ever know the same thoughts concerning religious freedom, the foundational support our faith offers, could be so badly flawed in practice.

America was originally settled and conquered by people proclaiming themselves Christians. Christianity was to be accepted or rejected in the manner delivered. If rejected the unaligned would be shunned and cast out from his prevailing society. From this intolerance came dissent and the mobility of men and women searching the horizons for the right to practice their faith without governmental interference.

So what does it all mean? It points toward a fundamental problem man has with his priorities; “what comes first: my God or my country?”

Country, society, realm, fatherland and motherland, nation state: these all lend thoughts of safety, nurturance, community, family, compatriotism. Religion, belief, creed; conviction to doctrine, ideology, dogma: these all lend thoughts of reward in a future time, in the afterlife. One denotes a place we live in daily. The other portends a place we seek as a reward for obedience, supplication, sometimes rigid and stern compliance to the teachings of the dogma some find foreign.

But because it’s foreign to you or me; is it necessarily wrong? Can we see there can be controversy between the practitioner and the practice; the recorded doctrine and the hands-on practice of the faith? Christians have spoken of peace while lighting pyres to burn native people. Do we condemn all Christians for those acts of hypocrisy? Do we question the sanity of anybody believing the recorded texts teaching his foundational beliefs?

Or do we read the religious dogma and accept it strictly as written? If we do that we must accept Islam as a religion of narrow beliefs accepting NO deviation from the recorded texts read by all followers of Allah. In many passages Mohammed states enemies must be destroyed, subjugated and/or killed for non-acceptance of the word of Allah. The Koran is literal. There is only ONE accepted text. Nobody is allowed an interpretation of the text. Anybody doing this can be pronounced an unbeliever and sanctioned by the faith-sometimes the sanction is death.

Belief of this sort is begun, at the dawn of time and from the birth of civilization, to be the constructive ethics of mankind. There’s nothing new to be found. It’s all been said before but in different ways and explained from differing viewpoints. Thoughts have developed, changed, morphed, expired, been resurrected, grown and died again as ideas always do.

It’s what we do, and how we act on those thoughts that matters most.

The Koran is very strict, formally constructed and demanding of narrow adherence to what was first spoken, and then written, transcripts of Mohammed as prophet of Allah. Fundamentalist adherents to this dogma are very literal. But do they differ that much from Fundamentalist Christian or Jews demanding adamantly that we adhere to the recorded teachings of the King James Version of the Bible or the Torah?

Until now there’s been a very strong correlation between the ethics espoused by faith based operations and the governments created under the cover of those teachings. One will follow the other closely for the most part: except in America where we’re supposedly Americans first and followers of our religious tenets second. We’re supposed to respect, and accept, the belief systems of others if only because we hope to get what we give.

In this country we expect the understanding religious freedom is a secondary gift, in the form of an articulated and recognized right because there can be no religious freedom unless under the umbrella of a free and open government. Fundamentalist teaching and adherence to religious principle of any kind doesn’t accept this concept. There is also NO one, state-approved religion in America.

God comes into conflict with the State.

So what does a nation do: especially a nation proclaiming inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If a Muslim want s to serve his fellow Muslims in a religious capacity can he be refused the right if he places his God’s teachings before an Oath of Office? I’m not sure whether it’s the State or God that loses out.

But no matter the loser; man, and state, will suffer a consequence.

Thanks for listening

Where we are (and how we got here) VI

By

Sarge

Progressivism is the present administration’s program. Progressivism is an ideological movement advocating reforms to systems based on more liberal, egalitarian economic policies. This is done through public management as opposed to private enterprise. It doesn’t allow for restriction, censorship or development of practically tested practices versus ideas and theories. It’s the ideological opposite of Conservativism.

Progressivism has infected many operations within the present government structure. As was pointed out, it was really pushed for in the latter part of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. The question arises: why?

The American Republic’s success was becoming apparent and our esteem across the world grew; the muscular flexion of our economic arms impressed the Old World-we defined the new. We gained newer insights. We produced thinkers believing themselves the equal of the ancient greats. We challenged conventional thought and theory. Thought was pushed from back in our consciousness to the forefront of politics. We threw down our philosophical gauntlet to be taken up or pitiably backed away from. Those we cowed into submission surrendered to the new-found power of our economic, political and social intellect.  Unfortunately we started believing our own press-releases.

Wilson and Roosevelt refined the effort at the removal of the American people from their beloved Constitution. It was a practical effort designed to improve their presidential status and bolster their presidential ideas and ideals for what they believed best for any governed people. Peoples’ hearts and minds would surely follow (in their self-esteemed estimation) after it was explained what benefits could be derived by sacrificing minor liberties in order to have the government provide for them.

It’s not difficult to gain the support of a hungry man by giving him a cookie. But a cookie may be non- nutritive. As this occurred during the later stages of the Industrial Revolution, the drive was to “share” the wealth and continue the growth in directions better able to assure the continuation of the growth. In other words the politics became the drive and then the goal and then the reward. Personalities overpowered the issues, and worse, the less spoken of and concealed agenda of getting the people to serve the government rather than the other way around.

But, Progressives reject the understanding that history is cyclic. What goes around comes around. Wars come and go. Poverty waxes and wanes. People progress and regress in attitudes and drives; in ideas and ideals. Viewpoints change and evolve.

But Politicians don’t change. They find the benefit and capitalize on it first. Then, when it’s shown there’s adequate profit to spread among the people, they legislate the spread of your hard-earned share (no matter how small) to those not working for their own piece of the pie. The thought is: “better to have a small piece for everybody”. This is after they took their own pie to be consumed only by their families.

Interestingly, this all starts on a theoretical level. Idealists, better educated and schooled members of society can sit around the table, debate and postulate and think and ponder concerning the greater mysteries of life. The elite meet, greet and start the effete posturing allowing themselves positions of self-centered, self-importance. They know best because they say they do.

You must go to work. Your world’s based on the practical aspects of economics. How many man-hours worked equals how many food bags you buy at the grocery store each week  How long must you save to afford the new (or newer used car) guaranteeing you’ll get to work to earn the money to buy those groceries? Arguments about “trickle-down” economics and “micro-versus-macroeconomic theories” have no real place in your realities. Theories don’t buy Christmas presents or a warm coat in the winter.

When you consider it’s always some dude or gal in a very expensive suit telling you to tighten your belt so everybody gets clean hand-me-downs-it generates anger. Having a theoretically based, experience challenged and deficient social scientist spreading your meager holdings to people not trying as hard as you do; feels unfair.

So: what are you going to do about it?

Where we are (and how we got here) V

By

Sarge

We’ve covered where we are. Let’s discuss how we got here.

America was founded on the principle of freedom from unjust political control empowered by a Parliament rejecting the colonist participation in Parliament. Add the dangers and consequences of extended travel plus the extended time involved and a powder keg was fitted with a fuze soon lit by circumstances. A revolution ensued. It was a revolution approved of by the majority of people in the colonies.

When the war was done and the business of developing a government representative of the masses as well as the gentry started, interesting things happened. Tempers flared. Alliances were tested. The battle for a government defined by the nobility of man’s best intentions was fought over. There was settlement, if not accord.

We chose a representative form of government removed from Democracy. We found the Republic to be the best format where we select representatives, then send them to a central location to DO OUR BIDDING. To define the establishment of our new nation we wrote a constitution and defined a separation of powers where no one political subdivision overshadowed the power of the others. Or, at least that’s what the idea was at the time. It was a novel approach to government as it was viewed at the time. But, we immediately removed ourselves from the arena of self-government.

The adage: absence makes the heart grow fonder doesn’t apply where it concerns government. Absence breeds license and that lack of control can allow for a lack of responsibility by the electorate’s failure or inability to supervise the representative.

Because of the (then) predominantly rural nature of our country, information transfer was a slow process. The wheeling and dealing was done behind closed doors, over dinner and drinks and in the smoke-filled rooms alluded to in history. The public took it for granted their elected representatives had integrity and a sense of honor emblematic of their positions. The public traded the responsibility and theory of self-determination for the convenience of representative government. The problem was the removal of the elected from their supervisors. “While the cat’s away the mice will play” is a very apropos metaphor.

America has gone through more specific incidences and examples of political chicanery and hocus-pocus than we readily admit. The malfeasance of elected officials has been so rampant as to become expected. And that’s wrong-headed thinking. It’s also understood that just because we expect an action doesn’t mean we should accept and condone it because “boys/girls will be…” Criminal actions are still criminal and this nation was founded on the premise no one citizen was better than the next.

The electorate was displaced from the active participation, with and control of, Congress and other elected officials. The excuse was; Washington is too far away, or it’s hard to get in touch with the official or it’s no use because they never listen. Other times, people say the elected represent them perfectly, that there’s no dispute in the representation. But the question begs answering: if your candidate lost, do YOU have representation?

Mob action was once the fear of the leader found wanting. People with issues had no problem with taking direct action. Think of the term: to “Tar and Feather”. You’ll understand the basis of such fears. But now there’s no fear politicians need to be discomfited by.

When a seated President can commit perjury in Federal Court Proceedings and Records then appear before Congress for Impeachment and receive no more than publicized censure, you understand politicians take care of politicians and the control of this country NO LONGER rests within the reach of the people.

Or, does it?

Today we’re riding the crest of a communication tsunami. We have instantaneous communication of events as they occur. We have the Internet, Twitter, E-mails, Telephony, Telegraphy, Micro-pulse Communication, Fiber Optic transfers and Microwave Telemetry. Because of this we can no longer claim ignorance, unless that ignorance is through our choice to be uninformed.

The media can be used to the public’s advantage as much as for self-serving, elitist political agendas. But it requires your participation.

Thanks for listening

Where we are (and how we got here) IV

By

Sarge

Trying to shred the Constitution has been an accepted pastime since the Madison Administration. A populist democracy has approached plutocracy with two political parties and associated families comprising the majestic masses and collected parliamentary imitators. Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kerry, Lodge, Bush, Clinton et al, are some of the names come to mind. Government has become the selected way to gain power without actually being good at handling it.

Go to a good college/university and graduate. Join the right clubs. Make the right connections. Spend time working in private industry. It doesn’t mean you must be hired to work; you can work for the family trust or any other family held company. It’s immaterial whether or not you’re good at it.

When you feel the moment is propitious: run for public office. Anything above the rank of Elected Cat Wrangler will suffice. If your family has the chops go for the State Legislature. They lend a level of participatory élan to the equation; the higher the better.

Align yourself with popular, liberal based issues prevalent in your area and schmooze your way into the forefront: you know – where the cameras are? Learn to mug sincerity while explaining the effects of Global Warming on Nepalese Blue-gilled Crimson Throated Flea-herders and how it breaks your heart nobody else understands their plight.

But, to recognize a real Progressive he/she will be on the front lines supporting environmental concerns, pollution abatement, same-sex marriage, governmentally controlled health care, abortion, abolition of the death penalty and other socially significant projects only they know how to cure. While many of these causes’ proponents have no real expertise in the field, they do have an opinion and NO problem broadcasting at its highest volume whenever possible. Being a celebrity scores extra points.

The group’s nature is elitist; the participants surreal: Al Gore championing Global Warming Awareness and garnering a Nobel Prize? If there were no energy credits/vouchers to be sold and profited from; would he still be in the hunt? Madonna adopting African children to offer them “hope and change” leading to a better life? Maybe a twenty million dollar check to relief organizations might better do the job. Oh yeah. Feeding the kid a hot dog occasionally is cheaper than doing something truly meaningful. Does Barack Obama taking middle-class money, then re-distributing it according to only his list of those proven worthy make him the newest American Messiah? The redistribution of other people’s wealth is nothing new. But, accomplishing it at today’s levels and claiming the impact to the national debt will be negligible is shocking. Why didn’t we see it his way earlier? Obviously because what a politician says “ain’t necessarily so“.

Kennedy v. Nixon was the first media influenced example of “media driven selection”. The media got “Played”. Kennedy did it with Cuban cigar smoke and mirrors and having an adversary who wasn’t as physically attractive as he.  Jimmy Carter came out of nowhere, took the nomination from George Wallace and the presidency from Gerald Ford. Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon killed his chances more than Carter’s wooden personality. Ronald Reagan, a “once was” actor but a supreme communicator when it came to debate and press conferences displaced Carter. George H.W. Bush had the personality of a Trout. Bill Clinton was more a liar and a perjurer than a simple womanizer. And George W. Bush presented himself as a hand-warmer for Cheney, who appeared to pull Bush’s strings more efficiently than George the 44^th could speak. The media broadcast these political mishaps merrily.

Assuming a man is qualified to be president just because he’s in the running is wrong. The fact is: anybody can buy the job with sufficient money, the best PR program and the best media presentation. Barack Obama’s media maven Anita Dunn admitted they controlled the media during his presidential campaign. Recorded, live interviews show he’s not the polished, off-the-cuff orator he’s advertised to be.

All this shows it takes no talents of statesmanship to get the job. Many of Obama’s predecessors have behaved as no more than place holders until a true statesman comes along.

Thanks for listening

Where we are (and how we got here) III

By

Sarge

Theodore Roosevelt felt government should be active in the construction and development of economic equality by overseeing the use of private property. He believed private property rights kept a leash on some of his more aggressive policy proposals. Private property was acceptable as long as government said its social usefulness was acceptable.

Roosevelt said: “we grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. This, I know, implies a policy of a far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions in this country than we have yet had, but I think we have got to face the fact that such an increase in governmental control is now necessary.”

Does that sound familiar? Ask Joe the Plumber.

Governmental erosion of the rights of the common man has occurred far longer than the 2008 election. Barack Obama is no more than another egoist knowing better what’s good for you than you’re aware.

Progressivism is encumbered by rampant bureaucracy. Under Progressive movements municipal administrations became stratified. More and more layers were added to cover greater numbers of contingencies. The more laws/regulations/codifications to be enforced: the greater the number of enforcers necessary. Systems became more structured with greater and more specific specialization. The more paper needing processing, the more processors were necessary. Ultimately it was accepted “experts” were necessary to oversee the “professional” bureaucrats of the system.

Professional administrators were certified as experts. This was in the belief a centralized control must have traceable credentials and accreditation to prove the validity of the system. The elite certified the elite in elitist behavior and performance. Power was removed from (allegedly) practically experienced supervisors and transferred to “administrators” felt better suited to control and attest to the meeting of “certified” performance standards. This all pre-supposes the “administrators, experts and bureaucrats” had any more working knowledge of ethics than the politically appointed and possibly corrupt hacks originally there. When a job is on the line, performance enhancement comes flooding under the door in unbelievable waves.

Now we have Progressive ideas in Education. Jimmy Carter, a man moving toward Alzheimeric irrelevancy at the speed of light, developed the Department of Education as a Cabinet level post. Since then, we’ve been guided by “experts, administrators and theorists” earning a living studying the educational needs of children. Not a one of them teaches, but they know best what a teacher should teach. That’s why we’re behind many third world nations in math and the sciences – Department of Education leadership. Think mindless Lemmings wondering where the cliff came from as they slam into the rocks below.

School administrators now spend more time assuring teachers are getting the lesson plans completed. But, we didn’t need No Child Left Behind to understand administrators needed supervision as much as classroom teachers. The Department of Education is a duplicative waste of taxpayer money and time. It’s easily replaced by School Board members patrolling the schools and parents patrolling the activities of the School Board members. It’s simple sense to recognize people may try proving the shortest distance between two points is a working angle. Understanding that, citizen participation can be the controller of all things bureaucratic.

Citizen participation/activism is scaring the pajamas off of the present administration. The outright challenge, the gauntlet thrown by common men and women demanding their government be responsive to them and their demands has politicians like Barack Obama flummoxed.

Americans tend to accept what politicians say as gospel. Because it takes a college education and a heavy bank account, it’s been assumed candidates have elevated levels of integrity when it’s no guarantee they have any. The assumption, because a large public relations firm advertises you as a “good guy”, doesn’t necessarily make it so. But that’s the way we’ve been. And, that’s the reason they are as they are. It’s also how and why WEare where WEare at.

Thanks for listening

Where we are (and how we got here) II

By

Sarge

Some people have implied country folk aren’t interested or educated enough to understand what I talk about. Some suggest “nobody ever went bust underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” I say kiss whatever part of me leaves the room last. My readers are neither unintelligent nor uninterested in their world. I believe they’ve been under-educated, under-appreciated and unbelievably misled by those commanding the educational process. Over the course of this series I’ll try to express myself logically. You can decide if it makes sense or not.

When America was an upstart pup on the political playground, our greatest minds argued what’s best for the country. We created a Constitution replacing weak Articles of Confederation. We strengthened the bonds between diverse cultures in the various states. Customs and regional traditions differed fundamentally. Agriculture based viewpoints were in marked contrast to Industrial based areas. The economic forces brought into play (one area versus another) created conflicting, contentious attitudes.

The founding fathers wanted a strong, centralized government, but developed it by balancing the Federal Courts and The Executive Branch responsible for enforcing the legislated acts of the Congress. The fathers wanted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to bolster the individuals’ rights “to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. They understood government could grow, become administration top-heavy and forget the most important member of the government – the common man. After all, the colonists had divested themselves of an uncaring, out of touch monarch and parliament thinking itself above the people and therefore not acceptant of the colonists’ participation. Sound familiar?

In the latter parts of the 19^th and earliest periods of the 20^th Centuries a political theory appeared. It was called Progressivism. Progressivism pushed the theory that while the founding fathers knew then what they wanted: modern society required the government evolve and become adaptive. It should change with the times; taking on whatever role necessary to serve the needs of the government and filter this to the individual.

The Progressives believed the Constitution limited the government’s scope and ability to serve the people. Woodrow Wilson, a noted proponent of Progressive Policies in Government, said “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.” It was Progressives’ drive to disregard the Constitution to more easily control the government.

The Progressives didn’t like the notion of the Separation of Powers. Men like Woodrow Wilson; highly educated and ego-inflated, believed the best way to expand the role of government was to enhance the powers of the president. It allowed him to control ALL that needed controlling in government. This was accomplished by the use of politics and media to advance the agenda. Wilson pointed out that the president was the popular leader of national politics and the only man able to speak for the people. He developed public opinion to move all of the branches of government in a direction “demanded by the people”. We witnessed the birth of “government by public opinion poll.” It didn’t matter Wilson’s opinion was the only one heard. The media wasn’t as speedy as it is now.

In 1912 Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt ran for President against the Socialist candidate Eugene Debs. Debs, never a powerful candidate, stole votes from Roosevelt and Wilson won the election. Wilson didn’t really oppose Socialism but felt it was a low-class operation espousing the rights of all men, without regard to race, color or other ethnicity factor. Wilson, an elitist, patrician son of the confederacy rode to victory with the help of black voters whom he betrayed. When the blacks complained, he told them if they didn’t like it they should work to change it, knowing full well they couldn’t. The hubris was rife.

Wilson’s 1887 essay “Socialism and Democracy” pointed out his feelings that Socialism “proposes that all limitations of public authority by individual rights be put out of view.” He defined Socialism as “unfettered state power” trumping all notions of individual rights. He further stated “no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the state may not cross at will.”

Can you see where this is going?

Thanks for listening

Where we are (and how we got here)

By

Sarge

History: n. the past events of a period in time or in the life or development of a people, an institution or a place or the chronological account of past events of a period or in the life or development of a people, an institution, or a place (Encarta Dictionary-Microsoft edition)

The elements of political history when properly mixed, and then allowed to do their alchemical magic, create some strange compounds. For example, in America, we want self-sufficiency, self-determination and the right to excel as individuals. We want success based on labors bringing the sweat to our brows. We want the temper of the mettle in our spines recognized. We want the chance to exceed others’ wildest dreams and win based on no more than our drive and courage. We want to climb our personal Alps, sail the Seven Seas in ridiculously small sized crafts, leap tall buildings in a single bound: you name it we want it.

But we still want oversight of our most basic products before they come to us for consumption. We want FDA approval of our medicines and foods. We want Board of Education oversight of what’s taught our young. We want mandates and enforcement of codified qualities concerning the air we breathe, the water we drink, the ground on which we stand. We want it turned into something measurably and articulately described and managed for our benefit as long as nobody intrudes upon, crosses the boundaries of, or encroaches on the sovereignty of the domains we personally control. “Oversight and management are for the other guys. Not me. You can trust me. Honest.”

This attitude has overtaken us in national politics. Many people think the landscape of the American political plain was altered with the election of Barack Obama. It isn’t so.

It happened long before this ever got to the stage it’s at now. It started with the beginnings of the nation. Go back to 1780. The development of the first free nation since the birth of Democracy: the first democratic government to stand boldly before the monarchies of the old world and say in its infantile but self-assured manner: “I will stand, I will not fail and I will lead the world.”

And over the years we’ve come to do it. But it wasn’t without costs.

We’ve battled our way from a loosely knit Colonial Confederation to Federalism to Republicanism to whatever the heck we are now: growing Socio/Communism displacing Capitalist/Republicanism? Have we displaced Monarchy in favor of a fat-cat populated Plutocracy: a government controlled by the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class? Has American Progressivism; the theory based and performance challenged political calling supplanted the Constitution by making it a “living thing” and by pronouncing it such, a more heavily strained ideal forced into acceptance by people who must assure American Ideals become “One size fits all?” Does American Progressivism really allow for the best of America to step to the fore? Or, does it make it easier to accept bad behaviors and mediocrity as the norm simply because we must “understand” the other peoples’ point of view.

In order to find the answers we’ve got to ask the questions. We’ve got to ask the questions without fear of getting answers we don’t like. Like the inconvenient truth alluded to on biased accounts of global warming, there are inconvenient facts begging recognition whether political leaders like it or not. But, more importantly, the average American citizen needs to understand where we started, where we’ve been, possibly where we’re headed and then decide if that’s a road we really don’t want to travel.

History can also be defined as a jewel in Humanity’s Crown. Like any jewel it’s faceted, multi-surfaced and a pleasure to behold when held up to inspection under the right circumstance.  But, during that inspection it must be held up in a true light to judge its blemishes and imperfections in the cut, as there will always be some.

History can never be revisionist. It can only be viewed from another facet and angle of truth exposing the reality within.

Thanks for listening

Ham handed censorship

By

Sarge

The more I watch the Obama Administration, the more I understand why Limbaugh and Beck make so much money.

With Anita Dunn commanding the assault on Fox News, I must question the intelligence of anybody boycotting their critics. They refuse to address the foes’ questions to avoid legitimizing these peoples’ insights.

Dunn says Fox News is “a wing of the Republican Party”. She continues: “they take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network like CNN is”. Is this the same CNN that takes Democratic Party talking points, put them on the air; take their research, put them on the air etc.

The Democratic Party manipulated media has soft-balled Obama’s organization since he first appeared and clubbed Hillary Clinton into submission at the Democratic Party Convention. CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC immediately started fawning over the FIRST viable Democratic candidate of color in history to come along. The prostitution of the media has been evident for a long time.

I was only eight years old but I remember the Kennedy v. Nixon Campaign in 1960. The liberal, good-looking, highly marketable white knight was ideally suited to vanquish the heavy- jawed, beady-eyed challenger more reminiscent of the gnome under the bridge. Based on superior campaign coverage orchestrated by the then three networks we saw the birth of a political fable. They’ve called Kennedy’s administration the American Camelot. The similarities to Obama’s meteoric rise to power are unnerving.

Ms. Dunn, the American people are not so stupid we can’t see what you all hope to accomplish: the censorship, through benign rejection of access, of a major player in the opposition press. It would be comical (if it wasn’t so blatantly stupid to witness) that this is what you’re trying to do. You want to assure nobody you disapprove of asks any question you don’t approve of.  Videotape records history, it doesn’t direct it as we now know you have in the past.

In spite of your belief the American public is easily herded, some of us do stray from the herd to test the pastures alongside the beaten path. I, for one, watch CNN. I watch MSNBC. I watch NBC, ABC, and BBC and even have a link to Al-Jazeera and fourteen other major news outlets both print and broadcast. I have found one thing to be of major interest: all, other than Al-Jazeera, the BBC and Fox News, are nearly cut and paste copies of each other. So, Ms. Dunn, why should I believe anything you say or do to get me to avoid Fox News? You combat no challenges with reason.

George Stephanopoulos ABC News, defined a tax, from a major dictionary, to Obama. Obama deflected the comment and challenged Stephanopoulos’ understanding of the health care proposition. He said it was faulty. Stephanopoulos sought to define the word TAX to prove the health care proposal wasn’t without costs. Obama NEVER addressed the issue honestly because he couldn’t. We, the American people witnessed this.

Fact: the definition of a TAX is: n. a contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government -2. A fee or dues levied on the members of a group to meet its expenses. (The American Heritage College Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin 2004)(Italics are mine.)

If the Obama Administration has its way, the English Language will change (to the advantage of the Democratic Party) to advance self-serving Group Speak. These ham-handed efforts at censorship do the members of the Democratic Party NO service other than to place themselves squarely in the middle of the herd while walking the chosen path of the herdsmen.

That path doesn’t lead along the Yellow Brick Road but down a political Chisholm Trail leading to a holding pen and what could be a political slaughterhouse as it pertains to people’s sensibilities concerning the conduct of their government.

Ms. Dunn, you can’t stop us from hearing opposing views just because YOU say we’re not allowed to hear them. Maybe you learned this from Mao?

Thanks for listening

Ham handed censorship

By

Sarge

The more I watch the Obama Administration, the more I understand why Limbaugh and Beck make so much money.

With Anita Dunn commanding the assault on Fox News, I must question the intelligence of anybody boycotting their critics. They refuse to address the foes’ questions to avoid legitimizing these peoples’ insights.

Dunn says Fox News is “a wing of the Republican Party”. She continues: “they take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network like CNN is”. Is this the same CNN that takes Democratic Party talking points, put them on the air; take their research, put them on the air etc.

The Democratic Party manipulated media has soft-balled Obama’s organization since he first appeared and clubbed Hillary Clinton into submission at the Democratic Party Convention. CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC immediately started fawning over the FIRST viable Democratic candidate of color in history to come along. The prostitution of the media has been evident for a long time.

I was only eight years old but I remember the Kennedy v. Nixon Campaign in 1960. The liberal, good-looking, highly marketable white knight was ideally suited to vanquish the heavy- jawed, beady-eyed challenger more reminiscent of the gnome under the bridge. Based on superior campaign coverage orchestrated by the then three networks we saw the birth of a political fable. They’ve called Kennedy’s administration the American Camelot. The similarities to Obama’s meteoric rise to power are unnerving.

Ms. Dunn, the American people are not so stupid we can’t see what you all hope to accomplish: the censorship, through benign rejection of access, of a major player in the opposition press. It would be comical (if it wasn’t so blatantly stupid to witness) that this is what you’re trying to do. You want to assure nobody you disapprove of asks any question you don’t approve of.  Videotape records history, it doesn’t direct it as we now know you have in the past.

In spite of your belief the American public is easily herded, some of us do stray from the herd to test the pastures alongside the beaten path. I, for one, watch CNN. I watch MSNBC. I watch NBC, ABC, and BBC and even have a link to Al-Jazeera and fourteen other major news outlets both print and broadcast. I have found one thing to be of major interest: all, other than Al-Jazeera, the BBC and Fox News, are nearly cut and paste copies of each other. So, Ms. Dunn, why should I believe anything you say or do to get me to avoid Fox News? You combat no challenges with reason.

George Stephanopoulos ABC News, defined a tax, from a major dictionary, to Obama. Obama deflected the comment and challenged Stephanopoulos’ understanding of the health care proposition. He said it was faulty. Stephanopoulos sought to define the word TAX to prove the health care proposal wasn’t without costs. Obama NEVER addressed the issue honestly because he couldn’t. We, the American people witnessed this.

Fact: the definition of a TAX is: n. a contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government -2. A fee or dues levied on the members of a group to meet its expenses. (The American Heritage College Dictionary, Houghton-Mifflin 2004)(Italics are mine.)

If the Obama Administration has its way, the English Language will change (to the advantage of the Democratic Party) to advance self-serving Group Speak. These ham-handed efforts at censorship do the members of the Democratic Party NO service other than to place themselves squarely in the middle of the herd while walking the chosen path of the herdsmen.

That path doesn’t lead along the Yellow Brick Road but down a political Chisholm Trail leading to a holding pen and what could be a political slaughterhouse as it pertains to people’s sensibilities concerning the conduct of their government.

Ms. Dunn, you can’t stop us from hearing opposing views just because YOU say we’re not allowed to hear them. Maybe you learned this from Mao?

Thanks for listening

The fleas of strange bedfellows

By

Sarge

The Brain Trust, Masters of the Obvious and Scions of the Oblivious in Washington, have figured out something the American people have been aware of since day one:  Paying Banking CEOs for their elevated levels of incompetence is “Offensive”. This is from Mr. Obama’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod.

Duh, no kidding Dave, do you think?

The Troubled Asset Recovery Program was developed in 2008 to augment the disbursal of over $700Billion dollars in bail-out funds. This was supposed to be an umbrella operation responsible for assuring troubled (read that as: incompetently managed banking operations) were “rescued” from mortgage –backed securities of a deadly toxic nature. In other words, the banks would fail if not “rescued”.

AIG (American International Group) received $40 Billion. Community (smaller) Banks took $92 Billion across the country. Citigroup and Bank of America accepted $45 Billion.

The banks say, to develop strategies and pilot their financial “ships o’ state” through the hazardous waters of world financial markets, they needed to attract the “BEST” minds to steer. They paid the highest prices and allowed, under contract, the biggest bonuses and salaries for these wizards or the wizards will go elsewhere.

This isn’t a form of competition where one company or the other wins and “takes all”. Are these brain trusts supposed to escape to some financially solvent planet on the outer realm of the solar system? Not likely. They’ll either accept the offer or not work in the industry. And a minor assemblage of college educated, theoretically based but light on successful experience mutton heads being unemployed is preferable to closing a major securities operation like Lehman Brothers. Thousands pay the price for the greed of a few.

In an example of the financial acumen displayed by these numbutz, the Boards of Directors accept these contracts without a proven track record of success. These contracts are written in non-negotiable, non-punitive language pertaining to the wizard’s side of the contract. In other words there are NO penalties if the wizard’s performance stinks. He/she gets the bucks whether they perform well or not.  

It’s becoming a trademark of the American people to accept Hope and Change in many aspects of life. First, this optimistic bullspit allowed for “Liars Loans”: the lack of requirement for a financial statement before getting a loan. You could simply say you earned a bazillion dollars and some idiot would grant the loan. Then there were the Sub-prime Loan programs with flexible terms and hyper-inflated balloon payments allowing real estate speculation (read that “flipping houses”) to be done by totally unqualified buyers.

When you get to wondering what dimwit is responsible for all of this misery there’s only one direction to point the finger. All of this was allowed under the purview of the Congress.  You were thinking Wall Street? Forget it. It was the Congressional leadership (?) allowed all this to happen and is responsible for the exorbitant bonuses being paid to these incompetent people on their release from employment.

No watchdogs and protectors of the American trust in Washington thought, for a moment, you don’t reward incompetence with bonuses: unless of course you’re a Congressman or Senator. (Maybe that’s where they got it from.)The elected failed to stipulate (by writing into the legislation authorizing the bail-outs) that any bonuses should be paid from pre-existent profits. As the companies already needed a bail-out there wouldn’t be any bonuses. But because of knee-jerk responses to the stimuli offered by the jerks ruining America’s industries and financial foundation, Congress ran along the wall of public hysteria the jerks created. Now they’re offended. They shouldn’t be. They’re complicit.

The aforementioned is called logic. The people in Washington should try it sometime. But, I don’t expect it to strike home anytime soon. There are too many special interests (lobbyists) controlling (long-term leasing) the Congress to assure the American people are protected.

It’s comical that the administration finds this offensive. But it does show the President’s impotence in controlling this problem. Obama and his pay Czar can do nothing because Congress removed them from their authority by failing to recognize the fleas shared with the strange bedfellows influencing their behaviors are as offensive as any others.

Thanks for listening

The scalded cat

By

Sarge

The question must be asked: Is Congress stupid or do they think we Are?

This year is the first one noted in over thirty years that a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) won’t be given to Senior Citizens. This is rather ironic considering the happy horse-hockey being spread across the airwaves that the deficit will not increase with the development of the health care overhaul. The deficit will not increase according to Obama as long as “savings” can be realized elsewhere.

It must always be remembered that one man’s savings almost always comes with the creation of another man’s deficit when conducted by the “brain trusts” responsible for running (ruining?) Social Security. More than 50 Million retirees count on their Social Security benefits. They’re benefits they’ve worked for, supported and earned after years of personal labor. Now, Congress is going to withhold a COLA in spite of the fact the Cost of Living continues to rise: hence, the personal deficit.

In order to placate the seniors, a very vocal and large group of voters, Congress is quibbling over the pay-out of a $250 payment to the seniors instead of the COLA.

$250 Dollars.

That’s twenty dollars and eighty-three cents per month. That further translates out to sixty-nine cents per day to cover the Cost of living over the course of an average thirty day period. In my house, with one child, one working wife and a retired law enforcement officer, that would amount to spit missing the bucket. It won’t pay for one soft drink from a machine at the corner store.

Irony is a strange element to this. The Federal government has bailed out hundreds of banks and crooked bankers and poorly run industries. We’ve watched helplessly as the people causing the stress to the economy continue rewarding themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses when run off from the jobs they proved themselves to be incompetent to hold. The irony lies in the appearance that the people responsible for the purchases of the goods and services originally making these thieves, liars and incompetents as wealthy as they are today; are left out in the cold with a decidedly fatalistic, but realistic, attitude of “what are you gonna do?”

American economic policy appears to be based on the idea of shifting the numbers from one column on the spreadsheet to another and expecting nobody to notice. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has been the modus operandi of government for centuries. It only becomes a problem when Peter notices it’s his pocket picked regularly. And the excuses (rationalizations) are offered:  “it’s better than nothing”, “it’s the way business is conducted”, “accepted business procedure”, and ultimately – “what are you going to do?”

The last one is the one that bothers me – “what are you going to do?”

I’m going to scream like a scalded cat – that’s what I’m going to do. Show me a Congressional Representative or Senator that is going to live on a sixty-nine cent ($.69) per day increase. Don’t waste the effort. Neither a Representative nor a Senator makes less than $174 Thousand Dollars. You can see the disparity of need between the Social Security receptor and the fat cat in the Congress. Whose loyalty is greater – the guy or gal of the Greatest Generation or the opportunist pontificating and holding sway over that person’s life.

My 76 year old mother lives on her Social Security, Medicare and the minor military benefits left her. She and Dad were denuded of many of them after my Dad served his country honorably over a twenty year period. The money was minor. The privileges advertised, and then removed from both of them, were removed by legislative action in Congress so as to be “cost-cutting”, “money-saving” and therefore “better for those involved”.

When the scales are balanced and the benefits found wanting for those most needing the consideration: look at who received the most benefits, or suffered the least from the deal.

Hypocrisy: Truth’s Political Camouflage

In light of the present efforts of Congress to pass Universal Healthcare (Obamacare/ The Public Option for lack of a better term) it might make a little sense to explore the realities of how government is executed in this country. The Senate has passed the Baucus Bill and as I write is meeting behind closed doors to make sure the generally dissenting elements on the right side of the aisle have NO say in the construction of health care legislation.

This is in direct conflict with Mr. Obama’s promise during his presidential campaign that he’d assure there would be “transparency” in government. He’d allow none of this sort of thing and it was his promise to conduct the business of government where the people could see what was done and how it would affect them as a result.

I know Mr. Obama doesn’t like being called a liar. I think if you have a problem with the descriptor you should do everything in your power to NOT look, walk, quack and fly like the duck. But maybe, in light of the demand he be respected because he’s the President, we should choose a different adjective.

How’s the term hypocrite strike you? Is that better and therefore more acceptable?

A hypocrite is a person who: professes beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. (American Heritage College Dictionary © 2004 Houghton Mifflin Co.)

By virtue of the fact government must be conducted in a circus atmosphere, one has to remember that the clowns are trying to suspend your disbelief as a matter of course in their performances. Is it really possible get twenty clowns in a car the size of a Volkswagen? Is it possible for politicians to be honest straight-forward and without personal agendas? The corollary would appear obvious.

Charles Schumer - Senator (D) New York, professes to represent good government and government of and by the people. But in reality it was an almost perceptibly obvious gleam in his eye as he made it clear that if there was not bi-partisan support for the “Public Option” he and his cronies had sufficient votes in the Senate to overpower dissent. This has come to be called the “Nuclear Option”.

My question is if you profess government of and by the people where do you get off gleefully stating you have the power to override millions of voters’ dissent of that legislation – solely because you can?

People over the years have made the statement: “if you’re so smart why don’t you run for office and change things?” The answer: I have developed too much self-respect to EVER be hyphenated by title – POLITICIAN. Second: it isn’t within my moral structure to look a person in the eye and tell them I can stand without question on any principles other than those I hold personally and not try to see a compromise arising in the future. In other words I’ll probably be forced by the nature of the job to trade one person or the other’s wishes away to hit that compromise. Third: I’m not stupid enough to believe I alone can change anything with 544 other politicians expected to give up their control of the 300 Million people in this country. Those 300 Million people need to get off their over-stuffed settees and take back control of their own destinies; instead of allowing Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer and the like to move government around like their personal slop wagon.

But I almost never hear a politician admit compromise is a necessary part of the job. They almost exclusively proclaim the sanctity of their words of honor and the strength of their trust. All they have to do is tell the truth. But that seems to be more than they can handle at times. C-Span, the broadcast of governmental services to the American people, is an unbiased video/audio documentation of the events as they transpire. It has no censorship like the Congressional Record is susceptible to after floor debate.

But politicians, in spite of their mellifluous and sugary delivery of the campaign rhetoric necessary to get the job done, can’t speak the truth. They especially can’t tell the truth in public these days because video makes liars of the majority without defense. Video doesn’t work for them.

We’ll get the government we deserve. That’s a fact brought about by the understanding a lack of participation leads to contempt from those elected. They develop a sense of entitlement for the lack of control exerted by voters.

We should be getting the government we’re entitled to by the participation we exhibit and the strength we show in our refusal to accept legislators’ hypocrisy, as demonstrated by their: voting records, their appearances and demeanor at Town Hall meetings and after all that; how much they interact on a regular basis with their constituents.

But avoid the idea ANY politician has your best interests at heart.

Thanks for listening

Not so noble Nobel

By

Sarge

To the Nobel Committee:

It is with deep humility and extreme modesty I accept this singular privilege: The Nobel Prize for Zero Accomplishments at the time of nomination, and since.

I awoke to the excited prodding of my youngest child, Maliki Ashram Salaam Mahbutzaykin’ frum bent-Booty, when he exclaimed excitedly “papa, papa you WON the lottery!”

It was with a mixture of divine propriety and overwhelming gentility I persuaded the sleep to evacuate my eyes and my vision became clearer as I implanted my rose-colored contacts. It came to me that God (Allah, Mohammed, The Almighty, Buddha, Shiva, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jeremiah Wright or whoever else has their hand up my shirt operating my strings and levers) was indeed great and gracious.

Allow me as much clarity as is possible for a glib, insincere political prestidigitator such as myself, to say: Can you believe this spit? (sic) Let’s make this clear too. This doesn’t recognize my accomplishments. We all know there are none so far. And as of the moment I was nominated, I hadn’t even left the bathroom after taking a ginormous dump on the American people; the Nobel Committee had the fix in to try and influence American politics by giving me what is now (evidently) a totally worthless lump of bronze. Shoot that isn’t even a precious metal.

To be honest (something very new, quite novel and heretofore unknown to me) I don’t feel I deserve this award. I know many of you don’t think I deserve to be in the same room with you after all that Birth Certificate Crap. But I digress. I am going to take the money and donate it to charity. ACORN needs defense funds for their obvious screw-ups after I promoted them so lovingly over the years.

This award should be shared with people seeking justice and dignity. From the woman gunned down in the streets of Iran and whom I said little to nothing about, to the trials of my Czars being caught open mouthed as they trash people for their beliefs, I say power to the people. Remember, I said nothing about American people. I mean all people; legal, illegal, leftist, wrong, gay, lesbian, poor, unemployed, communist, radical or whatever. As long as we have a dollar to remove from the pocket of the working, middle class members of society; we’ll work diligently to redistribute it as efficiently as can be done by a partisan Congress’ misdirected legislative actions. I share it with the soldiers ducking and covering because I wouldn’t do anything more than consider what my military advisers say. Those soldiers have taught me to cover my butt when it needs to covered even though I never so much as played with those little green soldiers in my grandmother’s yard in Hawaii (or was it Indonesia?) Whatever.

I don’t belong in the company of so many people who have inspired me: (see the list in paragraph 3). I also know the Nobel (in the past) has been used to honor specific achievement, a qualification evidently no longer necessary; it is now being given away as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

Therefore, I wish to nominate my buddy, Sarge, for the next Nobel Prize for Literature.  He writes words on paper and on a computer monitor and speaks reasonably good English with an American accent. In order to give his causes momentum, as well as the 1.4 million dollar award money, it’s my hope he’ll get off my acetabulum and focus on the indignities heaped on Americans by others (see paragraph 3 again). This will allow me to accomplish mine.

Thank-you. Now get off the stage and don’t answer any of the Press’ questions.

(Oh. I wasn’t supposed to say that last part? I hope we’ll change that later.)

Thanks for listening