Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

In My Email: I am not a special interest.


Organizing for America
Friend —

Right now, my job — along with those of my colleagues — could be in jeopardy.

I’m a public school teacher in Philadelphia. And, like most states across the country, Pennsylvania is facing some bad budget shortfalls.

Without federal help, a lot of teachers like me — as well as other public servants like police officers and firefighters — will lose their jobs. Maybe you know some of these people. Maybe it’s you.

Democrats in Congress are trying to do the right thing, proposing emergency assistance for states to preserve more than 100,000 jobs like mine. They’re racing back to the Capitol for an emergency session this week to pass this bill and save these jobs.

But Republicans are standing in the way. Minority Leader John Boehner is calling the bill a “payoff” to “special interests” and attacking every Democrat who is fighting for us.

But I’m not a special interest. I’m a teacher.

Can you join me in telling House Democrats that they have our support as they fight for our jobs?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — and the entire Democratic Caucus — have decided to rush back to Washington to make sure that hundreds of thousands of workers like me will get to keep our jobs. In addition, the bill will actually create even more job growth by closing tax loopholes for companies that ship American jobs overseas.

But the Republicans are going to do everything they can to prevent this aid.

Please stand with me, in support of Democratic leaders who are standing up for folks like me:

http://my.barackobama.com/MyJob

Thank you,

Wendy C.
Teacher
Ambler, Pennsylvania

Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee — 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance


Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Consent Vs. Compliance

Consent Vs. Compliance was written By BOJIDAR MARINOV | Published: JULY 7, 2010. Be sure to let them know exactly what you think too!

Before I talk about the article let me say  that I agree with the premise wholeheartedly.  We the people need to consent to the laws and who is to govern.  To that end I would suggest we immediately dismantle the electoral college and move to popular vote across the country.  Also to that end let us reconsider two Senators per State and the general ability of those with big money or big mouths to consider they speak for the country.  My father used to say that a paper would lay down and take anything.  Well, thankfully, not all people will do the same. As for consent of the governed, well, we vote with our dollars.  Where do you live, work, and eat?


“Now you have socialized healthcare too,” said a European friend of mine.

“Yeah?” I replied. “What makes you think that?”

First off, if you didn’t say, “No we don’t have anything of kind.” then you have no clue about what socialized healthcare means.  If you didn’t say that, “No we still have those no product middle men called insurance companies to suck us dry right after the government,” then you have no idea what the fear mongering Right has cost this country by preventing universal health care.

“Well,” he seemed confused, “Didn’t the U.S. Congress pass Obamacare into a law?”

My reply only increased his confusion: “The Congress did. But the American people didn’t. The law still needs their consent to become valid.”

Which bring me to a number of other points. I thought that once a bill was passed and signed into law by our corporate sponsored government and went successfully unchallenged in the Supreme Court, that it was law, but maybe I am confused. Oh, you mean if 2/3 of the States vote to nullify the law?  Yeah, like that is going to happen. You watch too much Fox News. Granted this law is not really supported by either the progressives or the conservative right. The progressives know without true universal health care that this law only delays our inevitable bankruptcy and the right have their own corporate reasons.  The progressives already see the moral bankruptcy.  So maybe we should just run this out to its inevitable conclusion.  If you want any law to have the consent of the governed, then you must follow a European example and have complete election reform disallowing any private funding of candidates whatsoever and kick out all those lobbyists. Let me see anyone talking about the consent of the governed take on that cause.

Explaining the American social and political system to Europeans can be a tiresome experience. Europeans just don’t seem to be able to climb out of their boxes of digesting everything in terms of the centralized almighty state and its decrees….

I think you must be blind to European politics if you think they blindly follow anything. Take a look here or here or here or here. To listen to some conservatives talk about the founding fathers, one might wonder how much they read of them.  What I hear them talk about blindly follows much of the European thought of three hundred years ago minus all the caveats expressed by our founding fathers.  First and foremost was their warning about corporations removing our liberty.

But the federalism of the political institutions is the smaller problem for the European mind. The bigger problem is the individual vs. the State. Europeans, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they admit it or not, are genuinely terrified of the way Americans view their relation to their own government.

When a law is passed by a Parliament in a European nation, the average European automatically accepts that the law is valid for the very reason that it is passed by a proper parliamentary procedure. … The consent of the governed is never a factor in the European thinking, and the average European never even allows for such a factor to play any part in his dealings with his government.

This quite odd, since Europe being the birthplace of capitalism, thrives due to its diversity. We are a baby. Much of our thought and culture is European and that might be why we are still the ugly Americans to much of the world. In our multicultural world we are in the minority, except in our abuse of the world’s resources.  Europe is in the throes of our history in reverse.  They seek a union of states and argue it much as you would, the union is taking away the rights of the individual states to treat their populations any way they see fit.

Compliance is the key word that describes the relationship between the individual and the State in the European setting. The European citizen is not allowed nor expected to exercise discernment once a bill is codified into law. There is no option for the citizen to exercise any active opposition to it, only passive compliance. …

Civil disobedience exists everywhere in the free world. To deny it is to be blind. Although one of the European Union’s (EU) biggest disagreement was to deny Turkey entry into their EU Christian club.

Such is the attitude of the European mind. When it relates to the law, its first thought is “compliance.” There is no higher lawgiver than the national legislature, no higher court than the Supreme Court, and no higher executor than the government. Therefore whatever civil law is, must be right and must be obeyed. A law cannot be opposed except through the same legal and political process that produced it –… There is certainly no higher moral law to give the ideological basis for any opposition, no divine law, and no God to …

Nor will there be anything like this in the United States either.  If we want a theocracy, then maybe we should consider Sharia law? The legal history of law in Europe actually has some deep ecclesiastical roots which is completely absent from our system on purpose and excluded explicitly by law. Try to get that nullified, why don’t you?

A powerful example of this European mentality is the recent decision of a European court against the display of crucifixes in public buildings in Italy. Even though the decision was made by a court far away from Italy, by judges who know next to nothing about Italian traditions and history – or care nothing about it –…

Oh, you mean like you do. Your European mentality nonsense sounds like outright bigotry on its face. It reminds me of the ethnic national characters of the last two centuries.  I bet without much prodding you could expound on the German, the French, the Italian and the Irish spirit. There is an interesting point in this.  It is the authoritarian personality.

We in America very often make the mistake to believe that just because in the last 60 years most governments in Western Europe – and in Eastern Europe in the last 20 years – never used force against their own people, Europe is somehow free, and the rights of the individuals are safe and protected. We assume that because European nations have experienced the “the rule of law” that the Founders of these United States envisioned, therefore Europeans are free and their rights are protected. Nothing could be further from the truth. …

Yes, nothing could be further from the truth. You totally miss the point that almost all our rule of law comes from Europe and it is the United Sates that is still a babe in the woods.

In stark contrast to this stands the political ideology of the original American Republic. One of the things that made – and still makes – America unique as a political setting is that little phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Yes, we are unique. Outside our borders lie great barbarian hordes.  We allow just about anyone to get on their soapbox and preach to the great burnt over regions of our country.  Sometimes we even listen.

Consent is the key word here. In this foundational document of our American liberty, governments are declared to be secondary and derivative, rather than a primary source of law and power. A true American doesn’t consider his government to be the source of its own powers; its “just powers” are derived from his consent to acknowledge the government as legitimate and just. Furthermore, government is not an end in itself; it serves a purpose: “To secure these rights.” …

Yes, to secure the rights. So we have another would-be constitutional scholar. Check out my link to why universal health care is a constitutional right.

True, a European might be able to relate to the principle of the consent of the governed, but they would do it in a very limited way: That the governed exercise their “consent” by appearing regularly at the ballot box. Outside of that ritual of confirming their “consent” the governed can use different means of protest against specific government measures or laws. But compliance with the laws is non-negotiable…

In a parliamentary system the whole government can be dissolved due to lack of confidence.  Let’s try that.

A true American must disagree with such a limited view of the value of his political consent or non-consent. The value of the consent of the governed is not limited merely to a general recognition of the political system as a whole at the time of voting. Such an approach would have seemed irresponsible to the early colonists. A responsible and freedom-loving citizen must exercise his consent or disagreement concerning every single law or act of the government, not just in relation to the general political and legal system. …

I thought this was worked out in the Whiskey Rebellion? Certain forms of disagreements are just not allowed.

The history of America is replete with examples of active resistance of citizens against immoral, unjust, or stupid laws. The early colonists were smugglers at sea, rebels at home, and evaded paying taxes when they disagreed with them. They also disobeyed the Proclamation of 1763 and moved to settle new lands west of the Appalachians. They kept their guns when the British governors tried to confiscate them, and they obstructed the King’s tax-collectors. And of course, the event that started the Revolution, the Boston Tea Party, was a display of defiance against the ability of the British government to impose laws on a people against their consent. The American Revolution was only a logical outcome of a political ideology that had been developed in the colonies that no government and no law can have just power without the consent of the governed.

There you go.  I want to forcibly remove certain states from any commerce with the rest.  How about a fence starting from north of Arizona and going right straight across?

Admittedly, this healthy political ideology for the legitimacy of government has been in retreat for the last 200 years, but even in the 20th century we see it at work in America. Even today, there are hundreds of federal and state laws that have failed to become reality because the governed refuse to comply with them. Federal gun-control laws are the best example, being defied by state governments and individuals alike, but they are not the only example. Back in the 60’s there were hundreds of heroic Christian fathers and mothers who defied the law of the State and took their kids back home to educate them, very often facing persecution and jail sentences. The infamous “anti-hate-speech” laws, designed specifically to kill any Christian testimony in the public square, have only produced the opposite result, encouraging many individual Christians and Christian leaders to speak publicly about their beliefs. True patriotic America may have been in retreat for quite a while but she is far from defeated, and in fact, she is getting prepared to strike back at the new tyranny of the centralized State, learning from its Founding Fathers. Amazingly enough, even the Left in America, with its worship of the State …

The Right has no idea of the Left, not the real Left.  We have no leaders save thought and heart.  We have no structure save creativity.  We have no backing save freedom. We do not worship authority.  So now you make me angry.  You are speaking about something I know well.  I too home schooled my child, and not as many in the sixties, not for a bogus religious reason masking bigotry.  I home schooled her because I equated socialization with domestication.  As for you madam, I will have none of your slop either because what you condone is nothing less than murder.

And that’s why it is still not sure if we have socialized total Federal healthcare in America. The American people haven’t spoken yet. And therefore the healthcare law is far from valid.

Yes, let the people speak.  I will be out there speaking loud and clear with them.

What is amazing is that this confuses my European friends. It is obvious that in contrast to the European political ideology, the American ideology is the one that fosters and encourages political liberty; it is the system that imposes truly realistic checks on the expansion of government power. In fact, it is so obvious that one wonders what is it that makes Europeans unable to see it….

Maybe, just maybe, it is you that does not see.

The reasons for their blindness are religious. After the French Revolution, European nations have based their entire political and moral thinking on a rejection of the Triune God and His revelation in the Bible. … The individual lost any right to appeal to anyone higher than the State because there was none higher than the State, the State becoming god on earth. In such a religious system any thought of considering consent before compliance would be tantamount to sacrilege, a blasphemous act, an affront against the god.

You, my friend, are a zealot.  Yes, it is a spiritual matter, and yes, the truth is one.  You are, however, blind to the truth. Jesus wept.

There is no way to understand the history of Europe after the 18th century without understanding this major religious change in Europe’s political and moral philosophy. The rise of the nation-states, the two world wars, Marx, Hitler, the national liberation movements, the rise of Communism, the founding of the European Union, and the beginning of its demise in the last one year – none of those events in history make any sense unless we understand the paradigm shift caused by the abandonment of the Christian religion in Europe…

I understand fascist dictators very well. They are made from the likes of your thought. Constantine would be proud that Hitler was able to move a Christian nation.

In contrast, our American system was based from the very beginning on the belief of our Founding Fathers that it was not the State, but God Who rules over the affairs of men. This denied the civil government any role of being divine or declaring the divine will. The individual and the State in such a political ideology are equal before God, they both have equal rights and responsibilities to search and interpret God’s will for their society. Therefore the consent of the governed is the pivot of the political system, it is the practical application of the verse in Proverbs 11:14, “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” ….

You do go on. I see nothing that you have said that David Koresh could fault.

Therefore, my European friend won’t be able to understand our political system unless he understands its religious foundation first. As long as Europeans reject Jesus Christ as their Lawgiver, they will have political false messiahs for ultimate lawgivers, and will have no recourse against their immoral and foolish laws. Passive compliance with tyranny and oppression is the fate of a godless people. Only a God-fearing nation can force …

Only a god fearing self-righteous fool could write such drivel. The last time a God-fearing anything tried to force me to do anything, I told him to got to hell.


In my email: FOX is up to its old race-baiting tricks. But this time, CNN is repeating FOX’s distortions and taking them mainstream.


Tell CNN to stop parroting FOXhttp://act.colorofchange.org/go/292?id=2335-1078007&akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=1

FOX is using blatant race-baiting to scare White Americans. Now CNN is following their lead.

Tell CNN to stop taking FOX’s bait and report the full story:

http://act.colorofchange.org/go/292?id=2335-1078007&akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=2

FOX is up to its old race-baiting tricks. But this time, CNN is repeating FOX’s distortions and taking them mainstream.

FOX is claiming that under President Obama, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is refusing to prosecute voting rights offenses when the victims are White and the perpetrators are Black.[1] It’s a bogus story based on the allegations of one former Republican DOJ attorney, and it sidesteps a mountain of facts.[2]

On Tuesday, FOX complained that other news outlets weren’t covering the story. The next day, CNN uncritically echoed FOX’s distorted story, lending it mainstream credibility. We expect FOX to engage in this kind of race-baiting. But CNN should know better, and we need to hold them publicly accountable.

Click the link below to send a message to Jon Klein, head of CNN, demanding CNN stop running with half-baked, racially charged stories from FOX. And then please ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/cnnfox/?id=2335-1078007

FOX consistently plays to the fear that President Obama will not govern Blacks and Whites equally, and they’re hard at work promoting this twisted narrative again.

The story that FOX is pushing revolves around an incident on election day 2008 in which several men from a small, fringe organization called the New Black Panther Party (NBPP — no relationship to the original Black Panther Party) stood in front of a polling place in a majority Black voting district, one of them carrying a nightstick. The Bush Justice Department charged them with civil voter intimidation charges, after deciding that the case didn’t meet the bar for criminal charges.[3] After Obama took office, the Department of Justice dropped most of the remaining charges, saying that they weren’t supported by the facts and the law, while obtaining an injunction against the man who had been carrying a nightstick.[4]

But in FOX’s hands, the story has become that the case was dropped because of anti-White policies in the Obama administration, with Andrew Breitbart and host David Asman effectively calling the President a racist.[5] CNN’s willingness to follow FOX’s lead is inexcusable.

The New Black Panther story is built on the claims of one man — J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department official who claims that the Obama administration dropped the NBPP case because of race.[6] But even the most basic digging reveals that Adams is nothing more than a conservative activist hired by a Bush administration that was hell-bent on politicizing the Justice Department and subverting its civil rights enforcement mission.[7] During the Bush years — the bulk of Adams’ tenure at the DOJ — civil rights enforcement decreased. The DOJ failed to even investigate numerous clear civil rights violations when the victims were Black and Latino, especially allegations involving voting rights.[8]

CNN has repeatedly allowed Adams to air his twisted views without allowing opposing perspectives or telling the full story of Adams’ past. CNN calls itself “the most trusted name in news,” but they just became complicit in a right wing effort to smear President Obama and Attorney General Holder as racists. Help hold them accountable now:

http://www.colorofchange.org/cnnfox/?id=2335-1078007

The fact is that there’s simply no evidence to support Adams’ claims. No “victims” — White or otherwise — have stepped forward to say that they were intimidated on the day in question.[9]

Even Abigail Thernstrom, GOP-appointed vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which is now investigating the situation, blasted Adams, his theory, and the path it’s forced the commission to pursue. She sees it as an embarrassment. Thernstrom said, “I know Chris Adams very well, and he doesn’t know why the decision was made.” She goes on to call the DOJ’s position “perfectly plausible” and concludes “I don’t think that this inquiry has served the interests of the Commission as being a bipartisan watchdog for important civil rights violations, and I do not believe it has served well the party to which I belong.”[10,11]

The real danger of FOX

FOX has consistently stoked the fears of some White Americans that President Obama might favor Blacks over Whites — an irresponsible and dangerous game. But it’s even more dangerous when other news networks amplify and validate what they’re doing. This is FOX’s plan, and it’s important to note that just before the story got covered on CNN, FOX spent the previous day accusing the other news organizations of not covering the story. They set the bait and CNN took it.

It’s the same pattern that was used to put ACORN out of business. FOX ran a smear-campaign with partial or fabricated information and then got other news outlets to follow and run with the same story without digging deeper. Once the truth came out, it was too late.[12]

We expect FOX to lie and distort. But for CNN and others to fall into the trap of repeating FOX’s claims is a different story. Now, in hopes of preventing similar situations in the future, we must fight back. Join us in calling on CNN to do real reporting, and not mainstream FOX’s distortions and lies. And when you do, please ask your family and friends to do the same. It only takes a moment:

http://www.colorofchange.org/cnnfox/?id=2335-1078007

Thanks and Peace,

— James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Milton and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
July 10th, 2010

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU — your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

References:

1. “Fox hypes GOP activist’s “explosive new allegations” against Obama DOJ,” Media Matters, 6-30-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/293?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=8

2. “Almost Everything You Need To Know About The New Black Panther Party Case,” The American Prospect Blog, 7-6-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/294?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=10

3. “O’Reilly Factor ludicrously blames Obama for not pressing criminal charges in New Black Panthers case,” Media Matters, 7-7-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/295?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=12

4. Judgment, US vs. New Black Panther Party for Self Defense, 5-18-09
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/306?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=14

5. “Breitbart, Asman agree Obama is ‘defending racism’ in Black Panthers case, which is ‘virtually the same’ as being racist,” Media Matters, 7-6-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/296?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=16

6. “CNN omits GOP criticism of Black Panther investigation,” Media Matters, 7-7-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/297?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=18

7. “Christian Adams’ case continues to implode: Bush-era DOJ declined to charge Minutemen for voter intimidation,” Media Matters, 7-1-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/298?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=20

8. “Flashback To The Bush Days At The DoJ,” The American Prospect blog, 7-6-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/299?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=22

9. US Commission on Civil Rights hearing, 4-23-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/300?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=24

10. “Adams’ credibility continues to crumble,” Media Matters, 7-5-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/301?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=26

11. “The New Black Panther Case: A Conservative Dissent,” National Review Online, 7-6-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/302?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=28

12. “Extra, Extra—Read All About ACORN,” The Nation blog, 1-5-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/303?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=30

Additional resources:

“Manufactured scandal: Right wing’s phony allegations against the Justice Department,” Media Matters, 7-7-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/304?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=32

“New Black Panther Party Primer,” The American Prospect blog, 7-7-10
http://act.colorofchange.org/go/305?akid=1502.534167.qE_veb&t=34

Beck Finally Addresses Oil Spill… (Reposted from The Glenn Beck Review)


http://sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com/author/sharethisurlaboutglenbek/

Beck Finally Addresses Oil Spill…

The Glenn Beck Review | June 15, 2010 at 10:35 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL:     Note the new Glenn Beck Review


so he can race bait the President…again!

This is another press release from Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/

Glenn Beck spent most of his Fox show on 6/14 talking about the President’s remarks toward BP CEO, Hayward. Beck: “[T]here seems to be a little profiling going on here” that “sounds like racism.

http://sharethisurlaboutglenbek.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/beckpic11.jpg

Would I mislead people?

On his Fox News show, Beck again cropped Obama’s 1995 comments to claim they sounded “an awful lot like profiling” and reiterated his suggestion that the reason Obama did not want to meet with Hayward is because “he’s a white CEO” and “white CEOs, they don’t like to — they don’t want to pay their tax dollars and have those tax dollars go to inner-city kids.

Beck: What is it that Barack Obama knows that he won’t even bother to meet with the guy to hear him out? Well, until, you know, he changed his mind a couple of days later. What is it that the dictator of Iran, the crazy guy in Iran has in the credibility department that the CEO of BP doesn’t have? What is it? Tell me. I’d like to know. Does the fact the BP CEO is a capitalist — does that — is that what does it? You know, when I meet with those capitalists — he’s a white CEO. Maybe that’s it. He’s a white CEO. White CEOs — I don’t know if you know this — but white CEOs, they don’t like to — they don’t want to pay their tax dollars and have those tax dollars go to inner-city kids.

[…]

Obama: And I really want to emphasize the word responsibility. I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school —

Beck: I know. Man, all those white executives, what racists they are. They’re all alike, you know. Oh, they just hate those inner-city kids. Wow. Inner-city kids — that’s not code language, is it? And gee, all those white executives that don’t want to pay their taxes, have to go to — that sounds an awful lot like profiling…It’s almost like he’s generalizing, profiling, and stereotyping.

In that August, 1995 interview with Bill Thompson, who interviews authors for his Eye on Books series:

MM: Obama discussed what he had learned in writing Dreams from my Father, his 1995 memoir, and he also addressed issues of race in America. When Obama was asked whether the next generation will also have to deal with the same racial issues, he replied that it “depends on what we do and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now.” Obama continued: “And I really want to emphasize the word ‘responsibility.’ I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school or you’re an inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now [emphasis added].

http://www.eyeonbooks.com/

From the whole interview Beck quoted out of context with what Beck aired in bold:

Bill Thompson

Bill Thompson

Thompson: What was the most difficult part of the book to write?

Obama: I think what was toughest was writing honestly and truthfully about the suspicions and hurts and failings of the people closest to me, and writing about those same failings and disappointments and blind spots in myself. I think whenever we talk about race there are all kinds of issues that we’d like to skirt. You know, I tell the story — just to take one of the clearest examples — of my grandmother, who loves me dearly and has made all kinds of sacrifices on my behalf, expressing at one point when I was a teenager her fear of black men on the streets. And, you know, to discuss that honestly and to discuss how that felt, to discuss how my grandmother felt, and then to be able to arrive at some sort of peace with that, some greater understanding and some forgiveness, I think was probably the most difficult part of writing it.

Thompson: Were there times when you felt like just backing away from the whole thing and saying, “Oh, I don’t think I can go through with this”?

Obama: Right. Well, certainly, I think there’s an impulse among all of us to shy away from these issues. There’s a certain race weariness that confronts the country, precisely because the questions are so deeply embedded and the solutions are going to require so much investment of time, energy, and money. And so I share that reluctance sometimes to explore these issues.

I think what kept me going is the recognition that we can’t solve these problems by ignoring them or pretending that they don’t exist. And one of the things that strikes me and the country right now is our tendency to either pretend that racial conflict does not exist, that racial division and hatred does not exist, and to pretend that we live in a color-blind society — I think sometimes members of the Supreme Court, the current Supreme Court, take that line — or to say that race is everything, that there’s no possibility of common ground between black and white.

And I think the truth of the matter is that — and hopefully what people will get out of the book — is some sense that although the lives of blacks and whites in this country are different, although our historical experiences are different, my family is an example — and, hopefully, I am an example — of the possibility of arriving at some common ground and that we do share values and principles around which we can organize and make for a better life.

[…]

Thompson: I’m wondering if the ethnically mixed couple of today, if when their child is 34 years old, if they’ll find it any easier to deal with these issues then than you have found it now?

Obama: That’s an interesting question. I’m not sure. I think in some ways there’s less novelty to the idea of mixed couples. They’re not seen as lurid or perverse in ways that I think they were 30 years ago. I think that this country is inevitably going to be undergoing changes simply due to demographics. I think that there’s been a lot of talk about the “browning of America” —

Thompson: I was just going to use that same phrase.

Obama: Right. And I think that is going to be happening, and we can’t ignore it. I think whether or not my children or your children will have to struggle with these same issues depends on what we do and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now. And I really want to emphasize the word “responsibility.”

I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school or you are a inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now. [Emphasis added]

Beck is clearly trying to fuel those kinds of divisions! Later in his show, Beck told his audience, “If I get out of control and start leveling baseless charges that can’t be backed up, guess what happens? I’m fired. I’m out of a job.

Got it? Race baiting? That’s OK (except for dozens of sponsors that will no longer advertise during his show). Lying? That’s OK. Quoting people out of context to distort the meaning of their words? That’s OK.  Hypocrisy? That’s OK. Leveling baseless charges that he can’t back up? That’s not OK? Riiiiight!

As if Rupert Murdoch cares what Beck says!

————————————————————————-

Post a Comment

All Comments Approved

Unlike Glenn Beck’s Blog, Free Speech is Practiced Here

———————————————————————–

Get Involved for 10 Minutes

Share this URL

Note the new Glenn Beck Review

Thank you


Add a comment to this post

http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com/779/ http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com/779/ http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com/779/ http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com/779/ http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/sharethisurlaboutglenbek.wordpress.com/779/

The Glenn Beck Review is back up and here: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/

In my email:Glenn Beck, Con Artist Date: 6/1/2010 from Alan Grayson


Dear dale,

Last week, my friend and colleague, Congressman Anthony Weiner, did something very good, and very gutsy.

He released a report on Goldline, Glenn Beck’s prime advertising sponsor. Weiner’s report showed that this firm, which sells gold coins, rips off its customers while benefitting directly from Beck’s Chicken Little lunacy about the economy. Every time Beck screams that there is an impending Obama-led government takeover of the economy and your savings aren’t safe, he’s making a sales pitch for this sleazy advertiser.

You see, Beck’s ratings have recently crashed, and most of his reputable advertisers have deserted him. So he’s resorted to scaring – and then cheating – his viewers.

Now that he’s been exposed, Beck has spent the last week using his big media platform to attack and undermine Weiner – he even set up an attack website designed to damage Weiner’s political standing.

This is what happens when someone with guts actually takes on power. Power strikes back.

So I’m encouraging you to help Weiner with a campaign contribution.

This collusion between big media, conservative commentators, and quack economics is a scam, but it is powerful if it remains unopposed. And we need to support people like Weiner, who have the guts to go after right-wing lunacy at the source.

Please support my friend Anthony.

He showed guts. He deserves our support.

Courage,

Alan Grayson


Paid for by the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson

The Nobel Peace Prize, The Excluded Middle & Not Glenn Beck


The Nobel Peace Prize, The Excluded Middle & Not Glenn Beck

Aristotle said that people are political animals, that is to say they are social animals.  The recent Rasmussen Reports: on “whether the President deserves the Nobel Peace Prize and whether it is political” is an absurd poll.  The poll itself was obviously done only for political purposes and the questions reflect that purpose.  If we asked how many people believed in aliens, and then asked if those aliens were likely to back a Right Wing or a Left Wing agenda, then we would have had similar results. We could substitute any random idea for aliens here, but aliens will do. The real point here is that the idea that the prize is politically motivated has always been true.  What hasn’t always been true is that political motivation was not always a dirty word meaning that there was a hidden partisan agenda behind the selection. A valid visible political motivation would include that he deserved it due his attempts to change the world’s view on peace itself.  This can be seen by his acceptance speech, which has now disenchanted the Left as much as his nomination disenchanted the Right.

The reason that such distinctions are important is that they illustrate an alarming trend in thought in this country.  What is wrong with the poll is not the questions it contains, but the questions/options that are missing.  It includes no middle ground, no alternative options.  The question of the political role in the prizes can be presumed to have one connotative meaning and imply that the only alternatives are that it is rigged or not rigged. The answer that it is rigged flies in the face of it being considered the most prestigious award that can be given.  So one of my premises must be wrong or the law of the excluded middle is wrong.  The premise that people that think the prize is political, meaning it is biased, is flawed. The implication that it is connotatively construed as bad does not hold unless we would consider that people are paying more attention, think it more prestigious, yet think it is biased. Some would actually have you entertain this as true even though they don’t know the difference between Republican Theodore Roosevelt and Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

So let us consider the idea that the political motivation is a bias toward the left. The oft-quoted error is that there was no Republican president that has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Theodore Roosevelt was a liberal Republican President that won the prize and became Progressive after the disenchantment of his party with him.  The progressive roots of the Republican party run deep from its inception and those roots have been lopped off each time they looked south. Woodrow Wilson was a conservative Democrat that had some progressive ideas which emerged as he abandoned his Southern roots.  Nothing is black or white. The error in thinking is the same as in the poll. It is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

In my email:Fox’s Murdoch: Glenn Beck “was right” — Help us go after Fox


Rupert Murdoch — head of Fox’s parent company — said Glenn Beck was right when he called President Obama a “racist.”


http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Now he’s trying to backpedal, without disowning Beck.

It’s time to publicly hold Murdoch accountable.

Demand he put an end to Fox’s race-baiting, or admit he agrees with it:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Dear Dale,

Last week, when asked about Glenn Beck calling President Obama “racist,” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox News Channel’s parent company (News Corp) said “if you actually assess what he was talking about, [Beck] was right.”1

On Tuesday, after his endorsement of Beck’s race-baiting started to draw attention,2 Murdoch claimed, through a spokesperson, that he didn’t mean he agrees with Beck.3 It’s ridiculous — what else could he have possibly meant?

Murdoch calls the shots at Fox News, and he’s just made it clear that Fox’s problem with race starts in his office. Now that he’s been caught, he’s trying to play dumb — he doesn’t want to be held accountable for Beck’s rhetoric, but he won’t denounce or stop it either.

It won’t work, if we stand up. Tell Murdoch he has a choice — he can stand by the fact that he agrees with Glenn Beck; or he can tell us why he doesn’t and what he’s going to do about it. If enough of us call him out, we can create a powerful conversation about Fox’s race-baiting that will help us hold them accountable at the highest level.

Please sign the petition to Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

While Beck is the worst offender on the Fox News Channel, the network has a long, deep history of engaging in inflammatory racial rhetoric: attacking Black leaders, Black culture, and Black institutions.4,5,6 And a number of Murdoch’s recent business decisions suggest that he is consciously building a media empire — at Fox News and elsewhere — that attracts viewers by appealing to racial fear and paranoia.

Last month, Murdoch put Don Imus (fired from MSNBC for his infamous “nappy headed hos” comment) back on television on the Fox Business Network.7 And a few weeks ago, Murdoch personally fired Marc Lamont Hill — one of Fox News’ few black commentators — in response to a racially charged smear campaign led by a News Corp shareholder, who said Hill has “reputation of defending cop killers and racists.”8

Murdoch’s right-hand men

Murdoch chooses his employees carefully, and his agenda is obvious when you look at the people he’s chosen to run his media organizations.

Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, made his name by using racial paranoia to propel Republican politicians to victory, starting in the 60s. He engineered key elements of Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and a notorious race-baiting ad campaign that helped the first President Bush defeat Michael Dukakis. Ailes was also the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh’s failed television show.9

Another News Corp property, the New York Post, led by Col Allan, also has a troubling record on race. Earlier this year, the Post caused an uproar after printing a cartoon that appeared to depict President Obama as a dead monkey, covered in blood after being shot by police. Instead of taking the widespread critical response to the cartoon seriously, Allan issued a short, insensitive statement that took no responsibility, and attacked critics of the cartoon.10

Last month, the Post fired a Latina editor, Sandra Guzman, apparently as retaliation for having spoken out against the cartoon when it was published. Guzman is now suing News Corp, the newspaper, and Allan. She says that the Post is a “hostile work environment where female employees and employees of color have been subjected to pervasive and systemic discrimination and/or unlawful harassment based on their gender, race, color and/or national origin.” Guzman says that Col Allan and others at the paper routinely made inappropriate sexual and racial comments. She also says that the paper’s D.C. bureau chief told her that the Post’s goal was to “destroy Barack Obama.”11

Holding Murdoch, Beck and Fox News accountable

When Murdoch publicly endorsed some of Beck’s most inflammatory comments, it seemed he was making it very clear that he approves of Fox’s race-baiting. Now, apparently after realizing how damaging it would be for him to publicly support the rhetoric that cost Glenn Beck 80 advertisers, he’s trying to backpedal. But Murdoch is not willing to distance himself from Beck either. He knows that he could face a backlash from Fox’s viewers if he appears critical of the racially charged programming that attracts many of them to the network in the first place.

So Murdoch wants to have it both ways — he wants to build a network that makes money by pandering to racial fear and paranoia, but he doesn’t want Fox to be seen as cable’s home for race-baiting.

We can’t let him get away with it. Murdoch made a mistake by speaking too openly about what he and his media organizations stand for. He rarely makes mistakes like this, and we need to seize the opportunity to expose Fox’s problem with race.

It starts by demanding that Murdoch explain what he meant, and be clear about whether or not race-baiting is part of the program at Fox. He may or may not respond, but if enough of us speak out, we can create a conversation that makes it clear who is ultimately responsible for Fox’s race-baiting. It’s just one step in starting to bring some accountability to the leadership of Fox News and News Corp — but it’s an important one.

Join us in calling out Rupert Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same. It only takes a minute:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Thanks and Peace,

— James, Gabriel, William, Dani and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
November 11th, 2009

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU — your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

References

1. Rupert Murdoch Interview, Sky News, 11-06-09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsboAwzj7aY

2. “An Open Letter to Rupert Murdoch: What exactly do you mean?” Huffington Post, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/yg2yj58

3. “Murdoch doesn’t consider Obama racist: Spox,” Politico, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/y8fhg4n

4. “On FOX, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson and Mike Gallagher attacked Kwanzaa,” Media Matters, 12-23-04
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230012

5. “Matalin: ‘I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they’re keeping … their African-American brothers enslaved,'” Media Matters, 2-09-06
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090003

6. “Defending Bennett’s comments, Rev. Peterson cited alleged violence at Superdome to claim that most blacks ‘lack moral character,'” Media Matters, 10-03-05
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510030005

7. “Breaking: Don Imus Joins Fox Biz,” TV Newser, 09-03-09
http://tinyurl.com/mdtn4x

8. “FNC Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Fired,” TV Newser, 10-16-09
http://tinyurl.com/yzx7xyd

9. “Fox President Roger Ailes’ History Of Race-Baiting,” Media Matters, 10-30-09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnNyEKAZIO4

10. “NY Post Defends Cartoon, Slams Al Sharpton” Huffington Post, 02-18-09
http://tinyurl.com/cdmhmm

11. “New York Post Lawsuit: Shocking Allegations Made By Fired Employee Sandra Guzman,” Huffington Post, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/y964vmb

 

 

 

 

%d bloggers like this: