First Iran know Saudi Arabia?

Interesting, amusing, conflicting, and perhaps a bit disturbing are the words that first come to mind when attempting to articulate the current stance Saudi Arabia has taken in demonstrating its unwillingness to increase oil production, even for its “friend” and “ally” the United States.

In his second visit this year to the Saudi Monarchy, US President George Bush pressed for an increase in oil production as a means of lessening the unyielding costs American drivers are frequently incurring. While the demand clearly exists, many high ranking Saudi officials see no need for such an increase, claiming that until customer demand exemplifies such a need, amplification of the current production system will remain idle.

“Supply and demand are in balance today” said Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi. As if to suggest to the international consumer that the rising price of gasoline has no direct link to the desert kingdoms lack luster desire for additional distribution. Even though at the present rate of 9.45 million barrels a day, the Saudi Kingdom continues to fall short roughly 2 million barrels of production capacity every day.

Despite the obvious need and overwhelming desire expressed by countries like the United States, China, and India, Saudi Arabia and other resource rich countries continue to turn a blind eye. Not only does this demonstrate their true colors - that of exploitation and unregulated greed - toward both friend and foe alike, but at the same time serves to highlight the unfortunate reality we are now required to deal with. You see, we've already sold ourselves short. Rather than enforcing the need to internally build upon the assets and natural wealth this country already possesses, we’ve instead chosen to play cards with the black-jack dealers of: Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela. Where once we held the keys to levy the terms and conditions by which the international game would be dealt, we know find ourselves playing with anything but house money. Leaving us not only indebted to the demands and un-American interests of foreign based havens of totalitarian control and terrorist intent, but we now too must meet head-on the many challenging aspects of a historically overdue road, sure to be plagued by complicated decision making, the risk of economic recessional downturn, and an environment that has already proven to be anything but conducive to the needs of a struggling superpower.

In a world whereby friends can overnight morph into enemies, it becomes hard to argue the relevancy of realist theory. But for those whose hope isn’t built upon constant chaos and self-interest I ask you this…..what world are you living on?

Iranian Dependance?

“Oil prices shot to a new record near $127 a barrel Tuesday on concerns that Iran may consider cutting crude oil production”.

I’m not sure what is worse. The American people paying on average $3.73 a gallon for gasoline or the fact that this recent upsurge in gas driven energy cost is due in large part to the whimsical antics of Iran.

According to the New York Mercantile Exchange, crude oil set to ship in June increased to a record high, reaching as much as $126.98 a barrel, before eventually settling late Tuesday afternoon to an abysmal $125.80. On average, this recent increase in regular gasoline, amounted to only a 1.4 cent increase according to a recent AAA and Oil Price Information Service recent report.

While a 1.4 cent increase may not from the onset appear to be all that daunting, some analysts have suggested that with Memorial Day just around the corner, the worst is yet to come. Which leaves many, like myself, concerned about not only the financial ramifications often associated with increased energy demand, but also, how will those already consumed by a slumping economy and the dwindling dollar stay psychologically firm when confronted by the paralyzing grasp of every day necessity?

With gas quickly approaching $4 a gallon in some parts of the country, many like myself are growing deeply concerned about the what the future will hold, given the fact that its successful longevity has already be auctioned off to the the highest bidder....Iran!

While some energy pundits like James Cordier, president of Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com, expressed rampant attention to the prospects of an Iranian “reduction” in oil production, Cordier, in recognizing the current state of Iranian economic hardship suggests that even the most minimal of reductions would greatly impact Iran’s economic dependence to the “petrodollar”.

So lets see if I've got this right. Currently the world's lone super power, the United States of America, is experiencing both a drastic increase financially and psychologically, all because some codependent – petrodollar – seeking nation-state, Iran, has allegedly embarked on the future prospects of reducing the only source of legitimate capital flooding into that inhospitable terrorist safe haven. Am I really to believe that my country, along with its many gas dependant technologies, has fallen hostage to those in position of a single earthly compound? Have we truly reached a point in our nations history, whereby the need to satisfy our graving for the pump, has superseded our foreign policy outlook of not exchanging with or growing dependant on, those of whom threaten our country, way of life, and tangible existence?

The time has come to reject this gas based savagery! No longer should the people of the United States be subjected to the demands of an unstable country lead by an even more dysfunctional dictator. If America and her global stance on terrorism and diplomatic relations is ever to be taken seriously as an international democratic trend setter, we need to begin to exhibit a more profound willingness to rid ourselves from ruthless tyrants and totalitarian regimes, even if that comes at the expense of economic dilapidation and incremental stagnation!

In other less startling news, the United States Senate voted on Tuesday 97-1 in favor of impeding the daily shipment of 70,000 barrels of oil to the Unites States strategic petroleum reserve. While this recent attack by the legislature has been viewed by the Bush Administration as nothing more than political pandering, some legislatures apparently believe that in reducing America’s tactical energy objectives, they will serve to assist in alleviating American consumer pressure at the pump. As if to suggest that the only way of altering American dependence on foreign oil is to simply legislatively reduce the amount of emergency fuel storage our country should be allowed to have.

A Must Read!!

My thanks to Reasononline and author Gene Healy for both their efforts and opinions on the current dilapidated state of America’s once honored Executive Branch. This brilliant outlook on the demise of Presidential leadership demonstrates how the motives of both “Imperial President’s” and the “Progressive Movement” helped guide a once modest position of constitutional restraint to that of a hemorrhaging - multifaceted public guardian!

With that being said I encourage each of my readers to devote a few moments of their time so as to better understand your unique role within The Cult of the Presidency.

A More Perfected Preamble!!

Recently I was introduced to the following remarks. I hope you learn to appreciate and enjoy them as much as I have.

“What is interesting is that American history has also begun to repeat itself. The problem is that we are nearing the point of Bacon's Rebellion, which means that we still have another hundred years before any real change will begin to take place. Yes, I'm sorry, Mr. Obama. You will not bring the type of change that this country needs. Higher taxes, more welfare, anti-gun laws, and a host of other socialist, totalitarian initiatives are not what the people want, regardless of what you tell them.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

has been supplanted by

We the Oligarchs & Politicians of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Oligarchical Plutocracy, promote greed and injustice, insure domestic unrest, provide for our own defense from the people, promote favoritism and socialist welfare, and delete the blessings of liberty for those not of our class and their posterity, do ordain to destroy the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Honestly, could this have been stated any better? Cooper, your outlook upon the crumbling nature of our modern political system is spot on! While I still hold out hope for my Country and its Constitution, I too feel as though a spirit of sweeping rejuvenation is necessary, if this country is ever going to reaffirm itself as the championing voice of honest self government, proper democratic representation, and constitutional clarity.

Is Kobe Really an MVP?

In a world whereby sports and other less meaningful sources of overpriced entertainment reign supreme, the NBA officially stooped to a new all-time low! Instead of honoring one of its better, more suitable representatives with the distinguished honor of – player of the year- the NBA chose instead to promote and further uplift perhaps it’s most misleading example of true class and dedication. Leading many like myself to wonder if the MVP, which at one point meant Most Valuable Player, had now been reinvented to mean something more along the lines of Most Villainous Persona!!

Yes, Kobe Bryant has in many ways had a wonderful statistical season, and by that account has been found worthy of dawning the NBA’s most prestigious award, it’s MVP. But should achieving high levels of categorical success really be all that matters when looking to determine MVP status? Or should we as fans and members of the media take into account other less numerically inclined factors when attempting to decide on who best exemplifies a league and its given fan base?

It is my belief that all too often we, as a sports enthused culture, fail to accurately address these and other pressing issues because of our own disillusioned logic. Somewhere down the line we seem to have bought into this ridiculous notion that just because someone is more athletically inclined or has exhibited the ability to run faster, jump higher, or react quicker, he or she is somehow excluded from the bounds of normalcy. And in achieving such, they have been granted an unlimited pass when it comes to civil responsibility and social dignity. And such is the case with Kobe Bryant.

Stemming from his adulterous behavior in Eagle Colorado and continuing through to this past summer’s list of personal demands, Kobe Bryant has exhibited domineering characteristics alright, but not ones often depicted on the backs of collectable trading cards or Sports Center highlight reels. Instead Mr. Bryant has routinely subjected his team, teammates, front office, and devoted fan base, to a list of demands the likes of which include: (1) insisting to be traded numerous times, (2) calling out Lakers’ General Manager Mitch Kupchak for failing to adequately surround him with championship like talent, (3) openly criticized upper management and Lakers’ owner Jerry Bust, and (4) eagerly ripped into current teammate Andrew Bynum, for not living up to expected levels of professional performance.

Funny isn’t it, all this from a “man” who had just recently verified his willingness to compromise his own legacy and that of the entire Lakers’ organization, largely at the expense of one lonely night in Colorado. It’s just a shame that in today’s world, what one does off the court, is in large part overshadowed by what one’s honest talent will allow him to do on it!

While magnificent talent and a flair for the dynamic can prove financially worthwhile, it does fall short of one’s own ability to be known on and off the court as a worthy - Most Valuable Player. Granted, Kobe Bryant along with his illustrious career will go down in the history books as being one of the games greatest legends, but in a world where pure athleticism has shown the ability to downplay real-life tragedy as a means of achieving real-world accolades, will any of us really care?

The Unlucky 436!!

Isn’t it a shame State Legislatures can’t hold “General Sessions” more often? But then again what type of elected body needs multiple opportunities when looking to “over-kill” the legislative minds of a given constituency? But when have you ever heard of, let alone experienced, a State or Federal legislature that was really all that genuinely interested, let alone concerned, about the impending short and long term needs of a given population? And the Utah State Legislature is no exception.

Having just recently passed a total of 436 “new” legislative measures, the Utah State Legislature has officially made its annual contribution to of all things….decreased political inclusion. By not catering to a society already plagued by the overwhelming forces of political division and economic hardship, the Utah State Legislature, instead chose to focus on the concept of never-ending expansion, and with it the unremitting realization often associated with government generated and enforced regulatory intrusion.

This tax based means of state enablement becomes even more tragic when you consider it takes even more time, money, and yes regulation in order to sufficiently put into practice the regulatory controls deemed necessary when looking to properly attain expected outcomes and/or results. But then again, in a country whereby the merits of one’s political aspirations have come to outweigh the validity of one’s realistic scope of proper implementation, who’s to concern themselves with cyclical antics and unequivocal disregard? Umm, something tells me this isn’t exactly what the founders had in mind when they instituted a federalist system of localized problem solving, which when paired with the US constitution, produced a unifying force of constitutionally infused collectivism.

So what are we to make of this political craftiness? And how are those affected by its confining grasp supposed to interpret this blatant abuse of legislative authority? Well for starters I believe it:

· Greatly Reduces political interest and involvement. The sheer size and complexity associated with most if not all of our governmental entities is simply too much. Now days those responsible to act and participate within the confines of American democracy too often find themselves either overwhelmed or fundamentally misinformed by a system they see as being any thing but responsive and practical. Thus, it is largely believed that in order for one to demonstrate sensible political inclusion one must either be a full-time member of the systems exclusive class, or an over engaged, politically enthused, self proclaimed pundit.

· Severely Increases governmental dependence at the expense of personal duty. Upon returning from his studious adventure into the very fabric of American Democracy, the famed political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville, observed in 1840 this aboriginal flaw inherently woven into its very political make-up.

“The American future is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Government becomes the parent, as “it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

Enough said!!

· Overextends the original intent of democratic self-governance. By continuously enlarging the scope of state and/or federal authority, modern day politicians find themselves at the helm of today’s political control tower. In doing so, and for reasons of sustained elect-ability, they have willingly risked the founding principles of self-governance, personal freedom, collective independence, and individual happiness. And looked to replace them with an institutionalized, largely dysfunctional system, based upon dwindling levels of personal action, accountability, responsibility, and above all sovereignty. Which leads me to recall the day’s of Henry Thoreau’s poignant charge of how “people should not permit government to overrule”. Because it is widely believed that efficiency and effectiveness are not marked by government overextension, but rather in the esteemed belief that a government governs best when it governs least.

While it remains to be seen what affect if any the latest Utah “general session” will have upon the everyday lives of those living under its reign, one thing is all but certain. The American political landscape, built upon the founding principles of democratic - republicanism is in series jeopardy. By enacting another 436 law-binding measures, Utah state lawmakers like other local, state, or federally elected officials, find themselves on the wrong side of constitutionally established precedents. And in doing so, wound up being victimized by the very master in whom President Washington foresaw when he stated that a “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

A Little Political Humor for the Weekend!!

In yet another moment of shocking revelation, the young Senator from Illinois must now discover a way of downplaying Reverend Wright's devotion to of all things "water-boarding"!!


Will you be paying today with cash, credit, or first born?

Are We Sure She's Qualified?

Now I know much has already been said and written regarding the sad state of affairs surrounding America’s current list of potential Presidential contenders. While each candidate has in more than one way demonstrated the credentials deemed necessary for such an electoral calling i.e. lying, distancing, undercutting, overlooking, and my personal favorite pretending just to name a few, the 2008 Presidential race in many respects has boiled down to nothing more than coffee and cream.

Coffee and cream you ask? What does that have to do with the current state of Americas highly charged –over amplified – pretentious run to the White House? In truth, coffee and cream have very little too do with would be Presidential Politics. But it does have a little something to do with hopeful Presidential Politicians. After all wouldn’t you want someone responsible for answering those 3:00 A.M. phone calls at the White House at least capable of functionally using an automated coffee maker?

Multilateral Brainstorming – UN Style!!

Well at least we can visually begin to acknowledge where more than 300 billion dollars a year of our hard earned - well allocated funds are being sent to disappear. Doesn’t anybody else find it odd or perhaps even a bit disturbing to know that every year the United States of America willingly funds and assists this hideous conglomerate to the tune of $8,219,178.08 a day? Yes that’s right, and if that number didn’t do the trick take a quick gander at the most recent US State Department figures through the 2003-2004 fiscal calendar year.

$362 million for the UN regular budget
$400 million to assist with UN “specialized agencies”
$1.1 billion (yes b as in boy) for “peacekeeping”
$72 million in support of international war tribunals
And nearly $6 million for “preparatory work relating to the UN Capital Master Plan”

All of which amounts to the United States serving as the single largest donor of ill-adviced, largely unsuccessful, attempts of an intercontinental ferver. After all the US is solely responsible for:

48% of the UN's World Food Program Budget
17% of the UN's Children's Fund Budget
31% of the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees Budget

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I sure feel much better having now seen, with my own two-eyes, this well articulated and highly informative list of universally funded mandates. All of which mind you, have been discussed and agreed upon by an un-elected deeply un-democratic delegation, whose sole purpose has now dwindled from that of universal gatekeeper and protectorate to nothing more than global procrastinator and/or corruption filled enabler.

Allegiance vs Sanity

I have been a committed fan of the Utah Jazz my entire life. At times this loyalty has brought about moments of glory and bliss the likes of which could never be matched. However, as any fan can attest, what comes up in the crazy upside down world of sports must come crashing down. As was the case this Tuesday night, when my beloved Jazz officially, for the first, granted me the opportunity to question my strict devotion and blind allegiance to their cause. No, this wasn’t simply a counter reaction to one of the most horrific performances ever achieved on a basketball court, rather this form of serious contemplation occurred purely over reasons of personal sanity and overall psychological well being.

Perhaps it can best be argued that I, for what ever reason, have simply fallen victim to the child-like tendencies exhibited by all fanatics…..um fans over the course of a given game or season. Or better yet, possibly this most resent reaction can best be described as an angered blip on my sports enthralled radar, the likes of which is sure to re-occur time and time again. And if those first two excuses don't wet your whistle, how about the ultimate notion that this most catastrophic response to the worst three game stretch in Utah Jazz history - ultimately boils down to me caring to much about a sport, a team, a player, and/or a given outcome. Yes my friends, the harsh reality of suddenly discovering that sports, both college and professional, amounts to nothing more than wasted time and unnecessary antics has finally set in.

No longer can I passively tolerate nor carelessly stand by and allow myself to be routinely psychologically abused and/or physically tormented by the uncontrolled events of third-fourth-or fifth consecutive Carlos Boozer missed free-throw or another Deron Williams misguided pass. Sports is after all meant to be some what unpredictable, highly contested, and at times down right maddening. And so far, the latter seems to be continuously dominating the former.

While my aspirations for the Jazz are surely to live on. It is my hope that as the years pass and consequently my age increases, I can more fully develop and then employ a more simplified stance towards what has clearly served as both an outlet and focal point for most of my life. Sure, I’ll continue to cheer, root for, and probably even yell for my teams and their definitive success. However, form know on, I’ll look do so with the refreshing idea that outcomes are merely finalized results, professional athletes are still after all human-beings, and my beloved Jazz are and always will be…..well….chokers!!

Great teams win when they must, good teams win when they should, average teams win when their at home, bad teams win when their befriended by luck, horrible teams win rarely, and the Utah Jazz....well lets just hope they win!!

Hollywood's Not America Indeed!!

Recently I’ve come across a song that I believe typifies the costs one must incur in order to fully participate within the mainstream “Hollywood” culture. I think you’ll agree, it’s both refreshing and new to see a musical twist play upon the ploys and/or antics of the misleading efforts of todays “must have culture”. Enjoy!!

Its Answer Time!!

1. Articles of Confederation
2. A total of two. George Washington and James Madison
3. James Madison
4. Thomas Jefferson
5. Rhode Island
6. Federalist vs Anit-Federalist
7. Democrat = Andrew Jackson, Republican = John C. Fremont
8. Thomas Jefferson as Secretery of State and Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury
9. 27
10. New Hampshire was the 9th state to ratify
11. September 17, 1787
12. James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. The purpse for doing so was to express the need these men felt for the Constitution to be embraced, and then ratified.

How much do you know?

Recently I had the privilege of reading and finishing a book based upon the role of Democracy, and its impact on the overall sphere of international politics. While both the impact and tantalizing legacy of democracy can not be overlooked, many have come to beleve its role as a lasting force within the broader realm of individual countries or even continents has been far from consistent. But regardless of whether or not you believe global democracy has actually taken proper root across the expanding range of new or ever-evolving nation-states, one thing is certain those seeking the saving graces of democracy, no matter how revolutionary they may be, will have to endure the personal and collective hardship of participatory politics. And as everybody knows, in order to correctly participate, one has to first be adequately informed.

In lieu of this recent revelation towards the importance of education as it relates to comprehensive political inclusion, I’ve decided to extend the limits of my blog, so as to hopefully generate a new and improved desire for all of my readers. I’ve chosen to do so, because I believe its time for American Democracy to rid itself and its reputation as a country that expects others to do as we say, and not as we do! If we are truly to become in President Reagan’s terms a “shinning city upon the hill”, we need to begin restoring the processes of: enhanced-equalizing participation, dedication to and respect for our time tested political existence, and above all, a personal desire for greater inclusion into the dynamic world of political information.

So to assist each of us with this short list of aforementioned requests, I’ve included below, a simple, yet precise list of questions, all of which will look to not only raise your curiosity, but hopefully instill a fondness for the very democratic republic you are, and should be, a vital part of.

Good luck in your efforts:

1. The Constitutional Convention was intentionally convened for the purpose of re-vamping what loosely configured US document?
2. How many US Presidents actually signed the Constitution? And who were they?
3. For his role and participation at the Constitutional Convention, this former Virginia statesman was given the distinguished title of “father of the constitution”?
4. Which founding father was fluent in Greek, Latin, French, Spanish, Italian, and German?
5. Twelve of the thirteen original colonies sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention, which state was not represented?
6. What were the first two American political factions?
7. Who were the Democratic and Republican Party’s first Presidential candidates?
8. Who served as America’s first Secretary of State and Treasury?
9. How many Amendments does the Constitution have?
10. With its ratification, the Constitution officially became effective. Which state am I speaking of?
11. On what date was the Constitution signed?
12. Which three men co-authored the Federalist Papers? And what was their intention for doing so?

All answers will be provided on April 5th 2008. And please remember too not cheat, and if you would, please post all your responses via my blog within the "comments" section.

A Call for Statesman not Politicians!!

As could be expected, the unfortunate issue of race has for better or worse been fully injected into the 2008 Presidential race. For many, this shocking revelation comes as no surprise, for they still find themselves living in a time and perhaps place, where the issues of racial divisiveness and unnecessary logic are seen as not only mundane – every day – standards, but rather status quo perceptions of how America was and therefore ought to be.

Yet there are others, thankfully, who have experienced in one way or another the necessity of an improved and much needed check on reality, the likes of which has made possible not only the rise of minority Americans, but of all Americans! After all, isn't America, the very country in which first instilled the universal beliefs and ideological doctrines of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The likes of which has served as both precedence and hope for more than one-hundred countries filled with millions of people, both of whom are or have been at times staunchly engaged in the skilled craft of mimicking a more homogonous-like- replication of our own influential documents. So why is it, or better yet how is it, that a country as blessed and enlightened as the United States, could over the course of sum two-hundred and twenty years, still continue to struggle with and undervalue the resounding sentiments echoed in documents molded so long ago?

In one of Mr. Obama’s more moving speeches, the junior Senator from Illinois looked to further highlight and articulate this very point. However, instead of focusing on the broader picture of America’s collective unwillingness to adapt to inspired levels of much needed unity, Barack Obama did unfortunately what all modern politicians do, utter spirited words of quick and politically motivated relief. While this tactic of cyclical emptiness may work for the vast majority of un-advised or under-educated voters, it didn’t resound evenly among the vast electorate. So the question must then be asked, does highlighting the issue of American racism due justice when one is attempting to describe the conscientious approach needed to more fully employ greater calls for a more perfect union? Or rather, do similiar approaches serve only to further the utilization of over-used and over-hyped rhetorical stances, which look to supply and not remove the forces of exclusion and division?

But Mr. Obama isn’t alone in this endeavor. For he, like the vast majority of our elected and un-elected public officials, has come to view, and most often misinterpret, issue after issue, whether it be based upon race or the likes of foreign policy, as nothing more than minute details, and as a result require nothing more than make-shift verbiage chased leisurely by slightly unimaginative recognition. Take for example, Senator John McCain, and his approach and consequential stance towards illegal immigration and the degradation of US sovereignty and rule of law.

For here is a distinctive example of a man, whose bravery and devotion to that of his country and homeland, is only surpassed by his apparent willingness to assist in its gradual decomposition. Not only does this stance serve to violate his pledging allegiance to the very Constitution he has sworn to uphold and protect, by overlooking the constitutionally enshrined principles of among others: justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. But again, much like Senator Obama, Mr. McCain demonstrates his readiness to sabotage the much needed issue of resolve, in favor of the short term benefits of unilateral political vibrancy and unequivocal personal gain.

Instead of furthering the cause of political cohesiveness, whereby the attributes of representation, responsiveness, and accountability could thrive, the two leading challengers for the 2008 Presidential nomination have already proven unsuccessful and at times out of touch with the true ambiance of “We the people”. By constantly focusing on issues that instigate unnecessary levels of polarization and haziness, Senator’s Obama and McCain continue to do a great disservice to themselves and to the American people. Thus, the need for a resounding reduction in the ways of political selfishness cloaked within the bleakness of institutionalized fragmentation must be rendered if not entirely dissolved.

Until we, the lone legitimizing force of true political empowerment, learn to more fully expect and then elect proper men and women to the most esteemed offices in all the land, we can and should continue to anticipate politicians in place of statesman, professional administrators instead of patriots, and Obamacans/McCainanites at the expense of Jefferson’s, Madison’s, or Monroe’s.

Obama's Brilliance Leads to Misguidedness!!

By now, if you’ve not had a chance to acquaint yourself with the fluentness of Senator Barack Obama’s latest speech you should. For it offered among other things, an insightful glimpse into the historical fabric of America’s rich and highly diversified past. And did so in such a way, which not only touched upon his personalized gift as a brilliant orator and instrument; but also helped address through symbolic means, the necessity, by which race as an element of America’s past, must never under any condition serve to partake of its oppertunistic future.

Like all commendable speeches, it demonstrated a keen sense of overt awareness and overall sensitivity to its chosen topic and subsequent content, thus allowing all within ear-shot, a chance to feel of its magnitude. However, unlike all defining speeches, which carry with them the voice of pronounced reason and applicability; Senator Obama’s most recent excerpt fails to transcend the bounds of universal acceptance. This is not to say nor suggest that his message, devoted to the issue of real life racism, hasn’t played a prohibitive role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. But rather that in focusing on the lone issue of race, as a means of acknowledgement and justification for such acts of egregious vocal filth and tirades, Obama’s speech supersedes the true issue of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s influence and belligerence, as it relates to not only Obama’s personal life, but now his political one as well.

Hence the following three lengthy and highly articulated points I’ve attached to this post are important. For they examine and at times scrutinize the seriousness of not only Senator Obama’s - at times misguided speech - but also that of his church and pastor. My intentions for attaching such insight is two fold: First I believe it better serves to more fully broaden the scope of true inquisitiveness, by allocating necessary time to all sides of this dynamic discourse. And Secondly, I believe it sheds necessary light on “behind the scene” type issues, the likes of which present a more daunting perspective of Barack Obama's 20 year devotion to Reverend Wright's gospel of antagonizing division.

I know offer you Michael Medved’s “Three Big Problems With Barack’s Speech”

Misleading Comparisons. At several points in his talk, Obama directly equates the controversy over the Reverend Dr. Wright to the dispute over remarks by Geraldine Ferraro suggesting that the candidate wouldn’t be a leading presidential contender if he were white. After lamenting the fact that “the discussion of race in the campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn,” the Illinois Senator notes that “on one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action….On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential…to widen the racial divide….” Later, he pushes the same equation between comments by Ferraro and the unhinged sermons by Wright. “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.”

The comparison between the two firestorms amounts to a slick but unfair attack on Geraldine Ferraro and, by implication, her candidate, Hillary Clinton. No one in either campaign has defended the enraged remarks by Jeremiah Wright (“God d---n America!” or blaming the government for deliberately creating the AIDS virus) as legitimate or worthy of serious debate, but many responsible politicos and pundits agree with Ferraro’s observation that his race played an essential role in Barack’s rise. Moreover, Wright’s comments reflect a long, consistent career of impassioned hostility to the “white power structure” that runs “the U.S. of KKK- A,” while no one had ever before accused the reliably liberal Ferraro of racial animus of any kind.

This wretched analogy should make all of us cringe: there’s no arguable equivalence between his grandmother’s very private kitchen-table remarks (no matter how insensitive) and the very public and thunderous sermons of a famous clergyman addressing thousands of his congregants and later selling his hateful remarks on DVD. There’s also a world of difference between breaking with a blood relative whose home you occupied as a child, and creating distance with a religious mentor you selected as an adult. No one gets to choose his grandmother, but we do choose our pastors, priests and rabbis. Obama’s selection of Wright as his guide and guru says something profound about his judgment and outlook, while his connection with his grandmother reflects only the accidents of his birth and upbringing.

Distortion of Wright’s Afro-Centric Theology. In his address, Obama many times references the “comments,” “remarks” or “statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.” He speaks of “the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube” as providing the basis for “the caricatures being peddled by some commentators….”

Regarding this claim that revulsion to Wright emerged from a few randomly “cherry-picked” declarations, Pastor Frank Pina, a dynamic church leader who heads a vibrant multi-ethnic congregation in Everett, Washington, sent me an insightful e-mail.

“What I heard coming from Rev. Wright was not just a phrase taken out of context, but a philosophy,” he wrote. “And if you listen to all the different controversial statements, the GD America Sermon (not just a few statements) pretty much sums up the philosophy. And the way the congregation responds lets us know that the philosophy is not just the pastor’s, but the church’s. The point I’m trying to make is that making an inflammatory statement (or two) is not the same as a church’s or pastor’s philosophy. And if Obama didn’t know the pastor’s philosophy after being a member of the church for over 20 years…it speaks to the lack of judgment he has.”

Even the most cursory examination of the character of Wright’s congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, demonstrates that Reverend Pina’s point is both valid and powerful. The website for the congregation begins with an introductory paragraph under the heading, “About Us,” that unequivocally proclaims: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”

For many years, the next paragraph (recently removed due to the Wright controversy) appeared on the website and shamelessly explained: “Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System….We believe in the following twelve precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.” Those “precepts and covenantal statements” include, “Commitment to the Black Community” (Number 2), “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’” (Number 8), “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System (Number 11) and “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.” (Number 12).

A simple thought experiment can clarify the questionable nature of the ideology of Jeremiah Wright’s church. Try replacing the word “black” in the material above with the word “white,” and you’d see a perfect definition of the spiritual approach of the “Aryan Nations” or “Christian Identity Movement” or other neo-Nazi fringe groups.

Could the American people truly accept a President who chose long-term affiliation with an organization that says that “Black Ethics…must be taught” and requires “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System” --- not the American Value System, or the Universal Value System, or, pointedly, even the Christian Value System.

Obama’s church publicly and unapologetically promoted a “Value System” based on racial identity, not common heritage or American patriotism.

The additional “10-point Vision” of Revrend Wright (still featured on the church website) specifies “A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.” Nowhere in the “10-point Vision” or the “twelve precepts” or the 25 course offerings for religious education or in any other church materials do the organizers of Trinity mention anything at all about loyalty to the United States of America, or service to the nation that hosts the church, or gratitude to the amazingly benevolent society that has embraced one of the congregation’s members as a leading presidential candidate.

If Joe Lieberman had affiliated for twenty years with a synagogue that never offered prayers for America and its government (as nearly all Orthodox Jewish synagogues do, in fact), but instead emphasized a “non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL,” wouldn’t voters have questioned his outlook and judgment when he ran for Vice President?

In his speech, Obama suggests that his fellow citizens recoiled against Reverend Wright only because they failed to understand that his bitter rage stemmed from centuries of oppression and injustice. “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

Does Obama decry, or encourage, that segregation? If he condemns it, then why would he maintain a long-term commitment to a purposefully segregated, race-based congregation that elevates a mystical sense of “blackness” above Christianity, Americanism or common humanity?

Changing the Core Message of His Campaign. In all the ecstatic praise for Obama’s speech, there’s been little comment on the way the talk signals a dramatic, permanent, and possibly fatal alteration of his race for the presidency.

Until today, the Illinois Senator enjoyed spectacular success with his determination to run as the first-ever “post-racial” candidate for the White House.

He refused to allow himself to be pigeon-holed as “the black candidate,” and tirelessly emphasized his desire to unify the nation (“We’re not red states or blue states—we’re the United States of America!”). His campaign succeeded in large part because he implicitly promised to move our society beyond the long and tragic centuries of racial agitation and pain. Yes, he won overwhelming support in the black community, but he also drew huge majorities in states like Iowa, North Dakota, Idaho and Utah, with miniscule populations of African-Americans.

For more than a year, Obama has been offering a weary nation an irresistible deal. As Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele observed in his superb book “A Bound Man,” Barack represented the ultimate “bargainer” in a long history of African-American leaders who became popular by suggesting they could reduce white America’s burden of guilt. By generally avoiding discussion of race or race relations, Obama suggested that in supporting his candidacy, Americans could finally escape from the hurts and resentments of the past.

Here’s the deal, he seemed to say: if you elect me, we can at last put an end to all the lectures and breast-beating about our brutal racist history. When I stand on the steps of the Capitol building and take the oath of office as your president, that very act will put an end- forever- to the idea of African-Americans as second-class citizens. Rather than endless recriminations and accusations, we’ll all stand together as equals in the eyes of God and the U.S. Constitution.

Millions of Americans – including some conservatives who should have known better- rushed to take that deal, and embraced Obama’s candidacy.

But now, at a decisive point in the race, the candidate has abruptly changed the bargain.

Rather than promising less race consciousness, he now insists we need more. Instead of bidding to lead a post-racial-- or at least a post-racist—America, Obama’s speech tells us we must go back to picking at the old scab.

Actually, Barack was right the first time: putting race aside, affirming our common Americanism and humanity, can serve to heal old divides. Obsessing on racial divisions, focusing on “blackness” or “whiteness,” perpetuating the eternal cycle of grudge and guilt, only intensifies the fever associated with the nation’s most menacing disease.

Bill Clinton also believed that we needed more talk about race, and as president he participated in a series of televised “public dialogues” (amounting to tiresome gripe fests) that achieved nothing at all other than underlining Slick Willie’s enlightenment and compassion.

If the Obama campaign follows up on his over-praised speech and makes intensified race-talk into a new national priority, he may well destroy his chances of winning the presidency. The most “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party could celebrate prospect that a President Obama would get countless opportunities to deliver more lectures on slavery, Jim Crow, oppression, and race differences.

But less politically correct Americans may prove notably less eager to seize the chance for additional solemn scolding sessions like the one they just heard in Philadelphia. Most voters, black as well as white, feel weary and wary of the destructive cycle of accusation and apology, so that Obama’s new implied promise of a presidency of endless race-based agitation may well constitute an offer that we easily can refuse.

Prostitution, A Price America is willing to Pay!!

“Politicians take people's money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can't be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering. It's not surprising for people in the same line of work to gravitate toward one another, as Eliot Spitzer and a woman named Kristen reportedly did in a Washington hotel room.”

While the vast majority of those whom grace the pages of my rather sporadic spouts my come to disagree with most if not all of the aforementioned quote derived from Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, I for one, found it to be interesting, insightful, and somewhat atypical. Although it is true that many like Mr. Chapman and I have come to view the personal actions and ultimate appetites of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer with great disdain, the reality still exists. Should men like Mr. Spitzer or better yet young ladies like “Kristen” really be charged and belittled before the courts of public opinion and judicial prudence? While, I’m neither suggesting nor condoning acts of such dastardly appeal, I am looking to further clarify the difference between two consenting adults exhibiting a taste for priced immorality, and those of whom do so without the association of monetary means or any other financial perk. For after all, hasn’t money and power always been associated with dashing –often times younger women – of whom are eager to meet and greet those in possession of secular prestige and wealth? Chapmen reiterates:

“It's not as though sex is otherwise divorced from money. If it were, hot young women would be found on the arms of poor older men as often as they are seen with rich ones. Had the New York governor wanted to buy a $4,300 bauble to seduce someone of Kristen's age and pulchritude, only his wife and his financial adviser would have objected.”

Aside from prostitution serving as a source of unethical devotion as it relates to appropriate partnership relations, it also has a certain illegal twist, that according to Chapman and I’m sure many others, carries with it a fragment of unnecessary legislative force and committed action. This attitude, which I initially shot down, was in one way or another refurbished, as I was forced to re-think my position towards prostitution, and the harsh reality of making such an act forcible illegal. Again Chapman states:

“As with laws against illicit drugs and unsanctioned gambling, this policy tries to suppress powerful human appetites and consistently fails. What one New Orleans mayor said applies to a segment of every human society: "You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can't make it unpopular."

So is outlawing such acts through measures of state and federal statutes really the answer? Or do they instead look to further cloud the prevailing judicial approach, when it comes to “alternative” outlooks, regarding “sex” and “other” bedroom “behaviors”?

At present, the realm of sexual acceptance and with it a sense of fair and reasonable understanding has become blurred. For many, the notion of individuals, groups, or even married couples looking to extend the bounds by which such acts of desire can be more fully engulfed is becoming common practice. Again, I’m not advocating nor legitimizing that such demands or requests of a personal nature don’t bare substantial costs upon the landscape of a broader civil society, but rather looking to point out the exorbitant amount of hypocrisy surrounding America’s broad cultural standards and norms. After all, how else could one begin to explain the rejection of prostitution and other forms of sexual solicitation, but yet condone and at times even federally protect the rights and economic viabilities of sexually driven corporations or entities; namely those responsible for the selling and distribution of hard-line pornography, liberating sexual “literature”, and above all the mighty poll/lap-dance; the likes of which both men and women obligingly pay for.

This attitude towards –singled out societal approval – even carries with it significant financial costs, often brought about by de-legitimizing organizations, the likes of which are responsible for harboring environments of “meet and great” antics. This not only highlights the overwhelming costs associated with the loss of taxable revenue and other fees; but continues to place a higher burden on local, state, and federal agencies already strapped for among other things, money and man-power; with the exclusive duty of ridding the public of prostitutional influence. The likes of which, restrains and I believe greatly prohibits, law enforcement productivity and overall effectiveness.

Likewise, the risks often times associated with prostitution and those of human exploitation and de-humanization become unclear, as those standing in opposition look to collectively wrap them up under the same shared banner of deliverance. While the nature of prostitution may be justly linked to such undignified ploys, those proclaiming such charges of abuse and/or neglect, fail to do so with proper insight. For they once again fall victim to the rules by which our society is not only tolerant of, but at times willing to pay for. Instances such as these are present as Chapman points out in our “hired” help, via the millions of immigrant laborers and domestic workers, both of whom serve to meet the needs of an overwhelming populace eager to reap the rewards of cheapened exploitive efforts. This, as Chapman accurately points out, “is not taken as grounds to ban fruit picking or home cleaning”. Ah…. the seeds of hypocrisy reiterated once more!!

With the nature of such an issue all but insured to instill divisive outlooks, especially among alternative albeit competing interests, one thing is certain. As long as human appetites persist for all things self-serving, techniques as well as deception will continue to dominate the avenues of human capacities, expressed through individual capabilities. Thus we are all but ensured of future entanglements occurring not simply between former governors and high-priced escorts, but that of mundane, everyday, Jack’s and Jill’s!!

Obama's Rise, A Threat to "Identity" Poliltcs!!

In a system whereby political belligerence and staunch resistance have come to define the means by which political parties, lead by fervent political practitioners, advance utopian dreams of subjective direction. The 2008 Democratic Presidential race has proven, at least thus far, to be anything but customary. Instead of American’s both “left” and “right” being subjected to a sequence of mundane yet expected assaults directed solely upon opposing ideological viewpoints. This latest political battle, which has officially offset the politics of expectedness, has in one way or another forced the Democratic establishment and its chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, to confront its long standing wing of “identity” driven political devotion, and its rising son, Barack Obama.

With both candidates firmly looking to insure individual success and ultimate supremacy atop the peak of anti – conservatism, one thing is certain, either the winning nominee will rightfully achieve political primacy, and thus qualify him or herself to best maintain the broad - highly diversified Democratic base. Or through the use of non-democratic trickery i.e. “super-delegates”, the eventual nominee could objectionably seize perceived political candidacy. The likes of which would all but insure heightened party divisiveness, minority political disenfranchisement, and the eventual implosion of the Democratic political landscape as we’ve come to define it.

So why is it then, that in a time of “leftist” calls for drastic “change” accompanied by demands for vast improvement, are those within the party claiming to be capable of generating such measures, so undecided and misplaced? Could it be that many long time party loyalist are simply torn between which candidate they feel is best adept and therefore equipped to overcome the daunting questions/challenges that are all but insured to come? Better yet, could it be that the current hysteria surrounding Senator Obama due to his alluring magnetic persona and open – ended rhetoric, has indeed touched upon a new fragment of inspired Democratic voters, thus generating a disparity and unintended identity crisis between hard – line Clintonites and upstart Obomaniacs? Or perhaps this political meddling can best be summed up by pointing out the lack of “change” and overall "equality" the Democratic Party in and of itself has exhibited throughout its rather monopolizing and elongated existence.

While all three options are sure to play a role in the lingering debacle that has become the current Democratic Primary. Perhaps the lone issue of race, advanced through the tactful art of racial politics, best serves to exemplify Liberalism’s devotion to “minority” control. Especially when it deals with issues of political representation, alleged implementation, and overall inclusion.

Dating as far back as 1865 with the implementation of the first of three “Civil War Amendments” (See here, here, and here), America, in an effort to quickly dissolve the unjust practices of slavery, racial inequality, and opposition to universal suffrage, initiated the first of many widespread democratic ideals, the likes of which solidified a new era of approved state and federal standards. This new “awakening” if you will was even further enhanced by the passing of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both of which looked to extenuate the political viability and/or capacities of disillusioned African-Americans, by exterminating southern Jim Crow Laws, based on public segregation and voter infringement.

While passage of such legislative provisions by Democratic policymakers proved worthy in assisting the gradual enfranchisement of African – Americans, if not minorities in general, into the system of checks and balances. It proved unwilling to accurately take on the demoralizing reality of legitimizing true independent leadership, removed from that of its own sense of “owed” emancipating authority. Thus, even though African – Americans among others where lead to believe they had rightfully attained proper validation for the first time within America’s confined political arena. Those possessing the true keys to political dynamics i.e. (Lyndon – style - Democrats) were instead looking to ensure a lasting legacy of minority monopolization, that when called upon, proved capable of routinely electing “white” opportunistic politicians, but certainly not one of their own.

Perhaps no better insight or example can be offered with respect to establishment driven politics of a Democratic fervor than to touch upon the vocal expression of Senator Hillary Clinton who on January 7th 2008 declared:

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. …It took a president to get it done.”

This thought was further captured in Charles Krauthammer’s editorial, Real First Black President, in which he goes on to espouse:

“The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results. Forty years ago, that arrangement — white president enacting African-American dreams — was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement — white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty — is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly. The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen — and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?”

Indeed the times and circumstances have changed. Therefore, not only is it possible but quite practical that all members of minority based constituencies, not just African – Americans’ can and should look to further their historic cause, as it relates to properly achieving true political leadership, independent and far removed from the binding agents of time-honored Democratic tactics and dependence. Then and only then will the true nature of political inequality be removed, proper independence attained, democratic participation employed, and true legitimacy restored.

But until such a realization is mutually understood, the projected future of the Democratic Party looks bleak. After all, how much longer can a party, established under the banner of civil-rights and definitive equality for “all”, look to suppress the will and vocal vivacity, the likes of which has not been seen nor heard since the great Dr. King?

Perhaps then, the message of a victorious young Senator from Illinois would finally resonate. And just think.... he wouldn’t have had to utter even a single word!!

The Power of One!!

E Pluribus Unum – Out of Many, One

I ask….has there ever been another phrase that so eloquently described the overall will and fortitude of America and each one of her collective inhabitants? While such a question might be next to impossible to answer, given the countless moments of unprecedented brilliance this country has endured, the relevancy and overall impact of such simplistic slogans has and will continue to to have an impact on the true spirit of endearing American statesmanship and patronage.

Established under the banner of declared 1776 independence, E Pluribus Unum, was first instilled as a means of collectivizing the combined efforts of thirteen independent colonies, each seeking freedom from the perceived obligatory forces of the British Kingdom. While it would be completely outlandish to excuse the effects rigid devotion, patriotic fervor, and a keen sense of opportunistic self-determination played in the finalization of America’s recognized existence, E Pluribus Unum, and its call for broad individual unification, not only helped secure victory in 1783, but also assisted in ushering in a new establishment of ideals, the likes of which would soon prove adventages.

This new “mindset” with its emphasis on individual recognition and empowerment, not only helped to forever alter status quo politics, but ultimately assisted in the shaping of a revolutionary system of governance, whereby individuals not hierarchically imposed units would maintain the autonomy of true political prestige. However, this system when fully employed would prove effective where others had not, for it demonstrated the ability to capitalize inventively, on the combined efforts of citizen sustained political power, and that of institutionalized democratic republicanism. And thus the combining agents of E Pluribus Unum were internally forged.

Ever since its profound inception, the effects of E Pluribus Unum has been on display all throughout America’s cherished history. Thomas Jefferson in recognizing its euphoric power implemented several references to the strength “out of many, one” could have when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation”.

Jefferson went on to further explain his belief in this grounding principle when he further stated,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

In a similar albeit more binding fashion, the United States Constitution, with all its meticulous intricacies, espouses similar calls for properly derived authority when it declares,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

While both examples presented share a historical undertone, the underlying factor of timelessness as it relates to E Pluribus Unum still firmly exists. Although nearly 232 years have passed since its initial emersion into the waters of American political baptism, the ability “one” can have when united in cause and purpose is still riveting. Perhaps it was this precise method of thought that lead Norman Cousins to assert that, “In a democracy, the individual enjoys not only the ultimate power but carries the ultimate responsibility”.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. - John F. Kennedy

What About Bin Laden?

Doesn’t anybody else find it odd or a bit naïve when they read published reports from the Defense Department suggesting the successful destruction of one or our own spy-satellites? Not that we should be amazed at the skill and crafted marksmanship of our countries brave Navy gunners. But that we are able to through adequate use of today’s specialized technology, locate a bus sized satellite approximately 247 kilometers or 133 nautical miles above the earth’s surface, not to mention the minuscule 10 second window of opportunity those gunners had to lock and unload on a target traveling at speeds in excess of 17,000 MPH. FYI, just in case you were wondering, that’s 88 football fields a second.

But what I find really interesting isn’t America’s military strength or technological superiority, but rather its inability thus far to utilize those strengths and other alternative means to hunt down and ultimately obliterate our most hated villain, Osama Bin Laden! After all, could it really be that hard to locate and eradicate one man, when compared to an orbital mass of deteriorating technocratic steel?

Perhaps so....but in the mean time, I think to play it safe and to expand upon our current stance and devotion to global terrorist extermination, we should start looking for ways to capitalize upon the talents of America's most proficient marksman. And do so in a way that suits not only the interests of decrepit Cold War intruments of investigation, but rather looks to decrease its arch rivals overall chances of even limited success.

To employ this tactic to the fullest extent, might I suggest we begin a series of well thought-out highly sophisticated militery bombing raids along the border of north-west Pakistan and south-east Afghanistan, with the mind- set of heading "dead" west till we forever demolish Tehran!!

Sorry Hillary, but the Fat Lady is Singing!!

In reviewing a series of politically inclined websites today, I stumbled upon this hilarious yet well stated perspective of the evolutionary demise of Senator Clinton and her floundering Presidential campaign. Enjoy!!

"The cheeseheads have spoken. And the message they delivered in the Democratic primary in Wisconsin was loud and unequivocal. There are fancier (or gentler) ways of interpreting it, but what the hearty souls who braved the subfreezing temperatures to cast their votes from Milwaukee to Menomonie announced was this: Virginia and Maryland weren’t anomalies; Barack Obama has the Big Mo; and Hillary Clinton is close to being forced from the stage by another lady — the fat one who likes to sing."

Yes.....This is Earth Calling for Senator Clinton!!

In a night where even Hillary Clinton was considered to be an honest political threat, voters from all spheres of the deranged and now fragmenting Democratic platform, demonstrated once again their unyielding preference in favor of the anti-establishments contender. Although defeat has proven lately to be nothing new for the Clinton brigade, one thing has proven to be of note. Her inability and clear contempt for the political reality that is sure to come.

A prophetic account of this mindset was yet again revealed in her most recent analogue, in which she offered fellow Clintonites and other hardened loyalists this resounding declaration of desperate yet unrelenting hope.

“ Both Senator Obama and I would make history, But only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans. Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice." - Hillary Clinton

A “defeating of the Republicans”!! Doesn’t this strike anybody else as being odd, outlandish, or even fabricated? Especially when one considers the source of such antics!! I think it might be safe to declare such presumptuous ploys when you’re the candidate of good grace, but not if you’ve just recently lost nine (Louisiana, Nebraska, Maine, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin and Washington) consecutive primaries/caucuses to your party’s chosen son.

Look, I can only imagine the amount of time, energy, and money that goes into generating a cross-country campaign, but at some point in time you would think even the “Clinton Machine” would need to refresh itself. Only then perhaps, in a series of self-reflection and humbling thought, might the Clinton camp begin to realize that the source of all their current political woes has less to do with Bill, and more to do with Hillary’s laced rhetoric of misguided optimism!!

Obamania, The Source of Political Myth!!

“And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions”.

Thank goodness for Charles Krauthammer!! In his recent article Obama Casts His Spell, Krauthammer, exposes the myth that has come to clearly define most if not all of Barack Obama’s less than pragmatic Democratic crusade. Touching upon the many qualified opinions of James Wolcott, Jake Tapper, and Joel Stein, Mr. Krauthammer accurately diagnoses the false aura of political supremacy that Obama and his pundits have looked to achieve. In conforming to the notion of tireless regurgitation, the Obama craze, and all of those swooned by its promptings, have found themselves victimized by such phrases as, “We are the hope of the future, We can remake this world as it should be” or better yet my personal favorite “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”.

Note to Obama, we are still hoping for a future, what in the hell does the world have to do with our success, and who said any of us were waiting on you for anything?

I know many, especially those contending all things “right” have without thought or conscienceness, looked upon an Obama nomination and/or Presidency as a way to willfully sell their political independence and soul. But many, like myself, have instead come to view this type of blind devotion as a way of degrading not only one’s personal political capabilities demonstrated through personal intellect and basic understanding of election driven phrase, but also that of individual prudence, as it relates to the manifestation of one’s right to vote.

It was this exact type of outlook, exhibited by so many around the country that caused ABC’s Jake Tapper to note the many “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshippers”.

Although the presence of Obama’s impeccable demeanor and method of speech is sure to lead many more into the camp of hope, one thing is for sure, senator Obama and his stimulating tactics will not lead ultimately to political incorporation. But rather to the place were all good fabricated stories go to regroup and ultimately die…..the left flank of the Democratic Party!!

The Inevitable Romney Endorsment!!

Today officially marks the beginning of the “new” Republican establishment. Although my initial pledge was to that of Governor Romney, I now turn my political leanings to that of the overall party and its new inevitable leader. While a Romney endorsement does go a long way in easing my political hostility towards a McCain candidacy, I still fear the ramifications, both long and short term of his now impending nomination.

With Romney and his delegates, now firmly placed within the confines of a mounting McCain endorsement directory, let us not be too quick to rest nor forget the true source(s) of disdain for the Arizona Senator and his legislative mishandling of so many crucial aspects regarding America, and her right to perpetual glory.

For now he (McCain) is the best of what remains from a fragmented and once reliable conservative platform. While there still remains a very real contentious force standing in opposition to his reign, this harsh reality still exists. A McCain nomination as erroneous as that sounds, is sure to be a much better option for conservatives of all types, when contrasted against either Democratic victor.

Sure, a McCain candidacy is far removed from any conservative utopia, but then again who needs such a thing when you’re backed by so many” prominent” enforcers of true conservative values: (Schwarzenegger, Giuliani, Crist, and now Romney).

Perhaps those throughout the country were right in assuming Romney’s approach to politics was nothing more than spirited grand-standing enforced by unequivocal flip-flops. Or perhaps they were most accurate when it came down to dissecting Romney the candidate from Romney the man. For I believe had Mr. Romney held true and firm to his original principles, based upon devotion to ideals enfused by real world practicality, the 2008 Presidential election might have been one of real choice and not forceful electoral digression!!

A Call for Anything but Change!!

As I sat and observed yet another one of Senator Barack Obama’s signature orations filled with among many things a lack of all things tangible, I couldn’t help but think of how is message of “hope” built upon “change” with an eye to the “future” was filled with nothing more than graceful deception backed by uninformative passion. Yes, the junior Senator from Illinois is a brilliant speaker, but what will become of him and his grandiose rhetoric when delicate words must actually lead to substantive action?

As we have witnessed throughout Americas shared political history, individuals of all creeds, when confronted with the daunting task of personal political inclusion, have had a tendency to favor those whose “politics” and/or “verbal” dogma, is perceived as being less threatening and more opportunistic. While the art of political salesmanship can not be denied, one thing is certain, this country in being lead by its next Commander in Chief is indeed in need of substantive and rather somber “change”. And substantive “change” as we all know is not simply brought about by the vocalizing tactics of mystifying Executors through the channels of passionate vocal deliverance, but rather through a system of already entrenched and recognizable precepts, that when called upon by its harbinger, exhibit sound fundamental action.

It is this call and demand for action at the expense of passionate vernacular that has lead me to stray even further away from an Obama candidacy. Not only do I question his ability to bring about future levels of “change”, but I also fear what this relatively unknown figure with minuscule experience at the federal level might look to “change” if granted the ability to do so.

Until Americans of all political affiliation begin to enforce the need for experienced action over heightened audio permeation, our political future will continue to be dominated and ultimately lead by advocates of anything but relative substance. And that my friends is the key component of Obamian politics.

A McCain - Rice Ticket?

In an effort to appeal beyond the ideals of both Moderates and Independents, a McCain nomination must ensure for the good of the party and that of his impending nomination, the selection of a staunch southern conservative advocate for the Vice Presidency. In doing so, not only would a McCain candidacy extend the hand of “conservative” friendship to those non-aligned pundits, but also look to further increase the type of expansive support any Republican ticket is sure to need.

Recently a colleague and fellow blogger suggested I take on the challenge of explaining “What are the chances of, and what would the result be, of a McCain/Rice ticket”? Below is my own perspective and subsequent stance on such a possibility.

Initially the thought of a McCain/Rice ticket posed numerous thoughts and possibilities. Would Senator McCain, a long time advocate and spokesman for America's global defense, seriously consider one of President Bush's senior officials? Would Condoleezza Rice, herself an African-American female, be used to help offset the certain racial or gender driven political assaults a McCain campaign is certain to encounter? Or would the sheer presence of Miss Rice serve only to further assist Senator McCain's ultimate claim to Presidential authenticity – love of country, devotion to her safety, elevated patriotism, and the sheer will to effectively demonstrate all three.

While it still may be too premature to tell, one thing is certain, a McCain candidacy all ready engulfed by hesitant conventional outcry, can ill-afford further political set backs. Therefore, as it looks to legitimize its political course, it should look towards the role of Vice Presidential appointee as a way to reassure cautious conservatives, expand upon like minded independence, soothe over moderates, and solidify "right" sided democrats.
Thus, it becomes imperative that as the next few days or weeks unfold, Senator McCain should look to call upon only those plausible contenders, whom have already exhibited the capacity, when called upon, to fully indulge in the skilled political crafts of honored unity, statesmanship, and above all devotion to ones country.

A McCain ticket without such a nominee, will in my opinion not only fail to achieve the type of broad based support one needs to ascend to the White House, but will also lend additional momentum towards an already enthused Democratic Party.

A Rice Rejection:

While it may be questioned by many on the left, Secretary Rice has performed and performed more than adequately, when one considers the many intricate facets the international community has been forced to encounter throughout her tenure. Although many have come to view her stewardship and consequential handling of these and other matters as a farce, there are those like myself who’ve grown to appreciate her and her grasp of such matters, especially when it comes to her convictions against radical Islam and those who practice its unconventional tactics. Even though these and other sources of experience more than qualify her as a justifiable Vice Presidential candidate, it is my belief they could also, if used misguidedly by the left, serve to damage not only her candidacy, but that of her Republican cohort. Thus making a McCain-Rice ticket as un-practical as another jack-ass smoking a cigar in the Oval Office!!

Also it is my belief that if McCain were to extend the offer of Vice Presidency to Secretary Rice, her reputation and admiration with respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, would focus to much attention on the lone issue of national defense, a position McCain is already well known for. This idea of a cloned policy point of view, I fear, would serve to allow the Democratic Party and its chosen nominee, the ability to narrowly define the vast Republican platform into nothing more than a party of national security and defense. This reduction of political diversity could also serve to advance even further levels of disenfranchisement within the broader electorate, not to mention the ramifications that could be experienced by those whom over the years have looked to cast ballets based upon cultural, social, and economic values, not just security concerns.

While Condoleezza Rice has gained my support for her role in American foreign policy over the years, my pledge to her as McCain's prospective Vice President isn't quite as sustainable. Although her merits warrant such a calling, I am of the belief that a McCain-Rice ticket wouldn't accurately appeal to voters of a much larger plinth. Thus, I would strongly encourage Senator McCain to target and promote someone who much like Secretary Rice, personifies the knowledge and background to justify such a calling, all the while demonstrating the capabilities needed to bridge the gaps a McCain - ? ticket is sure to encounter.

To Vote or Not to Vote.......Is there A Question?

With many Americans looking to demonstrate their "lack" of overall desire in relation to the act of voting, one must ask the question. Do Americans truly believe that their single vote within the confines of the American Democratic process is useless and ill-advised, or have they simple come to see voting or not voting as the strongest way of demonstrating their distaste of American two-party politics and with it a lack of legitimate leadership and "representation"? Or are you like most Americans in that you have come to view the American style of democracy as a game in which only those possessing excess levels of monetary value and political connection are able to stake a claim in the actual process of participatory politics?

Regardless of how you answer the above stated questions, remember that the sovereign power of this country was founded upon the belief in individuals to act and re-act for themselves in matters concerning the direction and fortitude of this great country. And it is by believing in ourselves that we as individuals and more importantly Americans can and should penetrate the status quo mentality, and look to instill true change and collective desire!! Just imagine what this country and its vision could be if individuals were more concerned with the act of participating and not forgetting. This system (Democratic Republic) is more a reflection of what we as citizens and individual members of this system are willing to tolerate and promote, making it an arrangement not of aristocrats or tyrants, but one that represents the voluntary acceptance level of all red-blooded Americans. If CHANGE is truly the preferred antidote, we then need to demand that a change take place first within ourselves……and for many of us that change can be manifest in educating ourselves about candidates and other potential representatives with the hopes of heading to the voting booths to cast off our sovereign political power instead of withholding that power due to feelings of disbelief and despair.

To vote or not to vote….that is “your” question!!