What's Really Important It’s hard to express just how disgusted I get when hearing this “loyalty to the President while he is still in office” crap! We’ve repeatedly been the recipients of this faulty logic as various former members of the Bush Administration have been unabashedly attacked for saying anything negative about their previous employer, the President and his staff – names such as Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Joseph Wilson, and now Scott McClellan come to mind. How clearly can it be stated -- The loyalty of any government employee is ultimately to the United States of America, not to any politicians or leaders, or to the offices they hold! Any government office is only as important as the person who holds it. Though the oath taken by the President is to the nation, and the oath of the military is to the President, the implication of the latter is that the President will be loyal to the nation. If he is not, that oath, and any loyalty to him is forfeit.
May 2008 Archives
Ap-pease vt ap-peased; ap-peasing 1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM 2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY (~ his hunger) 3 PACIFY, CONCILIATE; esp : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usu. at the sacrifice of principlesTalk vb 1 : to deliver or express in speech : UTTER 2 : to make the subject of conversation or discourse : DISCUSS (~business) 3 : to influence, affect, or cause by talking (~ into agreeing) 4 : to use (a language) for conversing or communicating : SPEAK ~ vi 1 a : to express or exchange ideas by means of spoken words b : to convey information or communicate in any way (as with signs or sounds) 2 : to use speech : SPEAK…
Do talk and appeasement mean the same thing? Obviously not! In actuality, they are not even close in meaning, yet the political dialogue of the last few days has been saturated with some people attempting to equate them for us dummies. Gratefully, these few have been called on it, and with great umbrage!
In the wake of the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic primaries, it becomes quite apparent that barring any totally unforeseen circumstances, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee. I see no way Hillary Clinton can get the nomination unless the super delegates decide to totally ignore the will of the people in the primary states, which is quite unlikely.
Finally the time rapidly approaches to address the real question, namely, is America ready, willing, and able to vote for a Black male as President of the United States? An election process beginning as the search to pick the most qualified candidate for president must inevitably end by testing the climate of racism in America. Ironically, the Democratic theme during the primaries as well as the upcoming national elections will be the necessity of change, an obvious approach after seven long and seriously flawed years of the Bush Administration and an enabling Congress. Any Democratic candidate would be running on a platform of change. Ironically, Barack Obama represents a whole lot more than mere political change. He is a Black man in a nation that historically and presently continues to be a hot bed of racism and discrimination. America, ready or not, has reached a critical nexus point in its history, and racism can no longer remain on the back burner.
