I didn’t realize the extent of the forces that would align against him no matter what he said or actually did. I didn’t know the Republican Party would so viciously and systematically go after Obama simply because he won the election. I didn’t as yet understand how pathologically desperate the right wing is to be “right,” nor did I know how firmly and totally they embrace the ideology that there are only two kinds of people in the world, those with them and those against them, basically those who are them, and those who are not!

A fairly reasonable person might have guessed that the Republicans would regroup, lick their wounds, and at least make a show of working with the new Administration to get the nation and citizens back on their feet, if for no other reason than to make the errors of the past eight years seem less egregious and blameful. One would also expect that the Republicans would honor a period of transition in which the new administration would be dealing with a most difficult situation, one that they had no solutions for themselves.

Instead, their strategy is immediate lie-fabrication and fact-distortion while creating an atmosphere of “imagined” mistakes way before the effectiveness of policies can be measured. Are they attempting to incite many of the most unstable and paranoid people in our society to sedition?!?

Rush Limbaugh says he wants Obama to fail, an idea mimicked by other right wing mouthpieces. Ostensibly, says Limbaugh, this is because Obama is a socialist and will turn the nation into a socialist society. Apparently Limbaugh, his mimickers, and dittoheads don’t understand true socialism, but it’s always a great right wing talking point, along with “no new taxes.” (The fact that both Reagan and Bush Sr. raised taxes because they had no alternatives just ain’t important.) The right wing never met an “ism” they didn’t love to use against their opposition. True meaning is irrelevant. They only care about some label they can turn into a rallying cry for those Limbaugh often refers to as individual thinkers (cough); the same “group” that follow his every word like he is the gospel. Does dittohead really sound indivualistic? -- talk about oxymorons!

Meanwhile, as that loony congresswoman from Minnesota, Michelle Bachmann, warns that many in Congress (liberals of course) hate America, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) "…Makes List Of 17 Socialists In Congress.” This is somewhat reminiscent of Joseph McCarthy and fictional character Senator John Yerkes Iselin, in the original movie “The Manchurian Candidate;” both scammed a Communist witch hunt in the Congress.

In summary, we have many on the right hoping Obama fails, ergo the nation, representatives in Congress accusing other members of Congress of hating America and/or being socialists, and right wing talk show hosts like Sean Hannity and Glen Beck telling their viewers and listeners 24/7 to “take their country back.” In addition, the minority and obstructionist “Party of No” in Congress is literally and figuratively saying no to any and all legislation put forth by the majority party just elected by the people of America and charged with the recovery of the nation.

Countless right wing politicians and pundits of all sorts are busy decrying, ad nauseam, that our nation is under serious attack, our liberties are endangered, and the First and Second Amendments are threatened. They are purposely doing this at a time when all too many people are already feeling vulnerable and insecure. Many Americans are presently under grave stress, fearful for their families and futures and perhaps more susceptible to manipulation by fear mongers disguised as people who care, but who, in reality, are more interested in themselves, their money and power. We are told that corporations, yes the same ones requiring and requesting multi-billion dollar bailouts because they admittedly screwed up so terribly badly, are in danger of losing their sovereignty while socialists and America haters abound. In short, according to the right wing, the American way of life faces the worst threat in its history.

And who is attacking us? “The terrorists?” The “Axis of Evil?” Lord Voldemort? Sauron? Extraterrestrials? No -- nothing nearly so mundane. The real threat, of course, is Barack Obama and the dreaded liberals in government. What do the voters know? Those delusional souls claiming to know better are the same people who brought us a disaster called the (Neoconservative) government between 2000 and 2008. Guess who?

Hell, the editor of my local newspaper, The Paradise Post, recently authored and published a column entitled, “Freedom’s death march.” The first paragraph will give you the gist of the anger/fear-inciting article: “The President of the United States has done a fine job in less than three months of dismantling economic freedom, firing CEOs of private corporations, threatening to send goon squads to those same CEO’s (sic) and attacking his own country from abroad.” I love the “less than three months” part. It’s key to the bogus nature of the present right wing attack on the Administration, the fact that Obama has not been president nearly long enough to judge the merits or results of the direction towards which he is headed.

What matters is that this article is by no means atypical of the kind of paranoid disinformation and fear mongering being spread all around the land by the same sore losers and whiners who enabled the crippling of the nation in the first place. They had no solutions then, and have none now, but that doesn’t stop them from unmercifully attacking the new president who is forced to attempt new and drastic measures while approaching problems he inherited from them. Now, instead of giving the new Administration the time and support to turn things around, they seem Hell bent instead on encouraging its failure by any means available.

Where is the line drawn between the exercise of Free Speech, the right and need to criticize, and the actual inciting of some sort of insurrection? Desperately hoping for the failure of the president before he has even created dust motes in the White House, passive-aggressively perpetuating questions about whether or not he is a Muslim (whilst we are engaged in two wars against Muslim radicals) or even a natural born American, and encouraging audiences of tens of thousands to (somehow?) “take their country back” are collectively borderline at best.

Have we learned nothing of the dire consequences of driving people to emotional stress by spreading lies intended to make them fear the loss of the rights/things they hold dear, and usually in the pursuit of political advantage or economic profits? One example might be the ongoing right wing mantra, no doubt encouraged by the NRA, that liberals want to ban the Second Amendment guaranteeing Americans the right to bear arms. Though I’ve heard arguments for re-instating the expired ban on assault rifles, I’m not aware of anyone proposing legislation that would ban the Second Amendment or take away peoples’ guns. The fact that the state of the art weapon at the time this Amendment was drafted was a single shot musket, not rifles shooting hundreds of bullets per minute, seems non sequitur to those making a case for putting assault rifles in the hands of everyone and everybody who wants them.

Some news sources have recently alleged that Richard Poplawski, 23, who recently killed three police officers in Pittsburgh, PA, might have been motivated by fears that the present government intended to ban the right to bear arms in America. According to an article entitled, "Pittsburgh Cop-Killer Reportedly Feared Gun Ban," ‘Poplawski had feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon," said Edward Perkovic, his best friend,” and, ‘Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said Poplawski feared that President Barack Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama."’

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines sedition as “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.” Incessantly telling anyone who will listen that the Congress is full of people hating America, and otherwise purposely creating an attitudinal climate that coaxes people into believing America is on "Freedom's death march,” that rights will be unjustly banned, and that they should hope the government fails, all the while telling them they are threatened by their own government in ways that warrant them to “take their country back” is not only dangerously irresponsible, but should have consequences.

Sending these messages into the airways 24/7 with the desire to destroy an administration newly in office and not yet guilty in any way of harming the nation (unlike the previous administration), has little to do with Free Speech. Does it instead have everything to do with unjustly inciting open rebellion of “some sort,” and at a time when the nation is already seriously hobbled by the “real” mismanagement of government over the past eight years? The next elections are two and four years off. The present Republican strategy seems more focused on immediacy. It doesn’t appear to me to be aimed at gathering strength before those elections occur so much as to actively promote some sort of extreme visceral, emotional and ultimately physical reaction before those elections. We have all painfully learned that the nation has no shortage of angry, fearful and violent people on a short fuse; we know exactly to whom this sort of skullduggery is aimed.

Just what are these rascally Republicans up to now that the American voters have finally responded negatively to this party’s natural inclination to govern badly? Are they helping the new Administration to clean up the mess they passed on to it? Are they ashamed to leave the nation and so many Americans in such dire straits? Are they showing any signs of contrition, shame, or humility as they unite around the new government in an attempt to help set right the wrongs they perpetrated on a nation, and the world?

Unfortunately, these are not things the Republican Party is doing after losing the last election. Instead, their motto subtly morphed from “we put country before party,” to “what stinkin’ country?” So what do Republicans do when not in charge?

What I didn’t expect, at least not so soon after the election, was the blatant obstructionism by the Republican Party toward the new presidency before it even had a chance to get on track. It’s bad enough that the Republicans seem to have already gone into total denial about the disastrous effect of their control of government in just eight short years, but they also seem bent on sabotaging any efforts to save the nation they left in tatters by the people chosen in a landslide victory to set things right once again.

Remember President Obama’s first ten or so days in office? He took the time and made the effort to reach across party lines to talk with the Republicans on the hill about his new stimulus bill. Well, why not? Obama made it clear he would attempt to lead in a bi-partisan fashion, and he apparently knew the Republicans do whine after every lost election about the need for such bi-partisanship, even when they don’t demonstrate any of it when they have won an election. So all went well, right?

The President received the support of “Zero” Republicans in the House, and eventually only three in the Senate. And I have little doubt these three, Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) willingly and purposely became the scapegoats that allowed the necessary legislation to pass, all the while giving all the other Republicans a platform to go back home and falsely bloviate about how they are following true conservative principles concerning limited government spending and tax cuts. These were the same so-called conservatives who threw $700 billion at Wall Street without any real spending conditions, but balked when Obama entered office and was willing to “lend” $14-17 billion to the Big Three auto companies so that they might get back on their feet, and not take millions of American workers down with them.

President Obama then wanted to inject another $800-900 billion into the economy in an attempt to spend and thus stimulate, and this time with conditions as to how and where the money was spent. The emphasis was on Main Street and creating jobs. The Republican response was so predictable as to be laughable. After this same “conservative” party of “small government” and “fiscal responsibility” had just created the largest US government ever, taken a several hundred billion dollar surplus to a trillion-plus dollar deficit, and created the largest foreign debt in the nation’s history in order to pay for a pre-emptive Bush War while giving multi-billion dollar tax cuts to those in the nation not needing them, to pay for that war and those tax cuts, they suddenly decided as a group that it was time to stop government spending.

During the loooong eight Bush years the Republicans finally and forever disproved their pet theory of “trickle down economics.” Their large tax cuts for the top one-two percent of the richest people in the nation not only did not stimulate the economy, and did not trickle downward, but rather, resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, along with a goodly share of corporate bankruptcies, and threatened to annihilate the true backbone of the nation, the middle class. (And I pass on mentioning all the other unmitigated disasters of the past eight years – been there, done that.)

So, what did the Republicans put on the table instead of Obama’s plan to spend and stimulate to create jobs and money flow back into the nation and economy? Surprise, surprise -- Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts! Obviously they’ve never met a tax cut they didn’t like, especially for the very, very wealthy. They fought Obama every inch of the way, calling his stimulus package nothing more than a spending package. (Well, doh! Spending and stimulus are coupled by necessity.)

So while numerous states were cutting a variety of government services and on the verge of bankruptcy, and the American people were losing jobs at an alarming rate amidst a build up to an economic crisis perhaps rivaling the magnitude of the Great Depression, the solution of the same people who facilitated and created the crisis was to 1) continue the tax cut for the very wealthy, something which did nothing to stimulate the economy for eight years, and 2) give small tax cuts to everyone else now in survival mode, those much more likely to use the money to pay for living costs and bills, rather than risk it by buying products they most likely have no dire present need for – survival comes first!

Perhaps the real truth about the state of the Republican Party and why obstructionism wins over governing, is defined by the present internal battle for party leadership. The contest for power between RNC Chairman Michael Steele, and the likes of radical right wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, as well as the ever dangling possibilities of future “leaders” like Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), and yes (still), Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), make any rational being wonder about the sanity of the party. Is this the best they can come up with…..AGAIN!?!

Limbaugh, the enabler of obstructionism, is probably the worst of this group, and it is said he has a devoted audience of over 20 million. The latest right wing rant is that those who attack Limbaugh, namely those evil liberals, never listen to him, and don’t know what they are talking about. I would say it appears that the Limbaugh defenders are the ones who don’t listen to him, and if they do, don’t really hear him, or know him. I’ve listened to him quite often, not because I agree with practically any of his conclusions, but rather because I try to keep an eye on an individual I perceive as dangerous. Limbaugh is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing, disingenuous snake-oil salesman whose only real goal appears to be dividing the people of our nation because it puts money in his pocket, and; his huge ego desperately craves the attention and affirmation from an adoring audience, many of whom like himself require absolutes because they are confused and insecure. This man is not about the nation or the people, or conservatism. He is about securing himself. He viciously and amorally attacks anyone he disagrees with, will mock an Inuit girl testifying before Congress about the ruination of the environment, or mimic a diseased Michael J Fox for espousing the need for stem cell research. He will condemn to a life of imprisonment those who use drugs, all the while being an addict himself. The list of his nastiness and hypocrisies is way too long to include here.

Limbaugh doesn’t want the government to work if it’s not lead by those who support him and vice versa. Government doesn’t work under Republican leadership because they say they don’t like government, and they say it can’t work under Democratic leadership, because they aren’t Republicans, thus not conservative!

Let’s face the fact that the present conservative rant is miles off the mark. The days of small government anywhere in the world is long past. With a rapidly rising world population (approaching 7 billion), dwindling resources, private industry focused only on its bottom line profits, and governments being the only entities left to help in large ways, any talk of small government is moot. The Republicans themselves over the past eight years, and despite conservative rhetoric, created the largest government in American History. The real issue in the 21st Century is not about big versus small government, but rather, good versus bad government.

The bottom line: government must succeed!

Now on the eve of the 2008 presidential election many of the same people, plus many renowned conservative Republicans are strongly warning against voting for John McCain, essentially for the same reasons – basically he offers more of the same, and the nation cannot afford it! Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley, son of the late conservative writer William F. Buckley Jr., just to name a couple, have actually endorsed Barack Obama because the alternative would be so bad for America.

Don’t be fooled again. Most Republican candidates for office around the nation, as well as many of the conservative pundits, and the McCain campaign itself are presently running from George Bush and the Republican Party of the past eight years like a dog running from fleas. They know how their policies have failed the nation. John McCain can also run, but he can’t truly separate himself from this failure. He has been a part of it, and the continual attempts to change his image with speeches, and the Madison Avenue type PR creation of a new persona right before the election, won’t erase the image of the wolf under the sheep’s clothing.

We all know it is time for REAL change, and there are very few in their heart of hearts that actually believe John McCain represents real change. This is a man who himself bragged about voting with George Bush ninety percent of the time. This is the same man that said, “I am fundamentally a deregulator,” the same deregulation that has smashed our economy. If it had been up to Bush, McCain and other followers of this philosophy, who also believe social entitlements should be privatized, we just might have witnessed the demise of Social Security in the past two months. How many can actually afford to lose their Social Security benefits?

The time has come to give real change at least a chance and to actually put the nation first as a practical consideration, not just as a false campaign slogan. We are all aware of the political and ideological indoctrination and programming that has been created in the pursuit of votes and power. We have all witnessed its effects on the nation. The words, “united we stand, divided we fall,” have never rung truer, nor sounded more like a prophetic death knell that threatens our comfort and security.

A final word to those who fear change because they know it means embracing those they have been convinced are the enemy. Contrary to political extremist myth, liberals don’t actually hate America, religion, and the troops, don’t embrace socialism, and are not evil. They are people just like people anywhere. Many have some basic conservative foundations, but at the same time realize the world is changing, becoming smaller by way of global dependence, economically and socially. They also understand that the rift between the very rich and the very poor is larger than ever, and that too many people are suffering in this nation because private enterprise only cares about the bottom line, and that is money, not people, and that government has some responsibility to take up the slack.

This is worth considering before automatically assuming the worst, and voting as usual. In order for a nation to change, the hearts and minds of its citizens must risk change first!

September 2, 2008: “Apparently Maria Schulte, you don't know the difference between caring for women and using them. Sarah Palin is a very transparent attempt to pander for female and social conservative votes. When the Democrats didn’t nominate a woman, the GOP backroom boys obviously drooled over each other to nominate just ANY woman so as to appear “progressive.” Shameless pandering is clearly McCain’s strongest political trait! You trust him to be president? Which promises to which group will he honor?”

August 31, 2008: ‘”As you sow so shall you reap.” -- Sound familiar? Recently a James Dobson minion and employee of “Focus on the Family,” Stuart Shepard, asked politically conservative Christians to pray for rain at Invesco Park in time for Barack Obama’s DNC acceptance speech, calling it “boyish humor.” Apparently God didn’t appreciate the humor, as hurricane Gustav approaches Louisiana in time to threaten or alter the Republican National Convention. Prayer isn’t meant for selfish purposes, or as a political weapon!’

After having the first two comments ignored, I did query the Post as to why this was so. I was informed that the paper had decided to print only one comment from regulars per week. This sounded plausible, but I have to wonder why I was unable to get any comments posted for more than two weeks, even when there appeared to be space in the paper. At the same time, I noticed some of the other “regulars” appearing in print, including consecutive “letters to the editor” by right wing extremist Brad Jenks. While I couldn’t get one 49er printed, he had back-to-back “letters" appear in the paper.

The paper seems to believe it is comparable to post a 49er on the online version instead of printing it in the 49er column in the paper. This of course makes little sense. Relatively few read the online version, either because they are not on computers, or subscribe to the paper, and read the hard copy, and obviously have no reason to go online to read it again. I sent an email to the editor stating, “... I write comments for the 49er Speakeasy because I wish the whole readership of the paper to see them, and I assume that is why others participate as well. I thought the deal has always been that one is given a limited space to comment, but in turn, one was pretty much guaranteed a space in the paper. I do not carefully craft my comments only to have them consigned to an online version that few read.”

Is it mere coincidence that my comments were either ignored or exiled to online oblivion (as of this moment, a week later, not one comment was posted on any of the 49er comments for that day), especially considering they were all strong criticisms of present day Republican thinking? It is noteworthy this transpired with the rapid approach of perhaps the most important election of our lifetimes.

To sidetrack for a moment, it’s interesting that whereas it appears I was inhibited from voicing my opinion to the press, the McCain campaign is accomplishing the reverse, successfully avoiding the press altogether. McCain has had no recent press conferences, and there is a concerted effort to disallow the press from having any real access to his running mate, Sarah Palin. There might even be a bogus attempt mounting to cancel the vice presidential debate between Palin and Biden, using the present economic crisis as a pretext.

McCain claims he has to rush to Washington DC to solve an economic crisis that he assured the nation didn’t exist just one week ago; you’ll recall his remark, “the economy is fundamentally sound.” So of course he feels the need to “maybe” delay Friday’s presidential debate, and “maybe” put it in the vice presidential debate slot instead.

How very convenient that would be; killing two birds with one stone. He can avoid having to debate Obama now, and successfully keep Palin from debating at all, and thus avoid exposing her to the press and the American people! It pretty much sounds like an attempt by the Republican Party to censor what the American public might learn about its candidates for president. Why would they want to do that? It appears that many on the right wing in general want communications stifled during this election cycle!

Meanwhile, back at the ranch… Do I suspect the Paradise Post has a right wing bias, based on the incidences I’ve mentioned, and the inclusion of blatant right wing articles appearing on a fairly regular basis in the newspaper, including that nonsensical column by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, and a strongly biased article by Michael Reagan? Hmmm! I had also emailed the editor after the Floyd and Mary Beth Brown column appeared, recommending he print a September 3 column entitled, “Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention.” by Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn, which appeared to rather impartially state just a few facts voters need to know. I mentioned it would present some balance to the Post. I received no reply.

It’s one thing to have regular columnists, representing both sides of the political spectrum, appear weekly to voice their own opinions and biases, and quite another if outside articles appear, with any consistency, that are heavily weighted to one side. Do I suspect there is sometimes a tendency to ignore some articles and pieces coming from the left? I couldn't honestly say. Media bias is not unusual these days, and unfortunately has become all to acceptable. I only know that my three 49er pieces didn't make it to print.

I don't know exactly what happened because I never received an answer to my email. From my perspective, the Post seems to be becoming less balanced, while the demographics of the Ridge are steadily changing. Wouldn't it be beneficial for the local newspaper to consider this, and try to represent the views of a wider audience? Isn't that the purpose of the 49er Speakeasy?

The nation is in deep financial trouble, and lost in the quagmire of two seemingly endless wars. Who has been in power for the past eight years? Who has run the government of the United States? The Republicans.

The Congress has the lowest approval ratings in its history. Who is responsible? Though the Democrats have technically “controlled” Congress for less than two years, the Republicans have obstructed their almost every move.

Barack Obama, contrary to the constant lie disseminated by those same Republicans, is NOT going to raise your taxes. Who will see an increase in taxes? Those earning in excess of $250,000 per year -- that is one quarter of a million dollars annually.

Let’s correct some major misconceptions that are being held by all too many McCain/Palin/Republican supporters, and whoever else. At this time of crisis in American history, the American people need facts, NOT party talking points!

I do my best to share my thoughts about the country and the candidates with people I meet each day, and I talk with people on both sides. I also listen to what they have to say. I’m not surprised at how many people are very upset with the direction the nation is taking, but I am dismayed at how many are less informed and more apt to use inaccurate and biased talking points when considering how to vote. Here are a couple of examples:

ASSERTION:

John McCain doesn’t really represent the Republican Party; and it is the Democratic controlled Congress that is really responsible for the problems besetting the nation.

FACT:

John McCain voted with George Bush 90% of the time, and, it is the Republican Party that has controlled the government of these United States for the past eight years, along with the Congress for six of those. It is amazing how often Republicans, when told it is their party that has created the mess of the past eight years in this nation, automatically respond with, “the Democrats control the Congress!” It’s as if they are totally unaware of the Republican Executive Branch, the “Right” leaning Supreme Court, and all the very partisan Republicans still in Congress -- to say nothing about the fact that the Democrats have only “controlled” Congress for about twenty months. What about the first six years, when the real damage to the country was set in motion?

The very small Democratic majority in Congress allows them to chair committees, initiate investigations, and gives them the power to subpoena those they want to talk to, (which the Bush Administration has consistently defied by claiming “executive privilege), but it does NOT guarantee that they can get any legislation passed!

The Democratic majority in Congress is very small, especially in the Senate, where the party split is 51-49, and only because Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both Independents, essentially vote with the Democrats most of the time. As a result, the Democrats have not been able to pass most of the legislation they were elected to pass, oftentimes not even pushing it because it would essentially go nowhere, either because the Republicans have lined up in lockstep to obstruct these bills, or the Democrats couldn’t come up with enough votes to override the vetoes promised by the president.

A Republican controlled Congress enabled the Bush Administration for its first six years in office. For all that time the President only vetoed one bill, H.R.810, aimed at the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, basically an attempt to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The Democrats could not override it.

After the Democrats took over control of Congress in 2006, Bush suddenly rediscovered his veto power and vetoed another eleven bills. Guess which party was backing those bills? Only four were overridden, basically because not doing so would have made both parties look bad in the eyes of the American people.

If the rating of Congress is the lowest in history, don’t look to blame the Democrats; blame those who have allowed almost no essential legislation (the changes the American people mandated in 2006) from passing.

ASSERTION:

Barack Obama will raise everyone’s taxes, worse case scenario, or best case scenario, those making over $45,000.

FACT:
These are out and out lies! His policy, and the political promises as stated by Barack Obama are, and have been, basically this. If you make less than $250,000 (quarter of a million dollars), you will be getting a tax decrease. Those making more will lose the tax cut given to them by George Bush, and their tax rate will revert back to what they were paying during the Clinton Administration. Most people were quite satisfied with their economic status, and the promise for the future during those years. How many can still say that, and how many people on the Ridge, or in Butte County, or the nation even, are making more than $250,000 per year?

This upcoming election is not a game to be won. It is a very serious matter. Four more years of the same kind of government we have experienced for the past eight just might irrevocably destroy the America we have always loved. This is NOT a time to be diverted by false rhetoric and the usual snake oil salesmen. It is NOT a time for anyone to only listen to their party’s talking points.

It IS time to listen to both sides, and often. It IS time to know what ALL news services (rather than a select few) are saying, here and around the world. It IS time to stop automatically buying into the falsehoods and information that only agree with the facts as we WANT them to be, and blindly believe that everything that doesn’t agree with what we want to be true, is false!

There is presently a very obvious and blatant disconnect in the Republican Party between actions and message. They are admittedly (according to Fox “News”) and desperately doing whatever possible to disassociate themselves from that same government, represented primarily by George Bush and Dick Cheney. Paradoxically, and at the same time, they are all the while clinging to the idea that the Republican Party, and John McCain specifically, are the entities that can and will institute the change everyone is clamoring for.

Sure, the GOP will talk about how “politics as usual” needs to be revamped. They’ll go on about how certain elements of the Clinton years were unacceptable (to them), and they’ll attempt to level the playing field by admitting both parties in some ways have faults necessitating reformation. Yet the major, and quite obvious fly in the Republican ointment remains, the past eight years.

Of course no one is denying the presence of the gorilla in the room; it would be impossible. The national debt and deficit are higher than ever. Americans are losing their homes, jobs and pensions while more jobs are being lost and outsourced than created, and unemployment is topping 6%. Millions are still without health care and countless others are losing it, yet we are still spending $9-12 billion dollars per month in Iraq, not to mention the increased loss of both lives and resources in Afghanistan; and there is no real end in sight in either conflict.

The absence of both Cheney and Bush at the RNC speaks volumes. The excuse? Hurricane Gustav. That excuse morphed from somewhat possibly plausible to absolutely lame, as Gustav fizzled out at the last, and the RNC was business as usual for most of the week. And considering how very important both party conventions were at this particular time and in this particular election, there is no way the inability of the leaders of the party to hand over the torch at the convention would normally have been justified. The truth is, no one in the GOP wanted to remind those at the convention, and more succinctly, those millions watching on TV, why change has become the mantra of both parties -- the past eight years.

John McCain has also been scrambling away from government policies of the past eight years, all the while sticking to them like mud. It’s one thing to repudiate your association with a particular mindset, and another to actually demonstrate it.

The fact is, this once touted “maverick” is no longer a maverick. There is a cost for voting with a failed president 90 % of the time, and there is a price to pay for pandering for votes with groups that align him with the Administration instead of distancing him from it. All the issues McCain has changed his mind about have been thoroughly vetted here and elsewhere, and there is no need to repeat them ad nauseam. I’ll mention only one because I deem it to be the most reprehensible (for him).

In February of this year, an article in the New York Times revealed that, “Senator John McCain’s vote last week against a bill to curtail the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of harsh interrogation tactics disappointed human rights advocates who consider him an ally and led Democrats to charge that he was trying to please Republicans as he seeks to rally them around his presidential bid."

We have heard and viewed countless reports and documentaries enumerating the trials and tribulations of Lieutenant Commander John McCain while he was a POW for five and one half years during the Vietnam War. We have applauded his courage and service, all the while commiserating with him over the years of torture and inhumane treatment he was forced to endure. Most automatically assume that such an individual, by default, would object to torture in any way, shape or form. And at first, John McCain did, before he didn’t.

In an article entitled, “McCain Rebukes Giuliani on Waterboarding Remark,” by Michael Cooper and Marc Santora, published in the New York Times on October, 26, 2007, it is stated that Rudolph Giuliani’s uncertainty whether waterboarding was torture, “drew a sharp rebuke yesterday from Senator John McCain, who said that his failure to call it torture reflected his inexperience.” He continued, “All I can say is that it was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today,” Mr. McCain, who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, said in a telephone interview.”

McCain also stated, as reported in the Des Moines Register on October 25, 2007, “Waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said today, taking issue with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s recent remarks.”

John McCain has also stated, “People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”

If McCain, a person continually and cruelly tortured while in captivity is himself capable of such an extreme turn about on the subject of torture, and can suddenly condone it at election time, I’m not sure there is anything the man might say on the campaign trail that I can accept without serious questions and doubts automatically arising in my mind. Perhaps McCain has misconstrued change to mean a constant and consistent changing of one’s mind in order to garner votes? Enough said!

What a major conundrum for the GOP and the Republican right! Forced to adopt a platform of change because even they have no choice but to admit the nation is in dire need of it, and, because the Democrats, especially the Obama and Clinton campaigns, were quick to make change a slogan; they are confronted with a major oxymoron. On the one hand, the Republicans finally admit what almost everyone in the nation already realizes, namely there IS that 800-pound gorilla in the room, and as it turns out, it is THEM!

Footnote: There may indeed be another gorilla in the mix. As the media slowly and meticulously begins to uncover all the recent lies, distortions and distractions surrounding John McCain’s choice for vice president, a new gorilla, perhaps only a 500-pounder, is becoming apparent, namely Sarah Palin.

The one thing the Democrats could have done, should have done, and didn’t, was to start impeachment proceedings against George Bush. The laundry list of crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated by Bush and Cheney make the actual impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton pale by comparison. I blame Nancy Pelosi, and some obvious hanky panky (whatever it was) behind closed doors for this. The idea that this would have distracted Congress is specious, and as far as angering the Republicans, so what!?!

Let’s be clear about one thing – the present Congress has garnered a reputation as a do nothing Congress, with a low public rating only because of the constant obstruction by the Republicans in that once august body! The Republican party of course, while claiming to put country before party, won’t admit that, and most of their constituents are either too partisan, too heavily in denial, or too dumb not to accept that obviously false claim. And by the way, one spins everything or consistently attacks their opponent when they really have nothing of value to offer. If most Americans don’t understand that by now, after the unquestionably worse Administration and government in American history, they probably aren’t capable of learning much of anything.

And now we are in the midst of a rather lame Republican National Convention, something even the Republicans would admit, if they were honest, but of course they have spin for that as well. Gustav threatening New Orleans, and the President having to attend to business (mainly because he screwed the pooch so badly during Katrina), for some reason meant that the entire RNC had to be put on semi-hold for a day or two. I’m not quite sure I understand why one man needing to do his job, sidetracked the whole convention. And where is Dick Cheney; what hole has he climbed into? Certainly John McCain, while claiming his campaign was pretty much on hold during this crisis, never really justified that connection. And of course, the RNC is now back on track after Gustav thankfully turned out to be less harmful than feared.

Yet the GOP was able to dodge a serious bullet, namely George Bush and Dick Cheney actually attending the Convention. That is obviously something the Republicans dreaded. It’s bad enough that John McCain does represent a third Bush term, but spin dictates that that fact be played down as much as possible. Having those two very unpopular souls show up at the RNC might have reminded all too many people of the reality of the linkage to McCain. So, all was well in Oz!

Getting back to my principle point, the claim that Republicans put nation before politics, is it just a coincidence that once again all the Republicans are in agreement about the excitation over McCain’s pick for VP, Sarah Palin? As I watched the media walking through the convention and interviewing various attendees I was amazed that they all seemed to have the same talking points about how enthusiastic they all were over her nomination. The thought ran through my mind that a switch was thrown at Republican National Headquarters and everyone was once again programmed with the same talking points. How often have we seen this?

Is it also just coincidence that Republicans en masse are outraged over the fact that the announcement that Sarah Palin’s 17 year old unwed daughter is pregnant has made such a stir on the news front? First of all, the Republicans themselves believed it was important enough to make an announcement. Why was that? Secondly, it happens to be very pertinent to the present campaign.

Governor Palin is the ultimate extremist social conservative, something the party unbelievably thinks will appeal to all those women disenchanted by Hillary not being the Democratic presidential nominee -- talk about a major disconnect! Do they honestly believe liberal minded women and former Clinton supporters will support a candidate that is absolutely against abortion for any reason, including incest and rape? It also amazes me that they believe a nation which is predominately pro-choice would support a candidate that vows to abolish Roe v Wade.

No one likes abortion, but, when the choice sometimes comes down to -- “Do I bring a pregnancy to full term when it is the result of a rapist or my own father, or one that I cannot possibly afford, emotionally or financially, and do I drop out of high school or become a pariah in my small judgmental town,” there just might need to be another choice. Many believe things happen for a reason and according to God’s will, and that just might include the decision not to continue a pregnancy. Certainly if God can ordain wars in which hundreds of thousands or even millions are killed, He just might believe a pregnancy should be discontinued because of the very negative effects it will have on many lives. But that is a question for those able to decipher the “mysterious ways of God.”

The relevant point is that Sarah Palin very strongly believes in “abstinence only” sex education, which of course is her prerogative. However, what does it say about the validity of that policy when her own unwed teenage daughter ends up being pregnant? That is something I would really like all social conservative Republicans to at least think about! It would appear that an awfully lot of people don’t get that quite a few teenagers, driven by raging hormones and explosive egos, aren’t going to listen to anyone for any reason, religion or otherwise, telling them not to have sex. Providing alternatives for preventing pregnancy in the first place could eliminate situations arising that even make abortion an issue. Sorry folks, but no matter how morally “right” you are as parents, lots of teenagers don’t care! Maybe you should consider that sex is a lot less catastrophic than unwanted pregnancies.

As a side note, it’s interesting that a party that would have crucified the Clintons if Chelsea had gotten herself pregnant, is now so deleriously proud that the daughter of their VP candidate is pregnant, using it as an example that they are just like everyone else. This is exactly the reason there need to be other options besides abstinence only.

Yet in spite of reality, the Republicans simply line up to support a cause, in this case a candidate in favor of a very questionable policy, because that is what they do. This is harder for a Democrat like myself to comprehend because I belong to a party that often seems fractious because of disagreement on various issues. I’ve always attributed this to the fact that Democrats do put country before politics and are more interested in stating what they really feel about something, rather than just all following the party line.

Sometimes this gets extremely annoying, especially when an election approaches and the party is divided, resulting in squandered votes or loss of an election. But you know, at least it is honest, and leads to a democratic discussion and consensus on ideas. When a nation elects a president who is a member of a party within which all act and think the same in order to gain more power and wealth, we end up with an Administration that figures it their right to dictate whatever they desire. And, they don’t have to worry about being challenged by a Congress made up largely of their own party. Sound familiar? And how did that work out? Hmmmm!

There is one more thing Republicans seem to love and have as an addiction, being lied to. Among the many, many, many lies being foisted on the American public by Republican leaders, pundits and the right wing media is that Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on those making $45,000. I’ve listened to Obama quite a bit in the past 20 months and haven’t heard him mention that once, but I have heard him say he would be raising taxes on those making over $200,000, and taking away the gratuitous tax cut for those in the top 1% of money makers.

And speaking of another lie, the one that claims Sarah Palin has more executive experience than “all the other candidates -- I would suggest that the brilliant presidential campaign Senator Obama has run for 20 long months (longer than Palin has been governor of a state smaller than most mid size cities, not to mention her time as mayor of a city five times smaller than Paradise, CA), at least equals any executive experience of consequence that she has obtained. This idea that real executive ability pertains only to having run a government of some sort is bogus. Character and ability related to the experiences that a person does have can often trump that, and in this instance just might.

Of course, I heard Orin Hatch (R-UT), tell Andrea Mitchell at the RNC that, “it’s rougher running a small town than running a large town.” Cough! Another lie? He also said that Palin has more energy experience than all the other candidates, and that, “she knows more than all the other candidates put together.” I’d sure love to know what he was smoking!

And (the lies continue), what is with this myth that all Democrats do is raise taxes, implying that Republicans never do? Both Reagan and Bush Sr. (remember the “read my lips” speech?) raised taxes, and Arnold Schwarzenegger is raising the California sales tax. By the way, I thought taxes needed to be raised in all those instances. When the economy is threatened, sometimes the money needed to revive it needs to come from us!

And lest we forget, look how wonderful that Bush/Cheney tax cut for the top 1%, the conspicuous super wealthy, and during a time of war, is working out for the nation. The national debt and deficit are higher than ever in history, people are losing their homes, jobs have been lost, not gained, millions are still without healthcare and countless others are losing it, and we are still spending $9-10 billion dollars per month in Iraq. Geeeez!

I would rather be in a party that puts honesty before faux agreement and lies, simply to win an election, and retain power and wealth. That is how I define putting country before party!

If the continual predilection for the Republican Party to walk in lockstep fashion on most all issues isn’t a demonstration of how they do put party before country, than I don’t know what is. And considering how consistently they have backed the failed policies of the Bush Administration in order to empower the party, it stretches the imagination to believe they were putting the nation first.

As I listen to Mitt Romney in the background as he speaks at the RNC, I’m forced to suppress the gag reflex, and I’m hearing so many lies, coming so rapidly, that the room is spinning (pardon the pun). I do love hearing the Republicans talk about the need for change. Have they already forgotten that in the past eight years they are the ones that created that which so desperately needs to be changed?

As a footnote: Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin spoke very powerfully, though not kindly, at the RNC. They lied a lot, and were extremely condescending, but they delivered the strong speeches that were required by a party that puts country last.

It was despicable enough that a James Dobson minion and employee of “Focus on the Family,” Stuart Shepard, requested that politically conservative Christians join him in praying for rain at Invesco Park in Denver, Colorado in time to mar Barack Obama’s DNC acceptance speech, but the irony of that request was yet to play out and aid the Republicans in a totally different way in their crusade to turn religion into a political weapon, instead of a spiritual acknowledgment of God.

Or did they understand this and apparently have a duel purpose in mind? Are they that clever? Were they able to play God for a sucker, and forward their own self-interests after all?

The Elmer Gantry type rain prayer may have resulted in the answer to another prayer, and manifested as a big advantage for our spiritually challenged friends, all the while being the proverbial cloud with a silver lining. The great discomfort and potential danger to all those living in New Orleans and the surrounding areas may just be a small price (for others) to pay so that these "particularly" pious, pompous and politically self-proclaimed followers of Christ can achieve another goal. Ironically, John McCain and the GOP might get the “out” that they really prayed for – essentially not having to have Bush and Cheney speak at their convention, even though they were obligated to invite them. What a neat trick!

As it turns out, it was announced that the President and Vice President would indeed not be attending the RNC, but would instead remain on duty because of the threat of Gustave to hurricane challenged New Orleans. After all, it wouldn’t do to have them completely fail in their responsibilities to defend New Orleans a second time. And the cookie in the jar turns out to be not embarrassing the GOP candidate himself by having these two appear at his nominating convention! Who says prayer doesn’t work in mysterious ways?

Of course there just might ultimately be a greater price to pay down the road when attempting to trick God. We are now painfully learning it was not wise to fool (mess with) Mother Nature, and will no doubt eventually realize it is equally unwise to mock God.

And though I don’t really credit Stuart Shepard or James Dobson and their followers with the power or intelligence to actually pull off such a scam, I do often marvel how, throughout history, all too many professed followers of Christ have interfered in the political arena in attempts to sway governments and people (often with catastrophic results), even though Jesus was purported to have said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

HUH!?!?!?! What am I missing? Oh right, the myth that Republicans will keep us safer (COUGH)…

It was also the Bush Administration (Republicans all) that botched the invasion of Afghanistan, and let Bin Laden escape by beginning a war in Iraq, a nation having nothing to do with 9/11. And, it was the failed policies of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (a Republican) that led to chaos in Iraq, and eventually the insurgence, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including over 4,000 American soldiers, with more than 30,000 wounded, 8,000-plus seriously. And lives have not been the only cost. The war that was sold to us by this Republican Administration, and was going to cost little or nothing because of Iraqi oil revenues, might end up with a price tag approaching $5 trillion when all cost factors are taken into consideration. Yikes, no wonder the American economy is presently booming. For any diehard Republicans and lingering Bush supporters, that last comment was meant to be facetious (look it up)!

All these abominations occurred during a Republican Administration and a Republican led Congress (up until the mid-term elections in 2006). These same Republicans, along with John McCain, the current Republican presidential nominee, are continually claiming the surge in Iraq is a success. This is highly questionable, considering how completely dysfunctional the Iraqi infrastructure is, and just how much hatred has been generated there against America. If you honestly believe that we are close to some kind of victory in Iraq, please watch the documentary “No End In Sight.” You will become educated on all the reasons why the Iraqi people have legitimate cause to hate our nation. It might also become apparent why there will be no peace between Iraq and the United States for a very long time to come! A temporary lull in violence does not a victory make.

Denial is not going to make this mess go away, nor is it going to rationalize away all the pain caused by the present American Economy created by this Republican Administration, not only waging an unnecessary war, but an extremely incompetent and costly one.

I’ve never understood this BS argument that Republicans are the party which serve us best during times of war. The two largest and most noteworthy wars of the 20th Century, WWI and WWII, were successfully fought and won during Democratic administrations. No doubt the Republicans like to talk a good war, but I see absolutely no evidence they know how to successfully fight and win one.

John McCain continues with his hawkish blather, and the erroneous argument that he is somehow qualified as a military genius and Commander in Chief who “knows” how to fight and win a war because he spent five years as a POW in Vietnam and comes from a military family. Just recently he stated, “I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars.” In reality, I don’t really recall just when he has been right about any of his Iraq assessments, or ever played a role in winning a war.

Ironically, Barack Obama (the Democrat) has been correct regarding two issues concerning this present “War on Terrorism.” And of course, he was unmercifully bashed and criticized for his efforts by the Republicans and the right wing when it was convenient to do so.

Obama was in favor of the notion of a timetable for removal of our troops in Iraq, something that is, guess what, now being demanded by the Iraqi government, and considered by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon. Also, Obama said he would be willing to strike Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Well guess what again? According to the International Herald Tribune on June 11, “American air and artillery strikes killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary soldiers during a clash with insurgents on the Afghan border on Tuesday night, a development that raised concerns about the already strained American relationship with Pakistan.” Well….DOOOOH!?!?!

And if you believe you have heard it all, John McCain’s proposed model for policy in an ever-problematic Afghanistan is the same awesome plan that has been so successful in Iraq. My God!!! This is the same guy whose Iran policy sounded like “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran,” and who thought it was okay to spend another 100 years in Iraq, even if there were no Americans getting killed, and regardless of whether or not the Iraqis want us there.

McCain is even suggesting we create a “separate Czar” for Afghanistan. He believes one war czar (what happened to the military leadership and the Commander in Chief?) is not enough for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is really hilarious. When is the last time there was even any reference to the present War Czar appointed by Bush; and now we need two? Perhaps there would be no need to send any more brigades to Afghanistan if Iraq had not become involved in this whole mix in the first place? Yeah right, the Republicans know what they are doing concerning their war on terrorism.

The only possible reason I can think of as to why the Republicans have this reputation for being tough or efficient in war must be that they always talk loud and long about national security and defense, and love to spend more money on the military than all the other nations in the world combined. But incessant talking and spending lots of money obviously do not automatically translate into knowing how to execute a war. Beating up a second-rate military power during the initial phases of war in Kuwait and Iraq is not enough. War necessitates being able to finish what is started, and amazingly, even having plans to do so.

So please, enough of this asinine myth that Republicans know how to wage war and will keep us safer, and Democrats do not, and will not. It’s not only a bunch of crap, but painfully embarrassing as well, not to mention, extremely counterproductive.

Has this nation gone completely mad!?! Have political correctness and hypocrisy reached such lofty levels of dissociation with reality?

Thankfully, General Clark refused to apologize for his statement on MSNBC’s "Verdict." But I was rather disheartened that the Obama campaign believed there was something to apologize for.

”GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air…in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly'

Bob Schieffer: Well

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Bob Schieffer: Well, well, General, maybe…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: So…

Bob Schieffer: Could I just interrupt you. If…

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Sure.

Bob Schieffer: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.”

My first exposure to this so-called controversy was Monday evening while watching Dan Abrams questioning General Clark. Abrams asked, “I think that the part that has really gotten people, which I don't think you have said before was the part about ‘riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down' effectively is not a qualification for president. That's the line that has been the most controversial. Are you sorry you said it?”

In my own mind I immediately answered this question for the General, “Please explain to me Dan, just how being a fighter pilot who is shot down (automatically) qualifies one to be President, exactly?” I would have asked that question and then waited for the answer. I was disappointed that wasn’t the response. People too often go into lengthy explanations on why they said something instead of asking a simple question to make the questioner responsible for explaining the question.

General Clark’s response was more lengthy than my own mental image, but articulate and to the point. The following is just one comment:

“Well, I honor John McCain's character, and as I've said on the show, he's been one of my heroes for a long time. I like John McCain. He's been over to my house and everything. This is about qualifications to be President. That's what this is about. And, by the way, it's also a little bit about the nature of American politics today that a comment like this could be taken out of context the way it was and create such a hullabaloo. I think we ought to get back to the campaign.”

Abrams kept after Clark like a pit bull latched onto its prey:

”Dan Abrams: So I've got to ask you though, this follow-up question – do you stand by your comment that you "don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification for president." Do you stand by that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I stand by the comment that when you talk about someone's wartime experience, you have to put that in the context of the level of their service, what that service consisted of and how it matches up to the requirements of the job of the presidency of the United States.

Dan Abrams: So does that mean…again, that you "don't think that riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification for president?"

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's an incredible testimony to John McCain's courage that he endured the privations and hardship he did and I think that the American people have always been impressed by that – as I have been impressed by that. But I'm supporting Barack Obama. I think he has judgment. I think he has character and I do think that he has courage. I think he'll be a great Commander in Chief despite the fact that he didn't serve. I think he is a patriot in the truest sense of the word.”

I personally find this whole controversy to be quite ludicrous, unnecessary and like so much of the present political landscape, a complete waste of time and energy. The statement by General Clark was obviously, at least to anyone who is honest as well as intelligent and objective, in no way meant as either a smear or to denigrate John McCain and his military career. It was, in fact, only meant to create a debate on what actually constitute the real qualifications for President of the United States. There is no doubt that military service can enhance a person’s experience, and give them added qualifications for the job, as long as there are many other attributes as well; but by itself, it is just one small part of a very large equation. Being president requires a lot more than simply being Commander in Chief, only one aspect of the job. And, military service alone does not automatically qualify one to be a good Commander in Chief. Our current president is a case in point.

There is no question that the McCain campaign has repeatedly and relentlessly been pounding us with the notion that one very important reason why John McCain should be president is because he is a hero, an ex-Navy fighter pilot and POW in Vietnam for five years. There are all kinds of heroes and examples of heroism in the world, including those equated with militarism. And though Senator McCain’s experiences do exemplify heroism by most standards, and demand our respect, they surely do not automatically qualify him as either a military genius or an administrator qualified to lead us as President. All that remains to be seen, and will depend on a lot more than his military experience and service alone. The fact that he seems so confused on so many issues, and has made the former case against John Kerry, as a flip flopper, pale in comparison to his own almost weekly (sometimes daily) reversals of thought, are evidence that his military service by itself says little about his real qualifications to lead us.

Perhaps there was a time when knowing someone had been a fighter pilot would have dazzled many of us and caused us to believe it alone went a long way to qualify someone for the highest office in the land. Of course, that was before President George W. Bush, also a fighter pilot!

In his defense, General Wesley Clark is a “highly” decorated retired General of the Army (four stars) with a long and distinguished military career, who served in Vietnam, and later as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) during the Clinton Administration, an assignment which placed him in a position as overall command of NATO military forces in Europe. I can’t honestly accept that anyone in their right mind would genuinely believe he would dis anyone, including John McCain, for having served in the military, and especially for having been shot down and forced to be a POW. It was so obvious this was not the point of his statement(s).

It’s time to move on to real issues, debate and dialogue, and stop getting bogged down in a morass of irrelevance and idiocy at every turn of the political road. It is this kind of chronic absurdity that has led to the current polarization of our nation, as well as the present government, one that very few would honestly argue has served us well.

Here’s just one example: According to a friend in a recent email, “I was in the car most of the day and listened to Kim Komando and some NPR, but Prairie Home Companion is still a bit too corny for me so I went to right wing radio to see how they are attacking. They are still in lock step that we must drill for oil everywhere and the democrat caribou huggers and Florida beach selfish idiots are responsible for the high gas prices which [sic] are wrecking our economy. That implies that the crisis is of supply and demand yet I see no gas lines anywhere which tells me that the problem is deregulation of the futures markets and speculators. Still this is the right wing mantra since they just have no spaghetti that sticks against Obama.”

During a different committee meeting I watched just today, another fact came to light, namely that refining capacity has not been an issue, even though the ole spin machine constantly tells us that gasoline prices continue to rise because evil environmentalists won’t allow any new refineries to be built. The truth is, gasoline reserves in this nation are so large that the oil companies won't build a new refinery because there is not enough demand for the gasoline. You don't hear them talk much about how many billions of barrels of oil reserves we have in this nation, and just how many wells have been capped, and for how many years. Also, we get most of our oil from Mexico and Canada, and not the Middle East. The bottom line is that we are not really dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and OPEC should not be the greatest factor in raising the price of crude. In addition, there are very few people that don’t believe we would been off fossil fuel dependency perhaps decades ago, if the oil companies, facilitated by our government looking the other way, hadn’t used their money and might to ensure that no alternative energy sources were allowed to succeed.

It is the drop in the dollar and the good ole boys speculating in commodities that are driving up the price of gasoline so rapidly. (And do you ever wonder why the prices at your gas station rise so quickly with each rise in the price of crude, even though the gasoline in that station was refined quite some time ago?) Two of the experts I heard testify today surmised that the "real" price of oil, as dictated by supply and demand, should be about $65 per barrel. We know that it is selling for more than twice that. You gotta love the speculators, the same type of pukes that were driving up the price of energy in California for Enron, and laughing at the little old ladies that couldn't afford to heat their homes. I know some don't believe crude prices aren't being driven by speculation, but I don't buy that

You also gotta love right wing (and all too many on the left) politicians, bought and paid for, and without conscience, ethics, and probably mothers. And there are all those wonderful people who continue to support them based on ideologies that have been extinct in practical terms for decades, even though most of them are also getting screwed over just like everyone else who isn't independently wealthy. Ignorance may not be bliss, but it’s sure expensive, and certainly plentiful!

Before I became involved with politics and the political blogosphere, I spent a lot of time studying metaphysics and various religious belief systems in an attempt to learn more about who we are and the nature of our true potential. In the process I reaffirmed for myself what metaphysics has long known, that everything is energy, essentially slowed down to create matter and the physical reality we identify with and take for granted. Thoughts are energy, and the circumstances we create in our lives reflect those thoughts most often dwelled upon.

This being said, why do we so often feel powerless to have any real affect in the larger world, and continually sense that we don’t really count or make a difference? This feeling is especially acute in the arena of politics and government. During an election, and especially after one, our ability to influence change appears to rapidly diminish. Having minds that are often noisy and scattered, we habitually remain blithely unaware of just how very potent our thoughts really are, and unmindful of our power to influence events.

If these assumptions are true, Barack Obama will unquestionably gain the ire and enmity of many people who represent those special interests and basically, the establishment. Many in these groups are people just like you and me who simply believe they are doing their jobs, and supporting themselves and their families. They are not trying to hurt others. There are, however, within this group, all too many who seem to care very little about the welfare of anyone but themselves. These are the same people who make a game out of making money. They see it as a competition of status among the very wealthy.

It’s not enough for them to have more money than they and their families could possibly spend in ten lifetimes. They have come to believe that money is who they are. They identify with their money, become more secure the more they have, and unfortunately feel justified in screwing anyone and everyone so that they can have more. You all know who and what I’m referring to.

Unfortunately, we also have the bigots, those people who desperately need to justify being better than someone else, in order to feel secure and unthreatened. They come in all shapes and sizes, and will join any organization recognizing them as special because someone else is not. They are easily motivated to hatred because their fears and frustrations are easily translated into anger, and the need to find someone else to blame. The fact that Barack Obama is Black, or has a name they have been taught to fear, will be enough to make him an enemy, just as those who fear their wealth is threatened because he desires to see everyone financially secure.

These people will see Barack Obama as a threat, and they would be delighted if he would just go away. They will be fearful that somehow their lives will be diminished because he might honestly represent the kind of president the Founding Fathers had in mind, long before the nation transformed idealism into another form of “me first” tyranny. They won’t understand that everyone in this nation will be better off when all are comfortable, secure and happy. They are in convenient denial of the truth that no one is completely secure and happy until all are. They prefer a world of duality and separatism to one of oneness and unity. They are glad to be poorer in spirit, while rationalizing that being “right,” or very wealthy are the only things that truly matter. They have long forgotten that “Man does not live by bread alone.”

If we accept that we just might now have a true candidate of change (all kinds), and realize how that person will antagonize and seriously threaten many who do not believe they can stand that change, let’s help to protect that person. It’s not a coincidence that people like John F Kennedy, Robert F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, and more recently, Benizar Bhutto, were targeted by those afraid of what they represented, basically, positive change for “everyone.” We’ve had too many great people taken away from us prematurely by those who were remarkably (un)great (the trigger men and those they represent). The world has been set back too many times, and the time is nigh for us all to echo the words of the rascally Howard Beale , “I’m as mad as hell and not going to take this anymore!”

I want to suggest that everyone supporting Barack Obama become aware of his need for protection, and remember when seeing or hearing him to “consciously” send some protective energy his way. Any method one wants to employ is fine. Some might utilize prayer, while others may imagine him surrounded in “white Light” or any kind of protective “shield” that works for them. What matters, is to remember often that there is a need, and to follow that remembrance with action, as thought and imagination.

If you are so motivated, send Barack Obama, his family, friends, and even Secret Service guardians, your positive thoughts and energy of protection whenever you think of it. Help create a wall around him that will not only protect him from negative thoughts aimed his way, but protect him physically as well. One’s imagination can be their guide. Our thoughts and focus have real power, and thoughts of love and caring have more power than those of fear, anger and hatred. Imagine the power of millions of people all focused on keeping a few people protected. Imagine a shift away from the wrong people controlling our destinies because of their own pathological insecurities that have them convinced they need more wealth and power at the expense of others.

We can fight back. We can overcome those feelings of impotence that make us, as individuals, believe we have no effect in the world. We can help to be that needed change. We need only believe in who we are, and help facilitate those along the way who are honestly working for our betterment.

If Barack Obama is indeed a real candidate of positive change, we will not only be protecting him and his, but also ourselves, our families and friends, as well as our best hopes for a better future!

We have for too long allowed people to lead us who lack the compassion, the vision, and the courage to make the world a better place because they are incapable of changing, and unable to comprehend that things can, and do, change all the time. Things have always been what we make them, in spite of seeming to be beyond our control. A person truly believing the world or mankind will never change, or that things are what they are because they have always been that way, are cheating themselves out of the legacy of human potential.

We are capable of much more, and limited only by a mind that creates limits because of limited imagination, percipience, and faith in ourselves. John 14:12 states, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who believes in me the works I do shall he do also, and greater than these shall he do…” Many religions debate the actual meaning of these words because they will not concede that you or I have any such potential. From a metaphysical perspective, the meaning is quite clear. When connected to our “right” (Higher) mind, and not entrapped by the petty fears of ego (lower) mind, and guided by innate compassion, love, tolerance and understanding, we are quite capable of much more than we presently realize.