OSCARS 2015 AUDIENCE BROUGHT TO TEARS BY "GLORY" SUNG BY LEGEND AND COMMON

By Kathleen

One thing stood out for me this week and that was John Legend's and Common's performance of "Glory" at the 87th Oscars on Sunday evening. I've included a link to a video which includes the very moving lyrics of the song:

Following their powerful performance, which was given a standing ovation by the Oscar audience, John Legend and Common justly won the Best Original Song Oscar for "Glory" from the film, "Selma."

The performance took place in front of a backdrop of Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge. Legend and Common were accompanied by a slowly marching choir which simulated the hundreds of protestors who in 1965 walked across the bridge calling for the right to vote. Many in the audience had tears in their eyes as the performance evoked powerful feelings within them.

Watching it at home I felt the same rush of feeling and no matter how many times I replay it I still feel emotional stirrings pouring through me. Clearly, due to the recent events in Ferguson, (and other events too) many people recognise that the struggle for racial equality is not yet over and part of the song's lyrics reflect the truth of this fact.

'Resistance is us,
That's why Rosa sat on the bus.

That's why we walk through Ferguson with our hands up.

When it go down we woman and man up,

They say, "Stay down" and we stand up.

Shots, we on the ground, the camera panned up,

King pointed to the mountain top and we ran up.'

Legend and Common are artists who understand that they have a platform and that they should use it to great purpose. 

Legend, accepting the award, said: "We wrote this song for a film that was based on events that were 50 years ago, but we say that Selma is now because the struggle for justice is right now. We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. When people are marching with our song, we want to tell you, 'We are with you. We see you. We love you. And march on.'"

Legend and Common were right to include recent events in the song because unfortunately the United States may not get to that glorious day any time soon unless the present struggle for racial equality is recognised now. Especially now since there are still some politicians who think that the first black president of the United States isn't one of them and that he doesn't love his country as much as they do despite all the evidence to the contrary. 

Ted Cruz publishes facebook poll, then unwillingly creates one of the most powerful "pro-Obamacare" messages ever, as Americans tell Ted Cruz what they really think!

By Patrick

Notable political rascal Senator Ted Cruz, who himself receives luxury health insurance through Goldman Sachs, recently had a great idea for using the power of Facebook for political gain. Ted Cruz, who is famous not only for causing the $ 23 billion dollar shutdown, but also for his extremist father Rafael Cruz, on March 24 posted on facebook a simple question to his audience, writing:

"Quick poll: Obamacare was signed into law four years ago yesterday. Are you better off now than you were then? Comment with YES or NO!"

The Senator from Texas, who just recently declared that "Obamacare", the Affordable Care Act, is the "the most unpopular law in the country" and that Republicans still have a chance to repeal “every single word” of Obamacare, apparently believes his own propaganda and also seriously thinks that Americans believe what he believes.

But Ted Cruz was proven wrong.

In one of the most memorable political facebook moments ever, Ted Cruz received a clear overwhelming response from many American people, who said:

"YES."

He received more than 40.000 responses to his question, and I don't think that this number includes all the numerous, individual replies to these responses.

A look at the "top comments" reveals a general picture that Ted Cruz surely didn't expect. Yes, "Obamacare" is actually very, very popular, and many people are very thankful for this first step in helping to solve healthcare issues in the USA.

At least Cruz does not censor his facebook page like his close friend Sarah Palin has already done for years, but she might now fell compelled to give him some advice, you never know! :-)

Here are the first 49 "top comments", the screenshots were only taken a few minutes ago, for your viewing pleasure. The people have spoken, loud and clear, and Democrats should stop being insecure about the ACA. Yes, citizens want decent healthcare, and they also want Ted Cruz to shove off:

Trying to please his teabagging fans, Ted Cruz instead inspired a powerful response PRO Obamacare.

See also the earlier, very good report at "Addicting Info."

Thank you, Ted, for being so foolish, and thank you, Americans, for being so outspoken!

+++

BONUS:

In a new advert, Ted Cruz also says that he wants to "abolish the IRS."

Demagoguery at its finest.

Hail Anarchy!

WATCH:

President Obama Speaks Live Today About The Situation In Syria - Full speech and transcript

By Kathleen

Today at 1: 15 pm EST President Obama will speak to the United States nation regarding the situation developing in Syria. 

As President Obama's address is likely to have long standing implications for the people of Syria I am leaving a live feed here on the blog so that readers have the opportunity to comment as the President speaks in real time. 

I will update the post later.

UPDATE:

Here is the clip with the full speech by President Obama:

Full transcript (h/t honestyingov):

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. Ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. Yesterday the United States presented a powerful case that the Syrian government was responsible for this attack on its own people. Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see — hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children — young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government.

This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm. In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted.

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I’m prepared to give that order.

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. I’ve long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that’s why I’ve made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Over the last several days, we’ve heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they’ve agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America’s national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

I’m confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I’m comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual. And this morning, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell agreed that this is the right thing to do for our democracy.

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we just acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

We cannot raise our children in a world where we will not follow through on the things we say, the accords we sign, the values that define us. So just as I will take this case to Congress, I will also deliver this message to the world. While the U.N. investigation has some time to report on its findings, we will insist that an atrocity committed with chemical weapons is not simply investigated, it must be confronted.

I don’t expect every nation to agree with the decision we have made. Privately we’ve heard many expressions of support from our friends. But I will ask those who care about the writ of the international community to stand publicly behind our action.

And finally, let me say this to the American people: I know well that we are weary of war. We’ve ended one war in Iraq. We’re ending another in Afghanistan. And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that’s why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.

Instead, we’ll continue to support the Syrian people through our pressure on the Assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people.

But we are the United States of America, and we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus. Out of the ashes of world war, we built an international order and enforced the rules that gave it meaning. And we did so because we believe that the rights of individuals to live in peace and dignity depends on the responsibilities of nations. We aren’t perfect, but this nation more than any other has been willing to meet those responsibilities.

So to all members of Congress of both parties, I ask you to take this vote for our national security. I am looking forward to the debate. And in doing so, I ask you, members of Congress, to consider that some things are more important than partisan differences or the politics of the moment.

Ultimately, this is not about who occupies this office at any given time; it’s about who we are as a country. I believe that the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad, and now is the time to show the world that America keeps our commitments. We do what we say. And we lead with the belief that right makes might — not the other way around.

We all know there are no easy options. But I wasn’t elected to avoid hard decisions. And neither were the members of the House and the Senate. I’ve told you what I believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the President and the people’s representatives stand together.

I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today I’m asking Congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation.

Thanks very much.

We weren't looking for a hero. Dusty rewrites MSNBC pundit John Heilemann's absurd statement.

By Dusty

President Obama: Does he like people or not?

John Heilemann was interviewed during the 2012 DNC Convention by Kelly Candaele. The topic was the differences between President Obama and former President Bill Clinton.

JH: Obama is an unusual politician. There are very few people in American politics who achieve something — not to mention the Presidency —in which the following two conditions are true: one, they don’t like people. And two, they don’t like politics. KC: Obama doesn’t like people? JH: I don’t think he doesn’t like people. I know he doesn’t like people. He’s not an extrovert; he’s an introvert.

I’ve known the guy since 1988. He’s not someone who has a wide circle of friends. He’s not a backslapper and he’s not an arm-twister. He’s a more or less solitary figure who has extraordinary communicative capacities. He’s incredibly intelligent, but he’s not a guy who’s ever had a Bill Clinton-like network around him. He’s not the guy up late at night working the speed dial calling mayors, calling governors, calling CEOs. People say about Obama that it’s a mistake that he hasn’t reached out more to Republicans on Capitol Hill. I say that may be a mistake, but he also hasn’t reached out to Democrats on Capitol Hill. If you walk around [the convention] and button-hole any Democratic Senator you find on the street and ask them how many times they have received a call [from the President] to talk about politics, to talk about legislative strategy, I guarantee you won’t find a lot of people who have gotten one phone call in the last two and a half years. And many of them have never been called.

 I’m not a psychologist, so I don’t know what the root of that is. People have theories about it. But I know in practice he is a guy who likes to operate with a very tight circle around him, trusts very few people easily or entirely. He ran his campaign that way in 2008, he runs his White House that way, and he’s running his campaign that way in 2012. President Obama just doesn’t talk to too many people.

So according to John, Barack Obama who won the 2008 election for President with 365 electoral votes over John McCain who received 173 electoral votes and Obama also received the most votes ever  in American history for the popular vote does not like people nor politics. But hey, he is a great communicator.

 It’s okay, I’ll wait while until you are done banging your head against your desk and the stars are done circling your head.

Better now? Okay let’s go take a little photo journey and see if we can find photo evidence showing President Obama does not like people. Here we go off to The Obama Diary and to Google.

Is this what John saw? 

Umm, I don't this one is it. Looks to me like the guy knows how to give and receive a hug and look there is more waiting for their turn to get and give a hug. 

No, not this one. Looks to me like a genuine display of empathy to me. Okay let's keep going. That was only two pictures.

Found it! Ahh wait wait... no darn it. The little guy looks like he is having fun with the big guy who according to John does not like people. ~Sigh~ okay off for more pictures...

Oh here is proof President Obama does NOT like people. Oh no....wrong again, he obviously likes babies.

Keep looking.

Nope, not this one either. Check out the diversity of that crowd though. 

Awesome! 

Oops, must keep looking. 

Note to self...Stay ON Task

No not this one either. Check it out he can multitask too. 

Keep going...

Let's see is high fiving something that someone who do NOT like people do? 

You're right, this is NOT a picture of a person who does NOT like people.

Moving on. Let's go to the rewrite. The red text is the rewrite.

JH/Dusty: Obama is an unusual politician. There are very few people in American politics who achieve something — not to mention the Presidency —in which the following two conditions are true: one, they have a low tolerance for BS . And two, they don’t like the politics that is demanded by the media and by fellow politicians.

All of the above pictures as well as this one shows President Obama to be a very caring and empathic person who enjoys meeting and interacting with people. A person would have to have been living totally off the grid aka Fox News Viewer to not know that our President Obama has no problem interacting with people on a personal level and real level.

A person cannot fake the emotions that are on display in this picture. 

JH/Dusty: He’s someone who has a wide circle of friends. He’s not a backslapper and he’s not an arm-twister however he can be your biggest cheerleader and will help guide you along the path you choose. He is personable figure who has extraordinary communicative capacities 

 I think John needs to read this article  Michael Lewis Profile of Barack Obama. Click on the link and read the whole article it is quite an eye-opener. Here is a couple highlights:

Why doesn’t he show more emotion? He does this on occasion, even when I’ve put the question clearly—see in what I’ve asked some implicit criticism, usually one he’s heard many times before. As he’s not naturally defensive, it’s pretty clearly an acquired trait. “There are some things about being president that I still have difficulty doing,” he said. “For example, faking emotion. Because I feel it is an insult to the people I’m dealing with. For me to feign outrage, for example, feels to me like I’m not taking the American people seriously. I’m absolutely positive that I’m serving the American people better if I’m maintaining my authenticity. And that’s an overused word. And these days people practice being authentic. But I’m at my best when I believe what I am saying.” 

snip

 But if you happen to be president just now, what you are faced with, mainly, is not a public-relations problem but an endless string of decisions. Putting it the way George W. Bush did sounded silly but he was right: the president is a decider. Many if not most of his decisions are thrust upon the president, out of the blue, by events beyond his control: oil spills, financial panics, pandemics, earthquakes, fires, coups, invasions, underwear bombers, movie-theater shooters, and on and on and on. They don’t order themselves neatly for his consideration but come in waves, jumbled on top of each other. “Nothing comes to my desk that is perfectly solvable,” Obama said at one point. “Otherwise, someone else would have solved it. So you wind up dealing with probabilities. Any given decision you make you’ll wind up with a 30 to 40 percent chance that it isn’t going to work. You have to own that and feel comfortable with the way you made the decision. You can’t be paralyzed by the fact that it might not work out.” On top of all of this, after you have made your decision, you need to feign total certainty about it. People being led do not want to think probabilistically

Bet you all know where I am going with this especially if you read the entire article. I agree with President Obama cable news channels are toxic and are not good sources of information. On any given day you can turn on any one of these networks, be it Fox News, CNN or MSNBC and you will soon be overwhelmed by the negativity, the constant second guessing and the pure speculation on topics where not a single fact can be found and even the out right lying and fear mongering of certain pundits.  President Obama is also correct when he says people want a leader who does think about them and how his decisions affect them. People do not want a leader who blindly reacts first and then gets the facts later. You'll all know who I am talking about here.

JH/Dusty:He’s incredibly intelligent, he’s not a guy who’s ever had a Bill Clinton-like network around him. He’s not the guy up late at night working the speed dial calling mayors, calling governors, calling CEOs. He IS the guy who is reading letters from the people he serves late at night. Some people (usually cable news pundits) say about Obama that it’s a mistake that he hasn’t reached out more to Republicans on Capitol Hill. But is it just as easy to make the case of it is hard to work with people who have claimed on nation television every chance they get their main objective is to limit you to one term. Also it would be very difficult to work with those in 2010 showed no loyalty or courage in supporting a member of their own party.

 I'll bet this guy knows President Obama has his back. 

JH/Dusty:I’m not a psychologist,(snark:I just play one on TV ) so I don’t know what the root of that is. Let me enlighten you John, President Obama is just man, he is not a magician nor is he a miracle worker. What is he is the man who the American voters elected to help lead this nation out of the worst economic crisis this country has ever faced while also dealing with all the other crisis that just seemed to occur one after another. President Obama has proven himself to be a leader with acts of compassion, caring, courage in spite of all the roadblocks put up by Congress, the media and also other world leaders. It is time to give the man the credit he deserves and show him some support. Just think of what President Obama could have done if he had been given the support all the other previous Presidents were given. Just maybe John, it is time to  take off those rose colored glasses and view our President with clear vision instead of with your preconceived ideas of who, what and how the man should be.

In 2008 the American voters elected Barack Obama to be the President of the United States. In 2010 there were quite a few American voters who voted against our country and against our President and quite frankly against their own best interests all because they refused to overcome their fear of change.
In 2012 the American voters get another chance to vote. I hope those voters have overcame their fear and are ready to stand up and make a difference to go forward not backwards.

Let me finish with a video from Martin Bashir of MSNBC he absolutely nails it with the difference between a true leader and an immature fear monger.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UPDATE:  Here is a link featuring the new ad from the Obama campaign, highlighting some of the key facts about the economy.

Don’t Get Me Started: Mitt Romney and His Human Rights Hypocrisy

by Sunnyjane

Every day in this country, another irksome bit of far-right rhetorical bile flows from the Republican Party and its presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.  We read it or hear it, share it with our Politicalgates community, and then move on to the next contemptible piece of right-wing garbage.  Most news is old after twenty-four hours.

But on this particular issue, I have not been able to move on.

The Backstory

For me, Romney’s inexhaustible hypocrisies melded into one massive clump of horseshit horse excrement in the middle of the sensitive situation playing out last week in China during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s trip there.  The original goal of the visit to Beijing was to implore China to support international efforts to persuade North Korea to end provocative actions, get Iran to prove that its nuclear program is peaceful, and end fighting in Syria and the two Sudans.  The visit soon became about Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese civil rights activist who works on human rights issues in rural areas of the People's Republic of China, particularly in support of women's rights and the welfare of the poor. 

We will probably never know the entire story involving Chen's issues and how it was eventually resolved.  But having the United States Secretary of State sitting on potentially hostile soil is not the time for fools to begin yammering about what the President should be telling the Chinese regarding how wretched their record on human rights is.   Romney simply confirmed that he knows nothing about delicate international policy negotiations.  


A Fool's Mouth is Always Open

It is typical of Romney's ignorance and out-of-touch nature that he could so "tactfully" state for the benefit of his base, It's not the language I would have used when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, but took it upon himself to openly slam President Obama for carefully saying of the situation going on in China, I am obviously aware of the press reports.

Romney decided it was a dark day for freedom -- IF the reports out of China were true.  No need to keep his mouth shut until the tense situation was resolved.  And at the same time, he made this inane statement:  I really love America.  I love what it represents, and I love that a Chinese dissident who fled the policies in his country, I love where he went -- to our embassy.   Oh, and don't we love the idle chatter of an idiot.


He liberally chastised the American embassy in Beijing for failing to put in place the kind of verifiable measures that would assure the safety of Mr. Chen and his family and didn't hesitate to add that, it’s a day of shame for the Obama administration. We are a place of freedom, here and around the world, and we should stand up and defend freedom wherever it is under attack.


But this slap-down advice to President Obama was the most egregious:  He should speak one on one with the key leadership in China and make sure they understand that we're entirely committed to the principle of human rights…that the [Chen] family is given protection from authorities that have apparently been abusing their civil and human rights, and we should make it very clear that  and for the people of the world.


You may be sorry you said that, Mitt.


Hypocrisy, Thy Ugly Name is Mitt Romney


Mitt Romney criticizing China for its human rights deficiencies is closely akin to Adolph Hitler had he condemned genocide.  Romney has made himself the candidate of the party that is committing the most grave offenses against human rights in America's history.   Never has one party so savagely destroyed the fundamental rights to which people are inherently entitled.  To name only a few, they have suppressed peaceful protests; disenfranchised segments of the population by enacting restrictive voter laws; presented budgets that protect only the wealthy; legislatively attacked the LGBT community; stripped labor unions of  their collective bargaining rights; and unmercifully enacted repressive laws against women.


Remember Romney's words regarding the China situation: stand up and defend freedom wherever it is under attack...We're entirely committed to the principle of human rights...This [human rights] is an important priority for the United States of America.


And yet, this is what he promises to do if elected president:  Of course get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that.   And he loves the Ryan budget that protects the rich.
      
It doesn't sound like you really believe that human rights are so important in America, Mitt.

End Note

Severely conservative, severely unfit for the presidency of the United States of America

  

It’s Time For Americans To Stop Being So Reactive and Start to be Proactive

Enough already with Mitt and his wife trying to portray them as your everyday, average American!  Enough with this War on Woman crap in relation to Ann Romney! Seriously folks, the media really needs to stop with all the drama and the Romney’s need to stop trying to portray themselves as something they never were and never will be. The bloggers also need to stop mocking the Romneys when they are actually telling the truth about themselves; they need to embrace it. Blog about how the Romney’s are different, but stop with the rhetoric and stick to the facts.

The reason people are looking for anyone but Mitt is because the man doesn’t know who he is or what he stands for. The man could not publicly tell the truth to save his life for two reasons: the media will attack him, and he is trying his damnest to be someone he’s not. When Mitt said he has friends who are NASCAR team owners, that was the truth! Why should he be ashamed of it? He is freaking rich after all. Would you really expect him to be friends with his gardener? No you would not! However, the media went directly on the attack, calling it a gaffe. It wasn’t a gaffe - it was another moment when Mitt told the truth in public.

He likes firing people who work for him. Again the media called it a gaffe. It wasn’t a gaffe - once again, it was the truth. Most people in positions of power do not like firing people, but his business was Bain Capital, which was responsible to buying distressed companies and turned them around or dismantling them.  Part of that process involved people losing their jobs so the companies could become profitable again. Why is anyone surprised he would say this? Ann has a couple Cadillacs. Really, again what is so shocking about that? Our favorite Tundra Twit bought a Cadillac Escalade very soon after coming off the 2008 campaign trail. Was anyone surprised? If yes, why were you surprised?

This is what some of newly rich or the mega rich people do. They buy expensive cars, expensive homes and live a lavish lifestyles. Does anyone remember the TV show “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous,” hosted by Robin Leach? Ann has dressage horses. Again so what! She is rich, always has been, always will be. More power to her. Enjoy your horses Ann, keep spending your money. I don’t envy your lifestyle one bit.

Here’s a thought for the Romneys: if you really want to be President and First Lady of the United States of America, how about just being yourselves. Pick a position and stick to it! How about doing some research or paying someone to actually do some real research on the issues facing Americans? Don’t rely on conservative think tanks, the Tea Party, the Koch Bros & Fox News to define your positions. Mitt & Ann, I don’t really care about your wealth or your religion. Your wealth and religious beliefs should not be the main talking point, however it is part of the whole picture. What I do care about is whether or not you have the basic qualifications to be President. I want to know which direction your moral compass is pointed. I want you to show me in what ways you think you’d do a better job than our current President. I want to know where you stand on basic ethics and what your positions are on the issues which affect all Americans not just the ultra-rich, and not just Republicans.  Because, you see, Mitt there is a reason why the picture below resonates with people: We all want to ride inside; not just you, Ann, your children and your friends and relations. Not just the GOP, the Koch Brothers, the Heritage Foundation, and the Tea Partyers; All Americans, including Democrats, we all should ride inside – because we’re all Americans. The President is everyone’s President, not just the privileged few! 

AND while I’m on my soapbox… (it's okay I made sure to ask KAO for permission first)

Is anyone else appalled at the media coverage regarding Travon Martin and George Zimmerman? Forgive me, but justice cannot and should not be decided in the media. We have a judicial system for a reason; is our Justice system broken? No. I don’t think it is. Does the Justice system fail? Yes, from time-to-time it does.  After all, it is humans who make the decisions. However, the coverage by MSNBC the past two week was over the top in my opinion; frankly, I finally turned it off.  Before anyone calls me out in the comment section, yes - I felt the same way about the Casey Anthony coverage too.  There is a difference between presenting the facts and sensationalizing the facts in a matter to promote ratings.

Which leads us to the latest Bristol vs. Levi media circus.

If for one minute anyone other than LeadFoot (just kidding) thought the media would actually show something negative against the Palins I have a bridge in AZ to sell you for a great price, brand spanking new and never used. Call Me! The media is constantly going to the Palins to get their rebuttal statements before airing anything that could be possibly or remotely cast them in a negative light. However, the media has no problem what so ever in providing the Palin free publicity. Case in point: Bristol’s “Trial Marriage” announcement, showcasing her and Gino kissing while she is holding Tripp. Did anyone see a statement from Levi published on his thoughts regarding this development? No? Me Neither!

Lastly, OMG: people need to just stop with the fake outrage!  Just Stop it – right now! Not everything said in the media is about You, Your Cause or Your Choices. Seriously. It isn’t. Lady Gaga tweeted this last week:

When I read this my first and only thought was “Yep - know that feeling.”  I’m not a Pop Singer, but yeah - I’ve eaten salad wishing it was something better. As a matter of fact as I am writing this I am also eating salad, and also wishing I was eating something besides a salad AGAIN today for lunch.  But, apparently I’m not normal, because according to all the negative media coverage of Gaga’s tweet I should have been outraged. I should have taken to my keyboard to pound-out my outrage immediately!  Oh, puhleeze! Stop and re-read the first sentence in this paragraph: when hasn’t anyone ever ate something wishing it was something else? Examples are found all over in the media: the woman munching a bread stick, wishing she could have dessert; the child that must eat his vege’s before having something he really wants. 

Ask yourself, before you fire-off a tweet or write a comment or even blog about it, whatever it may be: in what way did this tweet impact your life or your decision making skills right here, right now? Not at all did it? Next, in what way did this tweet, blog post or comment impact your life for the next 24 hours? Still didn’t, did it? Good! Finally, in what way did this tweet, comment or blog post impact your life at ANY point? Still nothing?? GOOD! That is how it should be.  We do not need to respond to every single thing that may pique us, or may not necessarily agree with. Because responding to anything happening anywhere is NOT always our business. Responding is not always in our or societies best interest. Sometimes, its best not to take the bait, but let it silently slide by…

In the end  there will be many days when you just need to say....

and let it all go. Have an adult beverage or two! Take a long walk, watch a movie or just hang with your real friends or your internet friends. It will get better it always does. 

It is time for Americans to stop be so reactive and start to be proactive. People need to take a deep breath in and hold it…. hold it… now, release it and go about your daily lives. Be proactive in your community. Be proactive on social networks but stop with the personal assaults on people who in no way have any impact on your daily lives and decision making. Point out the differences between what a politicians says and what that politician does. Same with companies and government, but stop with the hateful and hurtful rhetoric that has engulfed our country. Lady Gaga is an entertainer but she is not responsible for the choices each and every one of us chooses to make on a daily basis. Bristol and Levi are not news and not even entertaining to anyone but a select few. They are also not solely responsible for any choices anyone anywhere makes. We all have the right to make choices and decisions for ourselves. In the end it is our responsibility to make or not to make the right choices. The right choices being your right choices. My choices may not be your choices and your choices may not be right for me. However the key is we all make mistakes and we all do some things right. 

Whew. Remember it is called a SoapBox for a reason…

To wrap up the first edition of Dusty’s Soapbox how about some absolutely adorable pictures I found over at The Obama Diary? Just gotta love that smile! 

Many Thanks to KAO for her wonderful graphic and editing! The opinions posted here is solely mine. 

Palling Around with Radicals and Terrorists: President Obama vs. Sarah Palin

by Sunnyjane

There are approximately 5,400 hours to live through before Americans cast their votes in the November 6 elections, and Republicans will use every second of those hours to hurl another nasty epithet, half-truth, outright lie, invented controversy, fairy tale scandal, and tail-wagging-the-dog accusation at President Obama that they can manage.  This is perfectly reasonable, of course, because according to Sarah Palin (the most poorly vetted politician ever to stumble into an election campaign), Barack Obama was never properly vetted by the news media in 2008, and she intends to make up for that grievous omission -- you betcha!

Anyone who thinks Palin has become irrelevant in GOP and national politics hasn't been paying attention.  Reports from CPAC in February tell us that conservatives believe she gave a speech electrifying the Conservative Political Action Conference with one of the most rousing and effective political speeches of recent years.  From her bully pulpit on Fox News and her ghost-written screeds on Facebook, she is capable of reaching her base of Obama-hating, Fox-informed, under-educated voters who believe any and all of her screech-fests.  And whether the current crop of GOP wannabe-the-nominee gang and leaders of the Republican Party like it or not, Sarah Palin is doing her usual in-your-face routine with the American public.  


So once again it is necessary for Politicalgates to conduct a thorough and objective examination of these two individuals' backgrounds and decide for ourselves, as Shakespeare’s King Lear asked, Which is the justice and which is the thief? 


An Investment in...Learning?


An investigation into a person's life would be sorely lacking without a reference to their education, for it has a great influence on how their opinions and beliefs are shaped, and how they ultimately conduct themselves throughout their lives.

Sarah Palin took an any-of-them-all-of-them route to obtain one college degree in either communications or journalism -- we can't be certain because we've never seen a diploma, no one remembers her at any of the four colleges she attended over six years, and Palin keeps changing her story.   

When she wasn't attending college during this period, she was winning and losing local beauty contests in hopes of earning scholarship money.


After deciding she had labored through all the formal education she needed, Palin returned to Wasilla in 1988, performed only "passably" as a TV sportscaster, married Todd at the end of August, and had her first child, Track, in mid-April 1989.  (It's perfectly acceptable to use your fingers and do the math.) 

It is true that it took Barack Obama considerably longer than Palin to complete his formal education.  However, he was earning advanced degrees over this period of time, not just trying to complete one program.  He graduated from Columbia University in 1983 with a degree in Political Science.

In 1988, Obama entered Harvard Law School, becoming president of the Harvard Law Review,  a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship.  He graduated from Harvard magna cum laude in 1991.

After Columbia, Obama chose not to do any fancy pageant walking, deciding instead to work in business for two years in New York. Returning to Chicago in 1985, he worked on the South Side as a community organizer for low-income residents in the Roseland and Altgeld Gardens communities.  And he had "real responsibilities."   

After graduating from Harvard, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught at the University of Chicago Law School, and helped organize voter registration drives during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.  In October 1992, he married Michelle Robinson; their first child, Malia, was born in 1998.  (No need to exercise your fingers in this instance.)

So Who's Been Palling Around with Whom?

Barack Obama went on to teach Constitutional Law at one of the ten most prestigious law schools in the country, the University of Chicago Law School, as well as being a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer.  He was associating with bright young law students and respected law professors, while at the same time...  

...Sarah Palin was working hard (or hardly working) as a member of the Wasilla City Council, spending much of her time it seems, reading John Birch Society propaganda  literature, the New American Con-Con Call.  (An interesting but unconfirmed connection here, but one that makes us go Hmmmm...  is that the father of the Koch brothers, Fred, was a founding member of the John Birch Society.) One dubious member of the JBS was Westbrook Pegler, whom Palin quoted in her 2008 convention speech with the line, We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity.   Pegler has been described as the ultraconservative newspaper columnist whose widely syndicated columns targeted the New Deal establishment, labor leaders, intellectuals, homosexuals, Jews, and poets.  Does anyone else find it rather odd that Palin failed to mention John Birch Society literature when Katie Couric wanted to know what she read on a regular basis that helped shape her world view?


Politics from the Pulpit

Obama and Jeremiah Wright

Barack Obama came under intense criticism during the 2008 presidential election for a video showing his home-church pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright telling his congregation that African Americans should not sing, God bless America, but God damn America!   Rev. Wright had officiated at the marriage of Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama, had baptized their two daughters, and was considered a friend as well as spiritual leader.  In defending his family's twenty-year relationship with the pastor, Obama said, This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements … Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor.  However, after Wright later appeared at the National Press Club and said,, among other controversial statements, that the recent criticism surrounding his sermons were "an attack on the black church," Obama had clearly had enough.  At a press conference in  North Carolina, Obama stated, The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago.  His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but they end up giving comfort to those that prey on hate. 

John McCain had consistently warned his campaign staff that the Wright issue would not be used against his Democratic opponent under any circumstances, even after it appeared in a campaign ad that was funded by an independent support group.   So frustrated by the campaign's refusal to attack Obama via Wright, that Sarah Palin blatantly disregarded McCain's order and sat for an interview with Bill Kristol in which she said with childlike perplexity, To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn't get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.

Palin and Thomas Muthee

Sarah Palin might not have been quite so keen to attack Obama's religious associations had the McCain campaign done a proper vetting of her and knew what  extreme sermonizing and rather bizarre rituals go on at the Wasilla Assembly of God, where she was baptized and had been a member for twenty-five years. The church’s Senior Pastor, Ed Kalnins, has preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted into heaven; and preached that the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq were part of a world war over Christianity.  He also preached that "I believe that Alaska is one of the refuge states... in the Last Days, and hundreds of thousands of people are going to come to this state to seek refuge. And the church has to ready to minister to them.    (It is worth noting that after interest in Palin's church peaked in 2008,  hundreds of Pastor Kalnins's sermons disappeared from the church's website.  Just sayin...)


One of the more radical ceremonies conducted at the Wasilla Assembly of God was that which took place in 2005.  It was on this day that visiting Kenya minister Rev. Thomas Muthee anointed then-Alaska gubernatorial contender Sarah Palin, praying over and blessing her to advance her bid for the Alaska governorship and protect her from a "spirit of witchcraft."   He also called on faithful Christians to "infiltrate" a number of key areas of secular society including Banking and finance, schools and education, media, politics and government.   That's right, dear readers, forget the United States Constitution's First Amendment affirming the country's separation of church and state; it has no standing in far-right religions such as Sarah Palin's. 


An excellent look at Sarah Palin's radical religiosity can be clearly seen in this excellent 2008 article by retired Baptist minister Pastor Howard Bess, who wrote a book that Wasilla Mayor Palin wanted banned and who fought her on abortion and gay rights, and why he believes the country should fear her election. 


Terrorist vs. Terrorist: Who's the Bigger Threat to America?


John McCain gave his campaign the go-ahead to attack Barack Obama for his close association with the 1960s Weather Underground (Weathermen) activist Bill Ayers.  The Weathermen, a less violent off-shoot of the Students for a Democratic Society, bombed buildings and monuments, including the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol building, to protest America's ever escalating involvement in the Vietnam war.  Nobody was killed in these bombings, due to the Weathermen issuing warnings that the targeted buildings should be evacuated.  However, three of the group's members were killed accidentally when a homemade bomb exploded in their apartment.

The McCain staff ran campaign ads saying that Obama was lying about his close association with Bill Ayers, and Sarah Palin went on the stump with her newly-minted line that their Democratic opponent is someone who would pal around with terrorists!   Palin got a lot of traction with this pot-stirring demagoguery, and no doubt felt she had finally been unleashed from the stifling bonds of the McCain campaign staffers.  The world was suddenly her perfect Camelot, that idyllic place where she could employ suggestive rhetoric and false claims to feed the prejudices of her base.   It didn't matter, of course, that a close association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers was a less-than-perfect attempt to find something, anything, with which to stop the Obama campaign in its tracks.

After an extremely thorough examination of all of the McCain campaign claims, FactCheck.org concluded: Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education. 

During the eternity that the Bill Ayers/Barack Obama story was running non-stop on every television station in the country, Sarah Palin was haranguing McCain campaign chief Steve Schmidt about published reports that Todd had been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), whose platform calls for the secession of Alaska from the the United States, i.e., to become and separate and independent nation.  Palin insisted via email that Schmidt  get in front of that ridiculous issue and release a statement contradicting the charges. Schmidt refused to issue one, knowing Palin was lying. He knew that Todd Palin had been an AIP member and that secession was the central AIP platform issue.  Geoffrey Dunn, in a great article, proves that Todd Palin had registered THREE TIMES as an AIP member. 


In his greatest moment of glory, Joe Vogler, the murdered founder of the AIP, was to appear in 1993 before the United Nations to denounce United States “tyranny” before the entire world and to demand Alaska’s freedom. The Alaska secessionist had persuaded the government of Iran to sponsor his anti-American harangue.  As Salon wrote in October 2008, That’s right … Iran. The Islamic dictatorship. The taker of American hostages. The rogue nation that McCain and Palin have excoriated Obama for suggesting we diplomatically engage. That Iran.   What is particularly noteworthy here, is that the Chairwoman of the AIP, Lynette Clark, said in the same article that Sarah Palin was her kind of gal.  “She’s Alaskan to the bone … she sounds just like Joe Vogler.” 


A lengthy post could be written just about Sarah Palin's close association with the AIP, but that won't be done here.   Suffice it to say that not only was Todd a member for seven years, but that AIP Chairman Mark Chryson helped Palin's campaign for mayor and governor, and has stated that when she was mayor, "Every time I showed up her door was open,” said Chryson. “And that policy continued when she became governor.”  And of course, there is Governor Palin's March 2008 video addressing her good pals at the AIP with Keep up the good work and God bless you.  (It showed admirable restraint, I believe, that the Obama campaign did not exploit Palin's very close association with the AIP in 2008.  It is highly likely that they knew of its existence, even if the McCain did not.  Now, who wasn't properly vetted, Sarah?)


Here a Radical, There a Radical, Everywhere a Radical Radical

There is a very good reason why a photo of Barack Obama palling around with Saul Alinsky does not exist: Alinsky died when Obama was ten years old.   While there is every reason to believe that Obama read Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, there is little evidence to show that he used the same tactics as Alinsky in his community organizer days.  Where Alinsky called for sweeping social change, Obama focused on practical assistance for the poor and disenfranchised in specific Chicago neighborhoods.  


Amazon.com's review of Rules for Radicals describes the book as Saul Alinsky's impassioned counsel to young radicals on how to effect constructive social change and know “the difference between being a realistic radical and being a rhetorical one.” Written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition.

But lack of just a smidgen of analytical research on a specific topic never stopped Newt Gingrich's desperation for votes in the current GOP primary from scaring the bejesus out of his few followers, nor Sarah Palin's hailing him for doing it.  Even Fox News was somewhat disdainful of the Gingrich/Palin push on the subject, writing, [Alinsky] died in 1972, at the age of sixty-three, a marginalized figure in his own obscure field and seldom mentioned outside of it.  But to close followers of the topsy-turvy GOP presidential primary, the late Saul Alinsky is suddenly becoming a household word. This is due, in large measure, to the mantra-like repetition of the name by Newt Gingrich, who invokes it every day on the campaign trail as part of his stump-speech indictment of President Obama.

(In a snort-inducing, guffaw-producing bit of irony, HeraldNet reported in late January 2012 that Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," a primer on confrontational social activism, has been adopted by political activists on both ends of the spectrum, including members of the "tea party." James O'Keefe studied it before creating his 2009 undercover "sting" against the community activist organization ACORN.)   


(A personal analogy, if I may:  Reading a cookbook by Julia Child might give me cooking tips and techniques, but it doesn't make me a world-renowned chef.)

Referencing his pet weenie operative James O'Keefe is the perfect segue into the right-wing activism of Andrew Breitbart.  (It is with some small degree of petulance that, while doing research for this post, I noticed that "social reformers" for the conservatives are most always activists, while social reformers for the liberals are most always radicals.)   After his harsh, deceptive, and devastating attacks against Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, and Anthony Weiner failed to bring down the republic, Breitbart went after the Big Guy himself: (drum roll, please) President...Barack...Obama!

At February's Conservative Political Action Conference, Breitbart gave a take-no-prisoners speech, emphasizing his unrelenting fight with the progressive left and their “bullshit” Alinsky tactics  and that he had tapes of Obama from when he was in college that will expose how he and his radical buddies plotted while the rest of us slept.   


I've got videos, Breitbart told the excited attendees. This election we're going to vet him...To show why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. 


But while the far-right practically vibrated with excitement anticipating the political execution of the President, Andrew turned up toes and died on them.  Oh woe unto us, the Teabaggers surely must have felt.  All hope is lost.  But, dear readers, when Breitbart failed to rise again on the third day, it was Sean Hannity to the rescue!   It's well known by now that the Prof. Derrick Bell bombshell video was a complete and total yawner to all but the most ardent Obama haters, so there's little need to resurrect that particular issue.  Let's just say that as Breitbart's legacy shocker-to-end-all-shockers, it was a total dud.  (Andrew's untimely death was probably for the best, as he'd likely have died of embarrassment after the ho-hum reaction anyhow.)


Never one to let a void in Hater's Haven go vacant for long, Our Lady of the Lifeless Lake filled it with some of her ghost-written garbage in homage to Dumbfart Breitbart by invading his BigGovernment website.  As Politico wrote:  "With the death of Breitbart, the conservative movement didn’t just lose a General — we lost an entire Special Forces Division,” Palin wrote in a piece published on Big Government late Thursday. “But he didn’t leave us without the tools and the knowledge we need to fight. This website — Breitbart 2.0 — is the culmination of his study of the technology and aesthetics of new media ... “Breitbart’s most immediate mission was the belated vetting of Barack Obama. This obviously is an issue very near and dear to my heart,” she said, accusing the media of having reported “breathlessly” about her tanning bed while they “couldn’t be bothered” to properly investigate President Barack Obama’s past record.

END NOTE

“Our sitting president was not vetted,” Palin told Sean Hannity in early March. “Our president is one who is trying to divide our country. He is not in this to unify America and to solidify our place as the exceptional nation in the world. He is trying to divide us based along lines of gender, of religion, of income, even of race.”

‘I Don’t Think About Sarah Palin’

the President answered in a 2010 interview shortly after the mid-term elections, when Barbara Walters asked him about Palin's statement that she could beat him in 2012.

I'm pretty sure the President maintains that sentiment today.