And if you go to the website for HCAN, check out their “Mobilization” section. It’s an eye-opener, especially in light of the charges hurled at those with questions about Health Care Reform.

Now, why do I bring this up? Don’t they have every right to be present at these meetings? Of course they do, if it is THEIR representative’s meeting. And if they want to make sure their side of the issue s represented. But to silence other people who are not there to disrupt the meeting, and who simply want to ask questions? Well, seems to me that they are doing what Rep. Pelosi accused others of doing in this clip:

And we cannot forget this one, too:

This is our Speaker of the House, the third in succession to the Presidency. Holy canoli. That is scary. One of the top Democrats who don’t understand what it means to live in a democracy. Yikes. I wonder what she will say about the practices of HCAN to drown out anyone who tries to ask a question of their elected official? Yeah, I think we know.

Well, at least ONE person in government has it right:

True that, at least last time I checked, though the way this Congress is going, who knows for how long that might be true?

And it is no surprise that Hillary Clinton is the one saying it. Clinton is most definitely a true patriot, and appreciates the rights and liberties with which we are endowed. It’s a shame too many Democrats have forgotten that…

Check out what happened to one such “lunatic”:

You can see why he needed to be escorted out by Security. Ahem. He wanted to know if someone there was actually from NH. And the man escorted out is a retired police officer.

Oh, didn’t you also like her snide comment to him about her hope that a movie theater would be quieter?

And here is another one of her rabid constituents, who recounts his attempts to get ANY information from her office about upcoming events:

Wow. Way to represent your people, Rep. Shea-Porter. She has some major short-term memory loss it would seem. Or is as clear an example as anyone could want that power corrupts. Maybe both.

Do you think she knows that people voted her in, and they can vote her out?

This really is quite sad if you think about it (on a number of levels). That someone who regularly exercised her right to protest, including against the President of the United States, has now become someone who will not tolerate even the slightest dissent in the form of a question. In four years since she was elected she has done this turnabout. It really makes you wonder – which one was the real person, the one who protested, or the one who removes protesters?

In any event, I reckon her constituents are going to have the opportunity to let her know just how they feel about her treatment of them in a few short months. Yep. Perhaps by then, she will have realized maybe she shouldn’t have treated them like a disposable commodity. Time will tell.

But which blogs are reporting this story? Reports Newsbusters.org:

While Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, Red State, and other conservative bloggers have denounced Tiller’s murder, Keith Olbermann, Think Progress, the Huffington Post, Crooks and Liars, and AmericaBlog haven’t even mentioned William Long’s murder at the recruiting center as of this writing.

That is to say, the same people who rushed to denounce Tiller’s murder have been quiet about Private Long’s, at least so far. I hastily add, I am not a fan of people like Bill O’Reilly, whose name has been bandied about regarding Tiller’s murder, but there does seem to be a double standard here in the media.

Here is the full report from CNN:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another, authorities said.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — a 24-year-old Little Rock resident formerly known as Carlos Bledsoe — faces a first-degree murder charge and 15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act, Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said. The terrorist counts stem from the shots fired at an occupied building.

While authorities continued to investigate a motive, Thomas said Muhammad is a Muslim convert and, based on preliminary interviews with him, investigators believe there were “political and religious motives” in the shooting.

Military officials initially believed the shooting was a random act, but Thomas said police believe the shooter acted alone “with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel.”

The soldier who was killed was identified as Pvt. William Long, 24, of Conway, and the wounded soldier is Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18, of Jacksonville, Thomas said.

Ezeagwula is in stable condition and expected to recover, the police chief said.

“I’m relieved there’s a suspect in custody,” said Capt. Matthew Feehan, commander of the center.

Feehan said seven other recruiters were in the building, but nobody else was injured.

Thomas said police recovered three guns from Muhammad’s black Ford SUV: an SKS semi-automatic rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a pistol.

I am relieved there is a suspect in custody, too, and very thankful that Pvt. Ezeagwula is in stable condition. I still have a hard time believing this happened, and that a young soldier’s life was lost in a Little Rock street:

The victims were just out of basic training and had not been deployed, said Lt. Col. Thomas F. Artis, commander of the Oklahoma recruiting battalion that oversees the Little Rock recruiting center.

Melvin Bledsoe of Memphis, Tennesee , who was listed on the police report as Muhammad’s father, declined to comment, referring questions to Little Rock Police.

The soldiers were part of a recruiting program called “hometown recruiting assistance,” Artis said. Under the program, recruiters have the soldiers tell their stories to potential recruits. It’s a volunteer position taken while soldiers are visiting or based back in their home region, Artis said.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the incident, said Steven Frazier, spokesman for the agency’s Little Rock office. “Based on what we find, we will determine whether there is any federal jurisdiction to prosecute,” he said. (CNN’s Mike Phelan, Mike Mount and Terry Frieden contributed to this report.)

Wow – this is just hard to believe. These young men were doing nothing but serving their country, and encouraging others to do likewise. They were, literally, gunned down on the street. In the United States of America.

My prayers are with their families, their friends, their fellow soldiers, and the city of Little Rock. And my prayers are with our country, in which such a thing could happen…

and SUsan

SusanUnPC’s April 8th note: When even Keith Olbermann lowers the boom — calling President Barack Obama’s decision “change you cannot believe in”, condemning Obama for going further than Bush in his expansion of invasive, extra-Constitutional powers — you know the Obama Administration is going to the “dark side,” as Jane Mayer describes in her esteemed book. Howard Fineman explains the administration’s amoral political calculus and its “newbie” problem, and refers to Mayer’s book. When Mayer is a guest on No Quarter Radio soon, we will ask her about this astonishing abandonment of key principles touted by Obama during his candidacy, when he said whatever it took. Question of the Day: Didn’t the Kossack crowd scream for Bush’s impeachment over precisely this issue? Why not threaten Obama with impeachment?

P.S. Do you remember this Boston Globe article about Hillary Clinton on October 11, 2007? “Clinton vows to check executive powers.” If but for the willful Obamabots’ delusions and caucus thuggery, we’d have a president who would stand up to the intelligence community because, for one thing, Hillary wouldn’t have a learning curve hurdle and already knows who’s who, while Obama, as always, thinks he can cover up his ignorance by charming people through doing their bidding. My hunch is that, to a one, the intel community has disdain for his ignorance and unctuous collusion.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and friend of Larry Johnson’s, is a contributing editor to The American Conservative and a fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance. Originally published at Antiwar.com.

Those who hoped that the change promised by candidate Barack Obama would include repeal of the various acts that have stripped Americans of their constitutional rights should be disappointed.

Benjamin Franklin supposedly wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The citation is likely apocryphal, at least in terms of its attribution to Franklin, but it is useful shorthand for the unfortunate abandonment of many of the liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution as a consequence of 9/11.

The trauma of 9/11 created an opportunity for those seeking to centralize executive power, an objective of recent presidents from both political parties. Many Americans initially accepted that there had to be some abridgment of fundamental liberties while fighting a multi-faceted and unconventional war against terrorism, but few realize just how much the constitutional rights that all citizens take for granted have been eroded. History also teaches us that once a right is suspended, in all likelihood it is gone forever.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 might well be described as one of history’s more spectacular euphemisms employed to gut a constitution, somewhat akin to Hitler’s “emergency act” in the wake of the Reichstag fire of 1933. It is better known as PATRIOT Act I. PATRIOT Act I became law six weeks after the fall of the Twin Towers and was followed by PATRIOT Act II in 2006. The two laws together diminish constitutional guarantees of free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and prohibition of the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been discarded or abridged in the rush to make it easier to investigate, torture, and jail both foreigners and American citizens. The PATRIOT Act also incorporates the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of Oct. 17, 2001, which permits the freezing of assets and investigation of individuals suspected of being financial supporters of terrorism. “Suspected” is the key word, as there is no oversight or appeal in the process.

The Military Commission Act of 2006 (MCA) followed the PATRIOT Acts, creating military tribunals for the trying of “unlawful enemy combatants,” including American citizens. Unlike a civil or criminal court, the accused needs only a two-thirds vote by the commission members present to be convicted. The act permits the indefinite jailing of suspects in a military prison without being charged with a crime or given access to a lawyer. The government is not required to produce any normally admissible evidence at a commission hearing and can rely on hearsay or even information obtained overseas during torture to make its case. Detainees do not have access to any classified information used against them and cannot cross-examine or even know the identity of witnesses. The MCA suspends habeas corpus for anyone charged and forbids the application of the Geneva Conventions to mitigate conditions of confinement or to challenge the judicial process or verdict. The Geneva Conventions also cannot be invoked if the accused subsequently claims he was tortured or otherwise abused, protecting overly zealous interrogators from later charges of “war crimes.” The act was also designed to cover all cases that were pending, meaning that it was retroactive.

An executive order issued on July 17, 2007, which is still in effect, authorized the president to seize the property of anyone who “threatens stabilization efforts in Iraq.” As the administration’s own Justice Department decides what constitutes “threatening stabilization efforts,” the order can be used to go after any critic of the government. Most disturbing, the order does not permit a challenge to the information the seizure is based on, and it also permits the confiscation of the property of anyone who comes to the assistance of the suspected de-stabilizer.

The threat to civil liberties is real. Under the authority of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI requested more than 30,000 national security letters in 2007, and the number was surely higher in 2008. The letters enable the FBI to look at anyone’s personal information without any judicial oversight or showing of cause. Anyone who is presented with a letter and compelled to cooperate to provide information on a suspect cannot reveal that the letter has been received. Are there 30,000 terrorists roaming the United States? If there were, the country would surely be a bombed-out ruin by now. The government is instead using the security letters and the other tools provided by the PATRIOT Act legislation to look at people who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, because it is convenient to be able to do so without the bother of having to go to a judge for a search warrant.

Sen. Barack Obama opposed the MCA and voted against it. He was not in the Senate when the first PATRIOT Act was passed, but he criticized the second version for its abuse of civil liberties before voting for an amended version. Candidate Obama ran on his record of opposition to the various pieces of legislation, noting consistently that they had authorized the abuse of authority by law enforcement and had abridged the rights of every American. Unfortunately, President Obama appears to have forgotten the principled positions he took as a senator and presidential candidate. After his inauguration, he moved quickly to publicly ban the CIA’s use of torture, a meaningless gesture in that the Agency had already abandoned the practice, but it now appears that he will do nothing to revoke Bush-era legislation like the MCA that he once strongly criticized. There is every indication that he will also endorse renewal of the PATRIOT Act when it expires at the end of the year, afraid that if he does not do so and there is a terrorist attack he will pay a significant political price. The Obama administration has also been silent about the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretaps and has invoked the “state-secrets privilege” in connection with a lawsuit by the Islamic charity al-Haramain in an apparent bid to prevent disclosure of the warrantless wiretap procedure.

President Obama is not just contradicting his progressive campaign promises and betraying many of the people who voted for him. As a lawyer, he surely understands that protecting the government’s questionably legal “rights” to monitor citizens completely subverts the rule of law, because it guarantees that there will be no accountability. Currently, judges who rule on the state-secrets issue are not themselves allowed to see the alleged classified information, meaning that there is absolutely no transparency to the process in which the government is asserting an extralegal privilege that is surely unconstitutional.

If the Obama administration is beginning to sound like the Bush White House, it should. To be sure, the new president is relying on the advice of many Bush administration holdovers like FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller asserts, without providing any evidence, that the tools provided by the PATRIOT Act have been effective in preventing terrorism, just as Bush-era intelligence chiefs claimed that torture and extraordinary rendition were essential to meet the terrorist threat. All such claims should be viewed with extreme skepticism, particularly as they are rarely backed up by any evidence. The government also often lies when it wants to make a case for some illegal action. Claims made in 2008 that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida produced a flood of information that frustrated terrorist plots are now revealed to have been false. Zubaida confused his interrogators and sent them off on wild goose chases with information that was either deliberately deceptive or flat-out wrong. In reality, the government cannot cite a single instance where the use of draconian new legislation or illegal procedures like torture has either prevented a terrorist incident or led to the arrest of anyone who was ready, willing, and able to carry out a violent act.

Obama would have been wiser to ignore the experts and sit back and consider the broader picture. Does the creation of a monstrous Department of Homeland Security supported by a bloated defense and intelligence establishment really make sense in light of the threat that the U.S. actually faces? How did we arrive at a 400,000-name no-fly list and an NSA that has conducted hundreds of millions of interceptions of telephone calls without any oversight?

That a small group of terrorists holed up in an isolated and backward part of the world got lucky against an unsuspecting America on 9/11 is clear, but the odds of them repeating that spectacular success are minimal. More than seven years later, the actual vulnerability of international terrorism should be completely clear and the government should be telling the people the good news, that al-Qaeda is on its last legs and that the other Salafist terrorist groups that have a similar philosophy have been hounded and contained all around the world. There has been no successful terrorist action within the United States, and the appeal of jihadist terrorism is on the wane everywhere else. Its moment has passed.

In spite of the reduced threat, under Obama the business of fighting terrorism goes on with a change in the rhetoric but not in the policy, buttressed by an enlarged military budget to spread the cheer to Afghanistan and increased spending on intelligence. And there is no sign that the liberties that Americans have bartered away are about to be returned. Having an amorphous foreign threat hanging around is always good politics, as it can be used to divert attention from more serious problems at home. Having the mechanisms at hand to investigate an American citizen can also be useful when the critics become too loud. Those who feared that George W. Bush would give his successors unconstitutional tools that they would be reluctant to relinquish have apparently been vindicated.

Original: This is one of the HOTTEST VIDEOS out there! Enjoy (or become enraged!) … and perhaps you can think of another politician to whom such a speech might be spoken???

NOW, GEITHNER’S GAFFE EXPOSURE OF HOW LITTLE HE CARES ABOUT THIS NATION!

SECRETARY GEITHNER: WE CANNOT ENTRUST OUR “TREASURE” TO YOU. You must go. You are not a patriot, sir. You are speaking to patriotic Americans who are paying for that TRICK — THAT STUNT — you pulled with the “toxic assets” plan that, as Paul Krugman vehemently pointed out, will cost American taxpayers around “$1 TRILLION” — all of it going to major companies, not to the people WHO ARE THE ONES paying for it!!!

AND: Are we all calling our representatives and senators every day? And e-mailing them constantly? They need to hear from us! They won’t read our e-mails to each other!

And, what else say you?

SURPRISE BONUS: LatinaFreedomFighter e-mailed me this video!

The invitation to rant is irresistible even though I have done so many times without invitation here at NQ. I remember some on sexism, the DNC, the media and, especially, when someone unfairly criticized Hillary.

I have been reading and commenting here for a while now after unsubscribing to TM, Huffpo, Daily Kos and others. I lurk a great deal on River Daughter, but seldom comment there. I recognize the names of the regulars here and the style and attitudes of the bloggers. Still, after all these months, I feel a little bit of an outsider.

Patriotism is not something I feel completely comfortable with, but I occasionally get tears in my eyes when I hear the National Anthem and I respect the flag. I have never hesitated to criticize the government when I disagree with the policies and I believe a country is only as good as it’s citizens. I strongly believe countries have Karma. We are responsible for the way we are governed so I have been active in politics for a long time.

9/11 was a crossroad. An opportunity was offered to correct some bad choices in the past, but we allowed and even participated in the decision to go into another country, inflict devastation and kill it’s leader. We have paid the price for seven long years.

I have undergone an amazing transformation over those years and the year and a half of the election process. I have found out that every assault against the Constitution feels the way I imagine I would feel watching someone I love being physically assaulted. Every report of renditions, torture, illegal wiretaps and Black Sites has been a blow that brings tears to my eyes and a deep sadness to my heart.

I want it back and I don’t want to wait until Congress or the President decides it is a worthy document and should be followed the way it’s authors intended and not thrown away at their pleasure. I am not so naive to expect complete honesty from our government, but why do we elect sleaze and expect them not to be parasites and act in their own best interest? I hate to agree with Obama about anything, but why are members of Congress even allowed to wear the flag on their lapels?

If the Constitution or any law allows Congress to spend $700Bil in taxpayer money to bail out greedy bankers or mismanaged companies, I would like someone to show it to me. The Congress passes laws most of them have not read in their entirety, then the president decides which ones he is to going to observe. If they want to throw out the Constitution and Bill of Rights, don’t you think they should tell us so that we can have a voice in the decision?

There is this thing I want to know about Barrack Obama. I lean to the left when it comes to questions of universal health care, choice for women, the environment, gun control , equality and helping other Americans over the rough places. In that sense, I am a socialist, but I understand compromise is necessary. So I should be thrilled at the prospect of a liberal president even with the understanding, practically, his social agenda will have to be put on hold until the economy is stable. I have a very real problem with Bill Ayers, probably because I have an excellent memory and shared this space that is our country when he was a member of the Weathermen and don’t believe his ego will allow him to admit his organization’s goal was anathema to most Americans. Rev. Wright doesn’t bother me all that much although, unfortunately, he has too much influence in some groups. Rezko is a criminal and represents an unseemly past for Obama. He bothers me, but a majority of Americans have ignored the implications for Obama.

But, what I really want to know about Pres-elect Obama is; How does he feel about our Constitution which he will take an oath to uphold in January? Will he be tempted by the power available to him to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and bypass FISA, ignore the other two branches of government and follow an unknown agenda? His FISA vote isn’t reassuring, but perhaps, that was just politics which doesn’t say a lot for his character either.

He doesn’t have to balance the budget, end the war or create universal health care to restore the Constitution. It won’t cost a cent to repeal the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act. Ethics reform costs nothing. Changing the election process in the Democratic Party to make it more representative would be an indication he is willing to make real change in Washington.

Thank you nq, for all the information and food for thought. I believe you have been the most respectful of dissent and the true spirit of democracy on the Internet. Many bloggers and those who regularly leave comments here have indicated their age is advanced and for some of us, this will be our last election cycle. For years, we have fought the good fight. We have fought for our country and against our government when we believed it erred. We have marched for Civil Rights and Women’s Rights and protested two wars. We have learned all governments lie, we appreciate our freedom of speech and use it and we have seen infringement of our rights and protested that too. Maybe we didn’t accomplish all we had hoped, but I refuse to accept the idea the wisdom we have gained is irrelevant.

I have discovered, unlike Bill Ayers, I love my country. If it has to become something else, I won’t go quietly into that good night, but will protest to the end.

Car displaying McCain sticker vandalized

Saturday, October 18, 2008

CLEARWATER (Bay News 9) — A Clearwater man’s vehicle that displayed a bumper sticker supporting John McCain has been defaced in what appears to be a hate crime, authorities say.

According to authorities, 41-year-old Frank Armstrong’s 2006 Lexus LS 430 was parked on the 1400 block of Gulf Boulevard when someone or a group of people scratched the letters “KKK” into the paint and burned a U.S. Flag on the vehicle.

Authorities say those involved also used cigarettes to burn several areas of the car and apparently urinated on the car. …

Armstrong’s vehicle displayed a bumper sticker supporting the McCain campaign and another that was anti-Barack Obama leading investigators to believe the crime was racially or politically motivated.

No witnesses or surveillance video have been found.

There are many things wrongs with using a single category as a decisional tool for a job so complicated as the presidency. Surely one’s experience, character, judgment displayed in the past, leadership qualities, legislative accomplishment, patriotism, etc., should be considered.

Paper accomplishment has its limits. After all, Ted Kaczynski attended Harvard and earned a Ph.D. in mathematics from Michigan – but he was a destructive individual. Bill Gates, famous as an innovator and now a humanitarian, was in college only briefly. And many of us have had college professors who we would not entrust with picking up our newspaper from the driveway while we were away on vacation.

But let’s look anyway at the single variable of educational pedigree as a predictor of presidential performance. (Aside: McCain’s defenders may point out that McCain’s father and grandfather made four star admiral, though they were very poor Naval Academy students.)

Who were the great presidents and who were the failures? Numerous polls of historians show a fair consensus, with some large deviations for recent presidents, as might be expected. I chose the most recent polls listed at Wikipedia’s Historical Rankings of U.S. Presidents, which have the advantage of the most coverage, but I looked at other listed polls when recent polls showed wide variation. I am not making a statistical comparison; changing standards of education over time make that a questionable task (as education has become more formalized over time). And to keep this at readable length, I have omitted many qualifications on my analysis. So here goes –

Among the top ten presidents, Lincoln’s formal education consisted of about 18 months of schooling; he was largely self-educated. Washington may have attended a school near his home for the first few years. He was not taught Latin or Greek, as was common among the “educated” of the time, and never learned a foreign language. Nor did he attend college (Harvard, WM. & Mary, Yale and Princeton were available). His formal education ended around the age of 15.

Getting to the modern era, where paper degrees supposedly are a surrogate for intelligence, Truman (whose standing has risen to #7 in the polls) did not earn a college degree. Reagan (whose ranking, controversially, varies from 6 to 16) graduated from an institution of little note — Eureka College.

Eisenhower, now consistently ranked in the top ten, finished in the upper half of his class at the Military Academy, but was routinely criticized during the 1950’s as being not intellectual or well read.

On the other hand, the two Roosevelts, members of the highest echelons of America’s upper class, were very well educated. Wilson was perhaps the best educated president, and often ranks in the top ten, but his star is diminishing as historians place his imperialist foreign policy, his racism (he reinstituted segregation into the federal government) and sexism (he tried to have a leading suffragette committed to an insane asylum, and countenanced the brutal beating and prison torture of suffragette demonstrators), and his odious personal beliefs (e.g., he was a eugenicist) into modern perspective. Grover Cleveland, whose rankings vary from 8th to 20th, did not attend college.

Middling presidents (those ranking in the 20’s) include Hayes, who was first in his class at Kenyon College and who completed Harvard Law in two years. He is right now our only Harvard Law School graduate.

Bill Clinton (underrated in the polls, IMHO) went to Georgetown’s elite Foreign Service School, where he was Phi Beta Kappa. He studied at Oxford under a Rhodes Scholarship, and graduated from Yale Law School.

Taft (20th) graduated second from his Yale class, then got a law degree from Cincinnati. John Q. Adams (25th) went to Harvard. So, the middle of the pack has a number of well educated persons. (The famously well-read and educated John Kennedy with time has seen his rankings drop, to between 14 and 18.)

Now the fun part — the bottom of the rankings, and bowing to current popular opinion, let us start off by noting that though a mediocre student, George W. Bush attended Phillips Academy, Yale University, and has an MBA from Harvard. A perennial in the loser category, James Buchanan (ranked 40th), graduated from Dickinson College with honors, then studied law. Franklin Pierce (38th) finished third in his class at Bowdoin, then attended an unnamed law school.

Andrew Johnson (37th) was self-taught, a point for the degree=excellence school, but John Tyler (35th) graduated from the prestigious Wm. & Mary, then read for the law.

Jimmy Carter (34th) attended Georgia Tech before receiving an appointment to the United States Naval Academy where he received a physics degree in 1946. Carter finished a high 59th out of his Academy class of 820. Richard Nixon (32nd) was a Duke Law School graduate.

Hoover (31st) had a geology degree from Stanford, later becoming a mining engineer. Gerald Ford (28th) had a University of Michigan degree in political science and economics; at Yale Law he graduated in the top 25 percent of his class.

Again, this is a simplified analysis, but the proposition that academic achievement equates with expected presidential performance is so demonstrably false that a more rigorous analysis is unnecessary.

As Mark Twain said – “Never let formal education get in the way of your learning.”

I don’t stand behind a candidate. I stand behind my country. That is why I ignore every comment, remark and EMAIL, telling me to stand down. We should always and I mean always side with choosing country before political party, truth before lies and the people over the words of any commentator or pundit even if our choices have us standing alone.

We don’t need the backing of the majority to do what’s right. As long as you know what’s important you will never go wrong. Sometimes the best choice may be a choice or decision that you do not want to make at all. But it is necessary. There will be times when what you may want ,will not be what you get. And what others in the Democratic majority may personally feel, is not best for what our nation and its people, may need.

Sometimes the right choice is the one that is hardest to make. Nothing in life is easy, and not everything will be handed to you. Sometimes you may just have to dig down deep and work for it. Nothing in life comes freely. What we all love the most about our country is that here, anyone can have the chance to live out the American dream, they can be whatever they want to be, and choose whatever path they want to take.

We have all earned it. I HAVE earned it. When I make the transition with pre-determined medical issues into the civilian world, I want to ensure that I have every avenue available to me. That I have every opportunity for success and every chance to have a portion, no matter how small, of the American Dream. I found my way, chose my path and found my voice.

“Quitting” is not a word I understand. “Giving up” is not a option I will choose. And remaining silent will never happen. I will not and cannot take steps back. Now, it is about moving forward. It is essential, we, as a whole, and united, do what is right, no matter how many people will tell you that its wrong. We only have one chance to make to make the right decision and the best choice. The ability to choose or your right of choice, does not come color-coded. It doesn’t matter if you are black or white, man or woman, rich or poor. We all are entitled to make our own decisions based on our own judgment. It is our right, this is not a privilege. We have all witnessed and experienced many things these last 19 months.

Some of us have made sacrifices for the greater good, even when those decisions did not coincide with the beliefs of everyone else. We have lost friends and alienated family because pundits, commentators and those in the MSM have stated that, because of your decision, you are a racist. We may be divided by race. We may be divided by our beliefs. We may be divided by gender. We may even be divided by political party. But we should never be divided on what is best for this country. But what is at stake transcends personal opinion, personal feelings and personal beliefs. Because what is at stake could mean life or death, not for just one individual, but millions.

There is no such thing as being loyal only to a political party over your country. There is no such thing as placing any woman or man before the welfare of a nation. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We should not criticize. Diversity means understanding that people come from all walks of life. This country has people from all backgrounds and demographics. There is no one individual more important than the next and that is a definition every leader should understand, govern and swear by — from the politicians on Capitol Hill to every sergeant training and leading troops.

Simply put for better understanding: Country first, political parties last. Doing what is best for the people will always overrides any candidate, no matter how important they may think they might be. How strongly a candidates supporters may feel. And no matter how many “Hail Mary” passes given by those in the MSM such as CNN, MSNBC or NBC. These individuals do not pick presidents. The American people do, and this has played out in the court of public opinion long enough. As hard as I worked for Senator Clinton, I intend to now work for Senator McCain. Many do not get it and many may not understand,because between the two, their policies and issues are like night and day.

But the thing is, it has never been solely about one issue, one person or political party. It has always been, and always will be what that individual can do for our country. Some will tell you in a entire speech everything that is wrong in our world and country, but can never tell you what is right.

There is nothing wrong with our country. It’s the people we choose to govern it. All of our choices and decisions are our own. It is time for us to remember it and act accordingly. There is only one winning side in any election and that is the side with the country and the American people on it.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” Snow asked: “Anybody making over $250,000…” Biden responded: “Is gonna pay more.” Snow: “Is going to pay more.” Biden: “You got it. It’s time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut.”

Conservatives predictably went ballistic with their calls of “class warfare”; Obama’s fans thought it brilliant economics.

For those of us who are Democrats, or former Democrats, Joe Biden’s statement was offensive on a different level. Although many of us agree with progressive taxation, Biden’s formulation is deeply offensive. According to Biden, greater taxation equals greater patriotism. This concept fits perfectly with the self-congratulatory world of Whole Foods Nation. Anglachel describes Biden’s target audience as the new elites:

The focus of the [Obama] Democrats is on the winners of the economic realignment, those who managed to win a place in the white collar upper-middle class … [Obama] is the exemplar of a mode of life that, while not as unreachable as that of Bush’s base, is still out of reach of those who do not have the education, acculturation and business contacts to climb up that economic ladder.

Some will argue that Biden is simply practicing liberal class warfare; he is targeting the wealthy and not the “bitter” gun owners of greater Appalachia. I disagree. By using the framework of patriotism, Biden is challenging — to use Anglachel’s parlance — the “Bubbas” and the Archie Bunkers — to ownership of American patriotism.

Biden is telegraphing to Whole Foods Nation that it’s equally patriotic to live in Boulder, Colorado and pay on a 33% tax bracket income as it is to serve in Iraq, like Governor Palin’s son. Or, as a friend in this income bracket told me recently, she “sacrifices” by voting Democratic.

The primary campaign showed that Obama fared well with affluent voters and African Americans. Clinton crushed Obama with middle- and low-income voters. The Pennsylvania primary was a perfect example of Obama’s inability to connect with low-income voters:

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary shared many of the same vote characteristics of other primary states this season – with Clinton winning her core base of union members, less educated and lower income voters and rural voters, and Obama winning voters with more education and income, and black voters.

The attack on blue-collar voters by Obama is what precipitated the civil war now raging in the Democratic party, and Obama’s race-baiting of blue-collar whites has been one of the more depressing episodes in our history as a Party.

Low-income white Democrats are the least likely group to vote Republican, and the assault on this vulnerable group has all the markings of racial and class warfare used for electoral gain. African Americans are all too familiar with politicians playing on prejudices for electoral gain and there is nothing different in this case except for the color of the victims’ skin.

The dishwasher, the waitress at Denny’s, the auto mechanic, the grocery clerk, the nursing assistant, the soldier — all low income Americans — are equally patriotic to anyone living in San Francisco or Hyde Park or the East Village, regardless of the amount they pay in taxes.

I’ve been thinking about Biden’s notion of patriotism for several days. Last night I found a video which captures patriotism in a way still held by much of the country. It’s an old fashioned form of patriotism which is now considered uncouth and looked down upon by the liberal elites. But it’s a type of patriotism once honored by Democrats; it’s a part of what made Democrats the governing party for most of the first half of the last century.

The video is from Ken Burns’ brilliant 1990 documentary The Civil War. I think Sullivan Ballou’s love for his wife Sarah is only matched by his love of country.

Listen to Sullivan Ballou’s words carefully and think about everything he is sacrificing. You won’t hear politicians — except perhaps for John McCain — speak of our beloved country with such a degree selflessness and honor.

Sullivan Ballou wrote to his wife that he was “willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government.” Ballou’s patriotism is echoed by Sarah Palin’s willingness to give her child to the service of our country: “Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas…to fight for our country, for democracy for our freedoms.”

Whole Foods Nation hates Sarah Palin for the class she represents. She threatens the self-perception of their own moral superiority on race and their economic “sacrifices.” Giving her son to our nation is not enough to silence the voices of hate.

During the primary campaign, on TPM, billysumday suggested that Bill Clinton was a racist because of his bumpkin origins, totally ignoring that the President was educated at Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford:

“Cindy McCain, John McCain and Barack Obama pay their respects” is the caption of this Maisel/News photograph reproduced in an article that refers to the Presidential candidates’ visit to Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan on 11 SEPT 2008 as “an extraordinary show of unity 54 days from the election.”

Notice Michelle Obama was conspicuously absent from this event. Michelle Obama is not one to engage in “extraordinary shows of unity,” I guess. Besides, Michelle has priorities. But those priorities are not those related by the Chicago Tribune’s “The Swamp.” I quote:

Michelle Obama, the Democratic nominee’s wife, remained at home in Chicago, where her two daughters are going through the first week of school.

No, her priorities entail campaigning for her husband at religious conferences in Cincinnati, Ohio. While the McCains are now famously subscribing to the dictum “country first,” Michelle Obama continues to place her husband’s political ambitions above all else. The Toledo Blade explains the situation quite well in an article published on 11 SEPT 2008. I quote:

CINCINNATI – “I come here today as a Christian,” Michelle Obama said yesterday to a standing ovation at a convention of mostly black Baptists. She appealed not only for their prayers but for their votes for her husband.

“This election is going to change the world,” she said. “This election will determine the course of an entire generation. Just think about that.

“I know that no one here wants to look back and think, ‘Wouldn’t that have been great?’” she said. “I don’t want to think about what might have been. I want to look back and think, ‘We did it. We really did it, and we did it together.”’

The nonprofit National Baptist Convention USA Inc. is not permitted to endorse a candidate, but there was no doubt that the crowd of about 4,700 watching her speech in the convention center ballroom and in an overflow room receiving a video feed was firmly behind Sen. Barack Obama.

While spectators viewed Cindy McCain, John McCain and Barack Obama commemorating the lives lost during the tragic day that was September 11, 2001, on their television screens, the eyes of readers of the printed media in Ohio scanned a report on Michelle Obama’s crass and debased identity politics at a largely African-American religious conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. Did the aspiring First Lady leave the children at home, or did she decide that they can endure that particular day of their first week of school without her?

The precedence of blurring the distinction between Church and State in the name of racial and religious divisiveness and political power over one’s love of country is the lesson admirers of Michelle Obama learned on 11 SEPT 2008. But then again, admirers of Michelle Obama seem to believe it is perfectly acceptable for an aspiring First Lady to drag the children who ostensibly kept her from visiting Ground Zero into a God Damn America church wherein the following is the prevailing interpretation of September 11, 2001:

I am sure Obama partisans are not batting their eyes. They certainly did not when Michelle Obama proclaimed her lack of love of country twice when campaigning for her husband in Wisconsin.

And they certainly did not blink when the New Yorker revealed that Michelle Obama invoked Reverend Wright’s name in order to build ties of solidarity with African-American Christians in South Carolina before that state’s racially and religiously divisive primary. I quote:

Earlier on the day that Obama visited the nursery school, she addressed a congregation at the Pee Dee Union Baptist Church, in Cheraw, a hamlet of about six thousand known as “The Prettiest Town in Dixie.” The church’s makeshift gravel parking lot, next to the Pee Dee Ice and Fuel Company and bounded by train tracks, was full. After an invocation by the Reverend Jerry Corbett and an introduction by the mayor of Cheraw, Obama came to the pulpit. “You all got up bright and early just for me?” she asked the mostly elderly, almost all-black crowd. “Yes!” they roared. Obama continued, “On behalf of my church home and my pastor, Reverend Wright, I bring greetings.”

She was a Reverend Wright, “God Damn America” Christian in January, a “Christian” on 10 SEPT 2008 in Cincinnati, Ohio, and a liar when questioned by the media on 11 SEPT 2008 about her absence from the ceremonies that took place at Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan. Michelle Obama has priorities, but these priorities will not appeal to the grand majority of honest Americans who love their country in times good and bad. No wonder why her husband’s lead is eroding: when voters are asked to compare Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama, they see a Republican who always puts her “country first” and a mendacious Democrat whose patriotism is questionable. To these voters it is a question of Michelle Obama’s utterly warped priorities on a day when all aspiring public figures should at least try to feign sentiments of unity in the name of one’s unassailable love of country.

He almost wrecked Barack Obama’s presidential dreams, and now firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright has helped destroy a Dallas church worker’s marriage – and her job, The Post has learned.

You’ve seen the disgusting video of Reverend Wright, in a Sunday sermon, doing the the “hump” to suggest that Bill Clinton “done us wrong”:

The background story to Wright’s second marriage calls into serious question Wright’s “right” to preach to anyone. Here’s more from the Post:

Wright has been married to his second wife, Ramah, for more than 20 years.

The preacher reportedly wooed Ramah away from her first husband in the 1980s, when the couple came to marriage counseling at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Now let’s see more reminders of Obama’s Reverend Wright. Remember this “America’s Chickens Come Home to Roost”?

The 37-year-old Elizabeth Payne admits to the affair but gives few other details.

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

She has since basically been excommunicated from the church, fired from her paid position in the church, and divorced. Her husband dashed to divorce court after the affair was discovered. She did have this to say about her life post-Wright:

Elizabeth Payne said she has been banished by Haynes and the flock at Friendship-West.

“I’m not a member of the congregation anymore; I’m not even allowed on the premises,” she said.

And she had this to say about her affair with Wright, her job and divorce:

“I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that’s why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me,” Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West “found out about the affair in the spring,” Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright’s anti-government rants came to light.

“Liz was by Rev. Wright’s side day and night during those days,” a church source said.

“It’s all true,” said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

In an interesting twist, Wright gave a sermon about trouble in relationships at a church in New Jersey. Here is more on that:

“There’s no such thing as a problem-free relationship,” he told a packed Elmwood United Presbyterian Church. “In life, you’ll have unexpected problems.”

Here are his words minus a controversial statement.

Payne’s husband, Fred Payne, 64, said he learned of the affair in late February, when he discovered e-mails between his wife and Wright.

“There must have been about 80 of them, back and forth,” he said. “Wright said things like he was going to leave his wife for Elizabeth.”

And now we need to be reminded of Obama on his spiritual mentor….

And we know that Reverend Wright/Wrong became a albatross around Obama’s neck. Obama did what he always has — he denied any knowledge of the sermons — the same way he denies responsibility for anything his campaign does!

And this is the man we want leading our country? Not!

Obama your “chickens have come home to roost!”

But this movement has a twist: Obama lacks legitimacy. The continuation of this rift is not about Hillary “losing.” Clintonistas, like myself, know that losing elections and having your heart broken is the inevitable risk of politics. Anglachel writes:

With John Edwards in the news these days, I have been reflecting on the theme of “Two Americas” and have applied a twist that more accurately reflects the two Americas within the Democratic Party – those whose bigotry and biases are excused because they are of the right class and those whose flaws are inexcusable, even when the flaws do not exist.

This “class” split in the Democratic Party is much more than an economic split. As Anglachel suggests, it is evidence of a values divide. These values are not the black-and-white split of abortion. Instead, this divide is a matter of emphasis. Obama talks about access to health care, but he doesn’t offer a universal plan. Obama criticized Hillary for her Iraq War vote, but he wasn’t in the senate to vote. Obama lectures Americans to learn Spanish–an irony not missed by many– a language he doesn’t speak.

But the differences of emphasis were not themselves the deal-breaker. The deal-breaker, I believe, was about Obama’s tactics in the campaign and the Democratic Party’s complete bias and vote-rigging for their chosen candidate. Donna Brazile’s embarrassing performance at the RBC was so transparent in its bias that she became the most visible Obama shill massaging rules for her candidate, all the while lecturing us on rules. Do they really think we’re that stupid?

Clintonistas, and now PUMAs, are revolted by four major issues. This is by no means an all-inclusive list, but includes the followings:

(1) The Democratic Nomination was Stolen

garyinchapelhill writes about Obama’s lack of legitimacy resulting from a stolen nomination:

Obama’s decision to return full voting status to delegates from Michigan and Florida does not make up for the fact that the RBC stole delegates from the uncommitted voters, as well as all write in votes, AND 4 of Hillary’s delegates. Until that travesty is corrected the votes of those delegates can not be considered legitimate.

And Marc Rubin of The Denver Group considers Obama’s current flip flop on Florida and Michigan as a ploy to entice disgusted Democrats into the fold:

Florida and Michigan were one of the earliest examples of how dishonest, two faced underhanded and fraudulent Obama can be, when he claimed in speeches that he stood for “voices being heard” and “every vote must count”, and then clamped his hand over the mouths of almost 3 million voters in Florida and Michigan because he didn’t like what those voices were saying, which was a loud “go home”. And in all likelihood are still saying “go home and will continue to say it. Clinton beat him by landslide numbers in both states and this little act of political self preservation isn’t going to fool anyone. Anyone, even an Obama supporter can see it’s nothing more than another cynical political ploy to try and win back voters who were disgusted with him a long time ago because he needs them now.

(2) Obama Race-Baited the Clintons

Obama’s race speech was compared to Lincoln by his sycophants in the media. It was closer to Nixon’s infamous “Checkers” speech, a disingenuous, hateful piece of sophistry created to dove-tail with white liberal guilt. The conflation of Jeremiah Wright’s homicidal racism with Geraldine Ferraro’s simple observation was only the most glaring evidence of Obama’s tactics. Anglachel points out that Obama’s demonizing of low income whites was a basic political calculation:

working class voters are not the socio-economic slice of the “white” vote that votes Republican. They are the least likely portion of white voters to do so, which is part of what made the constant slamming of this group so infuriating during the primaries. This was the slice of the white demographic most likely to vote for Hillary, and that was the reason they were being singled out for shaming and insults.

And Alegre puts her finger on why PUMAs find Obama unacceptable:

I think I can speak for millions of Hillary’s 18 millions supporters when I say that Camp Obama stepped over a serious line when they tarred the Clintons as racists in the lead-up to the SC primary (and since). Those attacks were simply unforgivable and may be a big reason (among many!) why many of us won’t get on that unity pony of Howie’s.

(3) Obama Attacked Hillary from the Right

Attacking Hillary from the Right was not by itself a deal-breaker. But the fact that Obama went after Hillary on health care — after everything she had fought for in the 1990s — was a disgraceful appropriation of Right Wing tactics and talking points. As SusanUnPC writes:

The sad reality, of course, is that Obama has no fealty to commitments over issues. Issues are merely fodder to be used to grab what he seeks above all else: Victory…Now, every politician has to be focused on winning. But most politicians have some issues about which they genuinely care and are knowledgeable about. Obama doesn’t seem to hold any issues dear.

(4) The Democratic Party Rejects Racism, Embraces Sexism

Democratic Party leaders and Obama supporters stayed silent while egregious misogyny was leveled against Mrs. Clinton. As feminist blogger Violet Socks said to me, the silence from our “brothers” on the Left regarding this sexism has been one of the most disappointing political events in the annals of progressivism. So we must have an accounting, and a defeat. There are worse things than losing elections, and I believe we have just witnessed them during the primaries. Obama’s use of sexist stereotypes against Hillary gave cultural permission for the venom against Hillary. It was outside the realm of acceptable behavior for a Democratic politician, and must be vehemently rejected. Voting for Obama is condoning tactics which are anathema to why we are Democrats in the first place.

Lynette Long writes:

I am not Lolita. I will not crawl back into bed with a party that raped me. I will not stay in an abusive relationship because I have nowhere else to go. I will not be placated by a pat on the head or a worthless trinket. I will not spend the rest of my life waiting for tomorrow or listening to people tell me that today is better than yesterday.

Defeat is Good

Just as Barry Goldwater’s defeat by Johnson in 1964 was considered the end of the conservative movement, Obama’s victory is seen by the neo-liberals as a rejection of third-way progressivism. However, the PUMA movement is not an end but a beginning. It’s not the continuation of Bill Clinton’s moderate policies, but a movement of dedicated progressives who embraced Mrs. Clinton’s far more bold agenda, an agenda more analogues to FDR than Bill Clinton, and one which is much more progressive than Obama’s. Our nascent movement parallels the rise of the conservative movement:

All the pundits saw the size of Goldwater’s defeat. Almost none grasped the implications of the fact that the Goldwater campaign had twice as many volunteers as Johnson’s — or that while 66,000 people donated to the Kennedy and Nixon campaigns of 1960, over a million gave to Barry Goldwater in 1964. Among other things [it is an] account of how a rebellious and at first marginal political faction moved toward power reminds us of the dynamic character of politics and the dangers of static analysis

I am a Democrat because I believe in universal health care, because I despise racism, race-baiting, and sexism, and because I believe in the democratic process. On all these counts, our Party has failed us. We must rid our Party of race-baiting, sexism, and vote stealing, and return our Party to its glorious heritage of patriotism, equal opportunity, and care for the most vulnerable.

Thanks to Medusa for her help with this essay.

Yesterday, July 31, McCain’s campaign issued the following statement from Dr. Danny Jazarevic, former Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl concerning Obama’s canceled visit to Ramstein and Landstuhl:

“Last week, Senator Obama skipped a visit with wounded U.S. troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany because the Pentagon would not allow campaign staff or media to accompany him into the hospital. I served as director of trauma surgery at that hospital for nearly four years and saw the effect that a visit from a celebrity like Senator Obama could have on morale. During that time, I do not recall a single member of Congress canceling a visit with the troops despite being just a few hours away, but Senator Obama seems to have been more concerned with how the visit would affect him than how it would affect the soldiers recovering from wounds received in the service of their country.”

Here is Dr. Danny Jazarevic’s history of service to not just our country but severely wounded troops:

Dr. Danny Jazarevic served as the Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. In 1984, Dr. Jazarevic joined the United States Army and later the Florida National Guard. He has since served in Honduras, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Iraq. From December 2002 through January 2006, Dr. Jazarevic was assigned to the U.S. Army Hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, where he served as Chief of Trauma, Critical Care and Vascular Surgery. During this period, he deployed to Iraq numerous times, including with the 101st Airborne Division Forward Surgical Team and as Director of Operations for the 44th U.S. Army Medical Command. He is currently the Chief Trauma Surgeon at a civilian medical center in Florida, and also serves as a full Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve. Dr. Jazarevic has been awarded the Bronze Star Medal.

Voices from the past echo Obama’s actions in Germany. Once again we must question Obama’s judgment, good or bad? The decision is yours. However, Obama has a long laundry list of questionable judgment decisions. And now it involves our injured men and women who are serving or have served giving Obama the opportunity to run for president. He throws them under the bus!