Article

Hail To The Chief

1678l

On the cusp of this amazing moment in world history, I’m compelled to reflect on what has led us to this crossroads. It’s a feeling beyond words. It’s almost a religious moment for those who care about reality, reason and progress–and it was so unlikely–yet here it is.

Conservatives have mocked the near-reverence accorded our new President, as if he were being treated as some kind of messiah. He is far from that, being entirely human and most importantly a savvy politician and skilled power player. We can never forget that what Barack Obama has achieved has also been partially enabled by the equally historic blundering of his predecessor. Who was more of an actual messiah. Evangelist-in-chief Geoge W. Bush recounted repeatedly during his 2 terms how God spoke to him and told him what to do. God was in charge of America, and we all got to see how badly He could fuck things up. Let’s not try that again, OK? “The end of an error” is an apt cliche some have coined to describe what will be concluded on the Capitol steps at noon.

And yet it is just the beginning. Finally, we have hope (previous article).

I must discuss what it means to me personally, and what it will doubtless evoke for those who share the scars of my upbringing in the Church Universal and Triumphant. Barack Obama is the new chief of America. Aren’t you glad it’s him and not one of these three goons? 

Muslim, CUT, and Evangelical Stooges of Theocracy

Thank Zeus it’s 2009! Osama’s hiding in a cave, his ringer El Morya (the guy in the middle) is hiding in people’s imaginations, and Bush has run out the clock. The theocrats are on the run at last. Growing up, we all sang Hail To The Chief to ‘El Morya,’ reputedly the ascended master who once also lived as Thomas More, torturer and killer of heretics (previous article).

Hail to El Morya, in triumph he advances, Hail to the Lord of the Ray, the Will of God, dauntless and forthright in courage are his stances…

In CUT, we used to openly pray daily for the divine takeover of the U.S. government: “shake this government up and down, right and left, until the sons and daughters of God are in their rightful places…” And who would be in charge? ‘El Morya,’ of course.

I do not wish to further sully this moment with memories of that childish and insulting fantasy. Still, it’s important to realize that there are millions of people in the world, (billions if you count Muslims), many in our own country, whose all-consuming desire is that some demagogue who claims to speak for God will be put in charge of their nation. Obama’s election represents the full repudiation of that theocratic nightmare. The arch-conservative politics of the dominionists will be on ice for a long, long, long time.

Yet Obama’s ascendance was marred by fractious religious debate. He was accused associating with radicals, anti-Americans and other religious undesirables. His preacher was quoted as saying “God Damn America.” Calling him “Muslim” was the right’s attempt to associate Obama with America’s second most hated minority. They couldn’t overtly play the race card, so they played the religion card. Trying to heal this breach after the election, Obama made matters worse by inviting the divisive evangelical Rick Warren to give the opening prayer at the inauguration. It backfired, extending the controversial religious legacy of the campaign. Knowing that in order to govern effectively, he must bridge this ever-worsening divide, the Obama adminstration appears destined to continue to play to both sides. Good luck.

And what are we talking about? Just a few things, all of which Rick Warren described as “non-negotiable:” abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia. These issues convulse America, and as President, Obama will have no choice but to take a stand. And he already has. He has signalled a willingness to do two things, repeal the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gay service personnel, and repeal Bush’s ban on international funding for abortion and family planning. Bravo. It’s a great start.

But wait. The inauguration hadn’t even begun, and already it appears he made a further religious gaffe. Gay Anglican Bishop Gene Robinson was slated to give an invocation at the concert on Sunday, to balance out Rick Warren (already a much less prominent slot). But a scheduling snafu ensured that his invocation did not make the HBO or NPR live feeds, nor was it heard over the main public address system. This is highly suspect and raises the suspicion of bad faith. Apparently the Obama team has apologized and promised to replay the invocation in full at the inaugural ceremony. Whew.

Let’s listen to Robinson’s invocation:

If you can strip out the religious language, what he called for was the basically the entire progressive agenda. The prayer was compassionate and tolerant, but also encouraged anger in the face of injustice. I couldn’t agree more (previous article). If some people will only listen to this message from a bishop, then at least they’ll hear it.

But wouldn’t it be better if we heard from neither in an official capacity? Both could speak to their respective congregations and leave God out of government entirely. Sadly, though it looks like we’re finally slowly backing away from theocracy, that’s still too much to ask.

So I’m going to leave it to the new chief to sort this out. He’s still finding his stability. His devotion seems to be to reason, power, and hope, in service of his country, not necessarily in that order. If he has to pursue his big-tent strategy and preside over dueling invocations today to maintain his base, so be it. On this issue, like so many others, he may just be the master strategist. He has my trust.

Despite the religious hiccups, I have a feeling we’re about to witness the inauguration of the greatest leader America’s likely to see in our lifetime. Back with more commentary after the ceremony.


Comments (44 comments)

Amaterasu / January 20th, 2009, 1:00 pm / #1

Astute, informative and timely article.
Is George Bush the love child of Bin Laden and El Morya? His features resemble them both….Osama's nose, Moryas coloring….
I look forward to your post ceremony commentary.

BlackSun / January 21st, 2009, 4:37 am / #2

Sorry never got to the additional commentary. Lots to say and not enough time to say it. Quite the moment, and to have the President acknowledge non-believers. Stunning.

Yes, well I don't know about love child, but they share striking similarities–the willingness to kill for God. In "El Morya's" case, it's all about threats of the second death. Funny, he doesn't exist, nor does the second death. Fancy that, they're all paper tigers now. Bush and Bin Laden did real horrific damage to the world, and Morya is still doing plenty of psychic damage to his believers.

Fujimo / January 23rd, 2009, 8:53 am / #3

The laughter in the background is annoying but I am comforted by the thought that those laughing probably didn't have the vocabulary necessary to understand Robinson's invocation. And I guess they don't know that the timing of their nervous laughter reveals a little bit about their own psychoses.
These laughers lack the patience to be able to understand evolution, the subtle history of the middle eastern conflicts, law in general, the importance of America's image or even the belief system of their own religion. Shame on them. Good thing for them there really isn't a hell. I am pretty sure that any just god would send them there without hesitation.

BlackSun / January 23rd, 2009, 9:04 pm / #4

I would argue that it was an inappropriate time and place for his invocation, being at an entertainment event. Robinson was denied the proper forum for such a serious subject.

Alexandra / January 23rd, 2009, 3:59 pm / #5

Obama's reference to "non-believers" in his inaugural speech was thrilling…a public acknowldegement of the rights of agnostics and atheists.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."

BlackSun / January 23rd, 2009, 9:05 pm / #6

I just about jumped out of my chair when he said that!

Fujimo / January 24th, 2009, 2:35 pm / #7

Me too. I felt like he just gave me the atheist secret handshake or something. He really hooked me in with just that one phrase.

AmenASHandF / January 23rd, 2009, 7:58 pm / #8

I thought the prayer was thoughtful, well thought out and pointed out the desires and intentions of all loving human beings for each other. Replace the word God with Power, that is in each of us, we sure as hech can make it happen.
Good prayer, vision, ideas, thoughts, desires etc. Whatever one wants to call it, it was filled with goodness! And that's what's important.

AmenASHandF / January 23rd, 2009, 8:07 pm / #9

P.S.
Obama wouldn't be Obama if he forgot the Non-believers. That's why he won, awesome man! So glad he did! Where would we be the next 8yrs if he didn't? Yes, we have yet to see but we are confident in this mans intellegence and Heart, that we are going to need to vote for him again to continue the long haul of work our Nation needs. Four yrs aren't going to be enough.

BlackSun / January 23rd, 2009, 9:08 pm / #10

Obama must endure as a serious political force beyond the honeymoon/novelty phase. That's where the hard work begins. Can he keep a bi-partisan coalition together while still accomplishing his goals? Some presidents lose Congress then retreat into ineffectiveness like Bush. I hope Obama stays dynamic and is successful enough to get re-elected. We need 8 years of his solid management.

gkruz / January 27th, 2009, 7:52 pm / #11

Years ago an old atheist who was also an anarchist told me why he mistrusted liberals and wouldn't join any of the mainstream atheist/agnostic groups like the American Humanist Association and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. "They've given up the god of the bible and replaced them with their new god, the state." This thread, among other comments from giddy liberal atheists I've come across on the web recently after the Messiah's coronation, reminds me that he was right after all.

BlackSun / January 27th, 2009, 8:17 pm / #12

gkruz,

As a former libertarian, who used to also lean towards anarchy, I understand your position. But like communism, anarchy relies on an idealized concept of human nature and what people will do when left to their own devices. What they actually do is devolve into chaos, rampant fraud, mayhem, and killing. All the shrill screaming of the anarchists and communists aside, we need a state to keep at least a minimal modicum of order. What we don't need are monolithic states, or 195 separate ones.

My ideal is a single world government with a single currency, separation of powers, checks and balances, freedom of travel, and ironclad bill of rights (including habeas corpus) similar to what we have in the U.S. I am under no illusion that the U.S. government is perfect, nor that Obama is a messiah. Did you not read where I said exactly that??

We didn't have a coronation, we had an inauguration. It is precisely this type of glib smear that renders the language moot. The problem is, once you abuse the word "coronation" you run out of descriptions for actual coronations. if we had had an actual coronation, and Obama was the king, operating under the "divine right of kings," how would you describe that?

I mean if that were the case, there are an awful lot of Republicans who'd be in jail right now awaiting execution, including the former president. Let's keep things in perspective, man.

Rlando / February 1st, 2009, 3:43 am / #13

black sun… boy am I glad I found you! Thank you for a thoughtful , insightful and timely journal about truly relevant things.

Mike Bommerson / February 9th, 2009, 7:42 pm / #14

Hmm… CUT loved to use the name El Morya, but since I had read Theosophical works before I ever heard of CUT and also "Leaves from Morya's garden" by Helena Roerich, I could hardly imagine his personality had changed so much overnight. :-)
In the Netherlands we know Sir Thomas More as a personal friend of Desiderius Erasmus and as a humanist who was beheaded for opposing Henry VIII. He described the Protestant inquisition in great detail. He is not known as the man who presided over the executions himself (except maybe on the internet). His Lord Chancellorship didn't last very long (about 3 years).

BlackSun / February 9th, 2009, 7:57 pm / #15

Thomas More was a complex figure to be sure. There's a conflict between his "humanism" and his radical response to Protestantism, which included the burning of heretics. From Wikipedia:

A number of modern writers, such as Richard Marius, have attacked More for alleged religious fanaticism and intolerance (manifested, for instance, in his persecution of heretics). James Wood calls him, "cruel in punishment, evasive in argument, lusty for power, and repressive in politics".[15] The historian Jasper Ridley, author of several historical biographies including one on Henry VIII and the other on Mary Tudor, goes much further in his dual biography of More and Cardinal Wolsey, The Statesman and the Fanatic, describing More as "a particularly nasty sadomasochistic pervert," a line of thinking also followed by the late Joanna Denny in her 2004 biography of Anne Boleyn. Brian Moynahan in his book "God's Messenger: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the Writing of the English Bible", takes a similarly critical view of More, as does the American writer, Michael Farris.
Aaron Zelman, in his nonfiction book "The State Versus the People" describes genocide and the history of governments which have acted in a totalitarian manner. In the first chapters "Utopia" is reviewed along with Plato's "The Republic". Zelman noted facts about "Utopia" which were ridiculous in the real world, such as agriculture, and could not draw a conclusion whether More was being humorous towards his work or seriously advocating a nation-state. It is pointed out, as a serious point for consideration, that "More is the only Christian saint to be honored with a statue at the Kremlin", which implies that his work had serious influence on the Soviet Union, despite its general antipathy towards organized religion.

Other biographers, such as Peter Ackroyd, have offered a more sympathetic picture of More as both a sophisticated humanist and man of letters, as well as a zealous Roman Catholic who believed in the necessity of religious and political authority.

Historical controversy is nothing new. But what's particularly galling is the idea that the imaginary persona of 'El Morya' has been conflated with a human being who died hundreds of years ago. It's a theological trick which attempts to lend legitimacy to a fantasy. But even if he "was a previous embodiment of El Morya," Thomas More is more of a liability than an asset to the belief system.

HarryFromNE / February 19th, 2009, 7:37 pm / #16

5) Obama sure has started out to be this "the greatest leader America’s likely to see in our lifetime".
Poorly vetted nominees and embarrassment after embarrassment, using bait & switch to bait us with hope and change, then switch to doom & gloom to get his agenda through. A ton of pork in the 'stimulus' package from his party that he signed. Not talking about things like unemployment extension, either. He seems to follow in the footsteps of his friend, Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick- fumbling & stumbling. We really don't need that with a recession and 2 wars (Just because I named 2 Black men doesn't mean I'm racist, BTW).
On Obama and a 'new' direction in Iraq, please read the New York Times:
NYT: Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's
Administration quietly signals continued support for some approaches
By Charlie Savage
The New York Times
updated 12:02 a.m. ET, Wed., Feb. 18, 2009
EXCERPT:
"The administration’s recent policy moves have attracted praise from outspoken defenders of the Bush administration. Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page argued that “it seems that the Bush administration’s antiterror architecture is gaining new legitimacy” as Mr. Obama’s team embraces aspects of Mr. Bush’s counterterrorism approach.
"Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the sequence of “disappointing” recent events had heightened concerns that Mr. Obama might end up carrying forward “some of the most problematic policies of the Bush presidency.”"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29249066/
OR:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29249066/print/1/disp

BlackSun / February 20th, 2009, 5:55 am / #17

I'm not going to comment on the nominations. Every president has to withdraw nominees. Take a look at the last several administrations.

Obama is a centrist. I would not expect him to wholesale scrap every Bush administration policy. He should look at what's working and fix what isn't. Are you actually criticizing him for being to the right of the ACLU? That really bothers you? I thought you were upset he was too liberal.

You're playing the typical conservative double standard. You call it "doom and gloom" when he shoots straight with the American people on the economy. Is that so unfamiliar to you? He inherited a huge mess left by eight years of utterly disastrous policies. What do you expect him to say?

HarryFromNE / February 19th, 2009, 7:39 pm / #18

2) You: "They couldn’t overtly play the race card, so they played the religion card."
Of course. Use the typical liberal slander. What? ALL conservatives are racists? Just the ones that opposed The One? Overtly? Wow. If you can't see or invent a racist statement, use that false slam.
Some on the right are racist, but so are some others, too. Just because they don't fall into lockstep with the liberal lines, doesn't mean they are racist, or that they should be labeled as racist. My brothers are not liberal, didn't vote for Obama, and it had NOTHING to do with race.
3) You: One of Rick Warren's non-negotiables is "stem cell research".
ANY stem cell research, or EMBRYONIC stem cell research? I find NO evidence he is against ALL stem cell research. Typical liberal twisting of the facts on this issue. Leave out what KIND the other is against and make him/her out to be a rejecter of all SCR. Not a trustworthy way of writing.

HarryFromNE / February 19th, 2009, 7:40 pm / #19

ush go, does not mean I have to join in with the fawning you are doing on Obama.
1) You said: "His preacher was quoted as saying 'God Damn America.' "
Quoted AS saying? You have never heard it for yourself? Try YouTube. He SAID it, NOT AS saying. Have you heard that and more, and are not willing to admit it? I also heard nutcase Rev Wright say other things. "God bless America? No no! God DAMN America!", that the US government was behind AIDS to wipe out the Blacks. Gee, that drivel is part of his 30-40 year old paranoia. Conspiracy theory from the looney religious left and you don't even want to admit he said "God DAMN America!", and curiously skipped the worse he said. Do yuo research. Amazing. You're so joyful over a neophyte junior senator from the corrupt Chicago political machine, you dropped the ball in exposing the nutty religious left garbage. Let's not have special class status for the religious liberals. Wright & the Trinity United Church of Christ also gave their highest award to the religious wacko, Louis Farrakhan of the fringe Black racist/Black Supremacist Nation of Islam. Ever investigate NOI's racism? Check out their Jakob (spelling?) for starters. Dreamy Obama just must have missed all the nutty sermons, wasn't aware of the award given.. and he is sooo into racial unity. What a track record from his former church. Wanna see crazy theology like Scientology & CUT? Study NOI's theology. Not much for racial unity and ending racism. They just use 'God' and in illegitimate version of Islam for their brand of Divine Racism.
"I could no longer disown Rev. Wright than my grandma." OPPS! When Wright & TUCC got exposed enough & Wright wouldn't shut up, Obama dropped him like a lead boulder.
I heard & read Wright's defenders on how those quotes in print & on video were suppose to have been in context & I neither read nor heard ANY justification for those EXTREMIST remarks. They WERE made and they are disgusting.

BlackSun / February 20th, 2009, 6:20 am / #20

I don't doubt that Wright said it at all. Jesus H. Christ, dude. But Wright was not elected president, Obama was. Guilt by association is a communist/fascist/totalitarian technique. We don't use smears like that in America, (or at least we shouldn't). Wright's nutty opinions have nothing to do with Obama's philosophy or policies. Nor does Louis Farrakhan. End of subject.

Your logic is worthy of bigots and anti-intellectuals everywhere. You can't seem to keep things in perspective. You conservatives have presided over a horrendous period in American history and lost big. All you can think of in response is to cry "socialism!" "Sweden!" It's so funny that Your president doubled the national debt in 8 years. He massively expanded the government and especially corporate socialism, while Bill Clinton, the last Democrat (and Obama's mentor on the economy) ran a $600 billion budget surplus. Now the best thing you could do for the next 4 years is shut up and pay attention. But you won't–you'll keep trying to reinstate the failed policies of the past.

Obama may not be able to turn things around in this country. If he can't what you will get is another fascist nutcase in the White House in 4 years who will promise to "bring back America's greatness" and fail even more miserably than the Bush administration. (Though I don't know if that's even possible.)

A warning: I'm not going to engage in a lengthy dialog on this subject. You're spouting textbook Drudge/Coulter/Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck. Five posts is just a little bit much. I consider this site to be like my home, and I expect you to behave accordingly if you wish to remain welcome here.

I'm not a conservative, never will be. So I don't really see your point. I think if Obama pulls off a turnaround, he will be on Mount Rushmore. Time will tell.

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 2:32 pm / #21

Guilt by association is alive & well with liberals. Anyone who believes-right or wrong- that homosexuality is wrong is labeled a hater/gay *basher*/etc. Just to be associated with Wright in some fashion wouldn't mean anything in & of itself. I associate with those I disagree with. However, Obama claims to be a Christian & also claims to have become one through Wright & the TUCC. He sat under the teaching pastorate of Wright & TUCC for 20 years, and ckaims he never heard those sermons that has those statements. THAT is different than simple association. The label of "guilt by association" is not right in my case. If a professing Christian is in such a church, and he supposedly never heard any of Wright;'s nutty remarks for 20 years? Never saw the Hamas leader's letter in the TUCC newsletter, never knew Farrakhan got the TUCC's highest award, never read the TUCC's Black Values System… he really missed a lot & didn't do his homework. Sorry, I have my doubts Obama is clean on this issue. He also never shared with Wright his concerns if he knew? I would have respectfully shared my concerns, and if he kept those views, I would leave-period. I would not sit under the pastorate of such a conspiracy theory ranter like Wright. NO Christian should. Then to top it off, if he did actually hear/read/know about some or all of these things, and was under the pastorate of Wright for 20 years, I am not confident he didn't adopt any aspect of this guy's crazy, far left ideas. TUCC also writes against capitalism, which I read for myself in their former, unvarnished website. Twenty years and all this & more. Obama speaks to Joe the Plumber about spreading the wealth & I also listened to Obama's entire interview on a National Public Radio station where he speaks approvingly of "redistribution of wealth" (using that very term) and bemoans that we haven't moved further in that direction. He doesn't have to be a socialist to have tendencies in that direction. Strange that both of those facts are very socialistic in direction and sympathies and the term is a socialist term.

BlackSun / February 21st, 2009, 2:49 pm / #22

Category error! Guilt by association is judging one person by who they are friends with, who their pastor is, etc.

Views on gay rights are in a completely different category. A person is born with certain sexual preferences. People can't change that any more than they can change the color of their skin. To "oppose" or consider that it is "wrong" is the same as racism. Especially when the only supporting factor is either scripture or personal disgust. Other than that, gay bashers don't have a leg to stand on–it's hatred of otherness, pure and simple.

Re: socialism. Are you going to tell me that a person's rhetoric is more important than their actions? Was Bill Clinton a socialist? Obama is not going to rock the boat dramatically in that regard any more than Clinton did. The most he will do is move toward putting the economy on an environmentally sustainable footing. He will also most likely implement better regulation for financial institutions. He also might implement national health care. All are sorely needed. The talk radio nuts will label this all "socialism." They will be wrong.

Why all the worry that we might become like Europe? Europe has a higher standard of living, more satisfaction, more vacation time, guaranteed access to health care, and is twice as environmentally sustainable as the U.S. Yes they have higher taxes, but I think the measure of a civilization's success is happiness, wouldn't you agree? By every measure Europeans are happier and smarter than we are. Again, you would scream "socialism." I don't see the problem.

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 6:01 pm / #23

1- PART A) No guilt by association error on my part on Obama. It's that he was under his pastorate, etc., for 20 years, the TUCC & Obama's views on wealth redistribution & capitalism, etc., that show it is not guilt by association. A few of the details I have included here and another response of mine today.
No guilt by association in the GBLT issue, either. Wrong again. 'Way wrong', as they may say. You, even though you *may* not be liberal (are you liberal, moderate?), you buy into the popular GBLT misuse and misrepresentation of the studies, for one. Even Levy said his hypothalamus study was not conclusive, for example. If you go beyond the public relations and read the studies, and read the other side (NOT always from conservatives or Christians), ALL of the studies claimed to show a genetic/inborn link are at very best, weak indeed. One cannot justifiably use them as evidence of definite inborn same sex attraction/affectional orientation. The media and the GBLT movement did a good job in pushing these studies (many/most/all by gay people themselves-LeVey, Hamer, etc, as well) as evidence it IS definitely inborn (just like the GBLT political movement misused the weak Kinsey stat on 10% *of males* as 10% of the male & female population if same sex attracted), but it is false, or at very best, it is very unsure up to this point.
Also, some things are inborn, and many say genetic propensities such as alcoholism, violence, addictive personalities, and a host of what can be called positive and negative traits. That does not mean because of this, we should just let them do whatever they are supposed to be inborn with, or have a genetic propensity to do. This is wrong and irresponsible.
Therefore, whether same sex attractions are inborn, or not, it isn't justification to approve of same sex relationships.
The idea of making it equal to skin color is false, and labels all who disapprove incorrectly as a group.
It is NOT "as wrong as racism". You have used the popular arguments, but going beyond the typical, there is the actual.
Those who disapprove are typically called "haters" not just "hatred of otherness". THAT is part of the slanderous labeling & demonization of all who disagree with same sex relationships, and it fails.

On socialism- Obama's words shows what he wants. He did so to Joe the Plumber and to a National Public Radio interview. This Dem-born stimulus package is a big step in that direction (I don't care that it was Bush who presented, not authored the bailout bill, and it was Dems who wanted his bill BOTH votes).
On the Dems heavy responsibility for this mess with Fannie & Freddie, please watch:
–> Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&fe

–> Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&fe

–> Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4

People just pointed to the GOP. Both parties had fault, but the mainstream media really didn't trumpet the Dem guilt by words and actions in this mess.
There were GOPers, including Sen. McCain, that called for regulations, while the Dems stopped it, and good ol' Barney Frank said several times we don't need to do anything about it- they were doing just 'ducky'.
Then Frank said in an ad that he wanted to be reelected to clean up the circus in Washington" (I live in MA). That's funny. He's right in the ring as a good part of the circus (HE also had the image that the circus was all GOP with elephants in the ring, nothing else… including donkeys)
Top 3 who got Fannie/Freddie money since 1989:
DEM Chris Dodd- $165,400
DEM BARACK OBAMA-$126,349 (only 2 years in Congress!)
DEM John Kerry- $111,000
#11- DEM Harry Reid- $77,000
#12- DEM Hillary Clinton- $76,050
#18- DEM Nancy Pelosi- $56,250
#22-DEM RAHM EMMANUEL- $51,750
#24- DEM ERIC CANTOR-$48,500
#26-DEM BARNEY FRANK-$42,750
#55-DEM Chuck Schumer-$24,250
#56- DEM Dick Durban-$23,750
Way down from Obama…
#62- GOP John McCain-$21,550. He is also one of the few who also took no PAC money.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fa
Way down to #62 (being one of the members of Congress who has been in the longest)…

BlackSun / February 22nd, 2009, 6:16 pm / #24

Again, I think you lack perspective. It is a typical tactic to selectively cite evidence that supports your position and ignore that which does not. Simple point of fact, the Bush White House has been in charge over the course of the past eight years when we doubled our national debt and failed to find the main perpetrator of 9/11 despite the expenditure of trillions.

As far as I'm concerned, even the use of the word "socialism" at this point has become meaningless and effectively a partisan slur. We have and will continue to have a mixed economy. C+I+G, remember from freshman econ? The size of the G will fluctuate depending on who's in control. It's not an _either_ capitalism _or_ socialism choice. The GOP have been total hypocrites on this issue. They have been the party of deficit spending. Cut taxes and increase programs. It's government fraud on the most massive scale.

We haven't even talked about the unfunded social security and Medicare liabilities. That dwarfs the housing crisis. The social contract is set for implosion on a massive scale in the next decade. While both parties bear responsibility for that mess, it is the Bush administration that's been in power for the last 8 years. George W did absolutely nothing to address this. It has been "that of which we do not speak."

As for campaign contributions, there's way too much detail here. Even if your figures are accurate, it's impossible to extrapolate from that to effectively put together a picture of who's to blame. There's plenty of blame to go around, and there will be congressional hearings on this for years. So chill out.

As for your discussion of "evidence" for ex-gay happiness, how dare you? If gay people are choosing or whether it's inborn, it really doesn't matter. If they weren't happy, they wouldn't continue to live the gay life. Period. How dare you or anyone else pretend to know what's best for other people's sex lives? Unbelievable!

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 6:01 pm / #25

1-PART B) On becoming like Europe & socialism- I read Canada's universal health care is bad news for the country. It's sucking money, and not in great shape because they don't have enough people who pay into it to keep their universal health care healthy according to an article in a newsletter, authored by a Canadian that I read. I can't find it to reference it, however. He shared other problems.
I can reference this on Canada's health care:

Does Canadian health care really stack up so well?
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/does-can

On European health care:

Perspectives on the European Health Care Systems: Some Lessons for America
"Americans will probably be surprised to learn from the remarks that follow that Switzerland's health care system relies almost entirely on a system of private insurance. They might be surprised to learn that there is a growing reliance on the private sector in the financing and delivery of health care in Europe, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden."
That's only a clip in a long article with views of doctors
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL711
There may or may not be some of Europe's health care we can learn from, but it seems they are turning to a different system(s).
You shared: "I think the measure of a civilization's success is happiness, wouldn't you agree?"
If happiness itself is the goal, then religion (the non-mind control, non-authoritarian type, which would exclude CUT) is a good way to that goal:
Religion 'linked to happy life'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7302609.stm

I can testify to that from my former life as a professing Christian and now as an agnostic as 1 example.
Those who have left living homosexually (in same sex relationships, etc)- many of them can also testify that their lives are happier, more fulfilling, and so on. To label that as equal to racism, and thosew ho share their views on homosexuality has perveyers of "hating otherness" is 'wrong-spirited' and the many who have better lives now testify against the typical socially liberal arguments that you also adopt (The pop up on your ID say you are a social liberal). Would you want to read some good sources on the other side? I have read 1,000s of pages on different sides on the honosexuality issue

HarryFromNE / February 19th, 2009, 7:48 pm / #26

CORRECTION:
Just because I'm glad, overall, to see Bush go, I do not to join in jubilation with you on Obama.
1) You said: "His preacher was quoted as saying 'God Damn America.' "
Quoted AS saying? You have never heard it for yourself? Try YouTube. He SAID it, NOT AS saying. Have you heard that and more, and are not willing to admit it? I also heard nutcase Rev Wright say other things. "God bless America? No no! God DAMN America!", "US of KKKAmerica", that the US government was behind AIDS to wipe out the Blacks (Wonder how it got to the gay community almost exclusively in USA at the beginning, instead. Bad aim, I guess). Gee, that drivel is part of his 30-40 year old paranoia. Conspiracy theory from the looney religious left and you don't even want to admit he said "God DAMN America!", and curiously skipped the worse he said. Research? Amazing. You're so joyful over a neophyte 2 year junior senator from the corrupt Chicago political machine, you dropped the ball in exposing the nutty religious left garbage. Let's not have special class status for the religious liberals. Wright & the Trinity United Church of Christ also gave their highest award to the religious wacko, Louis Farrakhan of the fringe Black racist/Black Supremacist Nation of Islam. Ever investigate NOI's racism? Check out their Jakob (spelling?) for starters. Dreamy Obama just must have missed all the nutty sermons, wasn't aware of the award given.. and he is sooo into racial unity. What a track record from his former church. Wanna see crazy theology like Scientology & CUT? Study NOI's theology. Not much for racial unity and ending racism. They just use 'God' and in illegitimate version of Islam for their brand of Divine Racism.
I also read the TUCC website on their Eastern religious beliefs in the Yoga Ministry page, and saw their infamous Black Values System (It is now curiously missing after being exposed). It said, as one of the points, that they will pledge allegiance (Yes- with those words) to ANY Balck leader who espouses the BVS. No wonder they love FarraKKKhan.
"I could no longer disown Rev. Wright than my grandma." OPPS! When Wright & TUCC got exposed enough & Wright wouldn't shut up, Obama dropped him like a lead boulder.
I heard & read Wright's defenders on how those quotes in print & on video were suppose to have been in context & I neither read nor heard ANY justification for those EXTREMIST remarks. They WERE made and they are disgusting.

HarryFromNE / February 19th, 2009, 7:39 pm / #27

4) Anglican bishop Robinson's prayer- liberal religion is looser and for less logic based than evangelical Christianity, in it's better forms. Liberal church people & leaders mix & match goddess worship, all sorts of pseudo-medical & alternative therapy quackery (I think some alternative things could be OK, but a lot isn't- see Quack Watch, James Randi's work, books published by Prometheus Books, etc), New Age Movement/NAM ideas, and it's a lot less able to logically discuss with them on the weaknesses of their can't-pin-jello-to-the-wall beliefs. They are caught up in the relativistic 'my truth-your truth', feelings as validation, etc, and their ideas are taken from all over the new age/etc spectrum.
At least when talking with a born again Christian, you can refer to one book to explain why you don't believe it. There are definite historical claims on people, places, events, etc. The liberal professing 'Christian' is much more likely to be unwilling to see facts against their hodge-podge spirituality. There are a number of Christians, however, who believe their religion has facts to back them up with in certain areas.
BlackSun left CUT, a New Age and mind control group (http://www.FreedomOfMind.com The slippery mix of subjectivism that permeates the entire New Age (with perhaps some exceptions) makes it much more difficult to it's adherents to see the falseness of it. Liberal 'Christianity' is in the same mold, especially since it's common for it to incorporate the NAM perspectives and beliefs into it (Wright's denomination & Obama's denomination until it got too politically hot to handle for him), the United Church of Christ is a good case in point.

BlackSun / February 20th, 2009, 6:00 am / #28

All supernatural belief systems are equally baseless. The New Age isn't very different from Christianity at all. Are you actually going to sit there and take the position that concepts like the "Trinity" or "Original Sin" or "Transubstantiation" or Jesus "Propitiation of sins" are any more coherent than New Age slop? Are you going to try to say with a straight face that you have evidence that the Jesus character wasn't just a myth based on earlier stories such as the legend of Mithra? Come on. Tell me you're not serious.

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 2:58 pm / #29

4) Whether or not all supernatural systems are baseless, or not- I was not speaking of that point. I was specific in what I was sharing. The ever-elastic & emotion/experience based New Age Movement/NAM is *more* so, than evangelicalism. When I was a professing born again Christian I was a more studious and evidence-based Christian. At least when someone believes the Bible is the "word of God", there is a base to examine and test by evidence, or lack thereof. There are many, many books from Christians d=seeking to defend their faith through evidence. It doesn't have to prove their point. That isn't the issue. It is that they are doing that,a nd can check on history, manuscripts, geography, etc. Some verses in the bible also help in this regard. 1 Peter "give a reason of the hope within you", NT apostle Paul used reason and the Jewish /scriptures' to PROVE Jesus was messiah, Acts 17:11 says the Bereans were commended because when Paul preached, they didn't just accept it blindly, they tested even an apostles' words by already written 'scripture'. Then there's Deut 13 & 18 that have tests for true or false prophets. 2 Thess 5:21 says to "test/examine all things." The NAM doesn't have any of that as a sure thing. it is all up to whatever the person wants, with no base like Christianity has. Because of this, and the NAM's huge tendency, at besy, to use experience and relativism as their foundation for 'truth' (not alwsys even believing that there is objective truth for religious claims), it is much more difficult to use rational thinking, logic, and evidence to show how their NAM-based spirituality is false. Oprah's love for Tolle, A Course in Miracles, etc., is only a popular celebrity example.

BlackSun / February 22nd, 2009, 5:24 pm / #30

Essentially, your argument is that scriptures written long ago have more weight than modern ones. Somehow, fictions that were written in the Bronze age have now gained the cachet of being "evidence." I'm sorry, all the scholarship in the world doesn't change the fact that these are documents of dubious origin and no way to verify the events described.

I agree that relativism is a problem. But it's not solved by appealing to scripture. That only creates the illusion of a foundation for truth. But it's really just a castle built on old sand instead of new sand.

HarryfromNE / March 3rd, 2009, 8:50 pm / #31

BlackSun- The Bible, even if it is not divinely inspired, does still have definite ways of checking some of its claims empirically and with some evidence (one way or the other). The Course in Miracles, and a myriad of others, don't even have that basis. At least with the Bible verses I share those with a Christian, it is at least going to show that the entire Bible is not against using reason, or using and checking for evidence. New Age relativistic mush like A Course in Miracles leaves nothing for even a way to reject relativism (it upholds it on at least many areas, if not all). There is at least that difference between the NAM and the pervasive societal emotion-driven, relativistic nonsense that liberal religion accepts, and the secular world is increasingly endorsing.
Time after time, with those influenced by this intellectually dangerous worldview, I give evidence, and they come back with baseless assertions that are relativistic- they don't believe X or Y can be proven right or wrong, and they demonize and attack me, or another one, labeling, name-calling, etc. Out of one side of their mouth, they speak of love, diversity, and tolerance- until someone doesn't agree with them, and then they get from snippy to verbally vicious. Before, one could at least share the belief in objective truth, reason, evidence to a much larger degree. Now, even that is being thrown out for feel-good cotton candy. For or against any religion, or other topics- people are rejecting this, and it is not good. The Bible, at least, has claimed foundation of objective truth and evidence in a number of places, so that foundation is there to agree or disagree with the Bible, and go from there.

BlackSun / February 20th, 2009, 6:04 am / #32

No, just the ones who make racist statements or practice racial discrimination in their lives.

Actually, I was quoting an article in the Huffington post about Rick Warren. But does the distinction really matter? Why not pursue all scientifically valid areas of research?

You're quibbling to try to impeach my character, and my patience with this kind of nonsense is limited. Stop with all this "liberal" labeling. You act as if the mere mention of the word was proof of ideological corruption. In so doing, you give yourself away.

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 2:43 pm / #33

2) Huffington Post is liberal, and Rick Warren isn't a racist. OK, when you said, "They couldn’t overtly play the race card, so they played the religion card.", who were the "they" you referred to?
I'm objecting to your ideas, if you want to interpret that as trying to impugn your character, that is your choice, not my intention. You want me to stop using the label liberal. Does this mean you are moderate? You then turn around and use the label conservative concerning me. You did to me, what you don't want me to do to you. I am not a conservative (I have voted for GOP, Dems, libertarians, and a Green Party candidate locally where I used to live- I knew him personally, for one example). I just don't happen to be a liberal, and after being more liberal for about a decade, am more moderate to conservative in various issues, while being liberal in some. I am not convinced that real conservatism is right in how small they want the gov't, for instance. I don't think everything liberal is entirely wrong. However, when I specifically refer to something as liberal and I disagree, I am speaking of THAT issue, not everything liberal. Liberalism DOES have a good amount of labeling to demonize & dismiss anything outside of their world of liberalism. I have read it, heard it, and seen it. It exists- a lot. However, I was speaking of a specific liberal point that I disagreed with.

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 2:46 pm / #34

2 AND 3) Huffington Post is liberal, and Rick Warren isn't a racist. OK, when you said, "They couldn’t overtly play the race card, so they played the religion card.", who were the "they" you referred to?
I'm objecting to your ideas, if you want to interpret that as trying to impugn your character, that is your choice, not my intention. You want me to stop using the label liberal. Does this mean you are moderate? You then turn around and use the label conservative concerning me. You did to me, what you don't want me to do to you. I am not a conservative (I have voted for GOP, Dems, libertarians, and a Green Party candidate locally where I used to live- I knew him personally, for one example). I just don't happen to be a liberal, and after being more liberal for about a decade, am more moderate to conservative in various issues, while being liberal in some. I am not convinced that real conservatism is right in how small they want the gov't, for instance. I don't think everything liberal is entirely wrong. However, when I specifically refer to something as liberal and I disagree, I am speaking of THAT issue, not everything liberal. Liberalism DOES have a good amount of labeling to demonize & dismiss anything outside of their world of liberalism. I have read it, heard it, and seen it. It exists- a lot. However, I was speaking of a specific liberal point that I disagreed with.

BlackSun / February 20th, 2009, 6:19 am / #35

I don't doubt that Wright said it at all. Jesus H. Christ, dude. But Wright was not elected president, Obama was. Guilt by association is a communist/fascist/totalitarian technique. We don't use smears like that in America, (or at least we shouldn't). Wright's nutty opinions have nothing to do with Obama's philosophy or policies. Nor does Louis Farrakhan. End of subject.

Your logic is worthy of bigots and anti-intellectuals everywhere. You can't seem to keep things in perspective. You conservatives have presided over a horrendous period in American history and lost big. All you can think of in response is to cry "socialism!" "Sweden!" It's so funny that Your president double the national debt in 8 years. He massively expanded the government and especially corporate socialism, while Bill Clinton, the last Democrat (and Obama's mentor on the economy) ran a $600 billion budget surplus. Now the best thing you could do for the next 4 years is shut up and pay attention. But you won't–you'll keep trying to reinstate the failed policies of the past.

Obama may not be able to turn things around in this country. If he can't what you will get is another fascist nutcase in the White House in 4 years who will promise to "bring back America's greatness" and fail even more utterly than the Bush administration. (Though I don't know if that's even possible.)

A warning: I'm not going to engage in a lengthy dialog on this subject. You're spouting textbook Drudge/Coulter/Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck. Five posts is just a little bit much. I consider this site to be like my home, and I expect you to behave accordingly if you wish to remain welcome here.

I'm not a conservative, never will be. So I don't really see your point. I think if Obama pulls off a turnaround, he will be on Mount Rushmore. Time will tell.

HarryFromNE / February 21st, 2009, 3:20 pm / #36

5) I am upset he is too liberal, and he has shown this already. However, I brought up "NYT: Obama's war on terror may resemble Bush's Administration quietly signals continued support for some approaches " to show even liberals are upset with him- already. My first and main point about the pork-filled 'stimulus' package stands. We don't need to fund saving a field mouse to stimulate the economy. I could list specific pork if you want me to.
Obama promised change we can believe in- the nominees say otherwise. Bush is past. Obama is The One who hyped so much on the positive, change, etc. Whether commented on or not by you, his nominees betray his rhetoric. What is it- four non-winners in a row?
He campaigned on hope and fluff as the bait, and when he got in he switched to doom & gloom. He keeps saying crisis, and in other ways proving my claim. He used the typical business tactic of bait & switch. Bush used fear with the color coded terror-warning. Liberals & Dems complained about that (I never bought into it, either. I didn't vote for Bush, BTW), but now that Obama is using fear & the negative, it's different? Nope. Sorry. His pounding on the negative doesn't help to spur confidence to get those who can to spend, or in other ways to move the economy closest to getting out of this mess. Even President Bill Clinton has said it is a bad thing to do on national TV.
His doom and gloom is the switch from the bait, and he uses it to get the people to just approve of his agenda
I am not using a "typical conservative double standard". I'm speaking what is actually happening. He says 'we have to get this package through quickly, no partisanship (meaning, don't any GOPer oppose it or we'll label that partisanship)', but the Dems only had 3 'moderate' GOPers in the discussion, put the Pork Package before Congress 12 hours late, no one had time to read it, none read it, and they voted for it- well, most Dems did, most GOPers didn't.
As one person wrote:
"President Obama claimed that “the stimulus plan contains no earmarks because Congress technically did not use the earmark process for lawmakers to request and drop in specific spending items.
"Well, forget about the technicalities, there is enough pork in this stimulus package to feed the world for years. Will someone please tell me how millions of dollars to protect the habitat of a marsh mouse in San Francisco, or millions for the National Endowment for the Arts, or billions for the ACORN neighborhood organizing groups is going to stimulate the economy?
"Sadly, however, the President has granted numerous waivers so that certain lobbyists could join his administration. And as for transparency, Mr. Obama pledged to “end the practice of writing legislation behind close doors,” and to “expose special interest tax breaks to public scrutiny,” and to allow the public five days to review non-emergency legislation before he signs it.
"What happened with the stimulus bill? The bill was written almost entirely behind closed doors. The Washington Post reported that special tax breaks were given at the last minute to, for example, Detroit automakers and to buyers of RVs and motorcycles. And of course, not only did the public not have five days to review the bill, neither did legislators!"
Obama wanted THAT through. He got it, and signed it.
New kind of politics?
Change we can believe in?

BlackSun / February 22nd, 2009, 6:25 pm / #37

Look, it really doesn't matter how the health care is paid for. The point is that in a technologically advanced society, we should have the resources to take care of people. Period. No excuses. Whether it's private or single-payer or whatever is not the concern.

People should be able to go see a doctor to get care and not have to worry about how it's being paid for. They should not lose their health care plan if they change jobs or get sick. If you want to reward good behavior, then tax harmful items like cigarettes and fatty foods, and provide paybacks from the health care system to those who provide proof of regular exercise. We also need tort reform to prevent huge malpractice damage payouts that ultimately come out of all of our pockets.

It's not rocket science.

As far as your ex-gay BS is concerned, any further comments along those lines will be unceremoniously deleted.

HarryFromNE / October 3rd, 2011, 6:41 pm / #38

BlackSun – Pathetic. I said there are those who LEAVE living homosexually who are happy. Why so childish about it? How dare YOU & the other whiner miss the mark & dare think you can assume you know how all should live who have same-sex attractions.
I think YOU are the one who dares tell people they CANNOT be happy not acting on their sexual/romantic urges & attractions. I wasn't saying all GBLTs are unhappy.
Maybe that's what YOU are saying.
Oh, and there are plenty of GBLTs who DARE top deny all the option of being happy outside of living according to their same-sex attractions.
I am not so narrow.
I beleive GBLTs can be happy as they are and those who leave living as active GBLTs can also be happy.
Are YOU saying only one side can be happy?
Seems like you evaded my point and invented your own, put it in my mouth, then complained about your misrepresentation of what I supposedly said.
YOU are the purveyor of BS & you love to censor my words if you don't agree.
liberal paradise.
Ya gotta love it.
The New Tolerance.
Not that tolerant of non-conformists, is it, dear?

Bulldada / March 2nd, 2009, 1:12 am / #39

Blacksun: Harry was making good points, articulately.

Why do you always threaten to ban people who who prove you wrong?

Your convictions are weak. You are an ideologue and your ideas are based on fear and outdated religious tactics. You are transparent.

Your parents would be proud.

BlackSun / March 2nd, 2009, 6:42 pm / #40

Bulldada,

Harry did no such thing.

He and you take a populist, paranoid, isolationist, and tribal view of politics and history. Our species can no longer afford to hold those positions. We are threatening the ability of the Earth to support our continued existence. Each year, ruthless competition for resources and parochial stupidity in politics contributes to the unjust deaths of millions. Soon the developed world will begin to taste the same bitter harvest of resource scarcity that the underdeveloped nations have faced for decades. It's coming, no matter what you wish to delude yourself into believing.

We need an approach that emphasizes a global systems perspective, human rights and sustainability. The future of the human race relies on everything you conservatives abhor. With luck, people will figure that out, and your numbers will dwindle. The alternative is warfare and social breakdown on an unprecedented scale. I have no illusions I will convince either you or Harry or the other eager drinkers of the Limbaugh/Drudge/Coulter/O'Reilly/Beck Kool-aid. Keep hanging on to the past 'til your knuckles bleed!

It's pretty clear from their rhetoric of "divine sponsorship for America" that my parents would have sided with you in this debate, not me.

Bulldada / March 3rd, 2009, 3:01 am / #41

Blacksun: Explain to me and your readers what freedoms we have that should be taken away so that we can have "world peace". Its clear in your comments that natural rights get in the way of the Fascists idea of equality and justice. I know as you do, that Obama is against the right to free speech, self protection etc. etc. So please explain to us why you think we should surrender our natural rights.

You say you were a Libertarian and now a Marxist. Libertarians believe in freedom, whereas Marx belives in obedience of the population. So again, I ask you: which freedoms specifically would you say need to be abolished for this Utopian socialist dream?

Specify what freedoms need to go. Socialism and Freedom cannot coexist, as you know.

BlackSun / March 3rd, 2009, 3:46 am / #42

Bulldada,

I've about had enough of your mockery and fallacious straw-man attacks. I am not a Marxist or a socialist, or any of the above. I have painstakingly explained myself to you on numerous occasions. You can't or won't get it. But for one last time, here is a basic outline of my position:

–Free markets work, but only when they are truly free and not subject to manipulation. "Capitalism" as practiced in the west is not really a free market. Lobbyists and special interests have carved out government preferences for their businesses at the expense of others. Corporations, by law, are required to put the interests of the shareholders first, which means that whenever possible, they will externalize costs onto society. This is a method of coercive wealth transfer that has nothing to do with capitalism. There is a need for a corrective mechanism to regulate externalities.

–With regard to the environment: the earth is finite, and human populations are consuming natural capital faster than it can be replenished. They are also moving carbon from a safe location underground to the atmosphere where it is raising global temperatures. If both practices are not stopped, it will result in resource shortages, rising sea levels, hunger and dislocation, and ultimately warfare. People understand that if you put a candle in a jar it will eventually go out from lack of oxygen. But somehow they just can't grok the idea that earth works the same way. Call it a problem of scale or imagination, people like you just don't get it.

–To harness the market to clean up the environment, energy prices must be brought in line with their true costs to society. In this way, the market will favor carbon-neutral and renewable technologies over fossil fuels. This is less of a tax than a bringing into line of energy prices what they should have been all along. The government subsidies of fossil energy were a mistake, and a market failure. A true capitalist would want this corrected.

–Problems such as energy and finance are global in scope, therefore the solutions must be global. Already, decisions made in China affect the U.S. and vice versa. They give us their C02, we give them our debt. At some point, China decides to stop buying our debt, and then we are really screwed. We must establish a mechanism for global regulation so that things don't get so out of balance that the entire world is threatened with financial collapse. We need a global equivalent of a Federal Reserve Bank, which is what has kept the U.S. out of depression since the 1930s. Nations are no longer powerful enough to tackle these problems on their own.

You are not a capitalist or a libertarian. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want socialized (collectively subsidized) energy, socialized resources, and socialized waste disposal. When asked to pay your own way, you shoot the messenger and label them a "socialist." You want to prolong nationalism and avoid global solutions because you still think America can or should go it alone.

I don't know what you've been smoking, but Obama is not planning to change the constitution. So get off these fucking vile and baseless accusations which you parrot straight from conservative wackaloon talk radio.

When you use words like Fascist, socialist, and Utopia, you are avoiding the discussion and retreating into jingoism. No freedoms need to be abolished. In fact we need more: free trade, freedom of movement, and complete freedom of conscience. What we don't need to continue to allow is the freedom to rape the planet and live beyond our means.

I want what everyone else wants: peace, freedom, enlightenment. Everyone in the world is equally human. In order to have world peace, we must stop only looking after the US of A. We won't have true peace until all the world's stomachs are full, diseases are conquered, and there's enough renewable energy to go around.

The rapacious exploitative ways of the past must come to and end. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If you keep up with these brainless straw-man attacks and attempts to paint me as some sort of extremist, I will permanently ban you.

I don't give a flying fuck if you think I'm shutting down free speech. As I said before, this is like my home. You would not come uninvited into my living room and label me a Marxist, Fascist, or socialist. So you may not do it here. Go rant about me in the local bar if you want, there's your free speech. But here, you either discuss rationally, or keep your mouth shut. This is your final warning.

My goals are world peace, freedom and sustainable prosperity. I want humans to live wisely in harmony with nature and each other. I am trying to work to end divisions and promote understanding.

But what I will not tolerate is hate, short-sightedness, intellectual dishonesty, stupidity, or intolerance.

Rafael B. / March 25th, 2009, 10:18 am / #43

You really shocked me that you have written Obama is going to be the greatest leader America’s likely to see in our lifetime. I thought you were well informed about the new world order and the presidents we elect only act on behalf of the power elite of this world. You mother mentioned it many times and others writters have written books on them. We do not have any president since J.F. Kennedy with spine to counteract with enough power what America will face in the decades of the 10's. Research and do not allow yourself to be duped by the so manipulated media. By the way, you gave an exposed on rock music in the 80's. I have found in youtube an ex-member of The Illuminati that described how the rock and roll music industry uses witchcraft and black magic to manipulate the minds of the youth and people. He gave much more detail information since he was an insiderhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otti-82jEAc&fe

HarryFromNE / October 3rd, 2011, 6:53 pm / #44

Your Illuminati stuff is a delusion. However, it's now 2011 & it's clear for the clear-minded that Obama is a screw-up & FAR from the best we've had. Strict Liberal I know said ObamaCare & the past financial aid bill were good for corporations, not the people. Besides all of the other problems with them.
I could make a long list of Obama's failures, spinelessness, etc.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.