OBAMA AN ANTI-CHRIST? "HELL NO". AS JOHN BOEHNER LOVES TO BELLOW OUT

Since the religious right has tried to take over the country they are trying to make everyone believe their nonsense.  Calling Obama an antichrist is total nonsense. (The term or title antichrist, in Christian theology, is a leader who fulfills Biblical prophecies concerning an adversary of Christ, while resembling him in a deceptive manner.)  The truth is, from all anthropological research, Obama, if he were to grow his hair, probably looks and acts more like Christ than any of his Teaparty opponents.  It is unlikely that Christ was a blond, fair-skinned, blue eyed guy.

The NY Times wrote on article why about why the concept matters in politics.  To read it, click here      (Just how dirty can our treasonous elected Republicans get?)  It was my impression that they were elected to do good for the country.  Since they have resisted most opportunities to do so, rather hurting the country in full knowledge of the price the jobless and middle class people have to pay, I will continue to repeat that I believe them to truly qualify under all definitions of treason I have read.

The questions as to why we, a secular country, must put up with all the lies and hypocrisy from the unchristian 'Christian' right is yet to be answered..  And this is the group that claims they were going to make sure the Constitution of the United States is followed???

A FEW HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR DAYS

Sarah Palin has a book, followed by a movie, about her called UNDEFEATED.  It is not clear what that has to do with Palin since she was defeated in the last presidential election.  Nevertheless, she seems to pop up wherever there is likely to be some publicity for her, regardless about whomever the area is about.  She was NOT in Iowa to steal Bachmann's thunder.  It was just TOTALLY a coincidence that she was there as it was that she was in NH when Romney was campaigning there.

Mark Halpern, usually a highly regarded journalist, called Obama a 'dick'.  Years ago, especially around WW2, no one in their right mind would have stooped so low as to be profane on the air about a sitting president .


The Republicans have gotten pretty bizarre in lock step with Norquist who makes Rove look impotent he is so evil. 

What does Kansas think they are doing with their new regulations on abortion clinics?  Is common sense and adherence to Federal laws really so irrelevant these days?  Regulations requiring reconstruction cannot be done in two days?  Does that surprise us that they think they have found a sneaky way to rid the state totally of abortions?

BIPARTISANSHIP: A GREAT AMERICAN MYTH IN TODAY'S POLITICS

Bipartisanship is constipated in the USA today on State levels as well as Federal.  In Wisconsin, the blockage to movement is Governor Scott Walker whose idea of negotiation is 'I won the election; we do it MY way (the way the Koch brothers want it to be.)'.

When bi-partisan negotiations fail, we see, as we currently have throughout our world today, non-violent protests (when the citizenry is lucky) protests in which the protesters are killed by the  powers at the top, civil wars, assassinations, sneaky deals, lies and false information is circulated, and truth and fairness are terms from our past.

In August 2010,  Jeremy C Young wrote an article for the History News Service where the basic message was Obama's attempt at bipartisanship doesn't work.  What is not focused on in that article is that it is necessary for the public to see what the Republicans are really doing that is different than what they are saying. 

On March 5, 2011, Jim Angle, for FoxNews.com writes that "Obama Faces Bipartisan Criticism on Energy Policies.  That message is that America should fight harder to develop domestic sources of energy.  Missing is the point that they could renew the restrictions that were allowed to elapse about what Wall St can do with commodities to manipulate price.

WOULD THE COUNTRY RATHER HAVE A BULLY FOR PRESIDENT?

Would the country rather have a bully for President?  Why do people keep saying he is not acting like a Commander in Chief?  We had a loud mouth bully for eight years and I don't think Bush-43 was Presidential at all.  I, for one, think that Obama is doing a great job overall but I think he needs to fire his speech writers of late.  What he says is not what he has done or makes clear his intent and ability to help this country as he has been doing tactfully and, perhaps, too gently.  The man is damned if he does or doesn't do things.  He will be criticized regardless of what or how he does anything and whatever he does will be distorted and lied about, as it has been to date.  Above all, he should cut the recommendation that we all resort to prayer.  I really find that offensive.  He wasn't elected to use prayer as a solution and I know that, though he may personally pray, that is not his first choice as a solution to the country's problems.

Free speech is good.   Those who are using it to tell him what they would do if they were president know nothing about all the facts the president has or of the situations he is trying to handle. Of all those criticizing him, why is Sarah Palin allowed to give her advice on National TV?  The woman has no facts straight and is close to libeling the President as are many who speak out so publicly.  In fact, a headline and article on 6/2/10 wrote  "Obama uses bully pulpit to attack Republicans on the economy" The article was by Sam Youngman

While the Presidency is often referred to as a bully pulpit, I do not believe that the intention of the term 'bully' is as we use the term today.   Robert Reich spoke today about the President not expressing enough indignation. in his last speech.  When will people stop projecting what emotion they are feeling and assuming that it is appropriate for the President to behave as immaturely, seeming as out of control of his feelings.No one should ever deign to avow how another should express their emotions or what they should feel.  As a lawyer, the president has undoubtedly learned not to show emotions freely, if his early life had not trained him to do that first.

When will people allow the man to do his job before the revolution that seems to be happening becomes a bigger crisis than the economy, health care, the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico, and all the liars and sickos who think he is a Muslim, not a citizen, and not 'their' president.

WHY DO PEOPLE THINK IT IS EASIER TO DUMP THINGS AND START OVER?

It has taken 17 years to start over with a HealthCare plan.  Why do people say that it is easier to start over if they really want to change health care.  It is not easier !  Unlike the Republicans, Kucinich's reason to dislike the current bill are shared by many, though perhaps not quite so cogently.  To read what he is thinking and saying, click here. He simply misses the length of time it will take to start a new bill, a point not at all missed by the 'say no' Republicans.

Misunderstandings as to what the bill contains or does not contain continue to run rampant, thanks to the lies being spread about it from rumors, not  usually from those who have read it.  The Republicans, the Democrat Anti-Abortionists, and a few mavericks send out negative signals .  It is hard to know how the insurance companies are swaying towards negativity, as well.

Having seen the effect of ground swell energies in the past, one has to wonder what is happening to the voice of the people which has been clearly overshadowed by the politicians.  It seems that the media has gotten very lazy about reporting what the people are saying unless they think that reporting bloated polls from sources not trustworthy of being called scientific, is sufficient.  It isn't.

President Obama has finally gotten a voice to the public about it, having given bipartisanship more than a fair opportunity to start helping the people of this country rather than playing politics.  It seems to make sense to start with a template that can e adjusted; that is how I see this bill.  There are many more issues stirring to be heard for the American people to survive. Let's, at least, start a process of finding relief for the millions who need it now.

WHO DEFINES WHAT A SMART PRESIDENT IS?

Tonight, moving around on channels, I heard Britt Hume on (Fox News) advising (in replay) Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity so that he can get absolution. The Hume went on to complain about the length of time it took Obama to do something about the Christmas Day plane bomber. Apparently a president has done nothing if the media hasn't been told so they can distort it all to the public and stir up some more upset, hate and fear.

The teabaggers have gone wild again. They have gone far beyond their right to free speech expressing opinions and are advocating, dangerously, death to the Democratic party, to Obama's goals, and when they burn Obama in effigy, I think they have gone to far in tour United States. The media says nothing about anything being done about it.

Quist is running to be a Congressman from Minnesota. He has mentored Michelle Bachman who also has his wife working for her. He admits to trying everything he can do to kill the HealthCare bill. Watch here if your stomach is strong. He accuses Obama, Pelosi and other democrats of being radicals, not liberals. He talks about doing team work but he is no team player. The team to be on is FOR the USA, not against it. He was not elected president. Obana was. I deeply resent the Republicans for not allowing Obama to do what he was elected to do and see many today as being treasonous and getting away with it.

On Countdown, one of his usually brighter guests said Obama didn't look smart in the way he handled Christmas Day bomber threat. What should he have done to look smart? Should he have done what stupid people want...play the blame game rather than focus on how to correct a present problem? Apparently he doesn't appear smart unless he continues to do that which people expect...all the things that have been done and didn't work.

MISGUIDED GOALS

The world would be a better place if people could see the whole picture. It is unfortunate that too many see only a single action. For example, P.E.T.A. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is hardly ethical in their treatment of mice when they freed them from laboratories where they were being used in research. These mice were raised to be used in experiments; they never had to find food in the wild for themselves and wouldn't know how to do it. They would simply be preyed upon as delicacies for predators. Many are unable to withstand the harshness of nature and weather out of the lab. When P.E.T.A. volunteers let the animals loose in the world, they are, in fact, sentencing them to a quick death and not necessarily a painless one as they would have been more likely in the lab. Yet those who spout concern about animals are the cruelest in some of their ignorant behaviors.

The Pro-Lifers talk about how sacred life is, forcing unwanted children to be born into poverty and rejection, yet murder abortion doctors who have a life, family and children left to survive without them on their death. Do they not see the hypocrisy of their actions?

When Bush/Cheney went to war in Iraq believing the war would be paid for by Iraqi oil (not American taxpayers), that the American troops would be welcomed as heroes with flowers being flung at them, that there would be few troop casualties, that the war would quickly be over, and many other unfulfilled promises, we find it clear that their actions might have been different if they were honest with themselves and the public. If only they had bothered to listen to those scholars who knew about the culture of the Middle East we would have fewer dead in the service and their extended families not having to struggle with the loss and the burden that has placed on all of them.

When people see only what they want to see and do not act in haste but, rather. review major decisions carefully before finalizing them, there are fewer 'mistakes', disasters, and lives lost. Obama is being criticized for not making things right immediately. If the people who think they know what he should be doing that he is not, really knew all the facts which he is having to juggle, they may find that he is best left alone to do his job. He has welcomed input but that doesn't seem to be enough for the loudest ones. Limbaugh would have him fail, missing the price all Limbaugh's fellow Americans would pay if that happens (as would the fringe Right and others who dislike him).

We have erred in our haste to let people speak by putting them on an equal standing on the world podium. As the Blue Collar comedians say, "There is no cure for stupid." Having an impressive CV and a graduation from an Ivy League school does not always equal across-the-board knowledge. To be really brilliant, there have to be so many more elements to your decision making process than just saying 'yes' or 'no'.

DON'T ASK; DON'T TELL

Ex-Secretary of the Army, Alexander, spoke tonight on the Rachel Maddow show. He was very frank about how undemocratic the policy of 'Don't ask; Don't Tell' and destructive to the Armed Forces as well as the entire country. On CNN,
updated 10:57 p.m. EST, Mon November 17, 2008 104 retired military brass against 'don't ask-don't tell. "The center points out that Larson, a four-star admiral who supported the measure in 1993, has changed his view on the policy. "There were a lot of witch hunts and a lot of people were turned out on that basis," he is quoted as saying in a Palm Center release."

A few years into the war in Iraq, media reported that the translators of Iraq language program was in jeopardy because many of them were gay and had to leave the service. Today, many believe the policy is hurting the country because of losing so many talented and trained people.

Now the military is finding it difficult to recruit. Standards have been lowered dreadfully to make up for the 13,000 that have been discharged for their sexual preference since 1993 as well as that there is no end in sight. The impetus to give one's life to keep our country safe is really not what is seen by most as a goal in Iraq. As it was during the Viet Nam war, many face will prison time for there illegal behaviors if they don't sign up for military duty. Does no one consider the value systems or judgment of those making that choice?

Unfortunately, discrimination based on ignorance should not be determining life and death issues for so many people.

RUSH LIMBAUGH ASKS , "WHO IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY?"

As I was replacing batteries in the radio I keep for emergencies (if power should be lost), I recognized a familiar voice as the radio sparked into volume...Rush Limbaugh. Choking to control my gag reflex, I heard him take off on a negative, vitriolic, blast at Obama. He asks why Obama can never talk without a teleprompter. If I hadn't thought the man was ignorant before, that one sentence would have convinced me. Rush, of course, is not important enough to be speaking to millions on TV time that has to be carefully timed. He also must have no memory of the campaign in which Obama ad-libbed more than most of the memorized, canned speeches from most of the automatons running at the time. Further, he has not noted that the man is sticking to his campaign promises as closely as is possible in the current political and economic wars among the Legislature. USA Election Polls on 3/9/2009 state: Republicans Now Seen As A Leaderless Party
Tags: General (3/9) - Synopsis
68% of Republican voters say they have no clear leader. If Rush thinks he is going to make a leader for them, I think that would be extremely inappropriate of him.

Further, he went on to say that the Stimulus bill was not read by Obama. The high rating the citizens of the country give Obama does not reach this grandiose, narcissitic, over-confident blowhard. He accused Nancy Pelosi of having written it. I think he called it something that rhymed with Ridiculous Bill, probably taken as a take-off on Bill Maher's Religulous movie.

In honesty, I must admit, I had never voted for GW and it wasn't until he had made so many majority-harmful decisions like stopping government support for stem cell research, withdrawal of funds to African family clinics that offered family planning assistance (thus making sure that babies would be born to suffer malnutrition and illness for the few months of their life,impulsively starting a war that caused the deaths and ruined lives of millions, and other decisions which were destructive to so many. It was not the first time that someone came into office for whom I had not voted, but I considered myself intelligent enough to allow enough time in office to demonstrate why others thought he was worth the office. Though rare (she says with a blush), I have been known to be wrong in judging people. I wished that was true here but as books began to pop up like Bush's Brain and so many brilliant offerings on the blunders of the Bush Administration, I joined the throng of negative voices about the man, his history, and how he was running my country. Objectively, I have to stress I did not do it less than a month after he had come to office and had reinforcement of my criticisms to support my dislike of the man as my President.

Since Limbaugh represents no constituents and is not running for office, only for ratings to keep the station owners happy, he has little pressure on him. His oratory of lies carries him as though he speaks from the pulpit, so enthralled of him are some of his listeners.

Since Rush Limbaugh seems to rewrite history so often to suit any point he wishes to make, anyone who is aware of the truth does not view what he says as credible. His addiction to prescription drug abuse has not added to my wish to find him worthy of my respect or trust. that which worries me most of all is that so many, seemingly intelligent people, seem to reflect a faith similar that held for clergy for him. That this showman says there is no one heading the Republican party is visibly accurate. To say there is no one heading the Democratic party is a reflection of his inability to see reality, but that he fabricates for himself and passes on to confuse his already uninformed listeners.

HOMO ERECTUS IRONY

While the Bible believers still think it was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that started humanity as we know it, reality hits us once again. A footprint of a 1.5 million year old Kenyan homo erectus has been identified. I find it ironic that a tall, erect homo sapiens, whose half origin is from Kenya, thought in the US for generations to be an inferior human by most white Americans, leaves another kind of footprint that will undoubtedly be lasting in a very different way.

It seems odd to me that so many people can deny so much we have proven today, in favor of a book written by many men over a period of time that is totally obsolete in culture, history, beliefs, and what life is all about. It amazes me that people still avoid pork fearing trichinosis when, irradiated, there is no longer a problem. Most wjho eat shellfish seem to have as long a life as those who do not.

Change may be difficult for some people, but others are just plain ridiculous about resisting change. They give up self-responsibility totally, yet put their lives in the hands of chance that some 'as yet never seen' omniscient and omnipotent being hears and rates their every action and will take care of them and make their decisions for them. These are the same people who stopped believing in Santa Claus because it sounds impossible to believe!

Yet the puzzle pictures of the evolution of man keep being discovered, put in place to work toward the total picture. It shocks me that the Scopes trial was in 1925 but there are still non-believers 84 years later, despite all that scientists have made evident during those interim years.

Recently it was proven through DNA that Neanderthals were not related to Homo Erectus. In fact, the genes differed to such an extent that it is clear they could not have interbred. Nevertheless, that they evolved in the Neander Valley so similarly to men of another species makes evolution more believable.

My conclusion is that human progress is held back for many by the small proportion who hold such power in hanging onto the past and previously held 'facts'. It is comforting that Obama, in his brief tenure as President so far, has already made stem cell research possible once again in our country.

WOULD YOU HAVE PREDICTED?

From BBC America: A Turkish shoe firm says it has had to take on 100 extra staff to cope with a surge in orders after an Iraqi threw shoes at US President Bush. Istanbul-based Baydan Shoes claims it made the shoes and says it now has tens of thousands of orders from around the world - including from the US and Iraq.
The shoe was called Model 271 but has been renamed Bush shoe, the firm said.

Shouldn't this give some indication of how people have hated Bush around the world? Why are so many people unable to accept the damage to the American people Bush has done in his Presidency?

Bush supporters march to their own drummer. Is it that they truly can't see what he has done to destroy this formerly great nation? Are they too proud to admit they could have been wrong? Are they just losers whose judgment is really bad? Should they never bet on MegaBucks?

FROM bbc: "{However, the brother of shoe-throwing journalist Muntader al-Zaidi says he believes the shoes were Iraqi-made.

Durgham al-Zaidi criticised people he said were trying to exploit his brother's actions for commercial gain.

"The Syrians claim the shoes were made in Syria and the Turks say they made them. Some say he bought them in Egypt. But as far as I know, he bought them in Baghdad and they were made in Iraq," he told the AFP news agency.

It is difficult to verify exactly where the shoe is from as Mr Zaidi has not been seen in public since the incident eight days ago, and the judge in the case says the shoes were destroyed during security checks." You see, everyone gets greedy. Even shoe companies get good marketing ideas, even if they have to make them up as American Admen also have to do.

Rove's defense of the low ratings is that people tire of a President after 8 years. Perhaps that is true, but why did they tire so much more of Bush than other recent Presidents? That is the poser on which the interest in the shoe thrower sheds light.
Recently the argument that it is the voter's fault because they voted him in really raises my ire. To me that is victimizing the victim. What choice do people have who are being told that Clinton dishonored the White House and Bush will bring honor back. The lies that were told, as most campaigns seem to have to do, were really whoppers and he failed in every one of his promises of which I'm aware. His failure reflects the troubled years he had in the past.

Going out on a limb, I look at Obama's past and see nothing reflected there that would suggest he is at all a man similar, in any way, to George W Bush. Only time will tell but educated guesses aren't always bad.




.