Integrated Chaos

The world is in a royal mess. We‘re in the middle of an economic collapse. We have financial markets in free-fall. Century-old manufacturing firms are begging for bail-outs. Radical religious fervor runs rampant. Military conflicts and threats menace the world. Terrorism keeps entire populations on edge. The environment poses great concerns for the planet. Social and cultural change creates turmoil everywhere. Access to energy sources are at crisis levels. Legal disputes cause bitter divisions. Criminal behavior has become uncontrollable. Rioting in the streets and in some nations, full-blown civil war. Governance has become nearly impossible. Political persuasions spin the solutions in the favor of competing parties. Our time will undoubtedly be recorded as the most chaotic era in history, yet one which boasts of dizzying levels of human achievement and progress. Chaordic.

A Chaordic Universe

Chaordic, a hybrid term fleshed out by VISA International CEO, Dee Hock, evolved to describe the mix of chaos and order, conveys the thought of an accordant coexistence displaying characteristics of both, each acquiescing to the other, yet each disrupting the other. Believers in a chaordic universe posit that all systems exist largely in this state. Living organisms, human organizations, integrated systems, businesses, nonprofit organizations, government entities and hybrid combinations of them all that are neither hierarchical nor anarchic, come close to explaining the nature of their being. Rather than analyzing how the chaordic organization develops, let us accept this as the twenty-first century reality. Unless we understand the complex interdependent nature of our world, we will inadvertently destroy nearly everything we touch. Unilateral decisions made without regard to integrated systems will result in “solutions” that will precipitate universal disorder.

Pick-Up Sticks

The childhood game of pickup sticks best approximates the integrated and interdependent association that describes the development of human organizations and their associations with other people and organizations. The sticks are gathered in a bundle, held vertically in the middle of the playing area and released. They fall into each other according to the forces of gravity and balance. In some versions of the game, sticks are of different color and one color is worth more than others. The objective of the game is to carefully separate one stick at a time from the pile without disturbing the other sticks. Each player gets his turn. If he succeeds, he keeps going to the next stick of his choice. Once he causes another stick to move, however, his turn ends and the next player takes over. The winner is determined by successfully removing the most sticks, or by retrieving the most valuable colors and scoring the assigned values.

The strategy of the game gets interesting. The top sticks may be removed with relative ease. As the players work their way into the pile, however, the weight and position of overlapping sticks make it almost impossible to pull one out without causing one or more of the others to move. Tug ever so slightly at one end of a stick and the player discovers that he has indirectly affected sticks layers away.

A player’s motive for moving a particular stick has no bearing on the consequences. He may fully intend to limit his manipulations to his side of the pile, but he interferes with the top, bottom and sides that he had neither intentions nor desire to touch. Even if he claims to have complete understanding of the entire pile of sticks, he still cannot move one of them without risking a major shift of positions. Moreover, once the shift begins, the pile undergoes a significant change with different sticks forming new associations and assuming new positions. The pile may become hopelessly entangled or it may totally fall apart. Every move affects every subsequent move.

Now, imagine if one player gets to keep playing even though every time he plays he disturbs the rest of the pile. He always says that he didn’t intend to move the other sticks, but it just happened. He continues to play, and each time the pile shifts more radically until the sticks can no longer be separated. The other players quietly sit by and watch. They have no authority to act. Eventually, the dominant player makes no excuses for his behavior. He just throws the sticks down at will and picks them up whenever and however he pleases. The other players threaten to leave because, understandably, they have little interest or incentive to play. The player then cuts them a deal. He tells them he will assign a victory to them if they just sit there and watch. If they are nice to him, if they tell him he is doing a good job, he will let them “win” more games than the other players. This becomes pure totalitarianism. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The Elements of Society

As in the pile of sticks, elements in the universal society of man have a direct and an indirect bearing on all other elements. Each element, of course, has its own individual shape and position. It has purpose, structure, operating procedures, controlling boards and a defined human imprint. It consumes, produces, takes up space and lends itself to measurements of success or failure. Yet, with all these individual profiles, no element can be treated independently of all other components of society. Whether we talk politics, the economy, education, manufacturing and labor, the trades, financial markets, the law, the environment, the military establishment, the media, health care, farming, social services, transportation, religion, recreation, entertainment, tourism, entrepreneurial pursuits or the underlying philosophies and passions that fuel them all, everything affects everything else.

Let’s isolate the current housing market crisis for examination within the parameters of this discussion. The government created two entities to extend affordable housing to people who could not enter the market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Through a complex strategy too involved to explain here, we will just say that they pressured banks to loan money to people who would not ordinarily qualify. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then bought up billions of dollars of these bad mortgages and offered them to the financial markets with the backing of the federal government. The government has always been considered the safest of guarantees because it is not going out of business. This maneuvering, as anyone can see, affected the financial markets. Banks either closed or required bailouts to survive, investment firms lost billions of dollars and their clients incurred huge financial losses. With lending money drying up, manufacturing concerns now find it difficult or impossible to continue operations. Thus, labor costs have to be cut which translates into layoffs or elimination of jobs. The ripple effect is now in full swing. With no money, the trades, health care, transportation, recreation, entertainment and the entire economic playing field now deal with shortages and cutbacks.

If one looks at each industry unilaterally, this state of affairs seems grossly unfair. After all, what blame lies at the feet of the transportation segment of the economy? What role did tourism play in it? What about farming? Why should any individual industry suffer because of irresponsible decisions made about affordable housing in the United States congress? Precisely the point. No element of society is insulated from the decisions and movements of one or many other elements.

In fact, studying the whole series of developments in areas of society that seem disconnected to the current crisis may be extremely interesting. Why did congress make these decisions in the first place that caused the domino effect? Was it the politics of vote-getting? Did legislators make a blatant play for the votes of minorities that were excluded from affordable housing? Perhaps. If not, then were they motivated by altruistic concerns that people were being unfairly shut out of the housing market? That leads us to question of who raised this issue to the level that it garnered the attention of the lawmakers. Did unions or minority representatives raise the awareness of the issue by community organizing and championing causes? Did religious persuasions or beliefs have a hand in this? Or, did the educational component of society sow the seeds of unrest and chart a strategy to deal with the supposed problem? Now, we have to ask why the clergy or the professors were so zealous in their support of the cause. Again, did they have altruistic motives? Or, did a significant number of them have profound philosophical disagreements with the dominant status of the United States of America or with our capitalistic system?

We may conduct the same routine of questioning with regard to the American auto industry, now in the process of asking for a bailout. The conventional wisdom blames management. Stupid management decisions bear responsibility for the devastation of the car companies. Right? Well, if we impugn the car executives, we cast aspersions upon the academic institutions from which they received their degrees. Yet, we cannot overlook management’s resistance to change, inflexibility, irrelevance, anti-intellectualism, unsustainable car models and a litany of ill-advised acquisitions of businesses under the guise of diversifying their assets. Executives enamored with lifestyles of luxury diverted their attention from their primary business to irrelevant side issues. Still, we cannot ascribe all the blame to the people who run the business.

Maybe we ought to take our questioning a little deeper. What role did the imposition of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards have on the troubled industry? Auto execs say plenty. If so, then the regulatory oversight of the government caused the problem to a certain degree. How did these laws come into being? The environmentalist lobby. Insofar as the green movement was responsible for the passage of the CAFÉ standards, they became players in the game. Now, the green movement must come under scrutiny. Are their philosophies and data credible? Are their motivations purely a defense of the environment or are they front issues for political causes that have America’s punishment or even destruction in their sights? Even more esoteric is the belief that the environmental movement is the outgrowth of a new religion that worships Mother Earth.

The auto industry also points its finger at the bloated labor unions that have negotiated now unsustainable contracts. Some seven hundred thousand retired workers are on the industry’s pension rolls, plus a staggering number of union workers qualify for a so-called “Job Corp” which essentially pays workers for not working. Aside from these perks, the cash benefits of the union workers include wages for up to seven weeks of vacation and many paid holidays and days off. These contracts draw the support of political parties because they represent voters. They are also infiltrated by selfish and greedy leaders, plus the well known problem of union fraud and thuggish tactics. Are unions willing to expand their vision of the problem beyond their unilateral self-preservation, without regard to the impact on the pile of pick-up sticks? According to the International Association of Machinists, Tom Buffenbarger, it’s not likely. The IAM blog contains this statement. “A business plan that includes limits on executive compensation, prohibits companies from paying excessive dividends and gives the government an equity stake is warranted in this extraordinary circumstance,” said Buffenbarger. “What is unwarranted is any requirement designed to penalize employees or retirees whose unions have already negotiated substantial cost-cutting measures with automakers.”

This article can easily become unwieldy. Let us then point the reader into some further directions of inquiry. How does the banking industry look at the present crisis? What does the crisis look like from the perspective of international security? How do immigration authorities view the problem? Taking the narrow viewpoint of any one of these interests as it relates to their particular industry may have disastrous consequences for a number of other industries. Such is the nature of our integrated chaos.

The Dominant Player

In the end, the government has the catbird seat. Through legislation, executive fiat, and regulatory enforcement, lawmakers can pretty much do whatever they want to do. Questioning their motives makes no difference. Call them partisans, political hacks, bullies, tyrants or unfair practitioners of law enforcement. No matter. They can grab of any stick in the pile of their choosing and rip it out of position. They can create, destroy, modify, ruin or grant arbitrary success to any industry that suits their purpose du jour. Five hundred thirty five legislators, backed up by a like-minded judiciary has unlimited power. Three hundred million people are at the mercy of an oligarchy that the founding fathers never designed to operate in the way that it does today. The loudest and most effective lobbyists have the best chance to affect the outcome of any particular issue. It is doubtful that any group of lobbyists acts in the best interests of the whole. Their very purpose for existence is to clamor in the favor of special interest groups. They demand that the government pick their designated stick from the bottom of the pile and yank it out. The few take precedent over the many.

Who lobbies for the American people? Who has the interest of the whole in mind? What may be good for the housing industry may be toxic for the financial markets. What may delight the environmentalists to no end may signal the end of certain manufacturing segments of the economy. The sinister agendas of anti-capitalist professors whose tenure insulates them from reprisal may also incite their young learners to act in ways that will destroy the country.

Mission Statements

Reading the mission statements of several special interest groups, manufacturing concerns and labor unions is instructive.  Their reason for existence is clearly spelled out, and, as you can tell, it is not to help their competitors.

SIERRA CLUB MISSION STATEMENT: To explore, enjoy and protect the planet.To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out those objectives.

Natural Resources Defense Council’s mission statement reads, in part: We work to foster the fundamental right of all people to have a voice in decisions that affect their environment. We seek to break down the pattern of disproportionate environmental burdens borne by people of color and others who face social or economic inequities. Ultimately, NRDC strives to help create a new way of life for humankind, one that can be sustained indefinitely without fouling or depleting the resources that support all life on Earth.

U.A.W. Local 723 Mission Statement: To educate our members in the history of the Labor Movement and to develop and maintain an intelligent and dignified membership; to vote and work for the election of candidates and the passage of improved legislation in the interest of all labor. To enforce existing laws; to work for the repeal of those which are unjust to Labor; to work for legislation on a national scale, having as its object the establishment of real social and unemployment insurance, the expense of which to be borne by the employer and the government.

GENERAL MOTORS MISSION STATEMENT: General Motors is a multinational corporation engaged in socially responsible operations, worldwide. It is dedicated to provide products and services of such quality that our customers will receive superior value while our employees and business partners will share in our success and our stock-holders will receive a sustained superior return on their investment.

LEHMAN BROTHERS MISSION STATEMENT: Our mission is to build unrivaled partnerships with and value for our clients, through the knowledge, creativity, and dedication of our people, leading to superior results for our shareholders.

Freddie Mac’s mission is to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the housing market. Congress defined this mission in our 1970 charter [PDF 54K], which lays the foundation of our business and the ideals that power our goals. Our mission forms the framework for our business lines, shapes the products we bring to market and drives the services we provide to the nation’s housing and mortgage industry. Everything we do comes back to making America’s mortgage markets liquid and stable and increasing opportunities for homeownership and affordable rental housing across the nation.

All of these mission statements sound good on their face. Their strategies for achieving their mission, however, may pose serious problems for anyone other than their specific industry. It is when their mission runs counter to other interests on the planet that they begin to flex their muscles. Eventually, someone has to decide who has the upper hand. That decision usually falls to the government. Can we trust our representatives in Washington D. C. to be one hundred percent objective and become fearless patriots interested only in fulfilling their constitutional mandate? Their track record discourages us from believing that. In fact, our government is filled with partisans whose visions are skewed by their political views or by their individual constituencies. The government, then, becomes its own special interest group…with one major difference. It always gets its way. Unless a massive lobby comes along that wants the nation as a whole to prosper, the future belongs to the partisans in government.

What is the answer?  The best answer is no answer. The only totally objective force that mitigates in favor of no one in particular and everyone in general is called the free market. Either we opt for centralized control over everything in accordance with the philosophies and values of political hacks in government or we let the free market determine our destiny. Brutal? Maybe. But it plays no favorites. A level playing field presents itself to everyone who looks to the free market for governance.  To those who think centralized control is better than the free market, I have one main question:  Who will exercise this control?  Once we assign the privilege of control to one individual or entity, we will have effectively shut off all debate, and with it, freedom to speak, freedom to act, freedom to be.

The Free Market

So, what is the free market? From Wikipedia, it is a market in which property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other’s property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the transfer coerced by a third party.

Free market decisions are made strictly by the law of supply and demand. Free markets conspicuously lack control or regulation, in which governments directly or indirectly regulate prices or supplies. Artificial control distorts market signals. In the free marketplace, consumers dictate whatever prices that the market will bear for goods and services. The allocation of resources toward consumers and investors become totally a function of the whims, needs and desires of free people. In a free market, price is whatever the consumer is willing to pay rather than a governmental edict. Free markets stimulate competition between players in the economy, generally forcing prices downward and quality upward.

The free market is risky, but it is equally risky for everyone involved. It is especially frustrating to those who hold their ideas passionately, but cannot sell them to the general public. Such players tend to bypass the raw rules of the free market and work to obtain an unfair advantage over the rest of the players. This translates into political power. In its purest sense, political power is the power to make the marketplace conform to a centralized decision-maker. In a perfect world, that makes sense. In an imperfect world such as ours, it means tyranny.

Yes, ours is a system of chaos. But it is an orderly chaos. Our integrated systems can not be manipulated by anyone espousing a singular or unilateral viewpoint. If this happens, at some point in the future we will all get squashed.

The “Blagosphere”

Blagosphere. Formerly, “the virtual space across the internet populated by the ceaselessly chattering masses.” Addendum: b. blagosphere: the scandalous cesspool bearing the name of Rod Blagojevich, governor of Illinois. A fitting rip for Chicagoland politics that casts a long shadow to Washington, D. C. Calling this a mere distraction, as the MSM is wont to do, would be like calling 9/11 a distraction to the peace process between Islamic terrorists and the West. BHO’s Axlerod’s text message to David Copperfield. “You know that 747 Jumbo Jet you made disappear? Yeah, well, we need an en core.” Extracting the occupant of the auspicious Office of the President-elect from the belly of Mayor Daley’s beast without so much as the smell of smoke on his $1500 Hartmax suit will take one more assemblage of smoke and mirrors.

Obama needs a miraculous extrication from this bask of crocodiles. Take a deep breath: Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Emil Jones, George Ryan, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Franklin Raines, Larry Walsh, Al Mansour, Rabbi Capers Funnye, Raila Odinga, Muhammad Hasa Chandoo, Wahid Hamid, Nadhmi Auchi, Valerie Jarret, Robert Malley and Saul Alinsky all noted for their association with Barack Obama, and all tainted with either corruption, scandal, extreme political views or questionable character. One step beyond the inner circle includes engaging personas like Louis Farrakhan, George Soros and Steve Malinga. That takes care of the individual weirdos and operators. Now add to it the neighborhood gone national organization of ACORN, slimed for voter registration fraud during the recent presidential campaign, and the Developing Communities Project, the organization for which Obama learned the ropes of community organizing. BHO may need Houdini over Copperfield.

The Blagosphere is wide, deep and treacherous. Nervous Obama devotees need to pray that each tenuous foothold, each shifting of balance, each easing along the cliff face with rocks plummeting into the abyss below will be prove certain and solid. One slip means that the media ropes need to hold. At least until January 20.

“Don’t Learn Me That”

It’s an old family story that has circulated for years. Something about a babysitting job with a boy who didn’t want to learn to change. Pretty well sums up the warped learning experience of grade school and secondary education in modern America. “Don’t learn me how things really work. Let me be ignorant.” That way you can control me better and make me a predictable little citizen…not one of them “right-winger types.”

Here’s the way I was taught to think: Present me a question. Point me in the direction of my primary resources. Show me how to do research. Let me draw my own conclusions. Ask me some penetrating questions about my work and see if I can defend it. Grade me on how well I did on the process and how well I substantiated my answers. Remain neutral about my values. Concentrate on my understanding of the process, not the particular answers at which I arrived. If those conclusions were wrong, then I would find out as I matured and had the experiences in life that taught me. If the conclusions were right, then I learned to be self-reliant and confident.

Here’s the way today’s kids are taught to think: Present me with a question. Hint at the conclusion I am supposed to produce. Select the material I am supposed to study. Monitor my progress to see if I am staying on track. Ask me some questions calculated to channel me into the right answers. Grade me on how well I did on the assigned conclusions. The process is nice, but the most important thing is that I come up with the correct answers. If I get the answers you think are right, reward me with a good grade. If I get the wrong answers, punish me with a bad grade. Or, just ridicule and shame me until I line up with the rest of the class.

Do I think teachers are doing their job? Yes. But, that’s not the right question. The teachers are doing what they were taught to do. They were taught to teach how to get the “right” answers. They were not taught to teach how to think…I mean really think. To say that they are blind, leaders of the blind may be too insulting, but that’s the only way to express it. I am inclined to think of John Godfrey Saxe’s ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Here are some questions I would like teachers to answer:

• How does the economy really work?
• How does public education sector of the economy work?
• Do I pay you?
• Who determines your salary?
• Do you produce a product or a service?
• Do I have a choice whether or not I like your product or service?
• Can I choose not to purchase your product or service?
• What guarantees do you issue that back up your product or service?
• Can I get the same product or service from your competitor?
• Does the teachers union tell you what to believe?
• Does the teachers union punish you if you don’t do what they say?
• Do you invite independent research groups to evaluate your job?
• As the end user of the product or service, do I get a say in the matter?
• Who are you accountable to other than the teachers union?
• If I get an inferior education, who do I blame?
• Are parents always to blame?
• Is more money always the answer?

These questions are just for starters. Here are some answers that I find unacceptable.

• Trivializing the question.
• Ridiculing me for asking the question.
• Launching an ad hominem attack.
• Twisting the question around.
• Answering the question with a question.
• Changing the subject.
• Blaming someone else for the problem.

At some point, the educational process in this country will collapse upon itself. The same argument will apply to education as it does to the American automakers. When they produce a product that no one wants to buy, when their labor costs are unsustainable and when their competition is too formidable, then it will change.

Teachers have the benefit of an immense amount of goodwill because the teacher-child bond is traditional and nostalgic. The turnaround will also take longer because public education is mandated, but people will not be sold a bill of goods forever. The union mindset, especially in the public sector, is incestuous, self-perpetuating, arrogant and unaccountable. Despite their soaring rhetoric to the contrary and their bottom-line thuggish tactics to hold the public’s feet to the fire, things will change. Teaching jobs may not be outsourced, but teachers can be replaced through competition. Once we find a way to do this—and we will—then a new day will dawn for America.

The Obama Hate Machine

At first, it sputtered and coughed with a lean mixture of Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers, plus an overdose of racial politics, but now the “hate Obama” people have their machine cranking at a high RPM. If you can believe the blogs, gays hate Obama, old people hate Obama, middle-aged white females hate Obama, along with Pakistanis, Pennsylvanians, a sizable segment of the U. S. Muslim population, terrorists, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Christians, Jews and the Middle East…not to mention the Republicans and the “entire nation” according to one blogger. You can buy “I Hate Obama” T-shirts, gifts, art, posters, aprons, bags, bumper stickers, buttons, pins, shoes, calendars, cards, hats, key chains, magnets, mouse pads, mugs and ties, just for starters. Books, magazines, newsletters, ezines and YouTube clips blanket the internet, media and publication industries with their “hate Obama” message. And, many of the 56,899,510 people who voted against Obama make up a rabid market of consumers for the product.

If the “love Obama” side of the question were tepid in their views, then Obama hatred may get some traction. That’s hardly the case. Love for Obama easily exceeds levels ever known for a Presidential candidate or a President-elect, virtually wiping out any effectiveness of their polar opposites. Not only is the same paraphernalia like T-shirts, stickers and buttons sailing off the shelves and out the doors, Obama devotion seems more like the establishment of a new religion. The pre-inaugural Obama fanaticism has federal holidays planned in his honor; streets, roads and schools have already been named after him; “Barack” has become one of the most popular names chosen for baby boys; ABC reported that “’This is the fall of the Berlin Wall times ten,’” Rama Yade, France’s black junior minister for human rights, told French radio. “America is becoming a New World. ‘On this morning, we all want to be American so we can take a bite of this dream unfolding before our eyes,’ she said.” Whether in true belief or in sarcasm, Obama has been dubbed “the Messiah”, “the One” and “the Savior.” Millions of his supporters do expect him to bring about miraculous changes in the world, an expectation that his administrative team has feverishly been trying to quell. Too late. Obamanism is for real.

So, which is it? Should we hate him or love him? Neither. Both viewpoints miss the main point. Hatred is corrosive and love is blinding. Hatred makes one crazy with personal animosity; love fills the atmosphere with a stupefying aphrodisiac. Both render the thought processes incapable of handling information objectively and without bias. Every American would do well to remember that he or she is, above all else, a citizen. We are not subjects, fans, minions or mere taxpayers. We are not laity, union members, political parties or simple votes to be counted. We are not contributors, devotees or crowds. We are citizens who participate in a democratically styled government with all of its attendant responsibilities to each other and to ourselves. When we allow emotions to rule our senses, we prove ourselves unworthy of our freedoms.

I do not hate Obama. I do not love Obama. I fear Obama, as I would any individual elected to the supreme office of the land. The executive powers vested in that office can instigate unprecedented change—overnight—that can send the world into military, economic or social convulsions. My family, my job, my church, my community and my life are eminently threatened by the wielding of that power. One ruling, or a series of rulings, that militate against my belief system and/or my livelihood can destroy me. One executive order inked into law can decimate my freedom, my bill of rights and my constitutional guarantees. One decision, supported by a sympathetic legislative and judicial branch of government, can send my life into a tailspin from which it cannot recover. Hatred for the person with this kind of authority is useless. Love for this person is mindless. Fear will make me cautious and watchful. It is not fear for my soul—that is in the hands of God, out of reach of any President or elected official. No, it is fear of my citizenship. Not only am I right to retain such fear, I am obligated to have it as a citizen of this free land. Otherwise, I forfeit my chance to make a difference.

I fear a President who can unilaterally disarm my country, weaken our military might and put us at the mercy of a foreign invasion.

I fear a President who turns this capitalistic nation into a socialist state where the citizens are seen, not as free people who can determine their own destiny, but as sources of revenue to carry an ever-increasing welfare burden.

I fear a President who can subject the unique American rule of law to the consensus of judicial opinions of judges around the world. I do not want those who lack this country’s heritage of freedom to determine American law.

I fear a President who may allow his popularity to overrule his oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America. This country has no monarchy ensconced in a golden throne in a White House turned into a palace.

I fear a President who may open the door to the tyranny of the minority, whereby the rules of political correctness and the attempts at social justice are imposed upon the specified freedoms of the citizens.

I fear a President who may begin the process of reparations, of any type of abortion for any reason, of euthanasia, of stem-cell research, of redistribution of wealth, of oppressive taxation, of the once-defeated Equal Rights Amendment, of hate crime legislation or of ceding global power to the United Nations.

I fear a President who supports the specious claims of the global warming alarmists and initiates changes at their behest which will wreck our economy and bring America to its knees.

I fear a President who may come into my church, mount my pulpit and tell me what I can and cannot preach to my congregation. If my Bible is good enough to act as a foundational document for this nation to be established, it is good enough for me to use as a guide for living and believing.

Yes, I fear a President who has such overreaching powers that he can fundamentally change the nature and profile of the freest nation ever to exist. I will not lower my self to hate him. Neither will I genuflect in front of him as though he were a god. I will watch him, analyze him, warn him, monitor him and critique him. If I hate him, I will react viscerally to his every move, thus suspending my ability to counter him intellectually. If he does something that I think will hurt me as a citizen, I will protest against him and enlist the support of others to do the same. If I suspect he is curtailing my freedom, weakening my nation or threatening my livelihood, I will publish my suspicions to anyone who will listen.

I fear a President who has his hand around the throat of America. Fear calls for vigilance. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. At least that’s what I have always heard. All of us may now be called upon to prove it.

Will Barack Obama Stop Talk Radio?

Conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers have been discussing this ominous threat for months, maybe years. The Fairness Doctrine, suspended by President Ronald Reagan, was seen by many as an unconstitutional infringement upon the freedom of speech.

The Fairness Doctrine was upheld in 1969 by the U. S. Supreme Court.

The court ruled: “A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.” (U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.)

Despite the Court’s opinion, the Fairness Doctrine was still viewed as a strike against freedom of speech. Reagan’s stoppage of the Fairness Act in 1987 opened the door to unregulated free speech over the air waves. As a result, national celebrities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and many others saw a meteoric rise in their careers. Many observers of this phenomenon now fear that Barack Obama’s administration will reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, purportedly to curtail the likely prospect of his programs and policies coming under withering fire by his opponents on the conservative side.

Many of his supporters are calling for the return to the Fairness Doctrine, but such an overt move by Obama would undoubtedly unleash a barrage of criticism against him. This is not to say that it can’t or won’t be done. Rather than a frontal assault, the tactic chosen to do it will probably be far more subtle. Obama’s experience as a “community organizer” taught him some profound lessons on getting controversial policies passed. He knows that working locally and regionally works better than picking a national fight that would immediately become a huge polarizing issue for the country. Using the diversity and equality arguments as the rationale for a move, many believe that he will quietly infiltrate local markets where the case can be made for fairness with little resistance.

These speculations are not without foundation. Barack Obama’s ideas about this issue have already been articulated by Obama himself. The following excerpt from a public hearing held by the Federal Communications Commission not only reveals his idea, it also tips his hand on the implementation process. Read carefully.

(Run the reference yourself at the following address:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6519743685

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PUBLIC HEARING ON MEDIA OWNERSHIP

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2007

The above-entitled matter convened at 4:25 p.m. at the Operation Push National Headquarters, 930 East 50th Street, Chicago, Illinois, Chairman Kevin J. Martin, presiding.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION PRESENT:

CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS

COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S . ADELSTEIN

COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE

COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

MODERATOR :

LOUIS J. SIGALOS, Chief, Consumer Affairs & Outreach

Division, FCC

ALSO PRESENT:

CONSTANCE A. HOWARD, Illinois State Representative,

District 34

SUSAN SATTER, Assistant Attorney General, Illinois

State Attorney General’s Office

Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr.

(Beginning on Page 21, Line 5)

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: I believe we also have an opening statement that’s going to be read by Ken Bennett on behalf of Senator Barack Obama.

(Applause.)

MR. BENNETT: Good afternoon. My name is Ken Bennett, I am State Director for Senator Barack Obama, who regrets not being able to be here today at this very important hearing, but asks that I read this statement for him. <Begin reading>

“I want to thank the — Chairman Martin and Commissioners for holding the Commission’s fifth official public hearing on the nation’s media ownership rules in Chicago. I want to thank the Rainbow Push Coalition for also hosting this discussion.

Senator Durbin and I specifically requested that the Federal Commission — the Communication Commission, the FCC, hold a public hearing in this diverse city to deal with the very important issues dealing with — that we’re dealing with today. I apologize for not being here in person to deliver this statement, but I want all of you to know how important I think it is that we have this national inclusive open transparent discussion on the government’s responsibility to ensure that the nation’s media market place reflects the diversity, and opinions, and views, and meets the needs of the local communities and ensures fair competition. As all of you know, the FCC has in place a number of rules that regulate the ownership of radio and television broadcast properties. These rules help to prevent excessive consolidation and were created to promote the public interest.

Under the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required to review the media ownership rules every four years to determine if the rules remain necessary and are serving the public interest. I believe that the nation’s media ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest. We should be doing more to encourage diversity in ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets, and expression of diverse view points, and establish greater clarity in the public interest obligations of public broadcasters occupying our nation’s spectrum.

But under the leadership of the previous chairman, the FCC promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. In 2003, the FCC attempted to, over the dissent of two Democratic Commissioners, to relax the nation’s media ownership rules. Millions of comments poured in from the average citizen asking the FCC to retain the rules and not to allow for more consolidation. Fortunately, the Commission’s attempt to relax regulations was rejected by the 3rd Circuit.

Instead of greater consolidation, I fully endorse a call for new rules promoting greater coverage of local issues, greater responsiveness of broadcasters to the communities they operate in. I also believe that broadcasters’ license renewal requests, the periodic review required to ensure that broadcasters are complying with their public interest obligations to local communities for using the public spectrum, should require greater FCC scrutiny and public input should occur more frequently.

(Applause.)

MR. BENNETT: In the spirit of transparency, and because of the importance of this issue to our democratic discourse, I strongly request that the FCC put out any specific changes they intend to vote on in a new notice proposal rule making so that the American people have the opportunity to review them.

The current hearings are an important examination of the issues related to the hypothetical loosening of the media ownership rules. But any specific changes should receive public review and comment. I commend the FCC for holding this discussion and soliciting opinions and analysis from all sectors of our community.

Again, I appreciate your coming to Chicago for this important hearing. I look forward to working with you and the communities represented here today to make sure that our media rules work for everyone and respect and promote the nation’s diversity, and the people, and our views. Thank you. Senator Barack Obama.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Bennett. We also have Illinois State Representative Connie Howard to make a few opening remarks.

(Applause.)

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Gentlepersons, thank you for inviting me to speak during this discussion about media ownership rules and the modern media landscape.

AS a member of the I l l i n o i s House of Representatives, closing the digital divide has been one of my passions for years. The lack of diversity in media ownership since the adoption of the 1996 Telecommunications Act is also an area of major concern.

It is my understanding that one company can own up to eight radio stations in one market, and an unlimited number nationally. Deregulation has led to the eradication of media diversity and local integrity to the extent that 10 major companies now control

nearly 90 percent of the media content in the United States. This shift has been aided and abetted by government policies that explicitly reward industry giants at the expense of the public interest. While the media moguls claim they want a free market place, and deregulation, it seems that the last thing they really want is genuine market competition.”  (End of quote.)

Again, we cannot say with any precision how, when and where this process will begin. I do believe that we can reasonably expect something to start happening in this area. The outcome will be a sharp curtailment on the freedom of speech that now prevails in the country. Rush Limbaugh et. al. may not be shut up and shut down, but listener access to their conversation may indeed be much more difficult to obtain.

Stay alert and continue to educate yourself. Perhaps the old slogan that “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom” has never been more vital than it is today.

It’s Coming Down the Pike

President-elect Barack Obama did not sweep into office without an agenda. Many of his critics claimed he had no substance to his speeches. They said his campaign rhetoric consisted of empty platitudes, vague references to ideas and an alarming lack of specificity about his programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The reason his speeches may have been meandering and somewhat fatuous was because he could not possibly cover everything he wanted to change in one, five or ten speeches. His campaign website, however, provided anyone who was interested enough to look with a mind-boggling array of plans, programs and initiatives that he promised to advance when he became president. (Courtesy of R. G. Combs, of www.rgcombs.blog-city.com.) Although it is now too late to make a difference in the vote, we can now at least educate ourselves—or in some cases brace ourselves—to know what’s coming down the pike.

End the war in Iraq.
Will implement tax form simplification to reduce filing time.
Provide tax credit for all middle class homeowners.
Provide a tax cut for all families making less than $250,000 a year.
Amend NAFTA to protect American workers and strengthen environmental protections.
Provide Flex Ed training accounts for workers.
Extend Trade Adjustment assistance to service workers.
Pass the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 that gives tax credits to large companies that keep workers here in America.
Double funds for basic federal research.
Implement a long term research and development tax credit.
Invest in green technologies.
Reduce carbon emission gases.
Tackle the challenges of global warming.
Create an energy focused youth jobs program.
Create Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Extend the Production Tax Credit.
Expand Broadband into every community.
Keep the Internet tax free.
Expand high speed internet access in rural areas.
Fight for passage of Employee Free Choice Act.
Ensure freedom to unionize.
Would overturn “Kentucky River” classifications of Bush’s NLRB
Protect rights of striking workers.
Increase the mininum wage to index it to inflation.
Crack down on predatory lenders.
Provide a universal mortgage tax credit for homeowners who don’t itemize.
Sign the Stop Fraud Act to prevent lending fraud.
Mandate accurate loan disclosure.
Create a fund to protect people from foreclosures.
Close the bankruptcy loophole for mortgage companies.
Establish a credit card rating to improve disclosure.
Ban unilateral credit card charges.
Apply interest rate only to future debt.
Prohibit credit card interest on fees.
Prohibit Universal defaults.
Require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments.
Protect working people from unfair bankruptcy laws.
Ban executive bonuses for bankruptcy companies.
Require disclosure of pension investments.
Cap outlandish interest rates on payday loans.
Implement legislation to drive unscrupulous lenders out of business
Create a bankruptcy exemption for people that went broke because of medical bills.
Double funding for after school programs.
Extend Family and Medical Leave Act.
Encourage states to adopt Paid leave.
Expand the Child Care Tax Credit
Support ratification of UN Convention Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Support independent, community based living for people with disabilities.
Expand educational opportunites for people with disabilities.
Expand job opportunities for people with disabilities.
Strengthen civil rights enforcement.
Sign into law the Fair Pay Act.
Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that permitted discrimination against women.
Sign law reversing recent SCOTUS rulings that permitted discrimination against racial minorities.
Strengthen federal hate crimes legislation.
Eliminate the sentence disparities regarding crack cocaine.
Establish drug courts for first time, non violent offenders.
Create a prison to work incentive for those transitioning back into society.
Prohibit the practice of racial profiling.
Support reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act.
Oppose all discriminatory barriers to voting.
Help reform death penalty system to protect innocent people on death row.
Ban cluster bombs.
Provide high quality affordable child care to families.
Quadruple Early Head Start funding.
Increase Head Start funding.
Create early learning challenge grants.
Abolish overly rigid teach to the test curriculum in schools.
Improve accountability in public schools.
Invest in intervention strategies to reduce dropout rates in schools.
Increase funding for after school programs.
Support Step Up program to increase summer learning opportunities.
Support English language learner programs.
Expand college outreach programs.
Create teacher service scholarships.
Require all public schools to be accredited.
Create teacher residency programs.
Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit for higher education.
Streamline financial aid application.
Increase Pell Grant to $5,100.
Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
Confront deforestation.
Promote carbon sequestration.
Accelerate commercialization of plug in hybrids.
Promote development of commercial scale renewable energy.
Invest in low emission coal plants.
Transition to new electric digit grid.
Double science funding for clean energy products.
Create Green Jobs Corps.
Invest in programs to help manufacturers make transition to green products.
Create clean technologies venture capital fund.
Deploy cellulosic ethanol.
Expand locally owned biofuel refineries.
Increase renewable fuel standards.
Establish national low carbon fuel standard.
Increase fuel economy standards.
Invest in solar energy.
Invest in wind energy.
Establish a centralized database to track lobbyist activities.
Appoint an independent watchdog group to oversee congressional ethic violations.
Sunshine on legislation proposal.
End abuse of no bid contracts.
Release presidential records in a more timely fashion.
Prevent political appointees from working as lobbyists within two years after employment has ended.
Reform the political appointment process.
Sign ethics legislation that he proposed as a Senator with Russ Feingold.
Allow regular people to track federal grants.
Take leadership in the global fight against AIDS.
Provide tax cuts to small businesses.
Provide income tax cuts for all senior citizens making $50,000 a year or less.
Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Protect workers from caregiver discrimination.
Increase mentoring programs for beginner teachers.
Provide universal health care for all Americans within 4 years.
Combat fraudulent subprime loans.
Expand Nurse Family Partnership.
Provide automatic workplace pensions for workers.
Expand savings credit for retirement accounts.
Reinstate pay as you go budget rules.
Repeal Bush tax cuts for top 1% which led to lower middle class standard of living.
Slash earmarks to pre 2001 levels.
Abolish obsolete wasteful government programs.
Oppose raising the minimum debt.
Wipe out Al Qaeda wherever they may be.
Support diplomacy with Iran to protect America’s interests.
Work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Re-strengthen NATO.
Reduce nuclear arsenals around the globe.
Support securing loose nuke arsenals from the former Soviet Union and elsewhere.
Strengthen Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Expand size of Army by 65,000.
Expand size of Marines by 27,000.
Provide our troops with new equipment and the tools they need.
Provide National Service troops with adequate leave time.
Will insulate the Director of National Intelligence from partisan politics.
Guarantee that health care can never be denied because of a pre-existing condition.
Introduce a health care plan similar to the one members of Congress have and give all Americans access to this plan.
Simplify the paperwork in health care costs.
Make premiums and co pays affordable.
Require mandatory coverage of all children for health care.
Expand SCHIP.
Expand Medicaid.
Reduce costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and employees.
Support disease management programs.
Require hospitals and providers to have full transparency over costs.
Promote patient safety by requiring providers to report medical errors.
Establish an independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness in health care.
Strengthen anti trust laws to prevent insurance companies from gouging medical providers.
Lower medical costs through electronic health information systems.
Increase competition in prescription drug markets.
Advance biomedical research field.
Improve mental health care coverage.
Reduce mercury deposits to help prevent miscarriages.
Increase funding for autism research.
Support Healthy Kids Act.
Suport reauthorization of SCHIP.
Establish guidelines to monitor fuels from nuclear power plants.
Protect chemical plants from possible terrorist attacks.
Introduced legislation to upgrade monitoring of water supplies.
Introduced legislation to protect localities from radioactive leaks.
Create secure borders with additional personnel and infrastructure.
Remove incentives for people to enter this country illegally.
Crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Invest in transitional jobs.
Improve transportation access to jobs.
Fully fund community block grants.
Create an affordable housing trust fund.
Establish a program called 20 Promise Neighborhoods.
Invest in rural areas, especially small businesses, schools, and doctors.
Implement a payment limitation program to help small farmers.
Protect family farms from anti-competitive monopolies.
Implement tough fines for CAFO violations.
Establish country of origin labeling for all products.
Support regional food systems.
Encourage organic farming.
Provide tax credits for young farmers.
Increase capital for small farmers.
Modify FCC so all rural residents have access to modern communications.
Upgrade rural infrastructure.
Reverse two billion dollars of agriculture cuts under Bush.
Support Emergency Farm Relief Act.
Combat the scourge of methamphetamines.
Expand Americorps.
Double the Peace corps in eight years.
Expand Service learning in all our schools.
Offer an opportunity tax credit for college students in exchange for 100 hours of community service.
Promote college work study programs with public service.
Expand on the Youth Build program.
Create a Social Investment Fund Network.
Create a non profit entrepreneur agency.
Protect Social Security.
Reform corporate bankruptcy laws.
Strengthen laws protecting against age discrimination in the workplace.
Ensure heating assistance for senior citizens.
Protect the openness of the Internet.
Encourage diversity in media ownership.
Protect children from Internet predators with strict law enforcement.
Support transition of the internet into the digital world.
Preserve artistic expression.
Keep inappropriate advertising away from programs for children.
Enhance safety standards for toys imported into this country.
Protect the right of privacy of every law abiding American.
Update surveillance laws under the rule of law.
Support higher salaries for teachers.
Work with the FTC to cut down on cyber crimes.
Eliminate teach to the test curriculum and restore true learning to the classroom.
Open up government to citizens by providing transparency.
Provide all our schools with broadband technology.
Modernize public safety networks.
Make the research and development tax credit permanent.
Protect intellectual property at home and abroad.
Reform the patent system to encourage innovation.
Allow all veterans back into the VA.
Strengthen VA care for all veterans.
Fight veterans’ employment discrimination.
Fix the benefits bureaucracy to help veterans.
Expand vet centers across the country.
Slash red tape to help wounded soldiers at Walter Reed.
Direct the VA and Pentagon to fix its veterans record systems.
Rebuild the roads and bridges that need to be rebuilt.
End the genocide in Darfur.
Restore habeas corpus to America.
Reject torture.
Close down Gitmo.
Pledge to obey the Constitution of the United States.
Fully implement and enforce the Equal Pay Act.
End tax breaks for US companies sending jobs overseas.
Reinstate 1.15 billion to the COPS program to reduce crime.
Keep drinking age at 21.
Support grants to local educational agencies.
Protect ANWR.
Protect the Great Lakes from polluters.
Favor labor and trade standards with trade with China.
Oppose CAFTA which hurts American workers.
Give the District of Columbia its proper vote in Congress.
Expand enrollment period for Medicare Part D.
Repeal the discriminatory don’t ask don’t tell policy.
Provide first responders with the health care and equipment they need.
Implement the 9/11 commission recommendations.
Restore money to ports and first responders.
Establish a Guest Worker program.
Increase the minimum wage.
Appoint judges who will respect different points of view.

Oppose repeal of the estate tax that only applies to 1% of the wealthiest of estates.
Support the first amendment freedom of religion clauses and establishment clauses.
Require public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on executive compensation.
Protect our schools by opposing voucher schemes.
Support Biofuels Security Act.
Close corporate tax loopholes.
Address global warming as a real problem.
Support civil unions for LGBT couples.

This is one of the most ambitious proposal slates ever brought to Capitol Hill. Of course, no president gets everything he wants. It is surprising, however, how much a lame duck president can do, even with minority support in both houses of congress. With the president and the legislative branch of government all of the same party, the chances are overwhelmingly favorable to President Obama that much of his agenda will pass, some of it without objection.

There isn’t much in this agenda that warms a conservative heart. Several broad themes put forth in these proposals are especially problematic to those of us who favor limited government, economic strength and a strong military. These themes focus on “Green” legislation, universal health care, higher taxes, a much greater spending on government entitlement programs, and unlimited support for social liberalism. The economic crash of 2008 may force a scale back of these proposals, but changes that do not have a direct fiscal impact will probably get done. That includes appointment of judges, drafting of liberal legislation on social issues and diplomatic initiatives involving our military and overseas trade.

The biggest test of this agenda’s viability will come in 2010 when elections come up for the house and senate. Will the country react negatively to the spate of changes in the first two years of an Obama presidency? Will they vote out the democratic majority and reinstate a more conservative GOP? Or will the immense popularity of this new president carry him and his programs over the top to 2012 and beyond? It would seem to me that the decisions and actions of the next twenty-four months hold the future for the nation. Regardless of the direction it takes, people of conviction need to stand firmly and resolutely for righteous causes. The things coming down the pike may be more than political and legislative changes. Depression, restricted freedom and even persecution may hit us as well. Stay alert.

Obamanism

Chalk the alleged Obama revision of the national anthem and his extreme makeover of the pledge of allegiance up to urban legends and wild internet chatter, but enough wars and rumors of wars dance around his persona to make a patriot more than a little nervous. As one blogger has it, this apprehension has nothing to do with the high concentrations of melanin in the president-elect’s epidermis. Rather, I am uncomfortable with a troubling rise of untoward adulation for a single individual that tastes far too cult-like for traditional America. Much about Barack Obama commands admiration and respect, to be sure. Few politicians have combined the personal attractiveness and oratorical ability with campaign shrewdness as successfully as he. His African-American roots testify to the ultimate unlikely journey he has traversed, especially in a nation that practiced overt discrimination less than a half century ago in many of its states.For many, he has risen to superhero status and his symbolic triumph inspires not just his race but his entire generation.

The occupant of the highest office in the land deserves respect and honor by virtue of the office alone. His personal achievements and aptitude, regardless of how superior they may be, are eclipsed by the position. Students of history know that men of uncommon ability have attained this position, men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Yet none of these accomplished leaders ever accepted inordinate worship from the adoring masses as though they were more important than the office they held or the country they served. Those early fathers had first hand knowledge of an oppressive kingship and they disdained the concept of monarchy with pure hatred and an unbending resolve that it should never be repeated on this continent. It is evident from their writings that they believed office-holders were to be empowered only with the limited number of defined powers given to them by the constitution. They were expressly forbidden to take any powers unto themselves that were not specifically granted by the law of the land. The end result of the parameters imposed by the constitution was that a president could not—by law—create and ascend to an American throne.

Thus, the quiet rumblings of adoration that seems to build toward Mr. Obama from a number of quarters strike me as eerie and outside the traditions of this representative republic. He has his own presidential seal. A group of uniformed youths go by the name of “Obama’s Army.” Children’s choirs have been organized and taught to sing songs which unabashedly praise Obama. The media have described his reception in many rallies as akin to a rock star. Certain celebrities and leaders of factions across the country have referred to him as “Messiah.” Indeed, the rank-and-file members of the Democrat party—or at least those who voted for Obama—voice high hopes that he will take care of their personal needs like paying their mortgage payment and putting gas in their automobile fuel tanks. On the night of his victory celebration, giddy crowds fawned over him with nothing short of mindless love. He has gone so far as to set up an “Office of the President-Elect”, something that has never before been done. To top it off, talk runs rampant at this writing that there will be a new holiday announced in his honor, ostensibly for being the first African-American president. All of this and more has transpired before he has been inaugurated into the presidency.

Moreover, the media has informed us that the worldwide approval of Mr. Obama exceeded eighty percent, a factoid that I do not recall as ever being reported in any preceding presidential election. In a move that may not be appreciated by the president-elect, many groups that endorsed him were terrorist and radical organizations like Hamas. ‘OBAMA! Inshallah!” Obama! Allah willing!” That slogan, scribbled on walls in Gaza, indicates the hopes that Barack Obama has inspired among Arabs. One columnist, Mohamed Al-Menshawi, hails Obama as “the candidate with Muslim roots” and as the “harbinger of solidarity between Americans and the Muslim world.” Another, Al-Jazeera’s Aala al-Bayoumi, notes: “Had it not been for Obama, Arabs would not even bother to follow the US presidential race.” What makes the difference is Obama’s “Islamic and African roots.”

I have no clue how successful the Obama administration will be. For the country’s sake, I hope that he presides over a victorious military, a prosperous economy and a respected worldwide hegemony. I do know that I will be a member of the loyal opposition if I detect a move toward kingship. Moreover, if I suspect that a religious movement gathers momentum with the purpose of focusing praise on this man or any man instead of the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, I will be a fervent opponent. “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus.”

The sandbagging has already begun.  Ben Evans of the Associated Press submitted the following report on Tuesday, November 11: “A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship. ‘It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,’ Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. ‘I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.’”

Nothing like this will every happen if the American people do not permit it.  That resistance will have to be channeled through the mainstream media.  It was through their concerted efforts that Mr. Obama was elected.  (This observation comes by their own admission).  If, on the other hand, this nation has now sufficiently distanced itself in time and memory from its history, then a god-like leader can indeed emerge from us and ascend to rulership.  To those who say it cannot be done, I only ask if it has ever been done before in the annals of time.  The answer, of course, is yes.  Many, many times.  That alone should keep us in a state of readiness to ensure that history does not repeat itself.

Obama’s America

The following piece consists of excerpts from the Democrat National Committee 2008 platform. It provides an accurate profile of what we can expect from President Barack Obama and his administration. You can access this platform online at many Democrat sites and verify this for yourself. His programs will sail through a congress that has a super-majority of Democrats, unimpeded by filibuster or extended debate.

A World without Nuclear Weapons.

America will seek a world with no nuclear weapons and take concrete actions to move in this direction. We face growing threats of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons or the means to make them with more countries seeking nuclear weapons, unsecured nuclear materials in many countries, and of the potential spread of nuclear technologies. As George Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn have warned, current measures are not adequate to address these dangers. We will maintain a strong and reliable deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist, but America will be safer in a world that is reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and ultimately eliminates all of them. We will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans

If one thing came through in the platform hearings, it was that Democrats are united around a commitment that every American man, woman, and child be guaranteed affordable, comprehensive healthcare.

The American people understand that good health is the foundation of individual achievement and economic prosperity. Ensuring quality, affordable health care for every single American is essential to children’s education, workers’ productivity and businesses’ competitiveness. We believe that covering all is not just a moral imperative, but is necessary to making our health system workable and affordable. Doing so would end cost-shifting from the uninsured, promote prevention and wellness, stop insurance discrimination, help eliminate health care disparities, and achieve savings through competition, choice, innovation, and higher quality care. While there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of covering every American, with everyone in and no one left out, we stand united to achieve this fundamental objective through the legislative process.

Ending the War in Iraq

To renew American leadership in the world, we must first bring the Iraq war to a responsible end. Our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. Our civilian leaders have failed them. Iraq was a diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9-11, and incompetent prosecution of the war by civilian leaders compounded the strategic blunder of choosing to wage it in the first place.

We will re-center American foreign policy by responsibly redeploying our combat forces from Iraq and refocusing them on urgent missions. We will give our military a new mission: ending this war and giving Iraq back to its people. We will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely remove our combat brigades at the pace of one to two per month and expect to complete redeployment within 16 months.

After this redeployment, we will keep a residual force in Iraq to perform specific missions: targeting terrorists; protecting our embassy and civil personnel; and advising and supporting Iraq’s Security Forces, provided the Iraqis make political progress.

At the same time, we will provide generous assistance to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. We will launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic surge to help broker a lasting political settlement in Iraq, which is the only path to a sustainable peace. We will make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. This is the future the American people want. This is the future that Iraqis want. This is what our common interests demand.

Global Warming

We will lead to defeat the epochal, man- made threat to the planet: climate change. Without dramatic changes, rising sea levels will flood coastal regions around the world, including much of the eastern seaboard. Warmer temperatures and declining rainfall will reduce crop yields, increasing conflict, famine, disease, and poverty. By 2050, famine could displace more than 250 million people worldwide. That means increased instability in some of the most volatile parts of the world.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of collective action to tackle this global challenge. Getting our own house in order is only a first step. We will invest in efficient and clean technologies at home while using our assistance policies and export promotions to help developing countries curb deforestation and leapfrog the carbon5 energy-intensive stage of development.

We will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. China has replaced America as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Clean energy development must be a central focus in our relationships with major countries in Europe and Asia. We need a global response to climate change that includes binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions, especially for those that pollute the most: the United States, China, India, the European Union, and Russia.

This challenge is massive, but rising to it will also bring new benefits to America. By 2050, global demand for low-carbon energy could create an annual market worth $500 billion. Meeting that demand would open new frontiers for American entrepreneurs and workers.

Choice

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.

Minority Rights and Same-Sex Marriage

We are committed to ensuring full equality for women: We reaffirm our support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, and will urge passage of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We will pursue a unified foreign and domestic policy that promotes civil rights and human rights, for women and minorities, at home and abroad. We will pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, because hate crimes desecrate sacred spaces and belittle all good people. We will restore and support the White House Initiative on Asian-American and Pacific Islanders, including enforcement on disaggregation of Census data. We will make the Census more culturally sensitive, including outreach and increased confidentiality protections to ensure accurate counting of the growing Latino population.

We will sign the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and restore the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That is the America we believe in. It is not enough to look back in wonder of how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America. We support the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

Choice of Judges

For our Judiciary, we will select and confirm judges who are men and women of unquestionable talent and character, who firmly respect the rule of law, and who listen to and are respectful of different points of view and who represent the diversity of America.

We support the appointment of judges who respect our system of checks and balances and the separation of power among the Executive Branch, Congress, and the Judiciary– and who understand that the Constitution protects not only the powerful, but also the disadvantaged and the powerless.

Our Constitution is not a nuisance. It is the foundation of our democracy. It makes freedom and self- governance possible, and helps to protect our security. The Democratic Party will restore our Constitution to its proper place in our government and return our Nation to our to our best traditions–including our commitment to government by law, and not by men.

So, what do different people and groups think of Obama’s America? Take a look.

Dem platform called ‘strongest ever’ on gay rights
Document calls for ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity’ protections
By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade | Aug 11, 7:10 PM

A final draft of the Democratic Party’s 2008 platform strengthens the party’s support for gay civil rights and calls for an end to discrimination based on gender identity.

The document, which is to be presented to the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month for final approval, also includes what party officials described as strongly worded language opposing the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which precludes openly gay people from serving in the military.

But the platform draft approved Aug. 9 by the party’s 186-member Platform Committee apparently omits any mention of the words “gay” or “lesbian,” which had been included in the Democrats’ 2004 platform.

The document, discussed by Democratic officials and gay activists during a conference call Monday with reporters, was not publicly available. The Democratic National Committee has yet to release a final draft of the platform approved in Pittsburgh.

The document also apparently omits a provision in the 2004 platform that declared the party’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which the older document called a divisive effort by President Bush to “politicize the constitution.”

Leaders of six national gay and transgender advocacy organizations, including the National Stonewall Democrats, nevertheless hailed the 2008 document as the strongest platform on gay and transgender issues ever approved by a major U.S. political party.

Democrat platform on health:  It’s not just the uninsured

Los Angeles Times, 5:11 PM, August 25, 2008

For the first time since healthcare has been written into political platforms, people are proposing ideas that look beyond the bottom line issue of how to deal with the problem of the uninsured. The new U.S. Census Bureau national statistics on health insurance are due out Aug. 26, and many experts believe they will show an increase over last year’s 47 million uninsured Americans. (*In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau’s figures released today, as reported in the Los Angeles Times, showed a drop in the number of uninsured, to 45.7 million, primarily due to an expansion of government-provided services to children.)

That this year’s Democratic platform calls for affordable coverage for all Americans is no surprise. But it also calls for a new emphasis within the healthcare system on prevention and wellness.

“We need to promote healthy lifestyles and disease prevention and management especially with health promotion programs at work and physical education in schools. All Americans should be empowered to promote wellness and have access to preventive services to impede the development of costly chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. Chronic care and behavioral health management should be assured for all Americans who require care coordination. This includes assistance for those recovering from traumatic, life-altering injuries and illnesses as well as those with mental health and substance use disorders. We should promote additional tobacco and substance abuse prevention.”

The United States has epidemics of chronic diseases that are largely preventable, including diabetes, heart disease and obesity. “If we’re going to deal with the affordability of healthcare, we’ve got to do a lot more about preventing diseases,” says Dr. Ken Thorpe, professor of health policy at Emory University and executive director of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease. “About 75% of healthcare spending is associated with chronic disease. This has percolated up to become a center stage issue.”

— Susan Brink