People are so defencive today that we love to deny the obvious. Take this McLellon exposee book on the Bush adminestration. People are desperate to find some false motive in McLellon other than the stated obvious truth that this was and is a guy who just wants to get the Truth out there for public perusal. I'm tired of remarks such as "This guy isn't driven by conscience but by love of money". Nobody is criticizing John Mc Cain for marrying into money or the fact that his famed Mc Cain - Feingold campaign "reform" act is worded in such a way that rich people like him and his wife can donate all the money they want to to their own cause. Nobody is faulting Hillary Clinton for trying to buy her nomination with her own money. Nobody is faulting any politician for getting rich off their office due to lucritive legeslation they themselves helped to pass, or the enormous fees they received for giving speeches after they retire. Nobody is faulting politicians for "double and tripple dipping" from retirement funds. But suddenly Mc Clellon is in it for the money. Then they use that famous red hering buzzword "disgruntled ex employee" to somehow invalidate the things he is saying. Thom Hartman played a bunch of clips from McLellon's detracters today and noted that they all had in comon that none of them was calling McLellon a liar. It's clear there is an orchestrated media campaign against this book just as there was an orchestrated media campaign in FAVOR of the Iraq War. People like Dan Rather and Phil Donahew and some female reporters got fired for their beliefs and there was an implicit networks policy of making thing said about the Bush adminestration be positive because with the President's numbers so high they wern't about to put anything anti-Bush on the news. I refer you to the Bill Moyers program a while back in which the same lies were repeated ad nausium by the media about weapons of mass destruction. Collin Powell to this day has no defence for his actions advocating for the war telling lies to the UN. The trust of all the Armed Forces has been violated not to send them to a war where US interests were not at stake. Also this isn't a "War". We won the "war" back on May first 2003. What we have now is an occupation. And normally military occupations come to an end. All except for this one, which will go on and on. People are against this book are apparently calling the American People stupid for buying it and making it number one already several days before it's even released. Nobody would have guessed that this War would still be an issue in campaign 2008 but it obviously still is. It's time to look at the obvious and call a spade a spade for once. Yes the President is guilty of war crimes. Yes, the President should be impeached. Yes, Chaney, Rove and Libby are scoundrals. Don't look at the people who have been fired by Bush however; look at the people who still have their jobs. The Republicans impeached one cocaine sniffing, draft dodging President. The democrats now are being too kind. TOO KIND!
When it comes to Proposition 98 verses 99, I'm inclined to go with 98 if it offers the protection from eminent domain that retired people who own their own homes need, and proposition 99 does not. This rent control thing is a red hering. Who besides the "People's Republic of Santa Monica" even HAS rent control? This law won't affect subsedized housing or any other benificiary law. The thing is if you watch all these court cases with Joe Brown or Craig Mathass, landlords NEED a little more protection from too many tennents who end up trashing the place. Laws on the books now are biased in favor of tennants to an almost absurd degree. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to restore a little ballance. The question is how much power you should allow the long hand of givernment in confiscating property that you rightfully own?
There is a long history in this country of a President having people who are able and whom he respects but disagrees with in his circle of friends and in his adminestration. Of course we know Thomas Jefferson was John Adams' vice president. Abraham Lincoln had his political opponets in his cabinent such as Stanton, Chase, and Seward. He wanted the best people even if he disagreed with them. Kennedy had a republican as secretary of defense. Of course Ronald Reagan had Jim Webb as secretary of the Nazy or whatever. For a while Bush had Collin Powell. But Bush like Nixon before him gradually weeded out people with whom he disagreed and had only "psychophants" left. I believe that's the correct term. Lyndon Johnson once said "I'd rather have my enemies in the tent pissing out than them being outside the tent pissing in". Well, now Bush has a guy "pissing in", and that's his problem to deal with. This whole idea of why didn't McLellon raise some objections before now can be answered in my own life. With either Christianity or problems with my own family it you even HINT you're going to say something they don't want to hear, they'll engage in all manner of ingenious ways of shutting you down. This course was just not an option. What George Bush is gambeling on is that the media will come to his defense the way it always has before. I forsee some really bigged debates between Obama and Mc Cain if those are our choices. You may well end up having what we've already had is the so called "moderator" ganging up on the guy they don't like along with the opponet in the debate.
I would like to address this religion thing once more. Some have said that if you "Dont Believe" it means you have some sort of "issues" or "emotional problems". Let's explore this. Have you ever listened in a children's sermon often delivered in church with all the kiddies gathered around? These can often be embarrassing because as Art Linkletter said "Kids say the darndest things". They ask simple, obvious, but embarrassing questions. Christians don't REALLY want people th be "child like" because at times children can be as they say, brutal in their candor. You know the story of the Emperor's new clothes. Some of you may think my bit about some desciple of Jesus being crusified on November 24th. AD 29 is a silly notion. By the way I see no reason why the number of crosses should be limited to three. I mean the hill of Golgatha might have been a really busy place after crushing an insurrection. First of all you have to ask whether there really WAS an ecclipse. YES. This is not speculation but astronomic and Newtonian fact. Some History writers have talked about this "darkness" and the earthquakes that destroyed many buildings. Some of the questions you might "innocently" ask are "Well, why did Jesus or whoever arrive in Jerusalem six days early. Was it to celebrate "HOLY WEEK". A big negatori on that one. Here's one. Scripture says "It was not the season for figs". Was it? From research I've done there is a spring crop and a late summer crop. According to one of Gene Scott's sermons it WAS the season for figs. Then you could ask "If Jesus were picking out a fig tree for an example of a nation past its prime, is he going to pick a tree BEFORE the season or AFTER the season? Other questions might be- "What did people say about the earthquakes? Were any graves opened? Did dead people really rise? How come if it was Passover as the first three Gospells say that Jesus was crusified on a "High Holy day" when it also says Pilate had agreed not to have bodies on crosses during high holy days? If it was passover, did they have lamb? Did Jesus if he didn't just "disappear" or "escape" as the passage I quote claims- - did he go right back to the pharicees after he arose from the dead and gon "Nya- - Nya". If it was passover - - how come all the priests were so busy making money deals with informents though this violates sabbath laws? If you're a kid and want to know if you really go to heaven when you die since Christians say ad nausium "This life doesn't matter but it's only the Next One that matters" - kids might ask "Does the Bible say everybody that accepts Jesus goes right to heaven when they die?" NO! There is not one case except perhaps Stephen and that was just a dying man's vision. If there was no "armed struggle" why did Jesus bring up taking up swords at the last supper? Why did Jesus say "You should sell your coat and buy one". Were there two Jesuses? One a healer philosopher and the other a zealot? I'd like to know Thom Hartman's religious beliefs. He's so down on the beliefs of others, why doesn't he share his own beliefs? Why is it so many people, like in Gene Scott's church tell you "Don't ask us that question; just wait for Gene's next utterance on the subject". Can't these people think for themselves? Tell me. Am I the only person who can do that?
As a sign about my dire forcasts about Obama coming to pass, I predict that next week there will be a sharp, unexpected and very violent conflict somewhere in the world next week- - that will flood the newspaper headlines.
No comments:
Post a Comment