Guns and God

The Sunday talking heads were very vocal over what they deemed a significant gaffe on Obama’s part, when he recently commented that in times of crisis and difficulty, small town folks, who feel that government is abandoning them, find themselves turning to guns and god. The controversy over such a comment I find quite telling. First, the combined outrage of liberal and conservative media makes it quite clear that no one appreciates a candidate who has the audacity to make public statements that have not been written or at the least vetted by professional speechwriters. Apparently Obama missed the memo noting that presidential candidates do not have unscripted opinions, and everything the public hears must be couched in insincere politically correct terms

The political pundits were unified in their effort to use this comment to frame Obama as elitist, which I also found rather interesting. Are we really that averse to hearing the truth? Are we so dependant on the condescending lies and distortions, that all we can do is point in horror at the possibility of a leader who is willing to talk to the American public as if they were grown ups living in the real and challenging world. Particularly when the truth is that in times of difficulty and uncertainty, it is human nature to seek refuge in the things where safety and comfort have traditionally been found. Guns and God. Is this seriously news to anyone? Is it really so offensive or shocking to hear someone say it out loud?

It would seem that Barrack Obama is operating under the premise that we the people would appreciate a leader who speaks openly and candidly about controversial issues. That he understands the needs and concerns of those who feel disconnected from their government. The difference as I see it is that the current administration along with the other more established presidential candidates, prefer to promote and manipulate the fears of our citizens and then exploit them for profit and power. After the past eight years how can we not be bitter and disconnected from this country’s leadership and how refreshing to hear someone take note of the reasoning behind it.

When the U.S. Government passed the largely unread patriot act shortly after the events of 9/11, we the people were assured that the measures incorporated into the rather frightening legislation, would only be used against terrorists and there was no reason to worry that they would ever impact the ordinary American’s way of life. Six years later, we have learned that this could not be further from the truth.

Now the Whitehouse would have us believe that their highly illegal warrantless surveillance program is vital to the security of America. Only evil foreigners, those who intends us harm, would be targeted for surveillance and yet day after day there are more revelations regarding the extent to which everything we do and say is monitored at the behest of the Bush Administration, as a potential threat to this great country.

Over the past few weeks alone, we have learned that the FBI has been illegally using terror laws against ordinary citizens. It has been revealed that there are nearly one million U.S. Citizens on the continuously expanding terror watch list and very nearly each and every one of us are subject to warrantless surveillance of some nature (phone calls, email, text messages, financial transactions and apparently anything that goes through the U.S. Postal Service). The question I am forced to ask is who exactly does this administration consider a terrorist threat, because from all the evidence it would appear that we the people are who they fear the most.

In an effort to coerce passage of legislation that would provide retroactive immunity to his companions in crime and himself as well, President Bush has spent the last several weeks doing his level best to scare us into believing that his warrantless surveillance program is necessary and in our best interests. All the while he continues to refuse to provide any details regarding the scope of all that he has done unless retroactive immunity is granted to the telecommunications companies who did his bidding. His claim that they were only doing what they thought was the right thing, the patriotic thing, regardless of the legal (or rather the illegal implications), is at best total crap. Even though George Bush may not be personally familiar with little things like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I am altogether certain that the high dollar legal counsel for the telecommunication companies in question, are fully versed in what the right to privacy guarantees along with the basic definition of probable cause. To say that they did not know that what they were doing was not only wrong but wildly illegal is to insult our collective intelligence.

We are not a nation of recalcitrant children who need big daddy to save us from ourselves. Our government was designed to operate in service to its citizens, hence the term public servant. Those we elect to office in this country are charged with carrying out the laws of our nation, not to secretly circumvent and disregard them when they interfere with a chosen course of action. This in particular is what separates our country from others we hold in contempt and consider threats to democracy and our way of life.

A friend of mine told me the other day that he had been reading my blog and concluded that I was an angry woman. To be honest, before our conversation, I hadn’t thought about it in quite those terms but after a bit of consideration, decided he was partially right. I am an angry woman, but more importantly, I am an angry American and you don’t need to eavesdrop on my phone calls and intercept my email to figure that out.

George Bush told Ann Curry in an interview on the “Today’s Show” that he doesn’t think the war has anything to do with the Economy. Do you suppose he knows what the economy is? That would explain a lot.

Earlier this week, Republican Presidential frontrunner and former POW, John McCain, voted against a congressional ban on the use of torture. Fortunately the ban passed regardless of this incomprehensible defection. President Bush promises to veto the bill when it reaches his desk unless the torture ban is removed, further noting, he will do exactly as he wants / deems necessary regardless of its legality. I don’t know about you guys, but my history and civics classes never mentioned anything about that. Scarier yet is the fact that Bush has proclaimed John McCain to be his ideal successor, a true conservative, made in his own image.

In today's world presidential elections are little more than political theater and this one already merits an “NC-17” rating. Without a doubt there should be a legal limit on the age the impressionable youth of our nation must be before they are allowed to witness anything as obscene as McCain's faustian exchange of soul for kingdom.

Anton Scalia, Supreme Court Justice and cohort of Vice President Dick Cheney, recently commented that he really doesn’t see anything wrong with torture if the circumstances deem it appropriate. He further noted that this was really a no brainer and didn’t see this as an issue for the courts in the first place. Here’s the questions that pops first into my mind; what do you suppose is the definition of the “appropriate circumstances”? What constitutes the list of misdeeds that he might consider worthy of torture? Writing stuff like this? Giving voice to opinions and ideas that run contradictory to the Administration’s clearly corrupt and self serving goals and agenda? Inappropriate internet searches and book purchases? Refusing to submit to a full body search at the airport? The Founding Fathers have got to be spinning in their graves at the absolute mockery that is being made of the democracy they fought to create.

Yesterday, the Republicans committed, what in my opinion, was the single most tasteless act of the week, by disrupting the memorial service of long serving U.S Representative and Holocaust Survivor, Tom Lantos, who died last Monday. The purpose of such a crass action? To force a procedural delay in the latest round of congressional tit for tat relating to the Democrats paltry attempts to hold this Administration to some bar of accountability, by issuing contempt citations against two Bush Aides, stemming from an investigation into the firing of U.S. Attorneys for political purposes.

I couldn’t make this stuff up.

Imagine life in a world where you could choose the laws you planned to abide by and were free to disregard the others simply because you disagreed with them or felt they impaired the ability to do as exactly as you pleased. Imagine having the power to sign a law that everyone else is required to follow but being able to write a note at the end indicating that it didn’t include you or your friends. Strangely enough that is the world George Bush and his administration live in.

Through the use of signing statements, President Bush has unilaterally exempted himself and his administration from portions of almost 1000 laws passed by Congress, including laws prohibiting the use of torture. The most recent example of this was last week when he signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. After signing the bill he then attached a signing statement indicating that he has the right to ignore four key elements of the bill he just signed into law (for everyone else it would seem). The specific elements of the law he does not feel obliged to abide by are appalling at best.

In direct contradiction to claims made by the Whitehouse regarding a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, Mr. Bush’s signing statement allows him to disregard a congressional ban on permanent bases in Iraq. He also took exception to establishment of a commission to investigate U.S. contractor fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. So while this country continues its slide into financial disaster, in large part due to the funding of the never ending war on terror, President Bush finally takes a stand on the billions of tax dollars lost to the well documented, rampant fraud and corruption by private contractors such as Blackwater and Haliburton, by refusing to investigate or prosecute it.

Interestingly, this accompanies recent revelations that the administration is seeking complete immunity from Iraqi law for all U.S. troops AND private contractors working in Iraq. Clearly it’s tough to do the job when you are held accountable for the rape, murder, fraud and other miscellaneous acts of corruption and malfeasance that happens along the way.

The president also objects to protection of whistleblowers who report said fraud, abuse and corruption. Finally, President Bush assured us via the signing statement, that intelligence agencies are not obligated to provide any existing intelligence assessments, reports, estimates or legal opinions requested by congressional leaders. Rest assured this would apply to things like his justification for torture and to illegally spy on law abiding American citizens.

Once again, It seems abundantly clear that the will of the American people has little place in the Bush Whitehouse. President Bush seems clearly uninterested in the basic tenets of democracy as outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights as he continues to flaunt his complete disregard for the separation of powers and all that it entails. Personally I am just waiting for the signing statement that pronounces him king.