Every President Needs His Billie Carter...

Apparently Barack Obama is no exception to this rule. There are already two candidates driving hard for the hoop to fill that role and win the coveted spot on on Obama's coat tails.
The first out of the gate this week was one of the country's most tallented and loud-spoken race baiters. None other than Louis Farrakhan

Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.

"That's why you have never heard me make any comment," he explained. "I love that brother, and I want to see that brother successful. I don't want to say anything that would hurt that brother, and I don't want them to use me or the Nation of Islam."

Returning to the theme that Obama is a mystical figure, Farrakhan said, he "is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not necessarily Satan's work, that is, I believe, the work of God."
link

I love it that he says he has shied away from commenting because he doesn't want to say anything to hurt that brother... he doesn't "want them to use me or the Nation of Islam." Like the mere act of opening his mouth in support of anyone doesn't cast a pall over them in the public eye!

Hey Dr., if you really want to hook a brother up, you should just shut the fuck up!

This next part is my favorite.

"anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies,
religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not
necessarily Satan's work. "

Not necessarily? WTF is that supposed to mean? Apparently all those good sounding things are the tools of the Devil, the White Devil I think is what he means.

Gee Lou, ... thanks for the endorsement. I guess.

Not to be outdone, out pops the patron saint of opportunism, Rev. Jesse Jackson. Not one to let his previous indiscretions with an open mic impede his boot-lickin', Jesse weighed in on the life and times of Barack Obama in the way only another oppressed and down-trodden black man can:

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter."
But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the
family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's
daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step
in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."
But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black? Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says.

"Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain." link

".. a neighbor, or better still, a member of the family." I get the feeling that was supposed to be inner dialog. He was weighing which was the best way to paint their relationship to the outside world and his thoughts just kinda slipped out!

My personal hope is that if Barack Obama wins this election, his victory serves as the nails in the coffins of both of these douchenozzles' perceived cultural relevency. The rhetoric of rage and oppression, one that Obama does not preach, is precisly what needs to end in this country. It benefits no one and serves only as an impediment to hope.

Socialists Are Taking Over The Country

I heard the clip below in the car on my way home from work and thought; What a douche!

Basically this cheesehead is mad because people aren't voting the way he wants them to.  In the words of Randy Marsh, "Isn't this America?  I thought this was America?"  

What I find exquisitely amusing is that he's doing it at a rally for the man who recently proposed the largest socialisty action I can think of.  McCain is proposing to buyout the mortgages of those who over bought and then let them refinance at a reasonable rate.  Where do you suppose the money to do this will come from?  It's coming out of our pockets regardless of the methodolgy.  Either they're taking it in taxes or they're printing the money to do it which will devalue our currency so regardless we're fucked!  

Here's the Douchenozzle in action:

McCain says:  "Americans are angry sir.  They are angry and frustrated."

No shit moron!  That's why the Right is losing this election.

Then he launches into voter fraud.  He's already hedging!

The thing that actually disturbs me about this guy is that he is serious in saying that he thinks the will of the people is being thwarted.  There are people out there who think their idea of how the country should be governed supercedes that of the rest of the voting public.  They are the Timothy McVeighs of this country.  

Cindy McCain Can Talk!?!

Dammit! There goes so many men's fantasy of the perfect woman.
Let's break it down:

• She's hot
• Her dad owns a huge beer distribution company
• She's rich as hell
• She never talks

Well we can scratch that last one! Apparently she managed to squeeze out a few words without cracking her makeup the other day, and here's what she said:

Barack Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."

As Sheila B. would say: Wha-Wha-What!?!

This coming from the woman married to John McCain. The McCain campaign has done almost nothing but criticize and tell outright lies about Obama. Oh well. What can you do.

Here's the story:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N50180&show_article=1

Why It's OK, Even Preferable, for Conservative Christians to Vote Democrat

This is a little different from my normal fare. Please bear with me...

It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that if you are a conservative Christian you will vote Republican. As near as I can tell the only two reasons for this are abortion and prayer in schools. These issues will not be settled by the Executive branch of the government. It is only through the striking down the legal precedents or through constitutional amendments that these can be changed. Of course the other avenue would be to stack the Supreme Court with jurists whom we believe would vote a certain way. That is a tricky job however as judges can not and do not vote their conscience, they tend to stick to the constitution and vote accordingly. What other reasons are there for voting Republican if you are a Christian? Are there reasons you shouldn't vote Republican? Where is the balance?

The Republicans believe that we should give tax breaks to the richest people in the country and allow "Faith-based" groups to take care of the poor. Does it make sense for the burden of the country's poor to fall on the minority? The percentage of people in the U.S. who identify themselves as Christians, according to a 2000 Census Bureau report make up 47.4% of the population, with Jewish people at a scant 2.2%.** Clearly there is no way that Faith-based groups can take the place of the Government in caring for the poor in this country. There is no doubt that these dollars could be spent more wisely, but the burden has to fall on ALL of the taxpayers!

There is precedent in the words and deeds of Christ and his disciples that giving to the poor was preferable to being wealthy. The one notable exception was his words to Judas about the poor:

12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
(King James Bible, John)

So I guess that means if you happen to have a prophet in your midst who is about to be killed, you don't have to feel bad about springing for the name brand Root Beer instead of the Fanta. Fair enough.

OK, a few more quotes:

14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
(King James Bible, Luke)

18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

------

19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
(King James Bible, Luke)

There's a consistent message here: The poor need the help of those who have more. This translates pretty easily into a socio-economic theory that takes into account that we are, in fact, our brothers' keepers. Prior to 1929 no one in this country had ever seen a complete monetary system collapse to the degree it did. In the early days of the USA we always had the British pound to fall back on when the Continental currency collapsed. Perhaps the only close event took place in the Confederate South after the Civil War when their currency became worthless. The difference again was that there was a stable alternative, however thin on the ground it might have been.

The Founding Fathers did not include any sort of social programs for the poor. This is a fact. Countless other things were not accounted for as well. They left it up to the Legislative branch to make the necessary provisions, which we eventually did with the New Deal.

The Republican Party like to refer to the New Deal programs as entitlements. That word has a pejorative connotation as it implies getting something for nothing. Charity is also getting something for nothing. There is a difference between a gift and a favor. A gift is given with no strings attached. A favor is something you do for someone with the understanding that they owe you in return.

Jesus did both. He healed people, multiplied the loaves and fishes, etc. Those were gifts. When he told the prostitute "Go and sin no more." that was a favor. He expects her to clean up her act.

I wouldn't deign to suggest that Jesus would be a member of one party or an other. My guess is that He would not affiliate himself with either party. I would expect that He would be in favor of helping the poor and for the rich to be the primary engine of that help. The Republican party demonizes anyone who advocates for the poor by referring to their programs as entitlement-based, as Governor Palin did in the recent Vice Presidential debate. Do you think Jesus would demonize those who advocate for the poor?

Jesus worked at ground level. Face to face with the people. Like a social worker. He had nothing. The apostles gave up everything at His request to follow him. Wealth was not on their radar. Now I am not suggesting that having money is bad, on the contrary! But I do know from my own experience that there is no better feeling than the one that comes from helping others. I gladly pay my taxes knowing that there are people out there whose children are being fed, and whose basic needs are being cared for. I volunteer as well because you can't just throw money at some problems.

If you are still balking at the first paragraph, remember that as a constituent, you have a voice in what your elected officials do, be they Republicans or Democrats. In the end, wouldn't you rather align yourself with the party whose goals are closer to the words of Jesus than one whose goals are just to save you a few dollars in taxes?



** http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0076.pdf

See photo