A Boston Tea Party ...(Chug-a-chug-a-choo-choo)

I have been writing over the past couple of months about the Democratic "Train Wreck". This is a continuation of that theme. The followng is sung to the music of the song "It's My Party" by Lesley Gore.

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

Nobody knows where my coronation has gone
But my experience should have worked this time
Why does Barak now hold the upper hand
When the nomination was supposed to be mine

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

Then all my advisors keep me awake all night
But attacking is all I can do for a while
Till Barack is even with me
I’ve got no reason to smile

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

Michelle and Barack just walked through the door
Like a queen with her king
Oh what an unexpected surprise
I am losing this thing

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

My experience is what sets us apart
So I embellished when I said I ran from fire
Why is it such a big deal
You would too if your situation were dire

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

Time is running out
They say I have no chance to win
Pennsylvania must come through
Or I will be left to think of what might have been

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

Don’t they see the truth about his church
When he speaks most cheer and others feint
The media refuses to be fair
I swear it’s as if he is already been ordained a saint

It’s my party and I’ll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to
You would lie too if it happened to you

Oh-oh-oh It's my party and I'll lie if I want to
Lie if I want to, lie if I want to.....

A Boston Tea Party ...(Savior Or)

I was impressed. I was optimistic. Now I am just confused. In the beginning it seemed Barack Obama was a different black candidate for President. He ran a campaign without raising old racial arguments. It was admirable and for that reason I was impressed. It was the Clinton’s who tried to make race an issue. This followed their mantra of anything to win. Obama beat the Clintons by offering a different path than the past. I figured since Obama and Clinton really didn’t differ much on the issues, if we were going to have a liberal President, it might as well be the guy with class. I thought if an Obama victory were to happen at least we would have put the race issue behind us. I was optimistic. Now, I am confused.

After the news of Mr. Obama’s reverend over the past week and his speech yesterday about said reverend I don’t see race relations getting any better anytime soon. I agree with Obama when he said, “We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow…This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.” I also agree when he states, “Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch.”

In his speech Obama told us he is in a unique position to understand both sides of the racial divide because he has a black and a white parent. He said his family is made up of people of all colors. He even has a grandma who has made insensitive racial comments in front of him. Again, this seems perfectly plausible, but it is also where I start to get confused. It is now been shown on YouTube and being reported by media that Reverend James David Manning of the ATLAH Worldwide Church in Harlem on February 16, 2008 called Barack Obama the devil for having been born by a white mother. So is he a savior or the devil?

We have two Christian reverends, Wright and Manning, preaching disgusting themes. They are each fueling racial stereotypes against both white and black people and their congregations are standing up and cheering them. On several news shows over the past few days I have seen well educated black religious experts equivocate when asked if they believe the U.S. government intentionally gave AIDS to black men. I think it would certainly help race relations if this type of preaching were eliminated. It has been an eye opener for much of the American public.

We might do well to have Bill Cosby talk to some black reverends. Don’t hold your breath; however, he has already been labeled an Uncle Tom by many of them. Obama would stand a better chance to be President if he belonged to the church of Cosby than the Trinity United Church of Christ. He is neither a savior nor the devil. He is just a man. He is also another politician who made a bad choice. A choice that grows increasingly less impressive with each passing day. A choice that shed a bright light on one of the reasons why there need not be much optimism on the progress of race relations in this country regardless of who is President.

A Boston Tea Party ...(America's Choice)

There has been a debate in the Democratic Party over who is better prepared to answer the phone in the White House at 3 a.m. In her commercial Hillary Clinton said she has the experience to take such an important call. Barack Obama countered Hillary’s commercial with one of his very own. He said he was the best candidate to take that call because of his ability to use proper judgment in a crisis situation. Well, it didn’t take long to poke a hole in that argument. Barack Obama’s poor use of judgment should disqualify him from being President of the United States.

Barack Obama has been attending the same church for twenty years. Yes, that is twenty years not twenty days or twenty months. It can therefore be said that in Barack Obama’s best judgment this church made him feel comfortable. The length of time he spent as a parishioner there provides a reasonable person with telling evidence about his views.

I am not naïve enough to think Churches like Trinity United Church of Christ in his hometown of Chicago don’t exist. I am certain there are hundreds of them throughout the United States. I am also certain this church does many community works that help its neighborhood and region. People have a right to attend this church or any church or even no church at all. I do believe he cannot attend this church with this type of minister for twenty years and continue as a candidate for President.

If Barack Obama were a Republican his candidacy would be over, because he is a Democrat well, not so much. Although he is leading the Democratic Primary race, his close association with an anti-American minister he has called his spiritual mentor should be all that is needed to choose Hillary Clinton. She is running an extremely close second so it really should be a no brainer. I have said to friends that if I had to choose between the two candidates on the Democratic side, I would choose Obama. I want the Clinton and Bush years to be OVER. I am tired of the dynasties. Obama’s poor judgment over the last twenty years has changed my mind.

It is said who one has as friends says a lot about you. The Obama’s were married and had their children baptized by their minister, a very closed friend. Their minister was also on his election committee. Barack Obama knows his minister very, very well. He also is well aware of the anti-American views of his minister. I would even suggest Obama has used his minister’s views as a type of “street cred” with his constituents. The somewhat controversial statements of Michelle Obama during this primary season now have a totally different context to them after hearing the rantings of their long-time minister. It is just a hunch but I think there may be many people in that congregation who are finally in their adult lives proud to be Americans.

American Presidents have often had ministers counsel them during difficult times. The reverend Billy Graham has done so for many Presidents. It would be a national disgrace for Obama’s minister to visit the White House in such a manner. The Left has demonized the current President, George Bush, for his open Christianity. These same people are telling us Obama can sit in the same church for twenty years but doesn’t have to share the views of his minister. While contradictions such as this are commonplace in politics, candidate Obama is supposed to represent a new kind of politics. He says referring to the preaching of his minister is just politics as usual. This is a tactic that should not work.

Obama believes his judgment about not going into Iraq shows us he has what it takes to be President. It is my belief that now his national AND personal judgments show us he is unfit for the job. People are free to worship in the church of their preference but Presidential hopefuls face scrutiny about all their choices. For twenty years Mr. Obama has made his choice. America’s choice should now be between Clinton or McCain.

A Boston Tea Party ...(Jordan Didn't)

A few weeks ago I wrote about the train wreck I hoped would take place for the Democrats during their primary season. (see the original article here: http://conservativeharvest.blogspot.com/2008/02/boston-tea-part-ending-is-obvious.html#comments) Now a month later it seems potential Armageddon is a near certainty. In the previous posting I commented on how the disaster would take place but I think it is worth discussion how such circumstances would even be allowed to be possible. One issue shows us how a Democrat thinks and the other why it is hard to stomach most politicians.

Disenfranchisement of voters is a calling among Democrats. As various scenarios are discussed Democrats are finding that inconveniently math does not lie. The proportionment of delegates is going to result in neither Barak Obama, the leader, nor Hillary Clinton getting enough delegates to win the Democratic nomination. Discussions are now underway to figure out how to count the votes in Michigan and Florida, the two states who were penalized for moving up their respective primaries. I heard people in the Democratic Party on the Sunday morning TV talk shows say it is not morally right to not count the votes from the citizens of the two states. The question I have is when did it not become morally right to not count these votes? Was it not immoral as soon as the penalty was placed on the states of Michigan and Florida?

If one is concerned with the disenfranchisement of any voter then we should have heard an outcry on December 1, 2007 when the Democratic Party leadership decided to unseat Michigan delegates and even earlier when Florida was penalized. While the Michigan and Florida state politicians argued for legitimacy, there was no outrage from the national leadership under the stewardship of Yee-AAA Howard Dean. Fast forward to today when the error of the penalty is so obvious, we now hear arguments of morality. Disenfranchisement took place the minute the penalties were issued. It is my belief the most moral thing to do would be to live by the rules stated at the outset of the primaries. Democrats are now doing what they often do feint moral outrage when it is politically convenient.

Shallowness in politics from either party should not shock anyone. Political aspirations often equal political opportunity. We see another example of this in the issue of super delegates and their importance in deciding who may be the Democratic nominee. I find it convenient that they get to make their final declaration of support after the average citizen casts his/her vote. I find this insulting. Super delegates are made up of leaders of the Democratic Party. Shouldn’t super leaders take the lead? If you lead should you not be the FIRST to cast your vote? What a wonderful way of showing you unwavering support for someone or something then to cast the first vote. This open, gutless, and expected political maneuvering is an indictment of all politicians. It reaffirms why we receive so little leadership from them.

Because they didn't vote first the Democratic Party’s super delegates are scared stiff of having to be the judge and jury of their primary results. It wasn’t supposed to be this way. They expected to cast their vote for the winner except now they aren’t sure who the winner is. If there is any justice these super delegates will have to cast the deciding votes for the Democratic Presidential nominee. If you are super then you shouldn't run from taking the last shot just like Michael Jordan didn't. We of course are talking about politicians so we should expect them to figure out a way to never have to be put in this situation again. The politicians of today don’t lead. They don’t have the backbone to go first and despise casting the deciding vote.

A Boston Tea Party ...(A Slogan)

Barack Obama wants change. John McCain says not all change is good change. Hillary Clinton says change only works if you can really produce change. Change, change, change…change…change, change…change, change, change. I have a one-word answer for anyone expecting change and that word is SHEEP.

The next President of the United States is guaranteed to be a senator. I believe the Senate is the last place we should look to find a new executive. The Senate is an exclusive country club made up of career politicians. While governors work on creative ways to advance their respective states, the Senate is where major legislation goes to die. Senators are full of pomp and circumstance and prestige. They use words like “my esteemed colleague from” or “the honorable Senator from”. On a tour of the capital a couple of years ago I noticed people were not allowed in the Senate chambers while they could sit in the House chambers. Most Senators end up as lifers with incumbency reelection rates at well over eighty-five percent. Career politicians prefer the status quo.

Incumbency rates continue to climb through the use of gerrymandering and the ever-increasing financial advantage of the incumbent. We have also allowed our federally elected officials to create two types of people, those who get some sort of financial aid from the federal government and those who do not, for your information I fall into the latter category. Many however do not. Our politicians favor increasing the number of those who do receive financial aid because it helps with the path to reelection. If a voter has on a ballot an incumbent whom the voter disagrees with on the issues one hundred percent but that incumbent provides strong financial support to the voter in the form of pork, subsidy, or some other redistribution, it is the incumbent who will more than likely get the vote. Politicians know money trumps all other social or fiscal issues.

It is the unwillingness of the American people to elect new politicians and the preference of our politicians to spend an entire lifetime in office that make any chance of “change” a pipe dream. A single President cannot change the culture of Washington. Instead, change must come from the American people being less like sheep and more like a Sheppard. Imagine if only fifteen percent of all incumbents won reelection, would not change then be much more possible? Politicians have a favorable rating of less than thirty percent on average yet have no major problem in getting placed back in office. Evidently, it is always the other politicians who are terrible but not your own. My hunch is some financial “attachment” is involved that makes your guy worthy while some other politician is scum.

Every time I hear some politician say how all he/she wants to do is serve, I want to throw up. It is the lust for power and financial gain that keeps these people in office. They work every waking moment in order to remain in office. How many of these people would pay to serve rather than the other way around? I think a truly genuine and sincere form of serving one’s constituents is to limit one’s time in office so that another citizen may also serve. Would that not be a much more honorable form of public service? Would we not have more respect for our politicians? Would it not result in actual “change”? Would it result in the same financial benefits to constituents? Until Americans realize there are hundreds of thousands of people who can serve equally as well as any incumbent the word “change” will remain just a slogan. A slogan sheep follow blindly.