Two different political documentaries

It’s been a lazy Sunday afternoon in my household and I had the opportunity to enjoy two, very different, yet fascianting political documentaries. The first, from the right, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, which as the name suggests focuses on the Federal governments involvement in the raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco.

The second documentary, slightly less dark, is from a far Left perspective. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman’s documentary, The Party’s Over, where Hoffman attempts to pull a Michael Moore and takes his camera and crew on the 2000 Presidential election circuit, from the training ground of street protesters through the Democrat and Republican conventions and all of the drama surronding Florida. Though a typical Hollywood Leftist lackey, Hoffman does a good job of getting opinions from people of diverse political backgrounds.

I might draft thorough reviews of both documentaries, after I’ve had more time to digest their content, but for now, I’m left with two main observations.

1.) I found it ironic watching Waco:  The Rules of Engagement, that two of the politicians most vocal in supporting the Federal governments actions in Waco were Vice-President Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Their basic response to the entire ordeal was that David Koresh and his followers presented a danger to the American people; therefore, the actions of the Federal government were justified. However, these same two politicians, bitch and moan about detention facilities for terrorists, such as the one in Guatonomo Bay, Cuba, and the “enhanced interrogation” tactics employed by agents of our government.

On one hand, these Democrat politicians support harsh treatment of alleged religious warriors (i.e.  Waco), but in the other instance they decry the use of more human tactics (i.e. waterboarding at Guatonomo). How can justify this hypocrisy?

2.) Throughout the movie The Party’s Over, Hoffman attempts to show that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, both are run by corporate interests and greed. He continually asks the question, “what is the difference between the two parties?” Mr. Hoffman, as someone who has worked actively on campaigns in both parties, I can tell you the main difference, from a philosophical perspective, is the proper role of the Federal goverment.

He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother?

I hate collectivism!

Any movement that seeks to enforce community standards on a group of people rapes the individual of his most precious gift–his self.

For eight years, the nimrods in the Bush administration tried to legislate an extreme version of evangelical Christianity. I am a Christian, an evangelical even, but I don’t want the government legislating the rigid values of certain sect of evangelical Christians. When I wasn’t criticizing the Bush administration for their imperialistic trot through Baghdad, I criticized them for their unholy alliance with bigots like James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and hypocrites like Ted Haggard.

Today, the names have changed, but the game remains the same. The tax cheats in Obama’s gang seeks to force another form of collectivism on us, this one favored by Marx–socialism. Timmy Geithner now thinks Americans have a “deep moral imperative,” to fall in line with Obama’s economic policy.  Maybe then we can come together and all sing, “He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother.”

Are you kidding me? Americans are really buying into this? Do they not see he’s pulling  page out of  Mussolini’s playbook?

Collectivism, whether it be in the form of a planned theocracy or in smiley faced Marxism, runs counter to the very core of this great nation. The Republican Party I grew up in cheerished the rights of the individual and I hope that someday they return to those roots. Until then, it looks like we’re stick with at least another ten years of a government trying to force collectivism down our throats.

Rural/Urban American divide: Part MMMCCLVI

I’m thinking about the election again. After two weeks of trying to process Barack Obama’s insurmountable lead, I keep on coming back to the fact that we’re a divided country. It’s a divide that goes back to the dawn of the 20th Century, a divide between rural and urban America.  Sure, there are other divides (religious, ethnic, etc.), but it’s the rural/urban divide that engenders many of the other divisions. Even that is a little too general–I live in a large urban area, but I oppose Barack Obama.

For the past 8 years, every political talking head in the United States has tried to explain this phenomenon. Many of these hypotheses contain nuggets of truth, but I don’t think one explanation exists. For example, many liberal pundits immediately point to evangelical Christianity, the dominant faith in rural America, as the major force to the division between rural and urban America. Sure, evangelical Christianity plays a major role in the life of rural America and leaves an indelible mark on the lives of those in rural America; however, many people either in rural America or originally from rural America, such as myself, reject much of the Levitical law and social doctrine associated with evangelical Christianity. Again, religion probably plays a part in the division, but it alone is not the answer.

Instead of trotting out several of the old theories and discussing them, I thought I would offer a new theory to the divide between rural and urban America. I spent the first 26 years of life in rural America and the last 4 years in urban America.  One of the major differences I have observed are the range of services provided by urban cities. Most of my friends in high school, lived in unincorporated rural areas where you had to drill your own water well, so obviously public services such as public transportation, trash removal, and public recreational facilities were unheard of. When you live in an area like that, where you must provide your own water, your own transportation, etc., you learn to become truly independent and self-sufficient.  It’s easy to see how a rural American would find many Federal government programs superfluous. Again, if you’re forced to provide your own water, the most basic necessity of human life, why would you depend on the government for anything besides defense?

The city folk grows up in an area with the local government will literally provide for you every need under the right circumstance (water, food, shelter) and also provide many wants (transportation and entertainment), either free or at a cost. It’s easier for the city folk to comprehend a paternal form of Federal government where the “needs” and “wants” of a nation are provided for by a Leviathan-like body. Instead of worrying about where they will find water or health care, the city folkcan focus on activities of leisure. It’s no wonder that he or she would not be afraid of Obama’s efforts to increase the scope of government run social programs.

What’s the matter in Somalia?

When the country Somalia is brought up in casual conversation, it is usually in the context of our short lived military jaunt there in 1990′s. However, over the past two years, Somalia has crept back into cocktail chatter all over the nation. 

In 2006, I published Islami Fascists I and Islami Fascists II on my blog. It never generated much of a response and I got tired of bringing the issue up when people would just ignore it. However, today I had a friend bring up the current events in Somalia. In typical Leftist fashion, he made the Islami-fascists out to be the victims of United States’ exceptionalism.  I told him that if you were to take the Islami-fascist agenda and add the names “Jesus” and “Hashem”, the Left would go crazy and demand military action. Since it’s all done in the name of Mohammed, we must all stand by and praise the direction Somalia is headed. Evidently, sharia law is something we all need to experience.

I thought I would raise the issue once again on my blog and see if we could start a discussion this time. Check out the previous posts on the issue, Islami Fascists I and Islami Fascists II.

Islami Fascists II

 

 

I wrote about this previously, but saw this article on MSNBC this morning and felt compelled to raise the issue once again. 

 

While the Bush administration touts Iraq, the media bombards us with horror stories of a nuclear North Korea and the Democrats talk sex, the Islami-fascists continue to destroy Somalia. 

 

Why should we care?

 

Like the regressive Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the Islami-fascists trying to control Somalia seek to establish a government based on the principles of sharia law. Do we really need another Afghanistan? God knows the average American didn’t even realize that Afghanistan was a country prior to 9/11, much less understand the nature of the religious nuts that ran the country.

 

At least with Somalia there is some recent history.  Sadly, we didn’t finish our mission in that country.  For political reasons, many on the left would like us to pull out of Iraq, just like we did in Somalia.  It’s safe to assume that if we pulled out of Iraq now it too would turn into another Afghanistan or Somalia.  That’s why in spite of my objections to the war in Iraq, I feel it’s imperative that we maintain our presence.

 

Did the Bush administration lie? No doubt…

 

Should we have attacked Iran instead of Iraq? Of course…

 

But it’s too late to second guess.  We’ve left Iraq with no legitimate government and no legitimate army and the minute we pulled our troops out the world would have on more government led by militant Muslims. Let this story be reminder of why, regardless of your political affiliation, we must “stay the course” in Iraq.

Islami Fascists I

A tiny article, buried on Page 9A of today’s USA Today, caught my eye.  Apparently, government officials in Somalia agreed to peace talks with the Islami-fascist militia terrorist group that has long terrorized the country and region.  Evidently, the United Nations caved in to what the wire report characterized as “pressure from the international community” to recognizing the Islami-fascist militia as a legitimate government.  Are you kidding me?

 

• Why Is This Story Not Getting More Publicity? During the summer of 2000, NPR ran several stories regarding a regressive regime in Afghanistan that destroyed centuries old Buddhist statues, closed down all the nations swimming pools and forced all the nation’s Hindu population to wear yellow ribbons around the arms.  I remember bringing these stories up to friends, yet no one had heard about this regime.  A little over a year later, everyone knew about that Taliban, but the damage had been done. 

 

It’s obvious that the Islami-fascist militia in Somalia wants to establish a Taliban-like government in a country that has not known a true government since the early 90’s.  This will create yet another safe haven for terrorists.

 

UPDATE!!! As I write this blog entry MSNBC has posted the following:

From the Archives: April 3, 2005

Please note, this is part two of continuing series titled, “From the Archives,” a series of postings from my previous blog experiments. This post, originally titled, “Our Federal Government: A Primer,” was published on April 3, 2005.

Over the course of the past few weeks, it has come to my attention that many Americans lack a “working understanding” of our government.

Allow me to share some of the “left-wing” education I gleaned in college. Per the United States Constitution, our government is to be divided into three seperate branches, each with equal power, and a system of checks and balances between the three of them.

The legislative branch exists to introduce and make the law; the judicial branch exists to interpret the Constitution and the law generated by the legislative branch, and the EXECUTive branch exists to EXECUTE the law (not people).

With that said, these branches were not created to mingle with one another. The legislative branch has no business in the courts, the courts have no business creating laws, and the executive branch has no business creating laws nor stepping into court decisions.

This is the system established by our forefathers and favored by the liberals; it allows for a truly democratic (with a little “d”) society. It is a system favored by many conservatives (with a little “c”) as well, but not favored by the Conservatives (with a big “C”).

The Big “C” Conservatives are the big government, religious Republicans who wish to legislate every part of your life. I’ve read the Constitution many times and never have a read a part that gives the government the right to legislate morality. The name of God is NEVER invoked in the Constitution. A higher power is never referenced; in fact, Amendment one of the constution begins with, “Congress shall make NO law RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Conservatives have the fale impression that liberals, like myself, want to ban religion. We simply believe religion belongs in church, not in the government or in ventures supported by the government. Conservatives counter with the Bible teaches them to take their Word with them into the world; we fight back with “your rights end at your nose,” refer back to the clause that reads “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION”. I would also refer you to the Treaty of Tripoli in which United States officials proclaim that the United States is not in any way a Christian nation. Biblical rules are null and void in the realm of politics.

With that said, we respect each persons right to worship as theyh choose as long as their “worship” doesn’t violate another person 14th Amendment rights. Since Republicans don’t much care for the 14th Amendment, I will share it with you …”…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, LIBERTY, or property, without the due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Intrepreting the 14th Amendment is where the real split begins in America. It is extremely broad. When a judge INTREPRETS, remember that’s what the judicial branch is prescribed by the Constitution to do, the 14th Amendment as saying that blacks should have the same rights as white people, well a lot of people in the Jim Crow south of the 60′s jumped up and down and screamed “reactionary judges. When courts INTREPRET the 14th Amendment as saying that homosexuals should have the same rights as straight people, Christian extremists jump up and down and yell “Reactionary judges.” Nevermind the fact that the 14th Amendment explicitly defends a persons right to LIBERTY. Websters defines “liberty” as ” the power to do as one pleases”, including sexual orientation.

Of course there have to be restraints, remember the illustration of “your rights end at your nose”. You cannot take from another person, that’s beyond your nose. You cannot harm another person, that’s beyond your nose. It’s called common sense in the absence of religious morality.

We as liberals believe the government’s place is in Washington, NOT our bedrooms. We believe congressmen should stay on Capitol Hill, NOT at hospices. We truly believe in less government, emphasis is placed on PERSONAL LIBERTIES and NOT moral values, again values are oppinion NOT fact.

Now people are going to say, “But Josh, you pinko’s want to raise taxes.” Yes, we do believe the wealthy have an obligation to help out those less fortunate in our society. Our LACK of rules allowed them to HAVE the money they do, some of it deserves to go back to the source to lift others out of the pit of poverty. We also have an obligation to educate our young people. Currently, the United States ranks 49th…let me repeat that 49th in the world in literacy, only slightly ahead of Mexico. Taxes are necessary to fund our schools, help our poor, keep our air clean, etc. If you become rich in the United States, it’s because the law, which represent the people, allowed you accumulate that wealth. This makes the American people collectively, investors, and they deserve returns for their investments. Those returns are called taxes.

From the Archives: August 10, 2004

Please note, the following is the first of a multi-part series entitled, “From the Archives,” an attempt on my part to consolidate my previous blogs. The following entry, entitled, “Fear This,” was drafted following the 2004 Democratic National Convention, on August 10, 2004, and is extremely relevant in this election cycle. It’s amazing how my thoughts on Barack Obama have shifted since that time (see the other posts on this blog). This post will remain here for one week, at which time I will move it to August, 10, 2004.

Throughout the Democratic National Convention speakers referenced the immortal words from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first inaugural address, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” Roosevelt’s words spawned over 30 years of progressive politics, government reform, and foreign policy that made this country what we see today. During this span, from Roosevelt’s first term through the Johnson administration, the United States went from an isolated power in the grips of a “Great Depression” to a shinning beacon of freedom, prosperity and equality for all the world to see.

The policies of this period engendered an internal metamorphosis of the Republican Party, which transformed the Republicans from the “party of Lincoln” to the party of fear. Conservatives launched gratuitous attacks against the “New Deal, “Fair Deal”, and the “Great Society”, pandering to public fears caused by economic and social changes. In a similar fashion, Republicans today feed off fears of an American public caught in the midst of a changing world. The Bush administration understands the simple precepts of fear: Fear is the product of ignorance. Keep American’s uninformed or present only partial information and fear will rein supreme.

Recently, Annie Jacobsen wrote an article for the conservative publication Women’s Wall Street, detailing “suspicious activities” of 14 Syrian passengers on a flight. On the surface, Jacobsen’s article delivers an alarming report on government oversight and inactivity on the part of air marshals, but the questions not asked confirm the true nature of the article. Terrorists proved through 9/11 that with five people they could bring down an aircraft, why sacrifice 14 terrorists on one flight when their numbers could be better divided on more flights and inflict more damage? Could these people be traveling together and wish to associate with each other for that reason? Authorities determined that the 14 Syrian passengers were musicians traveling to a show in Las Vegas-is it not logical that musicians, traveling in a country where people judge them by their ethnicity, would stick together?

While Jacobsen paints a poignant picture of families crying, the stewardess desperately searching for someone to take action, and even Jacobsen’s own “spiritual rebirth”, the article clearly illustrates how many in our nation have become incapacitated by fear. On September 11, 2001, passengers on Flight 93 saw suspicious activity and instead of being paralyzed by fear, they rose to the occasion and saved countless lives in the Washington, D.C. area. Where were the heroes of Jacobsen’s flight?

Republicans hope to incapacitate voters by fear. Not only do they constantly raise and lower the “terror threat level” without giving us hard evidence, but they also issue ambiguous warnings about election terror and are seeking powers to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack. Wouldn’t a terrorist attack be the perfect time for an election? Obviously it would be a sign that our elected officials had failed us.

Perhaps even more frightening are the “social fears” raised by the Bush administration. While our economy continues to sink and our own soldiers continue to die in Iraq, Bush felt a threat from homosexuals who seek to participate in the rights of marriage. They warned American’s that homosexuals threatened the “sanctity of marriage”. Clearly, Bush has never associated with homosexuals and neither have the people who buy into his thinking. Homosexuals present no threat to anyone. The only threat to marriage is marriage itself. Evangelicals try and convince my generation that marriage is the only appropriate vehicle to engage in certain activities. As a result, many young people flock to the altar to marry for the sake of marriage and the honeymoon is short lived, divorce rates skyrocket. Until we dispel the Puritanical myths of the “right” marriage will continue to crumble.

Republicans tell American’s to “fear” Democrats because they will raise taxes. Yes, Democrats do wish to raise taxes but only on those who make $200,000 or more a year and deserve and can afford to contribute more to this great nation. To those of you in the upper class I say congratulations you’ve made it, but with your wealth comes extra social responsibility.

In his acceptance speech, John Kerry said, “The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.” How fitting to close the convention with these encouraging words. The same convention that introduced the world to young, vibrant leaders such as Barack Obama, pushing a message of unity and strength, closes with a message to combat fear in our homeland.

Pacifistic Ponderings!

               

War confounds me!  The simple theory that mass destruction, mass murder, and mass hysteria brings peace, harmony and justice.  This paradox gained more reality throughout the course of the past two weeks due to the terrorist acts we experienced.  Extremists attack our nation; the people grow outraged; the president feeds on emotionalism and charges his citizens for war.  Events, such as the terrorist attacks, require an educated review and assessment not an emotionally charged battle cry.  I fault the United States dealing with the attacks because war will not prevent future attacks; this war is an attempt at an Eastern battle with a Western mindset and the hypocrisy of returning violence for violence.

War cannot prevent future terrorist attacks.  During World War II our nation’s soldiers fought in Europe against a demented dictator.  Wiping out Nazi Germany did not rid the world of evil dictators.  Castro soon rose to power in Cuba and more recently Hussein took power in Iraq.   Terrorist groups run on abstract principles impervious to bombs or special operation forces just as dictators’ feed on the abstract principle of world domination.  It seems to me that as long as the principles exist the acts will follow.

These abstract principles stem from an extreme form of Islam, a subject many Americans are oblivious to.  An attack on Afghanistan represents an attack on Islam.  Attacking Islam results in a jihad.  Western civilizations recognize certain shared values. When a coalition enforces these values by might they become the standard, not so in the East.  Extreme Muslims stand firm on their beliefs.  They realize inevitable opposition threatens their survival and believe that the award of Allah awaits them if they die protecting the sacredness of their faith.  Such devotion creates a stubborn warrior unyielding to reason.  Resolution depends on reason. Thus, attacking Afghan people unleashes a vicious cycle of incessant violence.

The hypocrisy associated with violence returned for violence bewilders me.  Attacking Afghanistan accomplishes nothing except the destruction of innocent lives.  Terrorism is defined as “the calculated use of violence to obtain political goals through instilling fear, intimidation, or coercion.”(Handout)  An Untied States attempt to overthrow the Taliban and annihilate the terrorist groups, through force and fear, is by definition terrorism.   Consequently, each bomb we drop, each soldier killed represents a terrorist act condoned by our government.

 America faces a quandary.   The realization of our vulnerability unleashes an outpouring of fervent emotions.  Acting on these emotions, instead of analyzing the facts and formulating a diplomatic resolution, lacks logic. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960′s exemplifies this philosophy.  Dr. Martin Luther King’s rhetoric moved this nation towards looking past the color of one’s skin.  Similarly, Gandhi’s firm stand against the British government resulted in India’s independence.  When Americans stand united, helping each other in times of need, we defy the intentions of these terrorists. 

I fault the United States dealing with the attacks because war will not prevent future attacks; this war is an attempt at an Eastern battle with a Western mindset and the hypocrisy of returning violence for violence.  Violence accomplishes nothing but ruin.  Peace and love preserve liberty and freedom.