Obama & Congress – Compromise & Consensus – Reid, Pelosi, Sinclair, Rezko, Birth Certificate

Obama & Congress

Compromise & Consensus

Through the years, I have always been a supporter of reasonable compromise in order to see tasks accomplished. However, I have also realized that it is very important to be mindful that compromising has its limits; and to go further insures a very bad taste and may even insure disaster. If people compromise their principles, you wind up with the most fragile of agreements. You do so because if a person is willing to give up their principles for the sake of agreement, how can they be trusted to carry through with the bargain. The goal of compromise should be a win, win outcome with both sides compromising, and not simply an agreement.

Consensus, on the other hand, is nearly impossible to reach when involving more than just a few, reasonably like minded individuals. As Margaret Thatcher has said, “…consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.” If the outcome of a consensus negotiation concerning a particular project is something that no one feels particularly good or strongly about, then it is most certain to die on the vine because enough people will fail to put forth the effort to see it through. (Unless, the reality is that it is a one person show to begin with.)

So what are the parameters of negotiations when it comes to members of Congress doing the Peoples work? Are bipartisan agreements really good for the country? The way I see it, the answer depends on the process that is used.

I believe that three elements are required for this type of process:

One – All of the parties must be negotiating in good faith. They should be trying to reach an agreement that is fair and just, that accomplishes the task at hand without seeking political advantage. Compromise must come from all sides, allowing the parties walk away feeling that everyone has won something.

Two – The parties must not compromise their principles. This is where many of the hard feelings and disappointments come into play. When I see politicians negotiating and seemingly reaching some agreement that appears to sacrifice principles, I almost instantly question whether the sacrificing party is negotiating in good faith or if they had any principles to begin with. I have many times seen the work of Congress accomplished by politicians who hold the long view that implies that they will eventually have the opportunity to get many more bites at the apple and wind up the ultimate winner, blocking out the other side’s interests. (This appears to be the posture of the far left under the leadership of Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi.) If the politician, in reality, does not have any principles, then I suspect they are playing the political game of getting something accomplished and trusting that the public will not find out the details. Negotiating in good faith is the first element in the process.

A ‘No’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better than a ‘Yes’ merely uttered to please, or worse, to avoid trouble.
Mohandas Gandhi

Three – The People’s principals must not be compromised. The people’s principles and interests are set forth in the founding documents of this Nation. The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Amendments to The Constitution are some the most important founding documents. It is absolutely critical that flawed politicians not be allowed to compromise any of the principles set forth in these documents because they are the foundation of America – it’s founding, it’s past, and it’s future. America will not survive if these principles are continuously whittled away at by self serving politicians, like some that we have today. (Pelosi and Reid come to mind.)

I hold with the convictions of President Lincoln when he said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Most importantly, when he proclaimed, “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”

Our founding documents are America. They are the roots, the bark, the trunk, the branches, the leaves of America. They are the tree itself. The tree is America. They are not the tree’s shadow. “Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.” Abraham Lincoln

Today, the shadow of America is the image that America has in the world community and which is held by many of its own people. It is the image that has been created by 24-7 news proclaiming that everything in America is bad and that America is the cause of all the ills of the world. This is a lie, the myth of propaganda, created by the world’s media and political leaders here and abroad that want to undermine this country so they can change America’s direction to suit their infinite wisdom. This is the shadow. It is the tree that is America; and America’s character is Good and Just.

“Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” Lincoln

So, can bipartisan negotiations in today’s Congress meet these standards of true compromise? I don’t think so.

President Woodrow Wilson, one of the founders of the original Progressive Movement, once declared, “Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws.”

President Wilson was and is wrong. Yes, we could possibly blunder through for a time, maybe even a few decades. But be warned, your freedoms would most assuredly be lost or greatly diminished. The government would be all that remains, trying disparately to sustain itself by your sweat and toil. It would be like someone taking an axe to the tree that is America; and with each swing, striking a blow at the Majesty that is America.

Obama’s idea of “Progressive Politics” is the just as dangerous. It is a path towards socialism that Senator Obama is proposing. Taking the profits of certain businesses to sustain the government and its power is an attack on individual liberty. “There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty,” Margaret Thatcher. Over-taxing and over regulating business are failed policies that have not worked in the past. In fact, they mostly do damage. They nearly always cost jobs and economic growth. No matter how good it may feel to tax a vilified corporation, the taxes and costs of over regulation are always passed on to the consumers and effect competitiveness. You and I are the consumers. Vilification is primarily a short term means to achieve power.

Senator Obama’s energy policies will also severely impact our economy. When asked about the high cost of gas, he said that he was primarily concerned by how fast it rose. The way to bring down gas and oil prices is to announce an intention to substantially increase supply. We need to dramatically increase drilling and exploration for oil. We need to be doing the alternatives and building nuclear power plants to meet our needs. The great majority of Americans clearly understand this. However, Sen. Obama in his arrogance knows best and we will continue to pay the price at the pump.

Additionally, Senator Obama’s supporters have been the most abusive, threatening, and hostile group towards opposition that I have ever witnessed or heard about. They have caused blogs opposing the Senator to be shut down. They have made threats of physical violence and death threats against people who oppose Obama. They have made threats against Hillary Clinton’s delegates. The actions of the people who follow a person, sometimes give a clear indication about the person they are following – consider Rev. Wright.

Senator Obama has been dancing on the head of a pin to hide his past and true beliefs from the American people. The media has stood with him every step of the way. They have failed to investigate his past. They have failed to investigate his role in the Rezko mess. They have failed to investigate Larry Sinclair’s allegations that he and Sen. Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual gay sex in 1999. They only started reporting on John Edwards because they could not hide it any longer. The media have allowed him to get away with not producing the documentation that we need for a complete examination of his past and character. The media has allowed him to not produce a legitimate birth certificate, his writings in law school, his thesis, his Illinois bar application, his Illinois Senate records, his medical records, etc. etc. etc…. The media has also helped to downplay any and all past close associations that we have managed to discover.

The growth rings of the tree that represents a person’s character can be thought of as one’s past associations, the roles they play in one’s life, and the individual’s actions.

In 2004, not much was know about Senator Obama.

“….To that blank slate that was Obama in 2004 you can now add the Pandora’s box of Tony Rezko, Allison Davis, Alexi Giannoulias, Kwame Kilpatrick and a long list of members of the Illinois Combine; Nadhmi Auchi, Aiham Alsammarae, Rashid and Mona Khalidi, and Edward Said; Revs. Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Otis Moss III and Father Michael Pfleger; Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam and the 1995 Million Man March; Malik Zulu Shabazz and the New Black Panther Party; William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Marilyn Katz, Carl Davidson, Mike Klonsky and others from the SDS days who are clinging to his coat tails; Jodi Evans; Hamas and other admirers like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Kim Jong-Il, and the Communist Party USA; and the list goes on.

Let’s not forget the ever-growing list of controversies: Rezko house and lot; lobbyists, bundlers, and overseas contributions; Odinga family and violence in Kenya; Soetero family and Muslim schooling in Indonesia; Dunham family in Kansas and Hawaii; and the mysteries of his birth certificate—is he Barry Soetero? Barack Obama Jr. or someone else and was his name ever legally changed?—and rumors about his possible dual or mixed citizenship…” The Real Barack Obama

Abraham Lincoln said, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”

I believe the same about the people when voting for the President. “The great point is to bring them the real facts.” To date the media has failed miserably in this charge. If the American people do make the poor choice of Senator Obama, it will be the media’s responsibility; however, we will pay the consequences.

See the following blogs for more information about many of the issues mentioned above:

CitizenWells

NO QUARTER

TexasDarlin

Obambi

The Real Barack Obama

Obama & Media vs. “Thinking America”

Cult Obama & The Media

vs.

Center Left, Center,

Center Right, Right

“Thinking” America

America came together for a brief time after 9/11. What a good feeling that was during such a tragic time. I think most of America remains regretful that that feeling did not last. So what happened? Why didn’t it last? Well – it seems to me that the far left, with their hallowed mission to impose their view on America, realized that they needed to cool it until a situation arose that they could exploit. What was it? It wasn’t Afghanistan. The mood of America supported that action. Was it the invasion of Iraq? I don’t really remember it that way. I seem to recall the House and Senate speaking strongly in unison for President Bush’s action. I remember hearing over and over, from almost everyone that WMDs existed and action was required; further, most were very worried that if too much time elapsed before invading, Saddam Hussein would move the weapons to Syria. (Surprisingly, just a week or so ago, I read a news article that quoted the former head of Iraq’s post invasion prison system as saying numerous prisoners had told him that that was what had happened.) So what was it?

Looking back now, it seems that the far left’s opening was provided by four very unfortunate decisions which were made and/or carried out after the Iraq invasion; and the emerging reality that no WMDs were being found. The decisions of the Bush Administration and Pentagon regarding how many boots to keep on the ground post invasion and the decision to cull the Ba’ath from the Iraqi military created fertile soil from which to grow an insurgency. The military’s ineffective post invasion planning regarding the need to establish a functioning government created conditions of lawlessness that quickly discouraged the Iraqi people. Lastly, President Bush landing on the aircraft carrier to a waiting “Mission Accomplished” banner created the visual that could keep on giving, and giving, and giving.

So the opening appeared and the far left undertook to exploit the situation to the best of their ability. The media, appearing to have harbored a firm disapproval of President Bush even before his first days in office, found itself in the position that if they played their cards right the vilification process could begin in earnest. First they needed to sell the public on the idea that everything about the Iraq war was a failure. Somehow, the media decided that they would present as little positive news from Iraq as they could get away with. The far left and the media were a match born of resentment of someone who they both considered beneath themselves. The media eagerly embraced their new found role of leadership. The rule was the art of leadership consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention. President Bush and his administration is that adversary. The rhetoric of no WMD, cowboy diplomacy, Rumsfeld, we were misled, the plan was flawed, humvees, IEDs, unjust war, our losses, started as whispers and slowly became a chorus shaping the public imagination. The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. Then Katrina occurred and gasoline was thrown on the fire.

I believe the media, the far left, and the Democratic leadership saw the path to their return to power was by the defeat of President Bush in Iraq. The fact that a defeat of President Bush would also mean a devastating defeat for our military and possible genocide in Iraq was of little consequence. As soon as by one’s own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one’s own right is laid. That is why there was such opposition to “the surge”, no doubt could be entertained that victory was a possibility. Sen. Reid even said the war in Iraq is lost and the media shook their heads in unison.

The American people were being worn down by the media and the Democratic leadership’s constant barrage of negative news and analysis about Iraq. The portrayal of Katrina as solely a function of the Bush administration’s incompetence worked almost flawlessly. They were fully aware of the adage that if you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise. The public was never forcefully reminded by the media that we had not been attacked since 9/11, that numerous terrorist attempts had been thwarted, that the economy was recovering from the recession that President Bush inherited and which was further pounded by Afghanistan and Iraq. The somewhat blue sky of reality was being painted with a brush of doom and gloom on a daily basis. It still is.

Fast forward to 2005-2006 and we see what the media did to put a spotlight on all of the shortcomings of some members of the Republicans in Congress. While at the same time, they downplayed the same or worse offenses committed by Democrats. The media is fully aware that the general public is too busy to investigate the truth for themselves and must rely on them for information. The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category. With today’s 24 hour news cycle they had more than enough ability to shape the news to fit their own narrative. The media made every attempt to turn every Republican into President Bush. Entertainers such as John Stewart, the news source for many younger Americans, joined in with humor and slick productions. Most of Hollywood also joined in to support the message. I must admit, they have been very successful.

Evidence today, Obama and the Democratic leadership are not really running against Sen. McCain, they are running against the mosaic painted about President Bush. Do you really think it is fair, or is it calculated, to use rhetoric such as McSame and McBush? (I suppose it is also reasonable to point out the second front with this tactic: the vilification and identification of opponents with “big oil.”)

Consider for a moment how the press coverage differed for the Republicans, Mark Foley and Larry Craig, when compared to the coverage of Democrats. A major Presidential candidate, John Edwards, is alleged to have a love child with a former staffer and was caught by the Enquirer visiting late her late at night – the media has done all that it can to quash or ignore this story. Sen. Obama is alleged to have used cocaine and engaged in gay sex with Larry Sinclair – the media has refused to report or investigate this story. Rep. W. Jefferson caught with $80,000 dollars in his freezer – the media has downplayed and tried to move on.

Shortly after the Democrats took control of the House and Senate, the Presidential race began in earnest. The efforts of the Democrats and the media to facilitate our defeat in Iraq continued, with the polls still reflecting a loss of public support for the war, that (loss of support) the media had created. There are those who argue that the public’s support was so easily swayed because the public had not been asked to sacrifice for this endeavor. There was no real public ownership of the war. The military and their families were basically the only ones really impacted by the violence of war; and they have always been in favor of staying until the job was done. It seems that the public view was swayed partly because many just wanted to get the negative images out of their living rooms. (It is interesting to note that the public now believes that we are winning in Iraq and the numbers are increasing for those who say we should stay until the job is done.)

Senator Barrack Obama threw his hat into the ring. The media had identified a foe for blame and painted a world of gloom and despair that had infected most of America. Obama came with his bumper sticker chants of Hope, Change, Change We Can Believe In, let’s move away from the Old Politics. The population was ripe and a movement started. The movement grew and the words resonated. Finally, the media started believing that history could be made, the Clintons defeated, and they could be a part of making it happen. They too got on board. All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.

Even though the world is very dangerous today and our economic reality is fraught with vulnerabilities and complications, many appear willing to suspend their reason to be engulfed by the emotion of Obama’s message. I believe. When Obama used emotion for the many and reserved reason for the few an interesting phenomenon started to develop – a sense of faith began to grow within Obama’s supporters. Words built bridges into unexplored regions, regions where hope in a seemingly hopeless world arises. And remember this: he alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. Many of Obama’s supporters are the young; and they have not experienced many real hardships through their short lives and many have not been taught the sacrifices that are necessary to keep our freedoms. The youth have mainly the images from the television; and messages of distress and vilification coming from all corners that shape their view of the world. The world sucks because of America, Bush and Republicans. Unfortunately, the great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.

History has shown over and over that faith in one person can portend the establishment of the cult mentality – just as Jim Jones had the faith of his followers so does Obama. As a result, main stream America is learning that it is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge. My charge is that Senator Obama has been irresponsibly held up as the one, the messiah. The media, which have supported this illusion by not reporting early on about the many legitimate issues which surround Obama, are responsible. They, the media, allowed the blind faith to set in. When support turns into faith, reason goes out the window; and now, I’m not sure if Obama’s hard core supporters would bat an eye at anything that could be revealed. However, there are those Obama supporters who have backed him for various other reasons such as party identity or that it just feels good to be part of history, etc.; but who have not put their thinking to bed.

Senator Obama and the media know that propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. Who’s not for Hope, Change We Can Believe In, or Peace? The use of only one or two simple words is to convey meaning is why the bumper stickers work so well. Everyone can have their own personal understanding of the words without actually knowing the details of Senator Obama’s policies and beliefs, or his planned change in direction of this country towards socialism. He’s for Hope, Change and No Old Politics. Once the faith is firmly established in his followers, facts don’t matter and Obama is able to brush aside most criticism as either old politics or racism.

However, we are now beginning to see a shift occur which is being reflected in the polls. It seems as though the ones who have not become fully infected by “faith” in a flawed politician are starting to reassess their decisions and priorities. This may be occurring because the media has overplayed its hand so much that everyone can see the bias. The media’s bias is being shown brightly by their lack of coverage of the John Edwards scandal and their treatment of Senator McCain. The three news anchors going with Obama to Europe and at the same time barely covering Sen. McCain’s trips overseas violates all sense of fairness. The tingling running up the leg of the host of a prominent media person when Obama speaks boggles the mind.

As Edward R. Murrow wisely stated:

“To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; credible we must be truthful.”

Today’s media is neither truthful nor credible.

Thankfully the Center Left, the Center Right, the Right, and the Center of “Thinking” Americans are waking up and beginning to consider this election as it should be – on the basis of who is the best candidate for America (Not for Europe).

For point of reference, the dark red text in the body of this article are quotes of Germany’s Adolf Hitler. It just illustrates that the art of propaganda is well known around the world and throughout history. However, I do agree with following quote of Hitler – if the U.S. media is going to be allowed to dictate the outcome of this election:

Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be “discovered” by an election.
Adolf Hitler