American Hysteria: Righting the Wrongs of Democracy

Intro: I came across a website this morning that inspired me to leave a comment on their site; having written the comment it occurred to me that this was worthy of being posted here as a post of its own, with a brief introduction. While I'd rather not promote the original website, it would hardly be fair to post my reaction to their material without presenting their point of view … so, if you want to see what ‘inspired’ me, click here – the link will open in a new window. In a nutshell (no pun intended – really) the site is called the ‘American Grand Jury’ and aims at the passing of legislation requiring future candidates seeking the office of president to be required to demonstrate their eligibility to seek said office through the presentation of a valid birth certificate proving that they meet the requirements of Section 1, Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Illustration Copyright by Ben HeineIt is astounding to read the number of invocations calling for the ‘taking back of America’ and how the ‘impostor’ president must be removed. What I must question, however, is the number of others who disagreed with this view and, in November of 2008, decided that Barack Obama was their choice to be the 44th president of the United States.

There are several reasons for which there were hearings regarding the status of John McCain and not Obama - not the least of which being that the powers that be (REPUBLICANS at the time) decided that there was no compelling reason to question the status of Obama’s birth while McCain’s birth in the region of Panama was questionable as Panama was a protectorate, not a state.

This is a situation of pure and simple racism masquerading as political action: people who cannot accept that someone named Barack Hussein Obama can, in fact, be a Christian rather than a Muslim - despite the fact that he attended a school that was Islamic. There is also resistance to the idea that a black man can be qualified to sit in the White House. How dare they pretend to be qualified when there are so many deserving white folk ready to slip into that seat in the Oval Office. Bunk, pure and simple bunk.

The idea of passing legislation to enforce something that is already accounted for in the Constitution is, quite frankly, a waste of the time of the House and Senate - it is a waste of taxpayer’s money to even consider such nonsense. Obama’s BC is on record and was accepted by a right-wing publication before the election - of course, that obviously wasn’t enough for the most ardently right-wing racists who cannot accept that democracy sometimes means the votes of others mean that your opinion is not the prevailing opinion for the next four (or eight) years.

Perhaps you should be looking inward rather than outward to discover why your views have become so anachronistic and ‘out of date’ with the rest of America. How can change come when minds are closed? when spirits are locked in opposition to anything that looks different to what you are familiar with or used to seeing?

Remember, taking care of your fellow man and for the weaker amongst you does not have to be related to communism or socialism, nor does the ’sharing of wealth’ have to be similarly associated: it can be more appropriately related to something called Christianity where we minister to the weak and the sick and the community shares its resources, ensuring that no one goes without anything (Acts).

Obama is not some foreigner trying to make the United States a socialist nation - he is an American Christian who is walking the walk, trying to make the nation move back towards the true vision of Christianity that could be possible if only the people of the nation would wake up, shake of the greed, consumerism, and lust for personal ‘everything’ and be willing to re-evaluate their lives so that all Americans could share in the true American dream: a nation where everyone is guaranteed the opportunity to live without having to mortgage their lives in the event they require health care, an America that does not allow people to die if they have a ‘pre-existing condition’.

Unfortunately, the right-wing would rather eat their young and squabble about meaningless things like birth certificates rather than making the country a better place. No wonder politicians have to keep asking God to bless America - it certainly isn’t something He would do of His own accord.

The above paragraph is where my comment ended: I would add, however, that it seems incongruous to have so many people proclaiming that the United States is a nation founded upon Christian principles, yet it seems completely opposed to living up to the high calling of that label. People do not seem to have any idea as to what it means to be a true Christian, or what Jesus asked His followers to do after He left them, charging them to continue with His ministry. The first Christians did not consider profit to be more important than the life of one of their fellow brothers or sisters in the Lord; they made sacrifices for the ‘body of Christ’ – otherwise known as ‘the Church’. Remember, in the Book of Acts (the ‘Acts of the Apostles’) believers brought wealth to the ‘Church’ and shared their wealth. This was not socialism – it IS Christianity.

2:44 ‘And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. (46) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, ate their food with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Acts 2:44-47, emphasis added)

For the first time in recent history the people of the United States have elected a man to the office of president who actually seems to believe what the founding fathers promised with their fancy words so long ago. Of course, when the Constitution was written, this same man would have likely been consigned to the roll of a slave, not permitted to even learn to read; a true expression of the Christian ethic that the founding fathers embraced. It is time to allow the president to do his job; criticize him for not acting fast enough or for not fulfilling all of his campaign promises, but when it comes to hysterical claims that are as fallacious as the Nigerian e-mail scams, it’s time to put them to rest.

Palin(dromics)

The recent announcement by Governor Sarah Palin that she is going to step down from office in a few weeks has come as a complete surprise to everyone, especially those in the Republican party who were likely looking for an impending resignation from a governor from a state a bit more to the south and to the east of Alaska. While the trials and tribulations of Gov. Sanford were only pushed from the headlines by the sudden deaths of Farrah Fawcet and Michael Jackson (remember Farrah?), he still managed to galvanize the political pundits with his antics and talk of ‘soul mates’ … and then there’s Sarah.

That seems to be the entire summation of Sarah Palin’s political career: and then, there’s Sarah. One begins to wonder why someone would decide to even enter the political scene in the United States, knowing that it means every aspect of your life becomes fodder for the media, when you want to be a ‘private’ individual. The fact that Governor Palin wrote e-mails that vehemently defended her husband’s non-membership in a political party that advocates secession from the Union, for example, demonstrates the lack of connection that she has with that precious thing we call reality. Todd Palin is actually on record as being a member of the AIP for seven years – that is something quite a bit different from accidentally checking the ‘independent’ box on their voter registration forms. Fine, I can understand missing mixing up ‘Independent’ for ‘Alaskan Independent’, but, as this article shows, the registration forms actually say ‘Alaskan Independence Party’, not ‘Alaska Independent’. One must wonder about the level of literacy if this is the excuse that the candidate for VP really wanted people to accept (yes, my husband is an idiot, but I love him).

From the moment Sarah Palin was picked by Senator John McCain to be his running mate for the 2008 presidential election I watched very carefully. While I am not an American citizen it is of great interest to me as a Canadian how the American political system plays out for the simple reason that the American system has a massive influence on our Canadian system, as demonstrated by the recent economic moves made as a coordinated effort by both of our governments. In that light I have taken more than a small interest in the political races, particularly the presidential races, and watch with no small amount of concern as candidates try to convince the most amount of people that they should be entrusted with the running of the nation.

From the first time I heard her speak I was convinced that there was a serious problem with Sarah Palin: it was as though I was listening to someone who had read the dust jacket of a book but had not bothered reading the actual book itself. Her comments were a combination of slogans and platitudes, cheers spoken slowly – hardly anything with any sort of well reasoned political insight. Not to mention the fact that there was hardly ever an issue that was broached – both she and McCain preferred to attack their opposition rather than propose any substantive alternative platform to that offered by Obama – they only wanted to attack, offer connections to ‘terrorists’ and pray that they could cause enough ‘level headed’ people to fear the ramifications of voting in a Democrat after eight years of the ‘safety’ provided by the Republican … well, seven years – there was that unfortunate incident on 9/11 after all. But, fear mongering failed and the people of America saw through the lies of the Republicans, and Sarah Palin.

The Governor that had the highest approval rating suddenly saw things going terribly wrong: she was found guilty of abusing her power, her daughter’s ‘beau’ dumped her – and there were drug charges filed against the mother of said beau … and, on top of that, Governor Palin could not resist the temptation of continuing to talk to the press … something that had never really worked out all that well for her during the campaign (unless it was an ‘interview’ on Fixed News or Fox Noise – one of the ‘friendly’ channels).

Perhaps, then, it is true that Governor Palin has decided to leave the office of Governor simply because she feels there is more that she can do to effect change outside of the constraints of the political office to which she is currently tied. With 18 months remaining in her term, however, it seems odd that she would leave her office and expect to land as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election. After all, the last election campaign was about as long as one could imagine – and as a sitting president it is not likely that President Obama is going to begin his re-election in 2010, the job is simply too demanding (though, as I understand it, the process for re-election never really ends once elected – but the candidate himself doesn’t exactly get too invested in the process while in office).

What Palin’s plans are is anyone’s guess: there were even whisperings to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that this announcement from Governor Palin marked her permanent departure from politics. If that is the case perhaps there is probably much more to this story than we have been given, more that will be revealed over the next few days, weeks and even months. Investigations, after all, continue whether or not that individual remains in office. If there have been any wrong doings by the Governor that need to be addressed, perhaps this resignation came as a ‘pre-emptive’ act in the hopes of mitigating any potential future acts.

We will have to await the results of the autopsy.

Happy Independence Day … and a belated Happy Canada Day!

Proper Criticism vs Anti-Semitism

During the first day of an anti-racism summit at the United Nations a number of nations walked out during the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he called the State of Israel a “cruel and repressive racist regime” to a conference on race. Now, before we get carried away by the rants of the Iranian President, who may need a medication adjustment, take one moment to consider this: the United States decided to not attend this conference when some nations proposed that “Zionism” be considered as a form of racism. Canada joined several other nations who were too cowardly to consider this truth, including Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands ... oh, and Israel.

The important thing here is that Ahmadinejad made his comments, prompting about forty of the delegates – mostly from western European nations – to leave their seats in protest, but his message was still heard by many and reported to the world. Unfortunately, the reporting of this event is coloured by President Ahmadinejad's past comments in which he has denied facts about the holocaust. The walkout was prompted by Ahmadinejad's description of the relationship between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, “They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.”

Another thing that was said seemed to be just about as concise an observation of the situation taking place in the State of Israel as anything else that has been said in the past sixty years: “... [I]n compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.” Not unexpectedly, the United States condemned the comments as being “vile and hateful” while the Vatican, an organization with 2,000 of human rights atrocities as their gift to humanity called the speech “extremist and unacceptable.”

But is that all there is to this? Should we dismiss the comments of Ahmadinejad simply because we want to think of him as some crazy Islamic fanatic? No, that is not how it ends; it cannot end here. The problem is, Ahmadinejad is right. No, the Holocaust happened, of that let there be no doubt, but the idea that the State of Israel is supposed to be the representation of God's promised land to His people, that is a myth that must be dispelled, along with the idea that the Zionist agenda is anything less than a form of racism with the genocide of the Palestinian people as the ultimate goal in order for the Zionists to ultimately cleanse their “Holy Land” of all non-Jews.

Before going any further into this discussion and allowing any confusion to set in, lets establish something of a foundation as to the difference between being critical and voicing that opinion and being hateful towards something or someone. Ask yourself this question: can you be critical of something or someone without hating them? Be honest, now, can you look at someone you love and tell them that you disagree with them and then explain why? What if one of your friends, or a relative, committed some heinous crime, would you encourage them to turn themselves in – to do 'the right thing', even if it felt like a difficult thing to do? These are difficult things to ask, but they go to the moral core of who we are as people. As moral beings we learn from the mistakes we make through life and from the critiques and criticisms that we receive from the teachers and others around us who care enough to point out what we can do to improve ourselves, to make us better members of society and better citizens.

Could you imagine for one second that when your mother or father corrected you, dare I say criticized you, as a child, did that diminish their love for you? Of course not – in fact, people usually only take the time of criticizing things that they really care about, otherwise they wouldn't bother taking the time to do so. If you were critical of the United States during the Bush administration (or any presidency) does that make you an anti-American or are you merely in opposition to certain policies of the government of the nation? Personally, I am a Canadian and I have been in disagreement with the policies of the Canadian government on many issues over the past several decades, but that does not change my love for this country, nor would I want to live anyplace else; it merely means that I want this country to be better than it currently is, I want Canada to live up to the promise that could be, if only the politicians would stop their partisan bickering and started putting the people first rather than the special interests that put them into power.

If you are honest and are able to say that you are at odds with a particular government and not the people then you are well equipped to judge between authentic anti-Semitism and the vile rhetoric used by many to protect inherently evil positions. It is important to understand that this is the true foundation of democracy; knowing that you are allowed the right to voice your ideas and opinions about the laws, leaders and the operation of the government without fear of reprisal for having an opinion that may be contrary to the official beliefs of the government, and that you, as an individual citizen, have a voice in the choosing of that government through your vote. Any nation that cannot suffer the indignity of facing criticism or being examined for its domestic policy, a policy that includes apartheid-like activities, active military oppression of a civilian population living within their borders, and multiple incidences of civilian “collateral damage” taking place during “defensive” operations, should seriously consider the century in which they live and the actions which they have been taking for the past several decades. There is no place in this wired world in which we live for the type of secrecy that allowed tyrants like Hitler and Stalin to carry out their malicious acts under a curtain of silence. It is no longer possible to control the flow of information as was done during the time of the Second World War and the cold war when people transmit news to websites and blogs at the speed of “twitter”, virtually as quickly as it happens. Propaganda has become something that once was called “spin”, often pathetic attempts by “official spokespeople” to put the “cat back in the bag” after the world has already seen the live images from several sources. It does not work.

If the State of Israel, and those who profess to be Zionists (or their supporters), had their way in regards to the flow of information at the U.N. conference in Geneva, Ahmadinejad would have been stopped in his tracks: the uttering of anything that could even be remotely interpreted as being “anti-Israel” would automatically be classified as being racist and, as such, would not permitted in a U.N. conference, let alone a conference on the elimination of racism. However, the glaring truth of the matter is that Zionism IS, in fact, a form of racism in several ways and, particularly in light of the recent events in Gaza, it has been demonstrated as an ideology devoid of anything but self-interest in their agenda coupled with a near manic defense of their “right” to protect their homeland from the people from whom they stole that land.

There is a serious problem when you begin to examine the Zionist position of “defense” of their land as a justification to use violence against the Palestinian people. It seems difficult to argue against the desire to retaliate when someone has launched a rocket into your settlement and it lands in your backyard or crashes into a school. These are terrible, tragic events that must be stopped; innocent lives lost are never things that seem justified, and they can never be compensated, nor can any act repay the loss that the survivors may be feeling. While some may desire revenge that can only lead to more acts of aggression and that, in the end, only leaves more innocent lives ruined, more people mourning, and more people seeking some sort of retaliation. Ultimately, if you follow the saying “an eye for an eye,” the entire world is left blind. It is time to restore the sight to the blind.

The idea that Israel is carrying out the violence against Palestinians to defend their land is laughable on several levels, especially if you have seen any of the photos or videos that were taken from the most recent Gaza conflict. What weaponry did the Palestinians have to threaten the Israeli Army and Air Force with? With what could they have hoped to shoot down an IAF F-16 or F-15, planes that can fly faster than the speed of sound, drop laser guided munitions (stand-off weapons – the plane does not even have to be near the target to drop the bomb), and other “smart” weapons that land within a few metres of their targets? An AK-47? Even if there were thousands armed with the ubiquitous AK, they could not scratch the air force; unlike the movies, it is not possible to shoot down a jet with a machine gun (unless the bird is flying about 500 feet off the ground and you are the luckiest shot in the world).

Let's face it, if you are critical of the ACTS of the Israeli government that does not make you someone that hates Jews. An anti-Semite is, by definition, someone that hates Semites. Semites are people of Semitic descent: Arabs and Jews. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Semite is defined as 1a “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples 2: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.” [Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew] Now, if you hate Arabs for whatever reason, you are an anti-Semite (don't say, “but, I have an Arab friend ...”). You cannot hate some and like one as a token. Hatred is hatred, it is insidious, entering our being until it controls our every thought and action, guiding our lives until we our its slave. This is the root of Zionism: hatred of the Palestinian people.

The lessons of the Holocaust came at such a terrible price, the highest that could be paid, but what value are those lessons if they are squandered by those who have inherited that which came out of the ashes? The idea of creating a place – a safe place – for those Jews who wanted to leave Europe after the Holocaust seems now like an idea that may not have been the best conceived idea. One must ask, why would people who had just escaped extermination merely for being who they were not want to live in peace with their new neighbours? Why would they choose to adopt national policies that seemed more related to what they had just escaped rather than aiming at developing a true democracy in which every person living in the State was granted equal rights under the law, all the rights granted to a Jew: anything less is something called institutional racism and, quite frankly, is disgusting as it mirrors what was done in Nazi Germany after the Purification Laws were passed. Jews were denied all basic rights as German citizens, even if their families had been living in Germany for generations and had served in the military during the First World War. With the stroke of a pen, and a crooked cross, they were all disenfranchised. They became un-people.

This is the case, today, in the State of Israel. As a result of the placement of the settlements throughout the land that was promised to the Palestinians it is virtually impossible for these un-people to travel freely without being harassed by the countless Israeli checkpoints. They cannot travel to their jobs, to school, and there have been several cases where patients have died because they were denied access to essential medical care. Does this sound like the actions of a modern democratic nation or like some monstrous, “cruel and repressive racist regime.”

Image 'copyleft' by Carlos Latuff
Ultimately, the criticisms of Israel must not be dismissed under the flag of racism by labeling them anti-Semitic. There happen to be many Jews out there who do not agree with the actions of the State of Israel, we are not being anti-Semites ... I do not hate myself. As for President Ahmadinejad and his remarks, we must be careful; he was correct in what he said, but he is also someone who plays to the extremist movement in his country and is running for re-election in June and has been receiving criticism for the floundering Iranian economy. All of the anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric is fine for the press coverage, but it hasn't done a thing for the global isolation of Iran, resulting in high inflation and unemployment. For Ahmadinejad to earn the votes of the most radical voters in Iran he must continue to spew his invective and racist brand of anti-Semitism, if only to show that he is a leader that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately it only turns him into a caricature.

More than that, because a world leader mixes legitimate criticism of Israel with such highly charged language and denial of such historical things as the holocaust it makes the job of criticizing Israel all the more difficult for the rest of the world. We must show that our criticism is based on facts, not emotional reactions to things. Calling people names does not accomplish anything, save for demonstrating the level of maturity that is not present at the time.

Now we must find a way to clearly communicate to the world that the message is not about the Jews, nor is it about Israel, the message is about the way the government of the State of Israel is handling (or mishandling) the situation with the Palestinian people. Why are Palestinians not allowed the right of return when they have lived there for generations? Why are their homes seized and destroyed, without appeal, to make room for illegal settlements? Why to so many questions ... and so few answers. Ultimately, the answer is: things must change. They must. Not, “yes, we can”, but, “we must change, we must”.

Ultimately, there comes a point in time where something either change its ways and adapts to a new way of life which allows it to move on and survive, or it fails to adapt to change and it subsequently dies. We must change, we must.