Back Into The Swing of Things...

First off, I am sorry for my absence from news-blogging. Summer is the perfect time for extreme procrastination.

Anyway, to get back to the news, there seems to be the small little thing called the "Birther" movement, where loonies (even Ann Coulter has labeled them as crazies) claim President Obama was not born in Hawaii since he has not released an official birth certificate. Some are willing to go so far as to claim Obama was born in Kenya, which would mean he is ineligible to act as the President of the United States and is guilty of a federal conspiracy.

I've watched a couple of videos of these "birthers" defending their positions. I am now dumber for watching them. I award them no points, and may God have mercy on their soul.

In a shocking surprise to me, it was Mr. Do It Live himself that puts everything in perspective. Bill O'Reilly summed the situation up: the Republicans, not Obama supporters, are hurting themselves for even letting this "Birther" movement get this far out of hand.

As O'Reilly states, the GOP actually has somewhat of a decent hand to play with right now at the political poker table. Consider the facts in the 6 months of the Obama Presidency:

• Obama's approval rating has declined since his inauguration
• Obama's stimulus bill getting passed, but the economy has not yet recovered significantly
  
• Obama's not getting the healthcare reform passed, despite a Congress that is controlled by the Democrats
• Obama's racial problems with the Henry Louis Gates case

Of course, the Republicans aren't invincible or anything, but their political position should be strengthened by these mishaps by President Obama. And yet what's making the headlines?

"A Certificate of Live Birth isn't the same as a Birth Certificate" and similar blah blah blah from the far right. These nutjobs can't get over the fact that Barack Hussein Obama won the 2008 Presidential Election. It's over. He's the President of the United States, deal with it. (Besides even if somehow Obama could be impeached for this, would "Birthers" really want Joe Biden as the President? McCain and Palin wouldn't be declared the new winners if this Birther-conspiracy was true anyway.)

Conservatives need to do just what liberals did when George W. Bush was President -- accept it and move on. You want to bring down the big government plans of Obama and the Democrats? Do what Bill O'Reilly says: "DO IT LIVE"--er not that, sorry--"Come up with better ideas than the Democrats." Simple as that. Until the GOP dump these "Birther" loonies and follows O'Reilly's advice, they won't be contending for political power seriously anytime soon.

In the words of Mr. O'Reilly himself: the Republican Party right now? "FUCKIN' THING SUCKS!"

Shimkus Uses God To Ignore Global Warming

In the last post, I wrote about President Obama’s missteps in regards to religious issues. I concluded that people should not be criticizing the President or the government based on religious differences alone. There were some mixed reactions regarding this stance, and I can understand it. Politics alone is a touchy issue, let alone mixing religion in there, too. Nevertheless, I still stand behind my opinion. Coincidentally, this issue of religion in politics came up again during the topic of global warming and what the U.S. can do about it.

Former Vice President Al Gore and Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich sparred off at Capitol Hill last Friday over a bill that would endorse sweeping climate change reform by Congress. Gore, the Noble Prize winner behind “An Inconvenient Truth” which highlighted the severity of the global warming crisis, urged Congress to find the “moral courage” to pass what he claims as “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in the Congress.”

On the other hand, Gingrich responded by calling this bill a future energy tax to be paid by Americans and major power move for the Energy Department. “Make no mistake about it: This bill amounts to a $1 [trillion] to $2 trillion energy tax levied on a struggling economy, which is destructive and wrong,” Gingrich said. However, Gingrich does believe that global warming is a factor in current weather trends. In addition, he also has outlined his own alternate climate change plan that is not as bold as the current bill, but would take some action against global warming.

Personally, I am in favor of changing the laws to protect the planet from global warming. However, I respect Gingrich’s position that whatever budget allotted for this program must be spent meticulously – similarly to the banking bailout, if the funds are not watched carefully for this program, the costs can easily skyrocket. Both arguments made by Gore and Gingrich were interesting, well-researched, and relevant to the issue at hand.

Unfortunately, I could not say the same thing for another point of view from U.S. Representative John Shimkus, who sits on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. He spoke a couple of weeks ago when this climate change bill was first being drawn up. He essentially argued that since God will destroy the Earth, global warming cannot be a threat to the planet.


In his discourse, Shimkus (above) cited Genesis 8: 21-22 about the Biblical flood and stated for the record that: “…the earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”

And here I find myself in the same position as I was last time – discouraging those who use religion solely as the basis of augmenting a political position. The only reason Shimkus does not believe in global warming is, in a childish sense, because ‘God said so.’ Is this the type of reasoning we want making the laws of this nation – just because ‘my religion told me so?’ At what point can intellectual reasoning be the foundation of the laws we seek to establish instead of just someone’s private religious beliefs?

In a recent news report by the Discovery Channel, researchers published their results of an expedition to the Himalaya Mountains in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. They found that the Himalaya mountain glaciers are currently melting faster than what was predicted. Some of the experts even claim the glaciers could disappear in as fast as 15 years. Hundreds of millions of people depend on these glaciers as their water supply. Former Democratic National Committee Chairperson Howard Dean responded to this alarming report: “We can’t avert this crisis … it’s not our grandchildren, it’s us.”

It is clear that global warming is becoming an issue which the U.S. government needs to make a decisive move on soon. Whether it is the sweeping reform presented in the current bill in Congress being backed by Gore or the limited, economically-friendly outline by Gingrich, the U.S. needs to start taking the proper precautions to combat climate change. But as long as the debate on this important problem facing the planet does not focus on shallow religious-based arguments, I will not be complaining about it.

This article was published in The Collegian, La Salle University's student newspaper.

Obama Cannot Answer Religious Fanatics

Some may consider President Barack Obama to be the “Savior” the U.S. needs in this tough time, but has he gone so far as to replace Christianity in America? Many Christians believe this to be true, after President Obama delivered a speech at Georgetown University, where the White House staff requested that all religious images of Jesus were to be hidden while the President was to be onstage.

It seems that since the 2008 election, religion continually comes back to haunt President Obama. First it was whether or not he was Christian or Muslim during the campaign. Obama also had problems with his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Then during the first eleven weeks as President, FOX News reported that Obama had not gone to a single church service since his inauguration.

President Obama took the religion issue further into question, when earlier this month during in a press conference in Turkey, President Obama stated: “One of the great strengths of the United States is [although] we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

Now, with this controversy at Georgetown, Obama adds another thorn in the sides of many Christians and their view of the President’s beliefs about religion. After 8 years of President George W. Bush’s conservative Christian policies, Obama has wrecked havoc on the religious front. There is so much disdain for Obama, not just on his religious blunders but also on his stances of pro-abortion and approval of same-sex rights, that many right-wing fanatics believe he is out to destroy the country and some even go far as to call him the Antichrist.

There is only one problem with this line of thinking. Is there not supposed to be a separation between church and state? The beginning of the First Amendment guarantees that: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” It should not matter whether or not Obama is Christian or not. If America is truly a free nation, then why would it matter if the President was Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or even a non-believer of any religion? American citizens should criticize on what Obama does with the government from an objective viewpoint, not whether Obama handles his own personal beliefs in the correct Christian manner.

However, the second part of that Amendment also guarantees no law that is: “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Therefore, people should have the right to say whether or not the President should be Christian or not. It is this Amendment where the duality of protecting our beliefs and our opponents’ views lies. Go ahead and critique what our government is doing – it is your right to do so.

I would encourage readers to keep an eye on President Obama is doing; after all, he may not be the complete “Savior” his voters expected him to be. But if you are going to criticize Obama or the government solely based on religious differences; do not expect me to be standing beside you.

According to a Pew Research Poll, one in ten Americans still believe that President Obama is a Muslim, which is undoubtedly false. The troublesome fact – this survey was not asked during the election; this was done in March 2009, two months into Obama’s presidency. An even more startling fact – one in five Caucasian Evangelical Christians thought Obama was Muslim. Americans still do not know who their President is exactly, and it appears to be that some are not even willing to find out the truth about Obama. Perhaps for these Americans, ignorance is bliss. Nevertheless, it is further proof that religion is a major problem that President Obama cannot seem to answer to the American public.

This article was published in The Collegian, La Salle University's student newspaper.

Stewart Creams Cramer

During the week La Salle had its Spring Break, the television pundits had no vacation from playing the blame game on the poor state of the economy. The big feud that the media has mainly covered, and to some degree has promoted, was between the host of CNBC’s “Mad Money,” Jim Cramer, and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” host, Jon Stewart.

The tension started when Jon Stewart did a commentary on CNBC financial editor Rick Santelli’s rant about not bailing out failing mortgage holders. Stewart not only criticized Santelli, but also delved into a six minute presentation on the mistakes that all CNBC shows had made regarding the stock market and the American economy in the recent months. Cramer took offense to this, and yelled that Stewart was just: “a comedian…who runs a variety show!” After verbal assaults on one another, Stewart invited Cramer to his show and devoted the majority of last Thursday’s episode on their debate.

In this showdown, which “The Daily Show” dubbed “Brawl Street,” Stewart turned from being just “a comedian” to a serious analyst on the economic reporting during this recession. This undoubtedly threw Cramer off; at certain points, Stewart looked more like the financial expert rather than Cramer.

Although Cramer did the best he could to defend his network, Stewart ultimately called out CNBC’s miscues on covering the economic problems in the last months. Stewart stated that the job of watching the state of the economy should lie within the financial news reporting and further said that “the financial news industry is not just guilty of a sin of omission but of commission.”

Cramer turned into a bumbling mess after this point in the interview, as he claimed that CEOs had lied to him on his show and that any information provided by them on “Mad Money” was not his fault. Stewart rebuffed that this is where Cramer should have done his share of research to dig deeper behind the quotes and that the information CEOs said to promote their corporations was actually correct – “I’m under the assumption that you don’t just take their words at face value,” Stewart said.

Trying to deflect this point by Stewart, Cramer noted that there are limits to what he can do as an economic commentator. However, Stewart countered with: “As Carly Simon would say, this song ain’t about you.” Stewart was not just answering Cramer’s argument with this statement; he was criticizing the media and their role in this financial collapse. The fact that the media is starting to take the government at its word and not question it is the main issue behind Stewart’s critique, which have seemingly been overlooked in this battle between Stewart and Cramer. Stewart has highlighted the problems behind CNBC and the financial news networks and their failure in not warning the people about the troubles that were going to doom the economy. From now on, these news agencies need to elevate the quality of their reporting, or else they can expect to be the next joke on “The Daily Show.”

This article was published in The Collegian, La Salle University's student newspaper.

GOP Divided At CPAC

Following President Barack Obama’s de facto State of the Union speech to a joint-session of Congress, conservative activists such as Senator Ron Paul, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and writer Ann Coulter, attended the 36th annual Conservative Political Action Committee, CPAC, over the weekend.

After the Democrats’ victory in the November elections, the GOP seems to be in exile, as President Obama has expanded the government, especially with the signing of his stimulus package into law. Since Obama’s inauguration, the Republicans have been put in an awkward situation – either they work with the big government ideologies of the Democrats, or they stick to their conservative principals and continue to fight against President Obama and what his supporters.

In response, the Republicans, conservatives, and others that are against President Obama’s policies seem to have been fragmented into three different groups that seem to have been highlighted at the CPAC.

The first group consists of people who are going to continue to be outright against President Obama and the Democrats. This faction within the GOP is looking to Rush Limbaugh as their leader, who received the Defender of the Constitution Award at the CPAC. Limbaugh has publicly stated that he hopes that President Obama and his agenda will “fail” and has also asserted that the Republican Party in general has been reluctant to challenge Obama since he has become President.

The second group mainly comprises of moderate Republicans and those that believe that the Republicans can still work together with the Democratic majority in Congress. However, this faction was relatively unheard at the CPAC. Support has dwindled for this crowd since the passage of the stimulus package, in which Democrats only needed three Republicans to go along with the stimulus bill and they made sure got those three crucial GOP votes. To many Republicans, this was a sign that Obama’s message of bipartisan politics in Congress were untrue and that resolutions between the two parties were unrealistic.

The third group is usually labeled as the Libertarians or Constitutionalists, as their main goal is to see a small federal government. Therefore, they are against President Obama’s widening of the executive powers; yet, at the same time they cannot find support from the Republicans, who want to see civil regulations (i.e., gay marriage, abortion, etc.) and a strong national defense. This section of the conservatives were notably represented at the CPAC by Senator Ron Paul, who spoke about how both parties are not acting according to the Constitution and have thus devalued the reputation of the U.S. in foreign relations, civil liberties, and the economy.

So, where does this leave conservatives? The future is definitely not easy for them; as it appears that President Obama and his new administration looks to continue its liberal policies. The Republicans cannot even realistically challenge in 2010, since more Republican senators’ seats are up for grabs instead of Democrats. Instead, the conservatives must wait until 2012 until they can try to regain control of Washington D.C. again with both congressional and presidential elections. Even then, however, the prospect of a revival in conservative ideals and values looks bleak in America.

This article was published in The Collegian, La Salle University's student newspaper.

Barack Obama Is The Next President -- Get Over It.

Well, look-ee here! It's the upcoming 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. While I will give props to McCain to running a valiant campaign, I must get this off of my chest:

All republicans, conservatives, and Nobama-ers, CHILL THE F*CK OUT! Barack Obama is going to be a different president than the ones we have seen before. There will be change. GET OVER IT.

Stop being dramatic, you tight-asses: Barack Obama is not going to destroy this country.

Now, I'm not saying that as a Gobama fanatic. I do not belong to either party and I consider myself a moderate. Obama will be handling the issues facing this country in a very different manner than before, but that doesn't mean it's the end of America. If anything, it might provide the solutions we need. Now, I know what the latest criticisms are. Here's the ones I actually do agree with (just to establish I can criticize "the Messiah"):

• Being "The Messiah" -- Yeah, some people are viewing Obama's victory as to end to all of our problems. Well, it won't be. The real work begins January 20th at noon, when Obama finally takes the Oath of Office and starts dealing with the issues facing the U.S.
  
• Forcing kids to do community service -- If Obama tries to do this, there will be a backlash against helping others in society. I'll give you Nobama-ers this one.
• Meeting Under "No Pre-conditions" -- Obama shouldn't have mentioned this. I am a big fan of Theodore Roosevelt, and of course, one of his major beliefs was to 'Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick.' So, I will also give this is the Nobama-ers.
  

Now, to all the people that say this:

• "Socialist Redistribution of Wealth" -- Don't you think it's unfair that the top 1% of this country owns 50% of all the money/goods in America? Screw those wealthy assholes. They can afford to give a little more back to society. Trickle-down ecomonics used to work when the rich would give money back to the U.S. Economy; but, now they keep the money. It's time to end this.
• Obama's Not Experienced -- No. You try running a presidential campaign facing the relentless press every single day for 2 years, having to defeat the biggest leaders in your own political party (especially knocking off Hillary Clinton), then finally winning over the American public against the other party's candidate. Oh, and you got to do all of this being a minority and promoting a liberal agenda. He's got experience as far as I'm concerned.
• He's Weak on Foreign Issues -- He might be. That's why he's got Biden as his Vice President. (By the way, what the hell was Palin picked for...to help change McCain's diapers?) Obama is trying to use diplomacy and peace first, instead of fighting. You know, THINKING instead of acting recklessly.
• "He doesn't really love America." -- How f*cking stupid are you?
  

I know, some of you are still going to hate Obama for the next four years and will refuse to get over it. For you, I would just like to mention this quote from Obama when he gave his victory speech on Election Night.

...And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.

Whether you like him or not, Barack Obama is your president. And he loves America just as much as you or I do. That's how I know he's not going to destroy this nation. If he sticks to the agenda that he ran on, there's no reason why he shouldn't be a good president.

Powell Power!

I told you I would write another blog during this mid-semester break, so here we go:

On Sunday's "Meet The Press", Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under George W. Bush from 2001-2005, officially announced he would vote for Barack Obama in this upcoming presidential election. Although Powell served under three Republican administrations, he is supporting Democratic candidate Obama because of the disturbing turn that the Republican party and their candidate John McCain have taken during this campaign. You can see Powell's endorsement for Obama here.

My Points:

• Sure, this doesn't guarantee a victory for Obama or anything. In fact, McCain gained a point or two over the weekend in the national polls. However, this is more a blow to McCain rather than a boost to Obama. This shows how some Republicans are jumping off the Straight Talk Express or whatever the hell that stupid thing was called. Some Republicans are actually thinking about the future of society and are realizing this guy is not the President we need in the White House right now (and it sure as hell isn't "Bimbo" Sarah Palin). Four more years of conservative politics will lead America into more turmoil than it will have ever faced before. The United States simply cannot afford it.
• Powell didn't really mention it, but sort of touched on this (and I agree with him on this) -- The far right scares me more than the far left. You can make the argument with this: who would be a better President -- Sarah Palin (far-right bimbo who actually tried to get books out of public libraries about evolution/darwinism in Alaska) or Barack Obama ("the most liberal Senator in the last two years"). Keep in mind that McCain is 72 years old, so Palin could actually become President, which scares the sh*t out of me. What's the worse Obama has done -- done pot and cocaine in high school? Middle name is Hussein? Obama is not that bad of a politician. Sure, he will raise taxes...FOR THE WEALTHY! Not for the 90% of Americans that don't make over $250,000 a year! Obama is easily the better choice over Palin. Sling that Palin bullsh*t somewhere else.
  
• Powell also brought up the fear that Obama might be Muslim (which has been proven over and over again, Barack Obama is a Christian). But, it shouldn't fricking matter. We live in a government where there is a separation between church and state! If Obama was an atheist, I would still vote for him. Religion should not play that big of a role in deciding who should be the next President of the United States. When it comes to politics and deciding what's best for the nation, we shouldn't be Jewish or Christian or Muslim, we should be Americans first and foremost.

In conclusion, Barack Obama has the Powell Power! (bad joke there...) One more thing: since Powell came up in the news headlines, you should check out this George Carlin joke. Anyways, we'll see how the next two weeks goes down in this history books!

"McCain = Bush" Dangerous?

Finally, I'm taking a break from sports. You know there's a presidential election going on? Yeah, I kind of forgot about it, too, with all the hoopla from the Favre trade and the Olympics.

Before I start my post off, please recognize that I am for Barack Obama in this election. Do not complain to me that this article isn't neutral because, chances are to most McCain-iacs, this article will seem like it has a negative disposition towards McCain. It probably does. That's your warning.

Now, then, to the story. Republican presidential nominee John McCain loves to hold his "open" town-hall meetings, where he can address individual questions on the spot. On July 7th, 2008, McCain held another one of these "open" town-hall meetings in Denver, Colorado. You understand the word "open"? Free for the public to come and ask their questions in a non-dangerous manner, free from possible censorship?

A 61-year-old librarian was walking into the "open" town-hall meeting that day, only armed with a sign that simply read: "McCain = Bush." That's all. She didn't have any Obama stickers, Democratic Party pamphlets, cool T-Shirts, laptops, internets, kids, or, you know, anything else that could be conceived as anti-McCain. All she had was her sign.

Well, McCain's security decided that this 61-year-old librarian was a threat to his well-being at the town-hall meeting and promptly asked her to leave or be charged with trespassing (on an "Open" town-hall meeting? Doesn't sound very open to me...). She refused, and was actually issued a ticket by Denver cops, who had just shown up to the scene, citing Trespassing as the crime and with a court hearing. The police then ordered her off the premises immediately or be arrested. By then, the 61-year-old librarian decided enough was enough and headed out of the town-hall meeting.

Here's my points on this:

• This lady is 61 years old. Shouldn't McCain be respecting the people that are most likely going to make up his voter base?
• What was the worse this 61-year-old librarian could do, hurt McCain by asking him to critically think on today's issues? Reminding McCain that he is, in fact, history?
  
• Her sign read "McCain = Bush." Now, that is a popular tactic to make McCain unappealing to voters. However, think about it like this. Bush was the last two-term Republican President since Ronald Reagan. Bush was hailed by Republicans as being the right leader during 9/11 and the War on Terror. Bush was deemed as one of the few world leaders to be religiously faithful. Shouldn't McCain have some honor for Bush, especially considering he's running as the Republican nominee? If Bush is so low on respect, then why were Republicans loving him back in his first term, and why should we support McCain now? It isn't a good sign when a political party is shying away from its last elected president.

Folks, I know I am for Obama in this election, but the moves that McCain has been making don't seem to make that much sense to me. McCain is running for the office of President of the United States, one of the most important jobs in the world, and it seems to me he is just in this election to make sure the status quo remains in Washington, D.C. We'll see how he does come November.

Example Of What My Posts Will Be Like

So, here's an example of what I want to do with this blog. I'm thinking of sticking with this kind of style when I write an entry. Feel free to comment if you think I'm right with this method or if you think I'm doing it completely wrong. I wrote this piece back last Thursday, but it's worth mentioning on the spots of the blog (bad play on the word blogspot, in case you didn't get it). Anyways, here it is:

I needed to respond after I saw this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cit-XeYs9dw&feature=bz301

I knew right-winged Fox News was against Obama, but I never thought it could get this bad...

For those that don't want to view this video, I'll explain it. After Barack Obama won the Democratic Nomination, he hugged his wife and then they did a "fist-bump" celebration. Although to the majority of rational and sane people this was just a common physical expression and nothing more than that, some viewed it differently...VASTLY DIFFERENTLY -- as Fox News actually declared this "Fist-Pump" between Barack and Michelle Obama quote: "A Terrorist Fist-Jab!"

OH NOES!!!! BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES OF AMERICA!!! GO TO DEFCON 1! OH MAH GAWD!!! GRAB YOUR BIBLES AND PRAY TO JESUS!!! THE TERRORIST FIST-JAB!!! IT'S A DEVASTATING KNOCKOUT MOVE!!! SAVE ME JEBUS!!!

Seriously, folks. Some people think McCain is being harshly criticized in his campaign. At least he's getting criticized for the issues. Obama's being called a terrorist at every damn turn by the right just because he's liberal and his middle name just happens to be Hussein. Hey, McCain-iacs out there -- if McCain's middle name was Hitler, would you still vote for him in 2008? Throw that middle name bullshit out the window. That's is not a valid point in selecting our U.S. President, and neither is this "Terrorist Fist-Jab" incident. It sounds like a bad name for a finishing move for Muhammad Hassan when he wrestled in the WWE.