Catholic Dogma and hypocrisy on Obama visit.

America Inc. revisited.

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1981 revitalized America Inc.—the merged assets of corporate, political and personal greed—that had been somewhat dormant since the 1930s. At the same time, a credible survey of University seniors, revealed in anonymous responses that large numbers of our potential future leaders were cheats. Significantly, the champion cheaters were business majors with 86% of them admitting they cheated.

President Reagan’s embrace of the 1930's trickle-down economics and his simpleton mantra of “government is the problem”not the “solution”struck a responsive chord in the hearts of millions of American voters. They loved his cue-card homilies, his welfare bashing and his deregulation fear mongering.

I mattered not that Reagan led us to abandon our progressive tax structure so as to enrich the wealthiest among us. It mattered not that Reaganomics increased our national debt from 2.5 % of the national economy when he took office—to 5% by the time he left. (The interest payments on the that debt went from $69 billion in 1981 to $169 billion at the end of his administration.)

It also mattered not that two years into Reagan’s first term, we experienced the worst recession since the great depression with an unemployment high of 10.8%.In short, the Reagan presidency started American Inc. on the road to our present destination.

We look back and see a path of unbridled greed, littered with corporate carcasses like Enron, Tyco, and Author Anderson--- that were once guided by corporate felons.

The zenith of de-regulation and the facilitation of corporate-political greed came under the aegis of George W. Bush, his evangelical right wing base and the Republican party. Texas Senator Phil Gramm led the charge.

After the 1929 stock market crash, Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act that would separate commercial banks from investment banks (which deal with speculative trading and mergers) and thus encourage market stability.

In 1999 Senator Gramm shepherded a bill through Congress that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act allowing commercial banks, investment banks and insurers to merge—think Citibank, Travelers Group, Smith-Barney, etc. Then after George W. Bush’s election, Gramm slipped an amendment into an omnibus appropriations bill titled Commodity Futures Modernization Act. It deregulated derivatives trading and exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight----think the current economic disaster and the Enron debacle.

Meanwhile Un-curious George inherited a $236.2 billion surplus, spent over $500 billion in Iraq and walked away leaving a $1.3 trillion deficit. The Republican hypocrisy is palpable!

America Inc. roots.

In my opinion there is an important lesson to be learned from the current crisis caused by America Inc.—there is no such thing as compassionate conservatism. Notice: I did NOT say there is no such thing as A compassionate conservative.

The difference being, generally speaking, that conservatives of the Rush Limbaugh, Reagan, Bush, etc. species may, indeed, have their personal, individual compassionate moments and act them out to the benefit of another less fortunate individual.

However, they are not inclined to support compassionate efforts that require a collective financing beyond the abilities of a few individuals—particularly if those efforts go towards aiding others who are judged as lacking in total motivational skills.

In calculating the motivational math for their “boot straps” philosophy, the “compassionate” conservatives frequently do not factor in the lack of education, the bias of race and sex, IQ, the negative environmental influence—nor the stunted mental acuity any or all of these may have on an individual or group.

In their calculating, there is no consideration that some fellow human beings are not as mentally-emotionally swift as the rest of us--- but still have similar dreams and aspirations.

Hence, it is the fault of those who sign up for balloon mortgages they can’t afford, that caused the housing collapse.

Back To The Future with the GOP.

American values??

Captives were routinely beaten, slammed head first into walls, forced to stand for days, with their arms shackled above them (the John McCain experience in North Korea)–and some were waterboarded.

These are not words about some third world dictatorship. These are the words about U.S. policy--- from a leaked International Committee of the Red Cross report----as a result of their access to 14 “high value” detainees after they were transferred from overseas CIA “black sites” to Guantanamo.The report concluded that the Bush administration treatment of al-Qaeda captives “constituted torture”.

Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou, who led a CIA team that interrogated al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, confirmed the use of waterboarding and considered it a form of torture.

The U.S. Army Field Manual classifies such treatment, including waterboarding as torture.

These interrogation techniques are a violation of the Geneva Convention, an agreement the United States has signed and pledged to uphold.

The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Convention .

Four military prosecutors at Guantanamo have resigned under protest over the rigged “legal” system established by the Bush administration.

What excuse is even remotely adequate to justify not pursuing an investigation and prosecution of those in high office that have led the United States down such a path?

Meanwhile, back at the asylum---

Hypocrites at work!

Watch dogs who watched it all!

According to the Ft. Myers, Florida News Press editorial opinion, investigating and pursuing the lawless behavior or the Bush administration, should be viewed as a “fruitless partisan vendetta”. Even as the editorial presents its case for doing nothing, it concedes its speculation “that such transgressions occurred”, justifying them as “essentially policy” decisions.

Therefore the editorial logic is that illegal wiretapping and torture should not be investigated or prosecuted because those in authority that facilitated and executed the “transgressions” were merely following policy orders. This was the Nuremberg defense (“we were only following orders”), that the U.S. and the world so eloquently denounced at the post war trial.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have conceded authorizing the use of “harsh” techniques that included waterboarding. Waterboarding is defined as torture by the Geneva Convention, common sense and the Army Field Manual.The War Crimes Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress, makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions.

A U.S. district judge, in a stinging indictment ruled that President Bush’s domestic spying program violated the U.S. Constitution. George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley points out that if that decision is upheld on appeal, the President will be guilty of 30 federal law violations.

The real question is whether we, as the world’s leading democracy, are assuring our future by abandoning legal values and principles--- if their enforcement (defense of) includes the uncomfortable investigation and prosecution of those that we elect to uphold those very values and principles.

The answer lies in what separates us from dictatorships.

Republicans to the rescue!!

The Wall Street Gang

First day....refreshing change!

What's wrong with this picture?

Let's see if I"ve got this straight...

George Bush rewrites his legacy and apologists defend his administration with the justification that "We have not had a foreign terrorist attack on American soil in the seven years since 9/11." True, but conversely, we have not had a foreign terrorist attack on American soil in the seven years PRIOR to Bush’s election. By this measure, one could assume that President Bill Clinton was equally as accomplished at protecting us from foreign terrorists as President George Bush. Oops! That can’t be right! I forgot—George Bush WAS President when we had our first foreign terrorist attack. Wouldn’t that mean that Bush did not protect us as good as Clinton?? It is all so confusing!!

Words to be judges by.

As George Bush, not known for his verbal or mental acuity, flies off into the Texas sunset—he leaves us with this little jewel to contemplate: " Now is not the time to water down standards or roll back accountability."

He was referring to his No Child Left Behind law—but if President Obama and democrats in congress are serious about repairing the damage that the Bush administration has done to this country, they should take his advice and apply it to the Bush "legacy."

Start by upholding the clear "standard" that we are a country of laws and no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. George Bush was in direct violation of the law when he authorized warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance of thousands of Americans and enlisted the help of private telecom giants to facilitate the illegal acts. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor declared Bush’s domestic spying program unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedures Act, the doctrine of separation of powers and the First and Fourth amendments to the Constitution.

Then, uphold the American "standards" embodied in The War Crimes Act of 1996, which makes it a felony to violate the Geneva Conventions. Here, again, Bush elevated himself above the law by declaring that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to his "war" on terrorism and signed off on torture techniques lifted from the Chinese "training" manuals used by North Korea on captured Americans.

And what about upholding the "standards" that apply to the abuse of power? Bush declared that he had the power to detain and imprison anyone, including American citizens, indefinitely—while denying them legal council or contact with the outside world.

It would seem that the role of accountability is not in the lexicon of the buzz that emanates from democrats in congress or the Obama administration as they undertake their role as keeper of our "standards".

Richard Nixon resigned when his impeachment was imminent and left us no model for dealing with lawless presidential administrations. Indeed his final words on his behavior were that if the President breaks the law "that means it is not illegal!" Apparently, that is the only thing we have learned from Watergate.

Catch 22 in Illiniois!

Curly,Larry, Moe & Blitz

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Rewriting History

Elephant speakes with forked tongue!

Deregulation Trickle Down

This ought to teach him a lesson!!

A new day in America

I grew up as a young boy where water fountains were for "Whites Only".
I went to schools that were for "Whites Only".
I sat in movie seats that were for "Whites Only".
The first political cartoon I drew for the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News was about a Governor who stood in the doorway of a University and announced it was for "Whites Only."
I was seated at the lunch counter of Woolworth in Greensboro when five African American university students were told it was for "Whites Only".
Election night, I watched American voters remove that sign from above the entrance to the office of President that read "Whites Only".
Wednesday I awoke to a better country and to a world that will be better for it.
Bill Sanders

White House Transition Tour

Presidential Election 2008

President Elect

Palin Fairy Tales

Lee County, (Ft. Myers, Fl) Sheriff introduces Sarah Palin with dig "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"

Bull-hocky mom!

Candidate Palin unleashed!

84,000 jobs lost in August

GOP Convention tidbits

Watching interviews with female delegates was interesting in that when asked how they felt about Governor Palin , they were enthusiastic about nominee's personality and her story---their response echoing the party line almost verbatim---which is to be expected. However, every one of the delegates interviewed expressed admiration that Sarah Palin demonstrated her strength of conviction by choosing to have a baby after being advised it would have down syndrome---which was true. However, the irony of that observation was completely lost on the interviewee as well as the media interviewer. If Vice President Palin had her way, no other women in America would have a choice.

The McCain-Palin ethics crusade and straight talk express got off to a shakey start. First, Governor Palin described how she disposed of previous governor's corporate jet, saying, "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on e-Bay", clearly implying she sold the plane that way. Straight shooter McCain told a Cedarburg, Wis. audience his favorite convention story saying, "You know what I enjoyed the most, she took the luxury jet bought by her predecessor and sold it on e-Bay----for a profit!!" Great story, except it is not true. The jet was put on e-Bay, got no takers and was sold later to one of Palin's campaign contributors for a $600,000.00 loss.

In the story that reported Palin's fraudulent assertion, her spokeswoman, Maria Comella, insited that Palin had indeed sold the plane on e-Bay. Rudy Giuliani repeated the story in his prepared speech at the convention and the video tribute to Palin included the statement that she "auctioned the governor's jet on e-Bay." A campaign spokesman finally acknowledged the plane was not sold on e-Bay but "it was a symbol of corruption" and Palin's actions "sent a strong message...". That's true! You can't trust what either Palin or McCain say.

Governor Palin also repeats the mantra that she opposed the bridge to nowhere, saying "thanks but no thanks" to Congress. We now know that she campaigned supporting the bridge and only abandoned that position under the heat of publicity. She ultimately took the millions in pork barrel money for the project and spent it elsewhere---she who is going to reform Congress of its "big spending" habits. No wonder the McCain straight talk express is not going to allow his dynamic running mate to submit to being interviewed by any media types ---with the possible exception of Bill O'Riley or Rush Limbaugh.

What is with these righteous evangelicals anyway? Fellow traveler, Mike Huckabee said with a straight face that Governor Palin received more votes for the Mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden did in the presidential primaries. Good line---got a lot of cheers. The problem is Joe Biden received 79,754 votes and Palin received 909. Shame on you Mike. Don't you know lying is considered a sin in some quarters?

The 2008 Republican Convention

The morning after Sarah Palin’s speech and her acceptance of the number two spot on the Republican ticket, the associated press reported that a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan had broken away from the northern arctic. Scientists described it as a "shocking event that underscores the rapidity"of the effects of global warming.

The story is a prefect metaphor for where the Republican Party is in relation to reality and the 21st century.

If this convention is a precursor to the future of the Grand Old Party, it is destined to be one made up of predominately white males and evangelical fervored women with a radical right wing social agenda. Delegates were 93% male, 5% Hispanic and 2% black. With higher numbers than the last two conventions, 2008 completes the morphing process that began with the Barry Goldwater candidacy.

The 2008 Vice Presidential nominee is absolutely perfect for her constituency and John McCain. She denies global warming. She opposes abortion under any circumstances----no exceptions. She would ban books that she deems unsuitable from libraries and would fire librarians who balk at her judgement. She opposes sex education in schools and believes that the Iraq war is "a task of God."

The convention speeches on John McCain’s treatment as a prisoner in North Vietnam were emotionally wrenching in their tragic details. Ironically, that treatment, as horrible and repulsive as it was---- would not rise to the level of torture under the legal advice solicited by George W. Bush concerning the treatment of "enemy combatants".

Advised that he was not bound by the Geneva Convention, Bush was also advised that interrogation techniques that did not result in death should not be considered torture. The Vietnamese might well have been using the same "play book" for interrogation as the U.S. has been using on detainees----a verbatim copy of one written by Communist China and used by North Korea during that war.

Interestingly, the only voice present at the Republican Convention that has spoken out against the interrogation techniques of Guantanamo and foreign "retention" prisons was that of John McCain.

We heard a lot of stirring patriotic speeches and viewed a waving sea of "country first" signs. Implicit in its tone was that Obama democrats do not put their country first, nor share the patriotic imperative of republicans. Sarah Palin smirked that "unlike some" (presumably Obama), John McCain "chose to fight" in Vietnam. One must wonder if she is aware that Barack Obama was about seven years old when McCain "chose to fight"?

Meanwhile, as cheering McCain-Palin patriots wrapped themselves in the American flag, millions of Americans were wondering if they could scrape up enough money to pay this month’s mortgage or buy a tank of gas----much less afford an American flag.

McCain's judgement?

What does the disclosure by Gov. Sarah Palin that her 17 year old, unmarried daughter is five months pregnant, have to do with the price of political eggs? The answer is both nothing and everything--- depending on the context.

Barrack Obama responded that it is a private family matter and urged the media keep it off limits in the political discussion—which generally speaking is the correct position.

The problem is that in the George W. Bush era, social conservative morality is firmly entrenched as a political criterion---- thanks to its proponents, the evangelical right. Therefore, judgement of familial moral turpitude is, by their terms, a legitimate target in accessing a political aspirant.

The irony of the situation for Sarah Pain and evangelicals lies in the rigid values they embrace and wish to force by political means on the rest of us. For example, they would eliminate abortion as a medical choice, under any circumstances.

In Sarah Palin’s political agenda, sex education would be against the law in public schools.

The double irony, here, is the rational for opposing sex education----i.e. it’s specificity encourages lax sexual behavior----that somehow, specific enlightenment about sexual mechanics will give legitimacy to immoral behavior and will thus contribute to the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Hence, evangelicals (and Sarah Pain) believe only they have the proper solution to "the problem"—and that is abstinence, taught and inculcated by and within the family.

When a sixteen year old has sex and is five months pregnant into her 17th year, is that some sort of failure in parenting? Sarah Pain’s social conservatism is her political philosophy. Therefore, is asking that question sociological or political?

I believe, as does Barrack Obama , that such a questions are only relevant in the sociological context—in spite of evangelical’s success in framing them within their political agenda. Those questions have no place in politics.

However, the legitimate question in the wake of Sarah Palin being the chosen one for Vice President is what does it say about John McCain’s judgement? .

Thwarted by Republican leaders in his desire to choose Senator Joe Lieberman, or Gov. Tom Ridge, McCain chose Gov. Palin after a 15 minute phone conversation and no vetting process whatsoever. By way of contrast, Mitt Romney and Gov. Tom Pawlenty underwent two months of scrutiny. Choosing someone to stand a heartbeat away from the presidency, is the most important decision a candidate can make. John McCain made it with a gut, kneejerk reaction rather than careful consideration and thoughtful process.

. This is not a characteristic we need in a President.

The Real McCain Revealed

John McCain’s "Straight Talk Express" has long since jumped off the track as has his "what you see is what you get" persona. His double talk and position reversals are well documented. But all that is just political grist that comes with the territory of a presidential campaign–and is but one element of a composite picture that is forged on the anvil of intense national scrutiny.

John McCain has often recited the mantra that he puts his country first above political considerations ("I’d rather lose an election than a war!")--- and has often implied that Barrack Obama does not.

After months of campaigning on the theme that Obama does not have the experience and does not have the good judgement to be President, McCain chooses as his Vice Presidential running mate a former beauty queen who has been mayor of a town with a population of 9,000 and first term governor of a state with almost as many polar bears as people. A woman who pronounces "nuclear" as "nookular"—and who’s selection is already being compared to that of Dan Quayle. She is a woman with zero life experience out side of Alaska whom he would have stand a heartbeat away from the Presidency

This from John McCain who has repeatedly asserted that his "key criteria" for a running mate would be someone "who is ready to take my place at a moment’s notice—you know, immediately."

Sarah Palin does walk comfortably in the footprints of President Bush and McCain where big oil interests are concerned. She doesn’t share the "green" view of global warming and the fate of polar bears. She does oppose abortion--- no exceptions for rape or incest.

I don’t know how much thought Sara Palin has given to the war in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear capabilities, global economic depression or Russia"s incursion into Georgia. I do know she has not been a voice among those fighting for women’s health care, equal pay and economic security.

John McCain’s "country first"—has become "political expediency first".

Bunko artist at work

New low for the "straight shooter"

Pot calling the kettle black about Georgia

Latest Economic News from Iraq

THE COVERUP CONTINUES

BIG CHANGE!!

Some not so "puzzled"!

Dana Perino, White House Press Secretary is puzzled.

Ari Fleischer, former White House Press flack is puzzled.

Dan Bartlett, Counselor to the President is puzzled.

Karl Rove is puzzled.

They are all “puzzled” over former White House Press puppet, Scott McClellan’s epiphany that the Bush Administration is, at its core, a bunch of insular, conniving serial liars who took us to war under false pretenses—and are incompetent to boot.

Well, let me introduce you to some who are not “puzzled”:

Richard Clark, President Bush’s former terrorism czar, who also served Presidents Reagan, George H. Bush, and Bill Clinton. Clark warned us in 2004 that the Bush-neo-con agenda was to invade Iraq. “So what did we do after 9/11? We invade ...and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden’s propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qadea have greatly strengthened.”

Paul O’Neal, President Bush’s Treasury Secretary said the Iraq war was planned 8 months prior to 9/11—that the Bush neo-cons came into the White House with that agenda in their baggage.

Congressman John Murtha, who served in Vietnam (S-2 Intelligence Section)–who was awarded the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts as well as the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. Murtha has said that he did not see any achievable goal or national security interest in the (Iraq) operation and the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is “uniting the enemy against us.”

General Eric Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, who was forced out of command and into retirement because of his criticism of the Bush gang’s war planning.

Admiral William Fallon, Chief of U.S. Central Command (General Petraeus’s boss)–who “retired” after publicly ruling out a strike against Iran. He added, “What’s the best and most effective way to combat al Qaeda? We tend to make too much or too little a deal about it. I want a more even keel. I come from the school of walk softly and carry a big stick.”

General Ricardo Sanchez, who was coalition commander in Iraq for two years: The Iraq war is “a nightmare with no end in sight!”

Major General John Batiste, former commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq and critic of the Bush gang incompetence who spoke out “on behalf of soldiers and their families.”“I had a moral obligation and duty to do so.”

John Dilulio, former head of Bush’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives, in an interview in Esquire magazine, "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one; a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

While “puzzlement”, “disgruntlement” and the suggestion that McClellan is having an out-of-body experience is just the robotic spin we have come to know and expect from the White House and Fox News—the most hypocritical response is from the mainstream media types who accusingly ask why McClellan didn’t speak out when it would have meant something?

That is a legitimate question—--unless you are among the legion of mainstream media types who never asked that question of Colin Powell. The same Colin Powell who went before the United Nations in February of 2003 to close the deal on invading Iraq. The same Colin Powell who was well aware that the information he was purveying was at worst, flat wrong—and at best, highly questionable. Saddam Hussein has “500 tons” of chemical weapons, was just one of his examples of “solid proof.”

During the run up to the war, the mainstream media did indeed go belly-up in the face of mass patriotic flames being fanned by Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld--and that is a “puzzlement” to me.

Bill Sanders

The Kennedy's legacy and fate

The tragic news of Senator Ted Kennedy’s diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor has resulted in an outpouring of reminiscences about the Kennedy legacy which strike a personal chord in my past experience.

After 18 months as a mortar platoon leader in Korea, and two years as a general assignment (civilian) reporter for Pacific Stars and Stripes in Japan, I returned to the U.S. to work as the political cartoonist for Greensboro Daily News in North Carolina at the beginning of the "Kennedy era".

In addition to drawing opinions about John Kennedy’s nomination and election, I confess to being personally swept along by the exciting sense of something special happening in American politics—a new national awareness that we could shed the albatross of segregation, that we could in fact put a man on the moon, that truly the torch had been passed.

My cartoons were being regularly reprinted in the Washington Post and one day I received a letter from Evelyn Lincoln, President Kennedy’s personal secretary, writing at the behest of the President, informing me that Kennedy would like very much to have the original of a particular cartoon. It was the first of what was to become regular correspondence between Mrs. Lincoln and myself.

In January of 1963, during a trip to Washington, I was invited by Pierre Salinger to come to a White House press briefing. Afterward, he took me down the hall to meet with President Kennedy. As we went through Evelyn Lincoln’s office, I could not stifle a Cheshire cat grin upon seeing one of my cartoons hanging by the doorway into the Oval Office.

The President introduced me to Ted Sorensen, his speech writer and Secretary of State Dean Rust. They left and we were alone for about twenty minutes of conversation ranging from the politics of segregation to what kind of brush I used for drawing with India ink. He joked about finally finding gainful employment for his two brothers through the tried and true route of nepotism.

Upon my return to Greensboro, I received another letter from Evelyn Lincoln, saying that the President wanted to thank me again for the cartoons. She concluded, "It was a pleasure to have you here. Hope you come again sometime."

Months later Lee Harvey Oswald and a bullet aborted the John Kennedy legacy. It is sad that the final chapter of Ted Kennedy’s legacy will be written by a malignant brain tumor.

Caution: Dimwit at work!

If there is “intelligent design” at work in our existence, it is certainly not demonstrated in the person of George W. Bush. His ignorance of history is exceeded only by his hubris.

He has compared the “war on terrorism (Iraq)” to World War II (Hitler)–he has recently resurrected his old slur that if democrats win the White House they will facilitate and ease the way for another terrorist attack on the United States.

His coup de McCathyism was to stand before the Israeli Congress and accuse democrats of appeasement ala Neville Chamberlain to Adolf Hitler, when it comes to terrorists and Iran. Now, let’s see—Neville Chamberlain conceded half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. What, exactly has Barrack Obama indicated he would concede to Iran or terrorists?

There is apparently no level that is beyond his stooping skill.

Bush has said (with a straight face) his sacrifice to the Iraq war was to give up golf because it just didn’t seem appropriate in the face of young men (over 4,000) dying over there. That must be a huge comfort to grieving mothers, widows and children. Of course, being a serial liar, the President was video recorded playing golf a month later .

Add to that Bush’s statements that it must by “exciting”—even “romantic” to be a young soldier fighting for “freedom” in Iraq. This from the draft-dodger during the Vietnam fight for “Freedom”.

Add to this the damage he has done our constitutional rights, and our economy–not to mention the laws he has violated

What is it that 71% of the American people know about this man--- that 100% of Congressional Democrats apparently don’t know—when it comes to holding Bush accountable?

Can anyone spell impeachment?

Reverend Wright and talking heads

The seemingly endless flap and outrage over the preaching of Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a display of monumental hypocrisy and an example of boundless religious ignorance.

Religious ignorance because, for the most part, we are a nation that is illiterate about the belief to which we pay lip service and which we imply is at the very core of our values. If you lined up ten of Reverend Wright’s critics who expressed outrage over his "blasphemous" use of the Bible to "damn" America, I doubt that you would find two who could pass an eighth grade level test of Biblical Theology. (Who was Hulda—and what was that person’s contribution to what we now claim as "the word of God?")

When the above mentioned ignorance is cupeled with equal denseness about African American religious culture and style—it is recipe for repeated regurgitation by television’s talking heads of Barack Obama’s terrible guilt by association.

Political hypocrisy corrupts nightly television every time the likes of Bill O’Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Chris Mathews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity. Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and assorted talking heads, ad nauseam, open their mouths. They are shocked—shocked, they tell us—at the hatefulness of this black minister!

Piety and faux-patriotism is most particularly annoying when its purveyors are millionaire TV "stars" posing as journalists—and when they elevate religious nonsense to a serious status of influence on our political future.

Talking heads are equally shocked at the idea that the our government’s past behavior might have been a contributing factor to the rising tide of the radical Islamic extremists.

The silence of these talking heads was defining back when the Reverend Pat Robinson and the Reverend Jerry Falwell blamed the U.S. Supreme Court, abortionists, homosexuals and the ACLU for the attack of 9-11. "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us what we deserve," said Falwell. (Speaking of being hateful of America!)

Does anyone remember the outrage of the talking heads when straight shooter John McCain (after calling Falwell an agent of intolerance) accepted a speaking invitation to Liberty University–or that McCain sought and is proud of Reverend John Higee’s endorsement after Higee declared Katrina to be God’s punishment for a homosexual parade in New Orleans.

Perhaps if Reverend Wright had delivered his hellfire and damnation brew of black history, liberation and scripture in the soft spoken style of Pat Robinson— words flowing gently through the immobile lips of a pasted on smile—Barack Obama would not be required to march to the nightly drumbeat from on high in television tinsel land.

As for Reverend Wright, he was way off base in his defense of Louis Farrakhan and for not disavowing the internet baloney of Aids created by the government to kill black people. As for his coming across as smug and arrogant, there is no argument there! He almost, but not quite, rivals television’s talking heads when it comes to self serving hubris!

Florida does it again!

Dont answer the red phone at 3 a.m.

Planet earth to President Bush...

Just when you think George Bush’s hubris has taken him to the pinnacle of dim-witted arrogance and insensitivity, he manages to take another giant step into his make believe world.

Speaking to a video conference of U.S. military and civilian personnel about Afghanistan, Bush said, "I must say, I’m a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front line of helping this young democracy succeed."

Then, he added, "It must be exciting for you—in some ways romantic--- in some ways, you know---confronting danger."

Is he so dense—so incredibly venal—as to not realize the stark hypocrisy of a draft dodging little Chicken Hawk speaking in nostalgic context about "confronting danger"? Is he so stupid as not to realize there are those who are well aware of his being jumped ahead of 100 applicants so he could take pilot training and avoid service in Vietnam?

One must assume that Chicken Hawk Bush didn’t find much "exciting" or "romantic" about the prospects of serving in Vietnam when he was stationed in Alabama and skipping his training duties while working for a politician friend of his daddy’s.

Meanwhile, thousands of young men are being killed and maimed while serving second and third tours in the Chicken Hawk’s war in Iraq. Meanwhile Osama bin Laden and Al Quaida enjoy immunity along the Afghan-Pakistan border

...and Obama should apologize!

Tweedle Dumb supports Tweedle Dee

McCain cleaning up in the GOP primaries

teflon president

Quack at work

unintellgent design

Torture is in the eye of the beholder!

It depends on your definition change.

When a female friend recently asked why I preferred Barack Obama, my wife responded, "He just doesn’t like Hillary Clinton!"—relegating me to the cadre of male chauvinist Hillary antagonists. After 50 years of marriage, four daughters, and a United Nations Award for my cartoons supporting the equal rights amendment, she knows better than that—tho our friends may not.

However, gender (and racial)bias is cruising the campaign landscape. A good example is Hardball’s talking head, Chris Mathews who has left a wake of sexist, misogynist comments along his coverage of the campaign trail. (See Media Matters and Daily Kos)

My problem with Hillary Clinton as a candidate for President is that her political genesis is firmly rooted in "beltway" establishment mentality, when this nation desperately needs leadership that does not fear thinking out of the box and speaking frankly.

On the war on Iraq, she first explained her vote----embracing the "Saddam Hussein is a threat" theory of the neo-cons. When the majority of the country finally caught on to the Bush debacle, she embraced the "if I had known then, what I know now" beltway speak. At no time did she look the country in the eye to say she was wrong and that she regretted it. As recently as the Nevada debate, she parsed her explanation by blaming pentagon deception and by accepting Bush’s word that he had no intention of going to war. This at time when most of the Western world knew he was a serial liar!

Robert Johnson, a billionaire supporter of Clintons and founder of Black Entertainment Television -- made a snide allusion to Obama using drugs and compared him to Sydney Poitier in "Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner" during a speech in South Carolina. Johnson then denied the drug allusion.

Tim Russert , read a quote from Hillary Clinton in which she said she would not tolerate inappropriate behavior on the part of her supporters and would get rid of them. Then Russert asked if she planned to distance herself from Mr. Johnson. In a "beltway speak" moment she said that Johnson had explained his remark and she accepted it. Presumably, she "accepted" his denial that he said what everyone heard him say!


After six years of a lying, deceitful administration that has taken us into a unjustified war, that has denounced the Geneva Convention and embraced techniques of torture, that has done serious damage to our constitution and squandered the first budget surplus this nation has had in decades----we need someone who is NOT inherently inclined to triangulation, calculation and equivocation---no matter what their gender or race.

Bill Sanders

Loud and clear!

The Quack is still at it!

Benazir Bhotto death, the real question.

The critical assessment of what to make of the assassination of Benazir Bhotto is not to be found in the specifics of who facilitated this tragedy but rather in what facilitated this atrocity of warped behavior.

Aside from whatever flaws are attributed to her past, Ms. Bhutto was a charismatic, brave political leader, dedicated to a more democratic Pakistan. The price of her death is but the latest link in a long chain of abominations unwittingly launched by President George W. Bush and his gang of neo-cons who shared (and catered to) his arrogance, hubris and tunnel vision.

When this cynical cabal chose to abandon the real "war" on terrorism (Osama binLadin) to pursue a war of opportunity, using lies and deceit as justification—the dye was cast for a travesty of shameful and tragic events. Am I saying, or even implying that there is a direct line from the Bush gang’s actions to the specific death of Ms. Bhutto? Absolutely not!!

Rather the time-tragedy line is like a pinball lunched onto the slope of the game machine:

Ca Ching! No weapons of mass destruction. Ca Ching! No Al Quaida connection to Iraq. Ca Ching! Massive influx of Al Quaida and Islamic fanatics into Iraq as a result of the Bush invasion! Ca Ching! Four thousand Americans dead! Ca Ching! Over one million Iraqis dead. Ca Ching! Dramatic surge in global terrorist actions! Ca Ching! Osama binLaden, Taliban and Al Quaida preach with impunity from the safe haven of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

While the majority of the Pakistan population is moderately secular in orientation, there has developed a minority of hardcore Islamic fanatics who stalk the secular model of their country like a tiger who has caught the scent of blood. Can anyone seriously argue that the influence, aid and comfort given them by their philosophical brothers-in-fanaticism on the border has no influence on these local groups?

What difference does it make, whether it was home grown fanatics or foreign fanatics who shed Benazir Bhutto’s blood? They all drink from the same poisoned well of religious zealotry!

The question is:

A- would events have played out differently if the Bush gang had been really serious about going after the real terrorists—and , with adequate troops and zeal, taken the head of the Al Quaida viper?

B- would it have played out differently if Bush, et al had denied the Taliban sanctuary in the mountains of the Pakistan border?

One might argue that we have no crystal ball—and cannot know what might have happened. True. On the other hand, without A and B, we know what did happen!

Ca Ching!

No Balls

CIA Anti-American criminals

Whopperland's latest episode.

Bring in the clown

Imagine this!!

You are an American citizen on vacation in Thailand. You are arrested by local authorities on suspicion of being a member of the Freedom Revolution Underground Movement in Myanmar. It is a case of mistaken identity. You are turned over to the Myanmar Junta Secret Police who fly you to a “rendition” prison in the mountains of China where you are imprisoned and tortured for a year before being released in a remote section of Laos.

The American government strongly and officially protests. U.S. prosecutors issue warrants for the Myanmar Junta secret agents, charging them with kidnaping. You hire lawyers and seek redress in the Myanmar court system. The Myanmar Supreme Court upholds a lower court decision against you and dismisses the lawsuit on the grounds that trying the case might expose state secrets. While conceding you were likely kidnaped and tortured, the court decreed it must not interfere with the Junta’s duty to maintain the nation’s security.

That is what happened to a German citizen of Lebanese descent who was kidnaped by the CIA and accused of having a relationship with Al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood. It was the most extensively documented case of the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” program in which terrorist suspects are abducted, sent to other countries in which torture is practiced.

In Mr. Khaled el-Masri’s case, he was flown to a “rendition” prison in Kabul, Afghanistan where he was kept for most of a year, in a small cell, shackled, drugged and beaten while being interrogated before finally being released.

A three judge panel for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed the case pointing out that while it was “difficult” it pit the search for truth “against the executive’s duty to maintain the nation’s security.”

So, this is what it has come down to. Acquiescence to the arrogant lawlessness and unconstitutional actions of the Bush White House has bestowed upon us the character and behavior of a third world dictatorship. Imagine that.

Sometimes Affirmative Action backfires!

With Clarence Thomas on the talking head TV circuit, hawking his autobiography, we are reminded that he is the legacy of papa George Bush who replaced a giant African American Supreme Court Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with a man of small legal stature who is a liar obsessed with paranoid conspiracy theories----a Justice so intimidated by lofty legal debate that he has yet to verbally participate in the dialog of a single case that has been before the Court of his tenure.

Those opposed to the Thomas confirmation included the NAACP, the Urban League, the National Bar Association, the National Organization of Women and many other African-American and Civil Rights organizations. His nomination raised an avalanche of questions about important issues and about truthfulness but only one question was needed to put Clarence Thomas in perspective: What was his feelings about the Roe v Wade decision on abortion?

Thomas testified that he was open-minded about abortion and that he had never discussed the merits of the case.

Does anyone believe that as a Yale law student, as an Assistant Attorney General in Missouri, as a U.S. Senate Legislative Assistant and as an Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights, Clarence Thomas never discussed the merits of one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the U. S. Supreme Court? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I will sell you for five dollars.

Of course, he could have been telling the truth when he said he was open-minded. He just didn’t explain it was open at both ends.

Walter Lippmann revisited.

When I started drawing for the Greensboro Daily News in 1959, the first column of opinion I read appeared in the Washington Post. It was called “Today and Tomorrow” and was written by Walter Lippmann—clearly an erudite, thoughtful, articulate man who embraced a larger vision of the world he occupied than most of his contemporaries in the field.

I have often wondered what Mr. Lippmann would think of today’s columnists and talking heads---- and their mental rubbish that editors and television corporations elevate to the status of contributions worth considering—-specifically, the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Cal Thomas, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough. Bob Novak, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Riley—to mention a few.

In his book Public Opinion, Lippmann stated that “We are all captives of the picture in our head—our belief that the world we have experienced is the world that really exists.” He argued that in the affairs of men we are separated by hours, days or weeks by the world out there as it really exists and that the picture in our head may only reflect the real world when that time gap is eliminated by the arrival of knowledge of events that have taken place. We discover that people with which we share immediate space, for example, are now considered our enemy because of a war that was started days or weeks earlier in another space.

Technology has drastically changed that circumstance, in that today, there is no time gap. Today, we live in global real time—often live and in color.

Aside from the inherent contribution of the time gap to the “picture in our mind”, Lippmann came to embrace a suspicious and critical view that public opinion was largely shaped by a process he called the manipulation of consciousness which he dubbed “the manufacture of consent.” Lippmann’s worst assessment would come to fruition in the coalescing of the George W. Bush presidential campaign, the spiritual demise of print media and the ascendancy of television as the main nourishment of public thought.

“It requires wisdom to understand wisdom: the music is nothing if the audience is deaf.”--Lippmann

Bush and his neocon handlers have ushered in an era in which truth was the first victim of his reign and deception the gold standard for establishing a “ picture” in the public mind that best suited his view of reality. The lies about Iraq and the nature and strategy of combating terrorists are will known and documented.

The news media’s acquiescence to the “embedded” coverage of the invasion, the war and the occupation of Iraq was a major contribution to the belief that the world of George W. Bush was the real one that existed at the time of 2004 election

The picture in our mind did not include body bags, rows of flag draped coffins or Iraqi corpses strewn in the rubble of “shock and awe” bombing. The picture in our mind did not include even a whisper of dissent from Colin Powell. Indeed, his contribution was to espouse supporting (and totally erroneous) statistics—“ 500 tons of chemical weapons!”

The best servants of the people, like the best valets, must whisper unpleasant truths in the master's ear. –Lippmann

Today, about 70% of the public have a different picture in their mind. Congressional democrats, after giving George W. Bush a blank check to start an unjustified war—finally have a different picture in their mind. Democratic presidential candidates have a different picture in their mind. Sadly, as Chris Mathews observed during one of his programs—they all seem to have a wishbone where their backbone should be.

The study of error is not only in the highest degree prophylactic, but it serves as a stimulating introduction to the study of truth. –Lippmann

Federalized baloney!

After President Bush vetoed the insurance bill that would have expanded health and medical care to millions of needy, uninsured children—he denounced it as a step towards “socialized medicine” —and extolled the virtues of private health care.

Too bad someone in his audience didn’t have access to the New York Times article on his private drug program. They might have asked some interesting questions.

Robert Pear reports that audits show “thousands of Medicare recipients have been victims of deceptive sales tactics and had claims improperly denied by private insurers “ that run the huge benefit program.

Abuses included improper termination of coverage for people with H.I.V. and AIDS, huge backlogs of claims and complaints and a failure to answer telephone calls from consumers, doctors and drugstores.

Medicare has levied fines of more that $770,000 on 11 companies for marketing violations and failure to provide timely notice to beneficiaries about changes in costs and benefits. The companies include United Health, Humana and Well Point.

Ah, the glory of "private care".

Lie and let the S-Chips fall where they may!

George W. Bush’s trail of lies defy measurement by normal presidential standards. They are breathtaking in their audacity and awesome in their failure to penetrate the 28 percent or so of Americans who still think he is doing a good job

Take the S-CHIP program. Congress voted to expand health insurance for children who fall between the cracks. Children whose parents earn too much money to qualify for present S-CHIP funds—but not enough money to afford adequate health insurance. The program would cover an additional 4 million children..

Bush says Congress is trying to “federalize health care.” Then he adds, “ I don’t want the federal government making decisions for doctors and customers”. Since the program enrolls children in STATE PRIVATE insurance plans—why would Bush say otherwise? It would seems there is one of two reasons: he is either ignorant–or he is a liar.

Then he says, “This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning$83,000 a year. That doesn’t sound poor to me.”

That’s interesting since the bill he vetoed prohibits states from using the program to aid families that make more than three times the federal poverty limit, approximately $60,000 a year for a family of four. Moreover,the $83,000 figure comes from a request by New York state to use the program for some families earning four times the poverty limit. The Bush bunch said no and that upper limit was not in the bill that Bush vetoed!

Do you suppose President Bush forgot that little detail when he said the program expands coverage “up to families earning $83,000 a year”? Or do you suppose, heaven forbid, that our President might just flat out be a bald faced liar?

Profile in courage!

More compassionate conservatisim