The American Pundit embedded a YouTube video of Obama saying the Consititution is flawed. OK, even the Founders believed that, but they ratified it anyway. Benjamin Franklin is on the record as having said the document isn’t perfect but it’ll do. I guess it would have had to, wouldn’t it?

Blog pundits are notorious for making much ado about nothing. We’ve heard that Obama is a Muslim, that he “pals around” with terrorists, and that he is a socialist - none of which are true. They are only inferences derived at from half-truths, fear, and irrational thought processes. In the spirit of bi-partisanship, we’ve heard similar urban legends about Sarah Palin.

I’ve got no problem with people choosing the candidate they feel best represents their values. Everyone must support someone and if an individual does the research then makes a decision based on solid, provable evidence, they’ve done what is required of a dutiful citizen. But most of what we hear coming from talk radio and the blog pundits is ludicrous and damaging. There is no critical thought that goes into most of it and my fear is that the majority of Americans will cast a vote on election day based on one of the urban myths they read in an e-mail without investigating whether or not there is any truth to it. That certainly is not what the Founders had in mind.

Watch the video yourself and then ask yourself, “What’s the big deal?”

Here’s my analysis:

Barack Obama seems to be saying that the Constitution is a great document, but it reveals a flaw of the Founders that still exists in America today. I’m sure they would agree. But Obama doesn’t say what that flaw is. We can only speculate what he believes it might be. The American Pundit writes this:

Even more audio damaging to Barack Obama has surfaced from 2001 Chicago Public Radio interviews. Via Drudge, here we find Barack Obama saying that the U.S. Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day”.

Now, how is that damaging? It’s a very general statement that is obviously a clip from an interview, but the interview question isn’t shown. Why not? It might actually reveal something about the nature of Obama’s response.

The fact of the matter is, the Constitution is a flawed document because it was written by flawed human beings with good intentions. That doesn’t mean they were bad people nor does it mean they were saints and that the Constitution is a divine document. It is what it is: A human document designed to create a society in which a broad swath of people from diverse backgrounds can live peacefully on the same geographical ground in a system that is fair to each regardless of race, creed, color of skin, economic status, gender, religion, or other identifier. To the degree that it does that it has been successful; conversely, to the degree that it doesn’t it is flawed. I don’t know if that is what Barack Obama meant by his comment, but it is what I mean when I say the Constitution is flawed. History proves it.

From Ambiguity To Idiocy

The responses of The American Pundit’s readership are even worse than the blogger’s own ambiguity. Read this:

so if its such a flaw then how come it has worked for the past hundred years or so? and how are you gonna come in and change something that has been what america was founded by, i think that if we havent had any problems up to do then leave it alone.. “why fix what isn’t broke?”

Gee, I’d like to meet this illiterate jackass. The Constitution has only been around for 100 years? Or is he saying it has only worked for 100 years? And we haven’t had any “problems” till now? Where has this moron been? Did he forget about the Civil War and the discussion over state’s rights? Civil Rights? Suffrage? How about the 17 amendments - changes - that have occurred to the Constitution since its ratification? I guess this reader thinks the Constitution was written with 27 amendments right from the start.

One reader thinks the news media is hiding the truth by not reporting that Obama believes there is a flaw in the Constitution:

Now there’s a story no one would ever read or hear about on C.N.N.>,M.S.N.B,>A.B.C.>,FOX,>C.B.S.,or especially the New York Times..Makes a person wonder just how much of the truth is really hidden..

“Mike” says

Unbelievable

Oh, yeah. Because no one’s ever advocated change before. This is so new.

Big Brother accuses Obama of wanting to represent blacks and no one else:

News flash Sen. Obama….You are likely days away from being elected President. You are supposed to represent ALL americans not just Black Americans. Such an attitude will not only prevent the healing process from continuing but will unravel it.

Where did he get that from? Has he even listened to the man’s speeches? Of course, he’d probably say it’s OK for President Bush to represent just rich, white people because that’s in the Constitution. Oh my God! Now I’m speculating. You see, it rubs off.

People, listen. Pull your heads out of your asses and listen. It’s OK to disagree with Senator Obama’s policies and ideas, but at least take the time to understand them before you start making idiots of yourselves. For those of you interested - truly interested - in exploring the facts and understanding who the candidates are, start by debunking the myths and legends. Click the below links then go and find the truth:

• Barack Obama
• Sarah Palin
• Joe Biden
• John McCain

What Is Snopes?

Before the wackos start saying things like, “Oh, they’re biased” and “Well, they’re just not reporting the facts,” yada yada yada, let me just tell you what Snopes is. Their job is not to report the truth about all things under the sun. It’s not a newspaper or an encyclopedia. Snopes exists to dispel myths and urban legends about a lot of things, not just political figures.

David and Barbara Mikkelson do a fabulous job of ferreting through facts to get to the heart of the matter on many things. They separate truth from fiction, fact from fantasy, myth from actuality on a great deal of subjects that have been known to receive wide circulation and create a sense of “legend.” Their only bias is toward separating the misinformation from actual fact and they do a pretty doggone good job of it. If you don’t like what you read, maybe you should do some soul searching.

I encourage you to read the Snopes entries of the candidates then conduct your own fact-finding mission to learn about each of the candidates and what their real views are - apart from the legends about them.

In the last two days I ‘ve seen like fifteen news articles pointing out that John McCain campaign aides describe Sarah Palin as rogue and that she is veering from the talking points. Uh, guys, you promoted her as a maverick. Now she’s being one. What’s the problem?

This is the problem with PR guys running political campaigns. Voters want to know the candidates. They can’t get to know the candidates if they hide behind your press releases and talking points. They then become nothing more than walking billboards. That’s not real personal and it’s not real clever. The fact that the McCain campaign billed these two faux “mavericks” as maverick was a big surprise to begin with. Now one of them acts like a maverick and the party wants to act like she’s throwing the election.

The fact is, McCain and Palin are going to lose. I think they know it. I think they’ve given up. And now they are looking for someone to blame. They will likely blame each other. Or the McCain aides will blame Palin and Palin will blame the campaign aides. Either way, the Party loses. It’ll serve them right.

You can’t put two mavericks on the same ticket. If you do, one of them is going to bust out and outshine the other. Like Patton against his rivals during WWII. Sure enough, one of them did.

I’ve been hoping throughout this election cycle that John McCain would break out and say what he’s really wanting to be saying so that I could have a reason to vote for him. Instead, he’s been a wuss and his running mate, the female moose hunter from Alaska, is the one who broke out. Only it wasn’t her place to do so. She should have stayed in her position and supported her man. That’s what she was there for. Now she will go down in history as the one who drove the steak into the heart of the McCain campaign. Serves ‘em all right. Mavericks my ass.

Washington Post columnist George Will has made some great contributions to American letters. I’ve enjoyed reading many of his columns. But it seems he is still lost in an old-fashioned conservatism which is no longer alive. A recent column of his proves my point.

There’s no doubt he makes a great point when he says that Americans do not understand their common history. When visitors to the Gettysburg battlefield remark that it couldn’t have possibly been that brutal because there are no bullet holes in the monuments, it is clear that ignorance of history is just a small symptom of the real disease: There has been a decline in rational thinking.

But Will’s own sentiments are just as discouraging:

Ten years ago, this column asserted that disrespect for the national patrimony of Civil War battlefields should be a hanging offense, and said: “Given that the vast majority of Americans have never heard a shot fired in anger, the imaginative presentation of military history in a new facility here is vital, lest rising generations have no sense of the sacrifices of which they are beneficiaries.”

In other words, ten years ago George Will would execute capital punishment on people just for not respecting an idea. But the meat of his own ideological sin is in the quotation marks that follow that Nazi-like assertion, namely, that Americans owe a debt to the sacrifices of which we “are beneficiaries.” In other words, we should honor the dead for giving us what they gave us. But what was that?

The benefits of the Civil War can be summed up in these points:

• Freedom for thousands of men, women, and children who had been considered property to someone else prior to the war
• A unified country that would endure for more than 150 years afterward
• A collection of national monuments to preserve the memory of the massacres
• An increase in government intervention, regulation, and oversight of citizen lives
• The birth of a military-industrial culture that has grown so large and powerful that it might never be brought under control
• A glorification of war in the national consciousness
• The near deification of the man who instigated the war
• An irrational fear of war on our own soil that leads us to insist that all conflicts be fought somewhere else

As you can see, this is a mixed bag of “benefits” and curses. The preservation of the union at all costs has led us to a place where culturally, politically, and socially we no longer respect the rights of other nations. Our irrational fear of war on our own soil causes us to attack other nations when there is no clear need to and without provocation. The fact that most Americans have never “heard a shot fired in anger” simply means that we have no idea of the consequences of war. We somehow believe that we have a right to dominate other cultures for fear that they might pick us with their dangerous and primitive needles. Worse, our fear of a nuclear holocaust and preoccupation with apocalyptic literature makes us see the world in a very cynical dark light. The Iraq War is the latest development in the natural decline of moral judgments that come from a belief in divine right. Somehow, I don’t think George Will is so concerned with that decline, nor are many other media personalities. We are, after all, “the greatest nation on earth” and we must prove it.

I do not deny that we are beneficiaries of good things. Many of those good things were delivered to us by men who sacrificed their lives for a greater cause. But if we are truly to understand history then we must not be so focused on the good benefits that we ignore the downside. We might be better off today in many ways, but if we don’t get control over those who control our military and national policies then the patrimony of our own time will look a lot like that of Ottomans today.

Check out the Gettysburg Pennsylvania Blog.

http://kidsearchnetwork.org/

John McCain and Sarah Palin have repeated the epithet over and over again ever since Joe the Plumber confused his own tax cut with socialism. Is presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s tax plan a socialist scheme or a wrong made right? Let’s analyze.

First, Found Father Benjamin Franklin - America’s first millionaire - was a proponent of progressive taxation. In fact, our progressive tax system was devised, among other things, by this most industrious of our Founders. One of the wealthiest men of his own age, Franklin understood the necessity for taxes and he understood that those who have the most to lose also have the most to gain by ensuring the maintenance and continuation of valuable government services. That’s why he proposed such a system.

But that was long before Karl Marx opined “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.”

To Joe the Plumber, Obama’s “spread the wealth” philosophy sounds like Marxist socialism. I understand that. Obama made the fatal mistake of explaining his tax plan in the most ineffectual of linguistic styles. What he should have said was, “I’m just taking back a little bit of what the Bush Administration and America’s wealthy class have stolen from the poor and middle class and giving it back to its rightful owners.”

Progressive Taxation Is Not Socialism

I don’t like paying taxes. As a fiscal conservative libertarian, I wish no one had to pay taxes. I’d like to see taxes cut to zero for everyone - rich, poor, and middle class alike. But that isn’t realistic.

Most of us realize that some taxation is necessary. If you want a strong military then you have to have a way to fund it. Taxes. If you want roads to drive on then you need to fund those roads. Taxes. We may all disagree on the amount of taxation that is necessary and on the government services that are necessary and that should receive tax moneys for appropriation, but we can all agree that some taxes are necessary.

When Ben Franklin proposed a progressive tax he was doing so as a wealthy member of society. He knew that an invasion of his homeland would mean that he stood more to lose than his average neighbor. Therefore, if he wanted his wealth protected then he should pay more than his average neighbor. It was his civic duty. He knew that.

Personally, I’d prefer a flat tax. But history is history and tradition is tradition. Progressive taxation is one of the most conservative ideas of the modern era. If Republicans really want to be true to the vision of the Founders then they should support progressive taxation. It’s not socialism.

John McCain And His Republican Base Are Waging A Class War

It was Dick Cheney who bloviated upon winning the 2000 election that the day had come for him and his Republican friends to get their due. He meant that it was time for the wealthy to get their tax cuts. The poor had been dipping into their pockets for too damn long and it was time for the super rich to protect what they had worked so hard to earn.

Fine. I can allow for a tax cut to the super rich in good times when the military that is used to protect their wealth is not deployed for such purposes. But when you start a war then you have to fund it. And the people who should fund it are the people who want it and the people who have the means to pay for it. Those people are the wealthy class - the class that has been receiving tax breaks for the duration of the Bush Administration, while the poor and middle class do the dirty work.

Where Are The Rich White Guys On The Battlefield?

If you look at the population of men and women in uniform serving in Iraq and Afghanistan you’ll see that an overwhelming majority of them come from the poor and middle class. Even the officers. The huge income gap of those serving in the military is no secret, but it isn’t being reported on by the mainstream media.

When Republicans repeat the oft-spoken mantra that military men and women are protecting “our” freedom, what they really mean is that they are protecting the right of the wealthy class to live as they please without accountability. While our poor and middle class men and women are risking their lives for the lies that were told to get us into Iraq, the wealthy have used their money to bankroll risky investments causing many less economically fortunate Americans to lose a large portion of their lifetime savings. Plus, the tax cuts the wealthy class have received are coming from the public purse, putting a heavier burden on lower class taxpayers who have had to pick up the slack - while they and their children risk their lives on two fronts. To further add to the injury, many of those wealthy noncombatants are profiting from the efforts of those on the battlefield, the oil companies realizing record-breaking profits.

As noted earlier, I’m all for cutting taxes, but not in the middle of a war. Not when men and women are risking their lives for those receiving tax breaks to see record-breaking profits as a result of the hard work put in by those in uniform in the execution of a war based on unjust causes.

Why Obama’s Tax Cut Is Not Socialism

I’m with Republicans when they say that people who pay no income taxes should receive no “refund”. That does sound a little bit like socialism - at least it would had not the above injustices not been on the table. Still, wealthy oil executives have profited from the sweat of poor and middle class soldiers who returned home to $4.00 per gallon gas prices while the oil companies broke their records. A little relief is in order. It isn’t payback. It’s just the right thing to do.

Throughout the Bush Administration, the wealthy have not performed an ounce of civic duty. They’ve taken, not given. And I’m not the only one who has noticed.

Daily Kos is radical. That’s why I like him. He’s a liberal and I don’t agree with everything he stands for, but I like that he isn’t afraid to tackle the Republican Party on some very tough issues. This time, he’s riding John McCain’s ass for not taking advantage of an opportunity that would have benefited his campaign.

I agree with him. Not letting Daniel Zubairi go on the air to talk about his confrontation with a Republican hate-monger was just plain stupid. It doesn’t look good and it paints the McCain camp as out of touch. Meanwhile, Barack Obama stopped campaigning for a day to visit his ailing grandmother in Hawaii, which makes him look all too human. Ideology aside, Barack is looking like a real person; McCain just looks like a chump.

Here’s what I’d do if I was McCain: I’d fire my entire campaign staff. Then I’d run as a maverick. A true maverick. No campaign staff and speak from the heart. Now that would truly be a maverick thing to do. But he doesn’t have the balls.

Have you changed? This is a great effort at political video marketing. I didn’t see it coming until it hit me. And, boy, did it hit me hard. But I have one beef.

Sally Anthony missed a great opportunity at not allowing viewers of her video to embed the video on their websites. She would get a lot more exposure, not to mention back links, for her video if other website owners and bloggers could use the video on their websites. I, for instance, would have embedded the video here on this blog if I’d had that ability. The benefit to Sally Anthony would have been greater exposure, links back to her website from my blog and others, and increased traffic to her site.

She’ll still get some traffic from the link above, but not as much as she’d get if my viewers could see the video on my site. It’s a lesson to learn for all would be video marketers, political or not.

That guy who writes Things That Just Piss Me Off really pisses me off sometimes. But today he’s got me pissing happy as a Russian racehorse. He invoked the ‘Rush Limbaugh is a racist’ card.

Rush Limbaugh is the slime bucket of the GOP. He and Sean Hannity. Colin Powell didn’t rise as far in the ranks of the military as he did by showing racist favoritism. The U.S. military has come as close to eliminating racism as any institution in the modern world. Colin Powell’s professionalism and dedication to his country are untouched and unmatched by few in the ranks of either major party. If he chose to endorse Barack Obama, I can assure you it wasn’t because of race.

Colin Powell was used by the rightwing nutjobs who now hold public office - primarily George W. Bush, his sidekick Dick “Mutley” Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld - to sell their lies to the UN and the American people. That alone is enough to make any reasonable and self-respecting Republican of any race to switch parties no matter who the running mate is. Colin Powell is just one person in a long line of Republicans to have abandoned their party and endorse Barack Obama. I suppose all those white Republicans did so because Barack is black as well, right?

Rush Limbaugh has as much sense as pharmaceutical abuse. And the effect he has on the American system of politics is about the same. No wonder he pisses people off.

I’ve had it. The media this, the media that. And all of it coming from - gasp! - the media themselves.

Here’s what I mean:

Joe the plumber has become a right wingnut hero and a liberal socialist pincushion, all within one 15-minute interview. But his fame has far extended the allotted 15 minute time frame.

To the right he’s a hero because he has exposed Barack Obama’s tax plan as a socialist scheme. To the left, he’s just a whiner.

And if you listen to either camp, the problem is “the media” of those other guys. The right wing media - the left wing media - the chicken wing media. Puhhlease.

The part that just bites my rectum is the us vs. them mentality, only a part of the ‘us’ is also a member of ‘them’ and we are pretending that it ain’t so. Come on, guys. You talk as if Fox News and MSNBC are in cahoots. Get a grip!

Joe the Plumber is everywhere. All the media are talking about him. He’s become a celebrity in his own right. John McCain even called him to apologize for getting him involved in the sleazy art of politics and then invited him to join the Republican campaign efforts. I don’t really think Joe the Plumber will help John McCain that much. But the presidential hopeful seems to think so.

There are issues with Joe the Plumber, as has been pointed out elsewhere.

• He owes back taxes
• He’s not a licensed plumber
• He doesn’t make enough money to buy the business he said he’d like to buy
• He’s a registered Republican but says he isn’t sure who he’ll vote for, though he doesn’t like Barack Obama’s tax plan because “it will hurt somebody else”

These problems have all been identified, but there are two issues that have not been identified where Joe the Plumber is concerned.

He is on the record as saying that he supports the Iraq War, but is there a record showing that he has volunteered to participate in it. He’s 34 years old and the McCain campaign machine is calling him an American hero and a “typical American.” Is he typical?

He may or may not be a typical American, but he is a typical Republican. It’s OK to support an unjust war if someone else is the one who has to do the dirty work. It’s not Joe the Plumber’s responsibility, after all, to risk his life on a losing cause.

The second problem with Joe the Plumber not yet identified is Obama’s tax plan - the one he doesn’t like - is a plan devised to help get the country’s fiscal policy back on track after the Bush Administration took us from a surplus to a deficit. Republicans talk about small government, class warfare, and keeping your own money, but they don’t much care for responsible government. And Joe the Plumber has aligned himself with these people.

Folks, John McCain is the one playing class warfare. He has supported the Bush tax policies, which have given tax breaks to the rich while requiring the poor and middle class to work harder to pay for the unjust war that Bush and McCain wanted and the rich have profited from. If that isn’t class warfare then I don’t know what is. And Joe the Plumber, only making $40,000 a year, isn’t in the class that has been winning the war. His friendship with the Republican Party is akin to a slave in the South in 1860 saying that he is pro-slavery and doesn’t want freedom.

Hey, Joe, McCain’s policies hurt other people. Why are you supporting them?