HATES AND FEARS!

If you can find something or some group to hate, you can unite people who might otherwise be divided. What you have to do is make that hate larger and more irritating than all their other differences.

Let's start with the Civil War. The Civil War didn't start because of the "Negroes" and their plight in the South. It started because the industrialized North was taking advantage of the agrarian South. The South grew cotton and other goods and the North wanted the South to sell that cotton and other goods to the North . . . cheaply. The South found that England and the European continent would buy cotton for a much higher price than the Northern U. S. The U. S. Government put a tariff on cotton sold to Europe and England and the South revolted. The way the North got their people together was to free the slaves in the South, even though there were some slaves in the North. Slavery was what brought the North together and the South used that same issue to hold the South together.

That is what the Nazi propaganda machine did just prior to and during World War II. The Jews were the targets and being as passive as the Jews were, they didn't try to defend themselves till it was too late. Hitler brought the whole of the German people together in their hate of the Jews. He gave them a reason to fight and to die and they did both.

During the Cold War, Americans learned to hate the Russians. The Russians brought us together in our distrust and fear of the REDS. Then we started hating the Chinese . . . the "Red Chinese." Then we realized, or were told, that what we really hated were the Communists. That great generality covered all our hates and fears; The USSR, China, Yugoslavia, Albania, Hungry, Poland, Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia could now be rendered down to "Communism." Senator Joe McCarthy, in the early '50s, defined it well by finding Communists under every bed and in every closet.

Finding and fighting Communism took us all the way through Viet Nam and on into the next great threat to Democracy. Reagan called that threat, "The 'L' word." Yeah, Liberals were the enemy and the great threat to America. Reagan turned a legitimate and legal philosophy into a word of "Hate and Fear." You're not a Liberal, are you?

George W. Bush used the gays as a rally point. In 2004 and again in 2006, "W" used the gay marriage issue to revitalize his far right troops. He worked up the Evangelical Right to follow him in his battle against Adam and Everett. (Today, Ken Mehlman, "W's" spokesman and Campaign Chairman came out of the closet. Why so late?)

Now we have the Muslims to fight against. That peaceful religion that respects love and humanitarianism is now who we are against . . . or I should say, "Who some are against."

The Imam of that "Victory Mosque" in New York was hired by Geroge W. to be an ambassador to the Islamic World from America. Now he has been vilified as the "Imam from Hell" and the Islamic community Center, which is in the middle of an Islamic Community, is the center of our "Hate and Fear."

Rally around the Pyre, Boys! This is whom we will hate tomorrow. So far the GOP has only come out against the Middle Class. We are who can hurt them most and we are those who they would like to wipe out or at least make poor and dependant.

Welcome to the middle class. If the GOP is in power, we haven't got a chance.

Visiting the 14th Amendment

There is a lot of talk about the 14th Amendment these days. The Republicans want it repealed because of those pesky "Anchor Babies," after all that is what the 14th Amendment is all about . . . isn't it?

That, of course, is not very accurate, but we have all grown to expect that from the devious Republicans. They know what they are doing and how to manipulate ideas and how to soften harsh ideas into something more palatable.

As a disclaimer, I want everyone to know that I am not a Constitutional scholar nor a Lawyer at all. I just know how politicians work and what the Republicans want. So with several good reads of the 14th Amendment and lots of research from both the pro and the con side, this is what I've come to understand about the controversy.

First we have to understand the 14th Amendment and why it was needed in the first place. It was one of three "Reconstruction" amendments that were put passed after the Civil War, outlawing slavery, defining citizenship and giving rights to all citizens/persons of the United States.

Basically, the 14th Amendment was to reverse the decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, or that is what the Republicans want you to believe. But, there is a lot more to the 14th Amendment than that. Many have referred to the 14th Amendment as "The Second Bill of Rights."

Before the 14th Amendment was passed, individual states could pass laws that superseded the Constitutional guarantees in the original Bill of Rights. If an individual state wanted to pass a law making any particular religion the official "State Religion," that state could do it and enforce it. Individual states could curtail freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly, or any of the freedoms enumerated in the original Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the Constitution only protected citizens from the Federal Government, but not the government of the individual states. That is what brought on the Dred Scott decision.

The 14th Amendment incorporates "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" into the Constitution and makes it pertain to the individual states. That is what the Republicans want to repeal. Once the 14th Amendment is gone, individual states can control what goes on inside each state. That way they can, state by state, enact laws that they can't enact on a countrywide basis. They might even outlaw being a liberal in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and Arkansas or make being a Mormon mandatory in Utah.

Let's look at the Due Process Clause. As stated, before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights didn't protect citizens from state government, only Federal Government, or so the Supreme Court once ruled. The Due Process Clause states, " . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." As stated, although Due Process was part of the 5th Amendment, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 5th Amendment only pertained to the Federal Government, not the government of the individual states. The 14th Amendment pertained to the individual states and expanded Due Process to include people in the individual states and protection from the state's laws.

Equal Protection is a whole new puzzle. All of a sudden, the Constitution uses the word "Person" instead of "Citizen." The 14th Amendment states,
". . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As in the Due Process clause, the 14th Amendment uses the word "Person" although the word "Citizen" is also used elsewhere. Some argue that a Citizen was considered to be a "White Male" over the age of 21 and a "Person" was, in the case of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, a male ex-slave over the age of 21. Not being a Constitutional scholar, I can't argue one way or the other on that one.

Don't let the Republicans get away without telling you everything they want to do in repealing the 14th Amendment. They want to get away with much more, it all sounds good the way they tell it, but when the Republicans start sounding good, you need to look further into it. They haven't had a good idea in decades.

A Political Smear Speech

I don't remember where I got this or to whom I should credit it. But it seems appropriate at this time in our present political atmosphere.

At times, in answering people who suggest that politicians should tell the truth, I point out that the truth might get them into more trouble than they need as in the 1998 movie "Bulworth" where Warren Beatty performs as the President and decides to tell the absolute truth, no matter what. It shows what blunt honesty will do.

At any rate, this is a political smear speech written some time ago by someone? other than myself, but seems right for our times. If you need to get out a dictionary for a few words . . . that's great . . . have at it. It's the positive truth portrayed as a negative. Check it out.

Political Smear Speech

My fellow citizens, it is an honor and a pleasure to be here today. Now, when I embarked on this political campaign I hoped it could be conducted on a high level, and that my opponent would be willing to stick to the issues. Instead . . . unfortunately, he has decided to be tractable, and to indulge in unequivocal language, to eschew the use of outright lies in his speeches and even to make repeated veracious statements about me.

Now, at first, I tried to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities, but I will do so no longer. If my opponent wants a fight, he's gonna get a fight!

Now, it might be instructive to start with his background. My friends, have you ever accidentally dislodged a rock on the ground and seen what is underneath? As for my opponent, his background is dissimilar. All the slime and filth and corruption you could imagine, even in your wildest dreams, are glaringly nonexistent in this man's life. Even during his childhood.

And since the subject came up, let us take a quick look at his childhood! It is a known fact that on a number of occasions, he emulated older boys on a certain playground. It is also known that his parents not only permitted him to masticate excessively, but even urged him to do so.

This man, who poses as a paragon of virtue, exacerbated his own sister when they were teenagers. I ask you my fellow Americans, is this the kind of person we want in public office? To set an example for our youth?

Let us consider some of the other members of his family. My opponent's second cousin is a practicing monogamist! His Uncle was a flagrant heterosexual. His sister, who has always been obsessed with sex, once worked as a proselyte outside a church. And, his younger brother wrote an essay extolling the virtues of being a Homo sapien. And his great Aunt? Well, his great Aunt expired of a degenerative disease. His nephew subscribes to several phono graphic magazines! His wife was a thespian before they were married, and had even performed that act in front of paying customers. His own mother had to resign from a women's organization in her later years because she was an admitted sexagenarian.

Now, what shall I say about this man himself? I can tell you in the solemn truth, that he has perambulated his infant on the street, he has practiced nepotism with his Uncle and first cousin. And, he has attempted to interest a thirteen year old girl in philately.

This man participated in a seance in a private residence where among other odd goings on, there was incense. An, he has openly advocated social intercourse in mixed company, and has taken part in such gatherings himself.

He had been deliberately averse to crime in our streets! He has urged our Protestant and Jewish citizens to develop more catholic tastes, and last summer he committed a piscatorial act while aboard a boat flying the American Flag.

Now, I beg you my friends . . . oppose this man whose life, work and ideas are so openly and avowably compatible with our American way of life. A vote for him would be a vote for the perpetuation of everything we hold dear. The facts are clear! the record speaks for itself.