OWS: A ship in search of a rudder

A few days ago, someone I went to High School with and haven't spoken to in over 20 years (but none the less is one of my Facebook "Friends") posted a picture on Facebook of some National Guardsmen with a sign that said - Occupy Bagram: Quit your bitchin' and get back to work.  This set off a response from me and a little back-and-forth about the OWS movement.  Needless to say, I was put-off,...no, offended, by this little protest by men and women who I have enormous respect for.  Mainly because most of these same National Guard personnel will be in the very same boat as the OWS folk when they get back to the States - no job and little prospect of getting one anytime soon. 

The image that's being conveyed by the conservative right about OWS is being fed by the liberal left - a mob of out-of-work slackers with no leadership and no sense of direction.  Regardless of what narrative or picture the right wing establishment wants to portray, the reality of who these people are (the Occupiers) is far from their truth but also confirms what is painfully obvious.  This movement is a rudderless ship drifting out to sea, in desperate need of rescue. 

The facts that get in the way of the truth, on how OWS grew, are somehow debatable.  But regardless of how the right wing establishment wants to frame "the Occupiers", there is a national consensus for a re-balancing of relative equality between the 99% and the top 1%.  So what are the organics behind this movement? 

From the post WWII era up to the late 1970 to early 1980s, Democrats & Republicans (Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives), were in relative agreement on Corporate accountability and responsibility to the nation. The same goes for personal and corporate taxes, as well as Capital Gains taxes. During that time, while the nation went through some incredible social changes, our overall economy was relatively stable, with small to moderate recessions that we were able to come out of relatively quickly. 

Since the late 1970s early 1980s, people that felt success and those that take risks (in business) were not being rewarded enough for their "prosperity" were able to gain incredible access to elected officials. This started a movement to massive tax cuts and deregulation that eroded the relative economic stability we had as a nation. Within this thirty year time frame or so, we have had three Stock Market crashes - two directly attributed to financial bubbles and one as a direct result of the Terror Attacks on 9/11. Prior to that, the last Stock Market Crash was in 1929. 

All during this 30 year time frame, our nation has run continual budget deficits as a result of cutting taxes and deferring to the judgement of Wall Street hacks (which has developed into a defacto fourth branch of our Federal Government that is more powerful than the three branches that our Constitution is structured on). This has piled up to our current level of national debt. 

To bring my point to a close, the American Taxpayer has given these folks on Wall Street bailout after bailout - whether it be two rounds of stimulus, direct bailouts, deregulation, or tax loopholes where the largest corporation pay next to nothing or nothing at all in taxes. What have we gotten in return? More bonuses for Wall Street CEOs, Hedge Fund Managers, and their lobbying firms on K Street. They have shipped manufacturing and high tech jobs overseas, and parked their corporate profit in off-shore banks to avoid paying taxes.  But somehow this is OK, because they are rewarded with disproportionate influence over our lawmakers in DC and in every state capital in this nation.  All because they have money to fund political campaigns. 

So, why not protest the place and the people that are clearly running this nation. The people we elected to do what's in the best interest of this nation are clearly answering to the Wall Street CEOs and their Boards of Directors.  As for the folks that are being told to get back to work in the sign being held by these warriors, believe me if there were jobs to get back to - that were in a relative pay range or income level prior to the Great Recession - they would be there in a heart beat. 

The students that have graduated college during this time, most (I'm not going to say all) don't want to be living back at home with mom and dad - in the basement or attic playing Call of Duty on their XBox 360 - and would rather have a job. The older folks that got laid-off or lost their job, they're not getting hired because their "too old" and have too much experience. You might say, start a small business.  But the banks are so tight with their lending, that it's next to impossible to get a loan.  They'd rather give their top managers and Board Members bonuses for hording money.  By the time a loan gets approved (if they do at all), they're out on the street or living out of their car - if they even have a car. 

Take a good look and it will become clear that these folks that are part of the OWS movement are doing almost the only thing they can do - bringing attention to the massive income, wealth, access, and accountability disparity between those with money, power and access and those without. I agree that folks need to get back to work, but there are not jobs to get back to work to. 

For a long time, we were a nation where if something wasn't working for us (individually) we could change gears or take a different path professionally. What we've lost is the security of being able to do just that. Making the case to prospective employers that you have transferable skills is falling on deaf ears. Same goes for trying to start a small business and prove to lenders that you are a smart and safe business risk. We have lost that ability and its frustrating, and in many ways - depressing. 

So, where does this put the OWS movement?  Almost all of the encampments have been cleared.  With the exception of clashes with local or campus police, the press coverage has slowed to a trickle.  The decision making structures of the disparate OWS groups has been modeled off of a group consensus format, where participants are held accountable by each other.  In the short-term, this method has worked fine but the momentum has stalled and the larger message is being repackaged by those outside the movement - that of a movement of unemployed, upper-middle income and liberal trust fund babies, just stirring up trouble, that are disconnected from working class Americans. 

A movement that once sparked global action is now drifting out to sea, mainly because there is no focus, no cohesive message, and most importantly no leadership.  Someone, please rescue this movement before it sinks under a wave of obscurity. 

Image found at:  http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/10/10/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_protest/occupy-wall-street-rich-homes.gi.top.jpg 

If Climate Change/Global Warming is a conspiracy, then why is...?

So, an "internal memo" comes out this week that directs the on-air personalities of Fox News to utilize language that is more favorable to conservative sensibilities (Shocker, I know).  For example, when discussion is centered around healthcare reform, instead of referring to the key part of the Obama Administration's healthcare reform proposal as "the public option", the preferred terminology should be "government-run health insurance" or "government option."  

As for Climate Change/Global Warming, regardless of the mountains of data and evidence that shows the increase in temperatures are connected to human activity, Fox News personalities have been instructed to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question." 

Thanks to Lowell Feld and the group at Blue Virginia for posting this piece about the Blue Planet Forum in Norfolk.  It just makes you wonder why so much money, time, and effort have been put into casting doubt on Climate Change/Global Warming?  Which brings me to my point.  If Climate Change/Global Warming is a conspiracy, then why is the United States Navy investing so much interest in determining the impact on Naval Operations and National Security? 

Here is Admiral David Titley, USN Oceanographer and Navigator, discussing why the United States Navy is concerned about Climate Change/Global Warming: 



But, what do I know?  The word of Fox News is gospel and everyone else is just making stuff up.  I wonder how long it will be before the man responsible for the leaked email/memo, Fox News Vice President Bill Sammon, will be promoted?

Image found at:  http://www.topnews.in/files/global-warming_10.jpg 

Conservatives: For every one good thing they do,...

There are some schools of thought that say if you are going to discipline, reprimand, constructively criticize someone you focus on what they did wrong and end it with something they did right.  Well, I'm not going to do that.  So, let's start with what Conservatives did right this week.

On Friday (November 19, 2010), by unanimous consent, the United States Senate finally passed the long awaited bill authorizing the funding to pay Black Farmers $1.15 billion in settlement money.  In the 1997 Pigford v. Glickman case, black farmers claimed they were systematically denied government farm loans and other support from the United States government because of race.  The case was settled in 1999, but thousands of black farmers missed the deadline to submit claims. 

In order to address this, in 2008 then-Senator Barck Obama sponsored legislation to reopen the case to allow those black farmers that missed the deadline to file a claim.  This past February the Justice Department announced the resolution to Pigford II, that the settlement agreement was dependent on funding by Congress.  Each qualified claimant is to receive $50,000 to settle claims of racial bias against the Department of Agriculture. 

Prior to the November 2nd Mid-Term Elections, this measure to fund the settlement was included as part of another bill, which was filibustered by Republicans.  The bill finally passed when Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) withdrew his objection after it was agreed the funding would not be financed through more deficit spending.  Included in the same piece of legislation was $3.4 billion to fund the settlement of a mishandled trust fund managed for Native Americans by the Department of the Interior, as well as four water-rights lawsuits relating to Native American tribes. 

Now for what Conservatives did wrong: 

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is holding up the ratification of the new START Treaty between the United States and Russia.  Senator Kyl is claiming that the new treaty puts the United States at a strategic disadvantage with only 1,550 long range nuclear weapons (missiles and long range bombers).  Russia is limited to the same number, but he is worried about the verification of that number on the Russian side of the treaty.  Treaty ratification requires 67 votes to pass. 

The fact is that if only one is used, we are all at a disadvantage.  Of all the fights to pick, this was the absolute wrong one for Senator Kyl to try and flex his muscles.  Even if it is during the "Lame Duck" session, not passing this has huge downsides and puts an uneasy and sometimes tense U.S.-Russia relationship in more jeopardy.  To read more about the story, click here. 

House Republicans held the line, denying passage on a three month extension of Unemployment Benefits by a vote of 258-154.  While Democrats still mustered a huge majority, under House rules for fast-tracking legislation they fell short of the three forths majority needed to pass.  House GOP members justified their opposition to the extension citing the need to have the benefits paid for by spending cuts in other areas. 

Starting in December, 2 million people will start loosing their unemployment benefits.  Keep in mind, the GOP is fighting hard to indefinitly extend the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, which will cost the country $700 billion over the next 10 years.  So, how are they going to pay for that? 

This week President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to Sal Giunta, the first living recipient since the Vietnam War.  But despite Staff Sgt. Giunta's valor in the line of fire, Conservative writer and Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, Bryan Fischer, feels it would have been more, shall we say masculine, if Staff Sgt. Giunta had died in order to be honored by our Nation's highest Military Honor.  Click here to read his piece. 

I don't know who this person is, or if he's even served in uniform, but to say or even imply that the awarding of medals for valor above and beyond the call of duty to our men and women in the armed service of our nation, should only be reserved for those that die, kill, or destroy is repugnant and disgusting. 

Like I said at the beginning, for every one good thing Conservatives do,...  

Image found at:  http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bvonmoney.com/media/2010/07/black-farmers.jpg, 

More proof that poverty and inequity concentrated in regions governed by Conservatives

Last week the government released the latest number on poverty in America, and as expected there are more people living in poverty because of The Great Recession.  One in seven (1 out of every 7) people in this country are living below the poverty line.  Over 14%.  The next day, the U.S. Census Bureau releases its report on the richest and poorest states in the country.  The Top 10 Wealthiest States are as follows: 

1.   New Hampshire
2.   New Jersey 
3.   Connecticut 
4.   Maryland 
5.   Alaska 
6.   Virginia  (NOVA's Median Income is much higher than the rest of the state)
7.   Utah 
8.   Massachusetts 
9.   Hawaii 
10. Washington (State)

The Median Income runs from $65,028 in New Hampshire to $58,404 in Washington (State).  Five out of the top ten are located in the Northeast, and if you want to include Maryland and Virginia for geographic continuity, then seven out of the top ten.  While the Median Incomes are the highest out of all the 50 states, when you factor in cost of living, it becomes more relative.  Also, in many of these states there is a strong Organized Labor movement and have a history of electing Progressives and Liberals.  Now the poorest states: 

50. Mississippi 
49. Arkansas 
48. West Virginia 
47. Tennessee 
46. South Carolina 
45. Montana 
44. Kentucky 
43. Alabama 
42. North Carolina
41. Louisiana

The Median Income for this group runs from $42,423 in Louisiana to the lowest of $35,693 in Mississippi.  Nine out of the ten states in this bottom group are concentrated in the South.  Montana is the only one in this list that is not geographically located in the South.  These states are primarily Right-to-Work states, relatively weak Organized Labor movements, and have a strong history of electing Conservatives. 

As we know, Conservatives are huge advocates of deregulation and pure free market Capitalism.  They favor tax codes that are relatively flat or consumption based rather than the current progressive income tax code.  They also favor little or no taxation on businesses and corporations.  Cost of living is relatively low in this area, as well as wages.  Public Schools are either very well funded or crumbling, depending on which part of the city or county a person lives. 

There are pockets of economic vitality and prosperity, but one to two streets over you run into abject poverty.  It would seem that for Conservatives, this is what personal responsibility and the American Dream resembles.  As the saying goes, "Birds of a feather fock together." 

Law and Order Conservatives continue to give the business community a pass on illegal immigration

As November approaches "Law and Order" Conservatives continue to demonstrate they're not serious about illegal immigration.  Rather than take on the business community, who primarily bankrolls GOP political  operations, these same champions of "enforcing the laws that are on the books" prefer to focus that attention on immigrants who are here illegally. 

The most recent proof of this is Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli legal opinion for the proposed Virginia Rule of Law Act, which was requested by Delegate Scott Lingamfelter (R) Woodbridge.  Last week, an op-ed from 6th District Congressman Bob Goodlatte called on the Congress and the President to enforce immigration laws so that states, like Arizona, wouldn't feel it necessary to take matters into their own hands and pass constitutionally questionable laws that clearly cross the boundaries of Federal-State jurisdiction. 

In every instance where the GOP talks about enforcing immigration law, they almost never mention enforcing the other aspects of the law by prosecuting businesses that hire illegal immigrants.  Hiring someone not here legally and eligible to work in the United States is ILLEGAL.  As conservatives like to say:  WHAT PART OF ILLEGAL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? 

If conservatives were serious about stemming the tide of illegal immigration into the United States, they would prosecute these businesses that hire illegal immigrants.  They would also support stiffer penalties for hiring people that are not eligible to work in this country.  The main reason why people south of the United States-Mexican boarder cross into this country illegally is because of ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. 

If there were no prospects for being hired to work in the United States, without going through the appropriate immigration and guest worker process, the flow of illegal immigration would dwindle to a trickle. 

One other thing that "patriotic" conservatives seem to ignore is that American businesses who hire illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from native born and legalized American Citizens.  In-sourcing or out-sourcing, what's the difference?  They're not hiring Americans for these jobs.  So maybe if we enforced all the laws relating to immigration, and even passed some that made it such a disincentive to hire illegal workers, then we could honestly address the illegal immigration issue. 

So, here's my idea.  Lets pass a state law that says if you hire illegal workers, your assets will be seized, the business will be shut down, and you will go to the same jails where the illegal immigrants are locked up.  They are building one around Farmville, VA.  I can almost guarantee that unemployment would drop and there would not be a constitutional challenge to the law.   But why should the GOP actually offer a real solution to the problem when they can have a divisive issue to run on that further polarize Americans and inflames racial bias?

GOP agenda coming into focus: Phase 1 - Cut off funding to Healthcare Reform

There are two things that you can say about the GOP without being wrong: They're predictable and consistent.  Realizing that the battle cry of "Repeal and Replace" will require more muscle than they can hope to muster, a new and more realistic campaign theme for the Mid-Term Elections is taking shape.  Choke off the funding to healthcare reform. 

Conservatives opposed to Healthcare Reform continue to proclaim that most Americans are opposed to the new reforms.  But on Thursday of last week (July 29, 2010), the Kaiser Family Foundation released a tracking poll indicating that support of the newly passed Healthcare Reform law is growing.  According to their findings: 

"The July Health Tracking Poll indicates overall public support for the health reform law is steady from June, while unfavorable views of the law have trended downward. Half the public (50%) now expresses a favorable view of the law, while 35 percent say they have an unfavorable opinion (down from 41% in June)." 

So, where does this Conservative belief that most Americans don't support the Healthcare Reform bill that was passed into law?  Well, it could be from this Fox News poll taken back in March, were 55% of respondents said they opposed the new reforms.  When comparing the numbers from the Fox News poll to the Kaiser Family Foundation poll, it appears there is a massive shift in support.  Keep in mind the terminology each uses to measure support. 

Fox News polls use definitive terms like "opposed" and "support", while Kaiser and other independent and non-partisan groups and foundations who poll on a regular basis use terms like "favorable" and "unfavorable."  The problem with polls that use definitive terminology and questions where you either have to answer yes or no, support or oppose, is it skews the poll and doesn't give an accurate picture of the complexity of the issues in question.  These types of polls tend to be used for propaganda, plain and simple. 

Some time ago, the GOP was pointing to a poll that said even most Democrats were opposed to the Healthcare Reforms passes in the House and Senate.  When you dug a little deeper into the numbers, the opposition from bluest of blue Democrats was that the reforms didn't go far enough.  Those were the ones that wanted a Single-Payer system rather than the one that is just starting to get implemented. 

This pathological obsession that Conservatives have with pushing misinformation is going to catch up to them.  The list of issues that Americans broadly support that the GOP has voted against is growing long: 

1.  Healthcare Reform
2.  Wall Street-Financial Reform
3.  Campaign Finance Reform  
4.  Small Business Loans 
5.  Tighter regulations on the Oil Industry (post BP) 
6.  Extending Unemployment Benefits 

Picture found at:  http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02mM4W096v1cd/610x.jpg   There are likely more, but these are the most prominant or the latest. 

The Great Recession: It could have been far worse

Conservatives can say what they want, and we will continue to haggle over what the real unemployment rate is (9.5% or at high as 16.5%), but the consensus among leading economists and financial experts continues to support the actions taken by both the Bush and Obama Administrations to prevent Great Depression 2.0.

In a report released on Wednesday, July 27, 2010, Mark Zandi (Chief Economist for Moody's Analytics) and  Alan Blinder (Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics at Princeton University) state that while there are good questions about the need for TARP, extending Unemployment Insurance, the Stimulus Package, Cash for Clunkers, Home Buyer Tax Credit, etc..., "it is clear that laissez faire was not an option; policymakers had to act."  Zandi and Blinder go on further to conclude: 

"When all is said and done, the financial and fiscal policies will have cost taxpayers a substantial sum, but not nearly as much as most had feared and not nearly as much as if policymakers had not acted at all. If the comprehensive policy responses saved the economy from another depression, as we estimate, they were well worth their cost."

Which brings me to another point.  Why haven't some of these Bankers and Hedge Fund Managers gone to jail?!!!  Why hasn't there been universal, bi-partisan support for Wall Street Reform like there was back in 1934? 

I think we all know the reason why.  Just in case you don't here is a great article in Vanity Fair about the (Ferdinand) Pecora Commission and how it lead to the formation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and passage of the Glass-Steagall Act (strict separation of Commercial & Investment Banks).  

When you totally repeal the laws that were suppose to prevent our economy from coming close to another Great Depression, and you weaken the SEC's enforcement powers, you shouldn't be surprised that we are in the shape we are in right now.  So, when did all this happen?  The total repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act happened in 1999 and the SEC saw it's enforcement powers steadily stripped from 2001 - 2007.  In case you are wondering who was in control of Congress during those times, Republicans. 

As the 2010 Mid-Term Elections get closer, you need look no further than the full-court press that Conservatives are putting on K Street donors in anticipation of the GOP taking back control of either the House or the Senate, or both.  No wonder Senate Republicans refused to lift the filibuster on the most recent revision of Campaign Finance Reform. 

If the GOP can overcome the Tea Party takeover and they do win control of Congress back from the Democrats, does this mean that K Street Lobbyist will be writing their legislation (again)?  Does an elephant have a trunk? 

Image found at:  http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/great-depression-unemployment-line.jpg 

TAXES!!! Are we really OVER TAXED like conservatives claim?

Taxes, Taxes, Taxes.  Its that dirty five letter word that elicits grumbles and raises blood pressure.  So, lets face it, nobody likes to pay taxes but most realize that it's the price we pay to live in a democratic and free society.  Our taxes provide the lubrication for interstate and intrastate commerce by building and paving our roads and a few other intangibles tied to our national economy.  They pay for our military, national security, and law enforcement which provides for the national defense and protects the citizenry. 

Our taxes also provide for the general health and welfare of the country so that we can respond to emergencies, natural disasters, outbreaks of communicable diseases, ensure fair wage and labor standards, and even provides for universal education up to the 12th Grade.  This universal education part is probably the most important because once we passed laws for compulsory education, we became the most productive nation in the world. 

We work hard and expect a lot from our multiple levels of government (Federal, State, and Local) for the taxes we pay.  So, when I hear phrases from conservatives and tax cut advocates like "Over Taxed" and "Overly Burdensome" when referring to the taxes we pay, I have to ask:  Compared to what? 

I came across a CNN Opinion Article last night written by John Avlon, who also writes for the Daily Beast.  In it he makes several great points about Goldwater-Regan Conservatives circa 1964, and that if they were running for office today as a "Conservative" they probably wouldn't be elected to Dog Catcher for their support of "Liberal" policies like how Regan raised taxes by a Billion dollars to close a state budget gap while Governor of California.  Or how both Regan and Goldwater supported Gay Rights.  Let's not forget that Regan was an Organized Labor man, being the President of the Screen Actor's Guild for a time. 

So, when it comes to taxes and do we pay too much to the Federal Government, what exactly is too much?  I came across the web site for the Tax Foundation (which is a conservative groups) and came across a publication on their site with the Federal Tax Rates from 1913 to 2010.  One thing that jumps out is that we are paying a lot less in Federal Income Taxes than we did back in 1964.  There are two side to the issue of Tax Liability/Burden/Responsibility:  what we think we pay and what we actually pay. 

In several conversations I've had over the years with conservative friends of mine, the general perception is that we pay close to or over half of our income in taxes.  That covers Federal, State, and Local taxes.  In a short conversation/Facebook chat I had last night with a friend, he estimated that he payed about 45% of his income in taxes.  If we are just looking at Federal Income Tax for 2009-2010, the top marginal tax rate of 35% kicks-in at $373,650 of earned income.  He clarified and made sure that I included all taxes, so here we go: 

Federal Income Tax for 2010  (Tax Bracket and Earned Income - Filling as Head of Household) 

35%          $373,650 and higher 
33%          $190,550 to $373,650 
28%          $117,650 to $190,550 
25%          $  45,550 to $117,650
15%          $  11,950 to $  45,550
10%          $           0 to $  11,950

Federal Income Tax for 1964  (Tax Bracket and Earned Income - Filling as Head of Household) 
(Selected Tax Brackets and Income Levels)

77%          $200,000 and higher 
71%          $100,000 to $120,000 
61%          $  52,000 to $  60,000
39%          $  18,000 to $  20,000 

Well, you can see my point and if you want to pour over a very boring chart with lots of numbers, click on the link above to the Tax Foundation's Tax Chart from 1913 to 2010. 

For anyone that owns a home or has a home equity line of credit, you are able to deduct the lion share of the mortgage interest, so that cuts down on your taxable income.  Child Tax Credits, Primary Care Giver Health Care, etc...  The point here is that with all the available credits and deductions, a person's taxable income at the federal level is reduced even further. 

In the Commonwealth of Virginia the top marginal rate for State Income Tax is 5.75% and that kicks in at around $20,000 of earned income.  So, everyone making that much money a year or more pays the same State Income Tax Rate, and this is based off of your ADJUSTED Gross Income from your Federal Tax Return. 

Federal Gas Tax is 18.4 cents per gallon.  Then states tack on their gas tax. 

Virginia's State Sales Tax is generally around 4% or 4 cents for every dollar spent. 

Then there are Local Taxes (Personal Property and Local Sales Taxes).  In Chesapeake, you will pay $1.04 or $1.05 per $100 of assessed value on your property/house (the difference in the two rates depends on if you live in an area where they spray for mosquitoes or not).  If you own a home assessed at $200,000 you will pay something like $2,100 per year to The City of Chesapeake, which goes primarily to fund the schools, teacher salaries, and Administration. 

In Campbell County, the Personal Property Tax Rate is around $0.42 per $100 of assessed value.  That same $200,000 house in Campbell County will be taxed at around $840 per year. 

Then you pay local sales taxes, which varies from locality to locality.  And then there are the other fees and assessments the Commonwealth of Virginia and localities charge its citizens. 

The bulk of tax payers are in the 25-28% Federal Income Tax Bracket.  According to my "back of the napkin" math, taking into account all taxes and potential fees paid, a person's total tax liability/burden/responsibility is in the range of maybe 35-38%.  Compared to the 1964 Top Marginal Income Tax Rate of 77% which kicks-in at $200,000 or the 61% Income Tax Bracket at $52,000 of earned income, OUR TAXES ARE LOW. 

So, where is the wealth redistribution and Socialism?

Image found at:  http://1040formhelp.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/taxsensitivity.jpg

Hide your children from the President's Socialist Propaganda: Work Hard, Stay in School

This is absolutely absurd. Bush 41 addressed school children during school hours during his first (and only) term, and there wasn't this kink of uproar. There is no indoctrination here. It's not like Obama is staging a photo-op like Saddam or Kim Jong Il to show how much they are loved by the people, or parading tanks and infantry down Pennsylvania Ave like the Soviets did in front of the Kremlin.

There are numerous studies that show people's perception of darker complected skin colors is of suspicion and mistrust. We have a dark complected President for he first time in our Nation's history and the rhetoric coming out of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz is "I don't trust this guy!" If we had a white President, would this even be a story or be this level of mistrust or suspicion of the President and his motives? I think not.

I had a conversation with a family member over a online petition to stop Government Run Health Care. I replied that this was total crap and I wasn't going to participate and I proceeded to chastise this member of my family for pushing this stuff. Long story short, I went through the whole list of how the Health Insurance Industry and the status quo was totally unsustainable and that there was little truth to the things they were regurgitating from Conservatives and Private Health Care (opponents) talking points against real Health Care Reform.

I posed the following questions to them to see what aspects of national common good they would do away with to "save" our nation from socialism:

Should we totally dismantle Public Education and only educate people that can afford to pay for Private Schools? Should we only build roads that are paid for by private companies and they charge tolls for their usage? Should we only allow private security firms to take charge of our community policing? Should we trust utilities and pharmaceuticals to do the right thing and not monitor if they are polluting our water and air or putting drugs on the market that have not been tested to see if they are safe?

They agreed with me on all these questions, that doing away with all this stuff would be a bad idea. But, then they said that Obama was "shady and slippery as hell." They don't trust him. I go back to what I said at the beginning - There are numerous studies that show people's perception of darker complected skin colors is of suspicion and mistrust. We have a dark complected President for he first time in our Nation's history and the rhetoric coming out of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz is "I don't trust this guy!" If we had a white President, would this even be a story or be this level of mistrust or suspicion of the President and his motives? Coincidence? Ironic?

Again, I go back to Dick Cheney's roll in the CIA Terror Suspects "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques. If Bush (43) had continued to listen to Cheney, the First, Forth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment would have totally been erased from the Constitution, all in the name of National Security and fighting terrorism. Thank god that GWB finally figured out that Cheney was trying to shred the Constitution.

So, how is detaining and questioning suspected terrorist a threat to the Bill of Rights? In the name of National Security, anyone (even natural born Americans) could be accused of supporting terrorism if they spoke out against the Government or questionable policies (possibly, but that wouldn't happen in this country). When people are not feeling financially secure, spreading mis-information and governing by fear is much easier.

So parents, you have more to fear from Dick Cheney's attempt to shred the Bill of Rights and governing by fear than the "Work hard, stay in school" capitalist message of indoctrination from President Obama. All of this misplaced fear and mistrust of Obama is firmly rooted in bigotry. People need to grow up.

Picture found at: http://fratres.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/socialism1.jpg