Damn now I have seen everything,

al Qaeda's #2 is channeling the KKK or somebody,

<i>"Al-Zawahri says in an audio message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday,

He calls Obama a "house negro."</i>

It's sort of like when Rush the fat drug addict  played "Barack The Magic Negro" on His Show ....

Or when Sean Hannity had the anti-Semitic loon Andy Martin on his show to spread more distortions of Barack Obama's message ......

Tom Delay tried to claim Barack was a marxist or socialist at best .....

Of course Anthrax Coulter had to go all Godwin on us;

<i>"With one association after another, that is beyond the pale with Barack Obama, I feel like we are talking to the Germans after Hitler comes to power, saying 'Oh, well, I didn't know. I had no idea he was gonna be like this.' With this guy, Americans ought to know."</i> .....

Of course there is Joe Lieberman, he tried to make us afraid of Barack, but it did not work on us,

al Zawarhi that is a different matter it seems, he seems to fear Obama.

Who can forget Joe the plumber, we aren't really sure what he was after ... but fame, and making sure he could spread right wing dis-info about Barack.

Or right wing idiots like Mike Gallagher falsely claiming; <i>"that the Obamas don't believe in giving their children Christmas presents or birthday gifts."</i>

Jonah Goldberg (the clown who can't tell the philosophical difference between fascism and liberalism) falsely claimed <i>"cannot credibly talk of love of country while simultaneously dodging the word and concept of patriotism."</i>

At least in a New York Times Op-ed, columnist Bill Kristol provided evidence that he suffers from Obama Derangement Syndrome ... (The symptoms of this syndrome include a pathological hatred of Barack Obama and a willingness to believe any and every lie about him that makes its way into the blogosphere.) ... which lead to many many mistakes in his factually challenged word salads.

Or when the right wing Wurlitzer claimed he was a secret Muslim, (So secret he attends a Christian church for 20 years) talk about deep cover ......

Or paled around with terrorists ...

Man that must have hurt Ayman al-Zawahri' s feelings because he wasn't one of Barack's supposed terrorists friends.

Maybe that is why Zawahri is lashing out at Obama even before he assumes the mantle of leader of the free world.

I guess it is the enemy of my enemy thingie.

Rush, Delay, Kristol, Libermann, Coulter, Hannity, Martin, Goldberg, Palin, Gallagher, Joe the plumber, ... hmm, al Zawarhi sure picks some strange people to ally himself with.

On this Veterans Day we honor the service and sacrifice of veterans.  We do this with parades, wreath laying and many people silently going to grave sites to visit the last resting place of a comrade or loved one.  All of these are appropriate ways to honor those who donned the uniform and served to defend this country.

However there is another way we need to start honoring veterans, which can't change what happened but could change the future of veterans.  In this I mean to have the civilians make sacrifices along with veterans.  These sacrifices could include, requiring the politicians who have the ability to send tens of thousands of mostly young people into harm's way, to also be required to mandate the citizens who remain behind pony up and <i>pay as you go</i> for the deployments and wars those politicians decide are worthy of the young soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen sacrifice sometimes in life and limb.

We have in our history now two wars where the American civilians were not asked to sacrifice while troops marched off to war, Vietnam and Iraq.  In both cases the wars were totally optional, and pushed hard by certain political groups to achieve foreign policy goals which didn't necessarily align with the needs or goals of ordinary Americans security.  In both cases life in America remained mostly normal and unless you knew someone personally involved you really were not affected in any major way.

In both cases the military did its job, however the political goals of the wars were never fully explained when they were started. Also the strategy for what winning looked like was lacking and how militarily it could be achieved was never properly explained either by the generals on the ground and in the pentagon, nor by the politicians pushing for the wars to continue in perpetuity.  In both cases the stated reasons for the wars never matched the realistic ability of a military solution for political success.  In both cases the military was asked to conquer an enemy which resided in the land who never could be separated from the rest of the civilian populace.  And in both cases the politicians at home never faced up to the reality they were asking the military to do something which the military was not designed to do, conquer hearts and minds with bullets and bombs.

So in the future, to help the American people from making this mistake a third time, I propose that any military involvement that is NOT totally defensive in nature, i.e. one where we send our troops to defend a certain faction in another country or enact regime change, the mandatory requirement for the congress to RAISE taxes to pay the expenses of the troops and combat in real time. No waivers, no presidential signing statement, they ask the American taxpayer to foot the bill or cancel the optional foreign war. Also when the troops come home there is NO question about a GI bill and medical care, it is mandated to be included in the actual request at the start of combat, not after the troops have done their job, no more troops homeless, asking for help.


In this manner the American people will really pay attention. The propaganda machines which are used to push hard for wars will be called out and checked much closer before troops face the ultimate sacrifice. Unless the rest of the country has to get their wallets out and pay for it, the troops stay home.  It doesn't put the rest of the country in the harms way, but it does get them very interested in whether we really need to march off to another political use of our military with has no National Security need that can be justified.

So in the future if you really want to honor the veterans, ask your representatives to step up and ask YOU to sacrifice a little while you ask the members of the military to sacrifice a lot.

Last night on the Jay Leno show John McCain lied to millions of American people.  He claimed when he was in the POW camp he had no kitchen table however that was not true.  He had a family back in the United States, and they sat at the very kitchen table he claimed didn't exist.

I wonder if his attempt to spin his inability to know how many houses his Rich wife has bought is also bleeding into his desire to hide the fact he had a family back in the United States which he abandoned when he cheated on his wife and divorced her for a much younger richer woman.

He claims so much because of his POW status, however for his wife and children who suffered here when he was over there, he seemed very willing to throw them away as yesterdays news, and now wants people to forget.  Is that why he lied and claimed he didn't have a kitchen table because then people won't think about the family he abandoned just HIM  ....  always him.

McCain needs to stop using his POW status because it has a very seedy side, and his claims of a free pass falls flat when one thinks of how he is twisting the truth to fit his  campaign needs.

I have a suggestion which might clear up so much of the corruption and mudslinging that politicians trade in.  It might remove so much of the scandal and distortions, the media wallows in, and which so much of our politics is based on and get us back to the issues which NEED a better airing.

Make then meet the same requirements we make our troops when they join. A simple back ground investigation, each time they run for office including state offices.

All files and secrets open NO off limits areas at all. Make them prove they are as fit to serve this country as we make the people who volunteer for duty on the front lines.

If you want to hold national office you need to meet the requirements that every E-5 sergeant in the Army needs to meet to hold that rank, a background investigation to obtain a secret clearance.


One difference I would stipulate is that unlike the US military which refuses people who have too much baggage in their background .... (OK before Bush broke the military), the candidate gets to continue their campaign.

However with the knowledge all their background info is PUBLISHED on their website with no opportunity for editing by campaign officials.  If the voting public wants that candidate they can have them, but no amount of media gotcha during the campaign or after the fact.

It just might take the real crooks like the Abramoff gang, Cunningham group and people like Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, William Jefferson, out of office.

BTW,  yes even Bill Clinton and now John Edwards would have had their personal secrets out in the open before they get to try to lie about it during a campaign.

However think about it, how far would have Newt Gingrich have gotten if he had to have been this open?

Could George W Bush have withstood scrutiny like this in 2000, especially his inability to hide his military records?

Could more members of the Washington culture of corruption of the last decade have been able to stay as long as they have if they couldn’t hide their secrets?

Because really if you aren't reliable enough to become a Buck Sergeant in the military, how are you reliable enough to hold office?