The President's Prayer Breakfast Speech

You Know What? I have no patience with people (apparently Christians, although that's up-for-grabs) who are criticizing President Obama for remarks he made at the February 5th Prayer Breakfast he attended with his wife, Michelle. I've said it before, and at the risk of too often repeating myself,  I assert again that Barack Obama is one of the most straightforward and often passionate defenders of our American values and standards. He talks about family, he talks about the importance of the middle class and the poor, he talks about equality of opportunity for all in our nation; he defends differences, quite often in religion; he defends those who are in need, particularly as he demonstrated with the oft-maligned and attacked ACA or "Obamacare" as it has been derisively named for all time (little did the Right-wing radicals suspect that their epithet would turn out to be a truth - Obama actually does care as 10.5 million people who are now adequately covered will gladly tell you!). The President has been an ardent defender of our core values and standards which he emphasizes in almost every speech, and which he demonstrates through many of his policy initiatives, putting words into action.

However, that Barack Obama is a defender of our most cherished values and a passionate advocate of the most vulnerable cohorts of our population does not seem to deter these Radicals from their constant, belligerent criticism of our President. Aside from the fact that their criticism is leveled at remarks taken completely out of context, these critics have missed the point of his breakfast speech, as they are wont to do with anything coming from him. I might take just this moment to remind you that many of the Radical Right of this country are imbued with the false premises of Social Darwinism, with contempt for the Weak and praise for the Strong ("men of action"). They focus on the propaganda ploy of the "Big Lie" in order to persuade many of the unknowing public to join them in their unholy crusade. (I would also remind you to check out my postings on this Blog regarding Social Darwinism and regarding the Big Lie technique: 7/17/2012 and 2/8/2014).

It is regretful that his critics have probably not read his entire speech (you can avoid this oversight by clicking on this link or by pasting it in your browser: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/remarks-by-obama-at-the-national-prayer-breakfast/2015/02/05/e9374b70-ad53-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html). If they did read it all, they would find, as I did, that his main theme was: "the degree to which we've seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil." And then he asks a very basic question: "how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religions for their own murderous ends?"

His answer is contained in three "principles" that make sense for any person of faith: "...first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe the starting point of faith is...not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn't speak to others, that God only cares about us, and doesn't care about others, that somehow we are alone in possession of the truth. Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word and His commandments."

Most Right-wingers do not like talk of 'humility.' They want only to talk of strength, of superiority, of exceptionalism, of the old and outmoded concept that 'might makes right.' They are the bearers of a distortion of the Christian faith, for Christianity places humility and an all-pervasive non-reward-seeking love (agape) for neighbors (including 'enemies', by the way) in the forefront of all our endeavors. Their concept of Christianity is not that which Jesus preached on the Sermon on the Mount, or that their Savior spoke of and took action upon in his demonstrations of his beliefs. It is not the religion of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, it is not the religion of the Crucifixion, it is not the religion of Jesus' own judgment upon the religious leaders and right-wingers of his day: the Sadducees (priestly aristocratic class) and the Pharisees (legalistic interpreters of the Law or Torah).  Jesus spoke often of the flaws inherent in the pervading religion of his day, but always pointed to a higher truth, which is exactly what the President tried to do with his emphasis on God's word and commandments.

Here's what the President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission had to say about President Obama's remarks: "an unfortunate attempt at a wrongheaded moral comparison." Is he actually trying to say that Christianity has no flaws whereas Islam has many? Apparently, as his next statement says: what we need more of is a "moral framework from the administration and a clear strategy for defeating ISIS." Not so. What we need from Christian, albeit Baptist, leaders is a clear sense of what Jesus' teachings about humility and agape love really mean for Christians in this era of terrorism in the name of religion.  Maybe Pope Francis should come and talk to them a bit, and maybe they should go out into the world and practice what the Pope does as he reaches out to people of all faiths. Have these Social Darwinist Christians ever asked themselves: what can I do to determine what it is that inspires a terrorist to act in such a barbaric and destructive manner? Why do they hate me? Why do they want to put an end to my way of life?  Will these critics ever permit themselves to probe and to understand the motivations, deprivations, humiliations or circumstances that characterize their enemy?  It is apparently not part of their religious teaching, yet it is written into the Christian religion throughout the New Testament. "Judge not, lest you be judged." "Put on Love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony."

But this Baptist leader is not the only Right-wing voice that speaks in such ill-considered language. The former Governor of Virginia had a few choice words that do not enhance anyone. He said: "The president's comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I've ever heard a president make in my lifetime. He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we share."

While I found the President's remarks to be most un-offensive (because they spoke to Gospel truth), I must say I find the former governor's remarks to be offensive in the extreme. How could any Christian be offended by remarks that stress the positives of all faiths and which point to the fact that every religion, every faith (and non-faith) community has its own positive attributes as well as unfortunate flaws, good uses and misuses? Apparently, once again, there appears to be no room in the Governor's (Pharisaic) heart for any truth other than his own version. Humility is not his strong suit.

But, let us press on. The second thing we need, said the President, "is to uphold the distinction between our faith and our governments. Our government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a particular faith, or any faith at all." Our founders believed in separation of church and state and they wrote that principle into our Constitution - our founding document - and it is, to this day, one of our most cherished and defended rights, not just to worship freely but to make sure that religion does not gain a foothold in directing the operations of governance (see my Blog postings of 7/3/2014 and 12/3/2013).

Just what values does Mr. Obama not share, since he is very specific about humility and love as cornerstones of a Christian morality (in complete accord with the New Testament, I might add)? In other words, what "moral framework from the administration" would fit with the critics' call for a strategy to defeat ISIS? Are we talking here about killing people as a moral framework and acceptable strategy? Are we talking about annihilation of terrorists as a part of a moral framework? Just what is this Southern Baptist official getting at here? I suspect he is wanting this country to follow Christian Crusaders marching to War against Muslims rather than to follow a Christ-like way about which the President was speaking. With the constitutional ban on a religion or religious practice dictating policy, I would answer: keep your war-like notions and your Christian "moral framework" to yourself and don't try to force what you believe on the rest of us.

It is Obama's third principle that really hits home, and which calls out to critics like the former governor and the Baptist official: where do you stand on "the one law, that Golden Rule that we should treat one another as we wish to be treated?" The President points to The Torah which says: 'Love thy neighbor as yourself.' To the Hadith in Islam that states: 'None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.' To the Holy Bible that says: "Put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony." (He could have also added similar words from Confucius, Hinduism and Buddhism!). But what he calls us to do in his conclusion is what the Gospel says and requires, and is unfortunately what the governor and pastor missed. Even though their criticism is based on one or two paragraphs, their condemnation extends to the whole of the speech, therefore bringing into question their own religious and moral "framework."

The President said: "Whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be instruments of peace, bringing light where there is darkness and sowing love where there is hatred" (citing as examples both Pope Francis and the Dalai Lama). "Each of us has a role in fulfilling our common greater purpose -- not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depths so that we may find the strength to love more fully. And this is perhaps our greatest challenge -- to see our own reflection in each other; to be our brother's keepers and sister's keepers, and to keep faith with one another. As children of God, let's work to end injustice -- injustice of poverty and hunger. As children of God, let's work to eliminate the scourge of homelessness. As children of God, let's stand up for the dignity and value of every woman, and man, and child...and work to end the scourge and the sin of modern-day slavery and human trafficking, and 'set the oppressed free.' We can never fully fathom (God's purpose and grace)...But even with our limits, we can heed that which is required: To do justice, and love kindness, and walk humbly with our God. I pray that in His Name... we will run and not be weary, walk and not be faint, and we'll heed those words and 'put on love'."

In summary, let us ask again, not only of the former governor and Baptist official, but of all the President's critics: just what is your problem? Are humility, religious neutrality and freedom, and the Golden Rule not within your Christian framework? Are you saying that loving your neighbor as yourself is not to be applied to everyone? Are you against the role of peace-making, although the Sermon on the Mount calls the makers of peace blessed by God? Are you ready to say that homelessness is the tough luck of those caught in it, or that human trafficking or oppression should not be opposed?

Or are you simply saying that we as a government should stand against all terrorists, seek them out, and destroy them? Is that your "moral framework?" Then I suggest, for your uninterrupted and in-depth reading, that you look up and absorb your own holy book, and assess just who it is that is offending other Christians with such war-like tones and with unrelenting insensitivity to an important speech by the President of the United States on the positive uses and the unfortunate misuses of religion that characterize all faiths. 

It is important to note that the President put all of this into proper perspective when he concluded his speech on the note that "as children of God" we must act in love toward others. It is also of major import that the President asserted early on that God is the source of this loving spirit, for that is the emphasis of Jesus' words in the New Testament. Jesus' primary emphasis was that his disciples should live as the "sons of God. " In other words, because God is who he is, humans are to be sincere, patient, kind, merciful, humble and generous. Thus, Jesus made plain that the first commandment is to love God with all heart soul and mind, and the second is to love neighbor as yourself. Thus, it is that all through the NT, the love of God is essentially equated with love for neighbor. because neighborly love is the will of God for his children. The Christian ethic derives from this relationship of closeness - from a faith relationship -- to God.

But Jesus, as he was wont to do, carried it all a step further; a step too far for many. He declared: "Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors, so can you be children of your heavenly father. You must be all goodness, just as your heavenly father is all good."

The whole point is that human beings are called to act, not out of a calculated prudence, but on the basis of an uncalculating loving-kindness exemplified by the heavenly Father of us all. There is always an ethical "plus" in the words of Jesus, many of which still make us uncomfortable:

love your enemies (Matt. 5:44)
forgive seventy-times-seven (Matt. 18:21-22)
be tolerant of non-conformists (Mark 9:40)
love gives, expecting no return (Luke 6:35)
love stoops to serve as a servant, like the master who waited on his laborers (Luke 12:37)

But, it is perhaps the Sermon on the Mount that throws a moral bomb into the middle of all our pharisaic calculations and expectations. Among the "Blessed" who will see the kingdom or inherit the kingdom of God or be called sons of God, are:

the poor, the sorrowful
those of a gentle ('humble') spirit
those who hunger and thirst to see the right prevail
those who show mercy
those whose hearts are pure (not sinless, but perhaps guileless, sincere, truthful)
the peacemakers
those who have suffered persecution or insults for the cause of right

In the face of this ethical construction of love of other humans based on love of God for all life, it is my conclusion that the speech of the President before the Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5th, is much more in line with the Christian Gospel, the Christian ethic, the Christian manner than are the words of those who would seek to denigrate peacemaking, humility, or the truth of flaws in all religions and religious followers. Jesus himself condemned the rituals, the showiness, the hypocrisy of the religious groups of his day - the priests and the legalists - because they missed the point of who God is and what the mission of the children of God is all about -- loving actions toward friend and foe alike.

 The President gave us sustenance --food for thought and action -- the critics gave us nothing of the sort. And, what is worse, by criticizing the President for citing Christian misuse of their religion throughout the ages, along with the misuses of other faith groups, the critics condemned the whole of the speech and thus condemned the essence of their own ethical foundation. Their legalistic interpretation of what he said does exactly what the binding and blinding interpretations of the Law by the Pharisees did: it denigrated and condemned the essence of the very religion and ethic it sought to defend! May God forgive them, for they know not what they do!

A THIRD PARTY With LOTS of MONEY?

The juxtaposition of two recent headlines tells a story all its own:

“Senate Votes to move Keystone forward with 9 Democratic Votes” and “Pipeline Explodes in West Virginia”


You don’t get it? Well guess who was one of those nine Senators who voted “yea” on Keystone? Joe Manchin of West Virginia! I heard Manchin on a TV interview about this a few days before he voted YES. He parroted all the reasons that Republicans cite in favor of this pipeline – most of which is just plain fantasy, of course – like: “it will bring lots of jobs to his state” (maybe; however, they will not be permanent but temporary); “it will reduce dependence on foreign oil” and bring oil to his state (not unless West Virginia becomes a foreign country since all the oil coming through the pipe is going to be sold to countries overseas by Canada, a foreign country that owns the pipeline!); it will affect the state’s economy (perhaps; but not in the sense he means; this is a disaster waiting to happen just like that recent explosion, and it will cost West Virginia a pretty penny, maybe a few million!).
 
Now, there is enough about which to be angry here: voting with Republicans on a major dangerous boondoggle is one; using Republican lies and fabrications to support a bill like this is another, and being a Democrat-in-name-only is a third. Completely overlooking all the reasons NOT to vote for this environmental disaster is unforgivable, as is the obvious transaction of voting for the edification of special interests like oil companies just to maintain their monetary support.
 
Technically the Senate vote of 63-32 was not on the pipeline itself (it was a procedural vote to move forward with debate on the bill approving the pipeline). But it did indicate the strength of the vote to stop a filibuster and to override a veto; enough strength to do the former, but not the latter.

Who are the Ten Democrats (one Independent also voted for the bill: Rufus King (Maine). Here’s the list: Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tom Carper (DE), Bob Casey (PA), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT), Tom Udall (NM), Mark Warner (VA). At the moment, it looks as though it is a waste of time to pursue progressive values in the face of such a bipartisan coalition. But, this is not true bi-partisanship; this is more like conspiracy to make it look like bi-partisan cooperation rather than what it is: self-aggrandizement to protect ones resources and one’s elective office.
 
Before we go on, we should point out that in the last few weeks, this was the fourth incident involving a pipeline. The other three occurred in other states, and an article online by Emily Atkin on Jan. 22^nd tells the story of each.


“Earlier this month, a gas pipeline in Mississippi, operated by GulfSouth Pipeline exploded, rattling residents’ windows and causing a smoke plume large enough to register on National Weather Service radar screens. On Jan. 17, a pipeline owned by Bridger Pipeline LLC in Montana spilled up to 50,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone River, a spill that left thousands of Montanans without drinkable tap water. Just a few days later, on Jan. 22, it was discovered that 3 million gallons of saltwater drilling waste had spilled from a North Dakota pipeline earlier in the month. That spill was widely deemed the state’s largest contaminant released into the environment since the North Dakota oil boom began.”
 
Both Jon Tester of Montana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota should probably pay a little more attention to what pipeline failures are already doing to the environment of their states! For that matter, the rest of these turncoat Democrats should pay attention to their own situations because a disaster involving a fossil fuel company could be right around the corner for them. Funny how money and power can hide the reality of very real circumstances.


That brings me to a reality that must not be hidden. That reality is that there are too many Democrats in Congress ready and willing to put their own narrow interests above the interests and needs of the people they represent. In addition, there are too many millionaires and billionaires in the oil business and in the fossil-fuel spectrum of services and subsidiaries. The reality is that these companies are controlling not only our economy, but our institutions, elections and our future by keeping alternative fuels at bay so that they will not be able to take over the fuel market.

Let's take a closer look at one of the examples of aberration and corruptive influence being exercised upon Democrats and Republicans alike. Here's a quote from the Public Citizen newsletter for end of January that spells out what's happening:
"A powerful third party has emerged in American politics. The secretive cabal of Big Business tycoons under the dominion of the notorious Koch Brothers just announced that it will spend $889 million in the 2016 elections. That's hundreds of millions more than the Democratic Party or the Republican Party has ever spent in a single election cycle. (It's also such a specific number that they likely do have commitments from assorted millionaires and billionaires to hit that amount, if not even more.) And, sadly, the other two major parties will join in this disgraceful and pernicious arms race against democracy. Make no mistake: the corrupting money from the Koch Brothers and their ilk threatens a full-scale destruction of our democracy. 

•  These are people who seem to feel entitled -- a misbegotten sense of entitlement stoked by the U.S. Supreme Court's absurd Citizen's United ruling -- to simply buy the government they want.
• These are people who would abolish the minimum wage, Social Security and Medicare.
• These are people who prop up the 'think tanks' and political pawns denying the fact that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.

 
"Nothing could be more antithetical to the ideals on which this country was founded than domination by a few hundred people whose power and influence derive only from their wealth.  Society should work for everyone not just the already grotesquely rich."
 
So now, let's take a brief look at some of the implications of this "grotesquely rich" Third Party.

First, they are not going to use this money just so certain candidates can win in 2016. No, they are spending this amount to elect politicians who are sympathetic to their philosophy and willing to fight for their agenda. How many Democrats that will involve is hard to say, but there are about 50 of them who have already voted with Right-wing Republicans on matters of some import to the middle class and to the poor., including build the Keystone pipeline, weaken Wall Street reform and exclude abortion coverage from ACA.   In case you haven't seen the list and chart from Daily Kos that shows who voted, here's a link to it: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/23/1359748/-These-are-the-Democrats-who-voted
 So now, not only do we have to pay attention to what Republicans are doing, we have to keep tabs on Democratic Party members who are apt to vote with them on issues and policies that are contrary to Democratic Party values and standards.
 

We also have to be vigilant about the Republicans in Congress who have connected themselves to the Koch Brothers and their followers. At the Koch's winter retreat, held at the Rancho Mirage Ritz Carlton in Palm Springs, a group of potential Republican presidential candidates came to pay their respects (and perhaps to kiss the rings of the Brothers). It is reported that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (already known for his reliance on Koch money for his 2014 run for Governor), Senator Marco Rubio from Florida, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as well as Sen. Ted Cruz from Texas, were all on hand for seminars and strategy sessions, and most of the 450 who attended the weekend event leaned away from Mitt Romney and toward these "bought men." Not able to attend was another Koch favorite, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana. 
 

Instead of trying to list all the Republican Senators and Congressmen who have been recipients of Koch money in past elections (find them anyway at www.opensecrets.org ), let us name some of the organizations that make up the Koch coalition through which they allocate and apply their grotesque contributions. 
 The nonprofit group that oversees the coalition of conservative groups drawn together by the Koch's is the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. In addition to the FPCoC, the most active groups in this coalition include: Americans for Prosperity, the American Energy Alliance, Concerned Veterans for America, Generation Opportunity and 60 Plus Association. There are at least another 10 sub-groups involved: American Commitment, The American Future Fund, The Center for Shared Services, Concerned Women for America, Public Engagement Group and some Trusts: Evangehr4 Trust, The Libre Initiative Trust, and the Themis Trust (this Trust houses the data used by the groups in the network). You might want to watch out for these, especially around election time!


It is also important to name some of the corporations, businesses and people associated with the Koch Brothers, and who were prominent among attendees at their Palm Springs gathering. You might even want to consider in a few cases, whether or not you should perhaps boycott some of these companies and services.

Richard DeVos from Michigan, co-founder of AMWAY.
Foster Friess founder and CEO of Friess Associates (investment firm),
Jerry & Leah Fullinwider, Hillwood International Energy,
Richard Gilliam, founder CUMBERLAND Resources Corporation
Richard "Dick" Haworth former CEO & Chairman emeritus of Haworth (international office furniture manufacturer),
Diane Hendricks, billionaire head of Supply Roofing Co.,
Ethelmae Humphreys, chair of TAMKO Building Products (roofing manufacturer),
Kenneth Levy, co-founded Levy equity management firm; wife Frayda is a national director of Americans for Prosperity and sits on board of Club for Growth.
E. Pierce Marshall, Jr., and Preston Marshall head up parts of MarOpCo of Houston (oil exploration)
Karen Wright, founder and CEO of private philanthropy group, Ariel Foundation


More names of businesses associated with the Koch coalition:
Services Group of America (food services wholesaler)
Mountaire Corporation (agribusiness)
Continental Resources (oil business)
Peacock Engineering (packaging company)
Menards (3rd largest hardware company)
Dyason-Kissner-Moran company (international holding company)
Charles SCHWAB Corporation (independent brokerage firm)
Elliott Management (hedge funds)
John Templeton Foundation (organization that attempts to apply scientific legitimacy to matters of faith)


Want more? For an inside account, go to www.motherjones.com/politics and click on The Koch 130, or for an exclusive audio recording of the Koch brothers seminar held in the spring of 2011 in Vail, Colorado, go to this link: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/exclusive-audio-koch-brothers-seminar-tapes.


Finally, let's take a look at some items in President Obama's 2016 proposed Budget that will be DOA (Dead On Arrival) at the Congress because of the Republican majority and the wayward Democrats, many of whom are beholden to the Koch Brothers for election financing.


This is the reality with which we must deal now that the Congress is filling up with people elected with at least some Koch Brothers' money in their financial portfolios. It certainly appears that the Republicans have nothing nice to say about the 2016 proposed budget, except perhaps the proposed increase in military defense funding! Essentially, the Republicans are opposed to all new taxes, new spending and new borrowing. Here are some of what they oppose, and won't even consider, summed up by www.foxnews.com:


"Obama's budget emphasizes the same themes as his State of the Union address last month, when he challenged Congress to work with him on narrowing the income gap between the very wealthy and everyone else. Referring to proposed spending on everything from roads to education initiatives, Obama said, 'We can afford to make these investments while remaining fiscally responsible.'
'We would be making a critical error if we avoided making these investments,' he added. 'We can't afford not to'."

1. "Obama is proposing a six-year, $478 billion public-works program for highway, bridge and transit upgrades, with half of it to be financed with a one-time, 14 percent tax on U.S. companies' overseas profits. The tax would be due immediately. Under current law, those profits are subject only to federal taxes if they are returned, or repatriated, to the U.S., where they face a top rate of 35 percent. Many companies avoid U.S. taxes on those earnings by simply leaving them overseas.
2. The tax is part of a broader administration plan to cut corporate tax breaks and increase taxes on the country's highest wage-earners to pay for projects to help the middle class. Members of the GOP-controlled Congress and other fiscal conservatives have dismissed the overall plan since elements of it were announced several weeks ago.
3. Higher taxes on top earners and on fees paid by the largest financial institutions would help raise $320 billion over 10 years which Obama would use to provide low- and middle-class tax breaks.
4. a credit of up to $500 for two-income families, a boost in the child care tax credit to up to $3,000 per child under age 5, and overhauling breaks that help pay for college.
5. Obama also is calling for a $60 billion program for free community college for an estimated 9 million students if all states participate.
6. It also proposes expanding child care to more than 1.1 million additional children under the age of 4 by 2025 and seeks to implement universal pre-school.
7. Obama's budget also proposes easing painful, automatic "sequester" cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies with a 7 percent increase in annual appropriations, providing an additional $74 billion in 2016, divided between the military and domestic programs. Many Republicans support the extra military spending but oppose increased domestic spending.
8. Another centerpiece of the president's tax proposal is an increase in the capital gains rate on couples making more than $500,000 per year. The rate would climb from 23.8 percent to 28 percent.
9. Obama wants to require estates to pay capital gains taxes on securities at the time they are inherited. He also is trying to impose a 0.07 percent fee on the roughly 100 U.S. financial companies with assets of more than $50 billion."

Republicans counter with their usual rhetoric: "But even as Obama claims the plan is 'fully paid for,' the total budget shows a $474 billion deficit for fiscal 2016. Obama's budget plan never reaches balance over the next decade and projects the deficit would rise to $687 billion in 2025. Administration officials say their goal is to hold the deficit to a small percentage of the total U.S. economy -- but not necessarily to eliminate it. " 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has accused the president of exploiting "envy economics" as part of his tax proposals.

"It seems to be more of the same policies that have resulted in the lowest, slowest economic recovery out of an economic downturn in the history of the country -- more taxes, more spending, more borrowing," House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price, R-Ga., told Fox News on Sunday."


And so, the battle is joined. But what the Republicans seem to have forgotten are the facts of the case: the President has brought us out of the Great Recession; investment and stimulus, not austerity produced record numbers of new jobs, the stock market continues to flourish; deficits have fallen dramatically, as has the unemployment rate. Manufacturing, particularly at home, is up and gas prices have fallen to new lows. It is past time to invest anew in infrastructure, education, jobs and a fairer tax structure that has the rich paying their fair share. They are the ones who have benefited immensely in the last six years without passing on those benefits to fellow Americans in the middle class, as well as to others challenged by generational poverty, disabilities, poor mental health and the effects of aging. Instead, they want to attack Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and rid people of their new-found health insurance coverage under the ACA.
 

This writer, of course, comes down on the side of the President, and has little or no use for Republicans who are turning over our form of democracy to wealthy elite willing to spend almost $1 billion to make sure that their vision of limited government, of unregulated economics, and of private not public philanthropy carries the day. They buy elections; they buy lobbyists; they buy officials, they buy negative publicity, they buy favorable policies, they even buy colleges and universities and dictate curriculum, and they buy social engineering (anti-choice on abortion and no contraception, no Planned Parenthood Centers) and a good portion of the electorate. Don't be bamboozled by this crowd.


Like the wayward Democrats mentioned at the beginning of this piece, this corrupting influence is pervasive; able to move a Democrat to vote against the people of his or her district or state, ignoring the facts of science, previous experience, and immediate examples of environmental damage done by explosions, spills and leaks. We cannot, we must not, tolerate rule by a few rich industrialists and investors who dictate all the rules, thereby destroying this government of, by, and for the People.

NATION BUILDERS ONCE AGAIN

The President was talking directly to you and me in his annual State of the Union speech on Jan. 20^th.  What this speech turned out to be was a People’s Speech, not simply a traditional SOTU speech to Congress with a long list of suggestions for legislation.  I say that for several reasons:

1.       It wasn’t by accident that the speech was crafted around a letter from an ordinary family in Minnesota.

2.       It wasn’t by accident that he chose the topics on which he expounded.  In addition to others, he had asked  members of his original grass roots organization, Organizing for America (now Organizing for Action), to submit topics that were of great concern.

3.       It wasn’t by accident that he talked about choices for the future, because numerous polls of late show what people are most concerned about: jobs and the economy, the middle class being squeezed, especially on wages; foreign terrorism, healthcare, education, and immigration (see www.PollingReport.com for an idea of how they are ranked).

In his SOTU speech President Obama said it’s up to us to choose who we want to be in the next 15 years, and then said that we must focus on values, like: 

§  "restoring the link between work and opportunity," which means, I think, that middle-class economics should not mean that we are penalized with austerity measures and vindictive cuts in rights and jobs and benefits, but that rewards for hard work must include things like tax credits for day care and pension protection and expansion of benefits like health care and free community college tuition. 

§  “thinking higher than one pipeline” is a notable retort to how Republicans think we can save the economy, but grasping at temporary jobs could result in great harm and no gains, as would inevitable oil spills, dependence on oil that is all going overseas, and damage to the aquifer and farm land of residents in states like Nebraska.  

§  staying “ahead of the curve” in that, for instance, by the end of the decade two out of every three jobs will require a college degree. 

§  it matters how we see the world and how the world views us.  We cannot lead with bluster and military might alone, but must combine military strength with diplomacy and broad-based coalitions of nations.  We must return to using war as “a last resort,” he declared.  

And then, the President raised perhaps the most important question that we must address in the next 15 years of this century:  “how can we better reflect America’s values?”

1.       We must realize that we are being led astray by the Tea Party crowd and their passive henchmen in the leadership and rank and file of the Republican Party.  Where are the voices of supposedly more moderate Republicans, like Congressman Richard Hanna?  Unfortunately, their silence and their capitulation to the empty but dangerous rhetoric and ranting of their Right-wing radical colleagues is appalling.  Our milquetoast of a representative doesn’t even have a voice it appears when it comes to speaking out in a forceful manner on the issues of the day!  The most we hear from him is probably written by someone else in a brochure or letter or e-mail, or in a speech before a friendly audience of like-minded businessmen, with emphasis on both “business” and “men”. 

We deserve better, and we have better potential representatives right here in our own city and county.  It’s time to get behind one of them and to support a replacement for Richard Hanna in 2016 because Mr. Hanna is not ever going to represent the broad spectrum of people and challenges in this district.  It’s doubtful that he can even articulate the five most important issues that people across our nation cite when polled by professional pollsters.  He’s out-of-touch, out of ideas, out-of-town, and out-to-lunch when it comes to planning for the future, or even for the present. 

For instance, where does he stand on middle-class economics?  He’s against it!  He voted about 50 times against healthcare reform and wants to repeal the coverage of millions of people.  He votes “Yea” on every Paul Ryan budget that lowers taxes on the rich, takes opportunities and programs away from the poor and middle class, and ignores the imminent danger of climate change while always supporting out-moded weapons and disastrous private contracts for the military. Moreover, Hanna supports lowering taxes on corporations and on capital gains, and he supports the NRA at every turn, winning their support in the last election. 

He has voted against, or ignored, a minimum wage raise, equal pay for equal work, a comprehensive immigration policy, the Obama jobs bill, and infrastructure repair, although he did vote last year for the Jobs for America Act which did everything imaginable except create jobs.  For one, it attacked health care coverage again, changing mandatory employer plan coverage for those who work 30 hours per week by raising it to 40 hours per week!  

 To his credit, he does support a woman’s right to choose, and is the only Republican to vote against his Party on anti-abortion bills for the last two years!  He has also voted against a provision supporting companies that want to refuse to offer contraception as part of their employee health plan. 

He does support farmers.  Unfortunately by voting for last year’s Farm Bill, he also supported a huge reduction in food stamps that many middle class families and veterans needed to get them through the Great Recession.  His "YES" vote thereby supported subsidies to huge farming and food manufacturing conglomerates who put dangerous additives in our food and who want to replace small farmers.  That bill also gave large subsidies to other congressmen and women who own ranches or cattle, but do not actually operate farms. 

Mr. Hanna, it seems, has great trouble sorting out these complicated issues; instead he says one thing and often does another when he votes for Ryan budgets or Farm bills or other legislation that contain conflicting provisions.  He seems unable to simply stand on principle and vote against bills that contain provisions that are harmful to many of his constituents.  In fact, Mr. Hanna does not seem to speak-out on real issues of the day in any concerted manner.  Perhaps Mr. Hanna has already retired from this job; let us be sure to make that retirement permanent in 2016.

(Just so you know: in the 2014 general election, running unopposed, Mr. Hanna still could not get a quarter of the total actual voters to cast a vote for him.  In fact, counting write-ins of other names and blank ballots for his office, Hanna had slightly over 26% of voters in his district who chose not to vote for him!  That is a substantial total from which to launch an opposing campaign!)

2.       We must become activists. We must get behind the President and truly progressive Democrats and support their agenda over the next two years and communicate about our values, our principles and the facts of the great accomplishments of this administration.

           ·         Act upon our convictions and principles and support our President in his fourth-quarter                     surge to put into place a foundation for change that can influence the next 15 years. 

·        This means actually making phone calls to Congress, joining an activist organization, writing letters-to-the-editor, posting on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram; it actually means joining a demonstration or an advocacy group. 

·         It means taking an active interest in issues that affect our lives and making sure that  other people also become aware of what's at stake.  It means volunteering our time and money to aid in making a difference in the direction this country takes.  Everyone can join in such an effort because it’s a matter of making choices.  Do what you can, but above all, don’t opt for doing nothing.  This time is critical.  Your future is at stake, and so is the future of our democracy and of our progressive and populous values. 

 

·         This is not just about politics; this is about everyday life: how much you pay for food and transportation; what gets covered in your health insurance; what your son or daughter is taught in school, and whether or not either of them can afford to go to college.  This is about what amount of interest you have to pay on credit cards or student loans or on a mortgage.  This is about how your elderly parent is treated in a nursing home.  It’s more about your quality of life than about the machinations of “politics” (although if those machinations are not reformed, it will affect your life).  The one thing that you can’t afford to do is to ignore the fact that the political and economic machinery – the institutions and operations of government, of business and even of non-profit enterprises – affect your life every day.  If you forfeit your right to protest their shortcomings and the right to organize to change those systems, you are giving up your ability to influence your success, your fulfillment, your happiness and your decision-making.  You will have turned over the power of decision-making and governance to the politicians and the capitalists and the non-profits and have opted to allow them to control you while possibly feathering their own existence with perks that you will never see or experience.  You are a citizen, not a pawn, and as such must stand up and be counted as the foundation of all of our values and all of our institutions.  “Activism” is not a dirty word; it is the life-blood of our democracy.

3.       Look to the future and not to the past.  Support investment in the future like research into cures for diseases, the improvements needed in our schools, the free tuition at community colleges, the rejuvenation of our infrastructure, the change to alternative fuels, the challenge of global warming, the use of war as a last resort, universal health care, universal child care, and universal access to a free internet.

4.       “It’s up to us to choose who we want to be in the next 15 years of this century.”   We must choose progressive change over regressive retreat.  We must choose inclusiveness over elitism.  We must choose investment over austerity.  We must choose the welfare of people over the comforting of the richest 1% and the promotion of the powerful.  We must choose and support leaders from the people rather than from the political machinery.  We must choose sensible regulation of our institutions for the good of most of our people and not de-regulation for the aggrandizement of corporations and wealthy industrialists or inheritors of wealth. 

We must choose the strengthening of opportunities for the poor to be lifted up to where they can see a future worth their while; we cannot support any further put-downs, push-downs, take-downs or injustices perpetrated by our own system of justice; we must tend to the wrongs of racism, sexism, ageism, xenophobia, and jingoism and eschew the violence of our culture that puts war above negotiation and gun toting above the protection of countless innocent victims. 

We must set an example for the world not alone by words, but by our deeds.  Let us choose service and sacrifice for the world’s welfare above exceptionalism or primacy or military strength and presence.  Let us be known by our willingness to strengthen people, not by our willingness to fight every battle or threat that rears its head. 

And finally, let us choose fact over fiction and untruth; let us choose balance over extremism, and let us choose the right over the expedient or the facile or the wrong.  Let us choose real reform over the insanity of doing something that has failed time and time again, like the “trickle-down theory!”  Let us make wise choices in anticipation of a bright future.

5.       “We must cherish our civil rights.”  That means we must work to protect and expand the voting franchise in this country.  We cannot allow anti-democracy zealots to take the sacred vote away from anybody.  We need election reform, wider registration and voting.  We have to expand the rights of minorities to be heard, to be present, to be elected, to be honored and to be part of the governing structure, in spite of the fact that the racial divide has been made wider by the policies, the legislation, and the bigoted language of Republicans toward this President and his Attorney General. 

We must work to reform our justice system, beginning with the thorny problem of the fact that the police in this country have no supervision and no checks upon their behavior.  That is contrary to the principles that underlie many of our Western police agencies, and it is indicative of a secretive force that is literally out-of-control.  We cannot tolerate a police force that separates itself from the community – it is an act of sheer intolerance.  Equal justice for all must be a rallying cry as we seek to lower our incarceration rate for minorities, especially young black men.  We must find cadres of indigenous leaders in the Black community especially and support them as candidates for all kinds of local, county, state and federal offices.  In every city, there must be minority coalitions who demand to be heard on community issues. 

6.       Work on ways to help middle-class families get ahead and to be secure.  The President laid out some options in his speech: a minimum wage that does not equal poverty level; tax credits to support universal day care availability; free tuition for community colleges; precision research into cures for major diseases.  But, he has previously laid out other programs that have been blocked by rabid Right-wing Republicans (and some blue-dog Democrats).  The Caregiver Initiative that would provide temporary respite care, counseling and referrals for hard-pressed families trying to care for elderly relatives, is one example.  Another is his proposal to require employers who don’t offer retirement plans to enroll workers in automatic, direct-deposit Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).

We must also get behind the call to strengthen the middle class by promoting and supporting laws that give back to Labor the Right to collective action: bargaining, striking, and protest.  The Right-wing attacks upon Labor hurt middle class families as much as anything, since the Labor movement has been one of the major contributors to the inclusion and success enjoyed by working families in the last century.  It is now time to promote the welfare of working families in this 21^st century.

There’s more, of course, but the important point is that we are being called to be “nation builders” once again.  Building our nation did not stop in the 1700’s.  It is an on-going process.  Every generation of Americans gets to make decisions and choices that affect our Republic.  It is most effective when more than one generation joins the cause to work together in close collaboration to bring about responsible and progressive change.  That is possible right now with Millenials, some Boomers and Post-War activists who are still around.  Remember, it’s up to us to choose who and what we want to be!  Let’s Get Busy…

Comfort or Discomfort -- that is the question

“Comfort” is one of those words that has lost its basic meaning; in fact, one could make a case that it is a word that has been reversed in terms of its meaning.  How do you think of comfort?  Are you looking for a comfortable life, a comfortable home, a comfortable and unperturbed existence?  That question is a clue to the definition that has come to be common usage of the word “comfort.”  Let’s look at what the (New World) dictionary offers:

The overarching definition is that of the “soothing of distress, the easing of misery or grief; consolation; a state of ease and quiet enjoyment, free from worry and pain; anything that makes life easy or comfortable.”  I daresay that this captures what most people think comfort means.  In fact, it is sought by most of us at one time or another.  No one is immune to desiring a bit of consolation, ease or freedom from worry.  It’s a part of life.

Unfortunately, the seeking of comfort for oneself can cross a line sometimes.  It happens when some individual or group attempts to foment the concept that comfort is not meant for the many but for just a few.

I submit to you that too many conservative Republicans seem to have little or no trouble with crossing this line.  Or should I say, they take pleasure in denying comfort to others who, in their eyes, apparently do not deserve it.  Somehow, the Republican Party and the rich sponsors who support that Party, have a basic misconception that there is some sort of standard that people must meet in order to be eligible for a bit of consolation or ease.  And so, under their wrong-headed conceptions and perceptions, there are certain people in this nation who deserve to partake of comfort whenever they can, and others who do not.  This Party keeps fighting to keep it that way, as is evident from several of their policies:

• They believe that the rich deserve the comfort of low, low taxes and they accomplish the same not only by cutting the taxes of the 1%, but by constructing a number of tax breaks and loopholes in the tax code so that they can acquire their comfort by avoiding the payment of their full tax through subsidies, incentives and loopholes that target certain groups, corporations or individuals.  They assure the comfort of their sponsors and resource givers by making sure that corporations are given special privileges not given to the rest of us, like helping to write laws and regulations that affect them or their businesses directly or indirectly. 
• But, that’s not all. They have acted legislatively and judicially to make sure that the rest of us do not enjoy such privileges.  Example: their misguided opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and all attempts to repeal that Act, which would negatively impact over 8 million of underinsured and uninsured folks who have finally gotten coverage of their health care through the improved insurance plans available to them. 
• And then there is that opposition to anything that smacks of gaining of civil rights for people they regard as “unworthy”:  all those minorities; all those illegal immigrants, all those  people that are homosexual or transgender; all those “below” them in education, resources and influence, to say nothing of power.
• One of their most burdensome actions is the withholding of support for, and the actual destruction of, anything that has to do with providing free help to those just mentioned.  They want to destroy all vestiges of the Great Society and the New Deal for a very good reason in their minds – this is a handout, a program of welfare that smells like socialism to them because it re-distributes their riches to the poorest, and their resources to those who are not able to stand on their own (which they abhor) supposedly because of some kind of “lower class inferiority.”   
• And thus, they are involved every day, it seems, in ways to cut unearned benefits (entitlements, they are called) to the lower classes.  But wait a minute.  At the same time that they object to “welfare for the poor” (or breaks for the middle class), they themselves are taking advantage of “welfare for the rich” through all those loopholes and provisions that I have mentioned in the Tax Code.   The billions they receive in this ingenious unfettered way are far beyond what the poor receive in special programs like Food Stamps or WIC or TANF.  

 It is important to make the point at this juncture that this situation is growing more and more uncomfortable, as the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.  What’s more, with the removal of opportunities to enjoy a little comfort and ease, the likelihood of moving “up the ladder” to a more comfortable existence is becoming a dream of the past for the poor and even those of the middle class.  The agency Oxfam reports that the gap between rich and poor is widening throughout the world and that the richest 1% in the world will soon own more than 60% of the wealth that exists. 

Again, it is imperative that we recognize that comfort and ease is not necessarily bad, but those who step over a line to prevent others from an equal opportunity toward that goal are dangerous people because they believe that only they, and a few of their peers, are entitled to the perks of living in comfort.  When they move from that perception to prevent others from realizing their highest potential, they have crossed over into attacking and belittling and destroying the hopes and dreams of others.  Their policies and actions become unacceptable and unconscionable.

I know Republicans and their sponsors defend their world view and their policies by saying that it is not fair to have to turn over part of their hard-earned wealth to the government which then passes it on to people who do not necessarily deserve to receive their help.  Besides,  as perceived by them, government and its bureaucracy wastes much of this tax money going into these programs through inefficiency and ineptitude.  Once again, they ignore the equal inefficiency of their own private corporations and businesses, demonstrated by Enron, BP, Blackwater, too-big-to-fail banks and a myriad of corporations that seem unable to provide adequate products or services.  And, in case you have forgotten, there are many inefficient private businesses taking contract money from our government who neither fulfill their contracts, nor do an adequate job if they do finish it.  Take for instance the private company contracted to oversee the production and operation of the federal healthcare internet site.  They blew it big time and then had the gall to blame it on the national government and on President Obama.  Pure bamboozle! 

What these legislators and their rich sponsors have forgotten, and thrown aside, is the contract theory of government which says that we are all responsible for the welfare of others, and that this societal contract includes the responsible distribution of wealth to all because otherwise the body politic cannot function as it should as a source of strength for all its citizens.  Part of this is the sense that no one has the right to claim all profit for himself alone; the sweat and labor and consumerism of all is involved, as all contribute to the wealth of successful businesses and their owners.  Few owners reach a level of comfort and ease by themselves; they have depended upon, and received support from, the public.  Giving back to that public is the price of success, comfort and ease.  No it’s not socialism; it’s a social contract, going back to philosopher John Locke.

And that brings us to another definition for comfort; a definition that goes back to its Latin roots.  It has to do with strengthening, and in fact, translates something like “strengthen much” or “strengthen with.”  Part of it is to help or aid, not to exploit or make dependent, but in order to give encouragement; to inspire hope.  One is forced to ask: I wonder how many people even know that is a definition?  It changes the whole concept and thrust of this word “comfort,” just as it can change the concept of who deserves comfort and why wealth must be distributed. 

As a society, as a united states, as a commonwealth, we are embarked on the comforting, that is – the strengthening – the encouraging – the inspiring – of all of our people.  That is what government social programs should aim to do.  They are not simply programs of consolation and easing; this is a project of giving people aid as encouragement and an inspiration of hope through opportunities in order that they too can enjoy the rewards and the responsibilities of citizenship.  The rich are not just giving money away, they are investing in the future and the success of our common endeavor, in order to know that no one has been left behind.  Because we have failed to understand the real purpose of government programs for those who are at risk we have failed to nurture leadership, intelligence, investment, innovation and success among certain societal groups.  Because we believe mainly in the wrong kind of comfort, we have failed to achieve the kind of representative democracy that we thought we had produced. 

The Right Wing has put us on the wrong track over and over again throughout our history, only to find that we have not gained from the losses and the regressions, but have fallen backward into a position that requires a sea change in order to progress.

That is what Martin Luther King, Jr. brought to bear on our country – a fundamental change: a strengthening of our people and our democracy.  Those who want us to return to the days before civil rights and voting rights legislation are leading us down a path that is destructive of government, of people, of capitalism, of our influence in a world where many still see us as hypocritical and judgmental, and even as the “Great Satan.”   MLK preached and acted out a paradigm of comfort that was and is not acceptable to many.  He wanted to bring hope to the hopeless, strength to the weak-hearted, inspiration to the down-trodden.  But he did it in a way that demonstrated for equal rights: in education, jobs, and voting; for the opportunity to be judged by one’s character and not by the color of one’s skin.  In fact, he was looking for opportunities for all people, but was fighting specifically for the rights and opportunities for those people of color who had been denied for so long.

We are now engaged in a regression in voting rights and equal opportunity that threatens to destroy all that MLK fought for, and all for which LBJ stood his ground. We are being led to believe that we are coddling the poor and weakening our democracy.  We are being led to believe that there are some who don’t deserve comfort in terms of opportunity and inspiration.  There are some who believe that an Elite of successful, educated, wealthy people should lead this country and make all of our decisions for us.  They pass legislation to protect the wealthy and the banks and the oil companies and the financiers of Wall Street, but they rail and rant against anyone who suggests that everyone should be covered by a healthcare plan, or have opportunity to attend a progressive and well-funded school, to not have to mortgage one’s future in order to pay for college.  They rail against a higher minimum wage, or equal pay for women, or against anything that would strengthen our middle class or poorer folks.  They deny us legislation to create jobs, rejuvenate our infrastructure, or build high speed rail.  They also deny the science that says the earth is getting warmer, and that gases and deposits from our human endeavors are polluting our air and water.  They deny global warming and the need for us to move to alternative energy sources and away from fossil fuels. 

Their kind of comfort – that of ease and convenience and consumption – is not our kind of comfort.  In fact, at this time, it is apparent that what is needed is what Dr. King used to promote:  non-violent demonstrations against those who intend to do us harm, in order to arouse them from their comfortable, somnambulant lives and to forge forces against their control, their power, their status quo.  We face the reality of oligarchy and the trickle-down economy.  Most likely, we will face a steady erosion of all of the things I have mentioned that tend to strengthen and inspire hope. 

In order to be a viable democracy, we cannot take comfort (either “consolation” or “strength”) in:

§  constant harassment of young Black males by police, or anyone else for that matter

§  incarceration of young Black and Hispanic men (mostly) who are receiving sentences for non-violent crimes that far outweigh their offenses, and then

§  continuing to burden ex-felons who have served their time with their offense throughout the rest of their lives, instead of giving them some “comfort” in knowing that they have paid their debt and that they are free to vote and hold a good job and apply for credit, and do all that is necessary to begin a new life

§  ignoring the voices and concerns of particular groups of citizens, and forcing them to find other ways (sometimes unlawful ways) to earn a living or to demonstrate their frustration with the system that oppresses their needs and desires

§  overlooking the special needs of those in poverty or those with disabilities or those with wounds that were acquired in service to their country

§  promoting unequal justice, as when white collar crime on Wall Street goes unpunished, but selling contraband cigarettes on the street in Staten Island is considered a major offense punishable by being choked to death, or stealing some cigars in Ferguson, MO is punishable by being shot to death

Moreover, in a more general context, we cannot expect our system of democracy to function in a credible or inspirational (“comforting?”) manner when we allow:

§  voting rights to be curtailed and restrictions imposed on voting

§  full employment to be a dream and not a reality because we want only the private sector to “create jobs” not government

§  when we cannot bring ourselves to offer universal health care coverage for every citizen as a right rather than a privilege controlled by the private sector

§  when we abuse and neglect the needs of all children for quality pre-natal care, good day care, universal pre-K for a Head Start in life, a quality secondary education in a good school with excellent teachers, and a free college education or at least two years free beyond high school; but we also neglect them when we do not pass legislation that controls gun violence or that which controls violence in schools and universities, such as sexual harassment and rape of girls and women

§  the deterioration of the care of the elderly in facilities that are meant to turn a profit rather than to provide dignity and strength to individuals

§  the deterioration of care and nurturing of our veterans of the armed forces who serve and then come home to neglect of their needs for mental health, physical rehabilitation and re-entry/job training

§  and so much more……

Comforting as it may be to the Plutocracy that now controls this nation, there is little comfort in the fact that the needs and rights of so many of our citizens are being subsumed under the rubric of “conservative values”, when what is clear is that the general welfare of too many people is being ignored, neglected and even undermined by Representatives who do not focus on The People, but on wealthy sponsors who help to assure incumbent re-election.  “Comfort” as strength and inspiration and aid is being overwhelmed by a comfort for the few who are rich and powerful.  This is not what we were meant to be.  This is not what we should be.  This is not what we should allow. 

The time has come to measure our success in terms of the strength, inspiration and hope that we can provide all our people, not in the austerity, restrictions and abusive neglect that clearly are the measures being used by radical Republicans.  The discomfort being forced upon us must be used as the catalyst for the weakening and ultimate rejection of the protectors of the elitist few who want to maintain the non-representative system they have been building over the past three decades.