Progressive verses Liberalism: Faith, Why Obama is Right

The uproar over Sen. Obama’s plan to keep President Bush’s White House Office of Community and Faith Based Initiatives from the left of the Democratic Party shows the growing split in the nation’s largest political party. This is a split between the vocal and to their credit active liberal wing that icons like Howard Dean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Russ Feingold, and more. It is clear that they are at odds with their inter-party rivals who are quickly gaining attention as progressives with leaders like Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and more. This week while progressives who use to call themselves moderates praised the new position of the Junior Senator from Illinois to make outreach and involvement with communities of faith a cornerstone of his campaign and if elected administration, liberals led by the Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State took it to the trash. However Obama’s plan and the reaction by the very group that propelled him to the forefront of the parties nomination for President who why so many people refuse to own the liberal label. THEY ARE WRONG!

I must be up front and remind some that I was a very vocal and supportive advocate for Senator Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. We refuse to be called moderates because we believe that our values and our politics are what built the party to the strength we have today. A party that is center left as opposed to one that is far left. The reaction to Sen. Obama saying that he intends to reform and revitalize an office that believes that organizations of faith don’t deserve equal funding opportunities to serve their communities instead of special treatment.

The sad opposition from the liberals on the far left can be summed up in the fact that this is a failed Bush Administration policy as Rev. Berry Lynn said. What their opposition refuses to hear is the reform and change that during the primary they belted was a call to unite behind and what the Senator is proposing. A gut opposition rooted in being the opposition for the sake of opposition instead of listening and hearing the change and positive services these programs can provide is why liberals lose out to progressives on a number of issues that include: education reform, the economy, FISA, healthcare, and the list goes on. It is hard for many of the most passionate liberals to get past the ideology and compare it with the very real lives of the American.

An example of this disconnect with their reality verses real reality is their unwillingness to view Sen. Obama’s plan for faith outreach compared with our knowledge of the Bush Administration. As I see it the new President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will from the plan the campaign released, “work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principals that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards as other federal grant recipients.”

Liberals like Rev. Berry Lynn and others who are up in arms about Sen. Obama’s plan have offered no real alternative for the communities that the plan was created to reach out to. Communities like mine. Communities that have been underserved by the government in the past and some that have an unwelcoming attitude towards government authority. It is communities like these that are held up by these very churches who provide in some instances education, health advice, legal counsel, and so much more. For instance:

1. It was the white protestants in need of religious independence from the British Crown that fought for American independence and risked their lives for the freedoms we have today (I will eagerly acknowledge that some founding fathers weren’t religious at all)
2. It was the northern leaders of faith who took on the powerful southerners to fight for both emancipation for slaves and the right to vote for women
3. It was the black religious elders joined with white northern men of God who organized people into the streets for civil rights
4. And now today it is houses of God in inner-cities that are first to respond to natural disasters, the uprising in crime that has gotten cease fires in urban cities all over, host job trainings, ex-offender reentry services, and services that other organizations just don’t have the power to be successful at.

Once ideological liberals can get off their high stool that allows a seat at the tall table of the concept for American democracy and actually started to live in the American nation is when and how a united party can see just how right Obama’s plan (if put into practice as it is written) is right for America.

It was once said that America was founded by people hungry for their own freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

The Fourth of July

The sounds of fireworks, exploding and popping like gunfire in the American Revolution centuries ago, reach my ears—going off in the distance, and near at hand, the sounds of a raucus celebration. Each year, on the fourth of July, we imitate the celebrations that took place on the first day of independence, 232 years ago. Each year, we celebrate our independence anew. It was on a warm July day in 1776 that our forefathers first gave us this gift—and, in addition to renewing the celebrations, we must also honor their sacrifices in the name of independence and liberty by making our own sacrifices in the name of independence and liberty. More than celebrating, each year we must renew our commitment to our collective liberty as a nation. Each successive generation has committed themselves to, forwarded the cause and progress of, and defended—from forces within and without—this nation’s independence and freedom.

But, I am fearful that, for many, the 4th has become a mere opportunity to celebrate—or just another day—rather than anything close to reaffirming our commitment to the priniciples and goals of our founding fathers. The day is made great and beautiful and symbolic and celebratory due to the principles behind it. It is those principles which we celebrate and commit to—the principles that state that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is on this fine occassion, the anniversary of our independence, upon which we, as a nation, “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor” in the pursuit of these great principles and ideals.

Have a happy fourth of July.

Republican Congressman Turns into Arms Dealer

That headline isn’t a crime in itself, plenty of politicians go to work for large defense contractors, who are basically arms dealers. The problem here is that a former Republican congressman, Curt Weldon (PA) is brokering arms deals with blacklisted countries like Iran and Russia:

Former congressman Curt Weldon is helping broker deals between Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments as part of his new job with a private American defense consulting firm, Wired.com has learned.

Weldon, who is currently being investigated by the FBI over alleged corruption during his time in office, visited Libya in March to discuss a possible military deal, according to a letter describing the trip from Weldon to Defense Solutions CEO Timothy Ringgold. In May, Weldon, together with Ringgold and another company representative, traveled to Moscow to discuss working with Russia’s weapons-export agency on arms sales to the Middle East.

Both trips were part of the company’s effort to tap into the growing — and often legally murky — market for selling weapons from former Eastern Bloc countries to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The reason this is described as legaly murky, is because he is operating as a middle man to supply countries with Soviet weapons they already have, and that were never manufactured in the US. While it may legally okay, it certainly is morally and politically dubious.

But doesn’t it seem like the party (Republicans) that likes to falsely flaunt a strong security record would have ties to selling weapons to former enemies, and other countries that regularly export anti-Americanism and terrorism? This reminds me of the situation last year when another Republican senator was charged with laundering money Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The Kokoist revolt has begun…

[Read more]

It’s Her Party & She’ll Cry If She Wants To: Clinton For Majority Leader?

I’d like everyone to meet Linda. Linda is 35 years old, and from North Carolina. As the sole head of her family, she has had to work two jobs to help support herself and her three young children. What makes her special is that she is seen as the keys to the gates of the White House for either Barack Obama or John McCain. Why? As a 35 year old, blue collar, single, high school educated, white woman, she was the backbone of Hillary Clinton’s sixteen month campaign that many say deeply divided the Democratic Party. When you speak to her about Hillary Clinton’s defeat she still comes to tears. Ask her to suck it up, stop crying, get back on her horse, and support the party’s nominee, you might need help getting out the door. This is now Sen. Obama’s party to be in charge of, but not so fast Linda would say. “I’ve been an avid advocate, activist, and supporter of the Democratic party for my entire adult life. While he was over there going to private schools and making corporate friends, I was here on the street fighting for our people. At the same time, I took care of my kids and never complained. This is MY PARTY not his. This is our party. We all built it.”

Many believe that the White House is ours as long as we don’t defeat ourselves. One way to defeat ourselves is to enter November with a divided party. So how can Sen. Obama ensure that we don’t ‘defeat’ ourselves? A growing consensus among people like Linda is that Hillary Clinton should be the new Majority Leader of the United States Senate. I asked Linda if she meant Vice President, but she was clear that she should be Majority Leader. So I was a little confused and sought more. Linda wasn’t alone because her friend (of which she made as a campaign volunteer for Clinton) Jaz felt the same. Neither of them felt too happy about what they saw as not so subtle statements in the press of support to Obama’s campaign from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or leaks to the press from her staff about her behind the curtain efforts on his behalf. Both believe that Howard Dean’s inability to solve the Florida and Michigan dispute before it got out of control should force him to lose control of the DNC. However, when it came to effectiveness, what wasn’t out of the question is to kick Harry Reid out of the Majority Leader’s office.

Democrats in the House of Representatives have acted quickly on many of the promises that the party made to voters in the 2006 midterm elections. Should we have stronger leaders in the Senate, we might have even met the one to end funding to the war in Iraq without a timeline to bring the troops home. 2008 hasn’t been better on a number of major issues:

1. Passing a major housing bill has been stalled because of the improper conduct of two leading democrats. Instead of seeing the importance of this legislation, sacking these two leaders, and moving forward with the bill that was a lock before this news, Majority Leader Reid did nothing.

2. Most people think that an update to FISA is mandatory. However the Senate can’t approve the new legislation because some senior Democratic members have sided with the President, and against the majority of their party to push for a disgusting retroactive immunity for telecom companies. Instead of providing the immunity and moving the bill by making the government the responsible party, Majority Leader Reid recessed the body without doing anything.

3. As Americans pay higher gas prices then at any other time in our national history, the Senate has refused to pass legislation to bring in market speculators, which has driven prices up faster than anyone considered possible. With the average American paying $4.00 a gallon, and in some parts of the nation like my hometown of Fresno $4.65, Congress instead takes a two week break from work less than two months before they adjourn in August for the REST OF THE YEAR!

This election has become a change election. We need to change not only the President, but how the Congress operates. One way to do this is to change the Majority Leader of the Senate. So why Clinton?

I believe that she would make an outstanding President and a great Vice President. However, I agree with those who say that Sen. Obama deserves the chance to make his own run for the White House, and when he is there, have his own administration and his own agenda. I won’t argue with anyone who says that is impossible if Hillary Clinton is his Vice President. This is a former First Lady of the United States, she is wife of the last sitting Democratic President, 48% of the party voted for her over her opponent, and at least 23% of those are at least now not going to support Obama. She has received at least 18 million votes, the most of any candidate for President in a primary EVER. Basically, she has a national audience, and a national following, is what I’m trying to say. This is along with the impressive bridges she has built with leaders of both parties. Throughout her run for the White House she has been praised for getting to the Senate putting her head down and getting to work. This is what America deserves in a Majority Leader. One who can use politics to win on the issues, but be able to compromise and deal when log jams blocks the legislative highway.

Harry Reid, your time is up. Hillary Clinton, I believe her time is now!

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

p.s.- I would even support his succession by Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, and others.

More Deaths in Afghanistan than in Iraq

More US and NATO troops were killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq for the second straight month:

Militants killed more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month, a grim milestone capping a run of headline-grabbing insurgent attacks that analysts say underscore the Taliban’s growing strength.

The fundamentalist militia in June staged a sophisticated jailbreak that freed 886 prisoners, then briefly infiltrated a strategic valley outside Kandahar. Last week, a Pentagon report forecast the Taliban would maintain or increase its pace of attacks, which are already up 40 percent this year from 2007 where U.S. troops operate along the Pakistan border.

So it seems as soon as the situation in Iraq gets stabilized chaos breaks out in Afghanistan. And then just in time for a general election the press seems to be ignoring the situation in Afghanistan, and coverage in general of America’s wars.

The only option for victory in these countries is to let Arab nations that know the cultures and politics proceed with reconstruction. Meanwhile American withdrew it’s forces, but continued to release funds to rebuild what we destroyed.

McCain doesn’t have a good plan for Afghanistan, he wants highly trained swimmers searching for Osama bin Laden in the desert badlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan. McCain likes to tote a “secret plan” for victory, but Bush talked of a secret plan in 2004, and nothing seems to be improving in the two war fronts.

Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran

Veteran Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh has published an article in the New Yorker Magazine that asserts that congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to greatly increase funding, to 400 million dollars, for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran. This escalation of these covert and secret activities is meant to destabilize the religious leadership of Iran. Hersh wrote his article based upon information from “current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.” The article notes that covert activities by the United States are not new in Iran–we have been conducting cross-border operations from Southern Iraq since last year.

The request for the $400 million was described in something called a “Presidential Finding”, signed by President Bush, and, under Federal Law, these Presidential Findings “must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees”. The article by Hersh noted later that, “In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.” This is a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy that is certainly not unfamiliar to the politics of the United States.

I hope that we all can now clearly see that the Republican Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists. And I hope that we can now also clearly see that the Democratic Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists, through their aiding and abetting of policies that are as such. I hope that we can now clearly see that both political parties are about policing the world, and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to do so. We are spending 400 million dollars alone on trying to destabilize one single country. That money could have gone to education. That money could have gone to healthcare. That money could have gone to infrastructure. But, out of all of the needy areas of our country, our political leaders, of both parties, decided to direct the money instead towards destabilizing another country. 400 million dollars! That could not be described as “spare change”. Obviously, though, there is no “change” that our leaders can spare. And the small, superficial change that they do provide is worthless.

But Iran is not the only country targeted by the United States. According to Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, “On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’.” The four other countries in the Middle East were, according to Wesley Clark, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Lebanon.

It is my opinion that the United States has been the interventionist policeman of the world for too long. And especially covert interventions, because that promotes “blowback”, defined as a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Hatred in the Middle East towards the United States as a result of our covert operations targeting Middle-Easterners, and then Middle-Easterners demonstrating their hatred in a terrorist attack, is an example of blowback.

Is it honestly in our best interest to undertake operations such as this, especially when domestic issues are in such dire need of attention? And, ask yourself, do we even have the right to interfere in and destabilize another country, someone else’s country, as such? My personal opinion is that we have neither the right nor the obligation to try to destablize the governments of other countries and throw them into political chaos. Aside from the concerns of blowback and the misplacement of tax money, it is very important to do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.

The Young Faithful Leads Democrats to Church

Year after year, more than 40% of Americans say they attended church at least once a week. Americans attend church more regularly and interpret the Bible more literally than even their neighbors to the north, according to a Gallup Poll. This follows other polls by the organization that religious observance in the United States is greater than most of the world powers. It seems as if the Democratic Party has began to realize the importance of these voters, and have begun to reach out to them. It is lead by party organizations like the DNC’s Faith in Action program, the House Democrats’ Faith Working Group, and the Senate Democrats A Word to the Faithful website. Their efforts are combined with grassroots efforts from groups like Matthew 25 and even a new movement that I am apart of in the Young Democrats of America to create a Faith Caucus (www.youngfaithdems.org) that will work alongside the College Democrats of America’s Faith Caucus. Democrats and even more those in the Obama campaign have understood from talking to young people of faith that the GOP grip on this group is loosening, and we have an opening.

Last week I met with a kid named Jonathan in North Carolina. This 6′4, blond hair, blue eyed, clean cut native of the bible belt belongs to what some are calling a “growing minority” of young evangelicals. They believe deeply in God and their church, but have grown tired of the narrow political agenda of some in opposition to abortion and gay marriage. However, if you talk to Jonathan, he will identify a new list of items he and friends want to be active on. They include erasing poverty, fighting HIV/AIDS, the genocide in Darfur, and even global warming. When you ask Jonathan what party he is a member of, his response is a very unexcited, “Republican”. When you seek more insight into his delay, it comes from his confusion over who to support in November. “I am a Republican and have been one all my life. My parents are Republicans, and I think even their parents have been Republicans. It is what I know. Am I voting Republican in November? I just don’t know.” Jonathan’s view isn’t uncommon in many areas of the GOP strongest voting blocs.

According to an August 2007 poll by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 69% of Americans agree that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. However what has stopped Democrats in the past from wining this group is that a recent poll says 52% of Americans view the Republican party as friendly to religion and only 40% say the same for our party. 10% see the GOP as unfriendly to their faith with 13% saying the same of our party. I look at these numbers with promise. Promise because the problem isn’t as big as it once was. The group with the largest promise for our party is young people.

Just recently Pew put out another survey that showed a 15% point drop in support among white evangelicals aged 18-29 with the GOP over the past two years. What is causing this drop? Well for Jonathan it was issues he determines to be “social economic fairness” or policies to ensure a fairer economy and tackle issues of poverty. However some defections to the GOP have come because of their consistent policies on Iraq while others say they believe that it is the duty of government to respect God’s creation (the planet) and favor stricter laws that often times aren’t in line with the Republican platform.

So once again, as goes the young people of this nation, so goes the country. Today, those young people are turning away from a party that urged us to hate each other, and find out what makes us different, to a party that says lets work together, lift everyone up, and find what we have in common. Democrats today are doing just that, and we are doing it by finally reaching out to voters we’ve often ignored.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

The perfect Veep?

I’m going to give you some biographical information about an individual who I think would be a perfect VP choice for Barack Obama. Based on the information, see if you know right away who I’m talking about:

… Graduated from La Salle Academy in Providence and attended the United States Military Academy in West Point, where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in 1971. Following his graduation and receiving an active duty commission, [he] attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, where he received a Masters in Public Policy.

[...]

… An Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon leader in the 325th Infantry Regiment, a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.

[...]

… Resigned from the army in 1979 as a captain and enrolled in Harvard Law School.

[...]

… Elected as a state senator in 1984 and served three terms. In 1990, was elected to the United States House of Representatives. For the next six years, [he] became well known in his state for his positions on education and health care…

[...]

U.S Senator since 1996… currently a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the Senate Appropriations Committee. Americans for Democratic Action has often listed him as a “hero” as they indicate he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

[...]

Voted NO on authorizing use of military force against Iraq; voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage; rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record; rated 100% by the NAACP; rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record; rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record; voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility; the list goes on and on.

[Read more]

Supreme Court fails on 2nd Ammendment

*Picture from ABCNEWS.COM

Many people support gun rights for defense and for hunting uses. But, handguns are not needed for any of those two purposes. Handguns can easily be concealed and used for a series of crimes. You do not need a pistol to hunt for deer or other wild animals. By the means of protecting yourself, you are still allowed to have rifles and shotguns, which cannot easily be concealed.
[Read more]

Vulnerable Republicans: The Mitch McConnell Edition!

Nationwide backlash against the Republican Party cost them control of the Congress in 2006. This year, the same backlash could cost them 20-30 seats in the House, and as many as 6 or 7 in the Senate. Among the handful of Republican Senators worried about their jobs is none other than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). From Rasmussen:

United States Senator Mitch McConnell has a seven-point advantage over Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford in the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Kentucky voters. It’s McConnell 48%, Lunsford 41%.

[...]

Still, any incumbent who polls below the 50% level of support is considered potentially vulnerable and McConnell remains in that category.

Under Senator McConnell’s leadership, the Republican Party has engaged in almost-unprecedented obstructionism, using parliamentary tactics to consistently block promising pieces of legislation put forth by the Democratic majority. The only factor in play making McConnell a tough challenge is the generally-Conservative nature of his home state. However, while Kentucky may be Conservative, I can’t conceive of the people of Kentucky appreciating counterproductive politics and politicians any more than the people of any other state in the nation. That could make all the difference.

My Parents Voting for John McCain?

I was talking to my mother yesterday because Senator John McCain had recently made a visit to my hometown of Fresno, California. She said that actually she was unaware that he was even in town until after it happened, but she wished she knew. She will be voting for John McCain. What!? She will be voting for John McCain! My mother has been a Democrat since she knew what the word meant. She has NEVER ever even considered voting for a Republican. So what could get her to vote for one now?

Let me tell you, it is not because John McCain has used his charm and political leadership to win over her vote. For my father, who has likely been voting Republican for years, it wasn’t anything new. What was new on that front is that he might NOT vote for McCain but a third party. For my mother it was Hillary Clinton. During the days that at times Sen. Obama called the divisive days of the 90’s, my mother stood tall in her support of President Bill Clinton. She loved his leadership, and felt he was being wronged. In 2008, when Hillary launched her campaign, my mother was right on board. She even refused to give my younger brother a ride to the polls because he might have voted for Obama. As the campaign went on, and the attacks got greater, my mother got more mad. When it seemed to come to an end, lets just say she was pissed off. Those wounds haven’t healed, and in my mothers words, “They won’t, unless he picks her.” Picks her? Yes, my mother won’t vote for Sen. Obama unless he selects her to be his running mate as Vice President.

I don’t think that my mother is unique. I think that she represents the voice of millions of women and other voters who gave their time, tears, and painfully helped wage a historic campaign for the White House on behalf of Mrs. Clinton. To many of them, she should be awarded with the Vice Presidential nomination, and I am proud to announce I agree.

Senator Clinton has spent her life fighting for people in poverty, people who look like me. She has spent a career advocating for just what America needs at this time, and that is healthcare for all Americans, that is affordable and works. Her experience on the details of this issue that cripples many family budgets, is bringing down budgets of states and local governments nationwide, and is the largest expense of businesses that drive them to other countries, is what he needs. Her willingness to fight for things that are important regardless of what the storyline might be tomorrow is what he needs. Her ability to seek compromise, but only good compromise, and have friendly relationships with countless numbers of people on the other side of the aisle is what he needs.

So when it comes to who should be selected to the job of inquiring daily as to the health of the President, and preside over the proceedings of the Senate, I nominate Hillary Clinton.

Tha-Kid JK

tha-kid@revkitchen.com

Next Page »