Christians support Nazis and the KKK.

Now that I have your attention, provide me with a moment to explain.

Much of the Right-Wing rhetoric these days coming from the likes of Fox News and other such organizations has been about how "Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, or that the planned mosque should not be built because "Muslims" are responsible for the deaths resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers.

What's more shocking to me than the above statement, is how those who say it think it's a truthful, acceptable statement to make.  Muslims did not attack us on 9/11.  Muslims did not plant explosives in a van in Times Square.  A small minority of terrorists did those things.  By the way, they happen to be Muslim, and yes, according to them, was carried out in the name of Islam.

The title to this blog has a purpose.  I thought for a while about how to effectively piss off the most people, and that's what I came up with.  Did it make you angry?  I hope it did.  I hope it shocked you.  I hope, even for a moment, that you felt how the majority of Muslims in this world feel when they encounter people with the above opinions.

For centuries death and destruction has been carried out at the hands of Christians.  We can start with the Crusades, fast forward to the Ku Klux Klan, stop by in Nazi Germany and finally land in present day with the WBC (Westford Baptist Church) who are best known for their picket signs held up at military funerals that read "Thank God for Dead Soldiers".

Does this mean that all Christians believe in genocide, violent attacks on African Americans or blaming the deaths of U.S. Soldiers on homosexuals?  Of course not, that would be a ridiculous stance to take... almost as ridiculous as the title of this article. 

So why would we blame 9/11, the war in Iraq and bombs in Times Square on Muslims?  Why would we single out this religion, yet spew venom in every direction if someone insults our own religion?

Bigotry.

Corporations are not People

Since when did we start thinking that somehow our rights as individual humans in this country were less important that those of big business, or any business for that matter?

Well right now, those businesses do think they are more important, and most of that thought comes from the fact that they have more money than you.  They can buy politicians, who will vote in Congress the way they want them to vote, not the way you need them to vote.

Take a look at some of the races going on right now for the mid-term elections.  Unidentified large donations are being poured into these Republicans campaigns.  They are scared of what the Democrats might do if they stay in power.  Why are they scared?  Because what is best for them is not what's best for the majority, the middle class.  Somehow, someway, money has outweighed the majority.  It's all an illusion though, the money being poured out, is in the form of ads made to target us, and convince us to vote for these Republicans so that the illusion of "majority wins" is upheld.

Let's take another stab at those Teabaggers.  The Tea Party likes to put a lot of pressure on some of the oldest documents in US History, so let's look at what may be the first one.  The Declaration of Independence, it starts out with "We the People", not "We the Corporations", we would all do good to remember that come November 2nd.

Christine O'Donnell - Enemy to Humanity

I don't care if you are on the Left or the Right, Christine O' Donnell is the single most popular figure in today's news when it comes to dismantling everything Women, People of Color, Gays and Lesbians have fought for.

Christine O'Donnell is the Republican "Tea Party" Candidate in Delaware.  She beat out all the other Republicans in the primaries, which I find it hard to believe they thought she could help the party in any way.  I'm pretty sure she will be the exact reason a Democrat wins that seat this year.

Whether it's her view of Aids, Masturbation or the causes of "date rape", Ms. O'Donnell is an enemy to our right to free thinking and if she had it her way masturbation (she claims is the same as adultery), condoms (which she says don't prevent AIDS) and a woman's right to wear her choice of clothes (causes date rape) would all be illegal.

She has been quoted as saying that birth control is (Anti-Human) and in an attempt to help her point, stated that condoms do not help in the prevention of AIDS, with seemingly no regard for how detrimental that statement really is.  If anyone took her seriously and decided that there is no difference in using a condom and not using a condom the work the AIDS Community has done to stop or slow the spread of this disease would come to a grinding halt.

Masturbation, she says, is lustful and therefore adultery, whether you are married or not.  According to her belief, if a single man or woman masturbates (which is widely known as the safest form of sex) they are then guilty of Adultery and if she gets her way, it would become illegal, although I have no idea how they could ever enforce a law like that.

Christine O'Donnell further states that "Date Rape" is the product of the type of clothes the woman chooses to wear.  If her statements were ever taken seriously, every creep in the universe would be trying to use that as a defense in court.

So I don't care what side of the political fence you are on, we cannot let this person get into office.  Vote against her on November 2nd and file her in the outcast pile that we threw Sarah Palin into.

On a related note, I put together this montage for you all, it's my first so please be gentle when it comes to the technical aspects.

How many sections of the Bill of Rights are you willing to give up?

How many sections of the Bill of Rights would you be willing to let go by the wayside?  I would imagine for most of you that answer would be, zero.  I would also EXPECT for you "TeaBaggers" that answer would also be zero, since you seem to place so much stake in a 200+ year old document.

So you want to make it illegal to protest at funerals?  I agree.  I believe those individuals representing the church should be punished.  Those young soldiers families have lost something they can never get back.

But how?

How do you punish those people without infringing on the bill of rights?  Without violating "Freedom of Speech"?  Our founding fathers realized that is was not "safe" speech that needed to be protected.  Safe speech is generally tolerated and therefore we don't really talk much about it.  Speech that needs to be protected is that which most or all of us would find UN-tolerable.  If there were no speech that the general population found disagreeable there would be no need for the First Amendment.  I know what your saying, you don't care, they should be punished.  Well let me ask you, if they are punished, if their Freedom of Speech is violated, what next?  That freedom is something afforded to all of us, something we all enjoy, something we also have to pay for and in some cases, this in particular, that payment can be completely heart-breaking.

Another one in recent news is the story about the potential Mosque to be built near Ground Zero.  First a little of my opinion, is it in bad taste? Yes.  Will it cause problems? Yes.  Do all Muslims agree with it being built there? No.  Many Muslims also agree that it is in bad taste.  But there is more to this story than you will ever hear on Fox News.  There are no less than 13 locations around the country where Muslims are being denied the right to construct Mosques.  Is this one at Ground Zero a way to bring that to light?  I don't know, but I think it would be a good start.

So suppose Muslims are denied the permits and permissions to build at Ground Zero.  Also ponder if they should be denied to build in other locations around the country?  Think about how many Christian Churches are on or near land deemed "Sacred" by Native Americans and ask, are we being fair?  Are we making this decision because we are able to detach from the situation and really look at this analytically?  Or are we acting on what suits us and our principles even though others may not share that same idea?

After you've had a moment to ponder these things, ask yourself one more time, do I want to give up my right to Freedom of Religion?  Most of us have no idea what it is like to be persecuted for our religions, at least not in the Untied States so we really don't have a point of departure to fully engage in this type of issue and really understand how the person sitting across the table feels. 

If we just make a law that denies them the right to build, how will that law apply to non-Muslims?  Will Muslims and non-Muslims both lose?  I think they will.

Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the rest of the Fox cronies and Tea Baggers alike are always talking about us losing our freedoms, but think about what I've said and think about what freedoms you're willing to just throw away without really thinking about what the true cost of that momentary victory will be.

Do the 2% really need another tax-cut?

There is a reason they are referred to as the 2%, they are the minority.  The richest 2% of our country are just that, 2% of the population, therefore the minority.  Why aren't more of the 98% more vocal in their frustrations over this minute, insignificant group getting all the breaks?

It may be the 2% that are financing these campaigns, but it is not the 2% standing in line at the polls that gets our elected officials in office.  The Republicans want to usher in new tax cuts for the rich, just as the old ones, enacted by the Bush Administration and put us into this recession, are coming to an end.

Our elected officials are supposed to do what is best for the greater population, if the Republicans are not doing that, then why do so many vote for them?  How do we have ANY Republicans in office?  How does that party even exist?  The rich finance the elections, and therefore have bought and paid for the officials.

We should not vote for someone that is paid for by big business or the richest 2%, we should not allow someone to hold office that represents such a small part of the population.

Bush tax cuts coming to an end...

Finally, one of his screw ups will go by the wayside, or will it?

Some of Bush's major tax cuts (to the rich) will expire soon, which is a good thing, but the sting we all felt in our economy will take some time to correct.

So many Republicans I know think that this laissez-faire type of government (Under both Bush and his father, and Reagan) is a good thing, yet they also enjoy the roads, schools and vast knowledge base that the U.S. holds, among other things, I guess they think all of that is free.

Reaganomics and "Trickle-Down Economics" don't work.  Giving tax cuts to the rich in hopes that funds will eventually reach the middle-class and the poor doesn't work, no matter what spin you put on the idea.   When the rich make more money, the rich save more money, look at our economy now.  Companies like AIG were circling the drain, yet their high level management were spending thousands and thousands of dollars on cruises and spa trips all the while taking million dollar bonuses, while the rest of us got stuck with the bill.

It is a proven fact, that as our country has changed over the last 250 years, that also the government has needed to change, and when that was allowed to happen, this nation flourished.  On the occasions where the laissez-faire rhetoric was loudest, and the government did not have the support of the people, we had The Great Depression, our most current recession, among several other market crashes.

One thing that all of the richest nations in the world have in common, is heavy involvement of their respective governments.  Trickle down economics do not work.  Placing more money in the hands of the rich, does nothing for the poor.

Some of the things our government has provided for us despite the laissez-faire rhetoric are as follows, Social Security, workers compensation, state colleges, minimum wage, public schools (free education), advances in medicine (longer life-span) and our military, just to name a few.  Are there any of these things you think we can do without?

Obama takes a lot of heat as he's accused of being a socialist for "redistributing the wealth".  What he is doing is not much different than his predecessors, except Bush took our (the middle class) wealth and spread it upwards, like we have extra money in our pockets to give to the rich.

The Presidents Speech was Boring?

Last night on the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly called Barack Obama boring.  He said he found nothing wrong with the words in the speech but felt that overall it was "boring".

We are talking about The President of the United States giving a speech about the closing war in Iraq.  It's not his job to be entertaining, we leave that up to O'Reilly and the folks at Fox News (Entertainment Channel).  While the President did exhibit a certain flair while on the campaign trail, that was not his primary focus last night.

Bill O'Reilly performs on his show as an entertainer and commentator.  Yet he fell so short of his job this time that instead of attacking our President on merit or substance, he had to attack his style, while his guest on the "Factor" Monica Crowley said he looked like he should be wearing a propeller hat.  I mean, really, you're a nationally broadcast show, with millions of viewers, and the best you can do is "boring" or "nerd"?

Why does Fox News pay O'Reilly?  More importantly, why does anyone bother to listen to him?

Sarah Palin in 2012??

For the good of our county, I hope not.

Electing Sarah Palin as President would certainly be the worst mistake we've made since allowing George W. Bush into office.

The scary part?  The reason for a blog about it?

The Right Wing ditto heads just might vote for her.  If Limbaugh or Beck command their sheep to elect her, guess what folks?  It's President (Nature hating, Geographically impaired) Palin.  And who will she owe her presidency to?  Who will be receiving our hard earned dollars?  Who will get the next line of tax cuts?  It wont be us, she'll be too busy paying back all the lobbyists, special interest groups and big businesses that got her elected.

I read today that Sarah Palin is a Fox News Contributor, which since they are known for their useless, fear-mongering, lie spewing rhetoric, I guess I should have known that all along.  Fox News is an entertainment channel, not a worthy news source, and if Palin wants to place a bid for 2012 she needs to figure out if she really thinks anyone can take her seriously. 

My opinion is that if you want a repeat of the debacle that is/was George W. Bush, then by all means, elect Sarah Palin.  But, if you want a country that can at least pretend to be proud of it's leader, maybe the GOP should go back to the drawing board.

The Majority of the GOP thinks that Barack Obama is a Muslim!

No they don't.

And they don't think he was born outside of the United States either.

A lot of the news articles I've been seeing the last few days have been about the GOP's belief that our President is a Muslim and that he was born in Kenya.

I would venture to say that the greater majority of the GOP are fairly intelligent individuals.  There is no way they are so ignorant as to think that any of the above is true.  If it were, the Right would be plastering their proof everywhere imaginable, but they aren't.

However, it is very convenient, from where they sit, to claim they believe it.  The Republicans seem to have hit the proverbial jackpot when it comes to constituents.  At least the ones that are the most vocal, believe anything and everything they so happen to hear on Fox News and spread it like Christmas Cheer.

For a moment, let me pose a question or two.  Would we be having this conversation if say, Obama was a Jew?  Is the issue that he might be a Muslims, or is it that he might be a non-Christian?  Either one says something totally different but equally horrifying.

Our Founding Fathers

I keep hearing the argument - Our founding fathers would have done this, or that, or our founding fathers said this, or that.

Before I get started with what I think is wrong with those type of statements, let's take a look at some of the things our founding fathers said.  Most of our 20th and 21st Century Political Commentators do a very good job of digging back into history and finding exactly what they want to find in order to further their own agenda, an agenda that fuels their cause and puts more money in their pockets. (Actually they pay researchers to do it for them.)

So I thought I would offer up some things that one might discover if they were doing that type of research.  When our constitution was being written, for some reason, the writers didn't see any reason to make allowances to give women the opportunity to vote.  Apparently, they also did not see anything wrong with slavery.

One of, if not the, most quoted of our founding fathers, An American Guesser, thought that the turkey should be our national bird.  It doesn't seem he had any particular fondness for the turkey, but more a disdain for the eagle, "a bird of bad moral character" as he put it.

The Point?  The point is that the rules, regulations and ideas of yesterday don't suit us as a modern society.  The economics of yesterday should not be applied to the America of tomorrow just because it worked yesterday, it needs to be a good, thoughtful fit for America in present day.

There was a time in history when people opposed the government establishing public schools, building public roads, abolishing slavery (it was viewed as a violation of private property) and desegregation because all of those things were not in the Founding Fathers original design.  The United States of today is not in the Founding Fathers original design.  Then why should we be held to the politics of the Founding Fathers?  Can you imagine what the price of gas would be if there were no interstates for the trucks to drive on?

With all due respect to our Founding Fathers, they were not prophets.  They were not all knowing and all seeing.  That had good intentions, and the way they navigated the waters of a New America, did quite well for our country in its early years, but they were mere mortal men.  To expect any more of them beyond those years is unfair to them and quite frankly, an unreasonable position.

Ask yourself this.  Is the reason Our Founding Fathers didn't allow for regulation of the automobile industry because they disagreed, or because they didn't know what a car was?

Don't Tread on Me!

Have you seen the symbol for the newly formed, Tea Party?

It's not that new, it's the iconic flag from the late 1700's,  The Gadsden Flag, better known by the words it bears, "Don't Tread on Me".

It's not about the views of the Tea Party, although I couldn't agree with them less, it's what they will do to such a historical image.  An image that far better men and women lost their lives over.  The Tea Party is of itself such a comical idea, that they will do the same thing to that flag, make it a joke.  Moreover, they will make it just as offensive to the masses as the Confederate Flag is today after a minority of individuals turned it into a symbol of Racism.

I understand the correlation that the Tea Party is trying to make.  But, please don't pretend to have lived with nearly the same level of oppression or injustice that our forefathers did, that is just plain disrespectful and quite frankly, delusional.

To the "Teabaggers", hire a graphic designer to make you a symbol or flag.  You have nothing in common with the patriots of yesterday, please don't tarnish their memory.

First Post

Well, I thought about this for a minute and decided that it was okay for my first post to be off-topic.  More of a, get to know me post, rather than a, what I think post.

So I just turned 34, got married just nearly 2 months ago to a wonderful woman and her beautiful daughter and live and work in Virginia Beach, VA.

I work in the telecommunications industry, namely, the wireless side of things.  I started climbing towers in 1998 and after 12 years I became a Construction Manager, managing the day to day activities as relates to construction for one of the big wireless companies.

Politically, I'm divided to some degree, but at the end of the day, I typically fall to the left side of things.  I don't think anyone is perfect, but I think some politicians try harder than others to line their own pockets rather than do the best thing for the people that elected them, or those that voted against them for that matter. 

Worse than those politicians are the "commentators"  of the present day that use fear-mongering and hate based ideas amongst the masses in order to line their own pockets, with no true realistic agenda, just string Americans along and make obscene cash doing so.

So anyway, there's me, my politics, and in the coming blog posts all will be commented on in depth.

Thanks for reading and hope you read more.

Ben McManus