Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
Newt Gingrich Supports Osama Bin Laden
Gingrich Rhetoric Reinforces bin Laden Statements
Let us briefly consider how former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is spewing the exact xenophobic and prejudicial slandering that completely reinforces the stereotype that radical terrorist Osama bin Laden has used to give synergy and support to rally a small percentage of fellow radicals to blindly follow the unethical, immoral, and ill interpreted ideologies and policies of terrorism against those who do not succumb to their ill conceived ideals of Islam.
Newt Gingrich and Osama bin Laden
| BIN LADEN CLAIMS | GINGRICH SUPPORTS |
| [N]ow that senior U.S. officials have spoken … every Muslim should rush to defend his religion. … They came out to fight this group of people who declared their faith in God and refused to abandon their religion. They came out to fight Islam in the name of terrorism. (Oct. 7, 2001) | One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign. (July 28, 2010) |
| This war is fundamentally religious. … Those who try to cover this crystal clear fact, which the entire world has admitted, are deceiving the Islamic nation. … It is a question of faith, not a war against terrorism, as Bush and Blair try to depict it. … Fear God, O Muslims and rise to support your religion. (Nov. 3, 2001) | Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose sharia, but others use non-violent methods—a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence. Thus, the term “war on terrorism” is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.(July 28, 2010) |
| It has become clear that the West in general and America in particular have an unspeakable hatred for Islam. … A few days ago, they … dropped—in what they said was a mistake—a radio-guided bomb on a mosque where ulemas were praying. They targeted the mosque, killing 150 Muslim worshippers. It is the hatred of crusaders. (Dec. 27, 2001) | [T]he Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate. … It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. (July 28, 2010) |
| The intentions of the Americans have also been clarified in statements about the need to change the beliefs, curricula, and morals of the Muslims to become more tolerant, as they put it. In clearer terms, it is a religious-economic war. (Jan. 4, 2004) | America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could. No mosque. No self deception. No surrender. (July 21, 2010) |
| The West is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others’ beliefs or feelings. The West still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations. … How can we explain France’s stance on the headscarf and the banning on wearing it at schools … This is a Zionist-Crusader war. (April 23, 2006) | [T]hey proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred. Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy. … [F]or radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization. (July 28, 2010) |
| So what is the sin of the Afghans due to which you are continuing this unjust war against them? Their only sin is that they are Muslims, and this illustrates the extent of the Crusaders’ hatred of Islam and its people. (Nov. 29, 2007) | This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual and political [power], but their end goal is exactly the same. (July 29, 2010) |
| “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” … Similar are sophistries like “dialogue of religions,” “freedom of opinion,” “freedom of speech,” “peaceful coexistence.” … (March 14, 2009) | President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as our troops were landing in Normandy, went on national radio at 10 o’clock at night and actually led the nation in six and a half minutes of prayer, something very few modern liberals appreciate. This is part of what he said: “Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set up on a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.” This was not a man who was confused about what the stakes were, nor was he confused about what the goal was. (July 29, 2010) |
| So, who stood by America the Christian, and who supported it? Isn’t that Zardari and his government and army? … Obama has walked like his predecessors in increasing hostility towards Muslims. … I encourage my Muslim nation to stand by the side of the mujahideen and support them everywhere. (“Speech to the Pakistani Nation,” June 3, 2009) | President Roosevelt said the following: “We must remember what the collaborative understanding between Communism and Nazism has done to the processes of democracy abroad. Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same civilization. They oppose democracy because it is Christian. They oppose Christianity because it preaches democracy. Their objective is to prevent democracy from becoming strong.” Again, this is hardly a man who’s confused about what’s at stake. Winston Churchill, at the very peak of the Battle of Britain, said, “Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization.” (July 29, 2010) |
| The war which has been taking place on your soil these past years is a war between Islam and the International Crusade. – (“Fight On, Champions of Somalia,” March 19, 2009) | There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over. (July 21, 2010) |
Gingrich Should Stifle Himself
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is obviously not as calculated an orator as he would like to believe himself to be. He is not a policy maker who gives objective, calculated, reserved rhetoric to convey, understand, and rally; he is an attention grabbing politician promoting the very ideals that keep us afraid, that invites radical response, and endangers our security, not provide for it.
Gingrich-Bin Laden Alliance
Read and learn more about the Newt Gingrich – Bin Laden Alliance.
Racist Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich is a Racist
I enjoy getting news – local, national, international and even the off-beat – from a variety of different sources, and even from opposing views, to test my own objectivity so to speak. At least once per week, I get a Newt Gingrich newsletter delivering and discussing the “hard right” point of view of many political, economical, social and other topics. Despite differing ideologies and politics, I have always respected the former Speaker of the House, and oft even found myself in some level of agreement with him on many issues; but today went too far – today, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich revealed to the world his latent racism, blatant stupidity, and utter disregard for the ideals upon which this country was founded.
Gingrich Racism Exposed
So by now, you are surely asking, “What’s the big deal?” Sorry, I am only trying to be as brief as Newt in getting to a point …he was nearly 1130 words into newsletter before making his case; not a bad case, but the prelude and plethora of prejudice and racism leading up to his final 400 words had done its damage. The credibility, reliability, and sadly, the respectability faded with each misstated fact, misleading account and malicious spewing of speech. The diatribe that attempted to introduce dialogue made any consensus, any compromise, and communal, or citizenry attempt impossible to reach. Beginning with the title, “No Mosque at Ground Zero” Gingrich goes on, and on, and on, with untruths, twisted facts, and apparently with a loss of his once statesman qualities.
Newt Goes Racist – It’s How He Rolls
After a clever eye-popping title, the racist Gingrich leads off lightly:
One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks “the war on terror” instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical Islamism) as the target of our campaign.
Thank goodness he explained that radical part; he almost had me lost from the beginning. Wait a minute, does not the very word “radical” have a connotation of being away from the mainstream thinking?
With the “Gingrich effect”, the loosening of definitions like radical, it’s a good thing Obama was not in office when that dumb redneck blew up that building and those babies in Oklahoma City or I might have gotten a newsletter telling me to watch out ’cause that Muslim-loving president is a hunting we radical white, Christian men. Get real Newt! I know my example sucks, Mr. Gingrich, but so does your ability to draw a straight line between a some radicals, mostly from Saudi Arabia who crept through our borders from some Christian nation up north (sorry, Canada!) to all the whole populations of Muslim peoples.
Patriotism Can Never Equal Racism
I am a proud, Episcopalian, patriotic Christian man born and bred in the good ‘ole USA – but I do not subscribe that this is a Christian nation. It is a nation, born of the blood of man and women from many races, creeds, socioeconomically different, and yes, even of different, or no, religions, to ensure that it would be the greatest nation upon Earth – because of her diversity, not in spite of it. We are a nation founded upon the ideals of freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, freedom from fear.
Another Election Cycle – Another Round of Fear Mongering
Politicians from all parties are guilty of fear mongering to some extent or another. Even in benign terms, seemingly typical statements can still be definitive of fear mongering. “If ‘so and so’ is elected ‘this and that’ will or will not happen. Sure, there are plenty of more malignant examples to be drawn upon, but let’s not give them an audience any more than necessary. However, Gingrich’s comments cannot, should not, and dare not be ignored, tolerated, or supported. Allowed? Yes, unfortunately; as Voltaire stated, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But heed it? Hell no!
Our Proud Heritage Needs Some Reality Checks
We are a nation of immigrants who exercised genocide against this land’s native peoples to form a nation where all could be free … well, besides that Mr. Lincoln, how did you like the play? Please, do not get me wrong, there is no greater place on Earth to live than right here in our great United States of America, and I am proud to have served her armed services protecting our liberties, but we are a long way from finger-pointing without even more being pointed back at ourselves. Let us embrace our differences, find common ground and leave the negative, racist propaganda to history where it should stay.
I will gladly defend your right to say what you want, Mr. Gingrich, to a point – we have no place in our society for intolerant, racist hate speech – some might call that “terroristic threatening” and you may find the Patriot Act shoved up … Or have you not read the latest census? We’ are now the shrinking minority, Newt – might be time to start thinking more right, and less white.
Disenfranchising Democracy
Aunt Cathy Can’t Get to Congress
My Aunt Cathy possesses a quality my congressional representatives do not – the ability to live on a budget. My Aunt Cathy has knowledge that my elected representatives cannot begin to comprehend like how an unexpected co-payment for a doctor’s visit puts an entire family’s budget in peril. These qualities of Aunt Cathy, and many more all over America, would make for down-to-earth, commonsense, representation of the people. But Aunt Cathy will never make it to Washington, because of another budget crisis.
Campaign Financing
Campaign financing in the United States has taken representation of the people and allowed it to be sold to the highest bidder of representation for profiteers. Aunt Cathy cannot get to Congress because she cannot raise $2 million dollars to compete against an incumbent with tacit sponsorship stickers covering his morals and attache. Overhauling the current laws governing campaign finance, to a public funded election system, is essential to our American democracy, so that we can make it easier for citizens to commit to public service, keep corporations out of Congress, and have a better make up of representatives more accurately depicting their constituents.
Public Funding
Public funding of elections is already done with presidential elections in the United States. Additionally, many states have public funding for different levels of elected office within their respective states. I further define public funded elections as monies received by candidates by individual donors, while barring all political action committee (PAC) and corporate campaign contributions.
For the sake of examining the benefits of public funded elections, we will put our “Aunt Cathy” up against an actual incumbent member of the United States Representatives, Ron Lewis, serving Kentucky’s Second Congressional District (KY-02).
Many Americans incorrectly associate Abraham Lincoln’s remarks at Gettysburg as being part of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution; but indeed, his challenge to the nation and its future generations, was a restatement of the ethos of our founding fathers wrote about in our country’s declaration as a democratic nation. For our democratic nation to truly be represented of the people, requires that citizens from all socioeconomical backgrounds have the prospect to seek public office, to better represent the whole, and just not the privileged and paid up. Public funded elections would open up the opportunities for Aunt Cathy and others to seek elected, strengthening our American Democracy. Without public funded elections, Aunt Cathy will not be able to overcome the obstacles that have been embanked and fortified around the castle walls of incumbent office holders.
Incumbency Advantage
What is the big advantage of an incumbent? Giving equal time to Aunt Cathy’s opponent, let’s take a quick look at his background and at his campaign fund-raising and major contributors comparing two election cycles, a decade separated. In 1994, Ron Lewis, a small business owner of a Christian bookstore and a Baptist minister won a special election to fill the seat of a deceased congressman. For his first regular election campaign in 1996, The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Ron Lewis raised over $630,000. A small town minister with great credentials, Lewis received nearly $396,000 (62.5%) from individual contributors in 1996; but, already established as an incumbent, Lewis received and additional $213,000 from PACs, or 33.6% of his total source of funds. In large contrast, for the 2006 campaign, Ron Lewis raised more than $1.7 million dollars, of that only 38% ($655,000) came from individual contributors, whereas over $1 million dollars came from PACs.
Aunt Cathy doesn’t stand a chance against an incumbent who is so heavily supported by special interest groups. Our current elected representative you’ll remember is an ordained Baptist minister. Throughout his tenure, his overall second and third greatest contributors to his campaign funds, have been whiskey distillers and tobacco companies respectively. It may be wrong to buy a person or bribe an official, but it seems the elected office has a substantial price tag. The conflict of interest created by allowing large contributors and PACs to heavily fund candidates is not in keeping with our American ideal of a government of the people. Public funded elections would remove special interest groups and allow for the reinsertion of citizen groups.
Since his election, our incumbent has increasing sought, received and accepted greater amounts of PAC contributions. During his tenure, Ron Lewis has continued to author and sponsor bills that benefit his major contributors. For example, beginning in 1996, Lewis sponsored his first congressional bill, one that would give whiskey distillers tax incentives and tax breaks, while the citizens in the Second Congressional District of Kentucky were looking for economic relief. Public funded elections would remove financial implied obligations by elected officials to their large contributors, allowing for representation of the people, and not Corporate America.
Revamping Campaign Finance Laws
A true revamp of campaign financing laws would meet countless struggles with vociferous critics. The most boisterous bellowers would undoubtedly be two-fold: politicians who fund their campaigns with mostly non-individual contributions and the political action committees who have paid millions for the congressional representation that they now enjoy. Undoubtedly, many of these opponents will do what they do best – play politics, instead of make policy. While others may introduce policy, merely as a ploy of playing more politics; an elected official can introduce legislation, giving the appearance of attempting to make change, fully expecting the measure to be buried.
A bill currently floating through Senate committees (SB 1285) that is co-sponsored by current United States Presidential Candidate, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), takes a step towards giving public funding to all U.S. Senate races, for many of the aforementioned reasons, and more. This law is not likely to survive the current legislative session because it has been buried in committee reviews since its introduction. The basis for the bill, the language of the bill, and the necessity of the bill will likely perish, but the need for such new thinking cannot, if we are to preserve our American democracy by bringing about campaign financing overhauls, leading to public funded, and not corporate controlled, elections.
Send Aunt Cathy to Congress
Our Aunt Cathy is not likely to make it to Congress this session, but we can make it happen! Let us never forget that every citizen is a constituent, every constituent has a voice, but it must be heard. If you want Aunt Cathy and more like her to make it to Congress, where the American democracy can truly be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we must make that path available by moving towards a public funded election system that will overhaul campaign financing; the people, not corporations and special interests, should pay for our representation.
Works Cited
Federal Elections 96: U.S. House Results. 31 December 1996. Federal Elections Commission. 17 March 2008. < http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/hrky.htm>.
Open Secrets. 31 December 2007. The Center for Responsive Politics. 16 March 2008. <http://www.opensecrets.org>.
Fair Elections Now Act. 03 May 2007. United States Senate. 21 March 2008. < http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1285is.txt.pdf>.
Author Notes:
1. This was originally written, but unpublished, in March 2008 as a Definition Argument paper for a continuing education English class, but the points remain valid, I believe. Luckily for my (KY-02) congressional district, Ron Lewis is no longer in office, but sadly, he’s been replaced by another equally-compromised politician who cows to political fund backers and not the public he is entrusted to represent. However, the point remains the same – we need REAL people in Washington with REAL ethics, morals and common sense. Please send Aunt Cathy to Congress and bring back the bigots we mistakenly sent!
2. I do have a “real” Aunt Cathy who is a small business owner of Mattoon Flower Shop in Illinois. It was a mere convenience of rhetorical deployment of cacophony that I decided to use her name – although she and others like her should be running our fiscal and other national issues!
3. I can neither thank nor acknowledge adequately Professor Allison Palumbo for her professionalism, drive, objectivity, mentoring and friendship – an educator who truly plants the seeds of inspiration, dedication and discipline that will be sprouting throughout the world for generations to come – thank you, Professor!