Commentaries

Governor Sarah Palin did very well in the vice-presidential debate. She was well handled, well rehearsed and well prepared. For a 90 minute, tightly structured quasi-debate she was able to hold her own. She demonstrated a cursory understanding of some very general issues affecting America today. The problem is the real world is unrehearsed; life is live. This was not as her handlers have stated, Sarah Palin "unplugged" or "unfiltered." It was just the opposite. In the few instances where Governor Palin has been "unplugged" and allowed to respond in an unrehearsed fashion, she has failed miserably.

Many conservative Americans fell in love with Governor Palin after she delivered a well-written and well-rehearsed speech at the Republican National Convention. Based upon that performance, a floundering McCain campaign became buoyant and gained the support from the Republican conservative base that it had been seeking since he clinched his party's nomination.

Eight days after her speech at the Republican Convention, Governor Palin sat down for an unscripted and unrehearsed television interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson. She demonstrated to America she has very little if any insight into, or understanding of, the salient issues that are impacting America today. When asked about the Bush Doctrine, Governor Palin had absolutely no clue what Charlie Gibson was referencing. This doctrine is a standing six-year-old policy of military intervention. One would expect the person seeking the second highest office in the land would understand a failed doctrine that totally disrupted the world order and nearly bankrupted this nation.

She believes the war in Iraq is a part of God's plan. Her religious justifications for the invasion in Iraq sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that attacked America; according to them, they were carrying out the will of Allah. This is why religious fundamentalism has no place in foreign or domestic policy.

When asked if America has the right to make cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, Governor Palin's answer was so incoherent that Charlie Gibson had to restate the question by saying, "And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there."

From ABC and Charlie Gibson, Governor Palin went to CBS with Katie Couric. Again, this was an unscripted and unrehearsed television interview. This time, she demonstrated she did not really understand the voting record of her own running mate. When asked to give examples of Senator McCain leading the charge for increased oversight of the financial industry, Governor Palin went into the standard "maverick" line, and then said, "I'll try to find ya some and I'll bring 'em to ya." When asked by Katie Couric in another interview about the newspapers and magazines she reads that impact her worldview, Governor Palin responded, "I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media." When pressed for specifics, she responded, "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years." She never named one newspaper or magazine. Not even a paper from Alaska like the Anchorage Daily News or the Wasilla Frontiersman.

When asked a question about partisanship in an interview with Sean Hannity, Governor Palin said, "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this." What? "... surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed ..." Can you imagine a Vice President Palin on the world stage representing America with mindless drivel such as this? Has not President George W. Bush been embarrassing enough?

After these interviews, Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were attacked for being too tough on Governor Palin and engaging in "gotcha" journalism. As responsible journalists, it was not their fault for asking direct and relevant questions. It was Governor Palin's fault for not being able to answer them.

As an informed electorate, we should want to hear from and clearly understand the candidate's views on the economy, health care, international trade etc. What's the basis of Governor Palin's world view? Effective foreign policy is based upon a clear understanding of culture, history, economics, and other geopolitical dynamics that motivate people to act and interact. It is difficult to develop a clear worldview when you have not traveled the world. It is troubling to learn that Governor Palin received her first passport in 2007, and has only taken one trip outside of North America in her entire adult life.

As American voters assess and analyze Governor Palin's performance during the quasi-debate, it is important to understand what they were watching. They were watching a person who was well handled and rehearsed. This was not Sarah Palin "unplugged." She was able to manage fairly simple issues for a 90-minute period in front of a live audience. She did that well. The problem is the real world is unrehearsed; life is live.

Where she fails America terribly is in her obvious lack of command of the subject matter. Where's the gravitas? What is evidenced through her unrehearsed exchanges with the Gibsons, Courics and Hannitys of the world, is a person who has not thought much about world events, their causes and effects. When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." Really? Where have you been since March 20, 2003?

Kathleen Parker, conservative writer for the National Review, wrote after the interviews referenced above, "... circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick - what a difference a financial crisis makes - and a more complicated picture has emerged ... As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem ... Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."

If, as President Reagan said, "America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere," we must raise the bar, not lower it. After almost eight years of George W. Bush, we can see very clearly the problems that a less-than-knowledgeable leader can cause. If America is going to be a beacon, the lights must at least be on. Unfortunately, with what I've seen from Governor Palin, that light keeps getting dimmer, and dimmer and dimmer...

Senator McCain’s Decision is Pandering with Palin

Senator McCain’s decision to tap Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate is being hailed by Republicans as visionary, independent, and a break from the politics of the past. Actually, Senator McCain is simply pandering to the Conservative Right, tying to siphon off some of the disgruntled Senator Clinton supporters, and giving America more of the same ole’ politics.

This selection is not the master stroke of a deft politician seeking to build bridges and move the country forward. It is the act of a desperate campaign trying to cater to the politically simplistic desires of its base as Senator McCain attempts to become America’s 44^th President.

Governor Palin seems to be a beautiful person and a wonderful American. This country is full of beautiful people and wonderful Americans but very few of them are capable of serving in the second most important position this country has to offer. This is not about her as a person; it’s about the prima facie contradictions that her selection highlights.

According to Time magazine in May, “McCain wants a thorough process to ensure a running mate who is well prepared.” He has stated on numerous occasions that he was looking for a nationally known political heavyweight with no significant drawbacks who could instantly replace the president if necessary.

The decision to select Gov. Palin was made very late and some parts of the normal vetting process were dispensed with in order to preserve the element of surprise. The Washington Post wrote, “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday.” According to the Telegraph UK, “Mr. McCain did not find out about the pregnancy of Mrs. Palin's daughter Bristol, 17, until last Wednesday, two days before he announced she was his running mate.” So much for the through selection process, the elements of surprise were more important than the crucial elements that lead to sound judgment.

Gov. Palin, is known for her strong pro-life position on both abortion and bioethics issues and this is very appealing to the pro-life advocates in the Republican Party. The difficult decisions that she and her husband Todd have made to support their young pregnant daughter are commendable. Their circumstance does rekindle the abstinence vs. safe sex debate and demonstrates why children need to be fully informed about the realities of life. Adolescents and young adults need to be armed with as much accurate information about abstinence and safe sex options as possible so that when they fail to abstain they can still be protected.

Senator McCain was supposed to be looking for someone who could instantly replace the president if necessary. Gov. Palin said during an interview on CNBC that she could not speak to the rumors of her being considered for the position, “I still can’t answer that question, until someone answers for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day?” Well, I hope Senator McCain gave her a job description before she agreed to be his running mate.

One of Senator McCain’s crusades has been against pork-barrel spending projects called “earmarks.” He has said “earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress…they are wasteful and are often inserted into bills with little oversight, sometimes by a single powerful member of Congress.” He has also said that he would offset his proposed tax cuts by eliminating earmark spending.

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for the town of Wasilla with a population of 6,700 residents. According to the Washington Post, “there was $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project.” Senator McCain has introduced Gov. Palin as a compatriot in his battle against wasteful federal spending. This is a clear contradiction between the statements of Senator McCain and the actions of his running mate. The old adage is true, “politics makes strange bedfellows.”

We have yet to hear about Gov. Palin’s perspectives on foreign policy. Effective foreign policy is based upon a clear world view. It is difficult to develop a clear world view when you have not traveled the world. It is troubling to learn that Gov. Palin received her first passport in 2007 and has only taken 1 trip outside of the United States. This does not concern Mrs. Cindy McCain, she said on ABC-TV’s This Week that Sarah Palin understands what's at stake in national security issues in part because she is governor of Alaska, whose borders nearly touch Russia's. A close border with a foreign country does not equate to understanding the complex geopolitical landscape. Well traveled she is not.

Her perspective on the Iraq war is quite troubling. The LA Times writes, “When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."” This is her response but Senator McCain touts her experience as “Commander In Chief” of the Alaska National Guard? According to the Associated Press Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a "task that is from God… there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." She’s ignoring the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the invasion of Iraq was baseless, immoral, and illegal. Her religious justifications for the invasion sound very similar to the Muslim fundamentalists that attacked America; they were carrying out the will of God.” This is why religious fundamentalism has no place in foreign or domestic policy.

After all of this, what is really troubling is the manner in which Gov. Palin’s supporters are trying to stifle any questioning of her as sexist. In watching the media coverage over the past few days, conservatives such as Senator John Bainer, Bay Buchanan, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson are aghast at questions about Gov. Palin’s experience and qualifications. One problem with their responses is that in their attempts to deflect questions about Gov. Palin’s qualifications with answers that focus on her management skills, they call into question Senator McCain’s lack of executive and management skill. They can’t have it both ways.

This selection was not bold. Senator McCain was not looking for an independent reformer. If Senator McCain really wanted an independent, reform oriented, female, Republican, he could have selected former New Jersey Governor and Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in the administration of President George W. Bush Christine Todd Whitman. She was the second woman and first Republican woman to defeat an incumbent governor in a general election in the United States. She was removed from her position as Administrator of the EPA for being truly independent and reform minded. That’s why she was not considered.

In July Senator McCain said, “This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.” It seems to me that Senator McCain is willing to compromise his principles and pander to those whom he referred to in 2000 as purveyors of hatred in order to win an election.

Senator Barack Obama and the Paradox of Dr. King

On August 28, 1963 the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered one of the greatest speeches ever, what has now become known as the I Have a Dream speech. Forty-five years later to the very day, Senator Barack Hussein Obama became the first African American to accept the presidential nomination of a major political party in America.

On this day, many see Senator Obama’s historic accomplishment as evidence of the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!” According to the New York Times, Dr. King’s daughter, Bernice King declared that Senator Obama’s nomination is part of her father’s dream, citing Obama’s nomination as, “the acceptance of a Democratic presidential nominee, decided not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.” This is in fact evidence that America has made progress on the long and difficult road towards racial tolerance and acceptance. However, there are still many miles left to travel.

The interesting paradox of Senator Obama’s historic nomination and Dr. King’s speech is that while Democratic candidate Obama is the beneficiary and living evidence of the realization of the “dream,” President Obama will have to address the current realities of systemic racism and personal prejudice that have resulted in continued disparity between African Americans and Euro-Americans in much the same way as they did in 1963.

The "dream" reference actually comes towards the end of the speech. As Dr. King was close to ending his nine-minute delivery, the great gospel singer Ms. Mahalia Jackson was standing behind him and said, “…tell them about the dream Martin…tell them about the dream…” With that prompting Dr. King left the prepared text and began, “…so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.” It’s important to understand that he spoke of the dream in the context of a horrific reality for “Negro’s” and the poor. What makes the “dream” significant is its juxtaposition against America’s reality, failures, and systemic oppression of its own citizens.

Dr. King opened the speech with scathing indictments of America. "…we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land." That was no dream; that was the reality for Negros in 1963 and a clear indictment of the social conditions in America at that time. Unfortunately, in 2008 those social conditions continue to exist for too many Americans.

Systemic racism manifests itself today as a reality for children who languish in inner-city schools resulting in excessive high school drop out rates, parents who lose their jobs and their homes, and those unjustly incarcerated in American jails and prisons. In 2008, African American men are incarcerated at a rate of more than six times the rate of Euro-American men and the incarceration of African American women continues to grow at record numbers, as well. Unemployment among African American’s is more than twice the rate of Euro-Americans; an African American family's income is little more than half that of a similar Euro-American family's income, and African Americans continue to deal with “Driving While Black” and imbalances in health care.

Personal prejudice and hatred are also still alive and well and living in America. As many marveled and wept during Senator Obama’s historic acceptance speech; three men had been arrested two days before in an alleged plot to kill Senator Obama. According to investigators, they had expressed plans to shoot him from a high sniper position at Invesco Field at Mile High stadium using a “rifle … sighted at 750 yards” simply because they felt that a “Black” man should not hold elected office. Various guns and equipment were seized by the police in the arrest of Tharin Robert Gartrell, 28, Nathan Johnson, 32, and Shawn Robert Adolf, 33. Also, investigators state, the men may have ties to Sons of Silence, an outlaw biker group, and are believed to have connections with white supremacists.

Fortunately, prosecutors insist that Senator Obama was not in any real danger from the three individuals. Senator Obama has been under heightened Secret Service protection since May of last year after a series of credible death threats were received by authorities. These arrests and threats are evidence of the personal hatred that still exists in the hearts and minds of more Americans than we care to count.

In his acceptance speech Senator Obama told America that the time for change is now and, “What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.” He went on to say, “Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.”

Senator Obama is correct. The time for change is now and change is not easy. It can make people very uncomfortable, especially when the agent of change is an African American man. Senator Obama is also correct when he says that this election is not about him, it’s about what he represents and unfortunately, that continues to make some people in America very uncomfortable.

According to July’s CBS/New York Times poll, 26 percent of Euro-Americans said they have been victims of discrimination. Twenty-seven percent said too much has been made of the problems facing African American people. Twenty-four percent said the country isn't ready to elect an African American president. Five percent of Euro-American voters acknowledged that they, personally, would not vote for an African American candidate.

These sentiments were reflected in the exit polls in the Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey Democratic primaries as well. According to Slate, “In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. …12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn't vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American.”

As America moves forward from its historic night, forty-five years after Dr. King told us about his “dream” we have much to celebrate. Senator Barack Obama is evidence of the fact that progress has been made. He is a powerful symbol of what America can be. However, America must not get lost in the symbolism; the reality is still to stark.

As he closed his speech, Senator Obama said, “America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.” He’s correct, the work will not be easy and the toughest choice for too many Americans will be a choice based on prejudice, bigotry, and hatred instead of policy, competence, and vision. Can American’s look into the depths of their hearts, search their souls, and come to grips with the worn-out ideas and politics of the past? Can we live up to the very founding principals of this great nation?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.

If so, Senator Barack Hussein Obama has the same chance as Senator John Sidney McCain III to become the 44^th President of the United States.

Satire at Its Worse

The July 21 cover of The New Yorker magazine has an incredibly insensitive and irresponsible caricature of Senator Obama and his wife Michelle. Spokes people for the magazine have stated that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are."

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the New Yorker statement said.

The spokesperson also points to the two articles on Senator Obama contained inside the magazine, calling them "very serious." I read both of the articles. They were very serious articles and well written. I was expecting to find some explanation and/or correlation between the cover and the magazine content. Not having found either I am left to draw the conclusion that this cover in no way shape of form addresses the stereotypes in any positive manner. It only seems to perpetuate if not validate them.

Usually in satire, human or individual vices or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement. Also, what usually makes satire funny and/or valuable is its basis in reality. In the case of The New Yorker, the Obama’s appear to be the object of the ridicule not those “right-wing critics” who are responsible for the ridiculous and oft times culturally based attacks on them. The Obama’s are not Muslim, they are Christian. They are not radicals who burn the flag; they are honorable American’s who love their country. In fact, in spite of the voluminous death threats they have received, they love their country to the point of being willing to sacrifice their lives for it. In this instance The New Yorker appears to be punishing the victim of the ridicule not the perpetrator, if not perpetuating distortions of their own.

As a person with a very good sense of humor, I have at times stepped over the line. I have come to learn (at times painfully and at the expense of the feelings of the butt of my joke) that just because I think it’s funny does not make it so. A joke, or in this instance satire is only funny or valuable if the audience gets it. In this case, the only ones who got it were the Obama’s, and their not laughing.

The “Willie Hortonization” of Senator Barack Obama and the Audacity of Truth

Over the past few weeks main stream media has turned much of its attention to the fiery sermons of the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Dr. Wright is pastor to Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and his family. He was also, until recently, the pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago.

Most of the discussion and commentary about Rev. Wright’s sermons have come from a predominantly white media. The points of discussion have centered on what they consider to be the “vial, racist, and un-American things” said by Rev. Wright. Very few, if any of the discussions have focused on the historical basis and accuracy of what Dr. Wright actually said.

The major problem with the discussions is they have been largely one-sided. The media has used the imagery of Dr. Wright, clad in African garb, shouting in the cadence of an old-time fire and brimstone minister and playing to the camera as a scare tactic. Has this become the “Willie Hortonization” of Senator Barack Obama? The reporting and commentary on Rev. Wright’s words have been presented from the perspective of people who either have no appreciation for the African American historical experience or a personal agenda when it comes to presenting these issues.

Rev. Dr. Wright is under attack for saying such things as “…the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law, and then wants us (African Americans) to sing God Bless America, no, no, no; not God Bless America, God damn America, …for killing innocent people, God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human…” These are very strong words, delivered at what many are calling a possible turning point in American history with regards to America’s willingness to elect an African-American candidate. While the main stream media has found no merit in any of Rev. Wright’s statements, let’s examine their merit from an historical basis.

When people read the Constitution, the supreme law of the United States, they see the oldest governing constitution in the world. They see a great document that has articulated the precepts of life, liberty, and happiness that all in this country try to follow. What is often overlooked are the parts of the Constitution that laid the foundation for hundreds of years of slavery and oppression for African Americans; the constitutional frame work for human beings to be treated as less than human. It’s these sections of the Constitution that America has never truly atoned for and still refuses to make right.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution stated, “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” This was known as the Three-Fifths Compromise and laid the ground work for African slaves brought into America as forced labor to be defined as non-persons.

Article I, Section 9 allowed for the importation of slaves to continue in America for twenty-one years after ratification of the Constitution by allowing for, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” This section only outlawed the importation of slaves once the domestic stock of slaves could be replenished by natural birth rates and importation would no longer be needed; again, treating its citizens as less than human.

Article IV, Section 2 stated, “No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” This was enforced by Congress on September 18, 1850 when the Fugitive Slave Act was passed, allowing Southern states to reclaim slaves that had escaped to the North.

The Three Fifths Compromise and the Fugitive Slave provisions were superseded by Constitutional amendments only after their damage to African Americans had been done and the benefit to America had been served.

It is very easy to wrap oneself in the history and glory that is America and forget that from 1619 – 1868 (249 years) African Americans suffered under the brutality and oppression of government supported chattel slavery. In 1857 as Dred Scott, a slave, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote, “beings of an inferior order (African Americans), and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Even after the 13^th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865, the 14^th Amendment granted their citizenship, and the 15^th Amendment grated them the right to vote, from 1876 – 1965 (89 years) African Americans continued to suffer under state supported Jim Crow oppression in America. This was codified in 1896 by another Supreme Court decision, Plessy v. Ferguson which upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal. These vestiges of slavery and oppression still plague many sectors of the African community and the sense of white privilege this created continues to foster as false sense of white entitlement.

This is just the historical background for Rev. Dr. Wright’s comments. During his lifetime he has dealt with segregated schools, separate and unequal education, discrimination in housing, employment, and lending. Rev. Dr. Wright has witnessed civil rights protesters beaten by the police, ravaged by dogs, brutalized by fire hoses, and COINTELPRO. Since his birth in 1941, an estimated 40 African Americans have been lynched in this country. He was 14 years old when Emmett Till was brutally murdered and 23 years old when Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner were killed. Americans continue to deal with racial profiling, driving while Black, the disproportionate rate of incarceration of African American’s, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and other Constitutional violations.

Regarding Dr. Wright’s comments about drugs and AIDS, let’s not forget the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments. From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. In his May 16, 1997 apology, President Bill Clinton said,

“The United States government did something that was wrong—deeply, profoundly, morally wrong. It was an outrage to our commitment to integrity and equality for all our citizens. . . . clearly racist.”

With this historical understanding, it is not too far fetched to think that the U.S. Government could be involved in similar activity as it relates to AIDS.

What has been conspicuously absent from the discussions about Rev. Dr. Wright’s comments in main stream media is any analysis of the validity of his comments based upon his personal history and life experiences. It is very easy for white commentators such as Bill O’Reilly to dismiss his sermons as racist diatribes since O’Reilly has no interest in trying to understand the plight of people of color in America.

Rev. Dr. Wright has also said, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinian’s and Black South African’s and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done over seas is brought right back into our own front yard, America’s chickens are coming home to roost...” Well, let’s examine the record.

The Arms Exports Control Act prohibits the president from furnishing military aid to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. In spite of all of the evidence supporting claims of the Israeli government’s human rights abuses of the Palestinian people, for FY2005 the United States provided $2.22 billion in military aid. This aid to Israel has a dramatic effect on Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. It is the U.S. funding that pays for the guns and ammunition, F-16 bombers, and Apache helicopters that are used to carry out Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and people.

According to the Boston Globe, in 1984 just after Reagan’s re-election Bishop Desmond Tutu, referred to the Reagan Administrations support for the South African government as "Immoral, evil, and totally un-Christian." Reagan ignored the rising number of Americans who were calling for American companies to stop doing business there.” The president of so-called sunny optimism attempted to blind Americans with his policy of "constructive engagement" with the white minority regime in Pretoria. All constructive engagement did was gave the white minority more time to mow down the black majority in the streets and keep dreamers of democracy, such as Nelson Mandela, behind bars.”

American history is replete with examples of the United States arranging to depose foreign leaders. In 1909 President Taft ordered the overthrow of Nicaraguan president Zelaya. According to Stephen Kinzer, “In Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of American intervention.” More recent examples of US intervention would be the invasion of Panama and the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Some may take issue with the earlier statement, “…the government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strikes law,…” by asking, “is Rev. Wright accusing the U.S. Government of supplying drugs to the Black community?” This story has been well documented in the 1996 San Jose Mercury News expose entitled “Dark Alliance: The CIA Complicity in the Crack Epidemic.”

I can understand people being uncomfortable with the comments made by Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. White Americans have also been lied to, mis-educated and desensitized about the plight of African Americans. With the help of the social conservative agenda, many have developed a “deaf ear” when it comes to issues regarding race. The truth, especially an ugly truth that forces Americans to examine the precepts of America, “with liberty and justice for all” and compare them with the hypocrisy of the American reality can be troubling. For far too long, American’s have been lulled into a false sense of security. American’s have believed the history as told by the oppressor and failed to understand the reality of the oppressed.

Rev. Dr. Wright is not un-American. He embodies what American was founded upon, the free exchange of ideas in the public space, speaking truth to power, challenging America to be the best that it can be. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s views might not reconcile with many Americans perceptions of America, but they must not be discarded as the ranting of an angry man. His statements were founded in the historical truths that African Americans have and continue to live through.

We Have Met The Enemy and The Enemy Is Us

When read in the context of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America (The Constitution) is truly one of the most impressive documents of governance ever written. It contains approximately 4,300 words, was completed in 1787, and 220 years later is the oldest operating constitution in the world. Compare this with the proposed Constitution of the European Union, which is approximately 60,000 words and not yet ratified.

The Constitution in its original form was far from perfect. Written into the document were justifications for oppression and slavery such as Article I, Section 2, known as the three-fifths compromise, Article I, Section 9 allowed the slave trade to exist until 1808, and Article IV, Section 2 allowed the rendition or capture and return of escaped slaves to the “…Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.” In spite of these flaws, at its core are the revolutionary principles of natural law and social contract theory as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. These concepts forever changed how people view themselves in relation to their government. It is not the words that make these documents great; it is America’s reverence for these concepts that make the Constitution what it is.

Natural law states that people possess the God given, or natural right to govern themselves as opposed to the earlier concept of divine justification of a king or monarch. Social contract theory is the idea that people in a civilized society consent to be governed by a set of standards and elect representatives in order to protect these natural rights. Most importantly, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” In other words, the People must always hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions.

Since its inception, the Constitution has been the world standard for liberty, equality, and justice under the law. For example, in 1945 the Vietnamese based their documents of freedom upon our own. The European Union in 2003 and the Iraqi Constitution in 2005 were also based upon our Constitution. According to a June 25, 1996 Wall Street Journal report, only 39 countries (25% of the world's independent nations) were democratic in 1974. By 1996, 66% of the world’s independent nations were implementing democratic processes to choose their top leaders. Those numbers have continued to grow, again, based upon the U.S. model.

Outside of the political realm, as multinational corporations have expanded their reach and influence through globalization, American concepts of fairness and equality as articulated in The Constitution, have been used internationally to address sweat shops, child labor, women’s rights, illegal detention, and ecological racism in many foreign countries. For so many decades, in spite of its imperfections, America, because of The Constitution, has been the stalwart of democracy and the beacon of hope for so many people throughout the world.

Have the actions of the current Bush administration forever tarnished America’s reputation in the minds of those abroad? According to a PEW Research Center survey, an independent research company “…anti-Americanism is deeper and broader now than at any time in modern history… On matters of international security, the rest of the world has become deeply suspicious of U.S. motives and openly skeptical of its word.”

On the domestic front, laws that cut at the core of American democracy have been implemented without public debate. According to the New York Times, “The president can now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, … terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”” In October of 2006, at the very last minute, the administration slipped into the defense budget bill provisions to undercut posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act of 1807. These two actions now make it easier for the president to declare martial law. It is the undefined “other condition” that should be of greatest concern to the American public. The fact that this was added to the defense bill by the administration and the Democrats did nothing to bring it to the public’s attention is reprehensible.

Also, habeas corpus, a persons right to object to his or another's detention or imprisonment has been weakened. According to the Associated Press, a federal appeals court has held that foreign-born prisoners seized as terrorists by the U.S. government and held off shore may not challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. It is now left up to military tribunals to police themselves and make this determination according to the Military Commissions Act. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated, this is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances that would restore detainees’ legal rights. This could gravely impact approximately 12 million lawful permanent residents who currently reside in the U.S.

The Bush administration constantly admonishes those who question their motives and challenge the constitutionality of their actions. Members of the administration accuse critics of emboldening the “insurgents” and sending the wrong message to our troops and our enemies. With it now being easier for the president to declare martial law as well as chipping away at the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus, the U.S. is looking more and more like the dictatorships it went to war to overthrow. What message is that sending? The U.S. will impose democracy upon others at the barrel of a gun but usurp and violate its own constitution when following its precepts proves to be inconvenient. Benjamin Franklin said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The U.S. invaded Iraq in order to overthrow an evil dictator who, among other things, imprisoned and tortured his critics in order to silence them. According to the Guardian Unlimited “… at the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba ...According to the Red Cross, the regime at Guantánamo causes psychological suffering that has driven inmates mad, with scores of suicide attempts and three inmates killing themselves last year. Even US officials are shocked...FBI documents revealed that an inmate's head had been wrapped in tape for quoting from the Qur'an. Another was humiliated for his religious beliefs and "baptized" by a soldier posing as a Catholic priest. The documents show FBI agents saw 26 instances of abuse in their time at Guantánamo. The FBI is highly skeptical about alleged confessions gained by its military colleagues.”

The interrogation techniques that were originally employed at Guantánamo were later implemented in Iraq itself at Abu Ghraib. According to The New Yorker, “In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, … was one of the world’s most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions.” We are all too familiar with the now infamous Abu Ghraib photographs that document the human rights abuses perpetrated on Iraqi’s by the U.S. Army, and other American agencies and operatives. All the U.S. did was replace Saddam’s torturers with U.S. torturers, all in the name of American democracy. But torture by any entity is still torture. As a rose by any other name…

In a Time magazine interview on January 27, 2005, President Bush stated, “torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.” I guess no one told him about Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was kidnapped by U.S. officials at Kennedy Airport in New York on September 26, 2002, sent to Syria for months and tortured. Eventually, he was released on October 5, 2003 without being charged of any crimes. Again, all of this is done in the name of American democracy.

How does kidnapping and torturing people in the name of democracy make us more democratic? How does violating people’s most sacred beliefs, their religion, in the name of “The War on Terror” endear them to you and your cause? How does this make us safe?

Vice President Cheney has said repeatedly “ To prevail in this fight, we must understand the nature of the enemy...This enemy has no regard for the rules of warfare, and is unconstrained by any standard of decency or morality...They seek to impose a dictatorship of fear, under which every man, woman, and child lives in total obedience to a narrow, hateful ideology. This ideology rejects tolerance, denies freedom of conscience…Such beliefs can be imposed only through force and intimidation, so those who refuse to bow to the tyrants will be brutalized or killed --- and no person or group is exempt.” This sounds more like self-criticism than the condemnation of others.

This administration has violated its own constitution and the Geneva Convention. It has invaded a sovereign country, overseen the beheading of its president, instilled fear in the hearts and minds of its own people through lies and misinformation, and demonized an entire ethnic group of people and their religion. How do we ever expect to win in the court of international public opinion and win over the hearts and minds of those who disagree with U.S. action? Are we not engaged in the very actions and activities, both nationally and internationally that will result in our demise? Based upon the illegal and immoral actions of the current Bush administration, I think Pogo the possum was correct in 1971 when he said, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”