Learn To Love (Part 5)

a2a_linkname=”TI&S: Learn To Love (Part 5)”;a2a_linkurl=”http://timvalentine.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/learntolove5/”;

***IN CONCLUSION TO THE LEARN TO LOVE***

If I am to always to seek love, truth, consensus I must accept that the fact that I may never completely achieve it. The position I strive to gain is one that seeks the truth, bare witness to the facts and work towards reconciliation. The goal is to never tear down, derogate or enable anyone.

How are we supposed to learn to love in the deepest sense?

Justice, truth, fairness & equality have been discredited by our need to be seen as good, righteous, value oriented and popular, even when our actions are examined they prove otherwise.

When you love you have difficulties remaining silent when people are treated unfairly. It bothers you when you to witness injustice carried out against innocents. You’re convicted to rightly protest against inequality when you honestly learn to love. Love isn’t accepting any whim or doctrine marketed towards you for temporary social and/or political expediency. Regardless how you’ve experienced it, love is eternal or long lasting.

We all are entangled in the continuous struggle against the good that we want to do and the bad that we’re lead to do. The will to speak the truth against what’s popular or accepted and/or even when it isn’t popular is how we win this battle. I’m still learning to love those who silently discount, ignore or simply dislike me. I may not like what they do or what they’re promoting, but I honestly try to love them.

Recently I wrote a post called, “Let the MF Burn”. I wrote it, because I was fed up with a group of people who has accepted an ideology that goes against what the original ideology of their party. As someone who doesn’t agree with what the party has become year after year since at least the late 1950’s; I believe that the party has found itself lost in an ideological and dangerous philosophical wilderness.

I know there are some who desperately seek something to mask their true outrage, but let’s be honest about what we’re really upset about.

I say this because the same party I affiliate myself with has wondered in the same wilderness as the ones accused find themselves in today. I am weary that some of them of my own party who are wondering on the outskirts of this wilderness. The extreme disenchantment with what these groups of people are essentially accepting and some unintentionally promoting is not a product of love, loyalty or even patriotism, but the opposite.

Have we not come to such an impasse in society that we have accepted the “my way or else” mentality, or shall we be plunged into the abyss of annihilation for those who disagree with us? I can think of few things that are more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

When the signs of hate are disguised and marketed as a patriotic protest against the reversal of what they are actually upset about, you must look at the motivation of the protest. Xenophobia, intolerance and discernment are not bound to one group. But when groups are moved to the fringes of love it turns into hate.

SIDE NOTE:
When you immerse yourself into a flag of one belief you forget that same flag is subornate to more than one belief.

When you’re holding a sign of hatred, what are you baring witness too? If you proclaim to be a Christian and we’re a Christian nation, stand behind Christ. To stand behind Christ is to stand in love, tolerance and acceptance.
Flags have been used to represent the perpetrators of some notorious deeds. So wrapping yourself in the garments of patriotism as a shield from criticism or to legitimize what you’re doing is not wise. Leave the flag alone and allow it to represent what it is suppose to represent.

You protest because you feel that your voice is unheard, but to have a protest mean something requires you listening to what the one you accuse is actually saying or have said to you.

Those who are impatient and seek change must remember that change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. Disagree or embrace it, but change will never happen if we do not work together. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent, so quit bending over towards any ole whim of doctrine. Get up off your knees and stand up for truth.

We learn by accepting one another. We learn by seeking truth and justice for each other, in return you receive the same for yourself. We learn to respectfully disagree without becoming disagreeable. We learn by always seeking to understand each others position, and when that position doesn’t line up with truth or reality we teach what they need to learn. We learn by serving one another the truth with love and respect regardless of how radical it may appear.

Some say we should worry about the right-wing extremist, others say we have to worry about the left-wing extremist. I believe the question is not which extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be? “The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I’ve often repeated a quote of a man whom I continue to learn from and have tremendous respect for his examples, lessons and sacrifice. So in conclusion I return to the question, how do we learn to love? I believe we must understand that we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. I can not be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. Once an individual realize that they can rise above the narrow confines of their own individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity, then we have began to learn to love.


References & Inspirations
The Washington Post – 02/13/05 “When Sexuality Undercuts a Family’s Ties
Christian Answers – Kevin James Bywater “Is Interracial Marriage Biblical?
NPR: Tell Me More – 04/20/09 “Tax Protests About More than Money

The Republican Tea Party

a2a_linkname=”TI&S: The Republican Tea Party”;a2a_linkurl=”http://tinyurl.com/cmyous”;

Notice — This one is long, but I think you will enjoy the laughs unless you’re a Republican. Then you may not find the humor in it. J

Disclaimer — Before I even start this one I must ask some of you reading this to please excuse my play on certain words and phrases, but I can’t resist this one. I will be as cautious as possible. For those who don’t know what I’m referring to don’t worry about it.

Let’s begin…

*I’m walking to the podium now for the TI&S Press Conference regarding the activities going on today with the so-called Republican Tea Party.*

Republican T-Bagging

Who’s bright ideas was this and what in the Hell were they thinking?

If you’re going to have a protest that you’re attempting to reference history there has to be a connection, truth in your reference. I will spare the American history lesson, but to summarize the revolt that is known as the Boston Tea Party that occurred in 1773 you got to consider the conditions that sparked that revolt. The phrase many of you’ve heard of before, taxation WITHOUT Representation was at the heart of this protest.

What the Republican Party is doing is the opposite and still confuses me why this?

Taxation with Representation

Alright let’s have a three minute lesson about basic American History. The original premise of the Boston Tea Party was the right for our own representatives to make decisions about our Tax policies not Great Britain.

Now I know this is difficult for the organizers to fully comprehend, but let me help you understand it better. You see back in the 1970’s there was a video by Schoolhouse Rock called “No More Kings” that really helped me understand the Boston Tea Party maybe you can have this video ran on FOX News.

Silly Scare Tactics

The ridiculous cry of socialist doesn’t fit. Do you realize how you participate in the dreaded socialism? No you probably don’t, because you’re grabbing hold to the claims of a delusional Right-Wing Radio Talk Show Host and the equally erratic hosts on FOX News to base you claims of Socialism, Liberals, Fascism and Marxism.

So I thought that I help you out on this one.

Who in the crowd today knows the definition of socialism?

No. One at a time.

OK big guy in the back… Um that’s incorrect.

Yes, you with the cheese sandwich… WHAT! No the Bible has nothing to do with this.

Let me help you out.

Socialism is a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. So to offer a real-life definition for you, it’s like the program you as taxpayers contribute to and will participate in when you retire; Social Security, Medicare. So for those with parents of retirement age, this means your momma is a socialist.

If you disagree with me ask your Republican member of Congress to publicly denounce Medicare or Social Security and let’s see what happens.

Alright, next question. Who can tell me what is liberalism?

Um Sir, there’s no need to curse. Calm down. OK, you can call me uppity, but you’re too scared to say the rest. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, please sit down.

Yes you, the gentleman the corner with the stuffed animal in your hand. Do you know the answer?

OK, someone who hasn’t been drinking or indoctrinated by Rush Limbaugh and FOX News.

Alright the older lady with the t-shirt on.

I thought I recognized you. NO, the President is not an Arab. Ma’am, please take your medicine.

Anyone else…

<Big Sigh> My goodness, this is ridiculous. Seriously, how did you graduate?

Liberalism is a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual. That sounds like something like various arguments we’ve heard from Republicans. A nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. Hmmm… Where have we seen this before?

So since this is suppose to be a peaceful protest of an economic institution [IRS] doesn’t this mean you all are Liberals? Hey, I’m just looking at the definition of the word and comparing it to your actions and words. Don’t get mad at me.

The Fringe of Sanity

Each time someone makes the ridiculous notion that has been proven false by the state of Hawaii of the citizenship of the President it weakens the credibility of your entire group. If you really want to get at the heart of your fear I can, but I don’t think you want to go there.

Republican Taxusations

What you fail to understand about President Obama’s tax plan is beyond me, because I can’t see how it can be said more elementary than it has already been said. Let’s see if we can make it so easy that even Joe the Plumber can understand it.

  • Click Here to see the Tax Policy Center’s 2008 Comparison of Obama & McCain’s Tax Proposals and decides if your accusations prove to be accurate of President Obama.
  • Click Here to view FactCheck.org’s research of then Presidential Candidates Obama & McCain tax plans.
  • Chick Here to view The White House overview of President Obama’s tax agenda.

If you can read and comprehend English you can understand this. The claim of President Obama raising taxes are false and the carryover from the McCain Campaign. The lie has been proven false by factcheck.org. Your ‘outrage’ is foolish at best unless everyone protesting makes $250,001.00 or more a year. If so, I can understand your outrage.

Republican T-Bagging

I guess we’ll see who’s standing over whom when this over. My guess is that this is going to backfire, but let’s wait to see who’s going to be on their knees.

I’m trying to hold back, but I think I’m gonna… talk about the people at the center of this one. Oh tell me it isn’t so, Sen. David Vitter, Newt Gingrich and Dick Army. :D Oh this is too good. This should help me reach the climax of this blog post. But I can’t forget the media mouthpieces for the T-Bagging with FOX News’ Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity’s excitement over the event.

Perhaps the biggest Nut of them all comes from Neil Cavuto’s defense of FOX News covering the spectacle. “We are going to be right in the middle of these tea baggers because at FOX we do not pick and choose these rallies and protests. We were there for the Million Man March”.

OH REALLY. FOX News was there in Washington DC October 16, 1995 for the Million Man March. You’re making this too easy, but since I like kicking a man when he’s down lets see what a simple Google search comes up with shall we.

WHAT! FOX News has been in operations since October 7, 1996. (Source) How can that be, that means either the Newscorp website is wrong or you do not have a proper understanding of time. You see that was practically a year before you came on the air. It’s OK, my 4 year old son made the same mistake.

Final Analysis

I know you all are upset. You feel used. During the last election McCain/Palin basically t-bagged their morals for political gain and conservatives got screwed again. This demonstration is entertaining, because I’ve enjoyed myself. Listen, I only want you all to get off your knees and stand-up. Stop falling for the same old tricks. Who’s leading you?

Do you understand exactly what you are protesting and from whom are to blame for the tax increases? I don’t believe you do, because if you did you all would be Democrats.

Conservative Charlie Brown Moment Side-Note

As many conservative bloggers are still wiping the Easter egg off of your face from this past weekend when they called President Obama weak and a pantywaist I hope you rethink your involvement or cover of your latest Charlie Brown moment. Maybe this time you’ll be able to actually kick the football, since President Obama snatched the football away by ordering the Navy Snipers to shoot to kill the Somali Pirates.

President Obama gave you a clear hint between him and the Republican paper leaders, “I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.”

Its OK Charlie Brown at least you tried.

Oh don’t bother him Snoopy, Charlie Brown’s upset right now. Stop laughing Woodstock.

Who’s Participating

Besides the misinformed Republican lawmakers and governors have signed on to speak at local events so you’ll know the individuals who’s promoting this to bring them into question.

  • Former Rep. David Davis (R-TN)
  • Representatives from Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) office
  • Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
  • Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)
  • Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
  • Representative from Rep. Sam Graves’ (R-MO) office
  • Rep. John Fleming (R-LA)
  • Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL)
  • Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)
  • Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
  • Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ)
  • Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC)
  • Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL)
  • Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
  • Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC)
  • Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT)
  • Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA)
  • Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL)

Let’s hope this stunt doesn’t prove true and you’re caught on your knees. That’s not a sight I want to see, but enjoy your Tea bagging.

References & Inspirations
Eyewitness to History – “The Boston Tea Party, 1773
AFP/Google News – 04/14/09 “US Protestors Brew Tea Party Tax Revolt
Barack Obama for America – “Economy
Tax Policy Center – September 2008 “Major Provisions of the McCain & Obama Tax Plans

The Audacity of an Insurance Giant

AIG Hypocrisy Alert Edition

While everyone including myself are outraged at the complete disrespectful regards to the American Taxpayers who have saved AIG from going under many ask a simple question, how could this happen? While some are taking the opportunity to gain political points and blames the Obama Administration for this oversight. Well let’s take a closer look before we start pointing fingers.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Last month he and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-MA) added an amendment to the stimulus bill that would have prevented companies, such as AIG the ability to distribute bonuses. But that amendment along with others was taken out of the bill. Hmmm… I wonder why and who pounded their fists in hypocritical outrage in regards to ‘earmarks’ and who helped hinder regulation that helped eliminate this amendment?

By-the-way, isn’t Sen. Snowe one of the three Republicans that voted for the stimulus package? (Reference Source) I believe she was, so she, the other two Republican Senators and the Democrat Senators are not to blame since they originally had this amendment. Perhaps they should have fought against the Republicans that didn’t oppose this a little harder. I guess that’s the only honest area of blame.

If I remember correctly Sen. Snowe is one of the Republican Senators the GOP was upset with? I believe Chairman Michael Steele even suggested something about withholding campaign money from the RNC and supporting their challengers because of this. (Reference Source)

So I suggest that we first investigating before we start pointing fingers, pounding on podiums with righteous indignation towards each other and getting on any form of media in efforts to promote what is essentially what I call a Scampaign against the truth in order to gain a measure of support. There’s plenty of blame to throw around, but I believe this one should be firmly directed at the crooks at AIG and not politicians of either party who are honestly working together to fix it.

You may argue with me, but I believe this is fair.

Now, in regards to the AIG $160 Million of ‘retention bonus’ money here’s the results of New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s investigation of how those bonuses are being distributed.

  • One person who is no longer employed with the company is getting a ‘Retention Bonus’ of $6.4 Million U.S. Dollars.
  • The top 7 bonus earners received $4 Million U.S. Dollars each.
  • The top 10 bonus earners received a combined $42 Million U.S. Dollars.
  • There were 22 other bonus earners who got $2 Million U.S. Dollars each.
  • And wait for this one… 73 additional people at AIG got $1 Million each.

Now I feel really cheated now, because I’ve created some useful stuff at previous employers and the few times I did get a bonus it was absolutely no where in the vicinity of what the people who basically destroyed AIG is getting. Maybe it’s different at your job, or perhaps I’m in the wrong industry.

Of course the Democrats are suggesting the bonuses and/or any firm that the government holds 79% or more stakes to have a hefty tax imposed and bonuses capped.

Republicans, well at least the only one we’ve heard of that has a plan, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) seem to have a different method of getting back the funds from the bonuses… “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, “I’m sorry,” and then either do one of two things, resign or go commit suicide.” Yahoo News – 03/17/09 “Senator Suggests AIG Execs Should Kill Themselves

U.S. Treasury Secretary is recouping the funds from AIG $30 Billion bailout. Since AIG got this in writing I think this is a logical and equally legal move by the Secretary.

Personally, I would be just as iron fisted as AIG and many others on Wall Street and just take the money. Once they’ve threaten to take me to court I would simply tell them to sue me, before I completely take over the company. Once I’ve taken over I would simply carve out this division that caused this mess into its own individual entity and allow it to fail. I would get quite a few people upset with me on many sides, but to deal with a gangster you do what they do, but only legally.

Tell me what you think about this AIG hypocrisy and what you would do?

References & Inspirations
Media Matters – 02/26/09 “AP Ignored Democrats’ Response to Earmark Criticism: 40% are from Republicans

President Obama’s Address to the Joint Session of Congress

Pres. Obama Address to Congress

Republican Response: What speech did Gov. Jindah watch?

Joe the Plumber 2

NOTICE: Before ANY version of Republican or Democrat submits a comment I ask that you READ the entire article. This article is from FactCheck.org an independent non-partisan group that lives up to its name; check the facts of statements from the Presidential Candidates in this case. You can not accuse me of anything in this article, because I did not write this one. You can find this article online at FactCheck.org. I will provide my comments italicize at the end.

********************************************************

Article Courtesy of:

FactCheck.org

Fact Checking Debate No. 3

10/16/2008

John McCain: Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.

Joe’s newfound fame stems from an impromptu encounter Oct. 12, during which Wurzelbacher questioned Obama’s tax plans. Joe has since become a conservative folk hero after telling both Fox News and the conservative Web site Family Security Matters that he thought Obama’s plans sounded “socialist.”

At their encounter, Wurzelbacher told Obama that “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year,” before asking whether or not Obama would raise his taxes.

If the company is actually that profitable, and depending on how the business is organized legally, Obama’s plan would indeed raise his federal income taxes, and Obama conceded as much during the exchange. As we’ve written before, small businesses commonly are organized in such a way that their owners file business taxes as individuals. So if Joe’s plumbing business earns more than $200,000 per year (or $250,000 if Joe is married and files tax returns jointly) then his taxes would indeed be higher under Obama’s plan than under McCain’s.

It’s worth noting that while Wurzelbacher told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he lives “in a simple, middle class home” and portrayed himself as an ordinary working guy, Wurzelbacher’s $250,000 to $280,000 is a bit higher than “ordinary.” In 2007, the last year for which the Census Bureau has figures, the median income for a family in Toledo, Ohio, was $43,553.

Update – Oct. 16: ABC News reported that Wurzelbacher may actually qualify for a tax cut under Obama’s plan, and not a tax increase. ABC reported on its Web site the morning after the debate that one of its reporters, Chris Bury, had spoken to Wurzelbacher and that he “acknowledged that he wants to purchase the plumbing business for $250-280,000, not that he would net that much in profits.ABC news quoted him as saying he would make much less than $250,000. If that’s correct, then Wurzelbacher based his complaint on a misunderstanding of how Obama’s tax plan would affect him.

Earlier, Wurzelbacher appeared live on ABC’s Good Morning America program and repeated his complaints about higher taxes, but anchor Diane Sawyer did not ask him about his expected profits or question whether his taxes really would go up. We await further clarification.

But Joe the Plumber wasn’t through yet. He made an encore appearance when McCain recycled a bogus claim that Obama would “fine” small business owners who fail to provide health care coverage for their workers:

John McCain: Now, my old buddy, Joe, Joe the plumber, is out there. Now, Joe, Sen. Obama’s plan, if you’re a small business and . . .  you’ve got employees, and you’ve got kids, if you don’t get – adopt the health care plan that Sen. Obama mandates, he’s going to fine you . . . I don’t think that Joe right now wants to pay a fine when he is seeing such difficult times in America’s economy.

McCain raised a similar charge at the last debate. It’s still false. Obama’s plan, which is posted on his Web site, specifically says, “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.”

Obama hasn’t defined exactly what he means by “small” but he seems to think Joe would qualify; he repeatedly referred to Joe’s “small business” during their exchange.

Obama’s health plan does mandate that children have health coverage. If Joe doesn’t provide insurance for his kids, he would face some unspecified penalty.

********************************************************

My Comments: It’s amazing how Joe the Plumber became Joe the Conservative by adopting the standard talking points when talking to FOX News. I think there’s other reasons why he isn’t going to vote for Obama, but I think this is his story that he’s sticking too.

Additional Resource:

NPR: All Things Considered – 10/16/08 “Obama Tax May Not Hit Joe The Plumber” (Audio)

Straight Talk Express is Out of Gas: TAXES

I’m personally tired of hearing John McCain and his McCainiacs repeat this misleading statement about Obama raising taxes 94 times. Obviously CNN & FactCheck were tired of hearing it to.

The Statement:
Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain said at the Oct. 7 presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, that Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama “has voted 94 times to either increase your taxes or against tax cuts. That’s his record.”

Get the facts!

The Facts:
The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.

Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 votes were.

Key findings:

  • 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that “could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes,” though many “were clear statements of approval for increased taxes
  • 23 were against proposed tax cuts
  • 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans’ health care
  • Seven were “for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals.”
  • The total includes multiple votes on the same measures.

Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has “voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers.”

Verdict:
Misleading. McCain’s summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers.

A nonpartisan examination also finds that the 94 total includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

So why do you continue to use this in your stump speeches?

Once upon a time many people could tout you as a straight talker, but I guess the pothole of public opinion polls has caused the Straight Talk Express to veer too far to the right and now you’ve lost a wheel. Country First, NO. You rather lose your integrity to win an election.

Get your facts straight. I know some will disagree with me or try to point out something else, but I can tell you that the Earth is round and you’ll still believe that it’s flat. That’s why I call you McCainiacs, because you want to believe anything negative about Obama to justify your own fears, insecurities or proof of your own biases.

Sources:

CNN – 10/07/08 “Fact Check: Did Obama vote 94 times for higher taxes

FactCheck.org – 09/02/08 “A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern

FactCheck.org – 08/27/08 “Would Obama tax my profits if I sell my home? Would he tax my IRA? Would he tax my water?

Newsweek – 08/09/08 “More Tax Deceptions

Forbes – 10/08/08 “Fact Check: Obama, McCain Twist Records

Dallas Morning News – 10/04/08 “Obama on McCain’s Economic Plan

YouTube “More Tax Deception