Political Agenda

This blog has moved

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:05:00 +0000

This blog is now located at http://danianmichael.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://danianmichael.blogspot.com/atom.xml.

Haiti, Death and Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:58:00 +0000

Perhaps it is a bit weird that when I reflect on the devastation in Haiti, I tend to think about the day before it happened? Yet it is undoubtedly the case that we all do this to some extent when for example we exclaim, “I never saw that coming!” In many ways, January 11, 2010 reminds me of September 10, 2001, the day before our own major disaster. As I went about my day without a thought of Americans dying in masses, I had no idea that events were about to unfold that would change this world forever and that would cause so much pain. I would imagine that the people of Haiti had a similar experience on January 11: deep below the earth’s crust right under their feet--and unbeknownst to anyone--events were unfolding that would culminate with such devastation. If only the people of Port Au Prince Haiti and the people inside the World Trade Center were given a heads-up, who knows how many lives could have been saved.

Before I go any further I would like to make it very clear that my reference to Haiti is NOT purely academic; I’m not merely using their misfortune as a means to an end. My heart goes out to the people of Haiti and I shall remember them in my prayers.

With that said, I would now like to call your attention to something very important that will happen at the start of next year. Consider this article your warning. I also want to make sure you do not forget what you are about to read by drawing an analogy using current events.

Current events:

On January 12, 2010 the country of Haiti was rocked by the largest earthquake in recent history. Tons of concrete came crashing down on the people living there. As a result, well over one hundred thousand people have died. The devastation is so great that it is beyond the people and government of Haiti to deal with on their own. Now I have a hypothetical question for you: What if you were a part of a rescue team looking for survivors in Haiti, and while looking you find a little girl crying as she gazes at a collapsed building. You and your party rush to the pile of concrete and start digging for survivors, but it’s too late, the little girl’s mom is already dead. Your team pulls the dead woman from the rubble and checks for anything that might identify her, and as you search you find one hundred U.S. dollars. As you are about to hand the little girl the money, a member of the Haitian government sees what is going on and says, “Stop! Fifty five percent that money is mine.” How would you feel about that?

Future Events:

Let me start by giving you some background history. In 2001, one of the first tax cuts president Bush implemented was to reduce the estate (death) tax from 55% to 45% with the exempted amount going from one million to 3.5 million in 2009. The tax then falls to 0% in 2010 (this year). In 2011 the law expires, and then the death tax goes back to 55% with a one million dollar exemption limit.[1] The future event is this, at the end of this year the death tax goes from 0 to 55% with an exemption limit of one million dollars. Let me put it in terms that even liberals can understand: If you are worth over one million dollars (by the way, your worth includes any life insurance policies you might own) and you die in 2011, the U.S. government will give one million dollars to your beneficiaries then take 55% of the rest. Not to be outdone, our president wants to change current law such that instead of going to zero this year, the death tax will return to its 2009 parameters. You would miss this if you weren’t paying attention because Obama hid this fact in his 2010 budget within the fine print of a footnote.[2]

Now I ask you this my fellow Americans: is there a more despicable, inhumane and heartless act than looting the dead? To steal from a family in its most desperate time of need. Remember my analogy; is taking $55 from the little girl in Haiti any different from what our government is doing to Americans who have died? Yet even now I can sense some of you getting angry with me at the same time agreeing with the president saying, “I have no problem sticking it to some rich dead guy.” To you I would ask, would the government official in my Haiti analogy be any less despicable if instead of 100 dollars the dead mother of the little girl had $1000?

If you read this article and you somehow felt indifferent or even satisfied with the prospect of the government taking from the rich after they die, then your moral compass is either completely out of sorts or I have failed miserably in making my point. Because of course the protagonist in my article is not the person who dies, but the person who lives. Anyone can rationalize stealing, that does not mean you should do it. If I see Bill Gates drop $20 dollars from his pocket, I still would be obligated to return the money to him, even though he is a billionaire fifty times over. How much more should we respect the property of the dead? But even if you are finding it hard to have empathy for the “rich,” understand this: It is very possible that a person who lives to be 75 years old would own a house valued at $500,000 with a life insurance policy of equal value. And what if that person happens to own a small business (the lifeblood of our economy) -- his or her family would be in the crosshairs of the death tax. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of these people worked hard for their money so that their children will have a better life. If the government takes away our ability to pass on wealth to our children-- or whomever we please--then it will have taken away one of the main incentives to produce wealth in the first place. And as we all know, people who produce wealth usually need others to help them produce it.

So now consider yourself warned, but I implore you to not take this one sitting. We stopped a catastrophic healthcare reform bill. Now we can stop the death tax, and allow the family of someone who dies-- rich or poor-- to grieve in peace.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

________________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] The exemption limit refers to the maximum amount you can pass on to your beneficiaries without being taxed. Incidentally, if your spouse is the beneficiary, no taxes apply.

[2] Read the president’s 2010 budget plan for yourself. You will find his reinstituting the death tax on page 121 in footnote No. 2. He titled it, “A New Era of Responsibility – Renewing America’s Promise.” It’s funny that even here, Obama can’t help but blame Bush. Will he ever stand on his own two feet and stop using Bush as a crutch?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf

Why am I the only black person at republican meetings? I have the answer!

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:08:00 +0000

For as long as I can remember the Republican Party has been carrying a monkey on its back, and that monkey’s name is Racist. For the purpose of brevity, I will not rehash the account of the civil rights movement and the pivotal role the Republican Party played in its success. I am of the opinion that if it weren’t for Republicans, I might be writing this article from a cotton field right now. In any case, the history speaks for itself and if anyone wants to go do the research and learn why Black Americans owe a debt of gratitude to conservatives, I refer you to an article titled, “History of the Republican Party” written by Sean (only his first name is listed).

The purpose of this article is not to analyze history; better historians than me have already done that. Rather, my purpose is to offer some perspective on the way things are today from the point of view of an outsider (for those of you who don’t know, I was born in Jamaica). Besides, the Republican Party is not going to win over Black Americans by an appeal to history. We must change the worldview of Black Americans before any appeal to history can be fruitful,

As I see it, here’s the problem:

Let me explain by way of an analogy. There is a room with dirty floors and in that room there is a black person sweeping. A Democrat (perhaps the owner of the building) walks in, sees this poor black man sweeping and immediately takes pity on him. The democrat then proceeds to take away the broom from the man and says, “You don’t have to do that, here is twenty dollars, go home and I will send you one hundred dollars every month so that you don’t have to sweep these dirty floors any more. The democrat then walks away, and as the black man is preparing to go home, a conservative walks in. The conservative sees the dirty floor, does not take pity on the man, and asks if he would sweep the floor for twenty dollars.

If you happen to be a conservative, you can see how from the perspective of the black man, one pathway appears to be easier than the other. You can also imagine how the democrat could be perceived as being compassionate and the conservative as being indifferent. You throw in a lifetime of people telling him to be suspicious of white people -- and the journey from indifferent to racist becomes a very short one. It is not fair; believe me I know, but this is the hand we have been dealt. For being a black conservative, I am often accused of being brain washed and a victim of Stockholm syndrome. For those making that accusation, I’d just like to ask them: if thirty sheep are in the process of walking off a cliff and one of those sheep stops and asks why I should walk of this cliff, which is brainwashed; the thirty or the one?

Now that’s the problem! Here now is the solution:

Right of the bat, I’d like to make it clear that being more like democrats is not the solution. I believe that despite its original good intentions (although I would argue that this has morphed in a desire to buy votes), what the democratic party has done is rob the black man of his dignity-- not only by seeing him as an inferior being, incapable of helping himself, but also by relegating him to a life of servitude (now dependent on the democrat for his livelihood). My fellow conservatives, if we make this about votes or about growing the Republican Party, we will loose and we will be susceptible to saying and doing anything. I want my fellow black Americans to join the conservative party not because I want to win elections but because I care about my fellow black Americans. Within the conservative family their dignity and liberty will be preserved. I was at a republican convention in Flint last year and one of the speakers said, “We need to be a party that is inclusive.” I wanted to grab him and say, “Listen, we are inclusive.” In all of my dealings with the Republican Party, I have felt nothing but appreciated and welcomed.

Like I said before, conservatives can be perceived as being a bit callus and that is probably a valid criticism whenever it occurs. We conservatives, if we are going to help our fellow Americans who happen to be black, must let them know that as an American-- you are my brother, you are my sister, and I could not in good conscience deprive you of what is embodied in this broom; the opportunity for you to work so that you can eat. Moreover, we must explain that anyone who would deprive you of such a privilege may not have your best interest at heart. I guarantee you that if such an understanding can be reached between black Americans and conservatives, more fruitful communication will be possible, and appeals to history will not go unanswered.

Take this approach my fellow conservatives and we will find ourselves looking across at the black community as in the final scene in the movie Casablanca, and saying, “This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.”

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Indecision 09

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:35:00 +0000

Fourteen years ago when I was starting out my career as an engineer and working on my first project, one of the things I remember was four years of college was not offering me any comfort as I tried to solve problems. The obstacles I was trying to surmount on the job did not look anything like the problems I was presented with on a test. The way I dealt with my inexperience was to befriend the wisest engineer I could find. His name was Paul Growth, and he was the kind of person who was designed by God to solve engineering problems. Paul Growth was a natural leader and a no-nonsense man. He was 67 years old when I met him, and he had the ability to bring calm into any chaotic situation. Our clients loved him too; because they knew their money would be well spent. I miss Paul and wish he were still alive so that I could thank him for teaching me a very valuable lesson.

After working as an intern under Paul for a while, something was happening to me that I didn’t realize at the time. I was stagnating and I wasn’t learning how to stand on my own two feet. I would run to Paul every time I was confronted with a difficult decision, because I was just too afraid to fail. Paul had recognized this shortcoming in my development and decided to confront me with it. By the way, Paul held the third highest position in this firm and so it was highly inappropriate for me to be using this very brilliant man as if he was my personal problem solver! Anyway, Mr. Growth called me into his office one day and gave me a dressing down like you would not believe. At the time I thought he was the biggest jerk in the world. Who was this man to tell me I needed to develop a spine and make decisions once in a while? Who was Paul to tell me that I needed to stop being such a sissy and stand on my own two feet--that it was ok to make a mistake, that I needed to take a stand and rely on the things I had learned.

In retrospect, I wish President Obama were standing next to me when I was receiving that dressing down. The president, in my opinion, needs someone like a Paul Growth to tell him, “Stand up on your own two feet.” I have noticed that whenever our president is faced with a tough decision, he surrounds himself with a committee or forms a new one. The media would have us believe that he is just being thoughtful; I think he is just being inexperienced, and dangerously so. About the only thing he has shown any backbone for is his opposition to his fellow Americans who happen to be conservative. Perhaps we should convince the president that the Taliban in Afghanistan are a bunch of Republicans, maybe then he would make up his mind to finally send our troops the reinforcements they so desperately need. And what about another tough issue of the day, unemployment? Well, you guessed it…he’s just announced a “summit” in December on Creating Jobs.

President Obama simply will not pull the trigger on making difficult decisions, and I suspect it is because he never had to do it before. Prior to becoming president, he didn’t have to go out on a limb or face the prospect of making a tough decision with far-reaching implications. At least with me (as a young engineer), I was able to acknowledge my own ignorance and find someone with the knowledge and experience to guide me through. Our president’s “committees, advisors and summits (most of which are staged political events)” have led him to ignore the will of the majority of the American people who he was elected to serve. Most Americans don’t support his healthcare reform plans, they don’t support his plans to deal with “climate change” and most Americans don’t like his decision to spend like there is no tomorrow.

The United States president should be a seasoned person with a core of experience that will guide him or her through the darkness; someone who is consulted rather than someone who consults. May our president find within himself some testicular fortitude and the humility to listen to those who can guide him; we the American people.

Sing Praises to Obama? Yes We Can; Sing Praises to Christ? No Can Do

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:41:00 +0000

A good friend of mine asked me two days ago what I thought of kids in school singing praises to president Obama. I told him it felt a bit creepy but that I had no problem with it beyond that. He then asked me if I would feel “creeped-out” if they were singing praises to someone else, for example Martin Luther King. I had to admit that kids singing praises to Dr. King would not be creepy but rather commendable. I then asked my friend, “How about kids singing praises to George Bush, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin?” He responded by saying that some more liberal people might take offense because of the polarizing nature of these people, but that he wouldn’t have a problem with it ultimately. My next question started a pretty interesting discussion and provided the material for this article. I asked my friend, what if they were singing praises to Christ? His answer was, “You can’t do that because now they would be involving religion.” It is to this point that I will now turn my attention.

Why is it ok for a teacher, acting on affections for her president, allowed to express that affection openly? Why am I restricted (under punishment of law) from showing affections for my God? Many people on the right (politically) do not like the idea of teachers politicizing the classroom. For me the real issue here is the censoring of Christians. When I heard school children sing praises to Obama, I thought to myself that I dare not attempt such a thing as a Christian, and I want to know why; what makes me and others like me so special. When we venture to ask why, we are beaten over the head with the misguided notion of separation of church and state. Just so we are on the same page, the first amendment to the constitution reads:

”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There is nothing in this amendment that even comes close to prohibiting Christians in government from doing or saying Christian things as a group or as individuals. The only place you will find anything coming close to suggesting a hard separation between church and state, would be a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. [1] But I know, and so do many of you, that the silencing of Christians isn’t about a noble attempt to uphold the law, anymore than abortion is about where life begins. In both of these cases the real issue is something completely different than the one being presented. [2]

When someone declares we shall have no prayer or practice any Christian rituals in public schools, you can be sure that what is really going on is the assertion of human autonomy from the Christian concept of morality and that in their heart of hearts they know it is incumbent on them to follow these principles. Liberals for example know deep down (perhaps very deep down) that it is wrong to kill an unborn child, but because they want to have their own way, they suppress what they know to be true. I can understand people affirming their autonomy, as a matter of fact; the bible tells me to expect it. What I don’t understand is why Christians have to be silenced (by law) when we profess or try to promote these standards? As far as I can tell, people who are not Christian (especially liberal ones) have such an axe to grind that they will swing that axe right at my first amendment rights. Again, I’m not surprised by this level of antagonism, given the bible’s warning of this sort of behavior. Furthermore, I would like an explanation as to why the separation of all things religious from the affairs of the state is such a noble endeavor? And why is the lack of an acknowledgment of God not ignoble?

Consider a hypothetical with me:

Two men elected to public office serve as present and past presidents of the United States. One of these men believes that wealthy people and big corporations are inherently evil and must be taxed to keep them in line and so that the much more noble poor people can be given their just deserts. The other man believes that all people are sinners (not just the wealthy ones) and in need of restoration in the image of God through Christ. Because of his beliefs, the second man believes that prayer and church attendance is a way in which we might help all people, rich and poor. My question is this, why is one allowed to espouse and pursue his worldview and the other is restricted by law from doing so? Why is it that a teacher can assemble her kids and tech them to have an allegiance to president Obama, but cheerleaders who storm the field of a football game carrying a banner quoting a bible verse are bared from ever doing so again because it violates the constitution? [3] It seems to me that the decision to single-out religious views (especially Christianity since the word church is traditionally a Christian term. Cf. separation of Church and State) is simply arbitrary.

It is true that Christians in public life are free to practice religion in their private lives, Jimmy Carter for example regularly teaches Sunday school. [4] I am concerned however, by a type of “religious Jim Crow” America that is evolving in our day. There are parts of our society with signs (not seen by the naked eye) over their entryway that says, “No Christians Allowed.” Fortunately for Christians (unlike black people), our worldviews cannot be ascertained by looking at us. I am also concerned by the fact that liberals are not neutral on Christian commitments. It is not the case that when liberals use the courts to chip away at Christian influence in our society that that void is left vacant. That void is replaced with liberal ideas, as Ann Coulter puts it, the liberal religion.

You see, liberals can’t have it both ways, either they allow religious people to be who they are with the freedom to espouse their worldviews, and thus allowing the best ides to win the day. Or, they must bar the promotion of all worldviews, Christian and otherwise. In which case, no elected official could ever say anything ever again, since no one is objective and all of our actions, thoughts and speech flow from some kind of a worldview. Actually, a silent government might not be a bad thing right now; perhaps the liberals are on to something here. We must not infringe upon people’s right to free speech, especially and I must emphasize especially, when we don’t agree with that speech.

President Obama is now freeing captured terrorists from Guantánamo Bay, isn’t it about time we freed the rights of Christians to espouse their beliefs in all facets of American Life? [5]

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

___________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] This is what Jefferson wrote in his letter (which is not legally binding):

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

It is clear to me that Jefferson’s intention was not that Christians serving in public office would be bared from suggesting Christian solutions to problems, but that the state would leave us alone to practice our faith freely. The exact opposite is happening, when we see the State tell cheerleaders that they can’t show a bible verse because doing so is breaking the law.

[2] In an earlier article titled, “The Big A – Abortion Not Apple.” I made the very bold claim that the abortion debate is not and never was about where life begins. It is actually about a woman’s unwillingness to take care of a child.
Read the entire article: http://www.politicalagenda.net/Archive/ThisWeek_08-002-0123.htm

[3] The picture associated with this article was taken from the Chattanooga Times Free Press. The caption reads, “9/18/09 At a football game on the school's field, cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School hold up a sign with a Biblical verse on it. After a complaint last week, the school has banned the cheerleaders from using any more signs with religious statements on them, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution.”
Read the article: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/sep/29/cheerleaders-religious-signs-draw-fire/

[4] The Associated Content News article titled, “Former President Carter Teaches Sunday School in Hometown of Plains, Ga” shows that not only was former president Carter a professing Christian, but that he also did very Christian things like teach Sunday school. President Carter is an unusual case however, and I would argue inconsistent, because although he is a professing Christian, Carter believes that elected officials should leave their faith at the door when they represent the State or do State business. He is inconsistent because of this basic Christian principle; exposing your whole life to the lordship of Christ, and leaving nothing to yourself.
Read the Associated Content News article: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/25970/former_president_carter_teaches_sunday.html

[5] This New York Times article titled, “freed detainee arrives in Britain” chronicles the activities of freed Guantánamo Bay detainees.
Read the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/world/europe/24gitmo.html

Technorati Tags: Cheerleaders with Christian banner,first amendment,School Children Singing to Obama,Separation of Chruch and State,Thomas Jefferson,Wall of separation

We Need a Hand That Will Beat the Race Card

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:13:00 +0000

I don’t know if you are familiar with the television series, “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” but one of its episodes provides an interesting illustration. In it, the crew encounters a hostile and advanced alien race called the Borg. One of their amazing abilities is to adapt to the weapons used against them. When they attack our heroes on the Starship Enterprise, the crew is able to kill just two of the Borg. They were not able to kill three, because by then the Borg had adapted to their weapons. What they did was both amazing and easily anticipated: the Enterprise crew stopped firing! Since their weapons no longer had any effect, why should they continue to fire?

Let’s leave that analogy for a moment and consider another one (I will reveal what that particular story of the Enterprise crew and their encounter with the Borg is analogous to shortly). It’s eight in the afternoon and you are about to have dinner with your family. All of a sudden the phone rings and intrudes on your privacy; the caller identification is displaying, “Caller Unknown,” and immediately you think to yourself, “don’t they know people have Caller ID and that their telemarketing won’t work?” But the world of telemarketing plays the averages; if one person out of every twenty they call commit to using their services then those nineteen busy signals, answering machines, and rejections were worth it for them. It is a fact that telemarketing works, and that is why it continues. Presidential candidates don’t spend millions on phone banks and directory listings for fun. I myself worked the phone banks for President Bush when he was running for re-election in 2004 and I was able to make a difference… Bush won.

Where am I going with all this? Over the last two weeks my eyes have been opened; I now see the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room. Two weeks ago president Obama accused an innocent police man of being a racist because he arrested a black man. When asked if people protesting healthcare reform reminded him of anything, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) said the following on MSNBC: “Well, the last time I had to confront something like this was when I voted for the civil rights bill and my opponent voted against it. At that time, we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble.”[1] Chris Matthews asked Cynthia Tucker this question: “Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentothal. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president? What percentage?” Cynthia Tucker responded with this comment, “Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.”[2] They, Dingell, Matthews, and Tucker were talking about people who are standing against Obama’s plan for healthcare reform.

In looking at all these examples I realized something (my eyes opened), the charge of racism is a weapon that people like president Obama, John Dingell and Cynthia Tucker will never stop using because it is effective. Like the telemarketer who continues to call no matter the consequence, it works. Now back to the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room, what is it by analogy with current events? It is playing the race card. People continue to play it because it works. The only way to stop people from using this weapon against you is to make it ineffective. Remember the Borg; the Enterprise crew stopped firing their weapons when the Borg became immune to them.

Sergeant Crowley has led the way on this. He is the white policeman who was racially castigated by the president for arresting a black Harvard professor. Sergeant Crowley stood his ground and said, “No - I will not apologize!” A beautiful thing happened because the president’s racial attack was ineffective against him; The Guardian.co.uk writes:

The president said he should have chosen his words more carefully but stopped short of an apology.”Because this has been ratcheting up and I helped to contribute to ratcheting it up, I want to make it clear that in my choice of words I unfortunately gave the impression I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sergeant Crowley and I could have calibrated those words differently," he said.

Seeking to lighten the situation further, he said at the daily White House briefing that he had invited both Crowley and Gates for "a beer here in the White House."[3]

The president stopped his attack, invited Crowley for a beer, and did not apologize, which confirms my point that not being a racist is not necessarily going to stop people from calling you a racist; these things are deep in people’s hearts. My pastor mentions repeatedly what experience confirms, namely, kicking a bad habit first starts with a commitment to acting differently; feelings will inevitably fall in line.

If we can get people like president Obama, John Dingell and Cynthia Tucker to stop calling people of good conscience racists (who cares if they think it; what a person thinks does not affect me) then perhaps ten years from now they might actually start believing that not every white person who opposes them is a racist. But it all starts with you my white friends and it doesn’t matter if you are a white democrat, just ask the first black president, Bill Clinton.[4] It’s time for a white civil rights movement, but instead of “We shall overcome,” it will be, “We shall take it no more.”

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

[1] Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) made these comments on the cable network MSMBC. But don’t take my words for it, listen to him yourself. http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/youtube_dingell_compares_town_hall_mobs_to_the_kkk/

[2] Cynthia Tucker is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist; she writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Cynthia made the comments I cited on another MSNBC program called Hardball with Chris Mathews. Read the account at Newsbusters.org. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/08/07/cynthia-tucker-45-65-townhall-protesters-are-racists

[3] Read the entire article titled “Obama invites race row policeman for a beer in the White House” at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/24/obama-race-row-beer

[4] Bill Clinton was accused of being a racist for attacking Candidate Obama in support of his wife, who was also running for president during the primaries last year 2008

A Study on Healthcare Reform for You and Me

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:07:00 +0000

One of the first things I learned as a debater (as a Christian debater) is to always represent your opponent’s viewpoint accurately. With that said, researching and coming up with a truthful representation of the President’s proposal for healthcare reform is one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do. Coming to an understanding of the bottom-line for the President’s plan was more frustrating than getting my cat to play fetch while preparing my itemized tax returns. Understanding the details of how the system works today was equally breathtaking. The whole of the healthcare industry, both existing and now proposed, is riddled with double talk and subterfuge. One gets the impression like the super heroes of Bikini Bottom, that evil is a foot.[1]

The debate surrounding healthcare is based on one thing and one thing alone: Money. The quality of healthcare in the United States is actually very good if you have access to it (we all do to varying extent). We can all talk about how great our doctors and nurses are, and we can talk about how advanced the technology employed in the medical industry is. I suspect we could all sit around a camp fire in agreement, bragging of the high quality of our healthcare to the world. That is until you start mentioning anything to do with the money in healthcare. Many of the articles I read implied with certainty that if you have received healthcare, you have probably been over charged for something as made clear in an article titled, “10 ways to avoid outrageous hospital overcharges.”[2] In that same article, the author instructed the readers to always ask for an itemized bill from your healthcare provider and then send it to a professional to translate it for you. Hospitals don’t write things in plain English; the itemized bill you receive will be coded. For example, one hospital charged a man $129.00 for a “Mucous recovery system,” which is a box of Kleenex.[3]

Suffice it to say that our healthcare system as it exists today has problems; very few people disagree on that point. We do disagree on how to solve these problems. I would venture to say that if you were to ask all of the three million Americans living today, to submit a plan to solve the problems in our healthcare system, you would probably get three million different ideas on how to do it. Yet I believe all the different ideas break down in to two main schools of thought.

1. A Government run system (the single payer plan is the ultimate expression of this; the government collects all the money and pays all the bills)

2. A privately run system

Some people may suggest some form of a hybrid; both government and privately ran, but I would suggest that such a plan would fall under a government run system because of the power of our government. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what our president is proposing: A hybrid of privately ran healthcare. He is going to accomplish this by introducing a government option to the American people.[4] And it is now to the president’s plan that I turn my attention.

The evolution of the president’s plan can be found first in an eight hundred and fifty page discussion draft bill for healthcare reform. This version of the bill was forwarded by Democrats in the House of Representatives.[5] The national outcry for its one trillion dollar price tag led to the formulation of a new, “Affordable Health Choices Act,” by Senate Democrats, most notably Ted Kennedy and Christopher Dodd.[6] This bill will “only” cost tax payers 650 billion dollars (we don’t have $650 billion either). Within one day of publishing the “Affordable Health Choices Act,” President Obama publicly endorsed the bill. So I don’t think I am being presumptuous when I say this bill represents the president’s plan for fixing healthcare. I read both of these bills (not exactly easy reading as it is written by lawyers who use fifty words when they could use one). The following, in my opinion, are the highlights:

1. The bill would require the secretary of health and human services (HHS) to establish a "public health insurance option" to compete against private health plans on a "level playing field" in a national health insurance exchange.

2. The bill expands eligibility for the existing Medicaid program up the income scale to 150 percent of the federal poverty level.

3. The public plan's payment to providers would be based on Medicare payment rates plus 5 percent. Healthcare providers must bill the government at this rate.

4. The bill would create a National Health Insurance Exchange in order to "facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable quality health insurance, including a public insurance option."

5. The bill would require every American to have health insurance coverage that Congress would define as "acceptable coverage." Under the terms of the bill, existing coverage at the time of enactment would be "grandfathered," but health plans would be legally required to conform to federal standards over time.

6. The bill contains both an individual and an employer mandate. Under the terms of the bill, an individual would be required to enroll in an "acceptable" health plan or face a tax penalty. The only exception would be "hardship" cases. For an individual, the tax would be equal to 2 percent of their income up to the "national average premium amount."

7. "Medium and large" employers would be required to offer an "acceptable" health plan, under the terms and conditions of the House bill, or pay an "assumed" 8 percent payroll tax until the situation is remedied. If the employer resumes coverage within 30 days, no penalty will be assessed.

8. Healthcare reform will be enacted in December of 2012. (Very convenient to implement this in an election year – vote for me and get free healthcare or roll your dice with the other guy – these are my words)

Furthermore, President Obama added the following:

1. A $177 billion in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies under something called Medicaid Advantage will no longer exist.

2. That $177 billion will be used to help families so that they could have insurance and preventive healthcare.

3. His new healthcare reform will cost approximately $100 billion a year; $950 billion over the next 10 years. Two-thirds of which he will pay for by reallocating money the other third by tax increase.[7]

Much more could be said about the president’s plan for healthcare reform, for example that there will be a healthcare secretary overseeing the whole thing and that this secretary will advise you through a board of physicians (not your own) if you need things such as a second opinion. If you have the stomach for it I would encourage you to read the bill for yourself.

This article is a departure from my usual opinion pieces in that it is more of a report on my findings, a news article if you will. You have the basics with the tools for further research via the footnotes. I would like you to consider two things however.

1) First, consider what I said about a hybrid healthcare system involving the government and the private sector; the government will overpower the private sector so that what we end up with is government run healthcare. One of the main criticisms of the president’s healthcare reform is the fact that the government will be a player and the referee; how pray-tell can the playing field be level? Obama’s response to this criticism is to reiterate the fact that if you like your healthcare insurance or doctor, you can keep it and/or him.[8] Notice however, all the restrictions on healthcare providers and insurers stated in this bill. For example you must accept what we (the government) offer as payment for providing healthcare; you must under penalty of law and taxes provide healthcare insurance to your employees and you must as an individual, avail yourself of healthcare. Our prospects are for government run healthcare…period.
2) Finally, do you really believe that our government has two-thirds of a trillion dollars available to it via reallocation? If you believe that, I have some health insurance to sell you.

I have given you the facts but you ultimately must decide if you want what Obama is pushing or if you want him to return to the drawing board? I say it’s back to the drawing board and bring me something with no tax increases and no government takeover.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

[1] Bikini Bottom for those of you who don’t have kids is an under sea city in the children’s program, “Sponge Bob Square Pants. Where there exist two elderly super heroes, Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy – Mermaid man is always yelling, “Evil is a foot.”

[2] The website MSN Money in an article titled, “10 ways to avoid outrageous hospital overcharges” reports on how hospitals tend to overcharge patients and how they do it. (Read the article at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P74840.asp)

[3] Ibid.

[4] On the website, “Say Anything” you can find in an article titled, “White House Clarifies Obama’s Health Care Statements: The President Shouldn’t Be Taken Literally,”some of the President’s quotations for his government option; this hybrid of which I am speaking. (Read it for yourself at: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/white_house_clarifies_obamas_health_care_statements_the_president_shouldnt_)

[5] Read the bill for yourself: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090619/healthcarereform_discussiondraft.pdf

[6] Read the bill for yourself: http://help.senate.gov/BAI09A84_xml.pdf

[7] In a Town Hall meeting held in Annandale, Virginia on July 1, 2009. President Obama gave a short speech and fielded questions on his plans for healthcare reform. (Read the transcript at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/obama-health-care-townhall.html)

[8] The website Sayanythingblog.com (http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/white_house_clarifies_obamas_health_care_statements_the_president_shouldnt

Big Babies in the Music Industry and Their Mommies in Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:01:00 +0000

Remember these names: Howard Berman, D-California, U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. These congressmen along with twenty-one other co-sponsors are the originators of the “Performance Rights Act.” Remember them in 2010 and again in 2012 with your vote against their continued employment.[1]

Basically the Performance Rights Act accomplishes the following: The two measures proposed in the House and Senate seek to amend federal copyright law, granting musical performers equal rights to compensation for the airing of their recordings by most radio broadcasters. [2] Representing the position of the musicians, “MusicFirst” Executive Director Jennifer Bendall says, “Radio is the only platform that does not pay a fair performance royalty to America’s artists and musicians,” Ms. Bendall claims that AM and FM music stations in the U.S. earn $16 billion annually in advertising revenue, yet won’t compensate the artists and musicians. “It’s not fair, it’s not right and it will be changed,” she adds.[3]
As someone whose livelihood is derived from radio broadcasters, I would ask Ms. Bendal, “Musicians make billions also, where is our cut from their profits for getting the word out?” It turns out that symbiotic is the description that fits best when describing the relationship between radio broadcasters and musicians. When someone like Ms Bendal gerrymanders the picture by only depicting the benefits that flow from the musicians, she makes the radio stations out to be a bunch of “meanies.” Please note that in essence musicians receive free advertising in this so-called unfair union.

Musicians feel they are getting a bum deal with regards to their music being used by radio stations. They are entitled to their opinion, but we do not see musicians baring radio stations from playing their music. In fact, I know a few musicians, and they all say, without exception, that hearing their song played on the radio for the first time is the most amazing thing, and that the amazement never really goes away. Any musician who says radio stations are exploitive is a either a bold face liar or is way too focused on themselves. Either way, they need to grow up. Let me also say that many musicians are against this bill; this article is not about them.

And so we come now to what I deem to be the biggest problem with this Performance Rights Act. I have a big problem with the federal government intervening to solve ALL of our disputes. The inevitable outcome of government intervention is the government siding with one group of citizens against another group of citizens. Whatever happened to the free market, where if one group of Americans don’t want to do business with another group of Americans then they don’t do so? If musicians do not want radio stations to play their music without being compensated, then they should not submit their material to them for public broadcasting. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen because the dirty little secret is that musicians need radio stations to keep playing their music. I once worked for a music station and you would be amazed by the large number of compact discs that come in the mail everyday. These musicians would like nothing more than for their music to be added to the play list.

With our new liberal government, you can be sure that they will not pass on any opportunity to further intrude into our lives. So when the musicians approached our representatives for a resolution, instead of saying, “don’t allow your music to be played on stations that won’t pay you” the government instead responds (in typical liberal fashion) by saying, “let’s destroy theses big corporations.” And destroyed they will be, if this ridiculous bill passes. Of course, it’s not the hated “big corporations” that will really suffer. The radio industry is already besieged with layoffs and cutbacks, and if this bill passes, thousands more jobs of ordinary Americans with families to support will be gone. Also gone will be many of your favorite music radio stations who can not or will not pay the exorbitant tax. Find out how you can help keep free music radio free, go to www.noperformancetax.org

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

[1] The other twenty-one congressmen who foolishly support this bill by name, state and party affiliation. Don’t forget them in 2010 and 2012:

•Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7]
•Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9]
•Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14]
•Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12]
•Rep. Jane Harman [D, CA-36]
•Rep. Paul Hodes [D, NH-2]
•Rep. Jay Inslee [D, WA-1]
•Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49]
•Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18]
•Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4]
•Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8]
•Rep. Linda Sánchez [D, CA-39]
•Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
•Rep. John Shadegg [R, AZ-3]
•Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27]
•Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28]
•Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
•Rep. Zach Wamp [R, TN-3]
•Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
•Rep. Anthony Weiner [D, NY-9]
•Rep. Robert Wexler [D, FL-19]

[2] (The San Antonio Journal) In an article titled, “Pending radio tax pitting artists against broadcasters,” author W. Scott Bailey describes events taking place right now from the point of view of radio broadcasters most notably the National Association of Broadcasters executive director, Dennis Wharton.
(http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2009/04/20/story7.html)

[3] Ibid.

Fiscal Conservatism Illustrated: The Potential GM Move from Detroit

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:47:00 +0000

In January of this year, Democrats everywhere declared that fiscal conservatism was the devil reincarnated. Big greedy corporations and wealthy white men needed to be put in their place, in jail or at the bottom of our society. This denigration of big corporations is only restrained by the threat that they will take their business elsewhere. We were also told that top-down economics does not work. As a matter of fact, wealth redistribution is being offered as the antidote to that failed policy.

Enter reality! I love reality, it so easily refutes liberalism. Democrats have been telling us for as long as I can remember, but with greater intensity since Obama took office, that fiscal conservatism is how we got into the mess in which we now find ourselves. It was unchecked capitalism and tax breaks to the wealthy that were the sole proprietors of blame for this recession. On trickle-down economics President Obama said the following:

"The past eight years have discredited once and for all the philosophy of trickle-down economics -- that tax breaks, income gains and wealth creation among the wealthy eventually will work their way down to the middle class." Obama went on to say, "In its place, we need economic opportunity to trickle up." [1]

Isn’t it interesting how trickle-down economics is being redefined by simply replacing the mechanism by which money flows down from big business and the wealthy? To be sure, trickle-down economics is unavoidable; it is impossible for money and opportunity to flow up from the poor for obvious reasons. Interestingly, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is simply another form of trickle-down economics. Changing the mechanism from free people doing business together to the government intervening and forcibly moving their money to the poor does not transform trickle-down economics into trickle-up economics. There is actually a more traditional and sinister term for what Obama is describing as trickle-up economics. It is called Socialism, or at the very least, the rudiments of it.

So now, in agreement with Obama’s trickle-up economic theory, the very liberal Detroit and our very liberal Governor, Jennifer Granholm now face the very real and big problem of GM leaving Detroit. How pray-tell will they solve this problem? The following quotation outlines how the city of Detroit intends to keep GM within its borders and how the city of Warren intends to lure them away:

”Warren Mayor Jim Fouts has pitched tax breaks to the company to shift its headquarters there. Bing and Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano announced the proposal for Renaissance Zone status at the Detroit Regional Chamber's Mackinac policy conference this morning. This deal would include 2.2 million square feet of office space in the RenCen's four main towers plus the Detroit Marriott Hotel in the Renaissance Zone, which provides tax incentives including a waiver of city income and utility user taxes, most city and county property tax, plus state income tax or business taxes.” [2]

Please note two things with me. First, we are witnessing the attempt of two local city government to apply trickle-down economics. Both are catering to a big corporation in the hope that the people of their respective cities will be the beneficiaries. Second, note the mechanism being used to help GM.[3] Basically the city of Detroit and the city of Warren are competing for the title of “most conservative.” Cutting taxes is how these two cities intend to help GM, but conservatives have made that claim since the dawn of this great country. Yet Democrats have the audacity to claim that conservatives are just a bunch of rich white men who are only looking out for big corporations and who have no compassion for the poor.[4] But when Democrats have to eat their words realizing that in reality, their tax-the-rich policies are suppressive to growth, then they are merely being considerate of the needs of our society.

Those of us who claim to be conservatives have a long road to travel in reminding our fellow Americans that conservatism works when it is applied. In 2010 and 2012 we will have one big advantage. We will be able to point to the fact that when Democrats apply conservative principles they help our economy and when they apply liberal principles they destroy it.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

[1] (The Washington Post:) In an article titled, “In Obama Tax Plan, A Shift of Wealth From the Top Down” Obama’s economic plan and approach is detailed.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/06/AR2009030603367_2.html)

[2] (Newsfeedresearcher.com) The news story titled, “The battle for GM's HQ: Good moves or bad policy?” outlines the battle between the city of Detroit and the city of Warren to house the General Motors’ headquarters. The headquarters of GM is now located in the Renaissance Center in downtown Detroit.
(http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_b23/detroit-warren-city.html).

[3] I submit that what is really going on here is the fact that both Detroit and Warren are trying to entice GM by being the most HELPFUL to the Auto Company.

[4] Black conservatives like me are not really free thinkers, we are the victims of Stockholm syndrome and as such, we are not really a part of the republican party. Ergo the rich white men label.

Our Government: The New No. 1 Crime Family

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:58:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Gangland.mp3

For research, I was watching the movie Casino (a movie by the way that is based on actual events) when I came upon a very popular practice in organized crime. For whatever reason, a small business owner owes money to the mob; perhaps, it is due to a gambling debt or a personal loan. Now in the world of organized crime, they don’t send you a thirty day notice, they send a collector. If your debt is due at 11:50 and you still have not paid it, you can expect a knock on your door at 11:51. The Mob runs a pretty effective collection agency, if you know what I mean.

In some instances; however, if the person owing the debt is a business owner, the Mob seizes control of the business (unofficially) and runs through its resources like an aggressive parasite. They would take out big loans against the business, use it to launder money, and basically suck it dry until all that’s left is the human devastation of the owner and his family. Bankruptcy for the owner is almost always the conclusion of this unholy partnership.

Now, does any of this ring a bell or seem oddly familiar? If it does not, I have to conclude that you were either born last night or you have an unhealthy love affair with president Obama. Either way, you are not privy to current events.

The United States entered the current recession in the latter part of 2007, but it wasn’t until the end of the summer of 2008 that the bottom fell out (unfortunately for John McCain). American companies were shedding jobs at an alarming rate, and the housing market was basically in a free fall. People were realizing that they owed more on their mortgages than their houses were worth or they were just unable to make further payments on their mortgages altogether. Most of the fifty states were reporting billion dollar deficits; the automotive industry was in serious jeopardy of declaring bankruptcy. To top it all off, the stock market was loosing 400 points a day. Consequently, the money we saved for the last 10 years was gone, almost in the blink of an eye. So overwhelming was the recession that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan became a distant consideration for the American people. Now I would argue that the recession was for the Obama campaign what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was for George Bush. Both John McCain and John Kerry lead in their respective presidential bids until the economy and the Swifties rained on their parades. In Gangland, Mobsters would see the situation I just described not as a recession or a reason for sorrow, but as an opportunity. As a matter of fact, the Mafia is often described as one of those recession-proof professions, as is the United States Government evidently, since it is the only “business” entity that is growing right now in the present downturn.

So now the stage is set for a Mafia style takeover of our country, not for monetary gains but for ideological ones and Barack Obama comes on the scene, offering a way out of our present misery by way of “change.” At this point, I am compelled to say that President Obama is not in the Mafia and he is not a mobster - this is not a premise for my argument and so if anyone chides me for calling the President a Mob boss, I’ll just have to correct him or her and point back to this statement. I am saying; however, that President Obama is an opportunist in the same way a Chicago Mob boss is an opportunist. A mobster knows that what he is doing is wrong and against the law. President Obama, on the other hand, believes that what he is doing is right and necessary. What then is the president’s end-game? It is to institutionalize liberalism, driven by the misguided notion that people if left to themselves will “eat” each other, and that it will be rich white men “feeding” on minorities, mainly African Americans (and lately Hispanics). We the people therefore need oversight and who better than the government to be our overseer and benevolent caretaker? What is the point in borrowing trillions of dollars against our country, basically using it as collateral? What is the point of printing new money? What is the point of lending billions to GM and Chrysler and then taking them over? What is the point of pushing universal healthcare when a much smaller version of it (Medicare) will be out of money in 14 years? What is the point of increased funding for abortion? What is the point of taxing the rich; taxing corporations and thus taxing all of us? What is the point of tightening the rope around the financial necks of the American people in fighting global warming – a phenomenon that is at best a theory and at worst, nonexistent? What is the point of nominating to the Supreme Court a woman who thinks white men are an inferior species of Homo sapiens and who thinks justice should not be blind to minorities? My fellow Americans, what is the point of all this?

In the words of his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, the President is not letting a serious crisis to go to waste. After making that statement and realizing that he had made a huge mistake, Rham Emanuel went on to say, “What I mean by that is that it’s an opportunity to do things you could not do before.” Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.

Some time ago, I wrote an article titled, “Mr. President, this conservative wants you to fail.” Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not at home reveling in the failures of any human being and certainly not our president’s. But when his definition of success boils down to big oppressive government, high taxes, out of control spending, debt as far as the eyes can see, abortion on demand, two legislative branches of government, all healthcare under the control of the government and the redistribution of wealth, then I cannot wish for his success under those terms with a clear conscience.

We must open our eyes and become the fourth branch of government, thus offsetting the other three. We are the ones wielding the proverbial “big stick” in this country and it’s about time we reintroduce our elected officials to some coercive interrogation using our big stick: our money, our hard work, our voices and our votes.

Danian Michael,
Political A

Harsh interrogation - A case study

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:10:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Torture.mp3

On the use of force during an interrogation, the Army field manual states the following:

“PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE - The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.…”[1]

Is it the case that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation? The argument goes as follows; harsh interrogation does not work because a prisoner will tell you anything to avoid pain and because generally speaking, people are more amicable to your request if you treat them kindly. I am going to argue that actually, harsh methods for gaining information and changing behavior is not only effective but is also foundational to our way of life here in the United States and I’m going to prove this by way of the illustration of three case studies.

Case No. 1 – The Police:

I was watching television yesterday; watching one of those programs that follow actual policemen as they fight crime. In this episode, police responding to a 911 call approached a house where the husband was out of control. The wife and neighbors were not able to calm this very large man down. The woman was hysterical and told the officers, “He’s going to kill me.” The two policemen drew their guns and entered the house and as if by magic, staring down the barrel of two loaded guns, this man became a model citizen.

Case No. 2 – My Parents:

I hate to admit this but I was not always the perfect son growing up in my parent’s house. There were times when I was just downright disrespectful to my mother, especially when I was in my teens and bigger in physical stature than her. I remember one incident when my Mom would not let me play soccer with my friends. I would not listen to her wishes, that is, until my Dad came home, then I became the model son.

Case No. 3 – The Courts and the Mafia:

Can you imagine what our justice system would be like if there was no penalty for lying under oath? People would say anything to avoid serving time in jail. Incidentally, the most popular argument forwarded for a case against torture happens to be the one I’m trying to refute right now; the fact that a prisoner will tell you anything to avoid further pain. It would seem that this problem (people just telling you anything) exists even if there is no threat of punishment; why have a penalty (which can be very severe) for lying under oath if people will always tell you the truth? Case in point: Joel Glickman was a convicted bookie for the Chicago Mob. Glickman was offered complete immunity if he would testify against five mob bosses. Over and over again during his trial Glickman would respond with, “I respectfully refuse to testify.” Finally the presiding judge, Mr. Zagel threw Glickman in jail and said he would be released when he was ready to talk. In the end Glickman had a choice to make. He could give up the mob bosses and be a free man or spend the rest of his life in jail but not have to deal with mob justice (i.e. one bullet to the chest and one bullet to the head). It was the mob with their harsh tactics that persuaded Glickman.[2]

Now I have shown in three different real-world scenarios that harsh treatment is shown to be very effective in persuading someone to act against their own desires or self-interest. And I was very careful in how I selected these three cases, as they cut across the very foundation of life here in the United States. I looked at law-enforcement, I looked at parenting and I looked at the judicial system. I have shown that in each of these cases, their effectiveness reduces to nil if harsh persuasive consequences were not at their core.

Barack Obama also said the following:

“Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.”[3]

I will say this for president Obama, he sure knows how to construct a future cliché. Is it the case that torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence? The answer is yes and no. The answer is yes if after an interrogation we simply released the source to go about their merry way. The answer is no if we retain the source until the intelligence we received is verified. The latter is almost always the case. Consider this, would you tell a gunman the true combination to your safety deposit box if you knew he would run away after you told him? The answer is probably no. But would you tell him the truth if the gunman had a partner testing the combination you gave him while he still held you at gun point? Well the answer is, of course you would tell him the truth.

To say that harsh treatment does not bear fruit is not only terribly misleading, it is simply mistaken. Why do we arm our police and national defense if being nice is a sufficient deterrent? Why is it that the mafia and gangs everywhere continue to use the most brutal tactics to keep their members in line if it does not work?

Harsh interrogation does work. Therefore, the real and only meaningful question is: Where is the line of demarcation between civilized moral conduct and immoral behavior? Stated another way; where does harsh interrogation stop and torture begin? I will answer that question at a later time. Just to give you a peek, I am going to say that there is such a thing as harsh interrogation that is not torture. We do real torture victims a disservice when we label any and all harsh coercion, torture. Nazis engaged in torture, my parents did not and neither did our boys in the United States Armed Forces.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

[1] (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm) The Army field manual on intelligence gathering.

[2] (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Witness-Keeps-Quiet-In-Chicago-Mafia-Trial/Article/20070711273340?lpos=Home_Article_Related_Content_Region_10&lid=ARTICLE_1273340_Witness_Keeps_Quiet_In_Chicago_Mafia_Trial) In an article titled, “Witness keeps quiet in Chicago mafia trial.” Skynews details the trial of mobster Joel Glickman.

[3] (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/04/obama_torture_and_secrecy_betr.php). Then senator Barack Obama made these comments in 2007 in response to a New York Times article titled, “Secret U.S. Endorsement of Severe Interrogations.” The Times article headline speaks for itself.

I know Miss Ward and Mr. President, you're no Miss Ward

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:23:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Miss Ward.mp3

Do you know anyone who suffers from low self esteem? It’s quite a thing isn’t it, to see someone capable of so much accept so little? Or to see someone who has so much going for them live as though that were not the case? Allow me to tell you a true story that happened to me in Jamaica when I was about eight years old; this story takes place over the span of seven years:

When I was eight years old I was attending a private prep-school called, “Alex French Prep.” I was not a good student and my teacher Miss Lamont would not let me forget it. Now in Jamaica, teachers have the full permission of parents to discipline students as they see fit, even if it means a good spanking. Miss Lamont’s favorite mode of discipline was the use of a heavy-duty twelve-inch aluminum ruler which she would use to slap our open palms. I don’t think Miss Lamont liked teaching but I think the prospect of using her Aluminum ruler is what got her out of bed everyday. And I always gave her a reason to use it; she did not like me. I remember one day when five students (including me) didn’t do their homework. We were all standing around her explaining why we didn’t have our work completed when in a fit of rage she reached out, grabbed me and gave me a good spanking in front of the whole class; the other kids got off with a warning. That was my life at Alex French Prep.

Fast forward to High school seven years later, my grades are still embarrassing and the effects of Alex French Prep still linger. That is until the ninth grade, when on the first day of my math class, Miss Ward walked into the room and introduced herself. She was a life long educator whose calling was to help children. My new math teacher took an interest in me and slowly but surely, my grades started to change (across the board) for the better. School became fun for me and my parents (for whom the success of their children was and continues to be everything) started to have hope for their youngest son again. Meeting Miss Ward was a pivotal event in my life and I wish I could find her today to explain how important she was to me. I wish I could tell her that her encouragement and faithfulness to me made a huge difference in my life.

When I look back on this time in my history and the difficulties I faced, I would have to say that my parents had even greater difficulties. Loving me as much as they did, it was hard for them to watch me squander all that they worked so hard to provide. It was difficult for my parents to watch me under perform while knowing with certainty that I was capable of doing better than I actually did.

Now you may not agree with the worldview of every United States citizen, but I will say this, when citizens speak-up out of love for country, we must not dismiss them as a bunch of misguided, racists rednecks. The tea-party participants had a legitimate concern; the idea that big government tends towards oppression of the governed, and to dismiss them as a bunch of misguided, redneck racists would be analogous to me dismissing my parents as a couple of misguided, racist rednecks for caring and acting to put me back on the right path. Dismissing loving parents or loving citizens does not make any sense.

We the citizens of the United States like parents all over this country, entrust our kids and our country to a caretaker. Will that caretaker be in the mold of my prep school teacher Miss Lamont or will that caretaker be in the mold of my high school math teacher Miss Ward? As of right now, President Obama is no Miss Ward. My High school math teacher would never throw her students under a bus in order to remain a popular teacher. President Obama on the other hand, after sitting through a fifty minute rant by Daniel Ortega describing how evil the United States is, responded to Ortega by saying the following:

"To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame [ME] for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We've all heard these arguments before."[1]

Keeping his personal reputation pristine is rather petty and quite frankly childish for the United States President isn’t it? And bashing his (our) country at every turn is getting a bit old. Interestingly enough, you will not find any other world leader bashing their country during any of Obama’s overseas visits; the United States was the only country trampled underfoot. Do you recall my story in Prep school that time when I didn’t do my homework along with a bunch of other kids, and my teacher Miss Lamont reached for me alone and gave me a spanking? Well President Obama did the same thing, reaching for the United States alone and giving it a spanking (albeit a verbal one).

Our president should be willing to be dragged through the mud if it promoted the wellbeing of the Country. Say what you will about George Bush, but he was willing to sacrifice his own popularity for the sake of our country, and he in fact did so. May our President find it in his heart to recommit himself to the oath he took at the start of his presidency, to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States and not to uphold and protect Barack Obama

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

[1] (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/) “Obama endures Ortega diatribe” a news article by Fox news highlighting the content of a meeting in PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago featuring The socialist president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. The quote in my article was our President’s response to Ortega’s perpetual repudiation of the United States (basically Ortega gave a hate America speech).

Is the United States a Christian Nation

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:23:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Christian.mp3

The News: President Obama made the following statement at a press conference in Turkey,

“One of the great strengths of the United States is ... although we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” [1]

So to the question on the table, is the United States a Christian nation? Oddly enough, this is a question that even we Christians have to ask about our own Christian communities: Is this or that particular Church a Christian Church? Christian reformers, like Martin Luther and John Calvin, wondered if the Roman Catholic Church was a Christian Church. By the way, the Roman Catholic Church wondered the same thing about Calvin and Luther. Today in the protestant community, you will hear homosexual pastors of some denomination argue that the bible is a collection of cool stories (not to be interpreted literally), so we must not take too seriously the teaching of Scriptures that says homosexuality is wrong.[2] Also there is, the “Open Theist” movement, in which there is a belief that since mankind has free will then God can be wrong about the future.[3] And so as Christians we ask ourselves, are these groups (or denominations) Christian and if they are not, what is the standard for verifying their lack of Christian credentials?

Now I believe that in answering the question, are we a Christian nation, we must apply the same standard that Christians apply in verifying a group’s Christian credentials. I say this because Christianity (like many other terms) find their true meaning by looking at what they meant historically, because the true meaning of the term Christianity is historically qualified within the Christian Church. In other words, I would not look to Marxism or Communism for the definition of a Christian.

What then defines a Christian, whether it be a Church, country or person? May I suggest that at least four ingredients are necessary for such a declaration?

1. One must believe in the inerrancy of the 66 books of scriptures.
2. One must believe that these 66 books are the inspired words of God.
3. One must believe that Jesus Christ is the Only Son of God and that He is the sufficient and only savior of mankind.[4]
4. One must believingly submit (from the heart) to ingredients 1, 2 and 3.

If any ingredient is missing, then I suggest that you are not dealing with a Christian Church, group or person, or country for that matter. Now before we do our analysis, allow me to suggest one more thing. It is insufficient, foolish and ultimately unfruitful (in the case of defining a group) to define that group by the individual testimony of its members. Instead, what we must do is look at the official declarations of that group. In the case of the Church, we must consider the Scriptures alone and in the case of our country, we must consider our Constitution. Accordingly, a University with a student body made up of mostly Jews is not necessarily a Jewish university unless it says so in the school’s charter; after all, a school’s location could account for its large Jewish population.

Now upon reading the constitution of the United States (which I did), I found no declaration of the inerrancy of scriptures. I found nothing about our country being bound to Holy Scriptures and I found nothing even beginning to resemble a declaration of our country’s submission to Jesus as lord over us. We do find that these Christian principles governed the lives of most of the Framers but we do not find that fact expressed in our constitution. Indeed, our constitution was informed by the Framer’s Christian worldview, even though they stopped short of creating a Christian Nation. It is not as if the Framers scratched off Holy Scriptures and wrote United States Constitution. Moreover, I defy anyone to show me that the United States constitution was intended to be a summary of the Bible in the same way a Church’s Confession of faith is.

I wished the framers were more candid about their Christian worldview as they penned the Constitution. I wished they included the Lordship of Christ over this country. They did not and so I am led to the inescapable and disappointing conclusion that Obama may have been right about this one. But he is right only within the narrow scope of his conclusion that this is not a Christian nation. The fact still remains that the set of values he alluded to that binds us as a country, are indeed Christian values even if the President doesn’t think so.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

[1] I found the quotation on The Huffington Post website (www.huffingtonpost.com)

[2] Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopalian Church, accounts a conversation he had with Archbishop of Canterbury that the Bible is basically subjectively qualified based on your own interpretation. Basically; the Bible is what you make it. To read his comments follow the following link: (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/03/gene_robinson.html)

[3] (“No other God: A response to open theism” by John Frame) John Frame answers some of the main claims of the open Theist for example: Since mankind has free will God can be wrong in His prediction of the future.

[4] The puritan William Gouge (1575-1653) in his commentary on the book of Hebrews said the following, “The main point which is aimed at throughout the whole sacred Scripture, especially in the New Testament, is the principal scope of this epistle, and the mark whereat the apostle aimeth therein, namely this, that Jesus Christ is the all-sufficient and only Saviour of man.”

The resurgence of the monarch – A tale of two Presidents

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:48:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Monarch.mp3

In light of the situation we find ourselves in as a county, coupled with the fact that we have a President for whom change is everything, I think it would be a worthwhile venture to survey our two most recent presidents. Let us now endeavor to take a look at these two men, not from our feelings and/or subjective impressions, but from an open minded look at history.

Before we get started, we (including myself) must admit that true objectivity is impossible for human beings. Yes, even Danian Michael brings his biases to every situation, but so do you. For example: It is easier for a conservative to look past the misdeeds of George Bush. During the Bush administration, Republicans in congress did not oppose the growth of government. Conversely, it is easier for Democrats and
Liberals to turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of President Obama. Democrats for example think nothing of Obama proposing a 7 trillion dollar deficit over the next 10 years, yet would not give former president Bush a moments rest for spending a small (very small) fraction of that amount on the war on terror.[1] So let’s not kid ourselves, all of us, without exception, understand this world through the prism of our belief systems.

So with this level of self-awareness (what philosophers call presuppositional self-awareness), let us now look at these two presidents to do some contrasting and comparing. Admittedly, this is a pretty ambitious task and some may even argue that it is premature, given that president Obama has only been in office for a little over 60 days. President Bush also did many things during his two terms in office, so I think it would be prudent and sufficient to narrow our focus down to two aspects of their respective approaches in governing.

Aspect number one: how they approach taxes.

I don’t want to rehash old arguments and if you do, I would encourage you to go to the Political Agenda Archives and read the article titled “Raise our taxes; take our freedom.” For this presentation I would like to get into the mind of a democrat, why are they comfortable with higher taxes? Why is it that a liberal Democrat, while drinking his wheatgrass tea and watching MSNBC, won’t choke on his drink when he hears that President Obama will increase our deficit by $7 trillion? Why does that not raise any flags within a liberal’s mind? I believe I have an answer for that question: Liberal Democrats have a profound inferiority complex. So deep is this sense of inferiority that they can’t help but feel inadequate when someone else achieves a measure of success. So profound is this problem, that when Christians try to live by a standard that says abortions are wrong or that having sex outside of marriage is immoral, many liberals respond with deep hatred for us, which I think is (as Charles Krauthammer puts it) a deep hatred of self.[2] When George Bush signed legislation that lowered taxes for ALL tax paying Americans (including the rich), he had to fend of a back-draft of fire-breathing Democrats who hated the fact that the tax cuts included successful people. And so taxing the wealthy (aka sticking it to the man) has become an end in itself; all other considerations are secondary, including bankrupting the country and all of its citizens. Why are liberals willing to sacrifice so much to gain so little, to gain nothing quite frankly? After all, taxing a complete stranger, will not affect my life in the slightest. Why then tax the wealthy? May I suggest that liberals want higher taxes on the rich for the same reason kids in high school gossip about the beautiful A-student: The success of others highlights their own failures; the playing field must be leveled! Now someone may object with good reason to my trying to speak on matters of the heart; how can I possibly know what motivates someone? That is a valid objection, but I would ask; if liberals want to tax rich people so that the poor can be helped, why does hatred for these rich people enters the picture? Why not be kind, thanking them for their hard work and treasure? Instead all we hear, time and time again, is how George Bush is giving tax breaks to his rich buddies. Why the hatred for the rich, that is what I would like to know?

Aspect number two: how they approach Presidential powers.

Perhaps the one complaint that liberal Democrats had for George Bush that angered them even more than his alleged favoritism for the wealthy, was his casual wielding of presidential might. From the Iraq war to the war on terror to his authorizing the National Security Agency to execute warrantless wiretaps, George Bush has become a type of Hitler to the left.[3] By contrast, Obama is seen as this really cool guy who is going to relinquish presidential powers accumulated by George Bush. Is this a fair appraisal of the two men? To no one’s surprise I’m going to argue that actually the reverse is true. Let’s start by taking a look at the United States Constitution: All the duties conferred to the President are found in Article II. Many things are written about the office; about who can hold the office; how to discipline and the many responsibilities of the office. I think it is noteworthy however, to point out this fact: The framers deemed it important to summarize all the many duties of the President in one statement; the oath of office, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Observe that the only duty of real and foundational importance for the President (at least in the minds of the framers) is that of protection of our way of life as Americans. President Bush, I would argue had a profound appreciation for this duty, so do I, and so should you. By contrast, Obama has a profound appreciation for his duty to implement universal healthcare, renewable energy (but not nuclear) and climate change legislation. Now I would ask of these two men, which one of them has the constitutional backing to pursue his goals as president? I think the answer is obvious; at least to me, George W. Bush. There is one other category that I think bears some scrutiny; this is perhaps the most powerful weapon the President wields in moving through an agenda: The Executive Order. By it, the United States President can decree a course of action that does not have to be voted on by congress; it is as if he has become a king. Originally, executive orders were meant only for executive office holders; the president would declare a course of action for his appointed staff. Today, executive orders are used to govern. By the way, if you look through Article II of the constitution, you will not find executive orders as one of the perks of the presidency. Anyway, did you know that President Bush in his first 60 days of office made 8 executive orders and never made more than 40 in a year? President Obama has been President for 67 days and he has already made 18.[4] There are 298 days left in the year, you do the math! Think about this, by executive order the President of the United States has decreed that my tax dollars will be used for abortions and the killing of embryos in research. For staunch pro-lifers like me, this is a complete and utter travesty, what has happened to my representation in government?

So what do we have here? Through Taxation and executive order, Obama is acting less like the democratically elected president of this republic and more like King Edward (Longshanks) of England. He feels justified in his methodology for one main reason; he is uncomfortable in his own skin. The source of that discomfort (mainly successful, hard working Americans) must be weakened in their perceived power over him and those like him. He will take from the wealthy and give it to the poor so that everyone (but not hard working Americans) can now start to feel good about themselves.

This is a recipe for disaster, of the order of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; which gave loans to people who did not deserve them for the misguided notion that poor people MUST own homes too. Do we need to shed the Monarch again, along with taxation without representation? Or will we once again pour our tea into the face of tyranny letting Washington know that we are the American people; we fought for freedom before and we will fight for it again?

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

[1] (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf) Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, October 15, 2008 The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global
War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. This CRS report show a total expenditure of $864 billion for both wars from 2001 – 2008.

[2] (I don’t have a reference as of the issuing of this article. Fox News does not keep an archive of their programs accessible to the public. I noted Charles Krauthammer’s words as I was watching the program live). Charles Krauthammer on the Fox News show, “Special Report with Brit Hume” suggested that hatred of self is at the root of Liberal Democrat’s hatred of Sarah Palin.

[3] The New York Times reported in December 2005 that the National Security Agency was conducting warrantless electronic surveillance of American citizens within the United States. The NSA was given these instructions in secret. President Bush argued that if someone in the U.S. is talking to a known terrorist via telephone, then as a matter of national security we must continue to listen to that conversation since the conversation would most likely be over or important information missed, if Agents were to stop listening to procure a warrant during that live discussion.

[4] (The American Presidency Project: www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php). This website gives a list and link to every presidential executive order ever written. In 1826 Adjutant-General R. Jones writing on behalf of recently deceased John Quincy Adams gave the first Executive Order. The order had instruction to the armed forces about how Mr. Adams would be honored at his funeral. The times have changed; Executive Orders are far more numerous in present time but now they also dictate policy to the American People. Talk about abusing a privilege; the abuse of sick-leave comes to mind, in that the privilege is rarely used for its intended purpose.

"Are you my Mommy?" Said the Stem Cell to the Scientist.

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:26:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Stem Cells.mp3

The debate over embryonic stem cell research boils down to a debate about abortion but with one difference: The difference is, people on the side of continuing this sort of research are bereft of any kind of conscience with regard to the destroying of embryos but may still disagree with or put limits on their support of abortion. Pro-life advocates may appeal to some deep seated realization of the fact that abortion is the taking of a life when we point out the fact that to perform an abortion, one must go inside an actual human being to do so. And so, some kind of connection is made between the baby in the womb and the owner of the womb, by everyone. It is no accident that pro abortion advocates place all their eggs in a basket called, “A woman’s right to choose.” Because deep down in their own hearts they know that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a trivial one to be made by anybody (not even the father).

Let me illustrate this further: what would you say to this law: “anyone, without exception, can decide to abort a baby for any reason”? For example, what if I’m a racist and I see a pregnant mixed couple? I then decide that this baby must not live and so I force the couple to perform an abortion. What if a law existed that permitted that sort of thing, what would you say to that? Unless you are a sick individual, you would cry out against such a law, wouldn’t you? I know I would. Well that is what I meant in my earlier statement that all of you, whether you are pro-abortion or pro-life, have a deep seated appreciation for the strong gravity that pulls away from the reckless performing of abortions. And so that decision (by law) is left to the person most deeply attached to the situation: The choice if left up to the woman.

Please note that in the famous case involving Scott Peterson and his murdered pregnant wife, Mr. Peterson was charged with a double homicide because his wife was pregnant.[1] If his wife had taken the life of their baby (during an abortion), it would have been no big deal and Scott would not have had any recourse. I say again, according to the law, no one but the mother can decide to abort her child; otherwise, it’s a murder. Now as I have said earlier, the debate over embryonic stem cell research boils down to a debate over abortion with one distinction; pro-abortion people have a bit of a conscience when it comes to destroying embryos inside of a person but absolutely no conscience when it come to destroying embryos inside a test tube. And I suspect it’s because in an abortion, one must confront the reality of embryos being the offspring of actual people Note: those in the test tube are from actual people too.

Let us now consider embryonic stem cell research, which by the way was never illegal under President Bush. His policy by executive order was to ban federal funding of that research.[2] I tell you the media is becoming more and more obsolete with their sloppy and/or biased reporting by saying over and over again that Barack Obama lifted the ban on stem cell research.[3] But whatever, that’s neither here nor there; the media has sold themselves to the most liberal bidder.

Embryos that are used in stem cell research do not have a mommy or a daddy. Well they do, but they are a distant abstraction. Embryos in research just “magically” show-up in a test tube; so it’s very easy (for some) to think of the subject of the research as simply a collection of cells. But at this time I must ask, “What pray-tell is the difference between a collection of cells in a woman’s womb and a collection of cells in a test tube?” I would argue that there are no important differences. And yet many will protest my argument saying that I’m missing one important similarity between the two scenarios: Women do indeed make the important decision regarding embryos carrying their DNA. No one can force a woman to give up her eggs to research; she must do so without being forced against her will. To this protest I would simply remind all of us of the fact that women give up their eggs and not a fertilized embryo. So the process for all involved is very sterile; the mother of the embryo supplies unfertilized eggs to a bank, the father of the embryo supplies sperm and the scientist who will be conducting the research simply takes material (that is to say the egg and sperm) from both banks and combines them. Life is created in that moment my friends but the people involved never meet each other and the parents never have to contemplate the destruction of their child. I think the sterile nature of embryonic stem cell research is the most disconcerting aspect of the whole process.

But consider one more thing. When he lifted the ban on federal funding for this research, President Obama said the following:

"In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research -- and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."[4]

What do we say to the President’s statements? Remember my story about Scott Peterson and the analogy of the racist who would want to abort the child of a mixed couple? If it would be absurd for a person to abort the child of a complete stranger based on his or her own racial prejudice, then why would replacing the word racist with scientist make all the absurdities go away? And, before you start saying that the scientist is trying to help people, just consider the fact that in my analogy, it would be just as absurd if instead of a racist trying to abort the child of the mixed couple, a stem cell scientist were to do so.

We must not allow ourselves to think lightly of life. What if a scientist or a doctor took eight eggs from a woman and combined them with sperm in a test tube? What if the doctor instead of destroying these eight embryos, placed them inside the womb of an irresponsible woman with no job, who lives with her mom and who already has 6 children? Well if you have no problem with embryonic stem cell research, then you have no problem with the “Octo-mom.”[5] Think about that!

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

[1] (http://www.findlaci2003.us/sharon-pres-bush.html). The law, officially the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” signed into law by President George Bush, makes killing or injuring a fetus in the midst of a federal crime a separate offense. That would cover, for example, an assault on a pregnant woman in a national park. California already has such a law, which is why Peterson was charged with two murders.

[2] www.whitehouse.gov: On August 9, 2001 President George Bush by executive order banned the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research but not the research itself.

[3] Multiple news outlets including Fox News incorrectly stated the policies set by President George Bush as a Ban on Stem cell research. This probably only amounts to sloppy reporting (in most case), yet it feeds into the silly notion that Christians (since George Bush is a professing Christian) are driven only by ideology and lack true compassion or the ability to think.

[4] The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09text-obama.html) – President Obama made the statement at the signing ceremony that lifted the ban on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

[5] The Octo-Mom (http://www.mahalo.com/Nadya_Suleman): Nadya Suleman, a single mom of 6 children paid a doctor to impregnate her with 8 live embryos. She is now the mother of 14 children.

"Let's Dig a Hole!"

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:20:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Hole.mp3

We are in unchartered territory as a country and by unchartered territory I mean unchartered in recent times. Our country has obviously gone through a lot worse. We all feel like we are walking down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, and wondering, “how will we get out of this?” As a relatively young person, I know nothing about surviving a serious economic downturn, let alone a recession. And I suspect there are many like me out there. Over and over again I hear people saying they have never seen anything like this before and I’m talking about people old enough to be my parents. Hearing the previous generation say things like, “I have never seen our economy this bad before,” makes me feel a bit uneasy. We are all asking the question, “when will we hit the bottom and how will we get going in the opposite direction?”

Well, may I suggest that President Obama’s policies are having the effect of lowering the bottom? Isn’t it amazing that every time the administration declares something, the stock market reaches a new record low? Here’s a true story that happened in Jamaica when I was about 14 years old. In Jamaica we didn’t have ice cream vans; what we had were ice cream motor cycles. The drivers would make a wooden box, pack it with dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide), then fill it with ice cream, ice cream cones, popsicles and all kinds of goodies. They would then strap this box to the back of their motor cycles, which were just a bit bigger than a moped. Yes, even in Jamaica, the spirit of the small business entrepreneur endures. Well one day, some friends of mine and I (about 5 of us altogether) concocted a plan to steal from one of these ice-cream guys. I hate to admit this but yes I was a part of this plan; this heist. The following was the plan:

First we were going to wait for a rainy day (talk about being patient, it hardly rained in this part of Jamaica). Next we dug a big hole in the path of this unfortunate ice cream man. We then filled the hole with water so that it resembled a regular puddle. When the ice cream man falls into this hole, two guys will help the poor victim out of the hole while the rest of us will take his ice cream. Well the plan worked and it worked so well that the ice cream man thanked us for our help, even though hitting the rut bent his front rim. I think back on this dark event in my life and I wish I could find this man today so that I could apologize for what I did and pay him today’s equivalent of his loss. I also hope my parents won’t read this particular article as my Dad would most certainly introduce me to his belt again. Yes, even at 38 years old (soon to be 39) I still have a respectful fear of my parents.

Fast-forward to today and think about all the people who are the backbone of our economy; all the people who get up everyday and go to work; all the people who try everyday to make money by providing a service for their fellow man. Now tell me if President Obama isn’t doing to those people what my friends and I did to that ice cream man. I’m contending that he is doing the same thing; premeditated, purposeful theft? He did the same thing that we did by using a rainy day to dig a hole for the American entrepreneur and “stealing” from him through rising taxes. Know this about my story of the ice cream man: he never returned to our community, he took his business elsewhere. And President Obama with his smooth talk has somehow tricked a large number of my countrymen into thanking him for robbing them. Will someone explain to me how the action of punishing success is stimulative? Isn’t it more logical to expect businesses to close up shop or take their business elsewhere?

Also Consider this: By punishing the hardest working people in our society and propping up the non-contributors, President Obama is not only sowing the seeds of bad behavior, he’s also sowing the seeds of our country’s demise. A dependent class of Americans is just not what we need right now. As a matter of fact, we never need a dependent class. What we need are fighters who expect nothing apart from an honest days pay for a honest days work. I’m reminded of the 761st tank battalion from my last presentation and their tenacity in fighting for what they wanted and for what they loved. I have an idea; instead of tracking the unemployment percentage, “what if we tracked the dependent class percentage and worked to minimize that group of people?”

The answer to our problems isn’t big government, it’s you and me. Because, let’s face it, the government can not hire 20 million people. But you know who can; the American entrepreneur. So instead of flocking to president Obama to save us from all this, find your employer and show him or her your support by doing the best darn job you have ever done in your entire life. And you would do well Mr. President to not dig a hole for the American Businessman.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

lessons from the 761st tank battalion. - A tribute to Black History Month.

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:39:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
761st.mp3

“They gave a good first impression, but I have no faith in the inherent fighting ability of the race. Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at the time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor.” General George S. Patton Jr. [1]

General Patton made these remarks after giving a speech to the 761st tank division during and after World War II. The day before the division entered the war, General Patton assembled the troops there and gave them a short and frank pep-talk. The 761st was the first black fighting tank division in the United States Armed forces. This short article reflects on those men and the situation they found themselves in back in the 1940’s. My hope is that reading this article will remind us of what we are capable of as Americans in light of the financial crisis we find ourselves in.

First it’s important to understand how and why these African Americans were assembled before who many consider to be one of the greatest military minds of our time. They were there purely of their own volition. They volunteered because as one of the 761st veterans puts it, “This was our country too.” Second, the United States (especially the south where these men enlisted) was pretty segregated. Another veteran noted that as he was heading off to enlist, his friends and family told him to be careful because they hang black folks down there [2]. As I listened to an interview with numerous members of the 761st, I was struck by the fact that they all expected to find an Army that would look past color, I suppose I would too. Instead what they found was an Army that didn’t want them. In fact during their training, most of them only saw one white person: Their commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel Paul L. Bates. After the first black regiment was trained, all the people doing the training left, except for Colonel Bates, and so the 761st battalion was left to their own devices. Bates volunteered to lead the 761st for two reasons: First the armed forces would not allow a black man to have a command. Second, Bates was against segregation and wanted those black servicemen to have a friendly face.

In the time leading up to combat, they trained hard and they trained long. Even though they knew the Army did not want black people on the battlefield: The black man was an inferior fighter and white servicemen did not want to serve next to them. Remarkably they didn’t loose hope and continued training harder; they knew they would be judged by “a higher standard” and that their chance would come to prove themselves.[3] I know, working harder doesn’t sound that remarkable, and yet it has been forgotten by a lot of people in our society; we want something for nothing. We have forgotten that our fellow citizens owe us nothing and that even if no one comes to our aid in life, we are still duty-bound to try harder. It is interesting that the Army’s reluctance to put African Americans on the battlefield, lead to the silent creation of one of the best fighting tank battalions in the war. The Tuskegee Airmen (the first black military airmen) had a similar story. Their flight record was so distinguished that white pilots flying bombers would ask for the “colored pilots” to escort them in to hostile air space.

The 761st did get their chance when General Patton decided to use them to provide cover for infantrymen. Their hard work culminated with a visit from General Patton himself. Patton stood atop a ‘Halftrack” and said the following to the gathered men:

“Men, you're the first Negro tankers to ever fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren't good. I have nothing but the best in my Army. I don't care what color you are as long as you go up there and kill those Kraut [SOB’s]. Everyone has their eyes on you and is expecting great things from you. Most of all your race is looking forward to your success. Don't let them down and damn you, don't let me down!”[4]

So off to battle they went and prove themselves they did. The following represents only some of their accomplishments:[5]

• Medal of Honor for Ruben Rivers.
• Presidential Unit Citation by President Jimmy Carter on January 24, 1978.
• Warren G. H. Crecy was nominated for the Medal of Honor and received a battlefield commission.
• 11 silver stars.
• 69 bronze stars.
• They fought in France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Germany, and Austria.

Our country now faces some very serious difficulties. These difficulties touch the lives of every American in some fashion. What will we do? What will you do? Many have taken the route of holding their hands out waiting for the government to save them. All the while demanding that they be saved! May we learn the lessons of the 761st tank battalion who were never given anything and expected nothing. In the face of real adversity they worked hard and prepared, looking for opportunity to serve their country and represent their race. Allow me to make the observation here that black Americans historically have risen to every challenge, particularly when they were given nothing and expected nothing. From the 761st to the Tuskegee Airmen and the civil rights movement. On the other hand, and this goes for all of us, when we are taught to feel entitled, that is the moment we falter and our human dignity evaporates.

We would do well to learn from the men of the 761st and to apply these lessons to our lives. To my fellow Americans who have lost their jobs and who may feel down in the dumps right now, may the words of Patton re-ignite a fire within us to try harder and face adversity in life with courage.

General Patton is, “…expecting great things from you. Most of all your [family] is looking forward to your success. Don't let them down and damn you, don't let me down!”

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Foot notes:

[1] “War as I knew It.” by George S. Patton.
[2] “First to fight. The black tankers of WW II.” From the history channel.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “Come out fighting – The epic tale of the 761st tank battalion. 1942-1945.” By Trezzant W. Anderson
[5] Ibid.

The Unfairness Doctrine

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:27:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Unfair.mp3

I like freedom and I like the free market. I know it’s not perfect but I think it results in the least amount of people being oppressed. Just ask yourself, what is the alternative? I can hear some of you say, “Let the government determine what’s fair,” because your man is now in the Whitehouse. But what about people like me; Christian-conservatives, is it ok for those of my kind to be oppressed?

In this presentation I’m going to tackle the folly that is the fairness doctrine and I’m going to try and make the argument that every American has a dog in this fight.

The fairness doctrine basically states the following: Holders of a broadcast licenses who cover controversial issues, must cover those issues in a manner that is balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. Sounds benign, it even sounds noble. Who would be opposed to radio stations being fair and balanced? As a matter of fact, Fox News has made fair and balanced reporting an end unto itself, and now they are No. 1. So what’s the big deal?

Let me start by saying that building this website was the easy part of my goal to be a prominent political pundit/ talk show host. Granted I did get a 13 week taste of being a talk show host (see the “Radio Show Archives”). But let me tell you, building an audience for this site is one of the hardest things I have ever had to do. It’s not easy finding that chemistry that clicks with all of you on a large scale. Chemistry of the sort that make you want to tell someone else about this site and keep you coming back can be quite elusive and for some hopelessly elusive. Now let us expand outwards to the bigger outfits; CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, Radio ONE, Clear Channel, and on it goes. They spend a lot of money to get all of you (all of us) to tune in. In the broadcast industry your ear is everything. What am I trying to say? At such time in the future when I figure out that right chemistry that makes people in masses tune in, you can be sure that I will allow nothing to ruin that. Conservative Talk radio for whatever reason, has figured out that right chemistry, and liberal talk radio has not. The government now wants to tell me your humble host, that I must now after all my hard work, present a view that is known to have been rejected by you, for the goal of being fair and balanced. Well as I have said before, your ear is everything in media and advertisers only buy ad space based on how many ears are listening to their programming, not to mention the subjective nature of what constitutes fair and balanced programming. I for example, think that as a whole, there is balance in the media with the advent of conservative talk radio. And yet democrats in congress think things are so far out of wack, that we need a fairness doctrine.

Nat Hentoff, the prominent writer and civil liberties advocate, described his own ordeal under the old restrictions:

“I was in radio under the reign of the Fairness Doctrine, at WMEX in Boston in the 1940s and early 50s. We did not have any of the present-day contentious talk radio shows, but we covered politics and politicians. I was often the announcer for the mellifluous appearance of the legendary James Michael Curley (played by Spencer Tracy in The Last Hurrah). And we did offer political opinions on the air. I, for example, did so on my jazz and folk music programs.

Suddenly, Fairness Doctrine letters started coming from the FCC and our station’s front office panicked. Lawyers had to be summoned; tapes of the accused broadcasters had to be examined with extreme care; voluminous responses had to be prepared and sent. After a few of these FCC letters, our boss announced that there would be no more controversy of any sort on WMEX. We had been muzzled.”

This is the logical conclusion to the fairness doctrine: The removal of all things controversial and/or the loss of revenue to radio stations; basically the end of conservative talk radio. The democrats in congress know this and so what we have here is a direct violation of the first amendment – the government creating laws that violate free speech and freedom of the press. I fear that the new administration has such a deep hatred for how our country functions that they will stop at nothing to reshape it in their mold, even if it means shredding the constitution and silencing opposition. Please note that as of late, only talk radio will be affected by this new doctrine. If that doesn’t raise a flag for even the staunchest liberal, I don’t know what will. I wonder what Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Stabenow and Senator Tom Harkin would say if the republicans in congress introduced a fairness doctrine for the congress of the United States. That no matter how people vote in elections, congress shall always have equal number of democrats and republicans represent the people. Of course the democrats would object saying, well the people voted and we don’t want to mess with that. And to that foolish comment I would say, “Well the prominence of conservative talk radio represents a vote of the people and more importantly their free speech. If the American people decided tomorrow that they no longer want to listen to talk radio that is the moment conservative talk radio will end.

How long will it be before the government forces my pastor to preach atheism in our church? I want all of you to think about that thing in your life that is of benefit to you, that thing in your life that promotes your wellbeing. Now think of the government stepping in and dictating to you that you must now do the opposite with equal time. What would you say to that?

This is not strictly a conservative problem, this is your problem. Because what we have in the passing of this stimulus bill and now, talk about censoring descent, are the rudiments of an irreformable socialism. Stand guard my friends, stand guard!

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Stimulus we can believe in

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:21:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then "Save Target As"
Stimulus.mp3

Once again, your humble host has taken one of the team yet again. I actually went through the Stimulus bill with a fine-tooth comb and came up with the following condensed version of how the government intends to spend 900 billion dollars of their soon to be, borrowed, printed and hijacked (from you) money.

The following is what I found:

• $209,000,000, for work on deferred maintenance at Agricultural Research Service facilities.
• $20,000,000,000, for the expansion of food stamps.
• $40,000,000,000, for health insurance for the unemployed.
• $3,000,000,000 for scientific research.
• $3,000,000,000 for welfare expansion
• $44,000,000, for necessary construction, repair, and improvement activities.
• $245,000,000, for the purpose of maintaining and modernizing the information technology system.
• $350,000,000, for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
• $50,000,000, for necessary expenses to carry out rehabilitation of structural measures.
• $5,838,000,000, for gross obligations for the principal amount of direct and guaranteed loans.
• $1,800,000,000, for an additional amount for the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, including the cost of modifying loans.

Ok so this is just a small (very small) fraction of the Stimulus Bill. But please understand that I had to read through 50 pages of this monstrosity to bring you just this small fraction. This is not easy reading and everything of substance that is stated in this bill is showered with a monsoon of words, making the substance of the bill very hard to come by.

Now president Obama has said that passing this bill is necessary to save our economy. The question for all of us is, does that make any sense; if it does make sense then by all means, pass the stupid package. My contention is however, that this does not make any sense.

First we ought to understand that there is no money to do any of this spending. And so the government must take out a loan or print new money to make this happen. Money it does not print will be borrowed and if the borrowed money isn’t from a foreign entity those moneys will be borrowed from you. But here is the kicker; the government doesn’t borrow money from its citizens, it takes money from its citizens. And take money it will. Now my question to all of you is this; which of the scenarios I just listed for acquiring $1,000,000,000,000.00 (1 trillion dollars) will have a stimulating effect on our economy? If you are up to your neck in debt (which our government is) would it be a good idea to borrow more money than you have ever borrowed before to better you financial situation? Investment banker, Bernard Madoff was finally caught because the economy went sour and people wanted their money. Now many have asked, what will happen if China and all the other holders of our debt, start insisting on repayment? Do you know what the answer typically is; well China will never do that because they need our economy. Now does that sound like a good financial strategy to you? What would happen if Bernard Madoff was asked way back then when he started his scheme, “hey what if all these people start asking for their money?” And he said, “They are not going to do that because they need me to make all kinds of money for them?” Well we know what would happen, as a matter of fact: Madoff’s scheme crashed. And that is exactly what Barack Obama and the democrats in congress are offering; a ponzi scheme; using fake money to create fake wealth and success, all the while advancing a pretty liberal agenda that would never fly through the normal process. President Obama went on television last night and did exactly what he and his fellow democrats have been accusing George Bush of for years. George Bush was accused of using fear of a second terrorist strike to advance a secret agenda to take over oil in Iraq. At least with President Bush, he took no steps to acquire Iraq’s oil. Those accusations were purely speculative, born from conspiracy theorists. But note that Barack Obama didn’t even flinch in employing the use of fear, saying that if we don’t act now and ram through this bill, the American economy will have catastrophic failure. And I don’t have to speculate as to his hidden agenda; they’re actually written down in the stimulus bill – The expansion of welfare and universal healthcare to name a few.

Here is another angle to consider: Whatever you might think of George Bush, his policies for the most part were reversible. Actually, only one of his enacted policies was not reversible. It’s the one where an entitlement was expanded. I’m of course talking about his expansion of Medicare. My point is this, this stimulus bill contains the expansion of some major entitlements. For example, it contains the rudiments of universal healthcare. When these new entitlements are signed into law, there will be no going back. And our government will do anything to keep these new entitlements going because to get rid of these new programs will mean politicians being thrown out of office. No politician will act for the greater good, if that greater good antagonizes their greater good. Instead our government may start taxing our income at 100% (slavery). Not only will Barack Obama be our first black president, he will also be the first black slave owner. They could first prove their ability to successfully manage social security before taking on anything else; now that would be an acceptable good-faith gesture for me?

Finally, and this goes for all of us; never make decision out of fear. When I look back through the pages of my life and remember the decisions I made out of fear; fear of rejection, fear of not fitting in, fear of upsetting someone I care about - all those decisions, without exception resulted in disaster. Our president is afraid - afraid of failure, afraid of being a single-term president and he’s afraid of not being thought of as, “The One.” Not to mention his liberal worldview which grows out of a fear of being accountable.

Some of you may not know this but Michigan has the worst economy in the country with its high unemployment (already at 10%) and its high taxes. Our new president has the liberal play-book open and he is using that book to the letter – just as Jennifer Granholm the Governor of Michigan did. So here now is change we can believe in: President Obama will change the United States of America to the United State of Michigan.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Dear Mr. President, this conservative wants you to fail.

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:57:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Failure.mp3

I find myself using a lot of analogies lately and this presentation will continue that trend. First and foremost, I need you to understand one thing; President Obama (It’s still weird for me to say that), is not a terrorist. This is not a premise for my argument so if anyone brings this up again, whether personally or on my blog, I’ll just have to correct you again. So no, President Obama is not a terrorist. I also need you to remember what an analogy is, like I said last time, an analogy is comparing two things with differences and similarities to gain clarity on one of the two things being compared.

So do we understand each other? Let us begin. There is a war being fought right now in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. The two groups believe of themselves that their goals are noble. Israel wants to just be left alone and for Hamas to stop firing rockets into their country. Hamas on the other hand are seeking the total annihilation of Israel. My question to you is this, who do we wish to succeed? Now many republicans (not conservatives) are saying, we need to support this new president and hope for his success. Well we need to ask the republicans making this silly request, how do you define success? If by success they mean the betterment of the United States then yes, this conservative wishes that. The problem lies in the incompatibility of President Obama’s goals with the betterment of this country - in the same way Hamas’ goals are incompatible with the betterment of any country or anyone for that matter.

So then what are President Obama’s beliefs and by implication, his goals?

On Social issues:
• He does not believe that a fetus is a human being until after 9 months. He expressed this view on the floor of the Illinois senate as he was explaining why a survivor of a botched abortion is owed no medical care.
• He believes that homosexual couples are equal in every way to heterosexual couples. He did stop short of supporting gay marriage but that strikes me as being rather inconsistent. My point is this; people who are on the side of gay marriage have a friend in the White house now.
• He has never opposed his party’s liberal views on anything. He was the most liberal senator.

On economic issues:
• He believes high taxes are awesome.
• He believes that all major industries would be better off if they were run by the government. So he’s definitely socialistic in his views.

On matters pertaining to government:
• He thinks Justice Clarence Thomas is not smart enough to serve on the Supreme Court.
• He wants our courts to be fair (to the small man) not just. So that our courts would no longer be guided by the constitution.
• He believes that government is the rightful benefactor of we the people.

On national defense:
• He does not believe in gaining information from terrorist by any force.
• He does not believe the United States has the moral high ground in the war on terror.
• Warrantless wire taps should be strictly prohibited in gaining intelligence on our enemies.
• He wants to quit in Iraq before the job is done.
• He thinks it is ok to advise the president of Iraq without the permission of the president (then George Bush).

Finally on love for country: Obama blames the United States at every opportunity, even on foreign soil.

There is so much more I could add to this list but as Shakespeare once wrote, “Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief.” Now I understand that you might have a more liberal worldview. And in your case I could see why you might be able to wish President Obama success in his endeavors. Please understand however that as a conservative and given everything this man believes in; I could no more wish for the success of Hamas than I could the success of President Obama because in my heart I believe his views, if he’s successful at carrying them out, will ultimately hurt the country. And so although my title for this week sounds somewhat mean-spirited, It is not meant that way, in fact I have a tremendous amount of respect for the office.

I don’t wish him success but I do wish him God’s blessings and a speedy recovery from his liberal affliction. After that miracle occurs I Danian Michael will join the chorus line wishing President Obama success. Until such time however, this conservative whishes him failure. God bless America!

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Affirmative action illustrated

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:41:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Affirmative.mp3

Affirmation action illustrated. What does the controversy surrounding Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris have to do with affirmative action? As I was formulating this article, I did some research to find others who have taken this angle and as far as I can tell, I am the first. And so once again, you are in for a unique treat here at Political Agenda.

I am going to make my point by using an analogy. Remember what an analogy is; it is a tool used for gaining clarity by comparing two things that have similarities and differences all at the same time. This is important to remember throughout this article because you will be tempted to think that Danian Michael believes that affirmative action is at work here in the selection of Roland Burris by Governor Blagojevich; I of course do not believe that. In fact, affirmative action is the thing I hope to make clearer in using this analogy, or at the very least, certain aspects of it.

Let’s start with affirmative action: What is unclear about it? Well in my opinion many who advocate this way of leveling the playing field, remain in the dark about the negative effects it has on its beneficiaries, mainly minorities and more to the point, African Americans. They, that is to say advocates of affirmative action, believe that the country is still way too racist to expect a level playing field in the pursuit of the American dream. A point that I have strong disagreement with. As a matter of fact, I believe that African Americans are now more likely to judge based on race than any other group, including white Americans. I refer you to my blog titled, “How the table has turned,” where I argued that the election of a black man to the presidency could not have been possible in a racist country where only 13% of the population is black. White Americans had to have voted for him in great numbers for this to have been possible. Furthermore, when senate democrats rejected Roland Burris for reasons I thought were obvious, a group of black congressmen, also know as the Black Caucus, decided to call their fellow white senators a bunch of racists. They might be a bunch of fools, but racists, I don’t think so. Now let me set up my analogy using the Blagojevich-Burris controversy. And remember, I’m trying to clarify a point about affirmative action:

Rod Blagojevich represents the government, Roland Burris represents African Americans and senate democrats represent the rest of us (oh if that were true) in this analogy of affirmative action. Now what happened when Mr. Burris tried to take his seat on the senate, well he was rejected by the senators. And why, because they believed that something stunk about the way in which he got there. Furthermore, they believed that his dubious selection by a tainted Governor would cast a cloud over everything he will do as a Senator. What’s my point here? When we the people, people who have worked hard for the positions we hold in life, see someone else (who may very well be qualified) who is given a position of privilege for reasons that do not measure up to a standard, (affirmative action being one such standard which doesn’t measure up) then of course -like congress- we will protest and reject that appointment. But even more importantly, the people who are supposed to be helped by affirmative action will always have a cloud over everything they do. Think about this, if Roland Burris is allowed to take a seat on the Senates and it now looks like he will, and knowing Blagojevich tried to sell that very seat to the highest bidder, how will we ever be able to take Senator Burris seriously? And so affirmative action boils down to this; selling seats to the blackest bidder. President Bush had something similar to this taint his presidency, because many Americans thought he won Florida through questionable means and he was never able to fully shake that stigma even though by all accounts, he actually won Florida.

Affirmative action must not be allowed to continue anywhere because it undermines the legitimate accomplishments of minorities and it impedes their growth. If African Americans are just left alone and allowed to compete by the same standards as everyone else - and that includes not holding us back because of our color - I have no doubt we will surprise everyone and we may even surprise ourselves.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-13

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:58:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA show 13.mp3

ENDING THE ABORTION DEBATE. OBAMA'S SPEECH AT THE DEMOCRAT CONVENTION.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-12

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:55:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA show 12.mp3

BARACK OBAMA'S VIEW ON BABIES WHO SURVIVE AN ABORTION.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-11

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:52:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA show 11.mp3

CONTINUED THE ABORTION DEBATE.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-10

noreply@blogger.com (Danian Michael) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:50:00 +0000

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA show 10.mp3

I AM A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE OF MY VIEWS ON ABORTION.