Obama pledge/national anthem/flag pin ... Huh?

August J. Pollak's toon is perfect. While winding up my time at Fort Benning's Infantry training program a photo/video that showed Barack Obama not placing his hand over his heart during the singing of the National Anthem, originally and perhaps even now claimed by some to be during the Pledge of Allegiance, plus news that he was no longer wearing an American flag lapel pin, was briefly covered. Today, I had a discussion where someone raised the issue and darned if I wasn't lost.

Here's the deal ... Senator Obama was at Senator Tom Harkin's famous Steak Fry up in Iowa. Somebody was "singing" the National Anthem. Senator Obama, unlike apparently the other Democratic candidates, was just standing there rather than placing his hand over his heart. A YouTube video is here, with the Tuber claiming that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance for religious reasons. I find it classic that somehow emails and some "news" outlets make the leap that Senator Obama is not willing to say or even participate in the Pledge of Allegiance so I ought not to expect more from a dittohead Tuber I reckon. Here's a long video of Obama leading the Senate where he calls on a woman to pray and then (at around 1:40) leads the chamber in the Pledge for example. What was that Tuber claiming?

So let's return to the issue of how he acted during the National Anthem. Slate's Torie Bosch explains the relevant law on how the national anthem is to be handled. I was also fuzzy on the legal requirements ... and I did not come close to editing the Harvard Law Review as did Counselor Obama. Perhaps he was shaken by the singing? In some situations he has placed his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. As for the flag lapel pin issue, Senator Obama explains his decisions rather reasonably. While the following might indicate much that's wrong with both our media and electorate, coverage soon followed showing that several of the candidates wearing various or even no lapel pins.

Finally, the whole idea that Barack Obama is some type of radical Islamist, or even Muslim for that matter, is pure and unadulterated BS. Snopes, CNN, Politico, and even the Obama 08 site can help those who need enlightening. Or you can turn to Faux News, Debbie Schlussel, Reverend Moon's Insight Magazine, and I'm sure plenty of other right wing hacks if that's what you want to be told. There's perhaps even some "on the left" that are hoping to help Hillary or other candidates by these types of dirty tricks.

For the record, I'm not supporting Barack Obama yet. If he's the Democratic nominee I probably will. My concern is that so many people, even decent and smart folks, fall for this type of misdirection or dare I call it plain foolishness. The right has perfected the art of the whisper and initial labeling. Another post for another day. P/W

Starting the day frustrated with old folks yet ...

I'll admit a near total meltdown over Professor Stanley Fish writing George Bush: The Comeback Kid in his Think Again column in the Gray Lady. He predicts that "within a year of the day he leaves office, and no matter who succeeds him, George W. Bush will be a popular public figure, regarded with affection and a little nostalgia even by those who voted against him and thought he was the worst president in our history." Those writing a response to his prophecy seem to universally think Dr. Fish does need to think again.

Krissah Williams Thompson of the WaPo files Brothers in arms hit road for McCain: GOP candidate enjoys backing of veterans and their families and I'm a touch bothered by her reporting. I'm mostly frustrated with the one demographic that does seem to reliably lean McCain's way. Ms. Thompson's writing that Mc$ame has "the fervent backing of a fraternity of veterans and their families" early on is finally contrasted with the fact that Senator Obama has outraised Huggy in overseas donations from the troops plus the fact taht only Obama actually supported the new and improved GI Bill. I'm pleased that the Obama/Biden effort is more than capable of pushing back on this piece.

I've mentioned that St. John doesn't always walk the talk when it comes down to supporting the military yet one supporter, a Col. Moe who was a fellow POW with McCain, offered the following:

When a question about McCain's votes on such bills came up at the breakfast, Col. Moe said, "Now, ask yourself, does it make sense that John McCain, who has served and sacrificed so much for this country, would not support veterans? Is it logical to you for a man who has served his country as a war hero? Most of these bills had a lot of pork in them."

The legislation is expensive, yet a fraction of bailing out Wall Street, but I'm hardly aware of it having much "pork". Conservatism will of course mandate, via Bu$hCo's executive action rather than by the actual legislation, some profits for business yet I doubt that troubles Col. Moe? Also, I'd think the increased revenues gained from educating veterans more completely would offset or perhaps even eclipse the costs.

Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel certainly also qualify as a "war hero" don't they and they were out front on this issue. John McCain is now claiming credit for improving the legislation and perhaps that's legitimate. Col. Moe and his friend can't have it both ways however. Huggy is also crossways with the VFW over his “Veterans’ Care Access Card" that is a backdoor way to start breaking down a relatively solid gov't run health care effort.

I bragged on Ms. Thompson just yesterday for compassionately covering disaffected poor people in Mississippi yet this reporting troubled me. Perhaps she was simply examining the generational divide? Maybe it was about the fact that a few votes in a few places may decide this election? I do like how she digs out quotes from regular people and generally tries to provide some factual context to their opinions and claims.

Finally, there's also a some writing about and a quote from Karen McTague, 54, treasurer of the Ottawa County (PA) Republicans, which troubles me.

It is what she doesn't know about Obama that worries her. The Democratic nominee has spoken frequently about his Christian faith, his commitment to national security and his love of country, but McTague said she still harbors fears about his background because Obama's father, whom the candidate hardly knew, was raised as a Muslim.

"If it looks like he appeals to Muslims, those countries may think they have opportunity," she said.

You mean the opportunity to have leaders from the House of Saud come here and hold hands with the President? The opportunity to buy up many our assets due to the GOP once again running the country into the ground? I suppose they've had to fall fall back on the "if he looks like he appeals" angle as all the false flag efforts have pretty much faded to all but the most loopy.

I've mentioned Dr. Malcom Cutchins' columns here and here yet all of his work may be found here. Perhaps he, Dr. Fish, and Col. Moe should meet? John Gunn

UPDATE ~ I've got another more seasoned soul for the Cutchins crew and she's right there in Auburn. Sis Burleson might enjoying traveling but I fear she's ventured way off into crazy base land with the following:

Why won’t Obama give back to charity from all of his riches?

Barack Obama, the American Red Cross needs your help!

The American Red Cross had made an urgent plea for funds to assist people who have experienced natural disasters this year (fires, storms, floods and hurricanes).

Maybe you and your Hollywood friends who collected all that money from your fundraiser on the West Coast want to give to the people of the Texas coast that have no water, electricity or a home. It surely would give them hope!

All your friends that hate America have no problem making all those millions in this country.

Why not give back — it’s the patriotic thing to do.

By the way, have you added up how much money you’ve spent on fuel these past two years flying everywhere, any time and several times? Bet you could clothe and house, pay off mortgages, pay health care premiums, gasoline this year for most of the U.S. population. Think how many less carbon footprints you could have saved.

Will you tell the Red Cross you are going to divert these funds to this volunteer organization?

Sis Burleson, Auburn

UPDATE - 03 November 2009 - I made a slight change to the above as suggesting Dr. Cutchins thinks the way he does even partly due to his being somewhat more "seasoned" than some isn't very nice.

Cal Thomas - Gets ink in even The Anniston Star

Cal Thomas, a right wing nut job with a long record of foolishness, finds his way into my regional paper from back home with The next attack: Coming soon where he combines an attack on the Supremes, at least five of them, for their recent decision on the mess resulting from Bu$hCo's Overplaying Its Hand at Gitmo and beyond, with some other over the top writing.

The WaPo's Michael Ambramowitz files White House Dismissed Legal Advice On Detainees that further confirms how Bu$hCo ignored the advice of various lawyers and others within the gov't on indefinite detention that rationally explains how the Supremes came to the point where they once again had to step in and reel in the White House yet Cal and the fear mongers see a chance to push their radicalism. Cal Thomas should be ashamed. He writes:

Will the dead be wrapped in a copy of the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling granting foreign detainees, whose mission is to destroy our Constitution, our country and way of life, the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their detention, a right that should be reserved only for American citizens? Perhaps inside the caskets can go a statement by the State Department refusing to close Islamic schools underwritten by the government of Saudi Arabia, which teach visceral hatred of Jews, Christians and all things Western. ...

What is the purpose of the Saudi Islamic Academy and similar religious sites around the country if not to serve as cover for terrorists intent on endangering the public safety?

OMG! Let's ignore his over the top language and fear mongering and focus first on allegations related to the Islamic Saudi Academy. Google it and you'll get coverage ranging from World Nut Daily to Right Side News to Baptist Press to ... Please understand that I am in no way sympathetic to much of what the Kingdom of Saud represents and do indeed know that most of the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. The Saudis literally have us over a barrel. As an aside, the Bu$h family has a long relationship with the Saudis yet I consider that issue, like the ISA, a distraction from the larger issue that Cal is flailing.

One piece that caught my eye on the ISA was Cinnamon (no, I'm not making up that name) Stillwell's Islam in America's public schools: Education or indoctrination? in the San Francisco Chronicle, an allegedly liberal rag. Cinnamon is affiliated with Campus Watch and is perhaps paid to stir up a stink so I'm wondering why this paper gives her space. Campus Watch is the spawn of Daniel Pipes who was a part of the lies that Barack Obama is some sort of secret Muslim.

For a less hysterical look at the Islamic Saudi Academy I'll turn to the WaPo's Kirstin Downey for her Board Extends Saudi School's Lease: Supervisor Finds No Reason for Concern Over Textbooks, Teachings. She writes in part the following:

Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, testified before the board in opposition to the extension of the lease, saying ... Saudi Arabian schools promote jihad, or religious war against nonbelievers.

She said she believes that county officials had made their decision out of "political correctness" and that it was a problem to have a school teaching violence so near ... Lafferty said Hyland was a "patsy" for the school.

This Traditional Values Coalition is an outfit that I'd ran across before yet failed to post on. I note their Who Are Barack And Michelle Obama? Their Homosexual Urban Legends is another. People for the American Way provides a solid summary of their efforts. Online Journal provides another. From back in 2004 Hanna Rosin of the WaPo also reports A Family Business: For the Rev. Lou Sheldon And His Daughter, Marriage Means Only One Thing.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's recent Saudi Arabia: USCIRF Confirms Material Inciting Violence, Intolerance Remains in Textbooks Used at Saudi Government's Islamic Saudi Academy indeed merits some concern yet they surely aren't claiming, as Cal is, that "We are allowing a training ground for future terrorists on American soil."

Cal also claims "the Supreme Court decision will cause collateral damage. Granting terrorists seized on the battlefield access to civilian courts also sends another message; America is not serious about winning the war." Looking like sissies with a system of law that at times works is obviously more dangerous than an Executive Branch running roughshod over our Consitution and traditions. My understanding is that people in the Middle East living under totalitarian regimes are watching with admiration how the Israelis are seemingly handling the corruption in their government. Might people in the world see the rule of law in a more favorable way than Cal suggests?

George Will, surely a conservative, even measured against Cal Thomas, filed Contempt Of Courts: McCain's Posturing On Guantanamo in the WaPo just recently where he writes in part the following:

The nine justices are of varying quality, but there are not five fools or knaves. The question of the detainees' -- and the government's -- rights is a matter about which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to cause a government to release a prisoner or show through due process why the prisoner should be held. Of Guantanamo's approximately 270 detainees, many certainly are dangerous "enemy combatants." Some probably are not. None will be released by the court's decision, which does not even guarantee a right to a hearing. Rather, it guarantees only a right to request a hearing. Courts retain considerable discretion regarding such requests.

As such, the Supreme Court's ruling only begins marking a boundary against government's otherwise boundless power to detain people indefinitely, treating Guantanamo as (in Barack Obama's characterization) "a legal black hole." And public habeas hearings might benefit the Bush administration by reminding Americans how bad its worst enemies are.

George Will's reasoning and writing on this case is certainly appreciated as opposed to Cal's rambling. And once again ... what is "the war"? You can't fight terror or extremism!

Cal also writes, " According to Justice Antonin Scalia, 30 former detainees have 'allegedly' returned to the battlefield to kill American troops and others. On whose hands should be their blood?" Tom Lasseter of McClatchy has a timely piece titled Studies differ on threat from Guantanamo detainees that throws a little water on Justice Scalia's thinking, plus the talking points that Cal and John McCain and ... will now recycle through the right wing echo chambers. Here's a great place to share McClatchy's Beyond the Law effort. Journalism is still being practiced by at least some outfits.

Cal then writes, "This is bound to demoralize our soldiers who will wonder why they should bother to seize terrorists at all if they are just going to be released. They might kill them all in the field, but then they would probably be court-martialed." Thanks for the confidence in my/our professionalism ... not that Cal understands that construct given his long record of spreading wingnuttery into the heartland. How and why this goober gets ink into so many places is truly a mystery to me. John Gunn

Bill Maher's New Rules - Pols & pundits should stop saying "the American people are smarter than that"

Wickedly clever as always, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, delivers this past weekend. I'll send you to Logan Murphy's post at Crooks and Liars for another way to view Maher's New Rules. Maher spends some time ridiculing claims that Barack Obama is a Muslim ties into recent posts on Rep. Steve King's crazy comments and another recent post examining Senator Obama's middle name. I hope Bill Maher will keep on making us laugh ... and think. John Gunn

Thank God for Texas?

Richard S. Dunham of the Houston Chronicle files a report indicating 23% of Texans think Obama is Muslim. I also noted, "Just 34 percent of Texans approve of Bush's job performance — a big change for a former governor who won re-election 10 years ago with 70 percent of the vote. And Congress is even more unpopular: Just 8 percent of Texas voters approve of the work being done on Capitol Hill." John Gunn