Let me be upfront, I am NOT a John McCain supporter. I have major problems with his policy positions, as they have generally listed to the left side of the political aisle and despite his recent sop to conservative sensibilities, I do not trust him to govern from the right if elected. He has co-sponsored a bill that gutted the 1^st Amendment, he sponsored a bill that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants if it had passed, he opposed the very tax cuts that he now lauds, and he is suspect in his taste in judicial appointments. For those reasons, and others, I cannot in good conscience support McCain’s candidacy for the Oval Office.

However, I am becoming more and more appalled by the way too many conservatives are attacking McCain; too much of it is becoming personal and not focused on policy differences. I am seeing conservatives attack the man’s honor on a personal level that is totally unbecoming of the conservative movement. Generally conservatives have claimed to be about ideas, and have always tried to explain their differences with others by pointing out the differences in ideas, not by taking personal potshots at their adversaries. That has generally been the province of the liberals, who stoop to ad hominem attacks when they are unable to refute the ideas of the other side; but in this election, and with this candidate the right has unleashed a torrent of abuse on this man.

One of the things that many are using to assail McCain’s personal honor and integrity is his divorce from his first wife. “Why, she stood by him while he was in Vietnam,” they say, only to have him divorce her after he returned from his captivity. “The fact that he divorced his first wife,” say the anti-McCain crowd, “is evidence that he has no honor.” But honestly, how silly an argument is that? We do not know the circumstances of their marriage before he went to Vietnam, we don’t know the circumstances of the marriage while he served in Vietnam, and we have no idea of what their circumstances were after he was released from his extended stay at “The Hanoi Hilton”. I am pretty sure that 5 years of captivity and torture will change a man, so that the John McCain who came back from Hanoi was not the same dashing young pilot who shipped out.

But the point is, this has nothing to do with his qualifications to be President, and should have no place in the debate over whether or not to support him. Electing a President is supposed to be about ideas and the direction a candidate plans to take the nation; not about his personal failings from decades ago.

If you want to support McCain, that’s your business…, I’m not trying to sway anyone for or against him. But if you are one of the people who cannot find it in themselves to support him, would it kill you to base your opposition on something substantive? Confine it to the issues and policy differences at hand, and leave the personal attacks out of it. I would like to think that conservatives could argue their points without attempting to destroy the man holding an opposite viewpoint.

I would like to think that we are better than that.

Once again the so-called “N-word” has made an appearance in the public eye and touched off a firestorm of controversy. In case anyone missed it, the Reverend Jesse Jackson actually used the so-called “N-word” when lamenting that Barack Obama was “talking down to n_ggers” about continuing to pursue faith based initiatives to help solve some of the problems that blacks face today, instead of relying solely on the government. Whether or not this was simple campaign rhetoric or not, and I personally think it was, is beside the point; the point is that Jackson chose to use a vile term in describing his alleged constituency.

The flap grew even hotter when it was discussed by the resident geo-political and renowned social commentators on “The View”, the sorry excuse for a talk show fronted by Barbara Walters, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and some chick named Sherri whose main claim to fame is being the black woman to replace Star Jones on the show. They got into a discussion about it that included Whoopi and Sherri saying that it is perfectly fine for blacks to call each other n*gger, but that whites better not let it come from their mouths, and with Whoopi bringing la Hasselbeck to tears by telling her that blacks and whites live in “different worlds”.

What struck me about all of this is that anyone in the black community, much less a high profile person like Whoopi Goldberg would have the audacity to try to continue the myth that n*gger has some transcendent, positive meaning or connotation when used among blacks. I have been black for all of my life and I have rarely seen that word used as anything other than what it is, namely an insult. For a short time young black men walked around saying that their friends were their “n-words” and it may still go on today; but for as long as I can remember the adults that were around me only used that word as a put down. It was usually attached to a person that was lazy, shiftless, a drain in the community, and someone that was not particularly welcome in the community because of the above mentioned traits. I am not defending their use of that word here, but simply trying to point out that even among blacks the word is most definitely a negative depiction of blacks.

But my broader point is that as far as I am concerned, the “n-word” is one that none of us should be using to refer to one another. No matter how much people try to “reclaim” the word, nothing they do is going to redefine it; the age old meaning is going to hold true. There is a reason that Jews don’t refer to each other as “kike”; that Hispanics/Latinos do not call themselves “spics”; why Chinese do not call themselves “chinks”; why Vietnamese do not call themselves “gooks”, and why Italians do not call themselves “dagos”. They don’t do it because they know that their feeble attempts at “reclaiming” a slur does not undo the pain, hurt, and racism embodied in that word. Some words are unchanging, and quite honestly they should be unchanged. Some words need to be preserved to show our younger generations just how vile and hurtful some words can be, and they should be taught that these words are anathema to any thinking person trying to function in an ethnically diverse society.

Slurring a person or ethnic group is never alright, even if the slur comes from within the group; in fact, slurring from inside the group may be worse than if it comes from outside the group. When a person uses one of these words to attack someone within his own ethnicity, he is unleashing the worst word he can find in an effort to destroy that person; there can be no doubt about the intent if another black person gets angry at me and drops the “n-word” on me. So instead of trying to “reclaim” a slur, or trying to justify its use, we should be doing everything we can to eradicate it from our vocabularies, and we should damned sure be teaching our children what the word means and why it is on the same level as a curse word. Because when we make excuses for its use, all we do is keep the word in circulation and give others our implicit imprimatur for its use.

Maybe Whoopi, Sherri, and others will keep that in mind the next time a Michael Richards does off the deep end, because it’s just a “term of endearment.”

What has gotten into President Bush? I was watching his press conference on FNC today and was pleasantly surprised by his attitude and answers to the press on questions about the economy and the energy situation. For the first time in a ling time, President Bush went right after the questioners and their premises, and he made sure that he was going to be heard. I especially liked how he told the assembled media that the talk now about how drilling for American oil reserves now would only impact things in 7 years or so, that if they had taken action when he first suggested it we would be reaping the benefits now! And he followed that up by saying that it would in fact help the situation today, because it would impact the futures markets; if the speculators knew that America was about to start producing more oil it would bring prices back to earth because it introduces more supply into the market pipeline.

Listening to this I thought I would fall out of my chair! For all of the talk of Bush being stupid, ignorant, and disengaged he was at his finest today against the loyal opposition,er…assembled media (yeah, that’s it!). He also shot down the idea of opening up the strategic oil reserves; he pointed out that opening up the reserves might help some in the (very) short term; it would not do anything about the future crunch and would just cause another problem by depleting the reserves. Where has this guy been for the last 3-4 years?!

I guess that knowing that you’re pretty much done in the job can be liberating, and allow you to say what you want. Hopefully he keeps it up through the end of his term, because that presser today was must see TV!

There are many reasons to distrust the Democratic Party, among them their penchant for tax increases, governmental interference and growth, and their tendency to support social engineering as good policy. But the issue that gives people the most pause with the Democrats is their seeming fundamental fumbling with foreign policy. The last two Democratic administrations have presided over the loss of Iran to Islamic extremists, the loss of valuable secrets to the Communist PRC, and the complete boondoggle of building nuclear reactors in North Korea in exchange for their “abandoning” their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

This morning on Fox & Friends we were treated to another shining example of the obtuseness of Democrats in the field of foreign policy. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) was being asked by host Steve Doocy about the recent Iranian missile tests and the prospects of actually sitting down and negotiating with Iranian President Ahmadenijad. In answer to the inquiries, Gov. Richardson goes into this speech about how we should negotiate with Iran, but not with their President; according to Richardson, we should be talking to the “moderate” clerics in Iran, and besides Ahmadenijad is not looking too strong in the next Iranian presidential elections!

To which I say, WTF!?! This is just the type of foolishness you can expect from Democrats in the realm of foreign affairs, and it would be funny if it weren’t so serious. In what world does Mr. Richardson live, where the presidential politics of Iran even matter? Does he not understand how things work in Iranian politics? And who are these “moderate” clerical plenipotentiaries that he expects to negotiate with?

In case Gov. Richardson doesn’t understand, there are no free elections in Iran, so their presidential elections do not matter. The President does not run anything in Iran, the Guardian’s Council does, and no one is even going to be on the ballot unless the Council allows it. And you can bet that anyone serving as President of Iran is but a mouthpiece for the Council; that person is no more independent of the Council than Quisling was independent of the Nazi Party. So worrying about upcoming Iranian presidential elections is a waste of time and energy, because whoever occupies that office is still the puppet of the Council.

As for the idea that there are “moderate” clerics for us to talk to, that is laughable. There may be some moderate clerics in Iran; as a matter of fact I am pretty sure there are some. The only thing is, they don’t sit on the Guardian’s Council, and they damned sure are not the highest cleric in the land! You can talk to a million moderate clerics, but that will not do you any good so long as the Guardian’s Council exists. They are the only group of clerics in Iran whose voices matter, and they are committed to the Islamic Revolution launched by Ayatollah Khomeini and have actively worked to export their revolution all over the region. And these are the people we are supposed to be negotiating with?

This is what makes the Democrats so dangerous in foreign policy; they see everything as analogous to our political system. You see it when they urge endless jawboning when action is urgently necessary, and you see it when a person who should know better puts his faith in a change of the President in a country ruled by a council of twelve clerics! They fail to realize that these foreign governments don’t work like ours, and mostly are not interested in working with us! Iran is not interested in negotiating with us; they are interested in our ultimate destruction and in their ascendance to the position of primary power in the Middle East. Nothing else really matters to them, and the quicker the Democrats figure that out the better off they will be. Then they can have a say in the foreign policy of the United States that makes sense, and is not diametrically opposed to our national interests.

God help us if these people get their hands back on the foreign policy apparatus of the United States, because they are a disaster waiting to happen.

About 8 years ago I was having a conversation with my cousin about the political scene in America, and about the American experience in general, when he began to say things about how bad it was in America and how that was leading him to vote for Al Gore for President. As he began to say all of these negative things about America, I started to defend the country, but I felt like I needed to soften my comments so I said, “Don’t get me wrong, because I don’t love America all that much.” As soon as I heard those words come out of my mouth, I realized the import of what I had just said…that I didn’t love America. I think that it was a way to affirm my “blackness” to him, since we were both going through our “F**k Amerikka, I’m pro Black” stage and listening to a lot of rap music that was as hard on America as anyone on the left has ever been.

But as I realized what I had just said, that I didn’t love America, I felt ashamed to have let those words pass my lips…because they were a damnable lie. I did love America, and at that moment I proceeded to tell him so, and I proceeded to tell him why he should love America too. And at that moment I also realized that there is nothing that can make me not love this country, because there are none like it in all the earth.

And my love for America is unconditional in its nature. For my money, that is the only kind of love that exists and if a person puts conditions on love, there is no love there. Just as I love my wife without preconditions, and just as I love my children no matter what, so do I love my country. I know that America is not perfect, and I know that she never will be, but that does not diminish my love for her in the least.

I know all about America’s “original sin” and the effects of it down through the years, yet that does not dim my affection for this nation of ours. I look at it as I do with the people in my life that I love; it is something that cannot necessarily be forgotten, but it is something that must be forgiven. I have long forgiven America for the slave trade because she did her best to make amends for it; she fought a war and sacrificed thousands upon thousands of her best young men to make it right, and that effort shows me that America recognized her wrongs and was willing to go through hell to make it right.

I have forgiven her for her allowing Jim Crow to rise and predominate for so many years because I have seen the struggle to break those bonds brought to a successful end. Again, I saw people who had no direct contact with the problems of Jim Crow risk their very lives and some give the same, to bring the reality of America into line with the promise of America. And I have seen the American government institute program after program to attempt to make the victims of Jim Crow and their progeny whole as citizens of this land. I may not agree with the continuation of these programs at the present time, but I can recognize the reasoning behind them, and the fact that America, once again, was attempting to make things right.

And no matter which political Party “runs” the country, no matter who sits in the Oval Office, my love for America will not wane. No matter what happens in our political system, I will celebrate America in all of her glory. Where else in the world would I, the grandson of a sharecropper, have the opportunities in life that I have had to work and educate myself, and to build a brighter future for myself and my family? Where else would I have the freedom to say what I think about politics, religion, or society without having to worry about some type of official reprisal? Where else would I have the opportunity to make of my life what I will, regardless of my race, ethnicity, gender, or family background?

 When I joined Town Hall I chose the name Flag-waver to let people know that no matter what, thick or thin, come what may I would be standing on top of the hill waving that banner that represents so much that is good in the world. And I chose it to always remind myself of what I once said and to repudiate it.

Because I love this country, I love its past, its present, and I look forward to its future. I love this country for what it is and what it aspires to be. And I love this country without regret or reservation.

Unconditionally.

They’re at it again. The press and the Obama campaign now have to explain the words of another preacher spoken in the pulpit at the Trinity UCC. First it was Reverend Jeremiah Wright damning America and pushing wild ghetto conspiracy theories from the pulpit, and now it is Fr. Pfleger mocking Hillary Clinton and insinuating that she is racially biased because “There’s a black man stealing my show!” And predictably the press is falling back on the fact that both Wright and his Trinity UCC and Pfleger’s church do good works in their communities as a shield for the words that come from their mouths. Basically we are being told that their actions outweigh their words, and many are willing to simply go along with that line of reasoning. After all, it’s not so much what you say as what you do, right

Well, it is not quite as simple as that. Open your Bibles, if you please, to Matthew 12:33-37 which reads:

            “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (NKJV)

See, what this means is that words do matter, and the words you speak often times will speak louder than any works you may do. What you say is not by accident, but is what you have in the depths of your heart. Good works can be done by anyone, and often they are done for the benefit of the person doing them, but the words spoken when you are among friends are much more likely to be a window to the “true you”.

This brings me back to Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger, and the words that have been spoken from the pulpit of Trinity UCC. It seems to me that both Pfleger and Wright have used the good works done by their churches to shield themselves from the words that they have spoken time and again. They say, “Why I was wrong to say that, I’m so sorry to anyone I may have offended, but look at my neighborhood outreach. That justifies me.” But the Lord says, “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” It doesn’t get too much simpler than that, in my book!

 And that is why words truly do matter, my friends.

Benedict Arnold. The name says it all, doesn’t it? It is a rarity when a man’s name becomes synonymous with anything in this world, but in this case there is no doubt what this name means. It ranks right up there with Judas Iscariot in recognition and in infamy. As surely as the name George Washington signifies leadership; as Socrates signifies learning; as Alexander signifies conquest, so does the name Benedict Arnold signify betrayal to the American mind.

We all know the story of how Arnold conspired with the British intelligence officer Major John Andre to turn over the key American military post of Fort Arnold, now West Point, on the Hudson River. Most have taken as gospel that the reasoning behind Arnold’s betrayal was about money, or love, or hurt pride. And all of that is true to a certain extent, but many have never stopped to think of the feelings, emotions, and actions that really drove Arnold to leave the Continental Army of which he had been such an instrumental part. What could make this officer, this hero; turn his back on the very men he had commanded with such valor in battles in Saratoga, in Quebec, at Fort Ticonderoga, and the defense of Valcor Island? Why would he turn his back on his fellow officers, and especially on General Washington, the man who had so often stood as his patron in the Army?

While there are the well known reasons as to why Arnold made his treasonous turn; his new Loyalist wife and his anger at being passed over for promotion chief among them, there is one set of circumstances that may shed greater light on his decision making. One is his constant battles with the Continental Congress. The Congress, in what could only be a case of partisan bickering and personal animosity towards the brash young General, stymied Arnold’s advancement at nearly every turn. When he resigned his commission and was then talked back into the service by his fellow officers, the Congress agreed to reinstate him but refused to restore his seniority in the Army. This meant that although he had a greater rank than some others, he remained a junior officer who answered to men who had neither his leadership ability nor his record of battlefield success. This had to rankle the young man who had fought so valiantly in the cause of the revolution, to be subordinated to men who could not hold a candle to him as a commander and leader of men.

There was also the matter of money, but not in the way that many think. In the ill fated battle to invade Canada and take Quebec, the Continental Congress did not provide the necessary funds to carry out the mission. This left it to General Arnold to finance the mission practically out of pocket, which he did to further the cause of the Revolution. The Congress had intimated that Arnold was to be reimbursed for his expenses but later refused to repay the money that Arnold had laid out for financing the mission. While this was not a sufficient reason to betray his cause, it is certainly a contributing factor to his decision making. Think about it this way: The very cause that Arnold was fighting  for, the very Congress he served, had consistently blocked his promotions, stripped him of his seniority, and now were refusing to repay the money he had spent in service to the Revolution. I propose that it was not the money, but the principle that moved Arnold towards his fateful decision. How would many of us feel if our country and comrades treated us this way? Would we be able to say we would remain totally committed to the cause, when the cause was not committed to us?

However, there is one circumstance that many, in my opinion, misinterpret when looking at what moved Arnold to betray his comrades. And it all has its roots in a political power play launched in Philadelphia when Arnold served as the military commander in the city.

One Joseph Reed, who served as basically the governor of the state had a long running feud with Arnold and he used his political position to go after Arnold. Reed was determined to restore political power in the state of Pennsylvania to the state authorizes, and to do this he had to break the power of the military authorities in the city of Philadelphia, which meant going after Benedict Arnold himself.

Reed began by launching a media campaign to discredit Arnold in the eyes of the people, and he accomplished it by insinuating that Arnold was a closet Loyalist, as he was courting the daughter of a noted Philadelphia Loyalist. He also charged Arnold with several counts of malfeasance and abuse of power in his handling of the business of the city, which served to bring not only Arnold’s personal decision making into question, but questioned his honor as a soldier as well. Arnold responded in the press as well, and the matter escalated to the point that the Continental Congress decided to hold a hearing on the matter on March 5, 1779. Arnold answered the charges to the satisfaction of the Congress, which recommended that the charges be handled in a military council; Arnold requested and was granted a hearing before his fellow members of the military set to take place in May 1779.

But Joseph Reed was not finished with Arnold, and used his personal relationship with General Washington to continue to press for Arnold’s court martial by the military. Reed eventually did something that was every bit, in my mind, as treasonous as the later actions Arnold took in attempting to turn over Fort Arnold. At a time when the Continental Army was in need of all the supplies it could get to continue the fight, Reed basically blackmailed George Washington into pursuing the court martial of General Arnold. Reed, as “governor” of Pennsylvania threatened Washington with the loss of needed supplies from the state if he did not press ahead with the charges against Arnold, knowing full well that the Revolution could very well falter if it was deprived of those supplies.

This put Washington in an unenviable position; he was being forced to choose between the needs of his Army and the protection of Arnold’s honor. It was a very hard decision to make, but eventually Washington postponed Arnold’s military hearing date and preferred the charges against him. He had chosen to meet the needs of his Army and to abandon the General who had stood beside him when others doubted his leadership, and who had become a virtual cripple in the service of that Army.

Arnold of course felt betrayed by his leader, as he realized that by allowing the hearing date to be postponed it kept the question of his honor in front of the public and gave the impression that he was guilty of the charges being lodged against him. When Washington sent a letter of reprimand to him, and then when he was later convicted of two minor offenses it proved to him that the leadership of the Army had finally deserted him. Even the Continental Congress, no friend of Arnold’s to be sure, felt that the charges and the conviction were dubious at best. So we can only imagine the emotions and feelings of betrayal that Arnold felt at being convicted of charges that were so clearly politically motivated. And how would any of us feel if after being wounded several times in the line of duty, after being instrumental in success after success on the battlefield, and serving faithfully honorably, and with distinction we were sold down the river to satisfy the vendetta of a politician?

And while we know that Arnold betrayed his fledgling country, why do we not generally know the name of Joseph Reed? And why do we not know the sorry story of his part in the court martial of General Arnold? And why is General Washington given a total pass on his knuckling under to the blackmail of Reed, and the willingness to sacrifice the reputation and honor of General Arnold?

This is not an attempt to exonerate General Arnold for his crime, but it is an attempt to give some context to it. General Arnold did not lightly decide to betray his countrymen, and in many ways could make a point that he had been betrayed by the country. The running battles with the Constitutional Congress; the denial of promotions; the refusal to reimburse his money for the Quebec campaign; the assault on his personal honor by Reed, and the decision by Washington to trade his honor for supplies would make any of us feel betrayed.

 And in this case betrayal begat betrayal.

As we continue to see gas prices climb on the backs of rising oil futures, there are the usual raft of media stories telling us all of the usual horror stories; grandma has to choose between food and gas (as if there is a real choice there); Big Oil must be punished; we must cut back on consumption, and women and minorities hardest hit. Even as I write this the leaders of America’s largest oil companies are on Capitol Hill being grilled by the elected “leaders” in our House of Representatives about the evil of their actually making a profit. And the talking heads will undoubtedly champion this travesty as some sort of come-uppance for Big Oil and a triumph for our fearless leaders in the House. Never mind that every time that gas prices rise Congress goes through this same charade and then does nothing to change the situation, the press will dutifully report this as if something actually came out of this massive waste of time and effort.

But does anyone else out there see how nonsensical and schizophrenic our alleged energy policy really is? Does anyone else out there see just how stupid the questions asked of the Big Oil executives are, and how insipid the “ideas” coming from the wise men in Washington really are? And I am sure I am not the only one who is tired of this same old same old when it comes to this issue!

I mean is there any dumber question that you can ask an oil executive than why an oil company (!!) is not doing more to develop alternative fuels. Well, duh…they’re an oil company genius! Their job is to explore for new oil reserves, develop new ways to extract that oil from its bed, and then to refine it and get the finished products to the market. It is not the mandate of an oil company to be out front in pushing for wind power, solar power, or bio-fuels unless it is going to increase their bottom line. And if I was a major investor in an oil company, I would be well and truly pissed if the company was squandering my investment dollars in the Quixotic (pun intended) quest to develop fuels that are neither efficient as petroleum, and are not going to give me a good return on my investment.

And does anyone else think that this is the height of foolishness: On the one hand politicians bray about America being dependent on foreign oil, all while not allowing for domestic exploration, drilling, or refining while simultaneously trying finding ways to force those very foreign producers to pump more oil for us to buy! Which is it people? Do we need to find ways to wean ourselves from foreign oil, or do we need to be trying to flood the market with more foreign oil? I mean, I could have sworn that I heard Barack Obama and other Democrats taking President Bush for going to Saudi Arabia and allegedly begging hat in hand to the House of Saud for more oil, but they seem to not know what the House of Representatives is doing to intervene in the workings of OPEC. There are reports that the House has just passed a measure that would allow the Department of Justice to sue OPEC for violating American antitrust laws with over 300 votes, while at the same time pretending that we must find ways to break away from the presence of OPEC. Which is folks; are we going to move away from OPEC or are we going to attempt to bring them under American control? You can’t have it both ways.

What is really sad is that the people who are convinced they are standing up for the American people are in reality shackling us to the very forces they claim to be standing up against. By not allowing us to drill for our own oil; by not allowing us to build refineries; by not allowing us to even explore for oil in some places, the government is linking us ever closer to the House of Saud, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Yet these idiots cannot see the real damage they are doing to this country.

American energy independence is becoming more than a pipe dream; with the people we have “in charge” it is quickly becoming an oxymoron!