Censorship Needs to Go Away, Period!

By: Shawn Johnson

www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/liberalvoice1776?ref=hl

The politically correct police are at it again.  I am getting hundreds of e-mails, posts, and offers to sign petitions to remove Rush Limbaugh, the ZZ Top guy from Duck Dynasty, and several other personalities who express racist, homophobic, or sexist opinions.  Anyone who has read my blog understands that I am completely against censorship of any kind.  I say to people, "If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen."  I would hate to be in a position where my political commentary would get me suspended or fired from my job. Where people make a mistake is to say that the First Amendment guarantees protection from being reprimanded for what one expresses.  It simply protects people from being jailed for speaking their opinion.  Not all speech and demonstration is protected.  Just ask a member of OWS camping out in New York City.  

Now, while I will freely admit that liberals are overly sensitive to what people in the public sphere say, conservatives are even more guilty of it, and they generally try to make laws to prevent their feelings from being hurt.  If your common sense tells you what I am saying is incorrect, please "Google" Joseph McCarthy, and you will read all about the censorship effort of the Religious Right in the United States.  About four years ago, Michelle Bachmann insisted we revitalize McCarthyism in the US Congress.  People who expressed opinions during the Iraq War were promptly removed from their jobs by the corporate execs who benefited from the war.  Military veterans were verbally desecrated for speaking out against involvement in the war.  Not one conservative was outraged that Bill Maher was fired from ABC for saying that suicide bombers are not cowards.  But, conservatives had a shit-fit when Don Imus was fired for calling young women "nappy-headed hoes."  Now, I personally do not believe in censorship in any way, shape, or form.  If you don't like what someone says, don't listen to them.  It is not really that difficult.  The ability to say what you want, is more important than the upbringing of your children.  If you don't want your kids to hear what someone has to say, turn your radio dial to local traffic and weather on the elevens.  However, what liberals may think personally should not have any effect on they do politically. 

One thing liberals continue to advocate is the firing of disc jockeys, news reporters, actors, and politicians for saying things that are hurtful, racist, and homophobic.  Not only is this anti-democratic, it is stupid.  There are two ways to win the hearts and minds of voters.  The first, is to prove that you have solid ideas on how to solve problems and move the country in the right direction.  The second way, is to show that your political adversaries are knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who personally hate the very groups you are trying to get to vote for you. 

When conservative commentators say things they shouldn't, liberals organize to attack them, their show, and they pressure the advertisers to pull their ads.  It works.  Liberals have been able to relegate the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and others to the dying medium of AM radio.  Hundreds of supporters and advertisers have jumped ship on these fools for fear of retribution from the general public. 

Now, attacking a personality who says ridiculously moronic things seems just and rational, but in reality, it is politically stupid.  

The correct and intelligent course of action is to take what Rush Limbaugh says and use it against Republican candidates.  One of the severe detriments to the Republican Party is that their base is full of rabid supporters of far-right media.  Republican radio and TV programs kill Democratic radio and TV programs in the ratings.  The Republican base is full of people who get their information from those mediums.  Progressives and liberals are more likely to get their information from other sources.  The problem for candidates is that they are hamstrung when it comes to standing against comments made by the likes of Limbaugh and Beck.  They must embrace what they say, or face the wrath of their most ardent supporters.  Therefore, instead of attacking the powerless idiots on radio, liberals need to keep them talking.  Then, they need to attribute what they say to John Boehner and defy Boehner to go against it.  He won't of course, because he is a spineless jellyfish, and that is how you turn radical ramblings of a radio show into the Republican platform.  Ronald Reagan once said that someone who agrees with you eighty percent of the time is a political ally.  This was a politically powerful position to take, but the Republican Party no longer subscribes to that line of thinking.  The Religious Right believes in absolution and ultimata.  In order to win a Republican primary, you need to embrace all of the opinions of the Right Wing.  The minute you deviate, you will be branded as a liberal or a "RINO."  These insane requirements completely derailed Mitt Romney's national campaign for president. "Governor Etch-A-Sketch" spent most of his campaign walking back much of what he stood for or implemented when he was governor of Massachusetts.   

In less than four years, Chris Christie will run for president of the United States.  Democrats seem to like this guy because he has already separated himself from the most insane rhetoric of the Tea Party.  Democrats better not take their eye off the ball.  Governor Christie will be the most conservative President we have ever seen.  The only chance the Democratic Party has to defeat him is to tie him to the Republican base.  He needs to be asked obvious questions like, "Do you believe that a dying man should lose his health insurance coverage?"

If he answers incorrectly, he will be cheered by the audience, and reviled by the national electorate.  If he answers correctly, he will be booed by the audience, and never make it out of the primary.  Either way he gets beat by the Democratic candidate.  The key is to make the media ask him the question.  If the voices of the radical Right are silenced, the question will never be asked.  In the last campaign, Republican candidates had to regurgitate the greatest hits of the lunatic fringe.  It cost them the presidency, seats in the Senate, and seats in the House.  I am convinced that the Republican Party cannot evolve or change as long as the voices they trust with all of their being control the message of the day.  

So, to my liberal friends, sit back, relax, and crack open a cold one.  When the most vile, racist things come from a blithering idiot's mouth, don't contact their show or advertisers.  Contact your local Republican Congressman or woman and ask them why they agree with that host.  Ask them why they hate women, racial minorities, and homosexuals.  If you don't get an answer, contact your local media outlets and let them know.  You win politically by getting even, not getting mad.

So, You Want Bipartisanship? Be Careful What You Ask For

By Shawn Johnson
www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/liberalvoice1776?ref=hl

Perhaps the most laughable lie consistently told by Republicans is that they favor limited government.  They will tell you this just before they gain power and then proceed to create massive deficits expanding the size of government to new levels never seen before.  Worse yet, their expansion of government does not refer to the number of people they help, rather it pertains to the expansion of power and wealth to the few while leaving the masses with less and less.  Then they are promptly run out of office and Democrats are left to take the blame for their mess.  Not to say Democrats are blameless because they are complicit puppets who have the power to stop this madness but they never do.  They like it when the Republican Party implodes because it energizes Democratic voters who massively outnumber Republican voters.  If we had a one hundred percent turnout in every national election, Republicans would never hold the White House or more than twenty-five percent of the Senate ever again.  These are not data based numbers, rather my opinion, but my opinion does have some factual evidence to support it.  Republicans are consistently trying to make it harder for people to vote, and when there is low turnout, Republicans usually win.  High turnout usually means the Democrats win.  Therefore higher turnout would logically give the Democrats even more votes and more power in Congress.  The editorial in the Economist, a conservative magazine, agree with me.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/09/art-voter-turnout

            Since the Republicans have such an abhorrent record on implementing limited government, we must ask what they mean when they say they are for limited government.  They certainly aren't for limited government when it comes to military expansion, illegal and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, subsidizing farming, subsidizing Wall Street banks, subsidizing oil and the fossil fuel burning industry, subsidizing the insurance industry, marriage rights, drug law enforcement, undocumented immigrants, unlawful detainment of American citizens, and  whether or not a woman can have an abortion.  In fact, the only time they seem to support limited government is when the government is placing restrictions on their corporate polluting friends.  They don't like it when government helps and protects the environment, the poor, the middle class, the elderly, disabled people, labor, the financial markets, and the post office.  The Republican's ultimate goals have nothing to do with the size of government.  Their ideology does not have anything to do with the Constitution or the framers of said document.  The Republicans job is to maintain power and control so they can move money allocated for the good of the public to their friends in the private corporate world.  The goal of Republicans is to privatize everything that the government currently does.  Except, when private corporations need help from the government, then the Republicans are the first in line handing more of the middle class' tax dollars to the rich.

            Now, the Republicans can only fool some of the people some of the time, so they need to find ways to stop the vast majority of Americans from voting.  They know the masses vote won't be for them.  In the past, conservatives had resorted to poll taxes, voter disenfranchisement, and voter intimidation.  Hence the implementation of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.  The more power and control the Republicans lose, the harder they fight.  It has taken Barack Obama winning the presidency twice to really make them go off the deep end.  Republican governors all over the country did what they could to create unfair voter ID laws, limit the availability of days and polling places, and in Florida in the last election, voters had to stand in lines for several hours to be able to cast their vote.  Well in 2012, it still didn't work, and they actually strengthened voter resolve.  Even so, the vast majority of the poor and undereducated did not cast a vote.  The vast majority of young people did not cast a vote.  Republicans are still winning to a certain extent. 

            If control of government went by popular vote, the Democrats would control the House, Senate, and the Presidency.  Republican governors have gerrymandered the districts in their state to such an extent that they can still maintain control of government while losing elections.  While Democratic governors use some of the same tactics, it isn't anywhere near the degree that Republicans do it.  Remember, Democrats need more voters to come out, not less.  I think we would agree that more people involved in the political process is a good thing.  Well, it is a good thing as long as you are not a Republican running for national office. 

            The small versus big government tagline is something that Republican voters truly believe exists.  They believe that the Democrats are trying to enact "wealth redistribution" by taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside whenever I pretend this is true.  But, facts are facts, and under the current Democratic leadership the top two percent see their wealth grow exponentially while the middle class and the poor slip further and further away.  The current Democratic President has massively slashed taxes and discretionary spending, and while we did have one tiny tax increase on the top one percent, it simply brought them back to the tax level they paid in 2002.  Never mind that one of the greatest periods of growth in the history of our country saw the top marginal tax rate at ninety-one percent.  And, guess what?  There were still plenty of wealthy people.  Everyone else simply had a chance at a reasonably comfortable life (unless you were a minority), but we can't have it all I guess.  The very wealthy have become more wealthy in every single decade in the history of this country while the middle class has seen their income and wealth at a lower level than it was forty years ago.  This trend is not only continuing under a Democratic president, it is on steroids.  In 2012, corporate America pilfered another seven hundred billion dollars from the American people.   If Barack Obama is a socialist, he is the worst socialist who ever lived.

            The American people vastly agree that they want to see Washington get together to solve their issues and problems.  They want to see Democrats and Republicans come together for the greater good.  And, while the Democrats are not the ideal liberal lions Republicans try to paint them as, at least when they come to the table their goal is not to "make government small enough so they can drown it in a bathtub."  That is a direct quote from Grover Norquist, the architect of the "no-tax pledge," a pledge that several Republican senators and representatives signed saying they wouldn't raise taxes under any circumstances even if it makes complete sense to do so.  If we are attacked, if millions of people are killed or removed from their homes, if the damn sky falls, they will still refuse to raise taxes to allow the government to operate at a sufficient level.  As liberals we must ask ourselves, why would we want Democrats for one second to try to reach out to a political party who makes no qualms about destroying the duly elected government of the United States. 

            The Republicans have been so egregious in their attack on government, in Michigan the Republican governor, Rick Snyder, has passed two laws (one was struck down) to actually allow him to appoint an emergency manager over a city or county as he sees fit.  That emergency manager has complete control over the elected leaders and the people.  They can remove any leader they wish and replace him or her without the consent of the people.  This is not just your normal power grab, it is anti-constitutional treason.  Not one Republican senator or congressman has had anything negative to say about it.  Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, every single town where these emergency managers have been placed have been predominately African American.  Not only that, twelve of the thirteen cities where this has occurred have stayed the same or gotten worse.

            So I ask again, shouldn't we be worried when the president shows a greater effort to work with Republicans on the budget than he does the Progressive Caucus?  Why are the voters insisting that the President compromise with the same crowd who wants to give their future retirement money to Wall Street hedge-fund managers?  Why would they deem it acceptable that Democrats sit down with Republicans when their budget is designed to steal their money and property in order to make the rich more wealthy?  If there were ever a real-world application of "wealth redistribution" this is certainly it. 

            The Progressive Caucus has a budget on the table that is designed to create seven million jobs in the first year of implementation.  It is also designed to have full employment in this country within five years.  Their budget is designed to repair the crumbling infrastructure, education, the environment, and American quality of life.  It is designed to do all of these things before we cut any essential government programs.  We can live with short-term debt and deficit, but we can never pay down that debt if the country isn't working.  If America were a patient in a doctor's office, the Progressives would have the cure for America's disease, the President and moderate Democrats have the drugs necessary to keep America medicated and limping along to a slow death, and the Republicans have a gun to America's head just waiting for the President to allow them to pull the trigger.

            Looking at America like a sick patient is a reasonable analogy because America does have a long-term debt cancer.  But, it is a cancer that America can live with and still have a prosperous life.  It isn't the first time we have had this cancer, and we have kicked it before.  The problem this time is that America also has pneumonia also known as a jobs crisis.  If we don't cure the pneumonia first, America will die long before the cancer gets us.  Once America has mass employment again, then we can address the long term debt with the extra money we will have.  Because, unlike giving money to rich people, when you give it to the poor and middle class they put it back into the American economy.  They pay taxes on that money to the government.  They don't shelter it in the Cayman Islands ala Mitt Romney. 

            President Obama has compromised with Republicans on almost every single piece of legislature Congress has passed and he has signed into law.  To reward his efforts, he gets a straight party line vote time and time again.  That vote is usually preceded by an unnecessary undemocratic silent filibuster.  President Obama gave away the farm in his first two years to the same group who systematically and purposefully destroyed the American economy.  Despite their best efforts, in many ways the economic outlook of the country has improved.  But, it is still very rough for those who have nothing.  They are continuously asked to sacrifice and give for their country and fellow human being while the extremely wealthy are coddled and protected from the nasty economy.  They are protected so well, their stock portfolios are through the roof not surprisingly right after they talked many Americans into cutting and running after losing billions of dollars.  They took their homes and they took their livelihoods.  They moved their jobs overseas.  And, if that wasn't enough, they decided to lecture America on personal responsibility all while receiving over seven trillion dollars in unpaid loans and gifts from the American government.  But, no need to worry, my Republican friends have sent their favorite "small government" politician to Washington!  I am sure Lucy won't pull away the football this year. 

            So Mr. President, you have a choice.  You can stand by the Progressive agenda.  You can reap the benefits of large job growth.  You will be remembered as the guy who lifted up the middle class and poor.  Or, you can give the Republicans the cuts they want to Medicare, Social Security, housing, the postal service, libraries, public works, health care, police and law enforcement, energy, and labor.  And, you can do it for a few tax-loophole closings, but in the end, the American people are going to remember that they crumbled while you were in charge.  Also, you will barely receive enough Republican support to pass their own plan.  Eventually the high voter turnout will be no more.  Big bad Republicans won't be good enough to scare people straight.  The people won't care enough to cast a ballot for the next guy who says, "Change has come to America!" 

           

           

           

              

 

Sticking To Our Guns

Why America Needs To Change Our Methods When It Comes To Firearms

By Shawn Johnson:

www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com

https://www.facebook.com/liberalvoice1776?ref=hl

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Mass shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, along with massive violence and gun death in towns and cities around the country, have caused Americans to force politicians into focusing their efforts on reducing gun violence and eliminating mass shootings. Over five hundred children die each year from being accidentally shot by another child. Many of the gun deaths are suicides. Many other western industrialized nations have found sound legislation massively reduces gun deaths in their countries. Why isn't America attempting to mimic some of what these countries are doing so successfully?

The answer is found in Congress and in the state legislatures and governorships. Democrats are in favor of gun ownership, and Republicans are so turned on by firing a weapon, their eyes tend to roll back into their heads much like a great white shark devouring a sea lion. Every single liberal argument I have heard on this subject starts out with, "Nobody is trying to take your gun." While this is factually true, I think we must ask ourselves, "Why isn't anyone trying to take your gun?"

And, for the record, I am not talking about hunting rifles, bb guns, single and double barrel shot guns. I am not even suggesting that someone shouldn't be allowed to purchase and own a collection of antique weapons and firearms. But, why do you need a handgun? Why do you need an assault weapon? Protection?

Well, according to Harvard School of Public Health, more handguns equal more death, not more protection. Here is what they had to say:

1. Across states, more guns = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2001; 33:477-84.



2. Across states, unsafe gun storage = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System that asked questions about guns and gun storage in the home, combined with information on deaths from the National Center for Health Statistics. Across states, both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Vriniotis, Mary. Firearm storage practices and rates of unintentional firearm deaths in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2005; 37:661-67.



3. Youth killed in gun accidents are shot by other youth

The majority of people killed in firearm accidents are under age 24, and most of these young people are being shot by someone else, usually someone their own age. The shooter is typically a friend or family member, often an older brother. By contrast, older adults are at far lower risk of accidental firearm death, and most often are shooting themselves. This article highlights one of the many benefits of the National Violent Death Reporting System. Before the NVDRS, data on the shooter in unintentional gun deaths were not readily available

Hemenway, David; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Unintentional firearm deaths: a comparison of other-inflicted and self-inflicted shootings. Accident Analysis & Prevention.2010; 42:1184-8.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/



Americans are not protecting their families with firearms. They are destroying them. In order to "protect" your family with a firearm, that firearm must be readily available. But, intruders into your home are not being stopped with guns. Most intruders are stopped if there is someone home, gun or no gun. Criminals are not breaking into random homes to commit murder. They break into random homes to steal things. Hence, they will most likely do it when you are not home. Who is being stopped by firearms? Your son or daughter are stopping their friend, brother, or sister from having a reasonable chance to reach adulthood. This is not acceptable, and liberals need to say so.

Why else do you need a gun? To stop the government from a tyrannical takeover? This may be the most ridiculous argument ever posed by any person regarding the gun debate. Yes, in 1787 when the people basically were their own military, the government decided to pass an amendment to the Constitution ensuring that citizens were able to take up arms to help the government fight Native Americans, the French, slaves, and other threats to the superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon establishment. At no time did the government authorize individual citizens to take up arms against the duly elected representative government who had just committed mass treason by writing the Constitution and tearing up the Articles of Confederation.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say the founders did intend to have an armed citizenry in case we ever had a Marxist socialist black president who decided to force Americans into a communist revolution. Do you think for one second, that the founders could have envisioned the firepower the United States military would possess in the twenty-first century? If you want to know how effective an assault weapon would be against Navy Seal Team Six, Google "death of Bin Laden," and see what you find. Our military has drones with hellfire missiles attached to them which are capable of leveling a city block. Do you honestly believe for one second your assault rifle with a one hundred round clip is going to do anything against a drone? And, even if you possess the highest level of mental delusion, and your answer is "yes," you would actually have to see it coming, which you wouldn't.

Maybe the most ironic feature of this strange "government takeover" argument is that the same people who insist the government is going to launch a civil war against its own people, are the same people who tell us that the perpetrators of mass shootings are mentally ill, and we should keep guns from the mentally ill. Why are people like Wayne Lapierre allowed to go on national television and make these ridiculous assertions without being laughed at and made fun of? I believe the first sign of dangerous mental illness is to believe that there is a massive conspiracy by the government to take you out, and you decide to arm yourself to the teeth to prevent that conspiracy.

Now, Wayne Lapierre isn't an idiot, and he realizes that his arguments don't bear any fruit. But, he isn't speaking to the guy who owns hunting rifles, and he isn't speaking to the guy who owns a shotgun locked in a case. He is speaking to the guy who has orgasms just thinking that there will be a military style ambush on his home and property. The guy who right now is at a gun range wildly firing at a target. In a month, this guy will be shooting up his former place of employment. Wayne Lapierre wants this guy to do just that, so he can appear on national television and give his Frank Luntz tagline of "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!" Lapierre knows that the sick individual who owns a legal arsenal believes he is the "good guy with the gun." After all, he is stopping his government from a tyrannical revolution. He is doing so by wasting the lives of six year olds.

Why does Wayne Lapierre have this sick and twisted agenda? Because he is the corporate shill of the gun industry. This is a multi-billion dollar industry which needs to be fed. And, Republicans have no problem helping him feed the industry. Their imaginary target is President Barack Obama. President Obama is a right of center Democrat. As you read this book, I will prove to you that he has much more in common with Nixon and Reagan than he does with Roosevelt and Truman. His ideas are very centrist, and he has really taken the non-controversial side of most issues. The vast majority of Americans wholeheartedly agree with his policy positions. Even forty to fifty percent of Republicans agree with Obama on major issues.

So, the Republicans invented a different Obama. They tag him with labels like, "the most liberal President ever, and communist, socialist, Marxist, and Leninist." The say things like, "He isn't one of us." And, ultimately, they end their inane tirade with, "He is coming for your gun!" And, this line of dialogue is very effective. When Obama was elected in 2008, gun sales and bullet sales skyrocketed. Never mind the fact that Obama had said almost nothing about gun control when he ran for President. In fact, no Democrat since Al Gore had raised the issue of gun control in a Presidential election. As I explained before, Democrats like guns. These facts do not deter Republicans or the NRA. They continue to subliminally instruct fear laden individuals with access to firearms to fight for a cause which does not exist. It is nothing more than militant McCarthyism. And, for the record, the number of tyrants taken down by the citizenry in the history of the United States is zero. The number of American lives which have been lost to gun violence since 1968 is a little over 1.3 million. More American lives have been lost to guns since 1968 than have been lost to wars during the history of the United States.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/

The Second Amendment does not give Americans the right to bear any arm they desire. Only because of a perverted, distorted view of the Supreme Court does the Second Amendment give average citizens the right to own a gun without being part of a well regulated militia. The Second Amendment does not prohibit the government from regulating and controlling these firearms. So what can we do as a government and as a society?

By reading what I have written, one could make a solid argument that I am advocating for law enforcement to walk into a person's home and remove his or her firearms at will. That is certainly not the case. In fact, I don't believe that the simple act of making guns illegal will stop all gun violence or even reduce it to a great enough degree.

For example, making drugs illegal does not stop the sale, production, and distribution of said drugs. It only makes it so drug users must commit other acts of criminality in order to obtain and utilize these drugs. So, no, I don't advocate making a law which states that nobody gets a gun anymore. What I do advocate is treating firearms much in the same way we treat other dangerous legal possessions.

One possession which comes to mind is the automobile. An owner of a vehicle, in order to purchase, operate, and store that vehicle, must have a valid license which is obtained by completing a regulated driving course and taking a driving exam. The owner must also secure insurance in case he or she does any harm with that vehicle. The owner is also prohibited from owning certain types of vehicles such as tanks, and certain owners of vehicles like semi-trailers must obtain special licensing and follow special rules in order to operate those vehicles. There are databases of every single licensed driver, and in many states licensing information is made available for public information. All drivers must follow the rules of the road, and every driver and passenger of a vehicle must wear a seatbelt at all times. And, last but not least, there are several public campaigns designed to inform the populace about vehicle safety. All of these provisions and laws are seen as reasonable and responsible by a mass consensus of citizens. These things are not seen as liberal or conservative.

We need to treat firearms the same way. And, please do not attempt to use the Second Amendment to distinguish the difference. Cars were not around when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Therefore, the assumption that they would not have placed provisions in the Constitution regarding the ownership and use of automobiles is null and void. We cannot say what the founders would have or would not have done. What we can say is that the Supreme Court has given the federal government the right to treat guns the same way they treat cars and the federal government has the right and responsibility to do just that. Wayne Lapierre, the NRA, the Republicans and Democrats, and the twenty-one percent of Americans who own firearms need to come to the realization that what we are doing is not working, and arming every single American will not make us safer. They need to stop advocating on behalf of the gun manufacturers and start advocating on behalf of the next five hundred children who will die accidentally this year, the next thirty-two five year olds who will perish at their school, the next crowded theater, the next political figure, the next victim of gang violence, the next husband, wife, father, and mother. It is time this country takes a stand against one of its most deep-seeded evils.

President Obama Part II

By Shawn Johnson www.libvoice1776.blogspot.com, wpayton5599@aol.com, https://www.facebook.com/liberalvoice1776 - click on the links to comment and let me know where I went wrong...

Note: I am still writing my book, with a chisel and hammer which is why it is taking me so long, but I did not go away!  This blog is directly from my new book, but it has a direct effect on this weekend so I wanted to share!  Please comment!


As I am writing this section, the President of the United States is currently being sworn into office for his second term. I am very confused how other people, who write books, get those books out in such a timely manner. As I expressed in earlier chapters, I am a very common person with a common profession, and I fully admit that sometimes playing Angry Birds gets in the way of me finishing this book. Ok, where were we now? Oh yes, the direction of President Obama's second term in office.

As you are probably sensing by now, the theme of this chapter is going to be about pulling Obama to the left in his second term. He is out of excuses now. He understands what liberals told him about Republicans from day one. In a 2008 debate, Hillary Clinton pointed out that she understood the Republicans in Congress and he didn't. She was right. The Republicans were soundly rejected in the last election. The Democrats not only took more than fifty percent of the vote in the Senate, but also in the House. Due to gerrymandering districts around the country, the Republicans found a way to lose an election, and still maintain control. So the country is stuck with leaders they do not want, and the numbers show it.

The kickoff to Obama's second term will be his inaugural address.  When President Obama gives his inaugural address on January 22nd, he has two directions to follow. He could stay the course. He could do what he has done in his State of the Union Addresses. He could lay out his second term as to not appear controversial. He could concentrate on being a faux "uniter." He can give the people exactly what they want to hear with his magnetic voice and style. The viewers (mostly Democrats) will give him rave reviews. The few right-wing media forced to sit through and assess the speech will claim it is the most liberal, one-sided address in history. Both opinions will be unbelievably incorrect, the right-wing opinion being not only false, but also psychotic.

Or, President Obama could make history and big-time news. President Obama could come out and tell America where it is going wrong. And, granted he will do that on guns and immigration, but it will end there. The President could have a dialogue with the country that no president since Jimmy Carter has been willing to have. He can look America in the eye and tell them that we need to push out racial and sexual bigotry completely. He can tell the story of racial inequality which still exists heavily in this country today. We need to transform our energy policy, not incrementally, but harshly and swiftly. We need to address that his first four years have been devastating for the poor and especially the African American and Latino poor. He can call for reinstatement of the war on poverty and show where it worked. He can call for an end to disease and despair by finally passing a public option for health care. He can address the illegality of drone strikes and vow to find another way to defeat Al Qaeda without carpet bombing countries. He can tell the country that the over-bloated military budget is not necessary, and we could cut it in half tomorrow and still properly protect our country. He can vow to order the justice department to arrest and try Wall Street bankers guilty of heinous economic crimes. He can speak to the country about our obsession with greed. . He can speak about a country which has no honor or ethics. He can chastise, people who lie about who they are and what they have done. And, he can invoke Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to justify what he is saying.

And lastly, he can look squarely in the face of each person watching, and ask them to sacrifice. Sacrifice something for your fellow human beings. Help an elderly neighbor. Help an inner-city child graduate high school. Give up something for the greater good. Tell people that paying taxes is not a punishment or an attack on your economic class. Tell them it is patriotic. You love your country enough to make sure that the government has what it needs to function properly and efficiently. Tell them that spending more money on education, gun reform, immigration reform, health care, science and invention, environmental protection, space exploration, help for the poor and needy, support for labor, and infrastructure will improve all of these things. And, you need to look no further than the United States military to prove it. We spend twenty-six times more on the military than any other country in the world, and our military could annihilate the entire world if we really wanted. When someone tells you that "throwing money at a problem doesn't make it better," retort by saying "Tell that to the soldiers who fought at Iwo Jima. But, to accomplish great things takes great people who are willing to sacrifice. Let the American people know that this is their presidency now. We will not accept a dying empire anymore. We will lead the world again, and we will do it through the same liberal ideals Republicans and Democrats used throughout the twentieth century when America really was on top.

I am pretty sure that Obama's speech will be the former and not the latter. Obama believes that it is ok to sputter along watching liberty die while corporate interests control more and more of what used to be ours. Liberals have had their voice shut out. Liberals triumphed in the last century and it has only taken thirty years to undo over two hundred years worth of work and sacrifice. It is time for the most powerful voice in the nation to get us back on the track moving left.