Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy - An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

The world was transfixed on that remarkable day in January when, to poetry, song, and dance, you gazed upon Abraham Lincoln's likeness at the Lincoln Memorial and searched for wisdom to navigate these difficult times. Indeed, you have so many things in common with that venerable President that one might imagine you were his reincarnation in different dress. You are both thin and wiry, brilliant speakers, appearing on the national stage at pivotal times. Fertile imaginations could envision you coming back dressed in that African heritage you freed, to help heal the great scar of slavery and prove once and for all the proposition that all men are created equal and can achieve great things if given a fighting chance.

As Wordsworth said, however, our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; and if that is true, you may have forgotten a more subtle form of slavery from which Lincoln tried less successfully to free his countrymen. You may have forgotten it because it has been omitted from our popular history books, leaving Americans ill-equipped to interpret the lessons of our own past. This letter is therefore meant to remind you.

President Obama, we are now met on another battlefield of that same economic war that visited Lincoln and the Founding Fathers before him. For you to finish the work Lincoln started would be a poetic triumph no American could miss. The fate of our economy and the nation itself may depend on how well you understand Lincoln's monetary breakthrough, the most far-reaching "economic stimulus plan" ever implemented by a U.S. President. You can solve our economic crisis quickly and permanently, by implementing the same economic solution that allowed Lincoln to win the Civil War and thus save the Union from foreign economic masters.

LINCOLN'S MONETARY BREAKTHROUGH

The bankers had Lincoln's government over a barrel, just as Wall Street has Congress in its vice-like grip today. The North needed money to fund a war, and the bankers were willing to lend it only under circumstances that amounted to extortion, involving staggering interest rates of 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln saw that this would bankrupt the North and asked a trusted colleague to research the matter and find a solution. In what may be the best piece of advice ever given to a sitting President, Colonel Dick Taylor of Illinois reported back that the Union had the power under the Constitution to solve its financing problem by printing its money as a sovereign government. Taylor said:

"Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes...and pay your soldiers with them and go ahead and win your war with them also. If you make them full legal tender...they will have the full sanction of the government and be just as good as any money; as Congress is given that express right by the Constitution."

The Greenbacks actually were just as good as the bankers' banknotes. Both were created on a printing press, but the banknotes had the veneer of legitimacy because they were "backed" by gold. The catch was that this backing was based on "fractional reserves," meaning the bankers held only a small fraction of the gold necessary to support all the loans represented by their banknotes. The "fractional reserve" ruse is still used today to create the impression that bankers are lending something other than mere debt created with accounting entries on their books.

Lincoln took Col. Taylor's advice and funded the war by printing paper notes backed by the credit of the government. These legal-tender U.S. Notes or "Greenbacks" represented receipts for labor and goods delivered to the United States. They were paid to soldiers and suppliers and were tradeable for goods and services of a value equivalent to their service to the community.

The Greenbacks aided the Union not only in winning the war but in funding a period of unprecedented economic expansion. Lincoln's government created the greatest industrial giant the world had yet seen. The steel industry was launched, a continental railroad system was created, a new era of farm machinery and cheap tools was promoted, free higher education was established, government support was provided to all branches of science, the Bureau of Mines was organized, and labor productivity was increased by 50 to 75 percent. The Greenback was not the only currency used to fund these achievements; but they could not have been accomplished without it, and they could not have been accomplished on money borrowed at the usurious rates the bankers were attempting to extort from the North.

Lincoln succeeded in restoring the government's power to issue the national currency, but his revolutionary monetary policy was opposed by powerful forces. The threat to established interests was captured in an editorial of unknown authorship, said to have been published in The London Times in 1865:

"If that mischievous financial policy which had its origin in the North American Republic during the late war in that country, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debt. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. According to historian W. Cleon Skousen:

"Right after the Civil War there was considerable talk about reviving Lincoln's brief experiment with the Constitutional monetary system. Had not the European money-trust intervened, it would have no doubt become an established institution."

The institution that became established instead was the Federal Reserve, a privately-owned central bank given the power in 1913 to print Federal Reserve Notes (or dollar bills) and lend them to the government. The government was submerged in a debt that has grown exponentially since, until it is now an unrepayable $11 trillion. For nearly a century, Lincoln's statue at the Lincoln Memorial has gazed out pensively across the reflecting pool toward the Federal Reserve building, as if pondering what the bankers had wrought since his death and how to remedy it.

BUILDING ON A SUCCESSFUL TRADITION

Lincoln did not invent government-issued paper money. Rather, he restored a brilliant innovation of the American colonists. According to Benjamin Franklin, it was the colonists' home-grown paper "scrip" that was responsible for the remarkable abundance in the colonies at a time when England was suffering from the ravages of the Industrial Revolution. Like with Lincoln's Greenbacks, this prosperity posed a threat to the control of the British Crown and the emerging network of private British banks, prompting the King to ban the colonists' paper money and require the payment of taxes in gold. According to Franklin and several other historians of the period, it was these onerous demands by the Crown, and the corresponding collapse of the colonists' paper money supply, that actually sparked the Revolutionary War.

The colonists won the war but ultimately lost the money power to a private banking cartel, one that issued another form of paper money called "banknotes." Today the bankers' debt-based money has come to dominate most of the economies of the world; but there are a number of historical examples of the successful funding of economic development in other countries simply with government-issued credit. In Australia and New Zealand in the 1930s, the Depression conditions suffered elsewhere were avoided by drawing on a national credit card issued by publicly-owned central banks. The governments of the island states of Guernsey and Jersey created thriving economies that carried no federal debt, just by issuing their own debt-free public currencies. China has also funded impressive internal development through a system of state-owned banks.

Here in the United States, the state of North Dakota has a wholly state-owned bank that creates credit on its books just as private banks do. This credit is used to serve the needs of the community, and the interest on loans is returned to the government. Not coincidentally, North Dakota has a $1.2 billion budget surplus at a time when 46 of 50 states are insolvent, an impressive achievement for a state of isolated farmers battling challenging weather.1 The North Dakota prototype could be copied not only in every U.S. state but at the federal level.

THE PERENNIAL INFLATION QUESTION

The objection invariably raised to government-issued currency or credit is that it would create dangerous hyperinflation. However, in none of these models has that proven to be true. Price inflation results either when the supply of money goes up but the supply of goods doesn't, or when speculators devalue currencies by massive short selling, as in those cases of Latin American hyperinflation when printing-press money was used to pay off foreign debt. When new money is used to produce new goods and services, price inflation does not result because supply and demand rise together. Prices did increase during the American Civil War, but this was attributed to the scarcity of goods common in wartime rather than to the Greenback itself. War produces weapons rather than consumer goods.

Today, with trillions of dollars being committed for bailouts and stimulus plans, another objection to Lincoln's solution is likely to be, "The U.S. government is already printing its own money - and lots of it." This, however, is a misconception. What the government prints are bonds - its I.O.U.s or debt. If the government did print dollars, instead of borrowing them from a privately-owned central bank that prints them, Uncle Sam would not have an eleven trillion dollar millstone hanging around his neck. As Thomas Edison astutely observed:

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.

It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people."

A WAKE-UP CALL

Henry Ford observed at about the same time:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

Today we the people are starting to understand our banking and monetary system, and we are shocked, dismayed, and furious at what we are discovering. The wizard behind the curtain turns out to be a small group of men pulling levers and dials, creating an illusory money scheme that, behind all the talk and bravado, is mere smoke and mirrors. These levers are controlled by a privately-owned, unaccountable central bank called the Federal Reserve, which has recently dispensed billions if not trillions in funds to its banker cronies, without revealing where these monies are going even under Congressional inquiry or in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As Chris Powell pointed out recently in conjunction with an FOIA request brought by Bloomberg News, which the Fed declined to comply with:

"Any government that can disburse $2 trillion secretly, without any accountability, is not a democratic government. It is government of, by, and, for the bankers."2

There was a time when private central bankers were the heavyweights in control, able to run their ultra-secret agenda with impunity; but that era is coming to an end. The bankers are scrambling, trying to patch up their crumbling creations with schemes, bailouts and sleight of hand. That effort, however, must ultimately prove futile. As investment adviser Rolfe Winkler said in a recent article:

"The great Ponzi scheme that is the Western World's economy has grown so big there's simply no 'fixing' it. Flushing more debt through the system would be like giving Madoff a few billion to tide him over. Or like adding another floor to the Tower of Babel. To what end? The collapse is already here. The question is: How much do we want it to hurt? Using the public's purse to finance 'confidence' in a system that is already kaput may delay the Day of Reckoning, sure, but at the cost of multiplying our losses. Perhaps fantastically."3

The bankers are on the run, feverishly trying to use the collapse of the current system to steer us toward an "Amero"-style North American currency, or a one-world private banking system and privately-issued global currency that they and only they control. We the people will not accept those solutions, however, no matter how bad things get. We demand real solutions that empower us, not further enslave us.

Abraham Lincoln had such a solution. President Obama, you can finally bring his monetary solution to fruition. Manifest the vision of Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin, and we the people will make sure you are placed in the pantheon of our greatest leaders and are revered for all time. America's greatest days can still be ahead of us; but for this to happen, we need to expose and root out the deceptive banking scheme that would enslave us to a future of debt and increasing homelessness in this great country our forefathers founded. The time has come for democracy to rise superior to a private banking cartel and take back the power to create money once again. Such a transformation would represent the most epochal and empowering shift that humanity has ever seen. As you recently said:

"This country has never responded to a crisis by sitting on the sidelines and hoping for the best. Throughout our history we have met every great challenge with bold action and big ideas."

Your words are a timely reminder of our long legacy of action and bold solutions in the face of adversity. Can we do this? Yes we can.

____________________________________

1. Congressman Charles Binderup in a 1941 speech, "How America Created Its Own Money in 1750: How Benjamin Franklin Made New England Prosperous." Binderup quotes historian John Twells on this point.

2. Chris Powell, "Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion," GATA (December 12, 2008).

3. Rolfe Winkler, "More Debt Won't Rescue the Great American Ponzi," Option Armageddon (March 9, 2009).

Originally posted on Yes! Magazine Online April 7, 2009. Special thanks to CC for his invaluable help with this article.

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In "Web of Debt," her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are http://www.webofdebt.com/ and http://www.ellenbrown.com/ Her eleven books include the bestselling "Nature's Pharmacy," co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, which has sold 285,000 copies; and "Forbidden Medicine."

Hillary Warns Obama Voters About Al-Qaida

Hillary Clinton has warned voters not to elect Barack Obama. The reason: Because the Al-Qaeda is watching the US elections. According to Clinton, America could not risk electing an inexperienced candidate as Obama to president as this would exacerbate the threat of a terrorist attack from the Al-Qaida.

Clinton pointed out how, days after Gordon Brown took over as the British Prime Minister, terrorists had planted bombs, which, incidentally failed to go off. She was referring to the two devices, which, however, failed to explode, and the car, which crashed into the Glasgow airport in June 2007.

"I don't think it was by accident that Al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister," the New York senator said. "They watch our elections as closely as we do ... they play our allies," she added, quite evidently attempting to playing on the issue of national security to her advantage. With Obama predicted to deal her a second defeat at the New Hampshire primary, to follow on the earlier one at Iowa, Clinton's move could reflect her desperation.

"Let's not forget, you are hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says he or she will do in an election," Clinton said, adding "You are hiring a president who will be here when the chips are down, and problems pile up, because that's when you really need somebody who knows exactly what has to be done, to make the tough decisions."

"I hope I don't face any of those in my first 100 days, but if I do, I think I will be ready," Clinton said, in a reference to her long career in US public life. On the other hand, Obama, she argued, was a freshman senator from Illinois who was too much of a novice to serve as US commander in chief.

Obama retorted by questioning Clinton's foreign policy expertise. He referred to Clinton's flawed judgment, regarding her vote during the 2002 Senate authorizing President George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.

Earlier, former president Bill Clinton, referring to the 9/11 tragedy had also argued that the next president of the US would have to be ready for sudden, national security challenges. "You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough... to deal with the unexpected," he said, adding "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign."

Senator Hillary Clinton - latest information and collection of flip flop videos about her election campaign, speeches, and quotes.

Emma Johnson has majored in American History. She writes on politics and current affairs.

Red Franco Sarto High Heels Trounce Hawaiian Print Rubber Slippas

Around the time President Obama was delivering his speech "A New Beginning with Muslims" in Cairo, Governor Sarah Palin was making introductory remarks for main speaker Michael Reagan to an audience in Anchorage.  Though Obama's oration was approximately 17 times longer than Palin's and focused on Middle East foreign policy, Palin's informal comments contained more understanding of the nature of Islamic extremism and the forces that motivate it than Obama's entire homily.

In one speech, Obama managed to apologize for:

o    The Cold War, "in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations"-as opposed to the aspirations they fruitfully pursued under a leader like Saddam Hussein

o    Western "colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims"-as opposed to the rights they have under a leader like former colony Syria's President Bashar al-Assad

o    Not having enough "mutual respect"-as opposed to the fawning respect Islamists shower on women, Jews, Christians, gays, and Westerners

o    Not saying "openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors"-as opposed to the constant warmongering that glides so effortlessly off of Obama's tongue

o    Believing in "any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another"-rather than viewing those who uphold liberty the same as those who stone women for being gang raped

o    Having nuclear weapons and putting other countries at great risk-like when the Soviets whupped our butts in the Cold War and turned the rest of the world Communist

o    Defining our relationships with terrorist-sponsoring regimes by our "differences"-we say tomato, they say tomahto; we say Israel has a right to exist, they say dropkick Israel into the sea

o    Having the gall to use our military-Obama quotes Thomas Jefferson: "The less we use our power the greater it will be"; note to Obama: not using it at all does not mean we are therefore infinitely powerful

In the meantime, Palin said, "Those of us so proud to be Americans acknowledge that no, we're not a perfect nation, but never, never do we have to apologize for being proud of our country.  When [Reagan] fought socialism and any sort of tyranny that he knew would ruin us, he stood strong on his knowing that the framework for positive change was freedom.  America is the greatest nation on earth, because our foundation is freedom."  Sometimes simpler is better-ya know?

Obama scolded us for:

o    Viewing Islamic countries as hostile to American ideals-he added that the dancing in the streets after 9/11 was actually their version of Cinqo de Mayo; "Once de Septiembre," I think we'd call it here

o    Citing verses in the Koran that incite violence against nonbelievers-as opposed to the ones that talk about Bambi and blue jays

o    Seeing Iraq as a "patron" rather than a "partner"-because Iraq was on the brink of ousting Hussein and establishing parliamentary elections just as we sent our foot soldiers into Baghdad and got in the way!

o    Believing that some forms of government are superior to others-though admittedly, I haven't noticed too many ethnocracies or kleptocracies flourishing lately

o    Believing we should have a say in "which nations hold nuclear weapons"-because Nicolas Sarkozy could turn out to be as crazy as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; who knows?

Meanwhile Palin snapped, "Screw political correctness.  Be loud and strong.  [Don't] shy away from the tough issues.  Reagan's ideas were the right ideas, and all we have to do is look back at his national security record to know that.  Remember how refreshing it was with his outrageous directness that Americans loved and praised and deserved?  His vision for the Cold War?  We win, they lose.  Why, today, do we feel we have to pussyfoot around our troublesome foes, the terrorists who still seek to kill Americans and destroy our allies?  Terrorists are still dead set against us and are set on destroying Israel.  It is war over there so it will not be war over here, and it had better still be our mission that we win, they lose!  Some in the press want to put anybody who dares speak up back in their place.  Those are the folks that want to tell me, want to tell you, to siddown and shuddup.  We will not do so."  Drill, baby, drill!

Over on camel terrain, Obama lectured us with a straight face that America and Islam share principles of "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings"; that "throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality"; and that "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance"; all of which is kinder than what Al-Jazeera regularly has to say about the religion in their nightly broadcast.

Up in moose country, Palin mused, "What we're being fed today, it seems, is a steady diet of select, misrepresented news.  Why is it, considering how fast the world is spinning, and world-changing events that go on all over the globe, that it's the same, big three, supposedly competing networks that have the same news content every night, and virtually the same exact viewpoint being spewed night after night after night?"  Go Aces!

Given the choice between (1) off-the-cuff remarks in an Anchorage auditorium by a hockey mom and former VP candidate who understands that rejection of liberty precludes our enemies' being on the same moral plane as us; that courage in recognizing and labeling evil is needed to fight it; and that tossing around flowery language won't reform an opposition who refuses to change; and (2) a scrupulously photographed, eloquently written (by someone else) bag of what could generously be called bromides, clichés, and chestnuts if they weren't so blatantly wrongheaded-I know which I'd choose.

Israel, the Jews, and American Foreign Policy

American foreign policy since the end of the cold war has been focused primarily on the Middle East and to an alarming extent on the defense and promotion of Israel. Why has Israel become so central to our foreign policy and what advantages does the United States gain from the relationship?

Israel is not an important trading partner for the United States, in 20th place, behind Venezuela and Thailand. Israel has no significant natural resources, nor is Israel an important defense ally. None of its neighbors pose any significant threat to the United States or American interests. There is not an important Israeli American population. If we equate American Jews as somehow "Israeli" because of the fact that Israel is a Jewish state, than we are still only talking about a population of 6,444,000 approx. (2007) 1.7% - 2.2% of the US population. This is less than the number of Polish Americans, approximately 10,000,000 people and well below the number of Irish Americans, over 30,000,000.

Yet Ireland never received anywhere near the attention that Israel has in the media, in political debates, in foreign aid or in foreign policy efforts, even when a full blown civil war was occurring in Ulster.

The attention Israel receives in the United States is completely disproportionate to its strategic, commercial, or political importance. For example, in reference to the 2008 presidential elections, Shmuel Rosner at Slate wrote,

"in the vice-presidential debate, Israel's name was mentioned 17 times. China was mentioned twice, Europe just once. Russia didn't come up at all. Nor Britain, France, or Germany. The only two countries to get more attention were Iraq and Afghanistan-the countries in which U.S. forces are fighting wars.... A week earlier, in the first McCain-Obama debate, Israel was mentioned seven times, fewer than Russia but still more than China or Japan or any country in Europe, Latin America, or Africa."

In regards to American foreign aid, the amounts are striking. According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain."

It's fascinating to compare American foreign policy in Mexico, a country of over 100,000 million people (Israel's population is around 7.5 million) and a very important trading partner with the US. Issues like immigration and drug trafficking with Mexico have palpable daily effects on the lives of Americans, yet Mexico receives less the 2% of the foreign aid that Israel gets, less than 40 million dollars compared to Israel's almost 3 billion. And the over 28 million Americans who are of Mexican ancestry? They are apparently, for politicians, much less important than the less than 7 million Jewish Americans.

In the sphere of politics the tone and attitude of US politicians sounds as if their careers depend on how they speak of Israel. Joe Biden during the Vice Presidential debate, "Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion."

And Sarah Palin, "But I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel, and I think that is a good thing to get to agree on, Sen. Biden. I respect your position on that."

And President Obama this summer said, according to the New York Times, "that he is committed to Israel's security but does not believe it is essential for him to avoid all disagreement with the Jewish state."

This type of language can only be considered pandering. Why are they pandering to Israel? During the 2008 presidential election, John McCain said he would not sit down with the Spanish government because of the way they pulled their troops out of Iraq. It caused a minor stir, but never became an issue of any importance. Do you think either Obama or McCain could have been elected if either had said that they would not sit down with Israeli leaders due to continued new settlements in the West Bank?

Israel is considered to be a nuclear power. Few if any deny that Israel has nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction. Why does Israel receive no pressure at all from the United States to become a non-nuclear power? Would this not be an excellent bargaining chip with Iran? Iran is a country of over 70,000 million people with a tremendous history and culture, yet they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons, but Israel is? It is easy to understand the Iranian objection to this double standard. It's very unfortunate that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to spew ridiculous, anti-Semitic diatribes that completely distract the attention of the world from the real issues of the Middle East and reduce his country's credibility. Again, Mearshimeimer and Walt write, "Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the IAEA's agenda."

Why is it impossible to have a sensible, open debate in the United States regarding our relationship to Israel? The clearest example of why it is not possible occurred in 2006 when John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published a white paper about the power of AIPCAC, the principal Israeli lobby in the US. The ensuing debate was not centered on the issues of the white paper, quite the contrary; both academics were accused of everything from lack of professionalism to anti-Semitism. The White Paper made very clear arguments about the power of AIPAC and their silencing of Israel's critics. Mearsheimer and Walt pulled no punches, "For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?"

The authors received a drubbing and were quickly silenced. Alan Derschowitz as well as Eliot Cohen of John Hopkins both accused Mearsheimer and Walt of anti-Semitism and bigotry.

When Jimmy Carter came out with his book about the Israeli-Palestinian question, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, the debate again became about him, not the plight of the Palestinians.

Increasingly, the war in Iraq is being attributed to the Neo-Conservative wing of the Republican Party that had a very influential role in the Bush administration. For most of the world this has been obvious, but in the US it has been a taboo topic. Michael Kinsley is quoted as saying "the connection between the invasion of Iraq and Israeli interests had become 'the proverbial elephant in the room. Everybody sees it, no one mentions it.'" The Neo-Cons had for years been itching to invade Iraq. The general theory was that by changing the regime in Iraq, regime change would occur in Iran and Syria, clearing the way for a new Middle East and a much friendlier atmosphere for Israel.

What occurred on 9/11 gave them the opening they had been looking for, and they cunningly convinced the US population that somehow Iraq had some connection to 9/11. This was a blatant falsification of the facts advanced with the help of AIPAC and important supporters of Israel in the media. The Israeli angle for the war in Iraq is the mainstream explanation in much of the world but rarely discussed in the US.

America must be able to openly debate what has become the main focus of our foreign policy, and our largest benefactor of foreign aid. At the moment we are not able to do so. When academics or politicians question Americas support for Israel, they are branded as anti-Semitic. No member of either party is willing to openly question our relationship with Israel out of fear. Our academics are branded as anti-Semitic when they question the power of AIPAC. Something undemocratic has taken over a part of our government, and the most important part of our foreign policy. America has lost and continues to lose credibility in the world as many see US foreign policy in the Middle East as under at least partial control of Israel.

Let us imagine that the United States had 'divorced' Israel 20 years ago, considering it a foreign policy liability. Would we have much better relations now with the Arab world? Would 9/11 have been avoided? Would we have avoided entering the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars? Would Israel have been forced to make an equitable deal with the Palestinians out of fear of being ostracized from the international community? Would the US have focused much more energy at the end of the cold war on improving relations with the nations of the former Soviet Union including Russia? Would the world be a better place?

The United States foreign policy has been hijacked, and our leaders and thinkers have been intimidated by a foreign government and its apologists. Somehow, discussion of the special American relationship with Israel has become taboo. This has been carried out by supporters of Israel who use the media and AIPAC to intimidate politicians, journalists and intellectuals. Our thinkers and leaders are afraid to openly discuss the US relationship with Israel out of fear of being branded anti-Semitic and being ostracized. This is a form of McCarthyism that must be immediately rooted out like the cancer that it is. American has lost part of its freedom of expression, our most sacred gift from our founding fathers, the cornerstone of our republic and our prosperity. It must be taken back.

Robert Bonomo is a novelist, journalist and blogger. He has lived and worked in Madrid, San Francisco, Miami, Buenos Aires and New York.

He writes a blog, Cactus Land: Cactus Land Blog.

He has recently published Cactus Land on Amazon: Cactus Land on Amazon.

Robert has also worked in online marketing for over 10 years.

Barack Obama's Path to History (Conclusion)

PALIN'S INTERVIEW WOES

Palin's popularity was slipping in the polls and she failed to make matters any better during her disastrous interviews with ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson and CBS news anchor Katie Couric. In the former, Palin was criticized for not knowing what the Bush doctrine was, which was to a degree understandable. But she showed that at times, she could get lost in her own attempts at answering questions she had no real answers for.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: As for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.

GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table...

Again Herbert stepped up to the plate: "How is it that this woman could have been selected to be the vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket? How is it that so much of the mainstream media has dropped all pretense of seriousness to hop aboard the bandwagon and go along for the giddy ride?...You can't imagine that John McCain or Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman would not know what the Bush doctrine is. But Sarah Palin? Absolutely clueless. Ms. Palin's problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor's office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history."

Herbert continued. "I feel for Ms. Palin's son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting 'the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.' Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?" (Source: " Bob Herbert, She's Not Ready, New York Times Op-Ed Column, Sept. 12, 2008).

The CBS debacle was by far worse and in some circles, funnier. When Couric asked about the $700 billion government bailout and whether she supports it, Palin offered the following circumlocutory response: "I'm all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout. And as Sen. McCain has said unless this nearly trillion dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson's proposal, really I don't believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They're not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind's blowing? They're waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson's proposal."

COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie--that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about, the need to reform government.

COURIC: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

PALIN: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you

Palin was obviously unprepared and subsequently was lampooned unmercifully on late night talk shows and other comedic venues. One such show was Saturday Night Live, where Palin's dismal performance was skewered by Tina Fey. For the better part of a week clips of that skit would appear on various news programs.

During subsequent interviews, Palin would appear on-camera with McCain. This includes a hand-holding session with Sean Hannity on Fox News that was more embarrassing than enlightening.

No one was buying the idea of Palin as "fiscal conservative." Eugene Robinson wrote,

"She represents herself as a fiscal conservative who abhors pork-barrel projects and said no thanks to the "Bridge to Nowhere" - a $398 million span that would have linked Ketchikan, Alaska, to its airport across the Tongass Narrows. But as mayor of Wasilla (pop. 9,780), she hired a Washington lobbyist to bring home the bacon. And as a candidate for governor just two years ago, she supported both the Ketchikan bridge and the congressional earmark that would have paid most of its cost." (Source: Eugene Robinson, The Cynicism Express, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sept. 2, 2008).

The GOP attempted to effect damage control. Palin supporters dismissed the attacks as sexist bantering from the elitist, liberal media. They argued that Sarah was a reflection of "small town America," and that the only things voters cared about was whether or not she could assume the duties of the President in the event of McCain's incapacitation or death. They ignored the fact that most in their party felt she couldn't.

McCain had additional problems. For starters, he admitted that he'd sided with the President "90% of the time," which the Obama campaign repeated ad naseum. They also pointed out that McCain first denounced Bush's tax cuts and now talked of continuing them. In the first debate, Obama also made a point of McCain's support for the war In Iraq and that the Arizona Senator had declared that the war was not only the right thing, but would be over quickly and America would be greeted in that country as liberators. None of those things happened, as America remained in Iraq some three years after President Bush declared "mission accomplished."

Obama asserted, "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...of judgment..."

THE BEAT GOES ON...

As Congress began debating a $700 billion bailout package for the ailing finance industry, McCain campaign operatives continued to shoot themselves in the foot. Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's top economic adviser and co-chair of the campaign, said in an interview with the Associated Press, ""You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet. We have sort of become a nation of whiners...You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Gramm's comments were widely condemned. McCain denounced the remarks and nine days later, Gramm stepped down.

McCain seemed unable to gain any traction, even after the first debate. It was supposed to be a debate that would be advantageous for him, one that centered on foreign policy-his storing suit, and where he claimed Obama was weak and lacked leadership. The debate took place several days after McCain announced the suspension of his campaign to focus on Wall Street's mortgage crisis.

When McCain arrived in Washington, he had several photo ops, including one at the White House, where he and Senator Obama, along with several other members of the Congress had convened at the request of President George W. Bush. A day later a vote was taken and the bailout package failed. Democrats voted for it, but several Republican Senators were miffed by ill-advised comments of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who blamed the GOP for the fiscal mess. McCain was seen as someone who could not rally the troops, and amidst criticism flew to Oxford, Mississippi for the debate.

Obama remained poised throughout the debate, while McCain came off as irritable and throughout the debate reiterated in a condescending tone, "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand..."

OBAMA: ...We cannot separate Afghanistan from Iraq, because what our commanders have said is we don't have the troops right now to deal with Afghanistan. So I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan. Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan. And that is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the United States and that Secretary of Defense Gates acknowledged the central front--that the place where we have to deal with these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan...

MCCAIN: We've got to get the support of the people of Pakistan. He [Obama] said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government...And, yes, Senator Obama calls for more troops, but what he doesn't understand, it's got to be a new strategy, the same strategy that he condemned in Iraq. It's going to have to be employed in Afghanistan...So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.

OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said. And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out. Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy. And, John, I--you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is...

MCCAIN: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power...I have a record. I have a record of being involved in these national security issues, which involve the highest responsibility and the toughest decisions that any president can make, and that is to send our young men and women into harm's way...

OBAMA: ...The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.

(NOTE: Debate remarks were edited for brevity).

With their differences spelled out, the post-debate polling by ABC indicated that more than half of those queried said Obama won. About one-third called McCain the winner. CBS saw it Obama 39%, McCain 24% and 37% thought it was a draw.

As the election drew near, the personal attacks on Obama intensified. Sarah Palin accused the Senator of "palling around with terrorists." She rationalized her remarks by saying Obama needed to further explain his relationship with Bill Ayers, for he had not been truthful about it. Few noted that she used the plural terrorists. There were also accusations of Obama being a "socialist," after he told one voter (who became immortalized by the McCain campaign as "Joe The Plumber") that he planned to tax those making $250,000 or more and "redistributing the wealth."

Rove, et al. called Obama's tax cuts "government handouts," saying most would go to people who did not work and thus, paid no taxes. At rallies where these claims were made, some in the crowd made threatening remarks toward Obama, such as "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" McCain downplayed it and countered, "You should hear some of the things said about me at Senator Obama's rallies."

Nor even Fox News produced clips to back up McCain's assertion.

Again, polling indicated that voters were not interested in such "issues." Their top concerns were the economy (in particular the high prices of food and gas), the mess on Wall Street, healthcare, the war in Iraq and taxes. They favored Obama on the economy and gave McCain a slight edge on matters of foreign policy, even after Obama's choice for vice-president, Joe Biden, "guaranteed" that Obama would be tested "within the first six months" with an international crisis.

McCain suffered a damaging blow when Republican stalwart and former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Obama. More bad news was forthcoming. "[An] NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll gives Obama a 10 point lead nationally. 60% of respondents in the CNN poll think McCain's attacks on Obama are unfair, a figure that hurts McCain's chances further with independent voters. Reuters/Zogby has an 8 point Obama lead in its latest tracking poll. And the Pew poll, which takes into account cell phone users, has Obama up by 14 points. The prediction here is that these totals will go up in the next couple days as the impact of the Powell endorsement fully hits the polling results." (Source: Steven Reynolds, Palin Is Sinking The McCain Campaign, . alternet.org, Oct. 22, 2008)

Palin and McCain continued to insist that Obama would leave the country vulnerable, and there were some in the Obama camp who worried that the Senator from Illinois was not fighting back. Responding to the criticism, Obama countered with an ad that labeled McCain "erratic" and "out of touch" on the economy. The campaign also reminded the electorate that McCain, some twenty years earlier, had been involved with convicted financier Charles Keating in the S and L debacle. While McCain was not found guilty of any wrongdoing, the Senate ethics committee did find that he exercised "poor judgment."

Polls showed the race tightening in traditionally Republican states. Critics of the GOP nominee voiced concerns that McCain was giving away the election by not bringing up the Reverend Wright issue, showing the videotape of Wright shouting, "Not 'God bless America,' but God DAMN America!" Another problem, according to McCain staffers, was that Palin would not listen to them; that she was adamant about doing things her way. There were whispers that McCain realized his error in judgment at selecting her and Tom Ridge, an adviser to the campaign, told interviewers the ticket would have been better served if McCain had chosen him.

PALIN: AIRHEAD, DIVA

Even though she had held her own with Joe Biden in the lone vice-presidential debate, the bar had been set low. The Democrats and most pundits expected a major gaffe from her. She managed to make it through the debate without making such a Gerald Ford-like boner, but there was criticism that she blatantly ducked several questions and her winking to the audience smacked of immaturity and frivolousness.

"During the vice presidential debate on Thursday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin announced that she 'may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear.' In fact, 'On at least 10 occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it.' On NBC's Meet The Press today, debate moderator Gwen Ifill said that Palin 'more than ignored' her questions. 'Blew me off I think is the technical term,' said Ifill." (Source: Ifill: Palin 'Blew Me Off' During Debate, . http://thinkprogress.org, October 5, 2008).

l

Palin continued to make embarrassing gaffes, including her inability to explain the duties of the vice-president. When asked by a third-grader what a vice president does, Palin responded, that the vice-present "runs the senate" and "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes." The facts are, in the event the President can no longer carry out his duties, the VP takes over. The only other duty the second-in-command has is to preside over the Senate and cast the decisive vote in the event of a deadlock.

DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY

Obama's war chest (more than $700 million) allowed him to advertise heavily in states that w=George Bush won in 2000 and 2004. This forced McCain to allocate resources to areas he never thought he would have to. McCain was playing a prevent defense, and Obama was driving toward pay dirt.

It was no secret that the Democrats had no southern strategy on which they could rely. So they planned to organize a western blitzkrieg. This was important for two reasons. McCain being from Arizona was strong out west and had an ally in Mitt Romney, a Mormon, who could help with that segment of the vote in both Utah and Nevada. Second, in 2004, George Bush garnered wins in four states with Democratic Governors (New Mexico. Montana, Wyoming and Arizona). "These states, along with Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Nevada want to vote as a bloc. They form an aggregate of 53 electoral votes, almost as many as California's 55-which is solidly Democratic. Add this 108-vote bloc to New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, which have all gone Democratic in each election since 1992 (73 electoral votes total), and the Dems would be 2/3 of the way to the White House." (Source: Timothy N. Stelly, Sr., Go West, Young Men: The Future Of The Democratic Party, . Useless Knowledge, July 30, 2005).

Bill Richardson understood the power of the Hispanic voting bloc, saying "These are changing political times...We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better. We have to be more politically minded, we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past."

His efforts paid off for Obama in New Mexico, which went for Bush in 2000 and 2004, but went for Obama 57-42. Other Western and Southwestern states that went for Obama included Colorado, Montana and Nevada-and as expected, California, Oregon and Washington. The only state that Obama lost with sizeable Latino populations were Arizona and Texas. It was estimated that Obama was the choice of 73% of Latinos. His percentage of the black vote received exceeded 90%.

DISCORD IN THE McCAIN CAMP?

Rumors abounded that Palin was being "difficult" and did not want to study. McCain staffers would later tell Carl Cameron of Fox News that Palin did not understand basic civics, misunderstood the function of state and municipal government, couldn't name the three countries that make up NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), nor could she name all of the countries that make up North America. It was rumored that she thought Africa was a country and not a continent. According to these unnamed McCain staffers, she thought South Africa was the southern part of the "country." Late night talk show hosr David Letterman would later joke, "She thought NAFTA meant "Need Another Fofty Thousand for Accessories." (Source: The Late Show With David Letterman, . Nov. 5, 2008).

Whether it was true or not, if it made the news, chances are a lot of people would believe it, and that's damage Palin will likely be unable to fix. Palin called the anonymous critics "cowardly," adding, "If there are allegations based on questions or comments that I made in debate prep about NAFTA, and about the continent vs. the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context. That's cruel, It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks..." (Source: Dan Joling and Sharon Theimer, Palin Denounces Her Critics As Cowardly, . yahoonews.com, Nov. 7, 2008).

Earlier in the week, Palin blamed campaign staffer Nicole Wallace for her poor showing during her interview with Katie Couric and for her negative public image. Republican strategist Ed Rollins said of Palin, "[she] definitely is going to be the most popular Republican in this country when this thing is over." (Source: Dana Bash, Palin's Off-Script Remarks Irk McCain Aides, . cnnpolitics.com, Oct. 27, 2008). In an interview with NBS'c Matt Lauer, Wallace defended Palin, Saying "[She] did nothing wrong. She is perhaps the most un-diva politician I've ever seen." I(n reference to McCain choosing her, Wallace said, "It was a wise choice that will look wiser as time goes on." (Source: Video: Nicole Wallace Vigorously Defends Palin To Matt Lauer, . msnbc.com, Nov. 7, 2008).

There were rumors that staffer Randy Scheunemann had been fired, only to be reinstated by McCain, who feared that stories of campaign discord would hit the newswires just days before the election. After the election, Fox News defended its girl Palin, insisting the stories were the grumblings of disgruntled aides making excuses for McCain's defeat so they wouldn't look bad and could get jobs with other campaigns.

Meanwhile, blacks held their collective breath and hoped for the best, but expected the worst. They believed that if the Republicans could steal an election from other white men (Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004), then they would go to even greater lengths to sink an African-American candidate.

Associated Press writer Jesse Washington wrote, "Obama's potential victory represents a previously unimaginable triumph over centuries of racism. But beneath the hope and pride lies fear: of polling inaccuracy, voting chicanery, or the type of injustice and violence that have historically stymied African-American progress." (Source: Jesse Washington, Cautious Joy As Blacks Imagine Obama Win, . Associated Press, Nov. 2, 2008).

The decision would be announced early, just before 9 p.m. PT, as Obama hit the estimated 194 electoral vote mark. There was no doubt he would win Washington, Oregon, California and his home state of Hawaii, an aggregate 76 votes. Moreover, he had won over working class whites in Pennsylvania and Ohio. By that time, McCain knew the death knell had sounded. The campaign chose not to post the Pennsylvania results at McCain headquarters, but anyone with a blackberry or a cell phone had already heard the death knell.

NOV. 4, 2008

Overcoming steep odds-defeating the Clinton machine and surviving the GOP attacks-Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the Unites Stated and the first African-American elected to that post.

His success was due to his bringing in an inner circle that stayed true to him. There were no leaks and he earned the moniker "No drama Obama." Obama simply ran a smarter and more efficient campaign, coupled with the flaws and failures of the Clinton and McCain machines. This is not to say Obama "backed into" the White House. He won over the American public and did more to earn their trust. He won over white men and the white female segment that pundits were sure would turn on him. He benefited from Hillary Clinton's help and a smart campaign manger, David Axelrod.

One columnist wrote of McCain, "the McCain we got in the general election was not the McCain we had come to know. He was partisan, he was petty, he used a lot of gimmicks (the suspension of the campaign, Joe the Plumber, the celebrity commercial). He didn't rise above partisanship, he didn't go with his instincts. He was handled by his advisors to the point to where his objectivity was clouded. Had he have run a disciplined, issue-focused campaign, with a loyal running mate that he believed in (CT Sen. Joe Lieberman or MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty), the substance of this race would have been much different and the battlegrounds down the stretch would have been much more competitive. He would have had a stronger ability to shape debate, rather than just react to it." (Source: My Super, 5 Reasons Why McCain Lost, demconwatchblog.com, Nov. 5, 2008).

Both Clinton and McCain can look back and see what went wrong. They ran into a more masterful politician, whose grit they underestimated. They also failed to acknowledge America's desire for change and the intelligence of the voting public. Distortions, fear mongering and character assassination would not work. Obama never panicked and he stayed on point with the issues.

Obama won the popular vote, 52-46, or 65,293,083 votes to McCain's 57,325,487 the second-highest total in history and enough to win in any other election year. Obama won both the male and female vote, 49-48 and 56-43 respectively. He won the 18-29 demographic, 66% to 32% and won in every age group except those over 65, which went for McCain 53-45.

The final tally: Obama 365 electoral votes, McCain 173.

Timothy N. Stelly, Sr. is a poet, novelist, essayist and screenwriter who resides in Northern California.

Perception, Persuasion, and Politics in Media - A Look at How Politicians Can Legally Rig Elections

It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency. George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

The Case Study

Making someone, or indeed something, persuasive is much more complex than it may initially seem. We know what appeals to us to make us align with someone, but we are not always aware what the 'x factor' they possess really is; in other words, we can warm to someone without fully understanding why. The following example, from psychological literature, sheds some light on the matter. During the American 1984 Presidential campaign between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale an experiment took place for eight days. Lead researcher Brian Mullen, of Syracuse University, videotaped three national, nightly news broadcasts featuring news anchors Peter Jennings of ABC, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Dan Rather of CBS. Mullen viewed the tapes and excerpted every reference to both candidates, leaving him with thirty-seven segments of roughly two and a half seconds in length. A group of randomly selected participants then viewed the tapes with the volume muted so they were unaware of what the broadcast pertained, removing the chance of political bias. The participants were asked to rate the facial expressions of each news anchor on a 21-point scale, with the lowest number being "extremely negative" and the highest being "extremely positive".

The outcome proved enlightening. Dan Rather of CBS scored 10.46 and 10.37 when talking about Mondale and Reagan respectively, meaning his expression was perfectly neutral, offering no advocacy over one candidate or the other. Tom Brokaw of NBC scored 11.21 for Mondale and 11.50 for Reagan, making him slightly more positive for both than Rather but still remaining balanced for both. The enlightening part came when analysing the results of ABC's Peter Jennings. His results showed him speaking more positively about Mondale than both his counterparts, at 13.38, but for Reagan he became so enthusiastic he scored a very high 17.44 - less than four points off the maximum. The study's researcher Mullen acted in accordance with his scientific duty and tried to determine if there was an explanation for this beyond candidate bias, such as the possibility that he was just more animated and expressive than the other broadcasters. To conclude whether or not this was the case, the same participants were shown control segments from the same broadcasters as they spoke about a happy topic and a sad topic (namely, a medical breakthrough in treating a congenital disease and Indira Gandhi's funeral respectively). Of Jennings, Brokaw and Rather, Jennings not only failed to score higher, but appeared to be the least expressive and by no means had a happy expression as his usual one. So much so that he scored only 14.13 for the story of the medical breakthrough, which was considerably lower than both other newscasters. Therefore, Mullen had no choice but to conclude that Jennings did, in fact, have "significant and noticeable bias in facial expression" when talking about Ronald Reagan.

Of course, this information is useless by itself and so Mullen, along with his colleagues, needed to find a way to determine whether or not this facial bias actually impacted voting choices. Their method to do this was to phone people who regularly watched the evening news, in various cities all across the country, and enquire who they voted for. The results were quite remarkable: in every phone survey ABC viewers voted Reagan much more than those who watched CBS or NBC. For example, a full three-quarters of the Cleveland ABC watchers voted Reagan, compared to 61.9 per cent of CBS or NBC viewers; over 71 per cent of ABC viewers in Williamstown, Massachusetts, voted Reagan compared to just half of the other two networks; and in Erie, Pennsylvania, it was 73.7 per cent for Reagan and 50 per cent for Mondale. So not only did Jennings subtly influence voting behavior across the nation, but also in staggeringly similar numbers.

Somewhat predictably, and no doubt but for the sake of its public image, ABC vehemently disputed the study, indeed the study researcher Mullen is quoted as saying "It's my understanding that I'm the only social scientist to have the dubious distinction of being called a 'jackass' by Peter Jennings". It is possible that Mullen's conclusion got the cart before the horse, that rather than Jennings influencing viewers it is simply that Republicans watch a station that is more sympathetic to their party of choice, and rather than Jennings tempting over 70 per cent of viewers to vote a particular candidate, those 70+ per cent watch Jennings because they like his stance. Yet, as obviously plausible as this is, Mullen argued - with no short supply of likelihood - that it simply was not the case. To validate his claim, he referred to the fact that ABC was actually more hostile to Reagan than Mondale and so cannot be considered necessarily a pro-Republican station. Not leaving the issue there, four years later he proved his initial findings were not merely flukes, because when Bush was competing against Dukakis for Presidency Mullen repeated the experiment - with the same outcome. He said of this second experiment that "Jennings showed more smiles when referring to the Republican candidate than the Democrat" and that in another phone survey like before "viewers who watch Jennings were more likely to have voted for Bush"

Source: Adapted from: The Psychology of Consumer Behavior & The Tipping Point

The Takeaway

It is common knowledge that the media has a profound effect in shaping elections and some would argue it is a useful tool for social engineering. Yet despite knowing the effect exists, few know exactly how it works, except those with esoteric knowledge on the subject - and they are probably exploiting it already. This research has direct implications on how a politician can leverage his position by specific manipulation of the media which can, in turn, have a profound subconscious effect on the choice of voters. Implicit in the above study is the view that if all newscasters covering politics just so much as only exude a positive expression regardless of what is being said when covering or discussing certain politicians, the perception will have a measurable effect come election time. This is subliminal persuasion to say the least, as what is being said is not as important as how it is being said - from a visual perspective that is. A positive slant can be obtained from a neutral or mildly negative story if it is delivered with enthusiasm or positivity, without viewers even consciously comprehending the effect.

Assumptions

As Mullen showed, the independent variable is the facial expression of the newscaster, while the dependent variable is the perceived emotional content of expression i.e. positive or negative. The key word here is 'perceived'.

Assumptions made in this study are therefore:

a. Newscaster's preference for a politician is positively correlated with his facial expression

b. Viewers have not misread his expression i.e. if he came across as positive, that is because he is feeling positive, as opposed to appearing positive because his job essentially demands as much.

c. Viewers who were exposed to positive facial expression of a newsreader covering a certain politician are much more likely to view that politician in the same light.

d. Viewers who perceive a politician in a positive light are therefore more likely to vote for the same candidate come election time.

Each assumption is the sine qua non for the next (i.e. for b to be true a has to be true, for c to be true, b has to be true (so a has to be true as well) and so on)

Mullen et al. were careful to draw any conclusion as noted in their statement: "Jennings exhibited a significant and noticeable bias in facial expression toward Reagan" which neither gives away nor explicitly implies Jennings's political preference.

Perhaps there is really only one way to confirm the above study and put it beyond any reasonable doubt: to look at Peter Jennings' voting ballot. Since that is illegal, it seems that the only person that will ever know for sure is Peter Jennings himself. However, t is unlikely for Jennings to ever reveal who he voted for for two reasons; a) this is a powerful knowledge to have (if confirmed) and b) the backlash for ABC and Jennings is unthinkable.

Implications

Mullen et al. found that people who watch Jennings were more likely to vote for Regan than people who watched Brokaw or Rather. Newscasters can have much more influence than they either believe or admit. Such findings are disturbing to say the least, for they purport that we are effectively governed by what we see. In everyday life, political discussions rarely lead to a changed opinion, and yet tacit, subconscious influences can have profound effects. To quote Mullen once more: "When people watch the news, they don't intentionally filter biases out, or feel they have to argue against the expression of the newscaster...it's much more subtle and for that reason much more insidious, and that much harder to insulate ourselves against."

A second implication of these findings is that visual, nonverbal cues are equally, or more, important than verbal ones. As validated countless times by body language experts, how we conduct ourselves matters. This is further proven when we simply consider that Jennings did not litter his newscasts with pro-Reagan speeches - in fact, as mentioned previously, ABC was openly more hostile to the Republican party than NBC and CBS.

The third, final and arguably most important implication is that persuasion works in ways we often do not appreciate, or even understand. For instance, visual expressions of happiness such as smiles and nods are not subliminal, they are visible and apparent. However, they are very subtle and the way in which they are used gets processed in our subconscious and then relayed in our conscious with a message that such-and-such is good. In this instance, Jennings smiling each time he mentioned Reagan subtly influenced viewers to believe Reagan was a good choice to vote for. Yet, despite this link, no viewer would ever accept it is the reason they voted for Reagan; no, they would argue that they liked Reagan's policies, or thought he was doing well so far or even his charisma, but never that they were influenced by a newsreaders smile. Yet it is very apparent that persuasiveness works beyond eloquence and choice of words; it works very well with subtle, nonverbal communication too.

Recommendations

· A politician seeking power will benefit from newsreaders displaying positive expressions when covering news pieces that relate to him or her.

· To avoid accusations of a biased media, this strategy can be undertaken covertly (e.g. the director of the news company can encourage the 'right' newscaster to smile more often when covering a certain subject. That way, the newscaster does not even need to be aware of their own effect on viewers/voters). This will reduce any likelihood of the newscaster exposing the tactic at a later date.

· When times are good, a politician in power can use this knowledge as a tool for gaining public approval for his agenda or pushing through his policies.

· When times are bad, it can help with PR or falling popularity.

Discussion

A politician's winning smile is often mentioned. The above study is clearly consistent with the disturbing possibility that a smile might be able to elect a president! Granted, that is farfetched even for the most naive wannabe believers. 'Smiling' alone may not elect a president, but when used in conjunction with many other media manipulation techniques, the outcome of an election can be all but certain.

Below is just one of many examples on how clever media manipulation can be used for political gains. White (1972) described how Franklin Roosevelt cleverly removed Thomas E. Dewey from the stimulus situation for an evening during the 1944 presidential campaign. Roosevelt had reserved a fifteen-minute segment on NBC radio and Dewey subsequently reserved the following fifteen-minute segment in order to capitalise on Roosevelt's audience. However Roosevelt spoke only for fourteen of his allocated fifteen minutes and left the last minute completely silent. Reportedly, listeners across the country believed that the NBC network has gone off the air after the president's speech and all of those listeners began scanning for other stations. As a result, the millions who had listened to Roosevelt a minute before were not listening when Dewey came on the air.

Although Roosevelt's action had less to do with persuasion and more to do with underhand tactics, the results are equally profound as the public/voters were not aware that they were being 'manipulated'.

For a more recent example on perception, persuasion and politics in media, consider Barack Obama's presidential campaign. We have the benefit of a retrospective view on Obama as a politician, therefore it is vital to consider the following scenario from its given time frame of prior to the election. In October 2008, Wall Street Journal Online reported that Obama had made a decision not to sport an American flag pin on his lapel. When asked in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens:

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest, instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism. (Taranto WSJO)

During the campaign trail, Obama's pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, gave a speech (later referred to as "God Damn America") that was racially polarising and could easily spell the death blow for Obama's White House aspirations. Rev Wright was alienating white voters (amongst many other anti-patriotic criticisms) with his rhetoric, and to the viewers and voters, Obama was guilty by association.

This prompted Obama to issue a TV ad denouncing Wright's statements. His "major speech on race" was also necessitated by the revelation that his "spiritual mentor" had among other things called on God to damn America. Critics noted that Obama "did the right thing", that his TV ad statement and speech were well crafted and "did the job" considering the extent of the case, and the campaign's aim of damage control.

Most people may not realise that Obama's TV ad has the American flag carefully placed in shot, and he gave his "major speech on race" amid a row of eight American flags! They were placed directly behind him as he stood at the lectern. (This is perhaps the most liberal use of subtle tactics uncovered by Mullen.)

Critics were quick to notice it, with James Taranto of the WSJ noting:

...in light of his October comment, what are we to make of his extravagant use of the Stars and Stripes on Tuesday (Major Speech on Race)? If a flag pin on a lapel is "a substitute for true patriotism," is that not also true of eight flags on a stage as a backdrop to a political speech? Obama proclaimed himself too good for cheap symbolism, but resorted to it the first time he faced a real crisis. Is he really any different from the run-of-the-mill politician?

In the context of this paper, a critical reader will not ask "what the flag symbolises" but rather "how such symbolism and visual aids can be used in media for the attainment of specific purposes".

This is not to take anything away from Obama as a politician. But to ignore the impact of carefully crafted media images (i.e. images of Obama eloquently denouncing Wright against a backdrop of American flags beamed to millions of American voters) will be blatantly taking credit away from the media's contribution to Obama's campaign.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is no surprise that Obama's campaign has successfully leveraged the power of media. It is also no secret that his campaign's online media strategies - his personal website, Youtube channel and social networking site - were well crafted and credited for Obama's election success. For further insurance, Obama's camp had hired Facebook's co-founder Chris Hughes to coordinate their online efforts.

This does not mean people such as Jennings, and the media as a collective, are unwitting tools in the political game. At least, not explicitly; they can be with the right circumstances. If a US politician aspiring to the highest office goes on national television and fails to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade, no amount of media persuasion or manipulation can save their political campaign. In fact, it will further speed up their political demise. Consider the following example: In the run up to the 2008 US presidential election, Republican vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was ridiculed after her interviews with CBS's Katie Couric. In the interviews, the then Governor of Alaska appeared stumped by relatively easy questions regarding Supreme Court rulings and foreign policies. At one point, in response to Couric's question: "...when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read..?" Palin could not, or at least did not, even name one newspaper that she read.

As one can imagine, when the interviews aired, the media had a field day at Palin's expense. The key point here is not how Sarah Palin carved her own downfall by appearing incompetent or how Palin jokes making the rounds among newscasters and late night talk-show hosts were making her look bad; but rather the 'message' the newscasters have imprinted on their viewers. A newscaster may be presenting news on the Grand Old Party as professionally as he possibly can, but his personal sense of disbelief, whilst irrelevant to the news, is somehow transported into the mind of viewers through the subtle, the hidden and the unspoken.

The fact that such a seemingly incompetent woman could one day be President of America should the Republicans win the election and anything happen to John McCain hit home to viewers, without the newscaster intending as much. Accordingly, Palin suddenly became the talking point of citizens who up until that point had little to no interest in politics. The 'Jennings effect' therefore can also work the other way round: negativity from a newsreader can cause disillusion with the party.

A politician with such knowledge and the right skills can theoretically push the right buttons, tick the right boxes and win our votes. Isn't that what a politician is supposed to do anyway? Isn't that his job, to use the media and any available tool at his disposal to convince us? Yes, it is, just like it is a magician's job to convince us of the seemingly impossible. It is one thing watching a magician perform and applauding him, but another to reveal the secrets to his tricks. In some ways, a politician is similar to a magician as they both have to perform in public, they both have to gain our approval to win us over, they both use perception and persuasion techniques and they both have to sometimes convince us against overwhelming odds. The only difference is that when it is all said and done, when the performance is over a magician has no say over the forces that influence of our lives and country.

To take this crude analogy further, a street magician can use all the tricks up his sleeves to manipulate members of the public for good or bad intentions. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop these people using it for their own personal gains. We, the public, are aware of this and call them 'conmen' or 'scam artists'. This is not to say that all street magicians are scam artists or that politicians have their own agendas; an overwhelming majority of them have good intentions and politicians are there to serve the public trust.

The premise of this paper is not to identify politicians with street magicians. Any criticism directed at such comparison is missing the point. It is one thing to watch a magician manipulate an audience, it is another to reveal the tricks, and yet entirely another to replicate it (perform it). Similarly it is one thing to watch Jennings on ABC news, another to be able to link viewers voting preference with his facial expressions, and yet entirely another to be able to methodise it and incorporate such methods to affect the outcome of an election.

Perhaps knowledge really is power. But the great Napoleon Hill once wrote that "Knowledge is only potential power. It becomes power only when, and if, it is organised into definite plans of action and directed to a definite end." [p 75 (2004) Think and Grow Rich]

And so, with the above information in mind, I propose the following questions to the reader:

As a voter,

How would you view the next political message you come across?
How would you analyse it or read into it?


As a politician,

How would you devise your next campaign?
How are you utilising the media to maximise the effectiveness of your message?


More importantly, what would one do with knowledge that can shape the outcome of an election? Is such knowledge applicable elsewhere? Is it already in use? Have I been affected by it? These are the questions that are central to the premise of this paper.

The methods discussed so far represent only the tip of the iceberg, the size of which remains undetermined. Therefore, in future, if a reader watches a political campaign and recalls the discussion and questions set forth earlier then, suffice to say, the author has achieved his original aim when he set out to write this article.

Conclusion

In conclusion, consider the following fictional work by suspense author Robert Bloch. The story presents a nameless professor who has arranged a secret meeting with the head of the nation's largest advertising firm. The reason for the meeting is to propose a means of developing the most effective type of politician.

When I began to study these things you've mentioned - how people from the entertainment would have gradually infiltrated politics as advisors, producers, technicians; how they've tried to train our politicians and office holders to become like actors. And it occurred to me then- why not use actors?... You said yourself that almost any man who starts with a clean record and a noncommittal attitude can be built into a political figure by means of present-day psychological techniques. The trick is to teach him to speak, to handle himself properly when on public display. So why waste time on tired old men or egotistical prima donnas who can't cope with their roles? If politics is show business, why not put the right actors into the parts to begin with? (Bloch, 1959, Show Biz p.66)

The notion is probably somewhat fanciful, but certainly interesting - that an effective politician could be produced merely by using an existing actor who knows how to "play to an audience", as evidenced perhaps by Clint Eastwood becoming Mayor or Carmel in the 1980s. Or, maybe even Ronald Reagan's rise to presidency.

As Bloch's writing shows, it seems that reality can sometimes draw inspiration from fiction. Or is it the other way around?

David S. Wong is the Head of Corporate Communications at Asia Media. He has been with the company since its inception in 2007. He is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Brighton where he specializes in entrepreneurship and management practices of IT and media firms. David also works as a management and IT consultant. He is a Microsoft certified systems administrator. A Malaysian native, David studied Civil Engineering at University of Liverpool where he obtained an honours degree. He subsequently read postgraduate Management at University of Brighton where he graduated at the top of his class with Distinction. David splits his time between living in London and Kuala Lumpur. His current interests include advertising, digital Out-of-Home media, management and entrepreneurship research. In his spare time, David enjoys managing his own portfolio: trading derivates and shares on the UK and US stock market.

Supreme Court Nominee - Elena Kagan

Much like President Obama himself, his newest Supreme Court nominee has little experience for the task at hand. Current Solicitor General Elena Kagan has never been a judge before, and this fact alone I find a bit concerning. When it comes to the selection of a Supreme Court justice, the historical prerequisite has been the nominee's judicial record. Solicitor General Kagan does not have one. Anyone can say, "I can follow the law and rule accurately and impartially." Of course, the liberal spin-doctors have touted her thin record as an asset. As much as I disagreed with the nomination and subsequent confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, at least she resided on the bench for almost 20 years before her nomination.

A Supreme Court confirmation is nothing to take lightly. It is the highest judicial body in the United States and comes with lifetime tenure. Presidential legacies are built from these nominations and the Supreme Court literally shapes our government, as we know it. With the average length of service being 26 years, it is imperative that the wrong person is not chosen. Yes, there is an extensive vetting process and she will have to sit through numerous questions and interrogation from the Senate, but with a liberal majority, it really is just a technicality. Having two nominations so close together is a rare occurrence and I can't help but notice the blatant hypocrisy that the liberal media is bestowing upon us. For instance, Justice Sotomayor's extensive justice experience and legal publications were at the time touted as an asset, only months later, these same qualifications, or lack thereof in Kagan's case are downplayed and even considered a detriment.

In the first few days after word broke of her nomination, the only substantial profile that one internet savvy blogger could conjure up is that she was the first female dean of Harvard Law, she adamantly opposes the U.S. military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and she did everything in her power to ban military recruiters from the Harvard campus. She continued with her anti-military stance by claiming that military recruitment taking place on her campus violates anti-discrimination policies. The issue was eventually litigated before the Supreme Court in conjunction with a number of other liberal educators. Thankfully, the group lost in a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts who, ironically, was eventually confirmed to his spot on the Supreme Court after President Clinton had previously nominated Kagan for the same position before his departure from office. Obviously, Kagan was forced to comply with the decision. This process was performed under the veil of a backhanded complement by Kagan noting her respect and admiration for all the U.S. military does. When military recruiters go to Harvard Law, they obviously are not looking for gunnery sergeants. I can understand and even sympathize with the anti-war movement (for very different reasons), but to disallow our own military looking to recruit bright young minds for the JAG Corps is just plain wrong.

Elena Kagan is not a mainstream or even moderate democrat. As evident by her statement regarding the 1991 ban of using federal money for abortions, she is staunchly pro-choice. She said that the ban amounted to "government hostility towards some ideas." In addition to her prior statement regarding abortion, her nomination to the Supreme Court was recently endorsed by Planned Parenthood. She has also made her opinion known on the topic of gay rights. I previously mentioned her stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." She referred to this controversial policy as a "moral injustice of the first order." Furthermore, in a column written by Maggie Gallagher for the National Review, Gallagher writes, "a vote for Kagan is a vote for gay marriage." She has not shied away from her desires to create a more liberal America. Her senior thesis, while a student at Princeton, focused on the demise of the Socialist movement in the early 20th century. Kagan referred to the demise as "...a sad but also a chastening one for those who, for more than half a century after socialism's decline, still wish to change America." Her supporters claim it was just a college paper with the purpose of examining the socialist movement, but with quotes such as those, it is hard to make an argument that personal opinions didn't somehow make their way into her paper. Also while a student, she authored a piece for the student paper entitled "Fear and Loathing in Brooklyn." In her article, she claims to have effectively aligned her beliefs with liberal policies early in life, and blasted the current political success of the right. She was quoted as saying that she longed for a time when a "more leftist left will once again come to the fore." Unfortunately, her wish now has come to fruition and she is right smack dab in the middle of a perfect political storm. She has the support of both the White House and the Senate. No doubt, even with her non-existent judicial record, her confirmation will go through without a hitch.

Daniel Hawes
http://www.TheGenesisReport.com

When Did The Term "Racist" Turn Into A Political Tactic?

I had always thought that being a racist was a bad thing. The dictionary defines a racist as someone who expresses "hatred or intolerance of another race or races." In my understanding, a racist considered a certain set of people to ALL have the same negative or undesirable characteristics, without exception. Hate, intolerance, stereotyping some people as being all the same without considering, respecting, and celebrating the individual, all very nasty stuff.

But now I am not so sure my understanding of what constitutes a racist is correct any more. These days, it seems you are a racist by simply disagreeing with someone, especially if you disagree with a politician. Consider the following examples:

- In early April, 2010, New York Congressman Charles Rangel, during the debate leading up to the passing of Obama's health care reform legislation, said: "The group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, they looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South."

- Around the same time, also in relation to the opposition to Obama's health care legislation, Texas Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee said: "All those who wore sheets a long time ago lifted them off to wear tea party clothing." (an obvious reference to the virulent racism exhibited by the Ku Klux Klan)

- According to an Orlando Sentinel online article, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson recently said on a radio show that: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago." (another reference to the Klan and in response to the questioner stating that those attending the Glen Beck rally were" mostly old, white, mostly McCain-Palin leftovers.")

- When Arizona passed its illegal immigration law in the spring, there were numerous accusations that those supporting the toughened enforcement requirements of the law were racists and against Latinos.

- Recently there were two dueling rallies in southern Manhattan, one supporting the construction of the Muslim mosque on the current site and one calling for it to be moved some distance away from the Ground Zero 9-11 site. The Associated Press article covering the events quoted one of the people at the rally supporting the mosque at the current site. In her opinion, those against building the mosque on its current site were racists.

So let me see if I get this right. In this new world:

- You are a racist if you honestly disagree with the passing of a piece of legislation such as Obama Care even though you have serious doubts of whether it will work or not since it never addressed the underlying core problems of rising health care costs, it is becoming even more obvious that it will increase the Federal deficit, and it will criminalize millions of Americans if they do not purchase health care insurance as mandated by the political class. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hate or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to disagree with a piece of legislation.

- You are a racist if you attend a political rally whose ideals and principles are in conflict with a politicians' view of the world. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hate or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to attend the "wrong" political rally.

- You are a racist if you are old or if you are white. Not only did the talk show host above make this insinuation, but many on the left side of main stream media have made that same assertion. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred or intolerance of another race or races, you just have to be light skinned and a senior citizen.

- You are a racist if you are concerned about the human trafficking and drug smuggling going on across the Mexico border with the U.S. and the potential for violence and crime that comes with it. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to be concerned about your safety and the safety of your family from illegal immigration.

- You are a racist if you are against a state law that is trying to protect the safety of its citizens in light of the inability of the Federal government to both control illegal immigration or come up with a coherent, rational immigration plan. In this case, you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to object that the Federal government is not doing its job in the illegal immigration arena.

- You are a racist if you are a relative of someone who died in the 9-11 attacks and have asked for a little compassion and understanding that building the mosque close to Ground Zero would be very difficult for these relatives to cope with, given what they experienced on that Tuesday nine years ago and would appreciate it if the mosque was moved a little further away. In this case you can be a racist without expressing hatred and intolerance of another race or races, you just have to ask for a little compassion and understanding of what Ground Zero means to you personally.

Wow, I think I got it now. Objecting to government policy, attending a political rally, being old, being light skinned, and asking for some compassion now make you a racist. My, how the world has changed.

Dr. Martin Luther King would be so out of place today. He thought, as did I, that a racist actually was an individual that displayed irrational hate and intolerance of another race or races, that a racist stereotyped all members of a race as having the same negative traits, that a racist could never view an individual for their personal traits and assets. Back in 1963, Dr. King said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Dr. King felt that once content of character was the only judgment of an individual, we would emerge from the abyss of racism.

Today's politicians would disagree with Dr. King. We have allowed our politicians to define anyone or any group of Americans as racists who disagree with their view of the world. Consider some more words from Dr. King's speech and how far we have strayed from his advice by naming anyone with a different opinion as a racist: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." Our current politicians do not drink from the mere cup of bitterness and hatred, they drink directly from the keg of bitterness and hatred. If any of them achieved a high plane of dignity and discipline, most would probably faint from attaining such lofty principles for the first time in their political lives.

Why do politicians act like this, using whatever despicable descriptions and accusations they can to divide America along racial, religious, political, sexual orientation, wealth, and other demarcation lines? They do it to get elected over and over, without concern as to what it is doing to the fabric of the country. It is more important to "energize their base" then it is to solve the problems facing the country. If the other side gets branded as a racists, that's fine, as long as they get elected. There is no dignity, there is no discipline, only the breeding of hatred and intolerance, which really makes them the present day racists, not the American citizens honestly voicing their concerns on issues that affect them and their families.

Before closing out, please take the following quiz to test your ability to identify the racist:

Who stated that President Obama was "a light skinned African American...with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Was it:

a) Sarah Palin

b) Rush Limbaugh

c) Sean Hannity

d) Glen Beck

e) Bill O'Reilly

f) None of the above.

If you selected f), you are correct. The statement was actually made by Nevada Democratic Senator Harry Reid. Talk about a racist comment, attributing a man's skin color and his way of speaking to his race. Thus, the people we have in office even stoop so low to degrade and debase their fellow politicians along racial lines, imagine what they think of those that have a different opinion from their positions.

There is only one way to get out of this rut and elevate the political discussion to the levels Dr. King pined for back in the 1960s. Come November, all incumbents must go and be replaced with individuals that celebrate diversity, recognize the individual, and will focus on solving our problems and not "energizing their bases." Longer term, we must institute Step 39 from "Love My Country, Loathe My Government," a step that would institute term limits on all Federal politicians. Only then will be able to return the word racists to its former despicable place in the world and remove it as an election and campaign tactic.

Walter "Bruno" Korschek is the author of the book, "Love My COuntyr, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class," is available at http://www.loathemygovernment.com and online at Barnes & Noble. Our daily dialog on freedom in American canbe joined at http://www.loathemygovernment.blogspot.com.