Political Agenda

Sowing the Seeds of Misery – A Conversation with Two African American Liberals

2010-10-31T22:41:00.003-04:00

Several weeks ago as I was heading into work, I noticed one of my co-workers driving his car with a problematic rear window: it wouldn’t stay up. I’ve fixed this on some of my vehicles in the past—one of many things I’ve had to learn to do to save money. And so, knowing that I could save him a ton of money, I asked his permission to lend a hand. Helping my co-worker in this way was very gratifying. Being able to repay him for the countless favors he’s done for me-- not to mention the look of gratitude on his face-- was payment enough. Helping others and being helped is indeed one the most emotionally gratifying things that we human beings can experience.

Compare that true story with what is going on now on the national stage, where two worldviews are at odds with each other. There is one school of thought that believes in the general benevolence of the United States government; the other believes in the general benevolence of the private sector (you and me). Both views claim to have the greater good of the United States as its main objective. Let me bring this back to my own workplace for a moment: During a conversation with two of my coworkers (one of whom is the owner of the car in my earlier anecdote); I was asked the question, “Why are you a conservative?” It is a rare pleasure to meet Black American Democrats who can endure a lengthy debate with me – so I answered: “My belief in God and view of freedom are at odds with the culture within your party.” I returned the question (with a twist), “Why aren’t the two of you conservative?” Their answer: “The Republican Party is a bunch of rich white men who could not care less about me or people in need.” I thought about his reply and wondered how is it that conservatives could be so misunderstood, given the fact that they give 30% more to charity than liberals.[1] As a matter of fact, most conservatives are very caring people (especially religious ones), we just don’t think that it is within the government’s purview to take from one group to give to another.[2] Then they asked me another question, “What would you do if someone asked you for food?” My answer: “Give within my means but not at the expense of my own family.” My colleagues were troubled by my answer and asked if that is all I would do – what about the person’s long term needs? This, they concluded, is why we need a “benevolent” government, looking out for the long term wellbeing of the needy. Because conservatives like me are not concerned with such things.

I thought about this conversation with my two liberal friends and it occurred to me how truly sinister wealth redistribution via the government is. No consideration is given to how we as Americans could improve in our kindness to each other and no consideration was given to self-improvement. President Obama has been pushing hard against the more affluent in our country, telling us that they are not paying their fair share. I submit that when Democrats promote this way of thinking, they are actually promoting selfishness-- which will ultimately lead to misery. I might not have helped my coworker if I thought that it was someone else’s responsibility to fix his window. And instead of reaping the benefits of helping each other, we would both be selfishly wondering who is going to fix this window and when. We would be looking with disdain at those the government tells us is responsible for fixing the window. All I’m saying is this, if someone tells me that it is the responsibility of the wealthy (those making over $250K per year) to help the needy then why would I help the needy? The dirty little secret is this: all of us, without exception, are morally obligated to aid the needy. Whether it is with money, time or good old fashioned hard work, we are all able to help. It is no wonder the country has become so divided lately. Led by our government, too many people are saying “you owe me” and not asking “how can I help you”.

Imagine an America where our first instinct is to help and not to feel entitled; to get involved because it’s our duty and not someone else’s? Imagine how personally fulfilled we would be and how much stronger the bonds that unite us as Americans would become if the man in the mirror became more involved in bettering his surroundings. If you want to continue feeling misery because the other side (politically speaking) gets under your skin, then keep following the President’s lead: shifting what are your moral responsibilities to others, like the rich. If, on the other hand, you are tired of the resentment and misery you carry with you every day; then try helping someone—anyone-- even yourself, and let the healing begin.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda

____________________________________________________
Foot Notes

[1] In their blog, “Talking Points,” wordpress.com takes on the issue of charitable donations by the two main political parties. The article titled, “Conservative vs. Liberal Charity Donations,” noted the fact that conservative Americans donate 30% more to charity than liberal Americans. The Author, who is not named, draws from, “Who Really Cares” a book written by Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks. Brooks by means of the statistical study of actual data shows that if the conservative is religious, the margin is even greater- insofar as charitable giving is concern.

http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/

[2] ibid

Return Your Seat Back and Tray Table to their Upright Position

2010-03-21T22:29:00.009-04:00

If you have flown before, this analogy will resonate. At the beginning of every flight as the plane is taxiing away from the gate, the flight attendants jump into action and regiment a set of procedures that we all could probably recite right now. First they tell us to, “Return your seat back and tray tables to their upright position.” Then they tell us what to do if there is a crash landing on water (they never tell us what to do if it crashes into a mountain; however, I wonder why). At some later time in the presentation we are told what to do if we are to lose cabin pressure; pull the oxygen mask towards you and place it over your nose. If you have kids or if there is a young child next to you (which gets to the point of my analogy), first place the oxygen mask over the child’s nose then tend to your own needs. Am I right about that? Those of you who are frequent flyers are saying right now, “Actually Danian, you are wrong about that; first the adult puts the oxygen mask on and then attends to the child.” If you noticed my dyslexia in reversing who gets the oxygen mask first in the adult-child scenario; my hats off to you, because you may be the only person actually paying attention (we all should be) in the whole flying community.

All kidding aside, have you ever wondered why that is? After all it seems so selfish (at first glance); an adult reaching for the oxygen mask and taking care of themselves before considering the needs of the child. Shouldn’t the child come first? Well I would argue that democrats in congress are experiencing a similar type of dyslexia as they pursue healthcare reform. And at a first glance it seems so noble, like the adult who would first places the oxygen mask on the infant. Who would dare argue against giving health insurance to people who don’t have it: only the most selfish and despicable human being right? Now I would go as far as saying that most people (democrats) who are in favor of reforming healthcare as prescribed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, do so from a noble and clear conscience, but is it wise? By the way, I would not go that far with the President; he is motivated by his own self-interest. [1]

The answer: Why put the oxygen mask on yourself before tending to the child? You do this because if the cabin loses pressure, you could lose consciousness in less than twenty seconds; in saving the child first you could both die. Save yourself first and you both live. It turns out that the noble act of helping the child first is incredibly stupid. I have little or no compassion for a parent or adult who would help the child first against the instructions of the flight attendant, thus causing both to die in the process.

Well my fellow Americans, our economy has lost cabin pressure, and we are all about to lose consciousness - many already have lost consciousness, to the tune of a 10% unemployment rate. But against the wishes of the American people, to first shore-up the economy, and reduce the unemployment rate, our president and the democrats in congress have decided otherwise. In the middle of a recession our president has decided to ignore the people who could really solve our economic woes in favor of “helping” those who can’t right now; essentially giving the oxygen mask to the child first. I say this with all due respect to the presidency, and to my fellow Americans who support this healthcare bill (during a recession), “You are incredibly short-sited, and you are a fool. Your folly will be to all our undoing.”

How about this for an idea: Let us first get Americans back to work, thus putting us in a better position to help our fellow citizens without health insurance; essentially putting the oxygen mask on the adults first. I suspect in so doing, reducing our unemployment rate from 10% to say 2%, the big mountain that is healthcare reform will be reduced to a mole hill. That is of course if your true motivation is to help others and not to help yourself.

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda
_________________________________________________
Footnotes:

[1] In an article by Glen Rush of The Politico titled, “Obama's pitch: Fate of presidency on the line,” Glen reports from a very good source, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus that, “Obama won him over by essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34602.html

Haiti, Death and Taxes

2010-01-16T16:58:00.013-05:00

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

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

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

Current events:

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

Future Events:

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

________________________________________
Footnotes:

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

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

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

2009-11-17T18:08:00.008-05:00

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

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

As I see it, here’s the problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Indecision 09

2009-11-12T21:35:00.004-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009-09-29T20:41:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Consider a hypothetical with me:

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

___________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Need a Hand That Will Beat the Race Card

2009-08-13T17:13:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

A Study on Healthcare Reform for You and Me

2009-07-08T16:07:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

2. A privately run system

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, President Obama added the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

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

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

[3] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

Big Babies in the Music Industry and Their Mommies in Congress

2009-06-09T14:01:00.010-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

[3] Ibid.

Fiscal Conservatism Illustrated: The Potential GM Move from Detroit

2009-06-03T16:47:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

Our Government: The New No. 1 Crime Family

2009-05-28T10:58:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political A

Harsh interrogation - A case study

2009-05-06T10:10:00.006-04:00

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

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

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

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

Case No. 1 – The Police:

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

Case No. 2 – My Parents:

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

Case No. 3 – The Courts and the Mafia:

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

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

Barack Obama also said the following:

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

2009-04-24T10:23:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

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

Is the United States a Christian Nation

2009-04-10T13:23:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

The resurgence of the monarch – A tale of two Presidents

2009-03-27T08:48:00.002-04:00

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

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

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

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

Aspect number one: how they approach taxes.

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

Aspect number two: how they approach Presidential powers.

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

2009-03-12T10:26:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

"Let's Dig a Hole!"

2009-03-04T11:20:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

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

2009-02-25T10:39:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Foot notes:

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

The Unfairness Doctrine

2009-02-17T11:27:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Stimulus we can believe in

2009-02-10T10:21:00.011-05:00

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

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

The following is what I found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

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

2009-01-17T10:57:00.005-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.

Affirmative action illustrated

2009-01-07T13:41:00.020-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-13

2009-01-05T13:58:00.004-05:00

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

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

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-12

2009-01-05T13:55:00.002-05:00

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

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

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-11

2009-01-05T13:52:00.005-05:00

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

CONTINUED THE ABORTION DEBATE.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-10

2009-01-05T13:50:00.005-05:00

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

I AM A CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE OF MY VIEWS ON ABORTION.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-9

2009-01-05T13:47:00.002-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Show 9.mp3

CONTINUED THE ABORTION AND RACISM DEBATE.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-8

2009-01-05T13:42:00.001-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Radio Show 8.mp3

HOW CAN SOMEONE BE A CHRISTIAN AND A DEMOCRAT AT THE SAME TIME. -ABORTION-

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-7

2009-01-05T13:39:00.000-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Radio Show-7.mp3

THE IRAQ WAR.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-6

2009-01-05T13:36:00.001-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Radio Show-6.mp3

WHY THE LACK OF UNITY IN THIS COUNTRY.

Political Agenda Live Radio Talk Show - WEEK-4

2009-01-05T13:27:00.001-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Radio Show-4.mp3

OBAMA SUPPORTERS NEED TO START POSING TOUGH QUESTIONS TO THEIR CANDIDATE.

As with our soldiers; these are OUR BOYS!!!

2008-11-23T13:40:00.018-05:00

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

Above all else, let us be clear; your view of government will dictate how you view federal intervention into our economy. Your view of government will also dictate what you understand to be the role it should play in such an intervention. Our economy has become the modern day version of the SS Titanic. When the titanic was sinking back then, it was easy for the ship’s engineer to realize that the ship had hit an iceberg which caused a gigantic hole in the ship’s hull. Using our analogy, the iceberg in our economic situation today has been hopelessly elusive. So then with limited funds who gets help?

Your answer may depend on your view of government. My own outlook is conservative in nature, so I tend to want limited government. I also see the government’s money as our money; the tax payer’s money. If you are more liberal in your outlook then you tend to see the government as playing a very important role in your own life. They are the rightful arbiters of what is just and the necessary benefactor of we the people. So when I hear democrats and liberals use the term bailout, of course I’m not surprised. When I hear democrats and liberals (one in the same) talk negatively about giving money and tax breaks to the oil companies and the corporations, again I’m not surprised. I would like to know how is it you can take money from someone then use that same money to “bail them out;” that logic seems somewhat convoluted. Sometimes however, when I hear my fellow conservatives talk negatively about bailouts and letting the big three fail, I get a little concerned as well. It is to this point that I would like to now turn my attention.

If you are a true conservative you are probably asking yourself, where is he going with this? Is Danian advocating socialism and is Danian recanting his stand on personal responsibility? Well of course the answer is no on both counts yet I believe it is logically consistent to be a conservative and to want the government to GIVE BACK money to the big three. Let me state my position by asking a series of rhetorical questions, so here goes:

1. When our troops weren’t doing so well in Iraq and needed more money, above and beyond their regular budget, should we have “bailed them out” or should we have allowed them to fail?

2. Without a tax base, where is national defense?

3. Do Ford, GM and Chrysler contribute in anyway to the federal budget?

4. Given that one in ten Americans are connected to the big three automakers, are the taxes generated by the American car makers a big part of the federal budget or is it a small part?

5. If it is noble to give one’s life in the service of country, does it not imply that those of us who facilitate this service partake in this noble venture? Do Ford, GM and Chrysler facilitate this service by the taxes they generate?

6. Since Ford, GM and Chrysler (along with the one in every ten Americans) started paying taxes, have they paid more than $25 billion (the sum total of the amount they are seeking)?

7. Finally, can they (the big three) not say with the rest of us, “Our taxes?”

The answer to these questions should be rather obvious and the answers should inexorably lead you to the conclusion that indeed Ford, GM and Chrysler should be able to get $25 billion of their hard earned money back from the government. These are our boys as much as the soldiers fighting on foreign soil are our boys, and we should never leave our fellow Americans behind for dead. Our boys make as good a car as any foreign company; in fact they make a better product. This is not my opinion this is a matter of record. And how any self respecting, patriotic American can buy a foreign car in these or any times is beyond me. I would make one exception and that is; if your job is tied to a foreign auto maker, then you should patronize that particular foreign car maker. How dare our government (especially my fellow republicans) after robbing our boys for so long, with their high taxes, without so much as lifting a finger for that tax money, now tell Ford, GM and Chrysler to shut-up and get out. No, we must fund our troops and we must fund our boys.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda

3 Questions I would have asked Barack Obama and the first is: Tell us two things you don't like about your wife?

2008-11-09T19:45:00.011-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Three Questions For Barack.mp3

About 3 months ago during the run of my talk radio show I came very close to having an interview with Barack Obama. I was able contact a high ranking member of his campaign who said there was a good possibility. I don’t know what happened, perhaps they learned that I was a conservative, maybe he was too busy, who knows. I made the decision to start preparing some questions for Obama, just in case he decided to give me a shot. After a lot of deliberation I decided on three questions:

The first question was: Tell us two things you don’t like about your wife.

What would his answer be? Would he venture an answer or would he hang up on me? Would he call me a sleaze-ball or would he just simply ignore me? Now just so you know, I am not a sleaze-ball and if he had ventured an answer I would have cut him off and saved his marriage. I suspect what he would have done is decline to answer the question, saying something like, “I love my wife and I wouldn’t change a thing about her.” To that response I would have said, “Excellent, you passed the test.” Any husband who would criticize his wife in public is less than a man and does not have his wife’s best interest at heart. In fact I would go as far as saying that a woman in this case would have reason to doubt the deepness of her husband’s love and that he lacks the depth of commitment required in a marriage.

The Second question was: What are the names of two of your friends who hate your wife and openly speak ill of her to you?

Again, if he started to name names, I would’ve stoped him, turned his microphone off and asked him are you crazy? Any man who would “pal around” with people who hated his wife is not a man who is in-love. I suspect that Obama would have said, “I don’t know anyone like that” and I would think he would be a little annoyed with me by now.

Where am I going with all this? Perhaps some of you are starting to see the implications here. My third and final question to Barack Obama would have been: Now substitute the United States for your wife (Michelle Obama) and now do you understand why many Americans like myself might be a bit concerned?

During the campaign, many of my fellow conservatives went the politically correct path and said, with regards to his associations, “I don’t question Barack’s patriotism, I question his judgment.” Well I have never been one for political correctness and I am here to tell you that I question both his patriotism and his judgment. Why did a critique of this country roll so easily of the senator’s tongue and why did he find it plausible under any circumstance to “pal around” with people who openly hate this country and who would seek to destroy her?

The person who would be president of this country must burn with a love so deep for her that if William Ayers were to cross their path, a punch to the face would be the inclination, and not to do business with him. On foreign soil such a person would never speak ill of this country, but instead would seize the opportunity to point to that “Shining city on a hill.”

Looking ahead, Barack Obama will be our president, perhaps now his love will deepen for this country, the way John McCain’s did during his stay at the Hanoi Hilton or like our veterans on the battlefield. May God continue to bless America and may He grant wisdom and maturity to our next president, Barack Obama.

On Veterans Day, all of us should think of the deep love for country that must be present for someone to put themselves in harms way. If you know a veteran, express your gratitude and make them believe it.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

I was wrong about one thing but right about everything else

2008-11-05T18:20:00.006-05:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
I was wrong and right.mp3

I’ll be a man and own up to my mistake; I did predict that John McCain would win the presidency yet here we are with President elect Barack Obama. One of the reasons I gave for my optimism was the fact of a center-right electorate. I believe this is still the case, evidenced by Obama’s promise to cut taxes and eliminate wasteful spending, coupled with his pronouncement of wanting to lessen the number of abortions and that he is a Christian. Of course I don’t buy any of this, but the senator must have had some insight into Americans that made him say and declare such things. Personally I am expecting the worst, I’m predicting a sharp left turn so put on your seat belts.

I was wrong about my prediction, but I was right about racism in this country. About three months ago on my radio talk show --and on this website-- I declared that, “The Table has Turned” on racism (see April archives listed here on the site). Back then I said that racism in this country had a new source and that it was not originating from white Americans anymore. I feel vindicated by the election results; a black man was elected as president. Now while so many Americans are celebrating the historic nature of this event, saying that racism has been dealt a serious blow, I have to tell you that I was celebrating this fact a long, long time ago with my fellow TRUE conservatives (not necessarily Republicans). If you don’t already know the figures, let me throw some numbers at you: close to 130 million people voted on Tuesday and over 66 million people voted for the Black candidate. Guess what percentage of blacks voted for McCain, go ahead guess… less that 2%. Less than 2% people! 98 percent of Blacks voted for Obama. If you want to read my development of this theory, read my April 2008 blog titled “How the tables have turned.” In the mean time I will bask in the depth and precision of my insights.

In the end; however, I am no where close to cutting my throat as some may think-- contemplating a government under the full control of the far left. No, on the contrary I am filled with hope, first and foremost because I know God is in charge and He has permitted and orchestrated these events. Secondly, the wisdom of the framers in incorporating so many checks and balances (knowing that man is sinful) into the fabric of our constitution and running of our country. The laws of this country make a dictatorship virtually impossible and it dampens the effect of broad changes such as the election of the most left wing government in recent times. Change does not come through the snow-ball effect but rather through a trickle. Our new president will try to steer the ship to the left but I think he will find the wheel harder to turn than he would hope.

Danian Michael
Political Agenda.

There is no doubt in my mind that John McCain will be our next President

2008-10-27T16:45:00.007-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
McCain Will Win.mp3

You heard it here first; John McCain will be our next president. How can I speak so boldly of the occurrence of future events in the face of evidence to the contrary? It all has to do with my perspective as an immigrant to this country, the bias of people of prominence who just want Obama to win and the shear silliness of what this man is proposing for America.

First, as an immigrant to this country I have the unique ability and privilege to observe you Americans from a more objective point of view, which probably explains why I am a conservative (culturally speaking I should be a Democrat). Now the fact that I am an outsider, at least initially, has allowed me to observe the silliness of liberalism without the baggage of racial oppression, even though my own country of Jamaica was racially oppressed first by Spain and then by England. I have also been able to observe (and this is most important) the center-right nature of the American population and your distaste for laziness. These two facts are in your blood and DNA sequencing and it will not allow the American population to vote in a fashion that will put the most liberal politician to ever run for president in the White House.

Second, note the bias of people granted an open microphone. Let me illustrate this by way of a story, Do you guys remember the Columbine High School massacre? Two kids created what must have been a small taste of hell in the school that day. Isn’t it something to behold how so few can influence so many when the right instrument of influence is used? To those kids it must have seemed like the muzzle of a gun was around every corner. This is the phenomenon that has engulfed our nation right now. Every time you open a paper or turn on a television you are told that John McCain is all but done, like a Thanksgiving Day turkey. I really believe that the constant bombardment of this anti McCain-Palin campaign can and I believe is intentionally being used to intimidate voters. This is a ploy however that will not work in a voting booth.

Lastly, let me start by giving you in a nutshell what is Obama’s political platform: Socialism is awesome and keep your pro-life hands of my body. Well the fact is, socialism is not awesome; in fact it fails wherever it is tried and abortions are on the decline, need I say more. If Obama thinks it’s so cool to spread the wealth around rich to poor then why doesn’t he give John McCain half his campaign contributions so that they can operate with the same cash flow? That of course would be absurd and the American people think it is absurd too.

Mark my words, John McCain will be our next President and all of you will come to a deeper appreciate my political insights and quite frankly my genius.

Danian Michael for,
Political Agenda.

The Art of Debating - What's under all that nice wrapping Paper? John McCain needed to help us unwrap Barack Obama.

2008-10-16T15:39:00.007-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
The art of debating-Final.mp3

In all fairness to John McCain, debating is a skill that takes a lot of time and effort to hone. Senator McCain strikes me as the kind of man who is probably annoyed by all this talking and positioning; he is a man of action and a busy one at that. Contrast John McCain’s life and style with that of Senator Obama, and you understand why Obama “appears” (and I can’t over-stress appears) to be holding his own against John McCain. Barack Obama is way more enamored with himself and how he is being perceived. In the first debate, did you know that senator Obama had countless people playing John McCain debate him in mock debates? Contrast that with John McCain who was in Washington trying to hammer out this bailout plan and he flew the same day to the site of the debates and took on Barack Obama almost as an afterthought. Indeed Senator Obama is crafty with an uncanny ability to recast his negatives in a positive light or to evade them altogether. John McCain, for lack of a better term, is a straight talker. Senator Obama is anything but… and I am afraid that my fellow Americans are not unwrapping the nicely packaged prank that is Barack Obama.

With that said however, John McCain’s handlers and I would say the Senator to a great extent, did him a disservice when they made attacking Barack Obama somehow an ignoble act. The first duty of any debater is to show the folly of his/her opponent’s position. If I had to assign a percentage value to what I just stated, I would say that debating is 80% showing the folly of your opponent’s position and 20% of presenting your own. Straight forward and to the point is the name of the game when stating what you believe; this is why John McCain did so well at Saddle Back while Senator Obama did so poorly. With regards to the presidential debates however, John McCain had to destroy the myth that is Barack Obama and in my humble opinion McCain could have done a better job throughout these debates.

As a point of interest I would like to site just one example of many where I thought John McCain could have dealt Obama a knock out blow but never delivered the punch.
On the issue of taxes: Senator Obama has been allowed to forward the silly notion that John McCain wants to give tax breaks to the Oil companies in spite of their record profits. My fellow Americans, this is an outright lie. John McCain wants to give a tax cut to all U.S. Corporations, without exception. Now you might disagree with me on whether or not Barack’s statement on McCain’s tax policies is a lie or not, but of course that will depend on your own standard for truth telling. Here is the knock out blow John McCain could have dealt last night but didn’t: McCain could have responded with one word and killed Obama --- while at the same time putting Michigan back in play. And the word… the word is MICHIGAN. If anyone believes that a tax on corporations isn’t a tax on everyone, all you have to do is look at how the big three automaker’s problems are affecting everyone in Michigan, without exception; rich, poor and in-between. McCain needed to make the point that the United States’ economy is a highly complex and INTERDEPENDENT economy and that it is impossible to have a localized effect on it. To better One is to better all and to kill One is to kill all. Ask Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan, who made it so difficult to do business here with her high taxes and liberal view of the world. Now we are all suffering. Ask the poorest person in Michigan if it would be a good thing for Ford, GM and Chrysler to start showing a profit -- and that person will first ask if you are a moron and then they will say of course it would be a good thing.

I challenge all of you to further unwrap the nicely presented package that is Barack Obama (I started the process for you in this blog, looking at his tax policy and his integrity) and tell me if you can still vote for this man.

Danian Michael
For Political Agenda.

No One's Safe

2008-10-14T11:24:00.003-04:00

"During my Congressional career, I've had the privilege to become acquainted and friendly with John Lewis, one of Dr. King's bravest disciples. On Sunday March 1965, John Lewis was as courageous as anyone could ever to be." – John McCain from his book, “Why Courage Matters.”

“What I am seeing reminds me of too much of another destructive period in American history," Lewis said in a statement released to FOX News. "Senator McCain and Governor Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights," Lewis added. "Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."

It is noteworthy that when trying to give an example of what John McCain believes to be the highest virtue a person can posses, John Lewis is at the top of a very short list for the senator from Arizona. Former president Bill Clinton, who was considered the closest friend to African Americans (I don’t believe this), “the first black president” is his unofficial title, he was forced to cry uncle during the presidential primaries. He said and I quote, “the race card was played against me” with regards to how he and his wife were treated by the Obama campaign. My fellow Americans aren’t you just a little (in my case, quite a bit) sick and tired of walking on egg shells around Barack Obama because of his color? I am starting to realize that this man (Obama) and his followers have no concept of loyalty, and friendship. Based on what John McCain wrote in his book about John Lewis, you would have thought that senator McCain would have at least been given the benefit of the doubt by Congressman Lewis. John Lewis said of McCain that he is promoting racial segregation in the way he is running his campaign, simply by criticizing Barack Obama.

So who is safe from the wrath of an Obama presidency? If John McCain and Bill Clinton aren’t safe, then neither are you? Ponder that as you vote this November.

Danian Michael for
Political Agenda

Political Agenda with Danian Michael - Live Radio Weekly Talk Show - Week TWO

2008-10-02T20:22:00.005-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Radio Show-2.mp3

Week 2; I did a critique of the speech Senator Obama gave when he was declared the official nominee for the Democrat party.
I was less than impressed and his supporters gave me a piece of their minds when they called into the show... Listen to the entire 30 minutes.

Political Agenda with Danian Michael - Live Radio Weekly Talk Show - Week ONE

2008-10-02T19:44:00.009-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
PA Radio Show-1.mp3

My first Show, I talked about racism in this country and that Black Americans are behaving more like bigots that their white counterparts: 95% of blacks are voting for Senator Obama while less than 50% of white American are voting for the white candidates; you do the math.

The callers were not happy... Listen to the entire 30 minutes show.

Part III - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods Before Me

2008-06-13T22:54:00.008-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution-Part 3.mp3

We come finally to part 3 of this survey of Evolution. What evidence supports the theory and what is the nature of that evidence.

Can something come from nothing? There is no field of thought where it is considered rational to do so, yet to believe in the theory one must do exactly that. The theory requires its followers to make many leaps of faith; to believe something came from nothing for example. But evolution requires a second leap of faith in that order came from disorder. We have the very opposite of a quality arising from the quality itself. Thirdly, to be an evolutionist you must believe that orderly, inorganic matter had life sprung from it. And fourthly, variations arose from the same identical factors. Once there was a blob then the blob had X, Y and Z act on it to give it life. The evolutionist then says that the blob is no longer a blob, but now it’s carrots, tigers, germs and human beings. In the original state of things all the factors were the same, but in the output of things we get variations. Now I want to know, how do you go from common factors to varied consequences? It is utterly un-scientific to argue in this way. If all the factors were the same in the primordial blob then nothing is going to change in the primordial blob. And if it changes then it will all change. We reason by means of types; the same type of factors causes the same types of results. Is this not one of the laws of science; something has the same type of thing happen when the same type of thing is brought to bear on it. Where would science be if that were not a fundamental presupposition of the natural world?

So Evolution requires four leaps of faith:
1. Something came from nothing.
2. Order came from disorder.
3. Life sprang from non-life.
4. Variations came about from identical factors.

But there are even more leaps of faith for the evolutionist: Somehow this blob turned into a humanoid form (as opposed to a microscopic germ) and then intelligence arouse from non-intelligence. We have a creature without intelligence, not self-aware and without the ability to reason from A to B to C, but now we have a creature capable of all that; how in the world is that possible? Finally we have morality from what is non-moral. If evolution were true, why did human beings become unsatisfied with what is the case and start making judgments on what ought to be the case? Where did we get the concept of, you ought not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife? I would like an explanation of the evolution of morality.

So what am I getting at? To believe in evolution you must have incredible faith. Greg Bahnsen said once that, “over and against the evolutionist I feel like a complete rationalist as a Christian. I look at this world and I have to say that it was an intelligent God who made all these things. The evolutionist comes along and says man that’s nothing, we don’t have a god, we don’t have any of that. Something came from nothing, life came from non-life, and intelligence sprang from non-intelligence…” In all fairness, the evolutionist does not come out and admit these things, but this lack of evidence and logical cogent support for what he proposes makes his propositions just that, leaps of faith. Now I will be more than happy to eat humble pie and present a part four of this series where I will recant all my pronouncements, if one of you can just give me some logical cogent answers to my questions.

I want to ask another question; what advantage or function is a partially developed sex organ? Allegedly evolution takes place through a series of small incremental changes and that these changes occur over long periods of time; the more advantageous changes are allowed to continue. By the way, I would like an explanation as to what or who is making these intelligent decisions. I would like to know, what does a partially developed genitalia do for you? Can you propagate the species; is it advantageous from the standpoint that it gives pleasure? What is the advantage? How could we have survived in this state given the fact that we couldn’t survive in this state now. If there are any malfunctions in the reproductive system today, couples won’t have kids. How does the evolutionist account for the evolution of the reproductive system? But it gets even better: How did organisms reproduce in their infancy; probably by cell division. Back then billions of years ago when the primordial Blob was struck by lighting (I have read this before and granting the evolutionist absurd request that we give them something came from nothing as an assumption), Life began but that life was simple, single cell organisms and they reproduced how; well by cell division. Now let’s jump to the end of the line: Men and women reproducing in the way we know babies are made today. I would like an explanation as to how we got from cell division to copulation. Why did the different sexes arise out of the blob and why we aren’t all girls or all boys? How did the male and female know what to do to reproduce? But again, it gets even better. How long is a woman capable of reproducing? I’m going to be very generous and say one hundred years (it’s actually closer to 50 on a good day. A woman in India just had a son at age 72). Remember that evolution took place over billions of years and so I ask, is it reasonable to believe that in the span of billions of years, a female humanoid developed a reproductive system while at the same time (within the span of 100 years, but more like 50 for this fertile humanoid female), a male humanoid developed a complete and compatible reproductive system and had a baby? Do you believe that? That is preposterous! Let me put it this way: A female with a fully developed reproductive system evolves in say 200 million B.C. She is now standing around saying to her self, “sure wish I had a man right now to impregnate me. I hope one comes along in the next hundred years or before I die so that we can do this.” Then low and behold, within the span of her being fertile, a fully evolved man taps her on the shoulder and says, “here I am babe let’s go take care of some pressing business.” If you believe that, I have an oil refinery that I would like to sell you. And yet the evolutionist would have us believe this is how you and I came to be.

What about the human eye? I’m not going to go into all the details about how intricate and interdependent all the components of the human eye are, instead let me read you a short article from an evolutionist explaining how the human eye could have evolved:

The eye of a vertebrate or an octopus looks so complex that it can be difficult to believe it could have evolved by natural selection and it has traditionally been an argument against Darwinism by advocates of creationism.
Nilsson and Pelger simulated a model of the eye to find out how difficult its evolution really is. The simulation does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. It takes light-sensitive cells as given and ignores the evolution of advanced perceptual skills (which are more a problem in brain, than eye, evolution). It concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin's critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts. Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time. This fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages. The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature.
How long did it take? The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octopus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy.
The work illustrates the value of building models to test our intuitions. Darwin referred to the evolution of complex organs by natural selection as presenting a problem for the imagination, not the reason. This computer study supports his remark.

Seems plausible, what’s the problem? First of all this is an argument for a type of intelligent design. It is interesting that in all the saber rattling against intelligent design, those who are against it end up arguing for intelligent design simply by reintroducing it under a different identity, mainly natural selection. I want you to notice something, in the model there was a computer making decisions as to what constitutes an advantageous change and eliminates changes that are of no benefit or of negative benefit; where does anything like a computer program and a programmer exist naturally in nature? In another article I read in favor of evolution, the writer tried to show the myth of impossible odds in the theory. The writer gave the illustration of trying to get sixes to appear on 20 individual dice. It is false, the writer said, to think that evolution tries to get sixes to appear on all twenty dies with a single throw. What is more accurate is seeing what the odds are if while throwing the dies you allow the sixes to remain on the floor, pick up the non-sixes and re-cast them and so on and so forth. This is how we are told evolution works so that long odds become more of a sure thing. It’s no longer a question of if the human eye will form; it is now a matter of when. Seems like an intelligent design buster that is until you realize that picking and choosing non-sixes requires intelligence similar to the computer program and programmer. There is nothing like a person picking out the undesirables, out there in nature now is there? What good is half a heart? What good is half a lung? I’ll do you one better, what good is a whole heart without a lung or a whole lung without a heart? Now we are supposed to believe, based on the theory of evolution that pure chance guided the process whereby the vast majority of animals require a fully functional heart and lungs to work together. The fact of reality testifies to the impossibility of evolution of species through small chance mutations, given that animals need big changes to occur instantaneously. We need big full hearts and big full lungs now. There is so much more to say on that but I want to proceed to my final point here and perhaps the most devastating, because evolutionists work very hard to hide this fact:

The fossil records contain lots of proofs of species turning into other species right? Wrong! The fossil record contains no and I repeat no taxonomic record. Taxonomic gaps in the fossil records means gaps indicating the series of changes from one organism to another. Please follow me here; you may have believed in the past that the intelligent design people have a body of evidence but that the body of evidence for supporting the evolutionist is so vast and overwhelming that we just can’t compete. I am saying that the evolutionist have NO proof of speciation in the fossil record. And yet they claim science and beat us over the head with it at every turn.

So then, why should I as a rational human being believe in evolution? There are no facts to support the theory; the theory was invented as an anti religious dogma and it lacks logical cogent support. And so I feel justified in reasserting what I said at the start of this series and that is, the theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that at every point where science calls upon a theory to be scientific, the theory fails. And even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; show me where I’m wrong. I hope you found this work informative and helpful, even if I was unable to persuade you. As always I want to hear from you and until next time, good bye.

©2008 DANIAN MICHAEL HERON

Part II - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods before Me

2008-05-17T16:30:00.006-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution-Part 2.mp3

In part 1, I ended by saying, “In part II, I will show that a pre-commitment to the theory of evolution is the least of the evolutionist problems.” What then is the biggest problem facing the evolutionist? To answer this question we will need to take a look at history again and to note that Darwin was not the first person to forward a naturalistic explanation of the world and universe. Actually the idea existed long before Darwin ever came on the scene. The title belongs to a long list of philosophers. In 1860, one year after the publishing of “On the Origin” of Species, Richard Owen took offense to the publishing of the book in the Edinburgh Review. Mr. Owen basically said to Charles Darwin, you make it sound like you came up with this theory. Charles Darwin’s naturalistic explanation of the world and the existence of the different species we see was anticipated by philosophers like Kant and Spinoza and Fichte and Hegel, Krause, Feuerbach, Diderot, Buchner, Engels, Lametrie and d’Holbach. All these philosophers had beaten Darwin to the punch. So let’s not mince words here, Darwinism; the theory of Evolution, was philosophical, not scientific in its origin. Darwin merely gave the theory a mechanism, mainly natural selection, through which the things that philosophers had proposed could be accomplished.

So now here we have it, a well respected scientist piggy-backing on the work of Philosophers - talk about strange bed fellows. I am also sorry to say that the product of this un-holy union has been surmounted over and over again by strong arguments, past and present; yet people still maintain it.

The Evolutionist can still not explain:
• The mechanism of evolution
• The taxonomic gaps in the fossil record.
• The appearance of matter
• The emergence of life
• The emergence of self-conscious intelligence
• The emergence of morality
• The eternality of matter given entropy.
The theory of evolution cannot avoid contradictions with known principles of genetics. And so I feel justified in maintaining what I proposed in Part 1, that the evolutionists have a pre-commitment to the theory and are just as dogmatic in their faithful following of the worldview as they were back in the days of Darwin and Huxley.

A prime example of this is one Theodosius Dobzhansky, a modern proponent of the theory of evolution living in “our time” (he died in 1977). He said that I can explain evolution, “If the assumption is made that life arose from non-life only once.” That’s great but talk about a tall order; I can make a million dollars if you give me a million dollars just once. Again this is a modern proponent and one of the best known. Darwin’s theory of evolution merely gives these philosophical pre-supposition a veneer of scientific respectability, but not scientific at its core.

Furthermore we should note that Darwinism is not something men hold to because of empirical evidence. In 1985 Michael Denton wrote in his book, “A Theory in Crisis,” “There can be no question that Darwin had nothing like sufficient evidence to establish his theory of Evolution.” When Darwin published his book, no evolution of species was directly observed in the natural order nor was there direct evidence that natural selection had caused any new biological organisms. Darwin himself wrote that, “The infinitude of connecting links in the natural order was crucial to his theory.” He went on to admit that he was unable to prove even one. Everything the theory called for to be scientific was missing down to the point that when Darwin explained natural selection he said, “let me beg my reader to offer a couple of hypothetical examples.” Does this sound like Science to you? Let me offer you a hypothetical example of how we can cure cancer. The theory of evolution if firmly planted on something other than Science.

Let’s press the theory even more: Have you ever thought of this; the theory of evolution has not been empirically derived but also that it cannot be demonstrated scientifically either? We can’t go back and observe the evolution of the species. We can’t observe the evolution of new species now because it takes such long periods of time to reach fruition. So then the theory must always remain somewhat speculative. In 1977 Stephen Jay Gould wrote in the journal, Paleobiology, “The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stand embedded in the history of western culture. It is not a high order empirical observation induced from the objective study of Nature.” Please note that this man testifies in court cases against the teaching of Intelligent design in schools because it is not science, but that he himself freely admits that the theory of evolution is a philosophical stand not based on observation (metaphysics, the study of being is a branch of philosophy).

But the worst is yet to come because it turns out that when philosophers turned to investigate the theory of evolution as a scientific theory; it was not found to be a scientific theory… at all. We look out at the world and we see a vast number of different types of species, from germs to carrots to birds, flowers, weeds, whales, goats, tigers, eagles, man, woman and on and on it goes. So how did such a profuse variety of species come about? It is actually caught quite nicely in the title of Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species. That title is actually abbreviated; the title of the book is, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ Given the struggle for existence and preservation in this world, those species which are most fit, those which are best adapted to the environment will survive to reproduce their kind.
The less fit will be replaced by the most fit through the process which Darwin called natural selection. And so organisms will get more advanced over time.

Do you understand what the theory is? What’s the problem with it? Let see if we can put it down with one philosophical shot to the head. Whenever a theory relates one class of things to another, whether by identity or by causation or whatever, the relationship really isn’t that important. Whenever you say, this class of things is related to this class of things (any philosopher will tell you this), the only way to test that theory is to independently verify the different classes. Let me illustrate:
If I were to say to you, all the kindest people in this world are Christians; kind people (the first class) is related to Christians (the second class) by kindness. The only way I can test that theory is by independently verifying the person’s Christianity and the person’s kindness. You show me a kind person and I say to you, she is a Christian and you would say, now wait a minute; you have to first find out if she is a Christian. You bring me a Christian and I say to you, there sits a kind person; you would say wait a second you have to first verify the person’s kindness. You get the point. Let’s go back to evolution; Darwin said that the fittest organisms will survive. But Darwin’s theory never established an independent criterion for what constitutes a “fit” organism. There was not an independent way to test which organism was the fittest organism apart from looking at which animals survived. And thus it is not a testable theory in any scientific sense it is only what is called a trivial verbal truth. That is, you are just repeating your commitment to the idea that only the fittest will survive. So whenever I bring you a survivor, evolutionists will just say, well that’s just because it was the fittest. At that point I will cry out, no, no, no you must first verify it is the fittest. Now I know some of you are screaming out there right now that actually, scientists do have a criterion for what constitute a fit organism. And yes it is true that if you were to dig a little you will find some scientist that have forwarded theories for testing fitness and they have all failed. Furthermore, in the nature of the case, they will always fail. Here is why: Let’s say we are studying a pack of wolves and in this pack we notice one wolf with overdeveloped back legs. That wolf can run faster than any other wolf and so will be a lot more efficient at catching prey and surviving. Conversely, the wolves with the less developed back legs will surely die off from starvation when times are hard; perhaps the Gazelles (their prey) are themselves evolving. Looks like a pretty good scientific theory right; you can test it and so forth? That is until you remember that living organisms are highly developed and interdependent biological organisms and that the highly developed back legs of that wolf might put such a strain on its heart that it might have a heart attack. Incidentally, this happen all the time in the real world. So how are we going to know if the wolf with the highly developed back legs is more fit that the other wolves? It’s all going to depend on if he survives. And we are right back to survival of the fittest which really means the survival of the… survivors.

Darwin never offered the world a scientific theory my friends; although the smoke and mirrors game has been used by its proponents to dress it up as such. This was never a scientific theory. It was a perspective, a philosophy that was imposed on the facts rather than something which arose from or could be tested by the facts. So it might not surprise you, although it ought to anger you that Darwin’s theory of survival or the forming of new species by natural selection has been quietly abandoned by our universities and if the terminology is still used it has been redefined.

The theory of evolution is not scientific, never was and never will be. And I have shown that even as a philosophical world view, cogent logic is noticeably absent from the theory; yet I am sure many of you will take issue with that. I want to hear from you; let’s keep the dialogue going and until part III of the presentation, where I will deal with the evidence behind the theory, until such time, goodbye.

Part I - Commandment 1: Thou Shall Have No Other gods before Me

2008-05-09T12:28:00.012-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Evolution - Part 1.mp3

To the left is a picture of the new Holy Scriptures. The textbook for the Atheist; it has become quite a monument in today's society and quite a formidable foe, but is it...

What makes the theory of evolution so formidable is the claim that it is scientific and, like it or not, we live in a time when the scientists of our day speak ex-cathedra; infallibly like the Roman Catholic Pope. Indeed it is true that scientists do important work and have contributed a great deal to our understanding of our surroundings. And so yes, I do place a lot of value on what scientist have to say. Let’s not forget however, that scientists just like the rest of us are susceptible to their own prejudice. All of us, without exception, wear glasses. So then, do the evolutionists wield a big stick? Is the theory of evolution scientific? To answer this question we have to look at what constitutes a study that is scientific. To be sure there are many approaches to science but let me offer five guidelines that are typically employed by scientists when studying a phenomena.

1. The scientist must not go beyond the natural order. Supernatural explanations are strictly prohibited.
2. The scientist must view all facts as a “brute fact.” Not personal or oriented to a goal. In other words, don’t have an ultimate goal when you engage in scientific inquiry. FYI the fancy word for this is teleological: not oriented to a specific goal. Christians believe in a teleological world in that everything in it is oriented to serve God’s glory.
3. Science ought not to be religious in nature. People expect scientists to be open minded and without prejudice.
4. Scientific theories are tested in an observational way; no speculations.
5. Scientific theories are not propounded dogmatically. They are always open to being tested by our observations.
[Taken from Greg Bahnsen’s speech on Evolution.]

I am sure you can probably add a few more guidelines to this list but I think you would all agree that this is a pretty good starting point. Notice how the list restrains the scientist because remember, in this first presentation, we are looking at the history and proponents of the theory of evolution.

The publishing of Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, represents a significant turning point in the history of mankind. I think it is right up there with the protestant reformation quite frankly. And it was significant because if man can be understood in a completely naturalistic way, then what need is there for theistic explanations. You see the ramifications here; we get to do away with those pesky Christians once and for all. Charles Hodge, the well known Princeton theologian wrote a book titled “What is Darwinism” and he answered: simply put Darwinism is Atheism. In 1857 Darwin ended a trip he took to the Galapagos Islands then in the two years leading up to his formulation of the theory of evolution, he came to declare in his personal life his rejection of everlasting punishment. Darwin said, “It is a damnable doctrine” to believe that God would damn people for all eternity. He also rejected the Gospels, you know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and by implication the whole of the New Testament because of the story of miracles they contain [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 5th ed. (London, 1869), p. 571.]. Why is all this important? It is important because you should know that Darwin himself was not neutral and objective, he had an axe to grind. He was not indifferent or neutral on religious claims. This same Darwin also said of special creation, and I quote, that it is, “a curious illustration of the blindness of preconceived opinions.” He also said that, “No shadow of reason can be assigned to the belief that variations in the natural order were intentionally and specifically guided.” [The Variations of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (New York: 1868), II, 515-516].I ask you, does this sound like an objective scientist to you? Remarkably we hear this sort of sentiment today. Alfred Wallace, the man who co-formulated the theory of evolution with Darwin, broke with Darwin and declared that natural selection does not apply to man. Wallace said, “A superior intelligence has guided the development of man for a special purpose and for a special reason.” Now pay attention here: When Darwin got wind of this, he called it, “a disdainful anchoring for miracles” and a lack of nerves on Wallace’s part [Morton O. Beckner, "Darwinism," EP, II, 300-301; cf. T.A. Goudge, "Wallace, Alfred Russell," EP, VIII, 276.]. You see from the very beginning evolutionists have made it very clear that evolution is anti religious in its nature. In 1873 President Bernard of Columbia University explained that if evolution were true, the existence of God would be impossible [Cited in Loren Eisley, Darwin's Century (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1958), p. 193.]. The German Materialist Dr. L Buckner went on to say, that is what the theory does, it proves there is no god.

Let me further drive this point home: T.H. Huxley, the man who was called “Darwin’s bulldog,” said (and you are going to love this), “Yet I found that, whatever route I took, before long I came to a tall formidable-looking fence. Confident as I might be in the existence of an ancient and indefeasible right of way, before me stood the thorny barrier with its comminatory notice board - "No thoroughfare - By order, Moses."... The only alternatives were to give up my journey which I was not minded to do - or to break the fence down and go”[Science and Christian Tradition, cited in Jones, loc. Cit.]. When you hear defenders of the theory speak in this way with the linguistic flair that he employs, it should be obvious that when people say the theory of evolution is just a neutral attempt to explain things, that they are not telling you the whole story. Let me quote Huxley one more time: On the Origin of the Species Huxley said, “it is a flash of light which to a man who has lost himself in a dark night suddenly reveals a road that whether it takes him home or not, certainly goes his way” [Life and Letters of T.H. Huxley, ed. Leonard Husley, 2nd ed. (London: 1903), I, 245-246.]. Well, need I say more; Darwinism was going his way. Let me tell you a true story, In 1981 the British Natural History Museum created an exhibit on Darwin's theory. The museum stated that evolution was "one possible explanation" as to "why there are so many different kinds of living things"; it also noted that "the concept of evolution by natural selection is not strictly speaking scientific" because it had not been empirically demonstrated. This honest skepticism caused such anger, there was such an uproar both politically and otherwise that the museum had to eliminate any mention of the problems with Darwinism. This theory is now a god, laying down laws; you shall not have any other gods before me. This is not science and its proponents are more analogous to clergy than they are to scientist. Today this law is still in effect: There is a movie out right now called, “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed” and in this movie one of the proponents of Darwin’s theory said this, I’m paraphrasing here, “If we allow intelligent design to be taught in schools then the church will seize upon the opportunity to reintroduce religion into our most sacred place for learning. I can’t predict the future, maybe this guy is right but when have scientists ever been concerned about the repercussions of seeking the truth? How is this in any way scientific?

So then, what shall we say to all this? Are the historic and present proponents of Darwin’s theory interested in true science? I think I have pretty much shown, and you might want to debate me on this, that what you smell right now is proof that indeed something is rotten in Denmark. Charles Darwin and followers of his theory aren’t in the least bit concerned about the truth. They have a commitment to the annihilation of all things theistic. In part II of this presentation I will show that a pre-commitment to the theory of evolution is the least of the evolutionist problems (the very thing that is forbidden when doing science) and that the system itself leaves much to be desired, logically speaking. I look forward to your comments and until part II of this presentation, goodbye.

COPYRIGHT 2008 POLITICAL AGENDA

How the Tables Have Turned

2008-04-14T11:31:00.005-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
The Table Has Turned.mp3

Remember the victory dance; Michael Berg celebrating after beating the living daylight out of truck driver Reginald Denny. Yeah, the tables have turned.

Any Way...

Relatively fresh of the press; WRAL News reports:

In the past month, Obama grew his lead among blacks by 15 percent and shrank Clinton's 20-point lead among whites to 7 percent. Obama garnered the support of 86 percent of blacks, and Clinton had 47 percent of whites in the April 3 poll. There did not appear to be a gender divide. Clinton and Obama drew support from men and woman proportional to their share in the overall poll.
(Source: WRAL News Poll - wral.com)

At a first glance you might miss the real story behind this story. No it is not the transcendent nature of Barack Obama and no; it is not the stalled Hillary Clinton Campaign. The real story here is to be found within the polls themselves. As an immigrant to this country I find myself often looking at race relations from an outside perspective. Quite often I observe, that when people speak in general terms about the journey that lies ahead in battling racism, they often mean (if not always mean) that white people need to do better on how they treat and perceive black people (notice I didn’t say minorities). In my humble opinion, the word minority is analogous to Blacks, African Americans if you will. Now I will grant that it may have been the case that White Americans had the longer road to travel in bridging the racial divide but to be sure both groups had some traveling to do. Getting back to the true story of these polls, the ones I read earlier, it would seem that white Americans have completed their journey or are very close to doing so. Black Americans however have not budge one iota and it would seem have even gone backwards. How do you explain that between two minority candidates with not lick of policy difference between them that Black Americans are so overwhelmingly behind Barack? Again it would make sense (in an uninformed logically convoluted way) if Hillary Clinton was say, a republican. In fact you will not hear Barack and Hillary debate policy differences, because there isn’t any between them. On the other hand, white Americans have found it quite natural to support Barack who by the way is a black man (in all the ways that matter). They support him even after his association with what I would call a White-people-hating pastor and his, “Typical white person” comment; she was only able to hold on to 48 percent of white voters for crying out loud. Indeed a new day has dawned on America and the battle for better race relations rages on but, no longer is it the case that Black Americans are the recipients of racial discrimination; they have become the source, at least according to these polls and the infamous Jeremiah Wright. To any Black person who would decry racism, I say to you, heal thy self.

Well I stand by my convictions and I’m pretty sure that if given serious consideration, you too will conclude as I did that indeed the table has turned on race relations. In my experience, just going about my life day to day, I have found that my theory holds true and that the indicia of the polling data certainly points to this sinister realty. Let that marinate in your thoughts for a while.

COPYRIGHT ©2008 POLITICAL AGENDA

Take My Taxes: Take my Freedom

2008-03-30T22:42:00.011-04:00

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As
Take my Taxes.mp3

The picture to the right is that of Todd Stroger; he is the Board president of Cook County in Chicago. Stroger boast of his 1 percent sales tax increase which brings Chicago's overall sales tax to 10.25 percent. In my audio presentation this week, I make the argument that what Stroger has done is to lessen the freedom of the Cook County residents. Why as American citizens do we so easily say to the Government, "Go ahead, take more money from others, especially the rich?" Essentially saying to the government, "Go ahead, take people's freedom away." Talk about taxation without representation, this is far worse than anything England ever did to us pre-independence. England at least was a declared enemy but now this oppression comes from our fellow citizens.

I implore all of you to become more conservative in how we think of our finances and our economy as it relates to the government. Where am I wrong on this and how can I straighten you out?

Danian Michael for
Political Agenda

The Hip-Hop Mayor

2008-03-25T13:25:00.014-04:00

Detroit's Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick has just been charged with several counts of criminal misconduct and is the headline news story on The Drudge Report; he should at least be proud of that fact. As I was watching the aftermath of Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy’s announcement, I was pleasantly surprised by the city’s response. After living though what seemed like a lifetime of Coleman Young in office, like many of you I doubted the city’s ability to be objective in looking out for its own self-interest. It would seem that the city and quite frankly all of us who live in the state of Michigan are behind the Prosecutor’s decision to press charges. If you are having a tough time with life right now, these are exciting times to be alive in Michigan, because no matter how bad you think your lot is in life, at least you are not the mayor. Shortly after, the Mayor had his own press-conference; his Lawyer did most of the talking and maintained the complete innocence of his client, our beloved Mayor. Furthermore, the Mayor would remain in office.

Like many of you, I watched these announcements with a group of people. My group was quite diverse; male, female, black, white, Detroiters, non-Detroiters, republicans and Democrats (mostly Democrats). So I took the opportunity to not only observe the comments being made on the television but also the ones being made in the room. The following is what I observed:

1.When the prosecutor announced she would bring charges against the mayor, everyone, without exception, was pleased with the decision and some even did a fist pump (no I was not one of fist ‘pumpers’).
2.While the charges were being read, everyone speculated the mayor would be undaunted by what has happened.
3.One person (not me) remained objective and was able to not pass judgment until a verdict is handed down in court.
4.The Kwame Supporters (and by that I mean those who supported him in the past) became even more staunch in their disapproval of him when it became clear he would not step down.
5.While the mayor’s lawyer spoke, people’s impatience grew, across the board. The audience believed Kwame’s lawyer’s arguments were weak; they were able to see right through the lawyer’s defense, as they saw it.

I thought his lawyer said something that was just flat out wrong; he said, if the mayor were to leave office now, WE would be penalizing him before his day in court, actually he said, we would be penalizing an innocent man. Do you know what this tells me; this tells me the Mayor is not motivated by love for Detroit. In any case, what is my conclusion after observing this very diverse group of people? I honestly don’t know, if the O.J. Simpson trial and decades of Coleman A. Young in office have taught me anything it is that compelling evidence against a popular celebrity does not necessarily mean compelling evidence against that person and that blacks can be rather forgiving of one of their own as long as he plays by the Democrat play book and Kwame knows this play book well, in fact I think he wrote the Foreword. Look for Kwame to play the race card hard and often, I just hope a jury of his peers will be able to see right through this. One thing is sure however, the Mayor is in for a tough battle and I am afraid that the city of Detroit will be one of the casualties. Who knows, perhaps seeing the city suffer, as it will, will spark some empathy within the mayor’s heart to the point where he will go from being the Hip-Hop mayor to more of a traditional Jazz type Mayor. And maybe if God chooses to smile on this city, Kwame Kilpatrick will not be mayor at all and a conservative republican will take his place.

Yes, I dare to dream.

POLITICAL AGENDA COPYRIGHT © 2008

Going to Church With Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright

2008-03-16T18:10:00.009-04:00

Senator Obama finds himself at the center of his first real controversy. Is it fair and does his relationship with Jeremiah Wright have any bearing at all on the Senator's ability to govern this country?

Now over the weekend Senator Obama has been in damage control mode even appearing on FOX News to explain himself. Now you have to understand, a Democrat appearing on FOX news is analogous to... what can I compare this to, oh I know, Me a conservative who happens to be black; need I say more. So for senator Obama to appear on FOX News must indicate that this story is gaining some traction out there in the citizenry. So is it fair: Well I can tell you as a protestant Christian that church is an integral part of the Christian’s life. Someone who refuses to go to church on Sundays has very legitimate reasons to doubt their standing as a Christian. Furthermore and I’m just speaking as a Christian here, God through his word (the Bible) appoints Pastors as the spiritual leaders over His that is to say God’s people. Anyone who knows me personally will attest to the influence my Pastor has in my life and the amount of respect I have for him. This relationship; pastor to flock and its importance in the life of a Christian, is at the heart of protestant Christianity. I know some of you reading this are not professing Christians and if you were running for president then all this would be a moot point. Senator Obama however is a professing Christian, he says things like, and “Pastor Wright is the one that lead me to Jesus.” Now since senator Obama is a professing Christian, what his Pastor professes on the pulpit most certainly comes into play in assessing who Senator Obama is. And let’s face it; we don’t have a lot to go on, inasmuch as he does not have a track record.

Now as I see it, Senator Obama is on the horns of a real dilemma here; for if he says that Pastor Wright has no influence on him then his profession of faith is not as he says it is and his over 20 years of attendance was a waste of his time. Either way, the trustworthiness of the Senator’s word will be severely undermined. If he maintains his good standing in the church then that implies an influential pastor who he listens to. A pastor who says that the murder of over 3000 Americans’ was, “Americas’ chickens coming home to roost.” A Pastor who prays to God for the damnation of America. How could a Senator running for president hear this hatred for his country and not be affected by it. On this horn his patriotism is called into question. The first job of any U.S. President is to the protection of this country and to uphold the constitution: Article II, Section I of the constitution reads - Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." How can Senator Obama be President if his Heart does not beat with a deep love for this country?

Now Senator Obama has stated loyalty to a friend as the reason why he has not been clear and precise in denouncing his Pastor. The problem however is that Barack Obama is no stranger to protest against things he claims to love; against the United States for example when he refused to wear his U.S. Flag lapel in protest of our foreign policies. Now if he is not able to stand on principle against his pastor by leaving the church (changing the dynamics of their friendship so that the Pastor to student relationship is severed) but he is able to stand against his country then I say Senator Obama has a serious problem with priorities as it pertains to the presidency.

In the final analysis I suspect that the Senator did not leave this church or find what was being said on the pulpit deplorable because some part of him was sympathetic to what was being said.

POLITICAL AGENDA COPYRIGHT © 2008

Iraq

2008-02-24T15:00:00.002-05:00

Iraq stands as the most controversial issue of our day. I don't get what all the fuss is about, in fact I believe going into Iraq was one of the smartest decisions of the Bush administration. It would seem that many would disagree with me, for reasons that continue to elude even the great and insightful Danian Michael. Come chat with me or if you prefer shouting, well you can do that too.

Personal Responsibility

2008-02-08T01:06:00.001-05:00

This is probably one of the more politically incorrect entries on the site thus far. It's racially charged and pointed but I believe straight to the heart of the issue. Is personal responsibility a conservative idea and do Democrats, most notably Black Americans, have a type of schizophrenia when it comes to this issue? I believe they do, but what do you think?

Abortion

2008-01-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

“Once more into the breach…” Navigating the issue of abortion can be the political equivalent of walking through a Minefield. And that is exactly what I have purposed to do this week. As I have stated in the presentation, advocating abortion requires pushing aside one’s conscience to do so, aided by rigorous rationalizing. I stand by that conviction but could be persuaded by a good argument; will such an argument be forthcoming?

Democratic Politics - An Internal Critique

2008-01-13T23:48:00.000-05:00

Just in time for the Primaries; An analysis of the Democratic contenders. Was my analysis dead-on or was it unbelievably insightful, I really think it was one of those two. Anyway I look forward to hearing what you have to say about all this and please spare no compliments (or punches).

Christianity in Politics

2007-12-21T00:34:00.006-05:00

Welcome to Political Agenda, the site designed to promote thinking. That said, I look forward to your insights and challenges to the position I have forwarded this week; the Christian worldview in politics.