I've watched the President's State of the Union address for nearly 40 years. Some have been quite moving while others were not. Tonight President Bush delivered his final State of the Union address and it was not. A key component of most State of the Union speeches is an actual reflection of the current conditions and challenges facing our nation.

President Bush invested one sentence to actually discuss our current conditions at home if you listened close. In case you missed it, regarding the economy he said, "But in the short run, we can all see that that growth is slowing." Slowing is an understatement for many of us living day to day yet there it is. Quickly he followed that with the "robust growth package" his administration and the House leadership had put together. He warned the Senate not to adulterate it and not to slow down the approval of it.

He managed to squeeze in just about every initiative he could that the Congress needed to support. Each one usually received a standing ovation from slightly less than half of the audience. Knowing full well most of what he demanded be accomplished would not be during this Presidential election year he still invested much of his final address to actions which amounted to no more than feel good but empty words.

Calling for making his tax cuts permanent and pointing out the failure to curb earmark attachments to bills he did threaten to use his veto power more than any other time he addressed the nation and the full assembly of Congress. There was even a portion of the address devoted to a call for the strengthening of the "No Child Left Behind Act" as well as a new $300 million program he called "Pell Grants for Kids." Keep in mind this and other additional programs were discussed after his reminder there could be no tax increase and spending had to be brought under control.

There was time devoted to thanking the men and women serving in uniform. He trumpeted many victories in the war on terror as well as in Iraq. The goal he set was to reach a phase of "...eventually, to a protective overwatch mission." Perhaps this is connected to the program Sen. McCain was thinking about when he said he could envision a presence in Iraq for the next 100 years.

There were the staples of a Bush State of the Union. For the past several we remember these words, "I've submitted judicial nominees who will rule by the letter of the law, not the whim of the gavel. Many of these nominees are being unfairly delayed. They are worthy of confirmation, and the Senate should give each of them a prompt up-or-down vote." Perhaps the speech writers are able to save time with cut and paste for this section.

Also, we knew there would be saber rattling and to be sure to not disappoint he stated, "Our message to the leaders of Iran is also clear: Verifiably suspend your nuclear enrichment, so negotiations can begin. And to rejoin the community of nations, come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, cease your support for terror abroad. But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops. We will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."

He mentioned a clear foreign policy that was anything but clear, more ambiguous and open for very wide interpretation. The words sound good to the ear, "Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people, when given the chance, will choose a future of freedom and peace."

There was one aspect above all others that really reached a near level of pure disingenuous commentary. It wasn't the call for the government to balance the budget since households have to balance theirs. Even discussing the need to cut taxes and reduce spending while also presenting additional, expensive programs isn't it.

The most disingenuous words delivered in tonight's final State of the Union Address by President George W. Bush were referencing something not seen at any time during his administration, either by his administration or by the United States Congress. " By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong. So tonight, with confidence in freedom's power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business."

If it were that Bush and the Congress actually embraced these closing remarks our nation would not be facing the challenges never discussed tonight. Had the past 7 years been administered in this spirit, truly in step with the Constitution of the United States our nation would be standing as a beacon of hope for the world and the approval ratings of our government would be extremely high. Instead, as the speech ended, I found myself relieved it was the last time I would have to endure another State of the Union Address by President Bush.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.

Listening to CNN pundits discuss John McCain's deceitful approach in using the term secret timeline' while explaining his and Mitt Romney's approach to the War in Iraq really shined a light on a major challenge voters face. It was clear in listening to the context of Romney's comments McCain based his statement on that Romney had no secret timeline, McCain was taking completely out of context the comments of an opponent. Shock, right? The Clinton Gang really took out of context Obama's comments on Reagan and the Republicans. It is common for the two-parties to participate in this practice.

The difference was listening to the media talking heads calling this exactly what it is, deceitful. If the political campaign were treated like an advertisement for a product for consumers candidates would be forced from the airwaves with many of their assertions, assumptions, and accusations; the triple A of politics. As consumers we don't like to be deceived while shopping. Salesmen in many industries have a terrible reputation in most people's perception. There is a constant guard against deception when we are consumers. Politicians don't exactly have a stellar perception in people's minds either but is it easier to be deceived by politicians than it is by a salesman? Based on the way many voters are easily swayed through Soundbites and based on the large amount of false information and out right deceit spewing from most political camps I would have to say as voters we are more likely to vote a bad political representative than we are to make a really bad purchase.

Even if we do make a bad purchase there are many avenues available to recover from the mistake. We can return he product for a refund or exchange, we can bring suit against a manufacturer, and we can pursue other available consumer protection routes. In politics if we make a bad decision we are forced to deal with the dangerous consequences for two, four, or six years with little recourse.

If politicians like McCain or Clinton deceive us are we more likely to believe them? This is an answer that is changing today. The change isn't happening fast enough but more voters each election cycle are taking their votes more seriously. A citizen lucky enough to have the right to cast their vote should protect their vote as carefully as they would protect their life's investment or hard earned money prior to making a purchase. A voter should spend more time researching the candidates than they would a TV, vacation, or home purchase. Information is available to help us determine if the words a politician speaks our true, reminiscent of the truth, or purely deceitful when we take the time to research their words.

One way to research their words is by looking deeply into the resources available on the Internet. It takes less time today then at any other time in history. Listen to their words and take note of what is said. If you find yourself leaning toward supporting a candidate and you've not heard or study anything beyond commercials, televised debates, or news commentary you know you've not done your due diligence in vetting the candidate. Don't make a bad purchase based on deceit, don't cast your vote until you really believe and soon perhaps politicians will get the message. They may try and deceive but voters no longer will simply blindly believe.

Here's a fairly unbiased, well sourced website to get you started. Click on the candidate's picture for many details and then follow the links along each issue. You can ignore the Yes/No comments and simply dig into the links. Here's to casting well-educated vote!

Know Before You Vote!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.

Racism, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is not a theory of superiority or inferiority.  “The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.” However, in our more modern world superiority and inferiority became the very root of racist thought.  Racist thought (to include gender) conceives a race either better or worse than people of a differing race.  Racism divides people to a point of hatred and rebellion.  The very core of racism led the United States to monumental moments in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Today, in the U.S., racism is kept alive by those who tend to profit from the concept while there is a growing group of people who seem bent on killing the destructive beast.  Many leaders, non-profit organizations, and media outlets are served quite well while racial comparisons or racial issues can be maintained.  The very career of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and David Duke would be difficult to imagine if it were not for racism being alive.  Think of the different organizations that base their very foundation on racial difference and you see more proof these organizations would not be to happy if racism dies.  Network pundits would sure have to scamper for a way to report things if they could not simply focus on the race or gender ‘issues’ they love to use in analysis.  Racism is very convenient for creating angles on the news and for creating profits.

Listening to the political pundits report on exit polls from the South Carolina Democratic Primary last night really opened my eyes.  At one point, on CNN, the map was drawn with a percent of black vote in Super Tuesday States compared to South Carolina.  The talking head was discussing how Barack Obama would have to figure a way to win besides carrying the black vote since it would not be there in high enough numbers in key States.  Yet, just a few minutes earlier another pundit reported white men under 30 years old was a group Obama won last night.  It was actually only the oldest white male voter he clearly lost.  Also, it appears they have already forgotten Iowa is a 93% white dominated State that Obama won!  I found myself wondering, does Obama need to figure out something or is it time for older citizens and the media to figure something out?

Soon it was time for Sen. Obama to deliver his victory speech.  As the cameras took us inside the location the crowd was going nuts.  Why not?  Their candidate had just pulled off the first real route of the campaign on the Democratic side and he was far behind Hilary Clinton just a couple of months back.  I couldn’t help but wonder if the racial innuendo by Former President Bill Clinton didn’t help Obama.  Clinton is of the older generation now and he and his appear to be unwilling to pull racism off life-support.  But the youth are not buying the message as we older folks too often do.  There they were, as the camera panned the crowds, a true mix of all races, genders, and spattered about were even some older folks with the younger folks.  It reminded me of the mix of people I witnessed during the Ron Paul rally I attended.

In his eloquent and moving speech Obama was talking about the diverse nature of those supporting him and the audience clearly supported his words.  He also warned how difficult the struggle would be to overcome old thoughts in order to bring in change.  “The assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate; whites can't support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can't come together...But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in... The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we're willing to work for it.”

Racism is one front in the battle he talks about as I see it.  Racism is on life-support, kept alive by an older generation who has grown in their hearts a bitterness that divides.  It’s kept alive by people, organizations, and the media which benefit most from its anger.  Today it is growing more apparent the death of racism, pulling it off its critical life-support, is a part of a youth movement demanding change in this country.  I don’t have the racial bitterness of my parents, my children have far less, and their children may finally be as close to free as a people can be from divisions and hostility of racist ideas and separations.

I have seen it in the Paul campaign and I saw it clearly last night in Obama’s campaign.  The youth of this country are on the brink of pulling the plug on racial division.  They are attempting to KILL racism once and for all.  I only hope I live to see the day their hands control the power to pull that plug, it is long past time racism dies and ALL people unite to survive.

Listening to an interview with Princess Nancy Pelosi this morning pure relief came over me. She said a bipartisan stimulus package was close to being done. Asked why the oligarchy could work so fast on the stimulus package when they have not worked together on the Iraq War or other issues she said simply it was due to the people insisting they get this done quickly. That's it, the subjects insist the rulers work together and they suddenly work together? It appears to be true.

Sadly, the stimulus package is a poor thing for the people to exercise this power on. The rulers don't mind working on this economic stimulus package because the people will feel as if their rulers are taking good care of them by getting it done. Never mind the lack of sound economic policies has created this current challenge and for goodness sakes don't bother to ask if wasteful Federal Government spending has anything to do with creating some of the challenges. Also, don't take the time to ask if we really want government more involved in private business affairs as this only strengthens the dangerous bonds between corporations and government.

On CNN's morning news show yesterday they asked an informal question of the viewers. Should the government do more to avert a recession? 25% of those responding were wise enough to realize more government intervention is not healthy for our long-term success. However it is the 75% who say yes to government action that energizes Bush, Reid, and Pelosi to finally work on something together. It is not because they care about the people, it is because it provides an appearance of caring!

This action further subjugates people, interferes with a natural economic condition, and further moves our country toward a system of corporatocracy, oligarchy, and socialism. The Fed is not our friend (it's a private bank built for profit at our expense), rate cuts weaken our dollar further and create inflation especially on the poor and those living on fixed incomes, and a $300 dollar check today will not make tomorrow all rosy and bright. Those people saying they want the government to help avert a recession are the same 75% that believe the price of oil is rising as opposed to the fact our dollar is crumbling.

The few remaining on the campaign trail to become our next leader, the next ruling Prince of the United States, are thrilled to be having the economic challenges. If you really listened to the Democratic debate the other night you heard many socialized ideas gaining applause from an audience no doubt made up of folks from the 75% crowd. How's this for government and private industry being entangled? Senator Clinton wants to freeze interest rates for 5 years and the audience approved. Think about this people; think carefully what you continue to ask for. If you move from asking to insisting our oligarchy rulers will be happy to provide.

You must insist otherwise the two-parties still will pretend to not play nice together. According to Sen. Clinton there has not been a single good idea from any Republican in the last 10 to 15 years and her opponents agreed. Also, she says the only way to get real change is to give the Democrats the White House and a super majority in Congress so the Republican Party no longer is in their way. Since both parties are so close in direction on key issues this may not seem to be such a bad idea. Indeed, it is very likely the 75% crowd will actually do just that, put all the representation in a single party rather than in the people, according to the applause she garnered.

Reader's Digest has a great article this month entitled "You've Been Had: How the government wastes nearly $1 trillion of your money every year." With very little effort the authors were able to identify 10 areas where nearly $1 trillion dollars is being wasted by our friendly Federal rulers. At the end of the article is a brief discussion on what the 25% crowd can do to help change this. Think about what an easy $1 trillion savings through reductions in spending and taxes would do for the economy. Prince George, Prince Harry, and Princess Nancy are not working on this challenge however, why bicker over the little dollars when they can focus instead on how to send workers a quick $300 dollars to save our economy from recession.

Why do 75% want the government to step in and attempt to avert a recession anyway? Fear, we hear about the fear of it all and panic that we are all about to be wiped out. A recession scares the population and instead of taking the time to really study the details of what is causing our challenges our leaders simply trumpet how it's OK, they're our government and they're here to help. With little time invested we the people' chant together "fix it" and go about our daily grind. The fixes they will propose will further lock us down in the long run but we shouldn't worry about tomorrow since there is so much fear today and they'll help relieve it today.

People should think of these joint efforts of our rulers as their newest war; the war on recession' if you will. Why would I urge you to ponder this idea? Wars are scary business and we tend to be willing to fight them through patriotic needs yet fear them, especially if we are losing them. There are a few examples of wars our rulers fight as a means of subjugating the population while increasing the profits of corporations willing to fight along side the government. The war on terror is the latest drain on our liberty and economy yet pause long enough to look beneath the patriotic cry of the rulers and you see a great deal of profit being reaped from this war. The war on drugs and the war on poverty are another couple of grand examples.

These three wars are long in time, there is no quick end in sight for any of them, yet there is no clear victory in sight either. These are wars which are very beneficial for the two-party oligarchy. The ability to play on the people's emotions is good for a long time. Fear is easily sustained while the politicians can twist these wars in such a way as to give the appearance of helping while we slip further away from personal liberty.

We will see things like a presence in Iraq for the next 100 years, socialized medicine, continued Fed interference with interest rates and the plummeting dollar, and finally a collapse from a constitutionally established Federalist Republic into a democratically controlled socialized union. It won't be our fault as the rulers will be the first to tell us, just as it is not our fault we are facing a challenge economically today. After all, listening to the three Democrats the other night, I came away fully understanding it was dastardly predators that caused the mortgage crisis, not the people. David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said, "If we were a business we'd be out of business." But we aren't a business, we are a nation heading in the wrong direction and 75% of the people insist we are heading in the right direction. Beware the real predators leading the march.

2008 by Gary Wood
- Permission to copy with attribution granted.