2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I think the error lies in the guests short cutting, using one incident and a couple circumstances that cast Obama in a non-patriotic light, turning the one photographed incident into a case for evidence for a common practice.

Even so, the general idea is that Obama does appear to make traditional patriotism and the marks that go with it, and has shown a typical leftist distain for the flag and the usual marks of patriotism. (Even if they have been exploited by the Right). If the guest had phrased it more like that rather than projecting the one known incident into what is easily rebutted as a falsehood through an apparent claim for plural similar incidents, then these claims of lying would be less easy to make.

I have a far left friend who calls the U.S. Flag "The Republican Flag," while being ridiculously proud of the flag of her native country. The left has carried distain for the U.S. Flag since the time of the Viet Nam war (and the Beats in NYC long before that). That this is based on the subversive intentions of The American Communist Party (at least in the beginning) is now easy to document. Alan Gingsberg, Chomsky, MLK, just about all of the early players were frustrated and angry victims or reactionaries of the McCarthy Era. Some of that is understandable to be sure. HOWEVER.....

The beat just goes on, but it is disconcerting to see a candidate with what looks like a closet case (at least) of distain for the only real symbol of our democracy with a potential first lady who it seems must now be kept far from the public eye - poised to take the highest office in the land with such a short public service record behind him to compare with his choice in the church he has long attended and apparently the people who must have influenced his real thoughts by association.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

I must comment that your four star general who advises Obama is very incorrect regarding the military service of past presidents. He has twice said that President Johnson was not a vet. He in fact was a naval comander before and during WW2 and served in the theater of combat as did JFK.

Also, the list of past presidents who served in the military is much larger than he has indicated; Tyler, Jackson, Grant, T. Roosevelt, and I am sure many others I cannot quickly think of in the pre-WW2 period. Since WW2, most of our presidents have been veterans. That includes Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush 1 (Bush2 if you count his activity during wartime actual service). Only Clinton never served or signed up in any way. Clinton took us into Bosnia and Kosovo, so regardless of the pros and cons of the two actions, the statement that non-veterans don't take us to war is incorrect as well.

The general's comments on George Washington were also inacurrate. While Washington did not himself declare the Revolutionary War, (congress did by delcaring a sucession - idependence - from Britain) he was an advocate of it. More importantly, Washington was a hawk. This is illustrated by the fact that Washington fairly single handedly started the pre-Revolutionary War - French and Indian War (which errupted in Europe as The Seven Years War) through his arrogant, botched performance during his work as a military attache' delivering negotiative papers for the British to the French in New France (Canada).

The above are historic facts, look them up.

The idea that a four star general doesn't know this, or is so biased that he will not admit it, is unsettling and rather illustrates the selective nature of politicing by ommision of real history and reality from the current Democratic and in this case campaign for Borak Obama. By now, the American public has soaked up decades of PC misinformation and revisionism to the point that the dishonesty is hardly noticed anymore because of reality being replaced by an attitude of self-righteousness.

But a lie is a lie and can lead to no good, especially as lies are compounded. The lies of the Right haven't served us and lies from the Left won't either. Regardless, the practical experience and historical witness that military service usually provides is nothing but an asset to a country with a tradionally large military. So unless we mean to dismantle our military almost completely, which I don't think even Obama wants to do, it will take more than being a very clever public speaker and lawyer to make an effective president that will be taken seriously internationally. Note; power always advances in the face of weakness.

posted 5 years ago
view in context