At Chicago’s Apostolic Church of God today, Fathers Day, Obama said of Black Youth and men, “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” He also said, “We can’t simply write these problems off to past injustices. Those injustices are real. There’s a reason our families are in disrepair, but we can’t keep using that as an excuse.”

Recalling his own upbringing without his father around, he said, “I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle, that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls.”

Similar comments have been made in the past years by noted and popular Black comedian, Bill Cosby, who has often been excoriated for his harsh words towards Blacks.

While some prominent Blacks agreed with and appreciated Cosby’s words, others called him an “elitist, mean-spirited and out of touch with the poor and with young people.”

Others claimed Cosby’s views were simplistic because they “ignore institutional and societal forces, such as government neglect and racism, that have helped create the conditions in poverty-stricken neighborhoods.”

Noted Black Libertarian, syndicated radio host and author, Larry Elder, makes similar claims in his book, “Stupid Black Men, How To Play The Race Card and Lose” and has come under fire from within the Black community as well.

None claim racism is extinct in America, just that the prominence of it, as I once existed, isn’t here now and that Blacks have more opportunity available than before in our history.

Yet, they have been condemned from many sectors of the Black community, Larry Elder receiving some of the nastiest for his book.

Cosby has been touring America for a few years with his message of responsibility in what he calls “A Call Out with Cosby.” Elder’s book is selling in bookstores across the nation. Both have been condemned from within the Black community for their “you can’t blame Whites any longer” message and for encouraging young Blacks especially to take charge of their lives, children they father and to be there, active in the role they created.

Now that Barack Obama has joined in with a similar message to Black youth, will he too be accused of being out of touch and kissing “whitey’s” ass?

Time will most certainly tell.

Susan Atkins at her 1969 trial.

Susan Atkins after parole denial, 1985

In testimony before the Grand Jury, Atkins told of Sharon Tate pleading for her life, “Please let me go. All I want to do is have my baby.” She also said that she tasted Tate’s blood and found it to be “warm and sticky.” She then took some of Tate’s blood and used it to scrawl, on the porch wall, “PIG.”

After her arrest on unrelated charges, Atkins told of “a beautiful cat” named Charles Manson. She told of the murders,

“of finding Sharon Tate, in bed with her bikini bra and underpants, of her victim’s futile cries for help, of tasting Tate’s blood. Atkins expressed no remorse at all over the killings. She even told fellow cellmate Virginia Graham a list of celebrities that she and other Family members planned to kill in the future, including Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Tom Jones, Steve McQueen, and Frank Sinatra.”

Sharon Tate

After one of America’s longest trials, Atkins, along with Charles Manson, Charles “Tex” Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian were found guilty of first-degree murder and all received the death penalty! A California Supreme Court ruling in 1972 declared the state’s death penalty law unconstitutional thereby commuting the five’s sentence to life in prison.

All convicted for the brutal 1969 slayings have repeatedly been denied parole.

Debra Tate, Sharon Tate’s sister and last living relative said,

“I don’t want to seem like a heartless creature, but in all my years, I never considered this could happen. She showed no compassion. She told my sister as she slit her throat that she didn’t care for her or her unborn baby. If I could, I would say to her that I would pray for forgiveness on her soul at her moment of death when she has paid her debt to society. At that point, I’ll show compassion and pray for her soul.”

Margaret DiMaria, the sister of Jay Sebring, also murdered at the house that evening said,

“It is most unfortunate that Ms. Atkins now suffers a terminal illness. However, in the eyes of the law and in memory of her victims, I fail to see how one thing correlates to the other. She repeatedly committed crimes requiring evil premeditation and executed them in a cavalier manner that afforded her victims no mercy. The sentence Ms. Atkins now serves should not be mitigated because fate has struck this blow.”

Vincent Bugliosi, former Los Angeles prosecutor who prosecuted the murders said,

“She has paid substantially, though not completely, for her horrendous crimes. Paying completely would mean imposing the death penalty.” In regards to her “terminal illness,” Bugliosi added, “I don’t have an objection to her being released.”

Claiming “Born Again Christian,” Atkins has a website devoted to her “life since incarceration” boasting of

“Her life, her accomplishments since incarceration, her work with the Church, the Community and the needy, and her eligibility for parole.”

Her attorney husband, James W. Whitehouse, maintains the site.

Reading through the websites list of Accomplishments, one could come to the conclusion that the heinous murders she participated in and boasted of later were minimal compared to her accomplishments while incarcerated, neglecting her part in the earlier Gary Hinman murder, or that she was originally sentenced to death.

She repudiated her Grand Jury Testimony and through the years has claimed that her participation in the crimes was passive and that she didn’t actually kill anyone. After hearing the death sentence imposed upon her, Atkins proclaimed, “Better lock your doors and watch your own kids.”

39 years later, Atkins now requests “compassion.” Compassion she denied an 8 ½ months pregnant mother as she held her down while she was being stabbed to death and whom she told she didn’t care about as the actress lay dying.

Does someone who showed no compassion and boasted of a brutal slaying deserve compassion herself? Does being terminally ill merit compassion for release when time after time, paroles were denied and the person was originally sentenced to death for the brutality and heinous nature of the crimes?

The one thing they appear to agree on is challenging and regulating the pay and severance packages of Top Corporate CEOs.

In May 2007, Junior Senator Obama submitted a bill, S. 1181: Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, currently before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. It says in part,

“I believe public discussion and debate over executive compensation packages would force corporate boards to think twice before signing over millions of dollars to CEOs. Certainly, many CEOs are ably steering their firms and deserve their paychecks. But the rate at which executive pay has grown, as compared to stagnating wages among American workers, is rightfully frustrating shareholders and employees alike, especially given the lackluster performance of many of the companies paying these high salaries.”

Although not a cosponsor on Senator Obama’s bill, Senator McCain recently came out and said,

“Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs, in some cases the very same CEOs who helped bring on these market troubles, bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of the stockholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct while the offenders themselves are packed off with another 40 or 50 million for the road. If I’m elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors; and under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO’s pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by the shareholders.”

Both are missing out on the true overpaid and pampered employees, though. We have a group of employees that earn lifetime benefits, huge paychecks, perks and generous retirement and have a long record of not performing adequately for the job. Some spend a lifetime under employ, others a few short years. They even decide their own pay rate and benefits!

In a spirit of public concern, I submit the following adaptation of what I feel both candidates should have said, but never will.

“Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries, benefit and severance deals of Government Officials, in some cases the very same Public Employees who helped bring on these national troubles, bear no relation to the success of the nation or the wishes of the voters. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless Government Officials while the offenders themselves are packed off with another lifetime benefits package and pensions for the road and voting their own pay increases. If you elect me president, you have every right see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by “we the people,” and under your reforms, all aspects of every Government Officials pay, including any severance arrangements, benefits or retirement, must be approved by the voters, with absolutely no exceptions.”

Democrat, Republican, Senator or Congressman, politicians from the presidency down, have not performed in the overall best interest of the nation. Yet, the Senate and the House vote their own pat rate in and allow themselves very generous retirement, benefits and even perks, all paid for by taxpayers.

If they intend to go after and regulate private sector pay for CEO’s, shouldn’t we the people have an equal say in what the politicians are paid?

In acknowledging his campaign’s winning sufficient numbers of delegates to cinch the nomination, Obama said, “America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past.” This, of course, begs the question, “just who does he mean by “our?”

Senator Obama bills himself as a “uniter,” but his party is far from united behind him, as was attested to by Harriet Christianrecently. Voters in Florida and Michigan, whose delegates to the Democrat National Convention in Denver are barely permitted to be seated and then with only half votes, disenfranchising possibly thousands of registered Democrats, surely don’t look upon the junior Senator as a “uniter.”

Just how did a first term Senator with no foreign policy experience, no discernable record at the federal level and a virtual unknown become such a luminary for the party? Perhaps we see the answer in headlines of his gaining the needed number of delegates to cinch the nomination.

MSNBC tells us, “he shattered a barrier more than two centuries old to become the first black candidate ever nominated by a major political party for the nation’s highest office.”

CNN says, “In what he called a ‘defining moment for our nation,’ Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday became the first African-American to head the ticket of a major political party.”

The New York Times headlines, “Obama Claims Nomination; First Black Candidate to Lead a Major Party Ticket”

Fox News, under the headline Historic Season Finale states, “Obama clinches Dem nomination, making him the first African-American presidential candidate of a major party.”

Obama’s home newspaper, the Chicago Sun-Times runs the headline of Obama Makes History with the comment, “Barack Obama sealed the Democratic nomination, a historic step toward becoming the nation’s first black president.”

Qualifications and experience merit little mention, only his “blackness.” Other than skin tone, just what makes the junior Senator from Illinois black? Where was he ever oppressed or discriminated against as were many other Blacks living in America’s inner cities? Where did he have to struggle to escape a ghetto and fight for equality or recognition?

Senator Obama was born to Stanley Anne Dunham, a white middle class woman from Kansas and Barack Hussein Obama Sr., an African from Kenya, who abandoned the Senator and his Mother when the Senator was 2 and returned to Kenya, fathering more children with other wives and only seeing his American born son once more before his death in 1982.

His mother, remarried to an Indonesian, Lolo Soetoro, allowed her young son to remain in Hawaii with his white grandparents to attend the Punahou School, a privileged Hawaiian private school known for its diversity.

His mother did expose him to the writings of Martin Luther King and talent of Black artists like Mahalia Jackson, but by all accounts, he enjoyed a fairly normal white middle class upbringing.

Listening to or reading news accounts, though, one would believe he was raised by his Kenyan grandmother, not his ”Typical White” grandmother.
Senator Obama has only visited his distant Kenyan family three times, the last in 2006, ostensibly to discover his fathers “roots.”

Unlike many Americans of African ancestry, the junior Senator is not a descendant of slaves, but rather, a descendant of slave owners.

Just what is Barack Obama’ connection to Black American’s? Is it the rants of Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Does the chip on his wife’s shoulder give him Blackness?

Or, has the tone of his skin become the main qualification to support or oppose him? Why is it that when his lack of experience or qualifications are mentioned, we are labeled “racists” for looking past his skin tone and striving to see if he really has what a president should have to lead?

Have we as a people, digressed to the point that we only look at skin tone in determining our next leader?

One day a year, America sets aside a day of Remembrance for those that never returned, those that paid the ultimate sacrifice for not only our freedom, but the freedoms of the oppressed in foreign lands as well.

Currently over 4,000 of our Brothers and Sisters who stood up for freedom in the Middle East will never return home to the hugs of families. They will become a painful memory for those that loved them and forgotten by the nations they fought to keep free, except for the recognition of a small American Flag placed on their graves this Monday morning, May 26.

America did not always have a Memorial Day. After our Civil War in the 19th Century, a day was set aside to commemorate only the Union Soldiers who lost their lives, called Decoration Day.

After fighting ceased from World War One, “The Great War,” the day was changed to include all of America’s Military Deaths from all wars.

When I was a child in the 1950’s, Memorial Day was a big event. Parades were held, aging Veterans gallantly strode down the Boulevard through the middle of town, Marching Bands played marching tunes of John Phillip Souza, and townspeople turned out to line both sides of the Boulevard to pay respects to those who served and especially to those who never came home.

Businesses closed and groups broke off into picnics organized by various Veterans Organizations. Speeches were made at Monuments to crowds gathering to pay homage, while silent personal moments were seen in all of the Town Cemeteries where the remains of our Lost Soldiers were laid to rest.

Many of the commemorations included former enemies who immigrated to America after the wars, some choosing to remain after being released from various Prisoner of War camps around the country. They too saw the freedom and liberty America was blessed with and came to embrace what all too many today just take for granted.

Families mourn for their loved ones lost to war. Most others just take the three-day weekend without giving a thought to why we have the day, as Memorial Day has come to lose much of its significance since the anti-war left was given the voice they raised during the Viet Nam era.

To this small but loud faction of Americans, Veterans that sacrificed their lives deserved to die. Instead to paying homage to the buried, they would spit on their graves, if not physically, then emotionally by slandering the memory of those who died or desecrating Memorials to them. They called them “murderers,” “rapists,” “cold blooded killers” and such, never giving a thought that it is the sacrifice of those Brave Young people that grants them the freedom to act as they do.

Misdeeds of a very small number are exaggerated and applied to all, wrongfully. Where as a child I was taught to respect and honor those that served, many today teach their children to fear and loath them.

Many from other countries read the exaggerated accounts from our own newspapers and believe the hyperbole. Our enemies are emboldened and more lives are lost as the oppressed that looked to America for help in gaining their own freedom come to distrust us.

Our politicians clamor for abandonment of the cause before those peoples are freed completely or ready to face their enemies alone. As in Viet Nam, all support was denied to the struggling country and the Communist North was steadily strengthened and resupplied by Communist Nations all too willing to see more people fall under their oppressive ways.

America turned its back not only on living Veterans, but on our War Dead as well, labeling them “losers” for not winning a war they did not want won in the first place. Allies come to be wary of America, not knowing when they too would be abandoned.

But still, America’s youth come forth when needed. They come down from the mountains. They come from the cities of the North and the Bayous of the South. They leave the beaches of California and Florida. North, South, East and West, they leave the comfort of their homes and loved ones to volunteer for Americas Military. Young and older, Black, White, Brown, Red and Yellow skinned, male, and female, they come with no desire of praise or large salaries, but only a desire only to see America remain the freest nation on the planet and to see others share in the freedoms that we do.

All too many won’t return, sacrificing their all wherever they may be sent. This Monday, May 26, will be their Memorial Day. This will be the day America should be saying “thank you” to those brave souls who joined so many others in giving their life so others may remain free.

General George S. Patton is credited with once saying, “It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.”

General Norman Schwarzkopf once said, “It doesn’t take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle.”

In 2003, General Colin Powell said to the Archbishop of Canterbury, “We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in.”

Our Holy Bible says at John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Won’t you join me in taking just a few moments out of your barbecues, your shopping trips or watching TV just to reflect on what so few of our citizens have sacrificed in order that so many may remain free?

(Photos by Victoria Taft, KPAM 860 AM Portland, Oregon)

Senator Obama, mid way in his first term and presumed to have pretty much wrapped up the nomination for President from the Democrat Party, has been very vocal in his opposition to the President’s plan to save the Social Security System by privatizing a portion of it. In fact, in today’s speech he said,

“Let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would cost a trillion dollars to implement at the front end, and would put the retirement plans of millions of Americans at risk on a volatile Wall Street. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.”

Of course, Obama doesn’t say his plan is “privatizing,” but reviewing his claims and comparing them to the failed 2005 attempt to “fix” Social Security reveals some striking similarities.

Obama said, “Social Security is strong, but as more baby boomers retire, the long-term cash-flow needs to be addressed. We have to make sure Social Security is there for future generations.”

President Bush said, “Social Security is sound for today’s seniors and for those nearing retirement, but it needs to be fixed for younger workers – our children and grandchildren.”

Obama says, “We have an obligation to secure the future of one of the most successful programs in our history.”

Bush said, “Social Security was one of the great moral successes of the 20th century by providing a critical foundation of income for retired and disabled workers.”

Obama says, “Here’s my plan. Right now, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $102,000 a worker makes. I think the best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected.”

Bush said, “I subscribe to the idea put forward, interestingly enough, by a Democrat, a fellow named Pozen, who believes that the poorest of our citizens ought to have their benefits increased by wage, at the rate wages increase. I think the richest one percent ought to have their benefits indexed on price. And I think it ought to be scaled up in between.”

Obama says, “we’re not going to help folks reach retirement unless we encourage savings… That’s why I’ve proposed automatic workplace pensions. There will be no red tape or complicated forms - employers will provide a direct deposit of a small percentage of each paycheck into your account. You can add to it, or you can opt out at any time.”

Bush said, “we ought to make it a better deal for younger workers by allowing younger workers to take some of their own payroll taxes and set it aside in what is called a voluntary personal savings account… if you want to, you can put some of your own money aside. You don’t have to. If you’re uncomfortable with watching your money grow with a conservative mix of bonds and stocks, you don’t have to do that. You can keep it the way — into the system. And you’ll get your check. If you’re in the bottom 30 percent, your benefits over time will grow at wages. If you’re in the top 1 percent, they’ll grow with inflation. And if you’re somewhere in between, they’ll grow depending upon your income, but greater than the rate of inflation. Secondly, it’s called a personal account. That means you own it. It’s an account the government cannot take away.”

While there are operational differences in achieving strength in Social Scurity and for those who will retire tomorrow, the basics appear strikingly similar.

Both agree that Social Security has been a good idea.

Both agree that Social Security is in trouble and needs “fixing.”

Both propose individual savings from an employees paycheck.

Obama proposes raising the cap on payroll taxes to have higher wage earners pay in more.

Bush proposes higher wage earners benefits increase less than those at the lower end of the pay scale.

Both will give lower earners more benefit and wealthier earners less.

Bush said, back in 2005,

“And there are other ideas on the table. I asked people to bring them forth — you’ve got a good idea, step up with it, I’m more than willing to listen.”

What he received in reply was,

“Let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would cost a trillion dollars to implement at the front end, and would put the retirement plans of millions of Americans at risk on a volatile Wall Street. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.”

And yet, his plan sounds eerily similar to the one he claims was a “bad idea.”

Where were his proposals for “change” back in 2005 when asked for? Although not in the US Senate, surely he could have either called the White House or sent a proposal through any of the Democrats then fighting Social Security reform, instead of offering alternatives.

Strange thing about political campaigns, they often feature rehashed proposals the candidate vehemently opposed once, until they change the wording a bit and slightly tweak the method.

Now, all we can do is sit back and see if the gullible public falls for the rhetoric because a false messiah calls for it.

They have now held power for 16 months and America is witnessing the “New Direction” still unfolding before their very eyes.

No sooner did they seize power than they launched a plethora of investigations designed to undermine the President and abandon the Iraqi and Afghani people’s to whatever fate may befall them at the hands of radical extremists.

Funding bill after funding bill was introduced and rushed through, only to be vetoed by the President due to attaching unnecessary earmarks they wanted or legislating an abandonment of the people’s we are helping to fight off terrorist takeovers.

Unemployment was at 4.5% when Democrats swept into Congressional power. In the succeeding months it has grown to 5%. More homes are in foreclosure and the Stock Market has ceased the record closings we all enjoyed over the first 6 years of the Bush administration. As a result, home values are in a decline.

They said they would focus the national security strategy to the nation’s borders and increase port security. Instead, by the end of the year 2007, the Border Fence along our Southern Border, passed and funded in September 2006 was defunded, leaving our Southern Flank open to the onslaught of Illegal Immigrants, many non-Hispanics from countries harboring terrorists and hating America. Private entities have taken up building of some stretches of fence, but the border remains open.

When George Bush took office, gasoline in America cost about $1.70 a gallon. It cost in the vicinity of $2.45 as Democrats took control of Congress. That is a 75-cent increase over 5 years.

Since Democrats seized power, gas in America has climbed to $3.94 a gallon, or a $1.49 increase in barely over one year.

Part of the Democrats “New Direction” was to “Crack down on price gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.”

The “New Direction” has given us record high as prices and as they push bio-fuels, we face ever-increasing food costs and shortages as well. Their latest proposal to ease the burden on families, raise taxes and punish those who supply our fuel needs.

In spite of promises of reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans and Bush, Democrats launched into multiple investigations over every little thing they could. If the courts found a Democrat Politician guilty, they investigate it, accusing Republicans and Bush of “political prosecutions,” and expressing their desire to “get” anybody from the administration they can.

As America’s economy, long decried as failing, in spite of record earnings, lowest unemployment and record closings in the stock market, is finally faltering somewhat, the Democrats step up with yet another “New Direction” to “improve” our situation, “Raise Taxes,” guaranteed to hurt the economy further than they have already.

As most recall, in the 2000 election recount in Florida, in what has come to be referred to as a total fiasco, in spite of the U.S. Supreme Court decision ending the selective recounts, Bush won the state and the election, setting off years of Democrat cries of “count every vote.” Yet, for 2008 Democrats have decided primary votes from the states of Michigan and Florida will not be counted in nominating the Democrat candidate because those states had the audacity to vote earlier than the party said.

The party “rule” used to deny two states their voice in selecting their party nominee reminds one of the literacy tests arbitrarily used to deny American Blacks their right to vote for many years in the Southern States.

America, you decided a “New Direction” was needed and you received it. What you didn’t expect, and many tried to warn you, is that the “New Direction” isn’t new at all. The Bolsheviks advocated it early in the 20th century and eventually over threw the Czar of Russia, setting up what became known as the Soviet Union.

Will complacent Americans and spineless Republicans wake up in time?

Democrats are backing up the assertion that they remain on the offensive in this election year, citing the past 7 years of bashing Republicans and President Bush endlessly.

What Democrats, in their glee neglect to say is they won this one through the usual Democrat Dirty Tricks, pulling out any sleazy despicable trick they could to win. They succeeded.

On the eve of this special election, National Democrats distributed flier’s tying the Republican candidate in the race to the Ku Klux Klan, a charge impossible to refute in the last minutes of the election.

Republicans immediately decried the Democrat Dirty Trick as desperate and said the charges are untrue, but the damage was done, Davis lost by 6 percentage points, with 90% of precincts reporting.

Democrat Childers was leading Davis 49-46 just weeks ago, why the need for such dirty tricks?

The flier claimed that Davis “wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in the town of Southaven,” where Davis serves as mayor. “Davis supported moving the statue of the founder of the Ku Klux Klan and first Grand Wizard from Memphis to Southaven after civil rights leaders tried to have it taken down,” says the flier.

Davis said through Campaign spokesman Ted Prill, “the flier is a complete falsehood and a lie.” Prill maintained that Davis never said that he would have taken the Forrest statue from Memphis, where it had become controversial. He did express interest in accepting a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who never had any links to the Ku Klux Klan.

While Republicans blasted this latest playing of he race card and dirty trick from Democrats, Democrats stood by their charge, knowing it could not be refuted in time to make any difference.

One wonders why the Democrats would make this charge after they have defended a member of their own party who has held office for the last 49 years and spent World War Two and after as a Grand Kleagle in West Virginia’s Ku Klux Klan?

John McCain claims he will run a “clean campaign,” not resorting to any dirty tricks or mudslinging. Obviously, he doesn’t have a clue what his former Senate partners and “friends’ will have in store for him in their quest for ultimate power at any cost over the country.

Will the spineless Republican stand up against these “dirty tricks?”

To be fair, with the exhaustive schedule he and other candidates keep in running for public office, especially the highest office in the land, gaffes such as this are bound to happen. Yet, when a Republican utters such a misstatement we never hear the end of it.

Late night jokes are made on television shows. Our media portrays the poor exhausted Republican candidate as a buffoon, an uneducated fool who should not be in office.

Through the Bush 41 administration, we heard time and time again of Vice President Dan Quayle and any little misspeak he made. Fun was poked at Bush 41 for his slogan “read my lips, no new taxes” as he signed a large tax increase handed to him by the Democrat controlled Congress at the time. His “thousand points of light” and use of the word “prudent” were popular on comedy shows.

Emails are floating around showing such gaffes credited to Quayle, former President Reagan, former Vice President Al Gore and even current President Bush. Some of the gaffes are true; most are either exaggerated or even made up by comedians in their shows.

Many in the public accept these gaffes as facts, though and our media often runs with them in their effort to portray one party as unfit for office, while not paying too much attention to a gaffe like the 57 states stated by Obama.

President Bush is castigated time and again for saying “nucular” in his Texas drawl instead of the proper “nuclear.” Yet we know what he means as many misstate the same word. What goes unreported is that even former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter also misstated the same word, as did President Eisenhower, with relative impunity for their mangling of the word.

Rightwing bloggers are having fun with this, as did leftwing bloggers over gaffes by Republicans. Major media, on the other hand, seems to desire to leave this alone while sparing little expense in “reporting” similar gaffes by Republicans.

Poking fun at our politicians is as American as is Apple pie. Entertainers have made history, poking fun at them. But, somewhere along the line celebrities and media went from poking innocent fun to running articles using such unfortunate gaffes as “proof” the other party should be elected.

Somehow, Journalism has deviated from reporting news to manipulating the news. While the argument rages back and forth over the major media being liberal, moderate or conservative, the disparity between coverage of candidates gaffes is unmistakable.

Like others before him, Senator Obama jokingly admitted to his “57 state gaffe” when, after discussing the tragedy in Myanmar he said, “I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh” at which point an aide cut him off and ushered him away from reporters before he flubbed another one.

The next time you hear a Republican utter “nucular” or misspell “potato,” keep in mind they have their “numeracy” in order and know that we don’t have “57 states.”

By now, I’m confident the entire world knows of the gaffes uttered by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Pastor to Democrat Candidate and Senator from the State of Illinois, Barack Obama for some 20 years and who has repeatedly condemned the very country the junior Senator hopes to be able to lead. To be expected, conservatives in America have latched onto the controversy to hurt the campaign of Obama.

The junior Senator has tried to distance himself from the controversial Reverend, but it keeps coming back to haunt him in this campaign. Even Reverend Wright came out lately saying Obama had only distanced himself from the minister for political reasons.

The Senators Wife, Michelle said recently that it’s time for her husband’s campaign to move forward from the controversy and return the focus to issues, declining to discuss it with interviewers further.

Howard Dean, former 2004 candidate in the run for the presidency that year and Chairman of the Democratic Party, tried much the same track today on the Fox News Sunday show when interviewer and host, Chris Wallace questioned, “has the Reverend Wright controversy made Obama radioactive among Democratic candidates down ticket?”

Dr. Dean replied, “I’m not going to get into the Reverend Wright at all. I think we’ve spent enough time on Reverend Wright,” adding, “for the last 30 years, the Republican book is to race bait and to use hate and divisiveness.”

Queried if he was suggesting that mentioning Reverend Wright was “race baiting,” Dean answered, “Yeah, I am suggesting that kind of stuff.”

Reminded that just last week, Senator Obama said the Wright controversy was a legitimate campaign issue, Dean replied, “Well, he can say whatever he wants. I’m going to say whatever I want. I’m not getting into Reverend Wright. He’s caused enough trouble for our country over the last several weeks.”

How Reverend Wright may respond to that last charge, if at all, remains to be seen.

Curious is that while members of the Democrat Party try to play down the Reverend Wright Controversy and “move on,” they now are also trying desperately to divert attention away by bringing up some less than savory comments of Pastors that have supported the presumed Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, who disavowed a controversial advertisement showing the Reverends comments in North Carolina a couple weeks ago.

One, John Hagee, called the Roman Catholic Church “the great whore.” Another, Rod Parsley, referred to Islam as a “false religion” that America was called on to destroy.

Senator McCain attends neither Church nor makes those claims himself, unlike Senator Obama who was a member of Reverend Wrights Church for the past 20 years. Still, controversial left-wing groups like Moveon.org state,

“McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.””

For what is worth, it was during the Ohio Primary Campaign that McCain referred to Rod Parsely as “a Spiritual Guide,” not “my Spiritual Guide.” It should also be noted that during his 2000 bid for the presidency, McCain referred to two other prominent Pastors, Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance,” for their expressions of similar views.

McCain’s campaign has released a statement saying,

“Parsley is not and never has been the spiritual guide for McCain, who attends the North Phoenix Baptist Church.”

Sitting back and watching all this unfold is New York Senator and former First lady, Hillary Clinton, who made faith an issue in the campaign when her campaign issued a memo highlighting her “strong Methodist family and childhood, the principles of the Methodist church were the guiding light of her life, she learned the value and power of prayer at an early age, her faith is deeply personal and real and she often finds inspiration from scripture.”

As of yet, no controversial Pastor has emerged in regards to Senator Clinton, although claims are made that her “unsavory religious affiliations make her more vulnerable than Obama.”

Reflecting back on this on going insertion of religious affiliations of the candidates, I feel it is more like a movie short of the Three Stooges than a Political Campaign.

I shudder to think of what people from other lands watching must think.