Bobby Kennedy

Forty-three years ago today, Robert Kennedy was shot and killed as he campaigned at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.

Languishing in hindsight and speculation, I will say that I believe Bobby Kennedy would have been one of the greatest President’s the United States has ever had, had he not been cut short on the campaign trail in 1968. If he’d have lived, there may have been no President Nixon, No President Ford, and maybe even no President Reagan. If his ideas and sentiments not been crushed in the following years by a vicious right winged neoliberal elite, and less eloquent and less popular and far less charismatic liberal politicians made to sound like the ramblings of archaic socialists, the World might not have had to endure thirty years plus, of the rise of the Hayekian New Right. The spirit of the ’60s was firmly shot down in 1968.

I wanted a short blog today on RFK, and a quote that I felt summed up his political philosophy, and why he remains one of my political heroes.

“Our gross national product … if we should judge America by that – counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

Perfect quote.

Iran’s Tiananmen Square

Twenty years after the massacre at Tiananmen, the situation in Iran could soon find itself on the same course. The Republic of Iran, this week appears to be in the midst of quite the civil uproar. The streets of Tehran are on fire. The Iranian people have a crazed dictator, rigging elections, beating protesters, restricting media communications, and making his mission in life the acquisition of nuclear arms; and yet the pro-reformers, who have quite obviously been screwed over, demonstrate on the streets in their thousands, blissfully unafraid. Conflictingly over here in the UK, we have an unelected Prime Minister, whose cabinet fell apart, who helped create a financial mess, who allowed Lloyds Group to employ Andy Hornby for £60,000 a month despite the fact that he lost over £10bn at his previous job, and despite Lloyds group making thousands more jobless. A Prime Minister who the entire Country doesn’t like. And yet, even our Labour MPs backed down from a political fight to oust him, through fear. It’s quite the difference. Perhaps we really have given up on politics entirely.

It is without doubt that Iran needs reform. It cannot survive as it is. It is estimated that by the end of the year, Iran’s fiscal deficit would rise to 18% of GDP. And given that Iran relies heavily on oil revenue, if and when oil prices start to fall, Iran will struggle. That isn’t to say that the Country is completely in ruins. Healthcare in Iran has improved rapidly in the past 20 years. Life expectancy is well above the World average, and above Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Turkmenistan, in the region. It is just a pity, they have a crazed dictator running the show.

The 2009 Election was never going to be free and fair. The members of the Guardian Council along with the Supreme Leader do not want to see Iran in the hands of a reformist urging less State intervention in the media and closer ties with the U.S. And no strict fundamentalist Muslim wants to see their Country fall largely under American influence. For them, this election was between Islam and America. Mousavi never stood a chance. The outcome, showed quite dubiously, that President Ahmadinejad had secured 62.63% of the vote whilst the reformist, Mir-Hossein Mousavi secured just 33.75%. According to secret Iranian polls conducted before the election, by the Revolutionary Guards, showed that Mousavi was set to take the election by quite the landslide, of up to 10 million more votes than Ahmadinejad. Between a ten and twenty point lead. The result came back, and was actually the other way around; Ahmadinejad secured more than 10 million more votes. That’s quite the swing! Not only that, but the President of Iran managed to win Mousavi’s home town of Tabriz, with 57% of the vote, which was so unlikely, one wonders why the Ahmadinejad team wasn’t more subtle in it’s quite obvious election rigging.

Iran has gone further, by arresting leading civil rights activists since Friday’s disputed election, activists who have all called for a complete recount. They have cracked down further on media outlets who suggest election fraud. A camera man for Italian media outlet, RAI was beaten in the Iranian capital on Saturday, and had his equipment confiscated. Iranian State Media, have condemned the demonstrations as the acts of “thugs” and “illegal“. Iranian State newspapers have been told not to report on the violence conducted by State officials against protesters. Text messaging services and internet use have been cracked down to prevent much communication getting to and from the Capital. Over 100 important opposition leaders have been arrested since the protests began, simply for showing opposition to the result. Protesters then gathered outside a military base at Azadi Square, in Tehran, and were seemingly fired on in what appears to be the attempted suppression of the right to protest.

Within moments of the polls closing, The Ministry of Interior announced that of the 25 million votes counted so far, 16 million had been cast for Ahmadinejad. Highly unlikely, given that the highest voter turnout in a very long time, anywhere in the World, had occurred primarily as a protest against Ahmadinejad. Within hours, the Interior had announced that if anyone attempted to approach the Ministry, the police had orders to shoot. Quite the response, given that they’d just announced that the Country absolutely loves Ahmadinejad. The Ministry of Interior is the body that controls how voting is conducted and how the votes are counted. It is also primarily under the control of Ahmadinejad, and The Supreme Leader.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whilst originally claiming that Ahmadinejad’s victory was “divine“, has now called for the Guardian Council to investigate allegations of fraud. The outcome, doubtless, will favour Ahmadinejad. Given that the Supreme Leader was a leading figure in the Islamic revolution, he’s unlikely to favour a reformer like Mousavi, who once claimed he wanted to reduce the influence of the Islamic Clerics in Iran, and supported closer ties with America. It would be quite the political and influential suicide for Khamenei.

I echo the thoughts of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, when he said of the election result; “If Ahmadinejad has really made progress since the last election and if he really represents two thirds of the electorate… why has this violence erupted?”
I cannot imagine, if a candidate is as popular as the results appear to show, that full scale mass protests would ensue. George W Bush was the most unpopular President in history. If he were allowed to stand for a third term, a landslide victory over Obama, would be the Western equivilant to what is currently happening in Iran.

To sum up, Iran has blocked media communication, restricted web and text message services, banned anyone from coming within feet of the Ministry of Interior, put armed guards on the streets with orders to kill, arrested opponents, and released an incredibly illogical election result, and yet they’re still claiming it was free and fair. Islamic Fundamentalist Dictatorship, under the mask of democracy.

The hypocrisy of Freedom

It’s become wildly hypocritical; It’s largely based on out dated tradition; It’s horribly fickle; and it has no coherence or general moral standing. I’m speaking of course, about the Republican idea of “Freedom“. Freedom appears to only apply when it suits Republican America. Republican Freedom is a skewed, manipulated form of the ideals of American Freedom in general. For example, and i’ve spoke about this one before; The Freedom to own a gun whether you’re merely a law abiding huntsman, or whether you’re a 21 year old with an enraged grudge against class mates and teachers; you’re protected by a 2nd Amendment that clearly didn’t expect to be the subject of debate. Although i’m certain Jefferson and Franklin didn’t propose that anyone should be allowed to keep an arsenal of sub machine guns; that the words “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be ignored. If I were President, i’d make bullets ten times more expensive than they are now, tax them massively. But what do I know.

Freedom is etched into the American way of thinking. Since the very beginning, the fight that America has undertook has been one dedicated to freeing it’s people from tyranny. “We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal” cries the Declaration of Independence. There is no mistaking that Thomas Jefferson composed a beautifully written document when he drafted the Declaration. Of course, it hasn’t troubled America that the term “all men are created equal” written at a time when even Jefferson had over 150 slaves of which many received regular beatings may have been slightly ironic. And so the hypocrisy of American Freedom was born. Frederick Douglas speaking in 1852 managed to reconcile America Freedom and the abolition of Slavery quite beautifully. “That which is inhuman cannot be divine.“

In 2009, Republicans appear to take that general level of “Freedom Hypocrisy” to a new level. Freedom today, appears to apply only to economic freedom, for those who already have a significant amount of money. Bloggers like Free America appear to be under the impression that Obama and Pelosi are systematically working to purposely destroy America with their pesky much needed Liberal policies, despite the fact that over the past eight years America has been involved in an unjust illegal war leading to the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent people; displacement of a further 4.5 million and 5 million orphaned children. Hurricane Katrina striking New Orleans saw the end of the lives of over 1,800 people whilst 80% of the City was flooded, which lead to further deaths of many people who merely couldn’t get to food or shelter because the Republican Government’s response was pathetic at best and ignorantly genocidal at worst. Then of course, you have the worst economic crises in ….well…. ever. When Clinton left the White House, he left a budget surplus of over $230bn. Eight years later, eight years of Republican Government, and America is in the mist of an economic crises. Of course, Republicans like to suggest that Clinton’s surplus was inherited from the Reagan tax cuts. Fine. But then, surely they must admit that Obama therefore inherited a miserable legacy that it will take more than two months to correct. I swear, Obama was in the White House less than a day before Republicans started blaming him.

Anyway, back to “freedom”. Whilst the word itself connotes the ultimate in human existence, it isn’t quite as black and white in Republican America. It suits Republican America to ascribe Freedom to economics. To pay as little in the way of taxation as possible. Whilst a child may inherit a few million dollars, another may be unlucky enough to be one of the 35 million Americans who inherit nothing but the dilapidated and forgotten poverty stricken lifestyles encouraged by poor educational standards and lack of health care, that the Republican Americans are quick to suggest is some sort of perfect system choosing to ignore that “all men are created equally” when it suits them. To this day, at 23 years old, i’m struggling to understand how a system that allows the poverty line for children under 18 to increase from 12.1 million, to 12.9 million between 2001 and 2003; yet at the same time allows those earning over $1,000,000 see their taxes drop with the Bush Tax Cuts, as the mark of a great economic system…. it quite clearly isn’t. I repeat Douglas’ sentiment “That which is inhuman cannot be divine.” Ignoring the plight of those in poverty or dismissing them as “lazy“, whilst simultaneously choosing to ignore the problem of Climate Change despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary – purely because it might affect their “freedom” to exploit resources for business opportunity, is not real “freedom“.

Freedom to claim that universal healthcare, is some evil socialist manifestation that never works, whilst ignoring that you have universal policing and universal fire protection – just adds to the hypocrisy of “freedom” that Republican America only clings to when it threatens them, regardless of the fact that it may actually help other people. A legacy of “self before others” left by Thatcher and Reagan. Forgive me for not buying into it.

I’m not too sure why Republicans chose to draw the line on personal freedom, at the right for Homosexuals to get married. All of a sudden Republicans have decided that Gay people are sexually immoral devils, promiscuous by nature, AIDs ridden, unable to keep a relationship going, and a danger to children. As if that only exists in the homosexual community. They chose often to quote Leviticus 18:22; “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” As proof that God hates gays and so gays shouldn’t marry. They fail however to acknowledge that if we’re to take the Old Testament into consideration when debating such issues, we must conclude that Leviticus 11:8 with regard to pig skin, stating: “Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you” should mean that anyone who plays American Football, is doomed to hell, a long with gay people. But of course not, because in true Republican fashion, Leviticus 11:8 doesn’t appeal to them because it threatens their life style, and so they pick and chose which areas of the Bible appeal to their prejudices already.

Of course, whilst talking Christianity, it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that if God truly did support the Republicans, as ex Senator Norm Coleman suggested, when he told Mike Gallagher; “God wants me to serve“, then you can bet that Jesus would have charged a fortune for all those free EVIL SOCIALIST miracles he supposedly performed.

When you come to the conclusion that Republicans only appear to support ideas like “Freedom” and Religious belief when it suits their prejudices, you have to take a look at the “Pro-life” lobby. “Pro Life” only seems to appeal to Republicans when someone is set to have an abortion. When the Country is destroying a Nation and killing over 1,000,000 of it’s citizens, Republicans don’t seem all that concerned. When stem cell research could lead to the scientists providing mankind with a better understanding of complex cell division, which in turn could lead to life saving treatments and cures…. real pro-life investments….. Republicans tend to oppose it. Minority Leader John Boehner even went so far as to suggest that embryonic stem cells are American lives too, rather than cells. He suggested that Obama lifting the ban on federal funding for Stem Cell research, he had “rolled back important protections for innocent life”. It’s nice to see that Boehner has such deep concern over cells, yet doesn’t seem too fussed about the loss of American military lives, when he stated in 2007 that dead U.S Troops was a “small price” to pay to win the war in Iraq.

The concept of freedom is interestingly two toned, when you contrast the U.S obsession with the word, and how the U.S works across the World, especially with Nations that it disagrees with philosophically.
According to a speech made by Dan Griswold, to Rice University in Houston, in 2005…. “If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.“
The underlying fact is that whilst America seeks “freedom” (in this case, freedom means the right of American businesses to take over the resources and land of as much of the foreign World as possible) across the World based on it’s own flawed values, it will attempt to achieve it by any means necessary, which explains the disastrous war in Iraq and the inhumane embargo against Cuba. As shown in my last blog, America’s economic dominance may not continue for that much longer, given that Iran have already ceased trading oil in U.S dollars with Russia looking likely to follow.

Economic “freedom” in the guise of pure Capitalism, is not to be considered in the same area as Freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to assemble peacefully. Those are the inalienable rights built into the Declaration of Independence, not the idea that over 12 million children below the poverty line who will never benefit from the resources available to the 5% of top earners who own more than 50% of the entire Wealth of the Nation, as being true “freedom”.

American Freedom, whilst a lovely idea, is horribly flawed, ignorant, racist, inhumane, discriminatory, religiously bias, hypocritical, manipulative, and has been twisted into the skewed mess that Republican America holds so dear today. The idea that “all men are created equal” is a sentiment long lost. If you’re gay, want an abortion, demand action on climate change, or support stem cell research……. freedom doesn’t seem to extend as far as you. Sorry.

A new World

Here’s to Warren Buffet, the Richest man on the Planet, who once said, when asked about the inequalities of the tax system….
“It’s class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn’t be.“

The World has entered a new chapter, full of blank pages. What used to be market truth, has become greedy nonsense. The noise made by the laissez faire wealth jamboree embraced by the rich as “true freedom” is slowly dying down. There are still those who insist that tax hikes and Social transfers kill productivity (despite that fact that Sweden spends around 30% of it’s GDP on Social projects compared to 13% in the USA – and the growth rate of GDP per person in Sweden was as high through the mid-2000s as that of the USA – according to Jonas Pontusson) and insist on screaming about how big Government is part of the problem rather than the driving force behind emancipation, civil rights and other aspects of life that the market has literally no control over. Between 1948 and 1970 social spending shot through the roof – Medicaid, the war on poverty, added investment in schools etc. In fact, it rose from 16.5% to 27.5% and with that, GDP and Productivity grew more than any other time (even during Reagan’s years…. although he cut income tax and shifted the burden to payroll tax like an increase in Social Security and Medicare taxes), the next time huge advances in productivity appeared, was in 1996….. after the Clinton tax increases. Big government isn’t the problem at all. Selfishness is the problem. Lack of compassion is the problem.

Big government in the USA, extended social security to ten million more workers during President Eisenhower’s term. It spread to farmers, teachers and dentists among others. Under Eisenhower, the government financed the National highways system. Before that, under Truman, the government passed the G.I Bill of Rights, to provide aid to War veterans for homes and college. It benefited 8 million returning Soldiers, who now went to college and had their mortgages guaranteed; and America benefited economically over the next sixty five years. Anti-polio vaccines, National Institutes of Health and it’s Research and Development, National Defence Education Act, the Internet with it’s origins in the Defence Department, Medicare, integrated school system, Civil rights, and food Administration – none of that is the result of a wondrous market system. Government provides the framework for a market to run successfully; Government works to cope with the change in the mentality of the people and nothing Obama does, is going to kill the superiority of the American market system. Even Churchill, the most famous Tory in British History, supported a strong Welfare system, having remarked years before his eventually primacy “It seems clumsy to let people starve…” he then went on to support the Beveridge report on much needed Welfare action.

I appear to have digressed. Back to Sweden for a second. As suggested earlier, Sweden spends around 30% of it’s GDP on Social products. Significantly higher than the USA (Whose Conservatives seem to believe any public spending, is a big evil). Not only that, but Sweden is listed as sixth in the Human Development Index whereas the USA, is a measly fifteenth. For all the attacks on Europe I hear from Conservative Americans, when it comes to the Human Development Index, ten European countries rank above the USA. This of course, is without mentioning that Sweden ranks top of the Economist Democracy Index whilst the USA ranks at 17th, below thirteen European Nations. All this from a Nation that has been run by Social Democrats from 1994 to 2007. Much closer to Socialists than President Obama could ever be. Don’t seem to be doing too badly for themselves. Big Government is not the problem. Small government is not the problem. Inefficient government whether large or small, is the problem.

A study by Sven Steinmo met up with a Swedish Volvo Executive, who was asked…
“Why don’t you leave (Sweden)? Certainly, you would pay a lot lower taxes and probably also have a higher salary in the U.S.”
His response……..
“Yes, of course, I would have a lot more money in my pocket. But I would also almost never get home before 7 o’clock and I certainly would not have the vacations everyone has a right to here… and you know what else, I would have to spend a lot more money on insurance, college for my kids, and travel back home to my family. In the end, I’m not really sure I would be any better off.“

That way of thinking, is the way those of us who do not have a deep fetish for money, and who do not have a deep resentment for those less fortunate think. Unfortunately, the Thatcher years over here in England provided us with a new breed of young Conservatives who take the opposite view, coupled with the Republicans in America who profess to be strongly “Pro-life” unless that life needs urgent healthcare and can’t afford it; the Swedish state of mind was slowly losing ground since the Thatcher/Reagan days. Now however, it’s finding itself again.

For decades we’ve been told that the Government cannot afford the extra million pounds to give our public servants, like the Police force, the pay rise they were promised. Or that we could only afford to pay our fire fighters an extra 11% pay, to protect us from burning to death. Or that the coal mines needed closing because they weren’t profitable, meaning thousands of people lost their jobs and weren’t retrained; whilst the UK now imports more coal than we have in years. Cuts to the NHS, because it was “wasteful spending” and produced a “dependency culture” emerged. We were all told that smaller government is better. We were all told that we didn’t have the money to pay the firemen, the NHS, the police, to fund better public education and make sure the poverty rate fell rapidly. For years we’ve been told that buying your house is the best investment you’ll ever make. When did a house cease being a home and become a money making venture?

But then, all of a sudden, we have £400bn to bail out the rich. Not only do they take that £400bn of public money, the bosses take six figure pensions whilst their employees lose their jobs and face losing their houses, the same houses that Conservatives get touchy about saving with tax payers money. I cannot help but echo John Stewart’s sentiments to the Conservative brigade who have no problem funding an illegal war, who have no problem funding the plight of the rich, who have no problem with corporate tax loopholes but who have severe issues with helping those less fortunate – “fuck you“.

Here’s to Warren Buffett, the richest man on the planet, who once said when asked about inequality in society…….
“If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.“

The assassination of the Left

“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?” – Alexis De Tocqueville

I over heard two little old ladies discussing Obama, on the Bus a few days back. One said to the other ..”..he’ll be assassinated before long, all the good ones are…” . This statement got me thinking.

According to The Telegraph, last year; “Security surrounding Barack Obama has been stepped up amid fears he could be an assassination target“. So the threat is there.

As I watched the Inauguration, the preposterous thought lingering at the back of my mind as the motorcade (As i’m sure it did with many people watching that day) made it’s way down Pennsylvania Avenue, was “If he gets out of that car, he could be killed“. He got out. He lived. I was clearly being a little over paranoid.

However, if you’d have asked people on November 22nd 1963, if they thought the President could be so easily killed, they’d have laughed at you too. They’d have claimed it ridiculous to even consider. And even afterwards, the blaming of such a colossal historical event such as the Kennedy Assassination is widely blamed on one crazed man, despite an incredible amount of evidence pointing to the contrary.

Strong Left Wing characters on the World stage with deep influence do not last very long. John Kennedy was one of many which to date includes Robert Kennedy, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, John Lennon, Fidel Castro (who despite being alive, has been the subject of many plots), Che Guevara, and half the establish Left wing of Chile. It’s something even the late comedian Bill Hicks picked up on. Especially when it comes to Kennedy, there could not be more evidence to suggest a connection to people like E.Howard Hunt (who even admitted his involvement in the assassination) Who was also involved in the removal of the Left wing government of Guatamala, Che’s death and in Watergate. It seems that when the Left wing becomes pretty powerful, the Left Wing pays the price. Do I believe it’s one big right winged conspiracy? No. Not at all. I believe that when the power of the rich becomes threatened, they act to protect themselves. Who do I believe the Kennedy assassination can be largely attributed to? Lyndon Johnson. It’s all about power, it’s all about money.
Unfortunately for the Kennedy conspirators… they didn’t count on a film of the event taking place that day. Nor did they count on Hunt being identified pretty conclusively by a Photographer that day. They should also be slamming their heads into the wall over the ridiculous notion that a gangster like Jack Ruby shot Oswald purely because he “felt for Jackie and the kids“.
Having read the Warren Commission’s report all the way through a couple of times, and having likewise read the Hutton Enquiry’s report into the death of Dr David Kelly over here in England, it’s not very long before you come to the conclusion that a Commission’s Report will never tell the entire truth.

A man named David Sanchez Morales, who is somewhat of a legend in CIA circles, who colleagues have claimed “if you see him walking down the street in a foreign country, then you know a coup is about to take place”… is quoted as saying to a friend and reporter in 1973; “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard.” The evidence is overwhelming in that if they want to, the powers that be can eliminate the President of the United States and his brother, and get away with it.

So based on the logic, is it possible that President Obama could be assassinated? Yes… based on the fact that he’s clearly left wing and i’m not sure if America is ready to accept such a President for very long. I’m not suggesting that those who disagree as strongly as many do with him, are all out to see him dead, not at all. Like those of us who hated George Bush, we did not want to see him killed. We wanted to see him democratically removed from Office. Likewise, the majority of those who disagree strongly with President Obama want to see him removed Democratically and peacefully. But there will be those, who do not care for such notions.
Capping the wages of guys at the Companies who demanded bail out money; although a fantastic and much needed move, was also incredibly dangerous.
Princeton University professor of Political Science, Melissa Harris-Lacewell stated that ” “For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed. It is on people’s minds.“. The fact that he is Black is much less of a fear for those of us who like Obama, than it is that he’s a Left Winger. His ideology presents the most problematic of dilemmas.

The Hindustan Times referred to President Obama as the “biggest ever assassination target in US History“. I think that’s true. His skin colour is one thing, but mix that together with his ideology and he’s easily the biggest target for assassination that has ever stepped foot in the White House.

Now, i’m in no way claiming to hero worship either Kennedy brother. They were both a little bit dodgy to say the least. But as ideologies go, I relate to them. Much as I do to Obama.

The fact is, if the unthinkable were to happen and Obama were to be injured or worst still, killed, regardless who committed the act, it would be blamed on White Supremacists. The Kennedy assassination was blamed on an Anti-Castro lone gunman. The RFK Assasination was blamed on a disgruntled Palestinian.

Whatever the truth may be in these cases, the public will never know. We will never know why people heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. We will never know why a man had an umbrella opened on a sunny day. We will never know why a tramp was arrested who looked like Howard Hunt and the interview that took place between the police chief and the tramp was never recovered. We will never know why Oswald chose to say “I’m just the patsy“. We will never know why Jack Ruby killed Oswald. But we have our own minds. We can look at the evidence, and we can use our common sense to come to our own conclusions. I conclude that Kennedy was killed because Johnson was a little bit too ambitious. I conclude that RFK and Martin Luther King were killed because they threatened the status quo. I conclude that if Obama is killed, it’s because agents for hope and change, even including President Lincoln, do not last too long in Politics.

Perhaps i’m wrong. Perhaps the 1960s was such a turbulent decade. Perhaps those who wanted such powerful change both economically and on the issue of civil rights, were ahead of their time. Perhaps they were easy targets. Perhaps the threat of Communism was such a worry that anyone with Left Wing values were considered a threat. Perhaps those days of such malicious undercover CIA operations is over. Perhaps Obama has inherited such a financial mess, and such a hated ex-President, that that fact alone will keep him safe. Let’s hope so.

The right side of history

” If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal’, then I’m proud to say I’m a Liberal.” – John F Kennedy

This isn’t an attack on Conservatives as people, this is purely a defence of the Liberal, and a partial attack from my own point of view, on the ideals of Conservatism.

There isn’t a day goes by without a Conservative/Republican blog on WordPress dedicated to discussing how out of touch and ‘pansy’ Liberals are. It’s amazing, given that the current economic mess is the sole responsibility of a Conservative ideology dedicated to deregulated markets, allowing the greedy few to get away with murder. To be Liberal, is a proud feeling in these ever growing days of intolerance, hatred, war, and despicable propaganda.

Conservatives and Republicans alike, appear to be of the belief that it is some sort of crime to be Liberal. As a Liberal, i’m proud to hear the Conservative sentiment… “you weak Liberal“. It was a Liberal who ended slavery. It was a Liberal who gave women the right to vote. It was a Liberal that created the NHS and Welfare state. In fact, Liberals created America.
I’m yet to see a socially progressive act by a Conservative dedicated to ‘freedom‘ (Reaganomics like Thatcherism, cannot be suggested, for the very reason that their concept of ‘free’ does not apply to the less fortunate in society).

In 2004, George Bush referred to John Kerry as…. “The most liberal member of the senate.” And suddenly the label is dropped and “Progressive” was picked up by Democrats. Why is Liberal such a term of abuse rather than pride? Why is Conservative, not a term of abuse? Conservatives originally opposed the civil rights act; they STILL have serious issues with homosexuality; they continue to preach pro-life nonsense yet allow any American to carry a gun; whilst supporting the death penalty; they have decided that unborn children have healthcare rights that children born into poor families shouldn’t be entitled to because to do so would mean the dreaded Socialism; they consider the poor to be nothing more than a nuscience in the way of big business; they still think Obama is wrong to be closing Guantanamo suggesting that the Conservatives like to torture; and they produced Sarah Palin. How are Liberals considered worse than that?
The concept that Liberals are soft on National Defence is a weak one at best. No major terrorist attack happened on Clintons watch. It did on Bush’s watch. Nixon, a Republican was forced to resign, and Reagan was shot. Bush however, may have even known that Terrorists planned to hit America, and didn’t act in time. He then waged an unjust war, with no rebuilding plan, that sparked even greater hatred toward America and the West.

Franklin Roosevelt was Liberal in the sense that he created The Social Security Administration. Lincoln put an end to Slavery and so was Liberal. Martin Luther King was as Liberal as one get be, and is so widely respected he has a day named after him. The bill of Rights is a Liberal document. The Global Warming Lobby with their pesky evidence, need a Liberal to champion their cause. We saw the destruction that dripped disastrously from the mouth of Conservative Sarah Palin, whose main concern was not that we’re clearly killing the planet, but the profit to be made from oil drilling. John Adams is quoted as saying quite beautifully and eloquently, in a way that only Adams could… “Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” …….And so from this, we can deduce that America was born of the virtues of the Liberal mind.

George Bush once said… “Only a liberal senator from Massachusetts would say that a 49 percent increase in funding for education was not enough. “….. He’s wrong. Not just a liberal from Massachusetts would say such an education funding increase isn’t enough, I would also say it’s not enough. A 70% increase is not enough, education should be a priority, whether private or state education, children should have the best. They should be at war with each other for the best teachers, paying a fortune to secure them, they are the future, they need the very best, the money needs to be going to the education of tomorrows CEOs and Politicians, so that they do not make the same mistake as this generation of CEOs and Politicians. 49% is not enough, when so much has been wasted on unjust and illegal wars.

Over here in England, The National Health Service Act of 1946 created a free healthcare service regardless of social status, implemented by Clement Atlee’s Labour Government; Liberal achievement. Liberals continue to invest more money in State Schooling than any Conservative Government has ever done. Liberals introduced both the Minimum Wage and the Education Maintenance Allowance, and made it possible for people on low incomes, like myself, to go to University. Conservatives, originally opposed the NHS and have cut funding to it ever since, opposed the minimum wage under the flawed idea that the Markets are best placed to deal with wages, and opposed the idea that we’re all entitled to equal levels of education, regardless of Wealth.
In 1918, “Representation of the People Act” gave Women the right to vote, a Liberal achievement. Less well known was the “Abandonment of Animals Act of 1960“, making it an offence to abandon an animal. A Liberal achievement. And what do we have to show for Conservative achievements? Thatcher. A nightmare of a woman.
“The Factories Act of 1961“, put great emphasis on the safety of Factory Workers, whose welfare had been ignored throughout successive Conservative Governments whose concern was merely “profit”. Let us Liberals deal with humanity, Conservatives should stick to greed. “The Suicide Act” of the same year, decriminalised Suicide, so that anyone who failed to take their own life, could no longer be prosecuted. Liberal achievement.
In 1988, the “Local Government Act“, in particular Section 28 stated “The Local Government Shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship“. This nasty little piece of hate filled legislation was the work of the Conservative Government. Local Governments worked tirelessly to ban any publications that suggested Homosexuality was ok. It’s nazi-esque approach was nothing short of disgusting, yet characterises the Thatcher years perfectly. In 2002, the Labour Government, having revoked Section 28, allowed Gay couples to adopt. Liberal achievement.

The Conservative Government of the 1980s may be considered Progressive in that they allowed those renting Council Houses to buy their homes at cheap prices from the local authority, with the Housing Act. Putting this into context is much more difficult. Whilst it’s a nice idea to sell council houses to tennants, you also have to keep building new council houses because suddenly the demand in the private sector shrinks and so available housing becomes less, and so prices shoot up, and we’re left with the mess of a housing market we have today. Not only that, but if you’re going to allow poorer people to buy their homes from the local authority, be sure you look after the economy. The Tories didn’t. When the recession hit, people suddenly couldn’t afford their repayments, and so many homes that wouldn’t have been taken from tennants had they been renting from the council still, were repossessed. Homelessness almost doubled in London. And people still appear to worship Margaret Thatcher. The Right To By, Housing Act was a disaster of a Government trying to win usually safe Labour Votes.

The bulk of Conservatives felt in necessary to allow the Bush administration to keep as many secrets as it liked as long as it cited “National Security” as it’s reasoning. You can bet that those same Conservatives wont allow Obama to do the same. Unless Obama’s White House is fully transparent, those Conservatives are going to become more and more hypocritical and more and more quasi-Liberal by the moment.

The term Liberal should be a badge worn with pride. Liberals are on the right side of history.

I now await an influx of Republicans trying to suggest how wonderful they are, how evil gay people are, how Obama is Lenin painted black, how weak liberals are, and how they will continue to pray for me. Oh joy….