NEWT GINGRICH: POURS GAS ON THE PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI FIRE

 As the carnival horse race for the GOP nomination is approaching the final straight, many of the younger horses in the field have fallen at fences of gaffes, gropes, and the famous "anyone but Willard" water ditch.  In the wake of this thinning field the veteran runner, Former Speaker Newt Gringrich that attracted no bets until the 'at the post,' aside from the long shot gamblers, has pulled ahead of the ailing pack.  Being head of the pack, however, means all cameras are on you, and all commentators are screaming you name. And with close coverage, comes close scrutiny.

Though a lot of political rhetoric can be taken with a pinch of salt and viewed as merely a grisly means to a political end, sometimes a truth about a candidate comes out that transcends the now commonplace (although it doesn't justify it) inflammatory statements of political campaigns.  Most recently, Newt's comments to The Jewish Channel TV station in regards to the Palestinian people is one of these inflammatory statements.

Mr. Gingrich Said, "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state, It was part of the Ottoman Empire."

He continued in saying, "I think we have invented the Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and who are historically part of the Arab community, and they had a chance to go to many places, and for a variety of political reasons, we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s. It's tragic."

Now I'm not going to delve into the pages of history and make a case for either the Israelis or the Palestinians, as history is written by the perception of man, which is undoubtedly biased.  And no 'peace deal' will ever be reached as long as history remains the deciding factor.  

Newt's comment is quite purely and simply, extreme bias.  It's counterproductive, it's racist, and it is profoundly hypocritical.

First and foremost, his claim that "It was part of the Ottoman Empire" is correct, in fact the Ottoman Empire stretched as far north as around Budapest.  It encompassed, what is now modern day, Greece, Ukraine, Albania, Bosina, Croatia, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and parts of Saudi Arabia.  If Newt's reasoning of the Palestinian history is correct, does that mean that EVERY one of those other countries that were once part of the Ottoman Empire should return to rule under a Turkish banner? Simply because at one point in history they were all territories of a former, now fallen, empire?

A second part of his comment also has profound ramifications if the vile bias is sucked out it and it's viewed as the voice of 'reason.'  He claims that the Palestinians are an "Invented people."  This next statement should not be taken out of context as without the context, it is just as inflammatory as Newt's statement.

If Newt's assertion that the Palestinian people are an "Invented People" is assumed as true...then that also means that Americans are invented people.

The American people were 'invented' by ex-pats from European nations, most notably Great Britain. If Newt's logic is sound, then all Americans are actually nothing more than citizens of the British Empire. If you go back far enough in the pages of history, in most cases it was someone else that 'owned' the land you currently live on.  In America's case, it was the NATIVE American tribes.  It is their land that is currently occupied by the "Invented Americans."  So if Newt's basis for who should reside on what piece of the earths crust is simply based on previous ownership, then every American must leave and return to their European homelands, every Australian must return to the United Kingdom, French Canadians must return to France etc.

Actually, let's take Newt's reasoning a step farther.  Every citizen of every country on the face of the planet has to go back to Pangaea.  On second though, let's take it one step farther than that and say that every human has to walk back into the ocean that our genetic ancestors crawled out of so many years ago.

I specifically used that last sentence to make another point, incorporating religious tensions with those of a historical nature.  Historical and religious fascination are the reasons that peace cannot be reached in the Middle East.  In order to move forward we, as a united human race, must put aside historical discrepancies, and religious conflictions to live in the present and look to future.  The 'promised' land for all of us is earth...the entire planet.  To try and carve it up into sections based on ancient texts is extremely counterproductive to the needs of today's globalized world.

I wish to make clear that I am not an advocate for either Palestinian interests, or Israeli interests.  I'm and advocate for all peace between everyone that inhabits the earth.  Just as I condemn Newt's Palestinian statements, I condemn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements toward Israel...as I view them as entirely similar in nature, they both imply that a group of people don't exist.  


I firmly believe that anybody with aspirations to become the president the United States, needs to be utterly impartial when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli divide, they need to look to the future, not reiterate that past, especially when the past of the US is as murky as any other nation.  Again, it was history that Newt was eluding to, and history always has two sides.  The Americans in the revolution could be viewed historically as patriots in the US, but traitors in the UK.  What America called 'Westward Settlement' the Native Americans could label genocide.  History is littered with injustice, but at some point we must pave over history, as counter intuitive as that sounds, to build the foundation for a united future.  We must make concessions with our past, concessions with ourselves, and concessions with each other in order to live together on this planet.

Newt's vile bias has no place in the world of today's politics.  After spending so many years as House Speaker, he should know that in any peace deal, there are concessions on BOTH sides. And that clinging onto such a narrow minded view is detrimental to the overall outcome.

THE GOP DEBATE: A SHOW OF CIVILITY

GOP Debate, November 9th

From the perspective of a neutral viewer, today's GOP debate in Michigan showed much calmer and more collective field of presidential hopefuls.

In primaries of the past, the candidates for the GOP nomination, more often than not, resorted to a verbal slug-fest with their counterparts what amounted to nothing more than tirades of defamation, slander and the proverbial mud slinging.

Today we saw a different face to the GOP nominees, a face of civility.  They were all well mannered and avoided spiraling into rhetoric and accusations, they kept to the spirit of the debate and kept their answers concise.  Even in the face of some tough questions, most notably when Governor Mitt Romney was asked to comment, indirectly of course, on the accusations of sexual harassment regarding Herman Cain, he refused to answer as it wasn't relevant.  In debates of past, this opportunity to stick to a fellow candidate would have been jumped upon with no qualms.

Another memorable note of the night included Governor Rick Perry's failure to recall three areas of government he would abolish if he ascended to the White House in next years coming election.  Although I understand that everyone has their moments of forgetfulness, it ultimately will make him look extremely inept.

Arguably though, the most prominent and, in my opinion, wisest moment of the debate was when Speaker Of The House Newt Gingrich alluded to the moderator that it was almost impossible to voice his solution on the issue of healthcare in 30 seconds.  He did so in a very civil manner and I applaud him for that.

The truth is that if any politician offers a 'simple' plan to something, chances are that it will be, at best, a grave misrepresentation of their actual intent, and at worst, showing a complete lack of understanding of the world we live in.

Whether it be a new tax code, healthcare, education, social security, or economic proposal, there is no way that it will ever be simple, or can ever be explained in full in 30 seconds.  We live in such a diverse world that these issues need to be resolved in the interest of everyone.  They require a tremendous understanding of whichever area they intent to change and must take into account a plethora of variables.

All in all, the debate was coherent.  Though I don't agree with many conservative policies, I admired the way they put fourth their arguments at tonight's debate.  The cornerstone of any democracy is the principle that at some point we all must compromise for the over all benefit of all, I just hope that the future of politics becomes less of the bi-party rhetoric and condemnation, and more of coming together as people and solving the problems all of us face.

Article By: Phil McCarron

THE VOTE IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD

Phil McCarron on the recent violence muddying the waters of protest.

Napoleon Bonaparte once said that “There are only two forces in this world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run, the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.”

Liberty in blood

The Occupy protests have remained firmly entrenched on the battle field of social and economical change, proving that this is much more than a half-hearted fad.  Remaining true to the routes of the movement, they have been orderly and peaceful.  However, those that wish to see an end to the fight for social equality have grown weary of listening to the voice of the people and are stepping up efforts to shut them down.  The tipping point on the seesaw of forceful and peace has quivered.

All across America, city ordinances and curfews are being put into place in an attempt to stamp out the movement, with some cities even resorting to tear gas, baton rounds, and rubber bullets. 

Violence is contagious and is always destined to escalate…it should never be bilaterally used to promote change, as a change bought in blood will always be stained, and the memory of that blood always lasts longer than the wound.

“When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood, it is hard to shake hands with her.”

~Oscar Wilde

 Non-violent solution

In the London riots, the police were criticized for not clearing the rioters out.  They were scorned for not using force.  In hindsight, they did the correct thing.  At a heavy financial cost, they merely contained the rioters and let their blind rage peter out.  Had the London Police met violence with violence, the escalation would have torn the city streets apart.

The Occupy movement MUST remain non-violent at all costs in order to succeed.  Victory for the movement can only come from the method that first bore this inequality.  Legislation.

Your contract is up for renewal Mr. Senator

In one year’s time, the election polls will be open for business.  The representatives and senators of both parties that have struck down jobs bills, avoided tax loopholes, bailed out corporations instead of the working class, had their pockets lined by lobbyists and kept the 1% appeased, will be interviewing to keep their jobs.  Though the politicians work for the 1% of the country, it’s the 99% that employ them.

A final message to the elected officials,

“You are one election away from being unemployed like the rest of us.”

~Phil McCarron

Article by: Phil McCarron

1% OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

Though the phrase ‘The American Dream’ died out quite some time ago, the mindset it instilled remains woven into the fabric of American society.  The American dream, that once made this country great, is fast becoming just another page in a history book, slowly slipping from our memories it’s now an opaque belief that is in peril of crossing over the line, from legendary into the realm of myth.

The American Opportunity

The American Dream was the idea that all men were created equally, and that everyone, regardless of color, sex, age, or social class, should be afforded the chance to live a prosperous life.  It was a revolutionary principle in civilization, as it effectively cast off the shackles of the social class system.  No longer was a person bound to a certain quality of life by their bloodline or skin tone, but only by their personal abilities, and their abilities to define themselves and work toward achieving a richer fuller life.

Regardless of what either political party says, the disappearance of this mindset isn’t an issue of Americans becoming freeloaders with a sense of entitlement, or jealously toward the successful; it has and always will be about the keyword in The American Dream…opportunity.

The 99% vs. The 1%

The deep seeded unrest on the streets of America has been smoldering for decades, and the embers of injustice are beginning to re-ignite that American spirit.  The 99% have finally been stripped of the only thing they wanted in the first place…opportunity.

The 1%, the obscenely wealthy business owners and corporations, have been entrusted by both Republican and Democratic polices, containing copious tax breaks and subsidies exclusive to the 1%, to provide that opportunity for their fellow Americans to realize their potential and strive for a prosperous life…the 1% have abused this privilege…they have failed us.

Financial Slavery

Instead of reinvesting in the communities that enriched their lives, instead of giving the benefit of the doubt, instead of encouraging others to reach for the stars, the 1% has systematically depleted this nation of opportunity in order to keep the prosperity for themselves.  Piece by piece the 1% has dismantled the American Dream through financial slavery by controlling the flow of money and controlling the price and existence of labor.

Left and right, come together as Americans

This isn’t an issue for Rightwing or Leftwing preconceptions or stubborn viewpoints, this is an issue for ALL Americans, to come together and stop the descending spiral into social and economical madness, to restore the virtuous revelation upon which this nation was founded…that everyone is treated as equals, and that they all deserve a chance to achieve a full and prosperous life.  

Whether it be the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, or the ‘Tea Party,’ the American people are beginning to wake up and are starting to exercise their democratic right to make a change.

There has come a point in every great civilizations history when the line is drawn between what is, and what is not an acceptable state of affairs.  The civilized nation is America, the affair is the death of opportunity, and the line has been crossed.

The battle to reclaim the ‘Land of Opportunity’ has begun.

Article by: Phil McCarron