TILL DEATH...

Federal Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The reason is

simple. In order to be able to legally discriminate against someone, in order to deny them a

fundamental right, the government has to prove it has a "compelling interest" in doing so.

This "interest" has to be important enough to override equal protection, free speech, or other

constitutionally protected rights. In the case of Proposition 8, proponents couldn't come up

with one "compelling" reason why two people of the same gender shouldn't be able to enter

into a legal contract called marriage. I told you so.

While opponents put dozens of witnesses on the stand to show how the law discriminates

and denies equal protection and due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, proponents

had few witnesses with which to make their case. Those who did testify, defended the law on

the basis of marriage being the traditional structure in which children are raised and this

structure is best served when it is a man and a woman. Marriage, according to them, is an

institution through which society transmits values and only a marriage between two opposite

sex partners can transmit the values we wish our children to learn. Judge Walker rejected this

argument and he was right.

Supporters of Proposition 8 believe one man and one woman are superior to same sex

couples. Something is "unnatural" when gay men or lesbians wish to cohabit. Judge Walker

said this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. At one time, it was thought a

marriage between a white person and a person of color was inferior and laws were

promulgated to prevent such marriages. In 1968, the Supreme Court finally ruled there was

no basis for such a belief except bigotry and racism and declared these laws violated the due

process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no evidence to suggest same sex couples would be worse parents than two

straight parents. Yet, proponents argued that since marriage is the primary way society

educates its children, same sex marriages would fail that test. However, they were unable to

answer Judge Walker's questions as to why people who are infertile or never intend to have

children are allowed to get legally married.

What this whole debate is about is religion. The Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic

Church poured tens of thousands of dollars into the campaign to pass Proposition 8.

Evangelical Christian communities, and unfortunately, African-American churches also pushed

its passage. (It is ironic to see the prejudice in the African-American community against

homosexuality, necessitating support for a law eerily reminiscent of the miscegenation laws

of days past.) The Catholic Church considers homosexuality an intrinsic evil. The problem is

marriage is a civil matter, not a religious matter. Judge Walker points out religious leaders

can solemnize marriages, but have no authority to determine who can enter or leave a civil

marriage. He went on to say "...moral disapproval is an improper basis on which to deny rights

to gay men and women". Neither side disputes the fact marriage is a fundamental right.

Straight people have done little to uphold the sanctity of marriage. The states with the

highest divorce rates are all below the buckle of the Bible belt with Oklahoma leading the way.

The state with the lowest divorce rate is that bastion of liberal elites, Massachusetts. If we

want to really show concern for children, outlaw divorce. Divorce devastates children far more

than two gay parents ever could.

This issue is a classic which cuts right along demographic lines. People under forty

approve of same sex marriage by a large margin while those over forty oppose it. A recent poll

shows that if Proposition 8 were to be proposed this coming November, it would lose

dramatically.

Finally, proponents are outraged a judge has "thwarted" the will of the people. They

either failed civics class or don't understand the whole purpose of judicial review is to act as

a check on the legislative process. Neither legislatures nor popular initiatives can take away

constitutional protections to due process or equal protection without a "compelling" reason.

There is no "compelling" reason to prevent same sex marriage except prejudice and religious

bigotry and it is the function of the courts to ensure that doesn't happen.

This issue will get to a Supreme Court with six Catholics. I wish I had faith they will rule

on the law and leave their religion at home, but I am not confident they will. However, for

now I will live with the hope justice will prevail. What do you think? I welcome your

comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

BECAUSE I SAID SO...

Would it be acceptable to you if the government accused your child of being a criminal

and put him in prison for life without ever giving him or you a chance to answer the charges?

We have a Constitution to prevent such an abuse of power, don't we? Your child has the right

to face his accusers, to have counsel, to be accorded due process, and even a jury of his peers...

doesn't he?

Can you imagine a situation where you would trust the government to be judge, jury, and

executioner? Imagine a time when the Constitution would be suspended because it suits the

needs of some in Washington? Does the end justify the means?

Under President Obama, our government has carried out more "targeted killings" through

the use of pilotless drones than were carried out during the entire Bush administration. The

drones are used to hunt down and kill suspected terrorists. So what, you say. These are bad

guys and we need to kill them to protect our nation. Besides, these are foreign fighters and we

don't owe them any special protections or rights.

Recently, U.S. authorities declared Anwar al-Awlaki a "global terrorist". Awlaki is said to

be linked to the Fort Hood shooting in which an army major is alleged to have killed thirteen

people and to the Christmas Day underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Awlaki

is accused of being an internet inspiration for terrorists and to be actively working with

terrorists in Yemen associated with al Qaeda. By designating him a "global terrorist", the

United States is free to use a drone to attack and execute Mr. al-Awlaki. Oh, did I fail to

mention that Mr. al-Awlaki is an American citizen?

The United States government believes it has the right to execute Mr. Awlaki without

ever having to prove a single allegation against him. They don't have to get a warrant. They

don't need a grand jury indictment. They don't have to allow Mr. Awlaki counsel to dispute

these charges. Mr. Awlaki does not have any presumption of innocence. Our government says

he is guilty and given the opportunity, they will execute him without having to prove a thing.

Mr. Awlaki's father is trying to get legal help for his son. Unfortunately, U.S. law is such

if anyone helps the father help the son, they can be accused of giving aid to a terrorist and go

to prison themselves. This is starting to have a Catch 22 feel to it.

I have no idea if Anwar al-Awlaki is a terrorist or not. You don't know it either. The

government saying it doesn't make it so. The idea that some soldier in Nevada has the

authority to execute an American citizen using a drone without even having to prove his crime

and never give him his day in court is disturbing. It's frightening because I know any extra-

judicial powers the government asserts will be abused. The Patriot Act gave the government

unprecedented leeway to violate American's rights. We were assured it would be used

sparingly and only against really bad people. We now know that was a lie. The U.S.

government illegally spied on Americans. It mined email and cellphone traffic. It forced

libraries to give up records of what books we were reading (until librarians made a principled

stand and refused to cooperate). The FBI abused the use of "national security letters" and

the government used local police to spy on anti-war groups and groups engaged in political

dissent.

Now, Mr. Obama and his team insist they have the right to execute an American citizen

without due process, solely based on their assertion he is a "global terrorist". Could they do

the same in this country? If they decided someone else was a really bad guy, could they just

execute him?

The war on terror, as well as the war on drugs, have turned out to be wars on the

Constitution. The Patriot Act all but eviscerated the Fourth Amendment. Now the government

is in the process of destroying the 14th Amendment as well. When all our protections are gone,

who will protect us from the government? What do you think? I welcome your comments and

rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

AMERICA FOR AMERICANS...

Republican House Minority Leader, Congressman John Boehner, is "concerned" America

is being overrun by the children of illegal immigrants. He is so vexed at the thought of the

children of these criminals receiving the same rights to citizenship as ordinary God-fearing

Americans; he wants to change the 14th amendment. He's not alone. He is joined in a

xenophobic pantheon with the likes of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Hanbaugh, Tom Tancredo,

and almost-president John McCain.

The 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in this country, no matter what

the status of their parents. It amended the Constitution so the children of former slaves

could not be denied citizenship. You were a citizen of this country by birthright.

Why is it when regressives sense a problem in this country, they want to amend the

Constitution to take rights away? Too much free speech?...amend the Constitution to outlaw

flag burning. Too many illegal immigrants?...change the Constitution to end citizenship by

birthright. Too many gay partners?...amend the Constitution to prohibit same sex marriage.

It is the height of condescension to suggest the only reason people come to this country

is to stick us with their kids. If you were barely feeding your family, had few clothes, and

minimal shelter and a few miles or a few hours away there is a place where you can triple

your salary, put food on the table, clothes on your children's backs, and a roof over their heads;

what would you do?

Every year, immigrants from Mexico send back over $25 billion to friends and relatives.

It is second only to oil revenues in the Mexican economy. In the last two years, illegal

immigration has dropped over 20%. Why? There are no jobs. Children can still become

citizens if born here and yet illegal immigration is down. To quote James Carville "...it's

the economy stupid."

Boehner's new solution reveals the seamy underside of the immigration debate. He is

not proposing going after the corporations who employ all those illegal immigrants. He isn't

throwing CEO's in jail. As much as half the federal prison population is there for an immigrant-

related crime. When Walmart was discovered locking illegal workers in their stores all night,

did anyone go to jail? Raids on meatpacking plants in the midwest netted hundreds of illegal

workers. What happened to the owners of the company? Why is it regressives always go after

the poor looking for jobs when they want to gin up political fervor with their base?

Practically speaking, changing the 14th amendment would be an administrative nightmare.

Who would be responsible for determining if the mother is in the country legally? Does this

burden fall to the hospital? Hospitals have difficulty keeping patients straight. They are

bureaucratic swamps. Maybe the doctor should have to demand papers before taking mom as

a patient? Now that would do wonders for the doctor/patient relationship. What documents

would suffice? Would a birth certificate, Social Security card, baptismal certificate, passport,

or visa be acceptable? Can you tell the difference between a genuine an a fake document?

Maybe we could force every American to carry a national I.D. card. Is it lost on you the party

which says it stands for less government and a less intrusive government footprint could bring

about the total destruction of our privacy with the creation of a national data base? Oh, and

don't think it is only going to be people of color who need papers. All mothers will have to

prove they are here legally.

After the baby is born, then what? Does the baby get an administrative hearing before it

is deported? Does the baby get a lawyer? What if there is a mistake? Senator Ted Kennedy

ended up on a terrorist no-fly list and couldn't get off of it. The mistakes would be legion and

the emotional and physical carnage would be devastating.

If you are here illegally, your child can't be a citizen if Boehner and his ilk have their way.

If you are the unibomber, the underpants bomber, the shoe bomber...if you are serial killer

Ted Bundy, or the head of a violent drug gang, or Bernie Madoff who ruined entire families;

your children can all become U.S. citizens just be being born in this country.

We need a new immigration policy. For the 12 million people here illegally already, give

them a path to citizenship which rewards hard work and lawful behavior. Stop looking the

other way as the Mexican government cheats and steals from its people and fails to build the

nation's economy. Put CEO's in jail and shut down companies who employ illegal immigrants.

If the jobs dry up, so will the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the border. Stop being

scared of immigration. New immigrants inject energy, initiative, youth, and a strong work ethic

into this nation. They are good for us and are a competitive edge neither Europe nor China

can match. Leave the Constitution alone. Be embarrassed when national leaders use

xenophobia for political gain. Protect the few rights we have left! Together Si Se Puede!!!

What do you think? I welcome your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to

lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Lion Is Busy Traveling

To All the Followers of the Lion of the Left: The Lion is busy traveling right now, but in

a few weeks he may be able to post blogs again. Sincerely, Girl Friday

MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO AROUND

The House/Senate Conference Committee has reported out a financial reform bill the

White House loves and a handful of Republicans will support. The White House will adore

the media coverage this bill will generate because it looks like they actually did something

to correct the financial meltdown caused by the Goldman Sachs's of the world. It will force

the Republicans to either vote for it or look like they are in Wall Street's pocket. For once,

a bi-partisan bill will emerge which looks like Washington got something done. Not!!

Despite all the weeping and gnashing of teeth by the financial industry, this legislation

essentially leaves Wall Street untouched in all the major areas that were crying out for reform.

Banks will still remain too big to fail. They will still be able to gamble with saver's money

and investor's money without risking their own salaries or bonuses and the ratings agencies

will still be paid by the banks to rate financial instruments ignoring an ongoing conflict of

interest. Equally disturbing, the bill shows Congress has taken sides with the White House,

a side not responsive to the average gum-chewing American tax payer.

What is the purpose of Wall Street? Is it to maximize profits for its investors or is it

to lend money and special seed capital to nurture and grow businesses which will employ

Americans and grow the economy? As it's currently configured, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan,

and others exist solely to make all the money they can whether a single job is created or not.

If you look at all the exotic investments they created, few if any were contrived to incubate

new companies or industries. Most of what the credit default swaps, derivatives, and various

other toxic products did was open more avenues for risky speculation. Speculation is merely

a nicer word some use to justify gambling. Wall Street has always been and continues to be

the world's largest casino. The problem is that they've stopped using house money; now they

are using our money. Our pension money, our savings, and the equity in our homes are what

fuels this newest round of criminally contrived theft. The analogy would be to go to Vegas and

sit down at a black jack table and if you win, the casino requires other gamblers to pay your

debt while the owners of the casino take their cut but are never at risk. If you lose, and happen

to know the casino owners, you get your money back. If you think this is the proper function

for Wall Street, fine. The fact is, the game is no longer "honest". If you fail or screw up, you

go out of business and you and your partners take the loss.

As they stand today, even after this bill passes, the big banks will still be too big to fail,

they will still be able to gamble with your money and get their bonuses even if they lose; and

if you choose to get in the game, you will have no idea if their products will balance the risk

because you can't trust the referee (the ratings agencies). And all that money transferred

between the winners and losers isn't creating a single job on Main Street; it's a rigged

redistribution of wealth with the sole purpose of favoring the most cunning and keeping

plenty of people employed on Wall Street.

Politically, this is a big win for Obama and the Democrats. They look like they stood up

to Wall Street. They forced the Republicans into a corner. Republicans voting for this bill

will dilute their ability to attack incumbents in Washington next November. Their "yes" vote

means they can't claim nothing got done or government has no business regulating the free

market. If Republicans oppose this bill, they will surely get hammered in November for

attempting to shield Wall Street and selling out Main Street. It's a political no-win situation

for Republicans. The problem is that while politically this will boost Obama's stock, it won't

prevent another financial meltdown. We taxpayers are still on the hook. It's as if the Energy

and Commerce Committee announced new legislation to prevent future oil spill disasters in

the Gulf, but the legislation did not mandate better blowout protectors, safety standards,

comprehensive disaster plans, or an increase in the amount of liability oil companies must

accept before they can drill.

This is not a partisan issue. Both the Democrats and the Republicans get millions of

dollars in political contributions from the financial industry. If you ever thought Congressman

Barney Frank (Massachusetts) was a liberal populist, you can forget you ever heard that.

Frank fought to protect derivatives and hedge funds. He fought to water down the Volcker

Rule which would keep banks from gambling with shareholder's and investor's money. The

Volcker Rule would have forced partners in these big firms to gamble with their own money.

Frank and Democratic Senator Chris Dodd fought to protect the Federal Reserve's power by

limiting congressional oversight. They also protected the ratings agencies. (Warren Buffett,

a key Obama advisor, owns a big chunk of Moody's Ratings Service.) The bottom line is that

when given an opportunity to change the culture and practices of Wall Street, when offered

a chance to reform practices which didn't create jobs, didn't make America stronger, and left

taxpayers on the hook to bail out the industries, when given a chance to put back the firewalls

erected by Roosevelt in the 1930's which were designed to keep another depression from

occurring; Washington niggled at the edges, made some cosmetic repairs, but left the system

which almost destroyed the country intact. Washington sided with the free market capitalists

and against those who wanted more regulation, greater transparency, and to shut down the

casino. It's business as usual in Washington, D.C.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is quoted as saying "...a crisis is a terrible thing

to waste". You will hear a lot in the next few weeks about all the hard work, heavy lifting, and

grueling negotiations which went into producing this bill. You will hear how Washington

stood up to Wall Street. The President will tout a new consumer protection agency and other

"benefits". At the end of the day, will there still be banks and insurance companies too big

to fail? Yes. Will Goldman Sachs and others still be able to gamble and pin the losses on

investors and taxpayers? Yes. Will you be able to trust ratings issued by Moody's or Standard

and Poors about the risk an investment represents? No. Is oil still pouring out of the well?

Yes. Will this current environmental disaster prevent an equally bad or worse devastation

in the future? No. Is there any doubt who Washington represents when it comes to money,

finance, Wall Street, and big business? No. Was there really a question about that? This

crisis continues to be simple window dressing in the great drama of Washington politics.

As Deep Throat once said, "...follow the money". What do you think? I welcome your

comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES

American Muslims want to open a mosque in lower Manhattan near ground zero and

two more in Brooklyn and Staten Island. In a nation where religious freedom is cherished,

in a country where tolerance is a key tenet, in a union where we pride ourselves on not having

the sectarian conflicts so prevalent in other parts of the world; the people of New York

welcomed the chance to open new houses of worship...right?

There have been community meetings about all the proposals. The New York Times

reports some people objected to increased traffic and parking concerns. However, the vast

majority of objections have been over concerns involving terrorism, Islam, and the connection

between the two. The most strident meeting was on Staten Island, where a Catholic parish

wishes to sell the convent to a Muslim group to be used for Friday prayer. According to the

Times, similar protests about new mosques have broken out in Tennessee, Wisconsin, and

Ohio.

About four hundred people showed up to protest opening the new mosque on Staten

Island. They accused the Muslim-American Society, the umbrella organization which finds

placement for new mosques, of being on the FBI terrorist watch list. (It isn't.) They demanded

the Muslims present condemn Hamas and Hezbollah. In response, the Muslim moderator

said he denounced any form of terrorism, all acts of terror by individuals or governments.

At one point, a Marine Lance Corporal just back from Afghanistan stood up. He was cheered.

He asked the Muslim panel if they would work to form a bond with the community? They

answered yes. He turned and asked the crowd the same question and they booed him and

shouted "No!'

Imagine a Jewish group wanting to open a new synagogue on Staten Island. There is a

meeting with a panel of rabbis. They are asked about their view on whether Jewish law is

better than democracy. Will they follow God's laws or America's laws? They are asked about

their view of women and how they are treated in orthodox communities where they are second

class citizens and are not allowed to pray in a minyan with men and do the rabbis consider

women to be equal to men? They are then asked to condemn Israel's recent attack on ships

trying to resupply Gaza and whether they were in favor or opposed to the assassination of

Yitzhak Rabin? Those asking the questions would be accused of rampant anti-semitism,

racism, and prejudice. They would definitely be denounced in the media and in some

communities, as narrow-minded bigots.

Suppose an evangelical Protestant group wanted to open a new church on the island.

Would it be appropriate to ask them if they favor the bombing of planned parenthood clinics?

Would they have to denounce the terrorism campaign being waged in this country against

doctors who perform abortions, a campaign with its roots in evangelical churches across

this nation? Should the people of Staten Island worry about doctors being assassinated while

standing in their kitchen or while they are ushers at their local church? Not in a million years

would anyone get away with questions like that because they would be accused of painting all

Christians with the same brush. We would be reminded how Christianity is not a monolithic

religion, how this is America where people are allowed to believe differently, where people are

allowed to disagree, and a place where no one is judged for the actions of a few extremists.

What if the Catholic parish selling the convent wanted to open a new school instead.

Would hundreds of angry protesters show up to try to stop it? Would they attack a panel of

bishops and priests demanding to know if they denounce child abuse and covering up sexual

scandals? Would the priests be asked their views on women who are denied the ability to be

priests and whom the Church does not believe should control their own reproductive lives?

What would the panel say about the rights of gays and lesbians? Would their children be

allowed to attend the school? Do the priests consider homosexuality to be a morally inherent

evil? What about the call to excommunicate any politician who is pro-choice? Does the Roman

Catholic Church believe in separation of church and state? And what about the six Catholic

members currently serving on our nation's highest court? Should they have been asked in

confirmation hearings if their personal religious beliefs will influence their interpretation of

our Constitution?

Compared to Muslims, Jews, evangelical Christians, and Catholics would face few if any

questions. The end result being, that it would be rare indeed for any of these groups to be

denied a new church, school, or synagogue because of their religion's faith and tenets.

The people who are angry, scared, or worried about the opening of new mosques are

hypocrites of the highest order. They make the Pharisees look like a picture of tolerance.

Oddly, their fear is well-founded, but misplaced. The real boogey-man they are frightened by

is fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Jews, Christians, or Muslims are a real threat to American

values. We have nothing to fear from Muslims, Christians, or Jews who practice their faith

based on tolerance, love, forgiveness, and care. However, we have everything to fear from

radically intolerant fundamentalists who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.

America already has its own homegrown terrorists. Those illiterate Americans whose

theological education never went beyond Sunday school. The people in that audience which

met on Staten Island are no better than fundamentalists. To hear them tell it, it's always the

"other" religion that is the religion of violence, terror, etc.; while their radical belief is

somehow God's will and therefore acceptable.

The scene in New York shows once again that most Americans don't deserve America,

that most religious Americans are no different than the Pharisees of Jesus' time, and that they

are in direct line for judgment in how they have treated others. God's promise. And by the

way, the position of any Muslim on the legitimacy or continued existence of the state of Israel

has no place in the debate over a new mosque. This is America and Muslims have the right to

believe anything they wish vis-a-vis international politics. What do you think? I welcome

your comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

HERE WE GO AGAIN...

Democratic Senator Carl Levin and Republican Senator John McCain are concerned that

the war in Afghanistan is not going well. They are two of the senators who pressured President

Obama to double down in Afghanistan and add 30,000 troops. They knew the government of

Hamid Karzai was corrupt. They knew his brother who ran Kandahar is a crook and a major

drug trafficker. They knew Karzai was not trustworthy and they knew this is a civil war and a

proxy war with Karzai getting assistance from India and the Taliban by Pakistan's intelligence

service. They knew we didn't have enough troops unless we ratcheted up the forces to Vietnam

levels. They knew 30,000 troops weren't going to overcome that problem. They knew the

Afghan army is a joke and the Afghan police are just organized crime in uniform. Now they

are outraged more progress hasn't been made and guess what their solution is? (Along with

the military in the form of David, I am the Messiah Petraeus.) They are starting the drumbeat

to prevent President Obama from beginning to withdraw troops in 2011. Yep, their answer to

success in Afghanistan is more war, more death, more money, and more disaster. It's the time

to get the hell out of Afghanistan.

Americans are dying in Afghanistan to prop up Karzai's government. In the last week,

the New York Times reports Karzai has told senior Afghan officials he doesn't think American

and NATO forces can beat the Taliban. If that isn't troubling enough, Karzai told two key

advisors he didn't believe the Taliban launched a rocket attack on a nationwide peace

conference. He suggested the Americans might have staged the attack to undercut Taliban

popularity. Soon after, the director of the Afghan intelligence service and the Interior Minister

resigned. The two most trusted Afghan ministers by America and NATO jumped ship out of

frustration.

The American strategy has been to clear areas of the Taliban so the Afghan army can hold

it so Karzai can set up government functions. The Afghan army is useless. We are spending

billions to train them, but have had to cut basic training to only eight weeks; and many Afghan

soldiers are afraid to even tell their families what they are doing for fear of the Taliban. The

Taliban just assassinated an Afghan governor near Kandahar, a key man in America's plan to

stabilize the region. Since the military campaign against the city of Marja, the Taliban has

returned and is carrying out reprisals in the surrounding area and the Afghan army has failed

to stop them. A new British report accuses the Pakistani intelligence service of supporting

the Taliban as a hedge against Indian influence in Afghanistan.

Karzai is unhappy with the U.S. since Obama backed the conclusion of an international

body that Karzai attempted to steal last year's presidential election by stealing over one

million ballots. Karzai has done little to clean up rampant corruption and now analysts think

he may be trying to cut his own deal with the Taliban and with Pakistan, a deal the tribes in

the northern part of the country will never accept; thus pushing the country further into civil

war and instability. Meanwhile, young Americans continue to die at ever increasing numbers.

Levin and McCain clearly want more of our boys thrown into this insanity with their politically

motivated drumbeat to block any rational debate to withdraw them.

Will the American people go along with this again? How does this happen over and over,

war after war? In Iraq, the U.S. ambassador says the country is so dangerous and unstable his

people will not be safe if American troops are withdrawn. The great Iraq victory, which

Petraeus and McCain take credit for, is a nation which can't form a government, gives Iran

unprecedented influence, and the Kurds still want independence. Iraq is in critical condition

and once again there are voices crying to keep more troops there. In Afghanistan, things are

so bassackwards that General Stanley McChrystal is prohibited from referring to the military

assault planned for Kandahar as an "offensive". It certainly cannot be called a battle or attack

either so as not to offend anyone in the city. There is still no definition of victory or how we

measure success. President Obama's exit strategy is now under attack by old white men who

live and breathe to send young American's to their deaths in failed campaign after failed

campaign.

Right now, the American economy is precariously balanced on the head of a pin. More

economic stimulus may be necessary, but there is no money to help out struggling states and

the unemployed because we are spending $10 billion a month, or more, throwing good money

after bad in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Taliban are not a threat to our national security, but

a weak economy is. We are clearly a society lacking priorities.

You watch. First it's Levin and McCain. Then it will be Petraeus haltingly hinting he

might like the troops to stay longer. McChrystal will "leak" his "opinion" that the job is not

yet done and if we don't stay the course then the lives lost so far will be for naught. With an

eye on 2012, the Republican leadership will ratchet up the terrorism threat and how soft

Obama is on our enemies. Hanbaugh and Co., who have never met a war they couldn't avoid,

but love watching other people's children die for their country will rev up the echo machine

telling Americans it's better to fight them there rather than fight them here. This is tired

politics with no hint of honest patriotism, endlessly repeated.

How about a different tune for a change? No more young Americans dying for nothing.

No more propping up corrupt governments whose own people hate them. No more acting

like sheep frightened into supporting a pointless war. No more bankrupting the nation and

no more senseless carnage. Bring them home!! Don't let the President be stampeded! Let

him know we expect him to live up to his word by bringing them home! Soon!!

If Dante is right, and there are seven levels of hell, save level seven for Levin and McCain

and Hanbaugh and the rest of those who will persist in extending this senseless war until the

American people finally rise up and say no more. What do you think? I welcome your

comments and rebuttals. Please send them to lionoftheleft@gmail.com

Note: Sometimes more than one blog is posted per day, so please check previous postings.