News is breaking that Al and Tipper Gore are separating.

The reasons have not yet been divulged and, frankly, I hope they never are. The private lives of public figures should be private.

This is sad

It is not sad because he is a public figure.

It is not sad because he is a former Vice President who has accomplished blah-blah-blah.

It is not sad because I happen to agree with him on climate change.

It is sad because it is sad.

They seemed genuinely meant for each other.

But I can’t wait to hear the FOX take on this.

I am sure they can work some ‘global warming’ jokes into this story.

Rush? Are you kidding? This multiple-divorcee is sure to treat this with some sort of glee. To Rush, all topics are part of the political game, and the sadness of the separation will not be apparent to him. After so many divorces, he probably thinks ‘separation’ is for sissies.

Certainly he can work in some “Love Story” jokes. The fact that Al and Tipper really were the models for the “Love Story” characters never stopped Rush from telling people it was a lie. Presumably Rush has no staff, and no time to fact-check.

To Rush, there is nothing sacred except executive mega-salaries.

I promise you I would be equally saddened if George and Laura Bush were separating. They too seem like they belong together, and ‘better’ each other.

To be consistent, if George and Laura were separating or getting a divorce, I would NOT want to know why. It is none of my (or your) damned business.

Sorry. I don’t care what happens to Dick Cheney.

White House Communication Director Anita Dunn will be leaving her post soon. She is best-known for saying that Fox News was acting as an arm of the Republican Party.

In spite of (or perhaps as proof of) the obviousness of that comment, the collection of Fox commentators ripped into her for those sentiments.

Now that she is leaving, Foxophiles on the web are giddy….

Foxophile: “It’s about time Dunn step down. Her attempt to cripple freedom of speech was detrimental to this countries founding principals. The last time this was attempted by a political party was in the 1930s prior to WWII.”

W-L COMMENT: Her attempt to cripple freedom of speech? Did the government shut down Fox? How did I miss that? And whatever will happen to Rush now that his freedom of speech has been crippled?

W-L COMMENT #2: I did not know ‘principals’ founded our country. What schools were they from?

Foxophile 2: “Let (Dunn) go do some soul searching, guided by her hero Mao.”

W-L COMMENT: I am not a Maoist, but that doesn’t mean everything he ever said is illegitimate. Is the argument that we should never read anything written by someone we disagree with?

Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and bedded some, yet Glenn Beck quotes him all the time. Does that make Beck a slave-owner? Yep, it does, if you follow Beck-type logic.

Anyone who has read Mao and/or quotes Mao is a Marxist, or is it communist? (Help me out here, Glenn).

By this line of logic, only the uneducated should run America. On the positive side, Mr. Beck is well-qualified to be the leader of the un-read!

And what about the fortune cookie that comes with my Chinese food? Is it safe to read that? (Hint: Chinese food originated in China!!)

Is it okay to listen to Mozart? C’mon Glenn, you KNOW there are hidden Nazi messages in there. Would our Fuhrer Obama like to hear “Eine Kleine Nachtmusik” again?

I am saddened when liberals throw around the word ‘fascist’ to describe various conservatives. I still hear it now and again.

But not NEAR as much as I hear “communist/socialist/Maoist” from the right. Now they are throwing in ‘fascist’ and ‘Nazi’ to describe liberals! This is pretty clear evidence that these people don’t have an idea of what ANY of these words mean.

But I understand. It fits nicely with the Beck-ian philosophy that, to be a true American, you must NOT read anything from any leader that was not born in America.

Side note: It is also not safe to read America-born communist authors like JFK & Obama.

Safest bet: Don’t read anything of a historical nature, and let Beck and Rush do all of your thinking for you.

Fox can supply the bumper-stickers…”Ignorant and Proud!”
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

Gun people are totally smitten with the Second Amendment. What is this passion for guns?

I won’t even argue with them. We have the right to bear arms.

I don’t hunt, but I don’t object to hunting. And if you are going to hunt, I would prefer you use a gun over, say, bow-hunting.

(Bow-hunters forgive me. I know your sport takes a high level of skill, but THAT is my objection… anyone below ‘Olympics-level’ archer leaves too much chance for an injured animal to run off and suffer. The gun offers a better chance at a ‘clean’ kill.)

But machine guns? Do we really need machine guns? Would it ‘infringe’ on you personally if you couldn’t have one? What do you need it for?

Some gun people love their guns more than they love people. You will never convince me otherwise. There is probably a psychological thrill in knowing you could just blow somebody away if you needed to.

(Note to reasonable gun owners: The previous paragraph started with the word “Some.” I didn’t say “ALL gun people love their guns more than they love people.” Don’t bury me with hate mail telling me how ‘responsible’ you are.)

One Winkest Link reader frequently uses the phrase ‘passive-aggressive.’ Maybe that term is what applies here….

Gun Fan: “I don’t have any special grievance with you, but if I ever do it is nice to know I have a gun.”

Now THAT is passive-aggressive.

Freud would have described this passion for guns as ‘phallic’ but, for my tastes, Sigmund was a bit too smitten with the concept of ‘phallic.’

Honestly though, I am glad the gun-people support the Second Amendment.

It would be comforting to believe they were all as staunchly supportive of the rest of the Constitution. Right to privacy, freedom of speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process… you know, all that crazy ‘civil liberty’ stuff…
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

There is a local gentleman, whom I know very well, who is totally ticked off, and is now organizing people to rally against “socialized health care.”

Do you know the punch line to this? C’mon, you know where I am going, right?

He has both Medicare and Medicaid.

Right, BOTH are government health insurance programs. Socialized medicine.

We are swimming in a tidal wave of hypocrisy.

Somehow HIS government funded health insurance is WAAAAAAYYYYYY different from anybody else’s government funded health insurance.

Maybe this isn’t hypocrisy, maybe this is just ignorance. Nah, it’s hypocrisy.

Whatever it is, it is not exceptional, it appears to be the rule.

The first entry in the conservative playbook is: “Paint all things ‘government’ as bad.”

“We want the government OUT of all aspects of our lives (except when we need them to outlaw gays and abortion).”

Of course to conservatives there is bad, and there is BAD, and there is BAAAAADDDDD.

1. Government waste is ‘bad.’
2. Any congressman or senator who is a Democrat is ‘BAD.”
3. Government healthcare is ‘BAAAAADDDDD.’

…but don’t you DARE touch my Medicare or Medicaid.
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

The state legislature of Massachusetts is working on a bill to allow the Governor to appoint an interim Senator so that their state is fully represented in congress until the special election takes place on January 19, 2010.  This bill was one of Ted Kennedy’s final wishes.

It seems logical that the state legislature should pass this law to allow their state to be fully represented, and to grant Ted Kennedy his wish.

Here is where the problem lies…

Massachusetts used to have a law allowing an interim appointment to a vacant Senate seat. In fact, it wasn’t all that long ago that this was the norm in Massachusetts.  You only have to look back to 2004 and two familiar names. John Kerry was running for President,  Mitt Romney was the Governor. The vacancy created by John Kerry would have allowed Republican Mitt Romney to choose the temporary replacement.

So the state legislature took those powers away from Romney, preventing him from seating a presumably Republican interim replacement.  This was highly partisan and should never have been done. It was stupid then, and makes them look a lot worse now.

It seems logical to want your state to be fully represented, but you can’t keep changing the laws based on your partisan “wants.” The people elected Mitt Romney and that showed they trusted him enough to pick some guy to sit in the Senate for a few months.  You are elected for the people, not for yourselves.  Make up your mind and stick with it, even if it isn’t convenient in your partisan little world.

Sometimes I am really naïve. I thought my July 22 article about Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship would not be controversial. Let me synopsize:

1) Obama is a U.S. citizen
2) Anyone who says he isn’t is an idiot

Some of the responses were fun, but not Matt’s. Matt is a very serious person, and he is serious about Obama’s citizenship and our Constitution!

In Matt’s response he said I should “try addressing the real issues involved with this topic instead of using the Al Sharpton approach.” I guess by the “Al Sharpton approach” he means blaming racism for everything.

You know, I have never really been a big fan of Al Sharpton. More than once he has yelled ‘fire’ (racism) in a crowded theater before he knew all the facts.

Know this though, Sharpton’s main motivation seems to be to represent the powerless and voiceless among us, and he is not always wrong. Because of his missteps he has paid a price in credibility so that, even when he is right, some people will not listen to him.

But Matt, aren’t you being just as judgmental? You imply that I think everyone who expresses doubts about Obama’s birth is a racist.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I am just looking for facts. When ALL THE FACTS point one way, and you point the other, I begin to question your motivation.

As I said previously, your search doesn’t appear to be for truth, because truth has already been established: Obama was born in the U.S.

You simply choose to deny his citizenship in spite of all the evidence.

- Anyone can see the birth certificate. It is on-line.
- The hospital says it is valid.
- The Republican governor of Hawaii says it is valid.
- There is an August 1961 birth announcement in the Honolulu paper saying his mom and dad had a baby boy.

None of what I just wrote matters to you, does it…

Why, Matt, do you deny the obvious evidence? Admit it, NO AMOUNT of evidence will satisfy you.

Matt opines: “Oh, anybody who wants to exercise their Constitutional Rights is a racist?”

Golly Matt, NO! All of us here at Winkest Link are delighted that you care so deeply for the Constitution. I presume you were equally concerned when Bush and Cheney were using it as a floor mat.

In fact, I have the constitutional right to imply that you are gay. I would never say that, because I don’t know you, but I appreciate your granting that I have that right. That doesn’t bother you, does it?

Likewise, you have the right to question whether Obama was born in the U.S.

Same deal, right?

Look Matt, my article wasn’t about ‘rights,’ it was about motivation. What is your purpose in denying the evidence, on its face, that President Obama was born in the United States?

Well, I don’t know you Matt. I have no idea if you are a racist or not. Maybe you are just a conservative shill who hates Obama for political reasons and will do and say ANYTHING to try to destroy him. (Okay, I am really confident that this is true.)

C’mon Matt, even if you are not racist you have to admit the obvious: At least some, and maybe most, of those who are making an issue of the birth certificate, are not TOTALLY comfortable with the idea that a ‘black guy’ is president.

I don’t know if you are a racist Matt, but I know one thing for sure: If you think Obama was not born in the United States, you are an idiot.
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

This may not come as a shock to anyone, at all, anywhere, but Rush Limbaugh recently demanded the former Secretary of State Colin Powell join the Democratic Party because he (Powell) did not vote for the same person that Limbaugh did. Rush reiterated that Powell’s endorsement of then-Senator Obama was based entirely on race (something Rush would never do, of course, because he is a very tolerant, open-minded individual).

To those who believe that Colin Powell is a traitor for having endorsed Obama, remember this: Democrats need not only vote for Democrats, Republicans need not only vote for Republicans, Independents need not only vote for Independents.

Sometimes you have to vote for the best candidate, and if Mr. Powell were white, I do not think his vote would have been any different.

As for Mr. Powell joining the Democratic Party, I would not be opposed to it, as I am a Democrat and have respected Colin Powell for years (his address to the U.N. notwithstanding). However, I would prefer someone as sensible as he is remain in the Republican Party. Right now they need leaders (in stature, not position) like him who do not condone blind hatred for others and instead will lead them out of the current crisis they are in.

After all, I believe a two-party system is critical to the survival of this nation, lest we find ourselves in the midst of a situation not unlike Iraq’s, where the minority party will never hold power due to fewer numbers.

The Sage Hen
Evangeline S. McAllister
July 2, 1936 (Part 3 of 3)
(from The Minatare Free Press)

If the “one hundred percenters” would only get the old United States history down and look in the back of the book they would see written in the Constitution that “the rights of no citizen shall be abridged because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” … that no religious test shall be required of them. How do they reconcile their “Americanism” with that of the framers of the constitution?
__________________

It seems odd, but if you talk to one hundred men and women … take them as they come, Methodists, Baptists, Democrats, Republicans, farmers and sugar tramps … ninety-five out of the hundred will be strong for the rights of free speech, free assembly, and free worship, so long as they apply to them and theirs – but will be utterly astounded when you suggest that they should also apply to their neighbor who goes to the other church, or votes the other ticket. Five out of the hundred will still admit that, to be of much value, the bill of rights must apply to all citizens. But four of them will waver when it comes to an actual showdown in which there is a balance of two cents coming to the other fellow … Yet united we stand, divided we fall applies as surely to American citizens today as it did in the days of Poor Richard.
_____________________

We needn’t expect to be able to ride our neighbor on a rail with impunity, and then holler for help to the courts we have flouted when it comes our turn.
_____________________

Law or lawlessness. We can pay our money and take our choice, but we can’t have both … not at the same time anyway.
_____________________

That’s enough on the constitution and the flag.

The Sage Hen
Evangeline S. McAllister
July 2, 1936 (Part 2 of 3)
(from The Minatare Free Press)

Such organizations as the Klan and the Black Legion appeal chiefly to lonesome young men who are starved for a proper social life, and ready to join anything in order to “belong.” They will survive so long as the masses are ignorant of their own constitutional rights, and so long as sleek-tongued organizers see a good thing in preying on this ignorance.
______________________

Ten years ago, when the Klan revival was in it’s full and perfect flower, Dad fell for the silver-tongued oratory, and forked over his good ten-spot for which he got a lot of hot air and a length of muslin … also detailed instructions from a total stranger as to which of our neighbors we dared to trade with, and what candidates he should support in the coming elections.
_____________________

When we hit Longmont, in 1923, we had four children, a job, a paper which said that the bank would henceforth assume the responsibility of running our homestead and such chattels and appurtenances as belonged therewith … and, if I remember rightly, seven dollars and fifty cents United States money.

We went to a little grocery up on north Main street and arranged for credit. The proprietor and his wife kept a clean, neat place, and treated us well, so we continued to trade there. But when Dad joined the Klan we were told to stop trading with the Stephenson’s at once. The wife, it seemed, was a Catholic. Therefore our children could no longer thrive on their bread and butter and dill pickles. We must trade with a brother Klansman. Then Dad blew up. He told them Old Tom Stephenson had extended him credit when he didn’t have a dime, and he’d be ****ed if he would quit trading with him.

< TOMORROW: Part 3 of Evangeline vs KKK >
Note: There is a rating embedded within this post, please visit this post to rate it.

Please sit down and breathe slowly before reading the next sentence. President Obama smiled in an encounter with Hugo Chavez at the Summit of the Americas. Should I repeat that? He smiled.

The always-impartial former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said the smile will be used as propaganda by enemies of the United States. He feels countries hostile toward America will view the smile as evidence the United States views Chavez as an acceptable leader.

Said Sir Newt: “Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and being with the president as proof that Chavez is now legitimate that he is acceptable,”

Really Newt? Leaders of other nations make all their international policy decisions based on photo’s of handshakes & smiles?

Good Lord. Are the Republicans so out of ammunition that a smile is now a cause for concern? Is this part of their 2012 platform? “We promise to NEVER smile at a dictator!”

That should really scoop up the votes.

C’mon Newt, did you rip Reagan when he met with Gorbachev? No you didn’t, and don’t bother to tell me Reagan didn’t smile. There is plenty of photo-evidence to prove he did.

Like Obama, Reagan was smooth and knew how to ingratiate himself with all types of people, including foreign dignitaries, and he (Reagan) did so with the leader of the “Evil Empire.”

Since you didn’t abuse Reagan with this tortured-logic, you can’t apply it to Obama. This complaint is so empty-headed that it should have come out of Glenn Beck’s mouth.

Newt, get some decent material before flapping your yap. You are beginning to sound so vacuous that you could work for Fox News. Oh, that’s right, Fox is already writing you checks.

You were never very likable Newt, but your arguments used to be coherent. Pick up your game.