DEAR JOE SCARBOROUGH: RE UNITEBLUE ~ FREE SPEECH THAT IS NOT TRUE MUST HAVE CONSEQUENCES…

Update re Joe Scarborough responds to critics of his inaccurate UniteBlueCommentary:

*** I am not usually one to go after the hide of those who are in a field broadly covered by the 1st Amendment, in fact I usually love to hear free speech so we-all know where we all stand with each other. But I do feel we need to stand up and talk back to professionals, especially, who work under the auspices of the 1st Amendment when they don't speak the truth to the best of their ability. And, it was Scarborough's inattention to that responsibility, re UniteBlue, that prompted me to join in the effort to call him out on it. The simple fact is -- media gives us our 1st draft of history and it is critical to our participation as citizens in this country that those in that field respect the constitutional gift they have been given and that they go to the source of their subject matter for confirmation ~ or not ~ and/or Google it! Having said that, we are all flawed, including Joe, and Morning Joe has attempted to rectify the error of his ways and you should know that. Here's what he said this a.m.:

http://uniteblue.org/community/2014/05/joe-scarboroughs-makes-amends-to-uniteblue-explains-comments/

(WARNING: If you are not following MSNBC faux political commentator Joe Scarborough and his recent attack on the entire UniteBlue membership you will have some catching up to do before understanding the issue and/or before deciding to take recommended action [below] ~ or not.)

My point of view, Joe Scarborough (aka lead pundit on the GOP front show Morning Joe/aka Dear Right Wing Leader), is a primary consequence of free speech that is not true must be that it’s lack of factual evidence is challenged with Truth ~ as UniteBlue Members are doing as we speak today in response to your attacks on them in recent days. 

And, huge props to them for taking you on! They are your consequence!!!

 In the case of real journalism, reporting is the first draft of history for readers for eternity, therefore, serious inaccuracies cannot be allowed to stand!

 *** Excerpt of what UniteBlue reported to its membership on May 23, 2014 re Joe Scarborough attack on the group:                             

This morning Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s Morning Joe voiced his distraught disdain for progressives, liberals and Democrats daring to organize under the banner of #UniteBlue. …

… After displaying his willful ignorance of normal, hardworking Americans, Joe Scarborough owes an apology to the mothers, fathers, retirees, millennials, activists, professionals and all other members of UniteBlue. Calling tens of thousands of good, decent people ‘freaks’ is a sweeping condemnation and makes you a hate monger. …

*** Excerpt of what Joe Scarborough said about UniteBlue, with focus on attack and not context ~ hit link below for the entire segment:

  

This morning Joe Scarborough of MSNBC’s Morning Joe voiced his distraught disdain for progressives, liberals and Democrats daring to organize under the banner of #UniteBlue.

“I could just take people who use the hashtag #UniteBlue and make a sweeping condemnation about America’s labor movement if I wanted to, but I don’t because I know that these people are on the fringes; they’re freaks; they’re hate mongers; that there are a lot of people who are in America’s union movements that are good, decent, hardworking people who actually would agree with me on a lot of issues.”  5/23/2014

*** Background reading material, i.e. go to the source ***:

JoeScarborough calls #UniteBlue ‘fringe,’ ‘freaks,’ ‘hate mongers’

JoeScarborough doubles down, calls UniteBlue members ‘extremists’

#SayItAintSoJoeGraphics by UniteBlue ‘Freaks’

*** Action you can take, if you are so inclined! ***:

*** AND add #SayItAintSoJoe to your Tweet so we can all read it !!!

I abhor Democrats who risk Democrats losing to the GOP in November via Disingenuous calls for action

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am not going to name names because this is not a court of law and I am not making a legal case,

I am merely pointing out an example, recently received in my inbox, where a call for presidential action (in regard to Net Neutrality) clearly demonstrates how some political directors of some advocacy organizations ask their members to take action that is absolutely not doable by the target and because they are asking anyway their motivation needs to be questioned and/or the work needs to proceed without them ~

particularly in a case like the one you will see in the e-mail below calling for action based on the false premise that the action being asked of the President is doable ~ because it is not ~ but it does cast him in a negative light and risks a negative impact on the his favorable numbers which most advocacy/political operatives know is a critical factor in winning in November.

FYI: Independent Agencies are created by Congress via statutes ~ not by Presidents because they are INDEPENDENT…

And, BTW, before we get into more detail and I risk losing you, let me give you a to-do list you can use to take action on your own, re Net Neutrality, without any worries about the axes some organizations may have to grind:

To Do:

Create the message you’d like to send the FCC ~ where the power lies to solve the issue of concern re, in this case, Net Neutrality.

Then:

Comment on the FCC public comments site:   http://www.fcc.gov/comments

E-mail them at: openinternetfcc.gov

Tweet them at: @FCC

Tweet the FCC Chairmen at: @TomWheelerFCC

Call them: 1-202-418-1000

Fax them: 1-866-418-0232

I highly recommend doing all of the above. Personally, I love the imagery of all modes of communication humming in the offices of those who need to hear what We The People have to say! 

Moving on ~ Via editing and paraphrasing I have disguised the e-mail as the agency that sent it to me is only one out of many who offend me with their disingenuous-ness. But, the pitch is, as follows:

May XX, 2014

Gail –

On Thursday, President Obama's recently appointed FCC Chair made a proposal that might give internet providers the right to build fast lanes for some and slow lanes for everybody else.

Over the next two months, the FCC is asking the public to comment on which option to adopt: A two-tiered internet that favors those who can pay for it or one that maintains a level playing field for all.

Concerned citizens have been weighing in.

But, the President’ voice has been missing.

And progressive organizations are now asking the President to take a stand against the corporate takeover of our internet. (Next line you can click to sign a petition asking POTUS to NOT kill the internet, as if he I working to kill the internet, etc…) And then there is that stuff they says he was for it and now he’s weak on it and The People must make him understand…

XXXX XXXX, Political Director
 for XXXXXXXX

FYI: President Obama cannot direct an INDEPENDENT agency to do anything…

For the record, I support Net Neutrality but that does not mean I should be ignorant as to how my own system of government works and it does not mean I should blindly follow the lead of advocacy agencies, some of whom appear to be misleading.

Further, it does not mean that I should not question the motives of advocacy agencies that are not working on behalf of The People in the context of fairness to the President and Democrats winning in November.

Otherwise, I may be working for the right cause but I am also may be undermining my President which only serves to undermine the November election.

I don’t know the why ~ I just know I am not doing it.

So, here’s what I am going to do ~ I have provided you with a to-do list, I’m going to provide you with links to some very valuable information and I’m going to star where the President’s voice has been heard – in case you’d like to know more on this particular subject:

Relevant links:

FCC leadership:   http://www.fcc.gov/leadership

The rule making process:   http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/rulemaking-process-fcc

A little FCC background:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

An interesting bit of video by the previous FCC Chairman talking about the court decision that has caused the problem:   http://youtu.be/5aiRoZ63UtE

The decision:   http://youtu.be/5aiRoZ63UtE

FAQ’s re the previous FCC Chairman’s idea ~ A Third Way: http://www.broadband.gov/legal-framework-faq-on-the-third-way.html

A good website, seems to be the work of the previous FCC Chairman:   http://www.broadband.gov/

*** POTUS Administration response to a We The People Petition ~ February 2014:   http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/02/17/we-people-response-reaffirming-white-houses-commitment-net-neutrality

*** POTUS Administration press release ~ May 2014:   http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/15/statement-press-secretary-net-neutrality

*** In 2011, POTUS directs Executive Agencies to (and I summarize and I paraphrase) work on behalf of The People in all things:   http://www.regblog.org/2011/07/obama-directs-independent-regulatory-agencies.html

***Almost immediately afterwards he clarifies re the independence of the agencies: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/memorandum-regulation-and-independent-regulatory-agencies

And, last but not least, POTUS wants We The People to weigh in because he knows who he represents and because it gives him leverage to get it done.

 So ~

The Obama Doctrine is: The Common Good (Globally)...

Well, it is a little bit more complex than that ^^^ , of course. It's actually: "COMMON SECURITY FOR OUR COMMON HUMANITY" (Translation: If we all work for the Common Good on a global level we will all be better off!)

How can I know that? I'll bet you are wondering about that right now... 

After all, the GOP has no clue ~ they just have a string of hateful words for a foreign policy that doesn't even exist in the one brain they share. And media buys into GOP propaganda that things like a slip of the tongue by SOS John Kerry accidentally persuaded Syria to give up chemical weapons.

But. it's really not all that difficult ~ not if you really follow President Obama. I really follow him because I would not have voted for a President I wasn't fairly certain shared my overarching principles and because I know actions speak louder than words.

I read candidate Obama's "Renewing American Leadership," written in 2007:

I knew a long time ago he was talking about the "visionary leadership" that was being called for "in the twenty-first century -- a vision that draws from the past but is not bound by outdated thinking." Not leading from behind but leading differently.

I knew a long time ago he was talking about how we may be tempted to withdraw from the world, about how that would be a mistake, about how "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America" and about how the "... mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity. .."

And, I thought at the time ~ well, all right, let's rock on ... 

But, of course, I am not an obamabot ~

Defined in the Urban Dictionary as:

1. A person who supports Obama and is willing to vote for him but doesn't know a thing about him.

2. It's just a label for someone who doesn't know anything about Obama. You call them a Obamabot because they just spew out their support but have nothing else to show. )

so I thought I'd reserve judgment. I'd wait to read his National Security Agenda and to hear from the implementer of his foreign policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton  , before deciding I really understood the Obama Doctrine and before deciding if I really agreed ~ or not.

Of course, soon after Barack Obama was elected as the President of the United States the Republican Party made a political, strategic decision to nullify him and the millions of Americans who voted for him ~ making it impossible, I knew the moment that information was revealed, for the Obama Administration to fully implement his 21st Century Foreign Policy for the benefit of the American People. A tragedy for us...

Nonetheless, after reading candidate Barack Obama's Summer 2007 piece and his May 2010 National Strategy Agenda and after listening Secretary of State Hillary Clinton elaborate on his Foreign Policy at the Council of Foreign Affairs I was on board.

Then came the Secretary of State's December 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review: Leading Through Civilian Power and I was really sold on the infrastructure being built to support the Obama Doctrine ~ even if it meant not having it all under the GOP nullification of a duly elected American President. It was worth the effort and it was worth getting done as much as could possible get done in the time he had.

"The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review provides a blueprint for elevating American "civilian power" to better advance our national interests and to be a better partner to the U.S. military. Leading through civilian power means directing and coordinating the resources of all America's civilian agencies to prevent and resolve conflicts; help countries lift themselves out of poverty into prosperous, stable, and democratic states; and build global coalitions to address global problems." 

... A cost-effective investment for the American people; A powerful tool for preventing armed conflict and managing crises ; A catalyst to spur economic growth, open markets for U.S. goods and create jobs at home; and  A necessary response to the complex nature of the problems of the 21st century. ..."

Simply put ~ The Obama Doctrine is: We are all in this together and the United States is not going to police the world alone unless there is absolutely no alternative and in the meantime, let's get this global economy working for everyone!

If you'd like to be more informed than the GOP and the media, Secretary of State John Kerry is currently overseeing a 2014 Review. You can read about the launch of it here.

Question: Does good always win? My guy doesn't know!!!

The good news is 69,498,516 people voted for Obama/Biden 2008; 59,948,323 voted for McCain and Palin. 

The bad news is that 59,948,323 Americans believed that John McCain AND Sarah Palin could both be President of the United States. 

More bad news is that 739,034 thought it was okay to vote for Ralph Nader (Independent); 523,715 thought it was okay to vote for Bob Barr (Libertarian); 161,797 thought it was okay to vote for Cynthia McKinney (Green) and; 242,685 thought it was okay to vote “other.”

(And, just for the record, 199,750 voted for Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) but they don’t count for purpose of this discussion because their votes are for secession from the Union so they are never, ever going to do the right thing.)

On the surface it appears as if wasting one’s vote for a noble purpose in a presidential election does no harm BUT that will not be true in the mid-term election in November when the numbers will be a lot tighter than they were in 2008 (or even 2012).

This is not a scientific study, this is just me pondering some of the numbers I come across here and there that make me question what seems to be a prevailing attitude "out there" that the "Tea Party" is just a "fringe element" of the GOP ~ the implication being not to worry ~ but the numbers I see defy that prevailing attitude ... they are ALL GOP and more than a few people vote for them when they run for office!

Just for the fun of it, let's take a look at some of those numbers:

This post, excerpted from Palin's Facebook Page and edited a smidgen for space, posted on her page on April 26. As of may 2, 17,134 people had Liked what she had to say!

In her home state of Alaska presidential election numbers went like this: GOP (2008, 193,841; 2012, 164,676) and Democrats (2008, 122,640; 2012, 123,595).

This post, excerpted from Cruz's Facebook Page posted on his page on May 2. As of a couple of hours of posting 5,391 people Liked what he had to say!

In his home state of Texas presidential election numbers went like this: GOP (2008, 4,467,748; 2012, 4,555,799) and Democrats (2008, 3,521,164; 2012, 3,294,440). 

This post, excerpted from Ayn Rand Org, posted on the page May, 1 As of May 2 5,224 Liked it!

Purely for informational purposes, registered Libertarian voters in the 30 sates where voters can register by party there is a combined total of 330,811 voters registered under the party. 

.             

And all of that makes me feel quite uncertain as to the veracity of the statement noted above: 

“…The good outnumber you and always will.” 

Is it true?

Presidential election results 2008

Link to Alaskan presidential election results 2008, 2012

Link to video "Bloomberg's Millions" ad referred to in Palin post

Link to Texas presidential election results 2008, 2012

Link to Boehner article referred to in Cruz post

Link to Libertarian numbers 

(Also, see 2012 Registration totals at Ballot Access News December 1, 2012,  p.3.)