Op Ed: Freedom Attacked: Hampered, Injured Via Vocal Malignity

(EUGENE, Ore.) - “Free speech” is the pure-gold coin of democracy. Like any other valuable coin, this one has two sides: The second-one is responsibility coupled with accountability --deeply engraved wherever the freedom-side is found. President Obama’s inauguration spells out --in dollar and volunteer depth-- what honest democratic dialog, via the Internet and every other possible channel, can achieve.

Many reporters/recorders agree that his potent mandate --so widely recognized it defies denigration-- demonstrates wit, wisdom and will of the American people as still operational. Yet “formative change” is hampered, delayed by the same people -- driven by private-gain profitinterests --as for many decades.

Press, critic, historian reports provide evidence this open democratic direction, depth, diversity has never been achieved previously, even in New Deal days. Yet “confrontation vs cooperation remains the heart of politics”, while “pursuit of the commonweal is more hampered, delayed and denied than ever before”.

“Win by ANY Means” has become demanding of any statement possible, UN/truth-documented. Nay-saying is supported by personal/professional attack, name-calling and worse. The First Amendment is abused --reduced to refuge and final-retreat-- by those caring little for conscience, cogency, OR Constitution.

Responsibility and accountability --creating credibility-- exist when demonstrated by documentation and desire to protect, preserve and project its powers. The first principled-pattern of all communications is “WHO says WHAT to WHOM in WHAT channel”.

Every element must be present if clear cogent communication is to occur. When any element is missing --hampered or even removed-- confusion occurs; cogitation is damaged, sometimes fatally. That’s WHY malignities are inserted: To confuse and kill, if possible, clear essential citizen communication.

Pseudonymn-name or anonymity are too-easy shelter for those who do not wish to reveal their true interests by identity. ID-denial, when requested, is potent proof of that reason-for-use. “Convenience” is no reputable excuse; nor is near-impossible “retaliation for dissent”.

Cogent, responsible, accountable dissent is driving force for which the First is fervent acknowledgment, by our prescient Founders, from deeply personal experience shared in The Federalist Papers. John Dewey declared that “Conversation is the heart of democracy”.

He referred to fully-responsible dialog denoting great diversity of views and visions, surfacing among responsible citizens sharing learnings accomplished. Another wise philosopher has long ago pointed out “the wisdom of crowds”. It is from that turbulent flood of ideas, feelings --and further philosophy-- the very essence of democracy emerged over many centuries.

Summed in a single sentence, that may well be seen as the essential underlying foundation principle: “the consent of the governed”. That’s reflected, however reluctantly, in the actual operation of free speech across ever-broader fronts.

All these characteristics must be clearly seen as pragmatic, essential in today’s wildly radicalized, too often verging-on-malignant public-opinion/building exchanges, themselves often-overwhelming elements of 21st Century communications technologies. There are only two sources for “public opinion” in any democracy: One is free dialog of ideas, feelings and meanings for citizens, in “everyday exchange recorded at multiple levels” --face-to-face, in highly diversified community encounters, at least as essential as print/broadcast channels.

The other is our vaunted American “free press” -- notably not nearly so free as in earlier days. Both reporting and Editorial statement are now heavily influenced by “the powers that be”; impacts on advertising lineage flow determine economic survival. The second, famously, has never mirrored the first - -a lamentable, damaging fact of complex cultural, social, economic realities.

With advent of rapidly-growing Internet capabilities opening to millions every year, the traditional print-side is forced into futility of past technologies, too rapidly for the health of our struggling democracy. Under unavoidable pressures both citizen-side and printed-press side is feeling the hot breath (sometimes also foul !) of what must be described as “malignities on the fair face of free speech”.

Those indulging baser characteristics invariably do so from supposed “single-name” shelter; others choose to be ostensibly “anonymous”. Neither group understands that disclosure of origination point even of computer-used, is available when demanded.

Danger-creating content irresponsibly or malignantly created can and is now being traced. Technology exists, in use by some government agencies and technology-dependent users-in-depth of Internet facilities. Currently cumbersome and highly costly, it is not widely applied to cut off and condemn damage clearly occurring.

It’s easier for channel-sponsors to require one-time registration --sure to come as legal protection for owners’ high costs for electronics-demanded. They face liabilities costly to defend even if immaterial --as many suits, often settled out-of-court to avoid lawyer-costs, have proven. Damaging impacts draw major attention, not only from editors but from print-owners-hurt; from alternative website dailies; and from citizen/community groups.

Irresponsible. casually-damaging abusive behaviors, as easy-excuse for action difficult to justify, are the norm on far too many blogs and websites. Ominously, government attention is inescapable, with unavoidable impacts on formation of public opinion.

Some few politically-motivated governmental agency operators have engaged in similar falsity by supply of pseudo-”news” and perverted pundit-statement reports. They seek advantage from pseudo-anonymity as for individuals on Internet.

WHY remedial action will soon be undertaken, for all concerned: Far too much is at stake --economically, socially, and culturally-- for irresponsible, unaccountable malignancies to prevail. Most simply vent feeling, bias and prejudice. Others are meant to injure, delay, and damage what must NOW be achieved.

Strong citizen understandings of mutual problems, issues, events, and ongoing historical happenings are now essential as never before. Broadening usage of Internet sites and responsechannels by government and political groups has proven that fact-of-life.

That distorts, perverts, and can prevent the intent of the Founders on pragmatic process, provided by their First Amendment. The same kind of irresponsible malignancies first was felt when democracy was being born. The famous Federalist Papers were not entirely immune, in less damaging form. Many were presented “written-by” with historical name, but recognized from the originating source then known to most.

How seriously these situations were viewed-then is demonstrated by Alexander Hamilton’s assassination by Aaron Burr over the mild phrase: “dangerous man”. Similar assassinations plague our American history.

It is wise to see possibilities of basic motivations for horrendous actions. Words have underlying force within the limited understandings of disturbed, driven persons already mentally lost. Public declaration is often found.

We need to be well aware that anger-to-the-death has resulted from such serious similar situations in our historical past --with huge loss to the Republic for the person and the potent powers thus silenced. But nothing like “flaming” or “trolling” was then in vogue, nor would it have been permitted as hidden by any unknown or unidentifiable perpetrator.

Famed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inaugural speech is widely honored for fateful declaration that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself”. He was proven right by productivities and progress renewed, widely shared; “fear” was defeated, It is ironic that multiple malignities --encountered, in the most potent communications channels we’ve ever enjoyed-- still play on continuing impacts of fear.

Furious flourish of denigrating attack-language, factual distortions, refusal of essential identification, perversion of obvious realities --all provide malign, monstrous tools for political panderers.

They damage the very Constitution to which they turn for protection when their destructive activity is proclaimed.

Henry Clay Ruark is the one of, if not the most experienced, working reporter in the state of Oregon, and possibly the entire Northwest. Hank has been at it since the 1930's, working as a newspaper staff writer, reporter and photographer for organizations on the east coast like the Bangor Maine Daily News.
Today he writes Op-Ed's for Salem-News.com with words that deliver his message with much consideration for the youngest, underprivileged and otherwise unrepresented people.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Henry Ruark January 30, 2009 2:20 pm (Pacific time)

To all: For "see with own eyes" very comprehensive review of reality on economics since Reagan, see How Republicans Conned America For Thirty Years" by Thom Hartmann, at www.openednews.com. It details con/process and explains basic "demand-driven" economics --in use for 7,000 years-- at the same time vs conman weapon of "supply side" --created as political tool-- known as such by some from day first created, including the inventor and the GOP leadership, and so explained by Reagan colleagues then and later.

Henry Ruark January 29, 2009 9:01 am (Pacific time)

Stephen et al: Unfortunately, only weapon we have here is "words". What you make of them depends heavily on what you ARE now, and can still become. SO we keep trying, which is great strength of open, honest democratic dialog, short of rapid revolution driven by unwarranted impatience. President Obama has barely gotten through WH-door, can surely not be expected to reverse main motors of 30-year neocon-mismanaged debacle within days !! Cool it, kid, take succession of deep breaths, continue to vent admired passionate convictions here...and in a very short time, you may feel a bit better. After all, what more have you got to lose ? What other way can possibly work ? Return to GOP-sabateurs clearly seeking to avoid own-hangings ? Even mentor Paul advocating wait-and-see, help good things to happen. SO "keep on keepin' on", and pay attention as some continue to cover the story clearly, cleanly, and as honestly as can be managed by humans.

stephen January 28, 2009 7:13 pm (Pacific time)

please let me know when obama actually FOLLOWS THRU on his words..dont try and convince me from words. I said back in Feb 2008 that obama would go back on his words in regards to the economy.. I was right then and I am right now. Heard too many of them. Henry..DO NOT TRY AND CONVINCE ME FROM WORDS>>GIVE ME ACTION! A reminder: same bush clinton cabinet, looking away from the gaza situation saying one president at a time, but being president in regards to bailing out the banks, telling people that THEY need to work harder when it was the government that caused this economic crisis by world domination (which obama is continuing by bombing Pakistan).. Please, give me ONE reason to trust this guy besides his charming rhetoric? I have Kids man! I want their life to be good! obama has done nothing. still wiretapping the american citizens, still sending weapons to israel to kill everyone who is not in agreement.. yeesh. what has he done? give money from U.S. to abort African babies? What will it take for people to wake up? His entire cabinet is anti-constitutional. wake up

stephen January 28, 2009 6:31 pm (Pacific time)

let me know when he actually follows thru on his promises. SO far, it is all talk.. Still supporting israel and the banks. Beginning to think he is a half black bush.

Henry Ruark January 28, 2009 10:27 am (Pacific time)

To all: For detail, depth on Reagan transition from dedicated "liberal;" to distorting "conservative", see Op Ed dated May 15, '07, in S-N Archives, titled: "Reagan-Era Union-Attacks Set Hurtful Standards." You'll be surprised by insight supplied via his GE-spokesman years, visiting 139 plants, 250,000 workers, in forty states. The result was one of the largest, most effective corporate political initiatives ever fashioned in our nation. It also set the stage for precisely what corporate interests then sought, and have consolidated ever since. Note particularly the evidence presented by sources for this one. All events-since begin with this eventful personal move from union leader to leader of attacks on unions, now surely seen as most debilitating and damaging ever achieved by corporate consolidation of effort.

Henry Ruark January 28, 2009 9:05 am (Pacific time)

JW; That is unavoidable, sir, but much more important is whether we will recognize and support what will surely occur. Distortion/perversion will continue as weapons, you can be sure. Wit, wisdom, WILL of American people have once again kept us on track inherited from our Founders. Will we be wise and strong enough to make sure we continue ? That is huge 21st Century question, open to decision via actions taken by every one of us, now and in the continuing American future. Your participation richly appreciated.

JW January 25, 2009 5:55 pm (Pacific time)

Obama stated: "Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." We shall see.

Henry Ruark January 25, 2009 9:14 am (Pacific time)

Friend Dan et al: You wrote: "...listened with their gut rather than their mind and heart," Right on, sir !, as with yours re hidden-shot once-again depriving us and world of any further progress. BUT we can only "keep on keepin' on", family truism of great solace and strength in current conditions. Thank you for your perceptive civil participation, sir, and please continue esp. if we fall into dissent, the other side of this open, honest, democratic S-N channel for mutual sharing and learning.

Daniel January 24, 2009 9:49 pm (Pacific time)

Henry i too viewed the inaugural with awe and hope . The millions that lined the Capital , braving the bitter cold , became a physical mandate to the new administration . Unfortunately during the whole event i was thinking , i hope to god they dont shoot him . After the assassination of 3 great american in my lifetime i have become too cynical . This has been reinforced by the last 8 years of BUSH and the damage to this country and the world spearheaded by his administration . I pray with sincerity the Obama administration can reverse much of this . I also realize the nature of politics and have lowered my expatiation's . I will say its great having a president who can intelligently articulate his positions instead of who we just had . The speakers at the inaugural also pointed the way to a new future , it seems a few in the opposition listened with their gut rather than their mind and heart . Most Americans are ready for positive change , more than ready , lets hope the future restores and expands Americas national and international greatness .

Henry Ruark January 24, 2009 5:36 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel: Thank you for your response, proving some few at least are still able to explore and then cogitate. Re yr news-reel viewing, have much the same response but with perhaps a bit more hope now that Nov. 4 showed such huge mandate-feeling for the transformative change anyone still able to think knows must follow, if we are to preserve any semblance of what the Founders bequeathed. Oft-repeated family truism, favorite of my wife (now long gone),still standing statement whenever things get rough, is "Keep on keepin'on". Rest of story re where that originated another time, but may help some who read --then think.

Daniel January 24, 2009 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

I am afraid Henry we still have not sunk down to the level of the continually falling lowest common denominator . Many , too many , will follow those who bark the loudest , that translates into big bucks . The internet provides a vast amount of information , its a world wide library . Some search out knowledge other go to the comic books or porn . I believe most people are followers looking for some kind of leadership . Unfortunately what they are too often offered up are loud clowns . In mexico city there is a popular news show with the host dressed in a clown suit , as sarcasm to the industry. . It is also true that vested interests will manipulate the system for their benefit . The Nazi propaganda machine has become the model , if you tell the same lies loudly and often many will believe them . I have been watching a number of US news reels from the 30s-60s and the slant was pretty heavy than . Looking back in history you can see the mistakes and prejudice of the day from internment camps to atomic energy misinformation . I wonder how history will look upon us .

Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 8:11 pm (Pacific time)

Oh, Boy: You wrote: "That's an insult to the Constitution and an insult to every American." Re-reading your diatribes here leads me to point out that it demands a special kind of arrogance to be as sneaky as you have demonstrated --and then to speak of anyone else taking the action you claim in that line. Seek out the nearest mirror, look directly into it with concentrated self-regard, and consider what you have now demonstrated publicly. What does that make of your new blog ? With that kind of judgment shown so callously and insensitively here, why should we trust YOU on any other matter of criticism ? It is obviously NOT content at issue here, but your personal approach to it, that is in question from your own words.

Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 12:38 pm (Pacific time)

Oh-B: You wrote:"A play acted out to conceal the bigger story." Can you now substantiate "the bigger story" by something other than stylistic flourish here ? Some series of links to any reliable, well-understood as nonpartisan, set of sources ? AND WHY should we pay any attention, by reading here, to anyone who does not respond to full-ID to Editor for direct contact ? First rule in professional communication is "know your source", so if you pretend to be "source", you need indeed to furnish some reason to grant you trust via credibiity.

Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 11:29 am (Pacific time)

Stephen: Here's "see with own eyes" re my recent Comment on Beck et al. DO believe it makes potent pertinent point re basic misunderstandings, remedied only by continuing dialog: The Content of Glenn Beck's Character By Rick Perlstein I've been fascinated by the responses to Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction which closed out the inauguration ceremony. To my liberal, literary friends, the performance was a triumph: tonally subtle, morally bold, aesthetically transcendent. Conservatives, however, have gone berserk. Check out the first four comments from the Chicago Sun-Times blog posting of the transcript of the speech: (He then cites truth showing the comments causing controversy coming directly from MLKing himself, in nearly the same words.)

Henry Ruark January 23, 2009 8:04 am (Pacific time)

Oh-B: So it was YOUR "invitation" ? WHY then hide as blog, seek out hidden-hit as if something more solid ? That IS sneaky... Seeking cheap PR for blog ? THAT tells us much to start. Re yr comments, sir, since we now know you as despairing critic, rolling helplessly in simple-English with slight stylistic flourish, unwilling to use channel set up for honest dialog, ID self to editor for direct and we'll not presume on attention of legitimate readers. Your good faith already disappeared with first shot,proving point of Op Ed. Re "response". mine on record here, now counting close to 600 and still working for more honest dialog. That's real "transparency" --far beyond your synonymous mask, sir. (You can check dictionary for that syn.....word.) See any/all via Staff line to Archives, if you can master those hard words such as honest, open, democratic, "see with own eyes, evaluate with own mind"--also "transparent". Thank you for participation on this Op Ed re malignity via Internet responses.

OhBOY! January 22, 2009 10:00 pm (Pacific time)

Oh, and last... Obama promises transparency and absolutely refuses to provide any valid evidence he's even a citizen. That' an insult to the Constitution and an insult to every American. There is no "openness", only a projection, a charade. A play acted out to conceal the bigger story.

OhBoy! January 22, 2009 9:58 pm (Pacific time)

Ruark... There's no "sponsor" or "funding" or "staff". It's just a blog, dude. My answer to your bewildering barrage of words without clear meaning. You want to respond? Respond. The blog lets you.

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 11:26 am (Pacific time)

To all:
Here's "see with own eyes" from Secrecy News, national blog now used by many as reliable source:

www.fas/org
PRESIDENT OBAMA DECLARES "A NEW ERA OF OPENNESS"

In a breathtaking series of statements and executive actions, President Barack Obama yesterday announced "the beginning of a new era of openness in our country."

"For a long time now there's been too much secrecy in this city," he told reporters at a January 21 swearing-in ceremony.

"The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed" (a paraphrase of the October 2001 policy statement of former Attorney General John Ashcroft). "That era is now over."

"Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known," President Obama said.

Moreover, "I will also hold myself, as president, to a new standard of openness.... Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution."

"Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
-------------------
Use link to see rest of the intriguing details.

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 11:00 am (Pacific time)

O-Boy and salem-snoozer: This is open invitation to ID self to editor for direct dialog. Cannot send msg to you since site shows no source or address or click-spot marked "Contact us". Wonder why ? IF okay with you, we can transcribe resulting dialog to share here nationally, or simply DO IT right out here in the open, honest, democratic S-N channel, where all can see and use own minds to evaluate. OR is there evident reason why you must remain masked-and- hidden for sponsor and funding, since that will at once deny any small credibility you now hold ? Shill-ing is well-paid these days, I understand, and that alone makes motivation for yr blog somewhat redolent. SO will welcome your step out from behind hidey-tree, or is it hidey-hole ? Either way, it's highly evident where you are --and why. WHAT you are, and WHY, will rapidly become obvious via dialog to which you are warmly invited. Anything fairer --and more truly democratic --than that ? If so, let's hear it direct, rather than from hiding-hole unmarked, unidentified, and undignified by credibility level other than 0. Last such time was by EdPage editor in monopoly daily, hiding in obscure blog-spot. If you are afraid to sign your stuff, there's gotta be real reason...as "four gentlemen from Virginia" taught me some years ago at Indiana U.

What Change January 22, 2009 10:39 am (Pacific time)

Sitting with my three children during the swearing in of Obama it was great to see that we've ushered in a new day in American changieness. Following Rev. Lowrey's inaugural "white will embrace what is right" (or, for my Japanese wife, "yellow doesn't have to be mellow"), we were treated to an excellent demonstration of post-racial politics. OK, it's not "We are the World," but role model Jay-Z manages to capture what all of us are thinking, but just couldn't put to a beat...."you can keep ya Puss, I don't want no more BUSH!" and "No more white lies!" Hey, I was just saying that to my kids the other day!! Thanks Jay-Z! Inspiring...and coupled with the dozens of f-bombs and n-words, this ditty clearly defines the seats at the table for all of America's peoples. This was not the kind of tone that will keep me as a supporter for very much longer. I am outraged. It seems that open season has been started on those of us who are Christian and family orientated.

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 10:00 am (Pacific time)

Stephen: Forgive "Fried", typo only, NOT unconscious reaction here, I hope...

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 7:55 am (Pacific time)

Fried Stephen: Glad to see you checking out Biblical points, esp. prophesy as cited. Try seeking also anything re Golden Rule; translate that into any part of any Bible you wish to use, since there are at least fifty varieties, each with own basic "assumptions" re everything, not just the then-current economic system, per yours. FYI, wartime tax rate in Eisenhower's day was 91% for top courtiers, a rate highly distressing to Reagan, and cause of his tax-slash debacle. See DUTCH, his self-chosen biog. by lifetime colleague, school companion, and prize-winning biographer. Don't worry, reading level no higher than Biblical distorted language.

Henry Ruark January 22, 2009 7:47 am (Pacific time)

O-Boy: Thanks for "heads-up", friend. Have not enjoyed such strong reviews since last national publication. Noted no sign of any identification of source sponsor, nor of funding, nor of address for information, nor of Archives, nor of Staff and their qualifications. Miss also any "see with own eyes","evaluate with own mind" approach, too, as used in S-N since we do not believe any one perspective can be perfect and also feel Founders meant for dissent to be understood. If you have difficulty with 8th gr. English in Op Eds (by readability test) we can drop level to 4th, but that might lose some few since too reminiscent of k-3 grade books --you know, allathose with most pictures, little text. We must be doing something well (see right-note below) to win such careful attention to words-written. The danger is readers there may be seized by uncontrolled cogitation at any moment. I avoid use of right, since that word now smeared as Right ever since Reagan was so disastrously wrong.

stephen January 21, 2009 9:52 pm (Pacific time)

I have a very serious but simple question here.. My wife was born june 1961 in honolulu hawaii.. I have seen her birth certificate and know what they look like. Why does not obama show his birth cetificate? A VERY simple question.

stephen January 21, 2009 8:52 pm (Pacific time)

Humanity doesnt seem to change even after 1000's of years. 1 samuel 8 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen... welcome BHO.

Henry Ruark January 21, 2009 11:32 am (Pacific time)

Earnest: I note in Tim's Ann Coulter story you insist he should read her books, and suggest others, too. Have you read anything in economics since the '30s ? Have you read SUPERCAPITALISM by Robt. Reich ? Any of Kevin Phillips several re Wealth and Democracy (one title) ? Do you know and read Naomi Klein ? Does no good to call all those "liberal" and thus "avoid-at-all costs", since you insist on wide divergence of viewpoints, which is why you choose SLATE --you say. Again, yours here proves up precisely the points in my Op Ed, which is why response so far. Thank you for your revealing participation, sir. Even unintentionally, you have added value to S-N dialog by your exemplary example. Dissent is welcome here, but distortion/perversion will be challenged for documentation beyond personal political interpretation, from behind any mask,as unavoidable principled responsibility to readership.

Henry Ruark January 21, 2009 10:50 am (Pacific time)

Earnest" You wrote: "A simple review of the vote you will see that approximately 57% of caucasians voted against Obama and around 43% of whites voted for him." You seem a bit confused, sir, since "caucasian", in my dictionary, refers to white --the other side of your supposedly sensible and meaningful comparison. With that basic misassumption, why should we give attention at any level to the rest of your distinctly race-toned verbiage ? If you so obviously confused re simple-sense basic language, why trust your words on anything else ? So happens that level of confusion in characteristic of some symptomatic situations reflecting failur to comprehend even when checked. We await your clarifying words with several similar silly-situation follow-on questions. If you wish to cook in this kitchen, gotta be able to face up to the heat, as we do. SO speak up to tell us how come you cannot tell white-from-white, and we may then check even more carefully on what else you see from that location (read:.....-....)

Henry Ruark January 21, 2009 10:37 am (Pacific time)

Again, sir, I repeat what I stated: You lie in your teeth, probably intentionally. IF your interpretation of the Founders is correct, cite chapter and verse from major historians and similar authorities; includ edition info, please, since actual words differ, obviously with differing meanings. (We include that in our data. See ref. recently to Samuelson text.) Declaring it SO only on your own unsupported word, while attempting to use Slate as what you feel is "far-Left" --and thus "liberal" and therefore the weapon you seek since "liberal" has been made smear-word by neocon noise machine--only again proves the point of this Op Ed. Some suffer from such symptoms that they cannot conceive of anything but what they see from their own hidey-hole. That's WHY diverse, open, honest, democratic opinion demands first ID to know WHO the hell is speaking, and then WHAT, from WHOM, to make sure it IS open, honest, and ready for remedial information when that doth exist. We tell you that clearly here via STAFF section and endnote on Op Ed. Next you will claim abuse and mistreatment here, while still hiding and hurriedly seeking any other possible source you can cite, with same intentions AND same result. What you state re SLATE may well be true via numbers --but that does not allow you to use it to make it seem otherwise, in support of your allegations. Remember that old one re "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure ?" Fact is that consensus of the media and authoritative other sources support "huge mandate for change", as sensed and so reported by those much more capable of such judgment than either of us, on basis of much more deep, extensive, diverse and widely acknowledged basic information than any one source such as you choose, most carefully --then distort and pervert for your personal pander-purposes. For the record, since Op Ed did not carry our usual note, more than 30 sources (actually close to 50) were used for this one, with some ten recent books, and a slug of writer's files from 50 years prior to Internet easy-search. SO we report from diversity and depth, professionally prepared. What's your background, sir ? Got any real working experience on which to erect your shaky single-source interpretation ??? Again, if you seek full dialog, ID self to Editor; otherwise, morehere simply proves up p/pander purpose, insulting intellect of most readership.

Earnest January 21, 2009 10:08 am (Pacific time)

The below link is to a far left site (SLATE) that provides narrative and stats that support my below narrative and stats. I chose Slate because though their stats are below what has been reported bt the FEC, it still acknowledges the huge negative mandate that Obama has. I am not some far right radical, nor are the 60 million who voted against Obama, we just have conservative values and principals that the radical left cannot grasp, but the Founding Fathers did. http://www.slate.com/id/2204464/

Henry Ruark January 21, 2009 10:06 am (Pacific time)

Earnest: You lie in your teeth, sir; either intentionally or via drastic UNinformed OR MISinformed personal status. I note you furnish not one iota of any documentation relying only on your own unsupported words for all you declare. For allegations you make, ID self in-full to Editor and we can overwhelmingly sink every point you make via honest dialog documented. --without presuming on patience of readership here while we pile yours higher-and-deeper. Yours here presents precisely the pattern to which Op Ed refers, serving as further proof of the psychological characteristics so plainly exhibited, for which undeniable documentation is ready when you dare to come from behind tree and show your true public-persona. I await your emergence from shadow in which you remain until and unless you serve major communication necessity of making known from whence cometh what you send here. Anyone opening door to masked man refusing to remove that mask has only themselves to blame for mental confusions thus suffered, which is name of neocon game ever since the Reagan campaign.

Earnest January 21, 2009 9:30 am (Pacific time)

Regarding Obama's mandate. A simple review of the vote you will see that approximately 57% of caucasians voted against Obama and around 43% of whites voted for him. So you have a nearly 14% spread. This means that a majority of the voting demographic majority provided a clear mandate that they do not want him as president. That's the math. In fact the last time a democratic president won the white majority vote was LBJ, 44 years ago. Obviously Obama won, but when you crunch the numbers, if only 3% of caucasians change their future votes he will not win in 2012 if the vote is demographically similar as 11/2008. But if 5% of caucasians change their vote it will not matter how any other demographic votes for him to be beaten. My guess is a 3rd, even a strong 4th party candidate will surface in 2011, but unless the economy is humming on a positive note, as well as black leaders acknowledging their high crime rates, especially against whites, Obama will be just a one term president. In essence, he did win the election, but a large mandate is simply fantasy. Many of you out there constantly belittled Bush since he won in 2000 (and he did win Florida as was verified by repeated recounts by the liberal media. Just show one major newspaper who said otherwise!) and considering around 60 million voted against Obama, we will be very active in making sure the voters know that America has been duped, not by Obama, but his handlers.

Here we go again, it appears that falsehoods are all Obama's opponents have to fall back on. I think that if anyone looks at the simple historical record, they will see that "Earnest" is making it up as he goes. Please remember that this comment section is free and open to anyone and it definetely backfires from time to time when people post false propaganda like this. Our new rule is that if you do this in the future, you will simply be banned. Represent your allegations as opinions, be honest with the world.

[Return to Top]

Op Ed: Freedom Attacked:
Hampered, Injured
Via Vocal Malignity

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News