Hummm?

So Obama makes a speech about how we are all Americans and all have First Amendment Rights and therefore we should be cool about those folks building Cordoba House (who just happen to be Muslims) you know. It starts me wondering why it is that both Obama and Bush II seem to have the same position on our relationship with the Muslim world in general and also have similar positions on immigrants. to this country. Both of them seem (or at least seemed) to have a pretty good position on both those issues. Of course, Obama had to, within less than 24 hours, walk back his statement on Cordoba House. To clarify and to make clear that he thinks they have the right, but it is still kind of icky for them to build it in Manhattan. (Calling Henry Lewis Gates.)

I figure that right now I'm not up to, once again, trying to figure out why Obama is such a worthless piece of chicken shit when it comes to backing any position he takes that is even remotely liberal (such as supporting the First Amendment a position which doesn't seem to me to be particularly liberal). The guy is an empty suit (which isn't exactly true, since he seems to be willing to go to bat for large corporations and corrupt and reactionary politicians, but it's all I've got time for right now).

But what I want to try to understand is why these two guys who we will have had the unfortunate experience of having as our presidents for at least twelve years and who support nothing that doesn't put money in the pockets of the wealthiest 1% or maybe all of the wealthiest 5% of our (or is it the world's) population, while screwing the poor and what is left of the middle class. Why these two guys take what appear to be progressive or liberal positions concerning illegal immigrants and our relationship with the Muslim world (that is: Muslims aren't our enemies, certain people who are terrorists and who just happen to be fringe Muslims are our enemies).

So I thought, is it possible that on these two issues these two guys could have independently come to thee right and most just conclusion independently and simultaneously because it is the right thing, kind of like Darwin and Wallace or Leibniz and Newton.

Nah.

Money.

Look there are millions of immigrants in this country working their behinds off for significantly less than citizens, they are essentially non people. They get on a track to become citizens they will have to continue to keep a job and they will have to continue to do what their bosses want at a lower wage then all most all citizens are willing to work for. Who do they work for and who makes major profits off them? The richest 1% or maybe the richest 5%. Who are these wealthy people friends of? Oh come on.

Muslims control vast amounts of wealth and sit on huge amounts of oil that we want and need and our friends who run the great corporations that get this oil to us need the friendship of these Muslims. Well really the friendship of the Muslim rulers (don't forget that the Bush family is really very close personal friends with several Saudi oil chieftains), but you can't really tell the great unwashed that we should be friendly with only the wealthiest 1%, even Americans would eventually catch on to what is going on if you tried that.

So maybe it is like Darwin and Wallace or Newton and Leibniz, after all.