The entire office is put on speakerphone as they insulted and owned by Senator Obama and his dirty mouth. Ironically, he’s even gets called a racist by his own party! You have to listen to this one. Prank call your local democrat headquarters with the Obama Soundboard at http://www.obamasoundoff.com
Duration : 0:6:22
Democrat County Supervisor Peggy West of Milwaukee is proud to be the “first Latino/Hispanic American to be elected to the Milwaukee County Board”. During the debate on a measure boycotting the state of Arizona she asserts an uneasy knowledge of US geography.
Duration : 0:1:35
South Carolina Democratic Party ask primary winner to drop out
Duration : 0:5:35
Blumenthal’s blunder not the first time a Democrat has fabricated their service record
Duration : 0:6:17
Bob Hope was one of the funniest comedians back in the day. And, you never know when those hoards of zombie democrats will be coming for ya…
Duration : 0:0:24
YouTube won’t decide this election. You will. The truth behind the UK general election, the leaders debates, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats – The Independent. Truth matters.
http://www.independent.co.uk/
Duration : 0:1:28
At the recent 5-day Integral Institute seminar on Integral Business Leadership,
Ken Wilber was asked, by a senior Zen teacher, “What do you think of the Republican convention?”
Ken responded by giving an overview of what a truly integral politics might look like, and used that to compare and contrast with the Democratic and Republican conventions, both of which are less-than-integral. We think that this twenty-minute summary is brilliant, insightful, deadly serious, and wickedly funny, all at once. But by all accounts it is an extraordinary account of why all politics today are considerably less-than-integral, along with certain features that almost certainly would have to be included in the future in any truly integral politics.
In this synopsis, Ken focuses on three items that all political theories have attempted to address but none have managed to fully integrate. These are the tension between (1) the individual and the collective; (2) the source of the cause of human suffering: is the individual primarily to blame or is the society primarily to blame?; and (3) the different levels of development that the different political parties tend to represent: any truly integral politics would include and represent all of them, and yet how on earth do you do that?
Due to time considerations, Ken did not discuss two other equally important ingredients in any integral politics. One. In representational democracies, people have a right to be at whatever stage of development they are at, and generally speaking, within free speech, a right to express the values of whatever stage they are at. Traditional-fundamentalist (blue) has a right to be traditional, modernist (orange) has a right to be modernist, postmodernist (green) has a right to be postmodernist, and so on. This is generally modified in practice, to the extent that the center of gravity of a culture will tend to impose its values on others, especially if they are first-tier (or less-than-integral) values. Nonetheless, in democratic societies, there’s a general background understanding that people have a right to be, and a right to express, whatever stage they are or whatever belief system they possess.
Two. They do not, however, have a right to act on those beliefs. This is generally handled in representative democracies by a separation of public and private, and by a similar if more specific principle of the separation of church and state. This means that, for example, in the privacy of my blue-meme mind, I am free to believe that Jesus Christ is my personal savior and that nobody achieves salvation without a belief in Jesus. In public behavior, however, I am not allowed to burn at the stake somebody who disagrees with me. In terms of integral psychology, this means in the interior of an individual (i.e., the upper left), the person can believe whatever they like; but in their public behavior (i.e., the upper right), they must behave according to laws drawn from a worldcentric or higher level of development (lower left), or else they are charged with civil or criminal behavior and removed from society if necessary (lower right).
This separation of church and state, or more generally what Max Weber called the differentiation of the values spheres, is one of the great and enduring contributions of the Western enlightenment, a contribution almost entirely misunderstood by extreme postmodernists, who in fact are operating under its protection while bitterly condemning it.
(The most common version of this is the aggressive attempt to reduce “I” and “It” to “We,’ or the attempt to reduce art and science to a social construction, which can therefore be deconstructed. As it turns out, this reductionism presumes precisely what it denies, but then, deconstructive postmodernism has been little without its performative contradictions.)
A truly integral politics exists nowhere on the planet at this time, principally because not enough individuals have emerged at the integral levels of consciousness, and hence no governments anywhere have integral representatives as members (except rarely and by accident). Its principal challenge is to create some form of governance that allows each stage to be itself within the constraints of not harming others (i.e., to let red be red, and blue be blue, and orange be orange, and green be green, etc—precisely because, as we saw, this is a right in virtually all free societies), and yet to govern from the highest, widest, deepest, and most encompassing levels of development emerged to date (starting at yellow). Most representative democracies do this anyway, except their center of gravity is not yet fully integral, and they do it implicitly, not explicitly.
Duration : 0:17:45
Join us at http://bravenewfilms.org/ford/#Tell-Your-Friends
And help in spreading the word. Share this video with every New Yorker you know!
New Yorkers are starting to get acquainted with their new neighbor, former Tennessee Congressman and bank executive Harold Ford, Jr.
So who is the REAL Harold Ford, Jr.?
Well, for starters, hes a staunch opponent of abortion rights. He also disapproves of marriage equality for gay couples, opposes public safety laws to keep guns off the streets, and blames immigrants for Americas problems. Doesnt sound like much of a New Yorker, does he?
Of course, now that hes living in Manhattan instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line, Ford is remaking himself as a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control progressive. But unfortunately for Harold, this is the age of the internet, and you cant just walk away from your past statements. Thats why we compiled this video of the REAL Harold Ford, Jr., to introduce New Yorkers to their latest carpetbagger.
Duration : 0:2:19
Commentary
A bi-weekly commentary by UPI writer, Martin Sieff.