baldilocks

SEALs in Somalia

When I first saw this story a couple of days ago, my first thought was: why are SEAL missions front page news all of a sudden?

Now it's beginning to make sense.

A commando unit from the US Navy’s Seal Team Six launched an amphibious raid on a Somali town, but failed to confirm a capture or kill of their Al Shabab target, suspected to be linked to Nairobi’s Westgate mall terror attack.

(Emphasis mine.)

Because this team is the one that took out of Osama bin Laden--according to Vice President Biden--it must be continually humiliated in the public eye, even though many members of the team at the time of bin Laden raid are dead.

And if unnamed sources keep compromising SEAL OPSEC, even so soon after the fact, the present team members will end up dead as well. One wonders if that's the plan.

 

Posted with Blogsy

Black Americans, Freedom and Gratitude (UPDATED)

This was originally a Facebook note, but I think it needs to be said at as many places as I can say it. It is slightly edited from the original.

*****

Recently, I had a misunderstanding with a Facebook friend about a comment I left on her page.  My comment wasn't directed at her and the particulars of the misunderstanding aren't important, but I've seen the idea floating around for some years now--especially since it has become well known that there are a lot of black Americans who still hold a grudge against white Americans for slavery and Jim Crow and especially since a certain person became President of the United States--that black Americans ought to be grateful for those white Americans who died "for" our ancestors' freedom.

Let's get something straight.

I'm quite grateful to God for planting me in this country, in spite of the means of how it was done. It delivered me and mine from idolatry and Islam.  God makes all things work together for the good for those who love Him and are called to His purposes.

This country was founded on freedom for all and, it took some time, but America has lived up to its foundation.  I hate the fact that Americans had to walk in the wilderness to make that happen: to kill each other in a Civil War and to make some of its citizens live in quasi-citizenship for 100 years after that.  But it happened, nonetheless.

Here's the thing: did those who fought for the freedom of my ancestors 150 years ago and for the true citizenship of me, my parents and grandparents fifty years ago (my lifespan) do it to earn the gratitude of black Americans or did they do it for God and/or the honor of our country? One wonders if black Americans' freedom could have been accomplished without the bloodshed. Perhaps not, but black slaves certainly did not make white Americans kill each other over the bondage of the former.

If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are gifts from the Creator granted to all human beings, then those who defend the same should not care about gratitude from other human beings. As far as this matter goes, any gratitude which the likes of me might offer only serves to engender pride in the recipient.  Pride is a sin; all types of pride.

True freedom fighters have the clean conscious of God. May that be enough for them.

UPDATE: From the comments:

I've lived a relatively long time and I've never known or heard of anyone who "demanded gratitude" for the sacrifices made to free the slaves in this country. Has anyone? That's a straw man...

Some people are quick to call you a liar when your experience doesn't match theirs. Humans...

 

Irony Burrito

Soul Food:  it’s yummy stuff. The origins of what is known a Soul Food, however, are often forgotten. For very pertinent reasons, it can legitimately be called ‘Black Food.’

Foods such as rice, sorghum (known by Europeans as "guinea corn"), and okra — all common elements of West African cuisine — were introduced to the Americas as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Yams and watermelon are other examples.

Eventually, such fare became known as Southern Food. These days, Soul Food is considered a delicacy. (Personal note: I like the stuff very much, with the following exceptions. Yams and chitlins have crossed the threshold of my lips only once, respectively.) But, back in the bad old days, masters fed their slaves the type of food considered crap, and saved the choice meats, grains, and vegetables for themselves. Much of the fare called Soul Food consists of plantation throwaways.

European enslavers fed their captive workers as cheaply as possible, often with leftover/waste foods from the plantation, forcing slaves to make do with the ingredients at hand. In slave households, 'vegetables' consisted of the tops of turnips, beets, and dandelions. Soon, African-American slaves were cooking with new types of "greens": collards, kale, cress, mustard, and pokeweed. They also developed recipes which used lard, cornmeal, and offal; discarded cuts of meat such as pigs' feet, oxtail, ham hocks, chitterlings/"chitlins" (i.e., pigs' small intestines), pig ears, hog jowls, tripe, and skin.

So what’s my point? It’s this.

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

(All bolding mine.)

Rice and other Spartan grub. Hmmm.

One wonders how the OWS cooks know that the “freeloaders” are vagrants and criminals. After all, aren’t both the “professional homeless” and the “amateur homeless” (the OWS protesters) squatting on land that does not belong to them? I bet I know how they know: most of the amateurs are white and most of professionals are black.  And both groups are freeloaders. After all it isn’t as if the OWS protesters bought the food.

I wonder why the OWS cooks don’t want to cook for the “professional homeless” aka “freeloaders.” And what are the “non-freeloaders” doing to help the cooks? Delivering the goods? Chopping the vegetables? Washing the dishes? Disposing of litter? Not according to reports.  But, of course, the “non-freeloaders” are speaking “truth to power,” so, one assumes that counts.

But, oh wait! Some designated persons labored to prepare the food and want it to go to the hungry and downtrodden!  Except not the actual hungry and downtrodden. 

But, oh wait! The “freeloaders” are vagrant and criminals! But according to the Left, vagrants and criminals do what they do only because the rich won’t help them. So the OWS want to help them! Except they don’t.

But, oh wait! OWS cooks will still feed the “professional homeless”—just not the good stuff.  Only the slave food.

But, oh wait! There are soup kitchens where the “vagrants, criminals, and freeloaders” can eat. Wonder who funds those places. No matter. The “vagrants, criminals, and freeloaders” have the soup kitchens--equal but separate facilities in which to chow down. They can “freeload” on someone else’s dime and time.

So, in one ill-considered decision, the Occupy Wall Street sorts manage to epitomize hundreds of years of slavery and government oppression against black Americans and, on top of that, managed to promote one of the principles in the Bible—that those who do not work, should not eat.  In one fell swoop, they have become everything they say they are against.

Chew on that.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

There's Something Missing (UPDATED)

I can't figure out what it is.

BENGHAZI, Libya — President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said it fired 110 cruise missiles at 20 targets along the Libyan coast.

Let me see...what's missing here?  Oh yes!  It's this: the US Congress hasn't authorized this military action aka war.

Surely we will soon be seeing the antiwar crowd out and about, blocking traffic and asserting that the president is waging an illegal war, a war-for-oil, etc.

I'm sure we will see this soon.

UPDATE:  President Obama is in Brazil.  He announced this strike against Gadhafi from the Brazilian capital. It appears that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is running things from Paris.

UPDATE: I knew we could count on the antiwar activists!

"Anti-war protesters arrested near White House"

The protesters, some shouting anti-war slogans and singing "We Shall Not Be Moved," were arrested after ignoring orders to move away from the gates of the White House. The demonstrators cheered loudly as Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon's secret history of the Vietnam War that was later published in major newspapers, was arrested and led away by police.

And there were protests all around the country! New York, Chicago, San Francisco...

There's only one problem.  The protesters were there to mark the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War, to call for complete withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan (told ya so) and to support Bradley Manning, the Army private who leaked classified documents to Wikileaks.

It has only been one day, however. I'm sure they'll get around to protesting the US intervention in Libya.  I have faith!

 

Dangerous Women (Updated: Cowan is a Liberal)

A Vermont man shot his television set after watching as Bristol Palin, daughter of Former Governor and former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin (R-AK) lived to dance another day on the television program Dancing With the Stars.

[Sixty-seven year old Steve] Cowan “jumped up and swore, saying something to the effect of “the  —-ing politics.”The complaint added,  ”Steven was upset that a political figure’s daughter was dancing on this particular show when Steven did not think she was a good dancer.”

I keep saying that the unhinged hatred that Leftists have for Bristol and her mother is spiritually-induced, from the bad side-- which is why it's illogical--and here's what it's about: abortion.

The label "pro-choice" is pure BS; most of its proponents should properly be labeled 'pro-abortion.'  And for those who have successful convinced all too many women that abortion isn't really murder; for those who have fooled women of the "wrong genetic sort" into believing that they aren't doing the elites' bidding when they cut off their succeeding generations, Sarah and Bristol Palin are two of the most dangerous women in America. 

Both Palins chose to let their children live under two of the "adverse" circumstances which are usually used to justify abortion.  By doing so, the two set examples for other women and may plant the idea in other women that they need not murder their own children under similar circumstances.  This is why the Palins often cause a full-blown, foaming, freak-out in many of those who adhere to Leftist ideology or who have been brain-washed by it, even when something as inconsequential as winning favor on a reality show is the subject at hand. (Then there are the women who are still playing out their high school-engendered neuroses, but that's a separate issue.)

I bet this Cowan has marched in a pro-"choice" rally or two, probably because his wife nagged him into doing it.  

A spiritual battle? Yes.  The force of evil--Satan--wants us all destroyed and those who justify the murder of the unborn are merely his tools. This is why the pro-abortionists are so rabid about those who defend innocent life. "Noooo, don't take away my right to commit genocide again myself, you brute!!!!" 

To Leftists, Sarah and Bristol Palin made the "wrong" choice--life--and for that, the morally bankrupt must demonize them, inverting wrong and right as such people--and their Father--are wont to do.  That this genius only hurt his TV is something for which to be thankful.

(Thanks to Cubachi who's also posting over at Hot Air)

UPDATE: Thanks to Booker Rising for the link to this post and for the many others.  And it's always...erm...interesting when one of Shay's guests drops in for a visit. ;)

UPDATE: In the comments below, a un-medicated visitor freaks out as well:

Negress, what fornicating evidence do you have that Steven Cowan or anyone else who disagreed with the Dancing With the Stars, finals decision is a leftist?

Well, I did say that this murderer of TVs was either a Leftist or indoctrinated by lefist ideology (as almost all of us are).  As it turns out, my first conclusion was correct.

Larry Ziemer, a fellow town supervisor, said he has known Cowan for about 20 years.

"I have nothing but good things to say about Steve," Ziemer said. "It was totally out of character for this to occur. He just does an excellent job on the town board and in his private working life."

Ziemer said Cowan is a talented carpenter and is well-respected in the area. Ziemer said he had never heard Cowan speak ill of Sarah Palin or her family before.

“He and I agree pretty much on politics,” Ziemer said. “We would probably lean both to the liberal side.”

The unhingement was a big clue--both with Cowan and my charming guest.

Comments on a Love Note (UPDATE: Field Negro Responds and So Do I)

Yesterday, a blogger styling himself as the Field Negro [2014 note: Philadelphia family court Judge Wayne Bennett] dubbed me the "House Negro of the Day":

(JULIETTE OCHIENG) I SWEAR SOME OF YOU NEGROES MUST GET PAID BY THE WORD TO SAY DUMB STUFF. THIS CONSERVATIVE BLOGGER CALLS THE MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO A "SECURITY RISK". SAYING DUMB S#*T JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN IS ALWAYS HNB

[Link added by me; don't worry--it leads to my post, "Beacon."]

Field Negro--may I call you Negro?--would it actually hurt you to expound on why you think my opinion is "dumb?"

Show your lack of "dumbness" by explaining to your readers how building such a mosque--set to be funded and "pastored" by a person who has continually called for the the implementation of Sharia law in the United States--is not a security risk. Take it step by step.

I can further defend my position.  Are you capable of defending yours?  I'd sure like to read it.  You never know--if you're premises are sound and your conclusion follows logically from them, I would be compelled to change my opinion.  In case you have never heard of this concept, it's called 'intellectual honesty.'  Try it, you'll like it--eventually.

Otherwise, I'll merely write you off as one of the conditioned.

UPDATE:

Field Negro is “gracious” enough to respond:

Ms. House Negro, you may call me whatever you like, just as long as you don't call me collect. Now let me "expound" -just a little-on why I think your opinion is dumb:

You argue that putting this Mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would put Americans at risk because the leader of the Mosque believes in a strict form of Islamic law. (Sharia) That, in of itself, is ludicrous. Iam not connecting the dots between an interpretation of an ancient religious philosophy and bombs dropping on suburbia.

And, just for argument sake, let's assume that Faisal Abdul Rauf does believe in the most negative and regressive form of Sharia law as you allege; what difference would it make if he built his Mosque a block from Ground Zero or in Jersey City?

Just because you are unable to connect the dots, it does not follow that my opinion is ludicrous.  You may have a shortcoming or two. However, I will assist you.

Islam’s raison d’être is to convert the world to Islam, by force if necessary.  One of the tools of force is fear.  And inducing fear is the goal of terrorism.

Of course, we know that many Muslims consider the Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001 to be one of Islam’s greatest victories against the United States/Great Satan.  Building a mosque adjacent to what used to be the Twin Towers would be like planting a flag of victory for Allah.  This is not an unprecedented concept; armies of Islam and many other armies use this sort of symbolism to say to observers the equivalent of “we won; you lost.”  In the eyes of others wishing to spread Islam by the “sword,” such a statement would be a…Beacon, one drawing those of like desire; this beacon would encourage other Soldiers for Allah to perpetrate further attacks in America in order to win more victories for Allah, in order to win his blessings and in order to gain glory for themselves.

Does that help?

But my rebuttal above assumes that you were right about Rauf and his position when it comes Sharia Law. You were not. Only a person whose mind has been poisoned by right wing ideology -A poison that was inflicted by the likes of Newt Gingrich- could view a man who has published writings such as this in such spurious and mendacious manner. Parroting right wing talking points to score "brownie points" with your ideological soul mates does not make you a critical thinker, or, for that matter, someone capable of "intellectual honesty". It makes you a fraud, and a fraud of the worse kind: one whose sole purpose in life is to remain in the comfort of a poorly constructed house.

So many assumptions in one short paragraph! I haven’t listened to or read anything by Newt Gingrich since he appeared in that Global Warming TV ad with Nancy Pelosi.  However, here is some of what I have read about Ra’uf:

Feisal Abdul Rauf is the imam behind the “Cordoba Initiative” that is spearheading plans to build a $100 million Islamic center at Ground Zero, the site where nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by jihadists on 9/11. He is also the author of a book called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.But the book hasn’t always been called that. It was called quite something else for non-English-speaking audiences. In Malaysia, it was published as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

Now it emerges that a “special, non-commercial edition” of this book was later produced, with Feisal’s cooperation, by two American tentacles of the Muslim Brotherhood: the Islamic Society of North America and the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

(…)

Both ISNA and IIIT have been up to their necks in the promotion of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s ruthless Palestinian branch, which is pledged by charter to the destruction of Israel. In fact, both ISNA and IIIT were cited by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.

(…)

The purpose of dawa, like the purpose of jihad, is to implement, spread, and defend sharia.

(…)

In considering Imam Rauf and his Ground Zero project, [Yusuf] Qaradawi [spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood] and the Muslim Brotherhood are extremely important. Like most Muslims, Rauf regards Qaradawi as a guide, and referred to him in 2001 as “the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.”

(…)

Qaradawi regards the United States as the enemy of Islam. He has urged that Muslims “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.”

And why do you assume that my goal in saying the things I say is the accrual of “brownie points.”  Brownie points from whom, consisting of what?  I know the history of Islamic conquest in Africa, how it weakened that continent, making it ripe for further conquest by Europeans and how its adherents continue to rape, murder and pillage on my father’s fragmented continent.  And I know what non-black Muslims think about black people—even those in the latter number who are foolish enough to convert. Which one of us is the "House Negro" and the "fraud" again?

A rapidly weakening USA is quickly becoming a target for those who would like to remake it in their own image, whatever that image may be.  Right now, this country is just a financial target, but that could change. The giant is ailing and the wolves—like Russia, China, and Islam—are waiting for it to fall.  So you might say that the “brownie point” I wish to accrue is survival.

I hope you didn't trip over my steps.

Darling, I’m starting to get the feeling that you don’t like me. My heart is broken to be disliked by such a charming gentleman!  :-}

However, I hope that you awaken and decide that you want to survive also.  Really.  And I hope you save a little bit of that snarl for your real enemy.

Beacon (Update: What Bill Whittle Said)

Pretty much all who follow the news regularly—and many who don’t—know about the controversy surrounding the proposed construction of a Mosque near the site of what used to be the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.

The backers of this project and many others –including the mayor of New York--have cast the intent as a “freedom of religion” issue.

The opponents of the project—which are many—cast it mostly in emotional terms; I’m with them, but those terms, by their very nature, allow themselves to be argued down.

However, there is one reason to be against it—one which sets itself above all the others, one which is existential and practical rather than emotional. 

A “Victory Mosque” set in the shadow of Ground Zero will be just that: a symbol of victory for the Islamists at the site of one of the greatest body counts in the name of Allah.  And the existence of such symbols will invite more attempts at military conquest from the Soldiers of Allah.

Go on about the First Amendment and about misinterpretations of the phrase ‘hallowed ground.’  Keep pretending that blocking the construction of this particular mosque is somehow preventing New York Muslims from freely exercising their religion—as if permission to build a church or a synagogue anywhere in NYC would automatically be granted.  But know this: our enemies will take our notions of “fairness” and explode it in our faces; not just in Afghanistan or Iraq, but right here on the Hallowed Ground which stretches from sea to shining sea.

By the way, if we infidels aren’t quickly jumping to convert to Islam, to die or to become dhimmis, are we violating the First Amendment?  Just wondering.  Because that would be the full flowering of the free exercise of Islam.

Lots of First Amendment violations in that, don’t you think?

UPDATE: Confirmation.

The Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) is urging the Cordoba House Initiative to abandon its proposed Ground-Zero Mosque in New York in the face of outrage expressed by large segments of the American population calling the proposal an act of 'fitna' or mischief.

In a letter to Imam Faisal Rauf that will be delivered on Tuesday, August 10 by MCC’s board member Raheel Raza, the MCC says, “Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating  'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

(Thanks to The Anchoress)

UPDATE:

(Thanks to Instapundit)

Devastating Video on Obama's Response to Oil Spill

It needs no introduction.

Oil Spill Timeline from RightChange on Vimeo.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

John Wooden

1910-2010. Released and reunited with his love and with Love. Rest in Peace.

Do guys like this exist anymore? I pray so.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

Repost: There are Walls, Then There are Walls (June 13, 2007)

The post below the fold is being re-posted due to criticism I received from Facebook "friends"--old Air Force acquaintances, no less--who claim that I don't support my opinions nor talk about the thinking which went into those opinions.  (Actually, they never say anything that polite or with the slightest amount of good faith; they assume that no thinking went into my opinions and refer to me as a parrot and worse.  I wonder why that is.  Is it that difficult to click on the links on the left sidebar of my Facebook page?)

Fact is, I've grown weary of methodically laying out the chains of occurrences, premises, conclusions and examples which have served as undergird to my opinions.  Fact is, whether I make the effort or don’t make the effort, I get this sort of thing (in response to Razing Arizona):

I object to you and almost everything you say. I think you are full of sh*t. That plain enough? I'm [here] to object to you and your invective, which I find personally offensive. At some point, people have to say, I object.

This guy kept insisting over and over again that he objected; I imagined him punctuating each objection with a foot stomp.

And, using the fact that he objects to me and everything I say, this “gentleman” came to the conclusion that I must be crazy and delusional.  Surely, that is the only reason that I could possibly be 180 degrees from him in all opinions.  Right?

The funniest thing, however, was that, in this man’s repeated exclamations of objection, there was never any specific direct object. (Linguists will groan at that pun.)  He never did pick out a topic about which he and I are in opposition and defend his viewpoint on that topic, even after I repeatedly invited him to do so.

It's plain, Greg, but it's still pretty generalized. There has to be a specific reason tha[t] you think that I am full of sh*t and you certainly should be able to take a specific issue and explain to me why I am wrong about it--in a sane and non-delusional, invective-free and sh*t-less manner, of course.

Come on. I know you can do it.

To which, I received this charming response:

I don't have to defend it to you -- or explain it -- anymore than I expect you to do the same [sic]. You have an opinion -- I think you're full of sh*t. My opinion. I don't really TRULY have to say anything else.

My five-year-old niece would call such a response immature.  I wouldn’t, however.  It’s obvious that either the man is intellectually incapable of defending his opinions or he is too lazy to think through  his premises and conclusion and, afterward, articulate them.  Due to the puling, I vote the latter.  Petulance in adults is almost always a cover-up.

Then again, hasn't our president repeatedly claimed that the time for talk is over? 

*****

Razing Arizona

President Obama to Mexican President Calderon: "We are not defined by our borders..."

Translation: "Give us your drug lords, your gangsters, your terrorists, yearning to behead the wayward and divert the upright...I've got a populace to subdue!"

(Thanks to Tammy Bruce)

Blind Man's Bluff

UPDATE: Dude! I got called a racist because of this post! Hahaha!

ORIGINAL POST:

Among the many types of bilateral divisions among people, there is this one: those who can come to a reasonable conclusion after stringing together a pattern of cause and effect and those who cannot. Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele has repeatedly shown that he falls in the latter category.

RNC chair Michael Steele defended his spending practices Monday morning, saying he has no plan to resign, and at one point suggesting that criticism of his tenure may be rooted in racism.

(…)

Asked if “as an African-American” he has “a slimmer margin for error than another chairman would,” Steele replied: “The honest answer is yes.” Steele went on to explain that, like Barack Obama, he has had to contend with racism as someone who is “not ole boy network.”

Since Steele was elected as RNC chair over men more conservative than he is—including Ohio’s Kenneth Blackwell who is also black—we’ve seen the following occur under his watch:

• During an interview, Steele mutely nodded his head after the interviewer--comedian D.L. Hughley-- asserted that the GOP Convention “looked like Nazi Germany” simply because the Convention was mostly white.
• He needlessly picked a fight with Rush Limbaugh.
• He put his book on the market and began to promote it without telling the RNC.
• He told Sean Hannity that the Republicans would not win back the House and Senate in 2010 and that the GOP isn’t ready to lead.
• He has squandered the coffers of the RNC with nothing to show for it.
• The stripper issue--not his fault but it occurred after all of the things which were.
• His repeated attempts to "urbanize" the GOP are silly, condescending and embarrassing.
• He has repeatedly tried to deflect criticism of his performance as RNC chairman by saying that it is rooted in racism or in fear.

When one starts at a position, one has a margin for error which is of a certain size.  The fewer errors one makes as time goes on, the greater the margin for error becomes.  And the opposite is true: the more errors one makes, the smaller the margin for error becomes.  Mr. Steele’s margin for error is smaller than it was when he first became RNC chair due entirely to the fact that he has made so many errors and due to the fact that he seems incapable of learning from them.  In fact, I bet that he doesn’t even think that he has made any mistakes. 

Does that mindset sound familiar?

When Steele came up as the front-runner for RNC chair right after the election of Barack Obama as POTUS,  it was obvious that the RNC wanted to counter Obama’s blackness with Steele’s.  I opined at other blogs that if the RNC absolutely felt the need to engage in the dubious practice of tokenism , that it could have at least elected Blackwell who is more conservative than Steele.  But, apparently the Committee also wanted to counter Obama’s media stardom and Steele definitely had a much better carved-out media presence than did Blackwell.  The RNC went totally for style over substance and look where it has gotten us.  And almost predictably, Obama and Steele are representing their respective organizations about equally as well.

If it weren’t for the total full-tilt Juggernaut that is the Democrat Party’s socialist/fascist agenda and the resulting push-back of the Tea Parties and unlikely candidates like now-Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), there would be no hope, if you’ll pardon the expression.

One top RNC fundraiser has had enough. He’s not the only one.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE:  Ouch! "Race is the Only Thing Helping Steele":

Steele is hapless, solipsistic, and incompetent. When he isn't embarrassing his party with his personal antics, or his staff's, he's setting it up for failure by driving away its top fundraisers and not keeping pace with Democrats.

Many observers are hypothesizing that Steele is a Democrat plant.  Well, he couldn't do any better--or worse, depending on which side one resides--if it were true.

(Thanks to Leon Wolf)

More Evidence (UPDATED on March 30, 2010)

What two things do the UK and Israel have in common?

UPDATE: President Obama's animus toward Israel.

UPDATE: "Obama snubs Leader of the Free World" --Darmon Thornton

UPDATE: It's a safe bet that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson Sr., Jeremiah Wright(!) and Louis Farrakhan (!!!) were treated far better than the heads of state of two of America's staunchest allies and the Dalai Lama. Fair warning to Canadian PM Stephen Harper.

What a disaster Barack Obama has turned out to be.

UPDATE (March 30, 2010): Little did I know that President Obama had insulted our Canadian allies months ago.  And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton adds a fresh, healthy dose of disdain.

By now, Stevie Wonder could see this pattern: cut America off from her friends and destroy her.

Bring the Aid, Leave the Flag at Home

We interrupt the wonderful postings of my guest hosts to ask the musical question of our Commander-in-Chief....what the &^*%^ is up with this, Mr. President?

The many nations helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake that struck there have set up their own military compounds and fly their flags at the entrances.

France's tricolor, Britain's Union Jack and even Croatia's coat of arms flap in the breeze.

But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world's — the United States — has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.

(...)

The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.

"We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery," the U.S. government's Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.

So flying the flag in another country is a indication of occupation?  Actually I'm guessing that's what President Obama and Haitian President Preval agreed on when the latter paid a visit to Washington DC last week to thank the former for saving the lives of the surviving Haitians who were not only victims of a horrendous earthquake but victims of their own leaders long before the quake occurred.

The Obama Administration: displaying its contempt for America and her defenders since January 20, 2009.

Oh and it's quite interesting that the article appears in the Army Times.  First of all, it's an implicit criticism of the Commander-in-Chief (Note the weaselly language: "does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers." I bet they couldn't find any GIs who liked the policy.)  But secondly, these civilian-run Army/Navy/Air Force Times papers generally have a liberal bent in spite of the intended audience.

(Thanks to Drew at Ace of Spades HQ)

AFTERTHOUGHT: One wonders how things would play out if the installation commander disobeyed orders in this matter.

Never Learning

In relation to the case of Umar Abdulmutallab—better known as the Panty Bomber, the Fruit of Kaboom Bomber, the Junk Bomber and the Knicker Bomber (please say that last using a British accent)--Mike Allen of Politico mentions the Shoe Bomber again.

Republicans may have a hard time keeping up their talking point about how reading Miranda rights to the Christmas Day bomber represented a dangerous new direction under President Barack Obama.

It turns out that that back in December 2001, Richard Reid — the “shoe bomber” — was read or reminded of his Miranda rights four times in two days, beginning five minutes after being taken into custody.

Furthermore, the Bush administration specifically rejected the idea of a military tribunal [the legal framework of which had not yet been set up by the time Reid went on trial in 2002]— another step that Republicans have argued should have been taken in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day and was read his rights after 50 minutes of FBI questioning. [They argued this because the tribunals had long been in place by 2009 when Idiot tried to blow his "man"hood off.]

So let’s be clear (if you’ll pardon the expression)…

• When the Right does everything the same manner all the time, it is deemed rigid, dogmatic or intolerant by the Left.
• When the Right changes the way it does things for a given situation after prior tactics have proved unworkable, the Left begins to use words like ‘hypocrisy’ or phrases like ‘talking point.’

I was originally going to observe that it’s easy to tell which writers have actually done some real work in their lives--work that requires a thing called Systematic Problem-solving, aka trial-and-error.  However, Mike Allen’s piece pointing to the Bush Administration's change of legal status for foreign terrorists isn’t indicative of his own work experience. 

Allen judges that most of those who would agree with him are the ones who have no real work/problem-solving experience or that such people would choose to ignore what they have learned from that kind of experience in order to be able to throw the Republicans’ “talking points” back into their faces.  That's Leftist logic for you.

And after all these years, it’s comforting to know that many of my assessments about the Left are correct: they care more about dispatching the Right’s “talking points” than they do about safeguarding this country from Jihadists.

Well, perhaps “comforting” isn’t the right word…but you get the idea.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Biting the Hand That Protects You

According to the latest reports, the CIA and the State Department have known who Panty Bomber Umar Abdulmutallab was since May of this year--having been in tipped by the UK--and what he was about since August. And the CBS report is just the epitome of even-handedness, isn't it?

U.S. Intel Lapses Helped Abdulmutallab

So now that the blaming of the Sheepdogs has begun, I might as well wade in.

Simple question: how likely is it that the Obama Administration would be inclined to listen and act on anything the CIA or any of the other intelligence agencies found noteworthy regarding threats from potential terrorists? You and I both know that the CIA has been under siege by this very administration for the agency's prior handling of terror suspects since right around the time that all concerned became aware of Abdulmutallab.

I submit (again) that this administration wants America to be attacked so that a pretext will exist and a rationalization can be used to implement more...shall we say...interesting policies. 

Hang on tight!

(Thanks again to Hot Air)

[Re-edited]

Choose Whom to Serve (UPDATED)

Ralph Peters is past livid.  I know for a fact that he’s not alone.

On Christmas Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were mostly Christians. And we helped.

Our government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber's ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.

(…)

Contrast our political correctness with [failed Panty Bomber Umar] Abdulmutallab's choice of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a Koran, and it's courts-martial all around.

We proclaim that the terrorists "don't represent Islam." OK, whom do they represent? The Franciscans? We don't get to decide what's Islam and what isn't. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.

It gets worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies and how such motivations change the game, our "terrorism experts" agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.

As a Sunday Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda's far more than a formal organization; it's an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he's al Qaeda, he is, even if he doesn't have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.

We're dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons' lodge.

I had to restrain myself from quoting Peters’ entire polemic.

If the jihadis like Abdulmutallab and Hasan and Hakim Mujahid Muhammad do not represent the essence of Islam, if the behavior of these charmers is not exemplary of how a devout Muslim should act, then where are the American Muslims who would repudiate the actions of their co-religionists?  Are they too afraid of how the murderers among them will react?  Or are they merely assenting silently and biding their time?

One thing is for sure: our present government leadership most certainly is too afraid to act/react forcefully and effectively to discourage jihadist attacks. Some say that is due to George W. Bush’s assertion that Islam is a “Religion of Peace.” Poppycock.  The 43^rd President could have asserted that Islam was the religion of ham sandwiches and it would not have mattered.  What mattered is what he did in the aftermath of the Islamic jihadi attacks of September 11, 2001: he (re)acted aggressively and forcefully to a homeland attack from an enemy.  Say what you want about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Big Boys in the Islamic terror circles—like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri--were not expecting such a reaction.   

Bullies expect cowering from their targets and the terror kings had American citizens and their leaders down for wimps.  And actually, they were partially correct about both groups, though the ratio of balls to no-balls differs between the two groups.  They just “happened” to perpetrate 9/11 at a time when the leadership was strong and not willing back away from a gauntlet thrown down. 

We went to war--perhaps not against Islam, but against Islamists, who, naturally, subscribe to the tenets of Islam.  And in the minds of very many Muslims, no fine lines of distinction existed as to with whom/what American was at war.  To them we were and are at war with their religion.  Even so, you may recall that several leaders of Islamic countries responded to that show of strength by communicating a hearty “no thanks” to being on the receiving end of American wrath. 

That response was instructive: who cares if one's adversaries get angry?  As long as they realize that the drawbacks of attacking the Great Satan outweigh the benefits. 

But now, with the jihadi drawback-benefit analysis having being revised since January 20, 2009 and with the level of cowardice existing in the American leadership moving toward the higher end and with the very top of that leadership concentrating on apologizing for that strength, it appears that the portion of American citizenry in possession of courage and, most especially, in possession of faith, must fill up the breach of action and reaction.  Those who serve in our military are already doing their part.  So what are the rest of us going to do? 

Specifically, what are you Americans who happen to be Muslim going to do?  My religion teaches us not to be afraid of those who can kill the body.  As a matter of fact, the Bible says that the spirit of fear is not from God at all.  I think all most of us would like to see is a Not-in-Our-Name sort of movement from you, Americans who happen to be Muslim.  Are you too afraid of your jihadi brethren? What does your religion say about fear?

We’re waiting.

Sort of Off-Topic: After Fort Hood, my American dad said that if he were in any position of responsibility at the federal level, he’d profile anyone with a "funny" name. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy whose step-daughter’s surname is Kenyan Luo in origin and whose biological daughters have Arabic given names. He said that if he didn’t know us, he’d profile the hell out of us. LOL

We laugh but it’s logical…and serious. 

And I'll say this because I can: too bad the Funny Name Profiling didn't start two years ago.

UPDATE:  And right on cue, Anwar al Awlaki, the American-born Muslim cleric based in Yemen, who is thought to have mentored the incipient jihadism of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, claims to have blessed the Panty Bomber plot.  Personally, I think that Awlaki is merely floor-showing for his boys—these terrorists are such peacocks—but one would think that he would rather keep his mouth shut since this particular plot fizzled.

Then again, Awlawi is carving out a spot in the minds of those prone to fear, so his tactic is understandable.

(Thanks to Allahpundit)

No, It's Not a Black Thing

Okay, I lied.  But this crap is getting on my nerves. And this.

Tiger Woods  violates his marriage vows repeatedly and all people like Eugene Robinson care about is the race of of the near-dozen women not-his-wife with whom Tiger has allegedly had relations.   Eugene's problem? None of these women are black.

Listen closely, black people: Tiger Woods' job here on Earth is the same as that of each individual person--to do what God wants him to do.  What that probably does not entail: validating the attractiveness of black women via serial adultery, humiliation of Mrs. Woods and, possibly, tainting the relationship between him and his children.

Just a guess.

Listen closely again, black people: get over yourselves.  Everything is not about you.  Heck, my novel is about interracial relationships, but there are subjects that transcend this.  As a matter of fact vows to God transcend everything.

But consider this: Tiger is a very blessed man, even in this situation.  Don't think so?  Consider the case of the late Steve McNair. 

Sometimes God gets tired of your BS and removes his protection.  God thinks Eldrick Woods is still teachable.

That question remains for the rest of us.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE: Cogent and tangential points:

[W]e are interested because Tiger Woods, who may legitimately be the best golfer ever, had been turned into an all-purpose icon: a man of personal rectitude, a lovely smile, apparent openness; a family man, with a lovely wife and two adorable babies. And of course, he was our first living embodiment of the collective hope for racial reconciliation. Who knew that the early reports of his betrayed wife Elin swinging at him with a golf club constituted literal icon-smashing?

We are staring because we've been had. Betrayed. We see now that the image was all a fraud. The talent was real. But the things that made the public like Tiger personally -- the low-key demeanor, manners, and sweet smile of countless sports-page photos, magazine covers, political analogies, and most important, product endorsements, was an act. That would be betrayal enough. But it wasn't just Woods' act. The larger lesson here is about how much artifice -- sustained, deliberate deception -- goes into the construction of a public persona when there is profit to be made or power to be had.

Read the whole thing and note the parallels (however imperfect--hey, that's a joke!) to another demigod walking on clay feet.

Facts am Hard

Today's column by Leonard Pitts isn't the dumbest thing I've ever read, but I can't think of what is.

Lots of people are outraged by the Obama Administration decision to remove Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, et al from the military tribunal system and try the admitted terrorists before a federal civilian court but columnist Leonard Pitts is all for the decision and he chastises those who are against the decision as having an ulterior motive for the criticism:

Indeed, if critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try him and his terrorist confederates in a New York City courtroom would be honest with themselves, they'd admit that this is what drives their condemnation, not questions of security, fears of acquittal or other obfuscatory concerns they've raised.

No, the baseline here is the understandable belief that these thugs, these gangsters of Islam, have no right to a trial, that the American legal system, with all its protections for the accused, all its rights and procedures and niceties, is more than they deserve.

Is Mr. Pitts familiar with how our legal system works? Has he heard of the terms ‘jurisdiction,’ ‘custody,’ ‘evidence?’ Is he familiar with Miranda?   Does he know anything about war and battlefields?  Does he know anything about intelligence? 

Okay, forget I asked that last question.  And you will forget in a few seconds. 

In order to bolster his position that KSM and friends should be removed from the military tribunal system and tried by a civilian system, Pitts says this:

It's worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

So let me see if I can follow Pitts’chain of “logic.”  We don’t want the terrorist moved from military justice system to a civilian one because what we really want is to have them executed without a trial.  But we should stop criticizing the move from a military justice system to a civilian one because even the perpetrators of the Holocaust were subject to military justice.

Too long?  Let me try again.

"Don’t give them Military Justice because I know that you really don’t want have a trial and the Nazis got Military Justice but that was okay."

Better?

No, my head does not hurt--at least not today.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Intent

A symptom of stupidity?

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention.

Or is it merely a window into viewing intent?  My premise on asking the last question is this:  Obama wants to destroy this country and, to that end, destroy or weaken the things which make this country great.  Two things which make this country great-- its philosophy of jurisprudence and its due process --will be weakened by the venue alone of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends.  So President Obama can be as careless about commenting on the prospective outcome of the trial as he is about every other item that is part of American Exceptionalism. 

He does, however, think everyone else is stupid, as does Attorney General Eric Holder.  That’s why the two keep assuring the public that these terrorists will be "convicted and get the death penalty." That’s why the AG says irrelevant things about “not being scared” when questioned about the venue decision before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The two play on the emotions of the public but never address what will happen as a result of this trial; they think that all the public cares about is hanging these terrorists.  (Secretary Clinton was dead-on message yesterday.)  They think that the outcome is what matters to us and that we don’t care how the guilty/death penalty destination is reached, that we don't care about the process.  But in reality this is how they feel—all Leftists believe in outcome-based decision making.   (Need an example? The Community Reinvestment Act.)  The problem with outcome-based decision making is that it almost always produces an outcome not foreseen and one which is almost always detrimental--usual inadvertently.

In this case, however, the verdict of a civilian court trial of KSM et al. will not matter a whit to President Obama and Attorney General Holder.  If the trial remains in civilian court and it begins, their intended destination will have already been reached. 

As a result of such a trial, all the rules to which courts and, therefore, judges and lawyers previously adhered will be openly thrown out of the window.  Forget about the terrorists for a second; I’m talking about the rules as they apply to you and to me.  Venues changed at whim; double jeopardy; anonymous accusers--you name it.  Precedent is being set and the name of that precedent is…chaos.  Nothing will kill an organization—or a nation—faster.

Whether the defendants are found guilty or innocent not guilty, we are in grave danger, both from those who openly hate what this country stands for and those who secretly do.

The ensuing chaos is the detrimental outcome intended and it's not such a secret anymore.

UPDATE: Holder admits that there's no real reason to change the KSM trial venue, no legal one, that is:

I have thought about that possibility [of an acquittal]. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…

It will be a show trial--a stab in the heart of the legal tradition in this country.

And where would KSM go if he is acquitted and is unable to settle into a nice loft in Lower Manhattan? Back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, no doubt, where it all began and where he can train the next generation of Soldiers of Allah using supplies and facilities bought with Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Army pay.

Lovely.

 

Two More Stirs of the Pot

 President Obama decides to throw out the advice of US military commanders and make no decision about the way forward in Afghanistan—thus making a decision.  This no-decision decision will appear one way to our enemies, especially the enemy known as Islamism: President Obama is, once again, making the United States look weak.  Someone at one of the many sites I frequent called the president’s now-familiar tactic “baring one’s jugular to a wolf.”  I almost added “…hoping that the wolf will show compassion,” and, thereby, falling into the trap that so many do when discussing President Obama’s actions and motives: assuming that the man has the best intentions toward the country he was elected to lead.

And today, the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Soldiers of Allah in civilian federal court located in New York City comes to the fore.   Aside from the jumble of legal jurisdiction problems of putting military combatants before a civilian court and providing them with the rights that Americans and other civilians enjoy while in this country, it will be necessary to publicize classified material and methods.  And, in addition, bringing these enemies from Guantanamo Bay to NYC will endanger New Yorkers.  If you don’t think that other Soldiers of Allah are champing at the bit for this process to begin, you’re not paying attention.

President Obama means to bring this country to its knees so that he can consolidate power over it. And these two decisions are meant to embolden our enemies to act.

Attorney General Eric Holder is set to make a statement about this decision this morning.  I can’t wait to hear his usual quality of logic.

 UPDATE: Andy McCarthy

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

[Emphasis mine. More added to the McCarthy quote, which needs no further commentary.]

Conundrum

When you live in a country which holds freedom of religion as one of its founding principles, what do you do about adherents to a religion whose founder exhorted the faithful to impose that religion on others at the point of a sword?

Or at the muzzle of a gun?

Or at the flashpoint of a weapon of mass destruction?

Answer: when their freedom of religion threatens your country's survival, you do what you have to do to make sure the country survives. 

We're not there--yet.  But some people want us there.  And I believe that one of them sits in the Oval Office.

UPDATE:  Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter, tried to contact al Qaeda months ago and the FBI knew about it.  Hasan also attended the same mosque and at the same time as two of the 9/11 hijackers.

I suppose that it is mere coincidence that this mosque, Dar al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, VA, nurtured jihad so fervent in at least three of its congregants, that they felt compelled to produce such high body counts for Allah.

(Thanks to Stacy McCain and Hot Air)

A Commander-in-Chief Visits the Fort Hood Wounded

The only thing is that it isn't the current Commander-in-Chief.

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) ― Former President George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, visited wounded soldiers and their families near the site of the worst mass shooting on an Army post in the United States.

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood's military leaders and hospital staff for the "amazing care they are providing."

Instead of comforting his troops, President Obama decided to spend the weekend at Camp David.

11:25AM THE PRESIDENT addresses the House Democratic Caucus - Cannon House Office Building

2:30PM THE PRESIDENT makes a statement to the press on Health Care - Rose Garden

2:45PM THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart The White House en route Camp David - South Lawn

Even if one were inclined to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he had asked Former President Bush and Mrs. Bush to visit the wounded soldiers because the Bushes live in Texas, why would he ask this of his predecessor and not get on Air Force One overnight to get down there himself? 

Why would he not go to be with those whom he is charged to send into battle and who were so horrifyingly betrayed by one of their own?

Because he doesn't give a rat's backside, that's why not.

I bet Former President Bush told him to get his narrow a** down there stat and he ignored it.  No awards were being given to him so he said "Screw all that blood and drama.  I'll be chillin at Camp David."

He. Does. Not. Care.

(Thanks to Hot Air and Riehl World)

Poor Baby

Last week I came perilously close to cursing at a friend of my great-aunt’s--a woman in her seventies who has known me all of my life and for whom I sometimes run errands.  (Both ladies had enough marbles and enough humility to give up their driver’s licenses when the time came to do so; therefore I am often the driver.)  I’ll call her Mrs. Sampson

Anyway the slip almost happened when Mrs. Sampson said that her church was praying for President Obama.  Now before you folks who are prone to jumping to conclusions make that leap, know that I pray for him also. I pray that he is called to repent of his sins and accepts the Lord Jesus Christ—the real one rather than the abomination--as his savior and that his decisions are guided by the Holy Spirit.  I presume that Mrs. Sampson and her church’s other congregants pray the same thing since Christians are exhorted to pray for their leaders.

However, Mrs. Sampson’s actual words regarding the reason her church was praying for the president got to me.  “Oh they’re criticizing him so.  It’s just horrible!”

I didn’t say what I was thinking, but those thoughts did contain the f-bomb.

After biting my tongue—almost literally—I pointed out that if he didn’t want to get criticized that he should not have run for president.  She agreed, then pointed out that Jesus had been criticized(!)

I quickly asserted that, contrary to some opinions, he was not Jesus, and then took the conversation to the place that had initiated my anger.

“President Obama is the Commander-in Chief of the Armed Forces.  There are many young men--teenagers some of them--who are sleeping on the ground, who haven’t had showers for weeks and they are doing so under his orders.  Many of these men have seen their friends blown to bits and some may have that happen to them or may come home minus a body part.  If they can put up with that, don’t you think that their Commander-in Chief can put up with a little criticism?”

“You’re right, he can.”

“Is your church praying for any of them?”

Why are all of these people treating the putative Leader of the Free World as if he’s a puling infant?  Oh wait.  He is.

Real Reality Check

The White House government site used to be a dignified place.  Now it's merely just another host server for a blogger to go to "war" with a cable news station and one of its hosts, Glenn Beck.

Meanwhile, more of our tax dollars go down the tubes as the President and the First Lady (and Oprah Winfrey) go to Copenhagen for an unsuccessful strong-arm attempt at getting the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to award the 2012 2016 Olympics to Chicago.  The IOC: "not only no but hell no and we'd rather go to Rio."  (I've been to Chicago many times and I don't blame them--and that's just about summer weather.)

Don't you have something better to do, Mr. President?

Oh and you're giving a speech at 12 PM PDT.  What a novelty!

Told Ya So

Told ya so (August 1, 2007).

This is the deal: if we leave Iraq prematurely, bailing out of Afghanistan will shortly follow. If that happens things will get worse here—and I’m not just referring to the terrorists. Because if the terrorists either follow us home or the ones already here get the signal to act, the Left—who continues to ignore all the precursors to 9/11 and, therefore, has never believed Islamists when they say that their only goal is to kill, convert or subdue the world to Islam--will find a way to blame that on Bush and, yes, on the military.

And if that happens, we're all screwed.

Told ya so (August 20, 2007).

And yes, [the Leftists] want us out of Afghanistan too, no matter what they say.

Told ya so (February 25, 2008).

Don't forget, both Senators Clinton and Obama want us out of Iraq immediately and I contend that they're building up to calling for the withdrawal from Afghanistan--that's what Obama's contention regarding ammo shortages in Afghanistan was about. He heralded the beginning of a narrative.

Told ya so (April 15, 2008).

[T]he anti-war Left is building up to the point at which it can characterize Afghanistan in the same manner as it has done with Iraq—as a lost cause. I’ve seen the rhetorical beginnings of it here and there (and I think [AP chairman Dean] Singleton's aborted question was part of that) but no one prominent is ready to say it straight out. The foundation hasn’t been sufficiently laid yet.

I say that the overt denigration of our efforts in Afghanistan is on the way (and, no, it won’t have to make sense). Why? Because every Bush effort must be demonized and scrapped--every single one, even the so-called righteous War.

The Bush edifice must be torn down. Feel free to tell me that I'm wrong.

Told ya so (September 22, 2009 by Allahpundit).

Serious question about their “good [Afghanistan] war” lie: Was it really a lie if no one was fooled? [snip]

Feigning support for a mission launched in response to 9/11 to win an election is one thing; shrugging about it afterwards is another, and goes way, way beyond “blithe” unless you’re a stalwart dove or the type of see-no-evil sucker who laps up leftist canards about how Sunni and Shiite jihadists would never work together. But save the outrage: The lesson to draw, especially if you’re an independent, is that Democrats can’t be trusted to prosecute even a “good war,” even if it’s one that they explicitly promised to prosecute. Internalize that point, because I promise, it’s being internalized in Iran and Russia as I write this.

I Can't Decide (UPDATED)

European "vacation":

According to reliable sources, Obama administration officials are on their way to Poland and the Czech Republic to deliver very bad news. The administration intends to cancel completely the missile defense sites that had been promised to these governments by the previous administration. This represents a complete capitulation to Russia's Vladimir Putin, who had demanded that the proposed deployments be halted as a price for improved relations. Ironically, the Obama administration, which is appeasing Russia in the hopes that Moscow will help put pressure on Iran, has made this mammoth concession just a few days after Moscow declared that it had no intention of supporting sanctions against Iran.

So is it racist to think that this last foreign policy move is either the result of mind-boggling stupidity and incompetence or that it's merely the latest tactic in a long line of tactics pointed toward one explicit purpose: to leave this country severely weakened in both the foreign and domestic spheres?

UPDATE: Eastern European missile defense scrapped.

"After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs of staff [sic] to strengthen America's defenses against ballistic-missile attack," President Barack Obama said in an announcement Thursday morning. [snip]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to abandon the Bush administration's plans came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat posed by Iran.

Mr. Gates said intelligence experts concluded the short- and medium-range missiles were "developing more rapidly than previously projected" in Iran. The findings are a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January.

Russia and Iran win. 

Russia on Thursday welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened last November to station tactical Iskander missiles on Poland's border if the U.S. system was deployed.

"The Bush plans on the missile defense as we knew them until now were nothing more than a provocation of security in the European region," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in a phone interview.

Do we lose? Time will tell.

Is it racist to say that President Obama doesn't care about preserving the reputation of American reliability, fidelity and integrity? Is it racist to think that the president wants to leave Poland and the Czech Republic open to the schemes and plans of both Russia and Iran?

I think we're past the point of caring whether it is or not.

An All-Purpose Cudgel

…is the Billy-club labeled ‘racist.’ By using it to hit an ideological opponent, the wielder of this blunt instrument never has to provide a substantive defense of his/her position. 

And because many black Americans and other minorities have been well-indoctrinated with the notion that any occasion during which they do not get their way is due to the...ahem...tinge of racism, many such persons are all too ready to beat the Other over the head with it.  Don't believe me?  Ask people like my brother-in-law, Mark--the archetypal White Cop of all your racial nightmares.  He constantly receives the blows of this cudgel, all while refraining from mentioning how much it would surprise his wife and children to know how much he hates black people.  (I'm surprised that Mark's second-born—the family comedian--hasn't whipped out the race card in jest at his dad.  He’ll get around to it.)

I would say that those who hurl the racism epithet toward critics of President Obama don’t expect the charge to make sense. Sense isn’t necessary due to the fact that the racist label has become such an effective destroyer of careers and reputations in the last thirty-five years.  Thus do the accusers expect the charge to have the same power that it has had over that time period. It’s the Tar Baby of tar babies, ironically enough, and woe to the white human being who is unfortunate enough to be stuck to it.

For the sycophants of President Obama specifically, crying racism has become an easy way to avoid addressing  his long-articulated leftism, his incipient fascism, his lawlessness, his mendacity and his general executive incompetence his studied indifference toward adhering to proven executive practices, even his own stated methods.

But what happens when this weapon is used too much?  What happens when every single criticism of the first ever POTUS of African descent is chalked up to racism and the criticism is never adequately addressed or even addressed at all?

People start ignoring the epithet, begin to lose the fear of being smeared and continue to stand against an administration who seeks to change this country for the worse.

If it’s racist to protest when a thief has his hand in your pocket, then count me in.  And, new visitors, before you link or comment on the last statement and make a fool of yourselves, read my About page.

Just say no to "redistributive change" aka banditry.

The Herding

Jon Voight: "Is the Obama Administration trying to foment a second civil war?"

Answer: Yes.  I said this would be the goal over a year ago.

That’s what this is about.

President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.

The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.

And this (assist by Big Media).

On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally...wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip....there are questions about whether this has racial overtones....white people showing up with guns." Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.

And this (assist by the Speaker of the House).

And tangentially this.

The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

And this. 

It isn't enough to claim, as President Obama has done, that Afghanistan's vital to our national security. It isn't. Neither he nor his befuddled advisers can explain convincingly what the payoff will be for investing more blood and treasure.

And even this.

If you’re planning a garage sale or organizing a church bazaar, you’d best beware: You could be breaking a new federal law. As part of a campaign called Resale Roundup, the federal government is cracking down on the secondhand sales of dangerous and defective products. [SNIP]

The crackdown affects sellers ranging from major thrift-store operators such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army to everyday Americans cleaning out their attics for yard sales, church bazaars or — increasingly — digital hawking on eBay, Craigslist and other Web sites.

Three words: Black Liberation Theology. "Voters wanted Martin Luther King, Jr., and are hearing more an Al Sharpton."-- Victor Davis Hanson

It's Marxism with a racial pride tinge to it, if you’ll pardon the pun. Remember the assertions of its founder James Cone about the god he would choose to serve.  

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black community. If God is not for us and against White people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of Black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the Black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.

And that conjured deity is the same one which President Barack Obama seems to serve--his actions, especially regarding the DOJ and the New Black Panthers are  right in line with this I-deology. However, there is no god but an inconveniently not-black and Jewish and quite dead Karl Marx and Obama is his messenger.

But, as a matter of fact, it doesn't matter since the projected and desired end would be the same. Oh sure, the president wants to set white against black--and, with some, he doesn’t have to work too hard.  This isn't a policy, however; it's merely an old Marxist tactic.  Black Liberation Theology, which invites its adherents to adopt it as a whole way of leading life, is itself, merely an elaborate tactic designed to appeal to the racial vanity of some and to the racial anger/revenge fantasies of others.

Here's what the actual policies of this administration are--and yes, there are only two real ones: to foment chaos—the type of chaos which would require a little-s savior—and to reduce escape options.  And the subsequent policies of that savior--the ones not yet evident; the ones which we can only guess at--will indeed stop the chaos from progressing.  

While we don't know what these policies are yet, there is one thing that we can be pretty sure about: this savior’s yet-unknown policies would clamp down on big-L Liberty so tightly that none of us would recognize the United States in which we live at present. At that leads us to the raison d'etre, the ultimate goal: the seizure of absolute power. And that is the objective, the long-term goal. All else is secondary.

The means to that end, however, are once again, to foment chaos and reduce escape options.

Remember that these people—Leftists--have had plenty of practice at inflaming emotions and some of the most easily inflamed are those who hold race up as their totem of self-worth (it’s because they have so few other totems from which to choose.) Our president is a very well-trained Leftist and he will use this tool to stir up old grievances and imagined insults.  Heck, he already has.

Don’t fall into the trap that this Sower of Discord has set for you.  Don’t allow yourselves to be herded.  That means you, black people…and you, white people…and all the rest of you.

(Thanks to Andrew Breitbart, David Horowitz and Glenn Reynolds)

UPDATE: And this.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

Lawlessness Revisited

Michelle Malkin on the White House Drop-a-Dime Program:

 

This week, President Obama’s health care overlord launched a taxpayer-funded initiative to recruit an Internet Snitch Brigade that will combat “disinformation about health insurance reform.” As the White House explained in a special online bulletin:

 

“These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag[-at]whitehouse[-dot-]gov.”

 

What will health care czar Nancy DeParle do with this information? Where will it be stored? Who has oversight of the czar’s powers, budget, and personnel? Concerned citizens, alas, will have a hard time tracking down the “Office of Health Care Reform” created by executive order in April. There is no central website for the office, no direct channel for transparency, and no congressional accountability.

 

At least one member of Congress has started asking questions. Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn sent a letter to President Obama demanding that he disband the Internet Snitch Brigade immediately: “By requesting citizens send ‘fishy’ emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email, addresses, IP addresses and private speech of U.S.citizens will be reported to the White House,” Sen. Cornyn wrote. “You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program.”

 

By take the authoritarian action of asking others to rat out their friends and acquaintances and enemies merely for having a different opinion than he does, President Obama has put himself in a bind.   Stemming from the debacle that was Watergate, it is  illegal for any agency of the federal government to maintain personal data on persons who are merely exercising their God-given (not government-given) rights.  

 

(e) Agency Requirements.— Each agency that maintains a system of rec­ords shall—…

(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;

However, since Drop-a-Dime was implemented days ago, the White House has likely been gathering countless bits of data on countless citizens and guess what?  It is also illegal for the White House to dispose of correspondence data.

 

Well.  Now that I think it through a bit more, the White House isn’t in such a bind after all.  See, it should be obvious by now that this Administration can, has and will override law and protocol without having to brave the protest of the institutions designated to constrain it, Senator Cornyn notwithstanding.

 

Because our leaders have failed us or have been rendered nearly powerless, it has been up to the People to push back against the Great Burglary of the U.S. economy, its latest incarnation being Healthcare Reform or Health Insurance Reform or whatever it’s being called today.  But like any other thief, these Thieves get angry when you don’t just allow them to mug you or snatch your purse.  They will try to beat you down.

Kenneth [Gladney]  was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an [Service Employees International Union] representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.

 

Krav Maga here I come.  The Israelis always make good stuff.

 

A physical attack by Union thugs may seem vastly different from the collection and holding of data about peaceful dissenters by the highest government official in the land but the difference lies only in scope.  The two concepts spring from the exact same ideological origin: the origin of entitlement.  The Obama Administration is entitled to all the power that it can gather and wield, the will of the People be damned and the law of land be damned. Oh and God-bestowed rights?  Well "god-d*mn them" too.

 

Is it clear to all what we’re dealing with here?  No, I don’t think that it is.  But one day, sooner than anyone can imagine, no one will be able to deny what’s been right in front of their eyes all along.

 

(Thanks to Bill Wilson)

PREVIOUSLY: Lawlessness

 

UPDATE: "I don’t want the folks who created the mess [sic] to do a lot of talking" --President Barack Obama

 

 

With all due respect, Mr. President, when it comes to the redress of grievances by American citizens to their government, what you want is irrelevant. These questions remain, however: what will you do and how far will you go to get what you want--in this and all other matters of gaining and holding onto power? 

(Thanks to Hot Air)

This is His Moment (UPDATED)

Haven’t you all figured it out by now?  It’s been six months of Groundhog Day with a twist: everyday we wake up to some new piece of jaw-dropping news regarding the short-term tactics and/or long term strategies of this Administration with all having one objective in common. 

There have been strategies like

• The Stimulus—ballooning the national debt to ten trillion dollars.
• Cap and Trade—making it more expensive for energy companies to use coal, which, in turn, will make it more expensive for individuals to use energy;

and tactics such as the

• Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to ignore the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case, reminiscent of the bad old days but with the players reversed.
• President Obama’s decision to insert himself in Cambridge, Massachusetts police business and further stir the racial pot.

And the last two examples have occurred in only the past few weeks.  President Barack Obama’s January 20, 2009 Inauguration found an America that was financially staggered by a slow-acting congressionally-induced poison called the Community Reinvestment Act and, since that date, the Democrat president, the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate and Democrat-controlled House of Representatives have done everything in their power—and some things far outside of their scope of power--to slip America its death blow.

Oh, you don’t believe that?  You think that I’m talking out my nether regions, right?  After all, why would anyone hate this country enough to want to destroy it—especially those who are in charge of running it?

This is why. It is obvious that the Left hates freedom and the choices inherent in the concept of freedom—the freedom to chronically lose. 

As I’ve said before (heh), losers cannot behave like winners even when they win.  They still covet those God-given blessings with which winners are endowed and still must make winners pay for ever having won—for there being such concepts as ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ in the first place.  For such people—for President Obama--the God-blessed America is the ultimate villain. ("Naw, naw, naw...God-d*mn America!!!")

I receive an email yesterday from the president’s old campaign site, the title being “This is the Moment.” (Hmm, is there an echo in here?) It is President Obama’s moment indeed: to see if the will of the people can be overridden and if direct access to a blood vessel of the American economy can be opened up by government; direct and legislated access to your money and mine, direct access to our very lives—in order to bleed us.

And if the we the people resist being jacked by the government, if we speak out, we will be ignored first (April 15 and July 4 Tea Parties), then ridiculed with particularly crude sexual references, then demonized. Then come the threats.  What will come after that? 

Know this: this government wants to control everything about the lives of all American citizens. All of us. And it has set forth the means to do this in all of the legislation that has come before the Senate and the House in this session. (I’m guessing that many of these schemes had long been composed while the authors waited for the right climate to dust them off.) The HealthCare/Health Insurance “Reform”— ObamaCare--is the crowning jewel of government-sanction larceny, however.  That’s why the president and his allies in the legislative branch are trying to get it done so fast.

But too many American citizens are objecting to having their pockets picked for this government’s taste.  All over the country, people are very vocally objecting to—and even laughing derisively at-- proposed thievery and government-sanctioned tyranny and doing so via more Tea Parties and in Townhall meetings in the face of their shocked Democrat congressional representation and at least one executive branch honcho, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. 

How dare the serfs not hand over our money and our lives without backtalk!

And, as a result of the vocal assertion of the First Amendment Right to redress the government for grievances, the government has taken its most chilling step yet—at least for today.  The White House has created a special informant email address: flag-at-whitehouse-dot-com.  About whom are correspondents to inform?  Why, about all those who publicly oppose government-run health care and who transmit oppositional information via email or via blogs--which covers almost all Republicans and, judging from the polls and from some videos of townhall meetings, not a few Democrats.  See, many of the latter draw the line at their own pockets as well.

I guess what I’m wondering is this:  what is the White House going to do with all of the information it gathers from the informants?

What comes next?

(Thanks to Instapundit, to Hot Air and to Jim in Fremont)

 

ANOTHER DOSE OF POISON: Toxic.

 

The Obama administration is considering an overhaul of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would strip billions in bad loans and create a new home-loan organization, according to a report from the Washington Post.

Government officials told the Post that the firms' bad debt would be given to new government financial institutions that would then be responsible for collecting on the debts.

It's the Community Reinvestment Act Revisited.  If you're not convinced that Barack Obama is trying to destroy the US economy, you will be.  Here's hoping that it isn't too late.

 

It's As If They're Trying to Provoke an Attack at Home

The House of Representatives will investigate the Sheepdogs…

WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says his panel will investigate whether the CIA broke the law by not telling Congress earlier about a secret [non-operational] program to deploy hit teams to kill individual al-Qaida members.

As the Wolves nibble at the edges…

JAKARTA, Indonesia — Homicide bombers posing as guests attacked American luxury hotels in Indonesia's capital and set off a pair of blasts Friday after evading hotel security, smuggling explosives into the Marriott and assembling the bombs in a room on the 18th floor, where an undetonated device was found after the explosions.

The bombers had stayed at the hotel for two days and set off the blasts in restaurants at both hotels. The blasts killed eight people and wounded more than 50, authorities said. At least eight Americans were among the wounded.

And what is this horse manure?

A senior U.S. official told ABC News the [Jakarta] attacks came as a "surprise."

A second U.S. counter-terrorism official said the CIA and other intelligence agencies had given no indication to the White House of "any threat reporting in the last 18 months" involving the Indonesian al Qaeda affiliate, Jemaah Islamiyah.

And if some fine, upstanding CIA operative had blasted the suicide bombers before they self –detonated, would the House be gearing up to investigate him and his superiors right now?

I dreamed I saw a great wave climbing over green lands and above the hills. I stood upon the brink. It was utterly dark in the abyss before my feet. A light shone behind me but I could not turn. I could only stand there, waiting.

--Lord of the Rings

Yes we're all waiting--waiting for that grand betrayal. It will be in the Spirit of the Times.

(Sheepdog/wolf metaphors courtesy of Bill Whittle)

The Word for the Day is 'Pusillanimous'

As in "how pusillanimous the Democrats are to appease our enemies and to go after those who would protect us from harm."

Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo has more. And for the pusillanimous among you, there is harsh language to be heard.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

Pattern: Masters

So U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice is pondering an investigation of the CIA and of Former Vice President Dick Cheney for some sort of crime when the man possibly directed the organization to even ponder making a direct hit on America’s enemies? And the particulars of said program were made public by the New York Times in 2002?

But didn’t this same Department of Justice decline to prosecute blatant voter intimidation perpetrated by the “New Black Panther Party” in Philadelphia—the exact same sort of voter intimidation which was practiced in the South against black Americans prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

I guess it really does come down to who is doing the crime with these people. Any sort of principle or morality is never even considered. Such must, of course, be grounded in truth.

And don’t forget the revenge motive, because these “inconsistencies” are always about that.

One more pattern observed: AG Holder pretends that his putative investigation is against the wishes of President Obama in the same manner that U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pretends that her own crusade to show photos from the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program and from Abu Ghraib are against the president’s wishes. Bull cookies. The two are merely acting on the president’s orders and taking the heat which he doesn’t have the stones to shoulder. These actions—and all the others—are done with President Obama’s approval, make no mistake about that. Delegation of authority isn’t part of a Leftist philosophy.

(Thanks to Karl at Hot Air)

Late and Short

An offhand remark from the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces issued while he's not even on American soil:

I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.

Is this statement on the White House site?  The statement about the Tiller murder was.

It's well past the point where President Obama has to front as if he cares about those whom he commands.  However, this afterthought is almost worse than saying nothing at all.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)

Troll Cries for Help

It's so sad.

Faithlessness in Little Things (UPDATED)

So done with McCain.

He was supposed to be the Herald of a different tone coming to DC and Governor Palin was symbolic of that difference. His honorable military service was supposed to be emblematic of his fidelity to this country. But he couldn't even cover the six of his second-in-command for the non-shooting war--the 2008 presidential campaign. Here's what he said about the Palin "leaks" on the Jay Leno show last night: "These things happen."

Would it kill you, Senator, to at least denounce the childish gossip put forth by sources too cowardly to be named, too feckless to face a frontal rebuttal of their assertions?

Funny. George W. Bush spent a few years in the Texas Air National Guard and McCain spent 20+ years in the active duty Navy (counting the USNA) but Bush seems to know more about leadership, loyalty and protecting his subordinates than McCain ever learned, the Faith of his Fathers notwithstanding.

Thanks for nothing, GOP.

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE:

Melissa Clouthier:

By either 1) allowing his people to tear her down and do nothing to stop it or 2) encouraging her demise because it gives his failed campaign a scapegoat, he demonstrates either an incredible lack of discipline and leadership or a huge deficit of character. In short, this episode confirms the conservatives’ initial reservations about him.

Just sayin'.

NOT REALLY OFF TOPIC: For those of you who have daughters, make sure your girl is involved in some sort of team-based organization like softball or soccer or girl scouts--some entity in which your girl must be part of the team; someplace where she must co-exist, interact, work together with others, be lead and, eventually, lead. Why? Because your girl will be a woman someday and women need to understand things like interdependence, teamwork and loyalty. Your son-in-law will thank you and your girl willl most likely pick the type of man who would do so.

Why am I saying this? I have found that several women don't get what is so bad about McCain's actions in this matter and think that I'm asking for some form of male chivalry from him toward Palin. Too many women don't get the special relationship between the leader and the subordinate. (Trust me, I was well into my Air Force career before I got it.)

Too many women don't get the evil--yes evil--of faithlessness.

Relative Poverty

Before today, I’ve never posted anything about Barack Obama’s half-brother, George Onyango Obama, a resident of one of Nairobi's worst slums. The reason: unlike many, I don’t think that it is automatically the senator’s responsibility to support those whom he has taken no part in creating. And even if it is discovered that there was some agreement between the two brothers, it would be one made between individual adult members of a family and, therefore, none of my business.

In contrast, I took on the responsibility of supporting Obama-Kogelo School with the assistance of many others, because a public promise was made to many children. Some of these children may have the chance to fulfill the same type of dreams which Barack Obama Sr. and Philip Ochieng had a half century ago.

I do understand why some of the senator’s political opponents have made an issue of the fact that Senator Obama has done nothing to lift his younger brother up from his degraded existence, one which is light-years removed from that of a Harvard-educated lawyer and US Senator. (And now it has been discovered that the senator has an aunt on his father’s side--Zeituni Onyango--living Boston public housing.) Senator Obama is the sponsor of the Global Poverty Act (S. 2433)—a proposed law designed to feed all the hungry children of the world and funded by American tax dollars, naturally. In other words Barack Obama would legally compel Americans to give even more to the poor of the entire world even while he made the choice not to do so for his own flesh and blood. The two stances are hypocritical on their faces. Conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza thinks so as well and has been raising money for the immigration and upkeep of George Obama.

One wonders, however, if the senator, believing that he will win next week’s election, thinks that his proposal will take care of all the George Obamas and Zeituni Onyangos of the world. Senator Obama seems to think that he can solve all of the problems of this country by forcing American workers to give their proceeds to those who cannot or will not work. Why shouldn’t the ideal be applicable worldwide?

But to me, Barack Obama’s advocacy of GPA and D’Souza’s efforts to “save” George Obama represent the same sort of futility. If the parents of the world will not do enough to feed their own children and the George Obamas of the world—especially the American ones—will not do everything in their power to improve their individual situation and that of their kinsmen and their countrymen, nothing will change. All these charitable endeavors will just be like tossing money into the furnace.

With these thoughts in mind, I am thinking of disbanding Save Senator Obama Kogelo School, Inc. Because the organization is a non-profit, I am obliged to either refund the money or donate it to another charitable organization and that’s what I am likely to do next week, but I haven't made up my mind at this point.

At any rate, it is likely that the school will be built/remodeled after the election by an organization which prefers to remain anonymous to avoid the politicization of it all. And in the event of an Obama victory I suspect that Obama kinsman Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga will take it upon himself to upgrade the Obama ancestral village all around. Such is the way of countries where semi-strongman politics is present—if you win, your relatives and your hometown win also.

I almost disbanded my effort immediately after reading my father’s September op-ed on D’Souza’s actions. After all, in email, he said something similar—but less stinging--to me about my effort.

[W]here was this latter-day savior before Barack appeared in the news pages? Why is it that he's only interested in helping the relative of a celebrity, whereas hunger is rasping millions of other Kenyans?

If he were a genuine savior, wouldn't he organize an institution - like Father Grol's Undugu Society - to channel publicly collected funds to benefit more human beings? Granted, he has a right to choose to help only a single individual.

As we know, this is something I actually did do.

But in the event, why not do so privately?

How is the heck are people supposed to know that they can give to a particular charity if the holder of that charity doesn’t tell anyone about it?

My prideful response: if you all are so smart, build your own schools, feed your own countrymen. After all, Mboya’s efforts to educate Obama Sr., Ochieng Sr., and hundreds of other Kenyans back in the day seem to have borne fruit for the individual students and their American offspring, but it didn’t do much for the country that it was intended to benefit.

"You" are merely trying to embarrass the Senator. The urge in your puny mind is to convince the world that Barack is a skinflint who cares nothing about helping his own brother out of a quagmire.

That’s correct. And after the discovery of the existence of the American aunt, this image is reinforced--not because of D'Souza's actions but because of Obama's.

You are telling Americans that the man seeking their votes is a sadist whose entire paternal clan in Kenya is perishing from hunger.

Years ago, in my ignorance, I asked my father why the poor in Nairobi’s slums don’t have indoor plumbing. He never answered me. Now I think that I know the ‘whys’ of both. And, more than ever, I'm inclined to agree with Kenyan economist James Shikwati: the kindest thing that the West could do for Africa is to cease all aid. It would be a great compliment to the competence of all the ethnic groups on the continent.

I’ll post my decision next week and inform the donors.

More About Obama and the 1998 Bombings

Regarding Obama’s failure to acknowledge yesterday’s anniversary of the 1998 al Qaeda attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: I don’t think that people are grasping what an enormous oversight this is on Obama’s part.

First of all, he wants to be president of the United States—the person who pledges to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. Well, ten years ago one of our enemies foreign launched preemptive strikes against America and two of its allies, Kenya and Tanzania, with the allies taking the brunt of the attacks. It was clearly a prelude and build-up to 9/11. Second of all, Obama is descended from a citizen of Kenya.

But the acknowledgment “slipped his mind.”

Oh yes, and there was even a commemoration ceremony in DC yesterday for the fallen.

I guess it’s true that Obama and alleged relative Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga aren’t in constant communication because guess what Odinga was doing yesterday.

The fact that there has been not one public word from Obama about this is unimaginable. It's another drop on the rock.

PREVIOUSLY:

A US Presidential Candidate Remembers the Anniversary of the African Terror Attacks
Al Qaeda's 1998 Attacks on Africa

Living Among the Boors

7/27/08 around 4:15PM

I’m sick of this town. I’m sick of this state.

A man, late forties or early fifties, walked out in front of me while I was sitting in line at an In-n-Out drive-thru and while my car was rolling forward, so I said “hey could you make sure that I see you before you walk in front of me? I almost hit you.” He looked at me with a mixture of incomprehension, disgust and bluster, but said nothing. He was Latino, so I asked, “do you speak English?” He did, at least a bit. “F*ck you, b*tch.”

I watched open-mouthed as he walked over to a light-green Toyota Rav 4. As some may remember I carry a camera everywhere I go. So I got out and took his photo and took one of his vehicle. “You want my ID too?” he asked. “No," I said and walked back to my car.

He began cursing me in Spanish so I yelled back: “None of this would have happened if you had just said you were sorry! NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING IF YOU WOULD HAVE SAID ‘LO SIENTO!!’

His wife tried to block the plate but I got a photo of it when I got back in my car. So he gets out and writes down my plate number. I have veteran’s plates and two window stickers: 'United States Air Force Retired' and 'National Rifle Association.'

“You make sure you tell whoever it is that I’m a veteran of the United States Air Force protecting your right to be an A**HOLE!” This was at the top of my lungs also.

If it’s the LAPD he’s telling I should be okay, but if it’s some gang member, who knows? There is a low-level race war going on here, you know. That’s the only reason that I’m making this information public.

I won’t post his face or his plate number unless something crazy happens, but I’ve sent the images to someone I can trust.

I’m tired of people-of whatever race--who can’t even be bothered to display simple manners and who then have the nerve to get offended when you take exception to it.

Go ahead, lambaste me for this post, but I've had enough of this crap.

UPDATE:++undead says that just wearing this outfit would adjust pedestrians' attitudes appropriately.

Gee, Where Have I Heard this Before?

Jim Geraghty:

Is Obama a Socialist?

During the pre-Wrightian, Meccachurian-candidate phase, I was speculating that Obama is a Marxist. As a result, I was getting called delusional--and, occasionally, a person who was racist against whites and an apologist for Islam.

Just wanted to point that out.

How They Spent Their Fourth of July

...and the 21st century's 'Greatest Generation' follows suit: 1,215 troops re-enlist in Baghdad.

“You and your comrades here have been described as America’s new greatest generation, and, in my view, you have more than earned that description,” [MNF-I commander General David] Petraeus said. “It is the greatest of honors to soldier here with you.”

What else need be said?

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Open Request to Obama and B. Clinton (UPDATED)

Is it too much to ask for a former Commander-in-Chief and a wannabe Commander-in-Chief to stop acting like women and cease playing out little pride and ego dramas in public? (Yeah I’m a woman; what about it?)

[A senior Democrat who worked for President Clinton] told the Telegraph: “He’s been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn’t. I’ve spoken to a couple of people who he’s been in contact with and he is mad as hell.

“He’s saying he’s not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.

“You can’t talk like that about Obama - he’s the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.

Look here, boys. Actual men are out there defending your way of life from enemies foreign and domestic. It’s not necessary for every president to have served in the military, but could the two of you at least act like you’re worthy to lead them? I know it's a flocking stretch for either one of you, but try.

I'm feeling a P-word on the edge of my lips and it ain't 'presidential.'

(Thanks to Hot Air)

UPDATE: Obama kisses it. But you knew he would.

Dens of Iniquity

Screw them:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, assuming that the victim is not killed.

“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Fry Them:

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of people have been arrested and 21 children rescued in what the FBI is calling a five-day roundup of networks of pimps who force children into prostitution.

The Justice Department says it targeted 16 cities as part of its "Operation Cross Country" that caps off five years of similar stings nationwide. [snip]

Many of the children forced into prostitution are either runaways or what authorities call "thrown-aways" — kids whose families have shunned them. Officials say they are preyed upon by organized networks of pimps who lure them in with shelter or drugs, then often beat, starve or otherwise abuse them until the children agree to work the streets.

The cities targeted in this week's sting are: Atlanta; Boston; Dallas; Detroit; Houston; Las Vegas; Los Angeles; Miami; Montgomery County, Md.; Oakland, Calif.; Phoenix; Reno, Nev.; Sacramento, Calif.; Tampa; Toledo, Ohio and Washington.

However, if they don't repent, the latter will get theirs sooner or later--perhaps both.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

--Matthew 18:6

You know and I know that, like cockroaches, these vermin are only the tip of the iceberg. Yes, I mean both.

The Demonization Begins (UPDATED)

What I said in the last post is still true, but and it's due to be exacerbated by the following racist demagoguery. This is just pathetic.

[The Republicans are] going to try to make you afraid of me. 'He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?' [SNIP]

That old stuff just divides us," he said.

Obama, born to a white mother from Kansas and a black father from Kenya, has cast himself as a candidate who can bridge divides within the country, including those involving race.

Most people couldn't care less about your name and your color, Senator Obama. They fear being lead by you because you have no substantive legislative record, you're a chronic liar and, after explicitly stating that you choose your friends carefully, you have repeatedly and systematically made friends with people who hate this country.

You would "bridge the divide," Senator, by burning that bridge.

Folks, don't let this Sower of Discord shut you up.

(Thanks to HA)

UPDATE: Cassandra gets a hold of one of the senator's ID cards (note the seal):

Yes, they took mine away. Good riddance.

(Thanks to Sister Toldjah, who points out that it hasn't been the Republicans who have beaten the public over the head with Obama's race.)

UPDATE: Hi, denizens of lots of places.

UPDATE: In my comment section, someone named Kibbitzer writes:

Poor little wingnuts. Such whiners. You're going to be buried. Do you know that?

Nikita, is that you?

Poor little Nikita comes all the way over to my blog to taunt me about politics, as if winning an election were all that's at stake.

Check this out, Baby Boy. If your candidate wins, we all lose. Yes, you too. Mark my word.

Black Conservatives: Don't Fall For It

UPDATE: Joseph Phillips ended up not voting for Barack Obama.

ORIGINAL POST: One of today's Yahoo News headlines informs us that 'Black conservatives [are] conflicted on Obama campaign.' Armstrong Williams, Rep. J.C. Watts, General Colin Powell, Senator Edward Brooke and, sadly, my friend Joseph C. Phillips may be falling into the trap which I have repeatedly described--one lined with pride and with fear: pride of race and fear that Obama is the last chance for a black president to be elected. (GOPAC chairman Michael Steele isn't going for the okey doke, however; but that may be only due to his position.)

People say that women have problems thinking objectively and strategically. Well, I'm seeing a whole group of men who are having that problem. Friends, you're letting the nearness of a dream's seeming fulfillment blind you to what will likely come after that ephemeral happiness is dissipated, after the novelty has worn off: the nightmare.

And guess who will get blamed for that short-sightedness? Not just you.

With 90+ percent of black Americans voting Democrat regardless of who the candidate is, it will be bad enough as it is. But I, for one, expect you, black conservative Republican men to have enough balls to stand on principle, not on your emotions. You've shown your testicular fortitude by being publicly conservative against a tide of Identity Politics. Don't start behaving like castrati now.

Stop thinking selfishly. We're not choosing a President of Black American Dream Fulfillment; we're choosing a President of the United States.

UPDATE: Hi Lizards and Hot Airians!

Guilty Conscious

You know, it’s almost as if seeing George Bush standing in front of Israel’s Knesset as he vowed to stand with the Jewish state has driven Barack Obama and his party backers crazy. I’d most certainly believe that the latter are crazy. However, I don’t think that crazy covers the junior senator from Illinois. He knows what he’s doing.

Barack Obama rebuked Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for "dishonest, divisive" attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists, staunchly defending his national security credentials for the general election campaign.

Obama responded Friday to Bush's speech Thursday to the Israeli Knesset. The president referred to the leader of Iran, who has called for the destruction of the U.S. ally, and then said some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals — comments Obama and Democrats said were directed at them.

McCain subsequently said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with rogue leaders. [snip]

Bush did not mention Obama by name in his speech, but Obama and other Democrats said the implication was clear.

"That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and that alienates us from the world," Obama said. He vowed to turn the foreign policy debate back against both Bush and McCain, rejecting the notion that Democrats critical of the war in Iraq are vulnerable to charges of being soft on terrorism.

"If they want a debate about protecting the United States of America, that's a debate I'm ready to win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," Obama said. He blamed Bush's policies for enhancing the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas and "the fact that al-Qaida's leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan," among other failings.

Ed Morrissey:

Obviously, Bush wasn’t referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing — and I mean nothing — in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.

And Obama even contends that Bush is to blame for the ascendancy of Al Qaeda and Hamas! (Well, I guess that if one thinks that genocide-mongers and Islam supremacists can be won over by reason, then it makes sense to shape the idea of kicking their a**ses first and talking to them later as a failing.)

Michael Goldfarb:

[F]or the record, Hamas and Hezbollah are both ascendant because Israel implemented the kind of policies that Obama advocates for this country: unilateral withdrawal in the face of terrorism. If Israel had stayed in Gaza and Southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would not be in control of those respective territories. Why does Obama expect a different result when he unilaterally withdraws U.S. forces from Iraq?

And guess what? The Obama faithful will buy it just like they buy all of the other blatantly ridiculous notions and stark contradictions that come out of his mouth. He calls the tune and the believers—Democrats (langauge alert) and the senator’s adoring media--dance. Because this campaign isn't about objective Truth, but about belief and about keeping the believers riled up against the unbelievers--George Bush, John McCain, all other Republicans and those who would dispute anything that the little-m messiah says. And it's fascinating to watch the phenomenon in action.

Aside: I find it odd that Obama keeps talking about “taking our eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. Does he have something specific in mind as to what we should be doing there that we aren’t doing now? My guess is that we’ll hear more about this as soon as Obama’s campaign makes something up.

PREVIOUSLY: Obama, Bush and Preconditions

UPDATE: Bush's Covenant with Israel

As far as political reactions go, it was a weird one. President Bush gave a beautiful and moving speech in the capital of Israel to give voice to America’s solidarity with the Jewish state. He reached back to Herzl and beyond, declaring that the establishment of the State of Israel was, as the president put it, “the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people ...” “Israel’s population,” Mr. Bush said, “may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.”

So how did the Democrats react? They seized on one fragment of Mr. Bush’s speech — “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.” And the Democrats took that language as a personal affront. [snip]

Obama has said he won’t meet with Hamas, but his promise to meet with Hamas’s masters in Tehran undermines that position, as both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton have pointed out.

Where I come from, we call this the "okey doke."

(Thanks to Powerline)

The Company Barack Keeps

UPDATE: Welcome Democratic Underground Readers! And, yes this is indeed that kind of site.

A blog that regularly links to Lucianne Goldberg, National Review, Little Green Sh*tballs, Malkin, and other lesser-known RW blogs written by lesser-known RW douchebags that nobody has ever heard of.

Awww and I thought Democrats liked black people. I guess it only applies to the ones you're able to control.

*****

With good friends like Jeremiah Wright, Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, dinner at the Obama household must be a rockin' event on any given night...

♫Do a Little Dance♫

I believe [that the photo of Bill Ayers dancing on the American flag is] from Chicago Magazine, and it accompanied an article in which Ayers was peddling his terrorist memoir, Fugitive Days.

At the time this photograph was taken, Obama and Ayers were serving together on the board of the Woods Fund. It was in 2001 when Ayers donated $200 to Obama's State Senate campaign fund.

♫Make A Little Love♫

What I do recall is that when I was getting ready to leave Ayers told me I couldn’t go until I slept with his roommate and his brother. At this point Bill and I had slept together just once. I was sexually inexperienced, having had only one serious boyfriend with whom I had recently broken up.

At first I thought Ayers was joking. I got up; and went to the door. He moved quickly to block me at the doorway. He locked the door and put the chain on it. I went to the couch and sat down and told him that I had no intention of having sex with his roommate and his brother or him. He said that I had no choice but to do as he said if I wanted to get out of there. He claimed that I wouldn’t sleep with his married roommate because he was black -- that I was a bigot.

♫Get Down Tonight!♫

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.)

How to judge the social and political judgment of the man who says he has the Superior Judgment? Simple.

Obama is ♫ Your Boogie Man!♫

I'm here to do whatever I can.
Be it early morning, late afternoon
Or at midnight. It's never too soon
To want to please you,
To want to keep you
To want to do it all, all for you
I wanna be your, be your rubber ball.
I wanna be the boy ya love most of all. Oh yeah.

if you're a Leftist.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ and apologies to KC and the Sunshine Band)

Taking "Dictation"

Mary Mitchell at the Chicago Sun-Times plays a recognizable game:

There is no institution in the black community more respected than the black church. And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.

This tactic is becoming old—pretending that criticism or disagreement is “dictating.” Mitchell wouldn’t know an actual dictator if Robert Mugabe walked up to her and introduced himself.

Yes, Ms. Mitchell, white pundits and any other pundit in this country can and will criticize what anyone one publicly declares, especially when the declaration is televised. (And since when did PBS studios, the Detroit chapter of the NAACP and the National Press Club or even Trinity United Church of “Christ” become the “black church?”) When any pundits start advocating that Reverend Wright be fined or confined for his words, then it’s time for you to start whining complaining. Not before. And if some black people are “repulsed,” that’s their problem. Grown folks expect criticism; children in adult bodies mistake criticism for being dictated to. "Don't tell me what to do!!! You're not my mama!!!"

As much as I want to see Obama make history by becoming the first black man to be elected president, I don't want to see a warrior like Wright denigrated to prove to white voters that Obama is not a radical.

When Obama denounced Wright's angry words but refused to disown him, it signaled that he understood the sensitive tightrope he is being forced to walk.

His "outrage" over Wright's latest remarks signals something quite different. With the gap narrowing, Obama advisers are obviously scrambling for every white vote.

But really, what more should blacks have to sacrifice? Their dignity?

Frankly, Obama and Wright risk becoming metaphors for the ongoing struggle of blacks to unite politically.

Obama shouldn't have held a press conference to deal with Wright.

He should have been able to pick up the phone.

Sigh.

My boyfriend and I concurred that Obama's nomination will split this country--even if he loses to McCain in the general election. Prior to a few months back, BF had not known about most of the senator's short-comings--my honey's a busy man--and, in spite of being a conservative, he had wanted his sons to see the example of a black man becoming POTUS in order to plant the idea that, perhaps, they could shoot for that goal as well. And he's not the only black man I've heard express this desire.

I think that too many Americans of all races--but especially black Americans--still don't know enough about Obama and, even if they do, are thinking selfishly about him and not thinking strategically.

They're not thinking about the job which Obama is applying for. Hint: not to be an example to anyone's children.

My guy and I talked a lot about the subject, but the bottom line is this: Obama isn't running just to be the president of black America or to be emblematic of black pride. (That he would be the latter is beside the point.) He's not running in order end the "ongoing struggle of blacks to unite politically." (Did you see my eyes roll just now?) He's running to be the leader of all Americans.

People like Mitchell can’t quite wrap their minds around this concept. That’s why she can speak approvingly of Wright, expect Obama to defer to him and expect whites to be silent about it all in the same op-ed.

Along with holding the subconscious notion that Obama should abide by the rules of black solidarity, many black Americans seem to be desperately clinging to Obama as if he’s the last best hope for a black American to become POTUS for the next hundred years. As if, among millions of other Americans who are black, there’s not one person who would be a likely candidate in the next few elections. No one. So “we” have to latch on to this one right now, regardless of what the rest of the country wants, regardless of the sparsity of the man’s political record and regardless of content of this man’s character and the demonstrable quality thereof.

• This man is for pulling out of Iraq and against it.
• This man is against NAFTA and for it.
• He barely knows Tony Resko but has financial dealings with him.
• He barely knows terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn but has been a guest in their home and has worked with the former.
• His pastor and spiritual adviser for 20 years—the same man who baptized him, performed his marriage ceremony and baptized his children—espouses a human-centered, racial supremacy (per)version of Christianity, but he never knew anything about it. And, suddenly, the man never was his spiritual adviser.

People like Mitchell want you to stop "dictating" to Obama and Wright and want you to roll over in the manner that a dog will do to show subservience to the "tide of history" and, interestingly enough, she wants Obama to do the same for Wright.

Trust me, the phrases “first black American POTUS” and “black pride” will ring hollow in the ears of us all if this Sower of Discord is nominated and it will even more so if he is elected. And only a fool—or a racist--would expect those who love this country to be silent about it.

(Thanks to Omnibus Driver)

View From Under The Bus (UPDATED)

20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
--Matthew 7:20-21 (KJV)

Finally, I’ve finished listening to all of the Moyers interview and the batty NAACP address by Barack Obama's pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright. And, in addition, I rewatched that display of ego, half-truths—aka falsehoods--and mundane bad manners from Fox that first ran live yesterday morning. And, of course, I listened to the original sermons which brought the reverend's teachings under large-scale public scrutiny. Could you have put up with Wright’s posturing in the pulpit for twenty years? Confidence and peacockery can be entertaining as long as you know and are consistently reminded of where the focal point is—or, in this case, Who it is.

I heard Wright—the self-proclaimed Christian, preacher of the Word—mention the actions and methods of Jesus Christ and those of some who purport to be his followers. (I also heard him claim that abortion was a right.) But what Wright did not talk about was the purpose of Jesus Christ and of course he wouldn't. Because that’s where Liberation Theologies and mainstream Christianity part company. That's a crucial fork in the road; one leads to Damnation while the other does not. But don’t take my word for it. You decide.

I'll tell you what: I've never heard such a long line of strawmen strung together and wrapped up in the Word of God in my life--someone at another site call it a 'Lie Burrito'--but I only have enough time to address a few items.

Excuse my English (and pardon the pun) but who gives a DAMN about skin color, type of clothing and style of music when it comes to the realm of saving souls and keeping them out of Hell? Why, Wright and BLT’s “founder” James Cone do. As a matter of fact they worship these things instead of the Creator. Wright rightfully claims that Christian missionaries of Europe fell into error and sin back when they were bent on converting the natives of all lands. Not by the act and desire of leading others to Christ, but by making Christianity about something other than Him, His Sacrifice, Resurrection and the purpose thereof. The missionaries bound up Christ in themselves and their own culture. But Wright now is mired that same error while condemning the missionaries for it out of the other side of his mouth. Beams and motes indeed.

Guys like Jeremiah Wright care about self-centric totems of race, culture and vengeance more than they care about leading their flocks down the straight and narrow path. They need these totems to fill the void of self-doubt and that need is filled by navel-gazing religions like Black Liberation Theology and one of its parents, the Nation of Islam. Yes, BLT is a progeny of the NOI, Christianity and Marxism—a bastard child, to be sure. It’s an I-deology all right and Wright has sacrificed the eternal souls of those who believe his lies and are grateful for his good works. He has sacrificed these upon the altar of race and culture. (My own pastor says that God has special plans for shepherds—pastors—who mislead their flocks.)

Wright's megalomania is such that he couldn’t even bring himself to hold his peace for Obama’s sake—that’s one of problems inherent in allying oneself with narcissists—and even had the nerve to be guarded by the Fruit of Islam, Daddy’s the Nation of Islam’s security force.

The most infuriating thing about Wright is his attempt to cover himself using other black people, black Christians, by saying that attacks on him weren’t really about him but about the ‘black church.' And then he wants to fling around epithets like "Uncle Tom."

Let's be clear. Neither blackness, African, American or European origin, American nationality or American allegiance need a defense because such a defense would inherently be just as erroneously-focused as Jeremiah Wright's jeremiad. Ethnic origins aren’t things to be defended, denigrated or repudiated or sworn allegiance to--my own heritage stems from this continent and two other continents--these things simply are; these facts are existential. Nationality is special: it’s existential but can also be voluntarily retained or released. And allegiance to any entity is entirely voluntary, but no one has to prove his/her allegiance to this country as part and parcel of a repudiation of an ethnicity or heritage. Those days went out with FDR.

Here’s what I do come to defend, to stand in defense of: Christianity and Christians who are black. Jeremiah Wright defames both and speaks for neither and little obscure me will not let him use either as fig leaf. Yes, our ancestors in this country and our kinsmen across the water fought to be just as Christian as other Christians—as Christian as our brothers who are white. And many of the latter stood for us and side-by-side with us—not because of us primarily but because of the One Who is Primary. Has that particular battle been won? I say yes, though the war continues. But Wright not only continues to fight the battle, he willfully misunderstands the nature of the War and identity of the Enemy. And by doing that, he becomes the tool of the Enemy. That’s his choice, but not mine and not that of those who focus on the Redemption offered by Christ instead of getting upon the Cross themselves.

To quote myself, there is no “black church.” There is only the Church.

Word to Obama: thanks a lot, "brotha." Nice pastor you have there.

UPDATE: Of course, just as I finish, Obama holds a press conference to distance himself from Wright.

Sorry, Senator. You can't shake off this Tar Baby that easily.

Ms. Malkin live-blogs it.

UPDATE: I'm getting an Everybody-lanche. Thanks. I just try to listen to the Holy Spirit.