Dawood Khan's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘barack obama’

Obama Bows Again…

In Humor, Politics, thinking out loud on November 15, 2009 at 9:11 pm

ObamaEmperorAkihitomichikomandelnganafpgty

If the Emperor bowed lower then protocol was followed as the US is the more powerful Nation.

In Asian cultures, the bow is a greeting and the person of lower rank bows lowest.

According to the picture, Obama is the lower rank as he is bowing lower. He screwed up.

“IF I see another king, I think I shall bite him,” Teddy Roosevelt once growled.

A US President should bow to no monarch. Period. Obama is taking this a bit too far.

Probably made the Japanese people love him. Is that worth the votes that these moves will ultimately cost him at home.

Everyone knows who the real power in the room was.

As long as Obama knows it as well.

Too many more moves like this are going to start adding up and cost him in the next election. Is his staff full of imbeciles or is Obama this stupid? One has to wonder. This makes me seriously question his judgment. He seems seriously naive as to how this makes him look in the World.

What next? Will Obama start lowering the Colors to every passing Nations Flag as well.

This is the move of a leader of a subordinate Nation. Not an equal or superior, but, a subordinate nation.

Does Obama realize this? Is his staff full of retarded people?

Democrat president Barack Obama bows to the Saudi king

Above, President Obama bows to the King of Oil.

The Era of Entitlement ~ From Bush Sr to Obama

In Politics, Quotes, thinking out loud on October 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. …

Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’”

–Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

This could be written of our era.  Starting with the fall of the Soviet Union to the election of Obama.  The American people are interested in only one thing.  One thing only.

“What can the government do for me?”

I hear no one asking what can I do for myself.

We have become a nation of the entitled.

This is the road to hell.

NRA Firearms Salesman of the Year — 2009

In Politics, Quotes, thinking out loud on May 14, 2009 at 2:55 pm

image001

Classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences…

The Pedge of Allegiance and Red Skelton

In Politics, culture on November 14, 2008 at 7:22 am

Red Skelton explains the Pledge of Allegiance and asks the obvious question.

http://silveropossum.homestead.com/RedSkelton/skelton.jpg

Red Skelton was right.  There is now a group of self-destructive madmen who are against the Pledge.  I find these folks to be despicable.  Something like 80% of America believes in God or a God.  Most of the 80% identify themselves as Christian.  How can a small group of folks who probably comprise less than 5% of Ameria demand that the majority of Americans respect their petty beliefs when they do not themselves respect any beleif system save their own.  These folks are bigots and bullies in my opinion.  Loud mouthed fools who expect the rest of the country to observe and respect their rights.  Yet, they respect no other.  This is not America.

I am of the opinion that people need to believe in something greater than themselves.  Otherwise, we become individuals bent on self-preservation and/or self-glorification only.  I don’t think that we should become a post-Soviet megalith wherein the State is the God and the means and end all in one.  People need to believe.  There is no purpose to our existence if we do not have something.

I am not a Christian.  That said, I do not begrudge the Christian their beliefs or their majority.  I share some beliefs in common with the Christians.  I simply do not believe that they have all of the answers or in some cases the correct answers.

I feel the same about Islam.

I identify more closely with Buddhism.  Though, I claim neither the right nor the need to call myself a Buddhist.

Why the problem with the pledge or the words “under God.”   Those words affirm ones allegiance to the collective group of individuals who claim to be Americans.  “Under God” merely affirms our belief that we are a special Nation.  I find nothing offensive in that.  How else to explain our rise as a nation and the manner in which millions seek to become members of our nation.

We are a special.  We were formed under the watchful eye of providence.  We will continue to be special so long as we believe ourselves to be such.  We cannot as a nation fall away from the belief that the United States of America is a nation with a destiny.  We must believe.

In light of our election of Barack Obama, this destiny continues.  We have elected a minority to head the most powerful nation on the planet.  This once racist nation has risen above the old pettiness and divisiveness to elect one who belongs to a race which was at one time not allowed to make eye contact with it’s “masters.”  America has thrown off racism with this move.  We still have petty racist in America.  Surely, we do.  But they have lost in their destructive cause.  This election does irreparable harm to them.  And rightly so.  It also proves that America can super her own worst defects and weaknesses as a people and drive to a more perfect union of her citizens.

If we can rise above this, we can rise above all else.  America must believe in herself.

We must believe.

We must.

Michelle Obama was Angry — “Whitey is still holding us down…” or was “he” (Re-visited)

In Politics, culture on November 9, 2008 at 2:14 am

I posted the original article and commentary about Michelle and Whitey almost a year ago.  It’s garnered quite a bit of interest.

image001

Barack Obama is the man of the hour in US and World Politics.  He is the President-elect.  How does Michelle feel about her comments now about bars being set and raised now.  She was wrong then and she is wrong now.  The bar was set high on purpose.  No one should be handed the office of President of the United States of America.  Not Barack Obama.  Not anyone else.  (Not even George W. Bush for all of you who will zone in on Dubya.)  Barack Obama has won the election.  The American people have won this election.

My feeling on this issue is that many American Blacks do not see and experience America as it is today.  Too many experience their lives through the past.  They see America through the prism of America 20 and 30 years ago.  Many Black Americans are living with the racist history and past of America as if it is a friend or a childhood blanket that they can’t quite let go.  Before anyone starts, I realize that racism, discrimination and prejudice exist today.  Yet, it is nowhere near as common as it was 30, 20 even 10 years ago.

Also, those problems exist on all sides of the racial/color divide.  I’ve witnessed Black racism towards Whites, Asians and Hispanics.  I’ve witnessed White racism towards the same.  I’ve witnessed Asian racism towards Blacks, Whites and Hispanics.  I’ve seen these people all practice racism in one form or another against Arabs and others as well.

So what?  It exists. You live your life and work around it.  It will always exists.

There are extreme liberal prejudices against Christians.  There are extreme conservative prejudices against Homosexuals.  Many folks are prejudiced against Muslims due to the dangers posed by Islamic Extremism.

It’s there.  It will always be there.  Tough.

Growing up.  I was discriminated against because I was poor.  When I was 19 and in Germany in the Army, I was jumped by 8 Black guys for the sole reason of the color of my skin. I’ve not spent my life being resentful for this treatment.  I don’t spend my days and nights talking about “the Man” and his desire to “get me” and “hold me down.”  I go out and live and try to improve my lot in life.  In spite of the Challenges and sometimes because of the Challenges that have come my way.

Obama will become the 44th President of the United State of America on January 20th, 2009.  This would not have been possible without the vote of White Americans.  This seems to be a fact that many Black Americans overlook.  The election of Barack Obama is a victory for all Americans.  Not Black Americans or racially mixed Americans.  All Americans.  It plainly illustrates that much of White America has moved past the old racist notions that held us back as a Nation.

My question is this:

HAVE BLACK AMERICANS MOVED PAST RACISM?

Are they willing to do so? Will they?  Or will we still have to hear about “Whitey” or “those damn Crackers” or the “evil White man.” Will White America get credit in the Black Community for looking past color in this election?

This is one of the roles that Michelle Obama must take on as First Lady.  The role of healer of a nation.  Will she aid in healing the racial divide or will she exacerbate the divide?  This nation needs a healer.  I hope she steps up.  We have a chance in this nation to move past pettiness and prejudice.  We have been afforded a unique opportunity.  Let us hope that a leader will step forth and carry us forward to that day about which Doctor King and so many others have  dreamed for so long.  May we free ourselves of these chains which have held us down as a people for so long.  May people put down their hates and prejudices and look instead to the individual heart and character of a person.  This is a possibility.

I so tire of racism.  The conversation itself is wearying.

Let’s move past this America.  Let us finally free our national soul of this disease of the mind and spirit.

Michelle Obama.  Lead us on to the future.

America elects first Minority Head of State

In Politics on November 5, 2008 at 9:52 am

America elected her first minority Head of State.

Are you listening?

Europe?  China?  Asia?  Africa?  Russia?  Australia?  South Africa?

Not too many other nations of the world have elected a minority to lead their Nation in a free and inclusive election.  Key words here being elected and inclusive.

I’ve sat and listened to people from Southeast Asia and Europe tell me how Barack Obama cannot win because America is too racist.  They’ve been proven wrong.  Again.   Without the White Vote, Barack Obama would not be President.

Does racism still exist in America?  Sure.

But it is just as pervasive in the rest of the world as it is in America.  My opinion.  It’s more pervasive in places like Europe and China and Africa and Asia.  Otherwise skin whitening solutions wouldn’t be flying off the shelves in Thailand and Cambodia and China.

The rest of the world and it’s judgmental hypocrites should stand up and take notice as America leads the way once more.

It is a great day in America.  A shining moment as America once again transcends.  America stands alone in this.

God Bless our President.  May providence grant and guide President-elect Obama the wisdom to steer America to the correct course.   Long may our flag wave and shine as a beacon for the oppressed masses of the world.

As an aside, Senator McCains concession speech was magnificent.  All the right things were said.  It’s a new day.

Let’s get this right America.

We are Generation Jones

In Politics, culture on October 22, 2008 at 12:00 am
Dancing with the Stars

Dancing with the Stars

Obama is the next President of the United States of America

In Politics on October 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Barack Hussein Obama will be the next POTUS.  The latest polls show he is ahead with an estimated 350 electoral votes to around 180 for McCain.

What does this mean?

#1  The world will have to stop their decades long double standard of judging America a racist Nation.   Perhaps they will take a look at themselves for once.  Racism is alive and well in the world.  Whether it be the various genocides of Africa or the Euros and their Antisemitism or Asia and their one million ethnic hates or the Middle East and their hatred of all peoples not Muslim and their special hate reserved for the tiny nation of Israel.

(*Note:  I do not believe that all of the peoples of any of these regions harbor these hatreds. )

Of course, not all of the peoples of these regions are guilty but many of them love to point to the US and use us as justification for their hates and violence against minority peoples.  Black people in America will have to start dealing with a new reality.  A Black man in the White House ends many arguments that some folks like to use against White people.  Without the white vote, a Black President is an impossibility.  Discrimination will always exist.  But it can no longer be an excuse.

Unquestionably, Iran and their “dear leader” Ahmadinejad will push for Nuclear Weapon capability.  He knows that Barack Obama will seek to solve the issue diplomatically.  Obama will not dare seek a military resolution to the problem.  It will probably take a nuclear strike by Iran to get Obama to take a military stance on Iran.  Not that I think that this will happen.  Iran wants Nuclear weapon capability to offset the perceived threats of the US and Israel.  I don’t think anyone but a mad man will strike first with Nuclear missiles.  It would mean a sure death to the people of that Nation.  I don’t see Iran secreting nukes to Hezbollah either.  Everyone who pays attention to the Middle East knows that Hezbollah is the puppet of Iran.  It would be too obvious.

I think that we should unilaterally end all sanctions against Iran.  Our efforts for reform in Iran should be positive.  Aimed toward the people of Iran.  Same with Cuba.

I’m hoping that Obama keeps his promise and seeks to wean the US off of oil and other energy sources in the Middle East and other unstable areas and regimes.  I truly look forward to the day that we pull our support from the corrupt Wahhabi regimes of Saudi Arabia.  The Wahhabi are the genetic source of all terror groups of Sunni Islam.  The Wahhabi are also in the DNA of the Shi’a strain of terrorism.  Saudi Arabia is the funding source for Wahhabism world wide.  The House of Saud is the enemy and they are secure in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.

Hopefully, Obama shows them the door.  Let them cozy up to China and India and let those countries defend that corrupt and evil regime.

Some good could come of the Obama Presidency.

I think a Democratic victory in the White House will go a ways further towards instilling confidence in the market as well.  Will it be enough to push our economy on to the road to recovery.  Only time will tell.  Let’s hope it does.

I don’t think that Obama will be truly foolish enough to pull the troops out of Iraq too swiftly.  I just can’t believe that he would be that foolish.

If Obama wins his second term, I think that al Qaeda will attack.  Obama will return to the empty threat/speech foreign policy of Clinton.  The Wahhabi will attack the periphery at first to test the resolve of Obama and his State Department.  If Obama shows no nerve.  If he shows no willingness to strike back in a concrete manner, al Qaeda will eventually strike into the heart of America.  Perhaps a dirty bomb in a large city.  They’ll test him first in a place like Afghanistan or Kuwait.  Next, they’ll try ply their trade against a soft target in a place like Djibouti.  If Obama shows no resolve.  If he gives a speech with empty threats and follows up with nothing or aimless strikes.  The leaders of al Qaeda will begin to plan their next 9-11.

People of Liberal persuasion will deny this to their death.  But it will happen.

Either the last year of the Obama first term or the first year of the 2nd Term will see a strike.  If Obama is truly a Carter/Clinton idealistic type.

I hope that he truly is to be good for America.  I am hoping that he is as good as his followers believe. He won’t get my vote, but once he is in office he has my support.  I will wish him success.

Worst case scenario:  Obama turns out to be a Carter re-tread and 2012 sees a Republican take back the White House with a clear mandate.

For now, Obama has a mandate for change.  Here’s hoping he does something good with it.

Fact Checking Obama

In Politics on August 30, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Apparently, Obama likes to play loose with the truth.  Just like any other politician in Washington.  When will people realize that Saint Baracka is not the Messiah but the anti-Christ writ large.  He’s merely the latest socialist scum to sucker the liberals of the DNC.
FactChecking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.
Summary
We checked the accuracy of Obama’s speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

  • Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
  • He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

  • He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.
  • Obama asked why McCain would “define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year”? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, “But seriously …”
  • Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would “tax people’s benefits” but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

  • He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s “broken with his party,” has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

  • Obama said “average family income” went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn’t correct. An aide said he was really talking only about “working” families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.
Analysis

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver’s Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref’s yellow flag.

Not Quite Every Dime

Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals:

Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.
obama_convention_speechThis is misleading. Even by his own campaign’s estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won’t pay for all of Obama’s new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn’t mention that in his speech.

But Obama’s claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “without substantial cuts in government spending” Obama’s plan – and McCain’s, too –  “would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years.” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center’s analysis “fails to take in account Senator Obama’s spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war.” That’s true, but Obama’s proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center’s projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.

Afghan Muddle

Obama twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.

Obama: When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11
Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. “may” muddle through, not that weobama_convention could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was “guardedly optimistic” that the government could handle it.

McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. … There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I’m not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I’d be talking about Afghanistan. But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that – in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.

So I’m guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.
Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would “contribute” troops to the increase under McCain’s plan.

Tax Spin


Obama said: “I will cut taxes … for 95 percent of all working families.” And he said McCain proposes “not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans,” a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.

obama_convention Obama is right about his plan’s effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.

The TPC’s calculations factor in what’s in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of “loophole closings.” Individuals wouldn’t experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain’s plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck’s request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won’t be as large as TPC says. “We dispute TPC’s methodology here,” says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the “loophole closers” that Obama is proposing won’t affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.

We’d also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama’s tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.

Rich Humor


Obama used a clumsy attempt at humor by McCain as evidence of his supposed insensitivity to middle-class economic realities:

Obama: Now, I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?
obama_conventionWhat McCain actually said at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16 was that he favors low taxes for all income levels. He drew a laugh, then said, “but seriously” as he struggled to make his point:

Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number – where do you move from middle class to rich?

McCain: I don’t want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. … So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million?

(LAUGHTER)

But seriously, I don’t think you can – I don’t think seriously that – the point is that I’m trying to make here, seriously – and I’m sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.

Health Care Half Truths


Obama gave only half the story when he described a feature of McCain’s health care plan:

Obama: How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits…
McCain proposes to grant families up to a $5,000 tax credit to use for health benefits. The flip side of that proposal, which McCain seldom if ever mentions, is that the value of employer-sponsored benefits would also become taxable. Both candidates are trading in half-truths here; McCain talks only about the pleasurable side of his plan, while Obama’s speech mentioned only the painful aspect. Neither gives a complete picture.

obama_convention

Party Hearties


Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who’s supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:

Obama: And next week, we’ll also hear about those occasions when he’s broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record’s clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.
It’s true that McCain’s voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama’s own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama’s voting record is no less partisan than McCain’s. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of “breaking with his party” if Senate votes are the measure.

He Didn’t Mean It


Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that “the average American family” saw its income “go down $2,000″ under George Bush. That’s not correct. Census figures show average family income went down
$348.

As it turns out, when Obama said “average family income,” he didn’t mean “average,” and he didn’t mean “family,” either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about “working families,” not retired couples.

For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.

by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson and D’Angelo Gore

Joe Biden on Obama and McCain

In Politics on August 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm

John McCain

In Politics on August 30, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Barack Obama says “I’M BLACK YO!!!

In Politics, culture on August 28, 2008 at 4:40 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00674/obamapoll404_674786c.jpg
He’s black and that is historic.  And, well, that seems to be the only qualification that he needs to be President.  If you are a Liberal.

I’m reminded of Chris Rock anytime an Obama disciple starts to froth at the mouth about the Obaminator.  Inevitably they say something that amounts to “he speaks so well.”  I can’t help but laugh.

If one of them can name some significant piece of legislation that he sponsored and ushered to passage.  Name something that he improved in Chicago as a community organizer.

He’s said to be “bi-partisan.”  Name one time that he crossed the aisle and voted against his party.  He is THE most liberal Senator.  The #1 liberal in the Senate.  What about that speaks to a bi-partisan attitude.

He’s supposed to be eloquent.  I’ve never seen his eloquence away from a teleprompter.

But hey, he’s Black.  And that seems to be all that matters.

I agree that it is past time for the Causasian male monopoly on the White House to come to a graceful conclusion.  But can’t we get someone who is qualified.  Barack Obama and his empty slogans can not be the best option out there.  There are other folks out there who are just as qualified, if not more, as George Bush, Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain.  I know that there are capable Black men and women.  Capable Latin men and women.  Capable White women.  Capable Asian men and women.  Capable Arab men and women.  They are out there.

Barack Obama just isn’t one of them.  But hey!  He’s Black.  And that’s historic.  And that seems to be enough for the Democratic Party.  Too bad he’s Jimmy Carter Redux.  I’m sure he’ll be just as successful if he wins.

If we are who we were waiting for then we are all in trouble.

P.S.  All of you Ultra Liberals out there.  I know what you’re going to say now.  You’ll call me a racist.  Blah blah blah  Why will you do this?  Because you have no other argument.  In a Presidential race that the Democrats should win running away, you picked an empty suit as a candidate and he may not win.  That must make you guys feel stupid.  Next time, don’t pick a Marxist wannabe.  America doesn’t want to be a Socialist paradise.  And if that is your desire.  Swim to Cuba.

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/political-pictures-barack-obama-heres-hillary-nice-try.jpg

Another empty Obaminator slogan.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2291/2311174232_875780c87b_o.jpg

I know.  I know.  If you don’t support the Obaminator, you must be a racist.  That can be the only reason.  It can not be that he is a far left liberal who will take America back to being a Carter Era joke on the International scene. That’s change that I can do without.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/01/30/PH2008013002503.jpg

That’s Obama in December.  Waving goodbye to National relevance.  Joining Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry in the list of also rans.  That will be a historic moment as well.

Believe.  I do.

Against the darkness, we fight…

In Politics on August 23, 2008 at 7:55 am

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12

While Obama thinks that we shouldn’t fight against evil in this world because it’s Gods job.  I disagree.  We must do that job ourselves.  While Obama will talk and talk as they use his naivite to their advantage, real leadership must plan to thwart the plans of the masters of terror and the enemies of peace.  The Wahhabis, the Russians, Communists, despots of every stripe, Fatah, Hamas, the PLA, the deceitful Lords of Qom and all  of the rest wish for nothing more than an Obama Presidency.  Michelle Obama thinks that the real enemy is America itself.  Obama seems to agree with his numerous comments on the subject.

Obama suits the terror lords and the despots and dictators.  They know that he will talk and talk and do little else.  Much like Carter and Clinton before him.  Should Obama become President, America will be rudderless.  The evil in the world relishes the opportunities that will be the Presidency of cowardice, empty talk and Inaction that an Obama White House promises.

They fear a McCain Presidency.  Real leadership that will keep the wolves at bay.

Senator Obama off kilter without teleprompter.

In Politics on August 21, 2008 at 12:41 am

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

No Contest

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election ‘08: Last weekend’s McCain-Obama protodebate made it clear why Obama won’t keep his promise to debate McCain “anywhere, anytime.” McCain, with a robust resume and details at his fingertips, won big.


Read More: Election 2008 | Religion


It was only in May that Sen. Barack Obama cockily proclaimed he would debate Sen. John McCain “anywhere, anytime.” But in June, Obama said no to McCain’s challenge to have 10 one-on-one town hall meetings.

After what happened at Lake Forest, Calif.’s evangelical Saddleback megachurch Saturday evening, we may have found that debating is Obama’s Achilles’ heel. Whether or not you like the idea of such events being held in religious venues, the plain-and-simple method of questioning used by Saddleback pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren revealed fundamental differences between these two men.

“It’s one of those situations where the devil is in the details,” Obama said at one point. He could have been referring to his own oratorical shortcomings when a teleprompter is unavailable. We learned a lot more about the real Obama at Saddleback than we will next week as he delivers his acceptance speech in Denver before a massive stadium crowd.

The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, “in parents who have viciously abused their children.” According to the Democrat, we can’t really erase evil in the world because “that is God’s task.” And we have to “have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil.”

For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must “defeat” evil. If al-Qaida’s placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn’t evil, he asked: “You have to tell me what is.”

Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq’s scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who “had his skull fractured” by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.

When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said “drilling” — for reasons of national security and economic need.

On taxes, Obama waxed political: “What I’m trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code.” McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: “I don’t want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth.”

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama’s shallowness juxtaposed with McCain’s depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez

Best Obama Picture Yet!

In Politics on June 30, 2008 at 9:08 am

This picture captures the Cult of Saint Obama perfectly.

Barack Obama, Moveon.org and the fall of Western Civilization

In Politics on June 21, 2008 at 12:08 am

When nothing is worth fighting for…

Moveon.org and all it’s sibling movements out there are the surest sign of the apocalypse.

Not her child she says.  Not Alex.  Not a child of the Liberals who refuse to defend themselves against anyone.  The Soviets.  Terrorists.  It matters not.  I’m certain that the woman in this video will be more than willing to see other sons and daughters go off to war.  Just not her child.  That’s the problem with the Left and the Pacifists and all of those like them.  They must flee or they die.  The only societies in which it is possible to hold those ideals sacred are societies that have men and women standing at the ready to defend them.  A pacifist won’t defend himself or herself.  Thus it will always fall to others to defend these folks.  Pacifism and anti-War ideals are noble indeed.  It takes an army of fighting men and women to defend those ideals though.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill

We make war that we may live in peace.

Aristotle

Obama the Humble Savior

In Politics on June 9, 2008 at 8:59 am

The short version of the Democratic Party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to.

“I felt this thrill going up my leg,” said MSNBC’s Chris Matthews after one of the senator’s speeches. “I mean, I don’t have that too often.” Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for more than six months, see your doctor.

Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast, and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews’ vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money – over $300 million – and massively outspent Sen. Clinton, but he didn’t really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin’ down the track at 2 miles an hour.

But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton’s: If you behave like a star, you’ll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared. By the time he wrapped up his “victory” speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:

“I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation.”

It’s a good thing he’s facing it with “profound humility,” isn’t it? Because otherwise who knows what he’d be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 – the long-awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: When Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn’t want to have to use a stepladder to get up on it.

There are generally two reactions to this kind of policy proposal. The first was exemplified by the Atlantic Monthly’s Marc Ambinder:

“What a different emotional register from John McCain’s; Obama seems on the verge of tears; the enormous crowd in the Xcel Center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain’s speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers.”

The second reaction boils down to: “‘Heal the planet’? Is this guy nuts?” To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than “stilted cheers” to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together “to remake this great nation,” if it’s so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.”

I thought this was so cute, I posted it on the Web at National Review. Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Sen. Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting e-mails from reporters from Florida to Oregon, asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator, in fact, uttered these words. And I’d patiently write back and explain that they’re John Gross’ words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we “come together to remake this great nation” came awful close.

Speaking personally, I don’t want to remake America. I’m an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there’s nowhere for me to go – although presumably once he’s lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

Marc Ambinder is right. Obama’s rhetoric is in a different “emotional register” from John McCain’s. It’s in a different “emotional register” from every U.S. president – not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama’s resume suggests he’s the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” said the senator, in what’s becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn’t the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he’s known for 20 years.

Yet at the same time as he’s being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama’s convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America’s enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up, and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that “this isn’t the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew.”

Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don’t. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.

©MARK STEYN

I can’t believe that the DNC are just so many Zombies. Watching an Obama rally is much like watching a Hitler speech/rally in 1933. I keep expecting to hear; “Heil Obama!” I keep expecting books to be burned. Obama has spent the past 20 years surrounding himself with thieves, thugs, racists and anti-Americans and is now surprised that they are all falling as his fame drags his cast of misanthropic elitist scalawags to the light.

What’s most hilarious and simultaneous ugliest about the Obama-ites is the fact that anyone who disagrees with their savior or anyone who doesn’t fawn and throw themselves at the sacred Obama feet in worship is immediately decried as a racist, bigot or worse.

Obama and his followers are a huge mistake waiting to happen. The world will run roughshod over an Obama Presidency. Obama is Jimmy Carter lite. I kinda hope they get it. Jimmy Carter brought us Reagan. Perhaps Obama will bring us another great such as Reagan.

Stupid Obama?

In Politics on June 5, 2008 at 8:11 pm

For this country’s safety, we must pierce the smoke of Obama’s ‘intelligence’ at the earliest possible moment. If Obama’s smoke of obfuscation obscures long enough to gain him the White House, that fatal smoke could be blown away only to reveal a greater smoke rising from the ruins of America – a deadly smoke which next time will surely dwarf the ghostly clouds which broiled up from the burning buildings and planes on 9/11.

Barack and Michelle Obama have benefited from the greatness of America and white guilt (Affirmative Action) more than any other two people in American History. Yet, they still complain.  Perhaps, they’re just too stupid to see their fortune in having been born amongst “whitey” in the oppressive apartheid state of America.

Stupidity. Lack of Intelligence would go a great way in explaining this. I suppose the puppet masters could only hide it for so long.

Barack Obama wants to disarm America

In Politics on June 5, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Barack and Michelle Obama think that some mysterious band of nefarious evil doing “whiteys” are out there raising bars over their heads.  Yet, Barack thinks that he can deal with madmen like Ahmadinejad and the pedophile king of North Korea.  Barack is a babe in a forest full of wolves.  He’s not ready.  What more proof does one need than the video above.  Barack actually thinks that the Russians want to talk to the US about disarmament.  I don’t see it.  I suppose that he, too, can see into the soul of Putin and the Russians.

Barack wants to unilaterally disarm America. He’s of the same liberal ideology as Carter. He and the rest of the fools who believes that if we smile warmly and disarm ourselves, the rest of the world will love us.

A country with the size, resources and ambitions of America must have a solid defensive capability. What’s more. If we wish to maintain our democracy at home. We must promote democracy abroad. We must protect fledgling democracies. We must protect our interests abroad.

More than that. We must be willing to do these things. We can not shy away from the difficult decisions. Decisions of weight. Obama is not ready for them.

The man wants to shake hands with the devil and doesn’t know the price. 

This man can not be President.

Barack Obama has a Russian Uncle

In Politics on May 28, 2008 at 8:00 am

The Soviets liberated Auschwitz.

Apparently, Obama had an Uncle in the Soviet Army.

Obama DID have an uncle who was in a US Army unit that liberated a Buchenwald satellite camp. He got the name of the camp wrong, not the existence of the uncle or the gist of the story.

Kenny D aka Oruacat2

Obama seems to be in a competition with Dan Quayle for most gaffes in an Election Campaign.

Obama — change to die for…

In Politics on May 26, 2008 at 4:18 am

America’s first Kaliph. That would certainly be a “change.”

Obama can change America so that this mentality is common here as well as in the Middle East.

Change. We Can. Hope.

I agree. We need a change in our Politics. But socialism of the brand that Obama espouses was tried in Eastern Europe and Russia. It didn’t work. As a matter of fact, Ronald Reagan finally ushered it down the aisle and into the dust bin of history.

It should not be revived. No matter how charismatic it’s proponent may be. Obama should be allowed a final resting place near Karl, if he so desires. Marxism is dead. Let it remain so. I don’t want Obama telling me how to live. I don’t care if it’s through collectivism or Islam.

Obama/Marx 2008

In Politics on May 25, 2008 at 8:08 am

Michelle Obama and Abortion

In Politics on May 23, 2008 at 4:14 am

Michelle Obama, the attorney wife of pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, is coming under fire for a letter she wrote defending partial-birth abortions. The 2004 letter, written to help Obama in his campaign for his U.S. Senate seat, opposes the ban on the abortion procedure.

In February 2004, Michelle Obama penned a fundraising letter to help her husband Barack raise funds for his Illinois-based Senate seat.

The letter contends the federal ban on partial-birth abortions “is clearly unconstitutional” and “a flawed law.”

Though the three-day-long partial-birth abortion procedure involves the partial birth of a baby during the middle trimester of pregnancy and the jamming of scissors into the back of her head to kill her, Obama’s wife describes it as “legitimate” medicine.

“The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned,” Michelle Obama writes in the letter.

She also said the Bush administration should not encourage the abortion practitioners who sued to reverse the ban to drop their lawsuit to make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court later sided with Bush and Congress in saying the ban is legitimate.

In closing, Obama told prospective donors that they could “count on” Barack to “keep the Bush team from appointing the Supreme Court justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade.”

Noted pro-life advocate Jill Stanek highlighted the letter on her blog and said Michelle was “leeching off the partial birth abortion ban” to raise funds for her husband.

“I’d like to ask Michelle to explain her legal opinion about this law the Supremes went on to declare constitutional,” Stanek said.

“I’d like to ask Michelle how in the world she could in good conscience raise money from fear-mongering about this barbaric abortion procedure,” she added.

Stanek pointed out that Barack Obama recently issued a warning to “lay off my wife” after she came under fire about an unrelated issue.

Stanek said the request amounted to “Free speech for me but not for thee” — something she called “a typical left-wing position.”

“So it’s fine to kill late-term babies, but we can’t risk hurting Michelle’s feelings about it,” she added.

Michelle Obama. Not content with merely hating on white folks [WHITEY!]. She thinks that jamming a pair of scissors into the back of the head of a baby inside the womb of the mother is a constitutional right. So babies are the enemy of Michelle Obama as well. I wonder what perceived slight the babies of the world committed. Michelle and her Liberal Marxist Cronies and Universal Victim-hood. Liberal Victim Theology. “Libvictomology.” A new leftest religion.

What is wrong with these people?

Michelle and Barack advocate murdering babies in order to raise money for an election. I find this disgusting.

Obama–International Leader or Community Organizer?

In Politics on May 23, 2008 at 2:23 am

It’s an important and defining question. Can Obama Act Decisively? Words. Actions. Consequences. Does Obama understand?

But it seems as though you are the only idiot who doesn’t truly understand the power of words. Especially when they come from the mouth of the President of the United States of America.

Democrats are right to feel upset about President Bush’s appeasement accusation. It is their Achilles’ heel in this election and they know it. The foreign-policy mantra of the Obama campaign amounts to this: Talk is cheap.
Over the next five months we will see the many tentacles of such a strategy emerge and the comeback “that’s political” — as Obama has objected — will be treated with the disdain it deserves. Determining how to deal with the enemies of freedom and democracy is as political as it gets.

When a POTUS speaks to someone. When a POTUS sits at a table with someone. When a POTUS breaks bread with someone. It confers legitimacy upon the person or party. It tells the world that this is a serious person. This is someone who should be noted. Someone to whom we should pay attention.

The Soviet Union. China. We had no choice but to notice them. They were a reality and their decision and actions had the effect of creating realities.

Iran. North Korea. Lybia. These countries leaders. These are not serious people. Their decisions are usually petty. They are usually destructive. They are more often than not aimed toward a purpose to disrupt rather than to create or assist or build. These are nations with the sole intent of destroying with their actions.

These are Nations that support, create and carry out terror.

If the POTUS meets with these nations, that signals to the world that these are serious nations with whom the world should treat. With whom the world should break bread.

If Obama becomes POTUS, he needs to act as if he knows the gravity of his choices. If Iran truly is no threat, as Barack states, then there is no reason to meet with the mad, little Iranian aspirant to mass murder. Yes, I speak of Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

North Korea should be treated as a belligerent state. It should not be rewarded. I think we should back out of the North Korea sweepstakes completely. Let the South and Japan take the lead for the West.

The world wants the US to back off some from our World Police mentality. North Korea and Iran would be perfect places to do so in my opinion. Back off. Let the other Nations deal with them.

But if attacked by either. Our reaction should be swift and hard. Deadly. Destructive. Decisive. The Full Force of American Might and Resolve.

I know McCain can be those things. Will Obama waver? Is Obama but a Carter redux? A fearful and irresolute foreign policy President who will blink when faced with a crisis. We may face that question in the years to come. Will a President Obama pass the test?

In other words, talk isn’t cheap at all. And a President Obama’s stunningly specious foreign policy will be paid for in blood, sweat, and tears.

Hillary wins Kentucky

In Politics on May 21, 2008 at 3:45 am

[Clinton]

Clinton won the Kentucky primary. But it’s a victory of scant political value in a Democratic presidential race moving inexorably in Obama’s direction. The Illinois senator is favored to win in Oregon, where 52 delegates are at stake.

I knew my State would repudiate that mad charlatan. Good Job, Kentucky!

NOW.  Do the right thing and vote for John McCain in the general election.

Barack Obama spokesman — Racists are Republican/Republicans are Racist

In Politics on May 20, 2008 at 5:18 am

Today, in an interview with Linda Douglass of the National Journal, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe tried to play down any impact Obama’s race has on his electability, saying, “the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain’s camp already.”

Basically, the DNC is going to paint any independent who does not vote for their candidate as a racist and/or ignorant. It doesn’t matter that many think of Obama as Stalin lite. It’s race that matters. Not political leanings or a person’s ability to choose based on real issues that are important to them.

According to the Obama Campaign and the DNC, if you vote McCain you must be “just another Republican racist.” Self-determination be damned in this age of Political Correctness.

When do we get assigned our thought police and our Regional DNC appointed Political Commissar.

Tough Guy Barack Obama Threatens “Lay Off My Wife or else!”

In Politics on May 19, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Sen. Barack Obama ripped into a Republican ad today that targets comments made by his wife, Michelle, and called the GOP tactic “low class” and “detestable.”

The senator and his wife discuss the race for the White House. The Illinois senator told “Good Morning America” that he expects hardball tactics from the Republicans if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

“But I also think these folks should lay off my wife,” he told “GMA” as his wife chuckled beside him.

Obama told “GMA” that he believes he will win a majority of the Democratic delegates once the votes are counted after Tuesday’s primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. Obama is favored in Oregon while rival Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is expected to win Kentucky.

[SNIP]

The Republicans seem to have come to the same conclusion and a GOP Internet campaign in Tennessee has an ad featuring Michelle Obama’s comments during the long Democratic campaign that “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

Michelle Obama was asked about the ad on “GMA,” but her husband said, “Let me just interject on this.”

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do.”

“But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com

Barack Obama wants to use his wife on the campaign trail but wants her off limits to the GOP. Sorry Barry. As long as she runs her mouth and campaigns on your behalf, she is open to criticism. Especially when she is such a divisive point in American Politics as she undeniably has become. Her “I’m proud of America for the first time in my adult life” comment was idiotic. She wasn’t proud when the Berlin Wall fell. She isn’t proud of any other American accomplishment. If we want to talk race. She wasn’t proud about Colin Powell and Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas. She’s only proud because a Black DEMOCRATIC made an advance. Pure party politics. She’s as big a hack as her husband.

I hope the country has enough sense to change their minds about Obama. We can elect a real President as opposed to a Marxist tool.

“Che” Obama — Let the Bloody Revolution begin…

In Politics on May 19, 2008 at 7:46 am

Barack Hussein Obama, Black Liberation Theology (Theologically Enshrined Racism) and Marxism

Basically, a large group of American people desire to elect a Marxist who is more than likely a closet racist to the Presidency .

The DNC may as well nominate an Ahmadinejad/Hugo Chavez ticket. While they’re at it, they can disband Congress and emplace Hamas in the House and Hezbollah in the Senate. Cement the destruction of the Constitution by placing the former Soviet Politburo in the Supreme Court. Special bonus: Kim Jung Il as Speaker of the House. Khamanei can be Attorney General in this ideal State of Affairs.

I wonder where Michelle and the Mullahs will build the first Gulag. Alaska, perhaps? Or will they just cede it back to Russia as a special Red Gift. I wonder if Obama will be as bloodthirsty as the men he admires. Che and Fidel the murdering twins of South America. Perhaps, Che Obama will be the American Stalin or our Mad Murdering Mao. Jeremiah Wright will re-emerge as Political Thought Commissar.

The DNC has finally gone off the deep end. Obama will make Jimmy Carter look like a mastermind.

Is Obama a Crackhead?

In Politics on May 17, 2008 at 11:46 am

Is Obama somehow involved with this strange man? Why has this story not been picked up by the mainstream media? Obama admits to doing cocaine in his college years? If true, why has the press not picked up on this. Cocaine is addictive. Couple that with this bit of oddity and…?

George Bush admitted to wild early years. The press wouldn’t let it go. Now Obama gets a free pass. Why?

Red State Update

In Politics on May 17, 2008 at 4:35 am

This movie requires Adobe Flash for playback.

I received this video in an email. It is absolutely hilarious. These two guys are obviously from somewhere in Red State Tennessee. They were gearing up for the Obama/Hillary showdown, I assume.

“Hurry up and nominate someone, so’s I can know who I’m votin’ against!”

Classic!

A Truth about the Obama Campaign

In Politics on April 21, 2008 at 9:12 am

Playing by Obama’s Rules

By Patrick Buchanan

To observe Democrats this week, savaging one of their heroines, is to understand why the party is unready to rule.

Consider: At the 1984 Democratic convention in San Francisco, an unknown member of Congress was vaulted into history by being chosen the first woman ever to run on a national party ticket.

Geraldine Ferraro became a household name. And though the Mondale-Ferraro ticket went down to a 49-state defeat, “Gerry” became an icon to Democratic women.

This week, however, after being subjected for 48 hours to accusations of divisiveness by Barack Obama, and racism by his agents and auxiliaries in the media, Ferraro resigned from Clinton’s campaign. What had she said to send the Obamaites into paroxysms of rage?

She stated an obvious truth: Had Barack not been a black male, he probably would not be the front-runner for the nomination.

Here are the words that sent her to the scaffold.

“If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept.”

Note that Ferraro did not say race was the only reason Barack was succeeding. She simply said that being an African-American has been as indispensable to his success as her being a woman was to her success in 1984. Had my name been “Gerald” rather than Geraldine, I would not have been on the ‘84 ticket, Ferraro conceded.

In calling her comments racist, Barack’s retinue is asserting that his race has nothing to do with his success, even implying that it is racist to suggest it. This is preposterous.

What Geraldine Ferraro said is palpably true, and everyone knows it.

Was the fact that Barack is black irrelevant to the party’s decision to give a state senator the keynote address at the 2004 convention? Did Barack’s being African-American have nothing to do with his running up 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi on Tuesday?

Did Barack’s being black have nothing to do with the decision of civil rights legend John Lewis to dump Hillary and endorse him, though Lewis talks of how his constituents do not want to lose this first great opportunity to have an African-American president?

Can political analysts explain why Barack will sweep Philly in the Pennsylvania primary, though Hillary has the backing of the African-American mayor and Gov. Ed Rendell, without referring to Barack’s ethnic appeal to black voters?

What else explains why the mainstream media are going so ga-ga over Obama they are being satirized on “Saturday Night Live”?

Barack Obama has a chance of being the first black president. And holding out that special hope has been crucial to his candidacy. To deny this is self-delusion — or deceit.

Nor is this unusual. John F. Kennedy would not have gotten 78 percent of the Catholic vote had he not been Catholic. Hillary would not have rolled up those margins among white women in New Hampshire had she not been a sister in trouble. Mitt Romney would not have swept Utah and flamed out in Dixie were he not a Mormon. Mike Huckabee would not have marched triumphantly through the Bible Belt were he not a Baptist preacher and evangelical Christian. All politics is tribal.

The first campaign this writer ever covered was the New York mayoral race of 1961. Republicans stitched together the legendary ticket of Lefkowitz, Fino and Gilhooley, to touch three ethnic bases. Folks laughed. No one would have professed moral outrage had anyone suggested they were appealing to, or even pandering to, the Jewish, Italian and Irish voters of New York. People were more honest then.

Obama’s agents suggest that Ferraro deliberately injected race into the campaign. But this, too, is ridiculous. Her quote came in an interview with the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., not “Meet the Press.”

The attack on Ferraro comes out of a conscious strategy of the Obama campaign — to seek immunity from attack by smearing any and all attackers as having racist motives. When Bill Clinton dismissed Obama’s claim to have been consistently antiwar as a “fairy tale,” and twinned Obama’s victory in South Carolina with Jesse Jackson’s, his statements were described as tinged with racism.

Early this week, Harvard Professor Orlando Patterson’s sensitive nostrils sniffed out racism in Hillary’s Red Phone ad, as there were no blacks in it. Patterson said it reminded him of D.W. Griffith’s pro-KKK “Birth of a Nation,” a 1915 film.

What Barack’s allies seem to be demanding is immunity, a special exemption from political attack, because he is African-American. And those who go after him are to be brought up on charges of racism, as has Bill Clinton, Ed Rendell and now Geraldine Ferraro.

Hillary, hoping to appease Barack’s constituency, is ceding the point. Will the Republican Party and the right do the same? Play by Obama rules, and you lose to Obama.

There is nothing new here. These are the same tactics that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have used to bully everyone and bleed bribes out of any organization that happens to get in the way of their agenda.

It’s not about healing the racial divide. It’s about dividing and conquering. Obama has learned this lesson well and is applying it in this election. He was subtle at first. As he gains momentum, his subtlety will give way to a sledge hammer.

Geraldine was but the first prominent national casualty. Obama will destroy many more in his pursuit of power. If he gains the Presidency, there will be too many to count. Look to Detroit, Michigan and it’s Mayor to see the future of Obama as President.

Candidate on a High Horse

In Politics on April 16, 2008 at 4:31 am

By George Will

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.

Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are “bitter,” he said they “cling” to guns, religion and “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” because of “frustrations.” His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America’s grinding injustice.

By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism’s transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, “Yes, but I need to win a majority.” When another supporter told Stevenson, “You educated the people through your campaign,” Stevenson replied, “But a lot of people flunked the course.” Michael Barone, in “Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan,” wrote: “It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind.” Barone added: “Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture — the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting.”

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, “what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude.” They sought from Stevenson “not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance.” They especially rejected “American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent,” rather than — in Michelle Obama’s words — “just downright mean.”

The emblematic book of the new liberalism was “The Affluent Society” by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a “false consciousness” (another category, like religion as the “opiate” of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:

First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.

The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims — the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.

Obama’s dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.

Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders — a “paranoid style” of politics rooted in “status anxiety,” etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.

Obama voiced such liberalism with his “bitterness” remarks to an audience of affluent San Franciscans. Perfect.

When Democrats convened in San Francisco in 1984, en route to losing 49 states, Jeane Kirkpatrick — a former FDR Democrat then serving in the Cabinet of another such, Ronald Reagan — said “San Francisco Democrats” are people who “blame America first.” Today, they blame Americans for America being “downright mean.”

Obama’s apology for his embittering sociology of “bitterness” — “I didn’t say it as well as I could have” — occurred in Muncie, Ind. Perfect.

In 1929 and 1937 Robert and Helen Lynd published two seminal books of American sociology. They were sympathetic studies of a medium-sized manufacturing city they called “Middletown,” coping — reasonably successfully, optimistically and harmoniously — with life’s vicissitudes. “Middletown” was in fact Muncie, Ind.

georgewill@washpost.com

Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

I don’t think this is Obama. This is Liberalism. Hillary is guilty of this same attitude. Liberalism is the idea that these elites know better than average Joe America. They want to show you the way. If you won’t come along for the ride, they’ll politicize it, legislate it and force it on you. After all, you’re just a poor schmuck who doesn’t know what’s good for you.

Stalin and Mao would be proud.

Barack Obama on Average Joe America

In Politics, Uncategorized on April 12, 2008 at 7:55 am

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Thus sayeth Barack Obama.

Basically, he thinks the average American is a racist, xenophobic, gun toting, scared, moron who can’t get a job without government assistance.

He should change his name to Joseph. Stalin would be proud as would Mao, Marx and Lenin.

Barack Obama and Louis Farakhan

In Politics on March 29, 2008 at 11:01 am

khanobamakhan.jpg

Obama has many ties to extremist groups as illustrated in this article.

From the article:♦

One seemingly consistent theme running throughout Barack Obama’s career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.

As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship.
Obama’s soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain.
Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.

As an American who supports Israels right to exist and who supports their security efforts, I don’t want a President who would undermine our ties to Israel. Israel is the only democracy in that area of the world. Every Islamic country is led by an autocrat, a despot, an absolute monarchy or a thug. Israel has an elected assembly with a PM chosen by coalition. Their system is similar to that of Britain. Religious freedom is a given in Israel. Religious freedom is not a given anywhere else in that area. Religious oppression is the rule in most Muslim countries. It is a certainty in the countries surrounding Israel. It will be a certainty in a Palestinian State.

Obama has too many ties to Islam for my tastes. Even stranger is his ties to the “Black Muslims” and their leader Louis Farakhan. Farakhan, who was given an honorary award by Jeremiah Wright, is an American terrorist. Reverend Wright had this to say about Farakhan; “His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. Farakhan the murderer. Farakhan the racist.  Farakhan calls White People inhuman.  He calls Judaism a gutter religion.  He calls the Pope the anti-Christ.  Imagine a Christion saying these things about Judaism; a white person calling Black People inhuman.  Farakhan ordered the murder of Malcolm X.  I would be in now way surprised to find out that he was involved in the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Bobby Kennedy. Sirhan Sirhan was a Muslim after all. I don’t want Louis Farakhan as back room adviser to the President of the United States of America.

freddys_fire.jpg

Barack Obama photo op…

In Politics on March 29, 2008 at 10:19 am

barack-phone-mix.jpg

Obama pulls a Dan Quayle.

A Brief for Whitey by Pat Buchanan (updated 3 Apr 08)

In Uncategorized on March 22, 2008 at 12:50 am

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!” My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.

Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.

The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”

And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?

The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.

What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?

Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”

Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.

Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.


Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “The Death of the West,” “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.__________________________________________

My opinion is now and will always be that about 80% of the Independents and fully 100% of Liberals voting for Obama are doing so out of “White Guilt.” Barack Obambi is a continuous line of empty slogans.

“Hope”

“We can change.”

Yeah, he hopes America can change his address to that big old White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. That’s about as far as the empty suit that is Barack Obama has thought it out. Once he gets there. There is the HOPE that his inexperience and Carter like Bambi in the Woods inexperience won’t drive America further into the abyss.

Obambi is nothing more than an inexperienced babe in the woods surrounded by sharks awaiting the feeding frenzy that will be his Presidency.

McCain is the way to go. Looking back, he should be closing out his second term with Colin Powell running as the incumbent VP Candidate for the GOP. Let’s not launch another term of lunatic career mistakes.

McCain is the way to go.

Barack Obama and Malcolm X

In Uncategorized on March 20, 2008 at 12:47 am

malcolm-x.jpg

Anyone who criticizes Barack Obamas admiration of Malcolm X is speaking strictly from ingorance. Malcolm X was killed because he started to speak of reconciliation. After his pilgrimmage to Mekkah, Malcolm X was coming around to the same beliefs as Martin Luther King Jr before he was murdered. In Mekkah, he saw men of all races worship together in a common love for the creator. I’m paraphrasing him here from memory. When the great charlatan Elijah Muhammad murdered Malcolm X, he did this nation a great dis-service by depriving us of a great and charismatic leader who was coming around to a more peaceful message of integrity, courage and understanding in the human and civil rights movement.

Not a well known fact but fact nonetheless. Alex Haley’s auto-biography of Malcolm X is a powerful book. Well worth the read. How can I fault Obama for saying that it is his favorite book when it is one of my favorite books as well.

(I’ve read the drivel that the Black Muslims hands out as the history of black people as well. A great scientist from another planet creates white people in a cave. Elijah Mohammad and his lackey Louis Farakhan are a plague upon America. If Obama has any association with the Black Muslims, he has no business running for Congress. But it is rare for a non-American black person to associate themselves with those crackpots. )

Barack Obama — I’m here because of Ashley.

In Politics on March 19, 2008 at 11:02 pm
A More Perfect Union

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk – to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination – where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina – or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

____________________________________________________________

Putting aside the fact the he is a Democrat and I distrust his intent or abilities as concerns foreign policy, it was a good speech. It touches on basic truths of American life. It was fair. I like that he didn’t throw Rev. Wright under the bus even as he disagreed with the nature of his remarks. I like that he sees or seems to see the issue of Race from many angles. It’s a good speech. I think it will be an important speech in American History no matter the outcome of this election.

The Obama Iraq Strategy

In Middle East, Sports on February 11, 2008 at 12:33 am

Raise the White Flag and Abandon all Hope…

gfon401l.jpg

Barack Obama — Why they like him.

In Politics on February 11, 2008 at 12:25 am

cariobama.gif

Why do people like Barack Obama? More specifically, why does White America like Barack Obama?

I haven’t seen this charisma (edit:  I see his charisma.  But it seems a charade to me). Maybe I’m not fooled by it because I’ve been around so many races for so many years. In my life, race just hasn’t mattered. But I’ve noticed in America, race is a central issue to almost everything. But the only races that really matter. The only colors that really matter politically are Black and White. Kinda funny. It’s as if no other race exists. White and Black or African American and nothing else. Asian doesn’t matter. No one notices. Hispanic only comes into the picture in the Southwest and only nationally, if you are one of the demonized illegal immigrants. Chinese, Indians, Arabs. Who are they? Most people in the States think that China is a country in the lands of Narnia for the Knight Jack Ryan to save damsels in distress from neo-Nazi terrorists who wanted to Nuke a football stadium that some guy named Tom Clancy conjured for his movie scripts. (Didn’t he write books, too.) What’s hilarious is that if you are really from Africa, you aren’t African American. Even if you are black and especially if you are white. Now that’s a wild, new spin on geo-politics and race relations.

Obama gets the Will Smith pass. He’s a black guy who looks kinda white. Talks like a white guy. Don’t ask me what that means. Ask a black comedian. They make fun of white guys talking all the time. The speaking mannerism at which they poke fun is all Obama. Obama wears business suits instead of gangsta baggy pants and white T-shirts or NBA Jerseys. He is White America to a capital T-e-e.

Why is Obama so popular with white America and especially Liberals?

I think it’s because he’s a likable, white-black guy. He’s black but he’s white. He acts, talks and has all of the mannerisms of a white American. If you heard him talk on the phone, you’d assume that he was a white guy. He’s not a reverend in the mold of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. He certainly doesn’t talk like those guys. Especially when he turns on that laughably fake Southern accent. He’s completely vanilla. He’s not hip hop or gangsta rap. At his “Blackest,” he is the political Will Smith.

Politically, he says virtually nothing. So there is nothing that will really upset anyone. The guy has no real political personality. He mimics the Hope campaigns of Reagan and the Kennedy’s. Does he have any ideas of his own. Nothing that I’ve heard.

Basically, he makes white Americans feel good about themselves. Because he is a black person with whom they feel comfortable. So they feel like they are not racist. So they aren’t bad people.

If Obama were a white guy, he’d be a professor at the City Colleges of Chicago.

Hell, he kind of reminds me of Richie Cunningham.

barack-obama-08-desktop-wallpaper.jpg

426257381_7086bfa67c.jpg obama_borat_parody.jpg