Sunday, December 28, 2008
What to make of this? Getting beyond the knee-jerk revulsion to such comments, it may on balance be a good thing that Blair is apparently studying up on Islam. After all, many of our current problems can be traced to a failure of Western policy makers to grasp the basic tenets of Islam. For example, in explaining US support for jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter's National Security Advisor), poo-pooed any suggestion that Islamic fundamentalism poses a threat to the West:
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
Similarly, Israel supported Hamas in its early days, in an ill-advised attempt to create a counterweight to Arafat and the PLO.
Underlying these boneheaded decisions was a total failure to understand that Islam is not merely a religion in the Western sense, but rather an all-encompassing belief system that divides the world into two "Houses" -- the House of Islam and the House of Unbelievers -- and requires Muslims to wage an ongoing jihad against the unbelievers until they either convert to Islam or submit to Islamic law. While not all Muslims subscribe to these principles, the jihadis surely do, and their position is not without support in Islam. So when a fellow as bright as Tony Blair tell us he reads the Koran every day, it is logical to expect that he may be getting a clue.
But the smart money is otherwise. Not only is Blair's description of Mohammed as "an enormously civilizing force" something of a bad sign, but so is Blair's ardently pro-Palestinian wife, Cherrie Blair, who undoubtedly influences him. But probably the most sure-fire sign that Blair's study of Islam will not lead him to speak more plainly about its fundamentally militaristic nature is that, as Middle Envoy for the UN, Blair is now increasingly traveling in "internationalist" circles, which almost inevitably leads individuals to toe the Saudi-funded line on the nature of Islam and its attendant real-world implications.
What is the long-term solution? It's a cliche, but the obvious point is that we need to end our (and therefore the world's) dependence on oil. Until that happens, the discourse on Islam, and the policies we puruse with Muslim nations, can never be disentangled from the fact that Muslims control the global supply of energy.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Rove's column concludes with the following:
In the 35 years I've known George W. Bush, he's always had a book nearby. He plays up being a good ol' boy from Midland, Texas, but he was a history major at Yale and graduated from Harvard Business School. You don't make it through either unless you are a reader.
There is a myth perpetuated by Bush critics that he would rather burn a book than read one. Like so many caricatures of the past eight years, this one is not only wrong, but also the opposite of the truth and evidence that bitterness can devour a small-minded critic. Mr. Bush loves books, learns from them, and is intellectually engaged by them.
That's pretty interesting. Of course, the Left will claim that Rove made it all up.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Mushnick asks, if Muslims are truly up in arms about the violence caused by terrorists in the name of their God, why don’t they get out there and show their anger at the terrorists? Why is it that the only demonstrations for which Muslims turn out in force “call for more blood, more murder, ‘Death to the Infidels!’ and the sustained cry for jihad, the world over?”
Good question, Phil. Now if only the people who make up our free press asked the same question of the next Muslim organization that "condemns" the next Muslim terrorist act.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Bear in mind, during the campaign, we were told over and over that America is a hopelessly racist country and that any failure to elect Obama could only be attributed to racism. Obama's mentor, Reverend Wright, said we live in the "US of KKKA," and Obama himself revealed that what first attracted him to Wright was a speech wherein Wright intoned "white folks' greed runs a world in need." And let's not forget about Obama's friends, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, whose new book, Race Course Against White Supremacy, will be published in June 2009. "Progressive" axioms -- such as America being "no better" than any other country -- also permeated the message of "Hope" and "Change" that Obama promised to bring. And so it goes.
Now that Obama's been elected, it is perhaps natural to expect that the sort of ideology associated with the rise of Obamanation will gain a new prominence in American life. Interestingly, however, I don't think that will be the case. Indeed, what the election of Obama actually proves is that, whatever its flaws, America is in fact the greatest country in the world, a place where anyone -- regardless of race, religion or creed -- can achieve beyond his wildest dreams. And given that the new understanding of American greatness, patriotism -- oft derided as the last refuge of scoundrels -- may soon be making a comeback.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
And Obama also underperformed his poll numbers in the Democratic primary in key battleground states Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Does this mean McCain has the election in the bag? Of course not. But what it does mean is that the polls showing McCain down a few points should not be taken as the Gospel truth, particularly given that 14 percent of voters are still undecided, and undecided voters are widely projected to break for McCain.
By the way, guess what was the leading theory for why the NH polls were so wrong in the Democratic primary? They failed to account for undecided voters, who overwhelmingly broke for Clinton.
Friday, October 31, 2008
"John McCain has served this country longer in the POW camp than his opponent has served in the United States Senate."
Thus spoke Ah-nold today at a McCain rally in Ohio.
It is quite a zinger, but it also makes a profound point. With McCain, you are getting a proven commodity, but does anyone really know who Obama is and what he stands for? I don't think anyone does, but from where I stand, Obama sure looks like a Marxist.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The overarching thesis of my book is extremely simple: that there’s no secret about Obama’s big secret. He spelled out exactly what he considers the central mandates of his existence in the subtitle of his graceful 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father. To Obama, his autobiography is most definitely not a postracial parable. Instead, it is A Story of Race and Inheritance.
The then 33-year-old Obama who wrote Dreams from My Father is obsessed with ethnicity and ancestry, as he relentlessly documents across nearly each of the book’s 460 pages. For 150,000 words, nothing diverts Obama from the subject of his racial identity.
What is the precise concern about race and inheritance that galvanizes Obama’s innermost emotions?
Once again, it’s not exactly a mystery.
Obama’s 1995 memoir reveals a genetically biracial young man raised by his white relatives who incessantly interrogates himself with the same question that the 139,000 mostly turgid articles and web postings catalogued by Google have asked about him: Is he black enough?
Sailer further argues that Obama has fulfilled this lifelong quest to prove he is "black enough" by becoming a radical leftist:
To be black enough is tied up in Obama’s mind with being left enough. As someone brought up by whites far from the black mainstream, Obama lacks the freedom to be politically unorthodox enjoyed by men of such iconic blackness as boxing promoter Don King, or funk singer James Brown and basketball giant Wilt Chamberlain, both of whom endorsed Richard Nixon in 1972.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Copyright 2001 Chicago Defender
October 17, 2001
Sen. Obama: Barriers `sad, symbols of fear"
The "ugly" barriers that have been erected outside of the Sears Tower, the Federal Building, the Daley Plaza and other city buildings in downtown Chicago following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are "sad, symbols of fear" and constant reminders of just how vulnerable America is, Sen. Barack Obama (D-13th) said Monday.
"Sad symbols of fear"? Good lord -- this pansy should be on Oprah; he should under no circumstances be commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. Worse still, Obama insinuated that U.S. foreign policy may have been responsible for 9/11:
"We should also examine the foreign policies of the the U.S. to make sure that we occupy the moral high ground in these conflicts. In particular, we have to examine some of the root causes of this terrorist activity," Obama said, referring to terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and his "sleeper" cells throughout the world.
Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright Globe Newspaper Company 1990
February 15, 1990
A LAW REVIEW BREAKTHROUGH
Linda Matchan, Globe Staff
What seems to motivate Barack Obama is a strong identification with what he calls "the typical black experience," paired with a mission to help the black community and promote social justice.
In college, he specialized in international relations at Occidental College in Los Angeles and, for his final two years, at Columbia University in New York. He transferred, he said, "because I was concerned with urban issues and I wanted to be around more black folks in big cities."
After short stints as a business journalist and as an advocate for a Harlem-based public interest research group, he conducted what he refers to as a "nationwide search" for community-based social action work with a liveable salary.
He found it in Chicago. He became the director and sole paid employee of the Developing Communities Project, a church-based advocacy organization for low- and middle-income blacks. His annual salary was $13,000. By the time he left, the organization had 13 employees and a solid record of accomplishments, from the removal of asbestos in public housing units to education counseling for disadvantaged youths.
Obama plans to return to Chicago after graduation -- "I've finally found a home," he said, smiling -- and intends to resume community work and possibly to enter politics.
"Having had access to the system, to a language that is sometimes foreign" to blacks, Obama said, "I have a certain mission to make sure that the gifts I've received are plowed back into the community."
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama's mother and father were both Marxists. His childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was an open member of the Communist Party USA.
Obama attends Occidental College in California, where he deliberately befriends the "Marxist professors." Later, Obama transfers to New York's Columbia University, where he begins venturing to the East Village for what he calls "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."
In the 1990s, Obama launches his political career in the home of two openly-declared Marxists, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. Also in attendance was state senator Alice Palmer, who had anointed Obama her chosen political successor. Palmer was involved in several Soviet front organizations and had made multiple pilgrimages to the Soviet Union. Also during this time, Obama comes under the tutelage of Reverend Wright, a proponent of black liberation theology, which, as Wright has explained, is Marxist in nature. Obama also becomes of a member of the New Party in Chicago, which was a socialist party.
In 2001, Obama gives a radio interview in which he declares that the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement was that it did not encompass "redistribution of wealth" and issues of "economic justice." Echoing those comments on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama tells "Joe the plumber" that the goal of his tax policy is to "spread the wealth around.". Finally, there is Obama's Senate voting record, which the non-partisan National Journal ranked as most liberal in the Senate in 2007. By comparison, Bernie Sanders, the self-described socialist Senator from Vermont, ranked as fourth most liberal.
So there you have it. Despite the best attempts of the mainstream media, the evidence of Obama's lifetime commitment to Marxism is there for all to see. We are now within 7 days of installing a Marxist in the Oval Office. Will Americans wake up before it is too late? Please get the word out.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Illinois Housing Initiative Act of 2003. Requires that a task force, composed of all key State agencies with functions related to housing and other experts in housing, develop an annual comprehensive housing plan that prioritizes the development of a range of permanent housing for certain underserved populations, including low-income and homeless persons.
Boy, that sounds like a great idea -- housing projects for the homeless. This is exactly the type of "economic justice" Obama will pursue if elected president. You work hard, you play by the rules, you try to save a little money for your family and then ...
"STOP! HAND OVER THAT MONEY!" The One has decreed that your property must be confiscated because "economic justice" requires it. Housing projects for the homeless? That's just the beginning.
But now that Obama's words have sunk in ("Wow!"), I still can't believe that Americans may vote this socialist into office.
He is no longer just telling Joe the Plumber that he wants to take some of Joe's money and give it to others who are more deserving. Rather, Obama is asserting that the civil rights movement failed because it did not convince the Supreme Court to venture "into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
Wow. Let that sink in for a bit...
Obama is revealing his belief that the civil rights movement should have resulted in the redistribution of wealth. This would mean creating a permanent welfare class that would be entitled to money earned by others for having suffered a civil rights injustice in the past. This is economic justice? I see the economy part, but where's the justice?
How about believing in the idea that people create wealth and government should stay out of that business, as much as possible? And how about believing that every American is given the opportunity to become as productive a member of society as he or she wants? And how about believing that you can't walk around feeling entitled to things without having done something to earn them?
Can you imagine the harm that Obama's redistribution of wealth would cause African-Americans (and others who consider themselves beneficiaries of the civil rights movement)? By putting segments of society into a permanent welfare class--entitled to receive a check that somebody else earned for them--Obama would be creating a whole new culture of dependency.
This idea scares me. Dependency is a very ugly thing and entitlement just became a very bad word.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
This amazing story first came to light during a television interview with Percy Sutton, the former Borough President of Manhattan. During that interview, Sutton revealed that at the time Obama was applying to Harvard, Al-Mansour was raising money for Obama and Al-Mansour also asked Sutton to pull some strings at Harvard on Obama's behalf. If you haven't seen this remarkable clip of Sutton relaying the story, I highly recommend you watch it now on YouTube. It is must-see tv.
Having established that Al-Mansour wanted Obama to get into Harvard Law, the next logical questions are: (i) who is Khalid Al-Mansour? and (ii) why did he want so badly for Obama to be accepted to Harvard Law? As to the first question, Khalid Al-Mansour is an African-American lawyer who converted to Islam in 1964 and later became a close advisor to the Saudi royal family, and in particular, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. That is the same Saudi prince who gave Giuliani a $10 million check after 9/11 on condition that Giuliani acknowledge that 9/11 was caused by America's support for Israel. Thankfully, Giuliani told him to shove it.
As to why Al-Mansour wanted Obama to be accepted to Harvard Law, Al-Mansour ain't telling. Nevertheless, it is easy to determine the man's political goals because Al-Mansour is a prolific writer. In fact, here's a list of some of Al-Mansour's books:
The Challenges Of Spreading Islam In America
The Destruction Of Western Civilization
Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against Saudi Arabia
Welcome To Islam
Let those titles sink in for a moment. It is fair to say that, whomever Al-Mansour supports, any feedom-loving person should oppose. Will America wake up before it is too late? We have 12 days left and counting.
But it gets even more interesting. Looking at the data behind the data, the same poll shows that 71% of likely voters believe McCain has "the right type of experience" to be president (20% do not), whereas only 46% believe Obama has "the right type of experience" (44% do not). In another words, the country overwhelmingly believes McCain is qualified to be president, but is evenly split as to whether Obama is qualified. That seems like awfully good news for McCain. After all, it is hard to imagine that many of the 44% of Americans who believe Obama is unqualified will actually vote for him. So that leaves merely 56% of Americans who could even potentially vote for Obama. That doesn't leave Obama much room for error.
Another extremely interesting finding: although the candidates are in a virtual dead heat, likely voters overwhelmingly believe (67%-25%) that Obama will be elected. So even though voters are evenly divided as to which candidate they prefer, the perception is that Obama is way ahead. Interesting, huh? Reminds me of a fascinating Zombietime essay I just read.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Here's a peek at a new book by Ayers and Dohrn scheduled to be released in June 2009. From the product description via Amazon.com:
White supremacy and its troubling endurance in American life is debated in these personal essays by two veteran political activists. Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors' own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.
Got that? White supremacy is "the dominant political system in the United States" and US wars are caused by white "racism." That seems to be the essence of the new Ayers/Dohrn book. More evidence that Ayers and Dohrn are committed radicals to this day, which is precisely why it's disingenuous for Obama to say he was 8 years old when Ayers set the bombs. The issue with Obama is not that he himself is a terrorist, but that his friends/associates seem to be overwhelmingly of the anti-American, anti-white and anti-Semitic variety. Based solely on the title and product description, Race Course Against White Supremacy seems indistinguishable in tone and content from a typical "God Damn America" sermon from Jeremiah Wright or Michael Pfleger.
Now ask yourself this: are Obama's friendships with individuals such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Rashid Khalidi merely a remarkable coincidence? Is it possible that if someone examined your friends and associates, a similar array of terrorists, racists and Marxist revolutionaries would emerge? Because that is the essence of the "guilt by association" defense peddled by Obama and his friends in the media.
Oh, and big deal Michelle Obama said she had never in her entire adult life been proud of her country. Hey, it was "out of context" and it's easy to imagine Laura Bush saying the same exact thing in an unguarded moment, right? And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.
We are at a critical stage in US history. We have two "official" wars against radical Islamists that need to be won in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are facing a global jihadist threat from Islamists all over, including in our own country. Yet we are on the verge of handing over the White House to a hard-core leftist who was raised Muslim as a child, who has numerous Muslim members of his family, and who's made clear that he still identifies to some extent with his Islamic past.
Above is a photo from a McCain rally that is currently running on the front page of the NY Times webpage (link is here, but it will probably soon change). Look carefully. In the front row is a white guy wearing a Halloween mask that makes it appear that he is black. And immediately to his left is a woman wearing what appears to be a Sarah Palin mask.
What does this mean? No idea -- but the Times' caption merely says, "Above, a McCain rally in Concord, N.C."
Any thoughts on what is going on here?
UPDATE: As predicted, the photo is now off the front page, but you can still get it here. And there's a new caption: "Jason Waller, left, in an Obama mask, and Elazbeth Waller as Gov. Sarah Palin while Senator John McCain talks in Concord, N.C., on Saturday."
Monday, October 20, 2008
Someone asked why Munoz had come to the rally. “I support McCain, but I’ve come to face you guys because I’m disgusted with you guys,” he said. “Why the hell are you going after Joe the Plumber? Joe the Plumber has an idea. He has a future. He wants to be something else. Why is that wrong? Everything is possible in America. I made it. Joe the Plumber could make it even better than me. . . . I was born in Colombia, but I was made in the U.S.A.”
Exactly right. Everything is possible in America and that's why so many of us immigrated here in the first place, from Colombia or elsewhere. What I suspect is driving Munoz is the fear that, under an Obama adminstration, no longer will America be the land of limitless opportunity, but will instead become a stagnant socialist economy supposedly built on "fairness" -- just like, say, France. Indeed, Obama's "fundamental change" mantra seems to call into question the very idea that America is fundamentally good and fair, for if it were, why would "fundamental change" be necessary?
Meanwhile, the great debate was continuing, with Tito the Construction Worker and David the Journalist trading points. Much of it wasn’t terribly informative, but there was one lovely moment when a shouting match turned into a lesson on the fundamental meaning of American constitutional rights — and the immigrant was the teacher.
“Let me talk,” Munoz said to Corn. “I know the Constitution, and I know my First Amendment — ”
“I’m not the state,” Corn said. “I can’t take that right away from you.”
“No, no,” Munoz shot back. “Even the state, the state cannot take that right away.”
“Right, right,” Corn quickly agreed.
“Nobody can take that away,” Munoz said.
Gotta love it! The Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones gets schooled by little ol' Tito Munoz! That, folks, is America.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
I'm also troubled by – not what Senator McCain says – but what members of the Party say, and it is permitted to be said: such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian; has always been a Christian.
It is puzzling that Powell would claim that Obama "has always been a Christian" whereas in fact the evidence shows that Obama was raised as a Muslim in his early years in Indonesia. In any event, Powell continued:
But the really right answer is, "What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" The answer's "No, that's not America." Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be President? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own Party drop the suggestion he's Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America. ... Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that within the Party we have these kinds of expressions.
Let me get this straight. John McCain is as non-discriminatory as anyone Powell knows, yet Powell is endorsing Obama to combat the bigotry of other, unnamed members of the Republican party? So by Powell's own admission, McCain is no bigot, whereas it is an established fact that Obama attended an openly racist church for 20 years and considers the racist Reverend Wright to be his personal mentor. And if the bigotry of other members of each party were somehow relevant, why is it not appropriate to mention that the most senior Democrat in the Senate is a former KKK leader?
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Let's be clear about something: Reverend Wright is Kryptonite to Obama. Wright is a racist, America-hating, Farrakhan-supporting lunatic who just happens to have been a father figure to Obama. If I were running McCain's campaign, I'd spend every last dollar running ads juxtaposing Reverend Wright's hate-filled rants with Obama's lavish praise for the man. And I'm sure it would work.
By resisting this tactic, McCain is likely sowing the seeds of his own defeat. The only plausible explanation for McCain's decision is a moral conviction that doing so would greatly diminish the ability of our next president to be a leader for all Americans. That McCain is willing to go down in defeat rather than hang Reverend Wright around Obama's neck is an act of patriotism like none of us has ever before witnessed. This, above all else, may be the greatest act of patriotism that John McCain has ever given his country.
Would I make the same decision as McCain? In all honesty, no. But I am not the patriot that John McCain is.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Who is Vera Baker and is this story true? I don't know. Apparently, some of the uncertainty centers on whether Baker actually served on Obama's staff, in particular as finance director. Although this hardly constitutes proof of an affair, this 2004 piece from the National Journal confirms that Baker did in fact serve as Obama's finance director:
Copyright 2004 National Journal, Inc.
April 29, 2004
HOME SWEET HOME. Doug Thornell says his experience as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's traveling secretary during the Democratic presidential campaign was "thrilling," but he's happy to be back in Washington. "It's nice to get to sleep in the same bed every night now," says the Silver Spring, Md., native, who returned to D.C. in mid-March after a vacation in California. Thornell just started his new job as a deputy political director at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He replaced Vera Baker, who is now the national finance director for Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama's Democratic U.S. Senate campaign. Thornell shares the deputy political director title with colleague Jamie Linski, former assistant political director at the DSCC, who was promoted to the deputy slot.
And here is some additional background information on Vera Baker:
African American professionals can build prosperous careers in the capital city, especially those hoping to play a role in national politics. "There's a mentality here that there's enough for everyone; you're not competing for what feels like a limited number of opportunities," says 29-year-old Muthoni Wambu.
Like most Washingtonians, Wambu is a transplant. She left New York City's Upper West Side to study journalism at Howard University and then networked her way into a political fundraising job with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. This was a new aspect of politics for Wambu, who soon discovered that it "brought together my strengths in a way that I'd never anticipated."
In 2000, Wambu and Vera Baker, another Howard alum, started Baker-Wambu & Associates. The firm has raised over $3 million for the campaigns of members of Congress and other politicians. "Washington is the best place for our firm to blossom and grow, and one of the only cities where two 24-year-old African American women [could have built a successful business] with pennies and a dream," she says.
He had a particular habit, remembered by many of his friends and employees, of speaking frankly about the gas he passed. Once, in the company of the august governor of Riyadh, Salman bin Abdulaziz, Salem noisily let himself go. This was as taboo in Bedouin culture as in a French drawing room. Prince Salman asked Salem what had happened. "I just farted, Prince," he answered. Don't you fart sometimes?" [p. 163]
Osama's big bro was even willing to let loose around the King, himself. Once, when King Fahd complained that he was tired of so many Bedouins waiting in a line to meet him, Salem proposed a ripping solution:
"I can solve this problem," Salem replied. You let me know one day before, and all day long I'll eat food. Some dark beans. You put me in front of the queue, and I'll start farting, and all the Bedouins will disappear." Fahd laughed so hard that his doctor feared he might have a heart attack, so Salem was hauled away." [p. 166]
But all kidding aside, it seems there was something profoundly wrong with Salem Bin Laden:
His need for constant companionship grew increasingly awkward. When he used the bathroom, for example, he kept the door open and demanded that his friends sit nearby and talk to him as he sat. If no members of his entourage were around, he called down to the front desk and offered to pay for a maid or maintenance man to come to his room, to sit outside the bathroom and keep him company while he did his business. [p. 316-17]
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Barack Obama who appears in Dreams, and, one presumes, in his own continuing interior life, is not a comforting multiracial or post-racial figure like Tiger Woods or Derek Jeter who prefers to be looked at through a kaleidoscope. Though there are many structural parallels between Dreams and Invisible Man, Obama believes in the old-fashioned, unabashedly romantic, and, in the end, quite weird idea of racial authenticity that Ellison rejected. He embraces his racial identity despite his mixed parentage through a kind of Kierkegaardian leap into blackness, through which he hopes to become a whole, untroubled person.
Obama's decision to identify with the lineage of his black Kenyan father to the exclusion of his white U.S.-born mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and her parents allows him a measure of release from the cruel racial logic that binds Ellison's narrator--he comes from outside American society, and therefore he is not entirely bound by the overdetermined racial logic that unites the children of slaves and masters. Yet, while Obama's rejection of his "white blood" may seem familiar from the writings of African American authors like Malcolm X, it is actually much stranger; Obama's partial "whiteness" is not the product of an ancient rape by an anonymous slave-master but is instead the color of the mother who raised him.
The assumption that Obama racially identifies to some strong extent with his white mother and grandparents comes naturally to white people, but it is contradicted by the evidence of his work. ... Dreams from My Father does not end with the expected discovery that we are all radically alone in the world, but rather with the discovery that he is a member of a strong and loving black African family--even if the father he identified with as a child is a myth created by guilty white liberals. Throughout his narrative, Obama's evolving "blackness" requires a deliberate and increasing degree of mental and physical alienation from the white relatives who cared for him as a child.
And as the author also observes, Obama's campaign is one big cover-up -- he simply cannot reveal who he really is to the American people:
While the identity that he constructed for himself in his autobiography has allowed him to blossom as a man and as a politician, it bears little resemblance to the conventional narratives of white men who run for president--and contains elements that are likely to frighten off large portions of the electorate, before or after November 4. The story of a man who identifies with a foreign father, and with people who are not Americans, and who does so on the basis of the color of their skin, flies in the face of the simplistic racial pieties that white Americans have embraced since the end of Jim Crow. The identity that Obama so painstakingly created for himself is not one that he can share with the electorate, and so the price of his political success is that he is forced to sublimate the material he had so painfully excavated and again become invisible.
Read the entire piece. It is probably the most accurate depiction of Obama I've seen in any mainstream publication.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
I just wanted to mention that this month's issue of the invaluable Commentary Magazine has the low-down on Obama and the New Party (and much more) in an article entitled Obama's Leftism, which I have linked to before. The article should be mandatory reading for all Americans. In any event, here's the excerpt on Obama and the New Party:
In his campaign for the Illinois senate, Obama was endorsed by the New Party (NP), a coalition of socialists, Communists, and other leftists. According to the newsletter of the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, whose members were said to constitute 15 percent of the Chicago New Party, “Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP [which] mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” Apparently, Obama signed such a pledge. After winning the primary (unopposed because his lawyers had succeeded in knocking all three opponents off the ballot), he appeared at a New Party membership meeting to voice his thanks.
Amazing, isn't it? Four weeks to go and a socialist with a 20-year membership in a black supremacist church is the odds on favorite to be president.
The Islamist Hamas terrorist organization has initiated an online course in explosives, military weapons and tactics for would-be jihad fighters. Aimed at the population of the Palestinian Authority, the course is called "Get Ready" and is designed to prepare the population for war with Israel.
First exposed outside Palestinian Authority and jihadist circles on Monday by Israel's Channel 10 TV, the sophisticated course includes highly detailed practical and theoretical lessons, as well as sample videos of jihadist attacks. All manner of weapons are described, analyzed and their proper use explained by masked Hamas instructors.
Students also learn about such things as the manufacture and detonation of explosives, the functioning of rocket launchers, weak points on IDF tanks, and the physics of firing at a moving vehicle. Lessons cover possible scenarios such as an IDF ground incursion into Hamas-controlled Gaza or an airborne Israeli commando assault.
Each instructive section concludes with test questions. For example, a fatigues-wearing Hamas teacher asks, "A truck is moving at a rate of 15 meters per second, at a distance of 200 meters, from left to right. How will you succeed in hitting this truck?"
When reached at his Georgia home, Jimmy Carter reiterated his previous calls for the United States to fund the Hamas government because he continues to believe "there's a good chance" Hamas will renounce violence. Carter still hasn't cracked open the Hamas charter, apparently.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
2. When asked directly if he would commit US troops to support Israel in the event of an Iranian attack, Obama refused to answer, but said the key point was to start changing Iran's "cost-benefit analysis" so that Iran could "rejoin the community of nations." Not only was Obama's non-answer an unmistakable signal to Israel that it'll be on its own, but it also betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of what motivates Iran and its radical Islamic leaders. Ahmadinejad is not a rational actor who engages in cost-benefit analysis, but a Holocaust-denying madman whose main goal is to nuke Israel and do whatever it takes to bring about the return of the Mahdi.
3. Finally, in referring to Pakistan/Afghanistan, Obama said that "the war against terrorism began in that region and that's where it will end." Obama doesn't appear to grasp that we are not up against a small band of fighters confined to a single country or region, but rather a global enemy tied together by a single unifying ideology. Despite what Obama would have you believe, none of the 9/11 hijackers came from Pakistan or Afghanistan; they instead came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon. And the essential planning for those attacks occurred not in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but Hamburg, Germany. Similarly, the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were not Pakistani or Afghani, but instead hailed from Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt and the Palestinian territories. And to go back further still, the main terrorist threat we've faced since 1979 originates in Iran, whose proxy force -- Hezbollah -- has struck all over the world, even in Argentina.
Beyond the unbelievable arrogance in suggesting that he will "end" the war on terror, what strikes me most about Obama is his stunning ignorance of the enemy we face. But hey, he pronounces Pakistan "Pok-ee-stan" so he must know what he's talking about, right?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Then Obama's buddy, Tony Rezko, went to jail. Obama's response: "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew."
And now Obama's friend, William Ayers, is being scrutinized. The response from Obama's camp? Obama "didn't know the history."
Folks, Obama is either lying through his teeth or he is the stupidest man on the planet. Either possibility should disqualify him from the presidency.
In February, Obama strategist David Axelrod told the Politico Web site: "Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school. They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together." But while Ayers and Obama are acquainted, the charge that they "pal around" is a stretch of any reading of the public record.
Are they friendly?
Do they pal around?
Anyone who disagrees is a racist. And this concludes today's lesson.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: October 3, 2008
CHICAGO — At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol. Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama’s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.
Notice how the Times attempts to frame the Obama-Ayers relationship as "paths crossing sporadically." Never mind that Obama consciously chose to launch his political career in Obama's home. It's just "paths crossing sporadically" -- nothing to get worked up about. The article continues:
More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood” and “somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.”
So it's just "conservative critics" who could even possibly see a problem with Obama's relationship with a committed Marxist who bombed the Pentagon and wishes he had done more? But then it gets better. The Times admits that those "conservative critics" are actually right:
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63.
So there you have it. According to the Times, Obama has in fact deliberately misled about the nature of his relationship with Ayers. But stop reading there, folks -- the rest of article is pure spin. The relationship has been "greatly exaggerated" and anyone who says otherwise is simply attempting to "smear" Obama. Oh, and Ayers is a great guy now, he's a well-respected professor who "has done a lot of good" for the country. In short, Ayers is a true patriot.
Of course, the Times declines to tell its readers that Ayers is still a committed Marxist who as recently as November 2006 visited Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to celebrate socialism and urge Venezuelans "to continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane."
UPDATE: Sarahcuda slams Obama for Ayers connection during talk in Colorado:
"There's been a lot of interest in what I read lately. Well, I was reading my copy of today’s New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack’s friends from Chicago. Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.’ These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in - not my kids and not your kids. The only man who can take on Washington is John McCain."
Thursday, October 2, 2008
And the Democrats nearly had the White House in their grasp.
But then something amazing happened. Fighting for dear life, the Republicans somehow managed to elude the Democrats' death grip.
. . . And launch one down field. . .
Got it! What a catch! Palin pulls a David Tyree!
* * *
It's a whole new ballgame, folks.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Fact check: Biden spins a helicopter tale
WASHINGTON (AP) - When Joe Biden tells voters he understands the threat posed by Afghan extremists, he dramatically illustrates one reason why: His helicopter was "forced down" on "the superhighway of terror." Actually, snow, not the enemy, persuaded the helicopter pilot to land and wait out a storm.
The Democratic vice presidential candidate has repeatedly left that part out, in an episode that Republicans hope will become an echo of Hillary Rodham Clinton's errant tale during the primaries of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.
Ah, Joe Biden. He's full of crap and entirely unqualified to be vice president. Now, there's a winning combination.
Meanwhile, since we're on the subject of veeps and heading into tomorrow night's debate, it seems appropriate to revisit this post where I suggested Palin merely needs to beat the points spread to "win" the debate. But given Palin's rather uninspiring recent performances with Couric and elsewhere, I'd say she's now a solid two-touchdown underdog. How will she do? I predict she covers the spread, but that may no longer be enough. Indeed, with the recent Obama surge, we may need a flat-out win from Palin to get back into this thing.
Will it happen? Ya never know -- the Giants were nearly two touchdown underdogs heading into the Superbowl against the Pats. I'll certainly be watching to see if Palin can pull a Tyree.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
But let's cut through the nonsense and look at the evidence. Which presidential ticket is actually more racist? First, let's take the Democrats. As we all know, Obama was a member of a racist church for 20 years, and during that time, the racist Reverend Wright married him, baptized his children, and served as his mentor. Obama's ridiculous suggestion that he "never heard" Wright's racist sermons is belied not only by the fact that the core theology of Obama's church is black liberation theology, but also by Obama's acknowledgement in Dreams From My Father that the very first Wright sermon he heard -- the one that first attracted him to Wright -- contained the following gem: "White folks' greed runs a world in need." Additional evidence of Obama's anti-white views is found in another Dreams From My Father passage, where Obama speaks glowingly about Malcolm X:
Only Malcolm X's autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me ... [A]s I imagine myself following Malcolm's call, one line in the book stayed with me. He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged.
Finally, Obama's marriage to Michelle Obama -- who complained bitterly in her Princeton thesis of "further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant" -- is further evidence of the racist views that Obama and his wife harbor.
And Joe Biden's no bargain, either. Biden famously called Obama the "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" and has also said "you cannot go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent."
Now let's look briefly at the Republicans. John McCain adopted a daughter from Bangladesh, and Sarah Palin married a man of Eskimo descent. In other words, both members of the Republican ticket have chosen to share their lives with someone of a different racial background.
Folks, whether racism resides in one's heart is determined not by DNA, but by one's conscious actions, decisions and life choices. McCain and Palin pass that test with flying colors, while Obama and Biden fail miserably. But you'd never know it listening to the mainstream media.
Monday, September 29, 2008
1. Obama's mother attended a radical, communist-leaning church known as "the little red church on the hill."
2. Obama's mother attended a radical, communist-leaning high school where she was taught the Communist Manifesto and which had a communist school board chairman and which had several communist teachers on staff.
3. Obama's mother was called a "fellow traveler" by her friends, which is code for communist sympathizer.
Now here's where things get weird. If you go to the Chicago Tribune webpage that formerly housed the aforementioned article, you get the following error message:
We are sorry, but we are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try back later. Thank you for visiting chicagotribune.com.But the rest of the Chicago Tribune website works fine. Think I'm paranoid? Well, here's where it gets even weirder. The Chicago Tribune is owned by the Tribune Company, which owns several other papers -- including the Baltimore Sun and Los Angeles Times -- and it appears that those papers also ran the same article on Obama's mother. So what happens when you go to the Baltimore Sun webpage where the article used to be located? You guessed it:
We are sorry, but we are currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please try back later. Thank you for visiting baltimoresun.com.How about when you go to the LA Times webpage where the article used to be located:
Sorry, the page you requested could not be found. ... Thank you for visiting latimes.com.Now, I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and it is entirely possible that there is a reasonable explanation for this. But I find this whole thing very suspicious. What do you think?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Obama's assault on free speech reminds me of how Islam deals with speech it does not like: "Behead Those Who Insult The Prophet." The latest incident in Islam's ongoing war against free speech occurred this weekend in London, as the publisher of a new book about Mohammed had his house fire bombed by Muslim extremists.
Islam's assault on free speech in the West is disturbing enough. The last thing we need is fascism from our own elected leaders.
10/1/08 Update: Andy McCarthy from the National Review hits on the same themes:
In London last week, a frightful warning was sounded about encroaching tyranny. At an important conference, speaker after impassioned speaker warned of the peril to Western values posed by freedom-devouring sharia — the Islamic legal code. Like all tyrannies, sharia’s first target is speech: Suppress all examination of Muslim radicalism by threats of prosecution and libel actions, and smugly call it “the rule of law.”But we may already be further gone than the London conferees feared. And without resort to the Islamicization that so startled them. For that, we can thank the campaign of Barack Obama.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I'm surprised this comment has not drawn more attention, not only because it was an admission by Obama that he's unqualified for office, but also because of the terrifying prospect of Joe Biden actually running U.S. foreign policy. To start with, Biden is dumb as rocks (he ranked 506 out of a class of 688 at the University of Delaware, and 76th out of 85 at Syracuse Law), and his problems with plagiarism and honesty are legendary. But one can just imagine Obama intoning: "Look, Joe may not be book smart and he's made mistakes in the past, but on foreign policy, he's my guy."
The problem is that Biden has been wrong on every major foreign policy issue of this generation. In particular, Biden (i) opposed Reagan on defense spending, which is generally credited with helping to win the Cold War; (ii) opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf war, which would have left Saddam in charge of Kuwait (and possibly Saudi Arabia); (iii) supported the 2003 Iraq war, which Biden now says was a mistake; (iv) called for a partition of Iraq into 3 largely-autonomous states, which now looks pretty foolish; and (v) opposed the surge, which -- had Biden gotten his way -- would have ensured defeat in Iraq.
But perhaps the most striking example of Biden's poor instincts on foreign policy was his reaction to 9/11. This New Republic article from 2001 recounts the disturbing story of what Biden told his staffers a mere three weeks after the 9/11 attacks:
At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares.
Where to begin? Biden -- the foreign policy "expert" -- apparently thinks Iranians are Arabs, not realizing that Iranians and Arabs have been arch-rivals since the beginning of time. But worse still, Biden's comment evidences a "touchy-feely" mentality that says, when your enemy punches you in the gut, the best response is to give them money so that they know you still care.
Can you imagine if FDR had suggested that we respond to Pearl Harbor by cutting a check to Imperial Japan? Lord help us if Obama and Biden are elected.
(1) Obama says McCain doesn't have the judgment to be president because he voted for the Iraq war. Well so did Biden. That means Obama thinks Biden doesn't have the judgment to be president.
(2) Of course, Biden doesn't think too highly of Obama, either. He's publicly stated Obama isn't ready to be president. So neither thinks the other should be president.
(3) Plus, Biden's got self-esteem issues. He apparently thinks Hillary would've been a better VP choice. I wonder why Biden didn't share that with Obama before he was selected.
(4) And what's the deal with clean coal? In his acceptance speech, Obama said that as president, he would invest in clean coal technology. But last week Biden flatly declared, "No coal plants here in America." So what's a voter to believe?
(5) Have Biden and Obama discussed their campaign ads? It didn't seem that way last week when Biden called anti-McCain ads "terrible" because they criticized McCain for not being able to use a computer. Biden later recanted, saying he had merely reacted to press reports on an ad he had never seen. Yikes.
So there you have it. Neither Obama nor Biden thinks the other is ready to be president, and Biden's got self-esteem issues. With all these problems, it's no wonder these two jokers can't agree on coal or whether it's ok to make fun of McCain's torture-induced typing problems. Heck, these guys don't even like each other. If there's such a thing as a dysfunctional political family, this is it.
Friday, September 26, 2008
But the silliest moment was Obama's "I've got a bracelet too" remark. McCain had just gotten through explaining how the bracelet he wears every day was given to him by a fallen soldier's mother and serves as a constant reminder of the commitment he made to not let her son's death be in vain. Obama's rejoinder? "I've got a bracelet too!" How lame. It reminded me of a little kid jealous that his big bro is getting all of mommy's attention. "I've got a bracelet too, mommy! Look at me! Look at me!"
Silly as that was, the most telling moment for Obama may actually have been precipitated by a McCain gaffe. It began when McCain criticized Obama for failing to support Senator Kyl's resolution to declare Iran's "Republican Guard" a terrorist organization. Now, it's not a major gaffe, but the "Republican Guard" was in Iraq; the group to which McCain referred is called the "Revolutionary Guard." But Obama -- ever unsure of himself -- then repeated the mistake and also made reference to the "Republican Guard in Iran."
You got the feeling Obama was thinking to himself, "Republican Guard? Well, if John said it, it must be right."
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad weighed in on the US presidential election today, noting that only one of the candidates supports restoring diplomatic contact with Iran. In response to a question from an American student about whether he supports Democratic nominee Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, Ahmadinejad did not explicitly name Obama but said: “The American government 28 years ago decided on its own to cut its ties with Iran . . .We do prefer to have relations, whereas one of the candidates in this election would prefer that.”
Are you kidding me? Obama has now been endorsed by Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Farrakhan. Obviously, Obama cannot control who endorses him. Nevertheless, the fact that the world's most prominent Jew haters prefer Obama is certainly indicative of whether Obama will be "good for the Jews."
How can this willful blindness of American Jews be explained? I know there is a long history of Jewish identification with the Democratic Party, but that argument proves too much. After all, Reagan received nearly 40% of the Jewish vote in 1980. Fast forward to 2008 and McCain -- an extremely pro-Israel candidate -- cannot dream of getting 40% of the Jewish vote. Incredibly, Jews support Obama, the candidate who favors unconditional negotiations with Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust-denier who has openly stated his intention to "wipe Israel off the map." And don't even get me started on Obama's mentor, Reverend Wright.
In all seriousness, what's going on here?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Ahmadinejad was inside the Grand Hyatt Hotel in NYC, where he was the guest of honor at a dinner organized by various religious leaders. Read that line again and let it sink in. Notably, the Grand Hyatt is owned by Penny Pritzker, national finance chair of Obama's campaign.
Meanwhile, a crowd of protesters gathered outside.
The crowd was fired up for the protest. American and Israeli flags were everywhere.
It's difficult to see, but the sign in the background says, "Pictures of Iran under shariah." It depicts two Iranian homosexuals being hanged.
Best sign of the night. The crowd was very pro-McCain and anti-Obama. In fact, one of the speakers said he was speaking on behalf of Palin.
I liked this sign, too.
Read this one carefully: Muslims, Christians and Jews against Ahmadinejad .... and Obama!
Jews for Ahmadinejad! Yeah, the neturei karta cult was there to support their main man Ahmadinejad and bash Israel. They were chanting, "Israel is a terrorist state."
Jihad is death? Gee, I thought it meant peaceful internal struggle to become a better person.
No nukes for the Nazi of Tehran.
Some Hindu folks were in attendance, too. Hindus have arguably been victimized by Islamic aggression more than any other group. Glad to see this nice gentleman get the message out.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Late in his high-school career he found a mentor of sorts in Frank Marshall Davis, an older black poet. According to Herbert Romerstein, former minority chief investigator of the House Committee on Internal Security, FBI files reveal Davis to have been a member of the Communist party not only in its public phase but also when it officially dissolved and went underground in the 1950’s. According to Obama, Davis told him that a white person “can’t know” a black person, and that the “real price of admission” to college was “leaving your race at the door.”Another black supremacist with Marxist views -- sounds like someone else we know, doesn't it? And then there's Alice Palmer, whom I entirely overlooked. Commentary notes:
Obama’s target was a legislative seat held by Alice Palmer, who had decided to make a run for the U.S. Congress. She introduced Obama in Democratic-party circles as her anointed successor. (After a later falling-out, the two would dispute whether her support had amounted to a formal endorsement or merely, as she claimed, “an informal nod.”) Like others among his mentors or patrons, Palmer, too, was a radical, a member of the executive body of the U.S. Peace Council, the least disguised of Soviet front organizations. She had made multiple pilgrimages to the Soviet Union, and in 1986 attended the 27th Congress of the Soviet Communist party, telling the party paper on her return that the Soviets “plan to provide people with higher wages and better education, health and transportation, while we in our country are hearing that cutbacks are necessary in all of these areas.” According to a later story in the same paper, Palmer visited Moscow again the following year to attend the World Congress of Women sponsored by another Soviet front organization.I'll say it again: if the American public truly understood Obama's hard-core Marxist roots, the man would not stand a chance. Indeed, with Russia invading its former republics and threatening to nuke Poland, and Chavez and friends working towards Marxist revolution throughout Latin America, it is terrifying to think that we may be on the verge of installing in the White House a guy who, as Commentary notes, "comes to us from a background farther to the Left than any presidential nominee since George McGovern, or perhaps ever."
We live in interesting times.
Well, at least if you're a Latino who supports democracies, that is. Yesterday here in New York, VP candidate Sarah Palin met with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia. Thank you Governor Palin. Thank you for taking the time to sit down with Colombia's president and showing the respect to listen to the democratically elected leader of one of our most important allies. And thank you President Bush for greeting Colombia's president warmly on Saturday and having your Commerce Secretary do the same.
I can't thank any Democrats for doing the same, though. Even though Uribe's concerns are not partisan ones, but ones that will benefit both countries. Investor's Business Daily reported yesterday on this shocking refusal of leading Democrats to give Uribe the time of day.
First up, Pelosi. She jettisoned the free trade deal that would have allowed American goods to be sold in Colombia without tariffs. This would have resulted in greater demand for our products abroad. According to IBD, Pelosi "refused to meet Uribe and didn't acknowledge a White House invitation to an event in his honor. Later, her staff regally complained that Uribe didn't call her." Second, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Despite his penchant for trips to "luxury locales in South America, [he] had no time to repay the hospitality to Uribe." Nice. Third, so-called Latin experts, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. If they were truly experts, they'd know that when a head of state comes calling and that head of state is a friend to America, the least they can do is offer him a cafecito, preferably Colombian.
And then there's "citizen of the world" Obama. According to IBD,
[He] only grudgingly permitted Uribe to talk with him by telephone, afterward disclosing no news about why he still opposes cutting tariffs on American goods to Colombia as the free trade pact provides. Nor did he make any public statements, seemingly to make the call go unnoticed.As a Latina who supports the Republican ticket, I am proud of the Republican leadership and their treatment of our democratic ally, Colombia, which is doggedly struggling to beat back Chavez-inspired socialism throughout the continent. I can now say I have something else in common with Daddy Yankee, besides our native tongues.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Let's address the matter head on. The Democrats' essential argument on Iraq is that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with Bin Laden. But what this argument overlooks is that Saddam offered Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in late 1998 and/or 1999 -- the very timeframe during which 9/11 attacks were being planned. In fact, that was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report, although it was all but ignored by the mainstream media. Here is the relevant excerpt from the 9/11 Report:
In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December. Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.
So the next time you hear a "progressive" squawk that there was "no relationship" between Bin Laden and Saddam, make sure you hit 'em with the facts.
Despite the routine vilification of the men and women who make the big banks run, we should all see a booming Wall Street as a sign of economic good health and prosperity. That means more jobs for those not working on Wall Street and more money for charities and public institutions. When Wall Street's ailing, so are service sector jobs and non-profits. For each financial industry job, two to three positions in other sectors, from legal to leisure, are created.
This morning I was reminded of all this while chatting with a neighbor's nanny who told me there were suddenly lots of nannies out there without jobs. Apparently, with the pink slip comes the realization that you no longer "need" all those nice extras -- like nannies and personal trainers. Though some may rejoice in such a comeuppance, the reality is that for every person who loses his job, there are two or three more who also lose theirs.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The human gaffe machine is at it again. For the record, Biden now officially supports the very attack ad he previously called "terrible." Yeah, I am talking about the ad that criticized McCain for not being proficient at typing on a computer because he took torture in Vietnam for five years. The Trail has the story:
Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden issued a statement late Tuesday attempting to clarify his comments that an ad the Obama campaign ran earlier this month was "terrible."But Biden now apparently thinks the ad is peachy:
Biden, in an interview that aired Tuesday on CBS Evening News, had criticized an ad the Obama campaign released earlier this month that highlighted McCain's inability to use a computer, saying, "I thought that was terrible by the way" and "if I'd have had anything to do with it, we never would have done it."
But in the statement issued by the Obama campaign, Biden said he had never seen the ad and only read press reports of it.
"Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Senator McCain's ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize," Biden said in the statement.
Good lord. That doesn't even make sense. Biden is apparently claiming that the act of viewing his own ad somehow made him realize that McCain's ads are "disgraceful." Yeah, that's the ticket. "Now that I've finally seen my own disgraceful ad, I've decided that your ads are ... er... disgraceful." And from that breathtakingly illogical leap, Biden declares that his own crappy ad is fine.
This is Kerry-esque, folks. Biden truly is ... the gift that keeps on giving.