Constitution? We Don't Need No Stinkin' Constitution!

First of all, let me wish all of you a very Merry Christmas! I don't do the "Happy Holidays" nonsense, since the message of Christmas is "peace on earth, good will toward men". Therefore, it is a message for everyone, Christian or otherwise. So, again, Merry Christmas, everyone!

Do you remember all those civil liberties we lost to the tyrannical Bush Administration, thanks to the fear of terrorism and the Patriot Act? Remember all those people who had their library records ransacked by the FBI? The law abiding citizens whose phone calls were monitored by the Terrorist Surveillance Program?

Neither do I. Probably, because the accusations of "shredding the Constitution" were just the political posturings of a Left that was still deranged over their failed attempt to steal the 2000 election.

Normally, I don't get too exercised about government actions. Oh, sure! Each time a law is passed, that's just a little more of our precious Liberty dying on the vine. But it's one thing when it is done by our elected legislators and it involves our own institutions and bureaucracies. At least then we still had some representation in the matter. It's still wrong, but we were complicit.

But what if a foreign law enforcement agency were given a more free hand to operate in the United States than our own domestic police agencies? What if that foreign law enforcement agency answered to a foreign court that America has yet to recognize? What if said agency were immune to any attempt to seize its property or examine its archives? And what if this were done, not by a vote of our elected representatives, but through an executive order by the President?

This is precisely what The Messiah, President Barack H. Obama did on Dec. 17th, 2009 with Executive Order Number 13524. Apparently, this wasn't newsworthy, as News Busters found no mention of this travesty anywhere in the New York Times or the AP. You can read for yourselves the facts here and here.

First, let me give you a little history.

The US belongs to the International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL. Back in 1983, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12425. This granted INTERPOL many of the privileges and and courtesies afforded diplomats and certain international organizations, as covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288). However, recognizing that INTERPOL is a police agency, Reagan wisely made certain exceptions to the immunities and privileges granted to the international police.

Firstly, IINTERPOL was not granted to immunity from seizure of property. This would enable an American, wrongly accused by INTERPOL, to get satisfaction through legal suits. This is the sort of check and balance that helps keep our own domestic police from becoming oppressive.

Secondly, unlike other international organizations and diplomats, INTERPOL was made subject to the Freedom of Information Act, yet another check and balance against abuse of power by police.

What these two exceptions do, in essence, is subjugate INTERPOL to the same Constitutional restrictions that domestic police agencies have to work within. You, as an American, had the very same rights when under the investigation of INTERPOL, as you would have by the FBI or a local sheriff. And, should those rights be violated, you would have the legal right to investigate any possible wrong-doing and to seek redress.

It was bad enough when the priapic President Bill Clinton issued EO 12971. That gem amended EO 12425 to allow INTERPOL to be exempt from "the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes". Only the government's revenue stream was hurt there. Besides, I'm in favor of tax cuts, even the elimination of taxes, on everyone. So, if INTERPOL got a tax break, more power to them!

Saint Barack, however, violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution with his EO 13524. But more on that later.

Recall what was written in Dopenhagen a couple of days ago. The original goal of the Copenhagen climate summit was a treaty that would establish a world government with the power to tax and to enforce its decisions, thereby destroying capitalism as we know it, all without the benefit of elected officials. Saint Barack was all about signing that treaty. He flew into a blizzard (See the Gore Effect ) to try to bring this New World Order Obamanation about.

Thankfully, negotiations went down in flames and all The Messiah was left with was an "accord" that was non-binding and had no teeth, but still promises billions to the governments of Third World nations to keep their people living in squalor.

Ah! But the Statists never quit and they never tire. Now, The Messiah, Saint Barack, has elevated INTERPOL, a foreign police agency, above the FBI. Indeed, INTERPOL has risen above even the Constitution itself!

You read that right, Folks! If INTERPOL comes knocking on your door, you have no right to demand a warrant. If wrongly accused, you have no right to seek redress, or even investigate their files for evidence that you were wronged. Nor are domestic police agencies any guarantee that INTERPOL plays by the rules. If you lived any amount of time in New York, you know how diplomats are above the law.

Some of you, mainly those on the Left, will say, "What's the big deal? He's the President and he has the right to issue executive orders! Every president does it! Besides, they give out diplomatic immunity, why not for INTERPOL?"

All of that may be true, except diplomats and most other international organizations are not police agencies. Diplomats can't search your premises, can't arrest you, can't bring charges against you to the International Criminal Court. The United States has not joined the ICC, by the way, since many of its provisions violate American sovereignty.

Did you know that INTERPOL has its American offices headquartered in the Justice Department in Washington, DC? Does this now mean that the Justice Department now has an inviolable stash to hide documents from the American people, immune to FOIA requests?

Be aware, ladies and gentlemen! The Left is committed to destroying the United States as a representative republic. It has been working toward this end since the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. We see this in the constant violations of the Constitution in such things as domestic spending, gun control, progressive taxes, the expanded powers of bureaucracy, climate treaties, even such simple semantic mechanisms such as substituting the word "republic" with "democracy".

The ultimate goal is the destruction of capitalism and the American way of life and the subjugation of the American people under a world government run by the very same Third World bureaucrats who brought you the Oil-for-Food scam and brothels and rape run by the "UN Peacekeepers" in Africa. All of this to be run by a few, well-connected elites like Maurice Strong and Al Gore, the Grand Prelate of the Church of Gore.

The time has come, my Friends, to look at just what was meant by "Yes We Can".

We had better before it's too late.

Copyright Dec. 24th, 2009

Obamacare Gives Me Agita!

Only government employees can come up with a product that will cost more, that practically no one likes, and requires two or three thousand pages to describe, which no one of them has read. Oh, and it all has to be done by Christmas or the nasty bits of the Book of Revelations might come about a little early.

I'm talking healthcare reform here, Folks! What was the undoing of the Clinton Administration with Hillarycare now stands a good chance of passing the Senate in the next couple of days -- "a Christmas present for the people", the all-but-embalmed Nancy Pelosi calls it.

Thanks, Nan! But I'll take coal, thank you very much!

Not one Republican senator will vote for this monstrosity. Hey, they even have to buy the votes of Democrats! No one really wants this, except, of course, for the Cloward-Piven elitists of academia, The Messiah Obama, and folks who just don't understand economics.

But we're going full speed ahead with this nightmare, all so Saint Barrak can cross healthcare off his list of promises. Folks! We are so screwed!

First, let's look at the stuff the Left doesn't like about the proposals as they currently stand:

1. It doesn't quite cover all the people that it promises. I know! The 55 million quote of people uninsured is a complete fabrication (subtract illegal aliens; folks who are just between jobs and soon to be covered again; people who choose not to buy insurance and the total is just a couple of million) but we were promised that all those millions of "uninsured" would get coverage. Saint Obama is falling a bit short here.
   
   
2. It looks like there will be restrictions on taxpayer funded abortions. Abortion, you see, is not just a right. It's an entitlement, you male chauvinist, sexist pig! What good is the right to abortion if you can't get the taxpayer to pay for it? This sentiment is best illustrated by Montag's Immutable Law of Nature Number Eight.
   
   
3. It seems that, among the horse trading needed to get all the Democrats on board, someone left out the public option. Ah, but you Progressives won't have to worry about that for long. Just wait for the conference. That's when all your favorite stuff will be put back in under the cover of night.
   
   
4. It doesn't punish the insurance companies enough. After all, how can we have Universal Healthcare if there are still private companies providing insurance?

Yes We Can! Er... kinda'... sort of... well, almost. Hey Lefties! Buyer's remorse setting in yet?

Oh, yes! The Left is quite bitter about this Marxist attempt to conquer one sixth of the nation's economy. You can tell when, even though it's their own senators holding up the "reforms", they still attack the Republicans, whom they had already decided not to include in their machinations. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), had this to say about the GOP:

"Voting 'no' and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.

They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one."

Can anyone recall the Democrats being courteous and non-destructive during the previous administration? As I recall, they even blamed George Bush for the No Child Left Behind Act, and that was written by Ted Kennedy (who, by the way, has just reached about five months sober!)

Sure, there is disquiet on The Messiah's Left flank, but there is an awful lot to dislike from the perspective of a Conservative:

1. Taxes, taxes, and, oh yeah! More taxes! These all start in the very first year of enactment, while the actual programs don't begin until 2014. There are also cuts in Medicare funding, which will make coverage for the elderly more expensive. And the added expense for business, particularly small business, is just what we need with unemployment surpassing 10% in a recession. We might have healthcare, but we won't have jobs!
   
   
2. While the words "death panels" might not actually appear in either the House or the Senate versions of the bill, we're still looking at unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats deciding such things as what insurance we must buy, what treatments will or will not be available, and which patients will be able to actually access such treatments. Many times, these decisions will be based upon the age of the patient, his "lifestyle" (Want to bet that smokers will get the same treatment as, say, promiscuous gays?), previous health conditions, likely number of "meaningful" years of life (to be decided by said bureaucrats) and so on and so forth.
   
   
3. Despite the fact that, at least so far, the public option doesn't seem to be in play, let's not forget the fact every social program we have today was supposed to be far more limited than they actually became. The current healthcare reform plans are merely the point of the wedge that will drive all private healthcare providers and insurers out of business and supplant them with top/down, command-and-control, full tilt Marxist hegemony over yet another big part of America's withering private sector.

OK! Enough about what the Left and I are against. What am I for? What do I propose to solve our healthcare woes?

Well, considering that almost every poll shows that 80% or more of Americans are actually quite satisfied with their healthcare coverage, perhaps we are trying to solve a "problem" that doesn't quite exist. I wouldn't be the first time. Just consider "Dopenhagen". Sometimes, our political class just needs the courage and the wisdom to simply do nothing.

But, if we really think we need to meddle, let's take a page from the Cato Institute:

1. Let individuals control their health care dollars, and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers.

2. Move away from a health care system dominated by employer-provided health insurance. Health insurance should be personal and portable, controlled by individuals themselves rather than government or an employer. Employment-based insurance hides much of the true cost of health care to consumers, thereby encouraging over-consumption. It also limits consumer choice, since employers get final say over what type of insurance a worker will receive. It means people who don’t receive insurance through work are put at a significant and costly disadvantage. And, of course, it means that if you lose your job, you are likely to end up uninsured as well.

3. Changing from employer to individual insurance requires changing the tax treatment of health insurance. The current system excludes the value of employer-provided insurance from a worker’s taxable income. However, a worker purchasing health insurance on their own must do so with after-tax dollars. This provides a significant tilt towards employer-provided insurance, which should be reversed.Workers should receive a standard deduction, a tax credit, or, better still, large Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for the purchase of health insurance, regardless of whether they receive it through their job or purchase it on their own.

4. We need to increase competition among both insurers and health providers. People should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines. One study estimated that that adjustment alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without costing taxpayers a dime.

5. We also need to rethink medical licensing laws to encourage greater competition among providers. Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, midwives, and other non-physician practitioners should have far greater ability to treat patients. Doctors and other health professionals should be able to take their licenses from state to state. We should also be encouraging innovations in delivery such as medical clinics in retail outlets.

6. Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and sick to ensure they could afford coverage.

7. The expansion of “health status insurance” would protect many of those with preexisting conditions. States may also wish to experiment with high risk pools to ensure coverage for those with high cost medical conditions.

We don't really need a government run healthcare system. They never worked well where they were tried. Of course, should you want government to fund healthcare, there is a way that is also quite free market. This was proposed 15 years ago, again by the Cato Institute:

1. Take all the money we spend on Medicare/Medicaid right now and give each adult American citizen (I know! How exclusionary of me! ) a voucher that can only be deposited in special accounts for this purpose. These accounts will accrue interest, but disbursements can only be made to insurance providers or medical providers. Smaller vouchers will be given to parents for each child, so family coverage becomes available.
   
   
2. Require every recipient of said vouchers to purchase catastrophic health insurance with high deductibles. Such policies will be for major illnesses and such and should have quite low premiums for the vast majority of people.
   
   
3. Each American then pays for routine healthcare expenses from the amount in his healthcare savings account. Again, the checks drawn from this account can only go to insurance or medical providers.
   
   
4. Each year, whatever is left over in the account rolls over to the next year, giving the recipient more each year, provided he spends it wisely.
   
   
5. At the end of ten years, the recipient can choose to keep the excess money in the account or pocket it for his own uses.

The beauty of this idea is that it gets the government out of the medical coverage business

( Medicare/Medicaid ) while putting the consumer in charge of the actual expenditures. At the same time, medical providers are forced to compete for customers as they never had to under our current system or under Obamacare. This will keep prices much lower and encourage innovation. Meanwhile, the consumer has incentive to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and to keep an eye on possible fraud -- fraud to which Medicare/Medicaid and, ultimately Obamacare, are all too susceptible.

Ah! The free market! It works every time it's tried!

It's just a shame that our governing class just can't seem to let go of all that power.

Copyright Dec. 22, 2009

DOPENHAGEN

Yup!  You read that right, my Friends!

"Dopenhagen" is the only way to spell that fiasco!  The only folks who have anything to cheer about are those of us on the Right.  The Left are almost apoplectic about the abysmal failure of the United Nations to achieve the stated goals of the the grand conclave in Denmark.

And what were those goals?  Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley  has already said it best.  But, in a nutshell, allow me to state those goals in my own words:

1. The establishment of a world government with no provisions for elections, legislatures, or any other form of representative governance.
   
   
2. The transfer of vast sums of money and property from the developed world ( read that as "the United States") to the Third World in order to satisfy our "climate debt".  Ostensibly, these are a form of reparations for the "destruction of the environment" due to our profligate burning of fossil fuels.
   
   
3. Enforcement of these nefarious provisions, without any sort of popular representation or ballots, thereby condemning the Western World to poverty and squalor through the ruining of our economy.  Incidentally, this will also condemn the Third World to abject poverty, since it will, in effect, be turned into a massive and expensive welfare client.  Students of history should be aware of the failure of welfare states to improve anyone's state in life.
   
   

Thankfully, the Copenhagen Conference failed to achieve those stated goals.  They accomplished neither a binding treaty nor even an agreement.  What they came up with was merely an "Accord".  Totally non-binding, it is nothing more than a further statement of desired goals, with none of the Marxist trappings the UN was hoping for.

This silver lining isn't without its cloud, however.  It still provides for vast sums of money and property to be spent on the Third World.  The Copenhagen Accord is still a failure, albeit a very expensive failure.

Now, lest anyone doubt that the goals of the Copenhagen Conference were, indeed, Marxist and totalitarian, please take note of three very well-received speakers at the festivities:  Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Robert Mugabe.  Jonah Goldberg, in today's New York Post, can give you all the details.  One national-socialist dictator after another blamed capitalism in general, and the US in particular, for all the ills of the world -- real and imagined.

Mr. Goldberg even mentioned this delicious irony from the redoubtable Hugo Chavez:

In a typical stemwinder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."

I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/wackos_pollute_the_eco_debate_bfMN07qTS6UVqTQUapwnoM#ixzz0aBKhYbQh

 And just how well-received were these tin pot dictators?  Warm applause and exuberant standing ovations.  This, according Lord Monckton, from even members of the developed world, industrial nations who should know better than to sway towards socialism.  And we have far too many of them.

The Messiah, President Barrak Obama, braving a blizzard of snow -- uh, I mean Global Warming,  flew in to Copenhagen toward the end to try to salvage the negotiations.  With much media fanfare, he angrily exhorted China, India, Brazil and South Africa to drop their intransigent demands that they be allowed to burn as much fossil fuel as they want.

Claiming victory in his negotiations (some of which he had to crash, as he wasn't even invited) Saint Barrak promised billions of aid to the Third World and folded to the Group of Four in their demands that they be allowed to burn fossil fuel.

Immediately following this stellar example of diplomacy, The Messiah flew back to Washington, DC, to avoid the worst of today's blizzard that is blanketing the East Coast.

Let's ignore, for today, the delicious irony of The Gore Effect.  What we need to focus on is the reaction of the Left.  It is most instructive:

• The UK Guardian reports on the almost universal reaction that the summit was an abject failure, quoting almost exclusively Left leaning NGO's and environmental groups.
  
  
• The EuroNews web site reports that the Sudan is far from happy, quoting the African delegate, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping:  

“[The Accord] asks Africa to sign a suicide pact. It is a solution based on the values which, in our opinion, channelled six million people in Europe to the (Nazi) furnaces.”

•  The UK Telegraph reports the talks resulted in "a meltdown".
  
  
• SFGate's Thin Green Line blog said the accord was a " 'sham' and a 'greenwash' at best".
  
  
• GMANews.TV tells of Green protests at the summit against the Accord, quoting Bill McKibben, of 350.org:  "I don't know why we bothered to go and elect Obama."  At YouTube, you can see a video of these protests, complete with chants of "Yes We Can!  No They Won't!"

These are but a few of the reactions from the Left.  On the Right, however, that breeze you feel is a collective sigh of relief that global government and the enforced and totalitarian impoverishment of all the world has, for now at least, been averted.

But don't ever think that these crypto-Marxists are going to go away.  They'll be back and we'll have to be ready for them!

Copyright December 19th, 2009

 

Promises, Promises!

Remember, back in the 2008 presidential campaign? Back when the AP "fact checked" GOP predictions that Saint Obama would raise taxes? Of course, the Saintly One was promising to raise taxes on only the wealthiest of Americans, promising that 95% of taxpayers will see either a decline in taxes or that they will remain the same.

Naturally, one month after inauguration, President Obama kept that promise by signing into law a 62-cent-a-pack cigarette tax. Now, my math may not be all that good, but surely more than 5% of the American population are smokers impacted by that tax hike. In fact, I went and checked for myself. According to Web MD, smokers account for just under 20% of America's population.

Apparently, my pocket calculator is defective, because I just subtracted 20% from 100% and I didn't come up with 95%. Maybe the Justice Department should look into this matter!

But it's not just the taxes on cigarettes that gives one pause. Let's look at some other policy matters that the Blessed Barack is pursuing:

The Stimulus Packages:

Now, I know many folks will say that these didn't involve tax hikes. Perhaps not directly. However, with "Obamanomics" needing to print money in amounts that would deforest major land masses, the devaluation of the dollar and the unnatural tightening of the money supply as cash goes into favored industries and institutions will put a major hurt on the average taxpayer. We're talking about job creation, economic displacements caused by government intrusion into the market place, and recessions and depressions.

Any economist worth his salt will tell you, for instance, that FDR's policies (which President Obama has doubled down on with a vengence) prolonged rather than cured the Great Depression. Indeed, we were told that passage of his monstrous stimulus package was needed to hold unemployment at 8%. Now that we're closing in on 10% and higher, his people are out telling us we need another stimulus.

Can we get off the ride now?

Health Care:

President Obama is promising health care coverage to every American, citing the "travesty" of 43 to 47 million people with no coverage. Forget that this touted figure is bogus --subtract illegal aliens, folks who got coverage within a year of losing it, folks who choose not to buy insurance, and factor in the fact that it is a matter of law that all folks who seek medical attention get it. You just have to ask the obvious question: How does he expect to pay for it? The fact is, you and I, rich or poor, small business or large -- all of us are on the hook for the tab. Sure, Saint Barak has promised the average family would save $2,500 a year in insurance costs.

But is that likely, or even plausible? Last month, the Washington Post reported that "Obama conveyed his concern over early pronouncements by the Congressional Budget Office that a bill drafted by the Senate health committee would cover just 16 million additional people at a cost of $1 trillion". That's a lot more than the $60 to $65 billion a year promised during the campaign. And what about the 24 to 28 million who don't get covered?

Take a look at what the intent, if not the actual claims by proponents, of the various schemes that are bandied about. The Heritage Foundation noted: "Less than 24 hours after Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner questioned the veracity of President Obama’s persistent claim that, under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it”, the White House has begun to walk the President’s claim back." Basically, government-run health care will inevitably drive the private sector out of the insurance business.

So, what do people think about their present coverage? According to Fox News, a Kaiser Foundation survey found that "89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care". If that's the case, then why do we need to nationalize yet another industry?

Then there's the question of rationing. I hate to break this to you Leftists out there, but the only way to contain costs to even unrealistic levels is to ration your health care. Sure, I know! Insurance companies deny coverage for one reason or another, thus a form of rationing. But then, you can ply your business with another insurance company or pay for the denied treatment out of your own pocket. But where do you turn when it is the federal government that is the insurance company, and your private company was driven out of the business?

So what would getting a needed procedure that is banned by the up and coming health care czars be worth to you? Isn't the denial by bureaucrats of certain medical procedures a sort of tax?

The Climate Change Bill:

If you know my stuff, you know I don't buy into the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) nonsense. Besides, this essay is about taxes. Which brings us to our next topic: the Climate Change Bill.

Essentially, in what is euphemistically called "Cap And Trade", the government would set limits on how much CO2 a given business can release into the atmosphere. If said business exceeds this arbitrary amount, it will be fined. However, should another business actually admit less CO2 than the first, that first business can buy "carbon credits" from the second, allowing the first to emit more CO2. Every few years, the government will reduce the permissible levels of CO2 emissions until we reach a Green Nirvana of no AGW.

This bureaucratic nightmare is touted by the Left as a "free market solution". But it is nothing of the sort. Once again, the free market is distorted by government meddling to solve a problem that exists only in the fevered imaginations of the Eco-Marxists. All that would be created is yet another bloated bureaucracy strangling the host (see Montag's First Immutable Law of Nature) and solving nothing. Meanwhile, idiots like Algore get rich trading in carbon credits while wandering the globe in their private jets and massive motorcades.

But we were talking taxes, weren't we? You see, buying these carbon credits and paying the fines for violating the limits are all taxes. Oh, not directly on you, the taxpayer, but on the companies you buy goods and services from, on the companies you work for. These added costs will ultimately be passed to the consumer. Employees will find fewer job opportunities among affected businesses. The only job growth will be in the government, in the bureaucracy that will be created to police this monstrosity.

Should this become law, you can expect a doubling or tripling of energy costs. You'll find that, even though GM and Chrysler got a bailout, you still can't afford to drive. We'll see Jimmy Carter's idea of energy independence, as we all turn down the thermostat and button up our sweaters. And, naturally, as the old joke goes: "the poor, women and minorities will be hardest hit."

Yep! We were promised that 95% of us wouldn't see a tax hike at all under President Obama. So let me ask you, Obamaniacs: How's that working out for you?

Copyright July 10th, 2009 by Gregory Indelicato

CAN'T TAKE THE LEFT SERIOUSLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Well, we once again have General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the Democrats have toned down their rhetoric somewhat -- telling MoveOn.org not to run any "General Betray-us" ads and not stating outright that they think the good General is a liar -- they left little doubt on this, the first day of hearings, that the Left simply cannot be taken seriously on matters of national security.

The New York Times piece on the matter provides the quotes from the various Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. Clearly, neither of them is ready for prime time.

Hillary, the lovely and talented wife of the priapic Bill, cited what The Times calls "sluggish political progress and a questionable recent Iraqi military campaign in Basra" to make the dubious point that the surge, ably led by Gen. Petraeus, wasn't working. Said the would-be Madame President, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Right! We aren't getting any results. Check your sources, Hillary. Violence all over Iraq has gone down. The Iraqi government has come up with oil revenue sharing plans. Sunnis, once given the cold shoulder in the Shiite majority government, are now taking their places in the government and the military with outstanding results. Oh, and that mission in Basra? Much has been made about the 1000 Iraqi deserters, but no mention of the 96% or more who stayed and fought bravely.

Just a little historical reminder: the Iraqis are trying to do what our Founding Fathers did when they formed our government. They are doing it under fire from outsiders (al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria) and they are doing it in a part of the world that hasn't seen anything like representative government in its entire history, until the founding of Israel in 1948. More importantly, they are doing it faster than our Founding Fathers. If this is failure, than we need far more of it in the world.

Speaking of Iran, none of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee seemed at all interested in Gen. Petraeus' account of Iranian interference in Iraq, principally among the Shiite militias, but also through their puppet, Syria, which is arming and aiding al Qaeda and other Sunni fighters. It's not as if Iran doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the Democrats get their way, Iran will be left in control of Iraq, whether the Sunnis or the Shiites win out. Either way, they'll be dancing to Tehran's tune.

Which, of course, brings us to the Saintly One, Barak Obama, who spent his time in the limelight on the Committee to restate his view that the Iraq war was a “massive strategic blunder.” OK, so what do we do now, other than turn tail and run?

Elsewhere, Saint Obama has called for direct talks, a "diplomatic surge" he called it, with Iran, saying that "I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that." He also wants to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to self governance by pulling American troops out. Said His Holiness: "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Did someone say, "Neville Chamberlain"? Saint Obama seems to think that if we just sit down with the mullah-tocracy of Iran and send our troops home from Iraq, all will be suddenly right in the world! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? We are talking about Islamo-fascists. Iran has made countless deals with the West. They've gotten concession after concession. And every one of those deals they have violated. So Saint Obama wants to talk some more? Let me know how that one works out!

While Saint Obama is making his pitch for a "diplomatic surge", it seems that Iran has been honoring past agreements about their nuclear program by announcing the completion of 6,000 new centrifuges to make even more fuel for a power program and, more likely, weapons use. This thanks to the outstanding (well, maybe not) efforts of the UN and the European Community, which has been trying to get Iran to stop.

Clearly, Saint Obama is not at all mature enough, nor knowledgeable enough, to take the helm of this great nation. Negotiating with Islamo-fascists is every bit as futile as negotiating with Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. It's worse than futile. It lets our leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done, while the real enemy laughs at our naivete and goes about the business of fascists everywhere: total global domination.

Which, by the way, is also the ultimate goal of Islam itself. On this matter, I don't think that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats. It annoys me to no end when President Bush says that the Islamic terrorists have hijacked a "great religion of peace". Even a casual perusal of the Qu'ran will show you how uninformed that is.

That being said, at least the Bush administration has taken this fight back to the enemy in their lands, rather than here in the United States. Whatever their weaknesses, the Republicans, especially the Conservatives, are far and beyond superior to the Democrats and the Left when it comes to national security.

Let's not forget that, until 9/11/2001, we were getting hit by Islamo-fascists at least once every other year. The Clinton years are especially illustrative. The absolute most that the Clintonistas did against al Qaeda was to fire a few cruise missiles. Even then, they tipped them off by warning Pakistan. Worse, they picked the day the priapic Bill Clinton was waiting to see if he had truly suborned Monica Lewinski's perjury before the grand jury. Other than those less than useless pinpricks, he did nothing!

On the other hand, the case can be made, based upon the afore mentioned statistics, that the Bush policies have actually made Americans safer. After all, how many attacks have we experienced since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Let me count... Oh! We haven't had any! Yet the Democrats still insist that President Bush has made us less safe than we were in the 1990's.

This is why the Left and the Democrats cannot be taken seriously on national security.

They really don't get it!

Copyright April 8th, 2008

CHAOS IN LIBERAL LA LA LAND

You know, it's almost too good to be true! The more the Left looks silly, the sillier they get. I couldn't make this stuff up on my best days!

What I am talking about is the pure chaos that has befallen the Democratic Party. They are in complete disarray and they are beginning to eat their own.

First off, Hillary Clinton didn't get the coronation that the "smart" money said was hers. Her running in the primary was a mere formality back in the Fall. But along came Saint Obama and his message of hope and change. It didn't matter that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two, policy-wise. Obama was the Rorschach candidate, a tabula rosa upon which the Liberal elites could pin their hopes and dreams.

That Saint Obama was a phenomenal public speaker and had little track record to be torn apart by his competitors only fed the mystique. Compared to the trailer trash aura of the Clintonistas, the scandal upon scandal, Obama was a breath of fresh air.

Of course, Hillary won't let some upstart get in her way on the road to the White House. Dirty tricks are bread and butter to the Clintonistas, which is yet another reason why her welcome in the Democratic Party has worn a bit thin. Look to Hillary trying to bully the DNC into seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, despite the fact that she agreed to cutting the two states out of the primaries as punishment for voting too early. And who knows what she'll do to get the super delegates to vote for her?

Dirty tricks aside, look at the conundrum the Liberal voter must face: "Am I a sexist if I vote for the man, or am I a racist if I vote for the white woman?" What's a Liberal to do? Either way, he's open to charges of bigotry of one stripe or another.

Speaking of bigotry, there is still more fallout from the affair of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. First, Geraldine Ferraro (who's questionable comment was, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.") is now taking umbrage to being lumped in with the good Reverend as a racist. Never mind that what she said could very easily be construed as racist to begin with!

Saint Obama, not knowing when to leave well enough alone, went on the talk radio circuit to elaborate on his big race speech. Said the Saintly One:

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

Just asking, but how far would I get if I called Obama a "typical" black person? Wouldn't I be considered racist? To be fair, an Obama spokesman parsed the Senator's words, saying that he meant to say "a person of her generation.".

Yet, what he really said was that white folks are afraid of blacks, think they are criminals and that they're dangerous. Regardless of what Saint Obama meant to say, what he actually said was an invidious stereotype of white people.

In short, what he said was racist.

But, it seems, that Hillary has a bit of a Rev. Wright problem herself! The New York Times, in their Caucus blog, published a photo of Rev. Wright shaking hands with the priapic Bill Clinton in 1998. The photo was provided to the Times reporters by none other than the Obama campaign.

And what was Rev. Wright doing with old Priapic Bill? Why it was none other than the prayer breakfast he held on the cusp of Ken Starr's reporting on his investigations. Yup! The Horn Dog in Chief met with the Racist Reverend to atone for Monica Lewinski!

Meanwhile, Hillary's lackey, Bill Richardson, who performed so admirably as her screen during the early days of the primaries, has jumped ship and endorsed Saint Obama. Richardson, who polls extremely well among Hispanics, being an Hispanic himself, probably didn't get enough goodies promised from the Clintonistas. So he's taking his ball (and a good chunk of the Hispanic vote that Hillary really needs right about now) and ran to the Saintly One, saying, "Este es un hombre que nos entiende y que nos va a respetar!" (This is a man who understands us and who will respect us!)

I told you I couldn't make this stuff up!

If this sort of thing keeps up, I might have to reassess my predictions for the November elections. While Hillary and Saint Obama keep hammering at each other, spending money better spent on the actual elections rather than the primaries, John McCain looks more and more like the grown up!

Here's another cloud on the horizon of the Leftist La La Land: the Franklin and Marsh College Poll reports that one in five Democrat voters will vote for John McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. That is a significant, if not fatal, weakness in the base, don't you think?

Personally, I'm having more fun this election cycle than anyone should be allowed! Despite their arrogant confidence that the nation has turned Left, the Democrats just can't seem to get their act together.

But will John McCain take advantage of this chaos? So far, it seems not. As written here at Montag's World, in McCain on the Warpath, he disavowed the help and endorsement of Conservative talk host, Billy Cunningham, for his use of Saint Obama's middle name. Then, he fired a campaign aid who e-mailed a link to a video that made Obama seem un-American, when juxtaposed with the sermons of Rev. Wright.

Hey! John! Wake up! This is a presidential campaign, not a student body election! If you can't play rough, then get out of the sandbox!

With the Chaos In Liberal La La Land, this could be John McCain's election to lose. Let's just see if he gets on the ball.

Copyright March 21st, 2008

THE AUDACITY OF ROPE-A-DOPE

Saint Obama made his "big speech" about race in America, yesterday, entitled A More Perfect Union. As he usually does, he made a wonderful speech. There are few better public speakers than Barak Obama. And, on the surface at least, he seemed to "transcend" the racial divide in America, while trying to put paid to the hateful rhetoric of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.




That was the style, anyway. But what about the substance? Yes, let's look at the substance of his wonderful speech.


He starts out, pretty accurately, looking at our Founding, and how slavery was one issue that was deferred for "at least twenty years". That much was true.


Unfortunately, he left out the genius of the Founding Fathers and how they minimalized the power of the slave states with the infamous "three-fifths rule", wherein blacks in the slave states, who were already forbidden to vote, would count as three-fifths of a vote when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. No, the Founding Fathers didn't actually believe that blacks were less than whites. But the Southern states, the slave states, were left with fewer votes in the House, thereby hastening the eventual abolition of slavery in the newly minted United States.



Still, Obama was quite accurate when he described America as a nation that seeks "a more perfect union", that seeks always to improve itself. It's just his ideas of improvement and perfection that I find problematic.



After this brief, if not misleading, history, we are regaled with Obama's personal history. This is the sort of story that proves the lie of the Modern Civil Rights Industry, Inc. With all the strikes against him (bi-racial parents, single mother, raised by his grandparents, etc.) there should be no possibility of him reaching for the White House. That is, if we were to believe the various Professional Victims of the MCRI, Inc.



Yet, here is Obama. He's at, or very nearly so, the pinnacle of American politics. He's highly educated, he's rather wealthy, despite his sweetheart deals with Tony Rezco. His wife sits on some very powerful corporate boards, which she advises her listeners not to aspire to.



I still believe that Obama will win the election in November against John McCain, provided Hillary doesn't steal the nomination. But should he lose, it will not be racism. It will be the rejection of his Liberal agenda.



At this point in the speech, Saint Obama seems to make a few oblique references to the vile and hateful teachings of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

...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.

Fine enough. But I don't recall any sermons from my church experience that accused America of inventing AIDS, or wantonly incinerating thousands, or purposely selling drugs to imprison minorities.


Obama goes on to cite the good that Rev. Wright has done:

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.

Forgive me, but isn't this a little like saying Hitler wasn't all that bad? After all, look at the Volkswagen or the fact that the trains ran on time. Louis Farrakhan told his followers to get educated, take care of the children you father, and follow Islam. That didn't change the fact that he was a bigot, and anti-Semite, and un-American. What we have here is the minimization of Rev. Wright's horrible beliefs, with the over exaggeration of his virtues.



Obama, though, stays loyal to his pastor, but less so to his grandmother:

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.

There goes grandma, right under the bus. Grandma, you see, was also a racist. Basically, she is racist because she said the same things about passing black men that Jesse Jackson so famously once said. What's worse, he took the private comments by an old woman (who, God help her, is alive to see her grandson publicly humiliate her) and equated them with, as James Taranto observed, was a "systematized black liberation theology." Simply put, the man is shameless.



Charliein wrote to Montag's World, that "...he can't disown his blood relative, but he never had to embrace his pastor by naming him to his campaign." Truer words have never been uttered.

Suddenly, Obama goes off the rails entirely, trying to "me-too" the debate:

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.

Uhh... where to begin on this one? First, the Reagan Coalition was forged from more than affirmative action and Political Correctness, although they were a part. Let's not forget the near despair Americans viewed their nation after Nixon and Carter, after the idiocy of the welfare state, the crushing taxation and over-regulation that it entailed. Of course, were Saint Obama to actually mention any of those things, he would have to find some other way to sell his social utopian visions for America's future.



Which, he is quick to add, are just what we Americans need to overcome the "divisiveness" (he used this word a lot in this speech) of racial issues today.

So, in a nut shell:

• Rev. Wright's speech is a result of past racism in America, an expression of black bitterness.
• White antipathy to Liberal solutions (affirmative action, welfare, bussing, etc.) are the result of their misunderstanding of the real issues.
• Both blacks and whites need to cool their rhetoric while voting for Saint Obama who is going to bring "change" by supporting the same old policies that caused all that white angst.
• Grandma just has to understand the "bigger picture" and not be upset that her grandson just humiliated her on national television.

Yup! This is what Saint Obama is all about. This is the Audacity of Rope-a-Dope. Disavow vaguely "controversial" comments, tear grandma a new one, blame white America, change the subject.

And, of course, offer himself, messiah-like, as the solution.

Are you buying any of this?

Copyright March 19th, 2008

DUELING ENDORSEMENTS

So, Anonymous wrote, asking what I thought about John Hagee and Tim LaHaye, considering their endorsements of John McCain and their sometimes controversial views. Apparently, he was trying to make some sort of equivalence between them and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

OK, Anonymous, here are my thoughts.

Both Rev. Hagee and Dr. LaHaye have made many comments regarding the Catholic Church. It is these that we shall examine first, keeping in mind that I, myself, am a Roman Catholic.

Christianity, as a whole, has never been a monolithic whole. From the very beginning, there were divisions and schisms. The earliest was between the followers of the Apostle John and the followers of the Apostle Paul, regarding the necessity of first becoming Jewish in order to become a Christian. This schism was ultimately settled by the Roman Empire in 70AD with the sacking of Jerusalem and the Diaspora, leaving only the followers of St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, to carry the Gospels to the rest of the world.

That being said, there has long been a simmering tension between Roman Catholics and the Protestant Reformists. Among many of the bones of contention was the selling and awarding of indulgences, certified notes and trinkets that bestowed absolution, regardless of confession or the forgiveness of the Church.

The Protestant Reformists have long denied the powers of the Pope, and have rejected many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. To their minds, the Reformists were returning the Faith back to the roots of the Gospels. As such, the Roman Catholics were apostates, having deviated from the Truths taught by Jesus in the Gospels.

The Rev.'s Hagee and LaHaye are merely products of the long-standing traditions of fundamentalist Protestant teachings. Of course they would consider the Roman Catholic Church apostate, or, in the words of Rev. Hagee, "The Great Whore". This is nothing new, at these sort of ideas have been around a lot longer than the United States.

Personally, it is my belief that, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church was in the wrong. It was using absolution as a fund raising tool. It was also virulently anti-Semitic, which is yet another criticism leveled by Rev. Hagee. But that was then. Nowadays, the Catholic Church is trying, at least, to rid itself of that old baggage, to varying degrees of success. That some in the other Christian schisms aren't ready yet to let those bygones be bygones is hardly surprising and is a measure of how far all Christians have to go.

But this is far removed from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his slanderous and racist accusations leveled at America, whites, and Christians. Whereas, Hagee and LaHaye are rooted in historical theological thought, Wright spews hate and bile for the country that made his ministry possible. Worse, he has to lie about America. Hagee and LaHaye are merely on a different point of view from the Roman Catholic Church.

Rev. Hagee is also tagged with his devotion to the State of Israel. Of course, to the Left, Israel represents all that is wrong with the Mideast and with American policy in the region. What do you think Liberals mean when they complain about "neo-cons"? The word is nothing short of code speak for "Jew". They look to Israel as the only reason for bloodshed in the Mideast. In any fight between Israel and the Arab world, you can count on the Left siding with the Arabs. Anybody recall Jimmy Carter?

But what really gets the Left all in a twist is Rev. Hagee's comparison of Islam with Christianity. The sermon wherein he makes this examination can be viewed on YouTube. He uses quotes from both the Bible and the Qu'ran to make his points. And, I have to admit, he's absolutely correct in saying that Islam is a false religion.

Am I going too far? Well, consider the writings of Dr. Mark A. Gabriel. Here is a man who was raised in Egypt as a devote Muslim, becoming a scholar of Qu'rannic studies. But when he had a crisis of faith and embraced Christianity, he was forced to flee his native land, lest his father carry out the dictates of the Qu'ran and kill him. If anyone would know about Islam and Christianity, it would be him.

Dr. Gabriel (this isn't his real name, which he has to keep secret to prevent retribution aimed at his family still in Egypt) definitely supports Rev. Hagee's arguments. Just wander the Internet, and you can find myriad other scholars who have come to the very same conclusion. There is a definite difference between bigotry and actual study of a religion's beliefs and scriptures. Having read the Qu'ran, I am forced to acknowledge that Rev. Hagee is doing nothing but reporting the truth about Islam, regardless of what you might think of Christianity or his particular brand of Christianity.

But, even if Hagee and LaHaye were every bit the bigots that the Left claims them to be, the problem of their endorsement of John McCain is miniscule. After all, McCain was never a member of their congregations, nor had he a twenty year association with them. Nor has McCain used any of their sermons as a springboard for a book.

Saint Obama, on the other hand, does have that and more on the record. Rev. Wright was Obama's pastor. He married the Obama's and baptized their children. The title of one of his books, The Audacity of Hope, was lifted directly from one of Wright's sermons. Indeed, Obama prayed with Wright on the eve of his announcement of his candidacy. And it was only this week that Rev. Wright stepped down from his role in the Obama campaign.

As near as I can tell, John McCain has absolutely none of this baggage regarding Hagee and LaHaye, other than the endorsements.

Tomorrow, we'll look at Saint Obama's big race speech, and the Audacity of Rope-a-dope.

Copyright March 18th, 2008

LOOKS LIKE HIS HALO IS SLIPPING!

When one is bestowed with mythical, near messianic, status, one had better make sure he's got all his ducks in a row. Such is the case for Barak Hussein Obama, the new Saint of our age.

Since his speech in the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has garnered a reputation with his fine oratorical skills, his mouthing of pious platitudes, and his squeaky clean good looks. Just Google the words Obama messiah. You'll come up with 274,000 hits. We are told daily how he will unite our fractured nation, how he will transcend race and political party, how he will restore hope to our troubled masses.

Then, reality strikes. We start examining his proposals (just the same old neo-socialist Liberal agenda, hidden beneath the flowery rhetoric of "hope" and "change") and we start to learn about the folks around him, the folks who have shaped and molded his philosophies, and with whom he seems to agree.

Previously, in It's An Obama-nation! we examined such luminaries of Saint Obama's life as Frank Marshall Davis, Abongo "Roy" Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and his pastor and spiritual advisor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I think it's incumbent on us to look a little closer at these and other characters.

Bill Ayers serves on the board of the Woods Fund, as did Saint Obama. This charitable foundation, as you'd probably imagine, tends to donate to Left of Center causes. During Saint Obama's tenure with the foundation, funding was granted to an organization called the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

Fox Business.com, sourcing the story to Aaron Kline, reports thusly:

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as
a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a
controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a
"catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing
drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein,
Middle East correspondent for WND.com.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western
terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

OK, then! Not only did Saint Obama serve on a board with a confessed terrorist bomber, he arranged for funding for Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who supports and has worked with terrorists. And he even accepted donations raised by this unapologetic anti-semitic Islamist!

No matter how you cut it, this is more than guilt by association, as many on the Left have been trying to claim. It is apparent, from the exchanges of funding, that both Prof. Khalidi and Saint Obama are at least reading from the same chapter, if not the same page.

And they have a history that goes back some years besides. Khalidi, before being bestowed the Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies at Columbia University, taught at the University of Chicago, where he met Saint Obama. We are not talking here about casual acquaintances.

It took long enough, but at long last, the Legacy Media has caught up to the story of Saint Obama's spiritual leader, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Only now, four years after Saint Obama became a household name, do we learn that the Rev. Wright said this, the Sunday following 9/11:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have
supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans,
and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been
brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to
roost."

Now I know many on the Left actually believe this bilge, but I sincerely doubt that most Americans do. To say such nonsense about America, the single most important force for good in the world, is, to my mind, unconscionable. Worse, he has damned America in God's name, as can be seen in this video clip.

Finally, Saint Obama has decided to disavow the racist, anti-semitic, and anti-American preachings of Rev. Wright:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the
statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically
denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us
from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Well that's just wonderful! But Saint Obama had been a member of the Rev. Wright's congregation for twenty years. Yet he makes the ludicrous claim that he had only become aware of his despicable preachings last year:

"I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama
said. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because
of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife
and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to
leave the church."

Well, that's wonderful! But what did Saint Obama really have to say about his pastor? Something to the effect that he was like a beloved, albeit eccentric, uncle who was prone, now and then, to spouting out things that were a bit outrageous.

Outrageous? A bit? Geez! I'd hate to see the Rev. Wright on a really bad day!

Thanks to the New Media (talk radio and the Internet) these things have been
brought to the fore of our national awareness. Otherwise, we'd only find out
years later, when the damage is already done.

Hopefully, the Legacy Media will get its collective butt in gear and start asking some real questions of the presidential candidates. The electorate deserves to know just who is in each candidate's Rolodex.

Hopefully, too, enough Americans will pay attention to those Men Behind the Curtain.

Copyright March 14th, 2008