UPDATE (September 18, 2009): More is forthcoming about the outcome of this campaign.
What a difference a day makes. The non-profit is going through the California legal gauntlet, but I have had it expedited. I was only able to do that because of the nice little surge in donations due to promotion of the cause by several sites. (No worries. I’m keeping a list of them as I see them in my referrers log and plan to give them their props.)
At present the haul is over
$1,200 $2200 and that’s not counting the initial $500+ laid out to incorporate the non-profit! I’ve spent the morning writing ‘thank you’ notes. You all are wonderful.
I have a hidden helper who is assisting me with the website. I had said that it would be a blog but it won’t be—though it will certainly have a blog. One thing necessary for this endeavor to be successful: keeping an eye on what’s happening in Kenya so that will be a part of the site as well. I do have some experience in the area, as well as a contact or two.
Keep it going!
Obama may have left Black Liberation Theology’s Trinity United Church of “Christ,” but it certainly hasn’t left him.
Obama continued: "And so the only way they [sic] figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me. So what they’re saying is, ‘Well, we know we’re not very good but you can’t risk electing Obama. You know, he’s new, he’s... doesn’t look like the other presidents on the currency, you know, he’s got a, he’s got a funny name.'The candidate belonged to a church that subscribed to an ideology of racial vengeance and victory. He may have left the church, but he hasn’t left the racial combat notions behind, not by a long shot. So he must keep Sowing the racial Discord. Fortunately, for him, that isn’t difficult, since the idea that Republicans were the party of racists was planted long before Obama came on the scene.
So no matter how much McCain demonstrates that he is the very opposite of racist, he is at a disadvantage. It’s tough to fight forty years of indoctrination.
Obama’s purpose in keeping up this tactic of racist smearing is twofold: 1) to keep the troops stoked, and 2) to help the nation to forget that he allied himself with a set of racists for twenty years, the truth be damned.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
These guys are so horny for someone to call Obama a shiftless darkie they're thisclose to saying it themselves.I'm trying to be offended. Maybe after I stop laughing.
UPDATE (September 18, 2009): More is forthcoming about the outcome of this campaign.
Several good, kind readers--including anonymous Milbloggers--come to my rescue, or rather, to the rescue of Obama Kogelo Secondary School Students and the non-profit is created! Now the website is being built at obamaschool.org; I will let everyone know when it goes up.
So the first battle is won, now the second, longer one looms. Stay tuned and please...
UPDATE: Non-Profit name: Save Senator Obama Kogelo School, Inc.
My essay, 'Why is the Black Vote in the Democrats' Pocket?' is up at Pajamas Media. To those who take issue with the slavery metaphor as it relates to the relationship between black Americans and the Democrat Party: prepare to be offended.
UPDATE: Of course, some Liberals are "arguing" with the essay in the PJM comment section. The fun part about this is that they don't seem to realize that the op-ed's author is black and their condescension toward blacks is shining brightly through. Shhh! Don't tell them!
I had decided to set up the site in a blog format since that’s something that I can do personally, since, with Typepad Pro, one can have infinite bloggage for a base fee. One big problem: the name ‘Luo American’--the URL of this site--is incorporated and if I set up a non-profit in connection with this blog, I can imagine that our friendly tax collectors would take a dim view of such a thing. So I’m going to set this up separately with Blogger or Wordpress.
Let’s do this thing!
(Photo courtesy of Democrat=Socialist)
So I guess the next mandate will be to put a Trader Joe's or a Whole Foods Market across from the County building. That would be fine with me if I didn't know that it would be another sign that the leaders of this fair metropolis were emboldened enough to their true colors: Red.
Stupid, shaky city.
In LA right now...rockin the house.
UPDATE: Alles in Ordnung. For now.
5.6 5.8; felt from San Diego to San Francisco Santa Barbara. LA Times server must have caught something heavy. It's down.
Epicenter: 29 miles east of LA...Chino Hills.
UPDATE:LAT back up.
UPDATE: Breitbart (AP):
Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Brian Humphrey said there were no immediate reports of damage or injury in Los Angeles. San Bernardino County fire dispatch also had no immediate reports of damage.
The quake struck at 11:42 a.m. PDT. Buildings swayed in downtown Los Angeles for several seconds.
Workers quickly evacuated some office buildings.
"It was dramatic. The whole building moved and it lasted for a while," said Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore, who was in the sheriff's suburban Monterey Park headquarters east of Los Angeles.
UPDATE: My great-aunt, a Californian through and through: "Enough with the earthquake coverage already!"
UPDATE: They're still talking about it on FNC. Overheard passing by the TV: "...as soon as we get some video of those [presumably broken] ceiling tiles..." ZZZZ
East Coasters, relax. We're used to this.
UPDATE: Gabriel Malor was taking his bar exam in the
LA Ontario Convention Center where the ceiling tiles in question fell and that they're heavy enough to hurt someone. My bad. I'm glad that no future lawyers were hurt.
Europeans say, Screw (on) the Heroes!
Unholy troika: Linking the 2008 Democrat nominee for President of the United States to Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and Speaker of the US House of Representatives Pelosi (D-CA is an “attack” now—especially when the subject is oil-drilling.
And why wouldn’t Obama want to be associated with the Speaker? After all, by driving us all into the poorhouse via the refusal to allow domestic drilling, she’s Saving the Planet!
Part of the problem: Senator Ted Steven (R-AK) is indicted for seven counts of lying according to the federal grand jury.
Lenin twirls: The billionaires come out at night in Moscow. Rich, no doubt, due to oil.
Lots of things happened in 1968: Jonah Goldberg jeers at the observation of the 40th anniversary of the black power salute which Olympic athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos offered as the American National Anthem played during the Olympic medal ceremony. (HT Hot Air)
Eat this! A recipe for recession, featuring guess-who as the chef.
But I'm not depressed, no sir.
UPDATE: The Third Man On the Podium: Peter Norman (1942-2006).
Have you ever watched a movie for the 10th time and noticed something that you've never seen before? Did you wonder how you possibly could have missed it?Read the whole thing.
That's the way I felt when I learned that John Carlos and Tommie Smith flew to Australia to serve as pallbearers in the funeral of Peter Norman, the third man on the medal stand with them in that iconic photo of their black-gloved protest at the 1968 Olympics.
This is the deal: it will cost $500+ to start a non-profit entity in California for “Save Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School.” In addition a web designer must be paid to assist with obamaschool.org (unless some kind soul is willing to donate his/her services). I have a grand total of $25 in donations to this cause and five of it came from me.* I want to start a Facebook campaign but need a beneficiary.
Do I have to appeal to your emotions to get this done? No, not pity, but pride? Heck, I said I wasn’t go to do this but I will.
Don't you want to show the Democrats how it’s done?
Well if you do…
Contact me at juliette-at-luoamerican-dot-com.
*Make that $75!
The official name of the school which the senator promised to help is: Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School.
to bring water to the school by sinking a borehole and building a water tank, erect a perimeter fence, complete the science laboratory and add much needed new classrooms, additional latrines, and a school dining hallFor the things that are in constant demand--e.g. school supplies, wages for security guards, spare parts--I'd say that a two year funding is enough.
The school's principal suggested a minimum of 8.2 million Kenyan shillings which is equal to roughly $129,220 at today’s rate. That shouldn't be too tough.
So here's what we have:
• Domain name: obamaschool.org
• Email address: email@example.com
• Pay Pal Account; the account leads to my personal account until I can get enough money to set this up as a non-profit.
What we need:
Someone to assist in setting up the website. (No I didn't set this one up. Typepad did.) And someone here in the states who knows about the logistics of these things.
BTW, don't forget to donate to this site (Luo American Inc.) also.
Well how about this? The Israeli newspaper which published Obama's Wailing Wall prayer claims to have done it on his directon.
Ma'ariv issued a response Sunday, saying that "Obama's note was published in Ma'ariv and other international publications following Obama's authorization to make the content of the note public. Obama submitted a copy of the note to media outlets when he left his hotel in Jerusalem.Ma'ariv added further:
Moreover, since Obama is not Jewish, there is no violation of privacy as there would be for a Jewish person who places a note in the Western Wall.Is this true? That doesn't sound right.
SIDE NOTE: I tried to get a quote directly from Ma'ariv, but it's published in Hebrew only as far as I can tell.
UPDATE: Allahpundit calls shenanigans with solid reasoning.
(a) I can’t find any English language version of the story at the Ynet website, (b) if they did have it, they might very well have gotten it from the same kid as Ma’ariv, and (c) if [Ma'ariv] had gotten it from the campaign, respecting Obama’s privacy wouldn’t have been a concern.All true, but none if this excludes the possibility that Obama may have set this up. He has made such calculated moves before.
Over at doubleplusundead, they’re talking about a Barack Obama promise that was made in 2006 to the Kenyan school located in the village where his late father was born—a promise that hasn’t been fulfilled. The school has been renamed in the senator's honor.
He told the assembled press, local politicians (who included current Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga), and students: "Hopefully I can provide some assistance in the future to this school and all that it can be." He then turned to the school's principal, Yuanita Obiero, and assured her and her teachers: "I know you are working very hard and struggling to bring up this school, but I have said I will assist the school and I will do so."
Obiero says that although Obama did not explicitly use the word "financial" to qualify the nature of the assistance he was offering, "there was no doubt among us [teachers] that is what he meant. We interpreted his words as meaning he would help fund the school, either personally or by raising sponsors or both, in order to give our school desperately-needed modern facilities and a facelift". She added that 10 of the school's 144 pupils are Obama's relatives. Obiero was not the only one to think that the US Senator from Illinois, who had recently acquired a $1.65 million house in Chicago, would cough up. Obama's own grandmother Sarah confidently told reporters before his visit: "When he comes down here, he will change the face of the school and, believe me, our poverty in Kogelo will be a thing of the past."
There's also an orphanage in the village.
And over one hundred of these kids are related to Obama. (It wouldn't be surprising if some of them are related to me also.)
Now the senator and his wife make a lot of money, so I’m sure that this is merely an oversight. I’m sure that they meant to set up a fund on their own and/or have their supporters donate to assist his kinsmen. With the campaign and everything, I’m sure that this promise is just one thing that got lost in the shuffle.
Well. Since I am of the same tribe as Obama, I think that it should fall to me to assist in filling in this gap. I’d like to start a fund to help this village school—and others, if possible.
Off the top of my head, the following information needs to be known:
1. an itemized list of the things which the village schools in Kenya require and that school in particular
2. supporting items and services for the above list
3. the logistics
4. the oversight plan of the money and the tasks
5. maintenance and upkeep required
In addition, there's an over-arching concern about the infrastructure in the country: how much modern technology can the village handle?
I’m a fund-raising virgin, however, so as soon as I get some more information, we’ll get this ball rolling.
BTW, this will be a non-partisan endeavor. I’ve tweaked Obama as much as I'm going to on this topic. I'll keep thumping him about other stuff but not about this. Heck, he can help--even get out in front of this parade as he is wont to do. Call it a tribute to Tom Mboya.
So, experienced fund-raisers. Talk to me.
UPDATE: Welcome, Conservative Grapevine readers! For any helpful information you'd like to submit, write to obamaschool-at-gmail-dot-com.
7/27/08 around 4:15PM
I’m sick of this town. I’m sick of this state.
A man, late forties or early fifties, walked out in front of me while I was sitting in line at an In-n-Out drive-thru and while my car was rolling forward, so I said “hey could you make sure that I see you before you walk in front of me? I almost hit you.” He looked at me with a mixture of incomprehension, disgust and bluster, but said nothing. He was Latino, so I asked, “do you speak English?” He did, at least a bit. “F*ck you, b*tch.”
I watched open-mouthed as he walked over to a light-green Toyota Rav 4. As some may remember I carry a camera everywhere I go. So I got out and took his photo and took one of his vehicle. “You want my ID too?” he asked. “No," I said and walked back to my car.
He began cursing me in Spanish so I yelled back: “None of this would have happened if you had just said you were sorry! NONE OF THIS WOULD BE HAPPENING IF YOU WOULD HAVE SAID ‘LO SIENTO!!’
His wife tried to block the plate but I got a photo of it when I got back in my car. So he gets out and writes down my plate number. I have veteran’s plates and two window stickers: 'United States Air Force Retired' and 'National Rifle Association.'
“You make sure you tell whoever it is that I’m a veteran of the United States Air Force protecting your right to be an A**HOLE!” This was at the top of my lungs also.
If it’s the LAPD he’s telling I should be okay, but if it’s some gang member, who knows? There is a low-level race war going on here, you know. That’s the only reason that I’m making this information public.
I won’t post his face or his plate number unless something crazy happens, but I’ve sent the images to someone I can trust.
I’m tired of people-of whatever race--who can’t even be bothered to display simple manners and who then have the nerve to get offended when you take exception to it.
Go ahead, lambaste me for this post, but I've had enough of this crap.
UPDATE:++undead says that just wearing this outfit would adjust pedestrians' attitudes appropriately.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.Notice that the authors still couldn't resist taking a shot at the president.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
The following gentlemen asked and answered the question about possible victory in Iraq long before AP woke up:
One wonders why AP is admitting the truth now.
(Thanks to the other AP)
During a press conference featuring Barack Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy, CNN's notoriously obtuse Christiane Amanpour wants to know whether President Sarkozy is regretful for referring to his country's rioters and car-burners--most of whom were African immigrants--as scum back when he was France's Interior Minister, now that he has a actual
scum person of African descent standing next to him.
Hey Christiane! Sarkozy's epithet 'scum' had nothing to do with France's rioters being of African descent. He called them scum because they were destroying other people's property and endangering lives. If Barack Obama starts burning cars or does something similar, he will become scum--he wasn't born scum, no matter how much you might believe it to be so. As a matter of fact, if you start burning cars you will have also become scum without having one bit (as far as I know) of African heritage. See how that works? Of course you don't, because, while you may not be scum, you are indeed an ideologue and not one bit of information which isn't on your approved ideology menu will penetrate that thick skull of yours.
(Thanks to Fausta)
While in Israel, Barack Obama, visited The Wailing Wall, which
is thought by Jews to be the most sacred of places, because the temple itself was thought to be the place where God resides on earth. Praying at the Wailing Wall signifies being in the presence of the Divine. Jews from all countries, and as well as tourists of other religious backgrounds, come to pray at the wall, where it is said one immediately has the “ear of god.” [snip]Obama did so while on his visit, but now an Israeli newspaper is coming under fire for publishing the specifics of the prayer, as well it should.
[Written p]rayers sent in are placed into the cracks of the walls and are called tzetzels.
The rabbi in charge of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinovitz, said publishing the note intruded in Obama’s relationship with God.A conversation between God and one of His creations is a place I wouldn't want to intrude--especially this particular creation.
“The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them,” he told Army Radio. The publication “damages the Western Wall and damages the personal, deep part of every one of us that we keep to ourselves,” he said.
Maariv published a photograph of the note, which it said had been removed from the wall by a student at a Jewish seminary immediately after Obama left.As much as I stand against Obama as president, this is shameful behavior.
UPDATE: Donald Sensing provides more history and tells of his trip to the Wailing Wall.
The Anchoress is aghast at the behavior of the newspaper in question, the student and at that of some faith-based entities regarding the topic.
Donald also provides this comment from the Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick:
This was supposed to be a private benediction, and it was extraordinarily improper for someone to take this prayer and sell it to the media. On the other hand, in the world of paparazzi, the exposure of the prayer was predictable, and Obama apparently constructed the prayer for public consumption. Like everything else about his visit, this was a carefully crafted statement, designed not to ruffle very many feathers. And like this prayer, there was nothing extraordinary about Obama’s visit. As you would expect from a politician, he tried to be all things to all people. And he probably succeeded.Glick is probably one of the few people brave enough to say what many are thinking. Still it's unseemly to judge the quality of communication between another and God. Let's just hope (and pray) that his prayers are answered in the affirmative.
It turns out that Barack Obama had originally intended visit to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center--which is near Ramstein Air Base, Germany--but canceled the visit because the Pentagon did not want to pay for a campaign event for the senator.
The Obama camp said they canceled the event after the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event, and needed to be funded from the senator’s election kitty.
“Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go,” Obama advisor, retired Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.To be sure, the Pentagon authorities were happy about the cancellation, since they are loath for anyone to use injured troops as campaign props.
The Obama campaign’s chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said: “The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.”Granted this is a valid concern, but I bet that the Pentagon would have paid for the visit had Obama skipped the “We Are the World” campaign speech in Berlin.
But there was never any chance of that happening.
Am I being unfair? Maybe. But neither the candidate nor the campaign has shown that either is capable of making a decision that does not put Obama's self-promotion first.
Next stops for the candidate: Paris and London.
UPDATE: As I suspected, the Obama campaign canceled the visit because the military wouldn't allow him to be photographed with injured troops. Predictably, some news and blogging outlets are reporting that it was the Pentagon who did the canceling. Wrong. The DOD simply imposed preconditions that Obama didn't like.
(Thanks to reader 'me')
PREVIOUSLY: C-in-C Preview
Once we believe in the possibility of a transformative politics, “the perfection begins.” [snip]"Believe in politics."
The danger of Obama’s charismatic healer-redeemer fable lies in the hubris it encourages, the belief that gifted politicians can engender a selfless communitarian solidarity. Such a renovation of our national life would require not only a change in constitutional structure—the current system having been geared to conflict by the Founders, who believed that the clash of private interests helps preserve liberty—but also a change in human nature. Obama’s conviction that it is possible to create a beautiful politics, one in which Americans will selflessly pursue a shared vision of the common good, recalls the belief that Dostoyevsky attributed to the nineteenth-century Russian revolutionists: that, come the revolution, “all men will become righteous in one instant.” The perfection would begin.
"Politics can transform humanity."
"Politics can make humanity perfect."
Not according to this.
I'm beginning to understand Leftists.
(Thanks to Dan Collins)
6:33 p.m.: The tens of thousands of Obama fans are being entertained as they await the senator. The reggae musician Patrice kicked things off, followed by the rock band Reamonn.It isn't the first time that this tactic has been used to, presumably, up the attendance numbers for an Obama speech.
There were roughly 200,000 people in attendance, give or take a few thousand reggae fans.
(Thanks to Gateway Pundit)
Ed Morrissey points out something I should have noticed, having been in the USAF and having been stationed in Berlin before the Wall-fall: why is Obama even in Berlin when there are no American troops there anymore?
And why is he making a speech before the Germans while skipping a visit to the DOD's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in southern Germany, to which severely injured US military personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan are evacuated, then stabilized before coming home?
Answer: because talking to his peeps (the Europeans) is of the utmost importance. If he had any advocates in the military, there are probably fewer now.
(Thanks to Bob Owens)
UPDATE: Speech just ended. I have a few comments about it but I'll wait for a transcript.
I thought about nit-picking the speech to death--and there are several places in the very first part of the speech which are easy targets--but changed my mind because, in this case, it doesn't matter what the wannabe King of the World said but where he said it and where he won't be going before his trip to Paris and his return to America.
Did I miss the part about how he was going to withdrawal all the troops from Germany in 16 months ?Of course, he didn't say this but, likely, only because neither he nor his advisers thought of it.
UPDATE: The Landstuhl Visit That Wasn't
“Just this past week, we passed out of the out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon,” Obama said at a press conference in Sderot, Israel.Later on, the Obama campaign corrects its candidate’s words—the bill was his (partially), but he’s not on the committee. Obviously.
So if Obama is a co-sponsor to 2007 legislation implementing sanctions designed to discourage Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, didn’t he sign on to a precondition?
Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.Then, during a press conference in front of the Israelis, he crows about the success of a step toward making that precondition official US policy while claiming membership to a senate committee to which he does not belong.
To be fair, I think that the Bush administration's latest forays into diplomacy with Iran made it easier for the senator to pull off this particular flip-flop without many observers raising a stink. But doesn't the fact that Obama has being talking no-preconditions while sleeping sanctions the whole time suggest a pattern of behavior to Obama supporters?
(Thanks to LA Times Blog)
Ever notice how [some] liberals talk tough and pretend to be looking for a fight, then turn into whiny little biatches the minute you hit back?Yes, I have and it doesn't matter what the topic is.
However, in this case the liberal in question is Joe Klein and the topic is John McCain. Specifically, Klein refers to McCain's words today regarding Barack Obama's...nuanced...approach to determining whether the Surge tactic has served its purpose or not as a 'meltdown.' Really? To me, 'meltdown' equals crazy and/or mind-bogglingly illogical. Were McCain's words either of those? Let's see if this is so.
In response to Obama's admission that, knowing what he knows now, he would have still been against the Surge prior to its onset, McCain comes to a conclusion about his opponent:
This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.Is this reasonable? Or is it "scurrillous?"
Obama's advisers have surmised that if their candidate admits error about his judgment in the matter, his base--the anti-warriors of the hard Left--will turn against him. In addition, the advisers are worried about those delegates to the Democrat National Convention--Hillary Clinton hasn't released hers yet. Who knows what would happen to them were Obama to repudiate his previous position regarding Iraq? (Notice I said that these are the advisers' concerns. The candidate himself isn't sweating this stuff.)
And then there's the fact that, in 2005, Obama was against withdrawing troops from Iraq.
Interviewer: But you said that troops should be withdrawn.(Emphasis mine.)
Obama: No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn. What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that. What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy.
It's quite reasonable to conclude that Senator Obama would say anything to get elected, regardless of the effect that his words might have on the outcome of world-changing events--like wars. He has proved that he has no problem with contradicting himself without offering an explanation for the contradiction.
Readers should note that I said that I can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don't say these sort of things: It isn't presidential.So, according to Klein, it's a "meltdown" because it isn't presidential. Whether it's a reasonable conclusion, whether it's the truth, is irrelevant.
That's politics, I suppose.
Then again, Klein's overreaction probably has much simpler explanation. He is probably just angry because someone said something bad about his savior. I understand that, since I get angry when someone slanders my Savior.
But it isn't slander if it's true, now is it?
No one should feel guilty about any crime they didn't personally commit, but whenever I read a post and a thread like this one regarding white guilt, I wonder whether such people are equally as fervent about distancing themselves from the laudable actions and legacies of our Founding Fathers--or that of the World War Two Generation--as they are about disassociating themselves from the country's distant slave-holding past and not-so-distant oppressive past (45 years ago).
If our good history is relevant to who we, as Americans, are today, then so is our bad history and there's nothing wrong with thinking about and acknowledging the truth about both. Our foundation is composed of both. However, it does not, or rather, it need not follow that blame be cast or guilt be felt as a result of admitting the truth. Think first; feel second, if at all.
Not being perfect, America and Americans have not and do not always reach the bar which we had set for us in the late eighteenth century. However, we should feel proud--not guilty--that our Founding Fathers gave us such a high bar to reach for in the first place. When we fall short we get up and try again. That's our heritage and to have the country wallow in both guilt and blame gives all of us an excuse not to get up.
PRETEND AS THOUGH THERE'S A SEGUE HERE: Christian doctrine maintains that we're all guilty of sin and deserve death and that Jesus Christ died for our crimes. But the doctrine of Black Liberation Theology changes the essential nature of Jesus Christ, holds white persons still culpable for their perceived sins and those of their fathers and--the most important part--ignores Jesus's purpose for being born, being crucified and being resurrected.
The founder of BLT and those who have been taking in by him want to hold onto the power of guilt over white Americans, but can't be brave enough to repudiate Jesus Christ as he actually is. His mercy is inconvenient. So they change him into someone else, a victim who requires earthly vengeance. It's a change--a lie--they can believe in.
Even though the Obamas have left TUCC, they have not refuted their belief in this religion of guilt and blame, this Black Liberation Theology. As a matter of fact Michelle is still selling guilt, white and otherwise, while her mate offers the sufferers of white-guilt the promise of redemption if only they would believe in him.
Do not forget that this is who these folks are.
Barack Obama, after his trip to Iraq:
"Here is what I will say," Obama said, "I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with Al Qaeda, in the Shii’a community the militias standing down to some degrees. So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct."Come on, Senator, you can do it.
Obama maintained that his decision was not wrong.I guess he can't do it. Maybe he's considering the plight of the anti-warriors. That many heads exploding would make a big mess.
Could you be married to a person who can't admit error? No wonder Michelle always seems PO'd. :-)
(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)
In her positions as [Howard] Dean’s top aid and the convention’s top official, Daughtry, who is 44 years old, is leading the Democratic Party’s new mission to make religious believers — particularly ardent Christian believers — view the party and its candidates as receptive to, and often impelled by, the dictates of faith. She sparked this crusade, both to transfigure the party’s image as predominantly secular and to take enough votes from the Republicans to win this year’s presidential election, in the aftermath of George W. Bush’s 2004 defeat of John Kerry. And in her vocation as a Pentecostal pastor she stands for faith in an extreme form. There is nothing equivocal about her belief. Hers is a religion not only of divine healing but of talking in tongues.Four things:
Behind her as she preached, a simple wooden cross hung on a brick wall in the vaulted and sizable sanctuary of the church, which is headed by her father, Herbert Daughtry. A prison convert who served time in his early 20s for armed robbery and passing bad checks, Herbert Daughtry — whose father founded the church and whose grandfather and great-grandfather were also ministers — became the church’s pastor 50 years ago, and today Leah was delivering the sermon as part of an anniversary celebration. Below the sanctuary, in the fellowship hall, a banner for slavery reparations proclaimed, “They Owe Us.” Fliers recounted Herbert Daughtry’s arrest, a few weeks earlier, as he led marchers protesting the not-guilty verdict in the police killing of Sean Bell, an unarmed black man. His ministry has always [sic] combined consuming spirituality with black liberation theology — the theology Jeremiah Wright invoked this spring to defend his controversial sermons — and zealous political activism. Leah holds these forces within her.
• Daughtry’s church could not have been a BLT stronghold for 50 years, since BLT’s founder, James Cone, didn’t write the first BLT manual until 1969. The elder Daughtry simply led his flock astray.
• We certainly have religious freedom in this country, but I can’t help but wonder what the response would be if the Republican National Convention hired a pastor from the Christian Identity Movement; that is, another church which uses Christ-coating to (thinly) veil its racial superiority ideology.
• White Liberals must have a Debasement Wish.
• If an apostate church exists, this is it. Everyone seems to be intent on taking Christ’s place on the Cross. What they forget is that he’s not even there anymore.
(Thanks to Mudville Gazette, of course)
The Great African American Awakening—not just for black Republicans anymore.
The New York Times won’t publish McCain’s Iraq op-ed after having published Obama’s. Don’t forget, McCain’s was written after eight trips to the country, with the last being two months ago; Obama’s was written after one trip to the country (before today) with the last being two years ago. (HT: LGF)
A Middle Easterner tells the West what diplomacy means in his neck of the woods.
For those who don’t see the point in paying a lot of money for an item that only depreciates in value: The Twelve Cheapest American Cars—some safety features can also be bought. (HT: Instapundit)
Real Oppression of Blacks in the 21st Century!—I’m sure that Jesse is ready to cut somebody’s jewels off and Al is gearing up for that next protest march.
And Frank Martin has a question regarding Iraq for both presidential candidates: "What are you doing to ensure that American troops will not be needed in the region during your Presidency?” After all the posturing and the dog-and-pony shows, that’s the issue that matters.
Today on CBS's Face the Nation, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in Afghanistan, told the paparazzi-pursued correspondent Lara Logan that "the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.Just another malapropism, right Leftists? Or perhaps it's a bit of jet lag. Sure it is.
Right now, it's funny.
*Title courtesy of HA denizen profitsbeard
Says that the words about a concrete date for a pullout were misconstrued via the translation and that
his remarks did not indicate that he was endorsing Obama over presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain.The Iraqi PM must have received a call from his good friend George.
"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
UPDATE:Well it didn't take any huge analysis effort to figure this out:"Maliki Aide's Statement Came After U.S. Call"
Here's a test from the Pew Research Center. Most political news geeks will find the questions laughably easy. And, yes, I scored 100%.
You have to "admire" Barack Obama's ability (audacity) to get out in front of a passing parade and become its leader, while MSM entities like Reuters are content to carry on with the months-long process of anointing him.
As he begins his international campaign tour--touching down in Afghanistan today--Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorses Obama's post-inaugural plan for Iraq.
BERLIN (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a German magazine he supported prospective U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's proposal that U.S. troops should leave Iraq within 16 months.One assumes that the prime minister thinks that the Iraqi Army is ready to keep a steady foot on the necks of domestic extremists and the veracity of this summation is backed up by many other observers. And even if the army is not ready, if the acknowledged government of the country says to go, we have to go.
In an interview with Der Spiegel released on Saturday, Maliki said he wanted U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
"U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."
Regarding Obama, however, this is the issue: if the Iraqi Army is ready to 'stand up' then that state of affairs was made possible by the US Armed Forces troop surge which John McCain helped formulate, which George W. Bush implemented and which Barack Obama vehemently opposed.
So he was wrong. Fine, we are all wrong sometimes, but could he at least say that he was wrong instead of pretending as though he always believed that the surge was going to work?
(Thanks to Memeorandum)
He's a plant. From whom I don't know.
Obama speech in Indiana:
But it is wonderful to be back in Indiana. In a few moments, we’ll open up the discussion. But I want to offer a few comments about some of the emerging threats that we face in the 21st century and offer some ideas about how we can face those threats.The guy grew up in Hawaii!
Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.
[A] whole lot of bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. And the threat wasn’t the bomb, it was the empire that sent massive waves of planes to drop them on our Pacific Fleet. Those bombs fell because we didn’t adapt to the threat, and in fact we kept telling ourselves that we could talk the Japanese out of their policy of aggression and empire. We came within a few aircraft carriers of losing the Pacific out of our willful blindness to the nature of the Japanese.I think you're expecting a little too much thinking from our next president(!!!), Ed. And listen to his delivery of the speech. He sounds like a robot--like an actor reading the first run-through of a script.
This is frightening.
UPDATE: Just a few reminders...
UPDATE:Karl at Protein Wisdom takes note. For a good time, read the comments.
Got a project. Here's some of my research material.
Earlier reports that NATO forces were massed at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to attack Taliban-Qaeda forces based in ungoverned tribally-controlled areas of Pakistan appear to be greatly exaggerated:
BRUSSELS (AFP) — The NATO military alliance denied Wednesday that it was massing troops on the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan but urged Islamabad to do more to stop Taliban militants taking refuge.When I read a report of the build-up early this morning, it seemed uncharacteristic of the Pakistanis to allow NATO into the country, so I assumed that NATO was going in without asking.
"There is not, nor is there going to be, an incursion of NATO troops into Pakistan. There is no planning for that, there is no mandate for that, and there is no troop movement in that direction," a spokesman said in Brussels.
If NATO were to do that--or the US were to do it unilaterally--what would that mean for Pakistan and the GWOT itself? Pakistan is supposed to be a US ally in the War, but President Pervez Musharraf has been barely hanging on--avoiding numerous assassination attempts. With or without permission, if we infidels come over the country's boarder, he will fall--especially if the reports of Pakistan's army and intelligence service being overrun with terrorists and extremists are true--and the country's nuclear weapons will be at the disposal of Islamists. But what to do about the Taliban and al Qaeda?
BTW, Obama is right about needing to give more attention to Afghanistan. It's his rationale for wanting to do so that's inconsistent; under parallel conditions in Iraq (before he momentarily noticed that the surge had served its purpose) he wanted us to pull out totally.
UPDATE: Afghanistan mini-surge?
Although there are no brigade-sized units that can be deployed quickly into Afghanistan, military leaders believe they can find a number of smaller units such as aviation, engineering and surveillance troops that can be moved more swiftly, said the official, who requested anonymity because the discussions are private.
The moves are expected to happen within weeks rather than months, the official said.
The decisions are being made against the backdrop of shifting priorities for the U.S. military, and were discussed during a meeting Wednesday of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [snip]
Faced with an increasingly sophisticated insurgency, particularly along Afghanistan's border with Pakistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday that sending more troops would have a significant impact on the violence.
On Afghanistan, however, independents side more closely with Republicans than with Democrats. Majorities of Republicans and independents think the war in Afghanistan was worth fighting and that the effort there is linked to the eventual defeat of terrorism more broadly. Majorities of Democrats disagree.Dean Barnett (with hilarious Photoshop):
If a majority of Democrats disagree the [Afghanistan] war was worth fighting in the first place, you can wager a mega-majority of Netroots’ denizens disagree. And yet the left is silent regarding Obama’s belligerence towards the Afghanistan theatre. It’s positively puzzling. Could the explanation be that the left has suddenly developed, contra the ABC/WaPo poll, an unprecedented enthusiasm for extirpating Jihadists?It's only a matter of time before Obama figures out how to climb down off the Afghanistan bluster ledge.
I doubt it. More likely is that the left is closing ranks around its candidate, confident that he doesn’t really mean his bluster.
After all he has to. Why? Because anything--anything--that George W. Bush initiated must be painted as irredeemably flawed and immoral and, as a result, must be discarded.
The Left just hasn't figured out how to paint that picture yet. But when they do, we can certainly count on Obama getting out front and being the Drum Major of that parade.
(Thanks to Hot Air)
OCCASIONS when I predicted that the Democrats/the Left would call for a pull-out from Afghanistan:
I knew that sensible rhetoric on anything from the good senator was too good to last.
[The Iraq War] distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century.That's an excerpt from Senator Obama's prepared remarks for a speech to be given today. The topic? The biggest threats facing the United States.
What will our putative 44th president do to further the goals of the Global War on Terror? Take the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in Pakistan--with or without Pakistan's permission, one assumes.
My questions: 1) Why is he announcing his conclusions before his trip to Afghanistan and Iraq and not afterward? 2) Why is he broadcasting to an ally in the GWOT that he plans to violate their sovereignty? 3) Why does he pronounce everything with which he disagrees a "distraction?"
The speech will be conducted at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in DC.
MORE: The article mentions Obama's Monday op-ed in the New York Times in which the senator agreed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's "call for a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq." Unfortunately for the senator the prime minister was misquoted/mistranslated.
The prime minister was widely quoted as saying that in the negotiations with the Americans on a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate the US troop presence from next year, "the direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on a timetable for their withdrawal".I doubt, however, that this will have an effect on the senator's 'pull out now' rhetoric.
That was the version of Mr Maliki's remarks put out in writing by his office in Baghdad.
It was widely circulated by the news media, and caught much attention, including that of Mr Obama.
There is only one problem. It is not what Mr Maliki actually said. [SNIP]
What he actually said was: "The direction is towards either a memorandum of understanding on their evacuation, or a memorandum of understanding on programming their presence."
But now that I think about it, I wonder whether Obama will go to Iraq and "allow himself to have his mind changed" by the troops on the ground. That would be a more artful and plausible flip-flop than the type he's used to making.
UPDATE: I changed my mind. The trip will make no difference wrt to Obama's intention to abandon Iraq.
He's correct but he better start wearing a cup when Jesse Jackson is around.
CINCINNATI - Democrat Barack Obama insisted Monday that blacks must show greater responsibility for their actions. In remarks prepared for delivery at the annual NAACP convention, the man who could become the first black president said Washington must provide greater education and economic assistance, but that blacks must demand more of themselves.[snip]
"I know some say I've been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn't matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch — none of it will make any difference if we don't seize more responsibility in our own lives."At least he's talking about something of which he has some knowledge. How long did that take?
Obama, who grew up without his father, has spoken and written at length about issues of parental responsibility and fathers participating in their children's lives. Yet a similar speech by the Illinois senator on Father's Day prompted an awkward rebuke from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Democratic presidential contender in 1984 and 1988, a protege of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and a fellow Chicago political activist.
John McCain will also address the convention also.
This must be Identity Politics Pandering Week. Both candidates addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) convention in DC last week and the National Council of La Raza convention in San Diego over the weekend.
LA City Councilwoman Jan Perry (not my council-critter) wants a moratorium on the opening of fast food joints here in South Central LA because someone is telling her that none of us down here in the 'hood can get a ready-made salad unless we go to the "other" 'hood.
"You try to get a salad within 20 minutes of our location; it's virtually impossible," said [executive director of South Central LA's Community Coalition, Marqueece] Harris-Dawson.Apparently, neither Harris-Dawson or Perry hasn't been in a McDonald's or a Subway or darn near any fast-food restaurant lately. I have and guess what! They sell salads in all of them--and in Subway's case, a pretty decent one. I know exactly where this Community Coalition is located. Guess which fast food franchise is about to open up down the street from it.
Perry quoted research showing that although 16 percent of restaurants in prosperous West L.A. serve fast food, they account for 45 percent in South L.A. Experts see an obvious link to a health department study that found that 29 percent of South-Central children are obese, compared with 23 percent county-wide.I'll tell you why children are obese and why no chi-chi food businesses other than franchised ones will be opening 'round my way. In order to help illustrate why, I'll paste the following paragraph, in which the only thing relevant to my point is the bolded phrase.
Polishing his minivan at the corner of Slauson and Vermont avenues -- where the dining options were KFC/Hot Wings, Taco Bell/Pizza Hut, McDonald's and, on the fourth corner, Quiznos -- Tony Dubon said he walks home and cooks a plate of eggs [Ed note: that's not salad] rather than eat at any of them.A few weeks ago, I was in my car about to turn right from Vermont into a small shopping center located at Slauson and Vermont Avenues. I stopped to allow a pair of pedestrians to cross, then turned. Literally two seconds later, I hear gunfire behind me. I look in my rear-view mirror to see several young men, clad in white t-shirts, running as fast as they could. Gang members. I notice that the (stupid) people around me are running toward the shooting area as I am driving away from it. It's roughly 5:00PM on a weekday.
(It was only later when the magnitude of what had happened hit me. It was as if God had halted the shooters briefly so that I could get to safety; once I had turned into the shopping center parking lot, I was out of the line of fire and blocked by buildings on either side.)
Here's the point: city children are going to continue to have an obesity problem--not because of Mickey Ds, but because of a**holes like those gang members who would endanger anyone and everyone in broad daylight--at rush hour! Here's another point: few non-franchise chi-chi restaurants are going to locate in such areas because they can't afford the insurance and why should they spend the extra money? Who the heck would want to under such circumstances? I wouldn't.
All such a ban would do is depress the area further, deprive area kids of jobs and make gang-banging more attractive to some.
But maybe that's part of the social(ist) agenda of LA. BTW, salad fixings are always available in Ralph's and Vons. Free choice, folks. Every heard of it? And stop whining about food!
(Thanks to My Undead Brutha from anutha mutha)
The president has done his part.
President Bush today lifted a presidential ban on offshore oil drilling on the outer continental shelf that was implemented by his father, escalating a confrontation with Democrats in Congress over how to cope with soaring gasoline prices.Escalating a confrontation? What will Congress do in return? Make the president get out of office next year? It seems to me that the confrontation is between Congress and the American people.
Lifting the executive moratorium has no immediate practical effect, because Congress enacted its own prohibition on offshore drilling in 1981. It would have to be rescinded for exploration to proceed.No immediate practical effect. Is there any entity in our government or our national media capable of thinking about an action in any manner other than that action's immediate effect? The whole point of President Bush's reversal of the ban is to remove the Executive Branch--and himself--from the off-shore drilling equation and put the ball in Democrat-controlled Congress's court.
And, typically, they would rather wail (and lie) than do anything useful.
"The president didn't follow his father's policy on Iraq, and now he's not following his father's policy on offshore oil drilling," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. "Ironically, the result will be less pressure on the oil companies to produce on the leases they already hold."They would rather remain in the short-time mode of thinking and leave out pertinent information, than do so.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a leading opponent of oil exploration in the outer continental shelf and author of a bill to permanently ban drilling off the Atlantic coast, said in a statement that Bush's plan "won't produce a drop of oil until 2017 and won't lower gas prices ever."
To provide relief in the near term, he said, "we must crack down on speculation in the oil markets" require oil companies to tap into "the 68 million acres of unused land already leased to them by American taxpayers."
Calling today's move "a political stunt," Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) said releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and forcing oil companies to drill on the leased land they already control "would be a good place to start" in trying to lower gas prices.How much oil has been detected under that 68 millions acres? Have the oil companies attempted to drill there? Does drilling on that federal land require congressional approval? Have the oil companies asked for such approval? If not, does that mean that the companies know that they'd be drilling for nothing?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed similar sentiments, describing Bush's move as "a hoax" that "will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence."A hoax, eh? So does that mean that the president didn't really lift the ban?
At some point the genius who is our Speaker of the House will get the point that the president has simply put all the power to fix the energy crisis in her and Senator Harry Reid's hands--probably after someone else clues her in.
Stop whining, Democrats, and get out of the way yourselves!
UPDATE: Still whining while America pays.
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, on Monday rejected a call by U.S. President George W. Bush to lift a moratorium on offshore oil drilling
Reid said oil companies should focus instead on drilling on much of the 68 million acres that they have leased but not used for exploration.
Asked, however, if he expected to have the votes to block legislation to lift the moratorium in face of soaring gasoline prices, Reid told a news conferences, "We will have to wait and see."
Reid said he hoped to have legislation introduced this week to crack down on oil speculators.
On the other side of the Capitol, Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, mocked Bush's call earlier in the day to lift the ban.
"The Bush oil policy is an attempt at mass deception by a White House that has, for the last seven and a half years, pursued Big Oil's agenda of drill, drill, drill," Markey, chairman of a select House of Representatives committee on energy independence, told a news conference.
Looks like Obama was wrong yet again. (Surprise!) Last time I checked, The New Yorker isn't run by Republicans.
Yes, it's tasteless and offensive, senator. So are you going to apologize to the Republican Party?
(Thanks to Ed Morrissey)
I think that we all knew from watching the guy's seemingly swift physical deterioration that this day would come soon. At least the guy is out of pain.
After a long, candid and public battle with cancer, former White House press secretary and radio talk-show host Tony Snow died early this morning.See ya later, Tony.
Immediate details were sketchy, but Fox News, his employer, reported the bulletin shortly after 7 a.m. Eastern time. Snow was 53.
He previously served as chief speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush and served as a frequent host on the Fox News Channel.
UPDATE: From President Bush:
All of us here at the White House will miss Tony, as will the millions of Americans he inspired with his brave struggle against cancer. One of the things that sustained Tony Snow was his faith - and Laura and I join people across our country in praying that this good man has now found comfort in the arms of his Creator.Fox News Tributes here.
The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution. The life of belief teems with thrills, boldness, danger, shocks, reversals, triumphs, and epiphanies. Think of Paul, traipsing though the known world and contemplating trips to what must have seemed the antipodes (Spain), shaking the dust from his sandals, worrying not about the morrow, but only about the moment.--Cancer's Unexpected Blessing by Tony Snow
There's nothing wilder than a life of humble virtue—for it is through selflessness and service that God wrings from our bodies and spirits the most we ever could give, the most we ever could offer, and the most we ever could do.
Reading that makes it difficult to be sad for him and all of the other believers who pass on. Their families and friends, however, need our prayers.
(Thanks to Michelle Malkin)
President Bush speaks one (Spanish, albeit with a Texas accent). Senator Obama does not.
Just wanted to point that out.
Barack Obama can just smell the oval office, so much so that's he's letting his eagerness to lead us down whatever unknown path of his capricious choosing overstep his sense of propriety, such as it is.
This summer, the Democrat nominee for POTUS will make a trip overseas, with destinations alleged to include the UK, France, Germany, Israel, Jordan, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Berlin, the senator plans on making a speech, of course. No big deal, right? Wrong. The location at which Obama desires to make this speech--the Brandenburg Gate, which used to mark the divide between East and West Berlin--has indeed been the site of speeches made by other American politicians, but all three of those others were elected presidents.
President Kennedy gave his "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech there and President Reagan gave his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall" speech there. (President Clinton was the third.)
The point is that Obama seems to want to appropriate some of the trappings of POTUS before he even gets there. Another example of this? That goofy personal seal, since abandoned--to the great disappointment of many conservative bloggers.
In addition, the plan to hold the speech at the historic and iconic location has stirred up controversy between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other German politicians. Nice going, Senator; as if it's not enough to sow discord here.
The guy is the bull in every china shop. Pun intended.
Would it be too difficult for the man to think through just one decision?
(Thanks to Protein Wisdom)
PERSONAL MEMORY OF THE BRANDENBURG GATE: A three-day concert in 1987 during which artists performed in front of the Reichstag, which is a short distance from the Brandenburg Gate. The artists: Eurhythmics, Genesis, Bruce Hornsby and the Range and David Bowie, a former Berlin resident. Thousand of East Germans tried to gather on the other side of the Gate--and the Wall--to rock out, to the consternation of the Soviets. I think Bowie caused the Wall to fall all on his own.
Bowie (paraphrase from memory): "Ich möchte meine Freunde grüßen die an der anderen Seite der Mauer sind."
(I'd like to greet my friends who are on the other side of the Wall.)
The Department of Defense announced the deaths of two soldiers previously listed as missing.
Fourteen months after they were kidnapped in Iraq, the remains of two American soldiers have been found.
The Pentagon said that the remains of Army Sgt. Alex Jimenez [r.] and Pvt. Byron Fouty were found Wednesday, south of Baghdad.
Jimenez was 25 years old at the time of his capture, Fouty was 19.
They were both kidnapped during an ambush in May of 2007.
Asks Mickey Kaus with regard to Barack Obama's perceived arrogance and condescension. And the answer is, of course he did.
Isn't there a better way to phrase it that doesn't set up Obama as a commanding know-it-all?Kaus is referring to Obama's admonition to some Georgia black youth and to the Spanish controversy--as I did yesterday. (For the record, I disagree with Kaus about the "stay in school" message.)
The bottom line? Both Jackson and Obama have a tendency to step on their...tongues. Jesse has just been doing it longer and thought that he could get away with it forever. Wrong. There's a new kid in town.
But someone who would continuously blackmail (heh) corporations in the name of "racial justice" in order to line his pockets wouldn't instinctively know when it's time to have a seat and would usually have to be forced out of the spotlight. That's probably what will happen to the reverend now, especially since his own son has repudiated him. (And, no, I haven't ruled out the possibility that this whole thing is an elaborately staged event. Chicago politicians and all that.)
DC Thornton makes the case for the right reverend to sit down. Twenty-four years overdue, IMO.
UPDATE (July 11, 2008, 9:46 AM PDT): I'm listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio program right now. It's something I rarely do, but Glenn Reynolds pointed out that Mark Steyn was guest hosting, so I pulled up the KFI (LA) site to listen. Mark just pointed out that, after making the nutty statement, Jackson makes a little knife motion. And upon further review, I can see that he does. This makes me suspect even more that this whole thing was some sort of one-act play.
Like most others who care, I'm waiting to see what the exact rude thing is that Jesse Jackson has said about Barack Obama and felt the need to apologized for--things said while the former was in FNC studios and thought that his microphone was turned off.
The Rev. Jesse Jackson apologized Wednesday for saying Obama is “talking down to black people” during what he thought was a private conversation with a FOX News reporter Sunday.Yikes. Bill O'Reilly will break the exact wording of the alleged offense in a few minutes.
Jackson also made an off-hand comment about cutting off a part of Obama’s anatomy.
Of course, this is silly. It will be fun, however, to have yet another glimpse of how the MSM's designated "black leader" thinks and what his real attitude is toward his would-be usurper. This thing is giving me a Saul-David vibe.
And least, such a triviality is more interesting that the Hot News Flash that professional athletes are, for the most part, alley cats and have frightening taste.
UPDATE: It turns out that Jackson's wording is pretty much as stated above, with Jackson saying to
an FNC reporter Reed Tuckson from the UnitedHealth Group that he'd like to "cut [Obama's] nuts off." Leaving aside the question of whether O. has any nuts to sever, at first O'Reilly and his guests seemed to characterize the dust-up as a difference of opinion regarding faith-based programs, but the topic of envy did come to the fore. Additionally, O'Reilly was incredulous at the contention that Obama was talking down to blacks and at how Jackson's vitriolic words--some of which were, apparently, too nasty to air--seemed disproportionate to the disagreement.
One thing I noticed: Jackson's words did not match his demeanor. Looking for the video.
UPDATE: For those who haven't seen it: