War On Terror
Obama attended a racist anti-american church based on “black liberation theology” with a pastor who screamed “God damn America!” and claimed that the Sept 11 attacks were our fault.
Obama started his political career in the living room of two terrorists who bombed and killed innocent Americans.
No white candidate on earth would get even 10% of the vote if he were a member of a “white liberation theology” church and spent time in the living room of Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh.
Those are two facts you cannot deny no matter how hard you try.
It’s all about race, folks. It’s all about race. Most radical candidate in the history of the nation? You’ve got him America.
Some other notes…
Catholics are voting 50% for Obama in PA (despite the fact that he openly supported infanticide in the IL state senate and declared his very first act as president would be to lift ALL restrictions from ALL types of abortions)…after all the madness this cycle, this country deserves what it gets. We can only pray that Americans turn their brains back on soon…the fact that terrorism scored under 10% as a major issue is proof that voters have already turned the brains off big time…when the next attack comes (it’s only a question of ‘when’), it’ll be another shock to the system just as 9.11 was. Fox News is reporting only 22% of the country labels themselves liberal…yet we’re ready to elect the most liberal candidate in history?!
Final lesson? Voters are mind-boggling stupid, a feeling I’ve already expressed, but these types of thing only solidify that thought.
Abortion on demand- you’ve got it
Gay marriage- you’ve got it
Infanticide with no restrictions on any type of abortion- you’ve got it
Taking from those making over $42, 000 a year and giving to the lower class- you’ve got it
We are S C R E W E D.
UPDATE: National Review’s Byron York has some stats on race:
The Role of Race: It Was Important [Byron York]
The exit polls suggest that race was a factor in a lot of voters’ decisions — and that, on balance, it worked to Barack Obama’s advantage. In Ohio, for example, six percent of voters said that race was the most important factor in their decision. Among them, Obama won 59-40. Another 13 percent said race was an important factor in their vote, and Obama won among them, 52-46. So nearly one in five voters said race was an important part of their decision, and more of them voted for Obama than McCain.
Beyond that, eight percent said race was a “minor factor” in their decision — and they went for McCain, 56-44. Finally, 71 percent said race played no role at all in their decision — and Obama won among them, 54-45.
Even MORE on race in this election. This makes me sick. Like I said before, this election will push race-relations back decades on many levels. I guess the idea that we look not at a person’s skin tone, but rather their character is out the door for good…good job, voters!
More on the Role of Race [Byron York]
The race factor numbers are more striking in the Virginia exit polls. Six percent said race was the most important factor in their decision, and they went for Obama, 60 to 38. Twelve percent said race was an important factor in their decision, and they went for Obama, 64-36. Nine percent said race was a “minor factor” in their decision, and Obama won them 52-47. So Obama led among the 27 percent who said race was a factor in their decision. Finally, 72 percent said that race played no role in their decision, and McCain won among them, 50-49.
Obama lead 27 percent with those who said race was a factor in their decision. The fact that we even have voters using race as a factor in their vote is disgusting enough. The stats that show the Obama supporters are the ones concentrating on race isn’t at all shocking. My guess is the stats will show a large majority of black Americans voted for Obama based on race. No one can deny that is highly troubling.
In Virginia. Black voters-
Of course, if the number was reversed, the pundits would be screaming racism was to blame all day long…
MORE STATS ON RACE:
Obama wins 97% of black vote.
With all the reviews of Oliver Stone’s film, W (which looks like an overly long SNL skit), I keep seeing critics complain that President Bush is a failure, and that the low favorability ratings sort of prove that he’s a failure.
Two things to note in that regard- people are sometimes clueless creatures who can’t make up their minds from one minute to another. One day they love you, the next day they hate you for seemingly no good reason. Let’s face it, most people are self-involved, don’t care to have anything but a cursory glance at the facts, and would rather be watching episodes of Lost or Desperate Housewives than studying politics, history, or the world around them.
To go along with point 1, the fact is to proclaim the man a failure is to totally confuse the meaning of the word itself. After an unprecedented attack on American soil, we went after the terrorist organization who harbored and propped up the thugs responsible. In the process, we freed millions weighed down by the chains of tyranny. A noble goal, no doubt.
After that, it was decided that another murderous despot named Saddam Hussein would be held responsible for 11 years of thumbing his nose at the international community. And this is what most people tend to pass on by when discussing the war that has made Bush, among Americans answering these polls, unpopular to such an extent. To argue that Hussein was just a bad guy misses the point. Hussein invaded a neighboring country, raped and pillaged, and basically pissed off the community of nations. I sometimes wonder if people just forgot that the whole gulf war took place at all.
Now, those who have actually followed history for the past decade+ know that Hussein was given 17 chances via UN security council resolutions to comply with the demands made to him after the end of the gulf war. To say that 17 ignored UN resolutions is a lot is an overstatement like no other. Over the course of 12 years, a brutal man responsible for the deaths of over 1, 000, 000 people (innocents, most of them) thumbed his nose at the world and basically said, ’to hell with you, I’ll do anything I want.’ 1441, the resolution that demanded a full accounting of all weapons programs, records of all destroyed munitions, and complete compliance with international inspectors, was the 17th resolution regarding Hussein’s behavior after the 1991 war in Kuwait and Iraq.
Clearly, the man was never going to step down from his post. He was never going to be talked into complying with weapons inspections through diplomacy. 12 years is a long time to deal with a man who could threaten his neighbors and any country in reach of chemical and biological weapons.
Unfortunately, many Americans have bought into the liberal lie that Bush lied and people died. Of course, bipartisan commissions, history, and basic common sense have proven that no one lied, and that every security apparatus in the world agreed- Hussein posed a threat at some level, he had never fully complied with the dozen and a half resolutions, he still had banned munitions that could be used to threaten the free nations of the world, and he was never going to fully comply with inspectors on the ground in any significant manner.
Bush’s decision to oust a brutal despot who killed 1, 000, 000 people was a noble one. People, of course, become weary, and they do so quite easily. But weariness of war doesn’t make the initial decision to oust the man known ’round the world as the butcher a bad one. It also doesn’t make the man or the mission he spearheaded a failure. To decry the decision to oust the thug, one has to offer a better alternative. The status quo would in no way cut it, and removing all restrictions on the regime would have been a complete failure of moral authority. Free nations cannot allow brutal thugs to threaten other free nations, sitting idly by doing nothing about the situation. Sitting on their hands, just waiting for the situation to somehow get better on its own, tho we know in our hearts no such thing will ever happen.
At the end of the day, it comes down to choices. All of life comes down to decisions. Allow evil to thrive and people to suffer at the hands of such evil, or remove the evil for good, not allowing it to threaten, maim, or destroy ever again. A world with Saddam Hussein, the butcher of Baghdad is a better place, and we have men like George Bush to thank for removing him from the scene. Decisions like that aren’t failures, they’re acts of courage. Unpopular decisions have to be made, and sometimes that makes for unpopular men. Unpopularity, though not such a wonderful thing, doesn’t equal failure.
There’s been a lot of talk about Sarah Palin’s former church and some videos posted online from the Assembly Of God in her hometown where she attended for years. You won’t see anything racist or anti-American in the videos…that would be the videos of Barack Obama’s church of 20 years that he only left when he was forced to when his nutjob pastor’s comments came into public view. Palin left the church of the various videos in 2004. (Here’s a link to one of the videos that looks to be highly edited.)
The Huffington Post…you know, the liberal site where the commenters frequently praise the deaths of various conservatives in the limelight? They were apparently the first to post the videos, but did they report the situation honestly? It’s HuffPo, so you can guess that they didn’t…they didn’t at all. Here’s how MSNBC reported it:
From NBC’s Michael Levine
As questions have been raised over how thoroughly Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign vetted Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. slot, it seems the McCain campaign was unaware of a video — available online — in which Palin talks about God’s role in U.S. military action overseas, according to a political operative familiar with the situation.
The video, first reported by the liberal blog HuffingtonPost.com, is from a June Palin speech to the graduating class of commission students at Palin’s former church in Wasilla, Alaska. While describing her family, Palin told students about her oldest son, 19-year-old Track, who is set to be deployed to Iraq this month with the U.S. Army. She urged students to pray “that our leaders — that our national leaders — are sending [soldiers] out on a task that is from God.”
She added, “That’s what we have to make sure that we are praying for: that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
“It’s pretty uncomfortable stuff,” said the political operative, after watching the video online. “It’s bad. It’s really bad. … It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out.”
In addition to talking about Iraq, Palin also referred to God’s role in her work as governor.
“I can do my part in working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline, about a $30 billion project that’s going to create a lot of jobs for Alaska. … [but] I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said. “I can do my job there in developing our natural resources, in doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded. But really that stuff doesn’t do any good if the people of Alaska’s hearts aren’t right with God.”
Clearly Palin is saying the same thing that a billion Christians worldwide say every day= they pray that whatever it is they’re doing that God is ultimately in control. That their actions are, hopefully, in the path of righteosuness. This is basic Biblically Christianity.
Jake Tapper reported that the writers at HuffPo tried to even go further:
The Huffington Post described this as Palin “paint(ing) the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord,” which McCain-Palin spokesman Michael Goldfarb calls “a distortion of what she was saying.”
Only hatred for Palin and her views would lead a person to claim that Palin’s remarks were somehow meaning that the war was a messianic affair in which the US was acting out the will of the Lord. BS all the way down, my friends. It’s obvious what Palin was saying, and it’s not at all outrageous, and it’s not at all unusual. Bible-believing Christians say the same thing all the time…they pray that their actions are the ones that God would approve of, that the things we have put into action are good and worthy of praise by a higher power. We should strive to be more in step with what God would want us to do, and we should pray that what we actually do is in line with the Lord. In other words, we hope that the choices we make are right and good. That’s not a messianic claim, that’s simply good sense.
UPDATE (Sept 11, 2008 @ 8:04PM): Here is the full quote from Palin’s comments on how she prays that what the military is doing is a thing God would approve of:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
Some have argued that she’s saying that the US invasion of Iraq was a task that God called us to do, or that somehow she’s proclaiming a messianic call of sorts to war via God’s direction, when in fact she’s merely praying that what we’re doing is right. She’s praying in the hope that the US leaders have sent the soldiers into harm’s way to do a noble and good deed.
You will notice how she clearly says she’s praying that there is, indeed, a plan, and that the current plan (in every day life, and in sending troops into Iraq in particular are in line with what God would want, in line with a plan that would match God’s own plan. In other words, a plan that is noble and right in the eyes of a just and loving God, which is all we can really pray for to begin with.)
When asked about this by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, she replied:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
So, we have the context of her comment and her prayer. We know that Christians are called Biblically to pray for what is right, and what is right are the things that are right in the eyes of God not the eyes of man. We now have her even further explanation to make sure no one continues to take her obvious comments out of context. That should close the book on this issue, but it won’t…her attackers will claim that she’s making up this fictional story now to cover herself and that the Bible somehow calls Christians to proclaim war is a plan directly from the mouth of God. The facts are in, and that’s certainly not what she was saying at all.
Fred Hiatt writes in the Washington Post on Senator Rockefeller’s claims that President Bush “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.”
Then he actually looks at the report itself and finds that in no way does it reach that conclusion. In fact, on nearly every point of the report, it concludes that the intelligence at the time substantiated the claims made by the administration. As much as I’ve read of the report myself (which isn’t a lot so far), this reporting matches with the facts.
After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”
Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
In the run up to the war, the administration repeatedly made the argument that in a post 9/11 world, we couldn’t wait for the intel to be 100% perfect. We couldn’t take the chance with rogue states that we had for so many decades before.
Now, check out the comments to the editorial.
It’s like most of these people never took the time to even read the editorial, or they took the time to read it with their eyes closed, their fingers in their ears, refusing to take in any of it. How else do you explain the partisan attacks? What Hiatt reported was accurate according to the report itself! What he reported, and what so many of these commenters attacked, were pieces of the report from Rockefeller itself! Taken directly from the report, this is what’s being attacked. Hiatt is called a Bush lawn boy basically, for merely reporting the facts as they exist in the report. What I have read of the report and the media’s (and Rockefeller’s own) conclusions doesn’t add up. It seems partisan attacks are everywhere, to hell with the facts.
The media doesn’t want you to know that things have improved in Iraq, that war deaths are down, that British intel says they’re close to defeating terrorist organizations in Iraq, that the US intel agencies are saying that AQ is nearly defeated completely in Iraq, that the intel may have been flawed, but that nobody lied or trumped up any evidence that didn’t exist. The media, along with guys like Rockefeller, will do anything to make you believe that, tho the facts don’t support the assertion, the war is a failure, we’re losing over there, and that George Bush is somehow an evil genius (tho oddly they want to claim he’s an idiot at the same time) who in some manner convinced the free world to agree with his devious (and evil) plot to take out the butcher for no just cause. Sneaky guy, that George Bush. The zombie brain-dead are out in full force. Screw the facts…attack the messenger.
The RNC has demanded stations stop running the new DNC ad that distorts what John McCain truly said in regards to how long we could possibly be in Iraq. The DNC as is a complete distortion of what McCain said- there goal was to twist what he said, lying in the process, to make him look bad. I posted about this the other day and thouroughly ripped the ad apart.
Howard Dean, though, when asked about the ad said this:
Democratic Party chief Howard Dean said “there’s nothing false” about the ad.
“We deliberately used John McCain’s words. This isn’t some ominous consultant’s voice from Washington. This is John McCain’s own words. And we’ve been very upfront about everything that he’s said.”
As I clearly pointed out in my last post on this issue, Dean did NOT let McCain speak for himself…the DNC edited the context ouf of the ad without telling us the video was edited. They also stated in text on screen the exact opposite of what McCain specifically said.
Contact Howard Dean and tell him to stop lying about what McCain said. This is the only contact information I found for Mr. Dean at the DNC website…just fill out the form and ask them to live up to their promise of an honest campaign by immediately removing the dishonest McCain attack ad.
Dean claimed the DNC would run a clean, honest, and honorable campaign. He’s already broken that promise, and the general election campaign hasn’t even begun. Enough is enough Mr. Dean- pull the dishonest ad now.
Howard Dean promised that the campaign this year would be honest and honorable. Funny, considering the DNC (which he runs) has a new attack ad on McCain that is so dishonest, no one should even bother taking any part of it seriosly.
The ad shows John McCain standing with a mic listening to a question from a member of a crowd in Derry, NH. The man asking the questions starts out by telling Senator McCain: “I wanna say at the outset that I’m not going to be voting for you, I’m going to be voting in the Democatic primary in order to defeat the senator from New York. Who I refer to as Joe Lieberman Democrat.” Lieberman is sitting on the stage as McCain stands and walks around, so the guy asking the question is just acting like a child to begin with to attack Lieberman by attacking Clinton and comparing the two. It’s okay to be critical, but it seemed as if his goal was just to be childish.
This pretext isn’t mentioned in the DNC ad, but it’s nice to have that background info.
The ad itself does have the question about Bush and staying in Iraq for 50 years.
The text to the left of McCain says “Senator McCain” and under it we see the text of the question being asked (we hear the question as well), the question is:
“President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years”
We then see McCain reply “maybe a hundred.” Text to the left says “100 years in Iraq.”
Then, the video freezes and the text saying 100 years in Iraq slowly starts to come toward us, getting closer and larger. The video then restarts, but there’s a noticeble edit. There is clearly some video taken out. We then see McCain say, “that’d be fine with me.” So, to watch this ad, you’d think McCain had said (50 years?) “Maybe a hundred. That’d be fine with me.”
Most Americans will see the ad and not bother to find the full video, but I’ll do it for you to show the DNC is lying and distorting what McCain truly said.
This is the video that has the full back and forth between McCain and the questioner.
What McCain actually says is this:
“Maybe a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day”
I have put in bold the part of the reply that the DNC edited out. That section edited out clearly changes the meaning of what McCain is saying. Changing the meaning without telling us they edited his reply. In other words- Howard Dean and the DNC are lying.
Worse yet- the DNC ad follows “That’d be fine with me” with video of explosions and carnage in Iraq and the text “5 years” followed by onscreen text saying “$500 billion” and “Over 4,000 dead.” They then repeat the question asked in NH. Then the snippet of McCain simply saying “maybe a hundred.” The voiceover says:
“If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America’s future?”
Clearly, this ad is a lie and a disgusting attack on McCain by taking his words, editing them, leaving out the context in order to make him say something he never said and doesn’t truly believe. Furthermore, the voiceover at the end is complete dishonesty, as it comes directly after the video of carnage in Iraq and the text saying 4.000 dead. McCain is NOT more of the same in Iraq, and he’s definitely not saying that in this video clip. He specifically said “That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”
No two ways about it- Howard Dean and the DNC are lying once again about John McCain. Will Obama denounce this ad as he denounced the NC GOP ad with videos of Rev Wrights (video clips, I might add, were NOT edited in any manner to distort what he was truly saying as this DNC ad does with McCain). Or can we expect politics as usual from Obama, tho he claims to repudiate the usual tactics?
I will end by mentioning the NY Times covering this ad. They were dishonest themselves, as their online blog post about this reads (in part):
“In the commercial, Mr. McCain’s words speak for themselves, not misstated as they have been on the campaign trail as though he called for 100 years of war. In the initial exchange with voter Dave Tiffany, and in subsequent interviews, Mr. McCain made it clear he was not talking about extended combat, but about the fact that he wouldn’t mind maintaining a presence in Iraq to assist with stability. (He likened it to the continuing presence of troops in South Korea or Bosnia.)”
How Times writer Kate Phillips can say that with a straight face is beyond what I can comprehend. She’s being dishonest when she says McCain’s words speak for themselves. There’s not a bit of truthfulness to that claim. A major clarifying statement was edited out of his reply, AND the video and text are in opposition with what he said about there not being Americans harmed, injured, killed, etc. And when you leave the clarification on South Korea, Japan, Bosnia, etc. out you’re completely distorting what McCain said. Leave it to the Times to claim that a dishonest attack ad twisting McCain’s words allowed McCain’s words to speak for themselves.
Dishonesty from Dean and the DNC…dishonesty from the Democratic Party’s biggest cheerleader, the NY Times. What a winning combination for America.
Whoopi went on and on about how Elisabeth Hasslebeck talking about how she doesn’t want to see people vote for someone based solely on race or their sex…
HASSELBECK: I’m not against the idea. I just- I’m against the idea of not just looking beyond the things which have prevented them from being in office. We need to step away from that a little bit and look at the entire picture. That’s all I’m saying.
GOLDBERG: It’s a very- and I say this with a huge amount of love. It’s a very white way to look at it.
HASSELBECK: What do you mean?
GOLDBERG: And I, I’m saying this with love, so I understand, because it’s never.
HASSELBECK: Let me take off my “white” goggles.
SHEPHERD: You can’t. I wish you could. You can’t.
GOLDBERG: But you can’t. That’s what I’m trying to explain. This, for us, is totally- it’s not an experience I can explain to you. I can’t explain why black folks are saying “oh my God.”
Yes, folks, two idiots who happen to be black are allowed to be flippantly racist on broadcast daytime TV and we all act like it’s no big deal. If a white woman had said that Whoopi has a very black way of looking at the issue, then the woman would be fired the very next day. I’m sorry, but the constant racial obsession over Barack and this election is just sickening, and frankly I’m already beyond tired of it. We get it, folks, he has black skin…he’s half black. BIG FLIPPIN’ DEAL! Because his skin is sort of the same color as yours- I’ve no idea why that gives you such major hard on’s. It’s just insanity at this point, and I’m afraid it’s going to get much much worse.
By the way- why does anyone listen to Sheppard (who once went on about how she wasn’t sure if the earth was flat or not, and that she had just never been curious enough to ponder the issue before)???
I’m so sick of the double standard where black women (or black men) can be racist all day long, but if a white woman said what was said, she’d be kicked in the head, sued, and attacked for the rest of her life. Americans tiptoe around a certain voting bloc constantly…only to be told daily how racist we all are and how bad THEY have it. Bullshit. When someone has to use kid gloves with you every single day regarding every single issue, you inherently have it EASY in many ways.
Let’s do one important and sensible thing. Let’s get off this crazy obsession with skin tone and concentrate on THE ISSUES at hand. We are in a war for our lives with radical islamists- when it’s all said and done, how much melanin a candidate has doesn’t mean squat, and deciding that you think it DOES mean diddly is going to get all of us killed. Wise up America…before it’s too late, bickering over skin tone while the terrorists detonate their dirty bombs in major cities across the nation.
US News & World Report relays the result of an informal survey by the History News Network of 109 “professional historians.” 98% of them say the Bush presidency is a failure, and 61% feel it’s the worst in American history.
Proving that 99% of professional historians polled are out of their mind crazy, and 60% of them are off their rockers lunatics. No serious historian, even if he thought Bush a failure, would ever rank him as the worst president ever.
The reasons given for failure? ” invading Iraq, ‘tax breaks for the rich,’ and alienating many nations around the world”
Shows you the bias we have here. Removing an evil despot known as one of the worst murderers of the last century somehow makes you one of the worst presidents. I assure you, when looking back at Bush’s decision, history will approve (as will the free Iraqi people). And “tax cuts for the rich”? Liberal pornography. EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN WHO PAYS INCOME TAXES GOT A TAX CUT UNDER BOTH BUSH TAX CUTS PASSED INTO LAW. Can 109 historians truly be this stupid? With the Bush tax cuts, even some Americans who paid ZERO income taxes for got money (they got money they never paid to begin with!)
This “tax cuts for the rich” nonsense is a liberal myth. If you paid $100 into a pot and someone else paid 10 cents…wouldn’t you expect more of a return from the investment? Wouldn’t you expect more of YOUR money back? Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a socialist Robin Hood fantasy and has never worked in the long run. Of course a person who carries a much larger tax burden will get more back as a percentage of the total given back. That’s not rocket science, and if someone doesn’t like it, they need to fight to bring about the arrival of socialism to the United States. Any takers?
The “tax cuts for the rich” meme is just a lie. Even if it’s told by a “professional historian.”
As for alienating nations around the world- come on. Seriously? Which nations? Why are they “alienat[ed]“? Were they ever fans of us to begin with? Are they somehow angry because many of them have no guts anymore, and refuse to stand up to tyrants…and when they do so it’s often in a line behind us? Are these nations UN members who were on the payroll of the Sadam regime in the oil for food scandal?
I guess this all proves one thing. Being a “professional” doesn’t mean you automatically have any clue whatsoever.
Ann Coulter on Rev Wright Issue: “How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?”
Ann Coulter hits the nail on the head…saying what most have, thus far, been afraid to say, even if we all know it’s true.
By now, the country has spent more time talking about race than John Kerry has talked about Vietnam, John McCain has talked about being a POW, John Edwards has talked about his dead son, and Al Franken has talked about his USO tours.
But the “post-racial candidate” thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?
As an authentic post-racial American, I will not patronize blacks by pretending Obama’s pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is anything other than a raving racist loon. If a white pastor had said what Rev. Wright said — not about black people, but literally, the exact same things — I think we’d notice that he’s crazier than Ward Churchill and David Duke’s love child. (Indeed, both Churchill and the Rev. Wright referred to the attacks of 9/11 as the chickens coming “home to roost.”)
Imagine a white pastor saying: “Racism is the American way. Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God.”
I am also tired of the constant whining. What I find really odd are the people who claim endemic racism in the US. All the while, a black man is sure to grab the Democratic nomination for president. That could not possibly happen if what Wright said was even remotely true.
How about the so-called leaders of the black community stop looking for imaginary boogeymen and look within to the root of the major problems among blacks in this country. The insane out-of-wedlock birthrate, for example…might it have something to do with some of these major issues? The disproportionate level of crimes committed by young black males (especially the all too common black-on-black crimes within some urban areas) should also be looked at. Wright, and others like him, need to stop chasing ghosts and get down to the real causes of the problems they claim they want to fix. Unfortunately, one can hardly even mention the out-of-wedlock birthrate or the high levels of crime among black males without being called a racist…which is why these problems won’t be solved anytime soon. And we have men like “Reverend” Wright to thank for that.
And when it comes to Obama…I don’t take the line that many do and separate him from Wright completely…I have a feeling Obama shares some of these feelings deep down. You can’t sit in a pew for 20 years, claim the man is like an uncle, claim him as your spiritual guide, have him baptize your children and marrry you and then claim that you don’t share any of his feelings. Why did you stay in a church where you so radically disagreed with a very insane pastor? Either Obama is the world’s biggest coward (well, well, I I couldn’t possibly approach my spiritual mentor about these issues)…or, more likely- Barack’s true feelings aren’t all that different than those of Wright himself.
Either way- there’s no way on earth I’d want this man leading me or anyone else in this country. I certainly wouldn’t want this man as leader of the free world. Not to mention the fact that National Journal has him ranked as the MOST liberal member of Congress, and he has promised a disasterous withdrawal of troops no matter what the commanders on the ground say about it. A trillion dollar health care promise he can’t keep, abortion on demand, children having abortions behind their parents’ backs (kids need strict parent permission to get their ears piereced, but some fools like Obama and most US liberals think they should be able to get an abortion without telling their parents!)…outside of the fact that Obama has an uber racist pastor for 20 years and probably shares many of his racist ideals, he would be a complete disaster all around.
BBC America, which is quickly going downhill (they used to air interesting British comedies and dramas…now it’s turned into the sci-fi british channel that, for some reason only God knows, airs Dancing With the Stars (it was utter crap on ABC, why air it on BBC America?!) is now airing the terrible news program, Newsnight. Jeremy Paxman is the host from what I can tell, and he seems to be a British version of the joke that is Krazy Keith Olbermann. He’s out of his mind crazy, makes utterly no sense, and can’t tell a complete truth to save his life.
I found his interview with John Bolton on youtube, and it gives you a great idea of what a wanker this guy is.
I just want to cover a few items from the interview.
He is clearly anti-war when it comes to Iraq. His idea of a better world would be one where Saddam Hussein (the butcher of Baghdad) was still a thriving despotic regime, murdering his own people at will.
No other explanation makes sense, as he complains to Bolton:
Paxman starts out with a short intro/biographical piece on Bolton where he narrates and says “he had no time for mulinational negotiations” in regards to Iraq. This is crap with a capital C. The Gulf War ended in 1991. Forces invaded again in 2003. That’s 12 years. 12 years spent at the UN Security Council passing a dozen resolutions…a dozen resolutions that were almost completely ignored by the Iraqi regime. The no-fly zones were put into place, and they were violated on a nearly daily basis. Anyone who claims there were no mutli-national negotiations on Iraq and the Hussein regime is either crazy, dishonest, or completely ignorant of all truth. I doubt Paxman is either crazy or ignorant of ALL truth, so we’re left with dishonest.
So, there were negotiations, and the US and allied nations agreed that we couldn’t wait for the UN to hold another 12 years of meetings or issue another dozen resolutions on the situation. There had to come a time to stop pussyfooting around and finally act.
Paxman then states his opinion that Iraq is in terrible shape (worse than with Hussein the murderous dictator) and then claims there was an “absence of planning” following the invasion. Now, this is common anti-Bush, anti-war nonsense. No one who has being serious and is sane is going to claim there was no post-invasion planning. You can argue the planning wasn’t very well thought out maybe- that would be a reasonable argument, but to argue there was no planning is just silly and should be embarassing to anyone making such a claim. It would take a fool to think the Bush admin, the US armed forces commander’s, the advisors, etc. said “let’s invade and oust the regime. What comes after that, we’ve no idea, and who cares? No planning is necessary.”
So, there was clearly a lot of planning, and Bolton said the problem with the plan was not to rely more on the Iraqis. You can argue that was a mistake, as Bolton does, but to say there was no planning is BS.
Paxman complains that Bolton says we don’t have an ultimate responsibility to ensure the Iraqi government succeeds. Our national interests lie in making sure it’s not a haven for terrorist groups who take over the entire country in an effort to use the nation and its resources and protections offered as being a soverign nation to launch attacks against the US. Point is- we can’t be in charge of everyone and make sure everyone on earth is happy and in peace. Paxman confuses here, as he’s clearly against the Iraq war, yet he has no problem demanding Bolton support the notion of ensuring a civil, peaceful, happy Iraq. It’s sort of the common liberal idea of late- don’t go into Iraq and remove a murderous despot, but you damned better make sure the Iraqi people live in peace now. What on earth do these people think the original point was? The regime posed a threat not only to the US and her allies, but to the entire world to some degree. Despots tend to pose threats in a broad general sense and cause trouble in a broad manner.
Paxman then complains:
“What do you say to those people who turn to you and say- ‘okay, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but Iraq was not then a failed state, and it was not a haven for terrorists, and that’s precisely what you’ve created in Iraq.”
This question is absurd. A hypothetical question from a lunatic? I would say, no questions from crazies, next question!
Bolton’s answer is quite reasonable- you’d rather live under a brutal dictator as opposed to a failed state, that’s your choice, but it’s not what I’d want. And really- who would?! We know, we know Iraq was a peaceful heaven under Saddam before the big bad Americans and allies came in and destroyed that peace.
Bolton elaborates that Hussein used WMD against Iran and the war against them, he used them against the Kurds in his own nation, and he kept thousands of top nuclear scientists around to one day try to start up his nuclear program. All fair points- a man who does such a thing surely constitutes a threat to all people.
Paxman interrupts to say there were no WMD. Which is beside the point. The point was- all intel from numerous nations said there were WMD and the idea was, in a global age of terrorism, it’s better to be safe than sorry. By looking at the history of the regime, you knew he had at least twice before used deadly weapons, threatened his neighbors, the US and allies, and others…kept a system of terrorism alive in Iraq itself, trained and harbored terrorists within Iraq, etc. The idea was- put an end to it before he has even a chance to start it all up again…end it before we find out too late that he does, indeed, have deadly stockpiles. No doubt, he spent 12 years refusing to cooperate with hundreds of UN inspectors…refusal to cooperate usually means something, and it’s usually something very bad.
Bolton goes on to attempt to explain that Hussein had the intent, he had the scientists with the knowledge, the raw materials, and more..and that was where the danger lied.
Paxman then claims “But this claim turned out to be a lie, Mr. Bolton, didn’t it?”
This is the most common anti-war bit of nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence anyone, and I mean ANYONE, lied about Iraq and WMD. WMD was NEVER the sole reason for ousting the regime, and ultimately, looking at the big picture, it wasn’t the biggest reason…so, this is complete nonsense to even make such a claim. There was no lie, there is no evidence of a lie, and it’s garbage to make a claim that any such lie ever existed.
In the end Paxman comes off looking not only silly but downright deceptive. One has got to wonder if this is a common British problem (or just one suffered by Paxman only)- looking at the evidence, not looking at the evidence, looking past the evidence and projecting your own anti-Bush, anti-American bias to every issue.
I’d certainly have a hard time taking anything he says seriously after this mess of the facts in his interview with Bolton. I haven’t seen enough of his interviews to say what sort of jounralist he is in full, but with a shoddy performance like this, you can’t help but question anything he says. If I can get the facts straight, yet he can’t with what I assume is a staff of fact-checkers and journalists, then there’s a big problem.
I found this interview with Paxman and George Galloway and Paxman actually looks like the bigger fool here. (amazing, as Galloway is one of the craziest politicians on earth. I honestly believe Galloway actually suffers from some form of mental retardation.) Paxman comes off as Jerry Springer, whose only goal is to try to make others look foolish. I sure hope this isn’t the state of British journalism…