Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Massachusetts Speaks to America



Congratulations to Massachusetts and Republican, Scott Brown!!!

Only one year into the Obama Administration, the Democratic Party has lost the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat that was held by Ted Kennedy for almost 47 years! This was in one of the strongest blue states in the country. It was also frustrating for the Democratic Party because only a month ago Martha Coakley, the party's candidate, was a shoo-in to take the seat.

Most importantly, this setback means that the Democratic Party loses it's 60th Senate seat, which could have prevented a filibuster by the GOP. So the healthcare bill that the Democratic Party has struggled to pass is in serious jeopardy.

Obama's desperate campaigning on behalf of Coakley still couldnt stop Brown from winning by a margin of 120,000 votes. The wide margin makes it very difficult for the Democratic Party to challenge the certification of the election in order to slow the process down.

It is an ominous sign for the Democratic Party as we get ready to mark the one year anniversary of Obama's inauguration next week.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Scott Brown Will Bring Real Change




The irony is just too delicious.

Martha Coakley's handling of the case against child molester, Keith Winfield, is not.

Hannity has more details in the embedded video, but please be warned. This was a brutal rape case and some people may find the subject too disturbing...


Thursday, January 14, 2010

Is It Really Ted Kennedy's Senate Seat?




What is it about the Democratic Party and Senate seats?

First it was Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted for abuse of power when he tried to sell President Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat. You might remember that as the governor of Illinois he had the power to appoint a replacement for Obama after the president-elect vacated his former U.S. Senate seat for the White House. Blago was caught when the FBI wiretapped his home and recordings were made of him attempting to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

Children throughout the state of Illinois are getting prepared to celebrate the first annual “Obama Senate Seat Day” on January 29th. It is hailed as the anniversary of Blago’s conviction (just nine days after Obama’s inauguration!). The Chicago corruption machine vows that no child will be left behind without a Senate seat.

Anyway… Something even worse than the Blago disaster is happening. Now a Republican has the ‘nerve’ to run for the Senate seat left vacant by the Democratic Party’s demigod, Ted Kennedy. Except for a gap of two years, this seat has been in the hands of the Kennedy family since 1953, when John F. Kennedy first won it. (Benjamin A. Smith II, a Kennedy loyalist, kept JFK’s seat warm for two years until Ted was old enough to take over.)

Remember how Blago had the power to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy by appointment? Get ready for some heavy-handed irony.

In 2004 Ted Kennedy was instrumental in helping to push legislation that would have prevented Mitt Romney, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, from appointing a replacement to John Kerry’s U.S. Senate seat if Kerry had won the presidential election.

In August 2009 Ted Kennedy made another appeal to change the law once again. At the time Kennedy was terminally ill and worried about his soon be vacated seat. However, Massachusetts now had a governor who was a Democratic Party loyalist, Deval Patrick. Kennedy wanted to change the law so that the governor could choose an interim replacement. This would give the Democratic Party the 60 votes they needed to pass their health care bill. Otherwise the seat would be vacant under the law Kennedy fought to pass in 2004.

The law was duly changed thanks to the Democratic Party’s majority in the Massachusetts Legislature. So they got their 60 votes when a Kennedy loyalist was appointed as the interim replacement. That means blue-blooded legislators can just change the law when they don’t want a Republican to be seated in the Senate and change the law when they want a Democrat seated. The arrogance seemed limitless…

However, it is now the turn of the voters of Massachusetts to strike back. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat that has been held by the Kennedy family for 54 years, has came from out of nowhere to become a serious contender. This is despite the fact that it is one of the Democratic Party’s most loyal voter districts.

Here is an example of why Brown is making such an impact on the election. In a recent debate the biased moderator from CNN, David Gergen, led with this query;

“Mr. Brown, let me ask you this question, it’s on a lot of people’s minds. You said you’re for health care reform, just not this bill. We know from the Clinton experience that if this bill fails, it could well be another 15 years before we see health care reform efforts in Washington. Are you willing under those circumstances to say, ‘I’m going to be the person. I’m going to sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat and I’m going to be the person who’s going to block it for another 15 years’?”

Brown brilliantly replied;

“Well with all due respect it’s not the Kennedys’ seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat. And they have the chance to send somebody down there who is an independent voter, and an independent thinker and going to look out for the best interests of the people of Massachusetts. And the way that this bill is configured, I’d like to send it back to the drawing board because I believe people should have insurance. Not just this particular bill because it’s not good for the entire country. You’re talking about another trillion dollars in costs, a half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, military people, if you’re veterans, you’re going to have cuts in Tricare, and it’s not good. We need to go back to the drawing board. Nobody has confidence in this bill right now.”

As Gergen admits, he “got stuffed”. The arrogant sense of entitlement that defines such anti-democratic talking heads is becoming unglued.





Wednesday, January 06, 2010

The Three Wise Men - Part 2





In ‘Part One’ I wrote about Al Sharpton and his divisive role in race relations over the years. There was way too much material to include President Obama and Tiger Woods in the same post. That’s OK because splitting it into two sections works better. There are similarities and eye-opening contrasts between Obama and Tiger that makes it logical to include them in their own post.

The inspiration for this commentary was an article that addressed what is obvious to me since I grew up in an African-American community. Associated Press revealed how African-Americans look unfavorably at Tiger Woods because he chooses to chase after white women.

As revelations of Tiger’s infidelities began to surface; an African-American radio show host, Tom Joyner, lambasted the golf champion:

“Thankfully, Tiger, you didn’t marry a black woman. Because if a sister caught you running around with a bunch of white hoochie-mamas, she would have castrated him...

…The question everyone in America wants to ask you is, how many white women does one brother waaant?”


I understand that this is an attempt at humor, but Joyner went too far. Why is it that fellow radio show host Don Imus got suspended in a similar situation and Joyner gets a free pass?

It is particularly disturbing when you consider that in 2008 Joyner was inducted into The International Civil Rights Walk Of Fame. This is a monument that is housed in the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site in Atlanta. Supporters give it this description:

“The International Civil Rights Walk of Fame was created to give recognition to those brave soldiers of justice who sacrificed and struggled to make equality a reality for all. This extraordinary display has become one of the most visited tourist attractions in the city of Atlanta and has enriched the heritage of the civil rights movement.”

Joyner’s behavior is not what I would expect from a “brave soldier of justice” struggling “to make equality a reality for all”.

Unfortunately, this goes deeper than just a joke. Author, Pearl Jr., writes about issues for African-American women. Her focus is on “exposing the conspiracy to keep black women without love”. It is a part of what she refers to as the “current status quo of the division of power based on race”. Even though she promotes herself as an “Equality Activist” (or maybe because of that), she completely snapped in response to Tiger Woods’ taste for white women. A website, boycottblackmen.com was created to express her frustrations. She asked;

“Are you sick of our black men that leave our race and marry outside our race profiting off the black community while they in turn, turn their backs on us?”



[A screen print of a frame from the website boycottblackmen.com]


Now lets be honest. If a white person set up a website to convince white women not to marry African-American men, would you consider that to be racist? Make no mistake Pearl Jr. is quite clear about her feelings. She goes on to write, “Are you ready to speak up and out in order to ask our black people to stay together; stick together because we need each other?! We are asking our black men to come home because we need you here...helping us rebuild our communities!”

Another author of books for African-American women, Denene Millner, confirms the reservations African-American women have about such interracial relationships. “We’ve discussed this for years among black women… Why is it when they get to this level... they tend to go directly for the nearest blonde?”

Millner claims that she was quoted out of context, however she still admits to saying that statement. Her argument centers on the fact that, “neither I nor a whole lot of the African American women I know are bothered by interracial relationships like we used to be”. She should be commended for moving past her intolerance towards interracial relationships, but it is unfair that she misquotes the journalist who interviewed her (Jesse Washington). He never wrote that Millner was still prejudiced (although she admits that she was in the past). Washington quoted her on how African-American women view such interracial relationships. As Pearl Jr shows, it still holds true whether or not Millner has seen the errors of her own intolerance.

This intolerance is not just limited to African-American women. Books such as John Johnson’s “It Ain’t All Good: Why Black Men Should Not Date White Women” and Rajen Persaud’s “Why Black Men Love White Women” reveal a disturbing portrait of prejudice against interracial relationships. I doubt that Amazon.com would sell a book entitled, “Why White Women Should Not Date Black Men”.

While Millner’s assertion that she had a change of heart is welcome, the manner in which she did it was a bit questionable. This is due to the fact that Millner added the following caveat, “I was neither shocked nor cared about Tiger’s choice in women because he’s never seemed to identify with the “bl” in his “Cablinasian” racial make-up anyway”.

So how is that for an “either you are with us or against us” moment?

“Cablinasian” is a term coined by Tiger to define his ethnicity:

“Ca” – Caucasian
“Bl” – African-American Black
“In” – American Indian
“Asian” – Chinese and Thai

His use of this term has not endeared him to the African-American community. A columnist for FanHouse, Terence Moore, reacted to Tiger’s recent troubles with vindication. He pointed out that the African-American community unconditionally supported other prominent African-American athletes who got into trouble;

“Those other athletes had one of the world’s most supportive casts. They had an overwhelming number of folks in the African-American community standing firmly and loudly behind them -- no matter what. They had Jesse and Al waiting to pounce in the background, if they hadn’t done so already. They had black ministers across the country asking for special prayers in their name. They had folks in barbershops throughout African-American communities talking about conspiracies.

Mostly, despite everything those in black America had seen or heard about the events surrounding O.J., Vick, Iverson and the rest, they had unconditional love.

For Woods, not so much.

Actually, not at all, and Woods has nobody to blame but Woods.

It goes back to April 1997 when he famously took a nine-iron to the face of blacks by telling Oprah Winfrey on her couch that he wasn’t black. He said he wasn’t white, either. He said, given that his father is black and that his mother is Asian, he spent his youth inventing a word for himself called “Cablinasian”.

Just like that, in the hearts of many African-Americans, Woods was on his own…”


Moore makes it clear that he has always felt this way. He proudly dug up an article that he wrote 12 years ago. The piece was written to chastise Tiger when the golfer first publicly used the term “Cablinasian”;

“Tiger, you’re not green. You’re not yellow. You’re not purple. You’re not Asian. You’re not Cablinasian. You’re black.”

Why is it so important that Tiger must declare that he is exclusively African-American? His mother, Kultida Woods complained that, “To call Tiger black is to deny my existence”. She is half Thai, a quarter Chinese, and a quarter Dutch. Tiger’s father is one-quarter Native American, one-quarter Chinese, and half African-American. That means Tiger has more Asian heritage than African-American (one-half Asian, one-quarter African-American, one-eighth Native American and one-eighth white).

With that in mind, it is time to write about Barack Obama. He is a great comparison because Obama is also a prominent American with a mixed race background that includes African heritage. Unlike Tiger, he has exclusively embraced his African ancestry.

Despite the fact that Obama was raised by a loving white family and abandoned at a young age by his African father, he rejects his white heritage. In his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” he declared, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race (white) at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

While we should take into consideration the pain that his abandonment probably caused, Obama revealed that he shrewdly evaluated the political benefits of “race loyalty”;

“I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.” (Rafiq was a friend of Obama’s who was a member of the Nation of Islam, it is not believed to be his real name.)

This was how Obama chose the path that ensured he could be defended by “folks in barbershops throughout African-American communities talking about conspiracies” (As Terence Moore put it and conversely Pearl Jr shows that race traitors can also be victimized by conspiracy theories). It insults us in the face of all the progress that we have made in race relations over the years.

On the other hand, this delights Pearl Jr who emphasizes that Obama has a “black wife” and lets out a little cheer to show her approval. In contrast she condemns the sexual preferences of Tiger;

“…Its all these white women, white women, white women and not a black one in the bunch and not even an Asian in the bunch. So Tiger Woods I think that you have been exposed, even to white people you must admit, that Tiger Woods is a White Supremacist. Tiger Woods is racist against black women.

And as far as his buddies Charles Barkley and Michael Jordan is concerned, guess what, they must have their little cult… their little black men with non-black women parties. Black women must not be allowed in their little parties and it needs to be exposed because the racism against black women in the lives of rich black men has gotten out of control.”


So it is no surprise when Johnson Cooper, a 26-year old African American from NY, declares that, “Had Barack had a white wife, I would have thought twice about voting for him”. Obama’s rejection of his whiteness was the key to jumpstarting his political career.

As an unknown community organizer with no roots in the African-American community, Obama decided to join a radical African-American church (Chicago’s Trinity United). It was a calculated move to give him ‘street-cred’ and the politics of the church was exactly what he was looking for. Trinity was also a powerhouse in the community thanks to its well-connected congregation. Oprah Winfrey was the most prominent member. She would prove to be a very useful ally to Obama when he ran for president. A University of Maryland study estimated that Oprah’s support was worth one million votes. After Obama left the Illinois state senate another member of Trinity, Kwame Raoul, filled his seat. That is how the wheels of power turn.

When Obama’s divisive church became a liability during the 2008 presidential campaign, he just dumped it. Since then Obama still doesn’t attend any church regularly and is leisurely “looking” for one to join. Religion served its purpose. Eventually, as his poll numbers continue to plummet, he will have to find another church. In the meantime Obama didn’t attend any religious services when Christmas came along. As an atheist I don’t have any bone to pick with his religious views, it is his intellectual dishonesty that is bothersome.

Today is Three Kings Day. The tradition states that the three kings visit all good children to give them presents. Well, these three kings have given you a lump of coal, but they have taught us a valuable lesson about the sad state of racial relations today. It’s unfortunate that it doesn’t have to be this way. We let it happen.

Feliz Dia de los Reyes…

Monday, December 28, 2009

The Three Wise Men - Part 1




A Story of Race Relations in the United States

American “liberal” ideology relies on race baiting to keep it relevant. To this day playing the race card is a valuable part of the Left’s playbook. That is true despite the disasters which have befallen the hucksters of race baiting politics such as Reverend Al Sharpton. Although he built his reputation as a civil rights activist, Sharpton was successfully sued for defaming the white victim of rape and kidnapping allegations made by an African-American teenager, Tawana Brawley. The accuser’s hoax made such an uproar that the judge was moved to declare;

“It is probable that in the history of this state, never has a teenager turned the prosecutorial and judicial systems literally upside down with such false claims. The cost of the lengthy, thorough and complete grand jury investigation was reportedly estimated at one-half million dollars…

…The total costs and expenses of the lengthy trial before this Court must be staggering. All of this was presumably unnecessary had Brawley come forward to cooperate with authorities. Even absent initial cooperation, once the Grand Jury report was released and it revealed in detail that Brawley had been personally observed by a credible witness crawling into the garbage bag, it would have been most appropriate for Brawley as a young teenager to come forward, admit the allegations were not true and apologize for the pain and upset she had caused Pagones, the Crist family and State Trooper Scott Patterson by her false accusations.”


The punch line was even better;

“At the end of the trial this Court stated, “Let us hope after 10 ½ years, the Tawana Brawley matter is finally laid to rest and we can move forward at last to promote healing and racial harmony.” Unfortunately, the continuing rhetoric by Brawley and her supporters refusing to accept the verdict does nothing to further racial harmony. In fact, in this particular case it is a disservice to the African-American community since it diminishes credibility and may adversely affect other viable complaints. This Court recognizes that it is perfectly proper in appropriate circumstances to speak out against any legitimate racial injustice. In this case, the injustice was against those wrongfully accused of heinous crimes that never occurred. The jury did justice by righting that wrong. Brawley and her supporters have no right to claim that justice was not accomplished by this jury.

These are not rational people that we are dealing with. Take for example, Sharpton’s lawyer and co-defendant in the defamation lawsuit, Alton H. Maddox Jr. His accomplishments are sickening;

1) After filing complaints of racial discrimination against the state of New York, he was ordered to repay the state for legal costs incurred while defending itself from Maddox’s accusations. The judge stated that his complaints had “no factual or legal basis”.

Maddox had filed the lawsuit claiming that he had to apply for permission to represent an indigent defendant, J. Ricardo Burgos, in a murder trial while two white lawyers were appointed to represent Burgo’s co-defendant without having to apply first.

The lawsuit fell apart when the state provided evidence that the two white lawyers did apply to represent their client. However, when Maddox was given an application, he filed a discrimination lawsuit instead of following through the application process. It is another example of using the race card to abuse our justice system.

2) In 1997 a white English teacher filed a complaint with NY’s Commission on Human Rights. The teacher protested that she was discriminated against when she was denied entry to a meeting of the United African Movement, a group led by Maddox. The Commission fined the African Movement $10,000 after it concluded that the teacher was denied entry due to her race. When she was barred from the meeting she was told that, “this place is only for African people”.

3) “Alton Maddox, alluding to Farrakhan’s use of the term “bloodsuckers” to describe Jews and others, said: “You’d better be glad that the only thing we are doing is calling you bloodsuckers.” He added: “This ain’t about ceremony, this is about blood. The price of victory is blood.... You got to spill some blood if you want to be free.”

Despite years of high profile Jewish activism in the Civil Rights Movement and their current high profile activism for “liberal” causes, there has been a great deal of hostility from the African-American community against Jews. During the Crown Heights riots in 1991 Sharpton made the following threat, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”. Sharpton had called for protests in response to the death of a Guyanese-American child who was killed when a Jew lost control of his car after an accident with another vehicle. In retaliation for the death African-American “protesters” killed an innocent Jewish visitor from Australia, Yankel Rosenbaum. Over a period of four nights the protesters targeted local Jews, businesses and police in an orgy of hate crimes.

In 1995 Al Sharpton was protesting against New York Jews again and there would be even more blood this time. The African-American owner of a Harlem record store, Sikhulu Shange, was facing eviction by a Jewish businessman, Fred Harari. Shange recruited Sharpton for help and he became the most publicly visible negotiator on behalf of Shange.

Protests erupted outside the business owned by Harari (Freddy’s Fashion Mart). The protesters expressed anti-Semitic hate speech and threats of violence such as:

“Get out Jew bastards”

“Bloodsucking Jews”

“Burn and loot the Jews”

Protesters warned that they would have “a coffin for Freddy”

One protester by the name of ‘Shabazz’ exclaimed, “I will be back to burn the Jew store down -- burn, burn, burn.”

Sharpton claimed that he didn’t control the protesters, but he certainly supported them and encouraged people to join the protest. On a radio show Sharpton made this disturbing statement:

“We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business on 125th Street. We’re asking our black community to go down there, and I’m going to go down there, and do what is necessary to let them know that we’re not turning 125th Street back over to outsiders.”

Another protest leader, Morris Powell, used the same radio station to broadcast his own call to action:

“We’re not going to stand idly by and let a Jewish person come in black Harlem and methodically drive black people out of business... We gonna see that this cracker suffer.”

Both the NYC Police Dept and the Human Rights Commission investigated the protests, but never intervened. The results were tragic. One protester, Roland J. Smith Jr., was aroused to commit a massacre at Freddy’s Fashion Mart. He used a handgun to shoot up the store and paint thinner to burn it down. Including the gunman, eight people were killed and four wounded. The death toll topped the slaughter of six people murdered in the Long Island Railroad Massacre, which was yet another racially motivated mass murder perpetrated by an African-American.

After years of threats to murder whites; Colin Ferguson, an African-American born in Jamaica, carried his handgun and a canvas bag full of ammunition onto a Long Island Railroad commuter train. It was a premeditated hate crime. Sharpton was worried that the public perception of “Black and Hispanic dissatisfaction” would be undermined by this incident. He complained that, “the people in the media who attempted to demonize black and Hispanic dissatisfaction by saying this man was inspired or condoned by us when he did a very sick and perverted act is unfair.”

The protection of the leftwing victimhood racket was his main concern. Years later Sharpton would go on to join a campaign on behalf of African-Americans who committed a violent crime against a white person. The Jena 6 were African-American high school students who attacked an unsuspecting white student, Justin Barker, and beat him until he was unconscious.

Activists spread the rumor that Barker had been hurling racial epithets before the attack. However, five of the defendants admitted that such accusations were untrue:

“To be clear, not one of us heard Justin use any slur or say anything that justified Mychal Bell attacking Justin nor did any of us see Justin do anything that would cause Mychal to react.”



[Victim, Justin Barker, in the hospital after being attacked. Photos of two Jena-6 supporters flank his picture. The one to the left is a well meaning, but misguided protester. The one on the right calls for further violence until a perverted brand of justice is achieved.]

Of course our media has short-term memory loss when it comes to anything that contradicts the consensus of our “liberal” upper-class. Talk show host, Bill O’Reilly, is almost universally derided as a rightwing extremist, so check out his contentious but almost amicable exchange exchange with Al Sharpton.

Although Sharpton is generally well respected in our leftwing media, he really comes off as hopelessly biased, while O’Reilly is rational. They discuss the Duke Lacrosse case in which three white athletes from Duke University were falsely accused of rape by an African-American stripper.

The case against the athletes was so weak that the prosecutor became the first sitting district attorney in North Carolina history to be disbarred. It was an “unprecedented and historic moment”, one that was quickly forgotten by our media. Unfortunately the wrongly accused students suffered badly, but they represent acceptable collateral damage to keep alive the leftwing race-baiting machine.

Race relations in our country are beset with difficulties. Unfortunately some prominent leftwing activists provoke race baiting for political profit and throw their uncritical support to hucksters around the country. Times have changed so that all too often it is the race baiting activism of the Left, which intentionally inflames racial tension.

In the next post (Part 2) we will examine how President Barack Obama and Tiger Woods perceive race relations in the United States and the effect that they have had on our nation.

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Time to Make a Stand


President Obama Fiddles While the World Burns

In Iran the most amazing things are happening. Every year on the anniversary of the 1979 storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran, pro-government demonstrators march in front of the embassy to denounce America. This year Democracy activists are counter-protesting and appealing to the U.S. for help. It is an amazing turn of events which reveals that Obama Administration has been neglecting Iran’s Democracy movement for too long.

Many protesters gathered in chants of, “Obama, Obama — either you’re with them or you’re with us”. Obama’s culture of self-loathing anti-Americanism is being challenged like never before. His foreign policy of playing nice with our enemies and tough with our friends is not paying off. The leftwing ideology of anti-Americanism is cracking at the seams.

President Obama has been dithering for too long. His policy of ignoring the truth about the Iranian regime in order to foster dialog with them is angering Iranians who long for freedom. While the Mullahs of Iran are helping to kill American troops, support further instability in the Levant, oppress their citizens and stall efforts to prevent its nuclear proliferation… Obama does nothing.

Obama and His Generals

It is an all too familiar pattern. After some early hope that Obama would live up to his hawkish campaign promise to focus on the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan, the President has become negligent towards what he once referred to as the “central front” in the War on Terror (or rather what used to be called the War on Terror). Judging by the way he has always shunned our top generals in the field, it was inevitable.

On January 10, 2007, Obama was quoted on MSNBC as saying the following about the Iraq Troop Surge:

“We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality - we can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.”

Considering the success of the Surge it would be logical to wonder which military officers Obama was talking to.

In May of 2008 Vets for Freedom released an ad challenging Presidential candidate Barack Obama to meet one on one with General Petraeus, whom he had been reluctant to consult with. It was a part of a firestorm of criticism that forced Obama to visit Iraq and meet directly with Petraeus.

So Obama didn’t sit down to meet with General Petraeus, one on one, until July 2008. Therefore he never properly consulted Petraeus (the principal architect of the Surge) before condemning the operation. Furthermore, he had to be shamed into directly meeting with the general through determined political pressure. Obama didn’t speak privately with any military officer who believed that the Surge would make a substantial difference on the ground because he was not interested in meeting with military leaders that would express such sentiments. His consultations with military leaders were dictated by his desire to shape his military policy according to his own political agenda and so he consulted only with military leaders who he felt would support his preconceived conclusions.

This is not an isolated trend. In August of this year the Obama Administration shelved a report from General Stanley McChrystal asking for a troop increase in Afghanistan. By the end of September it became known that the President didn’t meet with McChrystal in person since the general took over command of Afghanistan in June and only spoke to him on one occasion during that time. Once again, after concerted political pressure, Obama was shamed into meeting our top commander who was in charge of our most critical war zone.

President Obama is not as interested in winning the war in Afghanistan as much as he is interested in promoting himself politically. I don’t doubt that he would like to win the war, but he has other priorities ahead of that goal. His non-stop political campaigning takes precedence. Obama is running for the 2012 presidential election now, just like he spent much of his only term in the U.S. Senate running for President in the 2008 election.

When Obama finally met McChrystal, the general had to fly to Denmark where the President was campaigning to have the 2016 Olympics hosted in his hometown! McChrystal was lucky that Obama was able to squeeze in 25 minutes to meet him. He was third down in the list of the President’s priorities.

Associated Press related that Obama originally turned down several requests by the Chicago bid committee when they asked him to take part in Chicago’s presentation to the IOC. Despite Obama’s long commitment to Chicago’s bid, he professed that he was too deeply involved with the debate on health care. Ultimately the lure of Chicago politics won out and Obama decided that one day wouldn’t jeopardize his work on health care “reform”. The meeting with McChrystal was added at the last minute to a schedule that was put together at the last minute. It was a measure of Obama’s appreciation for his top general in Afghanistan.

Note: You have to cringe at the first paragraph of the AP article… (sorry the link is already dead and I can't find another respectable link.)

In a quick dash of salesmanship, President Barack Obama is in the Danish capital, putting his personal powers of persuasion on the line to boost Chicago’s Olympics bid.

Without the colorful embellishments of the American media, Obama’s exaggerated powers of persuasion really don’t amount to much in the real world.

With the haphazard meeting out of the way, the media could now turn its attention to attacking McChrystal. The same tired arguments that were shown to be false during the Iraq Troop Surge are being regurgitated in Afghanistan.

As mentioned above, Obama predicted at the beginning of the Surge that it would fail. The popular sentiment was that an increase of American troops in Iraq would lead to more violence. Yet the opposite was true. This is because ever since the Vietnam War our society has cultivated a misconception of war and occupation. There is no evidence after the success of the Surge that the sentiment of the Iraqi public dramatically changed to the point that they overwhelmingly “loved” their occupier. What happened was more realistic and is the cornerstone of COIN strategy. Our allies in Iraq felt more protected and our enemies felt more threatened. This was how the Surge was so successful.

Where is our Afghan Strategy?

When the Obama Administration ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan in February 2009, the increased troop levels were expected to last three to four years. Yet in September Obama said that we need an Afghan strategy before sending more troops. He stated, “I just want to make sure that everybody understands that you don’t make decisions about resources before you have the strategy ready.”

So why did he order troops to go to Afghanistan in February if he didn’t have a strategy? Its bad enough that President Obama neglects to consult with his top commanders and has to be shamed into meeting with them one on one... but he just completely neglects our troops in Afghanistan so he can campaign for healthcare “reform”, promote Chicago’s Olympic bid, play golf and fight a war against Fox News.

This was his greatest mistake. By using his Alinsky tactics of attacking and attempting to isolate Fox News, Obama has offended his most prized ally, the media. Now they are starting to see the Obama Administration for what it is.

So President Obama... You have no choice, but to abandon your rhetoric of self-loathing anti-Americanism. Iranian protesters need you. Your top generals deserve your ear. Afghanistan has to have more troops to defend its people who are isolated by mountainous terrain and victimized by a terrorist enemy who can slip through a porous border. Do something… you are the leader of the free world and you cannot sit on the fence any longer.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Dawn of a Glorious New Age Pt 2

Welcome to Part II of my commentary on President Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations...


The retired dictator of Cuba is encouraged that Obama is committed to destroying the economy of the United States. As a responsible democratic republic we can be pressured into a feverishly heavy burden of anti-carbon legislation. This is despite the fact that our environmental laws are draconian compared to countries such as India and China.

Fidel Castro gushes like a childish American journalist, “The President of the United States has conceded that the developed nations have caused most of the damage and should take responsibility for it. It was certainly a brave gesture.”

Thanks to Obama the definition of brave these days means to denigrate the United States.

This nonsense of wealthy nations versus poor nations unites Socialists in an orgy of envy and hatred.

Meanwhile the world’s number one polluter, China, reels from anti-pollution protests. In the Shaanxi province Chinese authorities ignored hundreds of protesters who complained that their children were being poisoned by industrial waste. The situation turned into running battles between police and protesters. Reporters had to sneak past roadblocks that were set up by the authorities to prevent news coverage of the riots. Local doctors have been ordered to restrict testing children for lead poisoning and now such tests can only be done when an official brings in a child.

Here is a brief list from Times Online of some recent environmental protests and scandals in China:

- Ten thousand demonstrators took hostages and fought police at a $5 billion petrochemical project in Fujian on the east coast. The battles forced the local government to promise strict anti-pollution measures at the plant.

- Authorities closed a chemical plant in central China after two locals died of cadmium poisoning. Chinese newspapers exposed a long-running scandal of political collusion that had allowed the plant to flout environmental standards.

- Mass protests broke out over “cancer villages” near polluted waterways in eastern China. A series of campaigns followed to win compensation for villagers who became ill living next to filthy canals and rivers full of factory discharge and effluent.

In recent decades the United States has made dramatic improvements in its air quality thanks to the Clean Air Act, however scientists are concerned about the effects of pollution from Asia that travels across the pacific in the upper atmosphere.

Estimates state that “Asia contributes 27% of the mercury deposition in Colorado” and the primary source of that mercury comes from the burning of coal, a heavy carbon emitter.

So Hey Obama… Perhaps developing nations should take responsibility for the environmental damage that they are creating right now. Please stop living in the past and digging for ways to bash your own country.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Dawn of a Glorious New Age Pt 1



Obama’s speech before the U.N. was the most pompous work of fiction so far in the 21st Century. It comes across with a religious fervor in which the rhetoric of anti-Americanism is neatly packaged into a holy screed that is easily digestible for Pavlov’s media trained public.

Of course, all religions need miracles and Obama does not let us down. He bragged of his amazing accomplishments bringing progress to the Middle East;

“Yesterday, I had a constructive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. We have made some progress. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow.”

Within the space of one day, the Great Obama has done in the West Bank what he has been unable to do in the United States for nine months!!! Is your leg tingling yet?

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Obama's Feet on the Fire


VIDEO GALLERY OF SHAME

Obama's recent troubles forcing a Public Health Care option on an unwilling public is the result of a badly mismanaged campaign. The lies and bouts of projection that have marked this campaign have clearly revealed the underhanded partisan politics of the Obama Administration.

This arrogant Administration and its Democratic Majority has become too overconfident. Now they have learned that even with their overwhelming sympathy from the media, activist organizations, unions and academia... they still can't tell lies at will.

There were two lies that fell apart amidst public outrage.

The first was an act of projection. Tea Party activists, who have been derided as "Tea Baggers", were accused of being "Astroturf" activists and not a real grassroots movement. Yet it quickly became apparent that many Public Option supporters were in the employment of Obama's "Organizing for America" and ACORN, while union thugs beat up "teabaggers". It is rare to see such a blatant act of projection on such a huge scale.

In this video Out-of-State Astroturf Activists arrive in New Hampshire to support Public Option Health Care!!!:



Patriots chant "Don't Come Back! / Get a Real Job!" at leaving ACORN buses after a townhall in Pennsylvania:



Secondly, the Obama Administration insisted that it was the victim of a nefarious disinformation campaign. Linda Douglass, the Communications Director of the White Office of Health Reform, specifically targeted an article on Drudge Report entitled... "Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will Eliminate Private Insurance". Even though Obama is clearly quoted before he was president as a supporter of a Single Payer Health Care System and he also related his strategy for eliminating employer coverage over a period spanning a 10 to 20 years. Watch Ms. Douglass lie through her teeth and actually deny Obama's own words:



You may recall that Ms. Douglass is the woman who set up an email address for Americans to turn in their fellow citizens who disagree with Obama's health care proposals:



It turns out that flag@whitehouse.gov is illegal either way you view it:



While the Democratic Party and their media allies have smeared Tea Party activists as anti-Democratic protesters who lower the debate on healthcare, Ringos Pictures Blog reminds them how badly Anti-Bush protesters lowered the debate during the Bush Administration... with little concern from the media and its allies in the Democratic Party:

http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816

Nancy Pelosi decried the use of Nazi imagery during these protests, but Zombietime Blog reminds her of the use Nazi imagery by Anti-Bush protesters during the Bush Administration, once again, with little concern from the media and its allies in the Democratic Party:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612

Then there is Zombietime's collection of protesters calling for the assassination of Bush:

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

The media will not challenge the astroturfing hypocrisy and outright lies of the Democratic Party. It is up to bloggers to spread the word through the Internet, while protesters spread the word on the streets.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Race Baiting 101



The Democratic Party has resorted to its deck of race cards in order to push through the appointment of former LA RAZA member and current nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, threatened the Republican Party stating, “I just think that their voting against this good woman is going to treat them about the same way that they got treated as a result of their votes on immigration”. He was backed by activists representing civil rights, Hispanic and women’s groups. In this way he was making it clear that the Democratic Party is using such groups to advance Sotomayor’s nomination, as he fielded an unstated assumption to race bait Republicans.

The choice of a Supreme Court judge nominee, who was once a member of La Raza, was guaranteed to solidify the rank and file of the Republican Party against her. This nomination was designed to paint Republicans as prejudiced and to garner the support of minority groups. It is not the result of the post-partisan and post-racial promises that Obama made on the campaign trail. The choice was made to inflame racial tensions for the benefit of the Democratic Party.

It’s ironic that this nomination took place at the same time as the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. The knee jerk reaction of Gates and the leftwing race baiting machine was to accuse the arresting officer of racism. President Obama quickly weighed in to support his friend (Professor Gates) and condemned the Cambridge Police Department’s handling of the case by saying that they “acted stupidly”.

This led Obama to rant about racial profiling:

“…there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportionately. That’s just a fact… …And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently, and oftentimes for no cause, casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that’s why I think the more that we’re working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we’re eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody’s going to be.”

Long time race baiting advocate and former prominent Democratic Party politician, Jesse Jackson, chimed in about racial profiling:

“This issue of Dr. Gates being a victim of excessive force and bad judgment is a much bigger subject...This one case could open up the issue of the pervasiveness of race profiling.”

However, the accusation of racial profiling fell apart when it was discovered that the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, taught a class for five years at the Lowell Police Academy on how to avoid racial profiling.

The politics of race baiting needs to be laid to rest…

Monday, July 06, 2009

Chavez Lies Again



Venezuelan Caudillo, Hugo Chavez, was lying when he asserted that he had not interfered in Honduran affairs. He said, “We’re not an interventionist government… It’s cooperation, a mechanism of cooperation with countries that have been exploited”.

Generally, our society is very tolerant of leftwingers and extremely suspicious of rightwingers, even moderate ones. In this permissive atmosphere leftwing strongmen can tell outrageous lies and threaten war with impunity. They are mostly tolerated.

One month after former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya congratulated Chavez for winning a constitutional amendment that lifted term limits on elected officials in Venezuela, Zelaya called for a referendum in Honduras that would allow him to run for re-election. Within several months the Honduran government was united against Zelaya. The country’s Supreme Court, Congress and human-rights ombudsman all declared the referendum illegal.

Yet it was Chavez who printed up the ballots and delivered them to Honduras.

When the nation’s top military chief refused to defy Honduran law by distributing the illegal Venezuelan ballots he was fired by Zelaya. Since the government and the military (which is normally responsible for distributing ballots) were against the referendum, Zelaya resorted to extralegal means to force the vote. He organized a mob and stormed the Tegucigalpa airport to seize the ballots. Zelaya was at the head of the mob as it tore down the gates of the base and swarmed past riot police protecting it.

Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the interventionist foreign policy of the Venezuelan government. One by one the new democracies of Latin America are being subverted by Chavez and his allies.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, democracy spread like wildfire throughout Latin America because leftwing revolutionaries lost their funding and suffered a serious political defeat. Only Cuba resisted change. Now militant Socialists have regrouped and have followed a similar path that the Nazis took to seize power... the subversion of representative democracy.

Don’t be fooled…

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Irony Express




After Obama’s arrival in Saudi Arabia in his first stop of a trip designed to appease Islamist arrogance, CNN had this little tidbit for us:


Middle East expert Mamoun Fandy, (a senior fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy), said Muslims want more than talk; they want action.

They want to hear “that he is very serious about solving the Israeli-Arabian problem, that he is very serious about engaging the Muslim world on the basis of recognizing the equality,” Fandy said.


In addition to Saudi Arabia’s status as the most religiously segregated country on the planet, as well as being home to Wahhabism (the ideology that inspired Saudi Arabia to contribute the most suicide bombers to kill Americans)… Saudi Arabia (a Muslim country!) is also the country that the United States defended for over a decade against the aggression of Saddam Hussein.

So it’s a poor choice for the first stop on this trip.

Then Obama is off to another Muslim country, Egypt, a recipient of almost 60 billion dollars in U.S. aid since 1975. Oh, the oppression!

Enjoy the show. Lets HOPE that Muslims get the equality that they deserve when they take their wives and non-Muslim friends on their Hajj to Mecca.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Iran Offers Conditions for U.S. Surrender





To chants of “Death to America” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed President Obama’s recent overtures to his country.

In between heaping praise on Iranian culture and expressing verses of poetic love that, “the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations” – Obama emphasized that, “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist”.

It was instantly declared to be a master stroke of diplomacy that would diplomatically isolate the Iranian Mullahs. Instead Ayatollah Ali Khamenei used the occasion to rally his base and denounce Obama as a liar. The Ayatollah challenged the Obama Administration to back up his flowery words with acts of appeasement when he stated, “Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged.”

However, other news that could have diplomatically isolated Iran went unmentioned during Obama’s message. Iranian blogger, Omidreza Mirsayafi, died in prison on the same day as Obama’s rainbow-colored speech. Mirsayafi was jailed for allegedly insulting Iran’s leadership and he died amid claims that the Iranian government was at fault for his death. Bloggers are routinely harassed and jailed in Iran.

Ironically, the blogger was held in Evin Prison, which is the same prison that Iranian-American journalist, Roxana Saberi, is being held. Of course Obama also neglected to mention her in his mating call to the Iranian Mullahs.

Saberi is a brave reporter who defied the Iranian regime when it took away her press credentials in an attempt to silence her. After she was arrested her family didn’t know what happened to her until 10 days later when she finally was able to make a phone call to them. The arrest of Saberi came as the regime began another series of crackdowns on university students. Such oppression may be connected with the upcoming Presidential elections in June.

Saberi’s father publicly stated that, “We told her to hang on, and not give in. The whole world is with her.” Evidently, Obama is not with the whole world on this point. She is an obstacle to his diplomatic overtures.



The Master of Disaster

The Obama Administration is just stumbling around like a chicken without a head. When the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, addressed pseudo-economist Jim Cramer’s critical stance towards the White House’s economic policy he stated, “I think you can go back and look at any number of statements (Jim Cramer) made in the past about the economy and wonder where some of the backup for those are, too”.

Robert Gibbs has a valid point. During the 2008 Presidential Election Cramer was enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign.

On June 22nd of 2008 Jim Cramer appeared on NBC’s, “The Chris Matthews Show”. During that time the show was stumping for Obama’s presidential campaign and so this episode was a veritable Obama-lovefest. During the show Cramer heaped praise on Obama’s economic plans and the following exchange was recorded;

“MATTHEWS: So the Election Day is over, the morning after election, if Obama wins, does the stock market go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Even though capital gains go up?

Mr. CRAMER: Absolutely. We’re sick of it.

MATTHEWS: Whoa, what a--this is news we’ve made here. Jim Cramer says the market will resound positively to an election by--of Barack Obama.”


Interesting enough, on the day of Obama’s inauguration, the Dow fell in the most dramatic freefall of any other inauguration day in history. Then on March 5th stocks fell to their lowest level in 12 years.

Even as late as December of 2008 Cramer raved about the “Obama Factor”. His ridiculous pro-Obama rants are now quite embarrassing. He boasted that, “When Obama speaks, the market buys, it doesn’t just listen, so listen to Cramer to know where to spend the money!”

The euphoria of the Obama personality cult led to the election of a woefully inexperienced and radically leftwing president. Diplomacy was often held up to be Obama’s strength, but after a comedy of errors the president has been revealed to be too overwhelmed to conduct routine diplomatic affairs.

When British Prime Minster Gordon Brown came for a state visit the Obama Administration neglected to offer a customary press conference and formal dinner as our closest ally is accustomed to. The Administration’s reaction was indignant to the outrage of Britons. A State Department official who was involved in planning Brown’s visit angrily responded that, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment”.

The thoughtlessness of the Obama Administration seeped into every aspect of poor PM Brown’s visit (it’s a good thing that Great Britain really needs us, my apologies to our friends there). As many bloggers are aware, it is customary on such occasions for leaders to offer each other presents that show good will towards each other. Brown gave Obama a pen crafted from the wood of the 19th Century anti-slave trade ship (which is the sister ship of the vessel that the wood of the president’s Oval Office desk is made of).

Yet Obama gave his counterpart a set of 25 DVD movies, which turned out to be nothing but the first 25 of the American Film Institute’s list of the top-100 American movies. As if that isn’t thoughtless enough… when Brown went home and settled down to watch one of the movies, he discovered that the DVDs were formatted for North American DVD players and cannot be played on DVD players sold in Europe. A message stating, “Wrong Region”, appeared when Brown tried to play them.

Does it get any worse? Incredibly it does… Britons were outraged that two days after snubbing Prime Minister Brown, Obama lavishly hosted former IRA terrorist, Martin McGuinness. British blogger Archbishop Cranmer complained:

“Gordon brown entered the White House through a side entrance and was granted a half-hour chat with the President followed by a working lunch. There was no press conference and the British delegation was limited in numbers.

Mr. McGuinness will walk in through the front door of the White House and be given the full red carpet treatment. It is a de facto State Visit with full retinue and a joint press conference. There shall be two hours of talks and a lavish gala reception at which Mr. McGuinness shall be a guest of honour, seated on the top table.”


And this came after a rare spat of violence in Northern Ireland in which a policeman and two soldiers were murdered in separate incidents.

But don’t forget our illustrious Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her recent diplomatic blunders…

As if it wasn’t enough to botch her first official visit as Secretary of State to the European Parliament by mispronouncing her counterparts’ names, insulting European sensibilities by saying that American Democracy is older than Europe’s and mocking multiparty democracy... She followed up this embarrassing episode with an “enlightened” visit to Russia.

Complete incompetence was the order of the day when Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift meant to symbolize Obama’s diplomatic overtures to the Russian government. She gave him a button that she believed stated “reset” in Russian and expressed her hopes that we could “reset” our relationship with Russia. As she handed Lavrov the gift she said, “We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?” He replied that it was incorrect and the button actually stated “overcharged”. So how hard did they work to get one word wrong?

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

I think that it is fair to end this post with the full video footage of our Teleprompter President’s fantasy message to Iran…



The video starts off with Obama saying, “Today I want to extend my very best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz around the world. This holiday is both an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal, and I hope that you enjoy this special time of year with family and friends”…

One thing is for certain… Roxana Saberi, an American citizen, could not spend Nowruz with her family and friends because she was locked up in an Iranian prison while her president flirted with her captors.

Monday, December 15, 2008

2008 Government Subsidized Auto Show


Dear Comrades,

What have we learned from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout? The Democratic Party’s Ministry of Disinformation has taught us that the problem stemmed from the Republican Party’s opposition to regulation and the mortgage industry’s predatory lending.

Of course, neither is true. It was the Democratic Party that blocked all attempts to reform the GSEs and denied that there was any problem, while the Republicans fought to enact new regulatory legislation before it was too late. Additionally, it was the Democratic Party and its allies (like ACORN) that prodded and coerced the mortgage industry into making loans to high risk borrowers.

But just ignore the elephant in the room. Support our glorious seven-digit income automobile executives as they flock to Washington D.C. looking for handouts at the taxpayers’ expense. These robber barons are the vanguard of the revolution.

Everyone knows that all cars are created equal. In the name of justice we must legislate the equality of American automobiles with their foreign counterparts. A “Car Czar” must be appointed to distribute cash to our automobile industry so that we can protect it from the Capitalist evil of competition.

To highlight the urgent need for these measures we present the 2008 Government Subsidized Auto Show. This is a great opportunity to emphasize the many successes of rampant Socialism. All automobile manufacturers are rated according to the Red Star system, with five stars as the highest award.

Zaporozhets:

This vehicle is affectionately known as Zapor, which is short for Zaporozhets. Due to a misfortunate twist of irony zapor means “constipated” in Russian. It’s actually an accurate description of this tiny and cheap car.

When it was first introduced back in the late fifties the sentiment among some Ukrainians was that the car was introduced as punishment by the Soviet Union.

Such a creative chastisement by the Ukrainians’ Communist overlords earns the Zapor two Red Stars!!


Some owners preferred to dispose of their Zapor rather than pay a parking ticket which would be greater than the value of the vehicle.

Trabant:

For about 50 years East Germany was a progressive paradise until the reunification of the country reintroduced Capitalism. The powerful two-cylinder Trabant is a testament to the superiority of Communism over free market economies. Nowhere was that more apparent than in the difference between East and West Germany.

West Germany produced inferior automobiles such as BMW, Mercedes Benz, Porsche, Volkswagen and Audi. On the other hand, East Germany manufactured outstanding automobiles such as the Trabant and Wartburg. East Germany’s auto manufacturers reached a level of craftsmanship that remains untouched these days (Mostly, because they are out of business).

Ladies and Gentleman, Freedom Now is proud to award the Trabant three Red Stars!!! With a plastic body and a hydrocarbon emissions rate of about 10 times that of modern cars, the tiny Trabant makes a strong showing.


Trabant’s Eco-Friendly Chia Car (hat tip to Nanc).

Moskvitch:

Thanks to the theft of an entire German automobile factory after WWII, the Moskvitch was based on the design of the Opel Kadett. Most Eastern European automobiles were based on Fiat designs so this made the Moskvitch unique.

Manufactured at the “Youth Communist League Car Factory”, the appearance and performance of the Moskvitch more closely resembled a tank rather than a car.

The export of the Moskvitch brand to Great Britain actually made a bit of a splash in the early 70s until the Consumers’ Association published an article that questioned the safety of the vehicle. Any fender bender in the imported Moskvitchs could turn into an experience worthy of a ‘slasher flick’ thanks to the incredibly sharp edges of the dashboard and dangerously positioned aluminum handbreak.

Such Soviet engineering boosts the Moskvitch to a four Red Star rating!!!! Congratulations comrades!!!!


A brand new, fully complete Moskvitch just after rolling off the assembly line.

The Yugo:

This was a heroic automobile manufactured in Yugoslavia’s “Red Flag Factory”.

“Every car came with a rear defroster to keep your hands warm as you pushed the car...” A triumph of Communist engineering!!!

During its existence the Yugo earned many enthusiastic reviews. Car & Driver magazine wrote that shifting gears in the Yugo is like “trying to shift a baseball bat stuck inside a barrel full of coconuts”.

Consumers have been happy too. Extra features such as removable doors have boosted the Yugo’s reputation so that no one is surprised to hear that Freedom Now awards the Yugo five Red Stars!!!!!


The Grand Prize Winner, with a souped-up hand warmer!!!!!

Now get out there and make Socialist cars for our Democratic Party bosses!!!!!

Friday, December 05, 2008

Our Ignorant Activist Media




In the 2008 presidential elections the media threw away any pretense of objectivity and campaigned on behalf of Barack Obama. Most news articles were sprinkled with the conformist nuances of ‘truths’ that are widely accepted by our intellectual elite. The result is that they continue to behave like Pavlov’s dog at every mention of the Iraq War and obediently serve the role that Al Qaeda gave them.

Such bias can only thrive in an environment of ignorance. The media misinforms the American people in its partisan battle against Republicans.

Today, I had enough when reading a New York Times article about the piracy problem in Somalia. Ever since this subject has become headline news the media has pushed a meme stating that the piracy was created by the fall of the Islamic Courts.

Much like our elites mourn the downfall of mass murdering Saddam Hussein, they claim that American and Ethiopian interference led to this piracy problem. These robots don’t have an original thought in their puny collective mind.

I have never seen such utter ignorance as this article entitled, “Grand Theft Nautical”. The writer, John Burnett, relies exclusively on leftwing talking points. If you can read this quote without regurgitating your last meal you have a stronger stomach than I do, or you really don’t understand the issues here…

“There was some semblance of law and order in 2006, when the Islamic Courts Union, loosely linked with Al Qaeda, took over much of the country and imposed Shariah law. Though there were cruel tradeoffs, the Islamists virtually eradicated piracy. (The crime was a capital offense punishable by beheading.)

When Ethiopian forces, supported by the United States, replaced the Islamists with an ineffective transitional government in 2006, piracy returned with an intensity not seen since the 17th century.

It is evident that no nation can impose its will on Somalia; the colonial British and Italians learned the hard way. And certainly no nation can force Somalis to stop the best business in town. But if the West really hopes to eliminate the scourge of piracy in these strategic shipping lanes, then it should consider involving the courts union, the only entity that has proved it could govern the country, and its militant wing, Al Shabaab, in a new government.”


Where to begin? This guy is a complete idiot and makes a lot of money as a result. He writes what our intellectual elite wants to hear. Here is a short history lesson for Mr. Burnett...

Somalia is split into many different regions. Some of them consider themselves to be independent countries, but are not internationally recognized. Somaliland is one of the most prominent of them. At one time the Islamic Courts controlled much of the lawless south, but not these autonomous regions. To the north is Puntland, another autonomous region that unlike Somaliland does not consider itself to be independent. This is where the majority of pirates are headquartered. Local Puntland authorities have developed business links with the pirates who have safe havens there. The Islamic Courts has never had any significant control of any land in Puntland.

How can journalists go to the best universities and still come out so utterly ignorant in the blind pursuit of leftwing political activism?

Burnett wants to give the fascist Islamic Courts influence in a region that they have never had any control?... All so liberals can thumb their nose at Republicans and America’s lukewarm ally, Ethiopia?

Let me be fair. According to a report by the Chatham House, the Islamic Courts eradicated piracy during the second part of 2006 when they rose to a brief supremacy. However, the pirates simply moved to Puntland and continued their expansion of criminal activity. So does Burnett advocate handing over Puntland to the hurting Islamists? (Yes, I know the Islamists have recently made some gains, but they still are a shadow of their former power. It all depends if your glass is half full or half empty… Or rather, if you choose to propagandize on behalf of Islamists or not.)




Funny enough, the report goes on to say that funds from the ransoms paid to pirates have gone to Al-Shabaab. If you recall, Burnett advocated the inclusion of Al-Shabaab in the Somali government as a solution to the piracy problem. Even you overlook the problem that he doesn’t know the difference between the Somali Transitional Federal Government and the government of Puntland, you still have to admit that he doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Obama's Track Record on Unity


Lipstick on a Politician

Obama’s rhetoric reminds me of a salesman who knows his product, but doesn’t really care about anything more than making a sale. His comments earlier this week are a treasure trove full of irony. For the choice quote of the night he stated;

“In one week, we can choose hope over fear, and unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo.”

It would be comforting to listen to a leader who speaks of “hope over fear” in post 9/11 America, if he was talking about the fear that our enemies have spread… but Obama is not talking about Al Qaeda or the Taliban. He is talking about his fellow Americans as he falseheartedly speaks of unity.




Obama claims to stand for unity while he accuses his opponents of using the politics of fear. He has no right to make such accusations. If Obama didn’t run for president he would still be attending services at his former hate filled church, Trinity United Church of Christ, while denying that it is controversial. He only gave up his church after months of pressure from his critics. So Obama wasn’t able to deliver his closing “unity” speech at his former church.

First Obama lied, issuing denials about what he knew was going on at Trinity:

“Had I heard those statements in the church, I would have told Reverend Wright that I profoundly disagree with them. What I have been hearing and had been hearing in church was talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor.”

Then he admitted the truth:

“Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.”

The disclosure of Rev. Wright’s hateful speeches forced Obama to condemn his pastor’s comments and it was only after this created a public feud between the two that Obama finally left his church. Yet Obama still refused to denounce the divisiveness of his church. As he left his church Obama stated:

“ I’m not denouncing the church and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce the church.”

Obama refused to condemn his church’s outdated 20th Century Black Nationalism even as he distanced himself from it in the name of political expediency... Black Liberation Theology is the basis of the vision statement of Trinity United and the heart of its philosophy. It is a sick creed of reverse racism. James Cone is the leading advocate of this theology and has described its theories and his feelings towards whites in the following manner:

“Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.”

“What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

“What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.”

“Whether the American system is beyond redemption we will have to wait and see. But we can be certain that black patience has run out, and unless white America responds positively to the theory and activity of Black Power, then a bloody, protracted civil war is inevitable.”

“All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, “Racism is not my fault,” or “I am not responsible for the country’s inhumanity to the black man”...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty.”

Some of the quotes that Rev. Wright made infamous are included below:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America’? No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America — that’s in the Bible — for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America, as long as she tries to act like she is God, and she is supreme.”

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

Obama claims to be a uniter, but the reality is that this election has forced him to distance himself from his divisive past. We are the ONES who have waited for him to catch up to the 21st Century. Not the other way around as he so falsely suggests.

Before Obama had focused on his ambition to be president, he wrote an autobiography in 1995 entitled “Dreams from My Father, A Story of Race and Inheritance”. This book honestly related his feelings on race and reveals the motivation that led Obama to join such a militant black church. Although his mother was white, he rejected his whiteness and sought to embrace his black heritage exclusively. This was despite the fact that in his teenage years he was raised in a loving white family and experienced no notable acts of racism from whites.

His book, “Dreams from My Father”, describes this transformation. In his own words he decided to “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.”

He completely rejected his “whiteness”. As he wrote, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

My aim isn’t to prove that Obama was (or is) a racist, it is to show that for much of his life his worldview was divisive. I used his own words to map out the ‘us against them attitude’ that drew him to Trinity United Church. Once again from his autobiography he wrote, “To admit our doubt and confusion to whites, to open up our psyches to general examination by those who had caused so much of the damage in the first place, seemed ludicrous, itself an expression of self-hatred.”

Obama contemplated Black Nationalism as a political tool overriding all other concerns. Again, in his own words, “I wondered whether, for now at least, Rafiq wasn’t also right in preferring that that anger be redirected; whether a black politics that suppressed rage towards whites generally, or one that failed to elevate race loyally above all else, was a politics inadequate to the task.” He settled this question by joining Trinity and adopting the anger of Black Nationalism as his identity. (Rafiq was a friend of Obama’s who was a member of the Nation of Islam, it is not believed to be his real name.)

I do not accuse Obama of being a Muslim. He was the member of a church that spread a message of hate. There are good Christians and there are bad Christians. Just as there are good Muslims and bad Muslims.

So on what basis does Obama champion the cause of unity? In 2007 the National Journal’s annual vote ratings gave him the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Its interesting that many times Obama uses the word “we” when he is really referring to himself. On Super Tuesday he gave one of the worst speeches that I have ever heard. At one point Obama said, “we are the ones that we have been waiting for”. He states these empty slogans as if they were biblical quotes. I don’t need Obama, McCain or any politician to change my life. Change is constant and my life doesn’t revolve around Obama. Its no accident that at Obama’s rallies his crowd chants “Obama, Obama, Obama”, but at McCain rallies his crowd chants “USA, USA, USA”. Obama’s cult of personality comes at the expense of everything else.

On the other hand McCain actually fulfils a requirement that unity demands. He is not afraid to cross the political aisle. McCain even worked closely with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. That is a good example of a Conservative (however moderate he may be) reaching out across party lines to someone widely regarded as an extreme liberal in American politics. McCain is also not afraid to buck his own political party, as he proved when he forced the Bush Administration to accede to the McCain Detainee Amendment. It was a measure to enhance the rights of detainees, which incurred the wrath of many Conservatives.

Obama has no similar credentials, but he still promotes himself as a uniter when all he represents is division. The politics of fear comes from the discharge of suicide bombs and hijacked airliners. They are the tools of our enemies. Obama would be better served by targeting these terrorists with his accusations and not his fellow Americans.

Storm Clouds on the Horizon

Cindy Sheehan is running for Congress against the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Ironically, Pelosi has been an outspoken opponent of the Iraq War and so has Sheehan. Conservative observers have been amused by the friction between the two leftwingers. According to Sheehan’s website:

“Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She declared opposition to the war in Iraq, but consistently votes to fund it. She has offered no analysis of the real reasons motivating the war in Iraq. She voted in favor of invasive wiretapping and immunity for corporations that engage in illegal wiretapping. She has initiated no legislation to fix our ailing schools, health care facilities, the housing crisis, etc. She has accepted money from the following corporations, to name a few of the many: Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Comcast Corp, and Wells Fargo Bank.”


Over the years Bay Area radicals have been expressing their discontent with Pelosi. The feeble Democratic-controlled Congress has been powerless to stop President Bush from escalating the Iraq war and winning a pivotal battle against the brutal insurgents. Obama took a stab at reducing the U.S. role in Iraq, but failed. He didn’t have much time to spend on his attempts to hijack the progress made by the Surge because much of his short career as a U.S. Senator has been consumed with his presidential campaign. He has only been a U.S. Senator since 2005 and has been campaigning for almost two years.

In any case, the same forces that Pelosi’s anti-Iraq policy helped unleash in her raw pursuit of power have boomeranged against her.

In March 2007 CodePink, the radical “antiwar” group, organized a protest they called ‘Camp Pelosi’. It was a round the clock vigil in front of Pelosi’s San Francisco home. The protestors demanded that Pelosi cut the funding of the Iraq war. It became a string of on-and-off protests that continued to dog Pelosi for a long time. Additionally, CodePink wasn’t satisfied with just harassing Pelosi at her home so they took to following her to political events and harassing her there. Since CodePink found that protesting President Bush has been ineffective they started to target Democrats like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. Gael Murphy, a co-founder of the group, claims that their efforts targeting the Democratic Party have made a difference. During the primaries she said, “We’ve gotten to a place now where Hillary and Obama are falling all over each other to be the leading peace candidate”.

Another co-founder of CodePink, Jodie Evans, has become a bundler for the Obama campaign. She has pledged to raise between $50,000 to $100,000. CodePink’s most visible leader and close Sheehan ally, Medea Benjamin, bragged about the influence that their radical group has on Obama. She declared that, “we have the ability to push from the inside and the outside. And it is being right here in this kind of place and places like this around the country that are the antidote to the people who are pushing Barack Obama to be quote ‘centralist’, which means be a warmonger”.

While CodePink has aggressively attacked leaders of the Democratic Party such as Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, they have been relatively supportive of Obama. CodePink has set up two watchdog groups to attack Pelosi and Clinton, ‘Pelosi Watch’ and ‘Listen Hillary’. Even though CodePink’s grievances with Pelosi and Clinton also apply to Obama, they have been willing to overlook these similarities. Instead CodePink claims to be willing to work with Obama on the same issues that CodePink viciously attacks Pelosi and Clinton. This sentiment is shared with many leading leftwing radicals.

An open letter published in The Nation declares support for Obama and warns that the signatories of the letter will challenge him on issues that they don’t share. One of these issues is “the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan”. The letter is signed by prominent leftwingers like Phil Donahue, Juan Cole, Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Christopher Hayes (the editor of The Nation) and many others... especially JOURNALISTS.

So what will happen if Obama becomes president? CodePink is concerned that Obama is influenced by “centralists” who take a more favorable stance towards the use of military force. On the subject of Afghanistan they have cause for concern. Both presidential candidates favor increasing the U.S. troop presence in that country. The battle in Afghanistan is often referred to as the “Good War” and no frontrunner in any presidential election has opposed it.

Yet the “antiwar” lobby has been firmly against it. At the very first instance of U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan back in October of 2001, the “progressive” website Common Dreams declared the war a failure. In an editorial, Marion Winik (a commentator on NPR’s “All Things Considered”) stated, “Whatever they say, I think we've already lost”. Common Dreams may be a radical publication, but look at the many mainstream writers and prominent Democratic Party loyalists that have graced its pages; Jesse Jackson, Adriana Huffington, Naomi Klein, Paul Krugman, Michael Moore, Ted Rall and many others.

During the 2008 Election the Left has united around Barack Obama. However, if he is elected president, Obama will have a great deal of difficulty maintaining this fractional alliance under his Afghan policy. After the 2004 election, when the Democratic Party stood stunned at its losses in the Congressional and Presidential elections, there was a burning reaction to get even. The same thing can happen to the Republicans in 2008. It is easy to be the opposition party, you merely have to be contrarian. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the partisan warfare during the Clinton Administration shows that the Republicans are just as good at this game.

Since the Republican Party is almost universally united behind the war in Afghanistan, Obama will miss out on a reliable support base on this issue. These bitter Republicans will be consumed with a desire for revenge and dreams of power, much like the Democratic Party has been for the last eight years. Meanwhile Obama’s supporters will be ideologically divided over the Afghanistan War.

I take no pleasure in this partisan bickering. During the Clinton Administration I supported the President against the partisan attacks that he suffered from. If Obama is elected president I will support him on his Afghanistan policy, if he follows it as he has already presented it. My overriding concern is victory over our fascist enemies. I would rather have a leader that I could be confident in, but if Obama wins the election he will have to do in the meantime.

There are two issues that will be of the utmost importance for our next president and Obama is problematic on both issues.

1) The War in Afghanistan
2) The Economy.

Obama’s weak ability to prosecute the Afghan War is scary enough, but he has also taken over $100,000 from Fannie May and Freddie Mac as they slid into a collapse that required a costly bailout. At the same time McCain warned against the problems of the GSEs. When Obama’s serious lack of experience is also taken into account you have to conclude that there is no HOPE for the prospect of an Obama Administration. It’s only an empty slogan...