The Pope of Liberal Hope

I’ve come to the conclusion that—with regard to politics—there are three types of people in the world:

1. Those who really don’t care about politics, don’t follow it, don’t like it, and have no use for discussions of it;

2. Those who find it interesting, are willing to apply reasoning to it, debate it with analysis and logic, and are able to be contradicted without responding with anger;

3. And those who worship their politicians the way they worship their saints and celebrities.

The first kind should create a mild annoyance, or a sense of disappointment. In Venezuela, where the society has been deeply polarized into two main camps (the Chavistas that support el comandante, and the Opposition), this group of disinterested individuals are called “ni-nis”, which, translated to English, means “Neither-nors”. They support neither Chavez nor the Opposition, and so they sit on the sidelines, totally involved in their own personal interests and don’t care to take a side or try to make a difference. Their indifference, and their abstinence from voting, has enabled Chavez to establish a quasi-dictatorship.

The second kind is best identified by pundits such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, and others on the right, Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs in the center, or Alan Combs, Rachel Madow, and Keith Olberman on the left. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, these personalities take politics seriously and for the most part apply logic and reasoning to their arguments, and generally remain civil during discussions, even while it may get rather passionate.

But it is the final kind that concerns me today. This group of people does not scratch past the surface of their candidates speeches, do not research, do not seek a variety of opinions, and place all of their “faith” in their candidates. These are the people who—if they are journalists—cannot seem to muster the courage to ask their candidates tough questions. They exploit every weakness in candidates they dislike (note that it’s dislike, more than “with whom they disagree” because it is a personal opposition, not a conflict of ideas). They will even lay traps to trip them up and make them look foolish, rather than explore their ideas.

These are the individuals who vociferously proclaim their political ideas in the workplace, but become absolute livid if someone disagrees with them. These people hang on every word of their beloved politician as if they were a benediction from their Priest. They do not think about the meaning behind the words, but instead repeat them as if they were a holy invocation of God.
For this reason, when they are confronted by anyone who questions the words uttered by their saintly leader, their reaction is visceral, and they feel compelled to hate their opponent as a fanatic would hate a heretic. The new religion of the left is personified by Barack Obama, who has been exalted and is now the Pope of Liberal Hope.

One inaugural attendee stated that Obama was like "any one of the Biblical leaders", such as Joshua. Denzel Washington said "he is like one of those apostles for our day."

Obama evokes tearful adoration. Women swoon, and metro-sexual journalists get thrills down their legs as they watch him.
This cannot end well. Although I may blaspheme by saying it, Obama is only human, is inexperienced, and is characterized by excessive naiveté and insufficient executive experience.

Obama is not divinely inspired, and the problems he faces are fractals of infinite complexity, completely beyond repairing by the simple evocation of heartwarming mantras such as Hope and Change. The philosophical ideals the liberals hope to promote look great on paper, and sound great when they flutter from the lips of their god’s earthly representative, but in practice they inevitably will have unexpected consequences.

Close down Guantanamo, and what becomes of those highly trained, dedicated kamikaze terrorists? Who will die because you placed your ideals above our security?
Force companies to buy “carbon credits”, and you increase the cost of the products, decreasing competitive edge, and what will happen to those companies? Will they move overseas? Will they lay off workers?

Force our coal industry to invest billions to “clean up emissions”, and what will result? Will energy prices sky rocket? What other prices will rise? Will the coal go out of business?

Promote alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and what is the environmental impact? Will hundreds of thousands of acres of viable farmland be converted instead into wind and solar farms? What impact will that have on food supplies and prices?

Promote bio fuels, and will corn that normally feeds us be diverted into fuel for our automobiles?

Will rising energy prices inspire a boom in hydroelectric projects? How many valleys will be flooded?

Promote a single-payer health care system, and what will happen to the high quality of the American medical system?

Will “investing in the future” by way of multiple trillion dollar deficits bankrupt the country?
Some of these projects may turn out well, but without a doubt, not all of them will. There will be unexpected and negative consequences. There will be failures, there will be scandals, and the Pope of Hope will not be able to deliver everything he promised.

But, not to worry: I’m sure the Pope will find some new devil to blame.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

While reading the Venezuelan news at El Universal, I found this Rayma cartoon that just seems to demonstrate what I had thought. People are just going NUTS over this NUT. It shows Obama's photo tucked in between a number of Catholic Saints.

Is it just coincidence that he is located next to Judas?

Obama’s absurdities and contradictions

I watched Obama’s inauguration, surrounded by liberal coworkers who, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked on his eloquence and applauded his brilliance. But to be honest, I left the speech wondering: what in the hell did he actually say? What was the core message in his long-winded diatribe? Could I detect a guiding principal or clearly see the course our government will take with Obama as captain?

I had to go back and re-read the speech and try to absorb it to get any meaning out of it. And as I studied its content, I was impressed—not with its brilliance—but with its sense of gloom, naiveté and inherent contradictions.

An estimated 2 million Americans had braved freezing temperatures in order to be witness to an historic event: the inauguration of America’s first black president. While the vast majority of Americans expected the event to be jubilant, and exaltation of the nation’s success, Obama’s tone instead was hesitant, and somewhat low spirited. Within seconds of starting the speech, he points out that inauguration speeches “have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

Clearly, Obama is referring to our current economic recession, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we are aware that this is true, but wouldn’t you agree that this is a gloomy way to start a speech when your success heralds a new, triumphant time for African-Americans?

Imagine for a moment that Martin Luther King had actually managed to reach that mountaintop he mentioned in his “I have a dream” speech, but instead of celebrating the successful summiting of the mount, instead he chooses to point out; “It’s damn cold up here, ya’ll!” Isn’t that kind of what Obama has just done?

Apparently Obama sensed the negativity with which he began his speech and attempted to counter it with this little jewel: “America has carried on … because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Contrast this with a statement he makes later:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and
our ideals.”

Here, he is referring to the Patriot Act. So, which is it? Did we remain faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, or not? Apparently not, and Obama plans on setting it right. So we should clearly expect him to eliminate the Patriot Act and go back to pre-9/11 business as
usual attitudes.

Immediately after his “uplifting” introduction, he goes into details of the “crisis”: “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

Is that to mean “terrorists”? Why can’t he say that? He later states:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

I guess, taking the two quotes together, that Obama—being the son of a Muslim and partly educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia—is finally revealing that he thinks we will be safe from the Islamists if we just stop calling them names. What “mutual interest” do we have with Persian Islamo-Nazis who believe that they can provoke the return of the missing Imam by liquidating Israel?

Obama’s speech is littered with fascinating abstractions: “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

What is this mystical “new age”? Could it be a new era, marked by the arrival of “The Chosen One”? Will we need develop a new calendar? B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama)

Now, isn’t it widely understood that our economy is weakened primarily because of liberal social engineering attempts to provide “affordable housing” to anyone—even if they couldn’t afford it? The hard choices that need to be made involve personal responsibility, and admitting that the government can’t give away housing to everyone. To me, the crux of the idiocy in the speech centers on the next sentences:

“Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”

Obama needs to learn that “confidence” is sapped because of the stupidity of members of his own party.

When the Democrats vote to give war authorization, but then immediately turn around and predict that we will lose, that we cannot win, and then slander our men and women in uniform, calling them storm troopers and baby killers, confidence is sapped. When socialist economic policies cause a collapse in the markets and the folks who want to be leaders run around screaming about Great Depressions, confidence is sapped. When the President-Elect continuously reminds Americans that our economy is struggling, but then says that he plans on running up multi-trillion dollar deficits for years, our confidence is sapped.

This reveals a very telling perspective of the liberals. They brutally criticized President Bush because he "failed to warn us" about the severity of the economic crisis. Bush repeatedly stated that there was a looming crisis in the economic sector, and as early as 2006 tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats--spearheaded by that queer genius, Barney Frank--thwarted any attempt to reform those organizations. And when the economy began to unravel, Bush repeatedly made statements that we were headed for tough times, but his tone was positive.

So maybe the libs need to consider that it's not that Bush was unaware of what was happening, but he didn't want to sap confidence. Revolutionary thought, eh?

Ironically, Obama has tapped as leader for the EPA a no-growth socialist who believes that the United States’ consumption of energy is an energy injustice, and that developed nations must shrink their economies in order to right this wrong. Now, I don’t know how you can shrink an economy and still provide jobs, so it seems inevitable that—were we to follow the Obama theories of economic justice—the next generation will have to lower its sights.

Obama’s recipe for meeting our “serious” and “many” challenges is to choose “hope over fear”. Really? Hope doesn’t solve recessions: good policy does. Hope doesn’t win wars: good military strategy and logistics (and unflagging support) does. Hope does not feed the hungry: hard work and ingenuity do.

“Hope over fear” sounds like some sort of algorithm for disaster: “hope/fear=desperation”.

We don’t need plans made out of desperation, we need reasonable and logical analysis. It was not “hope” that helped Captain Sullenberger successfully ditch US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson river: it was courage, coupled with a brilliant and educated triage of the situation.

So, enough of your platitudes and insults to our intelligence: it's time to actually come up with policies, Barry.

The next theme that begs analysis started with this phrase:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things…”

This sounds great. It appears that Obama is praising the hard working entrepreneurs who made the country powerful and wealthy. Taken with the statement that “greatness is never given…it must be earned”, it appears that Obama will promote personal responsibility, instead of a welfare state. But that hope doesn’t last long. Only a few paragraphs further, he states:

“The question we ask today is … whether [our government] works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” So, now he suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide jobs with decent wages, healthcare, and a “dignified” retirement.

Really? Where in the constitution does it state that government must be a great Nanny?

Minutes previously, Obama had said that “We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Those founding documents include a constitution that limit the powers of the federal government, and which clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution belong with the states. Whatever happened to the “ideals of our forbearers”, who stated: “that government is best which governs least”?

For an alleged legal scholar, Obama seems appallingly ignorant of the limits of government clearly stated in the constitution.

Obama made direct reference to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning the ideal that we are all created equal. As a reminder, allow me quote the statement: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Later, says: “…We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.” Why is this important? Because within the modern liberal philosophy is a dogmatic attempt to separate religion from government—except when it gets a liberal candidate votes. And it was the founding father’s firm belief in God that inspired them to clearly state that our unalienable Rights are “endowed” by our “Creator”. If we separate God from government in the way that liberals want, if we consider ours to be a nation of “non-believers”, then we must accept that our rights are not “endowed by [our] Creator”, but are instead granted by our government, and thus, can be rejected by the same government. It is absurd to have included “non-believers” in this statement, and completely unnecessary.

But there you go, it’s Obama being all inclusive. Except of course, he forgot to mention Buddhists, Wiccans, and doggon it, if you’re going to remain popular with the Hollywood nuts, you damn well better pay homage to the Scientologists.

Most frightening, to me, is the naïve comment he makes in this paragraph:

“…Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

This last phrase is one of the most laughably ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Security does not emanate from a just cause. If that were true, wouldn’t Black have been “secure” from slavery? Wouldn’t the Jews have been “secure” from Nazi ovens? Wouldn’t the American Indians have been “secure” from genocidal attack? How is security connected to “the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” Neither humility nor restraint secured our future when we faced the Germans and the Japanese! Military Force secured our future. Period.

All in all, like I said, "not bad for a socialist".

But I have to say, this speech reminded me uncomfortably of the speeches made by Hugo Chavez. A lot of rhetoric, a lot of confusion, a lot of contractions, and a whole lot of starry eyed supporters drooling on themselves and saying, "wow, isn't he charasmatic?!"

They say the Devil knows how to dance...

Obama is now the President of the United States. Yippee.

Obama is now the President of the United States. Yippee.

While part of me is happy for America, and for the triumph of African-Americans who have finally achieved a long overdue objective, my joy is lessened by my experience during the inauguration.

I’m currently living in the outskirts of Denver, Colorado. And Denver, in case you didn’t know, is decidedly liberal. So liberal, in fact, that it is generally an assumption for the locals that everyone around them is also liberal.

So, as I watched the inaugural address today here in our office, surrounded by coworkers, it was made clear that every one of them was a joyful liberal. They were making the standard “go Obama” statements, and carrying boxes of tissues with them to wipe their teary eyes. And whenever former president Bush appeared on the television screen, they emitted scornful insults, sardonic good-byes, and the requisite “Get out of here!”

This was all taken as acceptable behavior, and none seemed in the least aware that they were behaving like boorish poor sports, or that their snide remarks contrasted sharply with their criticism of Bush’s “arrogance”.

Many of the liberals in the room laughed good-naturedly at the television coverage and made jokes about things that were projected, but I really never sensed anything excessively offensive. But when one of the ladies got up and stormed off with her box of tissues, I wondered what was going on.

I struggled to control myself; I had no desire to ruin the event for my happy liberal coworkers. It was only at the conclusion of Obama’s rather long-winded speech, when they all clapped and celebrated his eloquence—apparently without considering the idiocy of some of the content—and while they were declaring that Obama had “killed it!”, did I finally feel compelled to respond: “Not bad—for a socialist.”

This received boos and admonitions, although a few people did laugh.

But when I returned to my desk, I discovered that the lady who fled with her tissues was very angry at the irreverence of her coworkers who—despite their also being enamored of Obama—simply didn’t display quite the level of gushing love for her taste.

Her attitude was reminiscent of an ardent church-goer who has just witnessed blasphemous behavior!

So she had felt compelled to leave, swearing to watch a recording of the speech at home, without everyone else around.

It occurs to me that this is so incredibly typical of the liberals. While conservatives have struggled to be gracious and wish Obama well, in spite of their serious misgivings about his stated policies, liberals have continued to issue hateful scorn toward President Bush and the Republicans. They feel perfectly justified to loudly voice their opinions in the office, knowing that they are surrounded by others who agree with them, and yet they feel offended if a dissenting voice from the minority dares to disagree.

This is just a hint of what is to come.

GMA gives known terrorist a chance to plug his new book

I just got through watching a video clip entitled: “Campaign boogeyman William Ayers Talks to ‘GMA’ {Good Morning America}”

Click here to see the clip and read a transcript of the interview.

Maybe it should be called: “GMA gives known terrorist a chance to plug his new book.”

They do interview Ayers and ask him to explain himself, his relationship with Obama, and his past involvement “with violence” (they never use the word “terrorism”) but then the GMA interviewer states “we’ll talk about your new book, Fugitive Days, in the next segment…”

During this clip, Ayers denies having a deep relationship with Obama, but continues to reassert his statement that he does not regret his actions (which he downplays to being part of the “militant”), and even goes so far as to play the victim by saying that he is being “demonized”, because he was just a part of a larger context of social rebellion against an unjust war, during which the government was “killing thousands of people every day.” In other words, he was nothing more than soldier on the side of Good, blowing up government buildings to stop a terrible government that was waging an unjustifiable war.

And yet, he also says: "We knew it was wrong. We knew it was illegal. We knew it was immoral…{but the Weather Underground} had to do more {to stop the Vietnam War}.

Exactly what journalistic principles are these, that drive GMA to interview an unrepentant terrorist, only to follow up with a promotion his book?

I find it interesting that Ayers apparently felt that the dialog concerning his relationship to Obama was so “dishonest” that he apparently felt it was morally reprehensible to comment on it. He disagrees with the notion of “guilt by association”, and didn’t want to contribute to this “unjust” discussion. However, the week after the election, he suddenly needed to “set the record straight”. Now that his “family friend” won the election, the discussion is no longer so morally reprehensible, and it’s time to express his outrage and being “demonized”.

Ayers continues to see his activities in the light of a righteous militant fighting against his own government, waging a violent “activist” campaign to bring down the government. This concept inspires me to explore the definition of “traitor”, to see if this fits. It seems to fit his actions perfectly:
Traitor: Someone who betrays his country by committing treason.
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation
A citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the {parent nation}…{or to} conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved in such an endeavour.”

Maybe I'm just daft, but by those definitions, is it even deniable that Ayers was a traitor, as well as a terrorist? And if they couldn't prosecute him for terrorism, why didn't they try him as a traitor, and hang him by the neck until dead?

GMA describes Ayers as a “respected professor”. Respected? By whom?

How is it possible that, on the one hand, self-described “progressives” can say that Ayer’s bombings—which occurred in 1970 and 1971—are “ancient history” and “water under the bridge”, while simultaneously celebrating the prosecution (in 2001) of the suspects of the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham? Why isn’t that “water under the bridge”? After all, it occurred seven years before Ayer’s bombings. Don’t get me wrong: I think those murderers should be prosecuted. But by the same notion of justice, Ayers should be also, and the fact that a technical mistake by prosecutors let him escape jail does not absolve him of guilt in these atrocious crimes.

The college professors coming to Ayer’s defense are taking a morally reprehensible position to selectively protect leftist terrorists, while condemning racist terrorists. They are essentially saying that, since the US government was condoning and actively participating in a war that killed thousands of people per day, any acts to stop that immoral violence are forgivable offenses.

In July of 2005, Eric Rudolph was convicted of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing as well as a bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic. Rudolph committed his acts of violence because he believed that abortion—which we know has killed around 45 million babies in the United States alone—was such a horrendous crime against humanity that it must be fought with “deadly force”. “Children are disposed of at will,” he was quoted as saying. “The state is no longer the protector of the innocents.”

For the sake of argument, let us choose to agree with Ayer’s regarding the immorality of the Vietnam War. What’s more, let us decide to take his side and agree that he was justified in his bombings because he was trying to stop a greater evil.

Applying that standard, and considering that Abortion has killed many more children than the number of casualties of the Vietnam War, we must draw the conclusion that Eric Rudolph was also justified in his attacks, and we would expect university professors to line up in his defense.

If we continue this line of “reasoning” {very loosely speaking}, and we conclude that a bomber is forgiven his crime as long as the terrorist is attacking the government that is perpetrating a grave injustice, would terrorist acts against the Obama administration be justifiable?

It is clearly an unjustifiable position to take. No intelligent person can possibly rationalize Ayer’s acts, while simultaneously condemning those of Rudolph. And no self respecting professor should come to Ayer’s defense on the ground that Ayer’s—who is by his own admission “guilty as hell, free as a bird!”—is somehow less of a criminal than Rudolph, who is guilty as hell, and paying for his crime.

I guess we should expect to wake up tomorrow and find GMA interviewing Osama Bin Laden, followed by a plug for the new al Qaeda instructional guide:

Jihad for Dummies: The Progressives’ Guide to Killing Americans
(With a forward by ABC’s Peter Jennings)

Sobering thoughts for Nelson Bocaranda.

I wanted to read to OpEds in Venezuela to see what is being said about Obama’s victory. Think for a moment of the perspective of Latin Americans, especially those under regimes such as Hugo Chavez, where the communist propaganda has been constantly to insult and attack the American system. While the elite there—whether that be the old guard “oligarchy” or the “new rich” communists that are pilfering the state—has offered no hope for improvement or for a better future, the election of Obama has undermined their argument about the evils of the American system, contradicted the accusations that America is a racist nation in which people of color have no hope or future.

There is a bright side to this, and I thought it might be worth sharing. Many in Latin America felt ignored by the United States over the past eight years, and blame American indifference to their plight for the rise of authoritarians such as Chavez, and the spread socialism across the continent.

A well known and highly respected journalist, Nelson Bocaranda Sardi, writes {my translation}:

"Example: Once again the United States has given a lesson of Democracy to the entire world, with special emphasis given to those countries where it is the military jackboot that reigns, and where the disdain for justice and law, as well as the shameless and cynical enjoyment of corruption with state monies, is the daily rule. John McCain’s capitulation speech, in which he recognizes his defeat and offers his support to the winner, and that of Barack Obama, curing old wounds, promising inclusion and a better future for new generations that turned out en masse to vote as they did for J. Kennedy in 1960 or G. McGovern in 1972, are the demonstration of the institutional quality of the nation that will once again be the beacon of democracy that Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, and Franklin visualized. Another American dream is realized. "

Hence, Bocaranda is quite clearly suggesting that Venezuelan's will again see the contrast between their own plight, their own "Democracy", and the true democratic principals displayed by "the Empire", and that difference made plain should tarnish the popularity of Chavez. And, Obama represents a new hope that America will stop ignoring them and will help them throw off the yoke of tyrrany.

This is all well and good, but the same author continues:

"Promise?: The past June 5th we wrote here about the visit of Democratic governor Bill Richardson to President Chavez, in order to discuss the three North American hostages held by the FARC, and where the American elections were discussed. At that time, the governor informed Chavez of the interest by the Democrats in improving relations with Venezuela {Chavez}. Among the promises, that during the electoral process they would limit criticism of Chavez, and they would guarantee a meeting of Obama and Chavez, being either an informal meeting before Obama takes office, or immediately afterward. In return, Chavez would “lower his anti-Yankee flag”, tone down his anti-imperialist discourse, and increase the possibility of commercial exchange. "

It should also be noted that, the day after the election, once it became clear that Obama had won, the infamous Piedad Cordoba, Colombian congressional member and supporter of the FARC terrorist group, declared that Obama’s victory was a victory for “everyone who has fought for decades for equality”, and immediately requested that Obama work with her to “reach a humanitarian solution” to the ongoing conflict with the FARC.

Allow me a moment to put these events in context. It has been a long-standing goal for Hugo Chavez to spread his influence around Latin America, by any means necessary. This has led him to covertly and illegally pump millions upon millions of dollars into the election campaigns of friendly leftists throughout Latin America, from Argentina (where Chavez’s agents were caught smuggling suitcases full of money to the Kirchner campaign), to Mexico. Chavez stated years ago that he planned to have a “Bolivarian” president elected. And a constant stream of Democrats and another radical leaders has made its way to Venezuela, including film directors (Oliver Stone), actors (Sean Penn, Danny Glover), activists and community organizers (such as ACORN members), and of course, liberal politicians such as Bill Richardson, among others.

Meanwhile, another of Chavez’s strategies appeared to be to position himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. While his loyal followers submitted him for consideration, Chavez unilaterally intervened in the internal affairs of Colombia as they battled the FARC terrorists. It was alleged that Oliver Stone’s frequent visits to Venezuela during this time were intended to document Chavez’s glorious efforts to broker a humanitarian effort to release the hundreds of hostages held by the FARC. Chavez did in fact manage to obtain the release of several low-level hostages, including a political aide to Ingrid Betancourt—the Colombian presidential candidate who was kidnapped by the FARC in the middle of her political campaign. But Chavez could not obtain the release of the four most important hostages held by the FARC: Three American contractors working for Plan Colombia who were captured when their plane was shot down, and Betancourt.

However, when FARC leader Raul Reyes was killed in a military operation, and his laptop recovered, intelligence from that laptop revealed that Chavez had given around 300 million dollars to the FARC to arrange the “humanitarian” release of the three previous hostages. It was Piedad Cordoba who repeatedly kissed Chavez’s boots and praised him for his brilliant and neutral role, even though her own government repeatedly protested to world bodies that Chavez was violating their sovereign affairs. In short, in order to gain political glory and try to achieve world renown by winning a Nobel Prize, Chavez violated Colombian sovereignty and paid a ransom to the kidnappers.

It was in this context that Richardson visited Chavez. Yet another brilliant military intervention by the Colombians rescued Betancourt and the three American contractors without a shot being fired—and simultaneously deflated Chavez’s hopes of being the great liberator.

So, with this context provided, now one must re-examine the declarations by Piedad Cordoba, and the reports from Caracas, that these two very dangerous actors are pleased with Obama’s election, and already planning to meet with Obama.

And we must remember Obama’s statements that he would (and then would not) meet with Chavez without pre-conditions. If Obama does in fact meet with Chavez between now and his inauguration—or even afterward, for that matter, then he would be violating yet another of his campaign promises and revealing that he is the ideologue and naïve politician we thought he would be.

Meanwhile, the Venezuelan immigrants who fled the Chavez regime to find safety in the United States, those who supported John McCain because they recognized in Obama this waffling liberal inability to properly assess the danger in characters such as Chavez, now must find themselves in the peculiar position of being members of opposition in two countries. But fear not: with the conservative Cubans by our side, we are all in very good company, and the fight will continue.

Sadly, however, if Obama provees himself to be the idiot I suspect him to be, it is the Venezuelans and others in Latin America who will suffer yet another great disappointment. Not only will America not save them from Leftist tyrrany, but an Obama administration just might help those authoritarians to gain international prestige and consolidate their power.

These are my sobering thoughts for Mr. Bocaranda.

When idiots speak truths

When idiots speak truths, or: Why Democrats threaten our security

So what was Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden thinking when recently he said that—if Obama is elected—America’s enemies would test Barack Obama with an international crisis within six months?

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. …Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

If Biden really understands the roots of the Cuban missile crisis to which he is referring, then this quote is startling. Because the missile crisis was trigged by the Soviet military decision to place ICBM missiles in Cuba in order to prevent a US intervention on the island. The tensions leading up to the crisis had been brewing for quite some time, but the Soviets were not likely to interfere until after a crucial historic turn of events.

The Cuban Revolution of 1959 had overthrown the US ally, General Fulgencio Batista. The revolution’s leader, Fidel Castro, and his brother, Raul, had promised to install a democratic government, but instead swiftly imposed a communist dictatorship. President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration had already put plans in place to deal a forceful blow to the fledgling communist government less than ninety miles from the US border. So that when John F. Kennedy replaced Dwight Eisenhower as president of the United States, he learned about the CIA plan to invade Cuba.

Kennedy, being a liberal Democrat, allegedly did not like the plans but he was afraid he would be seen as soft on communism if he refused permission for it to go ahead. Kennedy was also advised that the Cuban people would support the ClA-trained forces once an invasion had started.
Feeling pressure to show that he was tough, he went forward with the plans.

US planes bombed Cuba’s airfields, and merchant ships delivered 1,500 Cuban exiles to the Bay of Pigs. The failure of the plan caused the Kennedy administration great embarrassment and drove Castro to seek a deterrent for future attacks.

According to Elie Abel’s book, The Missiles of October: The story of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Soviet leader Khrushchev met with John Kennedy in June, 1961, and “took Kennedy’s measure.” From that meeting, he “decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions.” His conclusion was that the Americans were “too liberal to fight”. This led Khrushchev to agree to provide Intercontinental Missiles to Castro, which in turn led to the missile crisis.

It is to this that Biden refers. And this is not a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama. America’s enemies—namely the Iranian and the Venezuelan regimes—have gloated over our current economic humiliation, and have repeatedly prognosticated the downfall of the country.

With the Venezuelans making overtures to the Russians and Chinese to bring their military forces into our Hemisphere, and the Chavez regime’s determination to spread revolution across the continent and create a continental army to resist “the empire” (USA), and considering the Russian irritation at American interference in their region (Georgia, Ukraine, Czech Republic), it is not unlikely that one or more of those nations may come to the same conclusion about Obama that Khrushchev did about Kennedy.

There is a key difference between Obama and Kennedy that makes our current situation even more dangerous: Kennedy was a World War II veteran, a commander of PT-109 who had seen combat and was recognized for his valor. Obama is an inexperienced city liberal, with zero experience commanding any army other than community organizers and the fraudulent ACORN voter registration volunteers. He and his Democrat friends have repeatedly insulted the United States military, undermined their morale and their mission. After today’s Democrats voted to give war authorization to the Bush administration, they systematically subverted the effort, gave comfort to the enemy and declared that America had already “lost” the war in Iraq and we should unilaterally pull out.

In short, this ship of Democrat fools has already telegraphed to the world that they are spineless cowards and pro-socialist ideologues who have proven Khrushchev’s theory that Americans are “too liberal to fight.” So, for once, Biden is right.

The village idiot has spoken a truth that should send shivers down everyone’s spine.

The acceptable hate

I’ve received an interesting commentary—indirectly mind you, the person did not post it on my blog—in response to my post about the Congressional Black Caucus’s involvement in the housing debacle that has helped topple our economy.

Here is the response:

“This kind of malarkey doesn’t even deserve a response. Next thing you
know, Blacks will be blamed for slavery and the Holocaust will be blamed on the
Jews…. What I am saying, if people want to place blame on Democrats then so be
it. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when you start spouting “Black
Democrats” “Jewish Democrats” or “Latino Democrats” etc… that’s when it’s a
problem. When you start placing racial ethnicity in from of the word
Democrat then that is where I have a problem. There’s no such thing
as a Black Democrat. There’s no such thing a Jewish Democrat.
There’re Democrats period. There’s no need to add racial undertones to
politics and government – there’s enough of that already and then some. No
need in adding more fuel to the fire.”

My first response was to re-examine my writing, and see if she was correct. Am I just “adding fuel to the fire”? Is it unfair, when discussing a Democrat’s policy and opinion, to point out their race?

Let me begin this analysis by stating up front my intentions in writing these blogs, especially those that deal with race.

First of all, I don’t consider myself to be a racist. I do not hate anyone for their race, nor do I hate any race of people, nor do I believe in any semblance of “White Supremacy” or any other similar bigotry.

That being said, I am quite sure that some of my beliefs and statements might offend some Blacks. They may very well feel that I am saying something that they think is wrong, a misrepresentation, a stereotype, whatever. I’m open to being corrected or instructed, which is why I have spent so much time reading books about Black History, race relations, etc.

So, why do I feel compelled to write about this issue? Because I am convinced, like Barack Obama and so many others, that the issue of Race is not a settled issue. It is not over, discrimination is still alive and “well”, and we as a country, regardless of our individual race, religion, or political perspective, have to work together to heal this festering wound.

However, I agree with Pastor Madding, the Black minister of ATLAH who points out that Whites have recognized the error of their ways, their policies, and laws that discriminated, and have begun a path toward reconciliation and redemption. I agree with the good Pastor who said that Whites living today know nothing of slavery, were not alive then, and played no part in it. Few Whites living today were involved in Jim Crowe, and a great deal has been done to rectify those laws. Affirmative Action, a policy that resulted from the Great Society, is the most recognized example of this attempt to help Blacks overcome the long legacy of discrimination. The “Ownership Society”—the plan promoted by the Bush administration to help minorities get loans so that they can enjoy home ownership—was another example. In my opinion, both projects failed miserably.

Alright, you may ask. If you really want to help with race relations, why in the world do your posts sound so angry and why do you attack Blacks?

First of all, I don’t attack Blacks. I attack some Black leaders. There’s a big difference.
Second of all, I’m attempting to point out that, as I stated before, bigotry is still alive and well today—but it’s not the kind of bigotry that was witnessed back in the days of public lynching, cross burnings and state-sanctioned discrimination. The form of discrimination today is much more subtle, much more insidious, and can be found on both sides.

What I’m seeing happening now is a new and dangerous movement. I’m not sure Blacks sense it, they may see it as business as usual. But in this period of our history, in which Barack Obama claims to be the first “post racial” candidate—and enjoys a very great likelihood of winning the Presidential election—and while he and his followers claim that Obama will bring America together, my sense is that the exact opposite is happening.

It’s as if Blacks, feeling poised so close to finally breaking through the last great barrier to the most powerful political position in the country (and arguably in the world), are now beginning to vent deeply held resentments and this is showing in a steady stream of subtle, race-based political propaganda punctuated by a periodic release of venomous invective.

I feel compelled to use my blog as a forum to state my opinion very clearly and forcefully about these race issues, because I sense that if the kind of wacky bullshit we see now—race based attacks and innuendo used to shut up white politicians and make whites feel guilty to blackmail them (us) accept policy that is unwise and destructive, then we’re likely headed toward racial conflicts.

Why point out the race of some of these politicians and Black leaders?

• When Black commentator Fatima Ali actually threatens that if Obama doesn’t win the election there will be race wars, they are using race and the fear of violence to sway public opinion. Does her race have nothing to do with it?
• When Black politicians like Cynthia McKinney say that the Department of Defense ordered soldiers to murder and then dump the bodies of 5,000 blacks during Katrina, you can’t say that race had nothing to do with that!
• When Black politicians perpetuate urban legends and distorted history based upon race in order to stoke the fires of resentment, that can’t be ignored.
• When Black congressmen (Alcee Hastings for example) attack White candidates—based solely on the candidate’s race—and try to imply that the White candidates “don’t care about Blacks and Jews”, you can’t ignore that.
• When Black congresswomen Maxine Waters actually defend riots and looting because “they” (the black participants) were “righteous” to take what they wanted and that it should not even be considered stealing—that can’t be ignored.
  

The amount of anti-White attacks, the level of the threats and insults, has increased. The hatred of Whites by Blacks has been excused, rationalized, and accepted, even promoted.

There can be no avoiding the discussion that many of these Blacks feel totally just in hating whites. They feel vindicated in looting and stealing. They have been convinced that they are soldiers fighting against the great White-Devil. And as they get closer to having their first Black president, the feeling that “we’re finally gonna take what’s ours” is apparently growing.
Will American Blacks, when they finally are in power, do to American Whites what Blacks in Zimbabwe and South Africa did to the Whites there? Are they going to wage war on their White countrymen?

Don’t tell me race has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it.

Proof that democrats blocked reform

PROOF that the Republicans were trying to reform Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac as far back as 2004, when they still had a majority, before they lost the elections and could not proceed. The Democrats resisted, clearly trying to cover for F. Mae and F. Mac.

President Clinton saying that the Democrats blocked reform when the Republicans tried to reform FMae and FMac.

Here is the video evidence:
Republicans trying to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2004, blocked by the Democrats. Hear it for yourself.

Here are the Players:
Barney Frank –D Jewish liberal, New York (In 1990, the House voted to reprimand Frank when it was revealed that Steve Gobie, a male escort whom Frank had befriended after hiring him through a personal advertisement, claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment when he was not at home.)  While Frank was on the committee that was supposed to be investigating corruption, and while he was resisting the investigation and instead attacking the people trying to reform Fannie, we now know that Frank was involved in a homosexual relationship with a Fannie Mae executive, Herb Moses!  

Now we know why Frank was protecting Fannie: he was "gaily" investigating a completely different "fanny" of there! 

Maxine Waters –D Black liberal, Los Angeles

Waters asked whether "U.S.-government paid or organized operatives smuggled, transported and sold {crack cocaine} to American citizens."

Also: In May 2008, Waters told Shell Oil President John Hofmeister at the House Judiciary Committee's Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust Laws, that if he didn't guarantee reduced gasoline prices if Congress let the oil industry drill where it wanted, she would be in favor of the government nationalizing American petroleum companies, her specific words were, "Guess what this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing...."

Corruption: Waters was named in 2005[10] and 2006[11] as one of the "most corrupt" members of congress by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. They said, "Her ethics issues arise from her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son."[12] Citizens for Ethics says this violates House ethics rules for family members' financial gains.

On the LA Riots: Waters has been criticized for her comments regarding the Los Angeles riots of 1992.[13] In defense of the people that looted stores and damaged property, Waters said:

"If you call it a riot it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion."[14] She also said it was "a spontaneous reaction to a lot of injustice" and "The anger in my district is righteous. I'm just as angry as they are." She responded to the mass looting of Korean-owned stores by saying: "There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. They are not crooks. Everybody in the street was not a thug or a hood."

Gregory Meeks –D Black liberal, New York
Letter to FARC Leader Tirofijo: On December 20, 2007 along with 2 other US representatives (Bill Delahunt, James McGovern) Gregory W. Meeks wrote a letter thanking the head of the leftist Colombian guerilla FARC (Revolutionary army of Colombia, in Spanish) for the release of evidence that confirms the survival of several of the 45 hostages that the terrorist groups holds captive (including 3 US citizens), some of them for over a decade. The group is considered a terrorist organization by the US government and the European Union. These same Democratic members of the Democratic Black Caucus repeatedly endorsed and supported Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, especially when Chavez was befriending the FARC and involving himself in the internal Colombian affairs by trying to force himself into the negotiations for the release of the hostages. It was later discovered that Chavez had given hundreds of millions of dollars to ransom some of the hostages, and he was attempting to manipulate the political situation for his own personal glory. The Colombian military later performed a brilliant raid that set the hostages free, ending Chavez's attempt to be the gallant hero.

Most expensive tax-paid car lease in Congress: Meeks utilizes the option to use tax dollars to lease a car, for use as a member of Congress. This option does not exist for Senate members. The lease is forgone by many members of Congress, but Meeks presently holds the most expensive lease among all members. Despite having one of the most compact districts in the entire Congress, with access to public transportation, he currently uses tax dollars to lease a 2007 Lexus LS 460, at $998 per month. Meeks was unwilling to provide further comment when questioned by the New York Times, on the lease arrangement, saying "These are never lighthearted stories."

Lacy Clay –D Black Liberal, Missouri
Guilty of racial discrimination: Clay made news in early 2007 when, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (cofounded by his father), he objected to the possible inclusion of white congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee, who represents a majority black district and had made a campaign promise to attempt to become the first white member of the CBC. Although it is not part of the CBC's bylaws that members must be black, all members so far have been black.[2] He said, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.'”

Shakedown Crews Analysis

We can now conclude the following:

1. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had abandoned previous home-ownership policy and were endorsing programs to encourage home ownership by minorities, even when they were probably financially unqualified otherwise to be given a mortgage.
2. As early as 2004 (and probably earlier), the Congress was made aware of the corrupt, illegal practices of Raynes--the black gentleman who destroyed Fannie Mae and declared that the sale of homes was so risk free that they should continue to give home ownership with as little as 2% down! Note that they even were forced to use WELFARE PAYMENTS in their calculation of income to qualify for home ownership!
3. Waters, Meeks, and Clay--all Black Democrats--were fighting hard to defend Raynes and to stifle the investigations into corruption in F. Mae and F. Mac.
4. The use of the term "political lynching" to defend Raynes was a racially loaded term, used to shut down the white Republicans and end the discussion.
5. Maxine Waters, noted for her own corruption, and noted for having defended the looting of Los Angeles by Blacks as "righteous", KNEW that the regulations had been changed to lower qualification standards so that Blacks could get mortgages, almost certainly KNEW that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being looted by Raynes (a Black executive), but must have felt that this looting was "righteous", since it benefitted her Black constituents.
6. Representative Clay was almost certainly aware of this as well. But why would he do anything to stop it? Just as how Representative Waters felt that riots and looting were justifiable and "righteous" because Blacks were angry about injustice, Clay had arrogantly declared before that there is now a "new club", to which one must be BLACK to belong. It is reasonable to conclude that this same Black outrage was used to justify the looting and pillaging of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
7. Barack Obama, longtime friend of Black Liberation Theologist Reverend Wright, and longtime friend of known anti-American terrorist William Ayers, and close friend to all of these previously described villains, almost certainly shares in their sentiment that it is justifiable to loot the American economy if it benefits Blacks.
8. The origins of this problem does not lie entirely with the Democrats: Home ownership for minorities was a huge platform for Bush and the Republicans, and it is certainly to be blamed for contributing to the current crisis. Read startling details about it here.
9. These facts help to explain why Subprime Lenders appeared to target minorities.
10. But when Republicans started to see problems, and tried to investigate the fraud and suggest regulations, the Democrats blocked them--and not just any Democrats. As we've seen, their resistance was spear-headed by the Congressional Black Caucus.
11. Exactly WHEN are these representatives and executives going to get it through their heads that Social Engineering through legislation inevitably results in disasters?
12. This model is not new. It is IDENTICAL to the process put in place by President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela--another longtime friend of the Congressional Black Caucus.
13. If you want to know what awaits America, all you have to do is study what the Bolivarian Revolution did to Venezuela. It's coming to a theater near you!

Modern Liberals and the "Neo-Massa Cult"

I’ve got just a quick note for the conservative commentators: you guys keep missing the most important points in the speeches made by the left!

I am seeing a real hullabaloo being made about Michelle Obama’s speech in which she had advised voters to make their choices based on issues, and not to cast a vote because “she’s cute.”

Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with her saying that. Get off her back! Weeks before, conservatives were criticizing the voters who wanted to vote for Obama simply because he is considered “handsome” by some women, or simply because he is Black by others. Michelle was right. There are probably some voters who are enamored of Palin because she has a great personality and is “cute”—not to say that she is not a solid intellectual, also—but her attractiveness can be a big factor.

But please, pay closer attention to everything that Michelle Obama said! Michelle did us all a favor and revealed something absolutely crucial about her liberal, leftist mentality. The full quote, before the “cute” reference, was that voters should consider the candidate that best serves “your personal interests”.

How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.”

The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”

And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."

The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote.

In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday. But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:

Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain
things in the constitution had to be changed?”

McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”

Goldberg:“I got scared!”

Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”

{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}

Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:

Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”
Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”

Can it be any clearer, folks?

Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality.

Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!

It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the
womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a
return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the
Plantation.

Perhaps the anthem for the Obama campaign should be the Stephen Foster tune, Suwanee River;

Way down upon de S’wanee ribber, Far,
far away, Dere's wha my heart is
turning ebber, Dere's wha de old folks stay.
All up and down de whole
creation Sadly I roam, Still longing for de old
plantation And for de old folks at home.
All de world am sad and dreary, ebry
where I roam,
Oh! Darkeys how I my heart grows weary,
Far from the de old folks at home…

Is that what is going on?

Is the African American ATLAH ministry, led by Pastor Manning, correct in their assessment that Barack Obama is an unworthy socialist who is selling the Black community a neo-communist a wealth re-distribution plan?

“The person who is running on this wealth distribution plan is Barack Hussein Obama. His wealth distribution plan has got a lot of people talking…I want you to look at how misguided the Church is regarding its understanding of the …scripture… we need to be armed with the word of God. Now that’s Obama’s plan for America…you should take from the wealthy and give to the poor…

But is that what Jesus would do? … Absolutely not. If you are poor, and
you are given a talent and you don’t use it, you don’t get to take the rich man’s money and spend it. You don’t get any welfare programs, you don’t get any social services programs…you don’t get that in Jesus’s plan… If you don’t use your talents in the right way, what you have will be taken from you and given to the rich! …

Jesus is saying, ‘You are lazy. And if you don’t use your talent, I’m not gonna take the wealthy man’s…I’m not going to take Exxon’s money and give it to you! Cause I gave you a talent and you haven’t used it. ... If you’d use your talent the way you’re should have used it, you’d be the one with Exxon’s money. I’m gonna take your poverty and give it to Exxon and send you to hell! …that’s the way it ought to be.

Someone has to come along and say to us; ‘No, that wealth redistribution model is wrong! It’s anti-God, it’s anti-Bible, it’s anti-word, and it’s anti-personal development as well. We can get the government to subsidize us…and it makes us lazy, it makes us wicked.” --Pastor Manning

Of course Pastor Manning is decried and slandered, accused of being an "Uncle Tom" by the very left that screams about racism everywhere else.

I am tired of the media missing these highly revealing commentaries that really clear away the confusion about what the Obama supporters are really proposing. And what’s more, the politicians—especially McCain—cannot afford to simply smile at the camera and not take people like Behar to task when they hear this kind of commentary. It should not be allowed that white liberals accuse conservatives of racism and discrimination, when it is the liberals who are openly telling Blacks that they cannot take care of themselves and they need the patronizing support of their liberal white friends!

The liberal socialists are promoting a cult of dependency, much in the same way that racist Southerners rationalized slavery by saying that Blacks were not intelligent enough to survive without their Masters--or "Massas" as they were called in the colloquial pronunciation.

Now, they don't see it that way. Of course not. They think it is "compassionate" to take from the rich and give to the poor. They think Robin Hood is a hero--not a thief! They idolize Fidel Castro, who essentially established an island of slaves, but hey: "They have free medical care!" They worship Pancho Villa because he promised land and dignity for the Indians--even though what he brought was war and killing.

At some point, it will have to become self evident that the "Neo-Massa Cult" is racism dressed in Socialist ribbons and bows.

And then all the press will be talking about how awful it is, and "why didn't anyone warn us?!"

***{Additional Information*** One of today's most interesting headlines is about the foul mouthed Sandra Bernhard's tirade against Sarah Palin, which she repeatedly calls her vulgar names, but most interestingly, says that if Palin went to New York she would be "gang raped" by the "black brothers." So, we have a white, liberal Jewess perpetuating the stereotype of Blacks as rapists...and where is the Liberal outrage? Silence from the left. Yet another example of racism that is forgiven if it's from a lib!"

McCain knows exactly who Zapatero is.

Lisa Abend is a freelance journalist living in Spain who writes periodic articles ranging from culinary reviews to left-leaning political articles. Today she has a new article, published in Time, titled “The Pain in Spain falls Mainly on McCain.”

Never mind the cutesy title; it’s a deviously deceptive lie.

In this article, Abend laments that Spanish President Jose Luis Rodriguez de Zapatero was apparently ‘slammed’ by US Presidential hopeful John McCain. She says that “during an interview in Miami…a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero to the White House. McCain answered, ‘Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States.”

Abend clarifies that this question came “after a series of questions about how McCain sees relations with Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. He said he would not speak to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez ‘without any sort of preconditions, as Sen. Obama has said he would,’ and… that Chavez was ‘depriving his people of their democratic rights.’”

Abend points out that “the questioner tried several more times to steer the Senator back to a clear answer…but he never addressed it, saying: ‘What I would say is that my record is that of someone who has worked in a friendly atmosphere with those who are our friends and faced up to those who aren’t.”

Abend then reports that “much” of the Spanish press concluded that McCain “confused Spain…with one of those troublesome Latin American states”. In fact, the questioner even reminded McCain that “Spain was a country in Europe.”

As if McCain needed reminding. Because it is clear from the tenor and content of this article that it is the journalists who are confused—if not simply deceitful. Why do I say that?

Let us go back to the Spanish presidential elections in 2004. In the days immediately preceding the Spanish election, conservative Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar was leading in the polls, in spite of his commitment of Spanish troops to the war in Iraq. By contrast, Zapatero was running on a liberal left socialist platform opposing Spanish participation, and maintained consistently warm relations with Latin American leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Zapatero disagreed vociferously with Aznar’s tough stance against terrorist organizations, and promoted the idea that his administration would negotiate peace with the Basque separatist and terrorist group ETA, a clear and radical break from the current Spanish position on negotiating with terrorist groups.

On March 11, 2004, al Qaeda planted bombs on trains that exploded in the Atocha rail station, killing 191 innocent civilians. At first, the government suspicion was that the attack had been masterminded by the Basque terrorists, and Aznar’s government stated that opinion. But soon it was revealed that the real conspirators were al Qaeda, and that group released a statement threatening Spaniards due to their involvement in Iraq. The Spanish populace, deeply hurt by the loss of life, fearful of future reprisals, suddenly shifted their loyalty and the socialist Zapatero won the election—and handed a major victory to al Qaeda.

Zapatero was true to his word: he unilaterally withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq. And he began unilateral, unconditional negotiations with ETA. His relationship with Chavez and Castro also warmed, and Spain even considered selling military supplies to Chavez. This lasted until ETA began bombing civilian targets again, and the political situation in Venezuela deteriorated until Chavez started confiscating Spanish investments, private property, blaspheming against God and the Church, and his followers murdered an elderly Spanish-Venezuelan woman who had returned to Venezuela to vote against Chavez in the Presidential Recall Referendum.

In fact, the political instability and worsening human rights conditions in Venezuela eventually forced Zapatero to distance himself from Chavez. Chavez, however, just like the ETA, has no respect for friends or former allies. He therefore had no qualms with insulting Spanish dignity, an attitude that eventually led to a verbal conflict in Chile. Chavez was indignant that Aznar had continued attacking his government and policies even after leaving office. So Chavez, ignoring the protocol at the economic summit held by Chilean president Bachelet, launched into a rude tirade, attacking Aznar and eventually insulting Spain in general. To his credit, Zapatero maintained his dignity as he tried to reason with Chavez and insist that he speak with respect. Chavez’s outburst continued, until the Spanish King finally lost his temper and uttered that historic phrase: “Por qué no te callas?!” (Why don’t you shut up?!)

Both the King’s and Zapatero’s popularity rebounded in Spain. The King had defended national honor, and Zapatero had finally, yet respectfully, put Chavez back in his place.

But this eventual about-face cannot undo the sins of his administration. The origin of the Zapatero government was based upon a fearful capitulation to the world’s most notorious terrorist organization. The essence of his governmental policy was to naively trust in the innate goodness of terrorist leaders and presupposed that, given the chance to speak in a respectful forum, they would inevitably come to terms and peace could be reached. Zapatero’s bad judgment inspired him to seek friendships with some of the most abhorrent regimes in the Americas, and the result was disastrous.

John McCain did not need any reminding about with whom he was dealing. He did not confuse Spain with those “troublesome Latin American states”. McCain has it very clear in his head that Spain and its government are two different entities. But McCain also has no reason to try to warm relations with Zapatero.

After all, Jose Rodriguez de Zapatero is the Spanish equivalent of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama, like Zapatero, has stated that he wants to sit down—without preconditions—with extremist groups and governments that are (to say it mildly) unfriendly to the United States.
Zapatero eventually learned the error of his ways. I’m sure that Obama would too.

But Zapatero should count his lucky stars that McCain didn’t bluntly remind the world why the United States cannot consider the Zapatero government to be a reliable friend to the United States.

They slander the Founders and throw babies in the trash

A couple of days ago, it was reported that a newborn baby was found alive in a Trash Can in a Phoenix middle school. The healthy baby boy’s mother was a 14-year old girl who delivered the baby in the bathroom of an administration building and—being young, confused, and frightened—abandoned the baby in a panic. Reports on the event stated that “due to the abandonment of the baby in a life threatening situation, investigators will do a possible child abuse report and submit it to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for review.”
This is not the first time we’ve heard of this sort of thing.

A quick search finds multiple recent tales of women trashing their newborn babies, often resulting in the death of the child. Here’s one in which the baby survived, and here’s another, the baby was also found in time and survived. These mothers were not scared teens. They were both 24 years old. Tragically, in another story, a woman attending her high-school prom left the dance, delivered her baby in a bathroom, and then trashed it. This time the baby died, yet at the time the article was, the mother was not charged.

So in the middle of the election cycle, a young woman named Gianna Jessen, who is a member of a 527 group called BornAliveTruth.org, is challenging Obama to define when a baby has rights and to support legislation that would protect babies born alive after abortion attempts.

Her story is very unusual. She started her life as abortion that failed. Her mother tried to abort her, but she was born alive. Luckily for her, the abortionist was not in the clinic when she was born, because if he had been, he would have terminated her life by smothering her, or letting her die of exposure—and this would have been legal under current law, because the aborted fetus has no rights. She was fortunate. The attending nurse called an ambulance and she received treatment and obviously survived.

A transcript of the advertisement her group is running reads:

“Can you imagine not giving babies their basic human rights, no matter how they
entered our world? My name is Gianna Jessen, born 31 years ago after a failed
abortion. I’m a survivor, as are many others…but if Barack Obama had his way, I
wouldn’t be here. Four times, Barack Obama voted to oppose a law to protect
babies left to die after a failed abortion. Senator Obama, please support born
alive infant protections. I’m living proof these babies have a right to live.”

These issues may seem unrelated to the current election cycle, but they are not. It is well recognized that the next president will very likely appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, which is why McCain’s selection of a very pro-Life VP (Palin) energized the conservative base: it was confirmation that he was committed to selecting strict ‘constitutionalist’ judges that very well might overturn Roe v. Wade.

McCain was asked about this when he was a guest on the ABC program, The View. In a brief but telling exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts, his response about wanting to appoint constitutionalist judges was challenged by Whoopi Goldberg:

Goldberg: “I don’t want to misinterpret what you are saying; did you say you
want strict constitutionalists?”
McCain: “I want people who interpret
the
constitution the way our founding fathers intended them to do.”
Goldberg: “Do
I have to worry about being returned to slavery because
certain things in the
constitution had to be changed?”
Goldberg: “That’s
an excellent point,
Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank
you.
Goldberg: "I got scared!"
Co-host Joy Behar: “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!” Co-host Sherri Shepherd hid her head in apparent embarrassment.

Did anyone else notice the obviously patronistic statement made by the liberal Behar?! Thank goodness that nice white liberal is going to "take care" of the poor little black girl! But no comments have ever been uttered: Liberals get away with racist remarks all the time! and isn't this the CORE of the liberal Democrat belief? "Don't worry, we good Whites are gonna take care of you poor, downtrodden Blacks!"

This discussion takes us away from the topic of abortion, but cuts to the heart of the real matter: human rights. And it also highlights a common misconception held by many Blacks and perpetuated by either ignorant or devious Black leaders (such as Reverend Wright and Barack Obama), that the Founding Fathers were racists who institutionalized and perpetuated slavery when they wrote the constitution.

This distortion of history is convenient to leaders who want Blacks to see themselves as victims and want them to hate and oppose their government. It also becomes evident from the patronistic attitudes of liberals--like Sherri Behar--who subconciously believe that Blacks are not capable of taking care of themselves and need "us whites" to "take care of you".

When I was a teacher in an inner-urban, mostly Black school in Florida, one of my students was shocked to find out that there had been Black slaves throughout the continent. She said: “I thought it was white Americans that invented slavery!” And when I tried to disabuse her of this misconception, she furiously accused me of trying to “re-write history”.

But this could not be further from the truth. In fact, the Founding Father’s opposition to Slavery was one of the main reasons for desiring a separation from Great Britain.

“The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the Founders; slavery was introduced in America nearly two centuries before the Founders. In fact, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay noted that there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery prior to the Founding Fathers. …one of the reasons given by Thomas Jefferson for the separation from Great Britain was a desire to rid America of the evil of slavery imposed on them by the British.”

Thomas Jefferson was not the only Founder who opposed slavery.

“In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first
antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York.
When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he,
as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering: ‘I would most ardently wish to
become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them
that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and
Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has
expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to
let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.’”

The Founders struggled to end slavery and had already begun almost immediately after declaring independence from Britain, and years before the ratification of the constitution on December 7, 1787. Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery seven years before the constitution was ratified (1780), and just four years later, Connecticut and Rhode Island abolished slavery. Slavery was abolished in New Hampshire in 1792 and in Vermont in 1793. New York took six more years (1799) and New Jersey abolished it 1804—that’s fifty seven years before the start of the civil war.

It could be said that American fought not one but two wars in order to free the slaves. The first was to separate from Britain, which had imposed slavery upon the colonies, and about which George Washington commented: “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” Eighty five years later, Americans fought the Civil War to finish the job and free the slaves in the South.

Given this historical context, it must be clear to any reasonable historian that the majority of the Founders—and probably the majority of the average citizens—abhorred slavery and had purposely worded the Bill of Rights (“All men are created equal”) and Constitution in such a way as to facilitate the inevitable end of slavery.

Although it is easy to say that Jefferson and others who owned slaves were “hypocrites”, one should keep in mind that slavery was the economic model in existence for centuries before the industrial revolution, and although it was recognized as an abhorrent system, there was no viable solution available until the 19th century. We citizens today find ourselves in a similar moral predicament: we know that our addiction to fossil fuels, internal combustion engines, and consumerist economic models cause damage to the environment, and we all recognize that we should try to find an alternative, but at this time, no practical alternative is available. So while people like Obama and Gore run around lecturing us how we need to get rid of our gas guzzling vehicles, they continue to drive cars and fly in private jets. Some day we will surely solve this problem, but should historians look back at the proponents of alternative energy and call them hypocrites for not having the solution sooner?

The second modern conundrum that parallels the issue of slavery is that of abortion. And it is this issue—and particularly the story of Gianna Jessen—that ties all the previous themes together.

Because, while it is clearly established principal that all humans have equal human rights, proponents of Abortion—cleverly marketed as “Choice”—struggle to deny the human fetus with the status of “human being”. It is this monstrously contradictory opinion that creates our contemporary moral dilemma. After all, current dogma holds that it is a woman’s choice—which is a “private” matter protected by the constitutional right to privacy—to abort a fetus in her body. As long as the fetus is not “human”, as long as it is considered nothing more than “cells”, then it cannot legally be considered “murder” to kill those cells.

The Jessen story destroys this argument. The late-term abortion forced the baby to be born, and the mercy of one nurse saved her life. If the abortionist had finished the job, suffocating the infant, it would have been perfectly legal. Now that she is an adult, she is capable of asking the question that other aborted fetuses cannot: what rights did I have? At what point did I get rights? And who is the inventor of this moral calculus that determines when an infant is human and when it’s “just cells”?

By contrast, if it was alright to kill a healthy baby in an abortion clinic, why is it wrong for a young woman to throw a baby in the trash?

In this, I disagree with conservative talk show hosts who blasted Whoopi Goldberg’s question. It was not foolish or stupid. It was an opportunity squandered by McCain, who—in his desire to pander to women and minorities—did not recognize that he had just been offered a perfect opportunity to differentiate the Republican party from the Democratic party.

His response to Goldberg should have been forceful and unequivocal. The Republican Party wants to select Supreme Court justices that are constitutionalists—that is, judges who will apply the law according to the strictest intent of the Founders. Those Founders abhorred slavery, they clearly recognized the injustice that was wrought by governments and laws that dehumanized people of color and allowed for their inhumane treatment. Those same Founders fought the very first battles toward Black Liberation. They laid the road to liberty and sanctified it with the blood of national sacrifice, and provided the roadmap to liberty in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It was the Republican Party that then waged war to finally free the slaves and secure forever the human rights for all people in the United States. It is the Republican Party that has made it their doctrine to spread those rights around the world. And it is the Republican Party that believes that the sanctity of human life cannot be violated—not even in the womb. The Republicans can look Gianna Jessen in the eye and say: in the more perfect union we wish to form, you would have always had the same rights to life and the pursuit of liberty as all the rest of us.

Whoopi, if you really believe in human rights, why can’t you open your heart to giving those rights to the most helpless among us?

Whoopi, it is time that you and people like you see through the lies, and make the same commitment that the Founders made over two hundred years ago, when Supreme Court Justice John Jay wrote:

"neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the
abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity"

Or are your words just hollow?

The race baiter is as guilty as the one who pulls the trigger

On September 2, 2008, a Philadelphia journalist named Fatima Ali wrote a warning that, if America didn’t choose Barack Obama as president, there would be a “full-fledged race war”. I wrote a short piece about that, saying in essence that the term she chose could not be interpreted in any way other than to suggest that violence was inevitable.

Her choice of language caused a great deal of outrage, which she addresses in an article today. And, as I had predicted, she now is trying to sound much more reasonable, and say that all the extremely foul responses she received is evidence that “we don’t have to wait until after the election for a race war. We’re in one now.”

She then goes on to cherry pick from among the most extreme responses she got in order to qualify her assertion that angry whites are already starting a race war.

The absurdity of this situation is simultaneously hilarious and alarming. It was not Whites who threatened Blacks with violence; it was a Black columnist who fired the first verbal salvo. It was a classic example of race baiting, and what a manipulative act of propaganda it is! For this woman to proclaim “I hate violence, but I do see a growing wave of intolerance sweeping the nation”, and threaten not once but twice with a race war, to be surprised that Whites would feel threatened and respond with a warning of their own (that they are ready to defend themselves) is either the stupidest journalistic blunder I’ve ever seen, or the most cynical attempt to provoke a violent reaction.

She goes on to say:

“No, we're not anywhere near "post-racial" times. If we were, the possibility
that a black man may well become our next president wouldn't matter.”

I feel obliged to write Ms Ali directly.

Fatima, why can’t you understand that for the vast majority of Americans, Obama’s race is not the issue; it’s the issue that you make of his race and the threats that you made that is the issue! Whites are nauseated by being told that if they don’t vote for a Black candidate, that it is because they are racist. Extremists like you leave no room for the possibility that your candidate is simply too inexperienced, too socialist, has too many friendships with extremists who hate the country, for us to simply vote him into office and just keep our fingers crossed that it will all work out.

And instead of giving us the benefit of the doubt, that just maybe those of us who vote for McCain want him for his experience, you instead assume the very worst about us and then threaten us—and by extension, our families—with a war based solely on race!

Your final sentence in the article pretty much sums up the idiocy of the position:

“And two words out of 775 in my original column would not have unleashed the
kind of hatred that makes me want to retreat to a bunker.”

Was it not your own beloved Barack Obama who said: “Just words! ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’, Just words! ‘I have a dream’.” If you admire Obama so much, did you learn nothing from that speech, in which he was illustrating the importance of choosing your words carefully?

Two words? Just two little words? No, my dear, it was the intention, and the threat, behind the words, that caused the reaction. You issued the incendiary comments. You cannot blame the reaction on others. It's exactly like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and then denying responsibility by declaring the panicked crowd to be fools.

If you really do “hate violence”, then it would have behooved you to write a piece that was a mea culpa, instead of issuing a second challenge.

If Obama loses this race—which it appears he may do—and there really is violence, you need to say a prayer from inside your bunker, and ask for forgiveness, because at least some of the blood will be on your hands! Because the one who used race to bait for violent reactions is just as guilty as the people who actually pull the trigger.

Forget the Bush Doctrine. We need to look forward.

Coffee break talk last Friday centered on Sarah Palin’s first interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. In general, she received good marks for her adroit responses to Gibson’s questions, with the one exception being Gibson’s alleged “gotcha” moment when he asked her: "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?''

Palin paused, looking a bit perplexed, and tried to get some clarification by asking: “In what regard?”

When Gibson finally—and rather pedantically—revealed that he was referring to the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes, Palin responded by reaffirming that the US has the right to respond to what it perceives as an imminent threat.

Liberals tried to point to this moment as an example of how Palin is weak on her comprehension of international policies and is ignorant about the “Bush Doctrine”. All which is powerfully contradicted by the brilliant commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in his article “Gibson’s Gaffe”.

Krauthammer makes the point that there is not one “Bush Doctrine”, but rather a total of four. The one to which Gibson referred is the third in the series, and technically was incorrect, because it is Bush’s fourth policy statement that will probably be remembered as his “doctrine”:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of
liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of
freedom in all the world."

Liberals have remained fixated on Bush’s third policy statement, the one stating that the US has the right to preemptively strike against nations that harbor terrorists or support them and pose a threat to US security. They cling to this argument because they believe they will gain political points—and political office—by reminding America of how we got into the war in Iraq.

This may be an interesting discussion, but discussions of "presidential doctrine" is table fare for historians and will do nothing for America's future. So Charlie Gibson's question was not only misleading and probably wrong, but really was totally irrelevant!

I’d like to use this moment as an example of how these so-called “leaders” are not leading at all. It was not Bush’s third policy statement that is now heating the current and riskiest global crisis, but his fourth and most far-reaching that needs deeper examination.

The “Bush Doctrine” quoted by Krauthammer is potentially the more controversial of the two. After all, it this part of the Bush policies that has inspired the administration to take such an aggressively supportive role of Eastern European democracies such as Ukraine, Poland, Czech Republic, and Georgia. Bush’s determination to defend the former Soviet bloc countries is making Moscow feel threatened. In response to the ‘missile shield’ that the United States is offering to put into Poland and the Czech republic is at the source of the conflict with Georgia/Russia. We must remember that it was shortly after the Bush administration worked out deals to locate the missiles in Poland that Moscow responded, threatening that their response could be a military one.

Russian President Medvedev was quoted in NOVOSTI, Russian news source:

“These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us,"
Medvedev said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television on Tuesday. "This will
create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way,
naturally using military means." … The Russian president said that offering NATO
membership to Georgia and Ukraine, two former Soviet republics, would only
aggravate the situation.

Shortly afterward, the Russians apparently manufactured a political crisis in Georgia by encouraging Georgian rebels of Russian descent to ramp up their activities. The Georgians responded militarily in an attempt to restore control of the breakaway region, giving Moscow the excuse it wanted to invade the territory in the role of “peace keepers.”

While the US and Europe wrung their hands over the issue, it became clear that the US was not willing to confront Russia militarily. But the Bush administration did respond diplomatically, and began to press to speed the inclusion of the other Soviet bloc nations in NATO, thus providing them with a promise of multilateral military defense, if needed.

Predictably, this action again provoked Russia. But watch this time, it appears that the Russians are looking to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

Weeks after the Georgian conflict, as tensions between the United States and Russia continue to escalate, Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez declared that Venezuela sided with the Russians in the Georgian affair, and bragged that the Russians and Venezuelans were planning war games in the Caribbean region.

The Russians then flew two Tu-160 long distance strategic bombers into Venezuela. Chavez declared that the presence of the bombers was a warning to Washington that “Venezuela is no longer poor and alone.”

Other reports indicated that Chavez had been courting Russia for a long time in the hope of convincing Moscow to establish a Navy port there and install an aircraft carrier in the Caribbean.
Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said she was not concerned about the presence of the Russian bombers in Venezuela: “I don’t think Russia would launch attacks on the United States.” By contrast, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) said that “There is a continuing pattern over the last several months of Russian intimidation…and they are using the same old bullying intimidation tactics that go back to Brezhnev and Stalin.”

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, stated clear concern.

“What you are suggesting doesn’t surprise me, and yes it concerns me,” said Murkowski. “If it is clearly a flexing of muscle and effort to display force, it makes you wonder what the objective is and what the appropriate response should be.”

What is the objective?

Today’s leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—may be missing the point entirely. The threat is not that Russia might launch a military attack against the United States. It is that the Russians might act as a shield to protect Chavez’s socialist regime, giving him the ability to increase his interventionist policies in regional countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and others.

This past weekend, violence erupted in some of the Bolivian ‘departments’ (the equivalent of states) between supporters of socialist president Evo Morales and his conservative, capitalist opponents. The Bolivians expelled the American diplomat, claiming that he was promoting violent protests. Chavez stepped in and expelled the American diplomat in Caracas, causing a quid pro quo expulsion of the Venezuelan ambassador from Washington. Chavez then demanded that the Bolivian government respond with force to the “imperialist aggression” and that if Morales was overthrown, he—President Chavez—would send Venezuelan troops to Boliva. “I am prepared to die for Boliva,” he professed.

If the Russians had a naval base in Venezuela, Chavez would feel free to deliver on his repeated, hollow threats. The borderline-dictator and friend to the Colombia FARC terrorists, having bought the technology to build a Kalashnikov AK-47 and ammunition factory in Venezuela, would have the ability to arm hundreds of thousands of rebel forces throughout the continent, thus turning his dream of creating a continental revolutionary army into a reality. Russian protection would make US intervention in this plan much more difficult.

The objective that eludes our congressmen and women could be this: if the US continues to make threatening moves in the Russian neighborhood, they will respond with parallel maneuvers. If we are uncomfortable, we will have to back off our support for the Soviet bloc democracies to get the Russians out of our back yard.

I cannot reiterate strongly enough how potentially dangerous this is. Chavez has repeatedly insisted that the “non-aligned” nations, including Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. need to work together to create an “asymmetrical” attack on the United States, in his words, to create many “Viet Nams” which would simply be too much for the United States to handle.

The United States is already struggling with the entry of millions of illegal aliens, and this during a time of relative peace throughout Latin America. If Chavez manages to create a wave of socialist revolutions across the continent, the number of refugees could increase exponentially.

It is time for the representatives in Washington to get this through their heads: Hugo Chavez is a serious threat to Democracy in the hemisphere, and his alliance with Russia is potentially explosive.

What should be the American doctrine on the Eastern European democracies? Are we really ready to go to war to defend them when they are threatened by Russian imperialism? If so, are we willing to go to war to defend democracies in our own hemisphere that are threatened by local (Bolivarian) and European (Russian) imperialism? The two concurrent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have nearly broken our nation. Are we going to be drawn into the many "Viet Nams" in which Chavez and his cronies want to lure us, in order to lure us into our own doom?

The best thing that could happen right now would be for idiots like Charlie Gibson to stop playing "Gotcha" and instead start asking Presidential candidates Obama and McCain to address this issue now and clarify what they would do about the situation.