Sara Palin is the GOP's Will Rogers

A quick note on Sara Palin’s VP acceptance speech.

First of all, let me clarify that I am still a registered Democrat. Old habits die hard. And I’m hopeful that somehow we can save the party and bring it back from the socialist abyss and make it the party of the average Joe.

My opinion on the Dems is that they have allowed arrogant urban liberals to take over the party, they idealize European socialist values and have been convinced by their liberal college professors that the average American is a tacky, unsophisticated hillbilly who is incapable of comprehending the complex reality that they—the leftist elite—understand. And they have been sucked into the populist morass that has them convinced that the only way to solidify electoral support is to flirt with class warfare, romanticize revolution, and offer up government subsidized give-aways.

Finally, they are right to believe that Americans want the war to end. But they are committing George McClellan’s mistakes during the Civil War and assuming that a war-weary public wants peace at any cost. History will prove that Obama is committing the same mistake that cost McClellan the Presidency.

I listened to the Sara Palin speech last night—twice—and was enthralled by her. After the speech, I heard a commentator say that "the conservatives have found their Obama."

But, I don't think that's right. Because Obama is one of those types that fulfill the role that is often referenced in the following way: "Everyone serves some sort of purpose, even if it's just a bad example."

Obama may have "a back-story", but it's more of the story of the wayward child who eventually finds his way and becomes endearing to a certain element of the population—but really is the antithesis of the average American out there on the range, or the ranch. How many of the average American at one point turned to cocaine and sold drugs? How many of them took advantage of their race to get preferential treatment and go to an Ivy League school and STILL resented America?

Palin’s acerbic wit was spot on last night. She really “took the Mickey” out of the Obamas, Harry Reid, and the libs in a way that was astonishingly powerful yet amusing. She presented herself as a bulldog with lipstick, an analogy that serves her well. She gave the Democrats a tongue lashing with a home-spun flavor that reminded me of a conservative Will Rogers.

If there was one primary successful tactic in Palin’s speech, it was that she totally undermined the Obama story and subtly revealed Obama’s elitist, unpatriotic attitude, and humorously highlighted his total lack of experience. And she reinforced the correct interpretation of American attitudes about the Iraq War. As a mother of a soldier deploying to Iraq, she wants her boy to come home victoriously. This effectively confirms the notion that Obama is to the Iraq War what George McClellan was to the Civil War: a surrender monkey.

To quote George C. Scott’s Patton, “Americans love a winner, and abhor a loser.” We want our troops to come back—victoriously.

I had not been expecting such a powerful speech from Palin. But she truly delivered, in spades. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that Palin may have demonstrated that she is—as a political speaker—on a par with Bill Clinton.

Watch out, Obama and Biden. The McCain camp just rolled out a secret weapon that might just turn the war.

Race wars, Riots, and the Left's idea of "Democracy"

***WARNING***'BAD WORD' ALERT***WARNING***

I just read an article by Fatima Ali, published in the Philidelphia Daily News, in which laments what she perceives as a political crisis in America and quotes a Langston Hughes poem:

"Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams die, Life is a broken-winged bird that cannot fly, Hold fast to dreams, for if dreams go, life is a barren field, frozen with snow."

Beautiful quote. Peaceful, although quite melancholy. Ali then goes on with a litanny of accusations against the republicans, and ends with this nugget:

If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a
deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness - and
hopelessness

Say what? Did this African-American journalist just threaten America with a "full-fledged race war"? Are you kidding me?

Isn't Philly supposed to be the "City of Brotherly Love"? Is a race war any way to show the love?

Is she going to try to claim that-when she said "war"-she didn't really mean the shooting kind? Then what the hell did she mean by "full-fledged"? That term means "da real thing, bro". She means that Blacks will wage war against Whites. And by stating "class war", she seems to think that there will be an actual uprising of working class people-of all races-who will raise arms against the "upper" class.

So, what classes are going bear arms against their fellow citizens? Will that be middle class on down? Or just the working class? Or maybe, what she means is, all the anarchists and neo-communist scum like the ones who protested violently against the Republican National Convention.

The rampaging protesters attacked members of the Connecticut delegation,
spraying them with a noxious liquid. One 80-year-old delegate needed medical
treatment. Others tossed bottles, slashed tires and shattered windows -
including those of a police car.

These are the "peace" protestors. Notice, during the Democratic Convention the previous week, the only violence was from the same left-of-center anarchists and communists who support Obama-but were outraged that Obama was not quite far enough left to fully erect their communist cocks. No, they need a new Che Guevara to do that.

Che gives the kids a woody they can use to bash windows.

No, these ruffians won't be happy until they have a war-oh, wait, that's right, silly me, they're against war. War is bad. Even a war that topples a tyrant and mass murderer. Even a war that liberates an entire nation and gives them the ability to choose their own future. War in which the US government is ever the protagonist must, by definition, be bad.

Race wars and class wars, on the other hand, those are GREAT. Revolution is the aphrodesiac of the left.

These are the "Recreate 68" radicals, and if you just take a gander at the "Soirée" artwork you can see the reference to the French revolution right away. Again: the lefties all think that revolution is Oh-so-kewl. Any time you can get together to kill the rich has got to be a good time, don't you agree?

Well, I'm not sure to which "Dream" Ali thinks Langston Hughes was refering in his poem, but if it involves race wars, it sure doesn't sound like Martin Luther King's "dream". And it sure doesn't sound like she's the kind of "dreamer" that John Lennon had encouraged us all to envision...you know, "imagine all the people Living life in peace..."

No, this is the kind of "over the cuckoo's nest" kind of revolutionary talk that Lennon had rejected when he wrote:

We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you
know that you can count me out

Race and class wars. Hmmm. Why does this remind me of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabbe?

I've been saying for a while that Obama-far from uniting Americans across racial boundaries-would more likely trigger a passionate and violent conflict. Not because whites would react against him as a President, but because it would encourage the radical left-and especially certain elements within the radical black community-to lash out in a kind of psychopathic and racist assault against the preceived oppressor. An Obama Presidency would give some folks the feeling that "aha! we're in power NOW", and the direct result of decades of victimology promoted by the likes of Reverend Wright would make these new racial and class vigilantes feel entitled to their rage, just in their violent expression, and unstoppable.

Articles like Ali's will help to spread a sense of vindication and righteousness.

In the meantime, I've heard from several different white colleagues-none of whom are what anyone would consider to be gun-toting racist rednecks-that they are genuinely concerned about what the Black reaction would be if Obama loses. This same concern was echoed by Fox Radio host Tom Sullivan who asked a simple question:

Let me put it to you a different way. What if Barack Obama is not -- does not
win the Democratic nomination, or he does win it, and loses in the presidential
race against John McCain? Is black America going to throw their hands up and
say, 'Man, you know, I thought we were getting somewhere in this country, but
this is just a bunch of racial bigots in this country and they still hate blacks
and, I mean, if Barack Obama can't get elected, then we're never gonna have
anybody that's a black that's gonna be elected president.' And will there be
riots in the streets? I think the answer to that is yes and yes

Sullivan was then savaged as a racist neo-con for even daring to ask if Blacks might respond violently to an Obama loss. But what is so shocking or racist about wondering? Afterall, weren't there riots triggered by the verdict in the Rodney King case? Didn't Blacks threaten to riot if O.J. Simpson was found guilty? (they did; I was a teacher in a mostly Black school and the students were literally running through the halls yelling "WE GONNA RIOT!"). Aren't there people saying "Recreate '68", in reference to the race riots of 1968?

Of course, it's fair to remind everyone that there were PLENTY of "White riots" in response to the civil rights struggle, but I can't remember the last "White riot", since nowadays Whites-especially conservatives-don't riot over these issues. So it isn't unreasonable to wonder, under these very unusual circumstances, what might happen?

But most importantly, I think it's highly irresponsible for Black journalists to begin suggesting in any way that this would be expected, acceptable, inevitable. Let's be totally frank here: if Obama loses, and Blacks take to the streets to burn down cities, fire upon and beat up White citizens (such as the white trucker Reginal Denny beat up during the Rodney King riots in 1992), I have to think that Whites are not going to just sit back and let their towns be burned and their families be threatened.

America does NOT need any sort of class or race war. We need redemption, we need progress. The self-proclaimed "Progressives" must aggressively police their own radicals and make it very clear that they cannot be against "that war in Iraq" and for a race war over here.

If you're a peace-nik, for goodness' sake, promote peace.

Dems react to Palin: SOUR GRAPES

A quick roundup of reaction to the Palin selection:

Time Magazine:

"Is this really who the Republican Party wants to be one heartbeat away from the
Presidency? Given Sarah Palin's lack of experience on every front and on nearly
every issue, this Vice Presidential pick doesn't show judgment: it shows
political panic," he said.

My reaction: "Political panic"?! Are you serious? McCain had several excellent choices for a running mate. Why did he choose this particular woman? It's insane to try to claim that "Panic" was the inspiration for the decision. This is a man who has maintained a consistent cool attitude throughout the campaign. He's a man with over thirty years of experience and has survived any number of campaigns. He's a man who flew into combat, was shot down, captured and tortured for five years. And you think that kind of man is going to panic while facing a panty-waisted lightweight like Obama? Please.

CNN Paul Begala

Palin a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer
than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her
personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly
qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

My reaction: Paul Begala's assessment of Palin is simply insulting. Note how he insults Alaska--and the Alaskan people--in the same way Obama did when he said that conservatives were just a bunch of bitter, angry people clinging to their guns and religion! The same elistist snobbery has surfaced again. And combine that with clear mysoginism. Palin is more than a person who enjoys fishing or her five children. She has won elections as mayor and ran her small city, then was appointed to an important energy commission and eventually became governor of the state. But apparently we don't need to even mention those accomplishments. Instead, the tact is a sarcasm-laden slight.

Echoes of the sexist insults that the democrat extremists heaped on Hillary Clinton? You BET.

Here's another blog linked on CNN:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-68575
Anonymous Democratic blogger said, "shame on you, John McCain, for thinking
America is stupid!"

This same sentiment was echoed on an Air America broadcast, during which the following astonishing statement was made:

"John McCain must think that American women are stupid, that he can just trick
them to vote for Palin, instead of a real candidate like Hillary."

Yet another form of bigotry revealed by the liberals: A woman is not a real feminist or reasonable choice as a candidate, unless she's an abortion supporting liberal! The assumption is that real "wymyn" are hardcore supporters of infanticide. Nothing else could be farther from the truth. Here is a woman who truly has it all: a successful career and a large family.

So, let's talk about McCain's choice.

Every choice brings risks. But there's a huge difference between Barack's inexperience and Palin's alleged inexperience: although she has had a short career in politics, she has a list of successes she can point to. Barack CAN'T.

I think it's a home run for McCain. No one is even talking about Obama's speech anymore. In fact, I just heard the classic sour grapes statement on Air America. A guy was stating how no one was talking about Obama today, even though he 'gave such a great speech' and the AA talkshow host said, "yeah, but you know, I'm glad it's like this! that speech was so good, no one even needs to talk about it!"

You have to love that! A speach that was so important...no one needs to talk about it.

That kind of describes Obama: a candidate so important...he doesn't even need coverage.

Wiley experience versus unsteady charisma: McCain Vs. Obama

On August 28, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate and apparent wanna-be Caesar Barack Obama gave the speech of his life at the Denver Invesco stadium to a huge crowd of nearly 80,000 fans. Fans, I say, because it has become clear that Obama is more of a celebrity than a candidate. The mainstream media treats Obama like a Rock Star: ignore his foibles, pretend that he is not frightfully lacking in experience, do not draw attention to the confused and conflicting policies he has put forth, try to cover for his arrogance and haughty attitude that reinforces the feeling from many Americans that he is either totally out of touch or woefully elitist.

So today, August 29th, it would be natural to expect that Obamania would cover the pages of the electronic media. But no. Look at Foxnews.com, and you don’t see Obama today. Nor will you find his Lordship gracing the cover of the more liberal CNN.com. No, instead you see McCain—and his newly announced running mate.

Just at the time when the press was all giddy about Obama—McCain may have just upstaged him!

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been tapped to be McCain’s VP, surprising most people who thought that Romney or Pawlenty would have been the natural choices. Was this a brilliant strategic move by McCain? Palin is young, relatively inexperienced, could this have been a mistake?

Coming out of the Democratic Convention, CNN talking heads proudly pronounced that “76% of Democrats said that the convention unified the party.” Interesting spin on a statistic that we already knew weeks ago: about 30% of the Hillary Clinton supporters were bitter about how she was treated by the Obama campaign and surrogates, and were not likely to vote for Obama. Many women in the country, who are likely to be the swing voters and turn the tide in this campaign, felt deeply disappointed that Clinton was not the Democratic nominee, or at the very least, Obama’s choice for VP. So saying that 76% of Dems feel that the party has unified is just another way of saying that 24% are still not happy. And that 24% equates to hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.

Whenever I analyze this situation, the most logical analogies that come to mind seem to be either Chess or military strategies. I am a fan of chess and in chess there are three principal elements to the game that must be mastered in order to win the game.

They are Space (territory on the board), Momentum, and Material.

Once upon a time, Obama had all three of these to his advantage.

Voter support, translated into votes, won states, and thus delegates, is the territory. And according to most polls, Obama appeared to ahead. But he has slowly leaked that support away through a number of missteps. Obama gave up territory.

In order to win—Chess or war battles equally—combatants sometimes must sacrifices territory in order to gain either momentum or material.

Obama apparently decided that, by nominating Joe Biden to be his running mate, he could use Biden’s years in Senate to counter the attacks on Obama’s lack of experience, and hopefully come out of the convention with increased momentum. But this didn’t seem to work. Many who had hoped that he would choose Hillary were disappointed. And while Biden is a fairly serious choice, back when Biden was one of the Democratic candidates opposing Obama, he had made a number of stinging criticisms about Obama’s lack of experience.

This gave new ammunition to the GOP, and facilitated the attack on Obama’s lack of experience—and judgment: Obama's choice actually undermined the weak flank he had hoped would be reinforced. And Obama left the convention without gaining in momentum.

McCain’s choice of Governor Palin appears to be a classic flanking maneuver. McCain had attacked Obama on experience, which forced Obama to choose Biden over Clinton, since Clinton—in spite of her popularity—could not claim many years of experience as anything other than the wife of a former President. The choice of Biden reinforced the public’s suspicion that Obama was inexperienced, but it also reinforced the resentment by Hillary’s supporters, and the women who had so wanted to see a woman in the White House in a role other than first lady or sexy intern.

That third element in chess, material, is usually the “pieces” that empower the player. Rooks, Knights, Queen, etc. Without material, the player simply cannot control the board or the momentum. In politics, it can be equated to financial support, and that intangible support that is media attention and buzz.

The Palin choice, announced the day after Obama’s biggest speech, has taken that advantage away from him, and with it will come momentum. After all, on the day when everyone should have been talking about Obama’s great speech, they are instead talking about VP candidate Palin. Women callers to the Laura Ingraham show this morning were energized, excited, and without an exception said that this decision will encourage them to donate to the McCain campaign. In other words, McCain has now gained additional material to propel his campaign forward.

On all three fronts, material, momentum, and space, McCain has slowly whittled down the Obama advantage. We are witnessing a classic example of a battle led by two very different generals: an older, experience statesman, and a young, brash, charismatic celebrity.

And it is becoming very clear, that while there is a romantic attraction to the young and charismatic leader, unless that charisma is enhanced by some real street smarts, he can easily be outclassed by the wily old man.

In my opinion, barring some unforeseen disaster on the McCain camp, Obama just lost the lead, and may be headed toward doom.

The bullshit in reporting on domestic oil drilling

Just a quick note about the oil drilling question.

I’m getting infuriated by the clear distortion by reports who appear to want to downplay the positive impact of domestic oil production here in the USA.

Take for example the following article “Oil: what the drilling advocates say”. In this article, the author Steve Hargreeves (CNN), basically makes the argument that increases of US oil production by drilling in ANWR and offshore would be a “drop in the bucket” and would not bring down fuel prices by more than a few cents per gallon.

However, if you look carefully at the presentation, you see what should be considered to be a distortion.

The “experts” that the article quoted give a “very conservative” estimate that the mentioned additional production would increase US supply by about 1.5 to 2 million bpd. This, they argue, is the “drop in the bucket” because the total daily worldwide production is 73 million bpd. 2 million barrels compared to 73 million barrels really is a drop in the bucket.

But the question is not “What impact will US domestic production have on the world supply.” The question is, “What impact would 2 million barrels per day of domestic production have on fuel prices here?” The net daily US importation of oil is 12,036,00 bpd. So, if we produced an additional 2 million barrels per day and this fuel was consumed domestically, that would imply a petroleum import reduction of nearly 17%.

With fuel prices at $4.00/gallon, that might imply a price reduction of at least $0.68 per gallon. Now we’re down to $3.32 gallon.

So, consider additionally that even OPEC leaders have said recently that there is no under-supply of oil, and that the current oil price is WAY over inflated and should be selling at a considerably lower price per barrel.

Take a moment to read what Ralph Nader had to say in a recent article:

“Oil was at $50 a barrel in January 2007, then $75 a barrel in August 2007. Now at $130 or so a barrel, it is clear that oil pricing is speculative activity, having very little to do with physical supply and demand. An essential product—petroleum—is set by speculators operating on rumor, greed, and fear of wild predictions. “
…
“In an ironic twist, the major price determinant has moved from OPEC (having only 40% of the world production) and the oil companies to the speculators in the commodities markets. What goes on in the essentially unregulated New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)—without Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) enforced margin requirements, and, unlike your personal purchases, untaxed—is now the place that leads to your skyrocketing gasoline bills. OPEC and the Big Oil companies reap the benefits and say that it’s not their doing, but that of the speculators. Gives new meaning to ‘passing the buck.’”

Since oil is traded on a futures market, the price understandably fluctuates depending upon what influencing factors are anticipated in the future. This is why the mere threat a possible military conflict in the Straight Of Hormuz can send prices skyrocketing—even though nothing has even happened yet.

Well, folks, the same principal applies in the opposite direction: if the US government signals that it is implementing a MAJOR change in policy that will give the US an increase in productivity, the speculators in the futures market will see a less lucrative future in oil, and the product will be less attractive, and the price will fall.

So by simply declaring that we Americans will reduce our imports by 17% will cause an almost immediate reduction in market price for oil.

But let’s not stop there. If T. Boone Pickens is right, and we can use alternative energy sources such as improved solar and wind technology to reduce our energy usage by an additional 15%-20%, then petroleum will fall again.

Keep in mind that the proponents of domestic drilling are not saying that is the only thing that has to be done. Not by a long shot. McCain, for example, is calling for increased support for a number of energy sectors including; nuclear, coal, domestic drilling, and ALTERNATIVE sources of energy such as solar and wind.

So, to have a truly "comprehensive" energy policy, we have to include all of these. It's ironic that the green movement often quotes the efforts taken in Europe but conveniently overlook the fact that much of Europe is powered by nuclear energy.

Guess what will happen if we declare that we will build more nuclear power plants, and reduce our energy imports even further? yep. Oil prices fall even further, and it will NOT take 10 years to see a benefit! That is the key lie in the Democrat position. The don't think we know about futures markets.

The point is, that these idiot journalists--and idiot liberals among the democrats--keep poo-pooing the notion that we should begin to drill for oil because—by itself—this one tactic would not have a major strategic impact. But the point is, it is just one tactic in an overall, badly needed strategic change.

Obama: Ethnic cleansing is Conflict Resolution

“There was ethnic cleansing in Bagdad that actually brought the violence down.”—Barack Obama

I have to admit that I was riveted to Laura Ingraham’s show this morning. She was dissecting the Terry Moran interview of Barack Obama, the first ‘sit down’ interview of the presidential candidate since his trip to Bagdad.

The show was riveting quite simply because the statements that Obama was making were stunning—and not due to his brilliance, wit, or charisma. No, they were stunning in what they revealed about how the conniving, snot nosed pol thought he could wiggle and squirm his way out of an uncomfortable spot and spin his errors into examples of his brilliance.

One must remember that this is “Mr. Change”, the would-be messiah who will free America of the grip of the years of Bush “mistakes”, liberate Americans from the war in Iraq, fight global terrorism, reset the economy, protect our country, redistribute wealth in a more just manner, etc.

But in the interview, Obama was asked about whether or not the surge was successful, to which he replied that there was no way that he could have anticipated that there would be a convergence of events, such as the Sunni leaders turning against al Qaida, and the Shiite leaders standing down, and our “wonderful troops” performing brilliantly to combat the insurgents. He then states that if the Sunnis and Shiites had not done what they had done, then the surge would have probably failed and he would have been right.

The key to these statements is how Obama cannot simply state that he was wrong: no, indeed, he instead assumes that the American public is too stupid to analyze the illogical response to the question and come to the correct conclusion that he was wrong, he knows he was wrong, but he cannot allow the acquisition of new information to change his mind or shape his policy!

You see, instead of admitting he was wrong, he creates a hypothetical (and historically false) supposition about conditions that might have happened (but didn’t) that, had they occurred, would have made him right. It’s like saying “I could have been right if things had been different.” No shit, Sherlock! But that’s not what happened, is it?

So he instead implies that the success was purely coincidental! The Sunnis just happened to decide to attack al Qaida. The Shiites just happened to stand down and stop murdering their fellow citizens. Oh, and by the way…there were some American soldiers running around in circles who just got lucky and didn’t make things worse.

The truth is, however, that US commanders had employed a brilliant counter insurgency strategy that worked. Liberals, listen up: it’s OK to be proud of the fact that the US, unlike other military forces in the world, actually learns from its past mistakes, such as the military strategy employed during Viet Nam, has refined its techniques and has employed them successfully in Iraq. Abu Graib and a few other minor distractions aside, the US military policy of engaging the Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders has brought them around to our side. US pressure on the Maliki government to strike a reasonable and just deal with all the ethnicities in Iraq has worked. And the refusal to state a timeline to exit sent a message that the US would not turn tail. Finally, recognizing that there were too few boots on the ground (a mistake we can place squarely on the shoulders of Donald Rumsfeld) and rectifying that mistake in the strategy known as the surge was the right thing to do. It provided enough power and security to reassure the Sunnis and Shiites that the US forces would provide them cover while they confronted the (Muslim) foreign terrorists who were murdering their citizens.

So, no matter what your opinion about the origin of the war, the US broke Iraq, and Bush has been dedicated to doing what he can to leaving the country in as good a condition as possible.
Obama, on the contrary, seems so determined to win office and power that he has no qualms at all with leaving the country as a morass of violence, injustice, and a haven for al Qaida—and I know the argument that al Qaida was not in Iraq until we invaded, but history shows that Bin Laden and his crew announced their determination to make Iraq their primary battleground, in order to hand the US a painful defeat and win prestige around the world. They may not have been there in the beginning, but there were ordered there en masse by their general, Bin Laden, who in effect turned that war into his cause célèbre. Thus, victory for the US would help to restore of the US prestige that Obama claims to want to recover, would send a message to its allies (such as the beleaguered Afghan government) that the US will honor its commitments and is willing to sacrifice alongside the citizens of those countries. Oh, and not least of all—a US victory in Iraq would also be a significant victory over al Qaida—strategically, tactically, and morally.

The Obama doctrine, on the other hand, would send the message to the world that the US will only look out for its own interests and—if the going gets tough—will abandon the field faster than the French in Indochina. You can at least say that Obama is consistent in his willingness to abandon America’s friends: his “use ‘em and leave ‘em” policy also extends to our good allies in Colombia, with whom he does not believe we should have a free trade agreement until they prove their commitment to human rights—oh, but thank you for putting Colombian lives at risk to save our hostages.

Viva Uribe! (but no free trade for you!)

Pardon me while I digress.

So here is Obama’s conundrum: how do you keep the far left happy (they will only settle for unconditional surrender and retreat in Iraq), while moving to the center (who would like to see the US leave victorious), without admitting that the heretofore stated policies are a recipe for defeat?

Ah, repackage the war! Brilliant. And thus, we have the following illogical statements.
In the same interview, Obama stated that “Iraq is a part of the war on terror”, but then said that “this war {in Iraq} distracts us from the war on terror.” What?
Allow me to create a silly hypothetical. It’s rather cartoonish, but hey, if it wasn’t, the liberals wouldn’t be able to understand it. So let’s pretend it’s a Hollywood film and see if they can follow the logic.

Let’s suppose for a moment that there was a terror attack in Gotham city, and the local police went after the perpetrator of the crime—Albert Kayda, but we’ll just call him “Al”. This led them to one part of the city, perhaps a very seedy neighborhood, in Al was able to get support from the local community and hide from law enforcement.

Meanwhile, in another neighborhood, a gang of thugs sympathetic to the cause of the original terrorists continued making threats of violence against the city and even tried to assassinate the Police Chief. So the Police go into that neighborhood to clean out that haven of evil-doers.
Now, pretend that the original group of terrorists decided that they wanted to humiliate the police by defeating them in their battle against the second group of criminals. So Al sends his minions into that neighborhood to fight against the police.

Along comes candidate for mayor, Barry Bonehead, and he declares that the new struggle is “part of the battle against terrorism” but “is a distraction from the battle against the terrorists”, and his plan would be to leave that neighborhood and go have a sit-down talk with Al.

This, in a childish nutshell, is the situation we’re in. The current Chief called for additional boots on the ground to win the raging gun battle, and it is now clear that this was the right move.
So how would candidate Barry explain his erroneous position? With the following brilliant statement:

“No one has a crystal ball…if you did you could just hire the guy with a crystal ball.”—Barack Obama.

Now, we come to the most startling of Obama’s statements. While trying to explain away the US victory over the terrorists and insurgents, Obama said that “there was ethnic cleansing in Bagdad that actually brought the violence down.”

Gulp!

What was that? Are you saying that ethnic cleansing is an effective tool for conflict resolution?

Stop the trial of Serbian war criminals, everyone! The Obama Policy from here on will be to legitimize ethnic cleansing, as long as it reduces violence.

Hey there! Sudan, you hear that?

Yo! Muggabe in Zimbabwe, did you get that message?

Ethnic cleansing can reduce violence.
When America is victorious, it's an accident.
We will not stand by our friends and allies, unless they respect human rights.
The war on terror is a distraction from the war on terror.

Yep. Obama represents CHANGE all right.

Black Holes and race baiting

You know, it’s hard to get work done when there is so much stupidity in the world.

Folks, here we go again. As I have said before, the new Obama-era is going to trigger a landslide of bizarre behavior from blacks, and here is just the latest example.

While in a Dallas city council meeting, a councilman was discussing how paperwork entering a department was getting lost, and he described it by saying “it’s like central collection is becoming a black hole.” Scientifically a “black hole” is a collapsed star whose gravity is so strong, nothing can escape. No light is emitted, and thus the object is totally dark, hence "black."

Two black councilmen sitting near him were offended by the reference to a "black hole", which they believed was clearly a “racist” comment. And, they demand an apology.

“In this day and age, with diversity, you don’t go around making that kind of comment.”

Hey, it’s part of God’s creation: God must be a RACIST!

The commissioner explained it this way. “It’s like angel cake, and devil cake. If it’s white, it’s angel cake. If it’s black, it’s devil cake. If you barter, that’s good. But if you Jew someone down, that’s bad. ‘Hey, I thought it was alright!’ NO, NO IT’S NOT!”

Oooh, great logic!

Now, let’s be real about this. There very well may be some phrases that are anachronistic vestiges of the era of Slavery, and therefore could conceivably perpetuate a discriminatory meaning. "That's the pot calling the kettle black" is one of the phrases. "Cracking a whip" is another that always makes me a little uncomfortable in "diverse" settings. The other day, a black coworker used the phrase regarding the white project manager. I cringed...should I have been offended? Was he calling her a "massa"? A "cracker"? I don't think so. I think he was just using a common idiom and had no hidden agenda.

But of course, it's ok, because he's black. What if SHE had used that phrase?

Well, this is so irritating; I’m just going “to call a Spade a Spade.” (is that an offensive term? Doesn't it just refer to cards?)

Commissioner Wiley is either one ignorant dumb ass, or is a classic race-baiter.

Maybe we should put him on a “BLACK LIST”. I hope this issue does not leave the other commissioner with a "BLACK EYE".

It might even put a "BLACK MARK" on his record.

I guess it's racist for doctors to carry a "BLACK BAG".

We need to redefine the term "IN THE BLACK" for your budget: it used to be a good thing, but now it must be racist.

Why? Because in this day and age, "we have diversity."

This most recent stupidity takes place just days after Jesse Jackson blasted Obama for "talking down to black people", making Jackson want to "cut his nuts off". See, apparently it's degrading for a black candidate to speak to other blacks and say that they need to take some responsibility for their own actions. Quit talking down to them, Barry! They can't take care of their own problems, don't you know? They are too busy "driving while black"!

And then there was the article from Brittain, in which it was decided that children who say "yuck" to ethnic food they are not familiar with are "racist". That's right!!! If you introduce your child to jerk chicken or boiled mustard greens, and the child doesn't like it--the child is a RACIST!

That's like saying the child is a racist if he is scared of the dark!