Sister Souljah Moment

Sen. Barack Obama has played out his Sister Souljah Moment by leaving Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which he attended for nearly two decades. How does this conform to his image as the “principled” candidate? It sure looks shabby, opportunistic and political in the best Clinton “old politics” tradition. However, what may look like hard-edged, cynical, politics coming from the redneck, Clinton, looks just plain shabby coming from the “change agent”.

Amazingly, sadly, this cynical ploy will probably work. The desperate Liberal opinionators are most likely busy this very minute writing up a defense and rationale for why this is such a noble and courageous move. His stated reason is rather convoluted and “family” oriented; it should give his clackers plenty to work with. No chance that they will ask the obvious question: “What took you so long?”

Of course, if he was really cool and bold, he’d return to his father’s religion, Islam. The Liberals would swoon with joy and ecstasy at his heroic affirmation of his culture. As it is, there is no chance that this new “act of faith” would trigger any questions – obvious, but very cynical – about the depth and sincerity of his religious commitment and his much-admired decision to become a “Christian” twenty years ago, with the guidance of his beloved uncle Jeremiah. Were both actions really just to enhance his political viability? Again, shades of Bill Clinton.

The Real Appeasment Analogy

The current debate about Bush’s Knesset speech, its applicability to the present time and to Obama’s “dialogue” obsession, is hung up on the appeasement at Munich but misses a much more pertinent analogy. Liberal apologists for Obama laugh off the analogy between Hitler and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by, in effect, saying that no way is Iran now as relatively powerful, compared to us, as Germany was to the British and French in 1938; the implication being that we can take action before the situation got to Munich proportion, if we can’t talk Iran out of its ambitions. This could be true- if we had any will to fight (or if our putative president had a reputation of being willing to fight), instead of JUST talk, perpetually!

The situation now is much more analogous to 1936 when Hitler’s occupied the Rhineland. Hitler succeeded then, and we were headed on the path to Munich, because of the neglect and appeasement by Britain and France when he blatantly broke the Versailles Treaty. The French were dysfunctional and the British saw the “reasonableness” and even justice of Germany’s action. At that point Hitler was weak and, as he admitted, "If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs."

Post-war research showed that the German military were so afraid of disaster that they might have carried out a coup to oust Hitler from power if Germany had to withdraw in humiliation. Such an “illegal” action by the German military (oh the Liberal caterwauling!) would have saved the world incalculable tragedies and suffering.

But, of course, the irresolute democracies did nothing, preferring Oxford debates on banishing war to action that would have deterred a bully and tyrant before he had accumulated the power to be a real threat.

“Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”.

How Dare You?

In their zeal to blacken Bush and McCain and to provide support and cover for Obama and the other Democratic appeasers, the New York Times imputed to Bush the charge of equivalencing Israeli dealings with an enemy (Syria), with appeasing the Nazis. How despicably low can they go? Moral equivalency and excuse-by-equivalency are part of the Liberal stock in trade; NOT what moral people would be expected to do.

On the specific issue of Israeli negotiation with Syria:
1) Syria was the real obstacle to negotiations between the two countries, making preemptive demands before they would engage in negotiations. An essential element of negotiation is that each side has something to trade that the other side wants. Israel and Syria need to find out if they have compelling interests to overcome their mutual hatred and mistrust - enough to make a deal beneficial to both of them. As a corollary, perhaps we see here the salutary effect of a punch in the nose to a bully to get his attention - as the Israeli raid on the Syrian nuclear facility no doubt was. Sometimes, hard action is what is called for to move the process along and to facilitate "engagement". Are you paying attention, Mr. Obama?

2) There is a huge difference between low level diplomats getting together in a 3rd country to explore possibilities, and a full show of acceptance and head-to-head photo ops that enhance thugs - which is what Obama was initially proposing, in response to a question on one of the interminable Democratic Party debates. He seems to have backed off, now, to sort of proposing a step-by-step approach (in fact similar with what has been going on all along, as it should be). Obama is just full of feel-good talk that is intended for consumption by his self-righteous followers. That is not something he can indulge in if he is in high office. Obama and his talk of open negotiation and "engagement" is the perfect illustration of the term "fuzzy headed Liberal". If he were a woman, some unkind person might even call him "ditzy".

3) To the extent that the US was discouraging Israel from talking to Syria, we and they can have different strategic interests and differing perspectives every once in a while; we have that with all our allies at one time or another.

If the NY Times is the "objective" source of news and analysis it claims to be, they need to curb their ideological zeal and political imperatives and not allow them to get in the way of dispassionate reporting and commentary. We all realize how desperate the Times and the rest of the Liberal media are to ease Obama's way to the White House, but a little fairness, too, please! Perhaps that is too much to ask of the Liberals - after all, they ARE trying to bring the exotic messiah to his rightful position as head of the nation, to redeem us and cleanse us of our sins.

Another Name For Terrorism

The "thinkers" in Washington and in the press are very concerned that the term "war on terror" is insulting to our Muslim "brethren". They have had meetings (and follow-on "white papers" and projects) on this "troubling" issue with so-called American Muslim leaders to find the best terminology to avoid this insult to Islam and Muslims. We do want them to love us so!

The "problem" with the phrase "war on terror" started immediately after 9/11 when GWB (perhaps trying to protect the future viability of the Bush family business) would not characterize the conflict for what it really is: A DEFENSIVE war against Islam - no more no less! The sickening displays of Bush's sycophancy towards Muslims, in general, and the Saudis, in particular, should make the stomach of every patriotic American and lover of Western culture and society turn in disgust. It is the only part of Bush's foreign and domestic policy that is truly objectionable

All discussions about terminology is obfuscation, pure and simple. TERROR is a tool that can be used for any fanatic cause; ISLAM is an ideology and a cult that we must fight. It has invaded (literally) our country, and stands in opposition to our interests and well-being around the world. All the soothing words not withstanding, there is absolutely NO compatibility between Islam and free, secular and democratic societies.

If it had not been for our idiotic immigration and refugee policies over the last 40 years, allowing unfettered access to the Muslim barbarians to our countries, we would not have to worry about winning their "hearts and minds" and their good-will so that they wouldn't get really mad at us and attack us in our own homeland.

Allowing these barbarians to come and settle here and eventually overwhelm us is a disaster in the making. It is the most disastrous social policy since the Romans allowed the first barbarian "refugees" to settle within the borders of the Empire.

The best remedy is control or (if necessary) expulsion. In the meantime, until a truly patriotic government comes into power here, we must watch our back, individually and collectively.

The Curse Of Unintended Consequences

In support of a spurious ruling by a state court in upstate New York, the Governor has decreed that the state will now recognize all marriages legally contracted in any state in the US and in any foreign country. While the ruling is ostensibly intended to advance the cause of Gay marriage (that is the state's only STATED intent), one has to wonder whether the do-gooders in NY have really thought through all the consequences of this action; certainly, Liberal judges will not have - or maybe they INTEND the ruling to be the "foot-in the door" for more radical "social advances".

Since America's idiotic immigration laws open the country to citizens from all over the world (the more exotic source-country, the better - something we are constantly propagandized to "celebrate") NY will now be required to recognize all legal marriage arrangements from all over the world, no matter how outrageous we might normally have thought they might be (ooooh, so judgmental!).

It is almost certain that NY will now be required to recognize Muslim polygamous marriages from our wonderful, diverse, immigrant populations. Already, we were expected - and most duly obliged - to "celebrate" the immigrants from Mali who perished in a fire in the Bronx in March 2007: never mind that some of the family were here illegally or that the "head of the household" had two wives being partly supported by our welfare system. After all, we are in the throes of facile righteousness, here! Now that the Governor has so kind-heartedly and arbitrarily changed the law, we can expect a flood of these "hard working" Muslim immigrants to step forward, whether they are already in-country or not, to make their full claims on our society.

However, polygamy may only be the beginning of this new national adventure in diversity. In many countries, first-cousin and uncle-niece marriages are quite common. Oh well, there go the incest laws!

Also quite common in these countries are child marriage and marriage between adult males and under-age girls (many polygamous, too). Did the Governor think about these "legal" marriages?

Barack Obama's polygamous father (and presumably, the son, too) would be so pleased.

Our diversification adventure continues! Allahu Akbar!

False Hopes

As reported in today’s NY Times Article: "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama", Mr. Obama is out looking for Jewish votes in Florida (and presumably in other places with significant Jewish populations).
The sub-theme of this article is how Liberal Jews are reconciling themselves (or rather, being bamboozled into being reconciled) to the exotic messiah when all their instincts tell them to be wary. Jews have so bought in to the Liberal dream – or even further Leftist fantasies - about the "brotherhood of man", that they will follow anyone nominated by the Democrats, even against their better judgments. Jews still dream of the great Kumbaya moments from the 30’s through early 60’s when they supported the Civil Rights movement, giving their money, their time and even their lives for the cause. Those days of amity and camaraderie are – sadly - long past. Jews are still the great proponents of multiculturalism and its corollary, large-scale immigration from the 3^rd world to achieve the Liberal Nirvana off America as a “majority-minority” country. One day – too late - they may see beyond their ideological blinders and realize that they are a part of the soon-to-be white minority. Too late they will understand what a danger to their interests and safety – what a disaster - large Muslim immigration into America will be. Obama is the candidate of the Left and will be the champion of “people of color” (most definitely including the Palestinians and other Muslims) in the US and in foreign policy. His friendship and empathy for Palestinian “intellectuals” in the academic world (after all, he is supposed to be an intellectual!) will manifest itself in his foreign policy and perhaps in domestic policy, too. Terrorist suspects in the US, rejoice! Discussion of this “affinity” is very muted in the mainstream (Liberal) press. In the recent NY Times article about Obama’s Chicago background, his associations with his Palestinian friends are conveniently buried deep in the article.
There are Jewish politicians, like Lieberman and Koch, who long ago awakened from the "sweet dream" to the hard reality of what the academic Left, now represented by Obama, advocate in foreign policy: hatred of the United States and all it stands for; hatred of anyone who is closely identified with US foreign policy, most especially Israel. The best that Obama can ever be, as far as Mid-East issues are concerned, is another Jimmy Carter. Do any but deracinated, self-hating, "desperate to be loved", Jews think that is good enough? Obama will have the remnants of the Democratic/academic Left in his administration or as advisers. People like the currently-silenced Samantha Power (who advocated that the US invade Israel to "save" Jenin) and Anthony Lake (too far Left and pacifist even for the Clintons) are waiting in the wings for their moment in the sun.
As for the Jewish "leaders" supporting Obama - as for politicians in general - ideological myopia and personal aggrandizement triumph over national interests every time!

Two Articles - Two Candidates

Two articles in today's NY Times ("The McCain Doctrines" and "The Long Run: The Story of Obama, Written by Obama") should illustrate, for any objective observer, the chasm between the qualifications of the two prospective candidates for the presidency this year. Obama is all biography, while McCain has given long and deep consideration to one of the most pressing issues in this campaign. foreign policy and the place and obligation of America in the world.

Of course, in keeping with current political and intellectual fashion, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media have given their collective hearts to Obama, the candidate of "change" and the man who "looks like the rest of the world" and who will make us loved everywhere. The irony is that the"intellectual" Obama, the darling of the self-selected "intelligentsia" - Harvard-educated, expounding in mellifluous tones - is considered the intellectual candidate, while "old as dirt" McCain is derided as the Bush-clone military know-nothing - all patriotism and gore, and no thought.

The two articles, by the leftist Times, taken together, show that the opposite is true. Obama is running on his biography; no one can be certain what his true beliefs are and what his policy will be - except that it will be pleasing to the (often anti-American) pacifist Left. He will do whatever it takes to avoid taking hard actions displeasing to the academics and Liberal think tanks. How he arrives at his policies, beyond being true to the ideological biases of the Left is unknown. There is not even any exposition on what exactly he proposes to do beyond "get out of Iraq" (how? what will happen when we leave? does it matter?) and to "engage our adversaries". His defenders have taken every shameful intellectual short-cut (even resorting to non sequitur and false analogies) to hide the shallowness of his thinking and the lack of his experience and record on the issues: WHAT exactly is he going to require Israel to do to "accommodate" the "rights" of the Palestinians? How is he going to engage Iran? What incentives is he planning to offer Iran beyond what the pusillanimous Europeans have already offered? Bush was right: Any further talks with Iran can only be the basis for appeasement!

The Times' magazine article discusses in depth how McCain arrived at his beliefs, from his education in the military, through his personal experience of war and defeat, to his participation in decision-making on world crises over the last 20 years. Nothing in Obama's background, education or intellectual musings come close to matching the deep thought that McCain has given these issues. McCain's opinions and conclusions may not please the one-world, feel-good, hard-left, but that is more the fault of their constricted theoretical world-view than it is the fault of McCain's realism and hard-learned lessons.

It is sad and extremely dangerous that the electorate, in their short-term desperation and dislike of Bush and the Iraq war, will be bamboozled into handing America's foreign policy and national interests to Obama and his leftist clique. Shades of 1976, when America turned the presidency over to Carter, as a reaction to Nixon and Ford, which led us into the current world of fanatic Muslim power run wild. Carter's inaction in the face of the overthrow of the Shah and the humiliation of the hostage crisis validated the Iranian "Islamic Revolution", which became the model for all the follow-on Islamic radicals' successes. The Iranian revolution should have been strangled in the cradle, as an object lesson to the crazies of the world of the fate that would await them if they dared to move against America's interests or to attempt to humiliate us by terroristic actions.

Bush lectures Arab world on political reform

An honest man tells the truth. In a series of speechs, Bush trumps all the caterwauling on the politically correct left and TELLS THE TRUTH! How outrageous! All the purveyors of facile righteousness, the moral equivocators and "cultural sensitivity" crowd will be out in force to denounce the man for telling the unvarnished truth.
Where is his sensitivity to the down-trodden "other"? What can he be thinking of? He wants them to be held accountable for their actions and in-actions; for the shortcomings of their "culture"? Really, the man should be shot! Is it any wonder he is being chased out of office? Where does he come off demanding accountability, and daring to just tell the plain truth?
As a minimum, he would have been expected to show "sensitivity" and "empathy" for those poster children of victimism, the Palestinians. But Nooooo! There he goes just praising their "oppressors" for creating a peaceful, democratic, productive society in the face of genocidal, fanatic actions by the "oppressed" (5 million people oppressing 300 million, yet). How dare the Israelies succeed like that? Must be the nefarious plotting and treachery of the world-wide Jewish conspiracy. And Bush has the audacity to praise them and congratulate them?
There is no limit to the depth of depravity and evil of this man!
God bless you, Dubya. We will miss you.

Lebanon and Spain

Does this seem familiar? A democratically elected government is under attack by fascists while the "western democracies" dither and cavil about legality and legitimacy and (by all means!) "we must engage with our enemies and have sustained dialog with them".

Again, as in Spain in the 1930s, a friendly and (semi-) democratic government is facing an onslaught by fascists. As we dither, the fascist powers (now Syria and Iran in place of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy) provide full support for their surrogates, Hezbollah. All the rationalization about how Hezbollah is really a "nationalist movement" (after all they are fighting the dirty Jewish imperialists!) cannot hide the basic moral cowardice of the West. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing”.

As for the Lebanese government, it serves them right! If they had taken the opportunity in 2006, when Israel tried to neutralize Hezbollah, and joined in the fray to finally annihilate the Islamic monster, they could have had full possession of their country now. They could have then settled whatever minor, petty, political differences they have between the various "confessional" communities and resumed their progress towards full democracy and participation in western society. Instead they let their hatred of Israel and its very existence to blind them to their own interests, to embrace the Lebanese "nationalist" charade and to support the "heroic fighters" of Hezbollah. They could not possibly have been stupid enough to actually believe that their "national interests" were the same as Hezbollah's, which were perfectly happy to act as the surrogates of Syria and Iran against Israel - and within Lebanon, itself. Hoist on their own petard, indeed.