oil ticks

There is something more than a little discomfiting about this image: the leader of the free world holding hands with an unelected absolute monarch of a “nation” that is directly responsible for much of the Islamic terror around the world.

The Saudis have unearned oil wealth; wealth they did not have the ability to tap by themselves. But, with Western know-how, they now reap unearned billions from us. We’ve had a “special relationship” with the Saudis at least since Saint Franklin Delano Roosevelt first got on his knees (metaphorically, of course) to get the Saudis to sell us the oil we needed to fight World War II.

Very little has changed; all American presidents have had to do the same, in order to keep the oil flowing. The usual name for this is sycophancy — we suck up to the oil ticks in the hope that they won’t turn off the spigot.

The Saudis are particularly despicable because of their hypocrisy. High rates of syphilis and other STDs, most work in the kingdom done by immigrants, Saudis acting very much like drunken sailors on liberty when they go abroad. That’s the picture painted by their actions. So much for Islamic piety.

And yet the Saudis do export the most rabid form of Islam, Wahhabism, which is one of the root causes of Islamic terror. They also export terrorists, including those 15 wonderful Saudi patriots who brought down the World Trade Center.

And still we beg them; our president is refused when he asks these oil ticks for increased production to ease our pains at the gas pump. From the (WSJ article), some considerations:

Mr. Bush’s visit to Saudi Arabia came as Democrats in Washington ratcheted up pressure on him to take a tougher line on the kingdom…

Next week, the House is expected to vote on more legislation that could embarrass Mr. Bush, including a so-called “NOPEC” bill that would allow the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC-controlled entities. Senate Democrats, meanwhile, are pushing the legislation to block pending arms deals with Saudi Arabia until production increases by one million barrels per day.

The Democratic measures face an almost certain veto from Mr. Bush should they be approved by Congress.

The Bushes have oil tick contacts going back decades; they and the oil ticks are best buds from the Bushies oil days in Texas. Nothing to see here, move along…

In this case, the Democrats are exactly right, if perhaps for the wrong reasons (they’re doing it to embarrass Bush): we should not be selling the Saudis anything they want unless they meet all of our demands (assuming such demands don’t violate the laws of physics, that is). Which should include ramping up production as much as they can, the instant we ask.

It is America that protects these ungrateful degenerates from other Arab degenerates who would overthrow the monarchy. How about they show some gratitude? How about we show some spine and start making credible threats against our enemies the Saudis?

“Christian leader”

Got to give Obama high marks for trying. He’s wearing an American flag lapel pin. You know, the pin he earlier said wasn’t needed to show his patriotism, and which he had not worn during the primaries until now.

Now, because of the controversy surrounding his long-time association with the anti-American, anti-white pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s attempting to demonstrate his Christian street cred. The story headline in the Wall Street Journal is the straightforward “Obama Courts Christian Voters in Kentucky.”

Well, despite his name, Obama isn’t a Muslim, although his sympathies towards Islam are likely more, uh, nuanced than those of most Christians. But since exit polls from West By God Virginia demonstrate that Barack Hussein Obama’s got some credibility problems with white Christians, what’s a politician to do?

Go into full Elmer Gantry mode, reinventing himself as an evangelical; a go-to God guy. Which is appropriate for the One We’ve Been Waiting For. Obama’s got that cross in the background; the same image that would get any Republican in trouble. And, when an actual evangelical Christian, Mike Huckabee, showed a cross-like image, the Party of Atheists (Democrat) went nuts.

But now that Obama advertises himself as a “Christian leader” (from a campaign pamphet), why, that’s just fine.  Just God help any Republican who did this.  But Obama will now sell himself as a devout Christian, but, in classic lefty terms, his campaign issued a statement that says he doesn’t really believe that you need to be a Christian. All faiths are good, so long as they vote for Obama. From the WSJ:

…the pamphlets are part of its “sincere effort to communcate the values of Sen. Obama’s own Christian faith and the hope that people of all faiths and moral backgrounds will come together.” (emphasis added)

As Christians we are required to forgive sinners who repent. Perhaps that’s what Obama’s folks meant by asking that people of all “moral backgrounds” come together.  But without that annoying call for repentence; that’s just sooo judgmental…

On the other hand, I don’t believe that Obama gives a fuzzy white rat’s behind about who supports him. Ax murderers, baby killers (oh, wait, that’s policy…), doesn’t really matter. It’s all about audcaciously hoping for change.

Obama is a phony. He’s dangerous because he hides, or attempts to hide, his true nature. America must do better than this South Chicago hustler.

the 51 percent solution

No Democrat can expect to win the presidency without West By God Virginia. That is the gospel truth, brothers and sisters. Even if the Mountaineers are bitter white folk who cling to their God and their guns.

Exit polling from today’s primary is running as expected; a blowup is shaping up for Hillary. That was expected, and Obama will spin it as would any politician. But here’s something that may require an extra wash cycle before the spin (via Marc Ambinder):

51% of West Virginians believe that Barack Obama shares the worldview of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Now, people, understand that this is just over a majority of Democrats. One might wonder what would be the comparable polling among independents and Republicans.  I’d have to guess it wouldn’t be less than a solid majority.

Unknown is whether such a belief (which I do not share) would be a deal-breaker for a potential Obama voter.   It would be for me; I wouldn’t vote for Obama solely because he kept so close to Wright for two decades — says something about the man’s judgment, at the least.

If I believed that Obama shared Wright’s anti-American, anti-white views, there’s not a chance in hell I’d vote for him.   If this is the case among West Virginia Democrats, his campaign is doomed in West Virginia. And hence, nationally.

Go long on Obama-the-moderate futures

Gerald Seib and John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal wrote a front-page affront to logic.  The thesis is that John McCain and Barack Obama  “got ahead largely by arguing they have unique abilities to bring people together in Washington.”   They also added this:

Voters are pulling politicians toward the middle of the ideological spectrum by registering as independents and calling for centrist solutions. A new cast of political players — some young, most little-known to the nation — is emerging to show that there are ways to transcend gridlock by reaching across the aisle.

This may be valid for McCain; the part about reaching across the aisle certainly is.  Which explains why he is so much on the outs with some Republicans who claim ideological purity.  For Obama, there is no validity to any claim that he is “post-partisan” in any way, shape, or form.  His background contains no substantive examples of bipartisanship, and his voting is straight liberal and party line.

As for Obama “arguing” that he has unique abilities to bring people together, that’s all he’s got.  An argument; the gift of gab.  We’ve elected folks on this, and less.  But we can and should do better than that proverbial sack of sunshine promises.

Obama’s past (and current) associations with radicals such as Ayers and Wright have caused his true beliefs to come into a harsh light, and paint him as anything but moderate.  The best one might claim about Obama is that he has changed his ways and now is willing to work with moderates and conservatives.  This requires one to go long on Obama-the-moderate futures.  Risky business when we’re electing a commander-in-chief.

The Seib-Harwood article struck me as totally inconsistent with the reality of Barack Obama, liberal out-of-touch elitist.

Symbolic racism

Ah, symbolism. The PoMo Prof just can’t let go of those symbols; must deconstruct and unpack them. Reading an otherwise reasonable and well-reasoned article in the WaPo by a professor from Emory University, I was abruptly brought up short by this sentence:

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination.

The plain meaning of this sentence? Black poverty and other problems are largely the result of white racism and discrimination.

This is Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson territory, and it looks like it’s taken hold in academia. But that’s no surprise. What is surprising is to see it so boldly stated by a white professor. Usually the academics are much more subtle about blaming whites for all black problems.

Is there still white racism? Sure; just as Jeremiah Wright reminds us there is also black racism. We are human, and therefore sin. Among those sins is the sin of tribalism: marking those different from us in some outward aspect as the “other.” That will be with us always; the best we can do is minimize its impact.

Writers such as this Emory prof would drag us back to those antebellum days when all bad things that befall blacks can be pinned on whites. This is, in its way, just as wrong as those who, even today, pine for a renewed Confederacy, complete with chattel slavery.

Understatement of the day

This Times (U.K.) article illustrates a continuing problem of Obama and those he turns to for counsel. This time it’s a pro-Hamas worthy, one Robert Malley, who’s been advising Obama’s campaign on the Middle East.

This makes some sense. After all, Hamas is pro-Obama, it makes sense there’s some kind of quid pro quo.

Of course no one will step right up and claim to be pro-Hamas who expects to gain our presidency. I don’t believe for a moment that Barack Hussein Obama is pro-Hamas. Just that he’s got the moral blindness to not care if his associates are. Or, in a more charitable interpretation, to care but not know the difference.

From the Times, this from the McCain campaign:

Randy Scheunemann, Mr McCain’s foreign policy chief, suggested that Mr Malley was part of an emerging pattern in which other advisers had been repudiated after throwing confusion over policies on trade and Iraq. “Perhaps because of his inexperience Senator Obama surrounds himself with advisers that contradict his stated policies,” he said.

To state that it is because of Obama’s ‘inexperience” is both an understatement and an excuse.  I prefer this reason, in plainer speech: Obama simply says what he believes his audience wants to hear at that time.  He has no core values, other than gaining and holding power.

Invade Burma?

Can’t help some folks. Looks like the Burmese charmers have effectively continued their program of paranoia. According to the Wall Street Journal,

Myanmar’s military regime took control of a United Nations aid shipment and said some foreign workers were not welcome as aid officials and diplomats warned the death toll from Cyclone Nargis may exceed 100,000.

Americans in particular are among those “some foreign workers not welcome.” Who woulda thunk it. A brutal military dictatorship hates the world’s most successful free republic. Don’t worry, you thugs in Rangoon. President Obama will just love to sit down to tea and biscuits with you…

It’s been suggested that we might force better behavior in Burma by invading. See, for example, Gordon Chang’s piece at Contentions. But this is a strawman, and Gordon deals with it logically:

Invade? The international community cannot “protect” the Burmese people from a military government without employing military means. The United Nations, of course, is not prepared to use force. So Burmese by the tens of thousands will perish.

Not that it isn’t eminently satisfying to want to see the military dictatorship’s leaders’ heads on pikes. How much of the Burmese tragedy was caused by the dictatorship (late or no notification; blocking aid) is not and will likely never be known with any accuracy. But we must know this by now: it’s not our problem as a nation. It may be our problem as individuals; the Burmese remain our “neighbors” and we must love them.

But let that love not blind us to the reality that it is not right for us to use our already stretched-thin military for un-military purposes.

Regime change in Burma? Why not start in Sudan, to end the Arab genocide of black Africans? Why not assassinate Mugabe and all his co-conspirators in Zimbabwe? Iran looks like a tempting target, as well. The list is long. But our limited success in Iraq should have taught us a little humility before we talk of regime change backed by our military elsewhere.

Let us provide material aid to Burma as best we’re able to; perhaps on the sly through the United Nations (those idiots ought to be good for something). But let’s not pretend we can fix everything that is wrong with the world.

Kitchen; heat; leave

Barack the Whiner is at it again. This time, he doesn’t like that mean old man, John McCain. Who has had the temerity to agree that Hamas has endorsed Obama. From an earlier post, here’s the enthusiastic endorsement:

During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision.

“We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Now, what McCain said in response to this was, “All I can tell you, Jennifer [Rubin, at Contentions], is that I think it’s very clear who Hamas wants to be the next President of the United States.”

That is a true statement. Hence can not be a “smear,” as was claimed by Barack the Whiner during a love-in with Wolf Blitzer.  What comes close to a smear, however, is the very personal attack by Obama on McCain:

…for him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don’t need name calling in this debate.

Except, of course, when I, the Chosen One, do the name-calling. This being a family blog, I will not write what body part Barack Hussein Obama, friend to terrorists, foreign (Hamas) and domestic (Ayers), most resembles.

Memo to your team, BO:  those of us closer in age to John McCain than to you and your unlovely spouse tend to resent being accused of “losing our bearings.”  It’s thinly veiled code for “why don’t you shuffle off to Boca Raton and die, geezer.”  And we actually vote in very large numbers.  Very much unlike the young’uns who cheer and shout about you but typically don’t get out and vote in November.

Oh, and news flash, Barack Baby: John McCain isn’t “pursuing” the nomination. He’s got his, even as you have yet to find the right kind of stake to drive into the Ice Queen’s heart. Eat your heart out, and good luck with keeping Hillary off the ticket and still winning. ‘Cause that just won’t happen.

All glory to the hypnoLimbaugh

They oughta know: the Obama camp believes that people are sheep; upon being given marching orders will bleat obediently and go and do precisely as they are ordered to do. Hey, it works for ObamaMessiah, it’s obviously working for the hypnoLimbaugh.

Case in point is “Operation Chaos,” a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get Republicans and independents who listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio to go and vote for Hillary. Would that OC had been a success earlier in the Democratic primary season. But that doesn’t stop those who consider voters to be mere automatons from complaining.

From the WaPo, here’s the whine from the Obama for Savior camp:

[Obama] aides charged yesterday that they would have had an even stronger showing were it not for meddling by an unlikely booster of Hillary Rodham Clinton: the popular conservative radio host and longtime Clinton family nemesis Rush Limbaugh.

The impact of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” emerged as an intriguing point of debate, particularly in Indiana, where registered voters could participate in either party’s primary, and where Clinton won by a mere 14,000 votes. As he had before several recent primaries, Limbaugh encouraged listeners to vote for Clinton to “bloody up Obama politically” and prolong the Democratic fight.

The problem, if that’s what it is, is that some states hold open primaries in which you don’t need to be a registered member of the political party holding the primary. Now I personally think that’s dumb for starters. If you care about the nominee of a particular party, get off your lazy butt and register to vote in that party’s primary. But state parties do all sorts of dumb things, so an open primary is just one of those things presumably meant to attract folks into their tent.

Even though I’m a registered Republican, I was attracted into the Democrat tent on primary day here in Virginia; I’ve never been one to pass up temptation. Not because I’d heard about “Operation Chaos” or listened to Rush Limbaugh (I don’t). So, why go down among the primitives, armed only with my driver’s license? Simple: to vote for Hillary Clinton as the lesser of two evils in the open Virginia primary.

In more positive terms, I believe that Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Barack Obama. So I voted as an American, to do the best for my nation. As the WaPo article illustrates, that’s probably what motivated at least some of the crossover voters this past Tuesday.

As for attempting to sow chaos amongst the Democrats? They don’t need Rush Limbaugh or me or thee to do that. They’ve done that quite well all by themselves, thank you very much.

Think of the children

The Democratic Party continues to treat blacks like children. They’re assumed to always be there, obedient little tykes, who will pull the lever for the Democratic candidate in overwhelming numbers.

Now that a black man is the likely Democratic nominee, those overwhelming numbers have gotten even more so: 90% of blacks can be counted on to vote for the man who is going to deliver them from the land of Egypt and Pharaoh. Or something along those messianic lines.

The reality is that some superdelegates seem to be having buyer’s remorse, because they sense a difficult election ahead. More difficult than facing the Ice Queen Hillary? Yes, if only because John McCain does not have her carloads of baggage. And he’s a man of honor and experience, of which Hillary had only the latter — if being married to Bill counts.

So, consider the plight of one superdelegate, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) (via the WaPo):

Rep. Brad Miller, an undecided superdelegate from North Carolina, said on the eve of his state’s primary that he would be uncomfortable telling the African American community in his Raleigh area district that he would choose Clinton over Obama simply because he deemed her more electable.

For “uncomfortable” you may read “scared witless.” If Miller, and other supers, believe that Obama is likely to lose to McCain, then shouldn’t they do what they’re supposed to do, and serve the greater interests of the Democratic Party?

Rhetorical question. Of course they should. But they treat their black constituents like children, unable to handle the truth. If blacks believe that any black man (or woman) is entitled to be president by virtue of his race, then they are children. Or stone racists.

How about we treat people like people, and tell them the truth as we see it? Rep. Miller’s truth may be different than mine, or yours. But doesn’t he owe it to his constituents to do so? And isn’t he engaging in a not-so-soft racism by assuming that blacks can’t handle the truth?

Yes, and yes. Don’t hold your breath, though. The supers will do what politicians usually do: take the easy road.

Do the math

First, a little data. Indiana is 88% white, 9% black. North Carolina is 74% white, 22% black. Both states went for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Exit polling in both states show about the same results, race-wise: 60 or so percent of whites went for Hillary; 90 percent of blacks went for Obama. This is not among the general population, but among voters in the Democratic primaries in both states. The vast majority of whom are Democrats or independents.

How does this bode for Obama in the general election in those states? First, overall, he’s most unlikely to do better in Republican-leaning states when all voters go to the polls than he did in the Democratic primary. It is also reasonable to assume that Obama will continue to get 90% of the black vote. I suspect that he will also not do as well among whites as Hillary did, at least in Republican-leaning states.

If the votes break as these exit polls indicate, the general election would result in a razor-thin majority for McCain in North Carolina, and a comfortable margin in Indiana. If they break as in the primary, and if the exit polling is accurate.

I suggest that Obama still overpolls; some whites are embarrassed about admitting they did not vote for a black candidate. And, in the general, it’s hard not to see more whites going for McCain than went for Hillary in the primary. At least in Republican-leaning states.

But even if we cede states like Indiana and North Carolina to McCain, what about swing states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio? They’re bitter, clingy white guy territory. Congrats on the getting the nomination, Barack. You will not win without Ohio, dude. And don’t even think about Florida, unless the Democratic Party finds some way to count their votes. Even Michigan might be in play this year, again, thanks to your party’s stupid rules.

Now get some clever writer to pen your concession speech after the November election. You’re not the one we’ve been waiting for.

ObamaMessiah

Via Byron York at NRO, this tasty peek at idolatry on the political circuit. From an invocation given by Rev. Joseph Lowery, who apparently is still with us, although at 86 he may have lost sight of who is Savior might be:

“Tomorrow, we shall achieve the victory, that the kingdom of God may come on earth as it is in heaven, and all those who love the Lord and will vote for Obama, say Amen.”

In some ways this is worse than Obama’s long-time chum and spiritual advisor, pastor and baptizer of his children, Jeremiah Wright. Wright just damned America from the pulpit, and performed pornographic gyrations thereupon.

Lowery just plain committed blasphemy. This isn’t “blackspeak.” There is no excuse; no context that makes such speech anything else but blasphemy.

For those who may have forgotten their Sunday school lessons, the kingdom of God will arrive with the second coming of Jesus. Not a moment’s before. And certainly not because of any candidate for any secular office.

Not a batty old uncle

When first publicly confronted with the rantings of his long-time pastor and spiritual adviser Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama attempted to minimize the damage by jokingly referring to Wright as some sort of batty old uncle.

But Wright isn’t Obama’s blood relative. Obama chose Trinity and Wright. You don’t get to do that with uncles. And we must not make the mistake of taking Jeremiah Wright for a joker, some kind of black Borscht Belt comedian. Obama tried that tack, with his “batty old uncle” attempt to minimize the damage.

Given Wright’s Racial Rant Tour of a week past, we’re way past being able to laugh at Jeremiah Wright. We need to take radical haters like Wright seriously. They are not joking. And know that anyone who sits in Trinity UCC for 20 years has made one of the following choices:

1. Obama knew exactly what was going on at Trinity and approved;
2. Obama knew exactly what was going on at Trinity and disapproved but since it furthered his political ambitions, did not let it bother him;
3. Obama did not have a clue to what was going on.

Which choice should a possible president of the United States have made? None of them is acceptable. Any or all should be disqualifying.

Gaumite guano

A concerned nation can breathe again.  Obama has won Guam by 7 votes.   Pop the corks on that champaign; the Dread Ice Queen has been soundly defeated.   Or, more properly, “Who gives a fuzzy white rat’s ass?”

I believe it would be proper to call citizens of Guam “Guamites.”  But here’s a better question for the class:  why is there a primary or caucus in Guam in the first place?

Citizens of Guam are not U.S. citizens except in the most technical of senses.  What’s important is that they don’t vote in our elections.  Period.   Why not hold a primary in Indonesia (Obama wins in a landslide; the madrassa crowd goes wild…) or China (Clinton wins and pockets uncounted and secret millions from guys named Hsu…)?

Seriously, what could the pretext be for having foreigners (the Guamites, or whatever they’re called) help determine who a major party nominee is going to be?  This is just plain nuts.

Somebody in the DNC should go all Pat Buchanan* on whoever thought up this nonsense.

*Pat “America First” Buchanan, that is; a/k/a Pitchfork Pat

Jawohl, mein Herr

The Germans are no longer a threat to anyone; we whupped them good the last two outings. And today, Germans are free and relatively prosperous thanks in large measure to their having abandoned their old warlike ways.

In simple terms, they don’t need to spend huge gobs of money on their national defense: we’ve done it for them. Today, Germany could probably be defeated by any number of Third World nations that may be poor, but they goose-step with the best of them. And have armies hugely disproportionate to their actual needs. Wonder where they learned to goose-step…

So it is with scorn that I read any opinion of our alleged national obsession with security from any German. Sorry, pal. You lack the bona fides to criticize us on that score. But criticize he does, in a piece in today’s WaPo.

A picture accompanying the article in the dead tree edition (not available online) shows the by-now typical Army National Guard (or they could be local police) at some U.S. airport with M-16s. Illustrating our alleged state of fear.

Fear, and preparedness, are two quite different things. Which might share some outward manifestations. We are not fearful of flying. We have learned to be prepared for would-be hijackers and terrorists who have used our airports as their points of departure.

Now, that said, I’d be the first to admit that we attack the terror problem bass-ackwards. We screen everyone, as opposed to the correct and much more effective profiling of likely miscreants.

Our chief problem isn’t fear of terror. It’s fear of being caught offsides in the political correctness game. So far we’ve been able to, in football terms, flood the zone with massive security resources. And, so far, we’ve not had any repeat of 9/11.

Getting back to the self-righteous German, here’s a datum: I was traveling through the Frankfurt (Germany, not Kentucky) airport in the mid-1990s. What caught my eye were roving patrols of German Federal police, armed with the latest in H&K submachine guns. This, at a time well before 9/11, when our airport security was, to say the least, lax.

Why the heavy arms in a civilian airport in Germany in the mid-1990s? Counter-terrorism. Seems they were having a continuing problem with some local baddies.  Perhaps our German author wasn’t awake during that time; perhaps he simply is afraid of guns.  Either way, his opinion of our state of “fear” is not worth reading.

“quasi-racial appeals”

It starts. Racial name-calling in the general campaign. The black candidate, formerly the candidate who happened to be black, Barack Obama, is now off-limits for Republican political ads. Now that Obama has become the presumptive Dem nominee, local Democratic candidates will be linked to him.

As well he should. But this is wrong, bordering on if not actually racist. At least according to this pronouncement by one Melvin Watt (D-NC), according to the WaPo:

“It’ll be very interesting to see how people react to these kind of subtle, or not so subtle, quasi-racial appeals,” said Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), a former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and an Obama supporter.

Four words: Kitchen. Heat. Get Out.

If Obama is to be the nominee, and, barring a political tsunami in North Carolina next Tuesday he remains almost certain to be the nominee, then he is fair game. The only racism would be the not-so-soft racism of lowered expectations for a black man: Obama should not be picked on; he’s black. He’ll cry if you pick on him.

Watt, not so bright he, despite his name, is one reason that explains Obama slippage in polls of late. It’s of a piece with Jeremiah Wright’s worldview: blacks can’t possibly compete in the white world; the deck is stacked against them, so why even try?

If Obama believes he can’t compete, perhaps he should concede to Hillary now. And save Democrats the embarrassment of losing an election that should have been a dead-solid lock.

Not Biblical; not Christian

Jesus is not black. This is obvious to all who acknowledge Scripture as the highest authority; it’s also obvious to all who are properly Christian who may consider the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church as the highest authority. Jesus, God incarnate in human history, was a Jew of the line of David.

What color was Jesus the man? Probably a typical Jew of the first century in Judea. Perhaps “ruddy” as was King David; perhaps olive-skinned. But certainly not a black, sub-Saharan African. But the point is that Jesus was for all men, not just the Jews. To claim a particular ethnicity to the exclusion of all others is to entirely miss the point of God’s revelation to us in the actual, historical person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Which brings me to the unchristian “black theology” that has been taken up by Barack Obama’s long-time pastor and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright. And perhaps passed on to Barack. Michael Gerson, in today’s WaPo, describes rather succinctly the problems with “black theology:”

…black liberation theology takes this argument a large step further — or perhaps backward. The Rev. Wright’s intellectual mentor, professor James Cone of Union Theological Seminary, retreats from the universality of Christianity. “Black theology,” says Cone, “refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.” And again: “Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.” And again: “In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors.”

But the deepest flaws in black liberation theology are theological, not political. Jesus did advocate a special concern for the rights and welfare of the poor and helpless. But he specifically rejected a faith defined by social and political struggle, much to the disappointment of his more zealous followers. The early church, in its wrenching decision to include gentiles as equals, explicitly rejected a community defined by ethnicity. No Christian theology that asserts “Jesus is not for all” can be biblical.

Does the man who is well-situated to becoming our next president believe that “Jesus is not for all?” Probably not. I don’t think that Barack Obama believes this, or, that he cares all that much about “black theology.” Or any theology, except for the theology of the Church of St. Barack of Obama.

Stated differently, Obama looks out for Obama. Period. Black theology is wrong, not Christian. Jeremiah Wright is wrong, not Christian if he believes in black theology. Based on recent performances, however, I’d have to guess that Wright is much more interested in the theology of Jeremiah Wright, radical rabble rouser of the South Side of Chicago. A man who appears to give little thought to what he says, so long as it keeps him in the spotlight.

“the far right”

Jeremiah Wright hijacked Christianity and put it in the service of a radical Afro-centric political agenda. Barack Obama spent two decades in Wright’s church; exposed his children to the Wright venom; only disavowed Wright when it became politically necessary.

All of this is in-bounds in the election, as it reflects on Obama’s judgment and possibly on his true thoughts on the radical Wright agenda. Not according to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, a Clinton supporter, who nonetheless wishes that we ignore this dead, rotting whale that washed up on the shores of the Obama candidacy.

From the WaPo:

Bayh said neither he nor Clinton intended to inject the Wright controversy into the primary, but he is worried that Republicans will do so in a general election. “I’m sure the far right will be out there trying to do the whole Swift Boat thing and that sort of thing.

Wright hijacked Christianity. It isn’t “far right” to simply replay what Wright has said, and repeated even within the past 48 hours. And ask the question: why did it take you so long, Barack? So long, that is, to truly tell us that you would have no part of some of Wright’s more extreme nonsense.

Whenever a liberal politico claims that a particular line of attack is “far right” you can be fairly certain he’s scared to death that us sustaining members of that Vast Right Wing Conspiracy will use it. More to the point, name-calling to divert attention from the issue at hand simply reinforces the notion that the issue itself is real.

The tactic Bayh is employing used to go by the name of McCarthyism: demonize your target, and anything he says from that point will be tainted. I used to have some respect for Evan Bayh. No more.

It’s the Wright thing to do

The Wright mess, and it’s a right old mess, indeed, should disqualify Barack Obama for the presidency. Why? Pick which scenario makes Obama and his relationship with Wright and Wright’s church look better:

Door Number One: Obama truly does not agree with Wright’s spew. And, thus, Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, but did not notice the apparently routine spewing of hate and idiocy from Jeremiah Wright’s pulpit.

Door Number Two: Obama did agree with Wright’s spew. This would paint Barack Obama as just another race hustler, and worse: a Louis Farrakhan admiring, angry black man.

Door Number Three: Obama knew what was being spread by Wright, but chose to ignore it in the name of political expediency. Why? Because Trinity UCC was a vital component for a rising and radically leftist young black politico on Chicago’s South Side. His disavowal at this late date can only be called opportunistic.

To rephrase the choices: Obama is one of these: 1) Deaf, dumb, and blind to racism. 2) Angry black man. 3) Lying politician.

The very best possible result: Barack Obama is a black politician whose word is not to be trusted. Not someone who should be president. Not someone who should be a United States Senator, but that’s up to the good folks in Illinois to correct.

Gimme Sunshine

The presidency will not be won on the basis of how many blacks voted for Obama in Mississippi or South Carolina, or how many latte-sippin’ white liberals lacking day jobs hung about in caucuses in the liberal precincts of Iowa and Wisconsin.

Nope. The election will be decided in a few big states. States like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. All with diverse populations; all in play this election. These states are not looking so bright and sunshiny for Barack Obama these days. They look a lot like Clintonville. Or McCainburg.

These four states aren’t the only ones in play, of course. But they’re typical of those that any Democrat should, nay, must win. Between them, the four states have 85 electoral votes, or a little over 31% of the total of 270 needed to win.

RealClearPolitics shows the Sunshine State to be solid McCain territory. If Obama is the Dem nominee. If Hillary is, Florida is a tossup.

In the economically depressed states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, it’s tighter, but still favoring Clinton against McCain as opposed to Obama against McCain. That these two states, in particular, could be in play, given the economic situation, is a stark reminder that Obama could well snatch defeat from those victorious mandibles.

Of course, perhaps it’s an insidious Clintonian plot: have Barack Baby nominated; get defeated; setting up Billary to triumph in 2012 as the old-new again saviors of the Democratic Party.

Democratic politics in this primary season is the best soap opera in town.

Ten dollars

Here in Virginia, ten dollars is what you need to get a state-issued photo identification card. That’s assuming you don’t have a driver’s license, in which case you don’t need an i.d. card.

It’s a fair assumption that all states have i.d. cards available to those who don’t need driver’s licenses. Indiana, whose photo i.d. law was just upheld by the Supreme Court, offers one for free.

Naturally, liberals are up in arms about the unfairness of the whole thing. Consider this tasty bit from one of the more fevered swamps of liberal expression (published online January 8, 2008 ):

If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Indiana’s harsh voter ID law, as its justices seem poised to do, hundreds of thousands of black Americans should march in protest. So should hundreds of thousands of Latino Americans. Native Americans, too. Political activists from across the ethnic spectrum should convene the biggest political demonstration since the historic March on Washington in 1963.

To the barricades, citizens! We’re being asked to show we are who we claim to be! Perhaps y’all should just take a deep breath and calm down.

First, let’s admit the truth: it’s no hardship to get an i.d. card if you don’t have a driver’s license. There is absolutely no racial or ethnic impediment. There is the need to have an address, and be able to pay a fee every 5 or 6 years (Virginia or Indiana).

So, it is possible, that those who can’t afford the $10 or so, and who are too proud to ask for public assistance, would be “disenfranchised.” I haven’t investigated, but I would wager that a true hardship case who simply can’t scrape up the money, could have the fee waived. Here in Virginia, I’m reasonably certain that would be the case.

However, it turns out that here in Virginia you do not (yet) need a photo i.d. to vote: merely some evidence, like the voter registration card you would have received from the local election board, that you live in the district in which you are voting.

Getting back to the problem, there also appears to be no evidence on either side of the argument: no one has been refused the vote due to lack of a photo i.d.; and, on the other side, there is no evidence of voter fraud.

All that said, I’m in favor of requiring voters to show a photo i.d. It minimizes the chance of fraud, and, what is more frequent (I’ve worked the polls as an election official, so I’ve got some experience) is that folks simply show up at the wrong precinct to vote. Happens often.

A photo i.d. won’t stop folks from doing this, but it will make it a lot harder for them to lie about living in the precinct (which is, unfortunately, the first response when someone shows up at the wrong place) and casting a provisional ballot.

Provisional ballots are bad news, for a lot of reasons. Not least is that it delays the final results of the election, because they then have to be vetted by election officials. Tedious pain the southern regions. It’s best to minimize them.

Seems that those who screech the loudest about “disenfranchisement” like to hear themselves. There’s no problem; blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, left-handed Laplanders, name you favorite flavor, are not being turned away in droves.  Or at all, actually.

The requirements are simple, and cheap. All are treated the same. Which is exactly the opposite of what today’s “progressives” can’t stand. They want groups favored by them to be treated differently. And that’s just plain wrong.

Self-hating black

Dana Milbank, the normally liberal political columnist/observer for the WaPo, has a good summary of the Wright fireworks of the past two days.

It’s worth reading, just as a reminder of what a rabid dog Jeremiah Wright is. Here’s one particular line of the dear reverend’s tirade that struck me, about another rabid dog, one L. Farrakhan, black Islamic radical:

Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color.

I understand the rhetorical device of “he did not put me in chains…slavery.” But the point is that it is us, dear reader, if you are of European descent and white, who put him in slavery.

Wrong as can be, Wright. But at least we can understand the point you’re trying to make. But when you write that L. Farrakhan “didn’t make me this color,” this implies that Jeremiah Wright is angry at white folks for having been born a black man.

Sounds like a self-hating black, you ask me.

No brainiac, he

Jeremiah Wright is on his Great Normalcy Tour of 2008. This is good for Hillary Clinton; even better for John McCain. Maybe not so much for Obama. In fact, I’d be inclined to believe that Obama more than kind of wishes that Jeremiah has simply shut up and gone off to live quietly in his mostly-white and expensive gated community.

Wright is a gift that, well, you know, just keeps on giving us campaign goodies to use. Just when the poisonous clouds of the “God-damn-America” and “Government-genocide-of-blacks-through-AIDS” preacher had somewhat dissipated, he’s back. In full flower, explaining how we all misunderstood him, it’s all just a matter of context, blah blah blah.

So, now we have some more grist for the mill. From ABC News’ Political Punch,  in a story titled “Rev. Wright Delivers Fiery Address to NAACP.” Now, when you see the words “fiery”  and “Rev. Wright” in a headline,  you just know some good stuff is coming your way.

Indeed. Here is one gem from Brother Wright:

“Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality,” he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,” he said. “They have a different way of learning.” And so on.

First question, class: since Obama is half black, half white, which side of his brain is favored?

Second question in three parts: how much black blood is required before one gets to favor one’s right brain? Is it that old “one drop” criterion used by white racists? How stupid does Wright think we are to believe this nonsense?

Final question: Is Wright attempting an insanity defense for his prior nastiness? This may be credible; may be playing into that “crazy old uncle” defense used by Obama.  If so, too clever by half.  I don’t think it will do any good.

Now here’s a thought experiment: a conservative white pastor who has been a Republican presidential candidate’s “spiritual mentor” for 20 years gives a talk, claiming inherent biological differences between blacks and whites, differences that cause the two races to think differently. What do you suppose the reaction of the media, and, for that matter, most Americans, might be?

I’ve got to think that Obama wishes Wright had simply kept his own counsel. Because of Obama’s own bad choices, over many years, rather than transcend race, he has made it the focal point of the campaign.

Quacks like one

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck…well, you know. It’s a water fowl. Foulness
of a different kind is to be found in St. Barack of Obama, who is fearful of meeting Hillary again, mano-a-mano.

Hillary’s even proposed that they debate a cappela as it were, with none of those right wing journos from ABC, or, worse yet, the Dread Pirate Fox News. But St. Barack isn’t having any. From his interview with Chris Wallace, this simple Q&A (via The Swamp):

Chris Wallace: Why are you ducking another debate with Senator Clinton?

Obama: You know, I’m not ducking one. We’ve had 21 and so what we’ve said with two weeks, two big states, we want to make sure that we’re talking to as many folks possible on the ground, taking questions from voters.

Wallace: No debates between now and Indiana?

Obama: We’re not going to have debates between now and Indiana.

Yes, Obama, you exactly are doing that ducking thing. That you debated 21 times in the past is nice; we’ll make sure you get the appropriate Cub Scout merit badge. But when you refuse a debate, you are ducking one.

While I’d love to see Obama and Hillary get back in the ring, I fully appreciate why Obama is taking the coward’s way out. It’s the clever, politico thing to do. He’s ahead in delegates and popular vote. He may, or may not, end up being ahead in popular votes when they’re all counted, but that’s a worry for another day.

Obama can only lose ground by debating. Especially one-on-one against the Ice Queen. But please, Democrats: hold Obama accountable for lying about not ducking a debate. For a change, he should be honest and simply state that yes, he’s ducking the debate, because he’d rather spend his time talking to potential voters in Indiana and North Carolina.

That Obama does not tell the truth about such a small thing as a debate is worrisome. But reveals much about his character.

Sorry to spoil your fun

J’aime Paris, mes amis. That said, now I can go about trashing a whiny American ex-pat who writes, in the WaPo, of her trials and tribulations living in Paris. It’s all about the Euro, of course. Now at about $1.60 per; about double of where it was when it was introduced.

I’ve felt the author’s Europain. In Ireland recently, it set me back almost eight bucks U.S. for a pint in a pub in Dublin. Ouch. Enough to make a man stay sober. But, getting back to the ex-pat, she is both whiny and defensive:

I can imagine what you’re thinking, reading this. Almost all we Americans living over here are struck by the lack of sympathy we get from people back home, beginning with Congress, which builds in subtle forms of punishment for the fun of living the European life…

When Americans back home discuss expatriates, I always seem to detect a note of unexpressed malice, which suggests that, at some level, some people in the States seem to feel that those living in France or Italy or England (but not in, say, Poland) are getting away with something, and if they have to pay a premium for their self-indulgence, tant pis, too bad for them. The attitude seems to be: We have to live here, why should you get out of it?

No, sweetheart. It is not “unexpressed malice.” It is expressed herein, and I trust will be understood. And, finally, no, I don’t have to live here in America. I choose to.

There are times when I’d much rather live in Ireland or Scotland or even parts of England. But I know what it takes to even get a cable tv permit in the U.K. (it ain’t pretty; you think Comcast is evil? Ain’t seen nothin’ yet, mate…), and everyday life is frought with challenges for those of us unused to them. Like needing to find a carpark that’s only four blocks from your flat in a major city, as against the underground garages most apartment dwellers in big cities take for granted here.

The list is long, and doesn’t become apparent until you actually live abroad, or travel and stay with those who do. “Living on the economy,” as opposed to base housing, may sound liberating. Trust me, it’s the pits. And most of the men I’ve known who tried it, came back as soon as space became available. There’s no uncle like our Uncle Sam when you’re not a wealthy ex-pat author.

Coming around finally making my point in the strongest possible of terms: living in America is better, and easier, and cheaper, than life almost any other place. As for Paris, I’ve spent a good deal of time in Paris working with the MOD (good people; and don’t ever mess with French security services). But I find it to be too civilized, and, yet, contra the author of the WaPo puff piece, uncivilized.

When she writes of “safer streets and wonderful trains” it’s apparent she’s not been on some of the SCNF and Metro lines that go to, from, and through some of the banlieues. Those “youths” whose pastime is burning cars in the Paris ‘burbs. There’s crime a-plenty in a large city like Paris. Living in Paris seems to me, cost-wise, like living in Manhattan. Great if you can afford to live in the tonier sections. And crime and grime become invisible if you set down near the Luxembourg Gardens.

But, for those of us not so well blessed with money, life is better by far in America. Where we can find a good, safe, and comfortable life almost everywhere. Can’t afford Manhattan? Move to New Jersey. Can’t afford the rabid taxation of the Garden State? Move to Delaware. There are always choices.

And, best of all, you don’t have to learn a new language. Or spend a week’s wages to get a meal at a mediocre restaurant.

President’s pastor?

Via Jim Geraghty’s Campaign Spot, here’s the latest tidbit from the man who would be the president’s pastor. If the nation is blind enough to elect Barack Obama, that is:

“We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!”

Tasty. Of course, when challenged, Obama will obfuscate, call Wright his wackamole crazy uncle, and deny that he agrees with everything that Wright has said.

When this kind of vaporous nonsense doesn’t pass the smell-o-vision test, Obama will simply change the subject and talk about how he is a post-racial candidate, or something.

I’m with Geraghty on his proposed new rule:

If your mentor of 20 years has ever declared the United States to be ‘the same as al-Qaeda, under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!’ you are ineligible for the Presidency.

The issue isn’t wearing a flag pin, or saluting when the national anthem is played. Those are merely symbols. No, what matters is the foundation of one’s love of country. Obama, having sipped the Jeremiah Wright kool-aid for two decades, and not left that church, and, worse, exposed his children to this hatred of America, must be judged accordingly: he is no patriot.

Taxing problem

As Obama apparently can’t comprehend, raising the capital gains tax reduces revenue. Lowering it has the reverse effect. It’s fairly simple in concept: taxation is a punishment for making money; punish less, more will be kept. As more money is kept, more can be sent back into the economy.

Taxation can be a vicious cycle, or a beneficial one. For far too may Democrats, and not a few Republicans, raising taxes is a tropism, since more taxes means more government. And they are the government. Or so they think.

It turns out that the recent housing bust has had the obvious impact on local governments that depend on real property taxes: lower home values mean lowered assessments mean lower taxes. Unless, of course, the tax rate is raised. And this is what some jurisdictions are doing. Apparently ignoring the notion that what people earn is theirs, not the government’s.

From the Wall Street Journal, more evidence that beyond merely adding to the already hefty burden on economically-pressed homeowners, increasing property taxes actually suppresses home values:

The Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Kentucky reviewed dozens of studies on real-estate prices and concluded that “the evidence from the most reliable estimates” is that between 60% and 90% of property taxes are capitalized into a reduced value of the home. So a permanent $200 a year increase in the property tax could reduce the sales value of the home by between $1,200 and $1,800.

There’s more; you’re encouraged to read the entire Journal article. But the principle is reinforced: higher taxes tend to suppress the economy. In the long run, and even in the short run, it not only hurts taxpayers, it also hurts the government coffers.

What is missing is any notion that the government’s revenue is but one side of a balance sheet. The other side is expenditures by the government. It is the rare politician who can grow a spine and stand up to tell the voters this unpleasant truth: you want more services, you’ve got to pay for them. You want lower taxes, you’ve got to lose some services.

But wait, as the infomercial says. What if we, your friendly government officials, perform more services for less money. Just as in most infomercials, this too is a come-on. Governments rarely perform anything efficiently. It is not in their nature.

Just as rats live longer, healthier lives when deprived of calories, governments will only become lean when they are starved of unearned revenues. And the simile is quite apt.

Not too good at math, either

Here’s a man who claims to be speaking for all blacks: Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC). As reported by the WaPo, he’s issued a threat: choose Obama, or blacks will stay home in November.

Now, he didn’t say precisely that. First, what he did say was “I’m speaking on behalf of African American voters all across this country.” Good to know you’ve been appointed the official black spokesman, there, Jim. He obviously does not speak for all blacks, so he is, at the least, arrogant.

Then there is his plaint:

“African Americans are really engaged in the process and I don’t think we oughta be saying anything that might discourage these people or in any way marginalize them,” he continued. “I am very concerned that if we keep talking as if it doesn’t matter … that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote … since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he’s in trouble. Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of black vote. [That's] like saying that 92 percent, they don’t matter.”

Like many politicians, he’s very good at not saying what he’s saying. The translation into plain English? If Obama is not the nominee, there will be Hell to pay.  Blacks will not support the ticket if it is headed by Hillary.

If you’re a superdelegate, perhaps you are better at math than Jim seems to be. Assuming that the voting population is 12% black, 13% Hispanic, and the remaining 75% white for this purpose, and also assuming that Obama would get 92% of black votes, and 35% of white votes, and Hillary gets the rest, then the result is: Hillary would get about 50% of the total, and Obama 37%. Assuming the Hispanic vote is evenly split (they’d likely be significantly in favor of Hillary), that would leave Hillary with about 56%, and Obama 44%.

In presidential election terms, a landslide victory for Hillary. I think that Rep. Clyburn needs to retool his message. Using his numbers, it’s a no-brainer for the supers to go for Hillary.

That dog won’t hunt

This is the ad that McCain’s people apparently can’t suppress.   Although why they should want to is beyond reason, unless they truly don’t want to have to face Hillary Clinton.

Yes, it’s a GOP ad, acusing Obama as being too extreme for North Carolina.  And smearing the Dem candidates who might associate with Obama.   St. Barack, who, of course, would never stoop to such a thing, accuses McCain of not being able to stamp out free speech in the  GOP.

The big problem for St. Barack?  The ad, nominally supporting the GOP candidate for governor in N.C., reminds voters who’s who in the forthcoming Democratic primary.  Obama is extreme; who ya gonna vote for?

Hillary Clinton is the first beneficiary of the ugly truth about Obama.  He’s lain down with a radical dog; he’s now got fleas.  And, as they might say in Asheville and environs, that dog won’t hunt.

[For some comparison points between McCain and Obama, check out Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot]

Tribes

It’s come down to race. Barack Obama, the black candidate, can no longer credibly claim to be the candidate of any except blacks and affluent whites. He doesn’t transcend race; he embodies it.

From Politico.com, just one example of what the post-Pennsylvania primary reality has become:

…when Obama finishes the primary season ahead in elected delegates, as he will, it is hard to conceive the circumstances that would cause Democratic superdelegates to deny an African-American politician with overwhelming support from the party’s most loyal constituency.

It is not hard to find so-called black leaders who promise a “blood in the streets” of Denver if, through some fluke, Hillary gains the nomination.

Democrats are not known for being able to stand up in the face of any minority’s allegations of mistreatment. They are, as a party, especially guilty of slavery and racism. Republicans, the party of Abraham Lincoln and the Union, don’t have this baggage. So, perhaps it’s understandable why the Dems are hypersensitive to black demands, and are prepared to surrender their integrity, and, likely, the election, rather than deny a brother the nomination.

There’s never before been a credible black candidate for the presidency. So, you may ask, why shouldn’t the Democratic powers-that-be go along with Barack? There are two reasons. First is supposition, not fact. Second is fact.

The supposition is that Hillary Clinton is more likely to be able to win in November. This, obviously, can’t be proven in advance of the actual election. Results of the most recent primaries, however, do point to this: Hillary does much better among large, white constituencies that are vital. Obama does much better among blacks, who are concentrated in the South (mostly states that will go Republican, anyway) and major urban centers in the East and Midwest.

The other major component of Obama’s strange coalition?  White latte-sippers.  But they aren’t a large enough constituency in the general election, once you leave the precincts of Madison, Wisconsin, or other university enclaves of the bien pensant; they’re simply not a factor, although they can create a nice crowd when you need to fill an auditorium with those who don’t have day jobs.

Unmentioned so far? The numbers of normally Democratic voters who will vote for McCain or stay home if Obama is the nominee. Again, that soft, residual racism of the Democrats plays a role. A significant number of likely Democratic voters are probably too embarrassed to state publicly that they
won’t vote for the first credible African-American presidential candidate. But Pennsylvania exit polls point that way.

Turning to the factual matter? Obama may be the first credible black candidate. But Hillary Clinton is the first credible female candidate. Simple question: why is it unacceptable to deny the nomination to a black, but just fine and dandy to deny it to a woman?

Just asking.