sic semper tyrannis

Obama has now run for cover, and resigned from the radical “church” Trinity United Church of Christ. Trinity is, and apparently has been for at least the full time of Obama’s devotion to it, a church in which the gospel of socialism and race hatred has been preached.

A church whose members, to judge by the many videos available, are fully aware of, and approve of, the anti-American, anti-white message. Trinity is a disgusting caricature of a 1960s radical social club. Obama was either blind to the message of hate, or, if not blind to it, knew it for what it was and approved.

The only other possible, and I repeat, possible choice is that Obama joined Trinity for the boost it would give him among the black community on the Southside of Chicago, and just did not care, one way or the other, about the message.

Obama is not stupid. He is, rather, a devious fraud. After months of prevaricating, changing his stories — he wasn’t really a regular at Trinity; ok, he was, but wasn’t there when Wright did his rants; ok, he was there, but didn’t really approve of Wright’s rants; ok, but Wright is retired now; ok, the new pastor is…what? The same as the old…I’m outta there.

Obama preaches about being post-racial, yet is tied to the anti-white Trinity with iron bonds.  For more than 20 years.  Quitting now when the whole sordid Trinity mess has exploded on him says that Obama is just another crappy, sleazy politico.

He is not worthy of your vote. Not if you are an American.

Watching a brief segment of Fox and Friends this morning, the bottle blonde eye candy member of the team couldn’t resist saying the following with regards to the Democrats’ tussle over Florida and Michigan’s votes:

The captain shouldn’t be punished for something the crew did.

The captain being Hillary Clinton; the crew being those Democrats in Florida and Michigan who moved their primaries up, very much against DNC rules.

As for the merits of Hillary’s case, I’d say she’s got Democratic history on her side. As in, the 2000 election, when the Dems screeched and hollered that “every vote must count!.” Turns out that every time the Florida vote was recounted, George Bush’s margin rose.  Which is why the Dems called in platoons of trial lawyers, having failed to win an actual plurality of votes.

So, what did the Dems do? Claimed that some voters were disenfranchised by a confusing ballot; blacks were disenfranchised because…well, because they’re black, and if you have to ask why, you’re a racist. Etc, etc. Most likely reason? Bush won Florida thanks to Ralph Nader siphoning off some 97,000 votes that would most likely have otherwise gone to Gore.

Fast forward to the current tussle over Florida and Michigan. Captain Hillary wants all of the votes cast in both states’ primaries to count. Even though she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan. Nice try, My Captain. Not likely to happen, nor should it.

Florida, different story. Hillary and Barack were both on the ballot; neither campaigned in the state. All votes should count. If they don’t, Democratic loyalists are encouraged to review the tape from the 2000 election and ask, loudly, “why don’t those votes count?”

Simple answer? Because the DNC says so. Their rules are more important than your votes, if you live in Florida. Which, of course, makes the DNC a big fat bunch of hypocrites. But you probably already knew that.

Getting back to the Fox and Friends dumb blond, here’s a news flash: Contrary to what you may believe, my pretty, a ship’s captain is very much accountable for what his or her crew does. Which is the very essence of command.

In language you might understand, “the buck stops here.” Not that Hillary is the captain of the Florida and Michigan primaries, of course. Just, perhaps, she might have so thought back in January of this year.

Before St. Barack of Obama became the new Anointed one. Sorry, Hillary. Just because you’re much more likely to win in November doesn’t mean a thing.

In the military, you are trained first and foremost to think for yourself. Contrary to much public opinion, especially on the Left, Marines are taught to adapt to circumstances and to improvise. And, most certainly not as an afterthought, to obey all lawful orders without hesitation or reservation.

Now we have a case of a Marine who has broken the code in the Middle East: if Muslims would but turn to Jesus Christ as their savior, there would be no more jihad, no more suicide bombings, no more war against freedom.

One Marine apparently took matters into his own hands, and, according to this report from the WaPo:

The U.S. military suspended a Marine on Thursday for distributing coins quoting the Gospel to Sunni Muslims, an incident that has enraged Iraqis who view it as the latest example of American disrespect for Islam.

The Marine, stationed in the western city of Fallujah, handed out silver-colored coins this week that said in Arabic: “Where will you spend eternity? (John 3:36).” The other side read: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).”

The usual suspects have gotten their knickers in a politically correct twist:

“We are sorry for this behavior,” said Mike Isho, a U.S. military spokesman in Anbar province, which includes Fallujah. He said the Marine, whom he did not identify, distributed only a few of the coins and that the episode was under investigation.

“This incident doesn’t represent the morals of the Marines,” he said.

That’s too bad. Would that our troops who are Christian would spread the Good News to those most in need of it. Yes, the locals are offended; yes they bleat about “crusaders.” Boo hoo. In the name of political correctness, our military has silenced one man’s freedom to express his faith.

In the best tradition of political correctness, our troops are instructed to “respect” Islam. But Islam is not a faith to be respected, when it combines with Arab tribalism and results in the deaths of innocents. Which it has done since its very inception almost 1400 years ago.

Finally, if Islam can not withstand a few lines of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, how weak that faith must truly be.

Jesus has been enlisted, yet again, into the service of a political philosophy. This time, according to former Bushie Michael Gerson, it’s Senator Tom Coburn’s alleged claim that Jesus was a libertarian.

Gerson’s piece is a rambling paean to the virtues of “compassionate conservatism,” one of George Bush’s signatures from the beginning. In theory, this sort of conservatism is just another way of restating that the state must step in to help those in need when such needs can not be met privately.

To which I agree in principle. In practice, the Bush administration has shown little restraint in its so-called compassion, spending monies that the government should not on politically expedient causes such as more benefits for the wealthiest segment of our society: seniors (the Medicare expansion).

Then there’s the stupidity of the No Child Left Behind act. Yes, George, all of our children here in Lake Wobegon, a/k/a the United States, are above average. Then there’s the notion that the government must bail out the stupids: folks who fell for mortgages they should have known would baloon; folks who knowingly “bought” houses they could not afford, all with the tacit approval and encouragement of a “compassionate” administration; folks in poverty and on welfare for five or more generations in New Orleans, suddenly expected to drive out of town in vehicles they did not own, then being coddled, with the Feds taking over as the welfare state in lieu of the city or state of Louisiana.

None of this is conservatism, and, in the real world, not compassionate, since it rewards individual failure. Thereby assuring such failure will happen again. And again.

As for Jesus’ role in any of this, it is not apparent. Jesus did tell us to care for those most in need.  Jesus did not mention word one about any government doing so. The basics are in Matthew 22:36-40, but how we are to love our neighbor as ourselves is left to how we interpret the rest of Scripture.

Michael Gerson cites some Old Testament, and he’s not wrong. On the other hand, neither is Tom Coburn wrong when he cites Jesus’ parable about the rich man selling all his possessions. Coburn, as quoted by Gerson:

“show that true giving and compassion require sacrifice by the giver. This is why Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions, not his neighbor’s possessions. Spending other people’s money is not compassionate.”

Tom Coburn is exactly right. Spending someone else’s money isn’t compassion. It’s government. And government may accomplish good things; necessary things. But private monies, motivated by compassion, are much more likely to find their target.

It’s misappropriation by the government.

Via the Wall Street Journal’s Political Diary, this from Hillary Clinton’s letter to all of the Democratic Party’s superdelegates:

“I am ahead in states that have been critical to victory in the past two elections. From Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to West Virginia and beyond, the results of recent primaries in battleground states show that I have strong support from the regions and demographics Democrats need to take back the White House. I am also currently ahead of Senator McCain in Gallup national tracking polls, while Senator Obama is behind him. And nearly all independent analyses show that I am in a stronger position to win the Electoral College, primarily because I lead Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio.”

Sounds about right, Hillary. But we, the Democratic Party nabobs, don’t care. Why don’t you go home and bake some cookies for Bill?

As Obama’s teflon coating continues to wear away, and as his ineptitude and far-left positions begin to sink in with the general electorate, Democratic poobahs are going to start having buyer’s remorse. But it will be too late.

That’s Barack Hussein Obama. Ever trying complacer sus amigos nuevos. That’s “pander,” and not that adorable Chinese bear. In the hispanic-voter-rich West, he has made an interesting statement about knowing a language besides English (via WTOP):

“Understand that my starting principle is, everybody should be bilingual or everybody should be trilingual,” Obama said to cheers at a high school.

Obama, who learned Indonesian, having lived there as a boy, also apparently has some Spanish. His point was allegedly made with reference to our nation being economically competitive with other countries.

I write “allegedly” since if that is the rationale, then his multi-culti, one-world, kumbaya stance might make some sense. If the rest of the world did not already consider it their business to conduct international trade in English. But one-worlders never do let mere facts stop them from making us better citizens of that one world.

Now if Obama has urged students to learn other languages as a tool to better understand how other nations work, or because we need intelligence and military people who can understand our potential enemies, I’d have said, fine. Agree completely.

But when a left-wing Democrat uses words like “everybody should be bilingual,” I say, watch out, here comes another stupid attempt to control our lives from Washington. Obama may know some other languages. I’d love to hear how Indonesian or Spanish have helped him economically.

Reminds me of the time I was in graduate school, and had to demonstrate a knowledge of German. Why German? Because at that time, many of the best physics and chemistry journals were published only in that language. Since then, guess what? English is sufficient; virtually all important articles are translated into English. Language requirements have pretty much gone by the board, at least in technical disciplines.

Not that learning a foreign language isn’t rewarding. But to make it a requirement? Sorry, Obama. You may have a foreign-sounding name. Don’t talk like one of those superior-to-thou foreigners who think you’re superior for knowing English and a smattering of two other tongues.

Hey, I can order food in German, Spanish, Italian, and French. By pointing at the menu and showing my (in English) credit card.

This time, a medium-sized gaffe. Unlike, say, the one he made to get some sympathy from Jews (his uncle liberating Auschwitz), this one would likely have resonated with the masses of clueless academics and latte-swillers who are among his core constituents.

From his Memorial Day speech, via Power Line:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Congrats, ObamaMessiah, on resurrecting all those “fallen heroes.” Just to have them in your audience.

Referring to himself using the royal “we,” ObamaMessiah claims some sense of “our” patriotism. I don’t think that Barack Hussein Obama would recognize true American patriotism if it came and bit him in the ass.

Veterans as victims: that’s the Donk way. Especially St. Barack of Obama, likely Donk nominee, anti-war, messiah-in-the-West Wing. Obama has not served in uniform, but that’s not a fatal flaw for a presidential candidate.

What is, or should be such a flaw is that this lefty just does not get it. He may get the war; the jury is still out on that. But when he claims to support the troops, he is likely lying.  Best interpretation?  He hasn’t a clue about leadership.   Leaders do not diminish the heroism and sacrifice of our troops.  Leaders do not paint brave men and women as victims.  Doing so infantalizes the troops, takes away a portion of their dignity.

In this, Obama is hardly alone.  But he is running to be commander-in-chief. So far, he has shown himself unfit for duty. Obama is also rather sexist, and not only in how he’s dealt with Hillary. Here’s how he views our women in combat.

From his Memorial Day gafferation, this snippet (via Power Line):

And part of what we need is to recognize that oftentimes our women servicemembers are more prone to post-traumatic stress disorder partly because they — there’s a sad, but real, problem of sexual harassment and sexual abuse for women veterans, and that makes them much more prone, then, to have post-traumatic stress disorder.

Those poor little dears. Combat is soooo harsh, but even worse is to have some nasty testosterony man look at them the wrong way. They just crumple, and need therapy for PTSD. Boo freakin’ hoo.

News flash: liberals insisted on having women in combat. Is Obama speaking for you women when he strongly implies that y’all can’t take the heat? If Obama truly believes what he says (good luck with that; so much is invented nonsense. His uncle liberating Auschwitz, indeed), then may we look for a president Obama to rescind having women in combat, as they are too prone to emotional collapse?

Oh, forgot. Obama won’t have anyone in combat. Combat is bad. Men, and women die in combat. Combat causes PTSD. Much better they die in the fury of an Islamic bomb detonated near the White House or in Times Square.

Again from Jay Nordlinger, this from Paul Johnson:

Paul went so far as to say, “America is just getting started!” And he added this: You can start worrying about America when people from all over the world cease wanting to go there.

Just so. People vote with their feet. You don’t see folks sneaking into places like Zimbabwe, Cuba, or Belarus.  And it isn’t merely for economic opportunity.  After all, people only seem to sneak into an economic powerhouse like China from North Korea.

There’s a reason we’ve got such a problem with illegal immigration.  It is the unequaled combination of economic opportunity and freedom.

When we start having a net outflow of people, then it will be time to start worrying about whether America is the 21st century version of Rome in decline. Evidence on the ground says we’re not dead yet. Not even close.

As a guy who thinks he is a conservative, I should detest those who my fellow travelers on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Bus liked to call “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.” To whom to I refer? Mais il va de soi, les Français.

Back when I was gainfully employed, I spent a bit of time in Paris and environs, meeting and working with French military and defense folks on matters of, let’s just say, mutual interest.

It is fun to make fun of the French, and to emphasize what poor allies they have been at times. And don’t even begin to start with jokes like “French tanks have one gear: reverse.”

The reality is that France has done reasonably well for itself in the world. They’ve got their problems, among them being an inability to get over their last period of true greatness in the early 1800s. But, hey, how many other nations were ever as great as France was?

Fast forward to Paris today, and another fellow-traveler, Jay Nordlinger at NRO, reminds me that there are others of a conservative bent of mind who can find aspects of France and the French pleasing. And much that is less so, of course.

I don’t know Paris as well as I’d like, but I’ve walked all about it, spent quite a few weeks there. And, most importantly, spent time with Parisians. Some observations for any French-bashers out there.

Firstly, the French have far fewer illusions of the nature of the world. They know that Western civilization has enemies. They know that only brute force will quell riots based on nothing but a sense of religious grievance (the “youths,” exclusively Muslim, in the banlieues).

The French also know that certain groups will never become “French.” Because they know that to be French is to be of the West, to be European, to be Christian, if not in form, then in formation. Not African or Asian or Middle Eastern. Not Muslim. And they know that, ultimately, they must not surrender their cultural identity.

In this, the French are quite unlike their neighbors across the English Channel. Who could profit by learning from les Français.

Mark Steyn, one of my favorite pundits with a Cockney accent, has written America Alone. The book is a wake-up call, which basically takes the West to task for unilateral disarmament in the face of a global Islamic struggle for world domination.

History is the best proof of that last statement: Islam has been on the march, at the point of the sword, virtually since its inception in the seventh century. Ever expanding, by whatever means available. Today’s goal? Restore some imaginary world-wide caliphate; place the entire world in the “House of Islam.”

Best evidence that this is the end game? The name for that portion of the world not under Islam? “House of War.” Which points Steyn makes, along with the obvious point that it is America alone that has had the stones to stand in harm’s way, when the harm is coming from Islam.

Even we go wobbly; our leaders are loathe to name the threat, and, they, like much of the world, bleat about Islam somehow being a “religion of peace.” Despite this, we still stand tall and at least attempt to do the right thing.

Now here’s where a likely example of dhimmitude on the part of Amazon comes in. Amazon allows some limited search capability within some books. Among those is America Alone. But a funny thing happens when you search for some words that might have political impact. Say, “Jesus.”

Here’s the result of the search. But then, when you click on one of the pages on which “Jesus” appears, you get this as part of some Amazonia boilerplate:

The page you have requested is not available for viewing. For security purposes, we are not able to provide further information about why the page is unavailable.

Now, other words, such as, say, “America” don’t get you into this stone wall. So it’s not a copyright issue. Want to bet it’s a form of dhimmitude, the fear of offending Muslims and their apologists?

Seems to be the most logical explanation.

[update January 12, 2009: The search given above now is unblocked. So, perhaps, it is what the commenter noted below: that certain pages are blocked in order to protect copyrights. Hey, if you can't pick on Amazon, at least we'll always have Google and their toadying up to the communist dictators of China...]

From the Gospel of John, 15:13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Pretty much says it all.

This Memorial Day, we remember the fallen, men and women who gave their lives for us. To those who claim that their sacrifice is in vain, or wasted, that you are reading this in English, rather than German or Japanese or Spanish says otherwise.

Those of you who are descended from African slaves, are you not glad that 360,000 Union soldiers, virtually all not of African descent, died so that you could be free?

Today is not a time to question the validity of any particular war, or to cast any aspersions on the intelligence or dedication of our men and women in uniform. Today is, as every other day should be, an occasion of gratitude for those who have given their all.

That’s the Canadian Human Rights Commission, at the forefront of a nervous nation that can stand up to anything except Islam in its midst. Seems that the so-called Human Rights Commission has brought up Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine on charges of “flagrant Islamophobia.”

Some of the sordid details of this assault on free speech may be found in this Pajamas Media post by Kathy Shaidle. Must reading; follow the links to see how deep and wide runs the sewer of political correctness north of the border.

Steyn and Maclean’s will stand trial June 2 before a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. For what some dhimmi Canadians believe to be hateful speech, but which Americans recognize as free speech. But then, Canadians aren’t Americans, are they?

They are, apparently, fearful. Afraid to offend anyone who isn’t of English or Scottish descent. Those are fair game. What takes the prize? The attempt to order Maclean’s magazine to print Islamic propaganda, to, allegedly, balance Mark Steyn.

Is Maclean’s fair and balanced? Don’t know, and it is not important. If jihadi sympathizers want to put forward their side, have at it. But not in someone else’s journal. Free speech means no government interference.

In a free society, which Canada apparently is not, one says and writes what you wish. Preferably that which is true. It’s simple. If I publish something that is insulting to you, and it is false, you can sue me for defamation or libel. If you can prove that it is both false and has done damage.

Publishing the truth may be inconvenient. Which is where government tyranny, in the form of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, comes to the fore. Looking more and more like the Soviet Union, I’m afraid to say.

O Canada — you don’t have the right not to be insulted. Rejoin the community of free nations. And don’t be afraid of insulting Islam, or any other religion or ideology. Be more afraid of Islam unbound. The caliphate is coming, and it isn’t coming at the point of a sword in this hemisphere. It’s coming on soft, padded cat’s paws, through legal intimidation and outbreeding us Anglos.

In a new twist on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Mrs. Clinton now brings us a Vaster XY Conspiracy. It’s her sex, you see. It’s the unbound misogyny on the part of her fellow (can I write “fellow?”) Democrats that’s done her in.

In her new role as Whiner in Chief, Hillary complains that Democrats are sexist pigs. Well, not in those exact words. From the Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton is now complaining that her candidacy has been harmed by sexism. Interviewed earlier this week by the Washington Post, Sen. Clinton said the polls show that “more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American.” This gender bias, she grumbled, “rarely gets reported on.”

The alleged bastion of modern liberalism, toleration and diversity is full of (to use Mrs. Clinton’s own phrase) “people who are nothing but misogynists.”

Ouch; that hurts, Hill. Hillary also claims that she has a better chance at winning against John McCain in the general election. Which, given the results of the primaries to date, is quite plausible. Hillary puts in play a large group of white voters who, if Obama is the nominee, might stay home in November or vote for McCain.

As for the Democratic Party being just chock full of misogynists, sorry, Hill. I’m not buying it. There’s little doubt that parties, and independents, have plenty of sexists. But the real problem rests on the Left: group and grievance politics unbound. Which has been a Democratic lode star for a long time.

Hillary’s assertion that a) Democrats are sexists, and b) she can win the general election, thereby implying that Republicans and independents are less sexist than Democrats, is not necessarily true. What is likely true is that race trumps sex among the Democrats.

Stated differently, Democrats are now fearful of not giving the nomination to Obama. They fear the backlash, the bleating claims of racism, should they choose the more electable Hillary. Democrats, above all else, like to demonstrate their liberal bona fides. Hillary has put them in an untenable situation, between the rocks of alleged sexism and the shoals of alleged racism.

There’s no easy fix. Hillary is not going to go quietly into that good night. The very best that Democrats can hope for is to bribe her into ceasing her Terminatrix-like quest. Give her the veep slot; promise her a Supreme Court nomination. Anything to avoid what will otherwise be a very bloody convention in August.

You go, girl!

Another bad pastor: Rev. Rod Parsley, disavowed by John McCain. No, McCain was not in Rev. Parsley’s church; no, Parsley was not McCain’s inspiration, didn’t marry him, didn’t baptize his children.  But the bad pastor did make the mistake of endorsing McCain.

Democrats and their enablers in the mainstream media will latch on to almost anything to defuse the Jeremiah Wright business.  Hence the flap over the fact that Parsley stood with McCain in Ohio and voiced his support in 2008.

So, what did Rev. Parsley say that was so heinous? Via ABC News:

Parsley has called Islam “the mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil,” and that Islam is an “anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world.”

How very politically incorrect.  Do you suppose it might be true?  Rev. Parsley has also called on Christians to wage “war” on Islam as a false faith.  Gasp!  Why, he wants a new Crusade!  Bap, bad pastor!

But, sorry (not, actually; that’s what you say when you’re not really sorry).   Works for me. As a Christian, I’ve got to believe that Islam is false. As are all other faiths, except for Christianity. As for waging “war” on Islam, the usual name for this is “self defense.”   But I don’t think anybody is wanting us to wage war on more than a billion Muslims.  Despite what the dhimmi crowd may claim.

Islam has been on the attack from day one in the seventh century in the deserts of Arabia. The West remained the West only because it fought back, and prevailed at the Gates of Vienna in the 17th century.

And, yes, Islam is precisely an “anti-Christ religion.” Insofar as Islam specifically denies the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and that he rose from the dead to join God in heaven. You don’t need to believe this; but if you call yourself Christian, you kinda sorta oughta.

What happened to tolerance for others’ beliefs? I’d be tolerant all day long if it wasn’t Islam’s goal to convert us all. Or kill us in the attempt. Hey, people, the first meaning of “jihad” is struggle, as in armed struggle. Events of the past 1400 or so years have demonstrated this. And they continue to demonstrate it to this very day.

Informed that OPEC is a…is a…having trouble writing this heinous word: a cartel. Who knew? OPEC has been in business almost 47 years, having been founded September 1960, in Baghdad.

Speaking of weapons of mass distraction, surely OPEC has caused more economic damage to us than anything Saddam ever did. But then, we, meaning Western oil companies, especially British Petroleum, helped create this cartel.

Now that a weakened dollar and increased global demand have, naturally, resulted in (much) more expensive gasoline, what’s a pandering politico to do? Legislate, of course. Not to do what they should do, which is enable the discovery and production and refining of petroleum in the United States.

No, that would be too logical. Rather, Congress rushes to to investigate and, if possible, punish those miscreants in OPEC who have been controlling the flow, and thus to a certain extent, the price, of oil. For longer than most of us have been alive, but, hey, politicians are slow learners.

With great partisan gusto, the Democrats unveil H.R. 6074: Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. This wonderful attempt to control that which is beyond the control of Congress makes it illegal for “any foreign state” (and combinations of states and organizations, most certainly including OPEC):

(1) to limit the production or distribution of oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product;

(2) to set or maintain the price of oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product; or

(3) to otherwise take any action in restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum product;

Nevermind niceties of jurisdiction and sovereignty. Nevermind that OPEC, with few exceptions, is comprised of nasty, disreputable dictatorships, thugocracies, and Islamic prison camps. The attempt by Congress to control that which is beyond their control is laughable. Or would be were it not for what they should have done long ago: reduce or eliminate limits on domestic oil production and refining.

Part of the problem is that we’ve built no new refineries since 1979. Another part is that we have stopped exploration and development in Alaska and off-shore. Now, one may argue there are valid environmental concerns.

Perhaps; my educated guess is that a true cost-benefit analysis has not been done in the absence of hysterical pleas to save some latte liberal’s wish to vacation in pristine beauty. Screw the working class with their need to get to jobs; I’ve got mine…

Even if environmental concerns are warranted, it’s pretty much the same crowd of liberals who now are out for OPEC’s scalp. How dare the free market be free? How dare those Chinese and Indian middle-class wannabes drive up prices?

So, what’s the answer? Here’s a short, modest list:

First, stop making useless gestures. Such as legislating that which is not subject to Congressional, or even United States, jurisdiction.

Second, free up domestic oil discovery, extraction, and refining.

Third, build nuclear power plants to free up petroleum now used for electricity production.

Fourth, take steps to strengthen the dollar, assuming that can be done without throwing us into an actual, as opposed to a politically declared, recession (unemployment at 5 per cent does not, repeat, not, place us in a recession).

Let’s stop making pious speeches about OPEC or about gas-guzzling SUVs or about greedy oil companies (all of which we may agree are un-good). Speechifying won’t do anything. Drilling for oil will.

And those that can’t, talk about doing. Old adage; common sense department. In high school, we used to recite the following litany:

Those who can do things, do them.

Those who can’t do things, teach.

Those who can’t teach, administer.

Those who can’t administer become guidance counselors.

Yep. Unfair to teachers, who I’ve learned work very, very hard. My sincere apologies. The principle, however, remains the same: it’s so much easier to talk about things than to actually do them. Bringing us to Barack the Talker.

Obama hasn’t actually done anything that involves actual work. He was a student; he talks. And talks. And talks. His talks are really pretty, unless he gets caught without his teleprompter, at which point, falling back on his actual skills and life experience, he gets snarly and stops talking.

He’d be really great going up against some of the world’s thugs with, as he has said, “no preconditions.” As for the distinction between talking and doing, this from Thomas Sowell sums it up nicely:

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated.

In fairness, Obama at the bowling alley was neither more nor less authentic than Hillary tossing down a shot and a beer. That’s the point: Barack Hussein Obama is just another politician. Who talks pretty under tightly controlled conditions.   Otherwise, it’s a snarly “let me eat my waffle!”

Just the thing to engage state sponsors of terror.

…we need to check with the United Nations before you can make that next trip. Or, for that matter, before you consume your next cheeseburger. Via Jim Geraghty’s campaign spot:

Barack Obama today: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK”

I sense some juicy, and non-fattening campaign literature a-comin.’ If Obama truly believes that we need to or ought to consult “other countries” and do a “mother may I” on eating and driving, then he’s passed from being just a left-winger, into being a lefty wingnut.

The serious point is that we owe it to ourselves and our planet to conserve. Had Obama stated it thusly, I’d simply have agreed in principle, and then asked for specifics. When someone tells us we need to ask permission of foreign countries for basics such as food and transportation, that is someone who does not get what it means to be an American.

He has apparently not been schooled in the American ethic of independence of thought and action. Americans may be accused of arrogance, but that is usually by people a) not as successful as we are, and b) accustomed to having others make their decisions for them.

Should we reduce the amount of food we eat and the miles we drive? Depends. The arugula-eating academic crowd that Obama normally plays to would likely agree. The factory worker who has to drive 30 miles each way to his low-wage job might not be so generous.

Obama: not just post partisan. He’s post-American. Perhaps he should run for some European Union job.

“Give me an O“!
“O!”

“Give me a B“!
“B!”

“Give me an A“!
“A!”

“Give me an M“!
“M!”

“Give me an A“!
“A!”

“What’s that spell?!”

“McCain will be President!“

–  by Eric W, a commenter at Rod Dreher’s Chrunchy Con

Barack the Whiner complains that the nasty old Republicans in Tennessee are using Michelle Obama’s words against him. Boo hoo. From Boston.com, here’s what happened:

The Tennessee GOP last week posted an online video hitting Michelle Obama for a comment that foes called unpatriotic. While campaigning in February, Obama declared, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.”

Oh no; those nasty Republicans have gone and done it. Obama, it seems, can’t stand it when those closest to him are quoted. Quoted accurately, that is. From Boston.com, the whine this time:

In an interview aired today on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Obama said, “The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”

“Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that’s true for everybody, Democrat or Republican,” Obama continued.

Obama said his wife “loves this country. For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her is, I think, just low class. I think that most of the American people would think that as well.”

No, Your Holiness Saint Barack. What is “low class” is Michelle Obama making the slam against my country that “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.”

That’s not a “snippet.” Any more than Saint Barack’s long-time pastor’s quotes of hating America are “snippets.” That’s who Michelle is. That’s who Jeremiah Wright is. And that’s who Obama has chosen to bring into his closest circle.

The issue is precisely Obama’s character, or lack thereof. We can, and must, do better than this South Chicago hustler.  Regardless of my opinions, Obama the Whiner had best be prepared for much, much more of the same.

President Bush gave a politically correct slap to the face of the Arab world. The event took place at the World Economic Forum held in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. The context had something or other to do with the world’s greatest snark hunt: the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process.”

We can, without prejudice (meaning: the “peace process” will be in court again and again and again…) dismiss the ostensible purpose of the gathering, and focus on what the President said. This paragraph leaps off the page, as it were:

There are people who claim that democracy is incompatible with Islam. But the truth is that democracies, by definition, make a place for people of religious belief. America is one of the most — is one of the world’s leading democracies, and we’re also one of the most religious nations in the world. More than three-quarters of our citizens believe in a higher power. Millions worship every week and pray every day. And they do so without fear of reprisal from the state. In our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion. Democracy is the only system of government that guarantees their protection. (emphasis added)

First the good. Kudos to Bush for, as lefties love to blather, speaking truth to power. In this case, the truth that there is little to no religious freedom wherever Islam is the official religion. The greater the emphasis on Islam in the particular country, the greater the risk of being killed for converting to another faith.

The other part of the weighty paragraph that is good is the clear statement that democracy, true democracy, not the monkey-see, monkey-do of one election that is prevalent in the Third World, is the best system for religious freedom. Of course, Bush didn’t say the latter about places like Egypt or Jordan or Palestine. He did not have to. The results speak for themselves.

Now, on to the bad, or, to be gentle, misguided and politically correct part of the speech. Yes, there are “people who claim that democracy is incompatible with Islam.”   Perhaps those claims are based on the reality that there is no true democracy in which Islam is the official religion.  Perhaps those claims are based on the requirement, within Islam, to combine all functions of the state, including the justice system.  Perhaps those claims are based on the overwhelming power and influence of unelected mullahs wherever Islam holds sway.    Perhaps it is the simple observation that the very word “Islam” means “submission.”

Submission, that is, allegedly to Allah, but in reality, to that group of unelected mullahs who are there to dictate exactly what it is that their god demands.  Bush, in short, was half right:  democracy does not threaten Islam.  True enough.  But Islam threatens democracy.

Lists are interesting, but not terribly useful for making life-changing decisions. A particularly fascinating list may be found at InternationalLiving.com: the Quality of Life Index for 2007.

The list ranks the nations of the world on a variety of factors. Some are hard and fast, i.e. subject to objective measures, like climate. Others are a mix of fact and opinion, such as cost of living (kind of depends on what’s in the market basket). Some are what I’d call purely subjective, such as leisure and culture. What, no NASCAR? What, too much opera?

Then there is the “freedom” category. As you might have guessed, pretty much all Western nations are at the top in this category. Pretty much every nation in the southern hemisphere as well as huge chunks of Asia are at the bottom, with a few exceptions. The United States, surprisingly, did not score 100 in this category, whereas Argentina did. Interesting, and casts some doubt on the methodology.  Visiting our relatives in Argentina is dicey; never know when it’s going to be coup season.

Nevertheless, for those of us who haven’t traveled to or lived in most of these nations, the rankings do give some sense where you might wish to live. Anyone out there for Ireland or Canada? By the same token, who in their right mind would want to relocate to Saudi Arabia or virtually any nation in sub-Saharan Africa?

Didn’t think so. Most of us live and die in the countries of our birth. Unless you just can’t do without French wines and cheeses, or that soft breeze coming off of the Mediterranean in Italy. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary. There are obviously quite a few nations in which those lucky enough to have the choice can prosper. But, looking at the world as a whole, random selection would seem to dictate a short, unhappy, and unfree life.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.