Take That, McGreavey!
Jeez uz Ke rist! Is there no end to this one-ups-manship?
I know I blogged before about the back and forth competition between New York and New Jersey, but reality is worse than fiction here!
Common Cause
Jeff Jacoby writes a stinging column in the Boston Globe regarding the attempt at moral equivalency in Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech.
One paragraph from it struck me in particular:
Were my rabbi to gloat that America got its just desserts on 9/11, or to claim that the US government invented AIDS as an instrument of genocide, or to urge his congregants to sing “God Damn America” instead of “God Bless America,” I would know about it straightaway, even if I hadn’t actually been in the sanctuary when he spoke. The news would spread rapidly through the congregation, and in short order one of two things would happen: Either the rabbi would be gone, or I and scores of others would walk out, unwilling to remain in a house of worship that tolerated such poisonous teachings. I have no doubt that the same would be true for millions of worshipers in countless houses of worship nationwide.
What went through my mind while reading this was that Black Liberation Theology appears to have common cause with many of the radical Muslim imams who cheered when the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 (and every other time as well).
What dismays me about this is to watch how blindly the members of Wright’s and other Black Liberation preachers’ congregations accept their preachings as gospel. Have they no idea what would happen to them if the radical Muslims prevailed in this war of conquest they conduct? As followers of Jesus, they would be Dhimmi in the Muslim caliphate - second class citizens.
Why on earth would they share common cause with those who would seek to re-enslave them?
It’s still a question of Wright and wrong - The Boston Globe
He’s a Real Spitzer…
Roger Kimball points the reader to a proposal by Arnold Kling another word for the political glossary - not just for Campaign ‘08, but for all politicians. (from Kling’s post):
“The term ‘Spitzer’ belongs in the dictionary,” Mr. Kling observes, “and its definition should be ‘any politician.’ We ought to think of all politicians as Spitzers. No, they don’t all have lurid involvements with prostitutes. But they all have an inflated view of their superiority over the rest of us.”
Kling goes on to add a particularly sharp definition:
Suppose that we define “Spitzer” as someone who believes in the aggressive use of political power. A Spitzer believes it is his mission to tell us what to do for own good.
Kimball believes that nearly all politicians, and most petty bureaucrats fall into that definition of a ’spitzer.’
Kling comes up with a strong condemnation of future political appointees or politicians filled with hubris:
Yes, he’s a real Spitzer all right.
Kimball’s post is about so much more than the moral turpitude of Elliott Spitzer.
Quoth James Carville in 2002: “You in New York are so blessed to have an attorney general who just showed what it was like to be a Democrat.” I don’t often agree with James Carville, but this time he hit the nail on the head. I only wish that the disease were confined to Democrats. It isn’t.
Kimball’s post is well worth the read.
The Milking Schedule
It should be obvious to all that the whole effort by the Democrat leadership of the House to recraft the FISA law has to do not with national security, but with the schedule for the next election cycle.
The ACLU issued a statement expressing delight over the House Democrats’ new bill and was also pleased that the Democrats would let the authorization to track terrorists expire in only two years as if there is any realistic chance that the global war on terror could be behind us by then. (emphasis added)
Because this has already been demonstrated to be a very productive cow:
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that trial lawyers contributed some $85 million to Democratic candidates in the 2006 election cycle. (emphasis added)
Disgusting!
If this is true
This is not the kind of publicity that Obama wants:
From Gateway Pundit:
The FARC Terrorists were hoping and expecting that Barack Obama would win the US elections in November because he was most aligned with the Colombian Marxist group. This document was posted at Martha Colmenares (in Spanish) and Free Republic:
“6. Los gringos pedirán cita con el ministro para solicitarle nos comunicara su interés en conversar estos temas. Dicen que el nuevo presidente de su país será Obama y que ellos están interesados en sus compatriotas. Obama no apoyara Plan Colombia ni firma de TLC. Aquí respondimos que nos interesan las relaciones con todos los gobiernos en igualdad de condiciones y que en el caso de Estados Unidos se requiere in pronunciamiento público expresando su interés en conversar con las Farc dada su eterna guerra con nosotros.
Es todo, Abrazos, Raúl.
(translated)
“6. The gringos will ask for an appointment with the minister to solicit him to communicate to us his interest in discussing these topics. They say that the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support “Plan Colombia” nor will he sign the TLC (Colombian Free Trade agreement). Here we responded that we are interested in relations with all governments in equality of conditions and that in the case of the US it is required a public pronouncement expressing their interest in talking with the FARC given their eternal war against us. (emphasis in the Gateway Pundit copy)”
You’ve got to hand it to dead FARC terrorists… Their analysis of Barack Obama is spot on. The leading socialist Democrat is against free trade and is open to holding talks with terrorists without reservations.
That last paragraph by Gateway Pundit points out the risks of Obama’s approach to foreign policy.
An Amazing Story
Go to Hugh Hewitt’s blog at Townhall.com to view the video attached to this post:
I disagree with John McCain on several issues, but you can’t ignore what he’s been through in life experiences. These don’t require any spin to be impressive.
Can I say I told You so?
I posted yesterday that the situation in South America was getting dangerous.
Now, via Power Line, I see that Mark Falcoff of the American Enterprise Institute sees the same potential.
Of course, with Chavez anything is possible. We are dealing here with a troubled, overgrown adolescent. Nonetheless, it’s worth contemplating the likely outcome. The Venezuelan army is — from a professional point of view — something of a joke. Have you seen any photographs of its general officers? They all need to go to Weigh Watchers. It’s been many years since that armed force had to face a serious enemy, or indeed any enemy except high carbs. In contrast, the Colombian army has been at war for decades with a vicious enemy, often elusive, all the moreso since (as we have recently learned) it has been using Venezuela and apparently Ecuador as safe havens.
And the Democrat-controlled Congress won’t support the one anti-FARC leader down there!
More on what was found by Colombia
When Colombian military forces killed Reyes - #2 in the FARC - they got three computers. On them was…
Better still, Colombia’s well-trained armed forces seized three of his computers with some surprising contents: A FARC plan to buy 50 kilograms of uranium to expand into international terrorism.
Don’t forget, these were Hugo Chavez’s buddies. Apparently, they were Correa’s - Equador’s president - buddy as well.
Words to live by
From Johan Goldberg’s blog at NRO:
A murderer who believed that the U.S. is the great enemy of mankind shouldnt be anyones hero, never mind a logo for a line of baby clothes.
He’s talking about Che, of course. It’s in the context of the price people pay for their radical past - very little, it appears.
Jonah Goldberg on Radicals on the Left on National Review Online
Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here
