Obama denounces Wright's words (again)

The Page is saying that Obama's "cutting Wright loose" after his latest outburst. It sounds more like he just re-denounced his words, adding "outraged" and "saddened" to his rhetorical repertoire. Obama's authentically hurt, I'm sure, but he's recycling the same stuff.

Moreover, the idea that Wright has "changed" in front of Obama is ridiculous. Wright hasn't changed. Obama's circumstances have, and the notion that Obama is shocked to find out that Wright is who he is is beyond credulity.

We're to believe that Obama's "crazy uncle" just all of the sudden went... crazy?

The Wright Heresy

Reverend Wright is on camera right now preaching black liberation theology. He has said that he doesn't disagree with Dr. Cone at all (is this not the theologian who said that it is the task of black theology to kill any God who doesn't oppose the whites?)

I suppose he actually wants us to continue to examine his views, rather than simply letting the issue dissolve into the background. So far, the highlights:

1. Black people learn differently and are different in most ways from white people. Black learning styles are different from white learning styles. Black worship is different from white worship. Black preaching is different from white worship. Waiting for the black gospel to come out... but no, he stops short of actual heresy.
2. White Americans are slave-holders, segregationalists, supremacists, Jim Crows, and finally, I just heard, draft-dodgers.
3. His church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is totally awesome. They have an HIV/AIDS ministry, they opposed Apartheid when the U.S. government supported it (?), they stood against the oppressive regimes in the Middle East and India. His church rocks.

All of this is about reconciliation, and White America must confess its sins and repent. He cites black churches allowing white members, back in the late 18th century.

Conclusion: Black theology should be accepted by whites as a means of reconciliation.

And I just heard him say that we shouldn't see God as over us, but rather with us, as Emanuel - God with us. Jesus is Emanuel, God with us. God the Father, while the same God, is in fact above all things. The name above all names is Jesus, the Christ of God.

This is a perversion and its nonsense. To close, he says the Christianity of the slaveholders is not the same as the Christianity of the slave-owners. As though there were two gospels, two Christs! He is talking in circles using eloquence and theological language.

I've determine his overall point: black churches are just like white churches, don't get excited about the way we worship or our manner of praise. But, if you are interested in theological or doctrinal differences, just understand that mine is right and yours is wrong.

Not once did I hear this 'minister of the gospel' say that Christ died to save sinners, not once did I hear him exhort all men to embrace Christ and follow Him. How else does he think social orders will be overturned? Oh, I know - through government intervention. They should call it black statism theology, because what they really want is an authoritarian order that is in their favor, instead of what they perceive to be an oppressive freedom.

In case you just listened to that drivel, let me tell you the real gospel: Men fail to meet God's standards, God sent His only Son to die as propitiation for your own shortcomings, and when God calls, you will believe on His name and be saved. This is Scripture, this is Truth. (Romans 5:8, John 5:24, Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16, I John 5:11-12).

Another Stupid NYT Story

This time, it's a BOGO sale: not only is John McCain guilty of filthy Republican nepotism, corporate cronies that we are, but he is a flaming hypocrite. It's okay when Democrats are hypocrites because they don't assert any morality - except eco-theological ethics, a social gospel that must reject the true Risen Lord, and the religion of the state and its loving intervention, which brings us to the coup de grace of this little article:

The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes... [my emphasis]

We should be concerned as a society at this point, that the NY Times casually considers protections of private property to be a 'loop hole'. We are now expecting our laws to literally handicap certain individuals, under the guise of fairness, I guess. It is an utter perversion of law - that instead of protecting its subjects it is instead robbing them and directly harming them.

I have a story for the New York Times, a newsflash, if you will: private citizens are entitled to the fruits of their industry! Whether it's an orchard they plant with their hands, an invention that devise with their minds, or an airplane they buy with their money, you cross a dangerous line - a betrayal, really, of our common heritage. But then again, what have liberals ever cared about heritage, legacy, tradition? This all started with the rationalists, and the first great 'fruit' of that movement was the French Revolution, a bloody regicidal movement that overturned a glorious nation permanently. Other planned states have included the Soviet Union with its bread lines and rampant alcoholism, and Cuba with its ridiculously impoverished peasantry and a deluded dictators constantly preening for first-world liberals.

Under what principle of the common law or the Constitutional order are we restricting private citizens from using their own resources however they so desire? The McCains should be able to set their plane on fire and crash it into their own home if they want, provided they don't endanger anyone else. Maybe get all three candidates together on it and fly it to a nice island somewhere, where they can have a triumvirate in their own private little kingdom.

As for me, I reject the dominion of the National government over my life, now and forever.

Obama traded ping pong balls for retainer?

Geesh. New politics, same as the old.

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client -- a longtime political supporter.

Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell's firm that eventually totaled $112,000.

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

Killerspin specializes in table tennis, running tournaments nationwide and selling its own line of equipment and apparel and DVD recordings of the competitions. With support from Obama, other state officials and an Obama aide who went to work part time for Killerspin, the company eventually obtained $320,000 in state grants between 2002 and 2004 to subsidize its tournaments.

So many distractions, I don't know where to focus my attention anymore!

An issue Obama will debate: His patriotism

Somebody tell Hillary...

Obama finished, telling the crowd, "anybody who tells you out there that I disrespect the flag, that I don't salute the flag, that I don't say the pledge of allegiance, that I don't wear flag pins -- don't listen to 'em. Look at what I do and look at what I say and my commitment to making this a stronger country. And, you know, I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism, especially a bunch of these folks who do who have instituted policies that have made America weaker. I am happy to have that debate with them anyplace, anytime."

Isn't this exactly the kind of debate he and his surrogates complained about? Isn't his patriotism a "distraction"?

Sharpton threatens to "close [NYC] down" over Bell shooting

This was an unmitigated tragedy. Which sort of explains why unmitigated self-promoter Al Sharpton has inserted himself into it.

Hundreds of angry people marched through Harlem on Saturday after the Rev. Al Sharpton promised to "close this city down" to protest the acquittals of three police detectives in the 50-shot barrage that killed a groom on his wedding day and wounded two friends....

Sharpton was joined by the family of 23-year-old Sean Bell - a black man - and a friend of Bell who was wounded in the 2006 shooting outside a Queens strip club. Two of the three officers charged were also black.

The rally at Sharpton's office was followed by a 20-block march down Malcolm X Boulevard and then across 125th Street, Harlem's main business thoroughfare, where some bystanders yelled out "Kill the police!"

Amazingly, the circumstances surrounding Bell's death could have been far, far worse. Fortunately for New Yorkers, they were not.

Advice to Obama: Vanquish bird in hand before birds in bush

Just a thought. McCain may be the ultimate goal, but acting like Hillary Clinton doesn't exist is the worst thing Obama could be doing.

Politician.

Distractions.

Industrial Revolution Day

Celebrate.

No, Shutup

Really, enough.

Hayek needs to become a standard part of the curriculum for developed nations.

Memo to the Vatican and Mexico

You are both out of line in criticizing U.S. immigration policy.

The Vatican has been a longtime advocate of some kind of weird left-wing no-borders policy position. I'm not entirely interested in what the Pope has to say on religious matters, let alone political matters. But to quote Michelle Malkin, "Look. 'Keeping illegal immigrant families together' is not the paramount constitutional duty of our government."

Well said. You may remember Mexico's president saying "Give it to me. And give it to me without conditions." Take a breath, close your eyes, and try to subdue the nausea at such an affront to American generosity. I understand that he is accustomed to his government getting money by coercion and corruption, but the monies we send to Mexico are generated by American industry, corporations, and business.

Let me be clear to both President Calderon and Pope Benedict: We have a sovereign right to enforce our border. And there is nothing un-Christian about a government fulfilling its duty to its people.

Crater: Bitter Democrats turn on Obama in week, turn 11 point lead on Clinton to one point deficit

Whoops.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20.

These results are based on interviewing conducted April 16-18, including two days of interviewing after the contentious Wednesday night debate in Philadelphia and the media focus that followed. Support for Hillary Clinton has been significantly higher in both of these post-debate nights of interviewing than in recent weeks. The two Democratic candidates are now engaged in intensive campaigning leading up to Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary and are under a continual and hot media spotlight, increasing the chances for change in the views of Democrats in the days ahead.

Fairness.

Barack Obama and taxes on the Middle Class.

Dem group successfully offends senior citizens, makes my generation look like imbeciles

Keep playing this guys. Please. Is there a place I can go to donate and get this on the air in swing states from now until the election?

Earthquake strikes St. Louis region; 5.4 on the Richter

Video from the epicenter:

I slept through it for what it's worth. Not everyone did, though, which probably made for an exciting awakening.

By the way, if you're unfamiliar with the region, this may seem a bit odd: An earthquake in mid-America? In fact, Southeastern Missouri sits smack dab in the middle of a highly volatile area known as the New Madrid Seismic Zone, home of one of the most violent earthquakes in American history, the 1812 New Madrid Earthquake. The faultline has remained largely dormant insofar as major damage, or even general notice, is concerned for some time, but rest assured, we're not begging for it to wake back up; hearing about rivers running backwards and cities being destroyed is good enough.

Pronk-rageous!

Congress Debates Merits Of New Catchphrase

TIME, Al Gore: Fighting climate change like risking life and/or dying for country

Geesh. Via a Hot Air commenter.

Iwo Jima would be enough. But now playing on your TV:



For those playing at home, "We Can Solve It" is an Al Gore production.

I'm glad the climate change crowd is keeping perspective here and not conflating sacrificing one's life with sacrificing one's incandescent light bulbs.

Abortion as Art?

http://yaledailynews.com/storymin.html

Hopefully this frightens even pro-choice individuals. It shows how morally repugnant some individuals are.
Sent via BlackBerry

Updated 10:00PM: HOAX

Oh no - they asked questions!

Charlie Gibson looked over his glasses at plenty of Republican debates, too. Where was

Big Crowds for Pope

Pope Benedict's arrival and speech at the White House were met by a crowd of 9,000 today, with others packing the streets of Washington D.C., hoping to get a glimpse of the Pope passing by.

It's a testament to the fact that this is now, truly, a country where people are free to practice their religion, in a country where not even 50 years ago, one of the critical factors against a man running for President was that he was a Catholic.

The Roman Pontiff has received what seems to be, by far, the most hospitality given to a foreign leader during Bush's presidency, and perhaps in the nation's history. It is surely a sign of hope that many in this country are not following the plague of moral relativism that the Democrat party seems to have adopted whole heartedly.

New post-"cling" polls: Clinton +9, Clinton +14, Clinton +20

Rasmussen, Survey USA, and ARG. Will update when new numbers come in.

Real Clear Politics average was sitting at around Clinton +9 at week's end. Average margin since Clinggate? Clinton +14

Update: Strategic Vision: Clinton 49-40 (+9); that's +4 over SV's last poll, 47-42. The LA Times also put out a poll today with Clinton up 46-41 with 12% undecided, although the poll's a bit dubious as it also had Obama up 40-35 in Indiana with 19% undecided. Also there's nothing to compare this to, as this is the Times' first poll in the state.

Italy falls...

to yet another Pro-American government. Again. And in a big way.

Huge, perhaps historic, victory for Berlusconi's "Popolo della liberta' " (which translates a bit awkwardly as "the people of liberty;" maybe it's better to call it "the freedom folks"). It's considerably worse than AP lets on. Berlusconi defeated Walter Veltroni's "Democratic Party" by a full 9 points in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. And since the Italian electoral system gives a bonus to the winning side, the margins are very big and stable: 340 to 241 in the Chamber (with another 36 for a couple of small parties), and 167 to 137 in the Senate (with 5 to three little parties), which was expected to be a photo finish. Eighty percent voted, down about three percent from last time.

...Tomorrow's papers will pretend that this didn't happen, and warn that Berlusconi's allies in the Northern League are mercurial and dangerous, and that his majority isn't as stable as it looks. But it is. And there's an even more annoying feature to these elections, as seen by the chattering classes: Berlusconi is an outspoken, even passionate admirer of George W. Bush and the United States of America. Reminds one of the elections that brought Sarkozy to the Elysee, doesn't it? Best to keep that quiet, or somebody might notice that hatred of America doesn't seem to affect the voters in Italy, France or Germany.

I'd call "Jenga!", but let's not forget the outlier of Spain. Not a bad record, though, for us, the most hated nation on earth or whatever.

Email (finally!) works!

Send us your thoughts.

John Mayer, can you call Wikipedia for me?

Cause when they own the information, oh
They can bend it all they want

I just jaunted on over to Wikipedia, stumbled upon one of their nice, objective articles. I used to love Wikipeida, I believed in Wikipedia. This particular article is called Climate Change Denial, or some such nonsense.

I edited the page, and wrote something at the top about how uber-ridiculous it was. I used professional sounding language. I knew it wasn't the right way to go about it, but I figured the Wiki-Loser who trolled me out could at least add the tag that was what I was getting at.

No, rather, I confronted the National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments, directly out of C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength. They have this weird double-speak that they use to justify this page's very existence. For review, climate change "denial" is a heinous charge leveled at those of us who don't buy into the alarmism. Someone on the 'talk' page suggested that a 'global warming alarmism' page should exist to complement this nonsense, and they threw all manner of violations of Wiki-policy at him for that.

Two lesson learned, from this and other experiences:

1. Democracy really is a tyranny of the majority. Most Wikipedia users, I gather, are left-wing. You'll recall, a la MM, that it was the Wiki-nuts that said the only people who cared about the Absolut anti-Americanism are "American white nationals", whatever that even means. So, when a majority of participants want the world to look a certain way, it will certainly look that way so long as they own the information. John Mayer, call your office.

2. Wikipedia is an awesome experiment in public internet collaboration, but does not solve any of the problems of worldview and information control that exist in every other medium. The Wiki format has been useful for other sites, but probably should be restricted to communities rather than attempts at a global business.

Bush Doctrine Abandoned?

Stephen Hadley, Bush's National Security adviser said, according to the AP (from Post-Dispatch):

The kind of "quiet diplomacy" that the U.S. is practicing is a better way to send a message to China's leaders rather than "frontal confrontation," Stephen Hadley said.

Makes one question if the Bush Doctrine is only applicable when the country concerned is not a major trading partner, or has only a semi-effective military.

Bandwagons for McCain

We all know about the Bandwagon effect, the notion that if one candidate or another is sweeping the polls and gaining widespread support, that those straddling the fence will tend to fall off the fence on the side of that candidate.

McCain: 49
Hill-dog: 41

McCain: 50
Barry: 42

So here's our bandwagon: the latest Rasmussen shows McCain beating both Hill-dog and Barry by 8 points.


Along with that, there's this, from Thomas Sowell, just so we can be clear about what's going on here:

"Senator John McCain could never convince me to vote for him. Only Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama can cause me to vote for McCain."

Hillary takes whiskey shot, drinks mug of beer at Indiana bar

Also, she whittled a walking stick, bowled a 300, and shot an elk.



Au. then. tic. Blue. Collar. Like I said, this is her constituency, not Barack's. Which is a real problem for him, especially after his most recent comments on their "bitterness."

Update: Flashback.

Carter not to Endorse Until Convention

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, former President Jimmy Carter said he would not endorse one of the Democrats until convention. A big blow to Obama in terms of the base and having big names behind him, but very indicative of Carter's indecisiveness (not to mention the Democrat Party as a whole)...perhaps why no one aside from the fringe left Democrat base cares about Jimmy Carter anymore.

True.

Extended version:


A Little Commentary [S. L. Whitesell]: All those poor yokels in all those small towns who have reflexively developed anti-trade sentiment. Does anyone else think the only anti-trade sentiment is drummed up by Democrat primary runners and their union lackeys? As a small-towner myself (my hometown has less than ten thousand citizens and is almost fifty square miles), I am unfamiliar with the anti-trade sentiment those poor folk have harbored.

Furthermore, it should be noted at this point that this is not new. Bill Clinton has referred to certain demographics as 'those values voters', and we see Conservative districts profiled over and over again as either backwards or curious anomalies.

I can see why Barry is frustrated: everyone has a different 'issue number one' at the polling booth. Whenever that issue is individual rights, actual freedom of industry (as opposed to what they call free trade), the enforcement of laws, or stemming the dilution of our culture, liberals lose every time.

The solution? Characterize it pathologically, marginalize 2nd amendment rights and culturally concerned Americans as misdirected and disenfranchised victims. Nevermind the blatant insult to them and the erudite men and women who have developed cogent (that is, not liberal) positions on these matters.

Just get with the program and vote yourselves some more entitlements. Can't you see I'm offering you other people's money? Enough with your silly platitudes.

At least Michigan and Florida's votes count on American Idol

Tipped off about this video's existence here. Video found via YouTube.

Hillary opening up a can on Obama over "small town" comments

Will add more videos when they come online (including one where Hillary calls Obama an "elitist",) but here's a taste:

Update: Montage. Clinton calls Obama an elitist around 2:58. The source is distinctly pro-Obama, so treat the cuts with that grain of salt.



Update: Hillary's "elitist" comments on their own, via Hot Air.

Classy Dame

Did this start before or after Reagan invented AIDS and funneled drugs into black neighborhoods?

What kind of conspirators are we whiteys if we can't even silence dissenters? Is there a number I can call to report this sort of inconvenient whistle-blowing?

Obama: Small town America's a bunch of bigots and mental weaklings, but that's okay

After all, they were driven to their closed-mindness by the Clintons and Bushes.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I never thought of it that way! Maybe because it's a leftist stereotype of small town America that's not reflective of the truth and lumps legitimate beliefs about the Constitution, faith, and sovereignty together into an intolerant stew of unprogressiveness!

Maybe!

Update: Points 2 and 3 coming true.

3. Obama's frequently posited obliviousness and never-posited arrogance: It strains credulity to believe that Obama had little reason to believe that Rezko was a crook. Or that he didn't realize his self-narrated links to Selma and the Kennedy family were fabricated. Or that his pastor was an angry bigot and conspiracy theorist. Or that he didn't fill out that questionaire that had his handwriting on it. Throw in his Hillary "you're likeable enough" and stories like this from the John Edwards camp, and the non-partisan avatar of Hope and Healing seems a bit less likeable himself.

2. Hillary Clinton: ...and who she's now representing -- women, Florida, Michigan, and Blue Dog Democrats. If women don't show up in the general for the Democrats, this race is over, and any perceived chauvinism that women voters take from how the Democratic process shakes down will be an extreme stumbling block for an Obama nomination. Specifically, not counting Florida and Michigan is a knee-capping of their candidate as well as a disenfranchisement of millions of voters... and it appears the Obama camp has no problem with that. Toss in a little bit of Wright anti-Americanism, Michelle Obama antipathy, and Barack Obama politics (guns anyone?), and Hillary isn't just a barrier to Obama's nomination: she's the last refuge for conservative Democrats.

Update: Enter Hillary, defending her constituency. (via Hot Air)

“It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who face hard times are bitter,” Clinton said during a campaign event in Philadelphia. “Well that’s not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania. I meet people who are resilient, optimist positive who are rolling up their sleeves.”

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them,” she said. “They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families.”

"Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is"

The answer has arrived for the conscious-laden wealthy liberals who feel they are not being taxed enough: a new line on the IRS tax form that allows you to donate more tax money to the government. This should help those like Warren Buffet, the second-richest man in the U.S. who believes he should pay more taxes.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

California Republican John Campbell yesterday introduced in the House his "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act," which would amend the tax code to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government above their normal tax liability. The bill would place a new line on IRS tax forms to make this easy.

Mr. Campbell says he has heard the "cries" of those wealthy Americans – Mrs. Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand – who reject the lower tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 and complain that they and their fellow rich don't pay enough. "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation," he says. His bill would give liberals a chance to salve their consciences without having to raise taxes on millions of Americans who already feel overtaxed as it is.

All I can say is... it's about time. The interesting part will be to see who actually "puts their money where their mouth is."

The Olympics

I want to get on the record on a few things regarding the Olympics.

I never understood them when I was young. I knew what they were, but I could never quite grasp why Olympic athletes didn't come close to the popularity and acclaim of professional athletes. Not sportsfan myself, it seems odd that consumers are willing to put so much money into the market - but that is the wonder of choice. I always thought that as I grew older, I would begin to understand all the significance of 'the games', and even to develop some sort of appreciation for them. Since they only come around every so often, this pretty much never happened. Every four years, I would scratch my head a little bit and wonder.

Perhaps more importantly, I think I dislike them now. There is something very socialist-y going on with the Olympics. I am all about world unity, but not the kind of world unity that the Empire had in Star Wars (thank you, George Lucas, for providing me endless analogs to what happens when liberals get control, I'm sure that's exactly what you wanted). Islamists, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, Imperial Storm Troopers, Genghis Khan - they all were basically seeking peace. Typically, you fight people so that they are defeated and the fighting ends and you win, and then there is no more fighting. Fidel Castro managed to attain a 'peace' in Cuba, but I'm sure the Olympic-folk would actually see it on its face and praise it.

My point is that I don't want world unity come what may. There are a few non-negotiables, such as freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, not to mention the ever-controversial rights to what's yours in the first place. So no amount of gamesmanship at some contrived conference of athletes is going to inspire me to accept Communist Cuba and its oppression of its own people, or Soviet Russia and its destruction of its own people, or Global Islamic Jihad, if they can be bothered to send some athletes.

Every empire, nation, state, corporate entity, wants peace. But on what terms? A Pax Americana demands individual rights and limitations on the state. Or rather, it should. A Pax Islamica demands submission to Islamic law, even if it does not require conversion. A Pax Socisalista demands assertion of state control over the lives of the individual.

Orwell's 1984 describes a perfectly peaceful society! The alleged wars in the books may not have been taking place at all, and if they were, it was just a control measure the state had to use in order to maintain the peace within their respective societies.

So it is with Communist China. We need to get back to the difference between capitalism and free-markets: there's nothing free about Chinese society, even if they have introduced some elements of capitalism into their economics. As though this were somehow admirable, to continue to rob your people of life and liberty whilst you further exploit their labors by using capitalistic mechanisms!

How can our leaders even countenance China? They should be spurned, and directly and forcefully, not with simple boycotts or negative actions. What world leader will say, "This is a murderous regime that reveres the murderous Mao. Until they cease their oppression of Tibet, recognize Taiwan as a legitimate and sovereign republic and thus confess their own murderous past, and begin to open their society to the blessings of liberty and property, we will have nothing to do with them, including and especially attending an international event meant to foster goodwill and peace."

But alas, I dream.

Bloomberg Saga Part MCMXII: Another McCain Chapter

It's getting old, but this tidbit from today is notable.

...Mr. Bloomberg recalled how Mr. McCain campaigned with him in 2001 during his uphill – but ultimately successful – run for mayor. “I remember he was showing me how you press the flesh, and walk the streets and say hello to complete strangers,’’ he said. “I was a relative novice at that. But it was just really a thrill to have somebody that I had met, who came and had some confidence in me.’’

“I got elected because of you,’’ he said. “So if the people of New York are happy, they should say thank you to you, I guess.’’

Hmm.

That remark may have surprised some of the alumni of the Giuliani administration – including Tony Carbonetti and Rudy Washington – who were on hand for the event. Rudolph W. Giuliani’s endorsement – and some commercials he cut for Mr. Bloomberg – were widely credited at the time with helping propel Mr. Bloomberg to victory in the fall of 2001, just months after the attacks of Sept. 11.

Bloomberg certainly didn't have to chalk his win up to McCain, and that he did should raise just a few eyebrows. While not on the level of a Clinton-Richardson relationship, the "he got me my job" admission is politically problematic given the implied backstab if Bloomberg's eventual endorsement doesn't go to McCain -- and assuming, of course, Bloomberg was authentic in his declaration.

But on that last point, really, who knows anymore; Bloomberg (D/R/I-NY) is all over the map anymore, and trying to divine some meaning from what he says with regard to the Presidential race is a futile enterprise, and a seemingly meaningless one at that.

Randi Rhodes: I'm outta here.

Whatever.

Last week Air America suspended Randi Rhodes for abusive, obscene language at a recent public appearance in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.

Air America Media was informed last night by Ms. Rhodes that she has chosen to terminate her employment with the company. We wish her well and thank her for past services to Air America.

Looks like she's going back to local radio.

Update: Wider?

Hitchens v. Hitchens

That is, Christopher Hitchens vs. his brother, Peter Hitchens. Religion, Iraq, and more are discussed. Runs about an hour.

Andrew Sullivan lists three Bush administration "war criminals,"

but fails to mention two others in this April 6 TV appearance. Can you guess who he "forgot"?

SULLIVAN: The latest revelations on the torture front show the memo from John Yoo...means that Don Rumsfeld, David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time soon. They will be, at some point, indicted for war crimes.

March 29:

One day this president and vice-president will be prosecuted for war crimes.

Must have slipped his mind. I mean, everyone knows Addington and Yoo.

Bert and Ernie = Hardcore rock

Gracious; that was really cool.

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

Shock! Jimmuh Carter to meet with Hamas

So let's recap. Who's Jimmuh "Give Hamas a Chance" Carter support? Obama. Who's Obama want to talk to? Iran. With whom does Iran cooperate? Hamas. With whom will Hamas meet? Jimmuh.

Etc. etc.

Update: Looks like this isn't the first time he's summited with Hamas.

A Little Regionalism: NJ Closing State Parks

As you will have noticed, I am focused largely on ideological and philosophical issues, focusing mostly on national or international affairs. Please don't let that fool you: I am a states' rights advocate and a thorough federalist. I am appalled at how the several states have assumed the prone position and allowed the federal government to tread upon them as though there were mere administrative subdivisions of the national government.

That's worth repeating, in bold: The several states are not administrative subdivisions of the national government!

On that note, we turn to my home state, New Jersey. I love my upbringing in the rural south of the state, though I loathe the moral degradation and political statism that has overtaken the piedmont and urban sprawl that is North Jersey. Almost every aspect of NJ government and society disgusts me to one degree or another. On the other hand, I could hours idling in Princeton on any pleasant afternoon, or revisiting the battles of Trenton and Princeton. All my childhood memories are in Salem and Cumberland counties.

But alas! The great mother state is failing its citizens, which is really more its custom than an exception to normal operations. They are preparing to close down several state parks (tens of thousands of acres of parkland) to reduce expenses. I would say their chickens have come home to roost, but they come home every year. Chicken-roosting is more like a migratory pattern for Trenton.

One of the parks is, in fact, near and dear to my heart. Parvins State Park in Pittsgrove, NJ, my hometown, is a popular camping and recreation area. I used to go for runs there when I was home from college. They hosted the Halloween Hay Ride, had a nice little beach area, employed high school students as life guards and booth sentinels, etc.

Some folks from my high school have organized a rally and some political activity to try to change the state's mind. Instead, I think they should organize a drive to buy out the park from the state and put it under private stewardship of Parvins enthusiasts. I have told them as much on their facebook group.

However, in my one good deed of regionalism for the year, I have decided to call some attention to this fact. Perhaps - perhaps! - one of the legitimate functions of government is limited protection of land for recreation and non-commercial use. Whether this is desirable is a separate question from whether it is a legitimate act of the state, so, in an uncommon act of intellectual generosity, I have decided to give this matter whatever attention I can from whatever attention Newsbuckit itself gets.

Regarding those political email hoaxes about Obama,

Snopes has a complete list of them here, debunked in some cases and verified in others. Hillary's hoxes/truths here. McCain's here. We love reader tips, but if you do have one that you've received via email, hit up the links and see whether it's been checked out before shooting it our way. If it's not covered, we'll be more than happy to check your tip out, whichever candidate your email might address.

Obama: Let's chat with Iran about them killing our troops in Iraq

Audacity indeed.

The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stablize the situation without that."

From Petraeus's testimony earlier today:

Recently, of course, some militia elements became active again. Though a Sadr stand-down resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming and directing the so-called special groups, and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.

...Actions by neighboring states compound Iraq's challenges. Syria has taken some steps to reduce the flow of foreign fighters through its territory, but not enough to shut down the key network that supports Al Qaeda-Iraq. And Iran has fueled the violence, as I noted, in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support to the special groups.

...Together with the Iraqi security forces we have also focused on the special groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and coalition actions in response.

Iraqi and coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to the promises made by President Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the special groups.

However, nefarious activities by the Quds Force have continued and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq. We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.

...Iraq could face a resurgence of Al Qaeda-Iraq, or additional Shia groups could violate Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire order and return to violence. External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq and actions by other neighbors could undermine the security situation as well.

...The strategic considerations include recognition that: the strain on the U.S. military, especially on its ground forces, has been considerable; a number of the security challenges inside Iraq are also related to significant regional and global threats; a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against Al Qaeda, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the efforts to counter malign Iranian influence.

...It clearly is in our national interests to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq's borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.

Why wouldn't McCain agree with Obama? Must be that indifferent view from 35,000 feet.

The Solution to our Problems? Dead Conservatives.

"Not until all the conservatives die off."

About half an hour ago when I heard these words out of the mouth of a liberal college student, I was reminded of modern liberalism being out of touch with reality.

Why did she say this? I am in a strategic management class where the professor frequently reminds us of the issues that our generation will face and what we will need to do in order to solve them (The professor, unlike many, I believe to be a moderate conservative). The girl who made this outrageous comment did so under her breath, but loud enough for me to hear, as the professor was discussing how we would solve the pressing issues of Social Security, Medicare, health care costs, and the environment.

The modern left is so far removed from reality that their only attempts at bringing real world solutions to problems are quickly repudiated, and later a "Our way or the highway" approach is taken.

Welfare reform was criticized as biased against blacks and single mothers.

No Child Left Behind was criticized as, "one of the emptiest slogans in the history of politics," by...you guessed it, liberal icon Barack Hussein Obama.

The War in Iraq, initially supported by leftist icons Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Carl Levin, who urged then President Clinton, "to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspected Iraqi sites, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Romney's health care reform in Massachusetts, a great compromise idea, is not enough, as leftists continue to drive for federalized health care.

McCain has worked with democrats from Feingold to Lieberman. Bush, with Ted Kennedy. The left now wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq(not the gradual withdrawal that Hillary stood by before she realized it wasn't popular), federalized health care, and instantaneous tax hikes on the rich.

Perhaps it's time for the American left to go back to elementary school and learn about sharing and compromise. Then they can try to govern.

Vets on the Hill

Four hundred Iraq and Afghanistan veterans will meet in Washington, D.C., this Tuesday to share direct knowledge of the war with their representatives. The combat veterans are members of Vets For Freedom, an organization founded by service men and women who advocate success in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. By contributing first-hand experiences and educating Americans about the importance of a successful outcome, members of Vets for Freedom continue to support the War on Terror. “Vets on the Hill” will also participate in a large press conference with over 20 members of the U.S. Congress, including Senator John McCain.

Lies are "just words," too.

Pay no attention to the man in the empty suit.

Update: We'll go ahead and put Obama in Axelrod's category.



Yes, let's look them up on YouTube.

McCain/Rice 08?

Not our first choice.

Remember all the rhetoric about McCain choosing a movement conservative, or risking the whole show in November? I don't think it was a joke.

Condi is a swell gal, a fine painist, a well-educated Russianist, and has shone with varying degrees of brightness during her tenure at State. I like the woman.

First problem: She's a foreign policy chess piece, and so is he. He is better to balance himself with a domestic chess piece, someone with snappy and coherent answers to the next problem.

Second problem: The great unknowns. Let's see if the more journalistic among us can't get the answer to a few questions. I''ll provide a textbook conservative response and then we'll see how she compares. McCain himself is probably about a 50% solution on this. We'd hoped he would pick someone more like, say, 98%.

1. What does she think about property rights?

Looking for: They are inalienable and basic, and form the foundation of all other rights. Furthermore, taxation other than consumption is playing with fire with these rights.

2. How does she square with her own department's relativist, equivocating, and "peace through appeasement" attitude?

Looking for: She rejects it outright and has felt the strain of fighting it these past several years. Plus also, she believes in peace through strength and that a strong America is the world's last best hope.

3. What role does/can faith play in American politics?

Looking for: Faith is the cornerstone of American social life. Politicians should be encouraged to enthusiastically express their faiths in public, and no one should be ashamed to have the wisdom of their faith guide them. The First Amendment protects individuals from government regulation of religion, not private citizens from having to be bothered to hear about faith in public.

4. What is the role of the Constitution in the American system of government?

Looking for: Ignored. A vast majority of legislation is terribly statist in a way that would have horrified the founders. We need to get back, in a sensible way, to a government of enumerated powers. The vast entitlements that have emerged as a result of bad economics, bad governance, and ignoring the Constitution must be progressively turned back. We, as Americans, must have the strength to take our own destinies captive and halt the descent toward surrender to the state before we awake one morning and find that we look like our European neighbors - childless, lacking confidence, a diluted culture, at risk of utter collapse under internal and external demographic threats.

5. Immigration?

Looking for: We have laws for a reason. Plus also, why's the fence taking so long?

I am certain she's on the record on some of these things. I like the fact that she's a black female who buys into neither black group-think nor feminism. I like her academic resume and her intellectual acumen, not to mention her experience.

(Patrick and Phil, don't hesitate to treat this as a communal post. Heh - we here at Newsbuckit can be communist sometimes.)

"Church of Oprah" under attack?

This video is making its way through the evangelical grapevine and has quietly amassed 1.6 million hits on YouTube after just ten days. Obama even gets a mention in it (at 5:47.)

Since I'm not of the evangelical movement, my view on Oprah's comments and behavior is a little bit different -- that is, I think it's harmless pseudo-spiritual psychobabble not all that uncommon on daytime television. It will be interesting to see if this gets legs with a wider audience, though, and whether there's going to be any blowback on Obama.

One last thing: Which pastor was Oprah referring to? Wright? See 3:38 of the vid.

"Sen. Barack Obama declined twice Saturday to personally repudiate a liberal radio host's declaration that Sen. John McCain is a 'warmonger.'"

That sort of backbone speaks for itself. (Via Instapundit)

Story on McCain's son in Iraq goes frontpage in NY Times

Published against McCain's his wishes, no less. Details here.

Charlton Heston, American Hero

Charlton Heston, defender of the Constitution, has joined our nation's great founders in the presence of angels.

Watch the liberal blogs for hate-spewing.

Occasional Tabloid Piece

Every once in a while, even the soberest of News outlets should indulge. And we hardly come close to that characterization.

In my case, I am smitten by Carla Bruni, wife of the President Sarkozy of France.

A class act, Ms. Bruni conducted herself with poise and grace while hosted by Her Majesty (who is also Queen of France, naturally).

It's out of our system now, I promise.

Olbermann countdown to crow-eating re: McHenry

As predicted by AP, like clockwork; it's as if Countdown's Rachel Maddow lifted the piece straight from the Think Progress website...

What partisan hacks. I'd say "journalists," but that's a bit generous given the truth was available six hours before the broadcast.

Obama's "Voice of Progressive Radio": McCain a "warmonger"

Now this should be a juicy story. (via Hot Air)

Radio talk show host Ed Schultz warmed up the crowd, attacking Sen. John McCain as “a warmonger,” before Obama arrived entered the room.

Obama thanked Schultz, saying he was the “voice of progressive radio,” and someone “who knows a little bit about sports."

...In response to Schultz’s warmonger comment, Jeff Sadosky, a spokesperson with the McCain campaign, issued this response late Friday:

“Senator Obama has repeatedly said that words matter, they do, and for him to stand on stage and thank someone who just minutes before used hate filled and inflamatory language to describe John McCain, someone who has served his nation in and out of uniform for over 30 years, shows Obama’s true colors, liberal Chicago-style politics as usual. Americans want more, they deserve better.”

Compare/contrast. There is nothing substantially different here from the Bill Cunningham situation, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And lest we forget, Obama's "not knowing" that Schultz, the "voice of progressive radio," would use such language isn't an excuse. After all, that's the standard the Left set for McCain.

I wonder if John Amato will so vociferously condemn this "vicious" attack from "walkie talkie" Schultz. Methinks not.

Global Warming Reminder:

Do as little as possible.

For years now, I've been trying to challenge the orthodoxy surrounding the global warming hooey. I wrote two articles in the school paper, here and here. By far, the best compendium on the subject is Mark Alexander's comprehensive essay, here.

Here's the kicker: we've been obliged to look past the first premise, as I've indicated in my first editorial above: The first is that global warming is occurring. This is the organizing principle of the Church. They do not even bother arguing the point. I know this from experience. You might think you had questioned the existence of Canada.

Anytime the subject comes up, I am quick to announce that, for the sake of argument (which is code for "I can win even by conceding that questionable premise"), I will concede your silly assumption. I continue in my first article:

Innocent skeptics - the sort who are unfamiliar with the debate and so do not know their own heresy - are treated with a sort of patronizing charity. They are gently, but firmly, informed that there is no such possibility and that the Oracle of Science has spoken. The Church is willing to tolerate this class of persons so long as they stay out of policy discussions.

Informed skeptics have a different approach: They maintain that the 0.6 (yes, that's zero point six) degree increase in average temperature over the past century is no cause for assuming it will continue. In fact, we conservative types tend to remember history a little better - and we remember the 1970s global cooling scare.

Seriously, search the archives of The New York Times, Newsweek or the Christian Science Monitor.

Finally, the scientific skeptics are relegated to the extremes and no one may hear their heresies. For example, how many of you know that some scientists actually question the validity of the very concept of a "global temperature"? These are real scientists at major universities (in Europe, no less) and they seriously contend that an average global temperature is like "calculating the average number in the phone book."

Friends who I thought were reasonable failed to join me in my 'first premise doubting' mode of argument. Some of them were just too convinced by the 'science'.

Fear not, lemmings. The mainstream media and science have teamed up to... tell the truth, it seems.

Of course, my estimation is that they are probably wrong, as usual.

Go Royals! Only undefeated team in baseball!

Yay!

Think Progress does unthinkable, calls US contractor a "US solider"

Looks like they have a lot of posts to update. McHenry was way out of line. He could have done far worse.

Update: TP sort-of updates but neither changes the "soldier" title nor corrects the text of its original posting.

Update: Michael Goldfarb reports that the "two-bit security guard" was a foreign contractor, not a member of the military, as both Carolina Politics and Lance Simon originally reported. As Ed Morrissey states, "Does this really make it any better? After all, the contractors risk their lives as well, albeit for better compensation."

Good point, TP!, albeit coopted from a conservative commentator writing for a conservative blog.

I look forward to the spin from the Left and the "greater truth" this episode must really symbolize. Nevermind that the underlying truth is, in fact, false.

Befriend John McCain in webwide Facebook challenge

McCain's profile is here. Background on Patrick Ruffini's challenge here.

As I've said before, connecting up in a forum like Facebook is especially important this year given the technological prowess of both Democratic opponents. Here's an opportunity to get involved and do your part.

Just doing mine.

If the election was held today,

we still wouldn't know who was about to win. But! We have some predictions. MSNBC. Rasmussen. And last, but certainly not least, Tim Russert and his "269 armageddon":

Absolut-ly ridiculous

Great thing about the international economy? You can sell stuff anywhere. Not so great thing about the international economy? People can see how you're selling it.

Aztlan returns!


My reaction? (Warning: Counter-historical humor follows. Enjoy.)

Look on the brightside: we're not eating each other. Yet.

Oh yeah, and the guys killing our troops with roadside bombs? Patriots.

Oh Ted. Of course, he wasn't the first to make the latter claim. Think he's all alone on the former, though I could be wrong.

"Most of the people will be dead, the rest of us will be cannibals."

Geert Wilders: Super Liberal

It turns out, mirabile dictu, that defending your own heritage and civilization is not left to conservatives! It's a dangerous game liberals are playing, incorporating this anti-civilizational relativism into their dogma. They should take a page from this chap's book.

Then again, liberals really have no identification with liberty, whence their heritage derives. When they do talk of liberty, it is usually personal licentiousness or these odd group's liberties that trample on individual - that is to say, actual - liberties. (Given a choice between groups of people feeling okay, and large numbers of individuals being actually denied certain liberties of expression, well, you get the point.)

I'll freely acknowledge that most liberals have the cheeriest of intentions at heart. But Civilization is non-negotiable, intentions or otherwise. We can talk all about universal insurance and welfare statism ad nauseum right now, but let's not forget the framework that makes that possible. Or is that too simple? Are there actually three camps - the secular statist, the theo-statist, and the anti-statist? Perhaps - I'm not political scientist.

What I know is that the threat of the state is coming from two directions at present, and I wish they'd all just bugger off.