The Greatest Story Ever Sold

It isn't "what did he know, and when did he know it," but instead appears to be "he knew it all along, and is trying to hide it."

That is the impression left when reading this article in the NY Post today.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has "betrayed" their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

And perhaps most damning:

"Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship."

If the source is correct, other senior leaders of Trinity United Church of Christ know that Barack Obama was familiar with the radical content of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. For Obama to say otherwise is a betrayal of the pastor and the church.

The obvious implication is that Obama knew precisely what Wright's views and positions were for 20 years, and Obama "never batted an eye" until Wright's positions became too much political baggage for the Senator's presidential aspirations.

The implication is obvious. Either:

• Barack Obama believes in the angry, paranoid and racist teachings of Jeremiah Wright and the Marxist liberation theology of his church, and is lying about it in public in hopes of getting elected, which is essentially the betrayal Rev. Wright accused him of in front of the National Press Club Monday morning, or;
• Barack Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ and his relationship with the pastoral staff and congregation were nothing more than a 20-year lie of convenience and exploitation of the Church and Wright of Homeric proportions.

No matter how you slice it, Obama is guilty of an epic deception in his quest for power, and potential supporters should start to wonder just how much he's willing to lie to them to get elected if he's already betrayed a 20-year-old relationship in that pursuit.

I don't know if the United Church of Christ has a process for excommunication, but it would be interesting as an intellectual exercise to speculate about Trinity excommunicating Obama for his actions. He has obviously embarrassed the church and the man who grew it into what it is today, and has done as much as he possible can to separate himself from the church, short of locking the door and burning the congregation inside (a tactic, by the way, actually used by his cousin's supporters in Kenya this past January).

Exit Question: If TUCC did excommunicate Obama, would it hurt him or help him as a candidate?

Hangman

"No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching."

Rev. Otis Moss, Trinity United Church of Christ, March 23, 2008

"The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," he said. "His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

"They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs," he said.

"If Reverend Wright thinks that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well and based on his remarks yesterday, I may not know him as well as I thought either."

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church," he said. "But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS; when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century; when he equates the U.S. wartime efforts with terrorism – then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

Barack Obama, Winston-Salem, NC, April 29, 2008

Ace pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter, if in language a bit more colorful than I typically use.

Too little, too dishonest, and too late. Obama cuts into Wright for being precisely the man he has been for the past 20 years.

Wright has been consistent, and Obama has proven to be precisely what everyone feared—just another cheap empty suit, willing to say or do anything according to the requirements of the polls.

Far from being the Messiah, he makes for even a shoddy secondhand Brian.

The DNC IED

Several people have forwarded me a link this morning to the Democratic National Committee ad against John McCain that shows two American soldiers at the moment an explosion goes off beside them.

The soldiers are on screen for just a split-second, just long enough for viewers to see that there was an explosion, but not long enough to know if the soldiers pictured survived uninjured, if they were wounded, or if they were killed (note: Both soldiers survived. See final update below).

More than 3 full decades after the last U.S. soldier left Saigon, the party of Bill Ayers still revels in the imagery of blowing up U.S. soldiers as part of their political expression.

Update: RNC slams ad as deliberately distorting what McCain said (a fair charge) and demands that the networks pull the ad off the air.

As for the source of the video clip, we're a little closer to running that down—it was used in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, a movie completed no later than April of 2004. The clip came from the first year of the war.

Additional Update: Charlie Foxtrot notes that the same networks who placed restrictions on 9/11 imagery did not apparently have the same problem with this Democratic National Committee ad.

And because it matters, both U.S. soldiers survive the blast (h/t Political Punch).

Sorry, Barack: NC Gov Goes For Hillary

I first heard the suspicion that North Carolina Governor Mike Easley would buck the huge advantage Barack Obama has in North Carolina's polling to support Hillary Clinton late this afternoon. The Associated Press now confirms it:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the endorsement of North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, a surprise boost to her candidacy in a state where Barack Obama is heavily favored to win the Democratic primary.

Easley was expected to announce the endorsement Tuesday morning in Raleigh, the state capital, one week before North Carolina's primary on May 6, according to people close to the governor and to Clinton. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because the formal announcement was pending.

With its liberal white enclaves and large population of black voters, North Carolina has been viewed as exceptionally favorable to Obama. Public polling in the state has him leading the former first lady by 10 points or more.

But Clinton has contested the state in hopes of an upset. Short of that, her campaign aims to peel off enough pledged delegates to stay competitive with Obama.

The former first lady spent Monday campaigning across North Carolina and has run a heavy television advertising campaign in the state. She was headed Tuesday to Indiana, whose May 6 primary is viewed as much more competitive.

Easley is relatively well-liked—or at least, isn't heavily disliked—by both Democrats and Republicans in North Carolina, and has enough political capital that his endorsement could actually make things interesting if Clinton continues to close on Obama.

And yes, she very well should continue to close.

Obama looks weak and scared for dodging another debate with Clinton. His dodge ie occuring even as Jeremiah Wright's latest rants give Tarheel voters good reason to find Obama's judgment suspect for the two decades (and counting) he has spent at Wright's radical church, where paranoia, anti-Americanism, racism, and conspiracy-theorizing has proven to be not only accepted, but a bizarrely lucrative business.

I'm not convinced that African-American voters will turn on Obama for Wright's lunacy even as few buy into his hatred, but I suspect that some white and Latino Democratic voters who had been leaning towards Obama now realize that his hopes of prevailing in the general election have been heavily damaged, and they may flip to Clinton instead of throwing away their vote. Thus does Easley's endorsement become important for Democrats on the edge.

A few weeks ago, North Carolina was predicted as a blow-out victory for Barack Obama. Now?

Anything's possible.

When Jesus Drove a Porsche

I am not a very good Christian. I can't confidently flip to the right book, chapter and verse Sunday mornings without looking at the index as some others in my congregation can.

Still, I'm fairly confident that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not a religious martyr. He has never been publicly crucified. Hoisted on his own petard, perhaps, as he's been caught damning our nation and accusing our government of genocide and racism, even as he has profited handsomely from a theology based upon a devious blend of Marxism and racial politics, but not crucified.

I'm pretty sure he isn't Jesus, even as he would like to make himself a messianic martyr. Last I checked, Jesus didn't drive a Porsche, and wasn't building a mansion in the exclusive neighborhood of Tinley Park while lecturing his inner-city flock about the evils of aspiring to "middleclassness" in the US of KKK-A.

Though certainly grist for the media mill, I can't hold Wright's more recent outbursts directly against Obama. Wright's most recent vitriol has come after Obama has made at least minimal attempts to distance himself publicly from Wright's worst comments, even as he clings to the pastor and his warped theology.

What I can question, however, is Obama's judgment in associating with such a man and other radicals throughout his adult life.

As a nation, we've only known Jeremiah Wright for a few months now, but Barack Obama has known him for two decades. He knows the man's theology, his ministry, and after two decades, at least something of the man as an individual. Whether or not Obama heard any of Wright's specific rants is frankly irrelevant. In the larger picture, he should know who and what Wright is as a man.

If the self-righteous, vitriolic narcissist we continue to see in the news is the real Jeremiah Wright, then we have every reason to question Barack Obama's devotion to a racial and radical theology well outside of the mainstream of the American religious experience. It is a matter of his personal judgment and his character.

Barack Obama promises "change we can believe in" and a new spirit of bi-partisanship in politics.

Were he a more mature candidate, we would have his record and his experience as a national legislator to judge him on as someone capable of making such a change, but his record is almost non-existent. He has taken few stands (if any) on issues he now claims to be important. The meager voting record he has compiled shows him to be anything but bi-partisan. Instead, he boasts the most liberal voting record in the Senate, to the left of even self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

With no record of bi-partisan accomplishments, all Barack Obama has to stand on is rhetoric—"just words."

With mere words being insufficient, few actions to his credit and what little record he has compiled showing him to be a radical leftist instead of the inclusive moderate he claims to be, we're left to judge Barack based upon what we can divine of his character by the company he keeps.

Radical violence-promoting priest Father Michael Pfleger, whom Obama has known even longer than Wright, and Wright is a man made rich by exploiting Chicago's urban poor via religion. Terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who formally declared war on the United States, and still despise this nation. Michelle Obama, who has an Ivy League education and a job that pays her hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but still finds this to be a "mean" country.

Barack Obama's minister may have made a mint off of preaching hate and may also be his greatest continuing public relations embarrassment, but his relationship with the man who would liken himself to being martyred like Jesus is just one example of Obama's poor character judgment, or perhaps just poor character.

A man of few accomplishments to support his rhetorical promises, no proven leadership skills, and a past, present, and future filled with radicals more interested in fighting America than fighting for it, Barack Obama is not a candidate America can trust.

Comments Closed...

...due to Chinese spammers.

New Iranian Weapons Captured in Iraq

Iranian 107mm rockets recovered after attack on U.S. FOB Hammer in Iraq, July 2007

Playing a very dangerous game:

The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.

Officials in Washington and Baghdad said the purported Iranian mortars, rockets and explosives had date stamps indicating they were manufactured in the past two months. The U.S. plans to publicize the weapons caches in coming days. A pair of senior commanders said a presentation was tentatively planned for Monday.

The allegations, which couldn't be independently verified, mark a further hardening of U.S. rhetoric on Iran, which senior American officials now describe as the greatest long-term threat to Iraq.

This month, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian support for Shiite extremist groups had grown. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said for the first time that he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knew about the shipments.

Iran has long denied that its government knowingly funneled weapons into Iraq or trained Shiite militants there. It has derided the U.S. claims as propaganda. Several senior U.S. military officials said the weapons caches would undercut the Iranian denials and provide new evidence of continuing Iranian support for Shiite militants across Iraq.

"You can see the manufacturing dates right on the armaments themselves," one senior commander in Baghdad said. "These are very clearly weapons that were made in the last month or so."

Markings, of course, are easy to fake, and the truther fringe of the "Bush lied, people died!" sect are sure to accuse the Administration and/or elements of the military with doing just that. Much harder to fake, however, are the materials used, certain tool marks, and other mechanical and electrical components. Taken together, the component pieces form a unique signature that EOD experts can read like a fingerprint. As far as our military is concerned, the markings only serve to confirm what explosive experts could already tell from even unmarked weapons.

This is a stupid mistake by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime, coming at a time when Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is celebrating stunning military successes in Basra and other parts of the Shia south against Iranian-backed "special groups" within Muqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army militia. The recovery of this cache can only help Iraq's central government grow even more cohesive, upsetting hopes for a failed Iraqi state and U.S. defeat.

Iran's foreign policy is turning out to have been very poorly calculated as of late. One can only wonder what their next gaffe will be, and what affect it may have on the hardline regime in Tehran.

Hack

Eric Boehlert starts off his article cracking on warbloggers for the "Jamil Hussein" fiasco, claiming that it imploded. Well, he's half-right: Jamil Gulaim Innad al-Jashami embarrassed the Associated Press when I outed him as a man hiding behind a pseudonym when they swore his "Hussein" identity was real. AP has refused to discuss "Hussein" since I published that story.

Boehlert also wants to attack some bloggers for not covering Bilal Hussein and his release under Iraq's new amnesty law, but isn't it Boehlert himself being deceptive when he "forgets" to mention that 300 other suspected insurgents were given amnesty that exact same day, undermining his thesis that it was Bilal Hussein's innocence, not amnesty, that set him free?

"Imploded."

I think he understands what that word means, but not to whom it applies.

ABC News Caught Lying About Guns... Again

I've really had it with ABC News and Brian Ross.

Last year in the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, Ross and the crack staff of The Blotter lied about the effect 1994 Crime Bill as it related to pistol magazines used by the shooter, refused to issue a retraction, and deleted blog comments warning them of how wrong they were while continuing to get basic facts of the case wrong through carelessness.

Today, Ross and accomplice Richard Esposito continue that fine ABC News tradition of making up the news, in a story claiming that the U.S. Second Amendment is to blame for Mexico's drug cartel problems.

The deception starts with the picture at the beginning of the article.

The focus of the story, according to ABC News, is that U.S. dealers of civilian firearms are to blame for Mexico's drug cartels and their violence problems... so why do they highlight an M60 general purpose machine gun, a weapons still in use in Mexico's military, but impossible to find in the open U.S. civilian market?

From that visual deception, we'll transition to outright lie number one in the text, an attempt to smear the Bush Administration:

Assault weapons made in China and Eastern Europe, resembling the AK-47, have become widely and cheaply available in the U.S. since Congress and the Bush administration refused to extend a ban on such weapons in 2004.

AK-pattern rifles were legal to own or import during the entire life of the 1994-2004 "Crime Bill," something that Ross knows for a fact... or should. This claim is a blatant falsehood.

The only effect of the law was to outlaw the importation or manufacture of certain specific firearms by name, and cosmetic features found on other firearms, without banning their manufacture, important, or purchase once these features were removed or replaced. The result was that the same functioning firearms were imported the day after the "ban" went into effect without a bayonet lug or flashhider, and with a thumbhole stock instead of a pistol grip. Functionally, the weapons were identical, with no reduction in firepower, magazine capacity, controlability, or or lethality. The "Crime Bill" outlawed virtually nothing, and was merely a fig-leaf for anti-gun politicians.

As for Bush, he was in favor of extending the ban. ABC News failed to get that fact correct, either, even though checking it would have taken less than ten seconds on Google.

Now, to the second visual deception by ABC News. Once again, this article is about how common U.S. civilian weapons are being used by Mexican drug cartels.

So why does ABC News insist on displaying highly-restricted SBRs (short-barreled rifles), automatic weapons, what appears to be no less than 4 M-203 grenade launchers, and at least 20 40mm grenades, military hardware not readily available on the civilian market?

Once again, they post pictures designed to deceive, but we're not quite done with ABC's print deceptions, either.

The drug cartels' weapons of choice include variants of the AK-47, .50-caliber sniper rifles and a Belgian-made pistol called the 'cop killer' or 'mata policia' because of its ability to pierce a bulletproof vest.

"It's in high demand by your violent drug cartels, their assassins in Mexico," said Newell of the ATF. The gun can fire a high-powered round used in a rifle. "

Again, more fiction, aided and abetted by a law enforcement officer that is either incompetent, or who is as dishonest as ABC News.

The FN Five-seveN (their punctuation, not mine) does not fire rifle bullets as the article claims. It fires a tiny 5.7mm personal defense round designed for light carbines, submachine guns and pistols.

It is not any more armor-piercing than many other pistol cartridges, and less powerful than all centerfire rifle cartridges. Furthermore for the 5.7 cartridge to be truly armor-piercing, it must fire special ammunition that is only available to military and law enforcement sources.

There are multiple inaccuracies in this story that display outright incompetence on the part of ABC News, or a willful desire to deceive. Based upon prior performance, the blatantness of the misrepresentations that far surpass simple incompetence, and a pattern of deleting comments that point out their errors in the past, an attempt to willfully defraud ABC News consumers should be inferred in this article until mere incompetence can be proven.

It may well be true that civilian weapons are making their way across the border into Mexico, but that does not give ABC News the right to manufacture or misrepresent evidence to increase their story's impact.

Update: Warner Todd Huston notes yet another fabrication in an earlier version of the ABC News story.

Also made minor edits to the text to further clarify that M60s, SBRs, and machine guns are not readily available on the open market as ABC News implies. Such firearms are heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act.

Update: Story video here.

How Many Military Suicides?

The San Francisco Chronicle posts this without question:

More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco.

The rights of hundreds of thousands of veterans are being violated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, "an agency that is in denial," and by a government health care system and appeals process for patients that is "broken down," Gordon Erspamer, lawyer for two advocacy groups, said in an opening statement at the trial of a nationwide lawsuit.

He said veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 18 a day - a number acknowledged by a VA official in a Dec. 15 e-mail - and the agency's backlog of disability claims now exceeds 650,000, an increase of 200,000 since the Iraq war started in 2003.

We're looking at the conflation of multiple claims here, so lets take them one at a time:

More than 120 veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commit suicide every week while the government stalls in granting returning troops the mental health treatment and benefits to which they are entitled, veterans advocates told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco.

There is no way to get a constant figure of X per week, but if they are presuming that 120/week figure from the beginning of the Iraq War on March 20, 2003, we're talking 1860 days (not including today), rounding down to 265 weeks * 120 suicides/week = 31,800 suicides of Iraq and Afghan War veterans.

If we instead presume they arrived at 120/week starting with the October 7, 2001 war with Afghanistan, we're looking at 2389 days (not including today), rounding down to 341 weeks * 120 suicides/week = 41,920 suicides of Iraq and Afghan War veterans.

Are they trying to tell us between 31,000-41,000 modern war veterans have committed suicide, and we're just now starting to notice, five years later?

The 18/suicides a day figure seems to quietly leave out which wars are covered, and could be construed to assume the aging veterans of WWII, Korean, Vietnam, and other campaigns as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. It would seem prudent to assume that many of these may be due to issues perhaps unrelated to PTSD caused a half-century or more before in many instances.

If they do mean all veterans, regardless of war, but measure from the start of the Afghan war at a rate of 18 suicides a day, we wind up with 43,002 suicides for all veterans of all wars during this time period. If we instead use the 18 suicides/day figure from the beginning of the Iraq War, we wind up with 33,480 suicides for all veterans of all wars during this time period.

Are they trying to tell us between 33,000-43,000 U.S. military war veterans have committed suicide in the past 5-8 years, and we're just now starting to notice?

According to the math cited here, the VA may be shorting veterans on care, but they excel at hidden burials.

We are not treating out veterans with nearly the care and respect for their service as we should, but I'd be shocked if we were losing as many as these figures suggest.

Iraq Steps Forward, and the Media Slinks Away

Ed Morrissey notes that Iraq is continuing down the path to political reconciliation even as the media choses to largely ignore these developments in favor of more pressing stories, like the present cost of Barak Obama's half-eaten waffle on eBay.

One of those points of political reconciliation in Iraq is amnesty for some classes of detainees after determining they no longer present a threat of resuming insurgent activities.

Among those detainees released due to Iraq's amnesty law in recent weeks was Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who was arrested with a known al Qaeda terrorist leader in his home and in possession of bomb-making materials and terrorist propaganda that he presumably helped make. Part of the reason he was released is that he was no longer considered a threat; the insurgents he had (allegedly) provided propaganda for in Fallujah are long dead or dispersed.

I find it somewhat amusing the amount of time and legal expense the Associated Press incurred trying to free their photographer—and their reputation—to no avail, despite mounting the most deceptive, ethically-challenged of media campaigns on his behalf. It was only through the political progress of the Iraqi government that Hussein was released.

Perhaps tellingly, the Iraqi government advances that led to Hussein's release was down-played by the news organization, as it stretched the shaky boundaries of their credibility by implying his release was conditioned on innocence instead of amnesty.

Increasingly, proof of progress in Iraq is measured by how little the media talks about the nation's successes.

Enjoy the silence.

Without Ethics

Did you read the article in the New York Times today implying that John McCain sold political favors to an Arizona real estate developer that is also big campaign donor?

I'm no McCain fan, but after reading all four pages, I'm left still waiting for some substance, some sort of bombshell, that legitimizes this story as news.

Real estate developers try to make money from land deals? They're willing to trade for properties that they feel may be more profitable to them, and discard those properties they feel aren't going to be as profitable? Real estate developers try to attract and keep the attention of politicians by raising money for them?

Shocking. I'm sure such things have never before happened in the history of earth.

For the story to have merit and legitimacy it needs a "gotcha," an impropriety, some sort of ethical or legal breach on behalf of the businessman by the politician. This story runs on for four long pages, but the authors never present anything approaching unethical conduct on the part of the candidate.

To the contrary, instead of making a solid case based upon evidence, the article editorializes, it speculates and implies, but provides nothing to support the implied thesis of McCain's corruption.

In fact, the only evidence the story supplies are specific instances where McCain rejected inappropriate interventions, including one instance where McCain allegedly stopped speaking to the developer for a year over behavior—hiring a personal lobbyist—that was self-serving but entirely legal.

This Times story sought to create a furor over shady, unethical behavior, and it has done that in spades.

Jim Rutenberg is one author of the article, and a man who has apparently discarded his integrity as a reporter to write political hit pieces. This is the second Rutenberg article attacking John McCain in the Times in recent months, neither of which has provided any actual evidence of impropriety. The first alleged an affair with a female lobbyist that was remarkably evidence free, a trait that today's article also seems to share.

Rutenberg has now twice attempted to smear McCain with charges unsupported by evidence, and twice his editors have not only elected to run the hit pieces, but gave them prominent placement in print editions.

We've been fortunate in knowing for some years now that we don't have to wonder about the editorial biases in play at the New York Times, and now because of these articles and others like them we have no reason to question their ethics... they have none.

In the end, Rutenberg and other newsroom editorialists at the Times are hastening their own demise with this kind of journalism.

I'm not sure who will miss them when they're gone.

Heroes

Glenn Reynolds is giving J.D. Johannes' Iraq War documentary trilogy Outside the Wire a big push this morning, noting that Amazon is bundling the film with Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq, which Glenn dubs the "Iraq War Honesty Pack."

It is probably worth adding Congressional Medal of Honor nominee David Bellavia's House to House, and My Men Are Heros, a book about Navy Cross nominee Brad Kasal to that list, but those are only scratching the surface of the material out there about the conflict and the men fighting it that you won't often see reported in the larger media.

PA Voting Forecast

Bitter and cold, with bluster increasing throughout the evening hours, with little hope of change for tomorrow.

Tarheel Dems Attempt to Cover for Obama as He Bails on NC Debate

Running from a challenge? Unsurprisingly, that's something they can believe in:

A proposed debate in Raleigh between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has been called off, officials said Monday.

CBS had agreed to host a debate next Sunday at the RBC Center and televise the event nationally. Clinton agreed to the date, but Obama, who had earlier committed to an April 19 debate, said repeatedly he wasn't sure whether he could fit an April 27 debate into his campaign schedule.

The North Carolina Democratic Party said in a statement Monday that the logistics of staging a national event on short notice, if Obama were to agree to the debate this week, were too daunting to try to pull everything together. Democratic officials also said there were "growing concerns about what another debate would do to party unity."

That is a truckload of bovine excrement, of course.

The NC Democratic Party could have easily provided for a debate with the resources we have here in the state capitol, even on short notice, and plans were no doubt in place to do just that until Obama backed down from the challenge.

Leading Tarheel Democrats—including both Democratic gubernatorial candidates—are in the tank for Barack Obama, and they understand that another dismal performance by a faltering Obama could give the Clinton campaign the opening it needs to finish a bruising primary season strong and throw the nomination process even further into turmoil. They don't want to risk his double-digit lead and his overall viability when it isn't absolutely necessary.

The NC Democratic Primary isn't about producing the most viable candidate. It's about letting the selected candidate get the nomination with as little risk as possible.

Hey, Cracker...

...who do you hate the most?

This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder -- after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday's primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain's temper will be a problem, don't bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.

Unreliable white men. Think of how wonderful this land would have been without them.

The author of this bigoted rant (my bold, by the way) is Norah Ephron, another Barack Obama supporter clinging to "hope" and "change" along with sexism, racism, and bitterness.

(h/t Hot Air, where Ed has fairly refined, if no doubt unreliable and hateful, thoughts on this rant.)

CCH Help (Last Time, I Swear)

So back on February 1, I solicited advice from you regarding a good CCH handgun, and after reading your responses, talking to various people I know offline, and hours of scouring the Web for scraps of information, I made a decision.

Well, that decision lasted all of about two minutes when I went to my local gun shop this past Friday afternoon and asked to owner to place my order. He asked a very simple question

"So, are you looking for an actual carry pistol, or are you looking for something that will spend most of it's time in the car or at the range?"

I'd always planned on actually carrying the weapon on my person where allowed, as a concealed lawyer was impractical and of dubious value in the event of a crime. I said the same.

He asked earnestly, "Can I show you something?"

He went to the display case, pulled out a variant of the Glock 23 I was thinking of ordering, along with the XD-subcompact that was my second choice, and then proceeded to show me how thick the two guns were both across the slide and through the grip.

He went on to tell me that both pistols are extremely reliable, but because of their thickness, my body type, and personal style of dress in North Carolina's long summers (flip-flops, shorts, and tee shirts), they will be difficult for me to carry concealed.

He then pulled out a Kahr CW, which was one of the guns I'd been looking at in my original list of possibilities. It was much, much, more narrow, lighter, and generally far easier to hide than anything else on my list, though single-column magazines are more difficult to seat quickly.

As a larger alternative (but still not quite as thick as the Glock or XD), the Smith & Wesson M&P Compact has also been lurking in the background. Based in part on things I've read, the first-hand experiences I've heard from a local instructor who carries one, and the two free mags offered with a write-in $50 rebate, it is certainly attractive (and fits my hand well).

Being honest with myself, I think I'd like the XD and Glock better for range sessions and as a "car gun," but I also know that on quick runs to the grocery or drug store in the middle of the night, I'd be far more likely to grab a smaller, lighter, and more-easy-to-conceal pistol.

So what would you gun geeks recommend?

Should I go with the smaller, lighter, and easier to conceal Kahr CW-series, the Smith&Wesson M&P Compact, or should I go with the larger Glock or XD knowing I'm less likely it to carry it on more mundane trips?

Let me get your pros and cons on these, folks.

Later this week, one of these is coming home.

Update: or maybe not this week after all. I took my M1927 to a gunsmith to replace a broken extractor (it crapped out Saturday morning) and it's going to cost more than I thought to replace it, depleting my gun budget.

Meanwhile... Glenn Reynolds notes that University of Tennessee students are staging an empty holster protest of gun laws today as part of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

Happy Patriots Day

On this day in 1775, the minutemen first stood their ground and started a revolution. Jules Crittenden compiles a series of first-hand accounts in April Morning.

Another Vet Snaps Under Pressure

As David Burge noted in Bylines of Brutality, the emotional toll on media veterans is becoming ever more pronounced, leading to all sorts of radicalized, anti-social, and occasionally violent behavior.

Today, another media victim has apparently cracked under the pressure in my own backyard. Well, not literally my backyard, but close:

Eric Ralph Watson, 34, of 201 Old Grove Lane in Apex, was charged with one count of secret peeping. He was arrested shortly after 6 a.m. in the Brittany Trace subdivision, about a mile from his home.

Apex Police Capt. Ann Stephens said a neighbor saw a man matching Watson's description Thursday afternoon on top of an air-conditioning unit peeping into the bathroom of a female neighbor.

The witness called police and alerted the residents who live at the house.

Early Friday morning, Stephens said, the woman's husband confronted a man believed to be Watson, who approached the house again. The husband called 911, and an Apex police officer arrested Watson nearby.

Stephens said Watson and the woman do not know each other but that they might have attended the same gym.

Watson, a reporter for NBC affiliate WNCN-TV in Raleigh, was released from police custody with a promise to appear in court.

Hopefully, one day, there will be a cure for such behavior. Until then, as long-time media observer Treacher noted, it is important to treat journalists with not just revulsion and contempt, but with revulsion, contempt, and pity.

Stupidity and Terrorism

Bill Ayers, the man described as a casual friend of Barack Obama, who threw a fundraiser for Obama during his state senate campaign, who appeared with him at academic conferences, and who served as a board member under Obama's chairmanship of the liberal Woods Fund, refuses to admit that attempting to blow up soldiers and debutantes or other bombings as a leader of the Weather Underground were acts of terrorism:

"I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently," he wrote.

Ayers defines terrorism as "the use or threat of random violence to intimidate, frighten, or coerce a population toward some political end," and he cites, as examples, "an Israeli assault on a neighborhood in Gaza," the Sept. 11 attacks, and "Sherman's March to the Sea" during the Civil War.

It is, of course, a purposefully false definition provided by an unrepentant terrorist.

Terrorism is premeditated, politically or ideologically motivated violence against civilians or military targets in non-military situations.

When the Israeli military launches raids into Gaza with the express intention of neutralizing Hamas (and in the past, Fatah) militants that continually bombard Israel with rocket fire, it is not terrorism. Israel's incursions and return fire into Gaza are purposeful strikes against specific targets of military value carried out with precision weapons only after the risk collateral damage have been evaluated and determined to be minimal.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 were conducted with the dual designs of attacking symbolic U.S. civilian targets and collapsing economic markets. al Qaeda succeeded in completing 3 of their 4 attacks, but failed their larger goal. These attacks were acts of terrorism, but like many acts of terrorism, were not random by any means.

Sherman's March to the Sea was conducted by Union soldiers with the goals of strategically, economically, and psychologically breaking the Confederacy. It was a sound strategic decision designed to end the war, and while brutal, it was hardly random, nor was it terrorism.

Some of the members of the Weather Underground are murderers and armed robbers, but every bombing and attempted bombing committed by the Weather Underground and it's members were acts of terrorism, and therefore every member of the Weather Underground, including Bill Ayers, are terrorists. Period.

Barack Obama's campaign has attempted to minimize the relationship between Obama and Ayers on the campaign's official site:

REALITY: OBAMA WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD WHEN THE WEATHERMEN WERE ACTIVE

Absolutely true, and utterly irrelevant. While Ayers has been forgiven by the ultra-liberal social circle in Chicago, Barack Obama knew as an adult that Ayers was a terrorist, as his actions were well-documented, well known, and among some circles, celebrated. Barack Obama did not have to socialize with terrorist Bill Ayers, but he did.

REALITY: AYERS CONNECTION IS "PHONY," TENUOUS," "A STRETCH"

I don't think anyone has accused Obama and Ayers of an intimate love affair, but to deny that Ayers has served with Obama in various social settings over a number of years—which the candidate's web site attempts to minimize— is the same sort of typical disingenuous hackery we expect from run of the mill politicians, not someone who promises "change."

REALITY: AYERS COMMENTS WERE PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 11; THE INTERVIEW OCCURRED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION

And Ayer's comments regretting his lack of successful terrorist activity prior to Sept. 11, 2001, is less reprehensible than they were afterward? Why? Simply because more people had a better of the kind of violent radicalism he represented after watching more successful terrorists kill almost 3,000 Americans in front of us on live television?

Bill Ayers is an aging terrorist who doesn't consider his terrorism as real terrorism. Barack Obama expects those of us outside of his ultra-liberal Chicago social circles to understand that spending time in homes, boardrooms, and in conferences with aging terrorists (Ayers is just one aging terrorist Obama knows) is simply the cost of doing business in Chicago politics.

I don't think my fellow Americans are that stupid, but Obama certainly seems to be betting his political future that they are.

At PJM: Bilal Hussein Released

AP's Terror Operative Freed but Not Cleared.

Please spay or neuter your pet insurgents.

Dear Senator Obama

Let me pass along a wee little bit of advice regarding equivalence.

There is no equivalence between your friend of many years William Ayers, his terrorist group's killing of police officers during an armored car robbery, their craven targeting of a non-commissioned officers dance (think Army prom) and other bombings they conducted for "peace," and your attempt to make those terrorist murders equivalent to Senator Coburn's hypothetical statement about a legal interpretation.

In your attempt at moral equivalence, you try to make actual murders and attempted murders the same as hyperbole.

Of course, it's all "just words" in a grand game, isn't it?

Perhaps Ayers—whom you try to explain away as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago"—can better explain what these words may mean to others the next time you attend a political fundraiser in his home.

Shameful? He Oughta Know

So Editor & Publisher/Huffington Post luminary (in the something-burning-in-a-bag sense) Greg Mitchell thinks that last night's Democratic debate—one where the moderators asked the questions real people have been buzzing over, in as much as they care about politics—was A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

You should listen. When it comes to shameful behavior in the media, Mitchell is an expert.

This is the same man who urged the media to help overthrown the government, who admitted to simply making up stories at the beginning of his career, and who attempted to rewrite his way out of that inconvenient truth when it became embarrassing.

Of course, Greg Mitchell is a newscrafter and partisan advocate, not a journalist, so perhaps it is unsurprising that he would take Gibson and Stephanopoulos to task for asking difficult questions that reflect poorly upon his chosen candidate.

Asking Democrats hard questions?

Shameful.

The Fake "Gun Rights Group" Supporting Obama

ABC News reports that Barack Obama has collected the endorsement of a guns rights group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association:

"Sen. Obama will be a strong voice an unabashed voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy," President of the Association Ray Schoenke said, citing Obama's commitment to the traditions of gun ownership.

Schoenke said they had reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer their support – but the announcement wasn't made public until today. Schoenke added that the timing amid the controversy was important.

"We believe recent attacks on Sen. Obama's stand on the 2nd amendment and his commitment to the hunting and shooting heritages are unfair."

Actually, it is Obama's record on firearms that is unfair to Americans, but don't expect Ray Schoenke to know much about gun rights, even if the Daily Kos diarist is the President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA).

Schoenke, a failed Democratic candidate for governor of Maryland, has donated thousands to Handgun Control, Inc, a virulent anti-gun organization that was the forerunner of Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. He has donated tens of thousands more to anti-gun Democratic politicians including Ted Kennedy.

AHSA executive director Robert Ricker has testified as a paid witness against the gun industry and consults for several anti-gun groups, and John Rosenthal, President of the AHSA Foundation, is a former member of Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc, and is leader of Stop Handgun Violence, a Massachusetts anti-gun group that has contributed to that state's intolerant anti-gun guns.

Just as Obama's record of claiming he is in favor of the Second Amendment even as he pushes for gun ban is dishonest, so is this endorsement from a trojan horse gun control organization masquerading as a group that respects American's rights to life and liberty.

Update: SayUncle examined this group earlier this year in greater detail.

HEY HOLLYWOOD! This Book's Success Should Tell You Something

The movie industry has released one box-office flop after another regarding our modern wars against Islamic extremists, leading the dim and the dull in studio boardrooms and backlots to assume that Americans don't want to see or know about those conflicts.

But if the American people want to ignore those wars,then why is Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq currently #12 #10 in Amazon's sales rank? The obvious answer is that we aren't tired of content about the war, we're just tired of movies portraying our soldiers and Marines as psychopaths, murderers, or victims.

Show us a film that respects our troops, portraying their honor, their sacrifice, their dignity, and exceptional humanity under the most trying of combat conditions. Show us a film that portrays Islamic terrorists as the callous, torturing, murderous and irreligious thugs they really are. Show us that film, and I'll show you a film that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in profit and could actually contribute to winning hearts and minds around the world.

Oddly enough, that very project is waiting in the wings. A smart producer could build upon Yon's growing popularity, and his stories based upon the exploits of Deuce Four, the Stryker Brigade known as the Punishers, already made legendary in Yon's dispatches like Gates of Fire.

That might mean setting aside the community's general anti-war feelings for money, but somehow, I think they have the moral flexibility to make that happen.

SHOCKER: MSNBC Won't Air "Fake" Anti-Gun Ad

MSNBC has refused to air a dishonest anti-gun ad:

The cable network MSNBC has refused to air an advertisement from Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the group created by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg,on the grounds that the ad is too "controversial."

The ad, below, features each of the three leading presidential candidates pledging to make it harder to buy guns at gun shows, and images of three mayors urging viewers to call Congress and ask that a bill closing the "gun-show loophole" be passed.

The ad is airing on CNN and Fox, and on affiliates around the country, a Bloomberg aide said.

But in an email obtained by Politico, an MSNBC account executive told the group the network wouldn't air the ad.

"just heard back from legal about your script...unfortunately, we can not accept as it is a controversial issue ad," said the email from the account executive.

New York's criminal-justice coordinator, John Feinblatt, called MSNBC's decision "amazing.'

"How could the network call something controversial that all three candidates agree about," he said. "All three cands have called for the gun-show loophole to be closed."

They can call it controversial because the "gun show loophole" is an urban legend—yes, a myth— that does not exist, even if all three candidates are willing to pander over it in their ignorance.

Commercial gun dealers have to fill out the same ATF form 4473 and conduct a NICS background check at gun shows as they do in their own shops and retail stores, a fact ignored by the candidates and Bloomberg.

Individuals selling firearms to other individuals are not required to conduct background checks regardless of their location in many states. Gun shows do not have an exemption.

Declining to run false advertising should never be controversial, even if it is pushed by a big city mayor with a history of breaking gun laws himself.

Lip Service

Been to Wal-Mart lately?

If you do go to "Wally World," walk back towards the sporting goods section the next time you visit, and see if there is a gun section. They are slowing disappearing in some stores, and those that that remain stock "bread and butter" firearms, mostly bolt-action centerfire rifles, .22 rifles of various actions and 20-gauge and 12-gauge shotguns of single-shot, pump, and semi-auto varieties. There isn't much there to get a shooting enthusiast excited, or much in stock that would likely be described as the kind of firearm a felon would prefer.

That however, has not kept gun-grabbing mayor Mike Bloomburg from making a big deal of an agreement between his group Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the retail giant, an agreement that looks good on paper, but will have very little significant in impacting the flow of guns into criminal hands.

Why?

Criminals prefer firearms that are concealable, well-made, and of large caliber, but will settle for concealable, and handguns tend to fill that need. According to government statistics, rifles are used in just 3-percent of murders, and shotguns just 5-percent.

Of the "top ten" most commonly traced firearms in crimes (according to that same government report), seven are cheaply-made, small-caliber handguns, two are ubiquitous 9mm service pistols common among police, civilian shooters, and criminals, and just one is a long-arm of any kind.

Wal-Mart does not sell handguns, stocking only rifles and shotguns, and therefore this agreement, while somewhat interesting from the point of view of speculating why the retail giant might capitulate to Bloomberg's wishes (trying to get into the City where they haven't previously been allowed, no doubt), will have virtually no discernible impact in fighting gun crime.

This makes a nice press conference for the man who would consider running for president, but doesn't amount to anything of significance.

Danke, Comrade Obama

I asked the rhetorical question last week: Is Barack Obama a Communist?

I posited the question because of the purposeful emptiness of Obama's stated views, his lack of a long-term record, disturbing tendencies in the little legislative record he has established, and a list of troubling personal and professional associations with radicals, cranks, criminals, and conspiracy theorists.

Little did I know at the time that Obama had already answered my question during in an exclusive fundraiser in San Francisco's Billionaire's Row. As William Kristol points out in the Times, Barack Obama cited Marxist philosophies in describing why Americans go to church and pray to God.

It isn't faith, says Obama. It is "bitterness" that drives us into the pews. We are frustrated, bigoted, and paranoid, and we arm ourselves with guns and God as a result. It is this nation of violent rubes Obama has protected himself from by cloistering himself among the urban and urbane.

It is because he holds these views of the rest of us that Obama's two-decade association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his radical church could not be disavowed.

For Obama to disavow Wright is to disavow his own warped views of religion, the Constitution, and America. His convictions may be poisoned, but he is principled in holding to their acidity.

It is AmeriKKKa they fear and loath, a dumbed-down, never-evolving nation they've had reinforced in their minds on Sundays for 20 years. It is a country that Barack and Michelle Obama know in their hearts that they are not part of, a people that they cannot be proud of. For all the advantages this country has given them, they are blind to our better nature as a nation.

I pity the Obamas, but I thank them for finally letting us see who they really are, and what they think of the rest of us.

Update: Andrew Sullivan accuses Kristol of misrepresenting Obama:

...Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.

Actually, Obama is neither quite a "lying, Godless communist" nor "a genuine Christian," but something of both, and neither. Obama is a 20-year congregate of Black Liberation Theology, race-defined Marxism in a Christian shell.

Ultimately, it matters little whether Obama was a Marxist before he found Trinity and Jeremiah Wright's rendition of James Cone's Black Liberation Theology, or if he became imbued with Marxism as a result of his exposure to this bastardized doctrine.

What does matter is that Obama's views, shaped by Jeremiah Wright over decades, do not represent those of the vast majority of Americans, Democrat or Republican, and that is something Sullivan would much rather ignore about his chosen candidate.

Update: Juliette Ochieng makes incisive observations about Obama's view through the prism of Black Liberation Theology at her blog baldilocks.

A taste:

In Obama's mind, the religion clung to by the "average poor white Pennsylvanian" is BLT's demonic "white" Church. The "white" Church is the tool of oppression for all—including poor whites—and should be shaken off just like other social maladies. Just like anti-immigration (sic) and racism. One will note that, in the defense of the earlier remarks, Obama still does not say anything objectively positive about the religion adhered to by the average rural white Pennsylvanian. What he actually says is that government should answer their prayers.

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt notes that while Obama has indeed had an extraordinary life, there are reasons he cannot relate to, and does not understand, the average American.

Final Update (4/15): A very interesting catch from Professor Bainbridge (h/t Insty). If this is correct, Senator Joe Lieberman, who has worked with Obama for three years, isn't sure if he is a Marxist:

I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he's obviously very smart and he’s a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't… I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.

Bainbridge himself seems to believe that Obama is a modern socialist instead of a Marxist. I'd argue that for all practical purposes as far as American voters are concerned, that is a distinction without much of a difference.

Final, Final Update (4/15): It may well be noted that Barack H. Obama Sr (candidate Obama's father) stated that there was very little difference between African Socialism and Soviet-style communism, so perhaps he would agree with me about identifying his son's politics, even though he was in favor of communism, and I am not.

Yon: Moment of Truth

Was a busy weekend and I didn't get a chance to get into my copy of Michael Yon's Moment of Truth in Iraq beyond skimming a few pages, though I'm going to try to carve time out of my schedule to read it tonight. If it is anything like his dispatches, I'll probably devour it in one extended sitting.

It is already up to #68 on Amazon's bestseller list and Glenn Reynolds notes that is #1 in military books (and that it is excellent. He also notes that Mike has a page dedicated to help promoting the book so it gets in your local bookstores and libraries, and I'd simply note that if you really want the local library to stock it so that others might read a perspective of the war they might not get anywhere else, you can always buy multiple copies of Moment of Truth in Iraq and donate them directly to the library yourself.

As you already know by now, Mike is supported by his readers and his readers alone, so by purchasing his book, you're supporting his work.

Besides... wouldn't it send a message to Congress if we could make a book promoting the efforts of the Next Greatest Generation the #1 book in America?

Obama Reverses Course

In a desperate bid to distance himself from yet another unhinged tirade from his former minister of 20 years, Barack Obama is expected to announce later today that he is, indeed, a Muslim.

Update: Abe Greenwald has a more serious look at the implosion of the freshman senator's campaign at Commentary.

Obama Explains God-Crazy, Gun-Humping Pennsylvania Rubes to San Francisco's Billionaire's Row

Keep in mind that the original source on this is a rather batty Huffington Post contributor, but armed with that bit of information, let's listen to how Obama describes certain parts of fly-over country to his fellow liberal elites in San Francisco, at this event at the Getty home on Billionaire's Row chronicled by zombie.

"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," Obama said. "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."

Don't worry if you're not from Pennsylvania though, folks. I'm sure he feels this way about you, wherever you live.

John McCain and Hillary Clinton aren't missing out of the action, as you may well imagine.

In the Mail...

My friend Iraq War combat journalist Michael Yon just published his newest book, Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New 'Greatest Generation' of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope.

He sent me a copy, which was waiting for me when I got home last night. I'm going to try to carve some time out in my schedule to read it at some point this weekend or early next week and read it so I can give you a review.

Mike has spent more time embedded with soldiers in Iraq than any other journalist period, and therefore has a very good idea of what is actually happening in Iraq, something that rational people should consider when they read this article from him in today's Wall Street Journal.

Is Barack Obama a Communist?

It is reprehensible that we are this deep into a U.S. presidential election run and this question is on the table, but that is what can happen when political parties and the media anoint a candidate based upon rhetoric and marketability instead of vetting him for substance.

A blog called The Obama Report has passed along an Accuracy in Media account that cites Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis as Barack Obama's mentor:

In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

Ace notes:

Barack Obama has been swimming in a sea of left radicalism all his life, from his communist dad to his firebrand America-hating preacher to his terrorist buddy Bill Ayers.

Barack Obama is very vague about his actual politics and few have bothered asking.

So I'm asking: What are Barack Obama's politics?

Is Obama "merely" another radical leftist like another one of his mentors, Saul Alinsky?

Is he a Marxist, as would befit his continued 20-year association with a church founded on the Marxism underlying Black Liberation Theology?

Is he a socialist revolutionary with Maoist tendencies that wants to wage war against the United States like his close friend, fellow Woods Fund board member, and domestic terrorist William Ayers?

Is he a communist, like his mentor Davis, his father, his ethic-cleansing, Islamist-coddling cousin, and even his own wife Michelle Obama, who insisted just yesterday the thought that, "someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

At this point we simply do not know where along the radical leftist continum Barack Obama's thoughts reside, because no one has ever pressed him on his beliefs or his meager record.

For the media, it might be nice to know these things before Obama sews up the Democratic nomination.

Update: Captain Ed has related thoughts on the underlying philosophy of "statism" that plagues both remaining Democratic contenders.

Biden PWN3D Crocker! ...In the Community-Based Reality

For reasons rational people will never fathom, lefty bloggers and blog readers are filled with glee over, well, this:

There was once a blog called Joe Biden Is Thugged Out. (I swear this is true.) Biden just proved why. He asked Ryan Crocker, who used to be ambassador to Pakistan, whether it would be better for U.S. interests to go after Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border or Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Crocker, in an impossible political position -- give the correct answer and humiliate the Bush administration; give the administration's answer and look like a fool -- dodged as much as he could. Then Biden forced him down. Crocker: "I would therefore pick Al Qaeda on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

Biden "forced him down" how, exactly?

Clearly Ackerman, the flickering bulbs at Think Progress and other gloating liberals didn't actually hear how Crocker responded.

Let's go to the videotape:

BIDEN: Mr. Ambassador, is Al Qaeda a greater threat to US interests in Iraq, or in the Afghan-Pakistan border region?

CROCKER: Mr. Chairman, al Qaeda is a strategic threat to the United States wherever it is--

BIDEN: Where is most of it? If you could take it out, you had a choice, the Lord Almighty came down and sat in the middle of the table there, and said, 'Mr. Ambassador, you can eliminate every al Qaeda source in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or every al Qaeda personnel in Iraq, which would you pick?'

CROCKER: Well, given the progress that has been made against al Qaeda in Iraq, the significant decrease in its capabilities, the fact that it is solidly on the defensive and not in a position as far--

BIDEN: Which would you pick?

CROCKER: I would therefore pick Al Qaeda in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.

So despite the cleverly truncated quote at Think Progress (seriously, when are lefty bloggers going to tire of being set up and used as fools by these shills?) and Ackerman's own deceptive forgetfulness, what Crocker actually told Biden is that our military had severely damaged the operational capabilities of al Qaeda in Iraq (by 75-percent in the last year alone, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry) and knocked it into a defensive posture where it is far less of a threat.

How much less of a threat?

According to StrategyPage.com, Osama bin Laden admitted defeat in Iraq on Oct 22, 2007, a sentiment that Marine Colonel Richard Simcock shared contemporaneously as it related to al Qaeda's former strongholds in al Anbar in specific. Battered, tattered, and lethally-harassed by coalition soldiers at night and former Sunni Iraqi allies during the day, al Qaeda's morale in Iraq is crushed, along with most of it's capabilities.

Thanks to Iraqi and coalition efforts, Al Qaeda in Iraq is beaten, fragmented, and on the verge of a final collapse, according to the terror organization itself. With this enemy almost defeated, it is only common sense that Crocker would select the remaining al Qaeda hiding along the Afghan-Pakistani border as being the greater threat.

I guess Ackerman can pretend that Crocker's quite logical response--to advocate the targeting the terrorists that are still alive, instead of those we have already dispatched--is humiliating to the Bush administration, but outside his insular nutroots community, in a land where common sense prevails and truncated quotes are not swallowed at face value time and again, Crocker got the better of this exchange by merely pointing out that we've run out of al Qaeda in Iraq to kill.

Obama: Foreign Policy Expert?

Yes, that his roughly what Barack Obama asserted during a fundraiser in San Francisco, according to the Huffington Post:

Last night at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Barack Obama took a question on what he's looking for in a running mate. "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

"It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

"You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

Barack Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971. Born in 1961, he's admitting that he brings to the table the foreign policy experience of a 6-10 year old... is that really the depth of experience that he thinks American voters want in a leader? If so, my experiences playing with G.I. Joe when I was that age qualify me to be Secretary of Defense.

As for Obama's family in "small villages in Africa" I'm not sure he wants Americans to focus very much on them.

Supporters of Barack Obama's cousin Raila Odinga were behind an ethnic cleansing campaign that killed more than 600 in Kenya in January of this year, and part of that included burning men, women, and children alive in a church. Odinga had also promised to institute harsh Sharia courts throughout the country and ban the teaching of Christianity if elected... change Kenyan Islamists can believe in.

As for the experience of his presidential opponents, Obama may have a point about fellow Democratic contender Hillary Clinton having little experience beyond exclusively political trips, but Obama's foreign experiences pale in comparison to those of John McCain, a man born in Panama who moved around the Pacific and the United States as a child as he followed his father's U.S.Navy career. He also built up an impressive travel resume on his own, some of which Obama might have heard about.

In 1982 while running for office in Arizona, McCain delivered a line on his residency in various parts of the world to an opponent that Obama may well want to remember when attempting to play up his own meager life experiences, foreign policy or otherwise:

"Listen, pal. I spent 22 years in the Navy. My grandfather was in the Navy. We in the military service tend to move a lot. We have to live in all parts of the country, all parts of the world. I wish I could have had the luxury, like you, of growing up and living and spending my entire life in a nice place like the first district of Arizona, but I was doing other things. As a matter of fact, when I think about it now, the place I lived longest in my life was Hanoi."

McCain, of course, has gone on to develop a bit more foreign policy experience since then as a representative to the House and later as a four-term Senator.

Obama? He may have watched Sesame Street in Indonesia while his Kenyan relatives learned communism in East Germany.

Not quite the same thing.

Update: Fellow N.C.-blogger Sister Toldjah has closely-related thoughts.

As Sadr Collapses...

It becomes increasingly more amusing to watch the "impartial" international news media attempt to spin away unmistakable signs of progress in Iraq. The latest example of this sad phenomena is Reuters' account of Muqtada al Sadr's threat to end a ceasefire:

Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr threatened on Tuesday to end a truce he imposed on his militia last year, raising the prospect of worsening violence just as top U.S. officials prepare to testify on Iraq in Washington.

Sadr urged his Mehdi Army to "continue your jihad and resistance" against U.S. forces, although he did not spell out if this was an explicit call for attacks on American soldiers.

His warning came a day after Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki threatened to bar Sadr's movement from political life if the anti-American cleric did not disband his militia.

Despite the more than 7-month-old ceasefire, Sadr's followers have clashed with Iraqi troops and U.S. forces in the south of the country and Baghdad in the past two weeks in the country's worst violence since the first half of 2007.

al Sadr's Madhi Army suffered hundreds of KIAs—some estimate place as a high as 1%-2% of his entire militia—in operations across southern Iraq in recent weeks. The failure of the militia and the success of Iraqi forces has encouraged top Sunni, Shia and Kurdish members of the Iraqi government to form a unified front that has demanded that al Sadr disband the Madhi Army, or run the risk of having his party being disbarred from Iraqi politics.

Sadr's threat to end the truce is the most desperate political option available to him, and one of the few options he has left. His power has been drawn largely from the threat of withdrawing the ceasefire, but if that ceasefire is withdrawn, al Sadr has few more cards to play, and the resulting combat would likely mirror last recent combat on a much larger scale, perhaps resulting in far more physical destruction to his forces.

Sadr did not win in Basra, and runs the risk of having his militia destroyed if he decides to send it into combat again against an Iraqi Army that is far more competent than al Sadr's militiamen.

Muqtada al Sadr's relevance in Iraq will be determined by the choices he makes in coming days. The only real real question is how much his relevance will be diminished.

MSNBC Games McCain Speech with Irrelevant "Breaking News"

As has sadly become commonplace, Amanda at Think Progress missed another story today, even though this one slapped her right between the eyes.

Her post, McCain's Speech On Progress In Iraq Interrupted By News Of Mortars Hitting The Green Zone, notes that MSNBC interrupted a John McCain speech about progress being made in the Iraq War with the breaking news story that four mortar shells hit Baghdad's Green Zone, an unremarkable development as Sadrists and insurgents have used mortars for harassment and interdiction (H&I) fires frequently throughout the war, usually to little effect.

There were no known casualties at the time the story was reported, and there was no known targets of importance hit. What Amanda did not grasp is the utter lack of a legitimate reason for MSNBC producers to break into McCain's speech, other than to try to undermine his message.

MSNBC needs to justify this "breaking news" event by proving that they have broken into other live events on their network to cover minor Green Zone mortar attacks during the campaign season.

Somehow, I doubt they can.

MCCain: Dem Positions Evidence of a "Failure of Leadership"

He would, of course, be right:

Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, McCain criticized Obama and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and insisted that last year's U.S. troop buildup in Iraq brought a glimmer of "something approaching normal" there, despite a recent outbreak of heavy fighting and a U.S. death toll that has surpassed 4,000.

"I do not believe that anyone should make promises as a candidate for president that they cannot keep if elected," McCain told the crowd.

"To promise a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, regardless of the calamitous consequences to the Iraqi people, our most vital interests, and the future of the Middle East, is the height of irresponsibility," he said. "It is a failure of leadership."

The Democratic position on Iraq is one of diligent ignorance and the studied avoidance of reality.

National Democrats, including both Democratic presidential hopefuls, long ago invested their individual political futures and that of their political party in the gamble that the Iraq War would be a defeat, and they then positioned themselves politically to take advance of the expected loss.

They did so with reckless disregard, and did precisely what they'd accused Republicans of doing: they "went to war" without an exit strategy of any kind at all.

Now that the war has turned for the better, al Qaeda has all but admitted defeat, and Sadr's Iranian-controlled militia is on the verge of being dissolved under a united front of Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish leaders, Democrats have no choice but to continue to advocate for defeat. They continue to do everything in their power to salvage a loss, from trying to influence the media as Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have repeatedly done, to promising a defeat by calendar dates as Barack Obama has done time and again in campaign stops.

General Petraeus' COIN doctrine, the "surge," the Sawha "Awakening" movement, and even Prime Minister al- Maliki's poorly-planned raids into southern Iraq against Iranian-controlled militias have tilted the conflict strongly against al Qaeda and Iran. Democratic politicians find themselves in the unenviable position of having to lie to potential voters and their fellow travelers alike to retain votes and relevance, sharing a delusion that things have not gotten better in Iraq.

To give up the delusion of a static unchanging conflict, an endless stalemate that can only be changed by our loss, is to lose a key element of their community-based reality.

Both Democratic Presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to pay lip service to the virulent and vocal fringe that are convinced that the war was irrevocably lost before the battle was joined. They make promises that no responsible military or foreign policy strategist in either party or on the international stage will support, promising defeat, championing genocide, cheerleading for disaster to garner votes... without any intention of actually following through and letting such a disaster happen on their watch.

Clinton and Obama recognize the passive-aggressive bloodlust of the "progressive" fringe of their party, radicals that do not mind thousands of Iraqis being killing in a genocide, or seeing the Middle East sucked into a violent conventional regional war or nuclear arms race if they can only blame the blood-stained streets on Republicans.

Obama and Hillary follow their supporter's fickle whims. They will pander to the torches—and—pitchforks base, but as their own strategists have made clear, they will not honor the calls for genocide by apathy. They'll lie to them with a smile on their faces, and then enact the exact same policies that McCain has the political courage to vocalize publicly.

McCain rightly criticizes his opponent's positions as failures of leadership. Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever led anything of consequence before.

It is too much to expect them to display leadership now.

ISM

Via the headlines at Hot Air comes a breathtaking Joe Klein entry at the TIME blog Swampland:

Pete Wehner, former chief White House propagandist for the Iraq war, has taken me to task for claiming that liberalism is more optimistic and therefore inherently more patriotic than conservatism. That takes some nerve. He would compare my statement to the constant drumbeat of right-wingnutters questioning the patriotism of those who do not support the Bush Administration's foreign policy foolishness. But I didn't do that at all. I didn't question the patriotism of conservatives: I simply argued that it is more patriotic to be optimistic about the chance that our collective will--that is, the best work of government--will succeed, rather than that it will fail or impinge on freedom.

In others words, it is more patriotic to be in favor of civil rights legislation than to oppose it...to be in favor of social security and medicare than to oppose them...and to hope that the better angels of our legislators--acting in concert, in compromise--will produce a universal health insurance system and an alternative energy plan that we can all be proud of.

Klein can on occasion be astute, but his grasp of the affect of government on the human element is achingly weak from someone who writes about the subject for a living. Government is never comprised of merely the best intentions or has the best work in mind. It is at best a necessary evil, and is often done with the accrual and consolidation of power the goal of lawmakers, their campaign idealism either false from the outset, or leached out of them over time as they succumb to the seductions of power.

Someone posted this Youtube video to a comment thread of one of my Pajamas Media articles several weeks ago.

I do not care for the the purposeful misspelling of Obama's name at the end, but the "ISM" cartoon that comprises the bulk of the video neatly diagnoses Klein's disease.

Government always impinges on freedom. It is government's inherent nature, and for Klein not to understand it's congenital condition is sad to behold.

Rep. McHenry Calls Green Zone Security Guard "Two-bit"

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) has referred to a "two-bit security guard" in the Green Zone in Baghdad who would not let him into the gym without having the proper ID.

What a jerk.

His political opponent Lance Sigmon is capitalizing on the statement, as he should, but I think those who are claiming that McHenry belittled a soldier are probably not accurate, or are at least jumping the gun.

The Green Zone certainly has American personnel, but many are Iraqis or foreign security personnel.

Somehow, I don't think the liberals at Think Progress who have built a reputation lately of getting the facts wrong would care nearly as much if McHenry had uttered his comments to a security guard contracted through Blackwater, even though they face many of the same risks.

Update: Yep, Amanda at Think Progress screwed up again. The guard in question was not a soldier, but instead was what liberals like to refer to as a "hired killer," or as the rest of us call them, a security contractor.

Amanda either needs a break, a new fact-checker, or a new career.

Dear Shrieking British Media Harpies...

The bulletproof hoodie that has so many of you up in arms today is more than likely a cynical fraud by a company that obviously knows how to play up the easily excitable U.K. press, but who doesn't have much of a chance of following through with a product that can do what they claim.

According to the company's web site:

Bladerunner have now created " The Defender Hoodie " which is BULLET PROOF throughout the main body area.

This Hoodie is rugged and tough just like a normal Hoodie but this one has a removable Inner Shell that gives you Balistic Security at Level NIJ STD 0101.04

Number 1: Never trust your "Balistic Security" to a bunch of over-zealous fashion designers that can't spell "ballistic."

Number 2: There is no such thing as "bullet proof," just bullet resistant, a fact that any responsible armor designer will tell you that Bladerunner blows right past in a bit of self-promoting puffery.

Number 3: NIJ STD 0101.04 is not an armor level. It is a testing specification published by the U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice to determine the classes or types of armor protection.

Type I body armor--which I suspect the "bulletproof hoodie" will be if it meets any NIJ standards at all--will only stop low-velocity ammunition, and is generally regarded as being obsolete for all practice purposes. Types IIA, II, and IIIA provide increasing resistance to penetration from handgun bullets.

Types III and IV are designed to protect against rifle rounds.

Of course, if the edgy fashion designers at Bladerunner want to put their products up for real-world testing, I can easily find some police officers and civilian shooting instructors here in the United States that would enjoy helping test these claims with common .22LR, 9mm, .38 Special, 40 S&W, .45ACP and .357 Magnum ammunition.

My email address is in the right column of this page under "email me." I look forward to hearing from you.

Via Ace, who isn't buying this, either.

Update: I sent Bladerunner an email leading them back to this blog post. Barry Samms of Bladerunner responded via email with a curt "who are you to be calling me a fraud, I suggest you choose your words a bit wiser before emailing us."

I suppose that was meant to be intimidating, but you'll note he didn't refute a single point I made, nor did he seem willing to offer his product up for real-world testing.

The "New Math" of Fox News

Here is the screencap of a link from an extremely misleading link on FoxNews.com this morning.

The link to "U.S. Warplane Launches Massive Airstrike in Basra" goes to the following story where you would presumably expect to read abut a serious escalation in U.S. bombings in Basra against Mahdi Army targets, which would likely prompt attacks by followers of al Sadr against U.S. military targets around Iraq.

What you learn from clicking the link, however, is that just two bombs were dropped in Basra, and they were small munitions that targeted militants hiding in specific houses.

Massive = 2.

It's nice to know.

It Also Gets Dark At Night

I don't see why Jane Fonda's endorsement of Barack Obama qualifies as being newsworthy:

Jane Fonda, the actress and ardent anti-Vietnam War advocate who visited North Vietnam during those hostilities, has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president.

Actress and anti-war advocate Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery in June 1972 singing an anti-war song with soldiers during her visit to North Vietnam in the Vietnam war has just endorsed Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois for president

There were no formal ceremonies for the endorsement. In fact, the Obama campaign may just be learning about the actress's approval now as word spreads like lit gunpowder via the Internet.

Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.

But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, "Who are you going to vote for?"

There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, "Obama!" Then she got into a car and drove away.

A radical anti-war activist has decided to vote for a radical anti-war candidate. Why, exactly is this newsworthy?

If Fonda had blurted out "McCain!"— as her candidate of choice, a man who was being brutally beaten by the North Vietnamese as Fonda was doing photo ops for them on anti-aircraft guns being used against McCain's fellow aviators—that would be news.

If Obama's terrorist friend Bill Ayers renounced his involvement in bombings of the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and his group's attempting bombing of a soldiers dance at Fort Dix (the plan went awry when his girlfriend blew herself up by accident, instead of the U.S. Army soldiers and their civilian dates that they were targeting), and then shouted out that he would support McCain after targeting servicemen with bombs throughout the time McCain was being tortured, that would be news.

If Rev. Jeremiah Wright, emerged from his million-dollar mansion to "God D__m Barack" instead of America, or to even simply apologize for exposing his congregation to bigotry and conspiracy theorizing, that would be news.

But none of those things happened.

An aging actress who wanted America to lose one war has announced her support for a candidate who wants America to lose it's current conflict.

It is sad. It is predictable. But it isn't news.

Obama: The Baby-Killing Candidate

I found Saint Obama's view of pregnancy as a "punishment" quite repulsive when he uttered the words earlier this week, but I was not exceedingly surprised, considering his actual political record (not his empty presidential campaign promises) has typically been that of the left-wing radical.

I did not know how extreme his ideas were regarding abortion, however, until today. Writing in a Washington Post op-ed, Michael Gerson demonstrates that Obama's record borders on quietly favoring infanticide.

Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called "too close to infanticide." Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be "punished with a baby" because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.

That Obama opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act—a law, that states, quite simply, that abortionists cannot murder a child that manages to escape the womb alive—is beyond macabre.

It is profoundly disturbing, to think that a man who would be President, a man who is the father of two young children himself, would oppose a law that protects the weakness and most vulnerable members of our society, babies born alive and defenseless.

Sadly, his leanings toward infanticide mesh rather consistently with his plans for a headlong retreat from Iraq that most experts suspect would help trigger a genocide.

As President, Barack Obama won't mind if people die.

They just have to be the right people—infants and Iraqi civilians—instead of terrorists.

Chinese Provide IAEA With Info on Iranian Nukes

No detail at all in the report, but I think it logical to assume that if the news was that "there's nothing going on," then China would not have bothered to contact the IAEA. The assumption must be that Iran is progressing with their nuclear weapons program, and that China is growing uncomfortable with that progress.

It will be interesting to see what slips out about the details of the Iranian program provided by China to the IAEA. Have the Chinese now determined that Iran has become a threat to their national security as well?

Alice Walker: Race is All that Matters?

Writing in the Guardian, Alice Walker claims that Barack Obama is America's Nelson Mandela, and if you are a white woman who can't see that, you're a racist.

Or something like that:

I am a supporter of Barack Obama because I believe he is the right person to lead the United States at this time. He offers a rare opportunity for the country and the world to do better. It is a deep sadness to me that many of my feminist white women friends cannot see him, cannot hear the fresh choices toward movement he offers. That they can believe that millions of Americans choose Obama over Clinton only because he is a man, and black, feels tragic to me.

When I have supported white people, it was because I thought them the best to do the job. If Obama were in any sense mediocre, he would be forgotten by now. He is, in fact, a remarkable human being, not perfect but humanly stunning, like King was and like Mandela is. He is the change America has been trying desperately and for centuries to hide, ignore, kill. The change it must have if we are to convince the rest of the world that we care about people other than our (white) selves.

Like other Obama cultists, Walker finds it impossible to detail why Obama is remarkable for anything outside of his race. His rhetorical skills, while impressive, are not unique. His legislative accomplishments on the state level in Illinois were exceedingly modest, and his accomplishments as a U.S. Senator are not only uninspiring but troubling; his voting record there so extremist that no other sitting U.S. Senator has as radical or one-sided a liberal voting record, or as poor a record of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is, in every meaningful way, a quite mediocre candidate except for his ability to deliver a speech, and the biological fact he is half-black.

Walker, however, has stars in her eyes:

I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader - or any person - in the world, with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into 21st-century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others' lives that has so marred the country's contacts with the rest of the world. But because Clinton is a woman and may be very good at what she does, many people (some in my own family) originally favoured her. I understand this, almost. It is because there is little memory, apparently, of the foundational inequities that still plague people of colour and poor whites.

Barack Obama: Merciful Healer.

Except, of course, for the fact that Obama is half-white himself, meaning that he has the baggage (to use Walker's language; I do not buy into this argument at all and just wish to take the comparison to it's mind-numbingly illogical conclusion) of both past servitude on his father's side for being African, and race supremacy on his mother's side for the crime of being white. Doesn't this mean that according to Walker's logic, Obama is precisely the worst person to lead America?

Walker exists in a fantasy land, where America has "marred contacts" with the rest of the world because of some "image of white privilege and distance from others' lives".

Yes, we're fought wars to liberate countries from tyranny, sough the establish and support democracies around the globe, spend billions every year in foreign aid to help developing countries, provided massive amounts of aid for treating AIDS/HIV in Africa, raised hundreds of millions of dollars for tsunami victims ($950 million in government funds, more than $515 million in private funds), and Walker actually thinks that an image of "white privilege" exists, and it is this image hindering our relationships with the rest of the world, a world that exists in her fantasy as blameless, with no history of oppression, bigotry, tribalism, or despotism prior to July 4, 1776.

That both Barack and Michelle Obama are the Ivy-League-educated, self-absorbed, mansion-living poster children for privilege never seems to flitter through Walker's misfiring nuerons.

I've rarely seen a feminist unashamedly prostrate herself in front of a politician as Walker has here, fawning over a very pretty man of very little substance like a blubbering schoolgirl, seeking to infuse in him qualities in which she so fervently desires, qualities that he so obviously lacks.

I feel ashamed for her, the author of The Color Purple reduced to florid, empty, unsupportable ejaculations of "hope" and "change" based on nothing more than heartache and desire... Just words, and empty words at that.

Kettle Lectured by Kettle Over Pot Relationship

Over at Patterico's, Mary Mapes rips into the L.A. Times for falling for forged documents.

Yikes.