If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."
Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...
Nearly every page -- save the ones dedicated to cataloguing the mundane details of his life -- is bristling with anger at some imputed racist incident. The last time I heard this much race-baiting invective I was ... in my usual front-row pew, as I am every Sunday morning, at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
Obama tells a story about taking two white friends from the high school basketball team to a "black party." Despite their deep-seated, unconscious hatred of blacks, the friends readily accepted. At the party, they managed not to scream the N-word, but instead "made some small talk, took a couple of the girls out on the dance floor."
But with his racial hair-trigger, Obama sensed the whites were not comfortable because "they kept smiling a lot." And then, in an incident reminiscent of the darkest days of the Jim Crow South ... they asked to leave after spending only about an hour at the party! It was practically an etiquette lynching!
So either they hated black people with the hot, hot hate of a thousand suns, or they were athletes who had come to a party late, after a Saturday night basketball game.
In the car on the way home, one of the friends empathizes with Obama, saying: "You know, man, that really taught me something. I mean, I can see how it must be tough for you and Ray sometimes, at school parties ... being the only black guys and all."
And thus Obama felt the cruel lash of racism! He actually writes that his response to his friend's perfectly lovely remark was: "A part of me wanted to punch him right there."
Listen, I don't want anybody telling Obama about Bill Clinton's "I feel your pain" line.
Wanting to punch his white friend in the stomach was the introductory anecdote to a full-page psychotic rant about living by "the white man's rules." (One rule he missed was: "Never punch out your empathetic white friend after dragging him to a crappy all-black party.")
Obama's gaseous disquisition on the "white man's rules" leads to this charming crescendo: "Should you refuse this defeat and lash out at your captors, they would have a name for that, too, a name that could cage you just as good. Paranoid. Militant. Violent. Nigger."
For those of you in the "When is Obama gonna play the 'N-word' card?" pool, the winner is ... Page 85! Congratulations!
When his mother expresses concern about Obama's high school friend being busted for drugs, Obama says he patted his mother's hand and told her not to worry.
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved -- such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign. But moreover -- he was talking about his own mother! As Obama says: "Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning." Say, do you think a white person who said that about blacks would be a leading presidential candidate?
The man is stark bonkersville.
He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it's "easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you."
Here's a little inside scoop about white people: We're not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.
In college, Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness": "I read the book to help me understand just what it is that makes white people so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. I helps me understand how people learn to hate."
By contrast, Malcolm X's autobiography "spoke" to Obama. One line in particular "stayed with me," he says. "He spoke of a wish he'd once had, the wish that the white blood that ran through him, there by an act of violence, might somehow be expunged."
Forget Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- Wright is Booker T. Washington compared to this guy
#1
Can anybody here who has read the book confirm this? I don't really want to put money in Obama's pocket, but I would like to know if Ann Coulter is right on target or stretching the truth.
#5
Obama explains to a girl why he was reading Joseph Conrad's 1902 classic, "Heart of Darkness":
Then: "Mistah Kurtz, he dead."
Now: "Mistah Obama, he meshuga."
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/03/2008 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Why the hell doesn't this slime ball return to his beloved fatherland of Kenya and run for President there? He can have his whole corrupt family in on the pig out.
#8
Just wait. If swillary pulls it out (just watch) obammy will have to split for the veldt in a hurry. And I'll take bets that mamma michelle (what is her maiden [divorced] name, anyway?) stays behind in white amerikka because she knows that's where her bread is buttered...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
04/03/2008 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION about recent Iraqi operations against illegal Shia militias has focused on issues about which we do not yet know enough to make sound judgments, overlooking important conclusions that are already clear. Coming days and weeks will provide greater insight into whether Maliki or Sadr gained or lost from this undertaking; how well or badly the Iraqi Security Forces performed; and what kind of deal (if any) the Iraqi Government accepted in return for Sadr's order to stand down his forces. The following lists provide a brief summary of what we can say with confidence about recent operations and what we cannot.
What We Know:
* The legitimate Government of Iraq and its legally-constituted security forces launched a security operation against illegal, foreign-backed, insurgent and criminal militias serving leaders who openly call for the defeat and humiliation of the United States and its allies in Iraq and throughout the region. We can be ambivalent about the political motivations of Maliki and his allies, but we cannot be ambivalent about the outcome of this combat between our open allies and our open enemies.
* The Sadrists and Special Groups failed to set Iraq alight despite their efforts--Iraqi forces kept the Five Cities area (Najaf, Karbala, Hillah, Diwaniyah, and Kut) under control with very little Coalition assistance; Iraqi and Coalition forces kept Baghdad under control.
* Sadr never moved to return to Iraq, ordered his forces to stop fighting without achieving anything, and further demonstrated his dependence on (and control by) Iran.
* Maliki demonstrated a surprising and remarkable commitment to fighting Iranian-backed Special Groups, Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi (the Mahdi Army, or JAM), and even criminal elements of JAM. The Iraqi Government has loudly declared that "enforcing the law" applies to Shia areas as well as Sunni. Maliki has called Shia militias "worse than al Qaeda." These are things we've been pressing him to do for nearly two years.
* We've said all along that we did not think the ISF was ready to take care of the security situation on its own. Maliki was overconfident and overly-optimistic. But for those who keep pressing the Iraqis to "step up," here's absolute proof that they are willing. Are we willing to support them when they do what we demand? Can anyone reasonably argue that they will do better if we pull out completely?
* On March 30, Sadr ordered his followers to stop fighting. This decision contrasts with his 2004 decision to fight on, and his continued presence in Iran combined with this surrender results from weakness, rather than strength.
* The ISF operation did not clear Basra or destroy either Special Groups or the Mahdi Army.
* But the ISF performed remarkably well, moving numerous units to Basra on short notice, establishing them in the city, engaging in hard fighting, and stopping only when Sadr caved.
* Special Groups launched concerted attacks in Baghdad and in the Five Cities area (the Shia heartland), but were repulsed by ISF forces acting almost alone in the Five Cities area and by a combination of ISF and Coalition forces in Baghdad.
* Throughout the operation, the Iraqi Government acted calmly and purposefully, the ISF reported for duty (the number of reported "defectors" etc. was trivial compared to the tens of thousands of forces that fought loyally), moved and fought as directed, mostly with minimal Coalition support.
What We Don't Know
* Why did Maliki launch the operation when he did?
* What was his precise aim? He continually spoke about fighting "criminal elements," but then issued an ultimatum for the disarmament of all JAM (a task clearly beyond the means of the forces he sent to Basra).
* How well did the ISF fight in Basra and, in general, what actually happened there? The absence of partnered Coalition Forces in the city makes it extremely difficult to understand the nature of the fighting and the Iraqi forces' performance--long experience in the limitations of stringers and "eyewitnesses" or hospital sources in places where we did know what had actually happened should leave us skeptical of all initial reports of combat coming out of Basra.
* Who will gain or lose more credit in the eyes of the Iraqi people, and particularly the Shia-Maliki or Sadr? The answer to this question probably depends on what happens next.
* Did Maliki accept a deal with Sadr in return for his stand-down order and, if so, what was involved? We know what Sadr's demands were (at least publicly), but he ordered his forces to stop fighting before Maliki publicly accepted his terms.
* Will Maliki persist in his efforts to disarm JAM and Special Groups or will he lose his nerve? The answer to this question probably depends in large part on whether or not the United States shows a willingness to support the Iraqi Government.
* How will JAM and Special Groups react? Will they continue with or accelerate the offensive they had already been conducting since the start of the year, or has this operation blunted that offensive and thrown them off-balance?
* What does the agreement between tribal leaders in Dhi Qar Province and the Iraqi Government portend? Will the government accept "sons of Iraq" in Shia areas? This development could be the start of a significant shift in the political sands in southern Iraq--or not.
* There are already signs of increasing tension between Sadr and Iran--will they increase or decrease after this conflict?
This operation offers a number of extremely positive signs about the willingness of the Iraqi Government to address a fundamental challenge that has been plaguing it (and us) since 2004, the ability of the ISF to absorb country-wide efforts to light up the Shia community, and the increasingly overt malign role Iran is playing in the conflict. It can provide us with a critical opportunity to increase our influence in Shia Iraq and help encourage the development of local political movements there as we have done in Sunni areas. Most of all, it is the most overt and decisive recent engagement between our Iraqi allies and their Iranian foes. We should have no doubt about where our interests lie.
Last Saturday, I questioned whether Shiite militias were copying the strategy and tactics of Hezbollah in its defensive standoff in Lebanon in 2006 against the Israelis. Unlike other commentators who forecast victory based on body counts, I was pessimistic about the eventual outcome:
"But the Shiite militia leaders have already achieved one strategic goal: they showed Pentagon planners and American voters that the Iraqi army is nowhere ready to secure Iraq, much as Hezbollah exposed the weaknesses in Israeli armed forces. We can also expect that unless the American military completely wipes out the Shiite militia (an unlikely outcome given the tactics of the militia), the Shiites will take another page from Hezbollah leaders and claim victory, thus raising the morale of their followers and their reputation on "the Arab street." And that would mean another strategic victory for their Iranian backers."
Based on reports from the area since then, including this morning, I'll conclude that the short-term gains that U.S. forces made are bound to give way to a long-term strategic victory in Iraq for Moqtada al Sadr, the broader Shiite community, and Iran, unless the U.S. redeploys significant numbers of our troops to Shiite strongholds throughout Iraq.
Contradictory signals abound in asymmetric conflicts like the Iraqi offensive. An Iranian general who is a designated terrorist played some significant role in the ceasefire, thus vaildating my prognosis. Sadr's backers in Baghdad are claiming victory today, even as U.S. troops patrol their streets. The British are now freezing plans to withdraw more troops from that city, signaling a lack of confidence that the Iraqis will secure the area anytime this year. But an admission from a U.S. Army general in Iraq is telling:
"Army Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner said he welcomes the Iraqi governments commitment to target criminals in Iraqs second-largest city but he concedes there are challenges. He said most of the Iraqi troops performed their mission but some were not up to the task and the Iraqi government is investigating what happened. The government was surprised by ferocious resistance from followers of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to the offensive. The Iraqi campaign in Basra also faced desertions and mutiny in government ranks before a cease-fire order by al-Sadr on Sunday."
In other words, Bush pulled al-Maliki's can out of the fire this time. And that is not what either planned or thought would happen. Unless we move our troops into harm's way and keep them there, it won't be the last time. EDIT: I don't want to leave the impression that troops, alone, would do the job. The U.S. would also have to ramp up outreach programs ("peacebuilding") to Shiite leaders, as we've done in Sunni areas in the past year.
Moderator note: when submitting entries from weblogs, please use the specific entry link rather than the main blog URL. The link will either be attached to the entry headline or will appear at the bottom of the article. This almost got dumped as a duplicate. I looked up the entry link for this one but the mods may not have time to do that for good articles in the future.
#1
Bullshit!
Maliki's men control the field while the Tater Tots are off the street and back in their hide-outs. It was more than a cease-fire, which would imply a stand-down in place. Sadr's men retreated, abandoned the fight, the IA did not and they are in control.
Btw, oil shipments from Basra have almost doubled since Sadr's defeat.
#2
HOTAIR > WSJ - THE SECOND[NEXT] IRAN-IRAQ WAR.
Article denotes that IRANIAN QODS/QUDS FORCE COMMANDER [read - IRAN], NOT SADR HIMSELF, IS ACTUALLY IN CONTROL OF SADR's OWN MILITIA ORG;
+ AP> A NUCLEAR IRAN MEANS A NUCLEAR SAUDI ARABIA.
Also, COUNTERTERRORISM BLOG > US INTEL EXPERTS belie the GROWING THREAT OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM IN AMERICA, espec via AQ. IMO, Osama etc. cannot wait up to a "Quarter-Century" [25 yarns] to attack and formally nuke the USA.
#3
We need to start disassembling tater's army - starting with the leadership.
And as to the conclusions?
I wholly disagree. His reasoning is specious, and ignores the ground facts that the Iraqi Army engaged and defeated the JAM every place they went, and the IA is in place, patrolling, building out outposts, and is in control of Basra.
One other question: what "short term gains" were there for JAM agains the US forces? THAT is the key point he gets dead f'ing wrong. And without that point his whole house of cards falls apart.
#4
Isn't it funny the press concentrates on the Shiite Holes in Basra and ignores the fact that the Iraqi government has taken over the ports south of Basra?
1. Copy the URL link into your clipboard
2. Open the comment window and type a snarkie heading.
3. Highlight the heading
4. Click on the link tab
5. Paste the URL from your clipboard into the popup window that appears
6. Save the URL window
7. Submit the Query
#1
Well gee... I'm convinced it is hopeless to attack Iran now. They have missiles which can stop in mid-air, turn 90 degrees and then attack a target.
#4
An integrated air defense system like this is why we need the B2, F-22,F-35. Until the system is cleared thru use of EW and/or bombs/missiles most of our non-stealthy AC will not be able enter the battle space. All of our long term tactics assume control of the air.
I love the A-10, BUFF, ect. but they are big fat flying coffins if there is a functions AA system still working.
#5
Note: I saw one of our new AA/AM missiles circle above the launch pad in order to keep the interception within the impact area. Strange sight, launch, circle, head to target, kill target. Normal launch is blinding fast.
I believe this was one of the "new weapons" shows on Military Channel.
#6
Yeah, thought I had played that game before - kept waiting for the red submersable aircraft carrier to pop up and a giant spider/crab thing to crush the blue land forces.
#8
"My God, General! Their CGI promo clip has an early-90s techno-dance soundtrack at 165 beats per minute--played on a Fairlight! Who could have imagined the Iranians could be that hip?"
"We've got to call off the attack. Get me the President."
Posted by: Mike ||
04/03/2008 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Awesome graphics, dude! When is it coming out on PS3?
#10
I dunno, I thought it was kinda cool. Accurately shows SAM systems in action and such. Near the end there's some cool naval battles. However, Accuracy ends when the US carrier is sunk by shore-based SAMs in ground-attack mode.
#11
Air Defense...with a techno beat!
When did they get a cartoon aircraft carrier? Add ACME and Wile E. Coyote and this thing woulda had everything...
#14
Iranian Air Defense System: Several Billion Dollars
HARM Anti-Radar Missile: $284,000
The look on the Iranian AD commander's face when he finds out 30 seconds into a war that none of his toys are working and we haven't played by the rules they set up:
Priceless.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/03/2008 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The Iranian Cartoons a fully operational and foolproof except they forgot we have Mighty Mouse and Underdog in our arsenal.
#18
VARIOUS NET/MIL FORUMS > RUSSIA is reportedly already in dev of the so-called "S-500", "dual use" AMDS intended to deal wid improved air and missle threats. Russ desires same to be dev and deployed [read - for international sale] before 2015.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
If characters from "The Hills" were to emote about race, I imagine it would sound like B. Hussein Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father."
