July 2008

The Arab’s in the Middle East prefer Barack Obama become the next president. Commenting on the senator’s recent visit to Amman, Jordan-based political analyst, Radna Habib, said,

“The Arab Street definitely prefers the Democrat to become the next American president.”

Why?

Because they see Obama as more sympathetic to their causes, the primary being the elimination of Israel. After his visit, Obama commented that with him as the next president…

“people were more optimistic about our ability to solve [the Arab-Israeli] problem and how important it is to addressing broader problems in the region.”

That’s because the Arabs see Obama pressing Israel to make concessions to force peace. Concessions that if beneficial to the Arab nations, certainly won’t be in the Jews best interest.

And I think that’s exactly what Obama would do!

(Remember that)

It can be said that the friend of my enemy is also my enemy. So, once again, let’s review the short-list of Obama endorsers:

• Middle East Arabs
• Kim Jong-Il
• Castro
• Hamas
• Hugo Chavez
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• The New Black Panthers
• Louis Farrakhan

If Barack Obama is the right candidate for our enemies, he can’t be the right candidate for America!

The Obama European Tour says it had originally planned to visit wounded American servicemen and women at the U.S. Army hospital at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, but scrubbed it for political reasons. The European leg of Senator Obama’s overseas trip, not considered a Congressional Delegation (as was his trip to the Middle East) is funded solely by his campaign and he felt that visiting American wounded would appear to be viewed as political opportunism.

Obama advisors explained,

“We learned from the Pentagon [Wednesday] night that the visit would be viewed … as a campaign event. Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event…” [therefore,] “The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign”

The McCain camp staunchly disagreed and criticized Obama’s decision:

“Barack Obama is wrong,” … “It is never ‘inappropriate’ to visit our men and women in the military.”

For Barack Obama, it’s inappropriate to do something that he can’t get any political mileage out of. He was afraid of the appearance of politicizing the troop visit and didn’t want the headache. Of course, he could have paid a visit to Landstuhl without cameras and reporters in tow. He could have respected the servicemen and women with a private visit to thank them for their service and sacrifice. But, no, that would be inappropriate.

So, instead of visiting American wounded, Obama remained in Berlin.

(and slept in, no doubt).

MORE: The American Pundit; RedState; Wake up America; Hot Air: here and here

UPDATE: McCain blasts Obama on canceling troop visit!

The Russian government-propped Izvestia newspaper reported that crews from Russian strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons have surveyed sites in Cuba for possible refueling stopovers. If the Russians made such a move it would once again bring Soviet nuclear weapons within 90-miles of the U.S. Gen. Norton Schwartz, the presumptive Air Force chief of staff, warned that regardless of an actual payload, the presence of nuclear-capable planes in Cuba would be “something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America.”

Of course, the Soviet government denies the Izvestia report, calling it “disinformation” and a “media hoax”. However, considering the newspaper’s government affiliation, what are the chances it could get away with printing such a volatile story? A more likely explanation is that Russia is sending a subtle warning to the U.S. against the missile defense shield we’re building in the Czech Republic and Poland.

Despite an American diplomatic presence for the first time in 30 years, Iran would not yield any ground in its uranium enrichment program.

(this is a surprise?)

So, what does the EU (+1 American) delegation do? Why, give the Iranians more time to reconsider, of course. This was not an ultimatum, mind you, because the delegation did not threaten more sanctions or military action should Iran fail to capitulate.

The U.S. response to Iran’s lack of cooperation hinted at more sanctions. Per State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack:

“We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation [i.e. more sanctions].”

It appears the only ultimatum presented at the meeting came from the man who we thought was only there to listen. When it was his turn to speak, Undersecretary of State, William Burns, delivered a simple message to his Iranian counterpart:

“Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States.”

Of course, by participating in this meeting the U.S. is negotiating with Iran and Burns statement would be considered a direct one-on-one negotiation. An action the U.S. said it would not undertake.

The Iranian response was definitive (and predictable). According to Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation,

“Suspension–there is no chance for that.”

This should come a surprise to no one. This is the first face-to-face meeting between Iran and the U.S. government since the Shah was in power. Had Iran given in to the demands of the delegation it would appear to be due to the American presence and they would lose tremendous face. The result of their rebuff?

Advantage: Iran.

The U.S. is sending Undersecretary of State, William Burns, a senior diplomat, as part of a European Union delegation meeting with Iran’s top nuclear official, Saeed Jalili. The topic of discussion? An incentive package for Iran to persuade them to stop their uranium enrichment program.

State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack, says Burns will listen to what Iran has to say, but will not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. He will also ensure that Iran understands that the U.S. will not engage in direct talks with Iran until it suspends its enrichment program.

(really?)

How do you suppose he’s going to hammer home this message while not engaging in a one-on-one discussion? Maybe he’s going to pass a note through one of the other delegation members?

I don’t care what you do or don’t say Undersecretary, what you’re telling Iran is that if you hold out long enough, the U.S. will give in.

Nice work Mr. President.

Barack Obama says he’s sure the U.S has moved into a recession and the country needs another stimulus package to bring us out:

“I have little doubt that we’ve moved into recession at this point, and the sooner we can get money into people’s pockets, the sooner that we can stabilize the housing market, and the sooner that we can send a message to the markets that we’re serious about creating an energy policy that will create greater energy efficiency over the next decade or so, I think the sooner we’re going to get our fundamentals right.”

Forget economics. Forget that the definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, an event that hasn’t occurred in the last six years (our last recession was March to November 2001)! Forget all that, we’re in a recession because “The Obama” has declared it is so. And what does he propose? Another stimulus package! How will he fund it? He wants to raise taxes, so no tax cut. I guess we’ll be borrowing more money from the Chinese! That’s it! Shore-up the economy by increasing our world debt.

With insurgent violence increasing in Afghanistan, the Bush administration’s top military official made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed Pakistani leaders to crack down on the Islamic militants moving freely about the country’s tribal areas. These militants are crossing unimpeded into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist attacks and destabilizing both countries. Mullen said,

“That border is more porous than it was a year ago.” [and] “It’s very important that action be taken to respond to that.”

Admiral Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials are placing the blame for these attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistani government.

(and rightfully so!)

Of course Pakistani officials rebuffed these assertions. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claims that,

“We are pursuing a policy of political engagement, but that does not mean that we will capitulate in front of terrorists.” [and that it was an] “exaggeration to just pass the buck to Pakistan.”

Mr. Foreign Minister, a “policy of political engagement” is just another way of saying you’re trying to solve this problem through diplomacy. Considering your efforts have resulted in increasing terrorist activity, the militants aren’t listening. Obviously, the terrorists aren’t concerned about the consequences of continued activity because your words don’t carry any bite. I’m afraid that your “policy of political engagement” has failed and is tantamount to capitulation in front of these terrorists.

(are you listening Obama?)

I have an affinity for poetry and especially enjoy reading the work of confessional poets like Anne Sexton, Sylvia Plath and Robert Lowell. I also pen poems of my own from time to time. I find that often during periods of high-emotion, the crafting of poem or prose helps put things in perspective. I’ve never been one to “talk-out” my issues and writing provides the necessary outlet.

I’ve opened a new blog and have begun posting the poetry I’ve written over the past few years. Not that I’m especially talented in this area, if nothing else my words are heartfelt and honest. The blog’s name is Uno Voce.

(I’m now what would be considered a “bi-blogger” according to Writer Chick’s blogger description list)

One of my biggest interests is technology. Not that I’m the first one in line to buy the latest gadget, but I’m probably not too far behind. I had the opportunity to explore the new Kindle, Amazon.com’s wireless reading device. I have to say it’s pretty darn cool! The “electronic paper” is a 600×800 pixel, 167-pixels per-inch screen covered with a layer of transparent electrodes, a technology designed by E Ink of Cambridge, MA. The display is very crisp, the text is sharp and easy to read (and it does kinda look like paper). The electronic pages “turn” with a simple click and the reader can bookmark passages and write notes using the keypad. The Kindle comes with 256 megabytes of internal flash memory, with 180 megs available for storage (which equates to about 200 books). Its wireless connectivity means you can download a book directly from the Kindle and, according to Amazon, the process takes less than a minute. It runs on a modified version of the Linux 2.6.10 kernel, so the modified source code is freely available for developers to play around with. It also uses an easily replaceable lithium-polymer battery and Amazon says with the wireless connectivity turned off, you can read for a week on one battery charge.

Cool indeed!

So, I’m not going to buy one.

Why? Because reading a book is an experience to savor. Imagine the sound of the rain as it descends outside your window…the gentle litany is soothing and the quiet rumbling of distant thunder relaxes your mind. The chill in the air is dispelled by the warmth of the cup clasped between your palms. You inhale the evaporating steam and take a sip…the liquid warm and pleasing. The candle’s flicker draws your attention to the table where a book beckons. You replace the drink in your hand with the familiar tome…the nostalgic fragrance of time permeates your memory as you turn the book to that one dog-eared page…

And therein lies my heart. Therein is my joy.

Yesterday, Barack Obama, lambasted supporters of “English-only” laws. Speaking to supporters in Georgia, Obama said,

“I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about, we need to have English only. They want to pass a law, we just, we want English only,” … “Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English, I agree with this. But understand this, instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they’ll learn English, you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” (emphasis mine)

Okay. Obama is endorsing bilingualism and I agree; it’s important to learn more than one language, especially the language of a neighboring country. Among other things, I believe it improves cultural understanding. My problem is being told I “need” to teach my children another language to communicate within the borders of my own country! When I visit Germany, I don’t expect the locals to speak my language, it’s my responsibility to learn their language! So, in the United States, I shouldn’t have to learn Spanish to order food in a Mexican restaurant!!

If I don’t plan to ever venture outside the United States, there is no reason whatsoever that I learn any language other than English. And don’t presume to tell me what I “need” to teach my children!

BTW: How many languages does Obama speak? (h/t: The American Pundit)

“While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual.”

How embarrassing is that?

MORE: Hot Air; Boots & Sabers; Right Wing News; Shooting the Messenger

As Obama spins a new tale of troop support and safe withdrawal (or not) from Iraq, the senator’s own words are coming back to haunt him (h/t: Hot Air)

MORE: Redstate

Iraq’s National Security Advisor, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, says that any security deal with the U.S. must contain a specific timetable for troop withdrawal.

Fine.

I don’t have a problem with leaving Iraq after the job is done. But to post a departure schedule is beyond ridiculous. The Iraqi’s position calls for all U.S. led forces to leave once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility for all 18 of the country’s provinces. So far, Iraq has assumed primary responsibility for security in 9 of the 18 provinces.

So, essentially Iraq is asking us to say,

“Hey, al-Qaida! We’ll be out of Iraq just as soon as we turn over this last province. Just lay low for a while and things will soon be back to normal. In fact, if you’re quiet, we’ll probably finish the job faster!”

You know, Japan has the second largest GDP, China is #4 and South Korea is #12. A large portion of the world’s economic exchange takes place within this relatively small portion of the world. And in the middle of it all is North Korea, a failed economy. North Korea, whose stated objective is the reunification of the Korean peninsula. Imagine what this would do to the region and the world’s economy. What’s preventing North Korea from moving on its southern neighbor? The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, who have maintained stability in the region for almost 60 years.

Perhaps that’s just what the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern governments are afraid of.

wherein I meet an aging (self-proclaimed) hippie while awaiting a tire rotation…

Hippie: (speaking to no one in particular) “…these gas prices are outrageous! You can’t tell me that Bush isn’t behind all this; nobody’s making more money on this than him!” … “Bush is the devil” …

You get the idea. I thought he was about to launch a gas price sit-in, then he transitions into a “Big Brother” rant.

Hippie: “…the government watches you through GPS and the Internet.”

Me: “You know, they are probably keeping tabs on you right now through the microchip in your digital watch.”

Silence. The hippie gets up from his seat and walks away. A few minutes later, I spy the hippie behind a tire display…

he’s examining his watch!

The latest development in the continually evolving political position of Barack Obama finds our vague, mysterious, untried candidate flip-flopping on troop withdrawals:

“When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Interesting words from the person who based his candidacy on the complete removal of troops in sixteen months. Per the Obama campaign website:

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Attempting to explain the disparity, Obama said,

“We’re going to try this again. Apparently, I was not clear enough. I have said throughout this campaign that this war was ill conceived, that it was a strategic blunder and that it needs to come to an end. I’ve also said I would be deliberate and careful about how we get out.” [Furthermore,] “I want to have conversations with commanders on the ground, Iraqi officials. When I come back that information will obviously shape our plans for moving forward.”

When asked why he’s backing away from a specific timeline for troop withdrawals, Obama said,

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain security. That assessment hasn’t changed.”

So, Senator Obama, if I’m hearing you correctly, your official position on troop withdrawals is:

“I will begin to immediately or in the near or distant future begin to redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq. Depending on political expediency, I will remove two or more or no combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within a time-frame dictated by the safety and security of our troops which may be 16 months or more or less or never.”

(feel free to use that for your campaign)

MORE: Hot Air; Wak up America; Red State; Flopping Aces; Power Line

“Old Glory in watercolor” by Jake Olden Shy

(h/t: Drudge) Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper received an unwanted gift during his “State of the City” address yesterday. This gift came from Mrs. Rene Marie, the performer asked to sing the National Anthem for the event. It seems that Mrs Marie decided to change things up a bit and rather than sing the Star Spangled Banner, as requested, she sang Lift Ev’ry Voice & Sing, instead. Her selection, recorded in the Congressional Record as the official “African American National Hymn,” stirred up quite a bit of controversy. Why? Because she did this on her own initiative and didn’t inform anyone of her intent.

Colorado Governor, Bill Ritter, felt Mrs. Marie acted inappropriately and her actions were both “Wrong” and “out of bounds.” Furthermore, he felt that that her action didn’t qualify as “fair artistic expression” and was “operating as a distraction.” City Councilman, Charlie Brown, was critical as well:

“There is no substitute for the national anthem, period. And that’s what really bothered me. You know when we fly the flag, the American flag, it’s always the highest flag, as it should be. And that didn’t come across today, that didn’t happen today.”

Mayor Hickenlooper said he didn’t think Mrs. Marie was trying to offend anyone or make a political statement.

(Bull!)

So why did she do it? According to Mrs Marie:

“When I decided to sing my version, what was going on in my head was: ‘I want to express how I feel about living in the United States, as a black woman, as a black person.’” (emphasis mine)

“I, I, I, my, my”: it doesn’t get any more self-serving than that! Not only is it self-serving, its divisive! The Mayor’s “State of the City” address wasn’t just for the black residents of Denver, it was for everyone. Just as the Star Spangled Banner represents everyone living in the United States! Mrs. Marie’s deceitful act only served to alienate herself and other black Americans, turning an otherwise patriotic song into one of protest!

Does she care? When asked if given the opportunity to do it over, would she sing the same song? “Yes”. Would she apologize? “No”.

Sounds an awful lot like someone trying to make a political statement, doesn’t it?

MORE: Hot Air