Rants

The long anticipated democratic VP selection has been made as Obama chooses Washington insider, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, over others who could have echoed his message of change. Of course, Biden, a 30-year senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, will give Obama some foreign policy clout in the election. Still, I think in selecting Biden, Obama is admitting that he lacks the experience he needs to be president. The McCain campaign has already pounced on this idea in the following statement:

“There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama’s lack of experience than Joe Biden. Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”

And what does Joe Biden think of his new “boss”? During his failed presidential bid last year, Biden described Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Notwithstanding the racial slam, he basically says that Obama is all form and no substance, which is just the argument McCain is making against Obama.

So, what impact will the Biden selection have on the upcoming election? According to WaPo, not much:

Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate is unlikely to shake-up the presidential horse race. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll completed last night, three-quarters of voters said picking Biden would not sway their votes one way or the other. And about as many said they would be more apt to support Obama with Biden on the ticket as said the choice would make them less likely to vote Democratic on Election Day (13 to 10 percent).” (emphasis mine)

The bottom line is you can’t tout a message of change while sticking with the status quo.

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air: here and some interesting info on Biden’s ties to lobbyists here; The American Pundit; Webloggin; Flopping Aces; RedState

Coming off an inferior performance at the Saddleback debate, the Obama camp is saying McCain must have “cheated” because he seemed so well-prepared.

Maybe McCain seemed so well-prepared, because he simply is…

and Obama is not.

MORE: Hot Air; RedState

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!

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?)

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

(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

Failed Democratic presidential candidate and retired General Wesley Clark, a former Hillary Clinton and now Barack Obama supporter, chided John McCain on his lack of command experience:

“In the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk” … “It’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions.” … “He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility.” … “That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron.”

So Clark, I suppose Obama possesses the requisite command experience? You’re a fool and I believe it wouldn’t matter who was running on the Republican ticket, you’d hold the same opinion. Your comments on the The Huffington Post give away your left-leaning bias:

“Barack had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, and he is ready to bring our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq in a responsible way. John McCain has said that American troops should be willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years.”

This is the same spin thats been circulating for months. Certainly Obama may have opposed the war before it began, but in what capacity did he offer his opposition? He certainly wasn’t a member of the Senate at that time. After all, he wasn’t elected until November 2004, a year after the Iraq war began. It’s easy to say you oppose something, when you’re not held to account for your position. (incidently, Hillary Clinton supported the war in an official capacity and you supported her candidacy before she dropped out, leaving you with Obama. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?) And sure, McCain said we could be in Iraq for 100 years, in the same context that we’ve peacefully ensured regional stability in countries like Korea and Germany for more than half a decade.

Your comments are half-truths and only serve to mislead. I believe you know this and that gives me significant insight into your character. Sadly, you have no integrity.

Speaking at a fundraising rally Friday in Jacksonville, Florida, Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama made the following statement:

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” … “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”
(emphasis mine)

Obama has now made race an issue in this election and the insidious way in which he did it is appalling; he accuses Republicans of racism before they have actually done or said anything.

And there you have it. This is the audacity of Barack Obama. Surprised?

It’s no big surprise that Barack Obama has decided to forgo accepting public campaign financing and the monetary restrictions it imposes. After all, Obama’s record fundraising literally puts all the other candidates to shame. Still, he did agree, just last year, in writing, to

“aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

This means that in addition to being a liar, Barack Obama is also a hypocrite. When hearing of the news of the latest Obama flip-flop, John McCain said he would still take public financing and of Obama, he “said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.”

So, why did Obama back out of the deal? The system! BHO said,

It’s not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections,” … “But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

WOW!

Obama supports the system, but now, all of a sudden, it’s broken. That’s convenient! Then why, wonders Ed Morrissey, hasn’t he “lifted a finger to fix it during his three years in the Senate?” Good question! However, in this flip-flop, Obama is actually backpedalling on his own proposal,

“I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

And John McCain agreed to this!

Democracy 21, a political watchdog group dedicated to removing the influence of private funding in elections voiced their disappointment at Obama’s decision:

“We had hoped and expected that Senator Obama would stick with the public pledge he made to accept public financing and spending limits for the presidential general election, if he was nominated, and if his Republican opponent also agreed to accept public financing and spending limits for the general election. These conditions have been met.”

MaCain says its a matter of trust and he’s right. Who will you trust to represent the little guy? The candidate who was funded by every American’s tax dollars or the candidate who was financed by private donors? Who will the candidate owe a debt to? For the former, it’s the American taxpayer, but for the latter, look for the highest bidder!

MORE: Webloggin calls out Obama on lies! So does Hot Air! Wake up America does, too! As does the Right Wing Nut House! And The American Pundit!

…that’s because he never knows whats going to come out of her mouth!

Barack Obama says he’s disappointed that John McCain thinks his wife should be accountable for her comments. I suppose this means Michelle Obama is supposed to be exempt from critique and criticism for the things she says while making speeches and actively campaigning for her husband?

Gimmieabreak!

If a farmer wants to keep his animals from escaping, he keeps the barn doors shut. Otherwise, he has to round up the animals and account for them.

(and no, I’m not calling Michelle Obama an animal…it’s a metaphor!)

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has quit Chicago’s United Trinity Church of Christ where he was a faithful member for 20 years. Why and why now? In a letter to the church’s new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, Obama wrote,

“We make this decision with sadness. Trinity was where I found Christ, where we were married and where our children were baptized.”

He told Rev. Moss that he was concerned about the increased scrutiny the church has received in the past few months. Furthermore, he told reporters,

“Rev. Moss and the Church have been suffering from all the tension my campaign has visited on them. We’ve had news organizations harassing members in their home at their work places… That is just not how people should have to operate in their church. It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.”

So, Obama leaves the church not because he disagrees with its divisive message, but because he doesn’t want to hurt the poor parishioners with his presidential campaign. Obama is a martyr? Gimmieabreak!

I can’t see how this is going to help Obama. After all, he didn’t renounce the church’s doctrine, did he? His only regret is that the United Trinity Church has become a political anchor in his campaign. He’s leaving the church for one reason and one reason only: political expediency! This move proves that he is nothing more than a typical Washington politician who promises no change from the status quo.

MORE: Hot Air; Michelle Malkin; Little Green Footballs; The American Pundit; Webloggin; Power Line; Rightwing Nuthouse; Flopping Aces

The Democratic Party approved a compromise over the Michigan delegates, granting Senator Clinton 34.5 delegates and Senator Obama 29.5.

Although, based on the ratio of votes, it appears to be a fair split based on the primary votes Clinton actually won, but the Michigan Democratic Committee took it one step further using the result of exit polls to determine the final tally. This left Clinton with four less votes than she would have had otherwise.

But still, a compromise?

Obama gets 29.5 delegates???

WTF?? He wasn’t even on the ballot!!!

Why was there a compromise at all? After all, Obama had the opportunity to place himself on the ballot in Michigan and he chose not to; Clinton, on the other hand, had the foresight to get her name on the ballot, and just happened to be the only democrat in the Michigan primary. Now, I’m no fan of Obama or Clinton, but I think all the delegates should go to the senator from NY.

Clinton vows to take this issue up with the DNC Credentials Committee, but I have a feeling the Supreme Court is going to get an earful.

MORE: Hot Air; Flopping Aces

Major League Baseball is putting the screws to little leaguers who play under the names of the big league teams. How ridiculous is that? Essentially, MLB is telling uniform makers that not only are the big league logos trademarked, but the actual team names, as well. Which means, if the little leaguers wanted to use the name “Red Sox,” for instance, it would be required to pay a licensing fee to MLB. Not only that, they would be required to buy their uniforms from the big league team’s “official” supplier.

So, gone are the days of community baseball where local sponsors support local kids enjoying the great American pastime. Gone also are the kids who grow-up standing in the shoes of baseball greats like Mantle, Ruth, DiMaggio and Gehrig.

I suppose I can understand MLB’s point-of-view. After all, who wants a kid to establish an affinity with a specific major league team? Who needs a life-long fan?

Obviously, MLB doesn’t! They should be ashamed of themselves!

I would be interested to see how lawsuits such as these, brought against the innocent, will affect MLB’s antitrust exemption? The big league should tread lightly, as I have warned before, baseball stands to loose a great deal more than licensing fees should Congress decide that baseball is, in reality, a multi-billion dollar industry and not just a game.

Earlier this week, Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, received an endorsement from Fidel Castro. That means, in addition to the 1,978 delegates he currently holds, Obama has been endorsed by:

• Castro
• Hamas
• Hugo Chavez
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
• The New Black Panthers
• Louis Farrakhan

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Barack Obama on why he’s trailing Hillary Clinton by 27 points in Kentucky:

“What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country” … “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

Not very well known in that part of the country? Doesn’t Kentucky border your own state of Illinois, Senator? Arkansas is a couple states away! Kentucky is more your part of the country than Senator Clinton’s.

(you can’t make this stuff up!)

Imagine BHO on Fox’s Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader? …

Jeff Foxworthy: “So, Mr. Obama, you’ve chosen 1st Grade Geography as your category and here’s your question: How many states are there in the continental United States?”

Barack Obama: “Well, Jeff, I’ve visited 57 states with one more to go, so that means there are 58 continental United States.”

Jeff Foxworthy: “Wow! You really aren’t smarter than a 5th grader!”

Funny, certainly, if it wasn’t true!

Campaigning in Oregon yesterday, Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, claimed:

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

(there’s nothing more I can add to that)

MORE: Hot Air; Webloggin; Power Line; American Pundit; Stop the ACLU; Flopping Aces.

Mealy-mouthed ex-president Jimmy Carter claims that no one in the U.S. government told him not to travel to the Middle East. However, he did acknowledge that Assistant Secretary of State, David Welch, told him the trip was not advisable. That sounds to me like the U.S. government urging him not to go, doncha think? After all, how does one “tell” a former POTUS not to do something? I would think the ex-president would respect and heed the advice of the current administration.

(not so…obviously!)

Anyway, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, left no doubt as to the administration’s actions and intent in this matter:

“I just don’t want there to be any confusion”…”The United States is not going to deal with Hamas, and we certainly told President Carter that meeting with Hamas was not going to help.”

In fact, WaPo reports that Secretary Rice went out of her way to issue an on-the-record statement saying,

“we counseled President Carter against” the trip. “We wanted to make sure there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that he was somehow a party to peace negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinian government.

So, nobody told you not to go, Mr. ex-president? Gimmieabreak!

Why should anyone have to tell you? Hasn’t it always been U.S. policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and hasn’t the U.S. made it quite clear that until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and calls an end to violence, there will be no negotiations? How hard is that for an ex-president to understand?

Maybe you’re just trying to relive those old glory days of Begin-Sadat. Maybe you’re trying to legitimize the politicized peace prize you won in 2002.

Maybe you’re just a meddler!

Former President Jimmy Carter on a one-man crusade to achieve peace in the Middle East has brokered a one-sided, one-piece agreement. Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem, Carter explained,

“Hamas leaders said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 border and the right of Israel to live as a neighbor, provided the agreement was submitted to the Palestinian people for overall approval.”

Of course, Hamas later said it might not accept the results of a peace referendum.

(Big surprise!)

Still, it probably wasn’t necessary for Hamas to hedge their bet since the number of Palestinian people who support attacks against the Israelis is on the rise. In fact, more than half of them support suicide bombings and consider them a form of “resistance”!

So, nice work, Mr. ex-president! Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and regularly fires rockets into the country, killing and maiming innocents. Thanks for giving these terrorists a seat at the bargaining table. Thanks for giving their unrecognized terrorist government an undeserved legitimacy. Finally, thanks for alienating our ally in the region, Israel.

In other words, Mr. ex-president, thanks for nothing!

MORE:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air explains how Carter was twice punked by Hamas on his dream trip of peace in the Middle East!

Senator Barack Obama, campaigning for President in Levittown, PA, claims his foreign policy credentials stem from “real-life” experiences abroad. Apparently growing up in Indonesia, spending three weeks in Pakistan with a side trip to India and having ties to relatives in Kenya gives one the requisite foreign policy experience to be President of the United States. It’s laughable!

Senator Obama and I are roughly the same age. In the last twenty years or so, I’ve visited or lived in Portugal (and the Azores), Australia, Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Turkey, Japan, Korea, Guam and Mexico; I’ve also lived in Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Colorado and New Mexico; and I’ve visited most of the remaining United States. Therefore based on my broad foreign policy (and domestic!) “real-life” experience, I am hereby announcing my candidacy for President of the United States of America!

Unlike Senator Obama, I tout my experience tongue-in-cheek and recognize it for what it is and more importantly what it is not: qualifying experience to be President. Furthermore, unlike Obama, I will not even attempt to equate my experiences with those of Senator John McCain. As Mark Salter, a McCain senior adviser points out:

“When John McCain travels on official business, he meets with presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defense ministers, members of parliament, human rights leaders, N.G.O.’s, business leaders and journalists so that he acquires a full understanding of the country he visits and the issues at stake in our relations” … “Oh, and as Senator Obama may know, he has actually spent some time living abroad as well.”

Senator Obama: You do not have the first-hand foreign-policy experience of Senator McCain; stop pushing your childhood and backpacking college days as an equivalent. A mark of good leadership is to recognize one’s limitations and legitimately work to overcome them. Spinning your limited credentials in this area into something more than they are demonstrates that you recognize those shortcomings; stop making excuses and trying to veil those shortcomings in rhetoric–if you want to be President, try being honest with the American people!

MORE:

Pejman Yousefzadeh at RedState is also announcing his candidacy based on “extensive” travels abroad.

The Confederate Yankee responds to a Huffington Post article that essentially claims Obama is a foreign policy expert. Great read!

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama says wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin has become “a substitute for … true patriotism” since the 9/11 attacks.

According to Obama:

“[After 9/11,] I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” … “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.”

This was followed by a statement issued by his campaign:

“We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It’s about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war.”

Mr. Obama, patriotism is nothing more than the loyalty owed to one’s country. The flag is a symbol of our country and its proper display is never a substitute for patriotism, it’s an extension of it. Your refusal to wear the lapel pin is one thing, but your ignorant rationale for not wearing it is reprehensible.

You’re a disgrace!

MORE: Michelle Malkin; Hot Air; Little Green Footballs; BlackFive

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón criticized the U.S. for our “humiliating treatment” of illegal aliens (h/t: memeorandum). Although he also pointed out the pending crisis in his own country unless more jobs are created, education is improved, tax evaders are punished and an alternative fuel is found, he still had the nerve to blame the U.S. for the plight of his people!

President Calderón said,

“I again express an energetic protest for the unilateral measures, taken by the Congress and the government of the United States, that exacerbate the persecution and the humiliating treatment of undocumented Mexican workers.”

(”undocumented workers” = “illegal aliens”)

He also categorically rejects our construction of a “wall on our common border,” saying the U.S. is “insensitive” in the treatment of foreign workers who strengthen our economy.

(and bleed our welfare system, break our laws and challenge our sovereignty!)

As if this wasn’t enough (and what really galls me), Calderón also had encouraging words for illegals everywhere: “Mexico does not end at the border” … “Wherever there is a Mexican, Mexico will be there.”

To “el Presidente”: The United States is not Mexico! Every Mexican who enters my country illegally is a criminal and should be treated as such. I reject your open-borders position and demand that you shore-up your own country. When you eliminate the corruption within your borders, maybe your people will quit trying to escape.

MORE: Hot Air (here and here); Wake up America; Right Wing Nuthouse; Michelle Malkin; Blue Crab Boulevard; Flopping Aces

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) says a terror attack on U.S. soil prior to next year’s election would be a boon for the Republicans. She made this statement while campaigning in Concord, New Hampshire:

“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.”

Also Clinton explained that she’d beaten back the GOP’s negative attacks for years and, therefore, is “the best of the Democrats to deal with that.”

What?!?

Jumping the gun a bit, ain’t we, Senator? I mean, you’re putting a political spin on an event that hasn’t occurred and (hopefully) never will. It appears that you’re setting the stage to blame the GOP should we fall victim to another attack, as if its a certainty. Ah, perhaps you think the Republicans are planning on staging something between now and then? Yep, I’m sure a terror attack is priority one in the GOP’s efforts to reclaim Congress and again win the Presidency.

We need your political paranoia in the White House? I think not.

You’re ridiculous!

Last night Barry Bonds hit his 754th career home run off a 2-1 pitch by Marlin rookie Rick Vanden Hurk. The homer came in the bottom of the 1st inning and Bonds smacked it 420 feet over the left-centerfield wall. This shot, his 20th of the season, brings Bonds within 1 of the great Hank Aaron’s all-time home run record. Bond’s dinger was the highlight of the Giants 12-10 win over the Marlins.

So, now what? Bonds will hit his 755th home run and tie the Hammer (perhaps in today’s or tomorrow’s games), and will then surpass him. But instead of being remembered for the homerun record, 7 MVPs, over 500 stolen bases, 8 Gold Gloves and more than a dozen All-Star selection, Bonds will always be associated with steroid use! Fans in stadiums around the country tout signs that scream “CHEATER” or “Barroid,” and some feature just a simple asterisk ( * ) — the symbol many believe, as do I, should sit right next to Bonds’ numbers because of the possibility his achievements were attained with the aid of performance-enhancing drugs.

Of course, Bonds says his accomplishments are a product of God-given talent and just plain hard work.

Nice. But didn’t he reportedly fail an amphetamines test last season?

So, juice-up Barry…just a couple more dingers and you’re through! When you move into the 1st spot on the home run list, there will be no honor in your record.

Aug 1, 2007-5:25am: Last night, a hostile LA Dodger crowd cheers Bonds home run-less streak. Bonds’ pursuit of the Hammer’s home run record stalls as he fails to hit a record-tying 755th home run after 3 games and 16 at-bats!

On August 4th, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will lift the ban on “common” lighters in carry-on luggage. A “common” lighter would be the ordinary “Bic”-type lighter; torch-style lighters will still not be allowed on planes.

Why the change in policy? TSA says it wants “to concentrate resources on detecting explosive threats” by freeing the screener from “fishing for” lighters.

Concur! It’s more important to look for bombs, than to look for lighters!

TSA also says, “Lifting the lighter ban is consistent with TSA’s risk-based approach to aviation security. First and foremost, lighters no longer pose a significant threat.”

“Risk-based approach”?!? Like making a platoon of Army National Guard soldiers on military orders, and bound for Iraq or Afghanistan, endure “additional screening” that includes the removal of combat boots and belts, and the emptying of duffle bags? (Yes, I actually witnessed this at O’Hare International, and others.)

A common sense, risk-based approach would be to provide extra scrutiny to passengers who fit the terrorist profile: Middle Eastern men between the ages of 18 to 35! Of course, we can’t do that because it’s racial profiling!!

…yeah, so?

The sheriff’s department in Panama City Beach, Florida, has developed a remarkably effective way of catching illegal immigrants: Deputies in patrol cars swarm upon construction sites and see who runs. The workers who flee are chased down by the deputies and arrested for trespassing, cutting through other’s property or hiding in someone’s yard, loitering or reckless driving. After they’re picked-up, the names of those whom the sheriff’s office suspects of being in the country illegally are given to U.S. immigration authorities.

Sheriff Frank McKeithen, who created his Illegal Alien Task Force, said, “It’s not wrong for them to run, but it’s not wrong for us to chase them either.”

Of course, the ACLU and other (illegal) immigrant advocate groups are apalled by the Sheriff’s tactic. The ACLU even says the program is constitutionally questionsble. (meaning: lawsuit is forthcoming).

(doesn’t one have to be a citizen to have constitutional rights?)

Still, the illegals aren’t happy and are leaving town (hello neighboring law enforement officials). Builders are worried they won’t have the (cheap) labor they need to capitalize on the construction boom going on in the area. (too bad!)

Why doesn’t anyone decry the builders who pay these illegals next to nothing (usually in cash: IRS?) and reap windfall profits on these beach condos???

My hats off to the Panama City Beach Sheriff’s Office! Keep it up!!

Iran says the U.S. is hurting relations between the Iran and Iraq. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told visiting Iraqi President Jalal Talabani that the U.S. is actively opposing improvement in Iran-Iraq relations, but “the two countries should resist the damage.”

Khamenei blames U.S. and Israeli intelligence services for the violent insurgency taking place in Iraq. (Big surprise, there!)

Talabani says Iraq will try to improve relations with it’s (terrorist) neighbor.

Of course, it’s old news that Iran sees the U.S. as a security threat (as they should!) and demands our withdrawal (uh, nope). Not to be outdone, the U.S., of course, accuses Iran of arming and financing militias fighting in Iraq (right on the $$$!).

The math is simple:

Iran[Militia+(GunsMoney)]=0(Iraqi)

…and this somehow improves Iran-Iraq relations?

(photo by Caleb Simpson/US Presswire)

Outfielder Sammy Sosa hit his 600th career homerun tonight against the Chicago Cubs (and his former teammates). Sosa homered to right-center off a 1-2 pitch in the fifth inning. He’s the fifth player to reach this milestone after Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays.

Sosa took a year off from baseball after the 2005 season. The spring of that year he was one of a few who testified before Congress about steroid use in baseball. Sosa, like Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, was suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs. Hitting just .221 in 102 games, his performance that year wasn’t anything to shout about either.

Six hundred home runs is quite an achievement, but I just can’t help but think Sosa, like Bonds, doesn’t deserve the fans’ adulation. Have we forgotten that in addition to suspected steroid use, he was caught in front of a hometown crowd using a corked bat? I think he’s just another sleazy baseball player who doesn’t have a problem breaking the rules to achieve his goals.

I miss Cal Ripkin, Jr. Now, there was a baseball player with class! He was a player kids could look up to, someone to admire.

Just days after defeating Fatah forces and seizing control of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is asking for a “national dialogue” with the former Palestinian leaders. The Hamas victory has left a rift in the region and the Palestinians with two governments–a Cabinet in the West Bank and the Hamas rulers of Gaza. However, Hamas finds the only ruling they’re doing is within the “state of isolation,” as the West continues to recognize the West Bank government and President Maumoud Addas as the legitimate Palestinian leader.

(Sorry, Hamas, still no diplomatic relations for you! Didn’t they even win an election in 2006? Man, talk about someone who can’t get a break! What’s a person gotta do to attain legitimacy?? I dunno…maybe stop being a terrorist??)

Hamas lawmaker, Khalil al-Haya made this statement at a news conference:

“We are shocked and surprised by the voices forbidding discussions with us, while they enter discussions with Israel. … We are still prepared for a brotherly serious and responsible national dialogue.”

(Personally, I’m rather shocked to hear that Hamas is shocked.)

Fatah spokesman, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, says “no” to a dialogue with Hamas. (We didn’t like your coup and won’t play with you until you pack-up all your tanks and go home.)

Still, and we must not forget that Fatah, although the lesser of two evils, is still evil!

6/19/07-5:45pm: See what Michelle Malkin has to say about Carter’s comments here.

6/19/07-8:06pm: John Hineraker at Power Line is right on the money! He also has a video of Carter’s U.S. attack on Irish TV…

6/20/07-9:00am: Another big surprise! The NYT, bastion of the American way of life, is running op-eds for Hamas. See “What Hamas Wants.” (No one cares what you want, ’cause you’re a terrorist!)

Iraqi surge “fall-guy,”General David Patraeus, said yesterday that it could take 10 years to defeat the insurgents. Patraeus is scheduled to report on our progress in Iraq to Congress in September. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel indicated that most of our elected officials in Congress think this will be the “critical point to evaluate where we are” and anticipates a “new strategy in the fall.”

New strategy? Win! How’s that for a new strategy?!?

Sun Tzu said, “When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.”

We’ve been fighting in Irag for almost 17 years now. We’ve won many battles, but we’re gradually, painstakingly losing the war. We’ve toppled two governments in Afghanistan and Irag, but have allowed a greater lawlessness to grow. Sun Tzu warns, “if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain,” and he’s right! This prolonged “war” is costing the American taxpayer billions of dollars, dividing our country and sapping our will.

We can’t release the dogs of war and leave them chained to a tree. The object of war is to win! To win, the enemy must be compelled to submit to our will. If we do not assert our power to the fullest extent, we allow the insurgents to maintain a foothold.

Consider this: An Iraqi child born in 1991 (when the U.S. invaded Iraq during DESERT STORM) is now 16 years old. This child knows nothing of a world without a U.S. presence. How has this child grown to know this presence? It could very well appear to be oppression and now, occupation. Our prolonged war could very well have bred a new generation of insurgents

…and terrorists!

::: UPDATE :::

6/18/07 - 1:15 pm: Hot Air has a video of General Patraeus on FOX News discussing the surge and the anticipation of a new strategy…

In the Wall Street Journal’s “Arts and Entertainment” section yesterday, Greg Sandow wrote that professional criticism of classical music in the press is in decline.

In this article, Mr. Sandow discusses the misconception that classical music itself is in decline in large part because the print media no longer care about art and culture. He says that classical music is in decline and it isn’t the print media , but rather the age of classical music audiences and the marketing of classical performances by the concert halls that is to blame. He cites three reasons for this belief:

First, any decline in the amount of classical-music criticism published is partly due to the rise of new cultural institutions … I asked publicists from opera companies around the country if their press coverage was growing or shrinking. Shrinking, they said. And why? In part, they said, because there were new museums, new dance companies and new theater groups in their cities, which newspapers had to cover.

Understandable. The paper would be compelled to cover the opening of a new museum, certainly, but what of the American debut of an up-and-coming lyric soprano? This is important cultural news, isn’t it? Surely, there’s at least one day during the entire year that a city doesn’t open a new museum! Sandow cites as his second observation:

…the decline in classical criticism has other causes, too, and has been going on for at least 20 years … The 1980s were the pivotal decade, the decade when classical-music criticism visibly started to disappear. In 1980, Time magazine had a full-time classical critic and … ran twice as many pieces on classical music as it did on pop. When Vanity Fair started publishing in 1983, it, too, had a classical critic…

Then, in 1984, … Vanity Fair canned classical music … As the ’80s rolled on, Time published fewer and fewer classical reviews, and by 1990 (again by my own informal count) the 1980 proportions were reversed, so that now the magazine published two pop articles for every piece on classical music.

These examples could be multiplied. In 1990, … Entertainment Weekly, bucking the trend … ran three classical-record reviews each month. But we didn’t buck the trend long. A few years later, … reader surveys showed that hardly anyone read our classical reviews [and EW dropped them].

Yep, it’s all about the $$$, right? Perhaps, the writer just wasn’t clever enough to capture and hold the reader’s attention. I would often (and still do) overlook the long-winded, technical and pompous writings and reviews of classical music critics simply because they were excruciatingly b-o-r-i-n-g. Classical music isn’t droll, Sandow could take some lessons from one of my favorite “critics,” OperaChic. She’s an American, classically-trained musician living in Milan and her writing is interesting, informative, stylish and extremely witty. Maybe Mr. Sandow should think about the audience he’s writing to. If you’re a critic for EW, how does one appeal to the younger audience? It’s no wonder, as Sandow cites as his third and final observation…

Who reads classical-music reviews? There’s been a decline of interest in classical music, especially among younger people. One sign of that is the aging of the classical-music audience, which (as measured by the National Endowment for the Arts and by private studies) has been going on ever since the 1950s. Do newspapers survey their readers? What if they found — just as we did at Entertainment Weekly — that not many people read their classical reviews? What if the editors themselves don’t listen to classical music?

So, we’re getting old. That’s the reason why classical music is in decline? Of course, one shouldn’t blame the press, as Sandow explains,

The last thing [we] should do, … is blame the press. “Newspapers don’t care about art or culture!” people cry. But I’d turn that around and ask if people in the classical-music business really understand the current state of our world [what?!?]. Because here’s something else I learned back in the ’90s when I talked to those opera-company publicists. One thing any publicist wants is advance coverage, preview articles about whatever’s being publicized. Once, the opera publicists said, they’d get these automatically. But that had stopped. “You’re doing ‘La Traviata’?” an editor might say. “You did it three years ago. What’s the story now?”

I guess, according to Sandow, when you’ve seen one production of la Traviata, you’ve seen them all.

Message to the Met: Save your $$$! La Traviata?? It’s been done!