Dick Morris on Hillary Clinton...

Obama's Speech.... a brilliantly conceived failure?

Excerpt from FOX News Special Report w/ Brit Hume

KRAUTHAMMER: His [Obama] speech was nothing more than less than apologia, an explaining away of Jeremiah Wright's rants done with elegance, nuance, and complexity.

Essentially, it said that--if you look at his remarks, this is what Obama was saying--he explained it away in two ways--moral equivalence, and white racism.

The moral equivalence is on the one hand you have Jeremiah Wright, and on the other hand you have Geraldine Ferraro. . . and grandma, who occasionally would utter a private, racist epithet, as if she had shouted these in a crowded church or a crowded theater as a way to arouse and envenom the audience as Wright did.

Obama is a guy who glories in his capacity for intellectual distinctions. There is a huge distinction between a woman of the generation of a Truman, who also uttered epithets about Jews and blacks in private, and the propagation of race hatred in a congregation on behalf of a pastor.

And the second element of that speech was extenuating, and explaining in a way as a reaction to white racism. He says, look, you have to put Wright in context, context is history, and the history he gave is a history of racism starting with slavery and ending at Jeremiah Wright and his anger and frustration.

This kind of extenuation is what you used to hear from Jesse Jackson, except in Obama's case, dressed up in Ivy League language and Harvard Law School nuance. And that's why the commentary that we saw on this was so rhapsodic. It touched two erogenous zones--white guilt and intellectual flattery. And that's all it was. I think it was a brilliantly conceived failure. [From RealClearPolitics.com]

March 21, 2008

from The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

by Charles Krauthammer
"His [Obama] defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt."

So Inconvenient...

Thursday, March 20, 2008

By Brit Hume

Aquatic Androids

Scientists say that 3,000 robots that are collecting global warming data from the earth's oceans have sent a puzzling message. Readings from these instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past five years. But scientists say the bewildering part is that the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record.

One scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says that 80 to 90-percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. So why are the oceans still relatively cool and — in some cases — even cooler than before?

It seems the scientists are not sure. Some say global warming may have taken a breather. Others suggest they don't understand what the robots are telling them. Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says, "I suspect that we'll be able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis. But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board." (from The Grapevine)

Excerpts from Thomas Sowell

Obama's Speech

"Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people's psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.

But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No." (Get the full article and comments here.)

Race and Politics

"Senator Barack Obama's political success thus far has been a blow for equality. But equality has its down side.

Equality means that a black demagogue who has been exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.

We don't need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama's carefully crafted election year image." (Get the full article and comments here.)

Who is the actual inspiration here?

Yes, great speech by Obama. Wonderful platitudes. I am curious though if the entire political ideology of the speech is lost? This speech confirmed for me that Obama is just two standard deviations away from his mentor's far leftist anti-America rhetoric on the political spectrum.

Obama is proving to be quite the politician and it would be wonderful to have a black guy win the Presidency, because it would go a long way to heal some deep wounds in America, but at what cost? Should we not deconstruct his political message and try to figure out how he is going to pay for solving every problem in the US with Federal tax money? Should we not be concerned that he wants to install a health care system that is an admitted failure in other parts of the world? Should we not be concerned that he pulls his political ideology from Marxist thought? Should we not care that if elected, he would immediately withdraw troops from a war that we seem to be winning and worsen the situation by our absence (according to every Middle East leader - except Iran)? Should we not care that his judgment seems to be so impaired that he cannot even lead his own church to correct an ideology that by his own words "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

Maybe I'll just vote for him because some parts of that speech made me tingle rather than vote for a true American hero like John McCain. He's not as pretty and damn-it he's white, but it seems McCain's story and ideology is also pretty inspiring.

Visit: JohnMcCaindotcom

Because I was asked...

I think the associations between McCain meeting with Jerry Falwell and Obama’s membership of Wright’s church are completely bogus. I mean, to say that McCain’s one time meeting (and not without issue) with a far right Christian leader is anything similar to Obama’s 20 years under the influence, leadership, and mentorship of a man that says, “God Damn America,” “America got what it deserved (on 9-11),” “that AIDS was created by white men to kill black men,” etc…… is somehow comparable is beyond my logic.

However, I think it is totally above board that the Obama / Wright association should be an issue worth at least discussing at length in the public arena (especially in this day and age) if the man is to be President. If Trent Lott, can be forced to resign his Senate seat after saying that he respected an honored member of the Democratic Party who was once a member of the KKK, then this despicable mess should at least be permissible to question – otherwise we are holding people of different races and different Parties to different standards – and that is problematic!

Additionally, if Obama really thinks that the American people are stupid enough to believe his “non-culpability” response to this matter is plausible even though he was a member of this church for 20 years, was married by this pastor, had his kids baptized by this pastor and titled his book after one of this pastor’s sermons, but “never knew of these outlandish beliefs” or never knew that his church honored Louis Farrakhan or that the pastor traveled with LF to Libya, then he thinks we are truly gullible. My point: should the American people let someone (because of cult of personality) side step harsh criticisms like these and slide into office without a true vetting process?

I don’t necessarily think Obama has to believe all of the stuff his pastor has spouted verbatim, but I think when it comes to the Presidency of the United States… these long-time associations might actually matter – I mean we are not talking about a loose “friendship” here. He (as an adult) decided to submit himself to this man’s authority and made him his religious teacher and authority figure, which makes me question his decision making process and makes me second guess the process by which he might choose his Cabinet and possible Supreme Court justice appointees. I think that is all too fair to question and I would expect the same for any Conservative.

As for the question: is it right for news reporters to use Obama’s middle name?
Come on: it is his given and legal name. It’s not like anyone is making stuff up, adding to the story, or twisting something into a falsehood. It just happens to be his name. The very fact that the name “Hussein” plays into some peoples’ fears and bigotry because of recent historical evens is NOT the fault of the pundit.

A follow-up on the NAS case against CSWE

This is a follow-up on The National Association of Scholars critical report of social work education.

http://www.nas.org/print/pressreleases/hqnas/releas_11sep07.htm

And the letter from this author to NAS:

Dear Stephen H. Balch and Peter W. Wood at National Association of Scholars,

I applaud the efforts of NAS to bring Social Work and the CSWE under control. As a recent graduate of a Social Work PhD program, I found much of the CSWE leadership to be extremely ideologically liberal, politically biased, closed minded, and in many cases outright hostile to any ideologies other than the Democratic Left. In my program, I continually fought what felt like was a one man battle as I advocated for outcome-based solutions to social issues, rather than the current Social Work mentality of elevating "political correct" methodology above all. Among my current colleagues, I encourage inquiry into all solutions, no matter the ideological genesis. However, routinely, I find that politically liberal methodology trumps and permeates all social work discussions about deciding on and solving social problems. In my estimation, I am not sure if NAS knows exactly how prevalent the problem truly is.

On several occasions, I walked out of national meetings with CSWE leadership because the discussions would derail from the posted topic to the "evils of the Republican Party." I have personally witnessed colleagues and professors tell students that they must put the NASW code of ethics above their personal religious beliefs, make them join in campus political rallies for class grades, use the bully pulpit of the classroom to preach ideological points of view, and openly discuss why "political conservatives have no business being in social work." On many occasions, I have persuaded "conservative" students from dropping out of social work programs (Masters and Bachelors) in order to accomplish personal achievement and coached them on how to ignore or play the "liberal" game long enough to receive their degrees. Furthermore, I spent countless hours privately teaching students about the "other side" of social policy, because they sought a balance in their education.

As you can imagine, I have had to be very tactful (which meant many times being quiet) about my true opinions about CSWE and NASW to achieve academic success. Even though, I was successful in completing my PhD (to the credit of a handful of open-minded faculty and brilliant scholars in their own right) and have been honored to be apart of the most prestigious gerontology fellowship in the country (which in my estimation is more balanced that most), I have had to be very strategic with my "complaints."

I have been so frustrated with the current political environment in academic social work programs, that I am considering not seeking employment in academia because I am not sure I want to teach CSWE accredited Social Work classes, deal with the majority of close-minded faculty, and face a tenure process that includes all of the above. I am simply worn out by the political one-sidedness and feelings that I must kowtow to leadership that is openly hostile to the other half of the ideological spectrum if I am to succeed in social work academia.

Please do not give up your pursuit to bring balance to Social Work academia. I confess that even with my best efforts, I too am somewhat biased in my points of view above, but I know that there are many, many students and at least one Ph.D. that would applaud any effort to bring balance to social work higher ed., especially if it remedies students being ostracized for their political and religious beliefs in the classroom.

Ah.. its been a long time..... oh by the way Bravo's 100 funniest comedies - SUCKS

All I really need to say about this ranking gone wrong is that Monty Python’s The Holy Grail ended up at number 40! Yes, I know you are shocked. So was I.

Who exactly is on Bravo’s committee to pick the best 100 comedies ever? Was this a high school class assignment - turned into a show? It is as if the ranking body of this auspicious "top 100" took a bravura list off the internet and added a few wild card picks based on what their kids told them at dinner.

Okay Bravo, time to fess up to the horrible editing error that took place on a lap top in someone's kitchen when the writer stepped out to use the restroom. It appears that when the writer returned, he/she accidentally “accept all changes” after his or her teen age daughter punched in her comments using the Word “track changes” feature in their absence?

If you have not seen the list, let me give you a preview (even though it kind of chills me to relive the event): Meet the Fockers ranked in at number 25, which beat out Annie Hal! Shampoo was ranked at number at number 21 - exactly how did this movie even rank? I can think of at least a 101 comedies that are much better than Shampoo. Shrek ranked in at number 3?!!! Holy Lord!

Let's try and forget for one second that these movies beat out The Holy Grail, Annie Hall, and A Fish Called Wanda, but honestly has anyone ever witnessed anyone around the water cooler telling a joke by Warren Beatty from Shampoo, even though I am sure it is replayed with fervor (with a glowing TWO STARS) just after ‘Skinamax’ at 3 am.

Bravo must have forgotten how professional order and ranking happens. Can I help? For starters: One, don't use the hat method when finalizing the “best comedies” in movie history. And two, ask a comedian and if they are not around ask the guy in the cubical next to you. Bravo, should leave the ranking of comedies to the professional movie watchers and stick with what they know best – telling straight America how to stay fashionably hip.

Jonathan Gurwitz: In 2003, WMD threat was clear

" The passage of time normally brings historical events into perspective. For the cynic, hindsight is 20/20. For the historian, distance provides clarity....."

Islamic Misnomer

The term “Islamic fundamentalist” has been used quite often in the news to represent terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. I believe, this is a misnomer or at least an imprecise term and I would like to suggest (not that anyone is listening) another more precise term when referring to these terrorists: Islamic militants.

The reason for this seems clear once you start to think about it. Fundamentalism, in itself, is not a threatening idea. The world has many religious groups that are happy to consider themselves fundamentalists, yet they seem to have enough ideological constraint not to terrorize the general public. Fundamentalism simply means “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles” (Webster’s Dictionary). Yet, more recently this term is used to refer to the those of the Muslim faith that have engage in warfare in the name of their religion. The terms and the definitions seem to be incongruent.

Liberal ideologs in the U.S. and European philosophers (such as French philosopher Jacques Derrida) have equated American Christian fundamentalists on par with Islamic terrorists. Derrida, along with other European thinkers, professed the idea that the current conflict between the west and the mid-east is basically caused by a disagreement in ideology between the Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian fundamentalist in America. Even though, this theory is chopped full of blinding errors, this is a popular theory in much of Europe. Liberals in American are starting to make this connection as well, because they don’t like the politics of the religious right (see James W. Ceaser’s article Faith in Democracy, in the Weekly Standard, on 11/07/2005, Volume 011, Issue 08 for a full review of this side of the issue).

However, it is not fundamentalism, per se, that is the problem. In fact, we in American should value the faith of each individual no matter where they fit on the religious continuum. The problem is when that segment of religious fundamentalism straps a bomb to themselves, or fills a car full of explosives, or high-jacks a couple of airplanes and kills innocent citizens in the name of faith.

No, fundamentalism is not the problem. The problem is the over zealous few that channel their passion into militant action. Let’s face it: Bin Laden would not be such an issue if he was a just a fundamentalist Islamic leader, but the moment he decided to pursue terrorist actions – he became a threat. The problem is caused by those that incite the violence and those that carry it out. It is the “militant” Islamic wing of the religion that is cause of so much spilled blood. It is the Islamic militants that are the real danger.

It may seem like an insignificant thing, this term, but fundamentalism is a vague label that is quickly becoming misused in our society. If we are not careful, once fundamentalism is defined as “dangerous,” then anyone that has a zealousness for their faith can be called a fundamentalist and therefore, a danger to society.

CSWE: A one way street.

On November 2, 2005, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) wrote a letter to the Department of Education requesting an investigation into the accreditation criteria of two well known academic organizations: the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). As the press release states, “The two Washington, DC-based organizations between them certify the academic standards of many university and college programs in teacher training and social work.... [and] the two agencies in recent years have been applying highly politicized accreditation standards."

This, of course, is not surprising to me as a PhD student in the School of Social Work – who happens to be a Republican. I have criticized Social Work and its major organizations for being ideological bullies for years. Social Work as a profession and an academic body is largely and openly biased towards liberal philosophy. The largest national organization of social workers (the National Association of Social Workers- NASW) has traditionally aligned itself with the far liberal side of the Democratic Party – as evident in their latest attempt to block the nomination of now, Chief Justice John G. Roberts – who was considered a great choice by many moderate Democrats.

At this point, you might be thinking: A social worker and a Republican isn’t that a paradox? I don’t think so, but I am routinely challenged on my motivation to be a social worker with such philosophical persuasions as 'personal responsibility,' 'private ownership,' 'less taxes,' etc…But I don’t see this as a paradoxical stance at all. Let me give you some background: When I decided to be a social worker, I was working overseas in a country that was trying to weave its way out from under a communist system of government. Although, I was an English teacher, I also worked with volunteers from Peace Corps: digging gardens, helping set up daycare centers, and helping entrepreneurs tap into the world of capitalism so they could better the lives of their families (often through the acquisition of the English language).

When I came back to the United States, I wanted to continue helping people and I picked a profession that stated its sole purpose as doing just that. What I didn’t realize at the time, however, is that Social Work as a profession had decided in the 1960s on a liberal pathway to “helping” people – which means, only government can help people because private industry is too corrupt and Churches… well, they proselytize. I quickly learned that this profession of “inclusion” didn’t mean me: A White, Christian, Republican was not going to be helpful to anyone – especially poor minorities. I was seen as the dominate paradigm that they were battling against. It didn’t matter that my goals were and still are the same as theirs: I want to find ways to alleviate poverty, stamp out discrimination, make life better for fragile populations (children, mentally challenged, the underserved, the elderly), but because my world view provides for a different path to those ends, I am considered ignorant and stubborn.

One professor once told me that Protestant Christians have no business being in Social Work, because they can’t seem to put their “Christian values” aside and rely solely on the profession’s “Code of Ethics.” I’ve later come to realize that she does not stand alone in this belief, even though, it was mainly “Christians” that created Social Work.

I quickly learned to keep my mouth shut and just get my degree.

I hope the Department of Education decides to look into the charges made by the NAS. I think they will find that this ideological pushiness runs deep in the Social Work profession (I can’t testify to the actions of the NCATE). However, deep down I don’t really believe that this investigation will change anything, but I am hopeful that it will ignite a change at the grassroots level and give me some identifiable partners in my crusade to bring balance to the profession (okay, bad word choice, but you get the picture).

The social problems of our society can be solved and deserve the best of our society’s attention. Social Work’s stated purpose is to promote “human well-being by strengthening opportunities, resources, and capacities of people in their environments and by creating policies and services to correct conditions that limit human rights and the quality of life.”

My hope is that Social Work can become a more balance profession so that we can accomplish the said purposes above using all options available in the ideological spectrum. Currently, only liberal ideology is an acceptable means to the end. If Social Work can change its ideological bias, then maybe new ideas can flush through the tired old delivery systems and revitalize research and practice methods – and then we would have a profession that can truly find ways to promote human well-being without the restraints of a one way street.

Remember When....

Currently, Democrats are looking for ways to bring the ills of the Iraq war back to the front pages. It seems Bush's poll numbers haven't dropped far enough. In that attempt, many on the left are reminding people of the "false" intelligence that the Bush adminstration relied upon to invade Iraq. Even former President Carter is on the stump, attacking Bush for his now infamous 16 words in the State of the Union speech that referred to WMDs and a possible nuclear threat of Saddam. But let's not forget that it wasn't just Bush saying those things. In fact, the entire coutry believe it before we invaded and figured out that Saddam was playing a very good bluffing game. Remember when the other side said this:

“There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein is a despicable dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and growing threat to the United States….But this isn’t just a future threat. Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

And he could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups which have contact with his government, and those groups could bring those weapons into the U.S. and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.

We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction he currently possesses, or that he will use them against us. But we do know Saddam has the capability. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people -- and he has ill-will toward America.

I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.”

Ranking Member on the Senate Intelligence Committee (which means he had access to all of the intelligence that the Bush Administration did)

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
October 10, 2002

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

============================

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

October 10, 2002

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

=================================

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy
September 27, 2002

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

============================

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Senator John Kerry
October 9, 2002

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

Brown: The Scapegoat of Katrina?

I have been watching the C-SPAN coverage tonight of the hearings on what happened during hurricane Katrina. I have actually be shocked at the amount of showboating by congressmen/women both Republican and Democrat alike. I know… why should I be "shocked," but I am.

I have also been surprised to at the testimony of Brown. I went into this hearing thinking he was a guy that did not properly prepared FEMA for Katrina because the media has portrayed him as such a lack luster looser, however, now after seeing the guy's testimony, I realize he has just become a scapegoat by the media, the administration, congress, senate and local officials in LA. Let me be clear though, that I don't think Brown or FEMA lacks any blame here. I do think many changes need to be made and Brown admits that, but the disaster of Katrina on the "human side" was not just because of Brown's leadership…far from it.

I was amazed at some of the facts brought out during the hearing; Being in Baton Rouge soon after the hurricane, I knew first hand of the inept leadership of the Governor of Louisiana and the Mayor of New Orleans, but not to the extent of what has been testified: For example, when the Govt. of LA finally asked for Federal assistance…. She did not include the county that included New Orleans. Director Brown included them on his list because he knew what was to come, but it was not requested by the Governor but rather added later by Brown. Brown requested on national TV on Thursday that the people of New Orleans leave. The Mayor was asked by Dir. Brown on Friday to have a mandatory evacuation, but he refused and to make matters worse, the Gov. went public on local stations on Friday telling people to ignore Brown's previous evacuation requests. Brown finally asked the President to call the Mayor on Saturday because the Mayor was not responding to requests from FEMA.

Governor Blanco was the only governor out of the areas to be hit by Katrina that FEMA needed to ask for a Federalization of National Guard troops because local command was so chaotic that FEMA could not coordinate proper response teams. She refused. Additionally, LA had no local FEMA director because he was removed from office months before Katrina because of a federally indictment and had not yet been replaced by the governor.

After hearing Brown's testimony, I for one, feel deeply sorry for Brown because I feel like he was most likely a competent Director (as Senator Lieberman correctly attested) that handled five of the worst hurricanes to ever hit the coast of North America (prior to Katrina) and was praised on his and FEMA's reaction to all of them. However, Katrina was a different animal for several reasons beyond that fact that it was the worst natural disaster to ever hit the United States: (1) since 9/11 FEMA has been systematically dismantled and had its internal emphasis altered because of Homeland Security and many of the budgeting needs requested by FEMA after the test of "hurricane Pam" were denied; And (2) hurricane Katrina hit a state that was inadequately prepared and had poor leadershipn - LA. FEMA did not have competent partnerships with local officials who knew their responsibilities to organize appropriate services and people died.

I am convinced that the "original sin" (as quoted from C. Krauthammer) of Katrina was the lack of preparedness of local officials that includes an evacuation of their own citizens and I hope this congressional inquiry delves into that issue at more depth.