Obama Administration Unconcerned as Russia Sails Toward Syria

On May 19, 2011, the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), gave the following speech, concerning the volatile situation in the Middle East, known as Arab Spring, as Muslim fanatics began to overthrow the Moderate Muslim Dictators that were in place:

The State Department is a fitting venue to mark a new chapter in American diplomacy. For six months, we have witnessed an extraordinary change taking place in the Middle East and North Africa. Square by square, town by town, country by country, the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights. Two leaders have stepped aside. More may follow. And though these countries may be a great distance from our shores, we know that our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security, by history and by faith.

,,,Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there. In Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan lead. And after years of war against al Qaeda and its affiliates, we have dealt al Qaeda a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.

…By the time we found bin Laden, al Qaeda’s agenda had come to be seen by the vast majority of the region as a dead end, and the people of the Middle East and North Africa had taken their future into their own hands.

…There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia, as that vendor’s act of desperation tapped into the frustration felt throughout the country. Hundreds of protesters took to the streets, then thousands. And in the face of batons and sometimes bullets, they refused to go home –- day after day, week after week — until a dictator of more than two decades finally left power.

The story of this revolution, and the ones that followed, should not have come as a surprise. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa won their independence long ago, but in too many places their people did not.

…In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere. The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism. Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression. Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.

But the events of the past six months show us that strategies of repression and strategies of diversion will not work anymore. Satellite television and the Internet provide a window into the wider world -– a world of astonishing progress in places like India and Indonesia and Brazil. Cell phones and social networks allow young people to connect and organize like never before. And so a new generation has emerged. And their voices tell us that change cannot be denied.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense. Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

And that’s why, two years ago in Cairo, I began to broaden our engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. I believed then -– and I believe now -– that we have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals. The status quo is not sustainable. Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.

… There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.

Smart Power in action? Hardly.

We interrupt Little Barry Sunshine for this important story from the New York Times:

Russia said on Tuesday that it had dispatched a flotilla of 11 warships to the eastern Mediterranean, some of which would dock in Syria. It would be the largest display of Russian military power in the region since the Syrian conflict began almost 17 months ago. Nearly half of the ships were capable of carrying hundreds of marines.

The announcement appeared intended to punctuate Russia’s effort to position itself as an increasingly decisive broker in resolving the antigovernment uprising in Syria, Russia’s last ally in the Middle East and home to Tartus, its only foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union. The announcement also came a day after Russia said it was halting new shipments of weapons to the Syrian military until the conflict settled down.

Russia has occasionally sent naval vessels on maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean, and it dispatched an aircraft-carrying battleship, the Admiral Kuznetsov, there for maneuvers with a few other vessels from December 2011 to February 2012. There were rumors in recent weeks that the Russians planned to deploy another naval force near Syria.

But the unusually large size of the force announced on Tuesday was considered a message, not just to the region but also to the United States and other nations supporting the rebels now trying to depose Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad.

Tartus consists of little more than a floating refueling station and some small barracks. But any strengthened Russian presence there could forestall Western military intervention in Syria.

The Russian announcement got a muted response in Washington. “Russia maintains a naval supply and maintenance base in the Syrian port of Tartus,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “We currently have no reason to believe this move is anything out of the ordinary, but we refer you to the Russian government for more details.”

The announcement came as a delegation of Syrian opposition figures was visiting Moscow to gauge if Russia would accept a political transition in Syria that excludes Mr. Assad. It also coincided with a flurry of diplomacy by Kofi Annan, the special Syria envoy from the United Nations and the Arab League, who said Mr. Assad had suggested a new approach for salvaging Mr. Annan’s sidelined peace plan during their meeting on Monday in Damascus.

Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the “Police Squad” in charge of the State Department:

Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here.

What if Obamacare is Implemented and There are no Doctors Left?

What if 83% of American Doctors gave up their practice, rather than suffer through the Politboro-driven coming catastrophe known as Obamacare?

Can you imagine?

The Doctors surveyed by the Doctor  Patient Medical Association can…and they’ve threatened to do just that.

ABOUT THE SURVEY

The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16, 227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.

SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Doctors from 45 states responded, in addition to 130 who did not provide their geographical information.

Most are in solo or small group practice (81%) and office-based (89%) versus hospital-based (11%).

Most of the doctors are mid-career (77%) and have been in practice between 11 and 30 years.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:

  • Almost unanimous that medicine is on the wrong track, and overwhelmingly blame the government;
  • Government-imposed solutions (PPACA, electronic health information) destined to fail;
  • Highest numbers ever opting out of Medicare or refuse Medicaid;
  • Vacuum in leadership in medical profession, feel abandoned by AMA & organized medicine;
  • Corporate medicine (including hospital and insurance companies) is intentionally trying to destroy private practice;
  • Doctors are pessimistic – failing financially & assume things will worsen;
  • See doctors and patients as the solution – not government;
  • Believe direct payment by patients will restore accountability & patient control;
  • Restored autonomy, elimination of government involvement, increased patient responsibility and free market reforms are solutions.

KEY FINDINGS

  • 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
  • 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
  • 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
  • 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
  • 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
  • 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
  • 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
  • 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
  • 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
  • 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
  • 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
  • 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
  • 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
  • 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
  • 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

The Republic of Texas stated its intentions concerning Obamacare, yesterday…in no uncertain terms: 

Governor Rick Perry said on Monday Texas will not implement an expansion of the Medicaid program or create a health insurance exchange, placing the state with the highest percentage of people without insurance outside key parts of President Barack Obama’s signature law.

The announcement makes Texas the most populous state that has rejected the provisions. Some 6.2 million people are without health insurance in Texas, or 24.6 percent of the state population, the highest percentage in the nation. California has more people without insurance but a lower percentage.

Perry joined fellow Republican governors of Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Louisiana in rejecting the two provisions of the law, according to americanhealthline.com. They hope that November elections will result in Republicans winning the White House and enough seats in Congress to repeal the law.

“I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government,” Perry said in a statement.

He sent a letter on Monday to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking her to relay the message to Obama that Perry opposes the provisions “because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state.”

“I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a ‘state’ exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better ‘patient protection’ or in more ‘affordable care,'” said Perry, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race in January. “They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care.”

Sebelius spokesman Keith Maley said the department “will continue to work with states to ensure they have the flexibility and resources they need to implement” the law known formally as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans are sending a message of their own:

House Republicans this week are launching what some believe is a quixotic push to repeal the health care overhaul, in the latest display of campaign-messaging theater.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., announced that the House of Representatives would vote to repeal the entire Affordable Care Act after the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision to uphold the law.

The opening act begins with a House Rules Committee hearing late Monday afternoon. Members of the panel will set the parameters for the repeal bill’s floor consideration.

Floor debate commences Tuesday in Act II. Expect a long series of speeches from both sides praising or condemning the legislation.

The actual vote on the repeal bill will come Wednesday. The tally will likely fall along party lines much in the same way as the legislation passed in 2010. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the health care overhaul while 34 moderate House Democrats voted no.

This may prove to be a difficult vote for centrist Democrats facing tough reelection battles. Watch for members of the Blue Dog Coalition like Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Larry Kissell, D-N.C., to potentially defect from their party on this issue as they gear up for the fall campaign.

Of course, at this point, with the Senate and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue under the control of the Democrats, this is strictly a symbolic gesture by the Republicans.

…But, at least they will get it on the record before the electoral nuclear explosion (i.e., The World’s Largest Tea Party) scheduled for November 6, 2012.

Romney: Slipping in the Swing States

Before I begin the subject of today’s post, let me re-iterate:  on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012, I am going to hold my nose and pull the voting lever for the Massachusetts Moderate, Mitt Romney, because I have no other legitimate choice.

Evidently, a lot of Americans aren’t as sure about their vote as I am.

USA Today reports that ol’ Mittens is having some trouble convincing folks in the Swing States:

In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of swing states, an overwhelming majority of voters remember seeing campaign ads over the past month; most voters in other states say they haven’t. In the battlegrounds, one in 12 say the commercials have changed their minds about President Obama or Republican Mitt Romney — a difference on the margins, but one that could prove crucial in a close race.

At this point, Obama is the clear winner in the ad wars. Among swing-state voters who say the ads have changed their minds about a candidate, rather than just confirmed what they already thought, 76% now support the president, vs. 16% favoring Romney.

“We gave them new information,” says Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. “Romney had been out there claiming success as governor,” but Democratic ads have prompted voters to “take a look at his record” on job creation and as head of the private-equity firm Bain Capital. Messina also credits a $25 million buy for a positive ad “about the challenges the president inherited and what we had to do to move this country forward.”

To be sure, Obama’s ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

Romney pollster Neil Newhouse calls the findings unsurprising. “It is expected to find that more voters say their views have changed about Mitt Romney; they simply don’t know him all that well,” he says. “On the other hand, there are few voters who are going to say their views have changed about President Obama. They know him pretty damned well.”

Obama and his allies have outspent Romney’s side on ads so far by almost a third. Although the TV spots didn’t start earlier than in recent elections, there have been more than ever before — including a negative flood from the new breed of super PACs — and they are continuing without the traditional summertime letup.

On July 3rd, thehill.com reported that

Mitt Romney has a sizeable lead in 15 battleground states, according to a CNN/ORC poll released late Monday.

The Republican candidate leads President Obama 51 percent to 43 in 15 states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the 2012 election.

Obama won 12 of these battleground states in 2008 — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin — and will need to keep about half of those in 2012 if he’s to secure reelection. The poll also included Missouri, Indiana and Arizona as battleground states.

Why is Scooter gaining ground on Mittens in these key states?

Last Thursday, after Romney aide, Eric Fehrnstrohm, earlier in the week, put both feet in his over-sized mouth, by stating that the Romney Campaign agreed with the Administration that Obamacare was not a tax, The Wall Street Journal posted the following:

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it’s Mr. Obama’s fault. We’re on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that “Obama isn’t working.” Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President’s policies aren’t working and how Mr. Romney’s policies will do better.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is assailing Mr. Romney as an out-of-touch rich man, and the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo. Team Obama is pounding him for Bain Capital, and until a recent ad in Ohio the Romney campaign has been slow to respond.

Team Obama is now opening up a new assault on Mr. Romney as a job outsourcer with foreign bank accounts, and if the Boston boys let that one go unanswered, they ought to be fired for malpractice.

All of these attacks were predictable, in particular because they go to the heart of Mr. Romney’s main campaign theme—that he can create jobs as President because he is a successful businessman and manager. But candidates who live by biography typically lose by it. See President John Kerry.

The biography that voters care about is their own, and they want to know how a candidate is going to improve their future. That means offering a larger economic narrative and vision than Mr. Romney has so far provided. It means pointing out the differences with specificity on higher taxes, government-run health care, punitive regulation, and the waste of politically-driven government spending.

Mr. Romney promised Republicans he was the best man to make the case against President Obama, whom they desperately want to defeat. So far Mr. Romney is letting them down.

The FACT is:  this country is looking for a leader, a man of conviction.

Governor Romney hasn’t told us yet what he stands for…and it does not help his poll numbers that, from week to week, his convictions seem to change.

Americans want another Reagan.  Unfortunately, right now, Romney seems to be acting more like Clinton.

Americans to Be Disarmed by the U.N.?

President Barack Hussein Obama may be about to make the United States of America subservient to the United Nations.

The following is taken directly from un.org:

Many areas of world trade are covered by regulations that bind countries into agreed conduct. At present, there is no global set of rules governing the trade in conventional weapons. An eclectic set of national and regional control measures and a few global instruments on arms transfers exist, but the absence of a global framework regulating the international trade in all conventional arms has obscured transparency, comparability and accountability.

Governments remain primarily responsible for providing security and protecting their populations, keeping to the rule of law. They take decisions on arms transfers across international borders. That is why governments are expected to show responsibility in their decisions regarding arms transfers. This means that before approving international transfers (e.g., exports) of weapons, governments should assess the risk that such transfers would exacerbate conflict or be used to commit grave violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

Concerned by the misuse of weaponry around the world, civil society organizations have successfully mobilized governments and parliamentarians to call for the global regulation of the conventional arms trade. Countries have discussed the matter within the UN since 2006 and are set to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty in July 2012.

The Washington Times reports that

The George W. Bush administration opposed the treaty when it was first proposed in 2006. However, the Obama administration is giving it high-level support. This has generated legitimate alarm on Capitol Hill. Last week, more than 125 members of Congress sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton registering strong objections about the treaty language being drafted, which they say is “likely to pose significant threats to our national security, foreign policy and economic interests as well as our constitutional rights.” In particular, the members are concerned about an international arms treaty that infringes on “the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms that is protected by the Second Amendment, as well as the right of personal self-defense on which the Second Amendment is based.” They conclude that the ATT “should not cover small arms, light weapons or related material such as firearms ammunitions.”

Arms Trade Treaty backers argue that because the treaty will only regulate international trade, it poses no threat to individual gun rights. That propaganda aside, defenders of the Second Amendment are right to be suspicious. The recent Obamacare debate over the Constitution’s Commerce Clause highlighted that goods and services need not actually cross state lines to be considered “interstate.” Successive Supreme Court rulings have extended the term to any commerce that even indirectly affects interstate markets – which in practice means all commerce. A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that any weapon made with foreign components – or that might some day be exported, or that affects the overall arms market – could be said to be part of “international” trade.

Per mrctv.com, a former adviser to President Clinton has weighed in:

Dick Morris, political author and commentator, warns of a threat to the Second Amendment Right to bear arms.

Morris cautions that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “On July 27… are going to sign a treaty in New York City which will obligate the United States to participate in a global regime of gun control.”

The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is a proposal by the United Nations to address the lack of global standards for the international arms trade. Morris concedes that “the theoretical objective of the ATT is to regulate the arms trade,” but bills this claim as “ridiculous because most of the arms trade is done by the governments and this [treaty] does nothing to regulate government arms trafficking.”

Morris claims “the real purpose of this [treaty] is that it will set up an international agency that will be in charge of controlling the flow of arms throughout the world…It really will have the authority to tell member nations to adopt policies within their own countries to facilitate regulation of flows across borders.”

Furthermore, Morris asserts that “if this treaty is ratified by the Senate, it assumes parody with the second amendment…because the supremacy clause of the constitution says treaties are the law of the land.”

Morris concludes that “for those of us who value the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms, this is absolutely pivotal.”

The United States gave their official statement at the third day of the Arms Trade Treaty Conference yesterday, per heritage.org:

…And then there was the U.S. statement, made by Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman. As in July 2011, the U.S. spoke on behalf of the Permanent Five (P5) Members of the Security Council. The statement was banal but obviously important.

The U.S. and the rest of the P5 want an ATT that is based fundamentally on “effective systems [of national control] based on common international standards,” with authority for approving transfers remaining the right and responsibility of sovereign nations. The scope of the treaty should be as broad as possible—so long as it is practical. An Implementation Support Unit in the U.N. “could” be created to facilitate information exchange, match needs for foreign aid with those supplying it, and “promote the value” of the ATT.

Finally, the ATT should not enter into force until a reasonable number—Countryman suggested 65—states had ratified it, and he “expects” this number to include the main arms trading states.

Little if any of this is shocking—most surprising was the U.S. support for U.N. propaganda, i.e. activities to “promote the value” of the ATT—but a few points are worth making.

First, Countryman did not mention including small arms, light weapons, or ammunition in the ATT. Second, he made no reference at all to domestic constitutional protections or the need for the ATT to respect hunters and sport shooters and the right of personal self-defense. Finally, he emphasized the need for the national definition of the goods and services covered by the ATT.

In short, the U.S. statement was pure lowest common denominator, which is not surprising: In the context of the ATT, the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China in fact agree on very little. The U.S. strategy, thus, continues to be fairly simple: to run interference for the autocracies and to try to secure an ATT that the U.S., Russia, and China can sign on to (which will be an ATT that is very general) in the hope that this will satisfy the broader demand for a treaty.

And that leads to the real conflict in the U.S. position: An ATT that is based on sovereignty cannot at the same time be one that is based on “common international standards” if those standards are in practice defined by the ever-evolving sentiments of the “international community” and tightened regularly by the review conferences that will be found necessary by the unsatisfied majority at this conference.

The problem is…we have a President of the United States of America who believes more in the rights of the “international community” than he does in the sovereignty of his own country.

This is Democracy?

Remember this?  From whitehouse.gov:

President Barack Obama

May 19, 2011 Washington, DC

Today, recognizing the irreversible changes that have taken place in the Middle East and North Africa in recent months, President Obama announced a new approach to promoting democratic reform, economic development, and peace and security across the region.

Aligning Our Interests and Our Values: The President reaffirmed his commitment to a set of core principles that have guided the U.S. response to events in the Middle East and North Africa for the past six months. First, the United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region. Second, we support a set of universal rights including free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly and association; equality for men and women under the rule of law; the right to practice your religion without fear of violence or discrimination; and the right to choose your own leaders through democratic elections. Third, we support political and economic change in the Middle East and North Africa that can meet the legitimate aspirations of the people throughout the region.

Our support for these principles is a top priority and central to the pursuit of other interests in the region. The U.S. will marshal all our diplomatic, economic, and strategic tools to support these principles. The status quo is not fair, nor stable. And it can no longer secure the core interests of the United States. Ultimately, our values and our interests will be better advanced by a region that is more democratic and prosperous.

Promoting Democratic Reform: It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region and to support transitions to democracy. Real and durable democratic change in Tunisia and Egypt could have a transformative effect on the region and beyond. We will support free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, basic rights to speak your mind and access information, and strong democratic institutions in both nations. We will empower women as drivers of peace and prosperity, supporting their right to run for office and meaningfully participate in decision-making because, around the world, history shows that countries are more prosperous and peaceful when women are more empowered. And we will deliver an economic program that reinforces our strong support for the transitions that are now underway.

Libya: The United States led an international effort to intervene in Libya to stop a massacre – joining with with our allies at the UN Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people. At the start of the air campaign, the President pledged to the American people that U.S. military action would be limited in duration and scope and that we would ultimately transition from a U.S. to a coalition lead. The President has made good on that pledge. Now that we have transitioned to a NATO lead, we will continue to play an important role in the international community’s effort to put pressure on Col. Qaddafi and to protect innocent civilians that his regime continues to attack. The President has made clear, Qaddafi has lost the confidence of the Libyan people and he must go. At the same time, the United States is engaging and assisting the Transitional National Council, a legitimate and credible interlocutor, which is committed to an inclusive, democratic political transition in Libya. We are also working to address humanitarian needs in Libya and along its borders.

Evidently, Scooter…you didn’t work hard enough. Unless this is what you wanted to happen all along:

Libya’s top politicians have hatched a deal that would see the Muslim Brotherhood lead the government after the country’s first free elections in almost five decades takes place on Sunday.

While the elections for a 200-member National Congress is unlikely to grant a majority to any one faction, the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies are confident they can join their counterparts in Tunisia and Egypt at the helm of leadership.

Negotiations between the Muslim Brotherhood and a secular-based political movement led by former interim prime minister Mahmoud Jibril have focused on forming a post-election government as soon as the result is known.

An adviser to Mr Jibril said the former prime minister was likely to take the post of figurehead president with Mustafa Abu Shagour, currently interim deputy prime minister of the Muslim Brotherhood, taking the prime minister’s slot as head of government.

The Muslim Brotherhood would dominate the ministries.

In the run-up to the elections, Libya’s interim government has struggled to maintain law and order.

A threatened electoral boycott by federalists in Benghazi, the second city, has rattled Libya’s rebels turned leaders. Leading figures fear that large numbers in the city that triggered the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi may shun the polls, undermining the legitimacy of the election.

Recent attacks on foreign diplomats in Benghazi by Jihadists, a series of ugly micro-conflicts between militias in the Nafousa mountains leaving 105 dead and 300 wounded in the last fortnight and fierce clashes between Arabs, Tebu tribesmen and Tuaregs in the south have put the country on edge.

“We need to ensure stronger and more capable leadership soon after the elections,” said a senior official in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party. “That is what Libyans want – more security and stability and progress being made to improve their day-to-day lives. They don’t want deadlock.”

Any coalition government would grant a prominent place to the al-Watan party of Abdulhakim Belhaj, sources said. Mr Belhaj acknowledged that the talks were under way. He said: “I negotiate with anyone who cares about Libya and wants to unite it.”

The Obama Administration is “Promoting Democracy in the Middle East”?

Yeah, right. And, Obamacare is not a TAX.

The Land of the Free and the Home of the Oblivious

Yesterday, while the majority of Americans were celebrating our country’s Independence and loving our Freedom with family and friends, there were some nattering nabobs of negativity that were on Twitter showing their backsides: 

@chrisrock

Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

sarah@mamaswati

#headwall RT @chrisrock: Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Chris Rock

@chrisrock 4 Jul 12

Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks

Some Americans let Rock know exactly what they thought of him:

David Burge@iowahawkblog

@chrisrock Good one! I bet your Guatemalan house staff got a good chuckle.

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Loren Heal@lheal

The Declaration of Independence led directly to emancipation, @chrisrock. No nation with that as a foundation could long tolerate slavery.

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Jon G.@ExJon

Oh FFS, grow up. RT @chrisrock: Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Raging Conservative@RagCon

So, “Reverend” @TheRevAl , you are going to rebuke @chrisrock for his racist tweet right? I mean you walked with MLK right? #tcot

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Andy Hall@LazerANDYHALL

Hey @chrisrock – how’s that foot taste, pal?

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Truth is hard.

Update: Actor Don Cheadle finds Rock’s tweet absolutely guffaw-worthy.

Don Cheadle

@IamDonCheadle

“@chrisrock: Happy white peoples independence day the slaves weren’t free but I’m sure they enjoyed fireworks” Haha

4 Jul 12 ReplyRetweetFavorite

Back in 2002, Wheel of Fortune Host Pat Sajak wrote down his thoughts about the Hollywood Elite…and hit them right between the eyes:

I could go on with a laundry list of silly and hypocritical things said and done by some of my fellow Show Business luminaries, but the point here is not to make them look silly. They’re perfectly capable of doing that without my help. The larger point is the disconnect between the realities of this nation and its people, and the perceived realities of many in the entertainment community.

I don’t mean to sound too harsh—or hypocritical. After all, I seem perfectly happy to have cashed my checks for the more than 30 years I’ve been in television. And I’m not exactly working on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I do make a living by selling vowels and spinning a giant multicolored wheel! So who am I to be pointing fingers? Well, I’m just someone who wants to feel prouder than he does—as proud as he once was—about what goes on in his industry. And that’s why I spend only part of my time around it. I need to step back occasionally. I think it does help me see the world more clearly.

And that’s the irony of it all. Most of you, in a very real way, are more aware of what this nation and this world are about than the supposedly well-connected and in-tune people who inhabit our media culture.

Former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg has written a best-selling book called Bias, in which he maintains that the real problem with the media is not a bias based on liberal vs. conservative or Republican vs. Democrat. It is a bias based on the sameness of worldview caused by social, intellectual, educational and professional inbreeding. These are folks who travel in the same circles, go to the same parties, talk to the same people, compare their ideas, and develop a standard view on issues that makes any deviation from them seen somehow marginal, or even weird.

They think they have diversity in their midst because they take pains to hire a representative mix of gender and race. But there is no diversity of thought. On the great social issues of our time, there is an alarmingly monolithic view held by what has become known as the “media elite.” You can bet that the New York Times is careful about how many women it hires, but you can also bet that it is not very careful that these women hold diverse views on issues they’ll be writing about, such as the environment, gun control or abortion. My guess it that a pro-life view within the wall of the Times is a pretty rare one. And the same holds true on the entertainment side.

It is just assumed that “right thinking people” hold certain views. If you don’t… well there’s the problem. How can you portray people fairly in film or on TV if you think their attitudes are so foreign?

How can you write about people fairly if they seem so out of touch with that you are used to in your everyday life? That might help explain why religion is rarely depicted as a natural part of life in the average sitcom or drama series, despite the fact that tens of millions of Americans say that it is important to them.

At a dinner party in Los Angeles recently, our hostess was about to say some grudgingly kind words about President Bush and the way he was handling the War on Terror. She prefaced her remarks by saying, “Now I know everyone at this table voted for Al Gore, but… “ Well, she knew no such thing. She just presumed it. It’s what “right-thinking” people did. This “false reality” is a phenomenon that permeates media circles.

It’s the phenomenon that caused Pauline Kael, former film critic for The New Yorker, to remark after Richard Nixon’s election sweep in 1972, “I can’t believe it! I don’t know a single person who voted for him.” This was a man who won in 49 out of 50 states and she didn’t know one person who voted for him. And I don’t think she was dealing in hyperbole. She simply had never met those people. She couldn’t believe they really existed.

It’s the phenomenon that allows the media to “rediscover” patriotism and heroism in the wake of September 11, when millions of others in St. Louis, Cleveland, Salem, Phoenix, Cheyenne, and a thousand other cities and small towns, know that those traits never went away.

It’s the phenomenon that explains Hollywood’s disdain for Big Business. You read about it in the newsmagazines and see it in the movies. Big Business is bad. The people who run these businesses are heartless, often criminal, brutes. There is no regard for the little guy. Thousands are laid off while the greedy business executives reap windfall profits. Never mind that some of the biggest and least-competitive businesses are in entertainment. They merge, they lay off thousands, while stock options accrue to the top executives. Top talent at networks and in movies get tens—even hundreds—of millions while so many of their co-workers lose their jobs. They simply don’t see the contradiction. They are above it.

And, perhaps worst of all, it’s the phenomenon that allows movie studios and television networks to program with an utter disregard for your kids and your communities. It’s not that they’re evil people. They have kids, and they care about them. But they see no connection between what they do and the results of what they do. And, besides, you’re not really families and communities. You’re ratings, demographics and sales.

You see, they are—for the most part—clueless. Clueless about this country and its people. Clueless about you. And they are afraid. They are afraid of the new technologies… afraid of the dwindling numbers of viewers or readers or listeners… afraid for their very existence. So, don’t you see, they have to do what it takes to survive. They must survive. They are important. Who do you people out here—the ones they fly over on their way to the other Coast for meetings—who do you think you are?

Well, you are this country. You are its future. And I think that’s a very good thing to be.

Hollywood’s disconnect with the rest of America explains the rise of Redbox and the titanic collapse of America’s Box Office Receipts.

Americans don’t want to spend more on these Liberal idiots than they absolutely have to.

 

KJ’s State of the Nation: July 4th, 2012

Last year, as I was contemplating what to write about on the 4th of July, I came upon an article titled, Down on the Fourth of July:  The United States of Gloom,  on the London Daily Telegraph’s website, written by Tony Harnden, their U.S. Editor.  Mr. Harnden presented a synopsis of the state of our country and came to the following conclusion:

On this day in 1776 a group of 13 colonies broke away to found a new nation free to govern itself as it saw fit, pledging that each citizen would have the unalienable right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. A nation, as Americans are apt to declare without equivocation, which became the greatest on the face of the earth.

That’s the good news. On the flip side, however, a country whose hallmark has always been a sense of irrepressible optimism is in the grip of unprecedented uncertainty and self-doubt.

With the United States mired in three foreign wars, beaten down by an economy that shows few signs of emerging from deep recession and deeply disillusioned with President Barack Obama, his Republican challengers and Congress, the mood is dark.

The last comparable Fourth of July was probably in 1980, when there was a recession, skyrocketing petrol prices and an Iranian hostage crisis, with 53 Americans being held in Tehran.

…The 2010 mid-term elections showed that the Tea Party movement, drawing its small-government, low-tax inspiration from the revolutionaries who overthrew the British, was a phenomenon that could turn American politics upside down.

Previous elections had been about choosing the lesser of two evils but 2010 was about throwing the bums out. Luntz, a Republican, predicts that 2012 will be a “none of the above” contest. What is needed above all is optimism: it is a prerequisite for the risk-taking needed to invest and start new businesses. Its absence could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy as belief in American decline helps ensure that the halcyon years are indeed in the past.

The 1980 election was won by Ronald Reagan with his “Morning in America” message. Today, a 10ft bronze statue of Reagan will be unveiled outside the US Embassy in London’s Grosvenor Square, which, in another sign of the times, is due to move to Battersea next year because of concerns about its vulnerability to terrorists. Thus far, there is no sign of a new Reagan emerging.

More worryingly, the optimism he embraced and came to personify is all but absent in America this Fourth of July.

Pretty depressing, huh?

Mr. Harden did have a point.

Yes,  even to this day, America’s populace is still struggling through the worst economic situation our country has seen since the Great Depression.  Approximately 20% of our countrymen are unemployed, underemployed, or have just plain given up.  One-sixth of our nation has to rely on assistance from our government just to have food on the table, while remaining under the governance of a president who worships a Far Left political ideology steeped in the redistribution of wealth teachings of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky.

Americans have watched, feeling helpless, as he and his self-centered minions in Congress took our tax dollars and spent all of it and then some, as if there was no tomorrow, leaving our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren with a debt that this shining city on a hill may never recover from.

We’ve watched, with our mouths hanging wide open, as the President of the United States and his State Department, have reached out to embrace the very barbarians that want to murder each and every one of us, while at the same time, criticizing and alienating our closest allies.

And, on this 4th of July, in the year of our Lord 2012, our Supreme Court, filled with supposedly wise Jurists, has upheld a socialist taxation that, if left to stand, will bankrupt our nation…and the hand-picked GOP Nominee seems to be reticent to fight on our behalf.

However, even now, I do not subscribe to Mr. Harnden’s assessment of gloom and doom.  Rather, I stand with this man who embodied the American Spirit that is beginning to awaken across this blessed land.

Per military.com:

Gen. Anthony Clement McAuliffe is best remembered for uttering a single word — no mean feat, considering that even the shortest Bible verse has two. Commanding the U.S. Army’s beleaguered and surrounded 101st Airborne Division during World War II’s Battle of the Bulge, McAuliffe received a German surrender ultimatum. “Nuts!” he replied, and became a lasting symbol of American courage and determination under fire.

A 1918 West Point graduate, McAuliffe held various field artillery positions before World War II. On the eve of D-Day, McAuliffe jumped with the first wave as a commander of division artillery, although he had never received formal parachute training.

In December 1944, during the siege of Bastogne, Belgium, McAuliffe was acting commander of the 101st in Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor’s absence. The Americans had been holding the Belgian town “at all costs,” and on Dec. 22, Gen. McAuliffe received the encouraging news that the 4th Armored Division was beginning its drive north to relieve the 101st. Later that morning, members of the division’s glider regiment saw four Germans coming up the road carrying a white flag. Everyone hoped they were offering surrender. Instead, they presented two pages demanding the Americans’ surrender: “To the USA Commander of the encircled town of Bastogne. . .There is only one possibility. . .the honorable surrender of the encircled town.”

McAuliffe glanced at the message and said, “Aw, nuts!” When he told his commanders he didn’t know what answer to send, Lt. Col. Harry Kinnard said ‘That first crack you made would be hard to beat, General.” Everyone laughed as a sergeant typed up the succinct response: “To the German Commander: Nuts! The American Commander.”

Between this stoic reply, Patton’s troops from the south, and a change in the weather that allowed air reinforcement the following day, the 101st was able to hold Bastogne. Their victory resulted in the first full-Division Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation.

McAuliffe’s actions at Bastogne helped assure the final defeat of the Germans. Gen. McAuliffe continued to serve on active duty, including assignments as Head of the Army Chemical Corps, Commander, 7th Army, and Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Army, Europe, until his 1956 retirement. He died in Washington, D.C. in 1975 and is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

In the opinion of this 53-year-old, sitting in the Northwest corner of the Magnolia State in America’s Heartland, the current administration and Mr. Harden have underestimated the American Spirit, just as King George and the British Aristocracy did, so many years ago.

As our enemies, both foreign and domestic, have discovered since the birth of our nation, Americans will fight for our freedom.  And we shall prove it again, this coming November, with an electoral explosion of nuclear magnitude, which shall make November 2010 seem like a firecracker in comparison.

May God Bless you and your family on this 4th of July, the Year of Our Lord, 2012, and may God Bless America.

Rep. Lt. Col. Allen West: Shooting from the Hip

Rep. Allen West (R-FL) spoke Sunday at a campaign event in his district, where he said the following about President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmm):

He does not want you to have the self-esteem of getting up and earning, and having that title of American. He’d rather you be his slave.

Lt. Col. West tells it like it is. Check out his Facebook Post from yesterday:

U.S. Manufacturing Shrinks for First Time in 2 Years: U.S. manufacturing shrank in June for the first time in nearly two years, another troubling sign for the economy, which is still faltering under the failed policies of President Obama. The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing managers, reported that its index of manufacturing activity fell to 49.7. That’s down from 53.5 in May and the lowest reading since July 2009. While the President often touts the recent growth of manufacturing jobs, the economy has actually shed 599,000 manufacturing jobs since the month President Obama took office and this news shows the sector could be in more trouble.

Federal Deficit Totals $844.5 Billion Through 8 Months of FY 2012: According to the Department of Treasury, the U.S. has racked up $844.5 billion in deficits through the first eight months (October 2011 – May 2012) of fiscal year 2012, keeping the nation well on track to hit a $1 trillion deficit for the fourth consecutive year. Prior to President Obama taking office, the highest U.S. deficit ever was $458 billion.

President’s Healthcare Law = Reduced Access for Medicare Beneficiaries, Higher Costs for Everyone Else: A May 2012 memo from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) Office of the Actuary discussed the projected payment rates for physician services, currently scheduled to be reduced by 31 percent in 2013 under President Obama’s federal takeover of healthcare law. Updating their original projections from 2010, the memo stated that the fiscal effects of the law would result in negative margins (i.e. unprofitability, or losing money) for a significant percentage of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies. In other words, providers will stop serving Medicare patients, or increase costs for everyone else.

Who is this straight shooter? Wellll, in case you didn’t know:

Congressman Allen West (FL-22) proudly and humbly serves the constituents of Florida’s 22nd district, encompassing parts of beautiful Broward and Palm Beach Counties along South Florida’s coastline. Patriotism is in Congressman West’s blood. Born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia, in the same neighborhood where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr once preached, West is the third of four generations of military servicemen in his family. Before retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army, West served as a Field Artillery Officer in several combat zones: in Operation Desert Storm, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, where he was battalion commander for the Army’s 4th Infantry Division, and in Afghanistan, where he trained Afghan officers to take on the responsibility of securing their own country.

In 2004, when it was time to retire from service, West brought his wife and two young daughters to South Florida, where he taught high school for one year. He then returned to Afghanistan as an advisor to the Afghan army.

In November of 2010, Congressman West was honored to be able to continue his oath of service to his country when he was elected to be a Representative in the United States Congress.

“I have traded in my camouflage uniform for a suit,” West said. “But the commitment to protect the people of the United States is still my mission.”

Congressman West received his Bachelors degree from University of Tennessee and Masters degree from Kansas State University, both in political science. He also holds a Master of Military Arts and Sciences from the US Army Command and General Staff Officer College in political theory and military operations.

In his Army career, Col. West has been honored many times, including a Bronze Star, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Army Commendation Medals (one with Valor), and a Valorous Unit Award. He received his valor award as a Captain in Desert Shield/Storm, was the US Army ROTC Instructor of the Year in 1993, and was a Distinguished Honor Graduate III Corps Assault School. He proudly wears the Army Master parachutist badge, Air Assault badge, Navy/Marine Corps parachutist insignia, Italian parachutist wings, and German proficiency badge (Bronze award).

Congressman West is an avid distance runner, a certified SCUBA diver, motorcyclist, and attends Community Christian Church in Tamarac Florida.

What this biography, written by the GOP, doesn’t tell you, is the stuff legends are made of, and one of the reasons this man is admired by patriotic Americans and a Tea Party Favorite:

He was the officer in charge on Aug. 20 of that year [2003] when soldiers under his command in Taji, Iraq, beat an Iraqi policeman they believed was hiding information about imminent attacks. Not getting the information he wanted, West took over the interrogation and, according to court reports, discharged his 9 mm pistol just above the policeman’s head. According to West, the Iraqi then spilled the beans about a planned ambush.

The policeman, Yehiya Kadoori Hamoodi, told The New York Times almost a year later that he had blurted out meaningless information to West out of fear and pain. But West has said that after the confession, no further attacks were made against his battalion until the time he was relieved of duty two months later.

[The LA Times wrote this from their decidedly Liberal point-of-view.  Lt. Col. West saved his men. Period.]

West was charged with assault and violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military decided not to court-martial him, which would have meant years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted. Instead, he was given an administrative Article 32 hearing and fined $5,000 for misconduct and assault.

An outpouring of support — the conservative blogosphere characterized West as a victim of a flawed system — and a letter signed by 95 members of Congress to the secretary of the Army may have helped West avoid more serious punishment.

A man like this…do you think he’s worried about how Obama and his sycophants are going to react to what he said Sunday?

Nope. Not a bit.

Obamacare and the FFRF: Intolerance in Action

Those oh-so-tolerant individuals of the Freedom From Religion Foundation are at it again.  This time they’re down in Dallas:

A new billboard along Interstate 30 is upsetting some Catholics. It urges members to quit the church.

The billboard is part of a national atheist campaign by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. It also says the Roman Catholic Church should put women’s rights over bishops’ wrongs.

It’s a dig at dozens of federal lawsuits by Catholic dioceses including those in Dallas and Fort Worth. They want to do away with an Obama Administration mandate that requires employers, including church-owned institutions like hospitals, to provide employees insurance coverage for birth control, something the church doesn’t believe in.

“I don’t like them imposing their religious beliefs on other people who don’t have those beliefs,” said Terry McDonald with the DFW Coalition of Reason, a local atheist group.

The Dallas Diocese said it has been getting phone calls about the sign located along westbound I-30 near Highway 360.

“It’s all been women who’ve called in to say they were offended and upset by the billboard,” said Annette Gonzales Taylor with the Catholic Diocese of Dallas.

The diocese believes the Freedom from Religion Foundation is in the wrong lane.

“We’re very offended that an entity that has no knowledge or understanding of the church would erect a billboard of this nature,” Gonzales Taylor said. “The issue is truly about religious liberty and protecting the church’s right to adhere to our faith principals.”

McDonald questioned that response.

“When you read that there’s a high percentage of Catholic women who use birth control, I wonder who’s complaining,” he said.

Last week, the FFRF released a 30 second spot  featuring Julia Sweeney.  A humanist named Mriana wrote the following for GodDiscussion.com:

This week the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) released an ad featuring Julia Sweeney, which they call “great experiment to storm the “Bishops’ Bastille”” countering the Catholic bishops’ war on contraception. This ad is part of their “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” and “Quit the Catholic Church” campaigns.

The 30-second spot, according to the FFRF, received various responses thus far and it will run 1200 times during a two-week period.

We’re getting a lot of phone calls at the FFRF office in response. Some callers are giving our female receptionists a hard time, making unprintable comments. But others are our kind of folks, such as a grandmother in Pennsylvania who said she was raised Catholic but is “98 percent atheist,” and is disgusted by the Catholic Church’s attempt, as she put it, to “put canon law over civil law.”

A kind man living in a remote area of North Carolina caught us on MSNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews. Another North Carolinian called after seeing Julia’s spot on a rerun of the The Daily Show and said people have forgotten the need for a strict separation between state and church. I couldn’t help replying: “It might sound strange for an atheist to say this, but hallelujah, brother.” He laughed and said, “Amen, sister.”

FFRF’s Facebook page received 500 new likes over the weekend, but request that people join them if they really like them.

The FFRF lists the various shows that will feature the ad through July 4, and updates the page frequently. The FFRF listed the times the ad will air as expected times for when the ad will air and listed as Eastern Time on a 24-hour clock and they are guaranteed over 42 million viewers.

In the ad, Julia says:

“Hi, I’m Julia Sweeney, and I’m a cultural Catholic. I am no longer a believer and I even wrote a play about it called “Letting Go of God.” But I wanted to let you know that right now Catholic Bishops are framing their opposition to contraceptive coverage as a religious freedom issue. But the real threat to freedom is the Bishops, who want to be free to force their dogma on people who don’t want it. Please join the Freedom From Religion Foundation and help keep church and state separate. [FFRF’s name, toll-free number and website are displayed throughout the ad.]

Actually the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Obama Administration have a lot in common.  The Administration doesn’t seem to care for Christians, in general, and Catholicism, in particular, much either.

Catholic.org reports that

Obamacare compels Catholics to participate in anti-life activities, no matter how much they are opposed to it. Not only is this evil, but it is coercive and tramples upon our God-given, First Amendment protected, right to freedom of religion and conscience.

How does this happen?

Obamacare considers contraceptives, sterilizations, abortifacients, and abortion as “preventative services” under its definition of “health care”. The underlying presumption is that pregnancy is a disease. When people pay into the Obamcare scheme, whether as taxpayers or through their insurance, their dollars will be used to finance these procedures, some of which must be provided for free to all women. The people have no choice – the individual mandate means everyone pays.

It is ironic that a national federalized healthcare plan would make anti-life procedures absolutely free while still requiring people to pay out-of-pocket for lifesaving procedures and medications.

Worse, there is no means to allow supposedly free people to opt out of paying into such plans. Now, even your parish priest must pay for insurance or pay a penalty that will one way or another go into a system that uses his money to fund anti-life procedures.

Of course the Bishops of the Catholic church have raised this point on behalf of all Catholics, other Christians and people of good will, but the Obama administration has ignored their pleas.

Per Gallup, 78% of Americans proclaim their Christianity, 92% believe in God, and Liberals are the smallest political ideology in the nation, consisting of only 21%, compared to 40% for Conservatives and 35% for Moderates.

So, once again, what we are experiencing is the “Tyranny of the Minority”.

I thought Liberals were supposed to be the tolerant ones?

The Gospel According to Moochelle

Michelle Obama visited the Volunteer State last week and spoke in a church in Nashville.

ABC News has the story:

First lady Michelle Obama Thursday offered a rare public reflection on her religious faith, telling a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal church that the life of Jesus Christ is a model for democratic organizing.

“It’s kind of like church,” Obama said. “Our faith journey isn’t just about showing up on Sunday for a good sermon and good music and a good meal. It’s about what we do Monday through Saturday as well, especially in those quiet moments, when the spotlight’s not on us, and we’re making those daily choices about how to live our lives.

“We see that in the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn’t limit his ministry to the four walls of the church,” she said. “He was out there fighting injustice and speaking truth to power every single day. He was out there spreading a message of grace and redemption to the least, the last, and the lost. And our charge is to find Him everywhere, every day by how we live our lives.”

Obama, who is not a regular churchgoer, said citizenship like the practice of faith is “not a once-a-week kind of deal.”

“Democracy is also an everyday activity,” she said. “And being an engaged citizen should once again be a daily part of our lives.”

The first lady said such engagement involved “the tireless, the thankless, relentless work of making change, you know, the phone-calling, letter-writing, door-knocking, meeting-planning kind of work.”

Her appearance at the Gaylord Opryland Resort in Nashville, Tenn., was dubbed an official event by the White House to recognize the history and legacy of the AME church, particularly its role in the civil rights movement.

“Time and again, history has shown us that there is nothing – nothing – more powerful than ordinary citizens coming together for a just cause,” Obama said. “And that is particularly true of folks in the AME church.”

The first lady concluded her trip to Tennessee with a campaign fundraiser in Memphis.

Where she probably devoured 4 racks of ribs.

For 20 years Michelle and her husband, ol’ what’s-his-name (I just call him “Scooter”)’ attended Trinity Church,  where they sat in the pews and listened to former American Muslim, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, espouse the tenets of Black Liberation Theology.

The rest, you already know.  As a reminder, though, Discoverthenetworks.org gives us the following summation of  Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

  • Longtime pastor and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama
  • Considers the U.S. to be a nation rife with racism and discrimination
  • Blames American racism for provoking the 9/11 attacks
  • “Islam and Christianity are a whole lot closer than you may realize,” he has written. “Islam comes out of Christianity.”
  • Embraces liberation theology and socialism
  • Strong supporter of Louis Farrakhan
  • Likens Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to South Africa’s treatment of blacks during the apartheid era

But, what is Black Liberation Theology?

Again, discoverthenetworks.org gives us the lowdown:

The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.

“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”

Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”

In 2008 Senator Barack Obama named West to his presidential campaign’s Black Advisory Council. West is a great admirer of Obama’s former pastor and longtime spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In March 2010, West spoke at a Young Democratic Socialists of America conference entitled “Real Change for a Change,” which was billed as a “snapshot of the current socialist movement in the United States.” During his lengthy address, West declared that “socialism has a future.” He added: “We are at a very crucial historical moment. My dear friend [President] Barack Obama, he needs help. He needs deep help. He needs pressure. Organized, mobilized pressure.” Exhorting the crowd not to rely on “messiahs” or “leaders” to lead the way toward America’s transformation into a socialist country, West said the responsibility for that task “falls onto us.”

In August 2011, during which time violent riots were taking place in Britain, West warned that similar unrest was likely to strike in the U.S.

“If you don’t treat poor and working people with dignity now, chickens are going to come home to roost later. And it won’t be about love and justice. It will be about revenge, hatred, and then we all go under.”

In October 2011, West said the following about Herman Cain, a black conservative who was seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, and who had said that racism was no longer an impediment to success for African Americans: “I think he needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe and acknowledge that the evidence [of racism] is overwhelming.’’

West is a co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, along with Michael Lerner (the group’s founder) and Joan Chittister.

So, basically, ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ notwithstanding, First Lady Michelle Obama got one thing right last week in Nashville.

It is what we do Monday through Saturday.

And, if you believe that Jesus preached socialism, revolution (a la Che Guevara) and racial division, you don’t know my Savior.

And, I feel sorry for you.