The ads for "Oprah's Big Give" emphasize the word "HOPE", and the website is big on the word "CHANGE".
Now where have I heard those words recently????
Oh, yeah! Right here....
It is almost like Oprah and Barack have been talking or something.....
I wonder if Barry will be making an apearance? If so, will Johnny Mack get equal time?
What do the great liberal newspapers of record (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, and SF Chronicle) have to say about this to their readers who more than likely care greatly about human rights?
Zip, Zero, Nada, Niente, & ничего.
Why would they turn a selective blind eye to this? Because it happened on the wrong side of a fenceline in Cuba.
You can damn well bet that if this happened at Guantanamo Bay, this would have been above the fold....again. Instead, it puts their Caribbean Comandanté in a poor light.
Omar Pernet Hernández spent a total of 21 years as a 'guest of the state' in Fidel's Cuban prisons, and suffered untold abuses. Yet he gets ZERO column inches from the finest bleeding hearts in journalism.
Read about Hernández and 3 other thankfully former Cuban prisoners...in a European newspaper.
You would think that the aforementioned news organizations would want to trumpet these sorts of abuses.
Four dissidents freed this week after five years in inhumane conditions in a Cuban prison have revealed the dark side of Fidel Castro’s regime.
The four - José Gabriel Ramón Castillo, Omar Pernet Hernández, Alejandro González and Pedro Pablo Álvarez - described regular beatings, humiliation and arbitrary punishment with long periods of solitary confinement in cramped cells with cement beds.
Here is the sad gallery of their search results:
The shame...the shame.
(Hat tip: Powerline)
In tonight's debate, Obama charged that troops in Afghanistan actually have to [or had to] capture Taliban ammunition and weapons in order to fight, since they were sent improperly equipped:
OBAMA: And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.Now, we have heard some complaints from troops, even very public ones about armor to Don Rumsfeld in 2004, but I don't think I have ever heard any complaints from the field that our troops have to capture enemy weapons in order to fight.
I think this one deserves the BS flag.
Obama attributes this to "an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon", but given the fair number of pretend/faux soldiers who have been used by the left to hype imagined sins of the military in recent years, I think I might need some more evidence.
I invite other milbloggers with better knowledge to comment....
UPDATE: In comments Donald Sensing points out: "Lieutenants lead rifle platoons, not captains. Captains command companies." A great point that I neglected to add...
"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."(Hat Tip: Michael Totten)
This of course should be no surprise, since kids have always been drawn to change...especially liberal, feel-good change. Lets not forget the quote attributed to Churchill, "If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head." The attribution may be apocryphal, but the words ring no less true.
During the first couple of hours of his show on Tuesday, Hugh Hewitt had young Obama supporters call in to try an get them to explain *why* he was such a draw. In the end there was not much substance to most of the answers, but gosh, there was a lot of hope!
Some of the reasons that were cited were that Obama was "inspirational", and "empowering people to believe". Exactly *what* he might be inspiring people to do, or empowering them to believe was not exactly clear. Hugh sugested that maybe this was akin to a "Pep Rally", to which the caller replied that that would imply that there was no substance to the inspiration. No, really??
Additionally, a caller suggested that she thought Obama could make change possible because "with a more positive outlook the country will move in a different direction...". Hugh lauded her for discovering the Norman Vincent Peale School of Public Policy... Heh.
Of course this reminds me of the peacenik lefties who have always maintained that if we just sent out enough positive thoughts and vibes then we could end war in the world.
In the end though, I think that the best way to illustrate this strange cult of hope and what it means to us is to bastardize a popular movie quotation:
Strange men, lying in wait, distributing hope, is no basis for running a government...
But just today, I have found out that it is OK! You see...Ché was really a great guy.
I now know this because I have found out that Hollywood is putting out not one, but two movies about comrade Ché this year! Lets break out the popcorn and get ready for "The Argentine" and "Guerrilla". Finally the record can be set straight!
I also had no idea how many movies had been made about Ché. I mean, if he were such a terrible guy, there is no way that Hollywood would produce glowing bio-pics about him, right?
Sarcasm off.......now back to our regularly scheduled message:
In specific, he was vexed by this quote: "When Mrs. Clinton talked about how it took Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to achieve the rights legislation, Ms. Goodwin said, “she was absolutely right.” Johnson’s great mastery was to get the support of Southern Republicans...."
Jonah said: "LBJ Did What Now? ... Someone correct me if I'm wrong (as if I need to say that!), but I could have sworn there were no southern Republicans in the Senate in 1964, except for John Tower of Texas. "
Fortunately there is no reason to correct our favorite-fomenter-of-feel-good-fascists. He is entirely correct.
However one can understand the confusion that must be felt at the NYT. I am sure that anything not north of Manhattan is considered "Southern" on the Upper East Side. How quaint.
Now either this crack NYT reporter forgot to fire up her internet-contraption-thingy to do some fact checking, or she firmly believes that the only ones who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act were those nasty Republicans, who we all know have infested the south since they started the Civil War... See, it slides off the tongue so easily, it almost sounds true!
Now, for some quick facts. One can reasonably define "The South" as VA, NC, SC, GA, FLA, MS, AL, TN, LA, & AR. If you look at the make up of the Senate for the 88th Congress, you can see that each and every one of the Senate seats for these states was 100%, tried and true Democrat.
If you want to be generous and throw in TX and OK, you come up with a grand total of 1 Republican (John Tower, as mentioned by Jonah). Add in Delaware, you can figure in two more. Heck, throw in Hawaii, with *is* the southern-most state, and you can get a fourth!
The bottom line is that the NYT has proven once again that is should do some hiring outside of its echo chamber. Simple research would prove the statement "Johnson’s great mastery was to get the support of Southern Republicans" to be bunk. Not only were there no Southern Republicans to speak of in those 10 aforementioned states, but the one from Texas joined his 20 Democratic colleagues from those states in opposing the final bill.
So much for that vaunted "great mastery" that the story tells us that Johnson had over the south.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers!
I did want to add one piece of info before somebody decides to use it against me, and under the aegis that I had intended to include it in my original post.... One of those 20 "Southern" Democratic Senators was indeed Strom Thurmond, who would become a Republican later in that same year.
Since the Clinton's revolutionized the Democrats' information machine 15 years ago, one has been well advised to search for some double or hidden meaning in any public statement.
For instance, any time a Clinton would call for bi-partisanship, you could rest assured that "bi-partisanship" was defined as "Democratic policies that the Republicans should agree with".
Well, its not like they ever stopped, but the Clintons are at it again. Their minions have started to hit the circuit to soften the ground for an effort to get Michigan and Florida delegates admitted to the Convention. And inside their statements are the old familiar twangs of Clinton double-speak:
Chuck Schumer (Meet the Press): "[It's important] that at the end of the day, we don't have such an internecine battle that we lose the general election."
Translation: "In order to avoid an internecine battle, Hilary should get those nasty
ol' delegates. Its for the good of the party..."
Now who wouldn't want that for another 8 years??
The only response to this less-than-subtle statement by Barack Obama staffers is this:
Unless of course you prefer this variation:
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers...Do freedom and capitalism a solid and buy one of those cool shirts! (PS-I have no affiliation)
UPDATE II: Texas Rainmaker points out why Che was a plain ol' bad guy, and should not be deified:
1. Che was responsible for the execution of thousands of political prisoners in Cuba (most of them purely for their opposition to Castro’s communist policies or for no reason at all).But hey, he rode a motorcycle, he can't be that bad right?
2. Che enjoyed torturing and abusing the prisoners, including children.
3. Che was instrumental in setting up the Castro regime’s massive forced labor camps and secret police apparatus.
4. Che tried to organize campaigns of terrorism against civilians in the US and elsewhere (though he largely failed in these efforts).
UPDATE III: More Good insight:
"If you were running a candidate’s local campaign office, what would you put on the wall? Old Glory? The Texas flag? Or maybe the banner of a hostile Communist police state?"
I suppose that his should be no surprise, given that every major award competition can't fall over themselves quickly enough to present once-prestigious awards to their major liberal heroes.
Witness the most recent victories by Al Gore in the Academy Awards and Nobel Prize contests. The fawning sycophancy of the Academy was obvious as Al's Powerpoint briefing won in a category that doesn't normally garner much attention, and included other nominees you have never heard of.
Obama's victory on the other hand reveals a level of servile obsequiousness that the Academy can not hope to match.
In he category of 'spoken word', Obama's book "beat out works by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, as well as poet Maya Angelou and actor Alan Alda for the honor."
Obama, Clinton, Carter, Angelou, Alda. Wow! What a diverse group. And you wonder why people don't give credence to these awards any more.
But one has to wonder, "Is that the best there is?" I mean, I listen to a bunch of books on MP3, and find it hard to believe that there are not 5 other 'spoken word' productions out there that are better than these.
The answer is that of course there are. However we live in a time when style trumps substance, and it is more important to award accolades in order to pad the resumes of like-minded travelers. Awards like these used to confer an actual honor of achievement, but now only represent the result so of an insular circular logic, and is simply a chance for liberals to prove to themselves how smart they are.
"We love Obama and think he is great...thus we decided give him the Grammy....see, Obama won a Grammy, we were right about how great he is."
Perhaps is is a giant liberal echo chamber, where they think that everyone thinks like they do. Or perhaps it is a giant liberal graft program, to hand out awards in order to justify and validate their own views. Nothing sells better when you can put the label "Grammy Winner" or "Academy Award Winner" on it.
Of course this is nothing new, but it still smells....
I have also not been in love with John McCain as a presidential candidate. I subscribe to Hugh Hewitt's mantra that he is "A great American, an lousy Senator, and a horrible Republican".
That said, I will vote for him in November (albeit by absentee ballot...more on that later)
Why, you ask?
Because, like it or not, our choice is between a semi-conservative, and either an opportunist or a confirmed leftist. No contest.
Besides, if you are thinking about sitting this election out to "send the GOP a message", you can see how well that worked in the 2006 election.
Other thoughts in this vein from around the blogosphere:
Seven Reasons To Support The GOP's Nominee (Hugh Hewitt)
"There are seven reasons for anyone to support the eventual nominee no matter who it is: The war and six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68."
Biting the Bullet
"McCain for President. Or we're really screwed."
Letting the Dems win so they can fail, then a real conservative can win in 2012
"A retreat before victory is assured in Iraq cannot be undone in 2012. And mandatory, single-payer, universal health care, once established, will not EVER go away either."
All are worthy reads, and all point to the fact hat we must support McCain, even if you must hold your nose when you cast your vote.
Drew Cary, you evil capitalist pig! ;-)
Yes, Exxon may have made have made a profit in 2007 of $41 billion (an all-time record)...but it also paid $30 billion in taxes (also another all-time record).
To put that second figure in context, over the last 3 years Exxon-Mobil has on average paid more taxes than the bottom 50% of all individual taxpayers in the U.S. That's 65 million people.
So when the left complains that Oil company profits are "obscene", ask them if the think the related goverment profits are "obscene" as well.
It may be the most innovative war film ever made. Outside of Stripes that is....
"an abridged history of war, from World War II to present day, told through the foods of the countries in conflict"
Holy mutual exclusivity Batman!
Personally I think Romney could make a pretty good line out of this. Perhaps...
"Unlike my opponent, in my career I have served both out of patriotism, AND for profit. And there's nothing wrong with that."Mitt, give me a ring and I will tell you where to send the residuals check. Ooops, that didn't sound very patriotic of me now did it....