Here's a story both Main Scream Media and Alternative Media, though Investor's Business Daily and Roger Kimball are paying attention, are pretty much ignoring, while all the attention is on the rantings of Sen. B. Hussein Obama's insane spiritual advisor:

"Raul Reyes, the Colombian warlord and second-in-command of the Marxist-Leninist terror group FARC (short for “Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia”)" ... "cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met “two gringos” who assured him “the new president of their country will be [Sen. B. H.] Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support ‘Plan Colombia’ nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement).” (emphasis added)

IBD notes some questions, related to this revalation, that should be answered by the Obama camp, but will likely never get asked:

1. Is it true Obama would cut off Plan Colombia military aid to our ally, which would serve the terrorist group FARC's interests?

2. Does Obama still oppose a free trade agreement for Colombia, even though that puts him on the same side as FARC in the debate?

3. Does Obama know or care that one of his staffers or supporters is claiming to disclose his positions in secret meetings with FARC terrorists outside government channels?

4. Can he tell us why his supporters would pass on such information to terrorists, and what he or she could gain from it?

5. Will Obama, as president, treat FARC as the serious terrorists they are, given that they still hold three Americans hostage?

 

Imagine, if you will, that John McCain sat in a church and declared as his spiritual advisor, a man who preached from the pulpit that the devastation Hurrican Katrina inflicted upon the black communities in New Orleans as "chickens are coming home to roost" and went on and on with hateful, racist attacks against black Americans.

Does anyone with an once of brains think that John McCain would not have been dogged with questions about this from the very beginning of his campaign? Does anyone honestly think that the media would have ignored what would be obvious, even to the most obtuse observer, racist rantings that might be linked to a Republican?

But that is exactly what has been happening with regards to Rev. Wright's racists, anti-American "preaching" that Sen. B. H. Obama has been listening from his beloved "spiritual advisor". Rolling Stone magazine reported this stuff back in February 2007. The rest of Main Scream Media is only now paying attention. And that is mostly because conservative radio and blogs have drawn attention to the "Reverends" insane rants.

I guess MSM was, as Chris Matthews stated, to focused on the "thrill running up [their] leg" watching Obama to notice the crazy preacher Obama consciously chose and admired.

Now that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright tapes are out and the public is getting an earful of what Barak Hussein Obama has been hearing for the last 20 years or so, the reaction is very interesting.

If it isn't clear, then that rabid organ of Right Wing Extremism, Rolling Stone magazine, will help with this, written in February 2007:

The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack [Hussein] Obama attends in Chicago .... The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. "Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T!" (emphasis added)

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from ... The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

And if that doesn't bring home B. Hussein Obama's radical roots and black nationalist longings, those rabid Rolling Stone conservatives continue:

Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and "felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams."

Those who long for "hope", "change" and "unity" have all but ordained Sen. B. H. Obama as the guy who should be the 44th President of these United States. God forbid another Islamo-Nazi attack occurs on American Soil (or anywhere in the world for that matter). Should it happen will "Pres. Obama" hear, "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" and "GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S**T!" from his "spiritual advisor"?

Go to any college or university and you will be told that it is not the instructors job to teach students what to think. Rather the task is instruct the young on how to think. In a brief review of "Married Life", Barbara Nicolosi, an instructor at Azusa Pacific University, Origin Entertainment, Act One, the Los Angeles Film Study Center, and various other locals, gives us her experience with "thinking" Gen Xers:

"... after I have gone through the three elements of the beautiful from St. Thomas - wholeness, harmony and radiance - one of the undergrads will prop a limp elbow into the air - what is it with this generation that even asking a question in class has to be a statement on how ambivalent they are about even being there? - and then he or she will issue forth, "I don't agree."

And then I respond, pretending all the while that this is the first time I've heard the astonishingness, "You don't agree that there are elements to the beautiful? Okay, cool. Give me an argument."

"Well, I think, you know, that any body can just decide what, you know, they like."

"That's not an argument."

"I don't need to give you an argument. It's what I think. I have a right to my opinion."

Barbara clarifies that this isn't thinking, this is "resentment and petulance and the need to assert one's existence. But it ain't thinking." Furthremore, "every time you disagree with them, you suddenly find yourselves in a battle with their emotional survival."

The Baby Boomer Left has taken over education at all levels. This is the sour fruit of their pedagogy: Feelings and emotional survival trump thinking, argument and reasoned debate.

The massive majority of comic creators are disgustingly AWOL when it comes to the West's War on Islamo-Nazism. One writer, thankfully, is not.

Dirty Harry, at Libertas, has alerted me to one, of only three, anti-Jihadist comic books that has actually been published. It is titled Matamoros.

"Part political thriller, part war story, and part “classic” action comic book, Matamoros follows one of America’s heroes in the “Long War” - an ordinary guy who discovers that  only extraordinary situations exist when the enemy is a protean entity which refuses to adhere to the laws of war or the laws of civilized nations."

I'll be ordering my copy shortly. How about you?

California Appellate Court has all but declared it illegal for parents to educate their own children in the home. If this isn't an example of Liberal Fascism, then I don't know what is.

"Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the district court. "Parents who fail to [comply with school enrollment laws] may be subject to a criminal complaint against them, found guilty of an infraction, and subject to imposition of fines or an order to complete a parent education and counseling program."

In California your children belong to the State. Resistance is futile.

A series of billboards have appeared throughout the city of Seattle. They make some very serious points and pose some good food for thought. There is a quote from P. J. O'Rourke on one, and Winston Churchill on another.

Seattle area liberals are none to happy about this. Keep feeding the populace the anti-War, anti-American (or should that be 'Amerikan'?) world-view. Express a bit of conservative thought and you get anonymous comments like, "someone is scared that we might stop spending billions of dollars on war / scared of an administration that does not lie to its people"

Here are the 'offending' billboards, against which the Seattle Post-Intelligencer launches its investigative reporters:




Ooooh ... Scary ... we must find out who is posting these offending messages.

Browsing Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog, at NRO, I found a small entry about Star Trek's fascist tendencies.

Philosophy professor Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D., is rather persuasive in arguing that Star Trek not only anti-capitalist and anti-religion, but, when push comes to shove, is downright fascist.

"If daily life is not concerned with familiar economic activities and the whole of life is not informed with religious purposes, then what is life all about in Star Trek? Well, the story is about a military establishment, Star Fleet, and one ship in particular in the fleet, the Enterprise. ... So what one is left with in Star Trek is military life. ... In the 20th Century there has been a conspicuous political ideology that combines militarism, the subordination of private economic activity to collective social purposes, and often the disparagement of traditional religious beliefs and scruples: Fascism, and not the conservative Fascism of Mussolini and Franco, who made their peace with the Church and drew some limits about some things (Franco even helped Jews escape from occupied France), but the unlimited "revolutionary," Nihilistic Fascism of Hitler, which recoiled from no crime and recognized no demands of conscience or God above the gods of the Führer and the Volk."

Firefly, Dr. Ross argues is the "anti-Star Trek".

"All of the disturbing characteristics of the Star Trek shows, the militarism, collectivism, anti-capitalism, and atheism, are notably missing from the excellent but shortlived series Firefly. ... Unlike the starship Enterprise, a powerful warship of the United Federation of Planets, the ship Serenity is a small, private "Firefly" class transport with no weapons -- except the hand weapons of the crew. The captain and first officer... are veterans of the attempt to prevent the vast Alliance of planets from taking over their own worlds. ... [Joss] Whedon wants to make it clear, however, that he doesn't think of the Alliance as evil ... but rather as something perhaps too big for its own good, or the good of its citizens. ... In the pilot, Serenity takes on, not only Simon and River [fugitives from the law], but the Shepherd, i.e. Minister, Book ... Although the Shepherd expresses his religious views in, usually, a low key way, and the details given of his beliefs are spare, he does have an actual Bible, and once he even seems to make a reference to Jesus, as a carpenter. In the movie, the word "Christian" is even uttered -- though most viewers may not have noticed that the words "Jesus" () and "Buddha" (, literally "Buddha Founder") have both been spoken in Chinese during the shows.
... "The very best thing about Firefly, in comparison to Star Trek, is probably that it doesn't try for the slightest bit of Utopianism. It does not assume that a single galactic government would be best, as it does not assume that present religion and capitalist economics are undesirable. This is refreshing, to say the least ..."

Give the whole thing a read. I found it very interesting. In part, because the idea that Star Trek presents a future chock full of Utopian Liberal Fascism, which will make Trekkies liberal heads just explode in frustration.

A moment that will probably go down as one of the greatest "What were they thinking" moments: American soldiers serving in Iraq are used to present the Best Documentary Oscar.

The winner went to "Taxi to the Dark Side", a movie that provided "[a]n in-depth look at the torture practices of the United States [military] in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, focusing on an innocent taxi driver in Afghanistan who was tortured and killed [by the United States military] in 2002."

BTW, HBO went into a bidding war to buy the cable distribution rights to this anti-American, pro-Islamo-Nazi bit of propaganda "before the election", as the President of HBO stated, because the defeatocrat Dems don't get enough support from Hollywood as it is.

Kyle Smith puts the bit of chutzpah in its proper context. Shameful.

And does no one in the American military command that allowed this to happen, know nothing about what Hollywood is producing these days? 

That would have been the headline if the cartoon conservatives dancing in Liberal's brains ran Time Magazine. But in the real world we got:

"Officer Killed Escorting Clinton" when a brave Police Officer died in the line of duty, serving in Sen. Hillary Clinton's motorcade.

And just to show that there is no media bias, when a brave Police Officer died in the line of duty, serving in Pres. Bush's motorcade, the folks who all know better than us knuckle-dragging Neanderthal conservatives gave us: "Bush Motorcade Killed Cop".

As Mr. BH wrote, "So damn typical. ... Bias? "What media bias?"

This should not surprise anyone who is paying the least bit of attention to the situation in Serbia.

America, NATO and the UN threw their support behind forces that included radical Islamic terrorists. The result was attacks against the Christian minorities and the destruction of numerous Christian monastaries, churches and cemeteries. Now we are about to see the emergence of an Islamic nation within Europe.

If one had to make analogy as to why Serbians are angry about this one need look no further than the American Southwest. Imagine what the public's reaction would be if, after Mexican militias invaded Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas, the area was then declared an independent Mexican state. Following which American and European governments, with NATO and UN support, declared support for the new independent Mexican nation. How do you think Americans living in those former states would react? Do you think they would just sit by and let it happen.

I don't think so. Wake up, Washington. You're about to help in the creation of an Islamic nation on Europe's doorstep.

When Michelle Obama told her husband's acolytes ... uh, I mean political supporters the following:

"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

I don't think she had the folks at Moveon.org, ACLU, Lefties for the Separation of Church and State, etc., etc., etc. in mind. Why do I have the sense that she thinks only Republicans are isolated cynics, deeply ensconced in safe comfort zones, and living lives that are uninvolved and uninformed?

Maybe it's just me.

Currently slated for a May 1st, 2009 release date is the next entry in the X-Men film series. Variety is reporting that three characters have been added to the film: Deadpool, Gambit and John Wraith. These three join the character cast of Sabertooth, Col. William Stryker and Silver Fox in this movie. As far as the character cast is concerned, this is starting to look a lot like the lousy ending to the Spider-Man film trilogy.

Add to this character bash the fact that the latest bow for the film's director, Gavin Hood, was the big time anti-American flop Rendition. The story Gavin seems to be telling focuses on Wolverine's involvement with the Weapon X, which was an American military and CIA program involving experimentation on ethnic minorities and mutants.

I wonder which side of the Good - Evil spectrum the American military and government will fall in this.

There is a saying in the construction industry:

"Arguing with a Building Inspector is like mud wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

After listening to Dennis Prager's interview with Fred Kaplan I learned that the same thing can be said about arguing with Leftists.

Example: Dennis referred to Leftist attacks against Pres. Bush. Mr. Kaplan immediately  questioned Dennis about "what's Left" and "what's Right". Instead of listening to the point Dennis was making, Kaplan interrupted and questioned the definition of such terms; Left and Right and noted that they are not useful.

Dennis noted, after the interview was over, that the Right almost never questions when described as being on the Right, but the Left almost always questions the classification. Why is this the case, Dennis asked. I think it is simply to shift the argument such that the original point the Right was making is lost, and the discussion moves into the muddy bog of pointless Left-wing theoretical definitions.

In a phrase: Arguing with the Left is like mud wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

The reports on Kosovo declaration of independence from Serbia have been overwhelmingly positive. President Bush may  be planning to board this bandwagon on Tuesday.

The "Organisation of the Islamic Conference", made up of such bastions of liberty as Iran, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, supports this declaration.  Predictably enough, the minority Serbian Orthodox Christians, who will end up living within the borders of the new Kosovo nation, have expressed concerns, to put it mildly, that this might not be the best thing for Europe.

Julia Goren documents some very disturbing facts that should give anyone, who supports an Islamic Kosovo, serious pause.

"The acquisition of Kosovo was the goal from the start, when the Kosovo Liberation Army first began killing Serbs, along with Albanians and gypsies (Roma) who worked even as postmen for the Yugoslav government or simply had inter-ethnic friendships or marriages with Serbs. ... [T]he destruction and desecration of Orthodox churches, monasteries and cemeteries that has continued apace since NATO gifted Kosovo to the Albanians, the Jewish cemetery that adjoins the Serbian one in the village of Velika Hoca has also been vandalized ..."

What will it take to teach the West that supporting the creation of yet another Islamic nations has never brought peace to anyone, anywhere?