Hell No, We Can’t Go

Let this one people speak loud and clear: My eyeballs are sore from all the rolling they have to do whenever some nitwit Demogogue accuses the President of being “deaf to the American people” or “ignoring the American people” or “refusing to respond to the will of the American people” or “pretending that the last election didn’t happen” or “ignoring the results of the election” by not pulling US troops out of Iraq. Let me say to all those who spew this empty-headed drivel in between their accusumptions that Bush lied to get the war going: You’re Lying.
Yes, lying. Let us make this clear, just once, just as if it matters:

First the what. In the last election the Democratic Party gained enough seats in the House to achieve the same narrow margin of majority that the Republican had before the election (funny, the narrowness of the Republican majority was pointed out a lot by the Mediacracy. The Dem’s slim hold, not so much). They also achieved a one seat—that is one with an “o”—majority in the Senate. Fine.

Now for the why: Who knows? But absolutely no empirical evidence exists to justify the conclusion that a demand to get out of Iraq, end the war in Iraq right-this-minute, or to do or don’t do anything in Iraq was a demand, or even a strong motivator for the American voters. None. In fact, evidence for nearly the opposite exists. According the the Pew Research Center polls in October of 2006. “The public remains evenly divided between those who favor keeping ‘military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized’" (47%), and those who think ‘the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible’ (47%)”. Hmmm…. Keeping troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from the Bush Gang. Since day one of this issue. “As soon as possible”? Wow. Sounds like a reasonable approach to wanting to end a situation, given existing realities. Now, I don’t claim to understand Leftist math and don’t expect it to be any more concerned with the real world than Leftist philosophy, Leftist economics, or Leftist social sci….well, social science. But 47 > 47 or 47< 47 would mean that 47 + 47 is not necessarily 94, and therefore 2 + 2 is not necessarily 4. Mathematicians, even ones from Harvard, can probably demonstrate that for our purposes, 2 + 2 is, in fact, 4 and therefore pretty much renders ludicrous, ridiculous, dishonest, and Bozo-ish the notion that any Majority spoke loudly, half-heartedly or even simperingly last November. The solid, ineluctable truth is that There Is No Mandate To Get Out of Iraq Right Now. Soon? Sure hope so. Immediately and regardless of the cost? Not a bit. Despite what the Dem “leadership” keeps claiming. And the lying comes in because they know that what they say is not true. There is, to be sure, a group who want out of Iraq right now, this instant, damn the consequences. That group is a small core of Dem voters—, Sheehandwringers, or primary voters we could call them. But don’t let them get away with calling this collection of misfits, furballs, and Miss Nancies “the American People”.

Aliens


There is a huge story getting overlooked – or purposely ignored, more likely— by the mainstream (read Manhattan & Malibu) media regarding the current pile of Democratic presidential wannabes. Heard that Barak Obama is the first “serious” African-American presidential candidate, or that Bill Richardson is the same Hispanically speaking? Also heard that’s wrong, for various fill-in-the-blank reasons? Well it is wrong, but probably not for the reasons you’ve heard. Not because Barak was preceded by the “Rev’ns” Jesse and Al, or Shirley Chisolm—who Were Too serious, albeit in a silly kind of way; nor because Barak isn’t really black any more than a zebra is (whose applying the 1 percent rule now?); or because some other Latino made a run at things back in 1940-something. No, it is that Bill and Barak are the first two non-Americans—or at least marginally, questionably, need-a-discussion-about-this-Americans-- to ever be courted for the presidency.

That’s right. Forget about ethnicity, or race, or personal cultural identification or whatever the current Academie PC term might be. It is easy to argue, and I would, that these guys ain’t really full-fledged Americans. Period. Both of them spent significant portions of their lives, their formative years, in very foreign places: Mexico and Indonesia (no joke) specifically. Barak Obama’s father was Kenyan. Not an immigrant from Kenya, KENYAN. And he went back there (bless him), worked for the Kenyan government, as Kenyan citizens are wont to do, and died there. Barak’s mother—who is just as white as fellow Kansan Dorothy— is American. This gives rise to the “reservations” expressed by some in the African-American community that he doesn’t really represent the experience of African-Americans. After all, he isn’t descended from African-Americans, but rather from one of each. The only-half-African is the only-half they fret about. But the African half is also a decidedly Non-American half and that is actually and really worth worrying about. A bi-racial president is feared by those racist boogeymen. A dual-national, semi-national, semi-American president is a valid concern to everyone. The Founding Fathers were rightly concerned about divided loyalties when they made native birth one of the very few qualifications for presidents. And this isn’t just about birth. Little Barak spent a chunk of his childhood in a foreign country. And by foreign country, we don’t mean Dearborne, Michigan, Manhattan, or Miami. We mean Indonesia. A Muslim country, where he went to a Muslim school and presumably did not a have a typical American educational experience pledging allegiance to the flag, learning that “colonial” refers to men wearing wigs and knee-socks, and wondering what phrases like “ortha ramparts” or “tiza thee” meant. And there are, of course, much bigger cultural issues.

Richardson carries a similar taint as one who probably privately identifies as a “North American” more often than not. His own press office says he was amused when he told his aged mother, who lives in Mexico City-- once more, His Mother Lives in Mexico City—that he was running for president and she asked, “President of what?” Ha, ha. Yeah, that is really funny. Cracks me up to no end. He could just as well, and perfectly legally as if that matters, run for President of Mexico. Come 2010, he just may do that for all we know. Whether he’s in the Casa Blanca or not, a foot in two worlds and whatnot. You can’t of course, just dismiss his impressive resume, we are told. No president since James Buchanan has had such extensive credentials in foreign and domestic policy. And we all know how well that served him. Right at home in the Winter Palace playing chess with the Czar, but befuddled and mystified by South Carolina. His father was an immigrant, too, though James was content to grow up in Pennsylvania with both feet planted firmly in a measly single world. What a bumpkin.

Of course, what this really says should concern blacks and Hispanics. The ready conclusion is that to be an “acceptable” African-American for the mainstream, you can’t really be of the common, soaked in the mythos of slavery variety. You really need to be above all that baggage and, well, be a mulatto to boot. And if you are looking for a trustworthy Hispanic leader, don’t look in western fields, barrios or construction sites where Latino Americans come from. That world has never seen the foot of Bill Richardson. Look in the ivy encrusted parts of Boston and the gated and guarded portions of Mexico City that don’t fret over tortilla prices. But if you are an American of any stripe or shade this should say something even more important. Cars, electronics, over-the-phone service, are we going to start importing our presidents, too?