Who would care?

V. D. Hanson quotes this interview (and no, nothing startling there):

... March 27, 2004 inteview [sic] with Chicago-Sun Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani (the "God girl"), Obama offered the now rather startling admissions:

GG: Do you still attend Trinity?

OBAMA:Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.

….


GG: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:Well, my pastor [Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for. I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

GG:Those two will keep you on your toes.

OBAMA: And they're good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what's happening to each of us in ways that are useful. I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.

Obama funded extremist anti-American Afrocentrists

From a long article by Stanley Kurtz, providing some details about education among Obama's friends:

"...
We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn't warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled "rites of passage" as "rights of passage," hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children's reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge's own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg's "external partners" had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It's time for McCain to say so."

But even without such details, how can association with an extremist friend of Farrakhan and openly self-declared Anti-American not be an issue? And please don't call him Rev. He ain't reverend, if you know the meaning of the word.

Glenn Reynolds strangely surprised by a reader's opinion

Quote of quote: 

I'm no fan of McCain , but as I dislike Obama (and love Palin), I'll be pulling the lever for McCain in November.
This is surely small of me, but if Obama wins, I plan on giving him as much of a chance as the Democrats gave George Bush. I will gleefully forward every paranoid anti-Obama rumor that I see, along with YouTube footage of his verbal missteps. I will laugh and email heinous anti-Obama photoshop jobs, and maybe even learn photoshop myself to create some. I'll buy anti-Obama books, and maybe even a "Not My President" t-shirt. I'm sure that the mainstream bookstores won't carry them, but I'll be on the lookout for anti-Obama calendars and stuff like that. I will not wish America harm, and if the country is hurt (economically, militarily, or diplomatically) I will truly mourn. But i will also take some solace that it occurred under Obama's watch, and will find every reason to blame him personally and fan the flames.
Obama's thuggish behavior thus far in this election cycle - squashing free speech, declaring any criticism of his policies to be "racist" (a word that happily carries little weight with sensible people these days), associating with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and ACORN - suggests that I won't have to scrape for reasons to really viscerally dislike Obama and his administration. And even if he wins, his campaign's "get out the vote fraud" activities are enough to provide people like me with a large degree of "plausible deniability" as to whether he is actually legitimately the president.
...

What's the surprise there? Here: 

"Personally, if Obama's elected I intend to give him a chance and weigh him on his actions, not his party." 

Thus writes Reynolds, as if he was new to the table.

Another reader seems closer to the facts and actions, beside the parties, of life. And yes, sad it is, and it's not McCain's fault:

I'm sad with you, but Mr. Gately's doing nothing more than describing the new rules of engagement as far as politics are concerned. If there was anything close to an honest and unbiased media in this country, those attacks just wouldn't work.

Ayers speaking

Short appearance of Ayers included, mentioning insurgency and other nice things:

Kristol on the Campaign's position

Op-Ed on the NYT:

Fire the Campaign 
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
It's time for John McCain to fire his campaign. He needs to reposition himself as a serious but cheerful candidate for times that need a serious but upbeat leader.

What does the past teach us about the KKK?

Things I didn't know about American history: The KKK and the Democrat Party

The sad recent past of Fannie and Freddie

This is the excellent and maybe only video that shows the hearings a couple of years ago, when Republicans wanted reform and regulation for the GSEs, but were opposed by Democrats, who ignored and hid the warning signs. Quotes:

“we do not have a crisis,”

“everything is just fine,” 

“just trying to fix something that isn’t broken,” 

“I get the feeling that the markets are not worried.”

Berg's cocktail for Hawaiian Punch

illuminatitv on youtube has an interesting vid featuring moderate Democrat Berg, you can watch it here:

Quote of the past week

October 8, 2008, 10:48 PM EMAIL OF THE WEEK -

I found the debate last night truly nauseating. Sarah's the only one
of the four of them I could spend five minutes with and not become
homicidal, suicidal, or comatose.

--
(found on Coulter's site)

Victor D. Hanson at a crucial time

A man of trust - when too many "Republican" bloggers-of-comfort lose their good faith and confuse their party and direction with media success, when conservative Democrats show more spine than Lincoln's heirs...:

- Works and Days - http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson -

Jumping Ship…

October 10, 2008 - by Victor Davis Hanson

This is becoming a very strange campaign. On CNN this evening both David Gergen and Ed Rollins echoed the current mantra that the "old" noble McCain is gone, and a "new" nastier one has emerged, largely because of his attacks on Ayers, perhaps his planned future ads on Wright, and a few unhinged people shouting at his campaign stops. Recently Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama, likewise lamenting the loss of the old noble McCain. NY Times columnist David Brooks dubbed Palin a "cancer," and he suggested that Obama's instant recall of Niehbuhr sent a tingle up his leg as Obama once did to Chris Matthews as well.

A couple of thoughts: the George Bush, Sr. / Willie Horton campaign was far tougher; so were the Bush 2000/2004 efforts. If anything, McCain's campaign is subdued in comparison to what we've seen on both sides in past years. Indeed, McCain as a vicious campaigner is a complete fabrication, but, again, a brilliant subterfuge on the part of Team Obama that, in fact, has run, via appendages, the far more vicious race. Obama and his surrogates have repeatedly engaged in racial politics (as Bill Clinton lamented when in fury he denounced the "race card"); when there was never evidence that McCain was using race as a wedge issue, it was clear Obama most surely was–preemptively, on at least two occasions, warning Americans he would soon be the victim of opposition racial stereotyping. His surrogates like Biden and those in the Senate continue to link legitimate worries about OBama's past with racism.

Second, for about 3 months all we've heard are references to McCain's age, with adjectives and phrases like confused, can't remember any more, disturbed, lost his bearings, etc. Moreover, so far, McCain supporters have not broken into Biden's email, or accused Biden of being a Nazi, or accused anyone of not bearing one of their own children, or photo-shopped grotesque pictures of Obama on the Internet (as in the Atlantic magazine case). I don't think deranged McCain supporters in Hollywood or television almost daily are quoted as damning Obama in unusually crude terms. Nor are white racist ministers calling McCain a 'messiah' or McCain operatives fraudulently swarming voter registration centers. And on and on.

...

--

Please read the rest on Hanson's page (above link).

test

test

Solid Kimball, Roger that

A man not shaken

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/09/america-without-apology/

excerpt:

The question I have most often been asked the past few weeks is whether I stand by my prediction that John McCain would win in November. Way back in ancient times, that is, toward the end of August, 2008, I said that “Personally, I think John McCain is going to win, and I’m not talking about a hanging-chad squeakeroo. No, I think it will be a blow-out for McCain.” Interlocutors both anxious and gleeful have lined up to ask: Do I continue, after all we’ve been through these past weeks–the economy, the Palin-Katie Couric train wreck, the lackluster second debate, the economy, the economy, the economy–do I still believe that McCain has any chance of winning, let alone winning by a landslide?

I admit that my confidence has been dented. But it has by no means evaporated. “What? Have you looked at the polls?” Frankly, I feel about polls the way Disraeli (I think it was) felt about statistics: there are, he said, lies, damned lies, and statistics. Like everyone else, I am more inclined to believe them when they support an outcome I favor. Otherwise, I accord them the large measure of scepticism they deserve. Bottom line: I still believe John McCain will win, and I’ll say why in a moment.

--

While some/many conservatives pander to what they perceive as majority opinion (or lick the media's shoes), others jump ship by distancing themselves from McCain or Palin, or both. In times of distress, watch who are your friends. In times of confusion, retain a cool mind. But what is the distress? Biased polls of 4-6% difference? The confusion, btw., is among those who do not discern that which is obvious: Bamnation is lurking around the corner. Two of the stronger characters are Hanson and Kimball.

Wine on the table

Today I stumbled over 2 pages mentioning the everlasting discussion of wine vs. no wine from the more or less biblical view, if one can be found.

Drinking a little of wine certainly is not the issue, the Bible doesn't condemn that. But there are quite some hints (or commandments, depending on how seriously you take the Word) as to the preferences of the Bible authors, not the least one being: Do not look at wine...

Just a few quick points from my limited point of view, and the world hasn't really improved since Paul's time:

1) As to Cana, Jesus was at a wedding feast. Even if they drank alcoholic wine, a wedding is a one-time event, supposedly, for every person on earth. A non-event for people like the apostle Paul. Why did people like Paul exist after Jesus' ministry? To give us...recommendations about life and death issues, just maybe? Do believers of a divorce-ridden age think they should do everything habitually?

2) The Cana wedding planners didn't think wine a priority, so they had rather too little wine than too much. It was so low on alcohol that people drained the supplies in short order.

3) One cannot preclude the possibility of Jesus creating new wine without alcohol that tasted better and had a nicer effect than anything potable, He being the Creator. Is wine Jesus' concern? No, it's the New Covenant of His Blood, the heavenly drink that is taken spiritually.
3) Does a human being know the threshold level of alcohol altering the brain functions? Not possible. We cannot watch the molecules in action.

4) Drunkards shall not enter the kingdom, did someone say? But when exactly are we drunkards? We cannot see the molecules. Maybe it relates to the habit, rather than to the ostensible excess? Just like every habitual problem, if you prefer that term to "sin", the small habit that occupies our soul is more significant than a rare lapse. My joy is the Lord, or elsewhere.

5) Haven't we met alcohol-addicts who are in dire need of abstinence for the very real daily danger of relapse? How do you know them when u don't know them personally. They might be sitting next to you, while you enjoy your minimum of 2 dl. In fact, they might be talking from that pulpit. Let alone the fathers, teachers, managers, rulers, soldiers, all entrusted with decision-making and being role models. We should pray for their deliverance, not condone that which is life-threatening to many, albeit harmless to some.
6) Did anyone notice the cases when drug-addicts including habitual drinkers quit right after being born again? As believers, we are free to choose, nothing in itself being harmful (of course), but isn't it telling that fresh converts receive the grace to quit something that is identified with pre-conversion life in most people? Oh, and if you haven't seen such cases, what kind of church are you in?

7) Have you noticed the "ministers" who lost their ministry or wife or family or long life because of just a little bit of drinking (among other things maybe) that turned into habitual drinking.

8) Paul had to advise Timothy to drink a bit of wine for medical reasons, other medical treatment pending invention. What does that tell us about Timothy, the successor of Paul? Do the wine-bibbers drink wine as medicine? What does that, and the entire Bible, tell us about being merry and feasting, vs. weeping and grieving for the sorry state of the world of banquets.

9) Some are lucky to control themselves to max. 2 glasses a day, but what does it signal to people around them, e.g. their own children. Is drinking 2 liters of beer within an hour or faster just a sport? In some areas or goups, 2 L per hour seems to be the minimum (per hour, mind you). Occasional beer drinkers including some outstanding theologians did not live in today's let's have a "5 L+ on every possible occasion" environment.

10) Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Spirit. Aren't we living in a time of fasting and prayer? Better to check the words of Jesus. Who on earth has the surplus time and resources to enjoy earthly life with wine, or even beer and hard drinks and whatever goes with that, if possible? Why did some areas close down the pubs after a revival? Seek ye first the kingdom. Should we imitate the world, just because we think we can afford it? It might cost...maybe not you, but someone you know.

test 1

first trot of the fox