Obama’s “chickens coming home to roost”

The Obama-ites are frenziedly trying to damage control yet another bad association the Senator had in his murky past.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/24/debunking_obamas_ayers_fact_sheet

 

We knew very little about this charismatic, idolized young “agent of change” a year or two ago and the MSM would have liked to have kept it that way.  Not like it matters with his acolytes.  Being Liberals, they’re more concerned with how he makes them “feeeeeel” and don’t want to be bothered with facts.  Like Chris Matthews “chill running up his legs” when Obama speaks.  I’m not even touching the complete gay nature of that comment.  I’ll just focus on the fact that it is coming from a supposed “journalist”.  I’ve blogged about that idiot in the past.  But here’s further proof of his man crush on the young Senator.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeGallagher/2008/04/25/media_jumps_the_gun_for_barack

 

I don’t hold people to the follies of their youth.  I know I have my fair share, but I’m not running for President of this great nation; and yes, I hold that office and whoever occupies it to a slightly higher standard. But we’re not talking about a naïve, obsolete and isolated association with a questionable character.  We’re now talking about a pattern of association with some of the NOTORIOUSLY worst anti-American, racist, anarchist, socialist, leftist people in the country. 

 

All he offers as a defense is either “I didn’t know…” or “that’s irrelevant…” or “I didn’t know…” (I listed it twice to make the point).  Well, Senator, if you’re gonna expect to hold the reigns of our national defense and security you should make it a point to know who you associate with and you cant think I’m obtuse enough to think that your associations, close associations despite what you say, are irrelevant.  I for one hold you to them. 

 

A word about a great majority of the blacks in this country.  I’ve already stated my position on racism and race in general, so here goes an objective opinion based on observation. The OJ Simpson trial taught me droves about the views of a HUGE majority of them.  Events like the LA Riots, Hurricane Katrina, the Jenna Six, the Duke Lacrosse and Don Imus fiascos don’t make the community look any better. The huge numbers the Senator is getting everywhere he goes also defines their agenda.  I don’t shy away from stating the obvious.  It’s not that sinister really.  If you’re a black Democrat, both your candidates have the same agenda/philosophy, so given the choice, you identify with and vote for the black candidate.  What’s bothersome is that they vote for him BECAUSE he’s black.  Can’t sugar coat that. 

 

Of course the over riding reason is that he’s a liberal since Alan Keyes and Condoleeza Rice would not register on their list of possibilities.  Not that I blame them, they’re only following the cues of their leadership.  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al.  What’s insulting to them, or at least should be, is the condescension.  What’s worrisome to me, is the inherent racism.  Something that the other side is constantly being labeled with.  So again the contradiction still being propagated by things like Jet magazine, BET (who ironically doesn’t like Obama), and all the other exclusive Black organizations in this country (not to mention Hispanic).  It’s okay for the black goose, but not for the white gander.

 

 

 

“What kind of name is Yossarian?” March 25, 2008

I’ve been meaning to blog about race for quite some time.  I’ve touched on the subject briefly on a couple of old blogs, but I’ve been meaning to cover it more in depth for a while now.  I’ve never directly blogged about the issue (save for one on my physical similarity to Arabs).  I haven’t done it for two reasons.  One, every time I began to write on the subject it became as long as my four part series on how to survive a mass shooting.  Also, to be honest, I was holding off because I intended to do some research and write an article I was going to submit for paid publication. My memories of the effort I expended getting my Black Belt magazine article published for the payout I received has discouraged me from that avenue. 

 

Then John Hawkins’ wrote a column that inspired me to finally put down my thoughts on the subject. 

 

Click here for John Hawkins article

 

Kick back boys and girls, this one may get rather long, but I believe it’s topical.

 

I’m uniquely qualified to talk about the subject.  That doesn’t make any one else unqualified to discuss it as we all can draw on our personal experiences.  The problem is the injection of filters.  Admittedly I have my own, but my experience is a unique one.  Ironically and in many ways it is very similar to Senator Obama’s, although I derived something very different from mine. 

 

Ethnically speaking, I’m just as much a mongrel as anyone in the US, or the entire planet.  My father’s heritage is Scott Irish (with others mixed in as well).  He was born and raised in Michigan.  My mother is Puerto Rican (which is of itself a mixed ethnic group).  She was raised on the island.  I spent some time looking into my ancestry and was surprised by what I discovered, as I’m sure most people would be if they took the time.  For example, the Hubble Family Society says that every single Hubble in the US (regardless of whether you spell it Hubble, Hubbell or Hubel) all come from the same descendant.  This means that I may be related to Edwin Hubble the astronomer.  I find this staggering! Particularly since I haven’t received a single residual from whatever money’s been made off that telescope.  I’m still looking into it.  Plus I’m partly Canadian and I have an actual clan tartan.The Mcintaugh clan.

 

I was raised partly in the US, Puerto Rico and Europe from birth to age six.  Then we settled in Puerto Rico when I was seven until I joined the Navy at age seventeen.  The amalgam of my parental cultural heritage and my upbringing has made me an enigma to some people who (human nature being what it is), try to put me into some comfortable shelf in order to define “what” I am.  I don’t blame them.  I confuse myself sometimes. 

 

My unique perspective stems from how people who come in contact with me treat me.  For example, while being raised on the island, because of my last name and the fact that we spent the first few years of our lives off the island, most of the islanders referred to my siblings and I as “Los hermanos gringos”. 

 

You would think calling me a gringo is funny, considering my appearance, but Puerto Rican’s are a bit unique when it comes to physical appearance.  In PR, they don’t separate themselves by color into different ethnic groups.  Color is mostly a descriptive.  You’re either a blonde haired, blue eyed Rican or a black as night Rican.  Either way you’re Puerto Rican.  We long ago stopped raising eyebrows at couples who were distinctly and physically different in color.  In fact, the supposed “classic” Rican is defined as a combination of Spaniard, African and Taino (Arawac) Indian.  I believe this is historically inaccurate and there are many more.  In my own family on the island there’s even a direct French ancestor.  Then there’s the fact that Puerto Rico has been a US Commonwealth for over a hundred years.  There were plenty of horny gringos at the beginning of the last century planting their seeds all over the island. But I’m digressing.

 

By the same token, outsiders are defined as such regardless of skin color.  I wasn’t treated poorly as a “gringo” on the island.  In fact, after a brief introductory period when I’d infrequently get into a fight with some wannabe comedian for mangling my last name and using it to make fun of me, I fit right in.  The fact that I was a “gringo” became one of those things they’d remember only occasionally (usually when my last name came up again).  I’ve heard at least ten phonetic pronunciations of Hubble.  The first day of school always made me cringe.  I’m sure anyone with an odd surname can relate.  However, the anomaly of being slightly different always gave me the perspective of an outsider looking in.  It bothered me sometimes and sometimes I used it to my advantage.  The advantages usually outweighed the problems it created.

 

Then, when I joined the Navy and came back to the continent I was called “the Puerto Rican guy”.  Physically that fit, but I was actually born in Seattle Washington.  How funny is that?  Some people thought I was from New York.  I had not spent a day in New York, but apparently I had a New York accent.  This is because where I was raised on the island most people spoke English like either Desi Arnaz or Tony Soprano.  I  adopted the Tony Soprano inflection, but believe you me, I have many relatives on the island who talk just like Desi.  The point being that now I was being put into another slot that “differentiated” me. 

 

When I reported to my first ship, the Puerto Ricans and other Latinos expected me to immediately hang with them in their Latino cliques.  For a brief period I actually welcomed this bonding, until I figured out that none of them actually shared my “heritage”.  Some of the Ricans from NY (we call them Niuyoricans on the island) didn’t even speak a lick of Spanish.  They were very proud to call themselves Puerto Rican, but they had no clue about their ancestral heritage from the island.  They in fact put me in yet another sub-group since I was from the island itself.  They called me Jibaro, which to them meant I was “fresh off the boat”.  They didn’t even know the origin of that particular moniker (it was a term used by a Spanish author by the name of Miguel Alonso in a book by the same name a about three hundred years ago).  I had absolutely nothing in common with any other Latino group. 

 

Ironically, I got along very well with a guy whose family came from Cuba.  He was a blonde haired blue eyed guy named Rodriguez.  He spoke better Spanish than most of the Ricans on the ship.  We often joked that we should swap last names because of our incongruous physical features.  This even led me to briefly giving some thought to legally changing my last name to my mother’s (Torres). 

 

My very first experience with racism came from a Latino guy on that very ship.  He was a Chicano (this was a moniker he gave himself) from East LA.  I had befriended a guy named Mike Melko.  He actually wound up being the best man at my first wedding.  We were all in the Deck division of the ship.  The Latinos had a clique of about six guys in the division.  Their Latin cultural heritage was as diverse as any other.  When I began hanging out with Mike, the Chicano approached me and asked me why I was hanging out with that “guero”.  His tone was that of a cross parent addressing a wayward child.  He was about six or seven years older than I was so I guess he thought he was entitled.  His problem became two-fold.  One, I was very resistant to authority in my teen years.  Two, I didn’t take kindly to people telling me what to do, regardless of age.  The subsequent exchange sealed my fate with that particular Latino clique.  Now I was a gringo again.

 

I discovered something very quickly on that first ship.  First of all, I figured out that being Latino did not immediately qualify someone to be a friend of mine.  Let’s face it, there are assholes everywhere.  There are plenty of assholes on the island I wouldn’t give a minute of my time to and that applied universally.  The Latino guys who became good friends of mine did so in spite of their ethnicity.  One of them a Niuyorican who spent the latter part of his teen years on the island and another a Tejano from Kerville Texas. 

 

So if being Latino did not immediately qualify someone for my friendship, then it certainly didn’t qualify you for my vote, my patronage or my support.  In other words, I learned to deal with people on their merits.  Thankfully, at a very young age. 

 

I’ve only been called a Spic two times to my face in my life.  In only one occasion was it done in anger (some guys don’t react very well when the women they have designs on opt for a better option).  I’ve only met one person who I’d call a true racist.  Ironically he was one of the best Chief’s I served under in the Navy and even he never held me back. 

 

The various other non-insulting things I’ve been called (Gringo, Jibaro, Puerto Rican, Boricua) were names other people gave me (I’ve also been called Arabic, Italian, Greek and on one strange occasion, Philipino). 

 

Here’s the thing; I have never been denied a single opportunity because of my ethnicity and skin color.  Even if it had been done, unbeknownst to me, my ethnicity and skin color would be the last thing I’d use as an excuse.  For one thing they’re factors out of my control and I’m very big on controlling my fate and destiny.  For another, once you go down the victimhood road you might as well go down it with your pants around your ankles. 

 

What is my point?  That assholes come in all colors?  That ignorance is just as universal? That there is no pure race, therefore, there should be no racism? 

 

To be perfectly honest, I really don’t give the subject much thought anymore.  Or I at least don’t let the militants, extremists and opportunists bother me as much anymore. I think that people who make excuses for themselves will use the most convenient of excuses and people who hate will find a reason to hate no matter what color you are.  People’s perceptions are their realities and you can’t shake them from their trees if they were on fire.

 

What makes me ultimately comfortable is the fact that most people are just like me.  Reasonable and rational.  We take people at their merits and based on how they treat us.  We’re proud of our uniqueness, but don’t wear our ethnicity on our sleeves.  And thankfully, regardless of our individual colors and ethnic backgrounds, we are still in the majority.  We just don’t make as much noise.

 

History’s idiots

The saying goes, “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”  General David Petraeus, an American hero and, as evidence shows, a brutally honest battle commander has once again been ignored and trivialized by the power hungry who are advocating surrender. Yes SURRENDER. They’re just calling it different things I’m clearly not “nuanced” or “sophisticated” enough to understand.  Me being a war monger and all. Yes I’ve been called that on at least two Multiply pages.  It doesn’t insult me and I’m in good company so go ahead.  Beats being a peacenik. 

 

I’m not going to get into the tired argument about whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq.  My position on that is clear, educated and based on first hand exposure and experience.  Besides, that kind of second guessing is moot at this point in time.  What is relevant is that we are there now and things are clearly improving.  Yet, the Dems want to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  The repercussions of our abandoning Iraq the way Clinton, Obama and Co. are outlining can’t even be fathomed by most of the peaceniks, and may even be a little hazy for some of the war’s lukewarm supporters.

 

 Allow me to provide a historical perspective.  For a while it was fashionable to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam.  I haven’t seen much of that lately, and it’s possible that they figured out what I’ve known.  First, most of the comparisons were inaccurate and the ones that applied went against their arguments and talking points.  Here’s what I mean.  Our abandoning Vietnam the way we did by caving to the Peaceniks, the Media and the liberals caterwauling directly resulted in the murder of millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians.  This in the face of the liberal elites saying the slaughter would never happen and that the best thing for Cambodians and Vietnamese was for us to just leave.  Some names you may recognize.  Like John Kerry.  I’ll post a link below.  In fact, here’s something Senator Chris Dodd (then a US Rep) said back in 1975:

 

“The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now.” -U.S. Rep. (now Sen.) Chris Dodd of Connecticut, March 12, 1975.

 

So we listened and the result was a massacre that was aptly named “The Killing Fields”. 

 

So what you say?  Well, it also resulted in a decade of hangdog shame, self-loathing and loss of national pride that was only eventually reversed when a Presidential candidate unabashedly reminded us that we were the “shining city on a hill”.  Want to know what Chris is saying now?  Here’s an example:

 

“Q [to Dodd]: Should the US set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?

 

DODD: I believe we should. I didn’t come to that decision a long time ago. It’s been an evolving situation here. I think most would agree today that we’re more isolated today, our moral standing in the world has suffered terribly over the last number of years as a result of our involvement in Iraq. We’re feeling less secure, more vulnerable today. My view is there’s a greater likelihood that the Iraqis, if they understand that this is not an open-ended process here, there’s a beginning time and an end time for our military involvement here, and that we’re willing to help train troops and help on counter-terrorism, but that come the first of April next year, our military participation is over with.”

 

Then there’s Senator John Kerry.  This pompous ass needs his own category.  He’s irony incarnate.  Here’s what he said on the Senate Floor on November 9, 1997 [Congressional Record, p. S12256]:

 

“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent–and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.

 

We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S. But it is my belief that we have the ability to persuade them of how serious this is and that the U.N. must not be diverted or bullied.”

 

He recently stated this about Al Qaeda in Iraq:

 

“Truth-be-told, it is our overwhelming footprint that energizes Al Qaeda in Iraq.  If we reduce our footprint — as the Iraq Study Group and General Jones have recommended, I believe the Iraqis themselves, will drive Al Qaeda from Iraq, with a leaner U.S. military and special forces there to finish the job.”

 

I’m wondering what exactly he meant back in 1997 and what exactly he intended to do about Saddam Hussein?  Clearly nothing. 

 

Way back in 1971 in a debate between John Kerry and John Oneill on the Dick Cavett show John Kerry made the ridiculous assertion that reports of an ensuing massacre if we abandoned Vietnam were exaggerated.  Well, we all know how that turned out.  You can read the transcript or watch the entire debate here:

 

http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=KerryONeill

 

It’s pretty extensive but well worth watching.  You might even get chills and an odd sense of déjà vu when analyzing today’s armchair military geniuses and their “predictions”.  I don’t know about you, but I’d rather not re-live the decade of the 70’s, politically speaking.