THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

It seems that USC now stands for “Under Sufist Control.”

As somebody who has his MBA from the University of Southern California, it is of deep concern to see a proud university sink to what math classes referred to what kids now call Liquid Crystal Display.

A recent symposium on campus was entitled “Islam and Nationalism: Transnational Charisma and Traveling Spirits.”

Liberals scoff when I point out that they want to sing “Kumbaya” with people who want to kill us. For those born after 1990, the left wants Osama Bin Laden and America to settle their differences on “Dancing with the Stars.”

The key word to this conference was “charisma.” Radical Islam inspires many images, but Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers are not part of the equation. Only a university symposium would suggest otherwise.

The main event at this gathering was Professor Laurie A. Brand, the current director of the University of Southern California School of International Relations. Among her qualifications is a degree in French. I went to Hebrew school as a child, and look forward to being the ambassador to Mozambique.

Five small tables were set up for the throngs, but even with lunch being served, there were empty seats.

The flyer for the program itself offered food for thought, if one defines thought as a deep sleep.

“The Arabic word for charisma, baraka (the source of our president’s name), refers to a god-given power to lead people on a holy struggle for liberation.”

“While Islamic liberation has reached the West primarily as a war against ‘American imperialism,’ it is also present in such disparate practices as Sufi dances and whirling dervishes, the spiritual quest for transcendence.”

Oh, those adorable, graceful Islamists, elegantly whirling and dervishing their way into our hearts and universities. Maybe they truly are trying to kill us with kindness, but 9/11 suggested otherwise.

It is easy for Ms. Brand to be the whirler-in-chiefat UCLA. In the Islamists countries she would have her limbs cut off for being an outspoken woman at the moment she twirled. Islamists prefer their women do less  whirling dervishing and more indentured servicing.

As for the “substance” of this surprisingly brief event, it consisted of standard thinly veiled excuses for the poor misunderstood Islamists.

One misunderstood group were the “Tar-tars,” a saucy group which have been spread out throughout history on fish and chips.

Ms. Brand began offered Tar-Tar saucy words that were not even the fifth cousin of wisdom.

“Tar-Tar’s made a point to those willing to listen that they weren’t like the Huns.”

“Buldars, the ancestors of the Tar-Tars, converted to Islam voluntarily.”

“They take pride that Islam wasn’t foreign conquest but instead voluntary.”

Conversion to Islam is not necessary. We infidels can be killed. Now if that is not the freedom of choice that the Founding Fathers fought to preserve, I don’t know what is.

As with anything else, these conferences would not be complete without the obligatory worship of everything politically leftist.

“Communism can be a fit, and should be a fit for Islam too.”

After that came USC Professor of Anthropology Janet Hoskins and USC Assistant Professor of Sociology and American Studies and Ethnicity Macarena Gomez Barris.

She is not believed to be the same Macarena Gomez who appeared in the movie “Sexykiller,” found on the website “Terror Hotties: Women of Horror.” Nevertheless, she is most likely the most terrible Macarena Gomez on campus, and her remarks were horrid enough.

Ms. Hoskins and Ms. Barris offered the typical remarks about the European colonizers and the poor Arab and Muslim victims. Great pains were meant to differentiate Algeria, which was violated by the French, to the poor British Empire victims of Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon was mentioned in passing, but colonization of Lebanon by Syria was shockingly omitted.

Ms. Hoskins did ask an important and refreshingly honest question.

“How do we reproduce history if we don’t have archives from the past?”

Honest answers were not forthcoming. The solution was to blame the French. After all, evil colonizers destroyed the true history.

Yes, the poodle ate their homework.

Despite Macarena Barris awkwardly dancing 1990s style , she did offer another honest sentence that provided the real glimpse into the thinking of campus “historians.”

“Narratives don’t change much, yet are not fixed.”

A more truthful interpretation can be offered by those admired Communist Russians. They are fond of saying, with regards to their historical narrative, that “The future is known. It is the past that is always changing.”

A less fancy way of explaining this is that when it is difficult to create a narrative, just create a narrative.

This is how students learn that peaceful and tolerant Muslims were abused by Huns and other European crusaders.

No. The problem is the caped crusaders. They are not Batman, and the only Joker gave this lecture. Like Gotham City, our campuses will not be safe until students learn that there is nothing romantic or culturally beautiful about radical Jihadists. There are no dervishes. The only whirling consists of the trajectory of the planes into our towers.

USC might wish to teach that lesson. No more “Dancing with the Tar-Tars.”

eric

Ted Kennedy is rolling over in his grave.

Good. I never liked him and still don’t.

In Obamaworld, that comment would be considered bipartisan.

At least with me you get sincerity.

Welcome to Massachusetts Blue Shirt Republican Wednesday.

Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley by a slightly bigger margin than Barack Obama defeated John McCain.

(Do not confuse Martha Coakley with Martha Moxley. Martha Moxley was the woman murdered by Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel.)

There will be no recounts, hanging chads, liberal lawyers, or any other attempts to steal one for Teddy.

Ms. Coakley gave a very gracious concession speech. Her comments about Mr. Brown’s daughters were very classy. I have no beef with her.

As for Barack Obama, his plan was to scare the daylights out of Massachusetts voters by letting them know that Scott Brown was good for “Wall Street bankers,” as if they are the ones trying to ram through a health care plan that is the biggest toxic asset in history.

Barack Obama put his prestige on the line. Can we now finally admit that this guy doesn’t matter?

He is utterly and completely irrelevant, a victim of his own arrogance.

Massachusetts had the closest thing in America to Obamacare. If it was working, the people would not object to it nationally.

This race was a referendum on Obamacare, and only Obamacare.

In early 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton were advised to moderate or risk losing the congress. They ignored Dick Morris, and listened to liberal pollster Stanley Greenberg instead. Greenberg advised them to make the election a referendum on Clinton vs. Reagan. Reagan won by a landslide. Bill did not care about losing the jobs of others. Only when confronted with losing his own job did the First Narcissist in Chief moderate.

Barack Obama will make the same mistake. He could moderate now and try and work on piecemeal legislation. Instead he will double down, and make the midterms a referendum on his own policies vs. George W. Bush.

Bring it on Mr. Obama. It won’t work this time. Just ask the people you promised a tax cut that never got one. Better yet, ask the 300 people that were nearly blown to kingdom come over Detroit. Even better yet, ask the New Yorkers watching helplessly as you let KSM get a civilian trial. Mr. Obama, your State of the Union speech should be a blank piece of paper, keeping with the empty blank slate that is your empty suit.

Dubya had a 50/50 senate and got his tax cuts through. Obama can’t get legislation passed with 60 because nobody respects him.

People can claim that Scott Brown ran a good campaign and Coakley did not. This desperate attempt to shove Coakley under the bus will not save Mr. Obama. He was the albatross around her neck.

So what happens now? Will the Democrats try to delay seating Senator-Elect Brown?

Let them try.

Democrats win because they possess a ruthlessness that Republicans never seem to match.

If Democrats try to pass Obamacare through crooked means, then people should storm the d@mn building. They can turn on the fire hoses if need be. Mess up Barbara Boxer’s hair (not that people would notice any difference).

Hide Robert Byrd’s wheelchair if need be.

Yeah, I said it. For all we know he died five years ago and the Democrats have the guy from “Weekend at Bernie’s” making him look lifelike.

Insensitive? Democrats fight to the death. Ed Schultz advocated lying, cheating, and stealing to win.

For those wondering why I am so combative when my side won, it is because I am not going to be complacent. Celebrate Tuesday night, and get back to work on Wednesday.

Liberals did everything they could to try and steal this seat. First Ted Kennedy took the power of choosing a Senator away from Governor Romney. Then when Kennedy was dying, he tried to cancel the special election rule he had enacted and give the power to Deval Patrick.

Republicans are crazy if they get happy over this for too long. Democrats will do whatever they can to pull tricks like this in every race in 2010. For those who thought the Washington State Governor’s race was thievery, that was a pebble. The Democrats are planning the mushroom cloud of surprises. Republicans had better be ready.

On a happier note, Massachusetts voters really seem to like tall, handsome guys with good hair. Scott Brown even looks like Mitt Romney,

Speaking of looks, Scott Brown’s daughter Ayla is available. She is hot, and I will be sending my resume.

As for the election, now only one tactic remains.

I can’t wait until the left blames the voters for this.

Chicago thugs just got some push back. They are going to retaliate harshly.

Republicans had better be prepared for reprisals.

The Democrats are on a scorched Earth campaign. They suffered a setback yesterday.

This was a big win, but there is more work to do.

As for the blue shirt reference, several of us Republicans at a stockbrokerage firm a few years ago used to wear blue shirts on Wednesdays.

Today is as good a day as any to break them out again.

Now to sit back and watch the liberals tear each other’s eyes out.

It couldn’t happen to nicer people.

Regime change is now complete in Massachusetts. The people have been liberated.

Emperor Obama has no clothes.

Republicans are storming back.

One senate seat down, one John Kerry anti-war protester gasbag to go.

Now that is change I can believe in.

Rest in peace Senator Kennedy. Give my best to Mary Jo Kopechne.

eric

I have not spent any time at all covering the Massachusetts Senate race because I do not spend every waking minute covering every single moment in a campaign unless it is a Presidential election.

Like everybody else, I will look at the results and analyze them.

So on Massachusetts Short Shrift Tuesday, I will just offer some disjointed musings.

1) There are no moral victories. Putting a scare into the Democrats by losing closely does nothing for me. Near scares change nothing. We almost lost 300 people due to a Christmas bomber. Almost did not happen thank God, and nothing changed. If we lose, we lost. That’s it.

2) Polls mean nothing. The polls had John Kerry winning the White House and Doug Hoffman winning the NY special election. Turnout is key. Forget C-Span. Watch the Weather Channel.

3) Republicans need to win by 6 or 7 points. The left is already preparing thousands of lawyers and ACORN thugs. They will lie, cheat, and steal. Health care reform is at stake, and they will fight to the death for this seat. Be prepared for a blood feud if we win by less than 5 points.

4) The left will claim that any loss has nothing to do with Obama. They will claim that Martha Coakley is the dumbest candidate on Earth. Yes, she ran an awful campaign. This does not change the fact that opposition to Obamacare is what gave the GOP  a fighting chance to begin with. It also does not change the fact that Obama cannot rescue anybody. He has no coattails. None. I will say that if she wins, Obama will get all the credit. Coakley was up by 30 and down by single digits. It had nothing to do with him.

5) If Scott Brown wins and there is an attempt to deny him the seat until Obamacare is passed, that will be a bloody mess. We will know how far in the gutter the left will go, claiming conservatives do it too. No, we don’t. I am not sure they will try this, because the moderates will push back out of fear.

6) I don’t want any Republicans pounding the notion that the Democrats are in trouble. In 1980 the media said the presidential race was too close to call. In 1994 a week before the election the media still had Democrats keeping congress. Let the other side learn the hard way. If we peak too early, we might get humbled. Let the media wonder what happened, not give them time to figure it out.

7) Despite this being Kennedy territory, Martha Coakley was not the woman murdered by a Kennedy. That was Martha Moxley who was murdered by Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel. Those getting this wrong really need to read more. Martha Moxley and Mary Jo Kopechne were killed. Martha Coakley is alive and well, and will hopefully be a healthy private citizen for years to come.

8) Endorsements mean nothing. Curt Schilling and Tom Brady will not sway voters.

9) Martha Coakley should be hammered with every bit of ferocity as Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush. I prefer debating issues, but until the left stops being abusive, we need to hit back harder. Ms. Coakley may not be an imbecile. So what? Payback. No more unilateral Republican disarmament.

10) No matter who wins, John Kerry is still an insufferable gasbag, who oh by the way served in Vietnam.

I think Coakley will win because even if she is behind in the votes, the left will steal it anyway. Republicans never learn. We are Charlie Brown kicking the football until we prove otherwise.

Now to watch the votes come in.

eric

As a New Yorker living in Los Angeles, I still cannot make sense of what the people of Haiti are going through.

I have tried to process it, and I cannot come up with anything.

Sometimes in life, there are no answers.

For those offering news analysis, you are better than me. I have nothing to offer but my own opinions. How can anybody offer news when an event we cannot explain caused damage we cannot estimate for reasons we will never fathom?

Thousands of people dead? Just because?

I may be captain obvious, but I am not captain arbitrary.

Like many, I am praying.

Other than that, my attempt to avoid anger at people who have nothing to do with this tragedy has failed.

On a presidential level, President Obama did the right thing. He responded swiftly and appropriately. I felt he was way too slow to respond to previous events such as the Christmas bomber and the Fort Hood terrorist. I am not going to criticize the President on this one. He got it right. I just hope that his new quick response time shows that he has learned how important it is for a United States President to be seen when things like this happen. He has the bully pulpit, and it is absolutely appropriate for him to use it in times like this.

I also want any nation that continues to criticize America to put a sock in it. We feed, clothe, protect, and defend the world. We are good people. We have opened up our hearts and our wallets. We are not imperialists. The best of the human spirit can be found in this nation.

Americans also know when to put aside partisan politics. We fight over health care legislation and special elections in places like Massachusetts, but we are of one mind on helping Haiti. The relief will arrive quickly because we know what truly matters. We understand what being American is about. Those who criticize us unfairly should knock it off and see how we are helping.

So far the left has not used this tragedy to bash conservatives and Christians, especially in the wake of the comments of Pat Robertson. Those paying attention should notice that every single mainstream conservative condemned the remarks. This includes devout Christians. They found the remarks as idiotic as I did. I would even argue that the remarks were sinful.

People may have their issues with Billy and Franklin Graham, but they are trying to help ina  big way. Give them their due on this one.

Bill Clinton pointed out that the people need four things: water, food, shelter, and medicine. Anybody offering this should be praised, not be told “your money is no good here.”

The thing that really riles me about all of this is the fact that it was Haiti.

Think about it. Who have the people of Haiti ever bothered? What has Haiti ever done to offend anybody?

Israel fights with the Arabs. Catholics and Protestants killed each other in Northern Ireland. Even the people of Thailand, who I was told love everybody, don’t like the Malasians.

Nobody dislikes Haiti.

Which brings me to the one source of anger I have in my search for answers.

Where are the Arab Muslim nations with their petrodollars?

Look, if it was a Jewish country they would name the place Hatey. That would be short for Jew-Hatey.

There are no Jews in Haiti.

Yes, there are Americans in Haiti, but Haiti is no reflexive American puppet. It is the poorest Western nation, and it is nowhere near as Americanized as Canada.

This means that there is no reason for the Arabs to treat Haiti like Hatey.

I keep hearing that their is an outpouring of international support.

Guess which portion of the world is not stepping up in proportion to its vast wealth.

My contempt for these countries stems from the fact that they bring nothing positive to this world.

They can’t even rescue a country that they have no conflict with on any level.

At least they are not dancing in the streets firing guns in celebration.

The world should remember who is stepping up to the plate, and it isn’t Arab nations.

It is America and western nations. Israel is also contributing, as they always do. Jewish organizations worldwide are on overdrive contributing assistance.

As I woke up this morning, I asked God to remind me why the world was not going to hell in a hand-basket.

All I wanted was the slightest hint of something positive.

It may be a sign, or just a coincidence, but something positive was out there in this wrecked world.

Today is the one year anniversary of the Miracle on the Hudson.

No, not the Olympic hockey team. That was Lake Placid.

The real miracle in New York was the plane steered by Captain Chesney “Sully” Sullenberger.

Awhile back I said that the reason why he mattered so much was because people were starving for good news. As he pointed out, people need to have hope again.

Right now we need hope more than ever. We need to believe good things are possible. We need to know that life matters, and that we should not give up, throw in the towel, and say that the worst of life will win.

It is easy for me to regroup in a comfortable home in Los Angeles.

It will be much tougher for the people in Haiti.

If ever they needed a miracle similar to the Hudson, now is the time for it.

eric

Every once in awhile an event occurs that renders everything else secondary.

In one of the worst natural disasters in years, a 7.0 earthquake rocked Haiti and destroyed a nation that has suffered so much.

Various reports have the death toll as high as 100,000 people.

My God.

3,000 people died on 9/11. 4,000 Americans were killed in Iraq. 33 9/11s or 25 Iraq wars is what happened in Haiti.

At least with terrorism there are explanations.

With natural disasters, there are often no answers.

Some ask why God would allow this? Atheists and agnostics do not factor God into the equation, but still have the same question as the theists.

Why?

With all the technological advances, why can’t we predict with more accuracy when natural disasters are coming so we can evacuate people in advance?

Perhaps I am asking people to predict the future, and know the unknowable.

With events like these, my thoughts are so jumbled because I still cannot wrap myself around such unfathomable situations.

The president called the situation in Haiti “cruel and incomprehensible.” I often take issue with his words, but this time I think he phrased the situation accurately.

As for a certain televangelist that implied that the Haitians made a deal with the devil, I strongly condemn those remarks as the rantings of a man who has proven on many occasions that he is an imbecile.

I just want answers, and I know that those answers will never come. I will only have more questions.

One thing I worry about is what would happen if this occurred in America.

How would we react as a nation if we lost 100,000 people? Does anything make us so special that we are immune from such tragedies?

Of course not. We are as vulnerable as anybody else.

I know that life is not fair, but Haiti just saw many of their citizens killed.

This was cruel…and incomprehensible.

The Salvation Army and the Red Cross as always are on the scene, and the United States is again spreading compassion in the form of good citizens that truly do care about others worldwide.

Yet the worst aspect of this tragedy is that there is nothing positive.

The people of Haiti feel despair. We can preach about light at the end of the tunnel, but on days like this I truly understand why people throw in the towel. I am optimistic most of the time, but how do we not tell people to look in the mirror and see hopelessness?

All people want is a roof over their head and their loved ones at their side. The Haitians had their roofs ripped off and their loved ones killed.

Americans will move on, and soon focus on the next sex scandal, special election, or legislative battle.

Yes, we have to live our lives.

I just wish others had the same freedom and liberty that I do.

As for now, I plan to pray to the God I deeply believe in to provide strength to the rescuers.

If even one more person is rescued, that might be a tiny beacon of light in a situation that is dark and miserable.

I hope that the rest of 2010 brings good news, and less events that are catastrophic, cruel, and completely incomprehensible.

eric

One person I have had the pleasure of befriending in recent months is Tom Del Beccaro, the Vice Chair of the California Republican Party.

His book “The New Conservative Paradigm” is as simple as it is accurate.

His most recent column at “Big Government” looks at the 1966 and 1994 elections to point out a trend that could prove ominous for Democrats in 2010.

http://biggovernment.com/2010/01/12/lessons-of-66-and-94-loom-over-democrats-part-i/

While Tom has more experience with regards to policy than I do, I have been meaning for some time to use 1994 as a model for 2010.

Specifically, I believe the Democrats are completely misreading why they lost.

Some Republicans think I should keep quiet rather than help Democrats. This implies anybody at such a high level in the DNC is even reading my blog. Therefore, I think it is safe to proceed. Besides, they would not listen to me anyway. I am a conservative, which automatically makes me an imbecile in their eyes anyway.

Given that the Democratic Party is not my party, this is more musings rather than advice. Yet for those who truly do need to be hit upside the head with a bar towel to know they are in a bar, let’s put 1994 in proper context.

The Democrats that think that they lost the congress in 1994 because of their failure to pass health care reform are out of their minds.

Nobody loses congress because of failing to pass bills. Ever since Harry Truman ran againsta  do-nothing congress, that has been a tactic of presidential candidates, with little success. In 2006 the Democrats captured Congress. If anybody can name a single accomplishment belonging to the Pelosiraptor, I am all ears like Barack Obama. That congress did nothing, but still maintained their majorities. There is no consequence for inaction on domestic policy.

For one thing, a do nothing congress is redundant. These people are not exactly putting on hard hats and building homes. They read papers (or sometimes don’t read them), talk to people, make speeches, and occasionally listen. They are not governors. They are professional babblers. If they were any less talented they would be bloggers.

(Never mind. I meant pre-me of course.)

Failing to pass bills means nothing. It does not matter if the bill was the highest priority. High priorities change with events. One minute the Iraq War and other foreign policy issues dominate, and the next minute the obsession is domestic policy initiatives. Then if a Hollywood celebrity does something, congressional inaction is overlooked entirely.

Failing to pass a bill means that nothing has changed. Despite the fact that Americans occasionally vote for change, we are a cautious people by nature. We are evolutionary, not revolutionary. We like slow, incremental movements. That is why we elect presidents who promise bold leadership, and then elect congresses to stop them once we realize that what we really want is radical change provided it does not upset our comfy status quo.

Therefore, American Presidents and congresses do not get punished for failing to pass bills. They get punished for successfully passing bad bills.

Bill Clinton lost the congress because of two bills he rammed through. In his first year in office, he rammed through a tax hike with no Republican votes. He promised he would not raise taxes on anyone but the rich. He broke his word, raised taxes on the middle class, and earned their wrath.

The second year in office he passed a crime bill that contained an assault weapons ban and other gun control measures. States like West Virginia that had been voting for Democrats for decades went Republican in presidential elections after that.

Tax hikes and gun control brought down the Democrats. Failing to pass health care had nothing to do with it. The right was energized because bills they were hostile to were passed, and they felt their freedoms were threatened. The left may have been disappointed about health care, but that was no match for GOP anger.

Barack Obama will not get in trouble if the Democrats screw up health care reform again. If the bill passes, the Democrats will get slaughtered in 2010.

This does not mean leaders should be too timid to advance bills. That was the final six years of the Clinton presidency. All this does mean is that leaders should understand why events occur.

Barack Obama promised that he would radically transform our country. He was elected to fix the economy. Like many leaders, he is overreaching.

As for our leaders, they get in trouble when they defy the voters. The deeper the trouble, the more they blame the voters and then double down.

It does not matter who is right. The voters have the final say, and just like in 1994, the Democrats are still not listening.

They will be in November, but by then the only change in Washington will be the house speaker handing over the gavel.

eric

The Tygrrrr Express is about to become a ping pong ball. At lunch I will get to listen and meet Colonel Ralph Peters, a hero of mine. The David Horowitz Freedom Center is hosting him. Then I hightail it to Phoenix.

Yet while the world burns, for the second day in a row the media is focused on racial nonsense.

The latest Rod Blagojevich episode is a non-story on the surface that contains a story deep below.

For those with better things to do, let me regress your intelligence with uselessness. Rod Blagojevich, a pasty white Midwesterner (redundant, I know), stated that he was blacker than Barack Obama.

He spoke of his hardscrabble life in explaining why he was the blacker of the two men.

Republicans ignored him while Democrats tried to claim he was a Republican in a past life. Blagojevich quickly called President obama and apologized. Blagojevich then held a five minute press conference where he used the word “stupid” 17 times to describe his comments.

His comments were stupid, and he quickly apologized.

So as I have asked before, why does this even matter?

Because based on liberal standards, his comments might have been less than stupid. In fact, they may have been accurate.

I have been screaming at the top of my lungs that race is about one thing only, that being pigmentation. Pigmentation is not caused by climate change or white colonizing or even Israeli settlements. It is caused by melanin content.

If one accepts this explanation, then a pair of black people having intercourse will produce black children. A pair of caucasians engaging in sex will produce white children. Magically, if a person of one race sleeps with somebody of a different race, the child will be mixed race. In fact, they will be biracial. This is revolutionary to those who do not know that the prefix “bi” means two.

According to my math, Barack Obama being biracial and Rod Blagojevich being completely caucasian makes Barack Obama blacker than Rod Blagojevich. According to this model, Obama is blacker.

(By the way, unless your response to this is “who the heck cares?” then you spend too much time obsessing about race. Being blacker is not a positive or negative development. It just is.)

If Obama is blacker, then Blagojevich made stupid comments.

Yet maybe the comments were not stupid. Maybe Blagojevich is blacker.

Using liberal methods of analysis, this may be the case.

Black grievance-mongers and the guilty white liberals they prey on see blackness as a feeling, attitude, and lifestyle. Bill Clinton was the first black President. Clarence Thomas is not black.

This is insulting.

Bill Clinton did have positive achievements growing up. He did well in school and received a college scholarship. Yet that is not what made him “black.” He never knew his birth father, and grew up with an alcoholic abusive stepfather.  That is his “blackness.”

What a terrible message it sends to people when one can be considered “black” because they come from a  dysfunctional family.

Yes, he was committed to civil rights, but his awful childhood was what he trumpeted.

Clarence Thomas and other blacks who rise out of poverty are told that they are “acting white.”

Bill Cosby has been calling out the black community for celebrating low achievers, criminals and thugs.

Charles Payne is a brilliant Wall Street commentator who got beat up by other black kids because he wanted to be a successful businessman. This is  insane.

The National Basketball Association found that more kids admired Alan Iverson than Kobe Bryant. Iverson had troubles with the law, while Kobe was a law abiding citizen. Then Kobe got accused of rape, and magically his “street cred” went up.

So if Blagojevich grew up poor while Obama partied in Hawaii, then according to the liberal model, Obama is whiter because he had a more comfortable life as a young adulthood.

(Obama did have a rough childhood, but Blagojevich claimed that his was even worse. This leads to the equally idiotic notion that winning a poverty contest is of any more value than  winning a pigmentation contest. At least kids who brag that they are wealthier make sense. Pride in poverty is illogical. Next we will have kids bragging on the playground that they have the smallest genitals. A boy will jump up in down in celebration at having a smaller one than a girl, which will lead to many questions about both kids.)

Liberals keep trying to have it both ways (not talking about genders and genitals).

First they claim that black is white and white is black, provided that liberals get to decide.

Then when a Democrat utters the same idiocy that the left has repeatedly claimed, he is pilloried.

Yes, Blagojevich made stupid remarks. Blagojevich is as Blagojevich does.

Yet liberals calling his remarks stupid is hypocritical.

Until the left acknowledges that black conservatives are blacker than white liberals, and that race has nothing to do with any political position on affirmative action, the Blagojevich standard will stick.

Blagojevich was stupid for saying what he did.

The Democratic Party is stupid for perpetuating the very stupidity that they disavow when convenient.

It’s the stupidity, stupid.

eric