The GOP 527s should have a field day this fall.

Viewing tip: Note the "hhmm" following "...It makes you feel justified in your ignorance; that's America" (at 27 seconds). Weird. Angry.

After months of criticism regarding his fiery pastor Reverend Wright, likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama has left his Chicago church, Trinity United Church of Christ. The issue arose when tapes where discovered of the residing pastor Jeremiah Wright calling the AIDS virus a government attack on African-American people and exclaiming "God damn America."

The Senator sought to distance himself even more from the pastor after rejecting his endorsement and denouncing his remarks soon after they surfaced. The issue may have resurfaced after a visiting Catholic priest mocked Obama's opponent Hillary Clinton, accusing her of "white entitlement." Obama has called the church his own for 16 years and Rev. Wright baptized both his daughters.

Obama has tried to put the remarks behind him, but falling short of disowning his pastor. The pastor's remarks contradict Obama's theme of transcending race, and Obama responded with a praised speech on race in America.

Reuters

Gates warns China of hogging resources

Defense Secretary Robert Gates addressed China's economic policy on Saturday, calling on China to fairly and diplomatically address the natural resources of that region. Gates struck a more cautious note than former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who criticized China's military buildup. Last year Gates called for the two countries to "build trust over time."

He asserted the benefits of openness, whether in regard to trade, resources or the internet. "We should not forget that globalization has permitted our shared rise in wealth over recent decades." Gates also thanked for China's cooperation for cooling North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

Asia Times

Islamic women demand Al-Qaeda admittance

Al-Qaeda was brought to light in a new way when the group's decision to exclude women was brought to light Saturday. In April Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahri responded to a female's question of admittance that Al-Qaeda did not allow women. The response has prompted online postings and a petition, called Rabeebat al-Silah or Arabic for "Companion of Weapons."

"How many times have I wished I were a man ... When Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri said there are no women in al Qaeda, he saddened and hurt me," the essay reflects.

CBS News

Preparatory Committee First substantive session, Geneva, 21 April-2 May 2008

Durban II PrepCom, April 22, 2008 - The Undeniable Agenda (I) April 22, 2008:
Themes: Redefining antisemitism; gearing up for another assault on Israel and America; a step backwards for human rights, redefined by Islamic states: Click here to watch video

Durban II PrepCom, April 23, 2008 - The Undeniable Agenda (II)April 23, 2008:
Themes: Redefining antisemitism; defeating democratic rights, including freedom of expression; gearing up for another attack on "racist" Israel: Click here to watch video

EYEontheUN videos are produced by Anne Bayefsky and Lana Zizic.

 CHICAGO — Barack Obama's controversial pastor and the church he's served for 36 years may be in hot water over statements he has made from the pulpit in support of the Illinois senator's run for the White House.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. preaches that he follows the righteous path, but when it comes to the federal tax law, his Trinity United Church of Christ may have crossed the line.

_________________________________________________

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11  

Obama's Pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Has a History of What Even Obama's Campaign Aides Say Is 'Inflammatory Rhetoric'

Rev. Jeremiah Wright also blames U.S. for 9/11

Posted: March 13, 2008
3:47 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

First he praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, giving him a humanitarian award and traveling with him to Libya to meet Moammar Gadhafi.

Then he turned his Trinity United Church of Christ into an institution that had all the earmarkings of a black separatist congregation.

And now he, it turns out, he has damned America in God's name and blamed the U.S. for provoking the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by dropping nuclear weapons on Japan in World War II and supporting Israel since 1947.

_________________________________________________

My Thoughts:

Why are so many people blinded by the Barack Hussein Obama facade?  Masses of people cannot see what is right in front of them.  Barack Hussein Obama surround himself with racist, anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white hate mongers.  I guess I should not be surprised; liberals will justify anything under the sun as being acceptable, including the murder of children through abortion. 

This Reverend has been Barack Hussein Obama's pastor for around 20 years and yet Barack Hussein Obama claims that he has not attended sermons where he heard his pastor make statements like this.  From what I have seen the pastor makes it quite a habit of being racist.  This must mean that Barack Hussein Obama either never goes to church, or maybe he is sleeping in the pew during the sermon.  Give me a break!  And he will not come right out and reject the statements or the Reverend; he chooses his words very carefully so his masses of supporters, and those not reading between the lines, believe that is what he is saying.

Are people really so surprised to find this information out?  It was obvious he had something to hide from the beginning.  If you bother to take the time to investigate you will see that even his wife, has controversial and inflammatory views.  His entire message for the election has been "Change".  When you ask his supporters what they like about him it is always "Change", but put them to the task of answering what change and they don't have a clue.

Ever stop to think that might be a red flag!  Not all change is good.  Once these people surrounding Barack Hussein Obama have a President's ear to whisper in what will your country really look like?  It might not be a very nice place for the rich, white, oppressor.

There are plenty of people in politics that would make great black candidates.  We do not have to vote in this baggage to get the "first black President".  Men like Michael Steele, J. C. Watts, Alan Keyes and others having been serving for years and would be great for all of America.

Those who are running to Barack Hussein Obama's defense and to the defense of this pastor and church should be ashamed and should beware that what you see is not always what you get; After all Satan was once an angel and Hitler was hurtled into power by masses of people who realized their mistake after it was too late. 

Protesters set an American flag on fire during a mass protest rally against Kosovo's declaration of independence in Belgrade, Serbia, Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)  

The proclamation of Kosovo's independence by Albanians on Sunday was followed with a growing anger among Kosovo's Serb population.(AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky)

Kosovo Serb students display posters showing U.S. President George W. Bush while protesting against Kosovo's independence in the ethnically divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica, Kosovo, Thursday, Feb. 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky)

Maxime Bernier said the list, which formed part of a manual on torture awareness given to diplomats, "wrongly includes some of our closest allies".

Mr Bernier insisted the manual was not a policy document and did not convey the official views of his government.

The listing was criticised by the US and Israel, who demanded it be changed.

"We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly it's absurd," said the US ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins.

Absurd, indeed.

However, the Progtards at the Progressive/Liberal hate-site, by the name of ThinkProgress (sic) think that not only was it correct for the US and Israel to be grouped with Iran and China, but to them, the US and Israel are worse!

Now here is the TP blurb about the situation, notice it is very bland:

Last week, CTV revealed that the Canadian government had put the United States on a “torture watch list.” Under heavy pressure from the United States, the Canadian Foreign Minister now has ordered the manual to be rewritten because it “wrongly includes some of our closest allies.” Amnesty International Canada criticized the move, stating, “When it comes to an issue like torture, the government’s main concern should not be embarrassing allies.”  January 20, 2008 1:13 pm |

This seems straight forward and matter of fact enough, right?

Well, we know better than to think the TPers will let this slide without some good old fashioned America-bashing! And once the realize Israel too had been mislabeled, make way for the haters. Here are two examples:

-

-

Now, in the case of old "sacopenapa" here, we find a total disconnect from reality. Yes, "sacopenapa" thinks that if he says it loud enough, it has to be true. "sacopenapa" is utterly incoherent, and he too, is an idiot.

For those brave enough, here is a link to the post.

When it comes to Progressivism,

Just Say No.

I have been wanting to post about Gwoemul for quite some time, but could never muster the energy for some reason. I was first introduced to the film during Screen Criticism class. Jake Wilson, film reviewer for The Age, brought the film in and spoke to the class about it. He actually didn't spend much time at all on Gwoemul, but the small scene he did show the class coupled with what little he said about it really ignited my interest.

The first part of the film I want to talk about is the framing; Hyung-ku Kim's cinematography. He uses the horizontal frame like a passive aggressive. The camera pans left-to-right often with elements of danger, comedy and drama all occurring from the side of the screen, so meticulously that when you notice crafted depth of field it really stands out. What struck me as visually stunning were not necessarily the shots of chaos and the computer graphics (although these were often strung together intriguingly), but rather the sedate moments in the film. I've taken a few stills from some of the shots I am talking about and will leave that point hanging as it definitely requires further thought.

The next thought: I would say Gwoemul plays with the audience's expectations as much as it can for a genre film. The first scene involves stylized acting between two men in scrubs, a brash American and a hesitant South Korean, and a damn nasty chemical - formaldehyde. This is the monster setup, or 'origin' scene. This scene is not present in all monster movies, and is usually used (in my experience, which is limited) when the audience is encouraged to empathise with the monster throughout the film. This scene plays the card that, 'it isn't the monster's fault' for existing, but rather, 'the human's fault' and specifically in Gwoemul; 'the American's fault'. This is no blatantly or snide Anti-American film, however. The degree of anti-Americanism in the film is up to the viewer.

Transcribed dialogue, my italics:

A: 'Pour them (chemicals) right down the drain, Mr. Kim.'

B: 'If I pour them in the drain, they will run into the Han River.'

A: 'That's right, let's just dump them in the Han River.'

B: 'But this is not just any toxic chemical...'

A long, horizontal pan across numerous bottles of the poisonous gas ends the scene, and it gracefully fades into a murky shot of two men fishing in the Han River, the chemicals literally mixing into the river itself, a beautiful visual addendum to the scene. This direct transition to the brown Han River sets up the expectation, or at least believability, that we are going to see the monster two minutes into the film. The irony here is that - of course we don't see it - but we do see it soon after, unexpectedly early, and in broad daylight and clear view. The audience is set up, denied, then surprised by the monster's appearance.

Something else that struck me about Gwoemul was the character of Park Gang-Du. The waterfront scene where he loses grip on Hyun-seo's hand is gorgeously directed. I have never seen such a powerful slow motion moment in a monster movie. Hyun-seo is captured by the monster through the fault of her father, Park Gang-Du. He is an incompetent character, a bumbling sleepy-head who just can't do anything right. His only saving grace is the love of his daughter, which imbues him with the energy he needs to stay focused.

I found Gwoemul to actually be exceptionally cruel in its portrayal of Gang-Du, most notably when he not only causes Hyun-seo's death, but his own father's. I am unsure exactly what the film achieves at the pivotal moment when Gang-Du hands his father the empty gun. As the monster smashes Hie-bong's corpse onto the concrete I couldn't help but feel awful - 'damn, this movie is mean'. This one guy, who the audience is meant to like, who the audience cares about, causes the death of his daughter and his father. There is a scene that explains the cause Gang-Du's stupidity as being nutrition deprivation, but it doesn't really do anything for the film.

I suppose I just wonder why the filmmakers decided to be so cruel to his character. A possibility is that this stems from the monster itself; the monster is not huge-freaking-amazing, it never seems to kill things with super powers, it's a bumbling giant tadpole. Its key victims are made available through the mistakes of others simply because it's not competent enough to cause true havoc.

It is curious that the other members of the family both suffer giant blows in their pursuits of the monster, and the film leaves their fates hanging, but in typical Hollywood fashion they simply get back up in a later scene. Why have this tackiness when the other death's are so poignant? The entire family has faults, but why is Gang-Du's stupidity a cut above the rest (Nam-il's alcoholism, Nam-joo's hesitance) ?? I haven't figured out what this all means but it certainly struck me whilst viewing the film for the first time.

There is a great deal of difference between the ”Western Liberal” and the “Left.” The distinction I draw, or to phrase it differently, the inference I draw is that the western liberal’s agree with the foreign policy of Carter and Clinton, as opposed to Reagan and Bush. The western liberal is not anti-Capitalist or anti-America.

What I do not understand is why the delay in the war on terrorism. Terrorism started in the Carter years during 1979 with the kidnapping of our embassy personnel in Iran. However, the war against international terrorism did not begin until Reagan came along, when he sent American bombers against Libya, because of the attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub.

“Iranians “criminals and kidnappers,” he sent out the warning, “the Iranians should be prepared that this country will take whatever action is appropriate.” Ronald Reagan’s tough talk succeeded where Carter’s reliance on persuasion failed.”

Clinton came along, cut eight divisions and reduced intelligence drastically; spending the money saved on social programs…remembrances of Rome?

On February 26, 1993, terrorist exploded a bomb with the intent of bringing “Tower One of the World Trade Center” on nearly 100,000 people.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for that bomb, fled to Iraq where he was given sanctuary. It was not until Bush came along that anything was done about it.

“There was no significant counteroffensive against terror during the entire eight-year term because Clinton wanted it that way. Bill Clinton chose to avoid the political risks of averting Middle Eastern terror. Consequently, he left the whole population at risk. National security suffered for the sake of his presidential legacy. During his term as leader of the free world, he gladly passed the responsibility of Iraq over to the UN, resigned our country to “co-existing” with terrorism, and even strove to cover up the full-scale assault underway by Middle Eastern terrorist organizations. The full story has yet to be told concerning the Oklahoma City bombing and Flight TWA 800.”

The quotes are from here

You DO NOT speak for me, nor will you ever!

Stop including me in your declarations that start with "and the American people agree..."

I do not ever want to be included in a sentence that comes out of your mouths.

I don't question your patriotism. I know you are NOT patriotic.

I also know that you do not support the troops. You can say it all you want, but words are cheap when not backed up by actions. And your actions prove time and time again that you are anything BUT supportive of the troops.

You have taken the privilege of Freedom of Speech and turned it into a cheap and rude playground antic.

I can't stand you or what you stand for. And I never, ever will.

You did it once before:

(Bosphotoman)You will not succeed in doing it again.

Oh, and by the way ~ the 60's are long gone.

So this is my answer to all your screeching against our troops, our country's Constitution and our way of life:

(I wish I had the talent to have done this myself ~ please go to AmericanBattleCry page on YouTube and read the description on this video)

For the sake of clarity, let’s revisit the Federal statute on the crime of treason.  Outlined in the U.S. Code [Title 18, Part 1, Chpt. 115, Section 2381] it states, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”  I don’t know about you, but to me that very simply states what is considered treason.   

While Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights grants us a freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, it does not grant us free reign to say anything we want, at any time we want...contrary to what some looney leftists would like us to believe.  For example, we all have heard that it is unlawful to falsely shout “FIRE” in a public building, such as a theatre.  Why?  Because it is deemed a danger to the public safety. Therefore, is it such a stretch to view statements that are slanderous, outright false, and overtly anti-American/pro-enemy as treasonous?  I say absolutely not!  Americans pride themselves in being able to live in a country where we can have an open discourse about the things that we like or dislike about our government.  But where do we draw the line with our citizens who take their dislikes to the point of making false and improvable accusations?  At what point does their “freedom of speech” end and treason begin?  Most of us would know, wouldn’t we?   

Let me be blunt.  It’s one thing to state that you do not like an Administration, or the views of a certain group, or the values of another. However, it is treasonous to make statements accusing the U.S. government of executing the disaster of 9/11.  It is treasonous to declare on network television that the U.S. coerced a false confession from Kalid Sheik Mohammed for his roles in the many attacks on our nation, its assets and military abroad.  It is treasonous to stand side-by-side with world leaders like Chavez and Amadinijad who call for the destruction of America.  These acts, my fellow citizens, are undeniably treason.    My question to you is...why is no one arresting these people? 

Why are so many of our fellow Americans sitting by idly and allowing this to continue?  Why aren’t we angry?  Have we lost the pioneering spirit and tenacity of our forefathers and mothers?  Have we for too long taken for granted the rights and privileges for which our fathers and grandfathers shed blood?  Do we have no sense of responsibility for the continuum of our great country?   

I sat there and gave the guy the benefit of the doubt.  Eventually, he got on the subject of Iraq.  And in my broken Bulgarian I tried to say that I wanted peace and didn't like conflicts and that I was there in Bulgaria and not Iraq.  And that yes America does have problems.  It was a strange encounter.  He kept toasting me but it felt like he didn't like me or Americans.  He kept saying this word that sounded like "Боклук".  I was quite curious so I took out my dictionary and searched for a word sounding like "Боклук" but I couldn't find it.

To ease his mind, I started to talk about the Beatles and Bob Dylan and how they were very much for peace back in the day.  We left the restaurant and as we were walking he said that his life was the Beatles.  As we walked through the streets it felt like I was in a parade and the object of attention.  The man asked old babas (grandmas) sitting on outside benches, "Do you know the Beatles and Bob Dylan?"  And he said this guy is American.  I heard the old ladies say "Beatles" and "Bob Dylan."  Very weird. 

Two days ago, I was at another restaurant and I saw him again.  I was across the room.  When I saw him come in I was like "oh no, not again."  He motioned at me and I hesitated to go over but he kept motioning.  So I went over and sat with him again. I quickly noticed that the guy had the same attitude and still muttered "Боклук."

A few minutes into round two, some of the restaurant staff began laughing.  I wasn't embarrassed. I really just wanted the guy to leave.  I didn't feel threatened.  He said it was his birthday.  And I finally heard him say тръгвам.  So he was leaving.  I was so curious about this word he kept saying, "Боклук."

So I texted a Bulgarian and Боклук means "trash" or "garbage."  So I think that I will avoid this guy if I see him again.  I don't know if he was calling me trash or America or what.  He did say Hitler at one point.  Doesn't seem like a pleasant kinda guy.  But anyway, "What's his deal?"  I'm like the most peaceful non threatening guy around. 

The highlight of our friendly conversation was when he said, "Ti si pich."  Meaning: you are a dude.  And I told him that in English and so the guy kept saying in two syllables "duduh." And not just dude.  I still laugh about this drunk guy trying to say "dude" but saying "duduh."

It is interesting that this guy said his life was the Beatles. I can only hope that others would follow suit. There is too much chalga influence here and not enough influence with substance.

I did find that there are a few Beatles fans here.