His recent comments about how middle class America is a bunch of bitter gun crazed religious bigots is revealing, even as it is not a shock.

Unshockingly we discover an upper class politician is out of touch with the people he claims to represent.  Unsurprisingly we discover that the liberal elitism we have all remarked on in the past is just as ingrained in Obama as any other liberal. 

For all his claims to be just a middle class guy who did well, his success, like so many others who claim to have that connection, has left him out of touch.  His claim to being a 2nd Amendment scholar has left his no idea why Americans love guns. 

Most revealing is that his roots in his church have left him clueless about how many people rely on their faith as an integral foundation in their lives.

Maybe that is the most revealing aspect, and one of the sources of the greater points of hypocrisy.

Obama's church and his mentoring by Rev J Wright have left Obama with a very cynical view of religion.

Obama's church and Wright himself are apparently more concerned with the Afrocentric message of despair than a message of hope in which most American's see their faith.  Faith in God and in their church to many middle class people gives them a solid foundation of hope and love they can cling to when life does send the twists and turns.

Obama's by contrast preaches despair and anger and ignores the positives.  Obama's religion, for all his comments about bitterness, is rooted in encouraging bitterness.

I find it interesting that his own church uses bitterness as a core value, and he himself has defended that bitterness as understandable, and now in another attempt at relativism he extends that bitterness, but with negative implications.

Is this just more liberal elitism, or is this a new twist?

Now, let me state outright that if the grade was due to the quality, this would not be on my blog.

It wasn't.  It was because the religious artist had the audacity to include a scriptural reference on his. 

See the pictures below.  First, the failing art:

Now the two that passed:

And:

So all three are of fairly equal quality and show great talent by the artist.

The problem?  The bible verse in the first picture.  

Via Michelle Malkin:

Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the Tomah Area School District over an unconstitutional policy that bars religious free speech. Citing a policy prohibiting depictions of “blood, violence, sexual connotations, [or] religious beliefs,” officials penalized a Christian student for his artwork depicting a Bible verse and a cross but did not penalize students who included demonic illustrations in their artwork.

“Christian students shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs. It is unconstitutional for the school to punish students simply because they choose to exercise their First Amendment rights,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “Further, teachers are not permitted to censor Christian religious expression in artwork while at the same time allowing other types of religious depictions.”

A student at Tomah High School drew a landscape picture for an art class containing a road, clouds, and mountains with a cross in the background and the words “JOHN 3:16 – A sign of love” written in the sky. The teacher of the class told the student to either remove the scriptural reference or cover it up with a border.

The teacher cited a document that the student and all other students in the class had been required to sign at the beginning of the semester which prevented them from creating artwork with the prohibited depictions. After the teacher said that the student had “signed away his First Amendment rights,” the student respectfully protested by tearing the signed document in half.

John Yoo dissects a very disturbing reality hiding in the closet in the Democrat party, the mysterious Super Delegates.

This election has, if nothing else, exposed the Democrat party's structure which is potentially very undemocratic.

The Democrats' Super Disaster

Until recent weeks, one of the least understood aspects of the Democrats' primary contest was the role of superdelegates. These are Democratic Party insiders, members of Congress, and other officials who can cast ballots at the party's national convention this summer.

But now these unelected delegates are coming in for a close inspection, because neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama can win their party's nomination without superdelegate support. The big Pennsylvania primary on April 22, for example, has only 158 delegates at stake (each of them will be pledged to support one of the candidates). By comparison, there are a total of 795 superdelegates, none of whom are required to honor the will of the voters of their state at the party's convention.

Sound undemocratic? It is. That the 2008 Democratic nominee for president will be chosen by individuals no one voted for in the primaries flew for too long under the commentariat's radar. This from the party that litigated to "make every vote count" in the 2000 Florida recount, reviled the institution of the Electoral College for letting the loser of the national popular election win the presidency, and has called the Bush administration illegitimate ever since.

Democratic Party reforms in 1982 gave super-delegates about 20% of convention votes -- so that party greybeards can stop a popular, but politically extreme, candidate from seizing the nomination. The Democrats deliberately rejiggered their party's rules to head off insurgent candidates, like a George McGovern or a Jimmy Carter, who might be crushed in the general election. Unelected delegates thus have more than twice the votes of the richest state prize, California.

So much for unfiltered democracy. In truth, the Democratic Party runs by rules that are the epitome of the smoke-filled room and ensure, in essence, that congressional incumbents exercise a veto power over the nomination.

A friend sent me this interesting blog by Jonathon Kay concerning phony racism and the industry it has spawned.  In their zeal to combat racism, some activists can't wait for the real deal, they make it up themselves.

(Interestingly the blog has been removed from the source site, so I am posting the whole blog, not excerpts.  I verified the content by viewing the cache of a few sites and finding it posted on other blogs. )

Original source.  Reposted source.

What I find interesting is that this mirrors the observations I made a few months ago here:  Seattle Schools, where diversity = Blame whites for everything (and make some money)

Apparently, the disease is spreading to Canada.  Emphasis mine.

Jonathan Kay on Richard Warman and Canada's phony-racism industry

Posted: February 18, 2008, 1:14 PM by Jonathan Kay

Canadians now know the precise moment when radical anti-racism became a more powerful sociological toxin than racism itself: 7:55pm EST on Sept. 5, 2003.

That is the date-stamp on a particularly vile posting, left by an anonymous user on the message board of the right-wing web site freedomsite.org, attacking Canada’s first black senator. It read as follows: “Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women *** imports knew their place … And that place was NOT in public!”

Horrible, shocking stuff. But even more shocking is the identity of the fellow whose electronic fingerprints were all over the message: famed Canadian human-rights lawyer Richard Warman.

Honestly, as I keep saying, you cannot make this up.

As this memory from September recalls:

Hillary Clinton in essence called Gen. Petraeus a liar when she remarked: "I think the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." I wonder who wrote that line for her. It sounds like it came straight from James Carville, the former Clinton advisor. Earlier, Clinton had said: "I was against the Surge when it was first proposed." Really? She voted for it. It's funny how what Clinton says publicly, and what she does in the Senate are usually two different things.

And so her nuanced¹ position continues (emphasis mine):

Another one from MTP this morning, a day after the first fragile measure of political reconciliation passed the Iraqi parliament. Whom to thank? Not David Petraeus, whose claims of improved security and lowered sectarian tensions we were assured require “the willing suspension of disbelief.” Thank the Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton — who opposed the surge, who opposed funding for the surge, who even opposed a symbolic resolution defending Petraeus from the “Betray Us” smear. It took the looming prospect of withdrawal by a Democratic president, she says, to finally get the Iraqis in gear, neglecting the fact that the election of the Democratic Congress in 2006 was also supposed to get them in gear and never quite did. Thus do the stars align for Hillary: the failure of her own party plus the success of an operation she dismissed produce a credit-taking opportunity only the dumbest Clinton supporter could fall for. The fact is, troop levels are increasingly out of her hands and nobody knows it better than the Iraqis she cynically pretends to be influencing:

Sir Jim McDermott will have to pay the fine to Rep Boehner for his 1996 indiscretion in leaking an illegally obtained wiretap.

McDermott Disappointed At Supreme Court Rejection

Congressman Jim McDermott said he's disappointed the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to consider his appeal.

He said he believes he had a First Amendment free speech case.

Monday's decision leaves a federal appeals court ruling in place. The court said that McDermott should not have leaked a tape-recorded phone call to newspapers. It recorded Republican leaders in 1996 discussing the ethics case against former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

The ruling upholds a previous decision ordering McDermott to pay House Minority Leader John Boehner, of Ohio, who was one of the people on the call. The amount is still being determined but it could be more than $700,000.

Boehner's lawyer said he's gratified by the decision.

More at Politicio:

Boehner finally wins legal fight with McDermott over illegally taped call

The Supreme Court refused today to take up an appeal by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) of a lower court ruling ordering him to pay a fine and attorneys' fees in a years-long legal battle with now House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), finally bringing an end to the case.

The Associated Press is reporting that the Supreme Court has declined to hear McDermott's appeal, leaving the Washington Democrat with no more legal options in the case. He must now pay $60,000 in damages to  Boehner, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

The case centered around an illegally taped Dec. 1996 phone calls between House Republican leaders, including Boehner, to plot strategy in response to an ethics case against then Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The illegal tape eventually made its way to McDermott, who was ranking member of the House ethics committee. McDermott leaked it to the press, incuding The New York Times. Boehner then sued McDermott, alleging that McDermott's action harmed him personally. McDermott argued that he was protected under the First Amendment, since Republican leaders had promised not to take any concerted action in response to the Gingrich investigation by the ethics committee, and he was supported by a number of prominent news organizations. The Florida couple that made the tape eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

Michelle Malking and Joy Beher are at it again...kinda.  For what its worth, I think Joy is just making an ass of herself here.  Her hypocrisy is unbelieveable, and Michelle is right to call it.

My best friend, Joy Behar

The nattering nabobs of ninnyism on “The View” never cease to amaze. You may recall last month when “View” co-host Joy Behar appeared on the Bill Maher show and called me a “selfish bitch” because I questioned Harry Reid’s poster family for the massive S-CHIP entitlement expansion. (Like the t-shirt says: “I’m not a bitch. I’m just giftedly outspoken.”)

This week, the same “bitch”-spewing celebrity is, um, complaining about John McCain because he didn’t say anything when a supporter referred to Hillary Clinton as a “bitch.”

...

Newsbusters has the transcript:

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So now, let’s talk about John McCain. Shall we? This has been all over the news. A woman at a John McCain rally said to him, “how do we beat the bitch?”

JOY BEHAR: Some woman.

GOLDBERG: A woman. You know, just like any of us. Not you, of course, sir. But you know, the women. As we would say about whoever we were talking about in wherever we were. It wasn’t a broadcast thing. Someone was filming. Okay. He kind of looked a little startled and kind of laughed a little bit, because it took him by surprise. Then a guy said “I didn’t know you were talking about my wife” and made all those dumb jokes. Then he said “that’s an interesting question” and went on to say “I have a lot of respect for Hillary Clinton” and blah blah. Now everyone is up in arms with him because they feel he should have said to this woman “do not refer to Mrs. Clinton as this way.” So I say, the question for me is, having watched him have to deal with yet another woman, his mother, who made a comment about Mitt Romney, my take –

Via Hot Air:

Smells like … victory.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, officials familiar with the decision told The Associated Press Tuesday night…

The governor’s office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that Spitzer will say at the meeting that he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

..

About 70 percent of New Yorkers oppose the license plan, according to a Siena College poll of 625 registered state voters released Tuesday. The poll, conducted Nov. 5-8, had a sampling margin of 3.9 percentage points.

70 percent in a state bluer than the oceans. I can’t wait to see what this chastening does to the Democrats’ plank on amnesty during the campaign. Thanks, Spitz!

And now, Hillary, who waffled three ways from Tuesday on this issue, is making a stand:

On the day after Spitzer pulls the plug and the day before the next Democratic debate. Tough, strong, smart:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor…

“I support Governor Spitzer’s decision today to withdraw his proposal,” Clinton said in a statement. “As president, I will not support driver’s licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.”

Hillary has had a tough week.  Falling poll numbers, falling flags and more importantly a loss of her sense of invulnerability.  For weeks her attitude and that of many has been that she is the inevitable candidate.  Now suddenly she is just another candidate.

The reasons is that the other democrats are actually treating her as a front runner, one whom them want to stop, which means when she waffles in the debate as she did recently, her behavior is fair game.

And her reaction?

Clinton Regroups As Rivals Pounce

After a rare night of fumbles by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination rushed to maximize the damage yesterday, even as her advisers argued that the "piling on" engaged in by an all-male field of opponents will ultimately drive more female voters into her camp.

Clinton strategists grudgingly acknowledged that the performance in Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia was not her finest and they sought to contain the fallout. They worked to clarify her muddled response to a question about whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants -- she backs it, they said -- and quickly produced a video, titled "The Politics of Pile-On," splicing together in rapid-fire fashion her rivals' attacks from the event.

She is playing a dangerous game.  She is carefully walking the line of using her gender as a political tool as she and her husband make comments about "the boys" who are out to get her.  She needs to transcend her gender and make it not an issue, and become the best candidate, not the best woman candidate.  What's more, if she claims to be more qualified being a woman but attacks claims she is less qualified being a woman she straddles hypocrisy.

As Sister Toldjah notes:

There’s been some diversity amongst the reactions amongst liberal feminists as to whether they consider her a victim of a “boys-club” attack or if they view her playing of the victim card as a setback of sorts for the feminist movement. Ben Smith and David Paul Kuhn at The Politico reported yesterday on the mixed reaction from feminists to Hillary’s victim card defense:

Valarie Plame tells her side of the story on the incredibly unbiased Huffington Post (yes that is sarcasm). 

Finally Telling My Story

I'm Valerie Plame Wilson and I'm excited to be here and blog about my book Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, which goes on sale Monday, Oct 22. When my publisher sent me thee finished copy earlier this week, it was thrilling. It felt liker a new chapter (forgive the pun) has begun on the journey that has taken some incredible twists and turns since July 14, 2003, when my covert identity was exposed and ended a career that I loved. I've written honestly about my life: why I went to work for the CIA, my paramilitary training, the sort of operations we developed and ran to find intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD programs in the run up to the war, as well as  personal information, such as my battle with postpartum depression and the difficulties I had going from a private to a public persona literally overnight. My publisher, Simon and Schuster, decided to print the blacked out redactions demanded by the CIA and hopefully those passages (or lack thereof) speak for themselves and th he extent to which the CIA thought the material in  the book was classified.

I will stop here say only this.  If she says anyone outed her other then her husband, she is lying.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/186975.php

Heh.

Tell us news, not history.

Here's an MP3 of Richard Armitage telling Bob Woodward that Joe Wilson told everybody about Valerie Plame.

Also, read this interesting and valid point from protein wisdom commenter proudvastrightwingconspirator:

It’s interesting to ponder how this drama would have played out if instead of being a critic of the Bush Administration, Joe Wilson had written an editorial for the NYT that contained damning information about, say, Bill Clinton’s lack of interest in capturing Bin Laden during his tenure as POTUS, and was later proven to have lied by a bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee review of his allegations. Further assume that his wife, a CIA employee was “outed” by one of the many Clinton synchophants in the media.