It's Called "Freedom of Speech"

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn about racial tolerance from a guy who practiced Black Liberation Theology (quite possibly the most racist theology practiced anywhere, and that includes islam) for twenty years.
And what exactly was teachable about the Gates/Crowley "teachable moment"?
The only thing that seems teachable about this to me is that no matter how far a black man like Gates or Obama progresses in American society, no matter how many accolades one gets from any and all races in America, they are only one split second away from shouting "racist" when things don't go their way. 
Maybe the teachable moment is that as long as there are blacks in America, there will be racism in America. 
Their racism against non-blacks. 

I like the Powerline blog, and read it nearly every day.  But like a lot of conservative intellectual blogs (as opposed to say, this blog), the writers at Powerline strongly advise conservatives to take the higher road and show deference for Obama simply because he's the POTUS.  They say things such as:

Conservatives should not mimic liberals by recklessly deploying the charge of "racism," a term that has largely lost its meaning.

and

So, birthers, give it a rest. Focus on President Obama's ideological errors and his many policy blunders. We conservatives are better than our opponents. Let's keep it that way.

There are many more examples on their site, of course, otherwise I wouldn't claim that they say such things all the time.  But I have to disagree with them on this course of action.  

Should one care to examine the entire candidacy of Obama, one cannot come to any other conclusion except that he won the election simply because he was not George Bush.  In fact, he proclaimed himself to be the anti-Bush.  And this is not simply my take, Obama himself claimed that electing McCain would be the same as having George Bush in a third term.

Obama declared that McCain would carry out a "third Bush term" in a speech that stressed that detrimental effects the Iraq war has had on the American economy.

During the campaign, there was little, if any, true policy pronouncements by Obama.  Little, if any, note of past accomplishments by Obama.  And little, if any, reason to believe that Obama would be a good president.  But there was an overwhelming belief by Obama supporters that Obama would take the US in a new direction, 180 degrees out from that taken by President Bush.  And that was enough. 
But that begs the question...why was that enough?  Why indeed, is it enough to say that you are willing to put in the White House a neophyte racist like Obama, simply because he is not George Bush?  The answer is not that most Lefties are political simpletons ready to be lead around by anyone who flashes a good smile and talks to them as if they were children (though in fact they are simpletons who are ready to be lead around by anyone who flashes a good smile and talks to them as if they were children).  The real answer is that the Lefties who voted him into office are political simpletons who are ready to be lead around by the main stream media and liberal blogs, the same media and blogs that spent the previous nine years (remember the slams on Bush during the campaign?) telling those simpletons (hereafter referred to as Leftards) that every single thing under Bush was worse than before.  Every.  Single. Thing.

One need only read liberal blogs, or listen to liberal talk radio to realize that there isn't a single subject on which a Leftard is willing expound on, without "proving" how George Bush made it worse.  The national debt?  Hell, even Obama is willing to blame Bush on where the national debt resides though he's added more debt in his six months than has all previous US presidents combined.  Global Warming?  Bush's fault.  Islamic terror?  Bush's fault.  Hurricane Katrina?  Bush's fault.  Floundering economy?  Bush's fault.  It's all Bush's fault.  

I don't blame Leftards for believing it's all Bush's fault.  They are, after all, Leftards.  They still believe that Stalin put millions to death in re-education gulags because they were counter-revolutionaries.  They still believe that Mao's Great Leap Forward was a great leap forward.  They are Leftards; even one of their own called them "useful idiots".  But there are not enough Leftards in the US to elect a president.  The ones I blame for saddling us with such an incompetent self-aggrandizing moron like Obama is those independents who simply took in, month after month after month, MSM bullshit about how George Bush was the worst president ever.  During Bush's presidency, the MSM stated every quarter that even though that quarter had seen record growth, record low employment, and record low inflation, hard times were just around the corner and they were coming thanks to George Bush giving tax breaks to the rich!  And the MSM kept harping on the number of civilians killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, even though these numbers pale in comparison with either the number of civilians killed by our enemies, or the number of civilians killed in any previous war.  And US casualties?  These numbers were flashed every evening on the news, and on front pages of newspapers everywhere, even though the number killed in both wars under George Bush's eight year tenure as CinC was less than one-fifth the number of soldiers lost in one day at Antietam, and a little more than one percent of the US losses during WWII. 

So what?  Well, the so what is that we conservatives can no longer afford to take the high road as suggested by the writers at Powerline Blog and other high-brow conservative blogs.  And I'm willing to lead the way.  We need to begin today to bring every single smear, every single innuendo, every single underhanded vicious attack (along with all the legitimate attacks) on the Obama administration and the Demcratic majority in Congress.  We will not get help from the MSM in getting the information out about even the legitimate concerns Americans may have about Obama/Pelosi/Reid policies and proclamations.  So we need to get it out any way we can.  If Obama isn't going to take his position as CinC seriously, and it takes a "birther" to get the attention of the media vis-a-vis fighting and winning in Afghanistan, than so be it.  If Obama is going to lie about every aspect of his health reform policies, than so can we.  If Obama is going to lie and say that he doesn't want to own GM while he's firing the CEO and authorizing the Treasury Department to purchase 70% of GM stock, than we have every right to say Obama's gone way beyond socialism and well into communism.  

The stakes are too high to play with a deck of cards fixed only by the MSM and ACORN.  We can also fix the deck of cards, and I intend to do so every chance I get; fairness and decency be damned. 

How soon before Obama's Justice Department allows a convicted islamic terrorist free on the the streets of the US?
Sooner than you think. 

(update) Perhaps much sooner. 

It takes only a minute of blog reading about paying for health care costs to find some Lefty saying that fat people need to be taxed because their "lifestyle" is causing health care costs to go up. 
If we are going to tax people because their controllable actions caused health care costs to soar, then we need to tax anyone who voted for a Democrat Senator, or a Democrat Representative, or Obama.  Those votes, entirely voluntary, will do more to raise the cost of health care for millions of Americans over the next few generations than anything a fat person has ever done. 

Obama doesn't want a victory in Afghanistan.  He's too stupid, militarily, to understand that there are only two choices in a war.  Victory or defeat.  Ask the Wehrmacht.  Hell, as the Taliban prior to Obama's election. 

So I guess that means he's okay with a defeat in Afghanistan.  

Has any US president in the past been okay with a defeat for our military forces engaged on the battlefield? 

As I've said before, any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine who votes for a Democrat is just plain ignorant of what they are voting for.   But at least it's easy to see what a vote for Obama got them.  A CinC that is okay with their defeat on the battlefield. 

Harvard commissioned an independent committee last year to examine the university's race relations after campus police confronted a young black man who was using tools to remove a bike lock.

So I guess if you are black, and look like you are trying to steal a bike, the police are supposed to just assume you own the bike, and are using tools to remove the lock because......? 
And if you are white, and look like you are trying to steal the bike, or you are hispanic, and look like you are trying to steal a bike, the police are also then supposed to assume you own the bike and are just breaking the lock because you don't have a key?  No racial profiling there.  So if anyone is breaking a lock on a bicycle, the police are never allowed to question it?  Or perhaps they are only allowed to question beings that are not humanoid?  If they are human, they belong to one race or another, that's a given. 
Exactly when are police allowed to question a person who is doing something that looks to be an illegal act?  Never?  Never if he/she's black?  Never if he/she's a minority?  Apparently on the Harvard campus, that's exactly the standard.  And if Obama has his way, that will be the standard across the entire US. 
Now, that's not going to hurt me, because I live in a mixed race community that respects the law and by-and-large, obeys the law. 
I wonder how that's going to play in places like Washington DC, a largely black area, where the only answer to protecting your property is to call the cops since the Washington DC officials have made self defense a crime.  Maybe someone could invent glasses that prohibit the wearer from seeing melanin content in the skin.  Then we could make all cops wear those.   Their job may be a lot harder, but their livelyhood won't be subjected to the whims of Al Sharpton. 
If I were a 911 operator in Cambridge MA, I'd tell whoever called in to report a crime that it probably wasn't really a crime, simply a misunderstanding, and hang up.  There will be a lot fewer whining, crying, posturing black professors that way. 

Cool.

I thought using mathmatical models to predict outcomes on the battlefield died with the retards that ran the Viet Nam war from the White House. 
Apparently not. 

Judge Sotomayor is likely to get her position on the Supreme Court.  That's a given, taking into account that the Dems now have enough Senators to stop any Republican attempt to fillibuster. In fact, Obama could have nominated anyone to that slot, and been assured to have that person as the next Justice. 
So why did he nominate her?  The answer to that question is almost always given by pundits as Obama's desire to place the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.  But again, why?  Barack Obama will see no political gain from this nomination.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama needs to shore up votes among latinos (or latinas).  There's little or no evidence that Supreme Court nomination "firsts" result in any appreciable relevence to the president who nominated that "first" except maybe for SCOTUSphiles.  Yeah, Judge Sotomayor appears to be a Leftard, but she's been very quick to disavow all of her Leftard positions while being questioned by a bunch of blowhard Senators on the Judiciary Committee.  She could be lying.  And she probably is.  And she could very easily bring every single Leftard position with her to the Court, and assert them in every decision that comes down for the next 50 years. 
But that at best makes her a scheming liar, and makes Obama, at best, an accomplice in putting a fairly luke-warm Leftard on the Court.  Big Deal.  Why, with this the only nomination he has that is assured for confirmation, did he pick such a wishy-washy Leftard?  He could have nominated anyone!  He could have nominated Bernadette Dohrn.  He could have nominated any number of radical Leftard lawyers.  He could have scoured Boalt Hall and found more radical, and quite frankly, more qualified, lawyers.  He could have done the really earth-shattering choice and picked a non-lawyer Leftard. 
I'm guessing that in the end, he picked Judge Sotomayor simply because he's without a single original thought in his head. 

Any guess on what percentage of these Israeli "soldiers" turn out to be fakes?  Based on the number of Leftards in the US who successfully fake out other Leftards into believing they are battle-hardened soldiers, I'd guess the percentage as north of 90%.