B I R D

President Bush visited Israel earlier this week and declared "in a speech to Israel's Knesset...'some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along...We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

About which, Barack Obama is sure the speech is about himself, and many Democrats are sure the speech is about them, Obama, Liberals, Democrats, you name it, it's being accused.

Bush's comments are so easily understood as good, sound, common sense to most anyone else as to make these wails from wailing Democrats -- Obama included -- appear exceptionally self-convicting: by their outcry about the remarks in that speech by Bush, the Democrats "retaliate" by complaining they're being addressed, or otherwise, the shoe fits, so they're wearing it.

There's that dialogue from Alfred Hitchcock's film, REAR WINDOW, in which the female lead receives a compliment from the lead male about a purse she's carrying. She retorts, overtly defensively, "do you think I stole it?" (or, "it's not stolen," to that effect).

This is clearly a case where Bush's remarks hit the nail on the head. His comments, as I've just stated, are so easily recognized as common sense and appropriate, as right, as to be shocking that anyone would be so much as concerned much moreso "offended" or "outraged" by them, as many Democrats, especially Obama, today are.

Let's see, Pelosi called them "beneath the dignity of the office," yet she's been seen scarved and somewhat apologetic in Syria in months past. John Kerry, the guy who commisserated with the enemy while enlisted in the U.S. military, he's outraged (but isn't he always), Jimmy Carter goes to meet with Hamas after being advised in terms of national security not to do so (Carter went anyway). I heard Tom Daschle yesterday on a news broadcast very upset at Bush's remarks, while, for someone allegedly associated with national security, you'd think he'd be keen on supporting the U.S., not enemies who think we're "satan," but, well 'guess not.

But Obama's self-centered outrage is mndblowing if it wasn't so creepy. He reveals himself so unqualified to handle international relations, so insecure and ill-suited to manage sensitive, terrorist-prone if not terrorist-threatening groups and nations, so offensively self-absorbed as to be embarrassing to even hear today.

Already by this afternoon there are numerous media articles issued at various intervals throughout today from Obama and campaigners as to reveal them on overdrive. It's manic and if there's anything outrageous today, it's Obama and his irrational self-obsession. It's not all about him but someone tell Obama that -- I doubt (very strongly) he'd understand.

And, as hours pass, Obama's taken up maligning McCain, as if Bush's speech and comments were those of McCain's. I get the impression Obama is lashing out at anyone and everyone as are his Democrat supporters, and, they do so not out of concern for the safety, security and wellbeing of our nation and that of our Allies, but for purposes of advancing the political goals of certain Democrats.

This is keen evidence that Obama is not qualified for the Presidency, and the Democrats are most certainly not qualified to represent and protect the United States of America, or our Allies.

The Rev. James David Manning declares that Oprah, Obama and Jeremiah Wright are "The Trinity of Hell."

I don't have the gift of prophecy nor know much about Rev. Manning's spiritual gifts -- previous videos of him capture some exceptionally strange statements and behaviors but they don't begin to equal the exceptional strangeness that Jeremiah Wright continually manifests, so I'm trying to give Rev. Manning his due here after so much media rationalization about Wright -- but in layperson's terms, based upon general, first impressions, I'm wondering if Manning is onto something.

The latest screech: the Hellions who worship that Trinity from Hell are all up in tone about a tee-shirt that displays the image of the comic character, Curious George, with a caption of "Obama '08" underneath it.

This tee-shirt is being called "racist" and "offensive" by the Hellions; and yet, for the past eight years (or more), there's been an ongoing laugh had by them at the expense of President Bush (and most everyone else not of the Hellions' kind) as they've referred to Bush as "Chimpy" and worse. Entire websites are authored under these or similar, smearing site names denigrating President Bush so obviously, to the Left, these smears (of Bush) are not only not offensive but are, to them, indeed, funny, entertaining, anything but offensive. And I've certainly seen more than a few images on the net of Bush depicted as a chimpanzee by Democrats.

In the commenting sections of more than a few political websites used by, mostly, the Left and mostly Obama promoters (who denigrate Hillary Clinton as caustically as they do President Bush, but that's another story), and from what takes place there (and has for months now), remarks or inquiries about Obama are perceived by Obama supporters as so threatening as to be the equivalent of kicking sand on a stone idol they revere as godly. And that's after they routinely deem criticism of Obama -- when no race is ever mentioned -- as "racist" followed by them calling nearly eveyrone and anything contrary to their worship as "offensive." It becomes verbally more abusive as comments pass by no more than a few from anyone not an Obama worshipper, with the most severe malignments put upon anyone perceived as daring not to engage in the "faith" or who may appear to doubt the idolatry or, worse, the idol.

Obama, apparently, is now "messiah" ("he's our only hope," one exclaimed over and over again in comments, "we are all lost unless we vote for Obama" another one urged repeatedly).

There is fervor the equivalent of religious foment occuring where Obama is concerned; and certainly there is the same as to Oprah and her "following."

Oprah, who (as most know by now) is an Obama supporter, was recorded recently on a YouTube video vignette from one of her broadcasts (video, here) urging her audience on to emulate Oprah's "religious" behaviors (eyes closed, some sort of rhapsody to or about some sort of Oprah-centric experience); afterward, as she "accepted questions" from the audience and someone asked politely, "what about Jesus", Oprah quickly harped, in indignant, reprimanding tone, "well, what ABOUT Jesus?!" (end of discussion -- apparently, the name of Jesus was not acceptable to Oprah as to the Church of Oprah, Obama and Wright - 'course, they could all, each, be their own god and have their own church, but according to Rev. Manning, they're that Trinity of Hell).

But that taped vignette on it's own merits captures Oprah glorifying in the profane -- little other proof of that is necessary -- and I haven't even gotten to any specific theology as to the extent of profanity that Oprah displays in these regards. Unless, of course, one accepts that the idolization in a religious context is Oprah, herself, because the entire message is just that: Oprah presuming to be god, to be the divine "one" or one of the divine, however you might interpret her instructions, statements and Triad associations, as Manning refers to and positions her.

Maybe Rev. Manning is onto something.

Oi, who could ask for more?

Video, thanks to Constant Crowe.

Entry for purposes of tracking-back to Michelle Malkin's ongoing, developing informational posts about the La Raza Hispanic ethnic-hysteria and the monstrous political goals that group and their hysteria represent, and, John McCain's unscrupulous association with both.

I am not able to write more at this hour so will leave this post until tonight or (very) early tomorrow morning, to complete later. In the interim read the details at Malkin's site: " Top 10 Reasons McCain Should Repudiate the National Council of La Raza".

Reading results this morning from a simple NEWS search in Google for terms, "illegal immigration," I found this delirious doozy of false representation:

"God for Illegal Immigration"

Intrigued, to put it mildly, I accessed the link and found a May 02, 2008 column from one of my favorite opinionators, Father Jonathan Morris.

The actual headlne, as Father Jonathan has written it, and as FOX News has published it, reads:

"IS GOD FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?"

In that article, Father Jonathan writes:

...Just as every immigrant has a right to be treated with dignity, every government has the right and obligation to regulate immigration to sustainable levels, for the good of its own citizens and its immigrants. Religious leaders should be saying this too, don't you think? Why aren't they? Some are.

...God is on the side of human rights and also on the side of legality and security. It is our problem if we choose one over the other and pretend that we are righteous.

Father Jonathan clearly emphasizes the importance of "the moral voice" and does not reject the importance of law enforcement, national security, nor lend any human -- or suggest any divine -- rationalization for individuals to plummet and exploit the legal requirements and boundaries of other nations, nor does he attempt to dismiss the culpability of those who exploit human beings as "cheap labor" and thus provide incentive to illegal aliens to exploit those requirements and boundaries.

However, to peruse Google's News search results, to scroll down through the headlines, the impression is decidedly edited to force a false 'divine' support for illegal immigration, and in reference to an article by a Catholic Priest, at that.

How many other headlines has Google opted to "edit" to tweak them into representing the opposite of what's stated?

View full-size, full-screen capture file HERE.

Every time I close my eyes and try to placate my doubts, worries and fearful observations about a vote for John McCain, McCain goes and confirms the worst fears about his representation of the nation, particularly as a Republican. As a voter, what I see before me for this Fall is an Anti-American canyon from all perspectives. And then there's that bad political route that we will have to drive for the next four years through that canyon, regardless of how the vote is cast.

Today is May 05. In Mexico, it's "Cinco de Mayo Day." Here we are, in the United States of America, and we have a GOP Presidential candidate not only commemorating a Mexican holiday, but participating in one to such an extent, that he's affirming the Hispanic ethnic-supremacy interests and their ratty group, La Raza, right here in the U.S.A.

I can barely begin to imagine just what George Washington would be doing were he here today to witness this rotten behavior, as is also the rotten politics involved.

Today, here in the United States of America, it is May 05th. Apparently John McCain is looking toward Mexico to elect him because many of us Republicans in the United States of America are just not going to tolerate his randy betrayals here at home.

The John McCain campaign celebrated Cinco de Mayo today by launching a Spanish-language version of its website-and announcing that McCain will speak at the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (July 14, 2008, San Diego, CA).

I've asked many people in general and specifically to define just who and what the "Hispanic vote" in the U.S.A. is. There is no definition offered because none exists. The term, "Hispanic vote" (or, "Hispanic voter") is a POLITICAL term that defines a voting interest bloc motivated by persons mostly affiliated with Central and South America who seek to grant amnesty in the U.S.A. for people from Central and South America, and to eliminate the borders and legal requirements of the U.S.A. as to boundaries and citizenship and/or use of our nation by people from Central and South America by sheer fact of their "blood" or "Hispanic-ness."

To be "Hispanic" is not to be of any defined racial type. The races of our human species are: Negroid (or, "Black"), Caucasian (or, "White"), Asian and Aborigine. That's it. People who have populated Central and South America are descendents of original (second and third wave) human migration from Central Asia, whose descendents later interbred with a few Spaniards and Negroes. What's resulted is a myriad of dozens upon dozens of ethnicities scattered throughout Central and South America.

So the whole "La Raza" -- which means, in Spanish, "The Race" -- term and intents represented are nothing more than ethnic-supremacy. There's nothing glorious, honorable, respectable or even lucidly realistic about what their purpose is as group or what they seek. It's purely political for ethnic-supremacy goals: "Hispanics" get free access, U.S.A. citizenship by merits of their DNA only, the U.S.A. somehow has to provide for them, make allowances for them, elevate them, eradicate laws and legal requirements for them, just bow down and eradicate standards for purposes of devotion to their DNA (or, ethnicity, because, again, they're not a race).

Ludicrous and profane, of course. But what's most profane to me as a citizen (and voter) of this nation is that ANY Presidential candidate (or President, for that matter, or any legislator, anyone in public office) is even associating with such an organization. Horribly, the HIllary Clinton campaign has La Raza "personnel" employed, I can't speak as to Obama and I'm not investigating that here, now, for time constraints, and here we go, McCain chugging away at the La Raza disgust and promoting it.

Enter McCain's association reaffirmed today with just such a disgusting group...READ Michelle Malkin's post about this.

McCain's speech today was startling, as it was also preposterously false.

He alleges...

..."everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message."

"I am confident that I will do very well," he said. "I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters."

Either McCain is demented or he's a demented liar, or, I'll try to be generous here, he's just another average, lying politician saying whatever works to make for misty votes.

Because he's obviously oblivious to the May Day "Communist Workers'" "protests" by "Hispanics" who pummel, burn, tear, rip and offend the U.S. flag every possible terms, the worst being sewing a flag of Mexico inside two American flags or to one side of the U.S.A. flag such that the Mexican flag "shows through" the flag of the U.S.A. So I don't see much to any respect for the U.S.A. and certainly nor for our flag, by these. And McCain has opted to vote against nearly all legislative attempts that are categorized as "pro-life," though I suppose it 's a useful campaign ruse for him to use the term.

As to "family values," the internet is awash in news articles about children by the hundreds of thousands abandoned by illegal aliens, every possible range of perversions and sexually-related crimes by illegal aliens (as also in their largely "Hispanic" nations from whence they've originated). Crimes of all sorts and across classes and throughout these societies and now throughout ours is represented by higher percentages from among both Hispanic people and illegal aliens, as are over sixty percent (the majority) of illegal aliens also Hispanics, from Hispanic countries, and therefore, also responsible for immigration crimes.

I would find it refreshing if any one political candidate, certainly for the Presidency, would even so much as begin to confront the ridiculous terms that are currently being used to talk all around but avoid talking about the actual issues. As long as candidates continue to use these terms --- "Hispanic voters" and "the Hispanic vote" -- they'll avoid being specific and continue to encourage usery stereotypes for purposes of misleading the public.

I'd enjoy someone asking McCain to define just what and who he means by "Hispanic voter" and why he's courting "the vote" from Central and South America. Same goes for Hillary and Obama.

Here are some of those "Hispanic family values" from the streets of Los Angeles, CA on May 01, 2008:

IRONMAN: from the ongoing comments at Nikke Finke's Deadline Hollywood article, and that site's report about IRONMAN's big opening weekend box office, it looks like this is a really enjoyable film.

I am particularly fond of Robert Downey, Jr.'s work -- who stars in IRONMAN as "Tony Stark" -- so reading from so many who have already seen this film, as to just what a successful performance Downey's provided in the lead, is great. The film's dialogue (screenplay by Hawk Ostby) is said to be entertaining and lively, so Downey's keen abilities in those regards appears to not have gone wasted here.

Also from the comments at Finke's site, the film does not dive into the "anti American" pratfall as to our military, our nation, the nature of weaponry, although, of course, true to Stan Lee's IRONMAN Marvel story-line, the entire character of Tony Stark is based upon a man who creates and then is forced to manipulate the use of military weaponry along with his role in the industry of weaponry. Hollywood, to-date, has persisted in a foolish effort in authoring ongoing negative stereotypes about the United States of America, especially as to our military, so reading the enthusiasm in the comments at DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD from many who identify as "Conservative," who have now seen IRONMAN and enjoyed it far above the average film, is good news, good news, indeed.

I never had my doubts about Downey's abilities to fulfill and excell in this role, however, contrary to what I read a year or so ago when news of him cast as IRONMAN, Tony Stark, first began perking. The man's truly talented and a sober Downey more than deserves to be back on top. The Tony Stark lead character and role are compelling -- I have always been a fan of the IRONMAN comic series for these reasons -- and it looks like, finally, a credible, enjoyable film has been made. So, go see IRONMAN -- I will, soon.

Hillary Clinton interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, PART ONE from April 30, 2008 and PART TWO from today, May 01, 2008.

On it's own merits, the interview was engaging. O'Reilly was a bit too talkative but so was HIllary but despite them both being too eager to talk and overtalk one another, I valued the interview and thought Hillary Clinton was not only smart to appear with O'Reilly but also considerate to do so: it allowed the more Moderate and Conservative voters to hear what she has to say and how she handles herself when asked extemporaneous (so I assume) questions that are not from among the Liberal school yard or sandbox.

I also thought Clinton was more "meaningful" in this context with O'Reilly than I've considered her in nearly all previous media appearances. Her stage speeches at campaign stops captures her being theatrical and stiff, like she's "enacting" some personna that's expected of her. On these televised interviews before O'Reilly, who rarely lets a guest relax and I appreciate him for that (the exception was certainly his patient, quiet questioning of President Bush a while ago, but that was understandable as it also was respectful), on these two parts of this interview, Clinton appeared far more reasonable than she has before in media.

However, every reasonable thing she said is reduced to meaningless when you take into consideration that among her key campaigners is and has been affiliated with Hispanic/Latino ethnic-supremacy organization, La Raza, and that Hillary declares decidedly before O'Reilly that she will not end sanctuary cities in the U.S. (she says it's due to wanting illegal aliens to report crimes to U.S. law enforcement, which I think pales in consideration of their illegal context and the damages done to our nation by sanctuary cities overall).

As long as Hillary Clinton -- and any political campaign -- is associated with that or any other ethnic-supremacy organization and individual, and puts illegal aliens and increased Socialism ahead of national security, they won't get my support.

Today, May 01, is deemed to be LOYALTY DAY in the United States of America. President George W. Bush issued a Presidential Proclamation in 2003 -- amended into law by Congress (Public Law 85-529) -- that May 01 from that date forward be honored as LOYALTY DAY (the full Proclamation should be read in full but it's revealing as to Bush's sad indulgence of illegal aliens, blurring of the definitions as to who and what a U.S. citizen is and poor-to-no immigration enforcement, as such existed when this Proclamation was issued if not continues through this day):

...This Loyalty Day, as we express allegiance to our Nation and its founding ideals, we resolve to ensure that the blessings of liberty endure and extend for generations to come.

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day," and I ask all Americans to join me in this day of celebration and in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2003, as Loyalty Day. I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance. I also call upon government officials to display the flag of the United States on all government buildings on Loyalty Day.

Wing-tip to ILLEGAL PROTEST blog.

MEANWHILE, in the United States of America, illegal aliens and other Socialists were busy going about raging for Communism and "Communist Workers' Day" "rights."

Covering today's degeneracy are these blogs:

Michelle Malkin
MAY DAY, MAY DAY...

Freedom Folks
WHEN SOCIALISTS ATTACK! and
CHICAGO MAY DAY MARCH: A PICTORIAL

lonewacko
BARACK OBAMA STATEMENT SUPPORTS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MARCHES

MORE LINKS are to be found on all those sites as to associated news, but, the "Illegal Aliens Demands Day" seems to have effectively insulted so many U.S. citizens by this hour (last year's and this year's), that so much as blogging about the ideas that define these Demands Days is not an inviting use of time and resources.

One thing, however, is that the Los Angeles Times reports that "businesses" in the L.A. area "supported" today's Illegal Aliens Demands Day raging there. I'd like to see a comprehensive list of the names of those "businesses" so that their services can be refused and their products avoided.

Moreover, since illegal aliens and their "associates" in the U.S. run contrary to the spirit and honorariums involved in LOYALTY DAY, the following ought to be kept in mind pending this May 05:

...some startling facts and figures from the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets should cause any sane person to question the president's judgment when it comes to criminals from Mexico.

For example:

* 40% of workers in Los Angeles County work for cash and pay no taxes, because they are predominantly illegal aliens without green cards.

* 95% of murder warrants issued in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

* 75% of those on the "most wanted" list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

* Over 67% of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal aliens.
(Mexican births paid for by U.S. taxpayers.)

* Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally.

* Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

* 50% of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border, according to FBI reports.

* 60% of all occupants in HUD properties are illegal aliens.

* 21 radio stations in Los Angeles are Spanish-language.

* In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English, while
3.9 million speak Spanish.

* Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.

* In 1997, the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers was $70 billion. The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services received) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative number.

* 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Isn't it time for our "conservative" president and sensible lawmakers to forsake their patriarchal concern for illegal aliens and focus instead on protecting the interests of the American people as required by the U.S. Constitution?

In honor of Cinco de Mayo Day, I propose that the president should deliver the following national salute to illegal aliens during his May 5 Saturday radio address:

Attention All Illegal Aliens: Happy Cinco de Mayo. Now Get the Hell Out!

The U.S. Senate just passed this Act declaring that John McCain, born in the nation of Panama (that's not a state in the U.S.A.) is "a natural-born citizen."

Isn't that really convenient? This way, the nation gets to avoid various substantial ethics-violation charges and an impeachment if and as Panama-born McCain is ever elected to and then sworn into the Office of the President, an office that is restricted to and only to persons born in the United States of America.

So, now that restriction has been broadened to include McCain, a person born in Panama, born on a U.S. military base to U.S. citizen parents, he's been tweaked into "natural-born" status by the Senate while he is anything but natural-born to any other definition of the expression. This is madness.

The fact is, the reality is, that McCain was not born in the U.S.A. and he's not a "natural-born citizen." Except, now the Senate declares him so, so, I guess that means the moon's not made of creme cheese, except when it's running for President.