There is a great divide in our nation, one that has been present for the better part of our history as a nation.  One which if left untended may result in the squandering of an opportunity to change the way in which we relate to and live with each other and perhaps to begin the process of healing and reconciliation that has been needed for so long.  It is astounding that an opportunity for healing and for dialogue on the important issues of race, ethnicity, oppression, poverty, immigration and the like – such as that presented to us through the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency – is being utterly squandered.

In fact as I consider it more carefully this would appear to be a divide that is as old as the history of humankind itself.  For thousands of years one group of people or another has sought to selfishly gain for themselves at the expense of another exploited or oppressed group of people.  This can be seen in the Exodus account of the control wielded by the Egyptians over the Jewish people during the time of the Pharaohs.  In the New Testament we see this in the domination by the ruling Roman Empire of Jewish and other people at the time of Christ’s ministry on earth.  People have been divided along racial, ethnic, economic, nationalistic, gender, age, culture and class lines since the dawn of time.  And perhaps they will continue to be until the end of time.

What makes this issue fresh for me is the recollection of an incident that occurred in the autumn of 2008.  I was excitedly sharing my hope that with the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency of the United States we were being presented with an opportunity to begin a dialogue about race and ethnicity in this country.  This was not intended to place all of my hope for such a dialogue in the mere fact that our President was for the first time going to be a person of color; but rather to acknowledge that it would be all but impossible to ignore this fact.

I cannot adequately convey the extent of my disappointment at the response I received from my friend:  “Oh no Rob, you don’t understand.  Obama is going to tear this nation apart.  He is going to be the cause of increased hostility and tension, not peace and reconciliation.”  I asked my friend to explain how he could think such a thing?  Surely as Christians we would not allow such a thing to happen.  We are told that we should not only love our neighbors but our enemies as well.  (Matthew 5:44).  And yet my friend could not extend this love to unknown others who might hold a different theology, ideology or point of view.

Was my friend being prophetic at the time about the direction our national discourse was going to take?  Or was he perhaps proclaiming to me that he – and others of similar temperament – would diligently work towards bringing about the sad state of affairs with which we are now being faced?

Christ said that we are to come together in unity, to fulfill kingdom purposes; to achieve what had previously been unattainable.  He came to deliver the good news of the kingdom and simply asked that we follow his example in our behavior and more importantly in the attitude of our hearts.  I ask what must be the attitude of the heart of people like Rush Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck, who collectively speak to the fear that divides us; fear that at its core is un-American. Fear fuels hatred and perpetuates ignorance.  Rather than reconciliation this fear facilitates re-birth of the worst of American history and our segregationist and blatantly racist heritage.

It is unfathomable the degree to which so-called Christians and others on either end of the spectrum of political ideology talk at and over each other rather than with each other.  Consider the not too subtle campaign promoting the idea that because of his name and biological lineage President Obama is not an American citizen and therefore should not be allowed to serve as President.  This does nothing to benefit anyone other than perhaps the purveyors of angry talk radio and other narrow special interest groups.  It is demagogic, inflammatory rhetoric that fuels the basest emotions among a self-proclaimed elect segment of the citizenry.

So what are we to do?  Perhaps we need to take a step like that of both Mother Bethel A.M.E. Church and St. George’s Methodist Church, both in Philadelphia.  Recently they came together for a reconciliation service more than 200 years after a congregational split wounded the Philadelphia community.  Or perhaps we reach out across the aisle, across the street, from neighborhood to neighborhood, from church to church, from school to school and from house to house. What we do is begin to spend time experiencing the reality of each other for ourselves.  Turn off the radio and dial down the rhetoric and the hatred and simply hear from each other, not about each other.  This would, in the final analysis, go a long way towards bridging that great divide that exists in our society and in our hearts.

If this doesn’t scare the bejeepers out of the Democrats who are considering voting for healthcare, cap & trade, and anything else on the Obama agenda, then nothing will. In the real world, which is way different than inside the Beltway, people are telling their Representatives how to vote. In Fantasyland, the Representatives are committing political suicide. The Dems are handing the 2010 elections to the Republicans on a silver platter. Will they take it?

Why is he still smiling in the picture?

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15. This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama

Read the rest of the poll here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Palin gives the kiss-off to book buying fans in Indiana.

Remember during the 2008 Presidential campaign when John McCain and Sarah Palin rolled out those commercials wherein they compared Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in an attempt to characterize the future president as a celebrity lightweight? Well, as Reverend Wright once said, “the chickens have come home to roost.” You see, Sarah Palin has now evolved into just the type of air-headed celebrity diva that she at one time criticized. Exhibit 1; she has no meaningful employment (like Paris Hilton) and is famous in the eyes of her fans for nothing other than her personality and for being famous. Exhibit 2; her personal and family life is a mess (like Britney Spears) filled with a single mother teen daughter, an unemployed husband, a criminal sister-in-law, an estranged brother-in-law and an estranged once and future son-in-law that also happens to be the father of her grandson. Exhibit 3; Sarah Palin is now on a rock star like national book-tour to promote a book that she could not even write on her own.

The book-tour itself has not gone without the type of controversy that so often surrounds celebrity divas. Take for example yesterday’s appearance at Fort Bragg where Palin was ordered by Army command to essentially “sit down and shut up”. Although the former ex-quitting governor of Alaska so often drapes herself in the flag and presents herself as an icon of and the primary supporter of our military forces, the military does not return the favor. The brass at Fort Bragg was not about to allow Palin to publicly attack their Commander in Chief, Barack Obama by means of politically grandstanding before the troops during her book signing. Consequently, she was restricted from giving a speech, taking photos and personalizing notes in the books that she signed. Also too, just thinking aloud here, but why did the patriotic, physically fit basketball player, beauty contestant never demonstrate her unfaltering support for the military by enlisting therein?

Even more entertaining however was the fiasco known as the Noblesville, Indiana Borders Books appearance. Throngs of Palin supporters endured the chillingly cold and wet weather waiting in line for up to 9 hours to buy her book and obtain a wristband which would entitle them to meet Palin and get their book signed in person on November 19th. That of course was of no concern to Sarah Palin who simply up and quit signing (sound familiar?)  in the middle of the event and promptly boarded her luxury coach to depart for places unknown. It was of no consequence to Sarah Palin that these people paid good money for her book (which enriched the former governor), skipped work (which decreased their fortunes) and suffered for hours waiting outside in the elements. Needless to say, many of those people were outraged by Palin’s callous action and vowed to return their books and cease their support for the former vice presidential candidate. Thereafter in a feeble attempt to quell the backlash against her, Palin issued this statement via Facebook,

I’ve been told that yesterday there were supporters in Noblesville who stood in long lines for hours in the cold and rain, and the book signing event ended without a chance to say hello to everyone who showed up. I am so sorry. We are working on a solution for those who were left behind. I apologize.

The best part of the half apology is that, as usual, Palin accepts no personal blame. By saying, “I’ve been told” that the terrible thing happened, Palin implies that she personally knew nothing about it and therefore cannot be held personally responsible. Problem is, before her bus was able to leave the parking lot, it was swarmed by a mass of protesting former fans. Could Palin not see them out the windows of the bus? Could she not hear them? The answer is that she could both see and hear them and that her apology simply adds to her growing list of lies. Please watch the following clip from MSNBC’s Countdown With Keith Olbermann for an overview of the book signing disaster:

In honor of the troops, please remember to click on the song link below to familiarize yourselves with the tune and to have more fun singing along with today’s very topical song parody.

Please Mr. Postman song link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cxSAh-LFAM

MRS. PALIN

(sung to the Beatles version of the song “Mr. Postman”)

Wait, oh yes wait a minute Mrs. Palin
Wait, wait Mrs. Palin

Mrs. Palin can’t you see?
We camped out overnight here in Indy?
We’ve been waiting such a long time
We froze our asses off in line

You must have something to say
Why did you blow us off today?
Please Sarah Palin honestly,
Why did you treat us so egregiously?
We’ve been standing here waiting Mrs. Palin
So patiently
Why not some word, or even better
Will you just sign this damn book for me?

Please Mrs. Palin can’t you see”
We’ve paid our SarahPAC membership fees
You left us waiting in this line
“Stick your book where the sun don’t shine!”

We won’t forget you passed us by
You can kiss our support bye-bye
You didn’t stop to make us feel better
No, you left us out in the bad weather

Sarah Palin can’t you see?
We’re gonna hang out your dirty laundry
It will hang out there on that line
You stood us up for the last time!

You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
Wait a minute, wait a minute
You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
Now you will see, you’re our enemy

You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
Wait a minute, wait a minute
Mrs. Palin
We all will remember, 19^th of November!!!

You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
Wait a minute, wait a minute
You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
You gotta wait a minute, wait a minute
(repeat to fade)

In the few years that have passed since I taught public relations at the college level, the business has changed significantly, largely due to the continued growth of the internet and social networks. However, the greatest change in the industry may not have been a technological one but a fundamental shift in the relationship between the news media and the people and organizations they cover.

As a public relations instructor, I stressed the value of building a strong, working relationship with the press. Whether it was writing press releases, planning news conferences or answering questions from reporters, I taught my students that the best way to garner positive coverage for their clients was to be honest, accessible and cooperative.

Lately, however, I sense that the dynamic has changed.

On the national level, Sarah Palin rarely gets through a speech or an interview without chastising the media – and she’s drawing record crowds to her public appearances while her book is on top of the best seller lists. And it’s not just conservatives who have been taking aim at the Fourth Estate. The Obama Administration has been extremely vocal in its criticism of Fox News and has even boycotted the network at times in an effort to alter the tone of the coverage and fire up the President’s supporters.

So would national figures such as Barack Obama and Sarah Palin receive failing marks were they to take my Public Relations 101 course? Poor grades might have been justified four or five years ago, but I have to admit treating the press with disdain has its advantages today.

For starters, public opinion of the news media is at a low point. According to the PEW Project for Excellence in Journalism, public opinion on accuracy, morality, professionalism and bias in the press is lower today than it was a generation ago. And an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted earlier this year found that only eight percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in national news media — and 18 percent have no confidence at all.

Secondly, since public opinion of the media is so poor, the press makes a perfect scapegoat for politicians who are unable or unwilling to address the many serious and complex problems confronting our nation, our states and our communities today. Why not blame the press for fueling partisanship and polarization — or for focusing on motor vehicle infractions, infidelity and other transgressions instead of substantive issues (even when it often is politicians and their campaigns – not the media – driving these stories)?

Lastly, why should public figures bother to court the press and build relationships today when it is so easy to bypass traditional media outlets and deliver information directly to the public through the internet and social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube? Their messages can arrive in the inboxes of constituents just as they intended it – without the editing and scrutiny of the press.

This trend in media and government relations comes to mind as a new gubernatorial administration is preparing to take office in New Jersey. Governor-elect Chris Christie and his transition team have begun the process of building their administration, and much time will be spent on structuring the executive branch. For the new Governor’s press office, this means making decisions such as who will serve as the chief executive’s spokesperson, who will write his speeches, and how many deputy and assistant press secretaries will be needed.

But a more important decision may be what type of attitude the new Governor and his administration take toward the media. Is it still important to build a strong, cooperative relationship with the press? Or do the advantages of using the press as a foil outweigh the benefits of developing a good rapport with the media?

The answer is not as simple as it was a few years ago, but New Jersey’s recently completed gubernatorial election suggests that taking on the media can be an effective strategy. During the campaign, Christie showed that he wasn’t shy about criticizing reporters and news organizations when he felt he was being treated unfairly – and now he’s the one preparing to move into the State House.

# # #

If you search on for Michelle Obama in Google Image Search you will see a image a chimpanzee. Google removed the image but not its back. This time, Google bought a search ad explaining why the result is there and why Google cannot remove it:

Explanation:

Sometimes Google search results from the Internet can include disturbing content, even from innocuous queries. We assure you that the views expressed by such sites are not in any way endorsed by Google.

Search engines are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Internet. A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the integrity of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.

We apologize if you’ve had an upsetting experience using Google. We hope you understand our position regarding offensive results.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

What do you think about a Chimpanzee representing Michelle Obama on search engines? Don’t bring in your racist opinions George Bush has the same images floating around search engines also. Why do we suppress creative art related to the OBAMAS

Click On Links:
Michelle Obama Hula Hoop
Big Bird And Michelle Obama On Sesame Street
Michelle Obama Called Ghetto Girl
Michelle Obamas Weight Problem
Michelle Obamas Pot Belly
Mayara Tavares
Michelle Obama Ruffle Collar Blouse
Obama, Looking at woman in Italy
Michelle Obama’s Arms
Michelle Obama’s Short-Shorts
Michelle Obama’s New Hair Style
Michelle Obama Wax figure
Michelle Obama’s Fashion
Michelle Obama Touches Queen Elizabeth
Michelle Obama On The Cover Of Glamour Magazine

Chevrolet Cruze

Last week relations between three of the most powerful nations on earth, the USA, Germany and Russia took an unexpected nosedive.

The shock waves caused Germany’s Iron Frau Angela Merkel to choke on her spragel and phone Barack Obama in a hissy-fit. Meanwhile Vladimir Putin was left miffed and puzzled on the sidelines. The crisis had, for once, nothing to do with bearded terrorists, global warming or the positioning of missile shields. And don’t worry China, it’s not you either.

It could not have been an easy phone call for Obama to handle. Out of experience I can say that the only thing more frightening than an angry German woman, is a Russian one. Merkel was apparently seething with rage. And so, it would appear, was all of Germany. Thankfully, for Obama’s sake, Putin is a not a woman, and his response was one of bewilderment, rather than anger.

What was it all about? You won’t believe this, but the topic was Opel.

However, Opel was a mere innocent pawn. The culprit, in the eyes of Merkel, was General Motors. After months of meetings and discussions on the sale of Opel to Canadian parts supply company, Magna, with strong backing by Russia’s Sperbank, General Motors did a sudden U-turn and decided it would, after all, rather have another go at it themselves. And this caused Merkel’s famous bosom to start heaving uncontrollably.

Now, usually decisions such as this would not trouble world leaders, but the Opel situation has become this important because Merkel’s government provided bridge funding to get the deal done, and Obama’s automotive task force helped during negotiations. The thing is, if General Motors was to keep Opel, the thought was that a consequence would be many job losses, which is one of the reasons why Merkel heavily backed the seemingly more worker-friendly Magna deal in the first place.

But more importantly, General Motors did not inform the White House of its decision to keep Opel. Obama was blissfully unaware, thinking the Magna deal was all but done. Same story in Russia, where the sale was expected to give quite a boost to a domestic car industry, and specifically to GAZ. But no, the news exploded like a bomb shell. Now German workers fear for their jobs.

Merkel wants her money back. And she wants to see General Motors’ plan for Opel, immediately. Perhaps she should just have a look at the Magna proposals again, because apparently GM has said its own plan for Opel now looks a lot like that. The Russkies have some hope, though, because subsequently GM has stated that it‘s keen on doing business with GAZ, the company most famous for building that staple Russian saloon, the Volga, which I’ve driven, and which is kakashka.

I am delighted by all of this for some very personal reasons.

Growing up in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s and spending much of it on the back seat of the family Opel Rekord, reading in CAR magazine about Mike Briggs and the Kadett GSI clobbering its rivals in local racing every weekend, it was possibly inevitable that I’d end up being quite a fan of this German brand. I enjoyed the fact that Opel was always the underdog, and I especially enjoyed rubbing the Volkswagen fanatics at my school’s noses in another defeat come break time on Monday.

But then things started going wrong. Opel became more concerned about low-down torque and chasing Volkswagen up the ladder to the premium segment. This was doomed to be a long, painful process from the start, because unlike Volkswagen, which has a successful premium cousin like Audi to lend a hand, Opel doesn’t.

In fact, Opel has General Motors. And has had for a long time. This American company has made some iconic cars through the years and I really hope it gets back to full health, but I think its fair to say that for a very, very long time, General Motors’ idea of “premium” involved stick-on wood and chrome.

In its efforts to go up-market Opel ended up being stuck in the no-man’s land between being a car for the common man, and a car for those who look down on the common man. Thankfully I wasn’t the subject of much teasing from my now “premium-segment” Volkswagen friends at school, because all of this coincided with them becoming less interested in cars, and more interested in breasts.

As the years went by my concern for Opel continued to grow as General Motors seemingly got less interested in the brand each passing year. Of course, producing cars in Europe is an expensive exercise and importing them and selling them at competitive prices in distant South Africa is just as challenging. Locally this is made almost impossible because locals have certain expectations of Opel, which the mothership in Germany was moving away from.

Nevertheless, I still think there’s a hungry market for its cars here, and having inspected its latest products in Germany recently, I can say this – Opel is now seriously hammering on that premium segment door. Its products are now highly rated. The Insignia saloon has won numerous awards, the new Astra looks hot and there’s a clever new Meriva on the way.

But in South Africa, due mostly to pricing issues, we’re told, we’ve got a rapidly shrinking Opel line-up, soon to consist of only the Corsa hatch. The Corsa Utility bakkie will be rebadged as a Chevrolet soon.

And instead of the highly rated Astra, General Motors South Africa has elected to put the emphasis on Chevrolet instead, and as such we have the Cruze, which is based on the Astra platform anyway. The local emphasis on Chevrolet instead of Opel was an old-GM decision based on the concept of Chevrolet being its “world” brand, and South Africa being a “world” market. Opel was consigned to a “regional brand” task.

Now all this could change because GM is keeping Opel. Or so I hope.

Don’t get me wrong, the Cruze is a handsome car. We tested the first example (the top-line 1,8 LT) in the October issue and I thought it was smartly made, nicely specced and well-priced. The only problems, really, were the engine and transmission. In isolation, perhaps the engine is ok, and the same could go for the transmission, but together they are as pleasant as George Bush sitting next to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a dinner party. And just as noisy and irritating. And as likely to end in swearing.

This past weekend, I took our long-term Cruze automatic for an 800 km drive to Mossel Bay and back. I expected it to perform much better as a cruiser, rather than in and around the city where throttle inputs sent its gearbox out on a hunt for horsepower which simply doesn’t exist under the bonnet.

Yeah, the ride is good, and the cabin well-insulated from road and wind noise. It appears to be economical, too. But General Motors, I’m sorry, this drivetrain simply doesn’t work. The throttle pedal appears to be a volume knob for the engine more than anything else. Overtaking requires the ability to predict ten minutes into the future.

And yet, on the few instances where I could enjoy the twists and turns of our again improving national roads, I was impressed with the basics of the suspension, steering etc. I like the interior design, too. And it’s spacious and comfortable.

Yes. There’s a good car hiding underneath the Chevrolet Cruze. And I suspect it’s called the Opel Astra. Now that General Motors is keeping Opel, chances are much better that we’ll see it here, eventually. And that’s great news.

Cass Sunstein: Progressive Idiot

The battle to censor anyone who disagrees with Obama continues. First it was Anita “Mao” Dunn attacking Fox News because they actually report the news that Obama doesn’t want people to hear. In particular ACORN, SEIU and green jobs commie, Van Jones. Obama and “Mao” Dunn did not want the alphabet-media to take a page from Fox News and actually start investigating the words Obama was saying or his associations with these corrupt communist/socialists he has appointed to his administration.

 Now that Anita “Mao” Dunn is gone, Obama’s regulations czar is taking up the same talking points. This Progressive czar believes that websites should be required to remove “false rumors” he deems to be untrue and he wants to alter libel laws so it would be easier to sue for spreading such “rumors.”

WND reports:

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

In the era of the Internet , it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone,” Sunstein writes.

 ”Some right-wing websites liked to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites’ goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers,” he writes.

Sunstein continues: “On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes.”

We have progressive with positions inside Obama’s administration that believe in censorship and have the power to change the rules to fit their socialist agendas. Cass Sunstein is one and FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd is another. Both of these progressives have admitted their love for socialism and Marxism.

Cass Sunstein also has some bat-shit crazy beliefs like that trees can sue people. He also wants to ban hunting and repeal the 2nd amendment. The sad fact is that this libtard made it through congressional confirmation, despite his radical beliefs. However, Obama has shown his desire to be surrounded by radicals.

Il presidente USA Barack Obama , annuncerà nei prossimi giorni l’invio di altri 30.000 soldati in terra afghana.Il presidente fara’ l’annuncio in un discorso televisivo in prima serata. Tra i funzionari che interverranno in Congresso, anche il capo del Pentagono, Robert Gates.

Transit police in California are facing questions over use-of-force after another controversial video surfaced. The video does show a Bay Area Rapid Transit ,BART, officer remove Michael Joseph Gibson, 37, from a train and forcefully push him towards a nearby wall. After a crash, glass shatters onto both men in the West Oakland station. The officer has been placed on paid “industrial leave” – meaning he is unable to perform his duties because of injuries. The officer has worked for BART since May. Before that, he was a Contra Costa County sheriff’s deputy for six years. He has not been involved in a use-of-force case during his BART tenure, transit agency officials said. Records show Gibson was booked on suspicion of two felonies, battering a police officer and resisting arrest, as well as a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct.

On New Year’s Day, 22-year-old Oscar Grant was fatally shot by an unidentified BART officer. It happened after grant and some buddies got into a scuffle while riding a train. A bystander captured what went down on her cell phone. At 3:03 you hear the gun shot. Grant was in fact cuffed at the time he was shot; he was definitely pressed to the ground by the officer.

Have we lost trust with the Policing System, or Have the Police lost trust in Us?

Click On Links
Man Eats His Bank Robbery NOTE While Being Frisked
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Profile
The World’s Most Powerful People
The Race Card
Rev. Jeremiah Wright “Home Of The Slave”
CNN Reporter Detained For Showing Communist Oba Mao T-Shirt
Mental Stress On U.S. Soldiers
Child Dies In House Fire, Aunt Concerned About Her Food Stamps

A Post-Partisan President? NOPE

Remember the promise, from president-elect Obama, about being a post-partisan President? Well, like most things Obama said as a candidate, it was all lies. Obama is passing out tickets to his first White House dinner and he is inviting Hollywood, big donors and anyone else that helped get him elected. Who isn’t Obama inviting?

Top Republican lawmakers are not on Obama’s invitation list. Not even his rival during the 2008 election, John McCain, received an invite. Obama even left out a few democrats who have helped with crafting ObamaCare. Max Baucus (D-Mont) and Ben Nelson (D-FL) were both left off the invited. However, Oprah, and a slew of Hollywood movie producers like Steven Speilberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, got to nod.

I noticed that Gen. Stanley McChrystal was not on the invite list. This might have been a great time for the ditherer-in-chief to have another talk with the general he hand-picked to win the Afghanistan War. I’m just projecting, of course.

This is a really stupid study that was conducted by NPR but maybe it says a lot about Liberals and how they view Obama and why they voted for him.

The NPR Study says Liberals like the "lightened" Obama. Lightened or Whitened?

NPR reports:

A new study suggests that people’s political views may affect how they perceive President Obama’s skin tone, with liberals tending to “lighten” his skin and conservatives tending to “darken” it.

“Our beliefs, you know, in this case our political beliefs, can really have pretty profound effects on how we see the world,” says Eugene Caruso, a researcher at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “Our data suggest that people’s beliefs affect how light or dark they perceive someone to be.”

Liberal participants were most likely to rate a lightened photo of Obama as being most representative of him, while conservatives were most likely to say that about a photo that had been darkened, according to their findings published in a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

So, Liberals picked the “white Obama” and conservatives picked the “dark Obama.” That is ironic. Liberals are in denial about Obama being black and perceive him as being “more white.” Liberals tend to project things onto people so this is not real news.

I just see Obama as the red socialist he is. As a Conservative I could care less about Obama’s melanin. What I care about is his progressive policies that are bankrupting our country.

Da præsident Obama under valgkampen i 2008 talte om det, der skulle blive hans kommende udenrigspolitik, var det næsten som om, at ens tanker blev ledt hen på den idealistiske eks-præsident Jimmy Carters ditto. USA skulle ifølge Obama indgå i konstruktive dialoger med totalitære statsmagter; og i Cairo kunne præsidenten fortælle den store forsamling af muslimske studerende, at det var os i den vestlige verden, der havde misforstået islam.

Der Spiegel (den engelske version) bringer nu en rigtigt god artikel om præsident Obamas udenrigspolitiske eventyr; og hvis De skal læse én artikel i dag, så lad det være denne.

George Osborne has repeatedly tried to link himself to Barack Obama since the financial crisis has unfolded.

Initially he claimed that Obama wasn’t backing a fiscal stimulus ala Gordon Brown but actually pursuing a monetary policy ala George Osborne, something Andrew Sparrow from the Guardian politely called ‘valiant’.

Now he claims that his plans to abolish the FSA and hand powers back to the Bank of England are matched by Obama in the USA calling on the Federal Reserve. Similarly Osborne plans to create a new quango, the ‘Consumer Protection Agency’, which will allegedly be similar to a new body Obama is setting up.

As ever with Osborne, his claims are two parts horse…erm…radish, and about a billion parts sheer bloody cheek.

Firstly we all know Obama has backed an absolutely huge fiscal stimulus, so much so that even some Democrats are nervous about it. We also know that the US believes it would still be in a recession were it not for the stimulus, something Osborne has tried to deny.

Secondly, Obama’s ‘Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act’ actually mirrors the FSA in many ways, as William Kay points out. Osborne is really just shuffling around responsibilities from one body to another, while Obama is imitating the UK government in creating an FSA-esque body to deal with consumer rights and protections.

Osborne’s commitment to scrap the FSA is born not out of a belief that it needs to be scrapped but out of a desire to scrap a keystone Labour policy. If he is handing some of it’s regulatory powers to the Bank of England that doesn’t mean he needs to create a new body for the remaining powers, there is no reason he couldn’t keep the FSA if he liked. Meanwhile we still don’t know what he plans to do with the oversight of regulated markets and companies, see Peston’s ‘Four Observations” section here.

But, as with most of Osborne’s approach to economics, it is borne out of political expediency and positioning rather than any deep and serious thinking, something recognised by business groups in the country, who are still not convinced about this policy (see 12:40pm here).

As Alastair Campbell has pointed out, Osborne’s relentless political positioning over sound economic policy means he’s still not trusted by business figures and the public at large, who can sense that Osborne is a weakness for Cameron rather than a strength as Shadow Chancellor.

The Politically Incorrect News for Politically Incorrect Readers

Some things you may or may not have read…

Item #1- Obama’s White House scrambling to justify firing IG Gerald Walpin. The scandal is growing with little coverage by the alphabet-media. After all, they have to protect Obama at all costs.

Item #2- Five reasons why voters who voted for Obama will not vote for Obama again. We can only HOPE people CHANGE.

Item#3- Inhofe will call for investigation into “ClimateGate.” Wonder if Al Gore gets a call to testify? After all, he won a Nobel Prize for his global warming myth. Hey, Obama got his for a myth too. How (in) convenient.

Item #4- Obama to pay back Hollywood elites. Rewards big Hollywood donors with tickets to first White House dinner. I thought jobs was going to be his number one concern…laughable.

Item #5- Whose your daddy? California man finds out his father is a famous serial killer.