"Descending into "Barbarism".

           I have a trial tomorrow, so I don't have time to drop a post. Instead, I will leave you with a cut and paste job of William Saletan's writing which was done for Slate magazine.

 "How does an enlightened nation descend into barbarism? That used to be a question for historians. Now it’s a process you can watch in real time. In recent days, Donald Trump has been casting aside moral constraints on torture and violence against civilians. At his campaign rallies, crowds have cheered him on. What kind of country would the United States become if Trump and his followers get their way? Just listen as Trump spells it out for you.

1. Torture. Since November, Trump has said he would approve not just waterboarding, but “a hell of a lot worse.” That’s a change from George W. Bush’s administration, which justified waterboarding on the grounds that it wasn’t torture. Trump dismisses the taboo against torture altogether. “Let’s assume it is” torture, he said of waterboarding at a campaign event in South Carolina on Feb. 17. It’s still “absolutely fine,” he concluded, and “we should go much stronger.”

Advertisement 

2. Retribution. Other Republicans, such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, argue that brutal interrogation methods are justified only to prevent an attack. Trump rejects that constraint. On Nov. 23, he told a crowd in Ohio that waterboarding extracts useful information from terrorists, but that even if it didn’t, he would approve it, and “more than that,” because “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway

3. Collective punishment. In a Trump administration, you don’t have to be a terrorist to be targeted for retaliation. You just have to be related to one. On Dec. 3, Trump said of terrorists, “You have to take out their families.” When Fox News host Bill O’Reilly asked Trump to explain himself, Trump replied, falsely, that wives and children of the 9/11 hijackers had been sent home before the attack to “watch Daddy tonight on television knock down the World Trade Center.” He continued: “There has to be retribution. And if there is not going to be retribution, you are never going to stop terrorism.”

4. Hostage taking. Trump says he would target terrorists’ family members because they’re the
people terrorists care about. On Dec. 6, he said on Face the Nation that although terrorists “say they don’t mind dying ... I can tell you this: They want their families left alone.” At a Republican debate on Dec. 15, he added: “I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.” The audience applauded. The next day, Trump repeated that terrorists “care more about their families than they care about themselves” and that he “would do pretty severe stuff” to a terrorist’s wife. The crowd roared its approval.
 

5. Religious war. Trump routinely demands payback against ISIS for killing Christians. “The enemy is cutting off the heads of Christians and drowning them in cages, and yet we are too politically correct to respond in kind,” he wrote in a USA Today op-ed on Feb. 15. Often, Trump mentions that ISIS kills other people, too. But the only victim group he identifies by name is Christians.
 

6. Weakness. If you don’t accept torture or targeting civilians, Trump says you’re soft. In the Dec. 15 debate, Jeb Bush said these ideas were “crazy.” Trump replied that Bush was “a very nice person. But we need tough people.” In another debate on Feb. 6, Cruz rejected torture and waterboarding. Trump called Cruz’s answer “really weak.” At a rally in New Hampshire on Feb. 8, Trump gleefully told the crowd what a woman in the audience was calling Cruz for his answer: “She said he’s a pussy.” [Source]

*Pic from slate.com


 

(Continued from Page 1)

7. Level playing field. Trump views laws and scruples as foolish impediments. At a rally in Florida on Saturday, he complained that in the war on ISIS, “We’re playing with two sets of rules: their rules and our rules.” At a press conference that night, after winning two primaries, he went further: “It’s very hard to be successful in beating someone when your rules are very soft and their rules are unlimited.” He vowed to loosen American torture laws “so that we can better compete with a vicious group of animals.”

In an interview that aired Sunday on Face the Nation, Trump reinforced this point: “We are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It’s very hard to win when that’s the case.” He pledged to “strengthen the laws so that we can better compete.” Trump’s exchange with moderator John Dickerson continued:

Dickerson: Isn’t that separates us from the savages—rules?

Trump: No, I don’t think so. No. We have to beat the savages.

Dickerson: And therefore throw all the rules out?

Trump: We have to beat the savages.

Dickerson: By being savages?

Trump: No. We—well, look, you have to play the game the way they’re playing the game. You’re not going to win if we are soft, and they are—they have no rules. Now, I want to stay within the laws. I want to do all of that. But I think we have to increase the laws.  

You can see where this line of thinking would take us. To even the odds—to equalize the rules—we would have to behave like ISIS. Trump thinks about the laws of war the same way he thinks about trade barriers: The only way to get a level playing field is to do to others what they’ve done to you.

8. Imperial presidency. In Thursday’s debate, Trump was asked what he would do if the military, citing U.S. law, refused his orders to target the families of terrorists. He replied, “They’re not going to refuse me. ... If I say, ‘Do it,’ they're going to do it.” The next day, apparently after consultation with cooler heads, he issued a statement promising, “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law.” But by Saturday, at a rally in Florida, Trump was vowing to push back those laws: “We’re going to stay within the laws. But you know what we’re going to do? We’re going to have those laws broadened.” On Face the Nation, he said he would “have the law expanded.” Trump has previously suggested that he could restore waterboarding without changing the law: “You reclassify [it], and you’ll see what happens.”

9. No limits. Trump rarely specifies what he would do to terrorists’ families. On Dec. 6, when Dickerson asked Trump what he meant by “going after the families,” Trump told him, “I’m going to leave that to your imagination.” In a Dec. 16 interview, O’Reilly asked Trump, “You’re not going to assassinate them, are you?” Trump replied, “I don’t know what I’d do.” Trump keeps his answers vague on the same grounds he uses to justify his vagueness about future military action: He wants to keep the enemy guessing. In both cases, the effect is that Americans have to guess, too.

Top Comment

Why does Trump talk so poorly?  More...

1.9k CommentsJoin In

Fifteen years ago, in an address to Congress after 9/11, President George W. Bush described the moral pathology of terrorists. “We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety,” said Bush. “By abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism and Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it leads, in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.”

Some day, God willing, that’s where Trump’s ruthless ideology will end up, too.

Read more Slate coverage of the 2016 campaign.

 

 

    

The takeover.

   The next republican debate is just a few moments away, and there is still no sign that the leading contender to represent the party will participate. 

Mr. Bad Hair just took his ball and went home. (Find another ball)

He is leading by a lot, so why should he give the also- rans a chance to beat up on him?
Dude is taking on the media arm of his own party and seems to be winning. It is driving traditional conservatives nuts.  All those millions Jeb is sitting on might as well be Monopoly Money, because it will not help him in this presidential race.

Anyway, this might be a good time to cut ad paste in the middle of an interesting article I saw in The New Yorker:

"The last real outsider to take over a party was Jimmy Carter, in 1976. In a piece I wrote for the magazine on the 2012 race, I cited the reaction of Averell Harriman, the former governor of New York, when he learned of Carter’s impending victory. “Jimmy Carter? How can that be?” Harriman said. “I don’t even know Jimmy Carter, and as far as I know none of my friends know him, either.” But even Carter was an elected official (a state legislator and one-term governor from Georgia) and had been active in the Democratic National Committee. On the Republican side, you have to go back to Senator Barry Goldwater’s nomination, in 1964, to find a Republican who captured a party against the will of the party’s élites.
 

Donald Trump’s attempt at a hostile takeover of the G.O.P. is astonishing in its breadth. He is not just competing against a large field of candidates for votes in the primaries; he is at war with nearly every power center in the Republican Party—and he is winning. How is he doing it? One of Trump’s strengths is that he has effectively co-opted a conservative counter-establishment that has been growing during the Obama years, which has seen the rise of a movement on the right that dislikes Republican leaders almost as much as it dislikes the President. Trump is finding that the anger of this movement can be harnessed to attack a broader array of targets than just Washington politicians.
 

Take, for instance, Trump’s war with Fox News. The fight started when Megyn Kelly, the Fox anchor and one of the moderators of a Republican debate last August, asked Trump about his pattern of insulting women with terms like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals.” After the debate, Trump seemed to make Kelly’s point by attacking her in a vulgar way. For months he has continued to belittle her, despite on-again, off-again truces reportedly negotiated between Trump and Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. Certain shows on Fox—though not all of them—soon became hubs of anti-Trump voices, and Trump, who is well-known for holding grudges, responded by publicly attacking Fox pundits by name, especially George Will and Charles Krauthammer.
 

This week, according to Fox News, Trump’s campaign tried to muscle Kelly out of her moderator chair for a debate on Thursday. The fight descended into a volley of schoolyard taunts between the two sides, and Trump pulled out of the debate and said he would organize his own competing event, in Iowa, to benefit veterans. Trump’s campaign continued to escalate its attack on the network. “Fox News Corp. has donated over $3,000,000.00 to the Clinton’s [sic]. Makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes….” Daniel Scavino, Jr., Trump’s senior adviser, tweeted. The number apparently combines donations to Clinton political campaigns and corporate philanthropic donations to the Clinton Foundation, though Scavino’s sources and methodology were unclear.
 

Fox News has long been considered the most influential news organization for conservatives. In an e-mail newsletter today, the longtime Republican consultant Alex Castellanos called Fox “the most powerful Republican institution in contemporary American politics” and “the stage on which Republicans play.” He added, “Most Republican candidates kneel before it, supplicants hoping to sip airtime from its chalice.” No matter how unfair the coverage, few Republican candidates dared to launch the kind of assault that Trump and his aides have initiated. It was considered a death sentence in a Republican primary. Similarly, Trump has been attacking, and been attacked by, the main organs of conservative opinion—National Review and The Weekly Standard—which were previously considered the enforcers of conservative ideology and institutions to be flattered rather than condemned." [More]

They created this monster; he is their totalitarian. The man who a certain segment of the population is reaching out to and yearning for after eight years of the Negro in charge.

Let the trumpless debate begin.

 

American psychos.

I     I was watching the republican debate last night, and I was thinking to myself, how did we come to this? Forget, for a minute, that the candidates told lie after lie after lie about their previous statements and policies. (It was so bad with Trump that he lied about his own words on his own website.) Not to mention their whining about everything from the green room to the moderators. There were so many of them that the poor moderators couldn't keep up.  But hey, this is where we are with this party these days; everyone thinks that they can be the leader of the free world.

In a way I blame Barack Obama for this phenomenon. (If that n****r can do it so can we.)The "derangement syndrome" has been so strong that the folks on the other side wanted the reddest meat thrown at them to satisfy their hunger and hatred of the "hope and change" guy.

Then there are those folks in the so called middle--- the independents as they call themselves. They are not much better. Many of these same people support Trump now. He is the new outsider who will bring change to Washington.

Eight years ago they wanted the "magic Negro," but not even the tall, magical, bi-racial- "well spoken"-fellow from Chicago could deliver on that fantasy. To make matters worse, the racial animus and ignorance which was hidden under the surface for years came roaring to the top. And it wasn't just the dumb rednecks in places like Mississippi and Arkansas. Powerful people in the halls of Congress harbored this hatred as well. (You lie!)

So here we are. No matter what he (Obama) did could have been enough them. He could have given everyone of his haters a house, a car, and tax free income for life, and they would have complained that the house doesn't have an ocean view.

"Over time, the hostility toward Obama grew dramatically, and so did racist statements. Actually, it did not take very long. One year into his presidency, ABC News catalogued an array of racially tinged and overtly racist statements or actions taken against Obama. They came from election and party officials and media figures, including Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. In the years since, the number of prominent figures using race as a wedge only grew. They include a New Hampshire police commissioner using the "N" word to refer to the president, a Montana federal district judge sending racist emails, and many others.

Most troubling is that some of the most loathsome comments have been enabled and legitimized. After Ted Nugent called the president of the United States a "subhuman mongrel"—a term CNN's Wolf Blitzer noted was used by the Nazis to justify the extermination of Jews—Texas gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott welcomed this incendiary and hateful figure at a campaign event. And Colorado Senate candidate Tom Tancredo excitedly announced that he had gotten Nugent to contribute one of his assault weapons for Tancredo to auction off to help finance his campaign.*
 

When Ann Coulter referred to the black president as a "monkey" for Vladimir Putin—one of the most vile terms to apply to an African American, a term that, when used without malice by the late Howard Cosell to refer to a football player, resulted in massive criticism and ultimate removal from Monday Night Football—Fox News host Sean Hannity was taken aback, albeit in a bemused way, and offered Coulter a chance to rephrase. She refused. Many conservatives criticized her for the remarks, but she was right back on Hannity's TV and radio shows without any hiatus or punishment."

But it's almost over now. Soon, the family of color will be leaving the White House. America's political class will go back to "normal",  and  hopefully political debates will once again look like....well, debates.

*Pic from msnbc.com












      

Foreign policy debate: Facts vs. The republican Candidates.

The republicans debated foreign policy the other night, and, as is to be expected, there were some issues.

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Herman Cain contradicted himself on torture, Mitt Romney offered a prescription for challenging China that didn't add up and Newt Gingrich seemed to forget about crucial help by Pakistani intelligence in running down terrorists.

Factual missteps in the latest Republican presidential debate suggested that on some the knottiest foreign policy and national security issues of the time, contenders were out of their comfort zone. Several raised the prospect of an eventual war with Iran that the U.S., by any current measure, is ill-prepared to start.

A look at some of those claims Saturday night and how they compare with the facts:
___
ROMNEY on President Barack Obama and Iran: "What he should have done is speak out when dissidents took the streets and say, 'America is with you.' And work on a covert basis to encourage the dissidents."

GINGRICH: "First of all, as maximum covert operations — to block and disrupt the Iranian (nuclear) program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems. All of it covertly, all of it deniable. "

THE FACTS: It is widely believed that the Obama administration has been covertly attacking the Iranian nuclear program. By definition, covert action is not publicly acknowledged, so criticizing Obama for not doing something that he might very well be doing adds little to the debate. On just one front, there are strong suspicions the Obama administration either unleashed the sophisticated Stuxnet computer worm on Iran's nuclear program or supported Israel in that effort. The attack infected systems at the Bushehr power plant and set back Iran's nuclear development.

It is also believed the administration has provided secret help to Iranian dissidents, even if to little effect so far. Romney, Gingrich and most other contenders do not know what the U.S. is doing, and not doing, covertly. Michele Bachmann, as a member of the House intelligence Committee, might. If so, she's legally barred from talking about it.
___
ROMNEY on China: "On Day One, it's acknowledging something which everyone knows, they're a currency manipulator. And on that basis, we also go before the WTO and bring an action against them as a currency manipulator. And that allows us to apply, selectively, tariffs where we believe they are stealing our intellectual property, hacking into our computers, or artificially lowering their prices and killing American jobs. We can't just sit back and let China run all over us."

JON HUNTSMAN: "I don't think, Mitt, you can take China to the WTO on currency-related issues."

THE FACTS: As Huntsman, former ambassador to China, said, the World Trade Organization has no specified mandate to adjudicate allegations that a country is manipulating its currency to gain an unfair trade advantage. But using currency in a trade dispute hasn't been tried, so it's unclear how that might play out in practice.

Even if the international trade panel does take the case, any remedy would come long after Day One. As a highly political case, it would drag out. For example, the U.S. and European Union have been litigating a dispute over alleged subsidies to Boeing and Airbus since 2004, with no resolution in sight.
Nor is it clear how a currency case could address the theft of U.S. intellectual property, an issue unrelated to the price of Chinese exports.
___
CAIN: "I will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration."

CAIN: "I would return to that policy (waterboarding). I don't see it as torture. I
see it as an enhanced interrogation technique."

THE FACTS: Cain's conclusion that waterboarding is a legitimate means of interrogation contradicts the judgment of military leaders — and his own statement that he would be guided by them. The Army Field Manual prohibits waterboarding. It was the CIA, with the approval of the White House and Justice Department that conducted waterboarding, not the armed forces. As president, Cain could certainly decide that interrogators need not be constrained by the Army Field Manual rules. But if he did so, he would not be letting military leaders determine the tactics.
___
GINGRICH: "We don't have a reliable intelligence service. We don't have independent intelligence in places like Pakistan. We rely on our supposed friends for intelligence. They may or may not be our friends. And the amount of information we might or might not have, might or might not be reliable."

THE FACTS: U.S. killing of a succession of al-Qaida figures in Pakistan, none more prized by America than Osama bin Laden, demonstrates that the United States indeed gets vital and reliable intelligence out of Pakistan. While it may have been true when Gingrich left government in 1999 that the CIA's spy network was limited, since 2001 the agency has dramatically expanded its on-the-ground operations worldwide. The CIA station in Islamabad is now one of the most important in the world and officers there are responsible for building sources and helping select targets for the long and successful campaign of drone attacks.

Gingrich is right that Pakistan's intelligence agency is an often-unreliable U.S. partner and elements of the country's power structure have supported U.S. terrorist enemies. But as the bin Laden raid shows, the CIA is hardly impotent in its ability to operate alone in Pakistan.
___
ROMNEY: "The president should have built (a) credible threat of military action, and made it very clear that the United States of America is willing, in the final analysis, if necessary, to take military action to keep Iran from having a nuclear weapon."

GINGRICH: "Every possible aspect short of war of breaking the regime and bringing it down. And I agree entirely with Governor Romney. If, in the end, despite all of those things, the dictatorship persists, you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon."

CAIN: "I would not entertain military opposition.... We could deploy our ballistic missile defense ... warships strategically in that part of the world. We have the biggest fleet of those warships in the world. And we could use them strategically in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile."

THE FACTS: It is an open question whether the U.S., stretched thin by two long wars and a massive debt, is in a position to make a credible threat of war against Iran right now.

As it stands, U.S. plans to put additional forces in the Middle East, including in Kuwait, are part of a military hedge against Iran. So is a program to put missile defense radars and interceptors at sites around Europe and the region. The threat of U.S. attack might become more credible in time, whether from Obama or the next president.

Meantime, Obama, like George W. Bush before him, has not ruled out military action against Iran as a final resort.

The U.S. certainly has military force readily at hand to destroy Iran's known nuclear development sites in short order. This is highly unlikely, however, because of the strategic calculation that an attack would be counterproductive and ultimately ineffective, spawning retaliation against U.S. allies and forces in the region, and merely delaying eventual nuclear weapons development.
___
GINGRICH: "You're giving some country $7 billion a year. So you start off — or, or, in the case of Egypt, $3 billion a year. So you start off every year and say, 'Here's your $3 billion, now I'll start thinking'? You ought to start off at zero and say, 'Explain to me why I should give you a penny.'"

THE FACTS: In supporting Rick Perry's proposal to make every recipient of U.S. foreign aid justify the money before it is approved, Gingrich exaggerated the amount of aid the U.S. gives to Egypt. The Congressional Research Service says total aid to Egypt is about $1.5 billion annually.
___
BACHMANN: "Now President Obama has made a very fatal decision in Afghanistan. He's made the decision that by next September, our troops will be withdrawn. "

THE FACTS: By September 2012, Obama is only planning to withdraw the additional forces he sent in. Once the 33,000 "surge" troops are gone, 68,000 will be left. They are to be pulled out gradually and won't be gone until the end of 2014, barring some change in the drawdown of troops.
___
RICK PERRY: "This country can sanction the Iranian central bank right now and shut down that country's economy. And that's what this president needs to do, and the American people need to stand up and force him to make that stand today."

THE FACTS: Perry is right that sanctions have stopped short of tough action against Iran's central bank, which handles the country's massive oil commerce around the world. The debate moved on without the pros and cons of that step being explored. The option of banning U.S. and European dealings with the bank is being considered by Western powers and their allies, even if it is a stretch to expect such a move would shut Iran's economy as Perry suggested. The downside risk is significant: Isolating the bank could drive up oil prices and imperil the fragile world economy." [Source]

Those pesky facts always seem to get in the way of a good republican debate.

Oh well, it doesn't matter, the partisans will stand by their man- or woman- no matter what. Facts be damned!    

It's the dreads!

I am posting a little earlier than usual tonight because I want to watch the entire republican debate. The national media has all but declared the republican candidate the next president of these divided states, so I want to see how my new leader handles himself (himself, because it won't be Michele Bachmann) under the lights.

It looks like it's going to come down to the secessionist versus the weirdo. May the best man win. You will be inheriting one hell of a country. Mass killings in West Virginia and Nevada, (real sweetheart of a guy that West Virginia shooter, he killed five people [including a pregnant woman] because he was turned down by the Army) shootings and gun violence in urban A-merry-ca on the rise, and a country do deeply divided along ethnic, racial,and economic lines, that the stew in the melting pot is getting more bitter by the day.

Finally,I am so glad that I kept my training up for my racism chasing, because I knew that it was just a matter of time before the Big R went running by me. (h/t to a fellow field hand up in NYC for turning me on to this story.)

 "Labor Day is typically a joyous time for me and the Caribbean community of New York City. This year, it turned chaotic for many, including for myself and a close colleague. As always, I enjoyed marching with family and friends in the West Indian-American Day Carnival Parade down Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn. Upon the conclusion of the parade route, members of the group I was marching with, which included Kirsten John Foy, director of community relations for Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, sought to return to the Brooklyn Museum to attend a luncheon reception marking the close of the carnival.

Upon showing our credentials, we were given permission by a supervising officer near the library at Grand Army Plaza to enter a barricaded area, which was meant for elected officials and dignitaries, and make our way back to the museum. After walking several hundred yards and passing through an initial police checkpoint without any issues, we encountered three police officers standing on the sidewalk who informed us that this was a restricted area to civilians. I identified myself as a council member to the officers and explained that we were trying to get to the event.

The officers were immediately resistant. I showed the officers my council badge, and Foy explained that we were given permission by a higher ranking officer to be in the barricaded area. The officers still refused to acknowledge my credentials, as well as those of Foy, who was also trying to show his credentials at this time. They told me to have the officers who had given us permission relay their approval to them.

I attempted to reach two higher ranking officers which were just on the other side of the barricaded area, at which point I was pushed for the first time. I stepped back, asked not to be pushed, and said that I would be calling a local police chief to explain the situation. I was then pushed again. When I got on the phone with the chief, the group, which had swelled to 10-15 officers, formed a human barricade of sorts - and began physically pushing us more. Neither Foy nor I ever pushed them back; we only continued to try to dialogue with them about who we were and why we were there.

It was at this point, as video has now shown, that Foy was kicked in the back of the knee, pushed to the ground and handcuffed by officers. Shortly after, when I turned around briefly, I too was grabbed by the arm and placed in handcuffs. We were then led in separate directions, initially to the 78th Precinct headquarters. Then, after the intervention of several officials, we were taken to the Union Temple of Brooklyn, which is across from the library. After being held there for 40 to 60 minutes, we were released with no charges.

So what comes next? If I were not an elected official, I would have been taken to central booking and charged, no questions asked. That fact makes clear to me how serious the situation is for our young black and Latino men who suffer from this police culture every single day. While the actions of the select number of police officers involved here do not represent the entire NYPD, they do reflect a stop-and-frisk policy that unfairly targets people based on race and appearance.
Not only is this unproductive, it has not been proved to be effective in curbing violence in our communities. The increasing violence in my district alone is proof positive to me of this failure." [Source]

Oh come on now councilman, the NYPD was just doing their job, they would have stopped anybody who was trying to get into that restricted area....

...."According to Williams, [in pic] he and Foy finished marching in the parade and tried to walk to a Brooklyn Museum reception for dignitaries on a route that went through a zone frozen by police.

In past years, Williams said, cops opened the zone for elected officials to pass. They did so Monday for de Blasio, who is white and whose presence was not challenged.

Williams said ranking police allowed him, Foy and a group of about 10 people to enter the zone. When they had walked about 150 yards, they encountered uniformed cops who ordered them to turn back, Williams said..." [Source]

Oh.

Well maybe you should lose those dreads, Negro. We don't need elected officials frightening those hard working police officers. 

The republicans debate, and Aruba strikes again.

"I firmly believe that race riots are on the way," .... "They are being encouraged...[the Obama administration] will take this country down. If it looks like they are losing, the uber left, they will take it down. If I can't have it, no one will."

Oh my! Talk about wishful thinking. That was a very popular wingnut personality giving his dire warning about where A-merry-ca is heading. Let's follow their logic: They are sure that Obama will lose the next election, therefore, we can all assume, that race "riots are indeed on the way." As a member of the "uber left", let me be the first to say that that's not a good look for A-merry-ca.

And if Obama is going to lose the next election, one of the people on the stage debating to become the republiclown candidate for president is going to more than likely replace him. (I know that Governor Big Hair will announce soon)
I am trying to watch it, but it's hard. Newt, Herman,Mitt,Michele, Ron....Honestly, I would rather watch reruns of Baywatch Nights. Ron Paul is actually making the most sense, that ought to tell you something.

Anyway, as is to be expected, it looks like they are going after O hard. Hey this is politics, it's blood sport, they have to do and say what they have to in order to get elected.

O, on the other hand, says that he is fed up with the way politics is being conducted here in A-merry-ca.

 "..They look at what's happening in Washington and they think these folks are really from outer space because they don't seem to understand how critical it is for us all to work together, Republicans, Democrats, independents, in order to move this country forward," ..." the country is realizing the need to get involved.

"We're going to have to get engaged and we're going to have to speak out,"...  "We're going to have to register the fact that we expect more and we expect better." [Source]

Hmmm, doesn't sound like a man who wants a race war to me. Sounds like a man who wants to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the wingnuts. Good luck with that.

"Unfortunately what we've seen in Washington in the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock, and that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy,"

Mr. Obama is such a gentleman. Unfortunately for him, gentlemen don't win elections. Not when unemployment is hanging around the 9% mark and people want to work. Not when A-merry-ca is involved with three wars and folks are hearing about soldiers being killed on the evening news.

.....The debate is still going on and Herman Cain is making a fool of himself while he talks about Mitt Romney's religion. Mitt, on the other hand, is talking about the ideal home for children being with a mom and a dad, Newt is defending the government's right to give "loyalty oaths", and Michele is defending being submissive to her husband. I swear, these clowns on the right might just snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I guess we can relax people, maybe there will be no race riots after all.

Finally, if you are a white woman here in A-merry-ca and planning a vacation; you might want to stay away from Aruba. Seems that just five years after Natalee Holloway, yet another woman has gone missing on that island paradise.

Ladies, in the future, may I suggest Jamaica? Yes we have Dexter and his "black bamboo", but he will just take your pocket book, not your life.