I accept your apology, sort of, kind of, in a way. Anyway, wouldn't it be much easier if you would just say, "I'm voting for Barack Obama because he is black... sort of, kind of, in a way." I mean, the mental gymnastics that you have to exercise to justify your choice is... well, painful.
According to the latest Essence poll concerning moi, 28% of those who responded think that I have been “unfairly judged.”
28%, that’s it?
Wow. That’s like . . . bad.
I cry foul! I don’t like the question. I think a better question could have been: Should one black man’s free political expression shake the confidence of a whole race of people? Yes or No.
Or, which action has set the race back further: the R. Kelly acquittal, the black on black murder rate in Chicago, O.J. Simpson (again!), or James T. Harris begging Senator McCain to “take it to Barack Obama?”
Or, how about this one. Which individual is a bigger disgrace to the race: Flavor Flav (for being Flavor Flav), Franklin Raines (for walking away from Fannie Mae with a $90 million package after running the company into the ground and sparking the greatest credit crisis in American history), or James T. Harris (for, you know…)?
Wait! One more.
What would be your biggest, blackest nightmare: getting caught eating watermelon in Carnegie Hall while attending a performance, gnawing on a fried chicken wing while on the Jerry Springer Show, or kissing Sarah Palin’s hand at a campaign rally?
But I digress...
Here’s the belated follow up interview from Essence magazine. Seeing that I seem to be the only conservative American of African descent on the national scene right now, Essence is planning to interview me again before the election.
Hey, don’t hate me because I’m beautiful, conservative and consistent. I’ve been on the right side of the aisle my entire adult life! But if you must hate me for being me… spell my name right.
The least qualified candidate in American history — at one of the most dangerous points in history.
By Thomas Sowell
Some elections are routine, some are important, and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic — and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies that he proposes under the banner of “change” are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That’s been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of “change.”
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being “a small country,” as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn’t have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn’t do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn’t bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions — none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.