H. has been addressing economic woes in his latest speeches. He was quoted today as saying "Unemployment is at its highest level in years." How many years is that? The answer is two. National Unemployment in March 2008 was 5.1 percent. When was the last time it was that high? Just a little over two years two years ago, in 2005. In 2004, it was even higher, at 5.5 percent. In 2003, higher still at 6.0 percent.

What's the point of this? To illustrate that H. is misleading the public. He has a tendency to do that from time to time. The statement "highest level in years," is technically true, but if you look at the actual figures year to year, it is not nearly as dire as he makes it seem. He claims to be a "new kind of politician," who won't play the "same old" word games, but that's exactly what he's doing.

Take, for example, his criticism of the John McCain "100 years in Iraq" comment. Any intelligent person knows that John McCain was making a comparison to troops we still have in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc., after wars in those countries. Yet H. has twisted the context of that statement to use to his advantage.

Of course, we conservatives are too smart for that. But the liberals are eating it up.

The conservative blog world is abuzz about the Absolut "Reconquista" ad. While Absolut claims they meant to offend no one, the insincerity of this ad is surely evident. It was run only in Mexico, but isn't that a bit like Reverend Wright damning the USA only in his church?

Of course, Absolut is made in Sweden, but I don't think the Swedish understand the United States market. I'm sure we buy more Absolut here in a month than is sold in Mexico in a year. Of course, I could be wrong. In any case, I was an Absolut drinker (when I drink vodka), but now I'm switching my brand. There are plenty of fine distilled spirits out there that don't offend me.

Many web sites are featuring their own versions of the ad. Michelle Malkin has some, as well as some excellent response to to the ad, and another Photoshop is here.

Here's my contribution:

Daily Kos, the prememinent liberal blog, has many posters who like to smear and defame and act tough. If the subject is Bush, Hillary, or the Iraq war, they step up and do their best to pretend they are all the good guys who are fighting for a better world for all, then proceed to write posts condemning these things they see as unfair, unjust, or down-right evil. But when it comes to the unsafe target of Islamic fundamentalism, they have little to say. You would think a website that pretends to be some sort of safeguard for free speech and universal human rights would set its target on the biggest, heaviest gorilla of them all, but that's not the case.

For example, I did a search for the title of the Dutch film "Fitna." Fitna is the anti-Islam film by Geert Wilders and is at the forefront of any discussion of free speech that is to be had today. The result: 0 posts. I searched for a reference to "Mohammed cartoons," another hot button free speech issue. It returned 1 result, and that was actually a post attacking Bush on water-boarding.

Of course, Kos posters can write about whatever they want, but I find it funny and a bit hypocritical that they are so constantly outraged about Republicans and/or "Neo-cons" and the percieved stripping away of their Constitutional rights, yet ignore what many believe is an even bigger threat to all of our freedoms. They have said the cruelest, most vile things about their fellow Americans, but when it comes to a group of people who are the biggest violators of human rights on the planet, they ignore the discussion completely. I guess it's easy to talk tough when your target won't actually do the things you accuse it of, like depriving you of your rights or silencing you. When the target is Fundamentalist Islam, and is actually guilty of many of the accusations made against it, and might actually kill you for voicing your freedom of opinion, (see Theo Van Gogh, for example) you just shut up about it and look for easier, less challenging targets.

Pathetic.

President Bush spoke today on Iraq and the testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have both followed the speech with their views. I cannot help but be struck by the faltering, unsteady delivery of their positions. They stammered through their rebuttals as if they had no conviction in the same old liberal talking points they have endlessly spewed for months, if not years.

And nor should they. Rather than acknowledge any success whatsoever, they continue, in the face of enormous evidence that the surge is actually working, albeit in a fragile tenuous way, to deny and refute the obvious facts. Clinging to their empty rhetoric and grasping for words to try to spin the situation as a failure rather than the obvious success it appears to be, they show the Democrats as weak, feeble, and ineffectual.

I hate to use the word pathetic once again, but no other word describes their limp, vacuous blather quite as succinctly.

The debate for the last several days has revolved around H.'s "Bitter" comment. Was it insulting? Did it reveal him as an elitist? Was he speaking the truth? Yes, yes, and yes, at least as he sees it. What strikes me as interesting is the people that are rushing to defend H. You've got a bunch of suburban blue state liberals saying, "why yes, I am bitter. He's right." Well, he wasn't talking about you. The New York Times has letters and opinion from East coast elites defending H. Well, he wasn't talking about you, either. I thought it interesting that one defense of H. was published in today's Chicago Tribune Voice of the people section, and the writer of the letter lives in San Francisco. Oh please...

The truth is, unless you were on the receiving end of that comment, you cannot put forward any defense of the comment. Only those that H. was speaking about can reserve the right to be directly offended. All these defenses of the comment come off just like the comment itself, as if people are saying "anybody offended by this is not smart enough to understand what he meant." That's as elitist as the original statement. I am reminded of Linda Rondstat, in regards to red state Republican voters in 2004 saying, "don't they know they are voting against their own interest?" As if a rich blue state liberal could possibly have more insight to what red state conservatives interests are than the people themselves.

What this does show us is exactly what many pundits are saying about it: that H. and the liberals/Democrats are elitists, that they believe anybody that lives in depressed blue collar communities are poor, uneducated sheep, and only the Democratic party can save them from themselves. I guess that kind of condescension is pretty offensive.

Michelle Malkin has the scoop on Tax-payer funded immigration study cards which encourage inviting more immigrants to come looking for federal jobs, among other things. Read her take here. She asked that someone make a card that states Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right. I'm only too happy to oblige.

31 shootings and two stabbings occurred in Chicago over the weekend. Does that mean that Chicago is in a Civil War? Perhaps we should just abandon it and withdraw the police forces...

Speaking of Chicago, I could not believe one of the letters printed in today's Chicago Tribune. It's no secret that the extreme left likes to blame George Bush for everything they can, but there's got to be a limit. Apparently not, as letter writer R. Conrad Stein has now put the blame for Chicago's screwed up transit system on - you guessed it - George W. Bush!

Never mind the fact that the CTA is a wasteful bureaucracy with lazy over-paid workers. It's actually that evil George Bush's fault; because we invaded Iraq, the CTA is screwed up. And his proposed solution? More Federal tax dollars! Let's pump more money into an inefficient, wasteful system. And not just money from Chicago tax-payers, oh no -- let's reach our hands into the pocket of all American tax-payers to fix a regional mess that should be borne by people in Illinois.

Typical liberal tripe. Let's see, what else can we blame on Bush? If there's something in your life that is not going right, I'm pretty sure it's George Bush's fault. Car won't start? It's that damn George Bush! Broke your shoe lace? George Bush! Spilled your coffee? Bush! ad infinitum...

Carly Smithson was cut tonight on American Idol. Now, I usually don't blog about such things, but I just have to comment on this. Syesha Mercado was also in the "bottom two," and her performance, I'm sorry, was abysmal. So many wrong notes. Syesha is not half the singer Carly is. That's not to mention far worse performances from Jason Castro or sappy forgettable performances like the one by puppy dog David Archuletta.

America Idol voters, you are tone deaf. Syesha was off key throughout. Smithson did not hit a wrong note. Why am I blogging about this? Because quality and substance no longer matters. It's all just a "popularity" contest. That's why H. is still in the Presidential race.

It appears a trend that some may have suspected may actually be the case. I have, for a long time, believed that the rhetoric that the Iraq war has destroyed both America's credibility and popularity was a falsehood, particularly as we see Europe beginning to awaken from its Libertarian slumber and the election of pro-American governments in many parts of the world. Those who protest do so the loudest, while those that concur quietly go about their business, a fact that is evident every day here in our country.

Michelle Malkin's website reports that the analyst Mike Green has released a thesis that affirms the fact that the Iraq war has strengthened our relationships with key allies and has improved our international strategic position. According to the article, Mike Green, the author of the thesis, is "one of the US's most brilliant strategic analysts." The original article from the Australian is here, and is definitely a must-read. Take that Bush-bashers...

H. has some questionable associations swirling about him these days, and if you ask me, they are all fair game for criticism and discussion. But some are making the point that to mention Reverend Wright or William Ayers in a discussion about whether H. is suitable for the presidency is "guilt by association." Alan Colmes, on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes," makes that very claim, and cannot understand why John McCain finds the North Carolina Reverend Wright ad to be unfair politics but will then go on to call attention to the fact that Hamas has endorsed H. Colmes sees no difference in the matters; to him, and to many liberals, they are all simply "guilt by association."

I find it ironic that liberals, those who claim to be the masters of subtle nuance and who decry conservatives as simpletons who prefer jingoistic sound-bites to artfully nuanced statements, will discard such nuance and boil all of H.'s questionable associations down to "guilt by association." Certainly on one hand you could make that claim, but then you have to ignore the context of each of these relationships to H. and how they affect his possible presidency. McCain has reasons for the different opinions he holds on the different associations and why he feels some are okay to use in his political campaign, and some are not.

Take Reverend Wright, for example. McCain has tried to distance himself from a North Carolina attack ad, showing Reverend Wright in all his racist, America hating glory. McCain has tried to get the ad pulled, but as his campaign did not produce the ad and is not responsible for it, he has had little success. Now, why on earth would McCain want the ad pulled, when it clearly works to his advantage on at least one level? I believe it is because it may be construed as a racist attack on H., as well as an unfair "guilt by association," tactic, both types of campaigning of which John McCain expresses disdain.

On the other hand, McCain has made note that a North American Hamas spokesman has stated that Hamas would prefer to see H. elected. How does calling attention to the Hamas statement differ from calling attention to the Reverend Wright controversy? "Aren't they both guilt by association?" asks Colmes, a sentiment which no doubt many liberals echo in their debates.

There is a distinction between the two issues, one that Colmes and other liberals are not seeing. I think the Reverend Wright controversy is fair game, but I can see the objection to it being exactly as stated; guilt by association. Of course, there is more to it than that, but I think that is how McCain sees it. On the other hand, the Hamas endorsement, one which H. has in no way sought and has publicly decried, is a very telling statement on the possible ramifications of an H. presidency. This is an example of how are enemies will perceive us if H. is elected president. If our enemies could choose our president they would, of course, choose a president that they perceived would be weak on national defense and one they felt could be manipulated. Hamas is our enemy, and who do they want us to elect?

This is not guilt by association, this is a valid criticism of H., and one that McCain is right to bring up and use in his campaign. If your enemy chooses a leader for you, it would be wise for you to choose a different one.

Reverend Wright has been all over the news this weekend, and he's not helping his, or H.'s cause by some of the things he has been saying. The first appearance, the interview on Bill Moyer's PBS show, was a quiet, subdued version of Reverend Wright, and many were calling it his "image rehabilitation." Well, that didn't last very long, as on Sunday and earlier today (Monday), Wright was back to his regular bombastic, racist self. If you haven't seen the clips by now, check out Michelle Malkin's posts here and here for some perspectives and video.

So, what is the upshot of all of this? First, it is apparent that Wright made hostile racist speeches in 2 out of his 3 appearances this weekend, so we might assume that hostile racist sermons can roughly follow that average (see The Reverend Wright Lottery post). That means that H. most likely heard a lot of the harmful diatribes and hate speech that he denies hearing. If Wright can't make three appearances without the majority of them being hate-filled and racist, it seems likely that that was the norm in his church, not the exception. And it seems very likely that H. was in the pews on many of these occasions.

And second, Reverend Wright has opened season on himself. After hearing his comments this weekend, I say it's fair game to expose him as a full-blown racist. He can no longer talk about "being taken out of context" -- he's given us more context than we need to attack his statements outright. He claims the attack is not on him, but it is the black church that is being attacked. No, Reverend Wright, it is you specifically that we are speaking of. You are the hateful racist that we are attacking. Thanks for making us not feel guilty about doing so.