How Much Do You Want the Government to Do?

Back around 1972, I took a vacation to Asia by myself. I spent a couple of weeks in Japan, a few days in Taiwan, and a few days in Hong Kong. One day, I was walking around downtown Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, and passed by a female who was lying on a piece of cardboard on the sidewalk begging for money. To this day, she is the most pitiful human being I have ever encountered. She was the size of a small child, badly deformed, and probably unable to walk. I couldn't tell if she was an adult or child. Judging from her face, I guessed she was probably a leper. My reaction, perhaps naively, was why wouldn't the government intervene and put this poor human being in some sort of facility where she could at least be fed, cared for and made to be comfortable.

Over 35 years later, I have not changed my view.

Yet, there is a definite limit on what I think the government, especially the US Government should do to help out its citizens. There are, without doubt, people out there who are physically and/or mentally unable to care for themselves through no fault of their own. In those cases, I feel government must provide a safety net to take care of these people.

However, when it comes to others who are physically able to take care of themselves, I feel differently. I don't feel it is the business of government, through the tax-payers, to nurse everybody in our country through life. (Admittedly, there is a big gray area when children of irresponsible people are concerned.) Unfortunately, we seem to have lost sight of that in the US.

In my view, the primary role of government is to protect the country (from invasion etc)and protect the citizens from crime. Aside from that, the government must also provide an infrastructure (roads, bridges etc), hospitals and schools, the latter preferable at the local level. Also, the government, through its laws, should ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It does not have the obligation to ensure equal results. In other words, the government should not try to ensure that every citizen has the same education, income and professional status. Unfortunately, individuals are different when it comes to all the factors that go into having a good and successful life. This has nothing to do with race or gender-it is an individual thing. When government engages in social engineering, the results are usually unsuccessful at least and disastrous at worst.

One example is Lyndon Johnson's so-called Great Society, which featured in the wake of the Civil Rights Era, a system of welfare for people on the lower end of the ecomonic scale. A large proportion of those receiving welfare were African-Americans. Yet, welfare, in spite of its good intentions, created an entire generation of people who became dependent on the government. As part of this government-inspired system, there were financial disincentives for 2-parent families. As is usually the case, good intentions led to unintended consequences. Since that time, we have witnessed what I consider to be the greatest disaster to befall black America-the break-up of the black family. Black illigitimacy, about 25% in the worst days of Jim Crow, has reached 70% today (to be fair, white illigitimacy has also risen, albeit not so dramatically). In my view, the lack of stable 2-parent families is the real root cause of all the problems that exist in black communities-drugs, gangs, crime, violence, lack of respect for women and what have you. Yet, we continue to delude ourselves that is all due to on-going white racism.

Another issue is when the government tries to create a solution (ie, a program) to fix every perceived problem. Not only is the government stepping beyond its true role, but it necessarily must increase its size, wealth and power in order to do so. New agencies must be formed, more laws and regulations passed, more government employees must be hired, additional bureaucracy created, and more money must be collected in the form of taxes. The result is that more and more wealth must be taken from tax-payers and more power is given to the government.

Sound familiar? Sure it does because it is happening right here in the US, especially in places like California and Massachusetts. In fact, this is the prime point of difference in the philosophies of liberals and conservatives. Liberals perceive a problem, and immediately, they want a solution. Who is best equipped to bring the solution? Government of course. So it is fair to say that liberals favor a bigger and stronger government. I have already outlined the costs of such a government above.

A prime example of a government that set out to make everyone the same was the former Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution sprang from a reaction to centuries of autocratic Czarist rule that featured many social-economic inequalities. Under Lenin, the non-Russian nationalities and Jews were given more equality. This eventually dissolved under Stalin, who favored Russification-even though he himself was a Georgian. At any rate, what resulted was a huge centralized, totalitarian state that provided little incentive for anyone to try to get ahead through their own talent and initiative. As for political and civil liberties, we all know what that was like.

Yet today, even though the Soviet system has been discredited, there are those here in the US that want to move us in that direction, at least as far as Western European-style socialism.

As someone who actually worked for the US Government for 25 years, I am of the firm opinion that government is, by its very nature, inefficient. Actually, as a DEA agent, I would maintain that federal law enforcement, at least at the working agent level, is one of the more efficient government entities. However, DEA's efficiency ended when it came to HQs in Washington. Then it became just another bureaucracy. Most other federal agents I knew said the same about their own agencies. By the way, I would still defend the need for federal law enforcement agencies due to the trans-national nature of criminal organizations that routinely cross state or international boundaries. It is essential to have an agency that can coordinate with their own offices-and have working relationships with international police agencies as well.

Notwithstanding the above exception, if government, by its very nature is inefficient, why, in a free market democracy, should we entrust it with more and more responsibility and power? For example, why should we centralize education in Washington? Why should we turn over health care to a Washington bureaucracy?

Let me expound on that a bit. As for education. At the public level, it is a mess, especially in our large cities. Not all of that is the fault of the schools since so many pupils are bringing a lot of issues with them to school. But how can it be solved-or how has it been solved by this thing we call the Department of Education? Yet, we keep hearing about the need to pour more and more money into a failed system. Do I have the answer for the failure of public schools in our major cites? No, but I refuse to believe it will be achieved by raising taxes. Places like Washington DC, LA and New York have the highest money expenditure per student in the nation-and they are all gross failures. We will never fix it by raising taxes, property taxes or otherwise, yet, that is exactly what the politicians want to do. It's like when a baseball team keeps paying a huge salary to some guy that hits .220 year after year.

In the area of health care, we have decided that we are in the midst of a health care crisis-even though we have the best health care in the world. It is estimated that we have some 40 million people without insurance. Out of that total, of course, some 12 million are illegal aliens. In addition, there is a large proportion made up of younger workers who decide at their age that they don't need health insurance and would rather have the extra money. So for their benefit, some want to scrap our whole system and turn it all over to the government-who will only screw it up for everyone. But, you say, why can't we have a system like Canada's or the UK's? Everybody is covered there, right? Yet, why do so many Canadians and Brits come to the US when they need serious medical treatment? Primarily, it is because the bureaucracy forces them to wait several months to obtain major surgery (in which time, they may die), or, in the case of Canada, a patient may have to travel across country to a place where a certain kind of surgery can be performed.

No thank you.

To me, the best solution is not to chip away at our free-market system. Like it or not, the profit motive is what makes it successful. Yes, we like to demonize our oil companies, our insurance companies and our pharmaceutical companies for raising prices without considering the cost of oil exploration or the influence of world demand, or the cost of research, development and approval of new drugs. Let's just have the government impose price controls and take over the whole operation-as if that will solve all our problems. It won't. It will just screw it up.

Now let me turn to the latest "crisis", the one that has the red phone ringing in the White House at 3 am: The housing and foreclosure crisis. So now, we want the government and the tax-payer to come to the rescue of people who took out unwise loans and bought homes that were beyond their financial means. In other words, we want to protect people from the consequences of their unwise decisions. What's next? Will we protect gamblers who go to Las Vegas and lose all their money?

Now, I am not arguing that businesses who violate the law or engage in shady practices should be protected. If a lending company engages in deceptive practices, or a company like Enron breaks the law-then certainly there should be laws to deal with that and there are. However, people who borrow money or take out a mortgage need to act responsibly and read the fine print. I have bought three homes in my life time. I never bought a home I couldn't afford, and I always knew what the terms were. Bottom line? It is not the business of the government-using tax-payer money-to protect individuals from their own bad decisions. In this vein, I would also argue against government bailing out failed companies and corporations from their bad business practices-even if jobs are lost from a company's bankruptcy. The Chrysler bailout was a prime example.

Finally, would someone please explain to me why the government has to fund entities like the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting? We are surrounded by art, radio and TV and can choose what we like. Why does the tax-payer have to support the above? Can they not survive on their own-and if they don't, so what? That is the free marketplace.

It is tempting to insert a political argument into all this since the Democratic Party and its two remaining presidential candidates all want to impose more government involvement on the rest of us. Yet, the performance of the Republicans in recent years has been less than stellar. Mainly, they have gone to Washington and become part of the problem as well. They have deserted their roots-and have paid the price at the polls. In fact, very few of us would look at this government we have now and try to argue that it is operating well. Then why should we want to give it more power and responsibility in solving every perceived problem? Maybe, just maybe, we should look to ourselves to solve our own problems.

In spite of our shortcomings, there is no other country on earth that provides its citizens with the opportunity to rise above the circumstances of their birth and become successful through their own hard work, initiative and performance. Everyone is free to succeed-or fail on their own. We should not be demanding that government take us by the hand and lead the way to success, rather we should be demanding that it get out of our way. The more we want our government to be our servants, the more we will discover that they have become our masters.

Larry King Ejected From Son's Little League Game

News item: Larry King ejected from son's Little League game while serving as coach

"Hey Larry, did you forget your suspenders?"

"Why you #%@*@#$ !!

"And furthermore, that can't be your son!"

"Why you #$%@*#!!

"You're outta here!"

"Why you %^#$@#!!"

(With "apologies" to Buck Showalter)

Come to Kalifornia!!!

Our Governor (and he's one of the better ones)


I periodically write about the on-going fiasco that is California suffering under misrule in Sacramento and its two major cities, LA and SF. Since my last posting, things have only gotten worse.

Currently, the state has a 14 billion dollar shortfall, not surprisingly considering the out of control spending that goes on, added to all the services for illegal aliens. As Tom McClintock, the only sane politician in the state, has repeatedly pointed out, though inflation has risen during the past decade, revenue to the state has risen at a faster rate. The problem is that spending has outpaced both inflation and revenue. Therefore, we have a budget deficit of some 14 billion. Nevertheless, our state government always has the same solution: raise taxes, which is exactly what they want to do now. Thus, they now seek to overturn Proposition 13, which saved many people from losing their homes through rising property taxes, and they also want to revisit the car tax. LA County even wants to access a 3% "Global Warming Tax" on gasoline.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the erstwhile Republican governor, who originally tried to fight the left-wing Democrats and lost, has now given up and merely swims with the tide. The only positive development was a few months back when voters rejected a ballot measure cleverly labeled as a term limits measure that was really designed to allow corrupt politicians like Don Perata and Fabian Nunez to hold onto office. Now they will have to leave public office after this year. No worries. They will just land in some high-paying consulting job-or even better be appointed to some commission that only has to meet once a month but gets paid big bucks.

In Los Angeles, Mayor Tony Villar (the real name of Antonio Villaraigosa)continues his mismanagement of Los Angeles. The city is swamped with illegal aliens, which is just fine with Villaraigosa and his lackey police chief, William Bratton. The schools are collapsing, and less than 50% of the students are graduating from high school. Now Villaraigosa is trying to squeeze more tax money from Angelenos to make up for LA's own budget shortfall.

But it gets better; It has now been revealed that for the past several years, the Department of Water and Power (DWP)has been blessed with millions of dollars of surplus that they have contributed to the city's general fund. This year, the contribution was 175 million dollars. Yet, the LA City Council has just approved a rate hike for water and electricity that will amount to 270 million dollars to DWP coffers. This leads one to ask why DWP didn't just hold on to the surplus instead of giving it to the city's general fund-or why government agencies have these surpluses surpluses to begin with.

DWP is apparently quite a well-off enterprise in LA. In addition to generous salaries and benefits, DWP even offers free lactation classes to its employess and dependents.

Let me repeat that: DWP offers free lactation classes to its employees and dependents-courtesy naturally of the local taxpayers. Yet they need a rate hike.

Then there is the Great City of San Francisco under Mayor Gavin Newsome and countless other quacks. This is the same city that attracted hoards of homeless people with the offer of $400 a month. Just show up in San Francisco, register with the city, and collect your $400 a month-courtesy of the good taxpayers of the city.

Of course, San Francisco is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. Now it is publicly proclaiming this fact in a series of multi-lingual ads designed to attract more illegal aliens. The ad campaign itself is costing about $80,000 of the tax-payers' money. So illegal aliens are welcome, but the US military, its recruiters and retired battleships are not.

If you are wondering about the hard-working, tax-paying people in California who are being asked to pay for all this, here is the answer. Many are leaving. Those who are fed up with the high taxes and the business owners who are fed up with the regulations and taxes are leaving to friendlier places like Nevada and Arizona. They are taking their wealth and their jobs with them. As the ratio of taxpayers declines in relation to the tax-beneficiaries, those left behind will face higher and higher taxes. How long before we reach the point where those who depend on government largesse outnumber those who have to pay? When that happens, ballot measures that are required to raise certain taxes will start to pass based on pure self-interest.

Those of you in the other 49 states who think bigger government is the answer to our problems should examine the case of California.

Al Gore's New Cabinet Position

News item:

Barack Obama reportedly wants to give Al Gore a cabinet position.

That Darn Phone is Ringing Again

"It's 3 am in the White House. The phone is ringing. Somewhere in America a house is being foreclosed on."

"Who ya gonna call?"

"I am Hillary Clinton, and I approved this ad."

I wonder who is going to call President Hillary Clinton at 3:15-someone who has a toothache?

It's more than just a primary she is losing.

Chris Matthews and Barack Obama Play Softball

"See if you can hit this one, Obama"


Tonight's broadcast of Chris Matthews' "Hardball" interview with Barack Obama at West Chester University in Pennsylvania has to be considered an embarrassmewnt for the MSNBC commentator. Matthews, who is fully capable of throwing hard questions at interviewees and following up when they dodge the questions, basically threw up softball after softball at Obama, who proceeded to knowk them all out of the park even though his face clearly showed fatigue from the long campaign.

In addition, the setting was clearly home field advantage for the senator from Illinois. Matthews asked the college crowd how many were for Obama and how many were for Hillary. You might as well have asked a crowd at Green Bay's Lambeau Field how many were for the Packers and how many were for the Bears. Interestingly, Matthews completely forgot to ask the crowd how many were for McCain.

At any rate, Matthews proceeded to ask Obama a series of easy questions that he has answered a thousand times, which the senator easily handled to cheers from the ga-ga-eyed college crowd. The only time Chris tried to pin Obama down, which was on the Pastor Wright issue, he missed a golden opportunity to make Obama explain why he originally denied being present during the notorious comments made by the pastor-then admitted during his "Landmark Speech" in Philadelphia that he was, indeed present when some of the remarks were made. Rather than relentlessy follow up when Obama went back to his original stance that he was not present, Matthews let the senator do a quick shuffle then changed the subject with this memorable "hardball" question:

"When did you smoke your last cigarette?"

So on it went; more softballs and more tape measure homers by Obama until, mercifully, it was over.

In the light of Matthews' past statements about his adoration of Obama, this interview should not be surprising. Yet, it leaves the inescapable impression that either Chris Matthews has a sore arm-or he should change the name of his show.

Main stream news bias? Why of course not.

The "Drug Wars" (14)-Bangkok, Thailand ca. 1977

E-Harmony Bangkok Style

"We'll just land real quick at the Consulate, pick up your visa, and head for home, sweet home"


In the late 1970s when I was stationed with DEA in Thailand, it was very common for Westerners to come to Bangkok, purchase heroin and try to smuggle it back to their respective countries. If we received information on these people while they were in Thailand, we would work with the Thai police to try and intercept the drugs.

On one occasion, we were alerted by the Thai police that there was a group of Americans in town staying at a particular hotel who had aroused suspicion. The group consisted of one American male and 4 or 5 American females, who the police suspected fit the profile of drug couriers. In addition, the police reported that Thai-Chinese men were coming to visit them at the hotel.

Subsequently, the cops put a bug in the man's room. What they determined was that there was no drug smuggling operation in progress, rather a marriage scam. In other words, the females had been brought to Bangkok to marry the Chinese men so they (the men)could obtain visas to enter the US. Under our laws, this is called marriage fraud-a violation of US immigration laws.

Accordingly, we called the Visa Section of US Consulate and alerted them to the operation along with the names of the suspect women who were identified as various strippers and/or prostitutes. Also notified was US Immigration and Naturalization authorities in the US.

As the operation drew to a conclusion, the Chinese men came to the hotel room and met with the girls. A heated argument ensued as to who would marry whom. Once this was settled (by the frustrated American male, who simply paired them off), each prospective bridegroom paid $10,000 to the American. At that point, they all went off to get married while the American guy hopped on the next plane home.

The next day, a couple of us took seats in the US Consulate waiting room and watched the visa application process unfold. Believe it or not all 4 or 5 couples came together to the Consulate. One of the girls was a tall black lady wearing a mini-skirt. She towered over her new husband. The other gals were similarly attired. One by one, they went in to fill out the paperwork and be interviewed by the Consular officer (who had already been briefed.) As they left, I recall the one Chinese guy putting his arm around the black woman to make the "proper appearance", for which he had to stand on his tippy-toes.

Once the application process was completed, the girls traveled back to the US, while the Chinese guys awaited their visas. Once the girls arrived in the US, they were promptly arrested by Immigration authorities as was the American guy.

And the Chinese guys who each paid $10,000 for the right to marry the American girls? They were denied their visas, of course.

Contemplating a Long Career

It is the year 2030. Bill O'Reilly, now retired, sits in his trophy room with all his Keith Olbermann "Worst Person in the World" awards.

Half a Kudo to the Pittsburgh Steelers

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a rabid Pittsburgh Steeler fan ever since 1955, when I was 10 years old. Up until today, I had decided to write a very favorable post on the team. With a little further checking, I have decided to award only half a kudo.

The kudo was based on their recent handling of the controversy regarding one of their players, wideout Cedric Wilson. In January, Wilson's girlfriend was involved in a situation in which, after a fight with the player, she fired a couple of shots and barricaded herself in Wilson's Pittsburgh-area house for several hours.

Then in March, Wilson walked into a Pittsburgh restaurant and punched his erstwhile girlfriend in the face, subsequent to which, he was arrested. Within 24 hours, the Steelers announced that they had released Wilson.

Good for them.

Unfortunately, recently, another Steeler, linebacker James Harrison, was also arrested for assaulting his girlfriend-an incident that I had been unaware of until today. Unlike Wilson, Harrison had blossomed as a player this past year, making the Pro Bowl. Wilson has been a journeyman receiver during his career with no notable achievements. This has raised the question of whether performance has been a factor in the treatment of these two players. So for that, only half a kudo to the Steelers.

Though no sports franchise can avoid the embarrassment of having some of their players getting into trouble, the Steelers' record has up till now, been pretty good in dealing with these issues. Indeed, the Steelers have traditionally been an integral part of the Pittsburgh community, a family-owned franchise that has suffered very few black marks.

The most notable example of a Steeler getting into trouble was during the 1970s, when Ernie Holmes, a member of the Steel Curtain defensive line, suffering from mental problems, starting shooting at cars on a turnpike. He was subsequently sent to a mental hospital.

Another embarrassment for the franchise was when Hall of Fame center, Mike Webster died. Webster, who was retired and suffering from mental illness, spent much of his last years homeless in Pittsburgh. Many asked why the Steelers did not do more to help Webster (who apparently never asked for help).

Yet overall, the Steelers franchise has had a better record than most other teams in the NFL (often referred to as the National Felon League). When star linebacker Ray Lewis was charged with murder, the only thing the Baltimore Ravens cared about was getting him back on the field. Though charges were dropped in a deal for Lewis' testimony, the cloud still hangs over his head.

Similarly, when Kobe Bryant was charged with rape a few years back, the only issue in LA seemed to be whether the Lakers would lose their franchise player. The charges went away when the girl refused to testify, but the cloud still hangs over Bryant's head. People will always wonder whether he is a rapist.

The Wilson case in Pittsburgh brings up a point that I think is often overlooked in sports, both collegiate and professional. When a university recruits a player or when a professional team signs a player, they are, in effect, importing that person into their community. If said player behaves poorly or commits a crime in that community, don't the schools or pro teams have a responsibility to their community for the actions of the players? I think they do.

That is why I applaud the Steelers for their response in releasing Wilson. It was their duty to the city of Pittsburgh. Unfortunately, it does appear that the quality of the player involved will always be a factor.

Hillary in Philadelphia- "I am Rocky!"

That don't look like Rocky to me

News item:

Hillary Clinton told a Philadelphia crowd of curious onlookers today, "I am like Rocky! I know how to finish a fight!"

Rocky?!!?

LA Police Chief Bratton Discovers Racial Motive Behind Gang Killings

LAPD Chief William Bratton
"Hey, I got it!"


Today comes the announcement by LAPD Chief, William Bratton that he sees a likely race motive behind all the gang killings in Los Angeles (which generally involve Latino gangs vs black gangs.) This is in the wake of a recent killing of a young black who was apparently mistaken for a gang member by Latino gang members.

Bratton stated to the press that he suspected race as a motive, but "couldn't prove it". He added that he would "like to prove it". You know, I suspect that 2+2=4, but I can't prove it-though I sure would like to.

Apparently, the scales have fallen from the eyes of the politically-minded chief, who has teamed with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to throw his own officers under the bus when they lay their hands on rock-throwing illegal aliens. In the past, Bratton told folks who object to the city providing protection and services to illegal aliens that, if they didn't like it, they could leave.

I have a couple of questions for Chief Bratton:

How many gang-related shootings involving the murder of blacks by Latinos or murder of Latinos by blacks did it take for you to realize their might be a racial component here-in effect "hate crime"?

How many similar violent attacks in California prisons did it take for you to see a nexus?

Up until now, Chief Bratton and the politically correct crowd at City Hall have been deluding themselves that hate crimes were the province of whites committing violence against minorities. Really? Is there a street gang up there in LA called the "Fighting Whiteys"? Or how about those "Rainbow Coalition" gangs that exist nowhere but in Hollywood?

Seriously though, I have a number of reservations about hate crime statutes, especially since I think we should punish the act and leave the motive as an element of proof. I also think that these crimes are being applied unfairly-specifically in that the perpetrator must be white and the victim a minority. The fact is that race-based attacks can be committed across all racial lines. They are all equally wrong.

The point is that it serves no one and no particular racial community to color the facts. We have a serious criminal problem in this country, and it needs to be addressed openly and honestly.

Ironically, one of the textbook examples of how to handle a true racially-motivated murder was the James Byrd case in Jasper, Texas. (Three white men brutally murdered a black man for no sensible reason-just because they wanted to kill a black man.) In that case, the killers were quickly arrested, prosecuted and two were condemned to death. The third got life only because he testified against the other two.

And that was without the presence of a hate crime statute in Texas.

Meanwhile the community of Jasper quickly came together to condemn the crime and denounce hatred. When Jesse Jackson came to town to "start the healing process"- his term for stoking the fires, black leaders told him he was not needed. Unfortunately,
activists subsequently got to members of Byrd's family, using them to make anti-Bush commercials based on his lack of support for hate crime legislation in Texas.

But I digress. The gang situation in Los Angeles is critical and must be dealt with. Chief Bratton's statement comes belatedly, but might represent a first step. I suspect, however, that he might just be floating a cautious trial balloon.

Obama-Wright- Farrakhan-Khadafi- abu Marzook- Guilt by Association?

"Hey, I don't know the guy man. We just happened to cross paths in the paddy wagon."


One of the biggest arguments I have heard Barack Obama's defenders make in regards to the Jeremiah Wright controversy is that Obama should not have to suffer "Guilt by Association". In other words, Wright's fiery sermons should not be applied to Obama. That point is well taken, but it gives rise to the question-is guilt by association ever justified? I would say sometimes it is.

For example, if you belong to the Hell's Angels, I am going to make a pretty negative judgement about you. Even if you don't belong to the Hell's Angels, but you frequent their favorite bar, I will still make that same judgement. Same if you belong to the KKK, frequent their bars or merely hang out with them. Guilt by association? You bet'cha.

So should Barack Obama be viewed with suspicion if he has attended the same church for 20 years with a pastor (and mentor) who says such negative things about his country, Jews and white people? Obama says he does not share those views. That's all well and good. What about Wright's association with Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan (with whom he traveled to Libya in 1984 to meet Moamar Khadafi). Guilt by association there? Perhaps you might argue that is too many steps removed.

Now let's bring it back a step closer to home for Obama. On July 22, 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter (Pastor's Page) printed a piece by Mousa Abu Marzook. Who is this gentleman you ask? This character is a high-ranking member of the terrorist group, Hamas, which is engaging in the murder of Israeli civilians in the name of "reclaiming Palestine". Mr Marzook, who has also been linked to the notorious Holyland Foundation (a Hamas front group), currently lives in Syria, and is described by some as the "brains behind Hamas". In this piece, which appeared in the Pastor's Page, Marzook justifies the acts of terror (suicide bombings, blowing up buses and pizza parlors, etc)as legal resistance against an occupation.

What in tarnation is this pastor and this church doing in printing an article by a terrorist justifying the murder of innocent men, women and children?

However, as always, Obama never happened to read this particular newsletter. In fact, he has now added the disclaimer that not only did he not hear certain sermons, but didn't read every newsletter. How convenient.

How many more revelations can come out about this pastor and his church that Obama was not aware of? At a certain point, it is going to sound like a member of the KKK saying that he never heard the epithets. "Hey, I thought it was just a sports club. I never knew."

Now comes the revelation that Pastor Wright is moving into a 10,000 sq ft home in a rich, lily-white suburb. That's fine with me, but maybe some of his less well-off parishioners will feel betrayed by their pastor going off to live with those "rich white people" he used to excoriate.

Guilt by association, perhaps?