« Partying Like It's 2004 | Main | Updates »

June 12, 2008



from GRINGOBABA (courtesy, Gringo Advisory Board)

Greetings Dear Moniqa:

As but the humble GringoBaba, new to the gringoman GAB, I can give you one believer's belief on Mr. Obama.

Moniqa, my feelings are mixed. Of course this Obama excites the Ummah. (I would even include Fidel Castro, an honorary muslim despite his Communist atheist credentials,)

Moammar Gadaffy, Lion of Libya, must call Obama "brother." And so will all the billion-strong Ummah.

But here you see problem, two-fold.

Is Obama apostate? Moniqa, you are not a liberal, or one of these media half-men. You know a muslim cannot convert to Christianity.

Was Obama born muslim? Raised muslim? Who knows? Not I.

However, his father, like most Kenyans, was muslim. Yes, the Democratics will say his father was atheist. And what of it? That would make his father apostate too. They cannot escape the link. You see? Read Koran. Read hadiths. Talk to Imam.

This, Moniqa, brings us to his wonderful Islamic name. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.

Why does he shy away from this name now? He and his comrades seek to capture the infidel White House, but at what price? He never change his name in your legal system. Why will he not proudly--yes, proudly--use it now? Taquiya? I don't think so.

Hussein is great name for us. Forget Saddam. Hussein was grandson of The Prophet (pbuh). You know that, my dear Moniqa? Grandson! Of MOhammed (pbuh) himself!

Yes, we know that Obama fears that infidels do not like his name 'Hussein'.

And what of it? When did the proud ever permit infidels to run him off his name, the legacy of his ancestors? The legacy of great warriors who once conquered everything in sight, from Mecca to Andaluz!

I say to this BHO, be proud. Try it, man. Be proud. Should the infidels mock you, stay proud. What is high office if you sacrifice your very soul? Run away from your own forebears?

Be a man. Be Barack Hussein Obama, and let the winds blow where they will blow, from the sand dunes to the mountains to Washington.

---from your humble and faithful GringoBaba

Account Deleted

(continued from previous post ...)

Fred: You are an intelligent man and I receive your kind words as a compliment. I wish I could discuss economic policy with you, of which tax policy is a part. The essence is this: Conservatives believe in limited government … the more limited the better. Conservatives believe in maximizing freedom. Putting these together, economic/tax policy should allow the maximum freedom and the minimum government.

I respect liberals’ sensibilities to taking care of those who cannot care for themselves (but only such people), and assure you that Conservative economic policy does precisely that, better than the big government programs favored by liberals. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to discuss this in future sessions.

With respect to abortion, I welcome our agreement on the matter of an unwanted pregnancy. And may I suggest the following: the pregnancy may be unwanted, but I have not met a mother yet who regretted having a child, no matter how the child was conceived.

Gringoman: An orator does not necessarily make a good leader, but an orator with principle does. Wilson made his statement as a justification to engage in WWI after having tried futilely to keep America out of that war. It was not a statement of global principle. (By the way, he did not regard the US Constitution in high regard.) And if Kennedy meant what he said, why did he not invade the Soviet Union after they summarily deracinated the freedom of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain? Following his empty rhetoric (see why Obama likens himself to Kennedy?), and that of the extemporaneous "Bush doctrine", should we now try to overthrow the Chinese government because of their apparent rejection of democracy?

It took an orator with principle to know how to use American power against petty dictators (Qaddafi) on a limited basis with maximum result and how to use it against a world power without firing a single shot: Reagan who ultimately brought down the wall that Kennedy allowed.

But I think you are too clever for me or anyone to take you literally and I sense a set up here to elicit this kind of direct response that would expose the folly of our “exceptional” Republican President … non?!



What has become the Reagan mantra of "less govment", was a necessary thing in the inflationary period in which he became president. Now, however, I feel the climate is much changed. Recall, it was Theodore Roosevelt, a quintessential conservative, that called for more government, to take control back from a financial community that had run amuck in his time. Government had become just so much dirty business being carried out for the robber barons of that era. Big government is necessary to regulate big business.

I do not believe there are many people left who think there is still over-regulation in everything. With a loss in meaningful regulation, the ensuing chaos is beginning to tear the nation apart. A nation is like an orchestra - without a conductor, the music falls apart. The nation is a complex entity that requires intelligence for cohesion and coordination. We cannot go back to an agrarian life, or live as cowboys, and so conservatism does lie there anymore. Today, this is corruption.

Just my two cents.


It took an orator with principle to know how to use American power against petty dictators (Qaddafi)

Why not use the Friedman principle of free action. Then Qaddafi should be left to do whatever petty dictators do, until other forces recognize his pettiness and he, by natural courses will self-destruct?



You're way ahead of me. i.e. I don't know what "set-up" you suspected I was setting up.

You might take this from it, though: George Bush's Iraq problem might be due to fact that he acted much more like a Democrat (especially JFK and LBJ) than like a Republican. Even in the "good war" of FDR, were not the Republicans, far more than the Democrats, against getting involved? In fact it took nothing less than Pearl Harbor to break down their resistance.

But Michael, I must ask you to note that my citing a quotation from JFK is not the same as advocating it. The only exception would be if the cite-er (like me) made clear that he approves, and I don't think I have. Have I? {even though the rhetoric is pretty heady.)

But perhaps you detected something akin to what reporter Bernard Goldberg found at CBS during his 20 years at that shop: "Bias"? (NY Times Best-Seller)

Account Deleted


Interesting points. Taken in reverse order, the principle of free human action presupposes a system in which people act with honesty and imposes regulation when they don't; i.e., democratic capitalism cannot survive in anarchy ... it is built on the foundation of contractual and civil law. Free action with a terrorist will simply not work, absent a strong national defense to force his compliance with whatever deal the Bush administration made with Qaddafi (which should be counted as a Bush success).

The power to which I refer, following Monica, was applied while Qaddafi was a terrorist and when it was clear he was responsible for the Pam Am flight downed over Scotland and the bombing of a Berlin disco frequented by American servicemen. Reagan's strategic and surgical strike did the job, without entangling the US in a protracted conflict in the name of "the advancement of democracy" (a la Bush).

What has become of the Reagan mantra of less government? It was violated by latter-day Republicans who neither understood the history of the Conservative movement nor the origin of Reagan’s belief in such a doctrine: it issues from Goldwater's “The Conscience of a Conservative” in which Goldwater writes, “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. … I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.”

Conservatives believe that my equal whom I elect to power has no better training to be the regulator of my affairs than I. I hope you underestimate the number of people who believe there is overregulation in everything, because among those I count myself!

I like your analogy of the conductor, yet please consider this: the American experience is more like jazz or blues rather than classical music with a set score: no conductor needed, only free expression and improvisation!


Account Deleted


I would concede your point and agree that Bush acted more like a Democrat than a Republican, but I hesitate to insult the Democrats! Lost in all this -- the real tragedy -- is our failure to defeat Al Qaeda. Why is it, I ask you, Monica, or anyone else on this blog, have Conservatives not insisted that this objective be attained? And should we not demand this of McCain or Obama or any future member of Congress?

Fair point on the Kennedy speech ... please accept my presumption of a "set up" as nothing less than respect for your ability in analyzing events with chess-like strategic skill and for your creative writing!




You ask why Conservatives haven't insisted on defeating Al Quaeda.

I think you must know better than I, a late-comer to the Conservative Perspective (which does not mean that I fit easily, even now, under any label.)

But two or three points come to mind:

1. How has "Compassionate Conservative" George Bush been any more of a failure with Al Quaeda than the Democrats were with the Communists in Vietnam?

2, If numerous reports are at all credible, the defeatnik Democrats have a real problem with Iraq now. That's partly because the Al Quaeda savages, finally, have been savaged themselves.

3. I don't know if you mean AQ generically or as a brand. As a brand, many reports indicate it's being beaten. Unfortunately, even its total extermination would not end at all the Global War. Other reports indicate that Hezbollah, for example, is not only far more powerful than the battered AQ, but will even "act" in the US in case the US "acts" against Tehran's fast developing "nuclear program." They know that declaring that Israel will soon cease to exist is fine. Calling Israel a "rotten corpse" that will be dumped into the sea is fine. The media midgets will just react with "Bush Lied/People Died."

(Of course Barry H. Obama, with a "feel" for muslims, has vowed to talk to them.)

ps. From reports I've seen, bin-Laden still breathes because Washington bumbled once under BUsh, and three separate times under Clinton.

Escaping Politically Correct


Dan Rather asked Bush a question, and then he was out. Tim asked Hillary a question, and now he is gone.


God Bless Tim Russert and Family. Video of Tim Russert and Imus playing around.



Yes, Tim Russert dropped dead suddenly of a heart attack on Friday the 13th, at the peak of his game and fame. But the more pathetic ending, by far, would be that of Dan Rather, who is still alive, technically.

Monica noticed him in the train station not long ago, on the Washington run. The former Media Icon, who I know something about from a brief correspondence relating to CBS and the Fall of Saigon, was all alone, now unemployable except on some billionaire's vanity station that few watch and even fewer have heard of.

From Monica's description, I thought, "Pathos in a Trenchcoat."

His ending is very different from Tim Russert's.


Mr. Avari :

I believe we have discussed this subject of the orchestra before. A jazz emsemble is a smaller deal, and recall the US is big in the world at large, more like an orchestra. Also, even a jazz group requires coordination, keeping a beat, one player responding to another, etc. All I was trying to say is that centralized control and coordination allows greater overall complexity. But you are correct, in that within this architecture, greater responsivity can be found in smaller, more agile teams.

At IBM, the machine architecture and systems are part of a larger contextural framework, and sales and implementation teams find way to put this to use in various ways.

You would be hard pressed to create your own jazzy computer, your own operating system, and find applications, all yourself, right? The same is true for coordination across companies within a country. ARPANET is a good example of such a framework.


Michael says: " And may I suggest the following: the pregnancy may be unwanted, but I have not met a mother yet who regretted having a child, no matter how the child was conceived."

I'm afraid your experience may be too limited to be the basis for policy. The pro-life agenda, when put into practice, is a failure (i.e., in the Bible Belt). I'm sure if you looked around, you'd find women who have no regrets about having abortions, and you'd find women who take their regrets about having children out on those children.


Someone please tell those Feminazis, that it was not Tim's fault, but Eliot Spitzer's fault.


Gringoman -- Are you expressing regret that Dan Rather is alive?????


I can't possibly imagine the pain Tim Russert's son, wife, father, family and friends are feeling today. I've been thinking about his family all day.


Whether or not she reads this blog, I wish to express my deepest Thank Yous to Monica who is filling in for Laura Ingraham tonight for bringing up the despicable Supreme Court verdict re. allowing the Gitmo terrorists to lawyer up and get access to the US court system.

These are TERRORISTS, not shoplifters!!

The Supreme Court has been stacked full of Freds.

Unfortunately the people who pay the price for the actions of these liberal fools always end up being someone else.

If ONLY the liberals would have to suffer the consequences of their largesse toward terrorists and other assorted criminals for themselves!!!

As for Dan Rather.. he is despicable..



Monica reads your blogs and I get the impression she likes some of the points you make. Sorry, I didn't hear the show yesterday. Yesterday, was one of the extremely rare occasions where I tuned into Brokaw and NBC.

I heard a military person call into someone's show saying that the Supreme Court decision would disrupt the "war on terror" because soldiers now have less incentive to capture the enemy alive and they will be more likely to turn those captured over to the local authorities. This means we will be less likely to retrieve valuable information such as intel about future attacks or the whereabouts of top terrorist leaders. I don't know if this is true or not, but the argument does make sense.

Account Deleted


You make valid points. I meant Al Qaeda the organization, not AQ generically. AQ attacked the city and the country I love. Nothing less than their complete annihilation will establish justice or send the right message to other would be attackers, e.g., Hezbollah. For this failure Conservatives ought to hold Bush responsible, as otherwise their diatribes against Obama are susceptible to being viewed vacuous, perhaps even hypocritical.

I didn’t know you were new to the Conservative perspective … welcome! Please don’t be taken (positively or negatively) by the term “Compassionate Conservative”. No adjective is necessary to make Conservatism compassionate, and Bush did the movement no favor by suggesting with the use of this ambiguous term that Conservatism is ever anything less than compassionate.


The analogies clearly breakdown, especially when you start speaking about machines, networks, and the like. The economy is much more complex than anything DARPA can devise, and who would you suggest be its “conductor” anyway? Each April 15, do you feel satisfied that the money you send to Washington is being used to conduct the economy to your satisfaction? With what government program, aside from national defense and the space program—endeavors best suited to government management, could anyone claim, “That was money well spent.” … energy? farm policy? education? social security? poverty? Would you entrust the government to run medical care? Would you trust Hillary to do it?

But, if you favor analogies, here is one: socialism is like American football – a command system in which individuals have one job assigned them by the coach and only the common good is paramount. Soccer is like the free economy – decisions made by each player on the fly, collaborations set up and torn down ad hoc, and only the absolute minimal supervision by the manager. I love both sports, but prefer the soccer model for the economy.


There is no pro-life agenda. There is no policy that issues from being pro-life. Being pro-life is nothing more, nothing less than respecting life from conception to natural death. I nevertheless grant you that those who create violence in the name of advancing a pro-life “agenda” are violating the very underlying principle.



Gringoman -- Are you expressing regret that Dan Rather is alive?????

Posted by: FredK2929 | June 13, 2008 at 08:49 PM

Of course not. (I thought your reading skills were better.) What would be the sense, when he himself seems to be carrying that burden? From Monica's description of him in the train station, it looks like Dan, former Godfather of CBS News, is now rehearsing for Arthur Miller's Willie Loman in "Death of a Salesman."


Monica is working so hard (and the shows are so long), I am afraid she has little time to work on her book. Look, Pat Buchanan puts out a book every couple months (I'm not sure but he might actually use an old typewriter).


Monica is doing a great job doing Laura's show, but TV would take up less of her time.


As Monica talks about the Democrat Operative Tim Russert right now.. I turned over the hear what the enemy has to say..

That infamous mangler of the English tongue Tavis Smiley is bellyaching about "the state of black America".. no mention of Tim Russert of course.. he be a whitey.. not worth mentioning him..

Tavis for all his bellyaching doesn't even realize he is getting hours of taxpayer-funded commercial-free airtime
AND he is getting PAID for it!!

What a pompous ASShat!!!

They're complaining that the Big O isn't "black enough".. and on and on.. I have to switch back to Monica.. can't take this..


Thank You Monica for reporting from Gitmo and talking about terrorism and what their aims are.

The Freds have taken over the asylum.. and they're going to get us all killed because we don't have the guts to treat them as our ENEMIES!!!


I just finished watching the link that Ree posted and I encourage people to look at it because I never knew how funny Tim Russert could be. Sorry, but this is a side I just didn't catch on "Meet the Press".

In these "politically correct" days, it is getting harder and harder to tell a joke. Remember the days when mornings were fun. Monica is at the very end of the clip.



Although there is always political banter, it is always nice to obtain talk relevent to our times from an experienced information leader, and the discussion about the supreme court and GITMO detainees is a case in point. Just when we thought Congress was caput, and our president a little detached and crazy, we get this from the court. It is the worst thing they have ever done. I wonder if it would be possible to implant some sort of homing device into them, so we could take them out with a missile if needed. Thank you Monica for being our beacon of information.



Thanks for the clip. Imus's innovation, or one of his specialties, was to give listeners a better idea of what media types are really like, "off stage," so to speak.

Actually, most of them, "off stage," are funny; in Tim Russert's case, intentionally so. The other kind would hesitate to go on Imus.


UG --

You are an idiot. Now you see me as the biggest threat? Something about my use of my right to free speech??? (Pay attention, Gringobator!!!!)


Gringobator -

The problem is not my reading skills. The problem is your masturbatory writing skills.


Michael --

There is a pro-life agenda, and it is to deny people birth control and impose Christianity on us (or their interpretation Christianity), and somehow people are supposed to just stop having sex before marriage. There is no common sense to it, and it doesn't work. And that's why I just can't vote for pro-life McCain. Sorry.



Ree posted the link first. Don Imus and Tim Russert were friends and I think it shows in this clip. It was fun to listen to the show and hear the serious journalists laughing and joking with Imus.

Fred - I'm not voting for Juan either. I'm voting for a 3rd party candidate.


Bullfred.. U R the idiot.. since you like to throw about a lot of insulting terms.

Es tu que es el socialista. No soy yo, puta barata.


Now on to the real agenda..

"Obama must be regretting that Reagan's airstrikes weren't just a BIT more effective."

Not just Obama.. not just Obama..


UG -- You insult constantly.


And YOU are an IGNORAMUS!! Just like those dunces on the Supreme COUP!!

You liEEEberals ALWAYS care about the enemy FIRST!!!


I'm sure that's how you see it, Ummah. See my post on the more recent thread.

Also . . . maybe you can tell me what exactly you care about, Ummah?

Ironically, I just want to point out that "ignoramus" is not exactly a compliment. You apparently don't like being insulted, but want to dish it out, right?


Exactly. So now I am dishing it out.

Besides, it is factual.

The comments to this entry are closed.