This is from the Patriot’s Corner. I am only going to embed the first 3 videos. For the other 3 videos do go to the site.
A Kentucky man has sparked a public outcry after he put up a statue of President Barack Obama eating watermelon. His critics say the display is blatantly racist.
When asked why he chose to depict Obama, the nation’s first black president, eating watermelon, Danny Hafley said he “might get hungry standing out here.”
Hafley told LEX18 in Lexington said he is merely exercising his right to free speech and the statue is protected under the First Amendment.
“The way I look at it, it’s freedom of speech,” he said. “I don’t know how other people will take it.”
Hafley reportedly bought the Obama mask on the statue after Halloween and erected the display around the time of the November election.
“The mannequin, dressed in a grey suit, clip-on tie and blue-collared shirt, was originally standing in Hafley’s yard but the homeowner decided it would look better near the road,” LEX18 reports.
“That’s my buddy…He don’t talk. Don’t make no smart comments. If I had a dollar for everyone who stopped and took a picture of it I’d be a millionaire,” Hafley added.
One neighbor said the Obama figure initially had a sign asking people to pray Obama won’t destroy the United States.
Several other neighbors reportedly felt there was nothing wrong with the display and said Hafley had the right to leave it up.
You can read more about this here. ~
Now I did not hear this, I did not get a card in the mail from the man, and still it happened. Sorry jews, he is not still liking you at all as this is just for us christians.
Flouting the political correctness of many Western leaders this Christmas season, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had a message for Christians: “Merry Christmas.”
The Iranian FARS News Agency reported that on Dec. 25 Ahmadinejad “wished Christians around the world a Merry Christmas.”
According to FARS, the Iranian leader “referred to Jesus Christ (Peace be Upon Him) as the messenger of justice, peace and kindness.”
Ahmadinejad further “wished happiness, health and success for all Christians around the globe, and expressed the hope that the whole world would witness administration of justice through solidarity of all divine religions,” according to the semi-official news agency.
The entertainment director on the ship of fools that constitutes so much mainstream analysis of the Middle East—I refer, of course, to Thomas Friedman—has produced a wonderful paragraph that beautifully characterizes the problem, exquisitely expressing a Western mentality that not only makes it impossible to understand the Middle East but even to set up the question in a way people that could help people even begin to confront the truth. So perhaps it is worth disassembling. Sound like fun? Let’s go!
The paragraph is from an article entitled, “Egypt – The next India or the next Pakistan?” And that’s the first problem. Analogies are no substitute to understanding the specific reality of a country and culture, its history and balance of forces that shape the local political culture. You don’t understand Egypt by comparing it to India or Pakistan—very different places indeed—but by examining Egypt itself.
Let me first quote the entire paragraph and then deal with it a bit at a time. Here’s the whole thing:
“Yes, democracy matters. But the ruling Muslim Brotherhood needs to understand that democracy is so much more than just winning an election. It is nurturing a culture of inclusion, and of peaceful dialogue, where respect for leaders is earned by surprising opponents with compromises rather than dictates….More than anything, Egypt now needs to develop that kind of culture of dialogue, of peaceful and respectful arguing — it was totally suppressed under Mubarak — rather than rock-throwing, boycotting, conspiracy-mongering and waiting for America to denounce one side or the other, which has characterized too much of the postrevolutionary political scene. Elections without that culture are like a computer without software. It just doesn’t work.”
I will now go a sentence at a time.
“Yes, democracy matters.” It is strangely ironic that suddenly democracy has become the main issue shaping the American debate over the Middle East. When President Jimmy Carter in 1978 called for democracy in the shah’s Iran that call might have played some role in setting off a revolution that didn’t turn out too well. After a hiatus—due in part to that debacle—the democracy issue returned under President George W. Bush. The people who pushed that idea became known as “neoconservatives” and were absolutely loathed, even demonized, by liberals and the left.