Different Day, Same Shit.

Pictured above is the treacherous Marxist Usurper in Chief, Baraq Hussein Superallah Obama al-Kenya, palling around with his "bestie" and fellow dictator, Supreme Leader Kim Jong "Make-em Say" Un, in an undisclosed location.

- Putin's back, baby! Turns out he was just in bed with the flu. Even authoritarian ex-KGB types get sick every once in a while. He should be glad he didn't come down with a sudden case of polonium poisoning.

- Say "goodnight" to the grand white Christian experiment. White, non-Hispanic Christians are no longer a majority in 19 states. By the 2040s, the white majority in the U.S. will vanish altogether.

- Fresh-faced senator and presumptive shoe-in for the "who's ready to become a GOP presidential candidate 2016" sweepstakes Tom Cotton recently led the effort to undo the White House's efforts to not start any more Middle Eastern conflicts. The Iranian government, POTUS and the rest of America reacted in shock and disdain.

Now let's see what an Army veteran has to say about Tom Cotton:

“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

“I think Senator Cotton recognizes this, and he simply does not care,” Eaton went on to say. “That’s what disappoints me the most.”

Ouch.

- The recent hubbub over Selma has besmirched the delicate sensibilities of the city's most stalwart Confederates, prompting a valiant defense of the grand southern tradition and the peculiar institution it nurtured and supported:

“The people in the south – the white people, who were being abused – organised a neighbourhood watch to try to re-establish some order,” he said of the nascent Klan. Slavery in the south was “a bad institution”, he said, but possibly “the mildest, most humane form of slavery ever practiced”.

“If you look at the wealth created by the slaves, in food, clothing, shelter, medical care, care before you’re old enough to work, care until you died, they got 90% of the wealth that they generated,” he said. “I don’t get that. The damn government takes my money to the tune of 50%.”

You know what the scariest thing about this is? A mainstream conservative pundit like Glenn Beck can clean this up and totally roll with it nearly word-for-word and no one in his listening group would bat an eyelash.

- Because the great state of Alabama largely finds the idea of same-sex marriages to be an absolute affront to the natural order of things, a gay couple's having second thoughts about leaving their substantial estate to the University of Alabama.

And how much were they intending to leave behind? A cool $15 to 18 million.

- Because the GOP largely finds the idea of helping the undeserving poor to be an absolute affront to how the natural order of things should be, it's unveiling a budget that cuts a $100 million chunk out of the SNAP program.

And remember, if you call yourself a "Man of God" and think it's totally OK to ask your congregation for a cool $65 million so you can buy yourself a new private jet, then you probably need to have another pastor sit with you while you re-read the Holy Bible cover to cover.

I'll admit - I've been out of the loop these past few months. A lot of things have happened and there's a lot of ground to cover, but playing catchup, let alone keep up with a fast-paced news cycle that has a life expectancy shorter than Michael Sam's NFL career, takes time and effort. But I'll do my best, which leads me to ISIS.

Or IS. Or Islamic State, as it seems to be called at the moment. According to the mainstream media, it's a terrorist group that's shaped up to be the worst thing that's happened to the world since...well...this happened.* According to Gary Brecher, Pando Daily's (and formerly NSFWCorp's) very own War Nerd, it's just a collection of sullen Sunni Arab combatants who weren't happy about winding up on the losing end of the latest rounds of sectarian warfare. Sorta like the various Confederate revanchists who weren't happy about the dream of the southern planter class going up in smoke.

See that analogy? IS reminds us of a lot of things. The most recent antics of IS reminded Chauncey DeVega of a little thing that most good Americans have worked hard to studiously ignore, which is the lengthy reign of terror suffered by black Americans all throughout the post-Reconstruction and pre-Civil Rights era. Domestic terrorism, even under the guise of white anti-federalism as expressed by the likes of Timothy McVeigh, isn't really called that. That's a title generally reserved for leftist groups and people of Middle Eastern persuasion or non-Christian religious mores.

The people who were responsible for the 4,743 officially counted lynchings that occurred between 1882 and 1968 - good, upstanding Christian Americans one and all - wouldn't have considered themselves "terrorists," nor are they referred as such anywhere other than the occasional comment on a black-oriented blog. Make no mistake - those acts were every bit as much terrorism as the act of hurling two fully-loaded jets into the tallest skyscrapers New York City had to offer. Both acts were designed to instill sheer terror in those watching or even hearing about them.* The main difference is that 9/11 was designed to strike terror into the heart of all Americans. With few exceptions, the average lynching struck terror in the heart of minority groups who weren't fortunate enough to have their rights as citizens and human beings respected.

---

It's that comparison that apparently drew the ire of the War Nerd:

For people like Chauncey’s fans or Moyers’s admirers, nothing that happens outside the US matters at all. Only our sins are important. So a man burned alive in the Syrian desert becomes nothing but an excuse for a sermon on American History X, because only America matters, only America’s sins are real.

Brecher's beef lies with how, along with Bill Moyer, DeVega seemingly discounts Muadh al Kasasbeh’s death in favor of expounding on America's own flaws and ills. It's something that many of the more conservative types accuse liberal minded folks of doing - gleefully pointing out how America's just as bad as the bad guys it fights. It's no wonder this apparent failure to acknowledge this act and its ramifications in the broader geopolitical world in favor of domestic navel-gazing somehow struck a nerve:

Try imagining Chauncey or Bill minimizing an IDF phosphorus bombing in Gaza the way they trivialize this IS pyro video. Phosphorus burns people alive just as horrifically as kerosene, but would Moyers or de Vega trivialize Palestinian kids burnt alive with phosphorus by saying, “Remember the KKK! We’re just as bad!” Never. Because everyone would scream, quite rightly, that they were trivializing the IDF’s atrocity.

But both these fools spend thousands of words trivializing IS snuff movies, because…ah, it’s too stupid to paraphrase, but it goes something like this: “The US is the root of all evil, so IS is only acting out because it’s a victim. We did something bad to it somehow.”

If Brecher thinks DeVega is minimizing terrorist actions overseas by throwing up comparisons to lynching, then he should probably step back and consider this from the perspective of the average black person, a person unencumbered by the sectarian shit-kicking antics of a dying terrorist group in a land beset by sectarian strife and international intervention, but sorely affected by an entire institution seemingly sanctioned to commit a much quicker and more solitary form of lynching.

To the average black person on the street, the doings of IS pale in comparison to what they've directly and collectively experienced at the hands of America's own oft-acknowledged terrorist groups, with plenty of ongoing help from state institutions that continue to instill terror in black Americans to this day.

To say that DeVega gives few damns about what the IDF does to Palestinian children because what the NYPD does to young black Americans by far and large somehow overshadows the former is...well...a damn sight moronic in its own right, as DeVega himself points out. As for the distress over how lefty liberals are loath to go all-in on IS-bashing, Moyer's biggest fear is how it might lead to a renewed occupation effort by U.S. forces - the very thing that many on the left had fought tooth-and-nail against during the salad days of Iraq.

I respect the War Nerd's work, as it offers a no-bullshit perspective of current events (which is why I enjoyed NSFWCorp in the first place) and the occasional no-holds-barred takedown of some of the more egregious assholes who've somehow managed to actually get paid for their fluff work (I see you, Jen Percy). But he's off-base on this one. Even the commentariat over at Pando's calling foul.

* That's right Mack, just crack open the hornet's nest with your bare fist.

Conservatives have a man-crush on this man because he's literally their anti-Obama - a certifiably white and notably conservative leader of a country that's historically taken no shit from others and does its best to operate from a position of strength, whether its real or perceived. And right about now, they're hoping Vlad will do something or say something that makes the president look or sound like a complete chump.

And while ordinary conservatives are smooching and tonguing a poster of shirtless Putin in all his middle-aged pectoral glory, neoconservatives are cultivating semis over the possibility of fulfilling their dream of tangoing mano-a-mano with the ruskies as a part of their wet dream of a "three front war" - with Syria, Iran and Russia as the battlefields for endless military offensives performed either directly by U.S. troops or through a collection of proxy fighters loaded with the finest in U.S. military hardware.

Meanwhile, what Vladimir Putin likely wants more than anything is to make sure the U.S. and other western powers dispense with encircling Russia with a motley crew of U.S. and west-friendly nations. It's something the Russians have been paranoid about for ages.

He also realizes that at this point, the ball is completely in his court - after all, he's the one who figured it was a good idea to emulate America's M.O. of invading and occupying countries on the pretense of insuring a continued "democracy" that best benefits U.S. and western interests. Except he did it to a nation aspiring to westernness (in the form of entry into the European Union) in full view of the rest of the E.U. Right now, the most pressing question likely on Putin's mind is how to maintain a grip on Russian naval interests in Crimea without sparking a messy war with NATO and the U.S.

Given the recent phone call between POTUS and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, it's implied that either Vlad's under as much pressure as POTUS or he's completely lost the plot.

The president began by giving background on the civil war in Syria, and what the US government has done. Interestingly, Obama pointed out how he has resisted the calls for military action. Obama talked about Assad’s use of chemical weapons and called the images, “sickening.” The president said that, “The civilized world has spent over a century trying to ban them.” The president laid out the evidence that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack on August 21.

While making the case for strikes on Syria, Obama pointed out that he has spent four and half years trying to end war. The president directly answered several questions that have dominating the public debate on Syria. He promised that he will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. He said that he would not pursue open-ended strategy like in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that he would not engage in a prolonged bombing campaign like in Kosovo. The president said that the Assad regime does not have the capacity to threaten the US military. The president also said that Assad has no interest in escalation with the United States.

The president answered the question about an air strike strengthening al-Qaeda by arguing that terrorists will benefit more from an unstable Syria. The president walked the line by also speaking strongly about the role of diplomacy in resolving this.

President Obama then announced that he was asking Congress to postpone the Syria vote until the diplomatic track has been exhausted.

This speech was framed by the media as Barack Obama trying to sell the public on war, but what he really was doing was keeping the pressure on Syria while pushing forward on his diplomatic objective. The media questioned whether Obama could walk the line between discussing a military strike and diplomacy. The president did both with relative ease.

The reason why the president was able to make this argument is because he isn’t arguing for war. This isn’t about whether Obama convinced the American people. This is about Obama convincing Assad that his best course is to embrace the diplomatic solution.

The above from Jason Easley pretty much sums up my feelings on the president's speech this past week. Giving Assad a way out through diplomacy while reminding him of the firm backhand that'll await him otherwise was perhaps the best answer. Not a hard and fast head-first charge into the brink, nor a complete backing-out that would leave the president exposed in so many ways.

Personally speaking, drawing a red line on chemical weapons was perhaps the president's first (and perhaps only) tactical mistake regarding the Syrian crisis. All it resulted in was the Assad regime...or possibly rebels hoping to illicit a western intervention...using sarin gas and other deadly chemical weaponry on civilian populations. For his attempts to deliver a firm response against the use of chemical weapons, he was now obligated to respond to said use, preferably via military strike. It's what John McCain and many others would have wanted.

Thus, the president was trapped in between a rock and a hard place - act on Syria unilaterally and spend the rest of his term dealing with the fallout (accusations of warmongering from liberals and unconstitutional from conservatives, possible blowback from pro-Assad forces, potentially opening up yet another front in the War on Terror) or appeal to Congress, as "constitutionally required" and spend the rest of his term dealing with the fallout (accusations of being weak on Assad, getting cockblocked by Congress on yet another issue of importance, Assad and other regional leaders getting emboldened by a supposed lack of action, etc).

It wasn't surprising that the president sought a diplomatic response instead of an immediate attack. That diplomatic response turned out to be effectively strong-arming Vladimir Putin into bringing one of his client states to heel instead of throwing millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles and precision munitions in the general direction of Damascus. It also wasn't surprising that opponents tried taking the shine off of the president's deft diplomatic strokes while at the same time affecting a teenage crush on Putin. More on that later...

Okay, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, which would be punishment for what it says is Assad’s use of chemical weapons against civilians.

It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

The above quoted comes from Max Fisher's recent Washington Post piece, "9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask," a sort of Syrian Civil War for Dummies guide to help the average schlub keep up with current events. This answers question #7: "Why would President Obama just lob a few cruise missiles at Assad and call it a day?"

The answer lies with question #6: "Why hasn't the U.S. shoved its collective foot up Assad's authoritarian ass until he can taste our Freedom™ and Liberty™-flavored shoe soles?" Because, as Fisher explains, all of our other military options would literally make things worse:

• A full-on ground invasion would be Iraq all over again, only this time it's Barack Obama's presidential ass in the sling.
• An air strike? Forget about it. Too much time and political capital needed to maintain a no-fly zone a la Iraq.
• A targeted assassination of Bashir al-Assad would just open up a power vacuum for some other asshole or group of assholes to fill, putting the U.S. and ordinary Syrians right back where they started.
• Giving the Syrian rebels all the weapons they can tote and letting God/Allah sort them out wouldn't work, either. Too many opportunities to accidentally outfit the next Taliban with decent weaponry for dominating future internecine conflicts. Besides, the Saudis gave Syrian rebels some weapons and look at what happened with that.
• Doing nothing is also an option and it's one some on the left would rather Obama take. But doing nothing puts a bigger dent in his credibility in foreign matters than doing something.

So the only option left on the table is to smack Assad on the wrist with a cruise missile-shaped ruler and hope he's shook enough to stay away from chemical weapons for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I'm not so sure that this will be enough. We're talking about a guy whose goons have had no compunction against raping and killing civilians, children included. As far as everyone's concerned, Bashir al-Assad is a Bad Dude, as are is his majority-Alawite armed forces. To send any sort of message to Assad, it'd have to be a rather painful one - and there's always the fear of innocents accidentally sharing that pain.

According to Omar Dahi, the answer involves action that eschews actual military intervention of any form with something that actually helps the Syrian people:

What should be the response to these events? The answer for those who care about the fate of Syrians is the same as it has been to the ongoing violence previously, which is to push for a political settlement and an immediate cessation of violence coupled with humanitarian aid for Syrians.

A US- or NATO-led attack, which appears to be imminent, is likely to be disastrous for Syrians (as well as Lebanese and Palestinians). If the attack is intense enough to completely destroy the Syrian regime it will destroy whatever is left of Syria. If it is not, it will leave the regime in place to retaliate where it is strong, against its internal enemies, except now having its nationalist credentials bolstered as having fought off US aggression. Either way the strike will be devastating to millions inside Syria, not to mention the millions of refugees and internally displaced populations who are living hand to mouth and who depend on daily humanitarian aid that will surely be disrupted or stopped. There is no such thing as a surgical strike, and no possibility in a country as densely populated as Syria for an attack that does not incur civilian casualties. This is excluding the fact that US foreign policy in the Middle East, past and present, including its own complicity in chemical weapons attacks, makes it impossible not to be cynical about the motives behind this attack. Moreover, in the past two years people within the region became convinced that US policy towards Syria is dictated—as before—by what benefits Israel, which had not desired a total regime collapse but was benefitting from a perpetual conflict in its northern border so long as it remained contained.

It's not just Israel that has its eyes on Syria. Russia would very much like to keep its naval port on the Mediterranean while Iran would someday love to have the same. The Saudis seem to be working to cajole Russia into backing away from Assad, but the way it's going about it is likely to make things even worse.

In the short term, there seems to be nothing that can be done. As Fisher explains, the long-term ramifications are just as bleak: the various Syrian factions are likely to continue killing one another for years until fatigue sets in or someone achieves something resembling a victory. Afterwards, a precarious peace among numerous ethnic groups - at least until something somewhere sparks up yet another conflict.

We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

The above quoted is President Barack Obama warning the Syrian government and its president, Bashar Hafez al-Assad, what would happen if it used chemical weapons to fight and neutralize the various rebel factions in its ongoing civil war.

It's also a quote that's been rehashed, reheated and given it's own unique garnish by countless other officials in and around the White House. So much so that the original intent was quickly lost to the winds:

The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.

That's the thing about tough talk in the geopolitical arena - it makes you and your country appear strong and resolute, but it gives you little room to wiggle out of a showdown if and when the time comes, which in turn makes you look like a complete chump.

And damned if someone in Syria didn't go ahead and use those chemical weapons. U.S. intelligence points to the Syrian government as the responsible party. However, recent reports weave a much different narrative, from a Saudi-sourced delivery from intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan intended for Al-Queda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, to numerous rebels who simply didn't know what they had their hands on, leading to their deaths and approximately 1,400 others.

Even more intriguing is Saudi Arabia's role in the anti-Assad column. According to various sources, Prince Bandar went into talks with Russian president Vladimir Putin using a classic carrot-and-stick approach: kick Assad to the curb and we'll give you some sweet, sweet crude and look after your gas contracts. Otherwise, we know plenty of Chechens who'd love to ruin your winter Olympics. Meanwhile, Putin dismissed U.S. claims of chemical attacks as "utter nonsense."

But the big story isn't how Turkey, once a significant backer of Jabhat al-Nusra is now having second thoughts about having its Seal of Approval on a wayward product. Or how Syria is lining up to be yet another stepping stone in the U.S. geopolitical game of hopscotch towards its true target, Iran. Or even the possibility of anti-Assad rebel groups pinning the blame for the chemical attacks on the Assad regime in hopes of some good ol' fashioned American intervention.

Nope, it's about how Congress has suddenly found its principles, forcing the president to go through it to authorize any military action whatsoever on Syria.

---

The whole issue of congressional approval for military operations has been, for lack of a better word, iffy. World War II was, by most counts, the last major war that received congressional approval. Since then, running these sorts of things past Congress was more of a formality rather than an absolute necessity, as proven at various points by Reagan, Clinton and both Bush the Elder and Younger. And thanks to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, U.S. leaders have as much as a 90-day window to commit military forces wherever needed sans said congressional approval.

This isn't to say that clearing these sorts of things through Congress isn't the proper thing to do. Even the president thought it was fitting and proper to go to war only after Capitol Hill gives the OK. But the sudden objections against unilateral military activity from the right wing seems a tad hypocritical given the relative lack of formality concerning the junior Bush's military forays into Iraq and Afghanistan. It all has less to do with any actual concerns that House and Senate GOP members may have and more to do with political posturing and a continuing case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

From the left wing comes the usual concerns about Syrian blood on American hands. People who are already disappointed over the president's stance on drones will likely be further disappointed if the U.S. enters the conflict. Those who thought the president would base his time in office as someone who'd completely eschew overseas conflict in favor of more peaceful and non-interventionist solutions may also be disappointed with his actions. Between disillusioned liberals and disgruntled conservatives, the president is in between a rock and a hard place.

To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are no "known knowns" when it comes to Syria. U.S. military intervention here means diving into the unknown. At best, the president will end up with a replay of the recent Iraq War and its aftermath on his hands. At worst, the debacle of yet another "unwinnable war" will likely have him facing impeachment by emboldened Republicans. It's little wonder the president has so far only committed to aerial strikes - fighter jets and drones sound more appealing than putting actual boots on the ground.

Of course, that doesn't count the wide-ranging geopolitical effects that are sure to reverberate throughout the Middle East and the world. Who's to say that a U.S. military strike against Assad's forces won't set off a new wave of terrorist attacks against the U.S., or if Russia decides that the U.S. presence in Syria is a bridge too far and plans some sort of retributive measure in response? What if Israel sees the president's supposed indecisiveness on Syria as a sign of weakness and initiate their own course of military action? What about the implications of Saudi involvement in trafficking chemical weapons for use against the Assad regime? Is that something that the U.S. is secretly in on?*

Drawing a line in the sand in the first place might have bolstered the president's credentials as a tough, fearless leader among many, but it also comes with its consequences. Fortunately for him, asking Congress for official permission to act on behalf of anti-Assad forces gives him an out. In the event that GOP congressmen give the thumbs down on a U.S. intervention into Syrian affairs, the political fallout lands squarely on Congress while the president avoids any backlash for his bold rhetoric. Also, he won't look too much like a chump for having his hands tied by the good folks on Capitol Hill.

* Seems far-fetched, but it doesn't hurt asking, considering the CIA's lengthy and storied history.

It seems poor Mitt's gaining a rep for putting his wingtips in his mouth. This happened on the night of a GOP fundraiser in San Francisco:

Australia's foreign minister privately warned Sunday that foreign leaders see "America in decline," Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said.

Romney said he met with Foreign Minister Bob Carr in a San Francisco hotel Sunday night shortly before a Republican fundraiser.

He said Carr suggested that America could improve that international perception "with one budget deal" that helps balance the budget.

"And this idea of America in decline, it was interesting [Carr] said that; he led the talk of American being in decline," Romney said at the fundraiser, according to The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper. "And if they're thinking about investing in America, entrepreneurs putting their future in America -- if they think America's in decline they're not gonna do it."

The foreign minister requested the private meeting, a Romney spokesman said. The campaign would not say whether the two discussed foreign policy.

Bob Carr wasn't particularly pleased about being misrepresented:

He met the former Massachusetts governor at a San Francisco hotel on Sunday, local time.

But Senator Carr said reports suggesting his comment was a criticism of the US economy were wrong.

He said his exact comment to Mr Romney was: "America is just one budget deal away from ending all talk of America being in decline," Senator Carr said in a statement on Monday.

Senator Carr said his comment was in praise of US economic strengths.

Opposition foreign affairs spokesperson Julie Bishop said Senator Carr's comments were being reported as implicit criticism of President Barack Obama's performance.

"That will be seen as unwelcome intervention into the US presidential election," she said.

It's never a good idea to deliberately misconstrue a foreign leader's words, nor is it a good idea to deliberately shit on a sitting president's economic policy while in the company of foreign leadership, many of whom are interested in doing business with this country.

He hasn't even set off on his first trip abroad and he's already screwing up by speaking not as a representative of this nation, but as someone who doesn't care what he does to cinch the election. If that means downplaying America's economic strength via twisted comment, then that's what he'll do.

Seriously, It's the gift that keeps on giving. And giving, and giving...

The Lord's Resistance Army. Sounds like a cut-rate garage band or a Christian-themed electronics club. In reality, its a guerrilla group based in Central Africa with a knack for kidnapping, conscripting, indoctrinating and raping children, among the usual killings, maiming and other acts of terrorism and debauchery. The leader, Joseph Kony, is a certified nutcase with a messiah complex, a knack for "channeling spirits" and overall bloodlust. In short, this guy's one evil motherfucker.

Not it matters much to Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't mind any of what's going on just as long as the LRA continues to be focused, in his mind, on killing muslims. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and whatnot. Which makes ol' Rushbo one morally bankrupt motherfucker. Not that his own narcissistic, tone-deaf tendencies would allow him to recognize how morally bankrupt it is to support a group that fancies delivering pain, misery, death and sheer horror to countless thousands of African victims.

Rushbo was a bit miffed at Obama's plan for intervention by sending 100 U.S. troops into Uganda to assist in finding and capturing Kony and others. The portly pill-popping pontificator claimed Obama was really targeting Christians by getting rid of Kony's kooky ass.

Kony's just as much of a terrorist as the people behind Al Qaeda are, except they happen to purport themselves as "Christians." Oh, and they're probably the wrong color, too.

Courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald:

Four hundred people have been killed and 2,000 wounded in three days of fighting between rebels and forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi in the Libyan capital Tripoli, the head of the rebel council said on Wednesday. 

Mustafa Abdel Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, told France-24 television that some 600 pro-Gaddafi fighters had been captured but the battle would not be over until the Libyan leader himself was a prisoner. 

"According to our information, the number of those killed during the operation which has lasted three days is just over 400, with 2,000 wounded," he said, without specifying if he was talking of both sides. 

"We captured up to 600 Gaddafi soldiers," he added. Jalil said he thought that Gaddafi himself had fled Tripoli, saying he was not brave enough to stay and fight, but "God alone" knew where he was. "I hope that he will be captured alive and tried so the world can know about his crimes," he added.

There are rumors flying around that Gaddafi's taking the very last nap he'll ever take, but nothing substantial. Other reports state he's beat a hasty retreat to Algeria.

Diplomatic relations aren't all peaches and cream, but you have to wonder what was really behind the following events:

- Vice President Joe Biden started out his 9-day diplomatic tour of China by meeting with Chinese Vice President Xi Jingping in a venue that was open to American and Chinese press. After Chinese officials concluded Biden went on too long at the podium, they started giving reporters and press staff the boot.

Only minutes into Biden's remarks, Chinese officials had begun to direct reporters toward the exits. Most reporters and the vice president's staff objected, saying it was important to cover the entirety of Biden's opening statement, as had been the agreement between officials beforehand...

...Soon the stern shooing turned into forceful shoving. As reporters tried to stand their ground, Chinese officials locked arms and pushed forward in a show of overwhelming force. Soon enough Biden did finish, but reporters had difficulty hearing the entire thing because of the fisticuffs.

Hours later, Biden held another meeting with the chair of the National People's Congress, Wu Bangguo. And again, Chinese officials attempted to force reporters from the room even as Biden was still speaking.

It's unclear whether the officials were booting out both groups or just the American press at both times. At any rate, it's not a good look on them. And then:

- A huge brawl broke out between Georgetown University's Hoyas and the Bayi Military Rockets during what was supposed to be a friendly exhibition game. You know, for diplomacy and whatnot.

There were an estimated half-dozen individual altercations on the court, and eventually some Chinese onlookers joined the fracas, including one wielding a stanchion. 

For those at home wondering what the hell a stanchion is, it's one of those posts people attach velvet ropes on, like at the movies or swanky dinner events.

As the brawl spilled beyond the baseline, an unidentified Bayi player pushed Georgetown’s Aaron Bowen through a partition to the ground before repeatedly punching the sophomore guard while sitting on his chest. 

Some people would pay good money to see that scene on video.

Apparently the game was jacked up from the start, with lots of altercations, hard fouls and hard feelings:

Wang wrote that the game was tense from the outset and had to be stopped earlier after two players exchanged words. At one point, a Rockets player even berated John Thompson III as the Georgetown coach yelled instructions to his players.

The hard fouls and constant bickering eventually devolved into bedlam when Bayi big man Hu Ke was called for a foul against Georgetown guard Jason Clark. The senior made it clear he did not appreciate the hard foul, sparking the initial exchange of shoves that led players from both benches to run onto the court in defense of their teammates.

This is an outrage that the taxpayers of this country would have to foot the bill so that the campaigner in chief can run around in his Canadian bus and act as if he is interested in creating jobs in our country...