It's such a fine line between stupid and clever

"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever."

--David St. Hubbins

I'm still trying to decide which side of the line this one's on:

In my mind this raises two questions:

1) Is it meant to be taken seriously?

It seems to me that this is really stupid or really clever. It has the feeling of a South park parody, but it could just be a caricature of itself--an unholy union of "Christian rock" of the Praise and Worship variety and patriotic country that pushes each idiom far beyond its limits. I prefer to think of it as brilliant satire, but I'm afraid it isn't. Or at last wasn't intended that way.

Which leads me to my second question:

2) Does it matter?

Socrates and/or Plato wrote in "The Apology":

After the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be instantly detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them, thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to confess the truth, but I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. Then I knew that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them....

I think that may be the case here. Whatever the artist may have thought he intended, the Muse had her way with him,and, at least from an artistic point of view, intent is irrelevant. Whether the artist is mocking the protesters, or the Muse the artist, it's brilliant satire.

"Yes, they do Otto. They just don't understand it."

I just read the stupidest article that I've seen posing as legitimate, mainstream journalism in quite a while. It's called "An Antichrist Obama in McCain Ad?", and it was written by someone named Amy Sullivan, who appears to be working for the Obama campaign, but publishing under a byline that suggests that she's an actual reporter for TIME (in partnership with CNN).

It's all about this web commercial that the McCain campaign put out:

I though it was pretty funny. But apparently you can't poke fun at Obama's Olympian ego without committing some sort of unpardonable sin like racism, or calling him the Antichrist, or denying Global Warming, or some such.

The first "evidence" of McCain's nefarious intent is the ad's reference to Obama as "The One," which the author seems to think is a reference to the Antichrist character in the Left Behind books:

As the ad begins, the words "It should be known that in 2008 the world shall be blessed. They will call him The One" flash across the screen. The Antichrist of the Left Behind books is a charismatic young political leader named Nicolae Carpathia who founds the One World religion (slogan: "We Are God") and promises to heal the world after a time of deep division. One of several Obama clips in the ad features the Senator saying, "A nation healed, a world repaired. We are the ones that we've been waiting for."

The funny thing is that you won't see Nicolae Carpathia referred to as "The One" in the Left Behind books. As anyone with half a brain knows, "The One" is Neo on The Matrix. And, of course, it's what Oprah called Obama:

But enough of "The One." Let's move on:

The visual images in the ad, which Davis says has been viewed even more than McCain's "Celeb" ad linking Obama to the likes of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, also seem to evoke the cover art of several Left Behind books. But they're not the cartoonish images of clouds parting and shining light upon Obama that might be expected in an ad spoofing him as a messiah. Instead, the screen displays a sinister orange light surrounded by darkness and later the faint image of a staircase leading up to heaven.

Hmmm.... The light shining through the clouds in the ad "seems to evoke the cover art of several of the Left Behind books." I guess that could be true, if depicting sunlight piercing through the darkness in a yellow-orange color were an original creation of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. In reality, only the first book of Left Behind series bears even a passing resemblance, and they still got the colors wrong:

I still haven't figured out why yellow-orange light poking through dark clouds is "sinister," but if the folks at TIME (in partnership with CNN) say it is, who am I to argue? In fact, I think I'll use it from here on out. (Way too much on the orange side, but it'll have to do.)

And a less critical viewer might might mistake the "staircase leading up to heaven" referenced in the article to the stairs in the aisle of the theater where Obama was appearing. At least that's what it looked like to me when I went back and watched the video again. (And just what is Ms. Sullivan implying about Led Zeppelin?)

And I suppose they could have used the "cartoonish images of clouds parting and shining light upon Obama" that the author thinks would be more appropriate, but somehow, I think something like this would have spoiled the mock-serious tone that they seemed to be going for:

But enough of that. This next paragraph is the real howler:

Perhaps the most puzzling scene in the ad is an altered segment from The 10 Commandments that appears near the end. A Moses-playing Charlton Heston parts the animated waters of the Red Sea, out of which rises the quasi-presidential seal the Obama campaign used for a brief time earlier this summer before being mocked into retiring it. The seal, which features an eagle with wings spread, is not recognizable like the campaign's red-white-and-blue "O" logo. That confused Democratic consultant Eric Sapp until he went to his Bible and remembered that in the apocalyptic Book of Daniel, the Antichrist is described as rising from the sea as a creature with wings like an eagle.

I'm having a really hard time figuring out what was "puzzling" about this imagery. What better to follow Obama's announcement that his ascension has stemmed the rising tide of Global Warming than Moses demonstrating his mastery over the waters?

And what's all this about the seal? So what if it doesn't resemble the Obama campaign "O" logo that Ms. Sullivan finds more familiar? Since they're poking fun at Obama's Titanic ego, why wouldn't they use the extremely presumptuous faux presidential seal that he used earlier in the campaign? The one that looked like this:

Perhaps if Ms Sullivan and the rest of the Obamatons at TIME (in partnership with CNN) learned how to use Google, or better yet Google Images, she, or a fact checker or editor (if they still have such things) might have noted the absurdity of the claim that the eagle is a reference to the Book of Daniel.

Here's the part (Daniel 7:2-4) to which the Mr. Sapp Ms. Sullivan interviewed was referring:

Daniel spoke, saying, "I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the Great Sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, each different from the other. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings. I watched till its wings were plucked off; and it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet like a man, and a man's heart was given to it."

If it were a reference to Daniel, the wings would be on a lion, not an eagle. An eagle, on the other hand, can be found on the Great Seal of the United States, which makes perfect sense as a reference to Obama's use of a faux Presidential seal on his podium earlier in the campaign.

And besides, any Fundi worth his salt could tell you that the beast with a body like a lion and wings like an eagle was the Assyrian and Chaldean empire under Nebuchadnezzar (after whom the ship in The Matrix was named), not the Antichrist. The Antichrist is the little horn on the fourth beast (you remember the fourth beast--it was different from the others and had ten horns but no mention of any wings).

And I'll conclude with a clip from A Fish Called Wanda that's totally irrelevant, except tho the extent that "confused Democratic consultant Eric Sapp" might be compared to Otto:

But what about Ms. Sullivan? Did she even read it, or did she just take some Sapp's word for it?

The Results Are In!

Good news, bad news....

The good news is that the Hillary Clinton Inevitable Juggernaut ran aground in Iowa. Third place, behind Obama (convincingly) and Edwards (just barely). It's always nice to see the establishment's anointed dashed on the rocks.

And it's even better when it happens to someone like Mrs. Clinton, who claims to be the most accomplished and experienced of candidate, but can't seem to point to any "accomplishment" in her adult life that wasn't really something that was given to her because she was married to Mr. Clinton. And, of course, her claim to "experience" is based entirely on her having shared a residence with Bill.

But much as I enjoy seeing Mrs. Clinton get thumped, I'm afraid it's bad news for the only candidate I actually like. And the reason I think that is because I think there are a lot of voters in New Hampshire who'd just love to pile on. And a lot who would like vote for Obama, but only if he demonstrated in Iowa that he actually had a shot. But I can't really complain. Maybe if enough of them kick her when she's down, she won't be able to get back up. And that would be a good thing.

But, unfortunately, a lot of those folks who would only vote for Obama if it looked like he had a chance would have been voting for Ron Paul (or possibly McCain) if they weren't voting in the Democratic primary. In short, I think Obama's thumping of the former First Lady is going to shift a lot of the independent vote over to the Democratic primary, and that's bad news for the anti-establishment Republican candidate. (Probably bad news for McCain too, but I don't care about him.)

And speaking of McCain, the polls have him first in New Hampshire, followed by Romney. I'm guessing that'll be reversed by next Tuesday. But I wouldn't put any money on it. If Mrs. Clinton had won in Iowa, I'd have been willing to bet real money on McCain, Romney, Paul to win, place, and show in Hew Hampshire.

On the other hand, Ron Paul got a lot more more votes than the polls said he should have gotten in Iowa. Although most polls show Giuliani and the Rev. Huckabee 2.5-3% points above Paul, if he beats the spread by the same margin in New Hampshire as he did in Iowa, he'd still be very close to a third place finish in New Hampshire. I'd be happy with that. I'm still hopeful, but I'm expecting another fifth place finish.

And while a fifth place finish would be disappointing, it's really the message and not the man that counts. And as long as he's getting the message out, that's all we can really expect. The Ron Paul Revolution might not bear fruit in 2008 but we might have at least planted the seed that will ripen in 2012 or 2016. I just hope my fellow Americans wise up before Fred Thompson's dream of a mushroom cloud over an American city is realized.

But if he can just beat Giuliani again, it'll all have been worth it. I don't think Il Duce can recover from two consecutive losses to a "kooky" "fringe candidate" like Dr. No. Too bad he won't get almost three times Giuliani's total in Hew Hampshire like he did in Iowa.

-------------------------------------

And since I wouldn't want to appear sexist in singling out Hillary for criticism on her over-hyping of her supposed resume-- What's the deal with Rudy's supposed foreign policy / terrorism expertise? Did he anticipate or prevent the 9/11 attacks? Did he prepare for such an eventuality by providing the firefighters with the necessary equipment to respond to such a situation? Because I though I heard that a whole lot of firemen died because they didn't have working radios. And locating the anti-terrorism command center in the World Trade Center complex was a stroke of genius. Did Rudy actually do anything other than pose for pictures and make speeches?

And how 'bout the Rev. Huckabee claiming to have some sort of special understanding of "Islamofascism" because he took a few Bible classes in college. Isn't it enough to know that they hate us for our freedom and they'll follows us home and all that?

-------------------------------------

Speaking of polls-- The polls say that, of the Republican candidates tested (which naturally does not include Ron Paul), McCain is the only one who stands a chance. Any Democrat beats any Republican except McCain. But the polls say McCain would beat Hillary, that it's a toss-up against Obama, and that he'd lose to Edwards. Edwards. Can you believe that?

I don't know who's going to be on top, but I have a feeling the Democratic ticket is going to have Obama and Edwards on it. And that doesn't scare me nearly as much as the prospect of a Republican ticket featuring Giuliani and Huckabee.

--------------------------------------

Update: It seems my punditry-fu may have been weak that day. The latest Rasmussen poll from New Hampshire has McCain (31%) with a commanding lead over Romney (26%), and Ron Paul (13%) comfortably in third place. Bring up the rear are Huckabee (11%), Giuliani (8%), and Thompson (5%).

One other interesting tidbit:

The Republican race remains fluid as nearly a third of GOP voters say they could still change their mind. Sixty-four percent (64%) of McCain’s voters say they are “certain” they will vote for him. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Romney supporters are that certain along with 83% of Ron Paul voters and 66% for Mike Huckabee.

Only 17% of Ron Paul supporters think they might change their mind, while the figure is about twice that for any other candidate list.

In other news, the Rasmussen poll of the other side shows Obama with a ten point lead over Clinton in Hew Hampshire.

That Darned Huckster....

From Reason Magazine's roundup of 2007's best videos.

IT'S ON!

The Ron Paul blimp is a go. It was just pledges before, now it's real money.

They needed to raise $200,000 by midnight tonight to have it in Boston in time for the Tea Party, and they just went over.


Update: Reuters has picked up the story.

This is just too funny....

Some wacky Ron Paul supporters thought it would be a good idea to get him a blimp. All they needed to do was raise $350,000 to rent the blimp for a month. They were at around $25,000 when I first stumbled on it a week or so ago.

Well, it seems that word has gotten out, and as I write this their website says:

$383,500 pledged as of 11:18 pm 11/27/07


I sure hope they're able to collect on enough of those pledges. It's got to be about the best campaign gimmick ever.

Support Ron. It's Important.

It's not often that we get a chance to vote for someone who might actually make a difference. Vote "NO" to the status quo, and give 'till it hurts. That money won't be worth anything in a couple years anyway.

Remember Remember the Fifth of November....

It has been reported that on January 8th, Mitt Romney raised just over $3.1 million. That was the single biggest day for any Republican candidate in 2008, and the largest online haul for any candidate ever. Today, Ron Paul, an unserious candidate relying entirely on spam contributions from geeks, nerds, and hackers, all of whom live in their parents' basements, beat that record by a substantial margin.

As of 9:00 p.m., EST, he's a bit over $3.3 million for the day.

While Hillary Clinton reportedly holds the all-time record for single day find raising with $6.something million, Mr. Paul has the distinction with raising his money without the benefit of questionable fundraisers like Mr. Hsu.

I wonder how Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the MSM will explain this away.

Molotov - Frijolero

I like this band.

They're funny.

Complete Ron Paul Interview, Parts 1 through 4

How could anyone not love a candidate for President who'll appear for an interview in some guy's dorm room?

Part 1




Part 2



Part 3



Part 4

Ron Paul on Colbert Report 6/13/07

Ron Paul is Bill Maher's New Hero

Ron Paul on the Daily Show

How 'bout that Ron Paul?

Seems like he touched a nerve in that last debate. Poor old Rudy nearly had a seizure when Ron suggested that the 9/11 attacks might have been in response to U.S. foreign policy:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

MR. GIULIANI: Can I have 30 seconds, please?

MR. : No, no, no, wait a second. Let's -- we'll all get 30 seconds.

(Cross talk.)

MR. GIULIANI: They are coming --

(Cross talk.)

MR. : We all want 30 seconds of time --

[Rudy didn't get his 30 seconds. Instead, they moved on to talk about the really important issue of the day: Whether South Carolina should be free to fly the Confederate flag from state buildings.]

I really find it odd that Giuliani thinks he's never hear that before. And I find that funny because, as you may recall, right after the attacks, Rudy turned down a $10 million donation for disaster relief from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince suggested U.S. policies in the Middle East contributed to the September 11 attacks. You'd think he'd remember something that angered him so much that he refused $10 million for the widows and orphans.

Anyway, an ABC News poll has Ron Paul down as the winner of the debate by more than 10 to 1 over all the other candidates combined. And he also beat the second place choice (which wasn't a candidate) by more than 10 to 1. Take Ron Paul out, and the entire Republican field combined couldn't beat the second place finisher: "It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands." As of this writing, the results are these:

Ron Paul: 21,799

It doesn't matter who won. I wouldn't put America in another Republican's hands: 1,828

Mitt Romney: 376

Rudy Guiliani: 362

None of them. I'm interested in the possibility of new candidates like Fred Thompson: 345

John McCain: 169

Tom Tancredo: 86

Mike Huckabee: 51

Tommy Thompson: 36

Duncan Hunter: 33

Sam Brownback: 25

James Gilmore: 16

On gun control....

Even Penn and Teller get things right sometimes.

(This link was stolen from the Sandmonkey. Gotta love the Sandmonkey.)

Why I hate Ford Park: Reason # 23

A while back I wrote this about Ford Park:

The first time I went to Ford Park was for a ZZ Top concert a few months back. It was a nightmare. It took more than an hour from the time I exited the freeway to the time I got in the parking lot. And then it was about another hour to clear security. This time, there was no wait for anything. But then, this wasn't ZZ Top and the parking lot wasn't nearly as full. Nor was the pavilion. But there was still a pretty good crowd.

I knew I should have known better, but I guess I never learn.

Anyway, that little ol' band from Texas was back last night, along with Cross Canadian Ragweed and Los Lonley Boys. Kid Rock might have been there too, but if he did anything other than introduce ZZ Top, it was before I got there or after I left. Or maybe while I was waiting in one of their interminable lines. This is not the concert review. This is a rant. If I get around to doing a review, it'll be in a separate post.

I guess it wasn't quite as bad as last time. This time, it only took about half an hour from the time I exited I-10 to the time I got to the parking lot. And then probably only another 45 minutes to clear "security."

"Security" is quotated for a reason.

And that reason is that it has nothing to do with making the place more secure. It's all about the idiots who hold power trying to look like they're doing something to protect us from all those swarthy guys in Iraq who want nothing more than to come to Beaumont and take out a whole bunch of us infidels at a concert. Something like that, anyway.

Anyway, whatever the reason, it seems that one can no longer go to government owned facilities where lots of people congregate without giving up your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. (They do the same thing, although somewhat more competently, for Texans games at Reliant Stadium, which is owned by Harris County.) But on top of the insult of the search, the morons who run the thing don't hire enough people or buy enough wands or whatever, which means the lines get ridiculously long and the people who are supposed to be doing the searches get more and more careless and perfunctory.

So almost an hour was wasted standing out in a cold rain waiting for the opportunity for someone to run a wand over me in a manner that would not even have detected it if I'd been carrying my Kel-Tec P-3AT in my pocket. I was told by people who arrived a couple hours later that they'd tired of this and just waived people through without treating them like criminals.

I remember back when this was America. Hell, I remember back when this was Texas. Now it's seeming more and more like a pussified wannabe police state. It seems that's what a "Post 9/11 World" is all about. (These intrusive "security" measures are almost invariably blamed on 9/11, after all.)

I am not happy about this.

And I think that if Osama & Company wanted to punish ordinary Americans for our government's officious foreign policy, they've succeeded brilliantly. They had the resources to make one big show, but that was about it. And in response our government has done more to diminish our quality of life than Osama & Company could have ever hoped to achieve.

To put things in perspective, Osama & Company killed about 3000 people on 9/11, an, in this country, we've heard barely a peep out of them since, but you can't get on an airplane without being subjected to all sorts of idiotic, completely pointless "security" measures that don't do one damned thing to make flying safer, but that are enormously annoying and time consuming. Same goes for concerts and football games. On the other hand, doctors and nurses kill about 30 times as many people each year because it's too much trouble to observe proper hygiene between patients. And what do we do about it? Do we round up hospital administrators and the head doctors and ship them off to Gitmo until they learn to wash their hands properly? Hell no! We enact "tort reform" to make sure they aren't held accountable for the damage they do.

* * *

As Judge Wiener observed in his dissenting opinion in U.S. v. Zapata Ibarra, the Fourth Amendment no longer applies within a hundred (or more) miles from the Mexican border because any reason that a law enforcement officer might give for search will be accepted as reasonable by the courts. In one of my favorite pieces of legal writing (which I include here only because I love to quote this passage), Judge Wiener cataloged facts which the Fifth Circuit had, in previous cases, accepted as creating a "reasonable suspicion" justifying vehicle stops that would otherwise offend the Fourth Amendment:

The vehicle was suspiciously dirty and muddy, or the vehicle was suspiciously squeaky-clean;the driver was suspiciously dirty, shabbily dressed and unkempt, or the driver was too clean; the vehicle was suspiciously traveling fast, or was traveling suspiciously slow (or even was traveling suspiciously at precisely the legal speed limit); the [old car, new car, big car, station wagon, camper, oilfield service truck, SUV, van] is the kind of vehicle typically used for smuggling aliens or drugs; the driver would not make eye contact with the agent, or the driver made eye contact too readily; the driver appeared nervous (or the driver even appeared too cool, calm, and collected); the time of day[early morning, mid-morning, late afternoon, early evening, late evening, middle of the night] is when "they" tend to smuggle contraband or aliens; the vehicle was riding suspiciously low (overloaded), or suspiciously high (equipped with heavy duty shocks and springs); the passengers were slumped suspiciously in their seats, presumably to avoid detection, or the passengers were sitting suspiciously ramrod-erect; the vehicle suspiciously slowed when being overtaken by the patrol car traveling at a high rate of speed with its high-beam lights on, or the vehicle suspiciously maintained its same speed and direction despite being overtaken by a patrol car traveling at a high speed with its high-beam lights on; and on and on ad nauseam.

Judge Wiener wrote that back in August of 2000. But that was then, and this is now. In this Post 9/11 World, with Islamofascist Terrorists hiding under every bed and unchecked illegal immigration, are we not all living "on the border" now? How much longer before we have swarms of smartly dressed Homeland Security Officers to greet us on every corner with a cherry, "Papiere, bitte!"? Or to periodically make unannounced home inspections to ensure that there are no undocumented Islamofascist Terrorists living in the spare room? Or to rummage through our garages to make sure we don't have any diesel fuel and fertilizer stashed away?

All this has me in the mood to watch my favorite movie about the day after tomorrow, when it'll feel like we're all living in Brazil.

Since you asked....

In a comment to the last post, Laurie said:

Off we go. I had at least heard of Kinky Friedman. I am blissfully ignorant when it comes to politics. I'm sure you'll get me up to speed on Ron Paul in no time.

You can read the official bio on the House website, but as a real introduction, I'd recommend Thomas Wood's article, The Revolutionary Candidate. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman (whose district now includes Galveston) that the party establishment loves to hate because he just won't play ball. And, of course, that makes him a crank, so the media ignores him. But he has a lot of support among the politically disaffected libertarian types. So much support, in fact, that when the neo-con Pajamas Media ran their presidential straw poll, he trounced all the other Republican candidates, pulling in almost as many votes as Giuliani, Romney, and Gingrich, combined. You won't see that on the Pajamas Media website though, because those results were unacceptable. Since he's not a "serious" candidate, he could not be allowed to win, and he was purged from the poll.

Political News: Ron Paul has made it official.

My favorite politician, Ron Paul, has announced that he's running for President. He's the only person running (or likely to run) that: (1) I actually like, and (2) I don't actively despise.

He's the only one in the race on the Republican side who doesn't think war is a good idea, and, so far as I know, the only candidate from either major party who voted against it before the troops were sent over. That means that, unlike most candidates running, he's smart enough to recognize that any "victory" we might win will be Phyrric, and among the rest, he's the only one who had the backbone to oppose the war when the rest of them were too stupid, spineless, or politically calculating to do what was best for the country. (When I hear Democrats talking about how Bush played on their fears and fooled them into voting for the war, I can't help but wonder why such self-described cowardly fools think they're competent to be President.)

If you have a few bucks sitting around that you don't know what to do with, send 'em here.




Edited to add: Dennis Kucinich voted against the war too. I suppose I overlooked him because I have a hard time taking him seriously.

Winning the Global War on Terror

I think I've finally figured out GWB's secret strategy for winning The Global War on Terror.



It was right there in his post 9/11 address to the joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001:

Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

I don't know why I didn't see it earlier. He's trying to make them love us.




(A note about the picture.)