Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Too Many Things to Do Individual Posts

May 20, 2008

It seems there’s quite a bit of new Barack Obama news, and I might fill up WordPress’ servers if I did a new post for each one.  Where to start?  Lessee…

First, He warns us that Republicans have been scaring people since 1968 in order to win elections, then he of course goes right out and…scares the olderly folks by telling them John McCain is going to steal their Social Security and make them eat dog food.  (Okay, I made the last part up, but that exact scare line has been used against Republicans before)

“Let me be clear, privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it, it’s a bad idea today,” Obama said. “That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate and that’s why I won’t stand for it as president.”

Okay, that is the same Social Security that is already long ago bankrupt, right?  The one that just last year alone added $900 bln in new unfunded liabilities?  The one that went from 16 people paying in for every one drawing out when I was born, to about 4 to one now, projected to head for about two to one before I even retire?  Yeah, we don’t need any reform or anything, let’s just scare old folks so their children and grandchildren can eat the dog food so they don’t have to!

Next, He gets a bit testy about an ad that the Tennessee Republican Party ran, featuring the lovely Mrs Obama, telling them it was ‘unacceptable’, ‘low class’, and that we should ‘lay off my wife’.

Now, Barry, your Lovely Wife Loretta is putting herself out there on the stump, probably as much as you are.  What she says on your behalf is fair game.  If you don’t want her being brought into the campaign, then don’t bring her into the campaign.  Besides, exactly what is in this ad that she didn’t say?  Are those not her words, from her own mouth?

Last week, President Bush spoke in front of the Knesset in Israel, saying

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Barack rather quickly took offense, and went on the offensive, even sending out the great international negotiator Jon Cary to lie for him, among others, despite Bush never mentioning Obama’s name, or even implying it was him.  One member of the dinosaur media even went so far as to say that What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable, regarding Czechoslovakia.  Indeed, the White House denied Bush was speaking of Obama.  Speculation from the gitgo was that Bush was actually referring to Jimmy Carter, who has been playing kissy-face with Hamas recently.  Or, he could have been referring to Speaker Pelosi, who made a pilgrimage to Syria last year, to assure President Assad that we meant them no harm.  While at the same time, they were busy building a rogue nukular facility in the desert with the Nork’s assistance.  Which the Israelis promptly destroyed.  Bush could have been speaking in fact, of the Fwench, who seem to be reaching out to Hamas.

Which leads us to his statement that he of course would never negotiate with terrorists, unless of course they are the terrorists leading the leading terrorist group in the world, Iran.  Of course, he wanted “all those who have influence with Hezbollah” to “press them to stand down.”  That Hezbollah in Lebanon, taking them down into a new civil war.  The same Hezbollah who is a proxy for…Iran.  The Iranians who are ordering them to cause war on Lebanon, ordered them to make war on Israel, are going to ‘press them to stand down.’  Um hmmmm…and you’re going to go negotiate with Iran, unconditionally, right?

Which leads to the next lil’ fib, in which He claims that we “on the right have distorted and reframed” his views.” and that “…nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.”

Well, Barack, I think you, among many other politicians, seem to think that there is no such thing as this here Intrawebs Thingy.  You know, where things exist forever?  First, He said very clearly in last July’s debate, that he would, the NYT confirms this last November, it’s even on His own website!

obama-website

Speaking of our enemies, he seems to think that nations like Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela aren’t ‘serious threats’.  So…nations that repeatedly threaten us openly, are rather known for their training of insurrectionist forces in Columbia, Angola, El Salvador, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt aren’t a real threat?  Let’s ask Israel if they would agree with that assessment.  Or the Columbians, et al.

Of course, we can’t forget Sweetiegate, in which he told a Detroit female reporter who couldn’t get an answer to her question from him “Hold on one second, sweetie. We’ll do a press avail, thanks,”. 

Which of course, His Followers in the MSM promptly absolved him of any guilt in the matter.  Now, do you really think that they would have been quite so forgiving if it were, say, a Republican calling a woman Sweetie?

Then, He seemed to get the facts wrong about Afghanistan, Iraq, and the respective languages spoken while bashing the Iraq war.

You certainly can’t forget the ‘Hamas Hearts Obama’ story, in which the terrorist organization in the Middle East has set up a phone bank to cold call people in America, to urge them to vote for Him.  Yes, that’s right.  Terrorists are hoping for Obama to win.  Now, He claims that He wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas, but they sure do see something in Him they like.

Obama managed to kiss up to the mob, promising them He would call the dogs off the Teamsters, ending years’ worth of scrutiny.  The payback for their endorsement of Him, I guess.  I guess it’s okay though, since the Teamsters have no problems with corruption, right?

The Planet Is In Peril, and we must all sacrifice, right?  I mean, it is for the children you know.  Why, just yesterday, He was in Seattle, and told us that

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

This is the Obama who drove a Hemi V8 and a GMC Envoy until charged with hypocrisy, all the while claiming even back in 2006 “the blame for the world’s higher temperature rests on gas guzzling vehicles.”  In addition, he seems to be a Learjet Liberal, flitting to fundraisers in a private jet, getting whisked away from the airport in…you got it, eeevillle SUVs.  Typical for the Learjet Liberals, reduction of lifestyles is only for me, but not for thee.

There’s the Obama version of the Tuzla Dash, in which He kind of fibs about His reception at a speech on the automobile industry.  He claims he was laying down the law to automakers, and they were so offended at this, that ‘nobody clapped’.  Just one problem…they did.  Repeatedly.  Some enterprising soul put a little video together.  A compare and contrast, you might say.

How powerful is Obama?  He’s ‘been to all 57 states’!  He must have done the Time Warp Again and been to the future, in which Mexico, Canada, Puerto Rico, and some others are all added on!  Now, I’m actually guessing He meant to say 47 or something, except that that doesn’t constitute ‘all’ the states either.  But hey, I’m feeling charitable, so let’s do much more for Him than the Left would do for McCain, and write it off to the wear and tear of campaigning ever since he took office in 2005!

I can’t let this go without mentioning the real problem with all these pesky little attacks.  It’s….pssstttt…Fox News.  And nameless, faceless goons!

“Part of it is because there have been these e-mails that have been sent out very systematically, presumably by various political opponents, although I don’t know who,” he said. “And there are a lot of voters who get their news from Fox News.

Yeah, that’s the ticket!  That’s why those bitter, clinging to their guns and religion, typical white folks in places like West Virginia and Kentucky aren’t voting for you!  Hey, it might even be the Joooooosss!

Of course, these things are all just ‘distractions’ and off limits just like we can’t call him a liberal, can’t question his toughness on the ‘WoT’, nor mention his far left views on social issues, can’t mention his background in Chicago, either.  These things have been laid down to us, and we are not to trespass.  The meme that any questioning at all is racism is already going around, and be prepared for it to really ramp up after the convention. 

Well, Diary, I guess I’ll close for now.  How’s about leaving you with a bit of levity, regarding Him before we go?

Barack Chamberlain

May 16, 2008

Today, President Bush spoke in front of the Knesset (their Parliament) while in country for the 60th anniversary since Israel’s modern birth.  while speaking, he had something to say about those who would negotiate with Iran, whether to get them to abandon their nukular weapons program they of course don’t have, or on their program to take over the whole islamic world and wipe Israel off the map.  Bush had this to say regarding the appeasement movement of today:

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” the President said to the country’s legislative body, “We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is –- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Seems rather obvious to me.  There was a massive appeasement movement both in England and right here in America.  Chamberlain’s infamous ‘Peace in our time’ speech came after his meeting with Hitler in Munich, dooming the Czechs.  Less than six months later, Hitler showed why appeasement doesn’t work.

Very quickly after Bush’s speech made the news here, Team Obamessiah took a bit of offense, saying

In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: “It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”

Considering the fact that Bush mentioned no names in his comments, Obama sure does seem defensive!  Old Bill Shakespeare got it right in Much Ado About Nothing when he wrote ‘thou dost protesteth too much, methinks.’ 

The comments could be said to pertain to a large number of individuals in the Western world.  However, let’s assume Bush were talking about Barack Obama.  Why would he ever think such a thing?

Despite Obama claiming, as of a few days ago, that people on the right have ‘reframed’ his views, and that He would not meet unconditionally with Iran, or any other rogue state, LGF busted Him, going back to last July’s CNN debate.

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.

 

Obama continues this idea to this very day, stating on his own website (as of today, even though the light has been shone on this matter five days ago)

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

This is the same Iran whose leader promised to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ repeatedly, said yesterday that “Israel is dying and that its 60th anniversary celebrations are an attempt to prevent its “annihilation.”, and Israel is referred to as “filthy bacteria” and a “cancerous tumor” and Jews are characterized as “a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians”. 

Okay, Barack, you want to meet unconditionally with these people?  The same ones whose very holy book orders them to kill Jews?  Repeatedly?

Obama has cried in his defense of meeting with Iran that he would talk to our enemies in the same manner as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Truman.  A couple of problem with this: FDR never sat down with Hitler, or Tojo.  His diplomatic staff did, and look what all that talk got us.  WWII.  Truman met with Stalin, true, but did Uncle Joe cease to blockade West Berlin, or drop the Iron Curtain across Eastern Europe?  Reagan did in fact sit down with Gorbachev, after instituting the original Star Wars plan which 1) completely threatened any first strike capability and 2) any attempt to compete would utterly bankrupt the Soviet Union even faster than was going on.  Gorby knew he had no chance to compete against America, so he smartly sat down and struck a ballistic missile treaty which has served the world well. 

You don’t offer to negotiate with a dictator, unconditionally.  It only gives them legitimacy, makes you look weak, emboldening them, and dictators are rather infamous for telling you what you want to hear, to buy time, and keep on doing what they want when you walk out the door.  Looking like a paper tiger is what got us attacked on 9/11, among other attacks.

What we have been doing with Ahmadinnerjacket, and what Obama promises to kick into overdrive,  is akin to the parent with an unruly child, who constantly tells that child ‘now you stop that!  I mean it this time!  I’m really going to be upset this time!’  All the while, the child knows good and well Mom or Dad has no intention of ever doing a darned thing, and the behavior continues, unabated.

If there is any solution to the Iranian problem with nukes, it lies in the TR philosophy of ‘speak softly and carry a big stick’.  Tell your enemy how it’s going to be, without bluster.  While showing him that there will be real consequences if he doesn’t comply.  If he comes along, then great.  If not, then whack him with the stick you showed him.  Every parent knows that if you aren’t willing to back up your threats, then your situation will be worse than if you never made them at all.

UPDATE:  Barack’s partner in diplomacy says “The Hidden Imam manages all the affairs of the world.”  When someone is so religiously oriented that he believes the last in muhammed’s bloodline has been living at the bottom of a well for over a thousand years, and will not return until his followers create total chaos in the world, and when he does, he will be the equivalent of Christ returning to Earth…  I don’t think The Obamessiah will be able to speak any magic words to deter such a nutburger from his plans to create that very chaos.  The man used city funds to create a special boulevard leading up to the Mahdi’s well, so he has a nice path to enter the city among adoring fans.  He doesn’t give a rat’s patoot what pretty words Obama has for him, for peace, when he doesn’t want anything but chaos. 

Obamessiah? Obama the Arrogant Elitist, More Like

April 16, 2008

Well, remember the little trip Barack Obama made to Billionaire’s Row last week?  You know, the one that was closed to the public, and no press?  Well something of the meeting slipped out.  Something rather…condescending.  The money quote:

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by – it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laughter), then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.  (emphasis mine)

The context here is that an Obama organizer asked him for talking points for when he went into Pennsylvania.  You know, to talk to the little people.  Remember here that this is an event that was closed to the media, and anyone who wasn’t an Obama supporter.  In San Francisco.  On Billionaire’s Row.  He felt free to speak his mind, and why shouldn’t he?  No one’s going to hear what I say here, right?  Listen to the audio for yourself.

First things first.  The part of the speech dealing with clinging to guns, religion, and bigotry, you may have heard already.  The part in the first paragraph I think adds to the hypocritical message of the Obamassiah.  He’s not just telling his like-minded followers that the hayseeds in Pennsylvania and the Midwest are gun-totin’, Bible thumpin, bigoted non-economically oriented hicks.  He’s also telling us that we fools aren’t going to want to hear the message that we won’t be allowed to “go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.” by a…shhhhhh…black man.  Oh, the horror of it all!  My ears can’t stand it!

The Obamaphiles in the media are trying to explain away this mind-numbingly arrogant riff by focusing on the ‘bitter’ part of the statement, and ignoring the rest completely.  For me, the bitter thing is the least of it all.  Ed Morrissey gets it bang on when breaking down the components of this statement. 

  • [T]hey cling to guns…” Cling to guns? Americans have “clung” to guns since the founding of the Republic. It’s such a core value to this nation that its founders placed it second on the Bill of Rights, right after freedom of speech and religion. Speaking of which …
  • or [they cling to] religion …” People don’t become religious because the economy hits a few bumps in the road. Obama may have chosen his religion based on politics, but most people follow a religion out of a deeper sense of spirituality. I can’t think of a more condescending and contemptuous analysis of religious dedication than this statement.
  • or [they cling to] antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment…” Small-town voters are bigots and xenophobes; there’s no other way to read the first part of this statement. The second part, about them being “anti-immigrant”, is a non-sequitur. They may be anti-illegal immigrant, but that’s a far different issue. Obama offers no proof that small-town voters are xenophobes, but the Frisco audience didn’t demand any, either. It’s part of their own bigotry that makes them see middle America in those terms.
  • or [they cling to] anti-trade sentiment …” And this is just jaw-droppingly hypocritical. This comes from the same candidate who opposes the Colombian free-trade agreement and wants to throw NAFTA out the window. Who’s clinging to anti-trade sentiment? Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Big Labor.

Shortly after the story broke, Obama came out on Friday saying that he ‘misspoke’

“And nothing ever happens, and of course they’re bitter, of course they’re frustrated, you would be too. In fact, many of you are. Americans don’t vote on economic issues, he continued, because they don’t believe Washington can deliver. “So people end up voting on issues like guns … like gay marriage,” he said. “They take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and the things they can count on. So people, ya know they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response.  (emphasis mine)

Oookaaayyyy…  Of course we’re bitter.  Of course we want Washington to fix our economic woes.  Of course we only have our faith to take refuge in when times are hard.  Notice how he softened the terms from the previous statement in order to make it look like we ignorant fools are taking him way too seriously.  ‘Cling to guns’ becomes ‘vote about guns’.  Cling to religion becomes ‘take comfort from their faith’.  He slips in family and community where it wasn’t before.  ‘Antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment’ becomes ‘get mad about illegal immigrants’.   Allahpundit gets it right saying

If his original statement boiled down to “religion is the opiate of the masses,” think of this as adding, “and what wonderful things opiates are.”

Bill Kristol notices the comparison, and takes it further.

This sent me to Marx’s famous statement about religion in the introduction to his “Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”:

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people.” (emphasis mine)

Then, after taking a beating over the weekend on the punditry shows, even by Democrats like James Carville and Chrissy Matthews, Obama came out on Monday saying:

“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality,” Obama told steelworkers in Pittsburgh.  “They are angry and frustrated with their leaders for not listening to them; for not fighting for them; for not always telling them the truth. And yes, they are bitter about that,” he said.

Yeah…blow the whole thing off by saying you ‘chose your words badly’.  Then go on the offensive after your opponents.

Then, when that doesn’t work out too well, come out the next day and say that you ‘mangled’ your words, and your ‘syntax was poor’.  He then went on to tell the Philadelphia Daily News that he

“conflated” two points – the first being that people who have felt abandoned by political leadership turn to their faith, family or traditions like hunting. His second point was that politicians have tried to distract those voters with wedge issues like homosexuality or immigration.

Yes…that’s what I take away from what he was saying, clear back the week before.  And it’s surely what he meant in his first two clarifications.  That weren’t working out so well.  I wonder what the next ‘clarification’ is going to bring?

Okay, now for the humorous stuff:

041308

smalltown

And via Michelle Malkin, we get this illustrative picture:

1arug

The reference, for those who aren’t political junkies like me, is when Obama mentioned the leafy vegetable twice last year, in the rural state of Iowa:

“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” he asked. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

That comment came despite the fact that Iowa does not have any Whole Foods stores, nor do most of its farmers typically grow any arugula.

Now, I may live in Hicksville (proudly, I might add), but I’ve been around the block a time or two.  Until this happened last year, I’d never heard of this fancy lettuce that you have to go pay high dollar for at Whole Foods.  People I know had never heard of it either.  Guess we’re just typical Corncob-Smokin’, Banjo-Strokin’ Chicken-Chokin’ Cousin-Pokin’ Inbred Hillbilly Racist Morons.

On Tuesday this week, Obama had a very interesting thing to say while covering his assets yet again:

“Sometimes hope and anger go hand and hand,” he said today at the Philadelphia City Committee’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner. “People really are angry, they really are fed up, some of them are bitter because Washington’s forgotten them. And because it’s not me that’s out of touch, it’s folks who think that folks are happy when they are out of a job and they have lost their pension and they don’t have health care and their schools are under-funded.”

“Just because you’re mad, just because it seems like nobody is listening to ordinary Americans, that’s not a reason to give up hope,” Obama told the Building Trades National Legislative Conference. “You get mad and then you decide you’re going to change it. If you’re not angry about something you’re going to sit back and let it happen to you. If you’re only angry, you don’t feel hopeful.” (emphasis mine)

What makes this so interesting is that I’ve been reading Jonah Goldberg’s new book Liberal Fascism.  In discussing the radicalism of the 60’s student fascism movement, there is much anger being fueled into their plan for change.  The Black Panthers, the SDS, the Weathermen, all used anger to whip people into a frenzy, then go forth and Change the World.  There are tons of examples of this in Jonah’s book.  I heartily recommend picking up a copy and reading.  Very enlightening.

The SDS’s current incarnation on their front page describes the situation in the 1960’s thusly:

Polite protest turned into stronger and more determined resistance as rage and frustration increased all across the country.

Notice the words rage and frustration, and Obama’s words angry, mad, frustrated.  Notice how he claims that you don’t change things that you’re unhappy with unless you’re mad and angry.

James Miller, a member of the Weather Underground (the later, more politically correct name for the Weathermen), states that their violence had done “more damage to the ruling class…than any mass, peaceful gathering this country has ever seen.”  A delegate to an SDS meeting says “Tactics?  It’s too late…Let’s break what we can.  Make as many answer as we can.  Tear them apart.” 

Saul Alinsky looks down on mere liberals, who simply observe the issue instead of taking action.  As for the Radical?  “Society has good reason to fear the Radical…He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous.  Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of the Conservatives.”  He also tells us “Change means movement.  Movement means friction.  Only in the frictionless vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur without that abrasive friction of conflict.”  (above quotes from Liberal Fascism, Goldberg)

Yes, this is the same Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules For Radicals.  The same Rules For Radicals who tutored Hillary Clinton.  The same one whose student Mike Kruglik mentored Barack Obama on community organizing.

As Goldberg says, “The movement of the 1960s didn’t start out destructive.  In fact, it started out brimming with high-minded idealism and hope.”  Idealism and hope.  Sound familiar, anyone?

Obama Visits Billionaire’s Row

April 9, 2008

Ahhh…the amorphous Zombie catches another great group of photos, this time of Senator Obama visiting ‘billionaire’s row’ in San Francisco.  This shouldn’t seem like anything extraordinary, since politicians are forever seeking out and pandering to the wealthy to raise funds.  The wealthy, of course, are trying to buy access to the politician so they may gain favor(s) with said individual when they get in office. This, however, is the Great Obamessiah!  As he, and as is pointed out in Zombie’s post on the matter,

Obama’s campaign slogan is “Change” — declaring that he alone will change the way things are done in politics.
But what kind of “change” is this? The single most insidious aspect of American politics is that candidates often must pander to and do the bidding of the wealthiest Americans, who have the funds to get the candidate elected. It’s so commonplace, we no longer thing of it as “corruption,” but that’s basically what it is. So when Obama spends all day doing nothing but going to a series of private fundraisers populated exclusively by the wealthy, the only “change” I feel are the coins jangling at the bottom of my pocket.According to this article (and many others), Obama’s campaign is claiming he raises his money from small donors:

“When you’re given the gift of advocacy, you don’t sell it to the highest bidder,” Mrs. Obama said. Mrs. Obama stressed how her husband has relied on “regular folks” instead of big donors. Instead of thousand-dollar donations, the Obama campaign has raised millions on small checks of $20 to $50. Mrs. Obama sees this participatory attitude as a new trend.

Wait just a minute there. If you do the math, one just this one day in the Bay Area, Obama went to four events, three of which had $2,300 minimum donations for tickets, and the other for $1,000 minimum per ticket. Each of the events, from the various descriptions, held as many as 400 people (the Getty mansion has a ballroom that reportedly seats at least 300). 400 x $2,300 = $920,000 per event, times three events = $2.76 million, plus the other event, which undoubtedly puts him over $3 million in contributions for this one day alone. And who knows how many other similar days he schedules in other parts of the country.
Michelle Obama (and other Obama campaign spokespeople) aren’t telling the truth. It seems that a significant portion of Obama’s monthly campaign contributions are coming from “large donors”‘ — i.e. rich people, not just the “$20 to $50” donations they’re constantly bragging about.

An excellent point.  ‘But wait!’ you say…’He is the agent of change, and would surely never lie to us!  You troglodytes must just not understand the purpose here.’ 

No, I’m afraid we do understand.  Barack Obama is just another politician, going to the wealthy, hat in hand, so he can skip out on his promise to bypass the usual way of funding a campaign and go with federal financing. 

For more information on Obama and his….’mistruths’, click over and read my four part (more to come, I have no doubt) series, It Seems That Hillary’s Not the Only One With Pants On Fire.

After you go to Zombie’s page and read the post, and see the pictures of this event.

It Seems That Hillary’s Not the Only One With Pants On Fire (part four)

April 3, 2008

I guess I should’ve known I’d have to be adding a part four.  I completely left off the 100 year in Iraq thing.  As is commonly now known, back in January, John McCain was at a townhall meeting, and was asked how long we were going to be in Iraq.  McCain explained the matter in detail with the questioner, laying out the rationale for keeping the region stable.

No. I talked earlier about the suicide bombs and the continued threats. And then what happens is American troops withdraw and they withdraw to bases and then they eventually withdraw, or we reach an arrangement like we have in South Korea, with Japan. We still have troops in Bosnia. But the fact is it’s American casualties that the American people care about and those casualties are on the way down rather dramatically. And the option, and I’ll say this again because you’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I’d look you in the eye and tell you Al Queda would have said we beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war was lost to Al Queda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East, and I am convinced of that and so is General Petraeus as well as others. So I can tell you that it’s going to be long and hard and tough. I can tell you the option of defeat is incredible and horrendous. And I can tell you and look you in the eye and tell you that this strategy is succeeding. And what we care about is not American presence, we care about American casualties and those casualties I believe will be dramatically and continue to be reduced. Please follow up. E.H.: I do not believe that one U.S. soldier being killed almost every day is success. There were three U.S. soldiers killed today. I want to know how long are we going to be there? Are you are you … Mr. McCain: How long do you want us to be in South Korea? How long do you want to be in Bosnia? E.H. There’s no fighting going on in South Korea. Let’s not talk about South Korea. Let’s come back to Iraq. Mr. McCain: Thank you sir, and I can look you in the eye and tell you that those casualties tragically continue as I made very clear in my opening remarks. But they are much less and we will eventually eliminate them. And again the option of setting a date for withdrawal is a date for surrender and we would then have many more casualties and many more American sacrifice, if we withdraw with setting a date for surrender. Now you and I have an honest open disagreement, but I can tell you six months ago that people like you who believe like you said the surge would never succeed. And it is succeeding. And I’ve been there and I have seen it with my very own eyes. E.H.: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — Mr. McCain: Maybe a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

 It’s completely clear, to anyone with three brain cells rubbing together, that McCain isn’t talking about being at war for one hundred years.  He’s talking about a similar situation we have in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Bosnia.  Those have been, and are, volatile regions, and our presence there accomplishes two things:  1) we provide stability just by our being there, just as you don’t drive over the speed limit when there’s a police officer parked on the side of the road.  2) If problems do break out, we are right there, ready to stomp on them.  If your forces are out of theater, in Kuwait, or according to the great military mind and Marine slanderer John Murtha, we should redeploy our forces to Okinawa, so, you know, “we can redeploy there almost instantly.” 

Okay, that’s the setup.  Barack Obama jumped on that, and has the Left convinced that McCain wants us at war in Iraq for 100 years. 

 Obama has kept that meme going ever since he became the front runner.  As part of Obama’s strategy of pushing Hillary over the cliff, he has taken the attitude that it is John McCain he’s running against instead of Hillary right now, as if the Democrat nominee has been settled.  Which isn’t a bad strategy, it puts the idea in people’s minds that he is Presidential, and she’s just a mosquito harassing him. 

The problem with this, as it relates to McCain, is that the 100 year meme he’s selling is bankrupt.  Just two days ago, Obama insisted that he isn’t taking McCain out of context.

 In a back and forth at today’s press conference, Obama insisted he was not taking out of context McCain’s comments about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. Asked if his attack was disingenuous, Obama had the following to say:

“I don’t think it’s unfair at all,” Obama said. “John McCain, I mean, we can run the YouTube spot, has said that we will stay there as long as it takes. And if it takes another 100 years, he’s up for that commitment and that implies that there is some criteria by which we would understand how long it takes.

The press is beginning to notice this little discrepancy in Obama’s, er, interpretation.  The Politico.  ABC.  Of course, Fox News is on it as well.  The Columbia Journalism Review, one of the top J-schools in the nation. Even the New York Times and the AP.

The Freepers have an extensive roundup on all the media outlets calling Obama on his lying and misleading on this issue.

A commenter on the MSNBC story has a completely salient point:

Wait — It’s ok for us to see a 10 second clip of McCain on YouTube, but it’s not ok to see 30 second clip of Rev. Wright on YouTube?

Obama, make up your mind.  

Then there’s the news yesterday.  It seems Obama has been running around, bashing those eeeviille fat cats at Big Oil, stating:

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.”

Well, ABC reports that Obama’s claim doesn’t quite hold water, calling it Obama’s Oil Slick.  Tapper reports that

Factcheck.org today takes a look at Obama’s claim to not take money from oil companies and concludes that the statement  “misleading” since according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive PoliticsObama has taken more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry — not to mention that two of Obama’s top fundraisers are top executives at oil companies

It is literally true that Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies. No federal candidate does — corporations have been banned from direct contributions since 1907.

The Obama campaign points out that the senator doesn’t take money from PACs or from lobbyists. Factcheck.org calls that a “distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company’s or an organization’s individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC’s donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We’re not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron’s PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.”

(Sen. Hillary Clinton has taken $306,000 in donations from people in the oil and gas industry, incidentally.)

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air has a good evaluation of Obama:

Barack Obama has started getting some major-league vetting from the media, and so far he looks like a AAA prospect brought up a season or two too early.

Put this on top of the CJR article about which AP wrote so well earlier, and we can start sensing a shift in coverage for Obama. It started with the Saturday Night Live satire that skewered the national media’s apple-polishing coverage of Obama for the previous year, which coincided with the start of the Tony Rezko trial. Obama’s rumored distance with beat reporters may have contributed to the shift as well, but whatever prompted it, the press has started testing Obama — and so far, he has responded poorly.

Maybe that’s why he seems to be so testy, snapping at an adoring fan.  Repeatedly.

More updates to come, if I were a betting man.

It Seems That Hillary’s Not the Only One With Pants On Fire

April 2, 2008

Barack Obama is showing himself to be just another lying politician.  We knew Hillary was having her…ahem…misrememberings.  The Tuzla issue, which has been blown apart, with the young girl we saw Hillary kissing now coming out and shooting Hillary’s story down.  The Marine issue.  The Sir Edmund Hillary issue.  NAFTA.  Chelsea and 9/11.  Darfur.  SCHIP.  Belfast.

Well, it seems Obama is a bit of a fabulist himself. 

First, there’s his changing stories on his relationship to The Right Rev. Wright.  He denies having heard any objectionable content from Wright, despite the obvious fault with that:  Wright preaches anti-white, anti-America garbage on a regular basis.  Despite there being an admission from Wright himself that Obama knew the matter could come out sooner or later:

Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in [his presidential] announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.”

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

Then, Obama comes out in the next two weeks altering the story, admitting first in his Earth Shattering Speech On Race that he had in fact heard a few things, and of course he denounced them.  Then, after Hillary comes out and says that she wouldn’t attend a church with these sorts of statements, he goes on The View and says this:

“Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriateand mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws — then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church.”

Never mind that he had in his Big Speech said that “I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother…”  Never mind that Wright never has acknowledged anything of the sort.  Never mind that the picture he painted of Wright, and the reason for his attitudes towards white people, and America, this way:

“legalized discrimination” is the “reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.” He said that a “lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families.”

As we now find out, a classmate of Wright’s is now speaking out, telling us of the real conditions Wright grew up in, to make him so angry at white people, and America.  Mort Klein tells us:

It happens that, as a Philadelphian, I attended Central High School – the same public school Jeremiah Wright attended from 1955 to 1959. He could have gone to an integrated neighborhood school, but he chose to go to Central, a virtually all-white school. Central is the second oldest public high school in the country, which attracts the most serious academic students in the city.  The school then was about 80% Jewish and 95% white. The African-American students, like all the others, were there on merit. Generally speaking, we came from lower/middle class backgrounds. Many of our parents had not received a formal education and we tended to live in row houses. In short, economically, we were roughly on par. I attended Central a few years after Rev. Wright, so I did not know him personally. But I knew of him andI know where he used to live – in a tree-lined neighborhood of large stone houses in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. This is a lovely neighborhood to this day. Moreover, Rev. Wright’s father was a prominent pastor and his mother was a teacher and later vice-principal and disciplinarian of the Philadelphia High School for Girls, also a distinguished academic high school. Two of my acquaintances remember her as an intimidating and strict disciplinarian and excellent math teacher. In short, Rev. Wright had a comfortable upper-middle class upbringing. It was hardly thescene of poverty and indignity suggested by Senator Obama to explain what he calls Wright’s anger and what I describe as his hatred.

Must have been horrible, growing up middle class, and choosing to attend a mostly white school, huh? I know those conditions would make me so darned angry at people.

Obama goes on in the Big Speech to throw Grandma under the bus:

“But a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

As it turns out, here’s another whopper.  First he throws her under the bus, in front of a national audience.  Then a few days later, he tries to clarify the remark, by calling her a ‘typical white person’.  Let’s set aside the obvious arrogance and offensiveness in that remark.  It turns out that she wasn’t so typical after all. 

First, the incident on the bus?  Well, in his second book, Dreams From My Father, he gives a different account of the matter.  Turns out it was a beggar at the bus stop, saying:

“Her lips pursed with irritation. ‘He was very aggressive, Barry. Very aggressive. I gave him a dollar and he kept asking. If the bus hadn’t come, I think he might have hit me over the head.”

Quite different from the picture of ‘Toot’ he gave the rest of us….who don’t have access to the internet to know the rrreessst of the story.  In addition, she doesn’t appear to have been a racist person.  In the bank she worked at as a supervisor, then later a Vice President, her co-workers knew her differently.

“Did people talk about race? We had local jokes … like that ‘pake’ (Chinese) guy or the ‘yobo’ (Korean) who did this or that. I certainly got my share of haole jokes. But I never heard Madelyn say anything disparaging about people of African ancestry or Asian ancestry or anybody’s ancestry.”

But several current and former Bank of Hawaii executives — some of whom were mentored by Dunham and knew her after she retired — said they were stunned by Obama’s comments about his grandmother.

“I was real surprised that he indicated that,” said Dennis Ching, who was a 23-year-old management trainee under Dunham beginning in 1966. “I never heard her say anything like that. I never heard her say anything negative about anything. And she never swore.”

Yes, according to Obama’s book, the incident with the beggar bothered her “because he was black”, but then Jessie Jackson has famously said that if he came upon a group of black young men on the street, he would cross to the other side as well. 

Obama’s against the war, and always has been, right?  Going all the way back to 2002, when he was at a ‘Peace Rally’.  Both he and his supporters will gladly tell you he has always been against the war.  Until, of course, the 2004 Democrat convention, when he wasn’t so against it. 

 In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.  And then this:  “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.”  That was July of ’04.  And this:  “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.”  It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

Also, the Boston Globe reports:

In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

“The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

In that same interview with Russert, he claimed that he wouldn’t raise Social Security raises in retirement age, or indexing benefits, Russert called him on his previous position:

MR. RUSSERT:  But, Senator, you said last year—earlier this year that everything should be on the table for Social Security, including looking at raising retirement age, indexing benefits, and then suddenly you said, “No, no.  Those aren’t off—on the table; I’m taking them off the table.”                  

SNIP

MR. RUSSERT:  But in May you said they would be on the table.

SNIP

MR. RUSSERT:  Some involved in the anti-movement have said that in 2004, 2005, 2006 Barack Obama voted to fund the war.  Every time there was a proposal to have a fixed date withdrawal you said no, it would be a slap in the face to the American troops, it may create bloodshed and more division, that American credibility was at stake, that you were not a leader in trying to stop the war until you ran for president and got to Iowa and got to New Hampshire and had a sense of the anti-war, war fervor in the Democratic base.

SNIP

MR. RUSSERT:  You’ve been talking a lot about lobbyists and money in politics.  This is The Boston Globe in August:  in eight—“Obama’s eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns came from” political action committees, “corporate contributions,” “unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records.  He tapped financial service firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.” You now talk about, “Well, I’m not taking any money from lobbyists.” You do take money from state lobbyists.  You took $1.5 million from federal lobbying—employees who work for federal lobbying firms.  There seems to be a real inconsistency between the amount of money you raise and where it’s coming from, and your rhetoric.

SNIP

MR. RUSSERT:  You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?

SEN. OBAMA:  Tim, we did not keep those records.  I…

MR. RUSSERT:  Are they gone?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, let’s be clear.  In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois.  The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule.  I didn’t have a schedule.  I was a state senator.  I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library.  I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.  So…

MR. RUSSERT:  But your meetings with lobbyists and so forth, there’s no record of that?

SEN. OBAMA:  I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now.  And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.

MR. RUSSERT:  Is your schedule available anywhere?  Are—the records exist?

SEN. OBAMA:  I—Tim, I kept my own schedule.  I didn’t have a scheduler.

SNIP

MR. RUSSERT:  It appears that he raised or contributed about $168,000 for you over the course of your career…

SEN. OBAMA:  Over the course of my political career.  Correct.

On Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and Forgiveness

March 26, 2008

I read an open letter to Senator Obama last night, from a Jewish man named Lionel Chetwynd.  This letter is about a man who was eaten up with bitterness and anger over the Holocaust.  I think I can safely say that the Jews have the peak of righteous anger over not just that period, but throughout history. 

They have been hounded, enslaved, murdered, and almost exterminated in their history.  The desire to exterminate the Jews is alive and well today.  Anti-Semitism is rampant in Europe today, so-called hate crimes (I hate that term, all crime comes from hatred) run vastly higher in America than for any other group.

Here is a man who has every reason to hate, and to be bitter.  But he learned a lesson I learned long ago:  Forgiveness isn’t for the person you’re forgiving.  It’s for the person doing the forgiving.  Anger and bitterness will eat you alive, from the inside out.  It can rule your waking moments, and subconsciously, it wears out your health.

To Reverend Wright, Senator Obama, Tall-Eagle (see two posts back in the comments), and anyone else who is bearing the burden of lack of forgiveness: 

Forgive.  Let it go.  Not for my sake, your bitterness doesn’t affect me.  Let it go, for you.

On to Lionel Chetwynd’s letter.  This is only the first part, go, read the whole thing.

Dear Senator Obama:

I have now read and reread your speech, understanding you take this to be a “teaching moment,” I have applied myself to its lessons. But some questions have arisen and I need a little more clarification.

You tell me Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s horrendous remarks will take on a different meaning if I will but contextualize them and understand he has seen terrible things in his time, a burden shared by all African-Americans. A fair proposition; from Kant to Auden and beyond we learn we define by comparison and only by internalizing can we grasp true meaning. So I have done precisely that: looked inside myself to understand how hatred might need to be contextualized.

I did not have to look far. I remembered how, as a boy, I sat at the Passover Seder with my sister’s Polish-born husband and the remnants of his family. The remnants of five families to be precise, for the 12 weary souls around that table were all that remained of what had once been 300. The others – their loved ones, their sons, their daughters, their hopes and dreams – were gone, their lives consumed by zyklon-bgas, their mortal remains wisps of smoke from a Büchenwald chimney. These people, who had seen and suffered so much, read of my ancestor’s deliverance from Egypt exactly as the Bible instructed: in the present tense, as if it happened to them. “For with a mighty hand the Lord thy God raised thee out of Egypt and brought you from slavery to freedom.” But as they spoke – or really whispered such was the fear and holiness of the moment – they were not conjuring up Egyptian slavery as a present experience but recalling the horrors they themselves had witnessed, murder on a scope once unimaginable and only made possible by perverted technology. Though their Yiddish was foreign to me, I picked up the odd word. When they spoke of the Concentration Camp guards, they called them the Ukrainians. When they remembered the betrayal of their neighbors, I could distinguish the word Pole. But above all, it was the Germans, the hated Germans. The Hun. The Devil’s Scourge. And I was filled with a righteous hatred. Had I, in that moment, the power to end the life of every German on earth, I might have well done so. That is a shameful thought. I am humiliated by the memory. But perhaps, in context, you can understand my homicidal rage and forgive me, and should I have chosen to preach that doctrine in a place of worship and stir an audience to its feet as it cheered my righteous fury, I trust you would offer me the fig leaf of “context.”

As the Seder ended, my brother-in-law, seeing my rage, put his arm around my shoulder and asked what troubled me. I stammered the best explanation I could. He smiled, “Don’t be a fool,” he said, “the Germans left so many of us dead and stole the joy from so many that remain. So now you want to give them the final victory by allowing your own life to be consumed and twisted and deformed by the same hatred? Leave it to them. That’s why we, at this table, forgive. Not forget, but forgive. You just heard how Moses told the Israelites not to celebrate the death of the Egyptians in the Reed Sea. Learn.”

But his words were empty to me.

Read the rest.  This is, as they say, only half of this man’s story.

It’s Not A Quota, I Swear!

March 24, 2008

Via Betsy’s Page: 

This is the great Democrat Party, and their quota system affirmative action plan.

’08 Affirmative Action Goals

Hispanic/Latino 26%
LGBT 12%
African-American 16%
Youth (Under 30) * 10% * those born 8/29/78 or later
Asian/Pacific Islander 9%
Native American 1%
Persons wih [sic] Disabilities 10%

And there are strict rules to break the delegation exactly evenly by gender, except for when the allotted number is an odd one in which case the women get the extra delegate.

California Democrats will have:

* 441 Delegates (221 females, 220 males)
* 62 Alternates (31 females, 31 males)
* 503 TOTAL (252 females, 251 males)

Is it any wonder Gary Hubbell wrote The Angry White Man?  These people don’t care about how good their delegates might be, just so long as they are a category.  I wrote in the above link about the Dems and their identity politics.  They look at you, they don’t see a person, an individual.  They see a group.  You’re black, or female, or a union member, or gay, or one of those eviiillllee Euro-Americans.  You know, whitey.  The Man.  This policy is exactly why there’s an Uncivil War going on in the primaries right now, and why one fifth of whichever side loses people will vote for McCain.  The poll doesn’t even ask how many of them will just stay home. 

There’s hardly a dime’s worth of difference between Clinton and Obama, policy-wise, but the way these two and their supporters are acting, you’d think this was between the Greens and Libertarians. 

The Democrats are going to be in a world of hurt, whichever one of them wins the nomination:  either Obama by virtue of winning the most delegates and votes (hint guys, this is supposed to be a democratic thing, no?), or Clinton by virtue of having none, and stealing the thing.  If Obama wins, the women are going to get pissy and either vote McCain or stay home.  Good luck winning with half the population having a big chunk not show.  If Clinton wins, the black vote will stay home in droves, not to mention rioting in the streets of America.   Good luck winning with 13% of the population, your most reliable voting block, staying home. 

Never even mind the rioters looking to ‘Recreate ’68’…  These nutburgers have an organization “which has promised demonstrations that will rival those at the bloody 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago”.  Throw the anarchists in the mix… 

Let’s just say that I’m going to have a big supply of popcorn and Fat Tire on hand.

…Not a crackpot church…

March 23, 2008

So saith the Obamassiah.  According to the Politico, an interview Obama had with Michael Smerconish included this:

This is not a crackpot church. Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church…

This interview was pre-recorded.  So, how’d it go on Easter Sunday? 

In Easter Sermon, New Obama Pastor Charges Rev. Wright                        Victim of ‘Lynching’.

CHICAGO — The new pastor of Barack Obama’s church delivered a defiant defense of its retiring reverend Sunday, comparing media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to a modern-day lynching that resembles Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans.

In a sunrise Easter sermon, Rev. Otis Moss III never mentioned Wright by name, but implied that his mentor, who has delivered sermons in which he likened the U.S. to the Ku Klux Klan and declared it damned for its “state-sponsored terrorism,” is facing the same challenges Jesus did.”No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching,” Moss said.

“The lynching was national news. The RNN, the Roman News Network, was reporting it and NPR, National Publican Radio had it on the radio. The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Times all wanted exclusives, they searched out the young ministers, showed up unannounced at their houses, tried to talk with their families, called up their friends, wanted to get a quote on how do you feel about the lynching?” he continued.

Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, the first female bishop in the AME Church, also delivered a sermon, in which she talked about visionaries like King and Gandhi and “Jeremiah” (it was unclear whether she meant Wright), and argued that their words weren’t about “anger,” but about “a passion that demands confrontation.”

“The purveyors of information are trying to be judge and jury over prophetic utterances,” she said.

The church program handed out Sunday also included an essay called “Not on My Watch” from the Rev. Samuel B. McKinney of Mount Zion Baptist Church in Seattle. McKinney said he was “greatly disturbed” by the “media feeding frenzy that has tarnished everyone in the process.”

“Dr. Wright represents the best among us … An attack on this man of God is an attack on all those of the cloth who believe in the social Gospel of liberation. And I will not stand for it,” he wrote.

Moss issued several pleas to congregants to donate to what he called the “Resurrection Fund,” stressing that during this time of battle, money is needed to defend the church. He offered no additional specifics about the fund, telling churchgoers he didn’t want to get into it because Trinity is streaming the service live on the Web and the services are available for purchase on DVD.

He concluded with another analogy, saying, “In order to crucify him you’ve got to lift him up … he had more visibility on the cross than he did during his entire ministry.”

Um hmmm…  Not exactly the Sunrise Easter Service that you’d sit “down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church…”  Not the ones that this “typical white person” (so saith the Obamassiah) has ever attended, anyway.

Oh, one more thing:

Obama and his family were spending Easter on vacation and also were not attending services.

Obama’s Church Web Site ‘Disappears’ the ‘Black Value System’

March 17, 2008

Via LGF:

Sometime between April 2006 and today, the church Barack Obama has attended for 20 years, Trinity United Church of Christ, quietly edited the “About Us” page of their web site, removing their statement of commitment to “the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981.”

Here’s the page from 2006, saved by the Internet Archive: Trinity United Church of Christ – About Us.

And here’s the current page: Trinity United Church of Christ – About Us.

The section that was removed:

Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

(Hat tip: LGF readers.)

UPDATE at 3/17/08 10:05:37 am:

The Internet Archive shows that the page was edited sometime between March 15, 2007 and March 29, 2007.

UPDATE at 3/17/08 10:29:09 am:

There’s still a PDF file titled “The Black Value System,” hosted at the church web site, and it’s even more extreme than the 12 precepts quoted above.

UPDATE at 3/17/08 10:35:36 am:

An excerpt from the PDF file, on the subject of “Middleclassness:”

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us”.

So, while it is permissible to chase “middle-incomeness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method-the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness”: If we avoid the snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright, the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

So, let me see if I get this right:  our ‘oppressive system’ is the one that is choosing not to perform well in school and rise out of poverty.  Our system is forcing peer pressure on those who do perform well, calling them ‘uncle toms’ and other derogatory terms.  Our system forces kids into crime and drug use, and terrorizing other black peoplein the poor neighborhoods.  (one might think that taking those criminal elements off the streets was helping the black community by making their lives safer…guess not…)  ‘Earning more dollars’ (e.g. rising out of poverty) is a bad thing…I see…well, no, actually, I don’t!  People who succeed in school, get a good job, and choose to get out of neighborhoods that have higher violence levels than you see in Iraq today are shouted down for being turncoats.  People who tell the police who actually committed a violent crime are beaten down, even murdered for being ‘snitches’.  There’s a term for that:  ‘snitches get stitches’.  I saw a young black man in my town, far removed from the ‘hood, in a decent neighborhood, with great parents, wearing one of these t-shirts recently.  There are songs, complete with videos showing the snitches getting revenge taken upon them. (no, I won’t provide links)  Rev. Wright, you tolerate this crap, this destruction of your own neighborhoods, your own people by your own people, yet you blame all your ills on the white man.  Clean up your own house before you go and start laying blame.

White people, conservatives in fact, have been at the forefront of the school voucher/charter school movement.  This would aid the poor communities far more than it would more affluent ones.  It would give poor families who are fed up with the poor teaching and ganglands their local government schools have turned into.  It would give them the access to better schools that more well off people, more specifically, our elected leaders, have often sent their children to all along.  Yet Barak Obama and other Democrat leaders have been the very ones who have blocked these attempts to help your children at every turn, because they are in the pockets of the teacher’s unions. 

I was going to do a separate post on a great video on a charter school fight in Watts, but this seems a perfect time to put it up.  Watch the whole thing, and if you don’t cheer for these (mostly minority) families trying to get their children an education, you have no heart.

     

Update: 

I’m only doing this as an update instead of a new post since I’m so tired of writing on this man and his hate.  It seems that Wright says Israel is a ‘dirty word’ and that ‘blacks get all quiet at the mention of Israel’.  Given his support for the ‘Palestinian’ cause, and the traditional hostility between the black and Jewish communities, this is no surprise.  Wright himself told Obama

What was it that Wright himself said? Something like “The moment my sermons come out, Obama’s Jewish support is going to melt like a snowball in hell”?

Yet another Update: 

Get ready for some more anti-America, anti-Israel rhetoric:

Rev. Wright’s ‘War on Iraq IQ Test’

41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992?
A: Over 65

42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?
A: 30+

43. Q: How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year?
A:$5 billion

44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons?
A: 8

45. Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got?
A: 0

46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got?
A: over 10,000

47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons?
A: the US

48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have?
A: Over 400

49. Q: Has Israel every allowed UN weapon inspections?
A: No

50. Q: What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israeli settlements?
A: 42%

51. Q: Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land?
A: Yes

And concluding with this:

52. Q: Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.?
A: ????

Every bit of which is misleading, not to mention completely absolving Iraq, the ‘Palestinians’ and other Arab countries of their misdeeds.  Besides, exactly what does Israel have to do with an ‘Iraq Q & A’?  Well, if you’re a conspiracy minded nut, or in the mindset of the America hating, Jew hating muslim community, it has everything to do with us going into Iraq.  Real world though?  Not a damn thing.  We had our own fish to fry with Saddam.  Crikey, one has to wonder how much else is going to be found in this man’s putrid filth, and how much the Obamamaniacs are going to cover for him?  Can Obama manage to distance himself in his big speech tomorrow?  Do spin control to try to convince us that this Black Liberation Theology isn’t so bad after all?  Unite us, Oh Great Obamessiah!