What Obama And Wright Hath Wrought

Michael Smirconish (filling in for Bill O’Reilly today on his radio show), played a clip from his interview with Hillary Clinton.

What an annoying piece of work, O’Reilly is. He says he feels sorry for Obama because his lunatic former pastor is derailing his campaign. Poor Obama is a nice guy, according to O’Reilly, and Reverend Wright is hurting him. What does Hillary think?

Frankly I don’t care. I realize she’ll just give a careful politician’s answer to that question. It’s O’Reilly’s sympathy for Obama that I’m interested in. As always, with O’Reilly, he wants to come off as a very mature, reasonable, independent thinker. So he basically implies that those of us whose hearts don’t bleed for Obama’s suffering in this cruel predicament are mean spirited wingers.

I can’t stress forcefully enough what utter bullshit that is. I don’t feel one teeny tiny bit sorry for Obama, and neither should anyone. In fact I think he owes me an apology for insulting my intelligence to the degree that he has. You don’t sit in the pews of a church for as long as he did and not notice the crazy, Marxist, race-baiting style of the Pastor. To try to convince us that Reverend McCrazyRace-baitingMarxist only came out when Obama and his family were not in the pews, strains credulity. It’s simply. not. credible. And that’s putting it nicely. Frankly, it’s BS – Barbara Streisand horse-hocky. Eh…I wish I had a really foul mouth right now…. if anyone deserves heaps of foul-mouthed scorn poured down on him, Obama does for being such an arrogant, insulting….!@#$%&* And what pisses me off the most are the dumcoffs who buy his bull, hook-line-and-sinker.

He also owes the country an apology for setting race relations in America back 50 years. By causing a spotlight to shine on his demonic church in Chicago, (because that’s the church he attended for nearly 20 years, and as he was running for POTUS, he had to know it would be looked at) he has forced millions of whites to recoil in disgust, and exclaim WTF??? What kind of pastor screams “God damn America”, and what kind of congregation whoops and hollers in appreciation at that kind of rhetoric…in church??? What kind of pastor blames the “US of KKK A” for the insane and unwarranted destruction on 9/11, the very weekend after the attack?

I used to believe that vast majority of Americans, both black and white, despised racism, and craved racial unity. Now we’re all forced to wonder how many of these black churches engage in that sort of “worship”, when normally we wouldn’t consider it any of our business how other congregations worship. I always assumed (mistakenly it turns out), that black churches were lively, but still reverent, and respectable, but in the case of TUCC, I can see I was wrong.

Christians are not supposed to damn anyone. That is why the curse “God damn” is such an egregious one. Christians are called to forgive their neighbors, not sit in supreme judgment of them. I understand that throughout history, there have been evil, or wrong-headed “men of God” preaching hate from the pulpit, I didn’t realize it was still going on to this degree.

How many more black pastors preach such hate from the pulpit. I shudder to think. I really don’t know the answer to that. I don’t think I want to know.

Thanks Obama.

Wednesday’s Hero: Lance Corporal Matt Croucher

This Weeks Hero Was Suggested By Mary Ann

Wednesday Hero was started to put a face to the men and women of the American Armed Forces and what they do for us. Vary rarely has there been a member of a foreign military profiled. In fact, in the two years Wednesday Hero’s been going on it’s only been done once before. Here’s the second.

Lance Corporal Matt Croucher
24 years old from Birmingham, England
40 Commando Royal Marines

L/Cpl Matt Croucher is not only one of the bravest men alive, he’s also one of the luckiest men alive. On the morning of February 9, 2008 L/Cpl. and his unit were searching a compound near Sangin in Afghanistan that was suspected of being used to make bombs to be used in attacks on British and Afghan troops. Walking in the darkness among a group of four men, Croucher stepped into a tripwire that pulled the pin from a boobytrap grenade. His patrol commander, Corporal Adam Lesley, remembered Croucher shouting “Grenade!”

As others dived for cover, Croucher did something nobody expected. He lay down on the grenade to smother the blast. Lesley got on the ground, another man got behind a wall, but the last member of the patrol was still standing in the open when the grenade went off.

“My reaction was, ‘My God this can’t be real’,” said Lesley. “Croucher had simply lain back and used his day sack to blunt the force of the explosion. You would expect nine out of 10 people to die in that situation.” L/Cpl. Croucher was that 1/10. Not only did he survive, amazingly he only suffered shock from the blast and a bloody nose. He was saved by the special plating inside his Osprey body armor. The backpack he was wearing was thrown more than 30ft by the blast.

“I felt one of the lads giving me a top to toe check. My head was ringing. Blood was streaming from my nose. It took 30 seconds before I realized I was definitely not dead,” said L/Cpl. Croucher.

For his actions that day, L/Cpl. Croucher was in line for the Victoria Cross, the highest award for a British Serviceman, but it has yet to be awarded.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.

By: Indian Chris of Right Wing and Right Minded

Flight 93 Memorial #29

Congressman Ramstad comes out in opposition to the Flight 93 memorial

Blogburst logo, no accident

Congressman Jim Ramstad (R-MN) gave a House speech this month, supporting Mr. Burnett’s opposition to the crescent design. The speech is entered in the Congressional Record here, along with supporting statements from Tom Burnett Sr. (father of murdered Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.).

That makes two Congressmen now who have come out publicly against the crescent memorial. (Tom Tancredo took the lead last November, asking the Park Service to choose a completely new design.)

News coverage revs up confrontation at this Saturday’s public meeting

Ramstad’s speech, and our ongoing petition drive, netted a full width banner headline on the front page of the Somerset Daily American, with the story continuing full width on an inside page as well. This high profile local news coverage should make for an interesting Memorial Project meeting at the Somerset County Courthouse this Saturday. Several critics will be speaking during the public comment period, and the first batch of petitions will be delivered in bulk (over 5000 signatures to date, 4700 online and 500 on paper).

The Daily American article includes lots of powerful language from Mr. Burnett and other critics of the crescent design, along with some remarkably disingenuous evasions from the usual defenders. Most egregious is Patrick White, vice president of Families of Flight 93, who tries to pretend that the criticisms of the design are all about Mr. Burnett trying to get an undemocratic “do over” after failing to stop the Crescent of Embrace design when he served on the design competition jury.

While on the jury, Mr. Burnett only complained about the giant Islamic shaped crescent and the minaret-like Tower of Voices. No one on the jury, including Mr. Burnett, knew anything about the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent; or about the placementof the 9/11 date in the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag; or about the 44 glass blocks on the flight path; or about the fact that the Tower of Voices turns out to be a year-round accurate Islamic prayer-time sundial.

Not that the jury is beyond reproach. It was bizarre for these family members and design professionals to plant a bare naked crescent and star flag on the graves of our murdered heroes, but given everything that the jurors did NOT know, this configuration at least COULD have been an accident. What came out after the design was selected is absolute proof of terrorist memorializing intent, with every Islamic and terrorist memorializing feature being repeated in the Tower of Voices portion of the memorial.

One example is the 38 Memorial Groves. (There were supposed to be 40.) By itself, it is merely suspicious that the arc of 38 groves can be seen as a set of 19 nested crescents: one for each 9/11 hijacker. But architect Paul Murdoch proves this terrorist memorializing intent by surrounding the Tower of Voices with a second set of 19 nested crescents. And on it goes. EVERYTHING gets repeated in the Tower of Voices, and the 93 foot tall Islamic sundial is itself a very precise structure that could NEVER occur by accident.

Patrick White wants to dodge all this by pretending that the controversy is about the initial jury decision, instead of the ensuing blindness to voluminous evidence of terrorist memorializing intent. No one exemplifies this willful blindness better than Patrick White himself.

Patrick White denies the Mecca orientation in public while admitting it in private

At the July 2007 Memorial Project meeting, a critic of the crescent design engaged Mr. White in private conversation, asking how he could be unconcerned about the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. White’s reply was to suggest that this orientation cannot be seen as a tribute to Islam because the inexactness of it would be “disrespectful to Islam.” (The crescent points 1.8° north of Mecca, ±.1°.)

But this isn’t what White was telling the public. That same week, Patrick White told the press that all of the claims about Islamic symbolism had been thoroughly investigated and been found to be untrue and “preposterous.” In private, White was acknowledging the almost exact Mecca orientation of the crescent and making excuses for it, while issuing sweeping denials in public.

He is still doing the same thing. He KNOWS that the giant crescent points almost exactly to Mecca, yet claims that such “assumptions,” have been “repeatedly shown-to-be-false.” In fact, not a single factual claim about what is in the design has ever been rebutted. If the crescent did not point to Mecca, it would be trivially easy to demonstrate. This is a simple geometric claim. But all the Memorial Project has ever offered is unsupported denials, denials that they acknowledge in private to be FALSE.

Patrick White’s dishonest attack on Tom Burnett

The jury process is irrelevant. No one is criticizing it. The jurors bear no responsibility for hidden Islamic and terrorist-memorializing features that they knew nothing about when they chose the crescent design. If it were not for two ugly bits of misinformation, put forward by Patrick White in his effort to make the jury process the issue, there would be no reason to mention the jury process at all. Both of White’s falsehoods are aimed at discrediting Tom Burnett Sr.

1. In the Daily American article (half way down) White claims that Mr. Burnett: “gave his consent to support what the majority picked.”

Mr. Burnett was incensed in 2005 when the Memorial Project announced that the jurors had united behind the majority choice. Without ever consulting with Mr. Burnett, the Memorial Project wrote in their jury report that: “By consensus the Stage Two jury forwards this section of the Flight 93 memorial to the partner [Paul Murdoch] with the full and unqualified support of each juror.” Tom has been trying to correct the record ever since, and Patrick White OUGHT to know it.

2. White also claims that: “No one agreed then with Mr. Burnett’s preferred choice for a final design.”

“To the contrary” says Mr. Burnett, “the vote not unanimous; it was 9 to 6.” Five people were with Mr. Burnett in rejecting the crescent design. This on a jury made up of 8 design professionals and 7 family members. It could even be that a majority of family members opposed the Crescent of Embrace. Tom requested the vote tally in a formal letter to the Memorial Project which was never answered. Now Patrick White throws the vote tally in Tom’s face, and completely misrepresents it.

3. Bonus badness. White claims that: “Jurors gave all of Mr. Burnett’s concerns a complete airing.”

In fact, the design professionals on the jury tried to shut Mr. Burnett up. Tom Sokolowski, director of Pittsburgh’s Andy Warhol Museum called Mr. Burnett “asinine” just for noticing that the crescent is a traditional symbol of Islam. This overt hostility to Mr. Burnett’s concerns is not what most of us would call “a complete airing.”

So no, the jury process is not the issue here, but if it were, it couldn’t stand up to scrutiny either.

To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.

Stop the Memorial Blogburst

1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
Al Salibiyyah
And Rightly So
Anne Arundel Maryland Politics
Big Dog’s Weblog
Big Sibling
Cao2’s Weblog
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Dr. Bulldog and Ronin
Error Theory
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Flopping Aces
Four Pointer
Freedom’s Enemies
Ft. Hard Knox
GM’s Corner
Hoosier Army Mom
Ironic Surrealism II
Jack Lewis
Jihad Press
Kender’s Musings
My Own Thoughts
Nice Deb
No Compromises When It Comes To Being Right!
Ogre’s Politics and Views
Papa Mike’s Blog
Part-Time Pundit
Publius’ Forum
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Ron’s Musings
Rosemary’s Thoughts
Smooth Stone
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
the Avid Editor
The Renaissance Biologist
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run
Tizona’s Weblog
We Have Some Planes


Another Radical For Obama

This one’s is a former member of Students For A Democratic Society, (the radical ’60’s group that transformed into Weatherman) and he’s the webmaster for a blog called Progressives For Obama, according to Aaron Klein at WND:

He didn’t bomb the Capitol or rob banks like his contemporaries in the Weather Underground.But Carl Davidson, a former vice president of the Students for a Democratic Society who traveled to Cuba to meet with Fidel Castro and still praises the dictator today, is another proud radical for Barack Obama, serving faithfully as webmaster for “Progressives for Obama.”

Take a look at some of the names in the sidebar at Progressives For Obama. You’ll see some familiar ones:

He joins his old SDS collaborator, Tom Hayden, who traveled with Jane Fonda to meet with Vietnamese communist leaders during the height of the Vietnam war. In fact, Fonda, too, Hayden’s ex-wife, is part of Progressives for Obama.

Like all good radicals, Davidson is enamored with Fidel Castro:

On his blog, Davidson talks about meeting Castro in 1968: “He is a remarkable man, with a photographic memory, wide knowledge and keen insights. Cuba will change after him, though, as brother Raul is already looking into the socialist market economy in China and Vietnam, but will undoubtedly make any reforms ‘in the Cuban way.’ We should all wish Fidel and Cuba well, and double our voices against the blockcade. (sic)

Davidson and Hayden take credit for launching the “Venceremos Brigade,” hundreds of young Americans who were covertly transported to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and mingle with the communist revolutionary leadership in Havana.

I know, I know…guilt by association, again.

Obama can’t help it that every known radical, commie, and terrorist sympathizer in the country is supporting him.

Obama Unambiguously Throws Wright Under Bus

The press conference is ongoing as I type this. Allah will have the video as soon as it’s available. Also Michelle Malkin is liveblogging.

Obama appears to be seriously displeased by Wright’s performance, last weekend. Calls them “rants not grounded in truth”. Says it doesn’t reflect anything he believes. He’s annoyed by the damage Wright has done to him personally, but more importantly… his campaign. (I was expecting him to say race relations in this country, or something of that nature, but nooooo). Does Obama have any idea how depressing Wright’s words are to average Americans?

Incredibly, he asks us to believe that Reverend Wright’s view of America, which was on display over the weekend, (which Obama strongly condemns) was never on display during the 20 years he was a member of TUCC. He goes to church to pray, not see a spectacle. I’m sorry, but I call b.s.

The Fox Commentators (Edie Hill and ?) find Obama’s response to the questions, not satisfying. The problem still not going to go away…could be the “death knell” of his campaign. (Gosh! I hope not!)

Also, he disavows the claim that Wright was ever his “spiritual mentor”, or “adviser”, merely his pastor. He says the media has erroneously portrayed Reverend Wright as such. The implication being…they’re really not that close. I could be wrong, but I thought Obama was on record as describing Wright as his spiritual adviser.

I’ll be busy googling for the next few minutes.

Ace’s coverage here.

UPDATE:

As for the ‘Hey! He was only my pastor…not my spiritual mentor or advisor’ claim; Obama said back in January 2007:

Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

“What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice,” Obama said. “He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics.”

Sounds like he’s calling him some sort of spiritual adviser, (not to mention a ‘day to day’ political adviser!) if you ask me.

Barack Obama And Voter IDs

Bad news for Democrats!: The Supreme Court has just rejected the argument that strict voter ID laws “disenfranchise” voters, thus making voter fraud more difficult.

John Fund in the WSJ today, writes:

In ruling on the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter ID law – the toughest in the nation – the Supreme Court had to deal with the claim that such laws demanded the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because they could disenfranchise voters. All nine Justices rejected that argument.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three dissenters who would have overturned the Indiana law, wrote approvingly of the less severe ID laws of Georgia and Florida. The result is that state voter ID laws are now highly likely to pass constitutional muster.

But this case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, also revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, the city neighborhood where Sen. Barack Obama – the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws – lives now. Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years, with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.

Justice Stevens has a history (as both a lawyer, and a judge) of trying to root out corruption in state government. Apparently, Obama is quite comfortable with it:

Barack Obama has approached Chicago politics differently. He came to the city as a community organizer in the 1980s and quickly developed a name for himself as a litigator in voting cases.

In 1995, then GOP Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the federal “Motor Voter” law. Allowing voters to register using only a postcard and blocking the state from culling voter rolls, he argued, could invite fraud. Mr. Obama sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and won. Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.

Acorn’s efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn’t exist. “We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside,” said Democrat Matt Potter, the city’s deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group’s local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.

Despite this record – and polls that show clear majorities of blacks and Hispanics back voter ID laws – Mr. Obama continues to back Acorn. They both joined briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn Indiana’s law.

Last year, he put on hold the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. Mr. von Spakovsky, as a Justice Department official, had supported a Georgia photo ID law.

In a letter to the Senate Rules Committee, Mr. Obama wrote that “Mr. von Spakovsky’s role in supporting the Department of Justice’s quixotic efforts to attack voter fraud raises significant questions about his ability to interpret and apply the law in a fair manner.” Of course, now an even stricter law than the one in Georgia has been upheld by the Supreme Court, removing Mr. Obama’s chief objection.

Ooooh, burrrrn.

The hold on the von Spakovsky nomination has left the Federal Election Commission with less than a quorum. As a result, the FEC can’t open new cases, hold public meetings, issue advisory opinions or approve John McCain’s receipt of public funding for the general election. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims that, even without the von Spakovsky hold, filling the FEC’s vacancies will take “several months.”

Don’t anyone say Obama has been a do-nothing Senator. He’s had his little “victories”.

I can’t improve on John Fund’s conclusion:

So we have the irony of two liberal icons in sharp disagreement over yesterday’s Supreme Court decision. Justice Stevens, the real reformer, believes voter ID laws are justified to prevent fraud. Barack Obama, the faux reformer, hauls out discredited rhetoric that they disenfranchise voters.

Faux reformer indeed. Oh, and guess which player in all this, endorses Obama?

Hat tip: Lucianne

More on the Democrats and voter fraud, here.

Should Obama “Disown” Reverend Wright?

I have to do one more quick post before I go to bed.

Some pundits like Byron York, and Andrew Sullivan are offering Obama free advice, strongly suggesting that he “disown” Reverend Wright.

York:

“I think he’s going to have to walk farther away from Wright, if he wants to win the general election,” one Democratic strategist told me Monday night. “He could say, ‘This is different now. Just to eliminate any questions, I am going to leave this church, because I believe the country is more important.’ It would say that Wright’s rhetoric has no place in his campaign or the lives of his children.” (As the Wright controversy has festered, observers on both sides of the political divide have wondered, usually in whispers, about Obama’s decision to take his young children to Wright’s church.)

Sullivan:

Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright’s views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against: the boomer, Vietnam era’s obsession with its red-blue, white-black, pro and anti-America fixations. That is not what this election needs to be about; and Wright’s massive, racially divisive and, yes, bitter provocation requires a proportionate response.

We need a speech or statement from Obama in which he utterly repudiates this poison, however personally difficult that may be, however damaging the impact will be.

(Here’s Ace’s hilarious take on St. Andrew’s change of heart).

First of all, STOP trying to help the enemy, Byron.

(Here’s Karl Rove trying to give him some free advice, too). Stop that!

Second of all, what can he possibly say as a means to explain how he was able to sit in Reverend Wright’s pews for 20 years, and listen to that garbage? He can “disown” Wright all he wants, but he can’t disown his participation in that loathsome church for 20 years; a church that practices the profoundly racist Black Liberation Theology.

He, and Wright, and the media can spin spin spin all they want that Wright was taken out of context, but the American people, (the majority, anyway) are not such ignorant buffoons that they would believe such unmitigated bullcrap. The unedited versions of his sermons, taken completely in context, (which he sells in his own church giftshop!) are even worse.

So to say that Obama just needs to “disown” his Pastor of twenty years doesn’t cut it. But don’t tell the panicky nutroots that. They’re still holding on to hope, (and change).

What Obama really needs to do is drop out before he does any more damage to race relations in this country.

UPDATE:

GOP operatives, always slow on the uptake, are finally noticing Obama’s weaknesses, and are preparing a $500,000 hit on him. Something tells me it’s going to be lukewarm, and unsatisfying:

Whereas Obama once seemed an almost cultlike figure who transcended race and class, the narrative that has emerged from his campaign’s recent trials has given Republicans hope that the Illinois senator can be tagged as an elitist with the same effectiveness with which Michael Dukakis and John F. Kerry were so labeled.

The elitist story line has provided Republicans with press release fodder against freshman Democratic House members and statewide elected officials in roughly two dozen states.

Whoa, Nellie! Hardcore! Elitist, eh?

The guy’s got our nations enemies, tin-pot dictators, known commies, radical pinkos, (and Reverend Wright) supporting him; he’s buds with a former terrorist, for crying out loud, and the best they can do is try to paint him as an elitist?

They had better do better than that, by God.

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,714,419 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow Nice Deb on WordPress.com
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 556 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: