| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
So Barack finally resigned from his church of 20 years, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. With one preacher after another making horrendous comments there, he had no choice.
Barack would still have us believe that speeches like those of Wright and Pfleger are recent anomalies there:
"It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my longheld views, statements and principles," he said.
"By anyone associated with Trinity"? "Guest pastors"? Who is he kidding? Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright wasn't a guest pastor. He wasn't just remotely associated with Trinity. He was the leader of Trinity from 1972 to 2008.
And the preachings of Pfleger weren't unexpected. He is well known at Trinity. In his introduction, Pastor Otis said of Pfleger, "He needs no introduction. He is a friend of Trinity. He is a brother beloved. He is a preacher par excellence. He is a prophetic powerful pulpiteer. He is our friend. He is our brother. He is none other than Father Michael Pfleger. We welcome him once again!"
Pfleger's rant wasn't considered shocking or surprising at Trinity. After Pfleger spoke, Otis said, "We thank God for the message and we thank God for the messenger!"
Will anyone believe, as Obama evidently would like us to believe, that the speeches currently heard at this church, are significantly different than those that have been heard there for the last 20 years? Are we really supposed to think, that the normal goings-on at that church suddenly changed since Obama began running for office?
From Omnivoracious (via Instapundit):
...here we have the current frontrunner (barely) to be the 44th president of the United States (the son of a Kenyan man and an American woman, named Barack Obama), reading the top-selling current events book of the season (by an immigrant from Mumbai named Fareed Zakaria) called The Post-American World.
Let's review. Obama:
If only there was some pattern here that might give us a clue to what he is thinking!
Per Hotair:
That's actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one's ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a "suspect classification" for purposes of the state constitution's equal protection clause.
There's no proof that sexual orientation is immutable. On the contrary - a Google search on the phrase "formerly gay" turns up many listings of people who were formerly gay, and no longer are.
The Court has based its ruling not on the law, but on a Liberal view that they now seek to impose on all of us. This is a massive attack on free speech. The Left lost this argument on the playing field of public opinion, and now the Court seeks to impose a view on us all using the power of the state.
Per Mark Steyn, the Court is acting like they are our "super monarchs," in defiance of their historic duty to merely interpret the law:
...what happened here was not just a sly judicial coup, but an explicit one in the wake of the expressed will of the California electorate, and their elected representatives. And what's interesting to me about this general business of judicial activism, in a period when most sort of sources of authority in society, whether you're talking about politicians or the Church, or I suppose the media, if you mean fellows like Walter Cronkite, when most of those sources have diminished in authority, we have kind of compensated by over-venerating a handful of guys in black robes, just because they happen to be called judges, and sit on a fancy court. And there's no reason for this. It's entirely at odds with the founders' conception of a functioning republic, that in effect, you should turn a handful of judges into super monarchs who can overrule.
This ruling can be overturned by a constitutional amendment that is already heading towards the November ballot. If the Court's ruling were to stand, you can expect to see the ACLU in our grade schools demanding:
The Court was split on this - it was a 4 to 3 decision. Do you object to having four guys in robes tell you what your children can and can't be taught about sexual orientation? Do you want to protect free speech? If so, contribute to ProtectMarriage.com, and sign up on ProtectMarriage.com to help.
Obama likes to say that he is a uniter:
Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than Clinton
MANCHESTER, N.H., Aug. 14 -- Drawing a sharp contrast with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his main rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama said in an interview that he has the capacity she may lack to unify the country and move it out of what he called "ideological gridlock."
"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."
But if Obama is such a uniter, why does he permit his supporters to say that anyone who doesn't vote for him, is a racist? For example:
He not only permits them to say it - he personally led the way, in December of 2006. From Sisu:
"Are some voters not going to vote for me because I'm African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn't vote for me because of my politics," Barack Obama told ecstatic New Hampshire voters yesterday. Being one of those voters who probably wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, we were naturally offended at his suggestion that people like us are racists.
His claim to be a uniter is shown to be incorrect, because under his leadership his supporters are using this extremely divisive strategy.
It stars grade-school and high-school kids, and is from Writer-Director Cheryl Felicia Rhoads.
------
Many are discussing how Obama and Wright are setting back race relations in this country. From Roger L. Simon:
Al Sharpton criticizing Barack Obama for urging non-violence in the Sean Bell verdict protest puts into dramatic relief the major racial conflict of our time - and it is inside the African-American community, not outside. Outdated racial profiteers like Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and now the formerly obscure Reverend Jeremiah Wright are clinging for dear life to their reactionary views that have impeded progress in their own community for years.
Unfortunately for all of us, Obama - whose instincts should have been better on this matter - has found himself trapped between appeasing these race baiters (and their constituencies) and taking what is truly a progressive (note the use of the word) stand against them because of his twenty year association with Reverend Wright. The candidate's speech on racism, so lauded in the press, actually worsened the situation by implying an equivalency between the reverend's excrescences and his own grandmother's fear of being mugged. That Obama could even think this way makes us wonder about his ability to lead us out of these particular woods.
And woods they are indeed. The situation is close to tragic and this election year shows a real chance of running off the rails in a way few of us would have predicted. It has a potential for pushing race relations seriously backwards in a society that was already relatively open handed. People do not like being accused of racism when it is not there. The original attraction of the Obama campaign is that it was post-racial and now it is anything but.
Wright has made his own racism undeniable.
Obama has shown that he, Obama, also excuses racism:
Will Obama and Wright set back race relations in this country? I suggest that on the contrary, America's decades-long tradition of powerfully opposing any tendency towards racism, will win in the end, resulting in the disgrace of Obama.
Since Martin Luther King, America has moved in the direction of opposing and putting down all notions of racism. In just the past two years, we have seen striking examples of this in the cases of Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Duane "Dogg" Chapman.
Obama's implied and explicit excuses for racism, are being powerfully rejected by the American public. It appears that Obama's supporters are already finding him to be no longer acceptable. From Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal:
This week we learned the limit of a dream in American politics. At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.
No prominent black clergyman came forth to make even the simple point that Jeremiah Wright's notion of the "black church" is but one point on a spectrum of faith. Rev. Wright, now written off as a virtual nut case, got more support from black clergymen than did Obama.
Barack Obama was bleeding by Monday and needed cover. Where, when he could have used them, were Obama's oh-so-famous endorsers: Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Oprah, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Jay Rockefeller, John Lewis, Toni Morrison, Roger Wilkins, Eric Holder, Robert Reich, Ted Sorenson, Alice Walker, David Wilhelm, Cornel West, Clifford Alexander, Donald McHenry, Patricia Wald, Newton Minow?
Where were all the big-city mayors who went over to the Obama camp: Chicago's Richard Daley, Cleveland's Frank Jackson, Atlanta's Shirley Franklin, Washington's Adrian Fenty, Newark's Cory Booker, Baltimore's Sheila Dixon?
It isn't hard for big names to get on talk TV to make a point. Any major op-ed page would have stopped the presses to print a statement of support from Ted Kennedy or such for the senator. None appeared. Call it profiles in gopher-holing.
Are we really to believe that two individuals - Obama and Wright - are going to turn a nation away from a course it has been on for decades?
On the contrary.
Far from setting back race relations in America, there is a good chance that Obama and Wright will suffer a fate similar to that of Don Imus, Michael Richards, and Duane "Dogg" Chapman, and wil be - to a greater degree, a la Richards and Chapman, or to a lesser degree, a la Imus - disgraced.
Page 1 of 1 pages
