Now that bloggers have had time to digest various thoughts on Reverend Dr. Wright’s repertoire of controversial statements we will soon see which bloggers are thinking with their heart versus their head. The main take from the left is that Obama can’t be blamed for the things others say. Here are some examples:
- “I call upon my opponent to say that she forthrightly rejects statements made by her hairdresser” (Washington Post)
- “The racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama’s minister had a valid point” (Huffington Post)
- “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.” (New York Times – April 2007)
This last bullet is quite interesting since it came from Wright almost a year ago. He admits that guilt by association with him is a real possibility. However, if anyone else says the very same thing they are labeled as racists or character assassins. So with this in mind I have a message for the reverend.
Screw you and the divisive horse you rode in on.
Yes, people should not necessarily be blamed for comments made by someone else. However, these comments deserve far more scrutiny when they come from the leader of an organization that exists to shape how you live your life. If Obama’s security guard, baby sitter or barber said the things Wright has said, the comments would be ignored and Obama would be clean. But these comments came from the man that married Barack and Michelle, the man that baptized his children, and the man that inspired the title of Obama’s second book. Wright is a man of influence, he has had Obama’s attention for more than twenty years.
Here are some words from Obama himself aboutReverand Dr. Wright:
“A special shout out to my pastor, a guy who puts up with me, counsels me, listens to my wife complain about me, he’s a friend, and a great leader …” (source)
This doesn’t sound like a man referring to his crazy uncle. I also find the following comment from Wright’s church interesting: “This is an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”
To me this sounds an awful lot like the stuff that radical Muslims say about Islam. Both conveniently ignore the substance of the criticism they receive and instead replace it with a diversion aimed to inflame their own members. Find me a single reporter or blogger that has attacked Trinity United Church of Christ. I doubt you can find one. It’s much easier to find people that are attacking Wright’s controversial statements. Not the church, his statements. And given that Wright has influenced Obama so deeply these attacks are absolutely justified.
When I was a kid I would look forward to Easter Sunday. I would wake up and race to the living room to see what the Easter Bunny left me. Usually it was a large, colorfully wrapped colorful basket full of all sorts of sugary goodness. Sometimes there was a big boxed chocolate bunny next to the basket. I’d open the box, bite into the rabbit and BAM…
It was hollow.
As a younger child I didn’t care. Chocolate was chocolate. But as I got older I learned about solid chocolate bunnies. You bite into an ear and it takes some serious jaw pressure to take a chunk out of it. Solid chocolate bunnies are substantive. They last a long time. Hollow rabbits may be sufficient for superficial chocolate fans, but as a grownup they leave me empty, wanting for more.
Barack Obama is a hollow chocolate bunny. He looks great on the outside. He says great things. But when you try to sink your teeth into him (metaphorically speaking of course) you find a hollow core. His voting record is even hollow. He has failed to vote on legislation a staggering amount of times. Obama is calling for ‘change’ and talks about ‘hope’ to throngs of political lemmings. Yet his record has no substance. It’s hollow.
America needs a leader of substance. Someone that stands for legitimate values, not vaporware intangible concepts that cannot be legislated. Barack Obama certainly has the best of intentions, but he (and his wife) are not fit to lead America at this time.
This post is going to be a little different in tone than most of my family-friendly entries. I am ripping pissed off at Democrats and after you read this you will know why.
Liberals want to end this war at all costs, even if it means endangering more American lives. They can’t de-fund the war nor do they have the skills to negotiate a peaceful ending. In fact, nobody possesses those skills. We are fighting pure evil over there.
Yet Pelosi & Company want to pass a non-binding resolution that brings negative attention to possible the most important ally we have in the war on terror: Turkey. The House leadership does not seem to mind doing damage to our relations with the only democratic and secular Muslim state in the region at a crucial time. Although the intended measure is non-binding, and thus it avoids a presidential veto, that does not make it harmless or intelligent.
The proposed legislation is the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.316). It’s goal? “Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.” At least they are being honest…
Yes, Turkey did bad things to Armenians a long time ago. But I ask the House this: What purpose does this legislation serve? Why now? What will the impact of passing it truly be? Why, with the myriad of other important issues that Congress could be working on, are they trying to push through a resolution that will embarrass and alienate a key ally? Oh, that’s right. They are trying to screw the President at any cost.
W
ell Speaker Mimi, your pal Barbara Boxer is fond of saying “elections have consequences.” Well, so do votes. This legislation is the consummate example of liberal failure to be accountable for one’s actions. They are so focused on attacking the president that they are willing to make it easier for our enemies to kill our troops. They are willing to create long term problems that affect all Americans for the short term gain of attacking the president. It’s the same mindset that Republicans displayed when attacking President Clinton. This time, instead of griping about the cover up of a blow job we are talking about the lives of thousands of our soldiers, and the overall stability of the Middle East. It is bad, it is unproductive, and it is very dangerous.
HOW CAN THEY NOT REALIZE THE IMPACT OF THIS LEGISLATION?
Look at the map above. Turkey is the big green blob to the left. Iraq is the big red blob below Turkey. To the north and south ofTurkey are the Black and Mediterranean Sea. This is where you usually find things like waves, fishies and big damned American military ships that could remove any country from the map if so inclined.
Now, here is another map that shows how our military planes have to travel around the region. That little place below the name Turkey on the map is Incirlik, a place that we have an important air base in NATO’s Southern Region. To get supplies (such as improved armor) to our troops without access to Turkey we will have to rely on Syria and Iraq to let us use their airspace. Yeah, right. That’s really gonna happen.
Here is an excellent article on Turkey and the potential impact of this resolution. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided to bring to a vote a non-binding resolution declaring the events of 1915 in Eastern Anatolia a “genocide.” Despite its moralistic claims, this is a dangerous—indeed, in the present circumstances, a highly irresponsible—assault on U.S. national interests in Iraq and elsewhere. (source)
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and now George W. Bush all opposed such attempts. The House leadership does not seem to mind doing damage to our relations with the only democratic and secular Muslim state in the region at a crucial time. Although the intended measure is non-binding, and thus it avoids a presidential veto, that does not make it harmless or intelligent. (source)
The administration is trying to kill this legislation before it is too late. President Abdullah Gul of Turkey is telling anyone that will listen that if this is passed it will ireversably change the relationship between Turkey and the US. Here is what the administration is saying:
- “…this resolution is not the right response to these historic mass killings, and its passage would do great harm to relations with a key ally in NATO, and to the war on terror.”
- “The passage of this resolution at this time would be very problematic for everything we are trying to do in the Middle East” Condoleesa Rice
- Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, wrote to Bush to thank him for his efforts opposing the resolution and to draw “attention to the problems it would create in bilateral relations if it is accepted.”
Hello… Congress? Please think about this before you cast a vote. There are serious consequences to this bill. Do you really want to cause more troops to die?
Oh yeah… the “selfish bitch” thing? I’m just quoting Joy Behar and her immature comment about Michelle Malkin. Behar is a has-been comedian but seems to represent the ilk that is the liberal left. So, here’s a taste of your own medicine you clueless bitch.
As usual the press is running with the wrong side of a story. Senator Craig (Republican from Idaho) was arrested last month for solicitation while at the Minneapolis airport. Liberals are whining that he is being persecuted for being gay. Others are saying that Craig was the victim of a hateful Idaho newspaper editor. Once again the concept of personal responsibility has slipped into some other plane of reality that most Americans can’t perceive. Craig was arrested for solicitation, as in asking for sex, in a public place. Where’s the ambiguity?
Look at it this way. Would the left be supporting Craig if he got busted soliciting a prostitute while in office? Would they support him if he was a woman soliciting another woman in a restroom? (does that even happen?) Craig’s sexual preference has nothing to do with the issue; his lack of judgment is the problem. A sitting Senator was caught trying to engage in sex in a public restroom. At least Bill Clinton had the nerve to do so in a private, albeit publicly funded room of an oval shape.
Here’s a quick history lesson for the younger crowd: This ain’t the first time… Craig was accused of this behavior in 1982. (I wonder how many bathroom forays he’s had over the past two-and-a-half decades?)
A former governor has weighed in on this issue and offers prayers for Craig and his family. While pontificating on the shame and suffering of growing up gay and how his sexual desires ruined his political career, former New Jersey governor James McGreevey closes his article with the following quote: “I pray that the tide of American history continues to sweep toward the inevitable expansion of freedom that recognizes the worth and dignity of every individual — and that mine is the last generation that is required to choose between affairs of the heart and elected office.”
Again, being gay is not the issue. Soliciting in public restrooms is the issue. Show me the article or news clip that suggests that Craig step down for being gay. Hey James, we’d be happy with a generation of politicians able to focus on their jobs instead of finding an anonymous quickie.
Libs will quickly chime in “But what about Senator Vitter…” Well, I can think of two things that make his calls to a prostitution house different than Craig’s bathroom escapades.
- Vitter’s behavior occurred before he was a senator. Shame on the Louisiana press for not finding out about this before he was elected. Then again, what do you expect from the state the brought us Katrina victims Ray Nagan and Kathleen Blanco?
- Vitter fully admitted to his actions and took responsibility for them. It only took senator Craig 19 seconds to try and deflect the blame to the police officer interviewing him. Craig said “you solicited me.” He knew what he was doing. He knew the implications. Do you really want someone with such horrible judgment making important political decisions?
I’m all for forgiveness. If Craig had admitted to his mistake, and if it was an isolated event I believe the public would be willing to let him remain in office. But his arrest is the end of an apparently very long history of discreet sexual activity, and his reactions on tape and his public denial were the final nails in his political coffin.
