Thursday, September 25, 2008
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments today on news reports that an African minister once asked God to protect Sarah Palin from witchcraft:
“In 2005, Sarah Palin went to church and found that a visiting minister from Kenya, Bishop Thomas Muthee, was doing the service. He offered a prayer asking Jesus to keep her free from ‘every form of witchcraft.’ Palin said nothing—she simply kept her head bowed throughout the blessing. Why this is newsworthy is one issue, but why it has quickly become the subject of scorn is another.
“For the past two decades, Americans have been lectured by educators and the chattering class that we must respect cultural, religious, racial and ethnic diversity. It seems that exceptions to the creed of multiculturalism are only made when it suits the ideological agenda of the left. Enter Keith Olbermann: He exploited this incident last night as a club to paint Palin as an extremist. Moreover, he used this single blessing to unfavorably contrast the African minister to Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The MSNBC commentator incredibly said that Wright—who spewed hate speech before Obama for 20 years—‘seems pretty mainstream’ by comparison.
“Witchcraft is a sad reality in many parts of Africa, resulting in scores of deaths in Kenya over the past two decades. Bishop Muthee’s blessing, then, was simply a reflection of his cultural understanding of evil. While others are not obliged to accept his interpretation, all can be expected to respect it. More than that—Muthee should be hailed for asking God to shield Palin from harmful forces, however they may be manifested. And for this he is mocked and Palin ridiculed?
“We know that many cultural elites have a hard time embracing religion, but is it too much to ask that they at least show some manners when discussing subjects which most Americans hold dear?”
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Here's my conspiracy suggestion: Is the Joe Biden we're experiencing really a GOP body-double plant? Is the real slow-Joe hog-tied in a basement somewhere in Scranton?
Because it's really too choice. Joe Biden claims that FDR addressed the nation in 1929 when Hoover was President and furthermore that the address had been broadcast via television, a medium which was still under development and not commercially available until years later.
Obama may not want to help his 26 year old half-brother, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I'm starting the George Obama Compassion Fund which has the goal of raising some money to help George Obama move out of his one-room hut. George also wants to become a mechanic and surely he could use some funds to get the training he needs to fulfill his humble aspirations. Currently George lives on a few dollars a month. Even a few thousand dollars would completely transform this man's life.
I'm putting up $1000 to get this fund started. I invite people to send me small contributions--$5, $10, $25, whatever you can spare. Send them to P.O. Box 3384, Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067. Make your checks to "George Obama." I will then contact the Obama campaign and offer them the money on the condition that they forward it to George Obama in Kenya. The advantage of this approach is that not only does George Obama benefit from our generosity, but also Barack Obama can use the opportunity to improve his relationship with his half-brother. Let's foster Obama family values, and give a break to a guy who really needs it.
With regards to Jonathan's post mentioning William Ayers of the Weather Underground and his connections to Barack Obama, the following anonymous comment caught my eye:
Since it is clear that over two years of intense scrutiny has turned up precious little evidence of wrong doing or poor judgment, it is not surprising that his political adversaries would try to attack him with examples of what other people said or did. Why don't people who are opposed to the upcoming Obama presidency try to make valid arguments against his policy proposals? When you try to convict him of guilt by association you just reinforce the conclusion that the opposition to our 44th president is baseless and purely partisan.
My italics highlight the sincere question and following a tradition in American politics, I'll respond with several questions of my own.
1) Assuming you are an Obama supporter since you refer to him as the 44th president, shouldn't we expect you to respond with as much indignation when his policy proposals, like teaching sex ed to kindergartners, are simply mentioned, let alone argued against, as was evidenced several weeks ago by other supporters?
2) Does "precious little evidence" explain the all-out offensive against Stanley Kurtz launched during his appearance on WGN-AM in which he discussed his research into the matter?
3) In light of (2) above, isn't it natural that the question "What are they hiding?" is the one that comes to our mind?
Fortunately, Stanley Kurtz's first amendment rights haven't been denied him, and he has a new article out today on the topic. Excerpt:
Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.
The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.
The piece goes on to deduce from the facts the intimate collaboration that must have occurred between William Ayers and Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge that, for some reason, Obama wants to dismiss or at least downplay by saying "Hey, he's just some guy, you know, I met once or twice." He concludes that "participation" is a far better word than association to describe Obama's involvement with the known radical terrorist.
The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.
I'm going to close with another anonymous comment from the first post which I found to be interesting though speculative.
I have in the distant past been in the company of both Ayers and Dohrn (even in their home). Being the ideological antithesis of the 'Weathermen' movement and having more than a casual knowledge of their operational goals for reasons I choose not to share, I was nonetheless curious to see what mindset is in play, that contributes to the development of what is referred to today as 'domestic terrorism.'
This is my take on the couple. They are as charming and intelligent as they are committed and venomous. They are not aging hippie types whom time has past by, but rather they still maintain the fire of commitment to their shared anarchists ideology of some four decades. As much as they would like the public to think that their activism, terrorism as it were, was successful in achieving their ultimate goals (i.e., "legends-in-their-own-minds") they know on balance they failed. Both of them are too intelligent not to have analyzed and reflected on the facts (over all these years) and then concluded they have not yet achieved goals set out for themselves in the 60's & 70's.
However, I would submit that an Obama presidency would finally provide them an institutional ("establishment") vehicle to finally achieve what they failed to achieve 40 years ago. Mark my words; because of their personable, charismatic and intellectual persona's -- in an Obama presidency, I would expect Ayers would be appointed to a high ranking policy position in the Department of Education. Dohrn on the other hand will be appointed to a policy position in the Justice Department. Not exactly the kind of domestic terrorism they cut their teeth on so long ago, however, this scenario would finally provide the couple an opportunity to achieve from the inside what they failed to achieve from the outside looking in with their bombs. Remember, the Justice Department oversees the FBI and eduction provides knowledge to our progeny. What better way to clear the slate of all past failures to destroy the "military-industrial complex" through violence than to manipulate a way they can join that 'complex' and then destroy it from within like a cancer. Then these two leftists along with their cronies can begin to seed their brand of social responsibility in the minds and hearts of our youth.
Although I believe Obama to be a bright fellow, he has a long way to go to be the intellectual equal of either Ayers or Dohrn. Truth be said, Obama is a mere stepping stone for the couple to have their ideology aired, otherwise he is meaningless even if he were to become president.
[cross-posted at scrappycons]
Just read Dave Barry's parody of the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. Hilarious.
"My own personal head", LOL.
H/T Father John Wauck
Monday, September 22, 2008
Or maybe he didn't do his homework. Factcheck.org confirms the inaccuracy of Senator Obama's statements in Florida.
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."
That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.
Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.
This quiz was interesting, albeit somewhat manipulative. The idea is that you select which candidate you prefer on issues based on short soundbite-style quotes. I chose Obama's position twice; one was global warming and I think the other was a vague one on the economy -- they don't tell you even at the end.
I think the overall message is "Hey, look at how close these doods are, man!" and to accomplish that, they choose quotes accordingly. Of course, try as they might, they can't pull it off on the abortion question. But it's still a fun quiz, if not merely for the silly "big head" Pythonesque animation.