March 25, 2008

The Sadrists' Mistake

The Guardian claimed that the "surge" in Iraq was about to unravel because of strike threats from Sunni militiamen they reported last week, but if you head over to a newly-redesigned Pajamas Media today, you'll see that the threats of a strike were resolved weeks before the Guardian stories ran.

The stories were an attempt to grab defeat in the media while the threat of actual defeat on the ground seems ever more fleeting.

Yesterday, left-wing surrogate McClatchy Newspapers—they even has the ridiculous "Truth to Power" tagline—attempted to claim defeat from the opposite perspective, noting that some of the Sadrists in Iraq seem to be feeling a bit rambunctious after a long period of relative silence.

The left side of the blogosphere, always willing to latch on to even the hint of bad news without even pretending to vet their sources, were quick to declare this as reason 6,578,902 that we've already lost the war in Iraq and it is time for our troops to come home, or to at least within spitting distance.

Reality, of course, is another story.

It has long been known that at some point the Iraqi government would have to take on the criminal element that gravitated to the Sadrists, and unfortunately for these Sadrists, they waited far too long to engage. They haven't stood a chance of a military victory against IA forces for at least two years, which is why al Sadr himself continues to issue ceasefires from the safety of Tehran. Recent attempts by Sadrists to use threats and the force of arms for political ends is now likely to consolidate the power of the central government behind a string of Sadrist defeats in Basra and Baghdad.

Those on the left seem to think that any deviation from stasis in Iraq is a sign of failure, but the fact is that for a society to be stable, the government must first establish a monopoly of force.

Part of that involves either incorporating or destroying militias. In Sunni provinces, the Iraqi government is slowly incorporating the Sons of Iraq into both security and non-security positions even as they root-out the remains of al Qaeda. In Shiite areas including parts of Baghdad and Basra, this means eliminating the influence of criminal gangs hiding under al Sadr's banner.

The conflict isn't exactly a welcome development—even a temporary increase in violence will impact the innocent—but the longer-term consolidation of power by the federal government requires an eventual dissolution of Sadr's militia. Most hoped that such a dissolution of al Sadr's power would be purely political in nature, but the Sadrist gangs seem to have made the mistake of engaging Iraq's modernized security forces directly, the resolution of the long-expected inter-sect conflict will likely be more immediate than most expected, and much to Muqtada al-Sadr's dismay.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:18 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Would You Please Invite Big Brother In?

Via Instapundit, an attempt by the Washington, D.C. Police to convince residents to allow officers into their homes for voluntary gun searches.

A crackdown on guns is meeting some resistance in the District.

Police are asking residents to submit to voluntary searches in exchange for amnesty under the District's gun ban. They passed out fliers requesting cooperation on Monday.

The program will begin in a couple of weeks in the Washington Highlands neighborhood of southeast Washington and will later expand to other neighborhoods. Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes.

Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police. She gave the example of parents or grandparents who know or suspect their children have guns in the home.

If "safe homes" were the actual goal of the program, then perhaps residences that were searched and found to be without firearms would be provided with suitable defensive weaponry and an offer of free training from teh D.C. police. Of course, the program isn't about safety, but is instead a last desperate bid by the District of Columbia to disarm their citizenry in advance of the expected verdict of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case.

It's an attempt at fascism, but at least it is polite fascism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:59 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 21, 2008

Is Anderson Cooper Roland S. Martin Simply Making Things Up?

On Anderson Cooper's CNN blog this morning, Roland S. Martin claims that Barack Obama's radical minister Jeremiah Wright got his "chickens coming home to roost" commentary from a former Ronald Reagan official.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned "chickens coming home to roost." He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan's terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That's what he told the congregation.

He was quoting Peck as saying that America's foreign policy has put the nation in peril:

"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

"We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock.

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."

Martin's claim is shall we say, interesting.

The most famous single citation of "The Chickens Coming Home to Roost" was as an alternate title of the Malcolm X speech, God's Judgement of White America, where X attributed the assassination death of John F. Kennedy to the historical evils of white America at that time.

I suspect that is a far more likely source for Wright's invocation of that particular phrase, especially when we consider the historical contexts of both Wright's speech after 9/11, and X's speech after Kennedy was killed.

At best, Jeremiah Wright credits here a "A white ambassador" for saying "Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism."

There is no support provided by Martin for the claim that Peck said anything about "chickens coming home to roost," or any of the rest of what he cited.

Interestingly enough, I can't find any evidence of Peck saying anything Martin attributes to him, and the only references on Google to this are liberal blog posts that uncritically link back to Martin's article, taking him at face value.

There is no doubt at all that Peck was and has been a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq, but I'd ask you to hunt through Google yourself, and see if you can find any of what Martin claims Wright quotes from Peck.

I can't find it, and like Ace, I think Martin just might be making this up as he goes.

I will be more than happy to apologize if wrong, but Martin has not "shown his work," and until he back his claim with a direct quote, and can prove that Wright was citing Pecks' lesser known comment instead of X's infamous speech, then I have no reason to trust him.

Update: First, while this was Cooper's blog, Roland S. Martin (not this guy) wrote the post, so I was wrong in attributing it to Cooper. I've updated the text and title to reflect that.

A special thanks to PG (in the comments, who also pointed out the name flub) for providing the link this illuminating video of Wright's speech:

It is over 9 minutes long, but if you'd like to get to the portion relevant to just this claim by Roland S. Martin, pay special attention to what is said by Wright from 3:14-3:46.

Wright does indeed invoke Peck, and in particular, where Peck invokes the specific Malcolm X speech cited above.

In short, Martin is being duplicitous when he claims that Wright was citing Peck, he was instead citing Malcom X through Peck.

You wouldn't get that from Martin's blog entry, but then, I don't think you were supposed to.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:48 PM | Comments (77) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Still Flogging the False War-Related Ammo Shortage

Jeff Quinton alerted me to this story online at Baltimore Radio station WBAL earlier this week, and still online:

Quartermasters with the Baltimore County Police Department became aware of a higher demand on ammunition as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and planned accordingly.

Bill Toohey with the department says their supplier was giving the priority to military ammo and it was difficult to get "day to day" bullets.

Toohey says as a result they switched suppliers who is not so dependent on military contracts. He says they also purchased a nine month supply of bullets instead of the usual six month supply. "At the moment we have more than enough to get us through so if there is a problem we have some pad to fall back on," says Toohey.

The Sheriff in Washington County and police chief in Hagerstown say in addition to have a shortage of ammo for their agencies they are also paying more for bullets.

Toohey says the cost of bullets has also gone up in Baltimore County. He tells WBAL Radio that they were spending $209 dollars per one-thousand bullets that the officer's use now the county pays $278 per thousand. "But again they saw this coming and built it into the budget," says Toohey.

The problem with this story? It is unequivocally false, as was the original Associated Press article that first made a similar claim last summer.

If Wikipedia is correct, the BCPD uses the Sigarms SIG Pro 2340 as their primary sidearm, a firearm that does not use the 9mm NATO pistol cartridge used by our military. It is therefore false to claim that that any ammunition shortage of this caliber of bullets is due to military usage.

The same Wikipedia entry notes that for backing up the SIG Pro, the Remington 870 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun plays a secondary role. 12 gauge-shotguns, while used by the military for specific roles (typically door-beaching, CQB, and guarding prisoners), is used in far fewer numbers than the M16/M4 weapons systems. Claiming that a war-related shortage of ammunition affects the BCPD shotguns is also false.

The only possible firearm cartridge used by the BCPD that could conceivably be impacted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the .223 or 5.56x45 NATO round used by the relatively few BCPD officers issued M16 or M4-type firearms.

But this claim is also untrue.

As I noted in great detail on my post of August 20, 2007, the ammunition factories and production lines that supply our military are completely separate from the ammunition factories and production lines that supply ammunition to police and the general public.

After speaking with spokesmen from three of the largest ammunition manufacturers in the United States, it became clear that the primary cause of the shortage of ammunition for police departments was the direct result of increased consumption by police departments.

Police departments (and civilians) are purchasing more .223 Remington/5.56-caliber firearms, particularly military-style carbines.

Once purchased, police officers much train to acquire and maintain their proficiency with these weapons, and it is the increased consumption of ammunition by police that is most directly responsible for their own ammunition shortages, as manufacturers we unable to catch up with increased police demand.

Another cause of the shortage is increased demand in developing nations for raw materials used in cartridge manufacturing, particularly brass and lead.

What... you think that China was able to produce all the lead for their toy industry internally? No, they purchase those materials on the global market, including the United States, which drives up raw material prices.

Sadly, though Jeff Quinton addressed the factual inaccuracies of the story yesterday morning, and I contacted both the BCPD and WBAL's newsroom shortly afterward to retract their false story (after providing them with the names of contacts of the three largest military and civilian ammunition manufacturers, Brian Grace of ATK Corporate Communications, Michael Shovel, National Sales Manager for CORBON/Glaser, and Michael Haugen, Manager of the Military Products Division for Remington Arms Company Inc), the news outlet seems less than interested in discovering the facts than in pushing a poorly-sourced story that relies on police quartermasters, men in no position to have direct knowledge of why demand has risen.

WBAL's newsroom seems far more interested in taking the lazy way out than practicing professional journalism. If you would like to ask WBAL to retract this demonstrably false story, you can contact them here.

Be polite, and perhaps we can make sure they stay on target in the future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:29 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

State Dept Workers Fired for Accessing Obama's Passport Info

Via MSNBC.

The State Department says it is trying to determine whether three contract workers had a political motive for looking at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's passport file.

Two of the employees were fired for the security breach and the third was disciplined but is still working, the department said Thursday night. It would not release the names of those who were fired and disciplined or the names of the two companies for which they worked. The department's inspector general is investigating.

The Obama campaign, sensing a possible escape route from Barack's current string of self-inflicted wounds, quickly moved into victim-mode.

Milk it, baby.

Bill Burton, spokesman for Obama's presidential campaign, called the incidents "an outrageous breach of security and privacy." He said this is "a serious matter that merits a complete investigation," adding that the campaign will "demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach."

As noted by the well-traveled Jim Geraghty, the only personal data that would be in Obama's passport that is not already publicly-accessible information would be the Illinois Senator's Social Security Number and his travel history. Geraghty then goes on to speculate about a certain rival campaign that might be interested in accessing that travel information.

Left-of-center blogger Will Bunch at Attytood follows that line of speculation and digs up an interesting nugget in his update:

1. The office that handles passports, consular affairs, is indeed run by a woman named Maura Harty, who's a....wait for it -- Clinton administration holdover. Remember, no one has implicated her or any State Department employees -- the two people who were fired were contract workers.
2. The greatest interest in Obama's overseas travel has been expressed by Clinton supporters. One area of interest -- and I really don't understand what exactly they were getting at -- is Obama's European travels, or non-travels.

There are links attached to that speculation, but I think it only fair you go over to Bunch's site, read what he has to say, and click on the links there.

So, are the Clinton's behind this?

Could be, but other bloggers on the left have immediately focused—sigh—on BushCheneyHalliburtonRove, the real source of all the world's ills.

John Amato's post on the subject is typical in this vein, as is Skippy's capitalization-challenged entry (Note to Skippy: the whole "e.e. cummings" orthography was cute in eighth-grade, but unless you wanted to regarded on the same intellectual plane as the other noted current practitioner of that form, it is well past time to "move on".

So which political camp is behind this?

While my speculation is hinged on nothing more substantial than anyone else's, I suspect that it is just what it appears; a couple of contractors that had their curiosity get the better of them.

I worked for a financial services company years ago, and trainers that would use the dummied copies of the accounts of certain internationally-known celebrity clients in orientation to keep the class awake. There was never any ill-will involved in using the client's accounts, just a certain sort of stupid Stuart-ish "look what I can do!" voyeuristic element premised more on curiosity than malice.

That in mind, I rather doubt that any particular political motivation was behind this, even though a Clinton campaign tie seems like intriguing blog-fodder if it can be proven that the employees were Clinton supporters.

If, on the other hand, the turn out to be over-enthusiastic Obamaniacs trying to get a little closer to their hero,expect the news cycle on this to be shortened as a result.

Of course, for now, the Obama campaign is relishing in the breach, as it takes—if only for fleeting moments—the focus away from Obama's "pastor problem" and the fallout from the vacuous speech he gave where he refused to cut ties to Rev. Wright or his church's radical, racially-focused, Marxist-driven Black Liberation theology.

Obama will milk this story for all it's worth, for a long as he can.

I think, however, that the damage is already done.

Update: Sorry Obama. Clinton and McCain had their files breached as well. So much for this ginned-up outrage being able to long obscure his real problems.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:47 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 20, 2008

ANOTHER Pastor Problem for Obama? PLUS: A Reporter in the Tank

When it rains, it pours:

Without permission from CBS 2, the Fox News Channel ran Wednesday evening parts of a 2-year-old story by CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery on language used by State Sen. James Meeks, who is now a delegate pledged to Obama.

"We don't have slave masters, we got mayors," Meeks said then while preaching. "But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated. You got some preachers that are house n------. You got some elected officials that are house n------. Rather than them try and break this up, they're gonna fight you to protect that white man."

Here's what I believe is a copy of the original CBS News story, which contains Meeks' language.

What is striking about this story, apart from the Wright-like, racially-divisive language of Obama-pledged superdelegate, Democratic member of the Illinois Senate, and Chicago Baptist minister Meeks, is the remarkable tone of of the CBS reporter on this story, Mike Flannery.

Flannery's story is extremely defensive in nature, and seeks to make apologies for Meeks' choice of language, which originally appears two years ago.

An important part of the truth that Fox News did not report Wednesday night is this: Shortly after Flannery's story aired two years ago, Rev. Jesse Jackson said it was time to stop using the N-word. And Rev. Meeks announced from his South Side pulpit that he was "retiring" the N-word from his vocabulary.

Although Meeks was never very close to Obama, last month he was elected as a delegate pledged to Obama.

Look for Obama's critics to repeat this tactic in the weeks and months to come. Sen. Hillary Clinton demanded he denounce Louis Farrakhan. Obama did. Tuesday, it was his longtime pastor.

Could Flannery's defensiveness and pro-Obama bias be any more apparent?

Flannery's CBS News bio says that he "has been the political editor for CBS 2 since 1980."

How long he has tossed his objectivity out the window and began voicing such obvious support for one candidate is less apparent.

Update: A correction above. Meeks is a delegate pledged to Obama, not a superdelegate pledge to Obama.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Not Ready To End the Fight

Via AP at Hot Air, Marine Cpl. David Thibodeaux's stirring response to MoveOn.org and the Dixie Chicks.

Somehow, I don't think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (or their supporters) will be big fans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:56 AM | Comments (69) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Stirring anthem for the "1000 Year War"..why no images from Jefferson's war with the Barbary pirates?

Posted by: chris lee at March 20, 2008 02:35 PM (6x0Nb)

2 Do you liberals really think that the Islamo-fascists would play nice if we just left them alone?

How deluded are you people?

Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 20, 2008 03:10 PM (La7YV)

3 Rhetoric for the endless war... A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc

Posted by: chris lee at March 20, 2008 04:10 PM (6x0Nb)

4 Yeah about what I thought, completely deluded.

Tell you what, you keep on with your nonsense, and the responsible adults will make sure the Islamo-fascists don't get the chance to chop off your head.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 20, 2008 05:22 PM (La7YV)

5 Libtards never "get it". Never will. This one sounds like he needs a diaper change or something. Good singin, good tune, good thought. Thanks for sharing that with us....I appreciate it.

Posted by: Tonto (USA) at March 20, 2008 06:11 PM (GAL+4)

6 Chris, it's called "Freedom of Speech," ya know?

The Dixie Chicks are free to say--or sing--whatever they want.

So is Cpl. Thibodeaux.

Apparently, from your comments, it would seem that you accept the first but have a problem with the second.

Oh, and before you drag out the "boycott" bogeyman, remember that as Americans we also have the right to spend our money on what we wish, and therefore if we don't want to buy albums by a certain artist, we're perfectly within our rights.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 07:30 PM (lueVj)

7 chris is your typical fascist, if you don't agree with him you shouldn't be heard.

It is nice to hear a song from someone who actually loves his country. We've been deluged for so long with anti freedom songs.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 20, 2008 07:43 PM (kNqJV)

8 anyway we could get this on the CMT awards show?

Posted by: Rich at March 20, 2008 09:23 PM (siQqy)

9 Chris, I will tell you what. Walk over there, tell an insurgent of whatever faith you are (face to face), tell them that you wish that the US would leave Iraq. Then see how long it takes for them to get your beheading on National T.V.

Until either that happens, or you do something to make this country better than it is. Please show a little frigging respect.

Posted by: Matt at March 20, 2008 09:23 PM (9V6Vj)

10 By the way, just an FYI for those who don't know Matt as well as I do... he is an active duty Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. When he talks about doing something for the country, he knows whereof he speaks.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 09:41 PM (lueVj)

11 "A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc"

Cripes, when did the lefties become such paranoid, fearfull, freaks? Its sad to see people controled by irrational emotion.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 20, 2008 09:43 PM (2wI6h)

12 Did Canada attack us? Did Mexico? Did Trinidad? US foreign interests were attacked . As far as the world trade center goes I am not sure that we have been given the FULL story, although I don't totally believe those who say it was an "inside job" I don't fully believe the OFFICIAL STORY either...Isn't it convenient though , that the altruism of our military action conveniently extends to a country with such significant oil reserves and ignores DARFUR?

Posted by: chris lee at March 20, 2008 10:45 PM (qTV/d)

13 Chris, did you know that Iran is not the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world? That honor belongs to Saudi Arabia.. and given that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi by nationality, we had a good reason for invading them... if it had just been an excuse to get the oil.

And Canada is #2 in oil reserves... and if we invaded them for their oil, we wouldn't have to worry about flying or sailing our soldiers all the way over to the Middle East.

In short, your assertions about the war for oil fail the laugh test miserably. But we're all used to your assertions causing us to laugh uncontrollably, so please continue.

(FYI: Iraq is 4th. Iran is 3rd. Source here.) Have a nice day.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 11:06 PM (lueVj)

14 Mr. Lee:

Yes, Iraq has lots and lots of oil. Since you seem to think (sic) 'this war is only about the oil' I only have one question on that score: have you filled up your tank recently (assuming you own a vehicle that uses gasoline)? For the encore follow-up, Why is it you are paying MORE for that gas than in Feb 2003 if the US now controls Iraq's oil?

You have the temerity to scream "DARFUR"...why not "RHOWANDA" under the most blessed Pres. Clinton?

Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2008 11:06 PM (KDHro)

15 Oops, small error... first paragraph should say Iraq, not Iran. That's what I get for typing with an injured hand.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 20, 2008 11:09 PM (lueVj)

16 "I don't fully believe the OFFICIAL STORY either...Isn't"

Some get th guy a tinfoil hat asap. CLs a troofer. That explains a lot!

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 20, 2008 11:39 PM (2wI6h)

17 Global profiteering is supra-nationalistic. They want high demand, and high profits. High oil prices driven by an engineered "scarcity" was the point all along. You should see the movie "Network" and listen to Mr Jensen's speech. GWBUSH is a GREAT President. His TRUE constituents (Energy execs, armament manufacturers) are making out like bandits. Chinese, American, Brittish, Saudi investors are thriving in this climate..and tax breaks, too? Honeeeeey..oh lawdy.

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 09:25 AM (6x0Nb)

18 At last Mr. Lee reveals himself to be the truther that we suspected he was.

According to this fool, we're to watch hollywood movies to base our understanding of how the world works, and the motivation of our government?

I'd say unbelieveable, but I'd be fooling myself.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 21, 2008 09:36 AM (La7YV)

19 So brethren, listen not to the heathen's craven rant. I have discounted this sinners heresy and need not address them as they are not worthy of our response. Ye are the faithful, follow the lords of the military, church and international banking system. TINA..there is no alternative.

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 10:01 AM (6x0Nb)

20 chris lee: Darfur also contains significant oil reserves, though I realize that isn't your point. Exactly what could we be doing in Darfur that we didn't do in Iraq? Are you implying that you would support the same type of military action and occupation that (I'm guessing, here) you oppose in Iraq? If so, why?

mark: Let's not forget the common denominator regarding Darfur and Rwanda: in both places, the "response" is/was led by the UN. The same UN that the left would have us turn our entire foreign policy over to. Something about every imaginable disaster becoming reality must appeal to them.

Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 21, 2008 10:37 AM (YLs4U)

21 I am not implying or explicating that I would support the same type of action in Darfur. I am only illustrating the motivations of this action as economic not altruistic. The volunteer military is committed (along with an almost equal amount of mercenary contractors) to a conflict that will not result in a proposed "liberal secular democracy". How could it? Why also are WE fighting THEIR fight? Did Canada fight OUR revolutionary war?

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 11:23 AM (6x0Nb)

22 [[..not result in a proposed "liberal secular democracy". How could it?]]

CL appears to have missed the massive voter turn out that established Iraqs democracy. As to "liberal" and "secular" no one ever clained Iraq would have a liberal, secular democracy; democracy means that the majority of the voters get the government that they want. After 30 or 40 years of prosperous freedom the Iraqis may well move to a more western style, liberal, secular democracy, freedom and capitalism tend to do that to peope, look at US and the Europeans.

Posted by: grrrr at March 21, 2008 11:38 AM (gkobM)

23 S in c:
I really did think about the wondrous UN and even started including them. However, since they can't even come up with a decent definition of 'terrorism' and are generally ineffective I decided not to include the point. Thank you for doing so .

One dictatorial regime at a time Chris. Let's not bite of more than we really need.

re Canada: I don't doubt, though have no documentation for the claim, that some Canadians did fight for us in the Revolutionary War (and probably some on the British side). Even if none fought for either, France sure had a pretty big hand in it.

Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2008 11:47 AM (4od5C)

24 I admit I come to sites like this for the sportive and at times sarcastic banter, but if I may ask , sincerely, to the supporters of this war, do you believe this administration and the version of events and motivations it puts forth. In short do you trust Bush and Cheney?

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 12:48 PM (6x0Nb)

25 chris lee: "I am not implying or explicating that I would support the same type of action in Darfur. I am only illustrating the motivations of this action as economic not altruistic." Then we have to name you Captain Obvious. Of course our government's course of action had a "what's in it for me?" aspect to it. If that surprises you, then may I ask what exactly you expected, considering the terminally corrupt sleazeballs that occupy Washington at any given time? One has to look no further than the Democrat's unkept promises to curtail corruption by Republicans - supposedly the party of fiscal responsibility and small government - to know that there was at least some self-centered motivation there, or it would have been talked about, but nothing would ever have happened...you know, like Darfur.

BUT...that doesn't meant that my government's motivations are my own. Why did I support the Iraq war? Simply put, because peace in the Middle East was completely impossible so long as Saddam was in power. And destablizing the oppressive regimes surrounding Iraq by placing both a US Military base AND a prospering, relatively free society in their backyards was one of the best possible ways to create peace without paving the place.

Was Saddam's regime brutal? Did they step on human rights? Would he have stymied any efforts at real peace in the Middle East? Unequivcally yes, on all counts, based solely on his history. Now, are you going to tell me that, because Bush, Cheney and some of their friends could have conceivably profited from the Iraq invasion, and that such possible profit could have been a part of their motivation in supporting it, that you would undo the Iraqi invasion? That you would throw away the human rights gains, the removal of one of the many impediments to peace and the increase in value of the human race (by the removal of Saddam and his psychotic sons from the equation) just because some people you don't like might have made a buck? That's shallow, man. Feel free to send a card to Darfur - "Sorry - I realize you're all being killed, but I just found out there's oil there, so I can't risk Bush and Cheney getting richer. Best of luck!"

A "liberal secular democracy" may not be the result of the current conflict - I'll concede that whether or not it happens isn't up to us. But I'll demand a concession from you at the same time - a liberal secular democracy was doggone sure impossible with Saddam in power. Part of the strategy in choosing Iraq was that Iraq has a history of a relatively cosmopolitan society. In other words, there is underpinning there that might give us a chance for success. (The lack of such underpinning is your real answer as to why we don't also go into Darfur militarily). And it is easy to envision what the effect on the neighboring 7th century thugocracies would be if we dropped a prosperous, relatively free society right in the middle of them.

A grand plan? Absolutely. But if it succeeds, we make the world a better place with the minimum possible amounts of conflict and death. Please tell me that counts for something with you.

Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 21, 2008 03:07 PM (YLs4U)

26 And no, I do not trust Bush and Cheney. I will not trust McCain, Obama or Clinton, either. They are politicians. What more need I say?

Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 21, 2008 03:09 PM (YLs4U)

27 Chris: I trust Bush and Cheney a lot more than a member of a political party that cheerleads for foreign military defeat in order to boost domestic political prospects.
Even in the Clinton administration Republicans never burned American flags, nor besieged recruiting offices, nor encouraged desertion or fragging. Your co-religonists? Well... just go to Zombietime or the comment section at Kos or HuffPo and you can see them in all of their glory.
Yes, I trust Bush and Cheney... more than I trust you.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 21, 2008 03:57 PM (6iy97)

28 Chris, since you seem to believe that movies reflect reality, may I ask when was the last time you put on blue tights and a red cape and attempted to fly?

How often have you been asked to help a friendly extraterrestrial being "phone home"?

Do you have a working lightsaber? (I mean working as in "the blade can cut almost anything," not in the sense of "look, it lights up!"

Has the White House been destroyed by a spaceship in your lifetime?

The fact that you cannot distinguish between fiction and reality explains a lot of your posts, Chris.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 21, 2008 07:19 PM (lueVj)

29 Oh, and speaking of "engineered oil scarcity," Mr. Lee, which party continually blocks drilling for oil in ANWR? There's somewhere between 10 and 16 billion (yes, billion, with a b) barrels there. That would pretty much end the "engineered oil scarcity," wouldn't it?

So which party is "engineering" the "oil scarcity" by declaring some 10 billion barrels off limits?

I anticipate your spin, Chris.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 21, 2008 07:24 PM (lueVj)

30 no spin. I asked a question, your answers were perfect, perfect.

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 09:01 PM (qTV/d)

31 And you avoided answering my question, Chris. Is it the Bush White House that is stopping the drilling in ANWR in order to keep their "engineered oil scarcity" going, or is it perhaps another party?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 21, 2008 09:25 PM (lueVj)

32 i'm not very familiar with that issue, but my understanding is that it's a preservation issue.

Posted by: chris lee at March 21, 2008 10:00 PM (qTV/d)

33 No, preservation is merely a straw man argument. The Alaska Pipeline hasn't affected the wildlife in the area, there's no reason to believe that oil wells in ANWR (which is 19.2 million--yes, million--acres) would negatively impact wildlife. With 19.2 million acres, there would still be plenty of room for the few critters in the area.

Of course, like most lefties, Chris, you merely accept whatever comes out of any lefty politician's mouth without bothering to verify it yourself. It's sad, really.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 08:27 AM (lueVj)

34 "Like most lefties.." When you say things like that so callously and derisively, what kind of effect are you hoping for? Agreement from your partisan compadres? Or are you trying to reach out with understanding and "compassion"..I am not criticising I am just after an honest understanding of certain attitudes.

Posted by: chris lee at March 22, 2008 10:05 AM (qTV/d)

35 Clown nose on, clown nose off.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 22, 2008 01:00 PM (6iy97)

36 Yes Chris Lee ----you figured it out - we haven't been told the FULL story about 9/11 OR about that warm sunny day in Hawaii on December 7, 1941 when planes flew overhead and dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor! We knew the Japanese were coming, we just "conveniently" ignored the information so they'd attack & the US would have a "reason" to go to war.


*grabs tin foil*

Paranoia strikes deep:
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
You step out of line, the man come and take you away.


It's 1968 all over again. The truthers are stuck in a freaking time warp.



"Rhetoric for the endless war... A shadowy enemy, nationalist fervor, demonization of dissent, concentration of power in the executive branch ( Kissinger Doctrine ), justified military appropriations, neglect of domestic agendas, masculine martial values, expanded surveilance capacity, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of necessary "torture" techniques.. etc"



Way to go Chris - that's the way to reach out to US with compassion and understanding.

So to throw it back at ya: When you say things like that so callously and derisively, what kind of effect are you hoping for?

We give as good as we get.

Try toning down the left wing paranoid rhetoric if you really want an "honest understanding of certain attitudes."

and by certain attitudes you mean: why we refuse to surrender to our enemies & why most of our soldiers and Marines are not ready to give up.

Perhaps you can provide us with an honest understanding of why those on the left ARE.

Posted by: Huntress at March 22, 2008 04:39 PM (Qn9iF)

37 Chris, I tried understanding you once. It didn't take long. Now you're nothing more than a cat-toy that I bat around for my amusement, because with one exception, you've shown yourself to be incapable of coming up with a coherent argument.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 22, 2008 08:42 PM (lueVj)

38 I am not criticising I am just after an honest understanding of certain attitudes.

No, you've clearly demonstrated that you're interested in no such thing. Don't pretend you have an open mind, chris.

Posted by: Pablo at March 22, 2008 09:38 PM (yTndK)

39 As a proud veteran of 25 years. After being in Iraq, from March 21, 2003 - March 1, 2008, it really annoys me how the young people of today don't care! I am 60 years old and still kicking. In March this year marks my 25th year as a veteran. ''Not Ready to End the Fight'' is a sad example of a publicity song. I have listened to the song. I was not, am not, never will be: proud of it. He does not know how many people have died. 21 people in my family were lost as a result of war. Plus, the writer of this song uses half of the lyric from the Dixie Chicks hit "Not Ready to Make Nice". USE YOUR OWN WORDS, and MUSIC. I 100% support the Dixie Chicks, and their rights, considering I have been fighting for them for 25 years. We should be in Afghanistan, were the real threat lies. Not in Iraq where nothing can be done. After saying this, you need to have experienced war, death, and the heartache of fighting for freedom so young kids can sing songs about not ending a fight that they think they are fighting!
NOW YOU HAVE A NICE DAY!

Posted by: Seth at March 22, 2008 10:04 PM (FpXbD)

40 Seth: Cpl. Thibodeaux has been in both Afghanistan and Iraq... you should respect his opinions as I am sure he would respect yours. The Military has a Mission... I suppose you want them to fail at it as you don't support it.

You need to recruit the Dixie Chicks to run for President... at least they would be more qualified that your current liberal, raciest bigot, anti-American candidates you now have to choose from.

For you to say Cpl. Thibodeaux opinion isn't relevant is shameful. Get help.

Posted by: Eric at March 22, 2008 10:19 PM (ajhwA)

41 Seth sounds more like Jesse McBeth....

Posted by: SDN at March 23, 2008 03:16 AM (3e9If)

42 Why did we go?

Ref: (1)http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/08/990802-in.htm
(2)http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
(3)http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20041011a.html
(4)http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/...classified.pdf
(5) FMFRP 3-203 {open source}
(6) FMFRP 4-509 {UNCLASS - FOUO}
(7) UN resolution 1284
( UN resolution 686
(9) UN resolution 687

1. As per reference (1) and reference (3) there were established long term ties between Iraq and various terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. These ties were linked to attacks carried out in the U.S. in reference (1). Because of late insertion of SOF forces, we were only able to witness (but not identify) the movement of large numbers of both personnel and unidentified ordinance into Syria, as per reference (6).

2. As reference (4) shows, Iraq did not stay within the confines of UN resolution, because of the findings listed in reference (3). It is because of this, and the unidentified troop and munitions movements listed in reference (6) that gives credence to the ideal that Iraq continued to violate the terms of Reference (7). Per reference (5) Iraq showed the willingness to use CB weapons against unarmed civilians.

3. In keeping with the above paragraphs, it should also be noted that there were continued violations of both reference (8 ) and reference (9). As was stated in both reference (8 ) and reference (9), breaking either of the above references can authorize military intervention to cease the infractions.

This Marine's findings as a plank holder (that means I helped write it) of reference (6) and from the above references, the push on Iraq was justified.

Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2008 04:42 PM (9V6Vj)

43 Matt, ya missed one of my favorites: a State Department press release about Bin Laden being indicted.

The interesting part is near the bottom:

"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

Given that the date of this news release is 04 Nov 1998, the "Government of Iraq" is pretty much synonymous with "Saddam Hussein."

By the way, was George W. Bush President in 1998? Or did Karl Rove have plants in the State Department?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 23, 2008 04:48 PM (lueVj)

44 Seth: You say you're 60 years old and have been a veteran for 25 years? So, you joined the service at 35? Isn't that a bit old? Many career military retire at age 40.

The 60 year old vets I know have been vets for 40 years -since the Vietnam era.

Just wondering about the numbers here,...,

Posted by: Donna at March 24, 2008 06:30 AM (L/5hE)

45 "Seth: You say you're 60 years old and have been a veteran for 25 years? So, you joined the service at 35? Isn't that a bit old? Many career military retire at age 40."

IIRC, the Air Force has the oldest enlistment age, and that is 32.

Posted by: Matt at March 24, 2008 01:03 PM (9V6Vj)

46 After saying this, you need to have experienced war, death, and the heartache of fighting for freedom so young kids can sing songs about not ending a fight that they think they are fighting!

Hmmmmmmm,....,

Posted by: Donna at March 24, 2008 08:02 PM (631bb)

47 Well, Matt? How many years have you served over seas?

hmmmmmmmm...................

Posted by: Emily at March 24, 2008 09:31 PM (FpXbD)

48 Hey, this is the same Seth from above. I am only 14. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I really had you people going didn't I??????????? 25 years my foot. 60 years my foot. Jesus Christ, people really get worked up over a song don't they? I only wanted to see how many people would get offended. All of you did, so my plan worked. I do stick with a small part of that paragraph above. I think that the singer and writer of this song should come up with their own melody. Oh yeah, and even if I was sixty and and served 25 years, and entered the forces when I was 35. That's still would be 25 more years you served. I'm only 14, but if you only served 1 year, I would have respect for you. I completely respect the singer of this song, I only wrote what I wrote that so I could watch all of you squirm, and get all tore up!
NOW HAVE A NICE DAY!

Posted by: Seth at March 24, 2008 09:41 PM (FpXbD)

49 Emily can't do simple math, and doesn't know much about logic either (whether Matt did service is not the point, dearie, the point is that Seth is clearly a liar, as Seth himself admits. So go hmmmmm yourself, sweetie.)

Seth, you're 14? Sounds about right to me,..., I'm guessing that's Emily's age too.

Posted by: Donna at March 25, 2008 05:47 AM (Y3fvc)

50 "Well, Matt? How many years have you served over seas?"

Why are you asking me? While I am in, I never made any claims to be in this thread. But anyway. I have been in the Corps for just over ten years, I joined at 19, and I am 29. I pumped to Iraq three times, Afghan twice, and a few other places before that.

I think you need to go back and read my posts again, it seems as if you got confused.

Posted by: Matt at March 25, 2008 02:17 PM (9V6Vj)

51 Well, okay, we've got Seth pinned as a confirmed and admitted liar. Guess that means we don't have to believe--or even listen to--anything he says ever again.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 25, 2008 06:21 PM (lueVj)

52 Yes, a simple act of reporting a story does not make one a proponent of one side or the other. It is being a proponent of one side or the other that makes one a proponent of one side or the other.

Posted by: George Bruce at March 27, 2008 10:48 AM (tj2NC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 19, 2008

Obama's Speech: The Morning After

Presidential candidate Barack Obama's speech yesterday was written by the candidate himself, and attempted to transcend race while justifying his continuing twenty-year commitment to the church led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Many reviews of the speech were predictably glowing in their admiration for the Democratic Senator from Illinois, but that reaction was far from universal among op-ed writers, even in a media that is generally accepted to be left-of-center ideologically.

While giving credit to Obama's speech as a "fine political performance," Michael Gerson, writing in the Washington Post, noted:

Obama's excellent and important speech on race in America did little to address his strange tolerance for the anti-Americanism of his spiritual mentor...

...In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain Wright's anger as typical of the civil rights generation, with its "memories of humiliation and doubt and fear." But Wright has the opposite problem: He ignored the message of Martin Luther King Jr and introduced a new generation to the politics of hatred.

King drew a different lesson from the oppression he experienced: "I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself; hate is too great a burden to bear. I've seen it on the faces of too many sheriffs of the South. . . . Hate distorts the personality. . . . The man who hates can't think straight; the man who hates can't reason right; the man who hates can't see right; the man who hates can't walk right."

Barack Obama is not a man who hates -- but he chose to walk with a man who does.

Writing in a similar vein in the Boston Herald, Michael Graham opined:

Obama is right when he reminds us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But where he is cynically and shamefully wrong is insisting that we all have fallen as far as he has.

The reason many of us are horrified by the senator's connection to the Rev. Wright is that most Americans can't imagine spending 20 minutes listening to his ignorant rantings, much less 20 years. Most of us would never even consider joining a church that preaches racial theology of any kind, much less the overt racism of the "black values system" at Obama's church.

And now we're supposed to believe that this man is going to heal our souls?

Likewise, Thomas Sowell likened Obama to a con man:

Someone once said that a con man's job is not to convince skeptics but to enable people to continue to believe what they already want to believe.

Accordingly, Obama's Philadelphia speech — a theatrical masterpiece — will probably reassure most Democrats and some other Obama supporters. They will undoubtedly say that we should now "move on," even though many Democrats have still not yet moved on from George W. Bush's 2000 election victory.

Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama's speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the "useful idiots" useful.

Stated Mark Davis in the Dallas Morning News:

Mr. Wright has spent years infecting congregations with sick obsessions about an evil, racist America. That congregation has largely responded with cheers of agreement. Yet Mr. Obama insists he has absorbed only the "loving" portions of Rev. Wright's Christianity, not the portions that have heaped condemnation on our country, on white people, on Israel and on specific political figures he reviles.

How conveniently selective. Can you imagine a conservative politician able to skate away from decades of association with a pastor who spent frequent occasions spewing fiery condemnations based on race and politics?

In the Jerusalem Post, Armstrong Williams points out the obvious:

This past week was not an exemplary moment for the man who has prided himself on integrity and honesty throughout this campaign. The fact is that the senator has no plausible excuse for why he remained a member of Rev. Wright's church. He and his family should have immediately left that congregation for the embrace of a church that teaches the Bible rather than the alienation, lunacy and outright mockery of Christian teachings.

Even reliably left-of-center Maureen Dowd was forced to concede in an otherwise glowing review in the New York Times:

The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naive and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments — echoing his naive and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko — will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech.

When the story of Wright's damning of America broke last week, it became obvious that to stay a viable political candidate in the general election, Barack Obama would have to substantially distance himself from a pastor and congregation that practices a form of radical theology firmly rooted in a toxic mix of racial identity politics, conspiracy-theorizing, and Marxism.

Obama's speech attempted a transcendent rise out of a hole of his own digging by excusing his intimate relationship with a controversial church and pastor, without actually distancing himself from either Rev. Wright or his underlying theology. Instead, Obama claimed falsely, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

Obama was not asked to disown the black community. He was asked to sever ties with a purveyor of a poisonous mindset, and he has failed to do so.

Lacking that concrete act of denial, Obama's grand eloquence was revealed as all too typical political pandering.

"Just words," indeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | Comments (46) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 18, 2008

Barack's Broad Brush

Re-examining Barack Obama's Jeremiah Wright damage control speech today, I am drawn back again and again to this paragraph.

Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

Any church embodies the community from which it is drawn, but Obama attempts sleight of hand when he asserts that "other predominantly black churches across the country" adopt and share views "that may seem jarring to the untrained ear" as a way of excusing his pastor.

Obama implies that because Trinity United Church of Christ has continually employed a senior pastor unable to control his anger, anti-Americanism, and conspiracy-theorizing during Barack's 20 years at that church, that other predominantly African-American churches are afflicted with the same disease.

I belong to a deliberately diverse church with a substantial African-American congregation and an African-American senior pastor that spends a considerable portion of her time in the pulpit. We are without a doubt a church with a lot of "dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear," and we even occasionally have folks overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit fall out in the pews...

...And yet, somehow, we've kept from attacking other races or our country in the process.

Is it true that other predominately African-American congregations applaud when their pastor exhorts them to sing out "God damn America," or is it more likely that most African-American churches focus on honoring the words of Jesus Christ as written in the Bible, and leave the responsibility of damnation to God?

Do other predominately African America churches profess a values system seemingly based more upon the color of their skin than the content of Jesus' character?

Is it a commonly held belief in predominately African-American congregations nationwide that the CIA created the AIDS virus to target minority communities, and that we deserved the terror attacks of September 11, 2001?

Or is it more likely that such illness is isolated to congregations that are pustules of anger, ignorance and intolerance?

I choose to believe that regardless of race, all Christian congregations focus primarily on the Word of God and helping their communities, not blaming others for their misfortunes, real or imagined. Likewise, I choose to believe that congregations of every color focus on thanking God for the blessings he has bestowed upon us, not damning this imperfect nation for the sin of being less than divine here on earth.

Barack Obama would excuse his pastor and his congregation and his own failure to stand up to their bile and bigotry with a defense of "everybody else does it, too."

But that defense—at least I hope—isn't true.

Barack Obama seems content to tar all African-American churches with a wide brush in order to defend the failings of his own church, his pastor, and his own character.

As an individual Christian and a member of the body of Christ, I can forgive him.

As a voter, I don't see why anyone should.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (78) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I've gone over the coverage on this issue and the responses from various parties involved and the thing I keep coming back to is that we may finally be able to have a national dialog about the harm that people like Rev. Wright do to the black community at large and their congregations in particular. Or maybe it will just be a giant political flamewar. Yeah, I'm gonna go with flamewar.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 18, 2008 03:48 PM (grRo0)

2 It's hard to muster up the usual spirited jab I take at you from time to time, CY, because if this is what you got out of that speech--that's a wound you you've sustained somewhere along the way that I couldn't pour salt in. Especially after hearing that speech.

Posted by: Frederick at March 18, 2008 04:19 PM (kz+BU)

3 Well there are several opportunities here, one of them being for the "jingo-ists" to think a little about the complexities of the American past AND present.

Posted by: chris lee at March 18, 2008 04:34 PM (6x0Nb)

4 Well said, Mr. Lee, though rather incorrectly worded. I am one of those jingoists who completely agrees with you on the topic of Americans needing understanding those complexities.

For a better wording of your statement try: "Well there are several opportunities here, one of them for those "heritage"-Americans to think a little about the complexities of what it means to be first an American and second a "heritage".

I was raised to be color blind. To look at the substance of the individual instead of their color/creed/sex/etc. As such, I believe there is only one race of "human" and heritage (environment) tends to shape each individual's substance. The fact Mr. Obama has a much greater amount melanin in his epidural tissues matters not at all to me. However, the further fact he remained associated with a pastor and church that fosters such bigoted beliefs based upon heritage alone bothers me more than anything.

His speech today did nothing to assuage my concern over his substance.

Posted by: Mark at March 18, 2008 05:44 PM (4od5C)

5 I was stunned at the amount of media that used the same line as Obama to defend himself and that pastor.

"This is what commonly goes on Sundays at black churches?" I thought, "Gee golly wilikers!! is THAT a news story we should be seeing a bunch about!!"

That's an excuse?

Fascinating!!!

It's fascinating for why that is an excuse for the media elites...

....which is what I immediately figured when I first heard about this contreversy ---- that the media wouldn't have a problem with it....because it is what they believe ------ (and of course, most of the media is white....)

I noted somewhere in comments on this issue that I really wanted to see Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton as the nominees, because I have been feeling for a few years now, since 9/11, that our society needed a complete debate about our nation.

When Gingrich didn't run, and I saw that everyone was diving to the center and going to play nice --- I gave up on this election cycle digging up much of that debate....

Now, the door has flung wide open, and I just wonder if the media is going to be successful in slamming it shut again or not....???....

Posted by: usinkorea at March 18, 2008 06:42 PM (uhA7v)

6 I suggest that anyone who listened to the speech also read the text of the speech (see Drudge) and see the thoughts that are strung together. Like those who heard Nixon on the radio in the 1960 debate they came away with a different opinion than those who watched it on tv. I think reading the speech gives one a completely different take on the speech.

Once you separate the oratorical skills from the content, I think you'll see a shallowness and attempt at excuse finding rather than dealing with the issue. The speech also pretty much devolved into a standard liberal stump speech with demonizing those natsy Reagan conservatives, talk radio programs, corporations, etc and calling for more government programs. Was any thought given to the horrible blowback this country is dealing with from 40+ years of those soul draining programs? Nah.

It seems that rather than dealing with the core issues at hand, Obama tried unsuccessfully to use deflection to try to move past this example of poor judgment on his part and the truly aberrant and abhorrant behavior of his spiritual advisor and friend.

Posted by: in_awe at March 18, 2008 06:46 PM (CuvFw)

7 "Obama tried unsuccessfully to use deflection to try to move past this example of poor judgment on his part"

It's not poor judgment.

This is one line I've heard from even critics in the media, and I think it is dead wrong headed, though it is debatable.

Given what his wife said about being proud of her nation for the first time in her adult life, and some of the statements from some of her (Ivy league) college days ---- I give it a strong bet that Obama stayed in that church for 20 years -- because he agrees with those "divisive" words he says he is just finding out about.

This is not poor judgment of friends and mentors here.

This is someone picking a mentor and sticking with him - for two decades.

This must be close to what is in the heart and mind of Obama.

You can't just dismiss away such an association by calling it poor judgment in friends, but that is what I hear even some conservative critics saying.

Posted by: usinkorea at March 18, 2008 07:03 PM (uhA7v)

8 "It's not poor judgment."

Ok, perhaps poor judgment was too weak a word. Also please note that I have said many times that I think Obama id an idiot. But because this is the first evidence of misconduct (well regarding racism anyway, well up until now he was not depicted as such, nor do I believe him to be one, only of poor (scratch that, shitty judgment).

Lies are another story. BUT (equally deviant as ), or evidence hinting at misconduct, we can not label him an innocent. But we can label him an idiot for continuing with the sermons, and preachings of Wright. So that makes him "less than" presidential material.

Is Billery better presidential material? Only slightly.

Is McCain better yet? Yeah I guess so.

In this election, with those that we are given, we can only vote for the best of the good. Unfortunately we have not be given a best of the best (candidate for POTUS), but we have been given a good strong candidate that can lead.

Not one that falls all over himself to cover for past transgressions, not one that rides a spouses victories and hides from the failures, but one that meets both their failings, and wins with equal grace. And one that has been willing to admit to those failings (even though I admittedly disagree with some of those failings)

Now, I am sure I will get a number of new people to this blog that are the conspiracy idiots. Well feel free to contact me.

AND if you want to argue something in this post, then do so with substance.

If not then shut the frak up. You have nothing to offer here.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 08:01 PM (9V6Vj)

9 Bob, when you see a guy hit a home run, do you complain that he didn't simultaneously steal a base?

Seriously, Obama knocked this dopey little 'problem' of his out of the park. Just a classic speech. Like, you want to talk about race? Blam! Here ya go.

Even a couple of the Cornerites were impressed. I don't recall reading a single positive thing about John Kerry over there, just to put it into perspective.

But hold on to your delusion that John '100 Years In Iraq' McCain is going to beat this guy, while the economy goes into the tank and gas hits $4.50 thanks to the past eight years of ridiculously bad governance.

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at March 19, 2008 01:11 AM (v2vq+)

10 Best commentary by far on the Obama speech

Posted by: DaveB at March 19, 2008 01:34 AM (+x5cj)

11 When Osama threw his still living under the bus by comparing her to Wright Osama assumed the mantle of a truly sleazy individual. Not lacking in judgement but lacking in character. He made his judgement and lied and lied and lied, insulting all who saw this speech.

Are white Americans guilty of original sin because of slavery? Strange what nation in 1776 had abolished slavery? What other nation waged a war to end it and is still trying to end it around the world? Its sad that because the USA doesn't meet the utopian preferences of some that we are now the KKK-A. Although I note the people who refer to this nation as such never seem in a hurry to leave, although millions do attempt to enter this land of woe every year.

I look forward to seing more of those who tell us we do not understand black liberation theology. I think most of us saw the off Broadway previews of this show at Nuremburg.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at March 19, 2008 01:37 AM (XXrhY)

12 "in-awe" I agree with you. I think Obama did a poor job in the speech. Like I said, it gets to the core issue of his dilemma. He wants to be a "safe" black man but secure the support of most of black america AND the radical left. How do you talk about the slaughter of Indians in westward expansion, slavery, syphillis experiments on african americans, the black codes, Watergate, My Lai, Agent Orange, Napalm, suspicions about the veracity of this administration et al...in good terms? America is a great country, in the schene of things it's nothing short of a miracle but "jingo-ism" and denial of instances of injustice and contradiction is not the answer.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 06:25 AM (qTV/d)

13 Barack Hussein Obama is intentionally deceiving Americans on a number of fronts.

The only difference between Wright and Obama is truth. Wright admits his racist, anti-American views and Obama conceals them.

Obama really is the Manchurian Candidate.

Posted by: arch at March 19, 2008 07:11 AM (J0mKD)

14 "Strange what nation in 1776 had abolished slavery?"

Hungary, Sweden, Japan, Portugal, England, Wales, Scotland.

But not the US, which didn't abolish slavery until 1865, though some parts abolished it in a piecemeal fashion starting in 1777.

Posted by: Rafar at March 19, 2008 07:20 AM (t4nV3)

15 First off, I'd like to say I don't support or condone Rev Wright's words. However, its interesting to watch the "spin" CY tries to label the man with. Did he say outlandish things? Yes. Things I disagree with? Yep. Is he some lunatic fringe religious zealot? Nope, unfortunately he's a rather typical example of the religious leaders we have today. His audience is different so his rhetoric is nuanced to that effect, but the same type of statements are made by plenty of "religious" leaders in the US all the time.

"unable to control his anger" - Sounds like he leaps out of the pulpit and starts beating the crap out of someone in the first row...Has the Rev been accused of some act of violence? Seems pretty controlled to me if he can express himself once a week in front of 100's of people for the past 20 years. Seems to me he found a way to civilly and legal express his anger...you don't have to like what he says, but that doesn't mean he isn't able to control his anger...

"Anti-American" - What does this word mean? If you don't love who your country is or agree with what your country is doing or has done, are you AA? How about Pat Robertson calling for the nuclear bombing of the US state department or Jerry Falwell blaming abortions, feminists and lesbians for 9/11? Or their statements about Katrina and huricanes? I guess they are AA as well...

"Conspiracy-theorizing" - Duh! That's every single religious leader out there. Religion is based on faith. The idea that there is someone out there all powerful that you can't prove. Your soul is in constant peril. The devil is out there leading you into temptation. Satan can sneak into your home at any moment. Find me a preacher/pastor/minister that doesn't preach about the abuses of alcohol, tobacco, vice, drugs, music, porn, tv, movies, etc as tools of Satan conspiring to get your soul and I'll show you a man without a congregation. The fore-amentioned "religious" leaders all use conspiracy-theorizing on a daily basis. Rev Wright is no different...

This is not a criticism, but what is a deliberately diverse church? Are there quotas or something? How does a church deliberately diversify itself? Bus in church goers from other neighborhoods?

Christian congregations (like other religious congregations) focus on what their leaders believe to be important at the time. Most of the time its the word of God, other times it has been promoting wars, elections, politicians or other idealogic agendas. None of them are perfect...

Posted by: matt a at March 19, 2008 07:49 AM (x4G+v)

16 We would not allow a republican candidate to continue if he had a KKK member as a mentor and trusted advisor. Obama is doing the equivalent; why should we ignore it? It's certainly safe to say that the media would not allow a republican to do such a thing.

Posted by: PR at March 19, 2008 08:12 AM (tfMGP)

17 Rafar,
check your dates. Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1830.

Posted by: Grey Fox at March 19, 2008 08:25 AM (yx/dx)

18 Let’s leave aside for the moment the question of whether BHO actually properly addressed the Wright issue, and even leave aside the dispute of whether BHO needed to address the Wright issue. How do people believe this speech said anything important at all about race or race-relations in America?

From this speech it seems BHO’s take on race in America is:

- Black people are angry and have a right to be angry;

- White people need to give black people more money and do more for black people.

- Corporations are bad and government is good.

This is hardly a thoughtful or realistic view of how to improve conditions in the black community in America or how to improve race relations.

Indeed, it is simply the same cliched b.s. that the left constantly states, over and over again, despite the demonstrative failures of such approaches.

How anything in BHO’s speech is considered “great” is beyond me. Yes, BHO speaks well and has great delivery. There were some great verbal fourishes.

But there was absolutely no substance in the speech - I defy any lefty reading this blog to quote something substantive from the speech in response.

The speech contained no new ideas, no new insights, no new policy proposals or solutions. No hard truths to the black community - just the same ol’, same ol’ (i.e., blacks are angry, whites need to do more).

How does this pass for “great” or “inspirational”?

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 08:26 AM (JFj6P)

19 How about Pat Robertson calling for the nuclear bombing of the US state department or Jerry Falwell blaming abortions, feminists and lesbians for 9/11? Or their statements about Katrina and huricanes?

But ... but ... Pat Robertson spreads his hate in dulcet, sonorous tones! Jerry Falwell had the cherubic face of a friendly, white fat man! There was nothing black and scary and loud about those guys. And therein lies the difference for CY.

From this speech it seems BHO’s take on race in America is:

- Black people are angry and have a right to be angry;

- White people need to give black people more money and do more for black people.

Can you link a transcript to 'this speech'? Clearly it must have been a different one than the one he made yesterday.

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at March 19, 2008 08:50 AM (v2vq+)

20 BHO has tried to play down the race issue and now he must face it. The majority of blacks in this country are not successful "crossovers", mass black culture is fundamentally dissonant with the norms of rational, disciplined, capitalist self seeking. Obama has to some how square his relationship with both paradigms.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 09:00 AM (6x0Nb)

21
But ... but ... Pat Robertson spreads his hate in dulcet, sonorous tones! Jerry Falwell had the cherubic face of a friendly, white fat man! There was nothing black and scary and loud about those guys. And therein lies the difference for CY.


What an utter load of crap.

Go back through my archives, if you dare, and find where I've ever condoned radical statements made by Falwell, Roberson, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, or any other minster you desire.

As I stated on the previous thread, I am a member of a church that features a black senior pastor and a congregation that is probably about 40% African-American or of mixed race.

Don't attempt to speak for me, as you only reveal your own ignorance.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 19, 2008 09:06 AM (xNV2a)

22 This is an opportunity for BHO to display leadership. Don't think McCain would even address the matter. Didn't see Cheney do a follow up visit to New Orleans like he did Iraq.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 09:09 AM (6x0Nb)

23 Here, from the speech is the part that explains that Black are angry and justifies that anger:

We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

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 - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:10 AM (JFj6P)

24 And here's the part where he explains the answer is for white people to give more money to black people:

"In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

You obvioulsy heard what you wanted to hear, not what he said.

I again restate my challenge -

Find me some substance in the speech that contains new ideas, new insights, new policy proposals or solutions, or hard truths to the black community - just the same ol’, same ol’ (i.e., blacks are angry, whites need to do more).

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:13 AM (JFj6P)

25 Indeed,

Find me one interesting new thought that hasn't been routinely stated over and over again by black politicians or liberals in the speech.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:15 AM (JFj6P)

26 Great Banana- what's your default assumption that the appeal to invest in schools is directed at WHITES ONLY..it's addressed to ALL American's who can help, ALL Americans who NEED help.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 09:17 AM (6x0Nb)

27 Bob -- Like you I've been arguing that Obama's church and his pastor are aberrations among black Christian churches. I sure hope that's the case because I'm starting to wonder.

If Obama will only partially distance himself from Rev. Wright under the threat of his presidential candidacy imploding and there is no organized outcry from other black ministers that I've noticed (aside from those decrying the controversy itself), then perhaps things are worse than I thought.

Posted by: huxley at March 19, 2008 09:20 AM (rOvvS)

28 Uhh, go to a reading comprehension class - the entire paragraph is about what white should do.

And, again, how does that change my point:

Here is BHO's belief as to race issues:

- Blacks are angry and have a right to be;
- the country as a whole, including whites, (I made this change just for you) has to give blacks more.

Again, same old liberal cliche b.s. Explain again how BHO just said something "brave" or "wonderful" or "unique"?

And, he still has not even addressed whether he believes that the U.S. created AIDs to kill blacks; whether we deserved what we go on 9/11; or any of the other vile, racist things Wright said.

Instead, BHO said "hey, look over there" and you lefties agree to look over there. While I don't care that you are going to still nominate this empty suit, b/c this stuff is going to be delicious in the general election, I wish you would at least use rational thought and consistency for a change.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:24 AM (JFj6P)

29 For the sake of argument, I am willing to put aside whether BHO said that blacks are angry and whites need to give them more.

Instead, I offer this challenge to our lefty friends:

Quote me from the speech a new idea, new insights, new policy proposals or solution, or a hard truth to the black community. Point to me anything that makes this speech anything more than retread liberal talking points.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:26 AM (JFj6P)

30 "It requires all ( ALL, ALL, ALL, ALL,ALL) Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."
Great Banana- I will see you in that reading comprehension class.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 09:27 AM (6x0Nb)

31 Man are you stupid.

Yes he did say all in that last sentance. Please read the sentance before where he addresses what Whites need to do for racial healing.

""In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations."

Please, be intellectually honest in this debate. Stop spinning and at least own up to what the guy stated.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:30 AM (JFj6P)

32 Go back through my archives, if you dare, and find where I've ever condoned radical statements made by Falwell, Roberson, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, or any other minster you desire.

The question isn't whether you personally condone those popular pastors, Bob. The question is whether you've demanded that any politicians closely associated with them denounce them in the loudest possible terms or lose your support.

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at March 19, 2008 09:32 AM (v2vq+)

33 "The question isn't whether you personally condone those popular pastors, Bob. The question is whether you've demanded that any politicians closely associated with them denounce them in the loudest possible terms or lose your support."

When someone says something vile, people should repudiate it - I agree.

However, do you at least admit that there is a huge difference between a supporter stating an opinion, and someone who has been your personal minister for 20 years, has ministered to your children, is your mentor, is your "uncle", is a campaign advisor? Don't you agree that such a person saying something vile is much more troublesome than just a regular supporter saying something vile?

Or, in your mind, are the two things equal?

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:35 AM (JFj6P)

34 It seems to me that discoverying that a person who has advised a candidate and taught/mentored a candidate has a repulsive world view is much more troublesome than a regular supporter having that same vile view.

In other words, I think the actual relationship between the candidate and the person with the vile beliefs is very relevant. In this case, it seems reasonable to question what O'Bama's actual views and poltical philosophy is - considered that he has no record that we can look at to discover it and he has not been very forthcoming in explaining it. Thus, we are left with trying to discover it through such means as what influential people in his life believe. And, in the case of Wright, that is pretty damning.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:38 AM (JFj6P)

35 The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/19/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Posted by: David M at March 19, 2008 09:40 AM (gIAM9)

36 The speech was a disaster for Obama. His weasley attempt to excuse and side step the anti-American bigotry and idiocy of his preacher of 20 years (the man who married him and baptized his kids, with whome he consulted before running for president and who provided the title for his biograph) failed miserably. His inability to directly addresse the charges hurt him more than saying nothing.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at March 19, 2008 09:42 AM (gkobM)

37
The question isn't whether you personally condone those popular pastors, Bob. The question is whether you've demanded that any politicians closely associated with them denounce them in the loudest possible terms or lose your support.


Ah, the sound of rhetorical goalposts shifting as you can't tar me as you'd like.

Find me a conservative politician that has spent two decades deeply involved in the congregation of a church with a racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-theory-espousing pastor. I'll denounce both the pol and the preacher, posthaste. But there aren't any conservative politicians out there like that, are there?

Sure, there are conservative politicians that pay lip service to influential pastors (especially during elections), but such shallow relationships exist in varying degrees on both sides of the aisle.

But I can't find one politician in either party that has the kind of decades-long intimate relationship Barack Obama has with a radical racist like Wright.

Now, let's skip the small talk and see how you redefine "closely associated" in order to extract yourself from this horrific relationship you would defend.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 19, 2008 09:44 AM (xNV2a)

38 For instance,

I understand that candidates need to walk a fine line with some supporters. Kow-towing (sp?) to an influential, but troubling, "leader" like Robertson on the right, or Al Sharpton on the left, is understandable b/c they can bring votes. Simply doing a photo-op with such a person does not mean the candiate agrees with that person or necessarily even condones that person's opinion. I wish this were not the way it worked, and our candidates would repudiate more of the truly vile types (this goes for both sides of the aisle).

However, that is a completely different situation than being extremely close with the person over an extended period of time. And even more different when that person has an influential place in your life and in your campaign.

So, do I wish that McCain repudiated Hagee? Yes. Is his failure to do so the moral equivalent of the O'Bama/Wright relationship - I don't really see where any honest person can claim that it is.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 09:45 AM (JFj6P)

39 GB..what's your beef? the guy has made it clear that he doesn't AGREE with certain statements, and he has been explicit on where he stands. what else do you want?

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 09:48 AM (6x0Nb)

40 He is disengenous. In fact, he outright lied when he claimed a few days ago that he never heard Wright make vile statements and then yesterday admitted he had.

He also has a very strange moral compass. Equating the grandmother who raised him and feared crime by black men on the streets with the visciousness and hate of Wright is craven at best.

Moreover, he seems to be running on an implication that he can heal the racial divide. He did nothing in 20 years to do that w/ Wright. Nor did he do any work on doing so at any point in his life to now. Why should we suddenly believe him? Moreover, the fact that his wife spews the same kind of nonesense as Wright indicates that he actually holds similar views.

He claims to be a different kind of politician. His association with Wright for 20 years shows he is not. Instead, it shows him to either be cynical, (using Wright and that church for street cred) or that he has radical beliefs in line with that church.

Moreover, he does not really repudiate any specific statement of Wrights - he simply says that some "could be considered controversial."

That is cowardly. How about he explains which statements he thinks "could" be considered controverisal and which statements he believes actually are repugnant? How about he comes forth and states which beliefs of Wrights he actually repudiates.

My beaf is the hosannahs being heaped upon BHO for basically doing nothing. He did not actually repudiate anything specific. We still don't know whether he believes that the U.S. created AIDs to kill black people. We still don't know if he thinks 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost. We still don't know if he believes that "God Damn America" is in the bible.

In fact, we still don't actually know a single thing about what BHO believes. Yet, the left is claiming that he made some historic speech yesterday. If that is what passes for leadership on the left, that is pretty scary.

That is my beef.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 10:07 AM (JFj6P)

41 GB..well apparently this incident has changed your "original" intention to vote for BHO.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 10:10 AM (6x0Nb)

42 No, I was never going to vote for him as he seems to be perhaps the leftmost viable candidate in American history.

But, I hate the dishonesty surrounding him and his campaign and how the left is willing to forgive any and all sins of any democrat. I don't really care whether he repudiates Wright ultimately, b/c I don't think it changes his worldview and philosophy, which is likely radical along the lines of Wright's.

I just wish the left would be more honest in these things and in these debates instead of pretending the guy actually did or said something he clearly did not do or say.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 10:18 AM (JFj6P)

43 Do you wish the same standard applied to the current POTUS? and VPOTUS?

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 10:20 AM (6x0Nb)

44 Bob - so now I'm shifting goalposts am I? My, my ... I'll just have to scramble to find a conservative politician-pastor relationship that fits precisely into the narrow band of circumstances that you find so conveniently objectionable in Barack Obama.

Or how about this? How about we try to figure out which politicians have, you know, done actual stuff at the behest of their respective religious supporters ... and not just hung out with them? Stuff like push for anti-gay Constitutional amendments or teaching Creationism in public schools or elevating a specific religious creed in the public square?

Deeds not words, after all.

But never mind all that. Clearly one guy's loudmouth preacher is more disturbing than the entire Christian Coalition political apparatus in terms of potential influence on policy.

Sorry, sorry ... shifting the goalposts again.

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at March 19, 2008 10:27 AM (v2vq+)

45 I want everyone to be honest. However, I have a feeling what you consider to be lies by POTUS or VPOTUS, are in fact not lies, but differences of opinions regarding policy and/or regarding intelligence.

Indeed, my guess is that you probably believe that Bush lied us into war by lying about the intelligence. The fact that the first Bush, Clinton, and tons of dem senators and reps came to the same conclusions (numerous times and on the record) as Bush did not phase you in the least from claiming he "lied" about the intelligence. So, you have a policy differnece as to what should have been done based on the intelligence, but for some reason, must turn it into a moral argument, i.e. Bush "lied".

Certainly, of the 2 potential dem nominees, Hillary is a proven liar and BHO has now proven himself to be the same. So, where does that leave us as to honest potential presidents?

However, when talking about honesty, I am talking about debating on various websites with liberals. At least when I am arguing with someone on one of these boards, it would be nice for some a) factual honesty and b) intellectual honesty. I find that very rare in a liberal.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 10:38 AM (JFj6P)

46 "Or how about this? How about we try to figure out which politicians have, you know, done actual stuff at the behest of their respective religious supporters ... and not just hung out with them? Stuff like push for anti-gay Constitutional amendments or teaching Creationism in public schools or elevating a specific religious creed in the public square?"

2 points

1) O'Bama has no record to rely upon in determining his (as of yet undisclosed) beleifs, thus relying on what someone influential in his life believes seems reasonable.

2) you are claiming that the above is the same as saying "god damn america" and that the U.S. created aids to kill blacks, and that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost?

3) Most of the candidates running who are for those things cited above actually, you know, come out and campaign on such things. So comparing the vile things that Wright said and O'Bama is now attempting to divert attention from to actual campaign issues, is pretty idiotic.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 10:42 AM (JFj6P)

47 OK, 3 points. Obviously math is not my strong suit.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 10:44 AM (JFj6P)

48 Noun
Singular
palaver
Plural
uncountable


palaver (uncountable)

talk, unnecessary talk, fuss
a meeting at which there is much talk

[edit] Quotations
1899 — Stephen Crane, Active Service
knowing full well the right time and the wrong time for a palaver of regret and disavowal, this battalion struggled in the desperation of despair.
1899 — Stephen Crane, Active Service
but of course it could not be done without an almost endless amount of palaver.
1985 — Justin Richards, Option Lock, p 229
Not for the first time, he reflected that it was not so much the speeches that strained the nerves as the palaver that went with them.

I think the people on this board who NEVER would have considered voting for BHO in the first place are inflating this as a justification, I think those that have made up our mind to vote for him can make the distinction between his views and his pastor's.

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 10:57 AM (6x0Nb)

49 "I think the people on this board who NEVER would have considered voting for BHO in the first place are inflating this as a justification, I think those that have made up our mind to vote for him can make the distinction between his views and his pastor's."

Interesting. Doesn't refute a single argument made, but is to be expected.

I suppose when one can't sustain a rational argument, belief is what must be relied upon, much like religious faith.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 11:05 AM (JFj6P)

50 The arguments aren't "persuasive" just confirmations and elaborations on a pre-existing position.."See, THIS is why I don't like the guy. See TOLD YA he was _______! "

Posted by: chris lee at March 19, 2008 11:14 AM (6x0Nb)

51 "Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1830."

England and Wales did. The practice in the Empire was indeed abolished much later.

---------------------------------------

I must say, this is fun. Just a few weeks ago the meme was "Barak HUSSEIN Obama, the covert Muslim!". Now it is "He's such a committed Christian that we can assume that he subscribes to whatever views his Pastor holds!".

Just trying to find some of the old magic that sticks, eh?

The gag is, of course, that BHO's whole schtick is that this sort of meme-driven gotcha-politicing is what got you here in the first place. The more it is thrown out the more he sidesteps it and just plain old ignores it, the stronger that message is.

Of course, it might not pay off, the old smear-and-slime methods might be victorious, but you have to admire the man for trying to step above it.

Posted by: Rafar at March 19, 2008 11:15 AM (t4nV3)

52 1) O'Bama has no record to rely upon in determining his (as of yet undisclosed) beleifs, thus relying on what someone influential in his life believes seems reasonable.

He's got a Senate record and a state legislator's record. We eagerly await your presentation of all the 'black liberation'-influenced policy advocacy he did in those offices.

But really, the 'Manchurian Candidate' angle is pretty weak. It's code for 'I can't pin anything on this guy so I'm going to make sh*t up about his real agenda'.

2) you are claiming that the above is the same as saying "god damn america" and that the U.S. created aids to kill blacks, and that 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost?

Deeds not words. Even more to the point, deeds not others' rejected words.

3) Most of the candidates running who are for those things cited above actually, you know, come out and campaign on such things. So comparing the vile things that Wright said and O'Bama is now attempting to divert attention from to actual campaign issues, is pretty idiotic.

Wait, so comparing campaigning on hate to rejecting hate is pretty idiotic? Hey, I agree!

Posted by: D. Aristophanes at March 19, 2008 12:32 PM (PJrfL)

53 ... now that I've stopped laughing ...

Damn, you folks just crack me up. If you were spinning any harder, you'd screw yourselves into the floor.

Obama repudiates some nasty comments from his pastor, & does it with such eloquence that even the less neuron-challenged CONSERVATIVES are applauding him ... & just look at these comments!

"Obama's speech is a disaster."
- LOL - yep, it's the apocalypse alright ... if you're rooting for McCain. The more anyone tries to smear him, the sweeter he smells. "OH NOES! HE GOT A GOOD DEAL ON A HOUSE! HIS PASTOR SAID BAD THINGS! WAAAAHHHH!" Too bad the GOP is now totally addicted to Rovian tactics; "100 Years in Iraq" just doesn't woo those undecided votes as an alternative - but that's exactly what's on the GOP menu.

"I challenge you to find anything of substance in Obama's speech"
- I can say exactly the same of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: not one policy detail, just pure boilerplate ... & many know it by heart more than a century later.

He's rolling over both Clinton & the GOP like a Tiger Tank, & staying civil while doing it. Best candidate America's seen since at least RFK. If all the Republicans have to counter with is "Manchurian Candidate" gibberish or "Barack Osama" snark, they're terminally boned.

Meanwhile, McCain shows the world he can't even tell Shia from Sunni, yet some dingdong above claims HE's the best of the bunch?

Wow - you really DO like that Kool-Aid, huh?

Posted by: jim at March 19, 2008 01:35 PM (q9FIn)

54 He has a (2 year) Senate Record.

Yes, as the most liberal senator in America. So, there is that.

He has a state senate record. Where he voted "present" on ever controversial bill.

Quite a guy.

"Deeds not words. Even more to the point, deeds not others' rejected words."

Please quote me where in the speech he directly rejected any specific thing Wright said. You are really either an idiot, or purposefully lying.

Plus, point me to any "deeds" buy Obama that support anything he said yesterday in his speech. I guess all he has is words after all. Imagine that.

"Wait, so comparing campaigning on hate to rejecting hate is pretty idiotic? Hey, I agree!"

So, you are boing to vote against Obama b/c he clearly supports hate? That is wonderful news.

Oh, I know, your definition of hate is NOT expanding entitlements and discrimination laws. Actually, you know, stating incredibly vile, racist, hateful things is perfectly o.k. as long as it is suppoted by a democrat.

Such honesty, such intelligence.

"I can say exactly the same of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: not one policy detail, just pure boilerplate ... & many know it by heart more than a century later."

so, you admit that absolutely nothing of substance was stated in Obama's speech. At least you are intellectually honest. The difference being, I seriously doubt yesterday's speech will be remembered in 6 months, let alone a century later. But you can always dream.

Posted by: Great Banana at March 19, 2008 04:39 PM (JkUse)

55 "The arguments aren't "persuasive" just confirmations and elaborations on a pre-existing position.."See, THIS is why I don't like the guy. See TOLD YA he was _______! ""

Hmm. You state the arguments aren't persuasive - therefore you don't have to answer them. that is an ingenious way of debating. The clear implication benig that you don't have a rational argument to make in response to my arguments.

You are a believer. You will believe regardless of evidence. I lay out arguments, you state you don't have to respond. Which is fine, I can't make you respond, but it does demonstrate the weakness of your position.

I admit I won't vote for Obama - that isn't what this debate is about. This debate is about what the speech actually stated. I quote from the speech and point out what it actually stated and why BHO is not such a great guy.

In return, you state that you aren't persuaded and believe the speech cured cancer. Therefore you win!

I love it.

I hope you don't use that logic in your everyday life.

Posted by: great Banana at March 19, 2008 04:43 PM (JkUse)

56 It's becoming increasing clear that the Republicans are over-reaching with Pastor Wright. If they choose to make this the issue in the GE, they are unleashing a base that won't hesitate to go off the deep end. Limbaugh is whipping them up into a frenzy on a daily basis. It's only a matter time before it gets so ugly that the Republicans can kiss those suburban voters good-bye.

Posted by: Rihilism at March 19, 2008 05:02 PM (kxljB)

57 So, CY, republican politicians "pay lip service" to infuential pastors, especially during election years. How uplifting. No wonder you can't think of an example. The only time they show in the pews is for photo ops.

Posted by: Rihilism at March 19, 2008 05:24 PM (kxljB)

58 Deeds not words.

Don't tell me words don't matter. "I have a dream." Just words? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"—just words? Just speeches?

Oops. I might have plagiarized that.

Posted by: Pablo at March 19, 2008 10:45 PM (yTndK)

59 "Don't tell me words don't matter. "I have a dream." Just words? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Just words? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"—just words? Just speeches?"

Yes, but MLK lived his mission in life. I do not see any indication that Obama has lived anything but the regular politician's life.

Look what Obama did for his people as a community activist. Look what he did for his people as a state senator. Look what he did for his people as a federal senator. Then tell me whether his words translated into anything.

It seems to me as if the powers that be selected a well spoken blank canvas to prostitute their message. Unfortunately, the canvas was not as blank as they thought.

Posted by: davod at March 20, 2008 04:18 AM (llh3A)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Barack's "Race" Speech

Drudge has an advance copy of Barack Obama's "race" speech online here.

I'll follow this live, as it happens.

10:15: He hasn't arrived.

10:25: Ditto.

10:30: While we wait, let's get to the "meat" of the advance copy posted on Drudge.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

And yet, if I ever attended a church where the pastor said that we should "God Damn America" and resided in the "US of KKK-A" or the "United States of White America" that giant thundering sound you would hear is the congregation leaving en masse. As we know from the multiple videos, Barack's church cheered Wright when he uttered such hateful, distorted speech.

There is speech with which we disagree and then there is hate speech. Can Barack Obama tell the difference? Apparently not.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Interesting, how Obama seems to use language to isolate Wright's bombastic pronouncements as a more recent, near-term thing, when we know for a fact that his radical behavior goes back years, well prior to both U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Deceptive?

You betcha.

10:40: Barack has still not begun. There may be some sort of a problem at the podium instead of cold feet; technicians seem to be examining things now.

Back to the advance copy.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Most minsters I've known in my life participate in the same sort of community outreach and ministry as Obama's speech describes here. He does still not explain adequately why he chose this pastor, and this congregation to call home for 20 years, which preaches an out-of-the-mainstream brand of Christianity.

10:45: Still waiting. More from the advance copy, after skipping down a bit:

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

No minster is perfect... they are human like the rest of us, a fact with which we can all agree, and all have their faults and human failings.

Wright's career, however, has provided us with speeches far more radical, self-isolating, divisive, and at least occasionally bigoted and paranoid than most of us are used to hearing from a senior pastor. Having not attended a dedicated African-American church (though my present church includes a senior black pastor and a very diverse congregation) I cannot help but wonder if Obama is accidentally tarring all African American churches as radicals by portraying Trinity as a mainstream African-American congregation.

10:53: Some guy is talking now, quite weakly. Hot Air is liveblogging, and notes that it is Sen. Harris Wofford.

10:54: Obama arrives. I'm going to watch it through the conclusion, and then post a reaction afterward.

10:57: Okay, nix that... does he seem flat and uninspired in his delivery, or is it just my perception?

10:59: "...seared into my genetic makeup." Seared? Seared into his memory? He just Kerried himself.

11:05: Obama's pacing, I think, is meant to be deliberate, but comes across as plodding. I haven't yet heard any crowd reaction. Were they instructed not to cheer, are they listening in rapt attention, or did they fall asleep?

11:07: FWIW, he isn't deviating from the advance copy.

11:08: Got the the part about his grandmother:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, 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.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Seems to be warming up a little now.

11:10: Finally some applause after this line:

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

11:11: Did he just wait for applause, and not get it? AP says he got a "smattering of applause" I'll take his word for it.

11:13: He says:

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

That was four to five decades ago... are we to believe that Wright's inability to evolve from 1960s-era positions is an admirable trait? As this speech comes from a man who counts still-proud terrorist leader William Ayers as a friend, perhaps.

11:15:

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community.

Yes. and the SPLC tracks such groups.

11:20: Let the class warfare begin!

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

11:21: Starting to warm up the this theme.

11:27: Time to honor one of our most color-blind institutions by bringing them home in dishonorable defeat:

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Stripping them of the victory they've fought, bled and died for, while leaving Iraq to whatever genocide befalls it... it's patriotic!

11:29: Now he's going John Edwards on us—hardcore class warfare rhetoric, with a personal twist:

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Where's the puppy? Didn't she have a starving puppy?

11:32: Mercifully, it's over. Once I finally regain control over my gag reflect, I'll check around the blogosphere for other reaction to his speech.

Update: Michelle Malkin also live-blogged Obama's speech, as has Mary Katharine Ham. Very interesting and mixed reactions at The Corner, a few of which note that the speech wasn't aimed at you or me, but Democratic superdelegates that might be getting cold feet... an interesting conjecture. At PW, Dan Collins' labels the speech "movingly schmaltzy."

It will be interesting to see which portions of the speech most move the media, and I'll try to provide some of those reactions later today.

Update: Perhaps instead of the media's reaction, we should instead focus on what people are saying in response in the comment threads allowed by some news organizations.

The first page of this comment thread is running strongly against Obama, with 18 of 25 responses firmly against him. I can only imagine how he did among the other 700+ commenters so far here, but what I found most unsettling is several instances where Obama supporters lambasted those who did not like the speech as being racist. That is not going to help him.

On the CBS News thread, reaction is more mixed, and at times incoherent. Typical, I suppose, of the CBS News audience.

At The Politico, the comments are overwhelmingly in favor of Obama, with most commenters thinking he did an excellent job. Some comments, however, appear to be astroturfed.

General reaction upon reading these comment threads?

It doesn't seem that Obama could lose his hardcore supporters if he was caught with "a live boy or a dead girl" as the saying goes, and some of his supporters—though thankfully a distinct minority—are echoing Wright by labeling those who did not like the speech as racists. There does not seem to be an great number of on the fence moderates joining the Obamanation as a result of this speech, and there are signs, particularly on the ABC News thread, that the has lost some moderate Democrats for not disassociating himself from Wright.

It was a speech that was effective for those predisposed to be affected, but one that did not seem to sway many who thought Obama simply didn't do enough to address concerns that the 20-year association with Wright have brought forward.

Barack might have recaptured Democratic superdelegates with his performance today, but he probably lost the general election as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:25 AM | Comments (118) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Reasonably Disarmed

Heller v. District of Columbia goes to the Supreme Court today, as a group of Washington, D.C. residents contend that the ban on operable firearms inside homes in the District of Columbia—including an outright ban on handguns not registered prior to 1976—violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional.

Robert A. Levy, co-counsel to Heller has an op-ed posted in today's Boston Globe that highlights the correct individual rights argument.

Predictably, the editorial board of the New York Times has an op-ed of their own against the individual rights perspective, which they seem to feel applies to the First Amendment, but not the Second.

They write, quote dishonestly:

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a politically charged challenge to the District of Columbia's gun control laws. The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.

The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned private ownership of handguns. Rifles and shotguns were permitted, if kept disassembled or under an easily removed trigger lock. It is a reasonable law, far from the ban that some anti-gun-control advocates depict.

What is "reasonable" about a law that turns a homeowner into a felon the moment he takes a trigger lock off his firearm (including rifles or shotguns) and loads it during a home invasion to protect his family? The Times refuses to address the obvious unfairness of this law, and the fact that it completely precludes any legal armed self defense, even during the most violent of crimes.

As you might expect from the Times, they follow one deception with another.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the law violates the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The decision broke with the great majority of federal courts that have examined the issue, including the Supreme Court in 1939. Those courts have held that the constitutional right to bear arms is tied to service in a militia, and is not an individual right.

The 1939 case in questions is of course, United States vs. Miller in which a pair of bootleggers were arrested for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required certain firearms to be registered and a $200 transfer tax be paid every time an NFA firearm was transferred. The two men were charged for not paying the $200 tax on the the shortened shotgun. Neither of the bootleggers nor their defense showed up for the Supreme Court case, as Miller had been killed by that time, and the other defendant, Layton, accepted a plea bargain.

In reality, Miller is a very murky ruling, having been cited by both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates alike. Far from being a pro-gun control case, Miller is inconclusive at best, which the Times dishonestly and purposefully overlooks.

They continue:

The appeals court made two mistakes. First, it inflated the Second Amendment into a sweeping right to own guns, virtually without restriction or regulation. Defenders of gun rights argue that if the Supreme Court sticks with the interpretation of the Second Amendment that it sketched out in 1939, it will be eviscerating the right to own a gun, but that is not so. Americans have significant rights to own and carry guns, but the scope of those rights is set by federal, state and local laws.

The second mistake that the appeals court made — one that many supporters of gun rights may concede — was its unduly narrow view of what constitutes a "reasonable" law. The court insisted that its interpretation of the Second Amendment still leaves room for government to impose "reasonable" gun regulations. If so, it is hard to see why it rejected Washington's rules.

Again, only at the Times could they attempt support a law that completely outlaws the use of a firearm as a firearm as a "reasonable" restriction.

Perhaps if the District of Columbia ruled that their citizens had the right to own a printing press"or today, a computer printer"but required it to be kept disassembled or locked up, and made it illegal to either load it with paper or ink, then the Times might change their tune.

That, of course would require far more intellectual honesty than exists at the Times, and it seems that putting truly innocent people at risk to the whims of criminals does not weigh heavily on their souls.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:00 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Right from the outset, I would like to point out that I am Scottish, living in Scotland, and thus removed from this debate.

However, I have been interested in the debate over the Second Amendment for a long time now, and have formed my own conclusions based on my interpretation of the wording, the context of the times and the legal precedents that have followed, the transition of the Militia as an entity into the National Guard, for instance. The intent that I can decipher is that the Second Amendment does specifically protect the retention of firearms by private citizens for the purpose of duty in the Militia, so that were raising of a militia required, time would not be wasted distributing weapons. Secondary effects include the ability for citizens to form an Irregular detachment to engage the enemy as skirmishers in the early stages of any invasion, until an organised response can be formed, and the inability of the Government to bar the citizens from access to weapons in order to ensure it's own survival. I point out, though I think it is a factor, perhaps an important one, the retention of firearms for the purpose of giving citizens the ability to remove the government is not the primary intention of the Second Amendment. The private ownership of firearms is justified, and protected, under the requirement of potential militia service. As the Militia is now legally the National Guard, that would mean that the only uninfringable right to own a firearm would be possessed by members of the National Guard, and only extending to weapons that could be used in the service of the National Guard. In the days of the Militia, people who privately bought a firearm that could be used for Militia service could get a refund by taking it to their Militia officer.

The Second Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms. It PROTECTS that right from infringement by other laws, but only in the circumstances it lays out. That's the crux. It does not speak in any way to the rights of private ownership of firearms for any other purposes. It also does not proscribe them, they simply don't come into the reading of the Second Amendment. And I am of the opinion that the Constitution as the premier legal document of the United States of America, MUST be enforced wholly and completely. From my interpretation, the individual state court rulings that the Second Amendment does protect individual firearm ownership rights for purposes such as self defence are biased readings of the Amendment due to public pressure. The purpose of Amendments is to update the primary legal document of the country so as to remain applicable to current times. I would argue that the Second Amendment is, to a greater or lesser degree, no longer valid, and needs either updating or replacing.

Given that one of the secondary reasons for a citizens right to bear arms independent of Government oversight IS preparation for the eventuality that the Government might one day have to be removed by the citizens, though not the primary reading of the Amendment as I have said, the legal alteration of the private Militia into the Government-controlled National Guard violates one of the premises of the Amendment. I am not suggesting that the National Guard be scrapped and the Militia reinstated, merely that the Second Amendment is not longer applicable to the current times. In addition, the ownership of firearms for self defence is a good idea, one that should be enshrined in law. My arguments on how elements of such practise should be handled do not come into this argument at this point. I believe that the founders of your country would have chosen to protect individual firearm ownership rights were the necessity of enshrining it in law foreseen. For a country that was born on the tenants of individual responsibility as well as freedom, it is in keeping with the national character. But currently, there is not such law in the American legal pantheon that addresses the protection of such rights. One is needed. Arguing over subtle or incorrect interpretations of an irrelevant law is pointless.

Posted by: Elydo at March 18, 2008 10:10 AM (Rlu0g)

2 "It does not speak in any way to the rights of private ownership of firearms for any other purposes."

It does not speak of any purposes. Read it in its original wording.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Note the comas. What they are saying is that we need a well regulated militia, and the people's right shall not be infringed.

If they were talking about the people of the militia then it would have read as follows.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of those People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Also, there are still state sanctioned militias that are not the National Guard.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 01:41 PM (9V6Vj)

3 Thanks, Elydo. That was fair and well written. I'm not sure your reading of the first clause of the 2nd Amendment is entirely correct. At the time of it's writing Arms were not just optional equipment but a real necessity in hunting for provender or trade and first defense against raiding natives, and foreign incursions. None of these legitimate reasons for the retention of firearms are enunciated because it was understood. Well, the natives are no longer restless. Hunting is now an avocation and militias are anachronistic. I believe "well regulated militia" is a colorful flourish on the founders intent. Well regulated is perhaps wishful thinking but the militia then comprised of every able bodied man is scarcely distinguishable from the electorate at large. They wanted an armed populace. Without it we would have faced George III with pitchforks and rakes as the French battled Louis the following decade. Remember this is a time when the possession of weapons and hunting dogs were royal prerogatives in Europe. They saw as well the potential of their new enterprise to be taken over by tyrannical faction and they wanted the populace able to defend itself. While the growth in the state's weaponry makes that unlikely the spirit pervades. Moreover what world power would think to successfully invade the US whose citizenry bristles with weapons?

Maybe it's time 'self-defense' is finally clarified in the 2nd Amendment. Recent history shows us 'gun-free' zones are shooting galleries.

Posted by: i b squidly at March 18, 2008 01:59 PM (KXZyh)

4 "Well, the natives are no longer restless."

Squidly. Perhaps the Natives in the traditional sense are no longer restless, but as you state in the last part of your post, there are most definitely restless natives,

I honestly do not see a need to redefine anything, well for anything other than legal rhetoric, because it still applies in its original text.

We still need to defend ourselves, in the case of "restless natives" or from some foreign soldiery (we all know that this will probably never happen, but better to have em and not need em than need em and not have em), as well as protecting ourselves should violent action be required to defend against a tyrant (also not likely, but see above).

Call me a nitpicker.

Other than that, good well thought out out posts, both of you.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 03:21 PM (9V6Vj)

5 Elydo

Thought-provoking post. Thanks!

Posted by: iconoclast at March 18, 2008 04:20 PM (M+wD9)

6 ELYDO,

Federal Code: title 10 sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Even if the government were to change the definition of the "militia", which currently includes me in the "unorganized militia", it cannot change the definition of the "People" in the consititution without amending it. The right is one of the People to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: Liberty Defender at March 18, 2008 07:54 PM (eJA9a)

7 Thank you, I am a Redneck, and a Marine. I am not always able to put thought down on paper (or keyboard in this case).

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 08:16 PM (9V6Vj)

8 The hatred the left has for the Constitution is stunning! I couldn't imagine being so intellectually dishonest as to try and change the obvious meaning of the second amendment.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 19, 2008 12:54 AM (kNqJV)

9 Many thanks for all the compliments.

Capitalist, if that's directed at me, I would argue that the meaning isn't obvious, thus the debates going on about it. My flatmate is from North Carolina, and she generally subscribes to the common view given by most here, that the second half of the key sentence, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is not tied to the first half, the security of a free state being dependant on a well-regulated militia. The militia reference is more a hook to hang the meat of the Amendment upon, if you will. My own view is as I have outlined, that the militia reference establishes the context, and thus the limitations, of the right to bear arms being beyond infringement, that is, beyond the ability of any other law to circumscribe. The sheer fact that the amendment IS open to interpretation would indicate that it needs to be revised. Typically, in a situation where a law is open to interpretation, the precedent set by the courts enacting that law set the interpretation. That has not happened in the case of the Second Amendment, some state courts have ruled one way, some another, generally in both cases due to lobbying by interest groups. The current case is the first time the Supreme Court has addressed it in 70 years.

My own conclusion still comes out to the Second Amendment being revised to be clearer in it's intent, and a new law being drafted to grant the right, or protect it if you believe it's an inherent right in the first place, to keep and bear arms for self defence.

Remember, during the era of the Founding Fathers, every male of appropriate age was automatically a member of the militia, thus had the right to have a militia weapon, even aside from the key fact that a weapon was as necessary as a decent pair of boots.

In Addendum: Me, Left? No. Me a very strange mix of political ideologies that I would expect to piss off the hard-liners of both sides. Which reassures me, as they're the people I don't generally agree with anyway.

Posted by: Elydo at March 19, 2008 01:30 AM (6gK9M)

10 If you understand 5th grade grammar then the meaning is not only obvious it's a fact. As long as you know what a comma means then you'll know what the second amendment means. The only ones "debating" it are the fascist left. What were the first things that both Stalin and Hitler took away from its citizenry? That would be their guns.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at March 19, 2008 04:24 AM (kNqJV)

11 Right, so now we're getting insulting.

Though I am actually dyslexic and also likely have Aspergers, I'm in the process of getting diagnosed, so a retard comment next would possibly be more accurate than saying I don't understand fifth grade grammar.

It's amusing that you make an argument about understanding how to use commas and fail to utilize one in your first sentence, there should be one after "obvious" in order to accentuate your point. And no part of this debate is about the Government removing people's access to firearms. The key point is whether the Second Amendment PROTECTS the right to keep and bear arms from Government regulation, and the circumstances withal.

Posted by: Elydo at March 19, 2008 10:43 AM (UrYAz)

12 Very thoughtful Elydo. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil.

Just to clarify, the National Guard should not be considered militia, vis a vis the 2nd Amendment. The Army and Air National Guards are a part of the National Guard Bureau which is a subordinate command withing the Department of Defense. The only true, non-federal militias would be State Defense Forces. Not all states have them and, while Federally recognized, they receive no Federal funding. They are the only state 'militia' forces that cannot be federalized by the PotUS. Also, with the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, the Gov. of a state is no longer the sole CiC of the NG units during emergencies within in his or her state.

This is important to remember when trying to keep with the spirit in which the 2nd Amendment was written - that the People may need to overthrow a tyrannical government as the Fathers had just completed doing.

Posted by: Dan Irving at March 19, 2008 02:28 PM (zw8QA)

13 This is another part that is wrong, at least as I understand this.

The case poses a vital question: can cities impose reasonable controls on guns to protect their citizens? The court should rule that they can.

They aren't ruling on whether a city can do this, but whether the federal government can since D.C. is ultimately controlled by the federal government.

I might be wrong about this, but this is a different question than one would face NYC or Boston.

Posted by: Tony B at March 20, 2008 03:23 AM (187Jq)

14 I would also argue that we do not get the right to self defense from any piece of paper, it is a given right that all humans possess. Since these weapons in the hands of the people should be used in self defense, then we do not require it to be placed on paper to say so. Ya know what I mean?

Posted by: Matt at March 23, 2008 03:59 PM (9V6Vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 17, 2008

Did Obama Attend Wright's Most Provocative Sermons? It Doesn't Matter.

There is a lot of heat flying around the blogosphere (and even the mainstream media) this morning over whether or not Illinois Senator and Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on days that the church's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., uttered inflammatory rhetoric that most Americans seem to feel is at least occasionally anti-American and borderline racist in nature.

Obama claimed late Friday that he was not in attendance for any of Wright's most explosive sermons over the past 20 years he has been attending TUCC, including sermons where Wright lambasted this nation as "United States of KKK A" and stated "No, no, no, not 'God bless America,' God damn America" amid other provocative statements uttered during other sermons published on Youtube and in news outlets Friday and over the weekend.

Writing in Newsmax—a news outlet with a less than sterling reputation for accuracy—over the weekend, Ronald Kessler cites fellow NewsMax reporter, Jim Davis, who claims that Obama was indeed present for a Wright sermon he attended at TUCC on July 22, 2007, where:

...the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

[snip]

If Obama's claims are true that he was completely unaware that Wright's trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ has targeted "white" America and Israel, he would have been one of the few people in Chicago to be so uninformed. Wright's reputation for spewing hate is well known.

In fact, Obama was present in the South Side Chicago church on July 22 last year when Jim Davis, a freelance correspondent for Newsmax, attended services along with Obama. [See: "Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division."]

In his sermon that day, Wright tore into America, referring to the "United States of White America" and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened. Hearing Wright's attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but Davis said the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.

The claim has quickly been disputed by those who have cited video evidence of Obama speaking at La Raza's annual conference in Miami, Florida that same day. Newsmax is still sticking to the claim, stating that Obama was at the church on the day of Wright's "white arrogance" tirade, along with a Secret Service protective detail, and that with early morning and an evening service, Obama had time to attend two of the three sermons and the La Raza conference that day.

I've contacted the Secret Service Public Affairs Office to see if they will be able to confirm or deny a protective detail guarding Obama at TUCC in Chicago on July 22, 2007 as they seem to be in the most credible position to resolve these claims, but I do not know if they are able to address such concerns, and even if they are about to confirm of deny Obama's attendance, I'm not sure that playing a game of "gotcha" pinning down Obama as an attendee at one of Wright's more explosive sermons is even of major relevance.

Certainly, confirming Obama's attendance would be a huge blow to his credibility as he stated categorically that he never attended church on days where Wright delivered one of his more inflammatory sermons, but that almost seems beside the point.

Whether or not he was there for one of "those" sermons, Barack Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years, and it is implausible that he was completely unaware of his rhetoric and radicalism during that entire time period.

Barack Obama is forcing us to chose between one of two narratives. Either he:

1. attended a church for two decades that featured a radical minister preaching a seemingly separatist and occasionally anti-American "Black Value System" (which curiously, was scrubbed from the church's web site over the weekend), considered Wright a mentor, was married by him, has his children baptized by him, and added him in an official capacity to his Presidential campaign (though in a largely ceremonial role), without ever really knowing anything about him or his beliefs, or;
2. Barack was aware of Wright's pronouncements and beliefs and agreed with him enough that he was a member of Wright's congregation for 20 years, only to then see Obama threw Wright "under the bus" when those beliefs became a threat to Obama's presidential campaign.

Which is it?

The latter seems far more plausible than the former, with or without the media being able to pin down Obama as having attended Wright's more bombastic recorded sermons.

Obama either displays a Gumpish cluelessness and a lack of self-awareness as a human being (not exactly sought-after traits in a President), or he agrees with the teaching of Wright to the extent that he became a member of his church and spent the last two decades as part of a congregation that was captured loudly applauding during extremist and conspiracy theory-laced sermons.

Voters polled by Rasmussen seem to have made up their minds:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright’s comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters.

[snip]

Last Thursday, 52% of voters nationwide had a favorable opinion of Obama. That figure has fallen to 47% on Monday...

Despite recent claims that he shared none of Wright's extremist statements, Obama's chickens seem to be coming home to roost.

Update: As noted by "JustADude" in the comments, Obama was in Chicago July 22, 2007, which was noted at HuffPo, though Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor "stressed that the senator did not make a stop at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:36 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 According to WaPo political tracker
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/dates/2007/jul/22/

Obama had an appearance in Chicago in the morning and the speech in Miami later.

His staff confirms the schedule to HuffPO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/obama-was-in-chicago-the-_n_91876.html

Obama's spokesperson Tommy Vietor confirmed that the schedule was accurate but stressed that the senator did not make a stop at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ

Posted by: JustADude at March 17, 2008 12:59 PM (1aM/I)

2 Seems like Obama dosnt have any good outcomes here, either he was at a racist sermon or attending a Mexican supremist group meeting.

Posted by: grrrrrr at March 17, 2008 12:59 PM (gkobM)

3 I was hoping this election would bring out a real debate about the nature of the US that we've been missing since the end of the Cold War. I really, really wanted to see a Newt Gingrich vs. Hillary Clinton knock-down-drag out, but that didn't happen. I was going to pretty much ignore this election --- until now...

The media is a darn pickle here.

They built Obama into a national figure last year, and a few months ago, a sizable portion of the media and Dem. elite decided to actively promote Obama and bury Hillary (though Hillary has some supporters in those circles still)....but now, after those others have made their choice, this big huge roadblock pops up....and what can they do?

They can't dump Obama for Hillary as neatly they did Dean for Kerry. We are later in the game and they invested in Obama while Dean forced them to take notice.

More than that, if they had already decided Hillary was unelectable and thus they had to go for Obama, I doubt they would now view her as any more electable just because Obama's campaign has hit an iceberg.

So, at least for now, they are pretending the iceberg isn't there or at least doesn't matter.

I give it about 2 weeks before they start championing Hillary - with the "they" being the whole of the media and the party.

A sign to watch for will be Kennedy jumping back into the Hillary camp....

Posted by: usinkorea at March 17, 2008 01:03 PM (5RKiy)

4 If Obama attended, the Secret Service would have accompanied him. Has anyone asked that the SS schedule - a public document - be made available under FOIA?

Posted by: arch at March 17, 2008 02:03 PM (6c7Ok)

5 What's wrong with everyone? Whether or not Obama listened to Wright, and/or agrees with him doesn't mean that he's not a great candidate for president. What presidential candidate is lilly white? None of them are. You can't possible believe that America is totally unbiased, because it's not. That doesn't mean that Black Americans don't love the United States of America, because we do. How many Black American spys have there been? We love America, but that doesn't mean that we don't see the bias that exists here.

We may have children, or relatives who have acted or committed an offense to themselves or others, but we still love them. I'm sorry, but some of what that pastor was saying hits a nerve, and is based on the sad truth that still exists in this country. No, not like years ago, but we're still improving. That's all we can do.

You know this is true by the way Obama is being attacked in the media by people like the ones who are submitting comments to this site. Calling him "Glowbamma", or whatever. Do they have a similar name for Hillary, or John McCain?

Oh, and that ignorant comment someone made about Obama knowing where his friend's money came from. I wouldn't dream of asking my friend how they could afford to buy a BMW, or a big house, or any other purchase they may have made. I might think something was up, but it's offensive to ask someone about their money. Duh.

I'm not even sure whether I want to vote for Obama or not, but I can't stand watching people attack any candidate on a personal level. Stick to politics. Personally, I don't believe in abortion, but if I were to run for a political office, I'd defend a woman's right to choose. Unless Obama committed a crime, he can believe whatever he wants to believe. There is no evidence that he's racist, but can you say the same about Bush, or any of the other president's we've had? If being racist keep a person out of office, a lot of former presidents would never have had the opportunity to be our president.

Let's just stick to the issues, and allow these fine people to compete with each other based on their political merits. Thank you.

Posted by: Grace at March 17, 2008 02:27 PM (blNMI)

6 I'd have to go with choice B. Obama is too smart a fella to be choice A. It just goes to show what happens when a candidate has not been completely vetted before they dive into something as big as the race for the Presidency.

Posted by: MajorJB at March 17, 2008 02:40 PM (+pVQp)

7 Obama can believe whatever he wants to believe, but if that's God D*** America, then he has no business being a Senator, much less the Head of State.

Posted by: Techie at March 17, 2008 02:50 PM (AV8Z6)

8 What's wrong with everyone? Whether or not Obama listened to Wright, and/or agrees with him doesn't mean that he's not a great candidate for president.

Utterly false. If Obama subscribes to or even tolerates Wright's sometimes anti-white, anti-American, and anti-sane rants and vitriol, he exposes himself to be just the opposite of the uniting "change" candidate he pretends to be, and if he didn't know of Wright's demagoguery as he now claims, then he exposes himself as a dunce for not picking that up in 20 years at the church.

Both matter very much in determining whether or no the's a decent presidential candidate, and as I've argued before, whether or not he's even a decent father for exposing his children to such a toxic environment.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 17, 2008 03:04 PM (xNV2a)

9 The realtor involved in the Obama-Rezko land deal is a self-claimed "Hillary girl". She said this about Obama: I have been there. It is just like a hot date with a cool man. You just don't what to ask too many questions to kill the dream". Obama supporters, ask yourself: Are you trying to keep that Dream by suppressing any inkling of your doubts?

Nobody is accusing Obama of being a racist, or having done things illegal. The issue here is his entire platform he has built to make him so high and so above the rest of the political contenders is collapsing.
1. Honesty: he was not honest when he answered questions about Rezko and Wright. His story kept changing. There is more to come. I am 100% sure by Nov. there will be a tape surfacing out showing him nodding with Wright when those hateful words were said.
2. Ethics: he shows no ethical concerns when he entered the land deal with Rezko. Also look at his earmarks from the senate, to the hospital where his wife was VP; to things associated with his biggest donor.
3. Good judgment: Obama chose to be associated with Rezko and Wright intentionally. This is not just bad judgment, there is more than that. I have the suspect that deep in his heart, Obama is a completely different person. All he is saying in the campaign is carefully calculated "positioning".
4. Iraq: the only thing Obama can talk about as reflecting his good judgment. The NYT had an article about him recently. It turned out, except his 2002 speech, Obama did nothing to change the Iraq course, he even voted against troop withdrawal. His tones and strategies changed AFTER he started his pres. bid.

Posted by: kk at March 17, 2008 03:10 PM (tbGtd)

10 The problem with running an empty vessel for President is that they sometimes turn out to not be so empty. Barack Obama expects us to believe that he had the kind of relationship with Wright that he says he had and didn't know about Wright's virulent anti-American beliefs. Either he's an idiot or he thinks we are. I suspect the latter.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 17, 2008 03:17 PM (vmEFO)

11 Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22, 2007 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance”of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

The Reverend Wright’s anti-white theology, that Senator Obama expressed surprise over with claims that he never heard about it until just recently, is evident in Wright's sermon last July 22, 2007.

Wright tore into America, referring to the “United States of White America” and lacing his sermon with expletives as Obama listened.

Hearing Wright’s attacks on his own country, Obama had the opportunity to walk out, but the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.

Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks everywhere. To underscore the point, he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded and cheered in apparent agreement as these statements were made. Members of the congregation laughed and applauded and slapped one another on the back as Wright damned our country and blamed the "rich whites" for AIDS and every other disappointment ever to befall the black race.

Americans need not ignore the racist hatred coming out of the mouth of Rev. Wright, they should also not ignore the crowd cheering it on like they are a football game at the church of the possible next president of the U.S.

Vote accordingly.

Posted by: IndependentVoter at March 17, 2008 03:23 PM (QMeDD)

12 Amazing Grace:

How could you possibly consider as Obama a candidate for the presidency? At best Barack is a liar; at worst, a foolish, inexperienced, racist, fascist, anti-American liar.

Obama has known what Wright represents and has supported him for twenty years. His parish in Chicago has 10,000 members, all of whom have heard these rants. It is an insulting lie to imply that he was not aware of the black master race message.

Obama does not respect this country enough to render customary courtesy during the playing of the national anthem. His wife only recently felt pride in America. How would he function as head of a state he and his wife and pastor all detest?

Commander in Chief? I don't think so.

Posted by: arch at March 17, 2008 03:23 PM (6c7Ok)

13 I love this - he was at a La Raza function instead?

"I wasn't cheating on you, honey - I was drunk off my ass in a ditch."

Posted by: tsmonk at March 17, 2008 03:54 PM (j1orm)

14 You can still get to The Black Value System, but it's no longer a PDF:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

That's clickable from http://www.tucc.org/home.htm at "Click here to read about The Black Value System."

However, they have scrubbed the 12 bullet points of The Black Value System from the "About Us" page.

Posted by: huxley at March 17, 2008 04:48 PM (ZVsZw)

15 Grace:

So, if a politician had a great set of ideas on how to get the economy right, but was a member of the World Church of the Creator, you'd be okay with that?

Or, if a politician had an excellent foreign policy, but was present at some cross-burnings (but didn't even wear a hood), would that be alright?

Personal beliefs sometimes don't matter; sometimes they tell you a lot about the person's actual character. And that, I would suggest, the content of their character, is as much at issue in an election for the White House as their policy stances.

Now, that doesn't mean one cannot vote for Obama. I don't think much of the contents of Hillary's or McCain's character either, frankly. But suggesting it doesn't matter at all, well, I just don't cotton to that.

Posted by: Lurking Observer at March 17, 2008 04:54 PM (4OYnX)

16 Grace, oh Gracy please -- I agree with arch but I think you name gives you away. Certaily there is Grace for anyone seeking the truth but the blind are blind and I am afraid the reasoning used by Grace to FORGIVE and not to JUDGE the less than honorable Barack Obama all under the cover of "the Issues" is truly a blind follower. Please forgive me for making that judgement. Hate is hate, and lies are lies, no matter how noble the issues might be. Satan himself mixed truth with lies and you could argue a case for him if you ignored the lie and focused on the issues of what he, Satan, was conveying to the innocent Eve. Twenty years Obama listened to this preacher of hate -- twenty years -- and you think the issues are what count when considering this individual as the next president? There is an old saying, as true today as yesterday, "you are known by the company you keep". Twenty years -- and he heard nothing? Shame on you for defending him and shame on him for betraying you.

Posted by: Danmy at March 17, 2008 05:20 PM (mYI05)

17 One wonders if Grace thought less of George W. Bush for a single (that's one only) appearance at Bob Jones University in 2000.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 17, 2008 05:51 PM (lueVj)

18 That backslapping and cheering upon hearing the remark the "chickens comin home to roost" among Obama's friends in the days after 9/11, remind me of videos I saw of Palestinians celebrating in the streets, as they began first hearing of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

Posted by: bl at March 17, 2008 06:08 PM (hsO/7)

19 Grace ... you are being conned by Obama. He is neither a uniter nor a healer. He has never tried to heal his pastor ? Why is that ? Its must be because he agrees with the man.

Posted by: Jeff at March 17, 2008 08:12 PM (esWQA)

20 I think that we have seen the political death of Barack Obama…I don’t think that anything he can say at this AM’s press conference can repair the damage that this one incident has caused on his campaign and may have cast any doubts on the Democratic party fielding another African American candidate in the foreseeable future

Posted by: fmfnavydoc at March 18, 2008 08:14 AM (I6QiV)

21 "Utterly false. If Obama subscribes to or even tolerates Wright's sometimes anti-white, anti-American, and anti-sane rants and vitriol, he exposes himself to be just the opposite of the uniting "change" candidate he pretends to be,"

Not only that. But lets say that he does not believe in what the "preachers been preachin" does it not show some serious lack of judgment, and lack of moral courage to keep going?

As I have said before. Any sane person, that believes in his faith, will find a different preacher when they are not preaching the word.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 05:08 PM (9V6Vj)

22 This issue is not about race. I am so confused, so many news stations/media, praising Obama's speech about race. Why are they not concerned about how he was able to be part of a church, that hates the United States. He could have walked out, but he continued to support the church by attendance and donations. His daughters have sat there and heard these words. No one is upset about the fact that Senator Clinton was called names, what if her minister would have called Senator Obama a young black articulate man. Everyone was all over Senator Biden, when he said that. I have not walked in the shoes of a black man, but I have walked in the shoes of a white women, of grandparents from another country, heard people call my grandparents a Dumb Hunky, others called a stupid Polock, jokes made, on and on. But I got though it. Yes I
resent those remarks. But I attended an Orthodox Serbian Church, and during one of our payers, we thanked God and God Blessed America at each sermon.
After 911 we prayed for the families and asked for strenght for our country the United States. If my preacher would have said what Rev. Wright said, I would have walked out, but I would also let that prist know what I thought and I am not running for the President of the United Sates of America. Above all the man or women that is President of the United States, must defend it , honor it, respect it, by allowing some one to be dis-respectful to the country you believe in, is not a allowable quality for a future President of the United States. Mr. Obama, if you love this country, you need to withdraw from the race, and try to heal your church and address the race issue if it exists as you say. I grew up in the sixties, in a very diverse neighborhood, I never had the hate for any race as your church appears to have. I am glad I have had the privledge to have the friendship with other African Americans, that do not hate me as your church appears to.

Posted by: June at March 20, 2008 03:11 PM (d/RyS)

23 To June:

The media has made there choice that is why we(meaning you, me and anybody else who will come along with us) need to get this stuff out there some how. The media also chose to cover up the fact that he lied to the american people for four days until he got caught and decided to come clean. He even says in one of his books quote "I searched long and hard for a church that FIT MY VEIWS" You can't get any clearer that that.

Posted by: John at March 22, 2008 06:21 PM (EHRHn)

24 FOX Lies!!! Is Rev. Wright .Support Barack Obama.

People of America, check out the real 911 sermon by Rev. Wright on you-tube, so that you can see it in context. Because much of what he talked about was not racism, but oppression. I support Obama, although I don’t agree with Rev. Wright on HIV and the black community. However, there is evidence to suggest that the CIA did smuggle in 1 ton of Cocaine into South Central L.A. Check out American Drug War Documentary- the Great White Hype! I saw it in one of my college classes, good video.

God bless America, and also other countries!

Posted by: Angello 26 at March 24, 2008 03:45 PM (hRFPz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 14, 2008

And This Is Why You Do Your Own Research...

You have to enjoy this bit of information in a Reuters story today by Daniel Trotta, where he simply parrots a claim made by anonymous police (my bold):

Interstate 95, which runs up the U.S. East Coast, is known to cops as the "Iron Pipeline" -- the conduit of choice for gun smugglers to move their hardware from the southern United States to New York city.

With formidable opponents in the gun manufacturers and gun owners, national politicians do little to stop this traffic, leaving gun control largely in the hands of local leaders.

"Where is the outrage in this country? Well, mayors see it," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "We're the ones who have to go to the funerals. We're the ones that have to look somebody in the eye and say your spouse or your parent or your child is not going to come home."

Since Bloomberg became mayor in 2002, every gun homicide in the city -- including the killing of eight police officers -- has been committed with an illegal gun, police say.

The claim is false, and took me less time to prove than it took to write this sentence.

The following homicides were committed with legal police firearms since Bloomberg became Mayor:

• On May 22, 2003, 43-year old Ousmane Zongo, an immigrant from Burkina Faso, was shot four times by Police Officer Bryan Conroy in a Chelsea warehouse. In 2005, Conroy was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide and sentenced to 5 years probation. In 2006, the city awarded the Zongo family $3 million to settle a wrongful death suit.
• On January 24, 2004, Housing Bureau officer Richard Neri, Jr. accidentally shot to death Timothy Stansbury, a 19-year-old black man who was trespassing on the roof landing of a Bedford-Stuyvesant housing project. Stansbury was unarmed but had apparently startled Neri upon opening the roof door coming upon the officer. At that point, Neri discharged his service firearm and mortally wounded Stansbury. Although Commissioner Kelly stated that the shooting appeared "unjustified", a Brooklyn jury found that no criminal act occurred and that the event was a tragic accident. Neri was thus cleared of all charges.[35] The city later agreed to pay $2 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Stansbury family. A grand jury declined to indict Neri but Kelly later suspended him for 30 days without pay and permanently stripped him of his weapon.
• On November 25, 2006, plainclothes police officers shot and killed Sean Bell and wounded two of his companions, one critically, outside of the Kalua Cabaret in Queens. No weapon was recovered.[37] According to the police, Bell rammed his vehicle into an undercover officer and hit an unmarked NYPD minivan twice, prompting undercover officers to fire fifty rounds into Bell's car. A bullet piercing the nearby AirTrain JFK facility startled two Port Authority patrolmen stationed there. [38] An undercover officer claims he heard one of the unarmed man's companions threaten to get his gun to settle a fight with another individual.


• On November 12, 2007, five NYPD police officers shot and killed 18-year-old Khiel Coppin. The officers responded to a 911 call where Coppin could be heard saying he had a gun. When the officers arrived at the scene, Khiel approached officers with a black object, which was later identified as a hairbrush, in his hand and repeatedly ignored orders to stop. This prompted officers to open fire at Coppin. Of the 20 shots fired, 8 hit Khiel, who died at the scene. This shooting has been ruled to be with both NYPD rules for the use of deadly force and the New York State Penal Law provisions, so no charges, criminal or administrative, will be filed against these officers.

It took my about 15 seconds to pull that information from Wikipedia, citing homicides committed with NYPD-issued (and therefore, presumably legal) firearms.

New York also has hundreds of homicides per year and shotguns and rifles are not illegal to buy, sell, or own within city limits, so even the claim that civilian homicides are all performed with illegally-owned firearms is also very suspect.

There is also the pesky little problem that not all firearms used in homicides are recovered, making it impossible to tell if the firearm used was illegally or legally owned.

Nice job vetting your story, Reuters. You're great stenographers, even if you aren't very good journalists.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:51 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The Deciders. With layers and layers of editing and fact-checking.........

Posted by: Techie at March 14, 2008 04:30 PM (AV8Z6)

2 Doesn't surprise me one bit.

Posted by: brando at March 14, 2008 05:14 PM (rDQC9)

3 On the other hand, he wrote "police say", so at least the reporter covered himself. At the same time, it is no surprise to see the press writing what they are told - in more ways than one.

Posted by: Barry Heim at March 14, 2008 05:44 PM (Kwefc)

4 On the other hand, he wrote "police say", so at least the reporter covered himself. At the same time, it is no surprise to see the press writing exactly what they are told - in more ways than one.

Posted by: Barry Heim at March 14, 2008 05:44 PM (Kwefc)

5 I don't believe Reuters when they give today's date.

Why does anybody read them, much less expect them to tell the truth?

Go some place far more reliable, like NBC.

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at March 14, 2008 07:59 PM (RGVQj)

6 Any time is see those kinds of absolutes in a story it tends to make me want to fire up goggle in another tab of my browser just to throw in a couple of search terms and go back to that tab later to do some fact checking.

Posted by: JustADude at March 14, 2008 09:22 PM (1aM/I)

7 Reuters does news? Who knew.. heh

It's like the same editors work for all of them (AP/AFP/Reuters/et al) or don't work if you look at it that way.

Posted by: Verlin Maritn at March 15, 2008 08:38 AM (wFMY2)

8 The "Iron Pipeline?" The "Iron Pipeline?"

I've heard I-95 called a lot of things, but not that.

And considering how closely its monitored for drug traffic, I have a hard time believing that I wouldn't have heard if major gun shipments were being intercepted as well.

Posted by: EW1(SG) at March 15, 2008 11:48 AM (YcNsA)

9 "Iron"??!!

that doesn't sound like a name created by someone who knows much about firearms.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 15, 2008 11:42 PM (TzLpv)

10 Actually Bob, they could be good journalists, by definition at merriamwebsters.com. However they are lousy reporters due to the definition of "journalism", they choose to operate by merriamwebsters definition 2c instead of definition 2b.

Posted by: Boss429 at March 16, 2008 04:28 PM (O3voc)

11 Come on Bob. It's obvoius and pretty safe to assume that Reuters AND the NYC police are talking about civilian-on-civilian homicides, not police-on-civilian.

Do they really need to spell that out for you?

Your point about homicides from rifles or shotguns is pure conjecture.

Posted by: dude at March 17, 2008 08:58 AM (MyDKI)

12 I won't even give them the 'Good Stenographers" award.
I've seen too many examples of "spell-check spelling", mixing up homonyms to say anyone even proof reads over there.
And no, I have better things to do with my time than keep a record of every their/there/they're and its/it's error passed by the Reuters "editors".

Posted by: Windy Wilson at March 17, 2008 07:45 PM (9QNf2)

13 "Come on Bob. It's obvoius and pretty safe to assume that Reuters AND the NYC police are talking about civilian-on-civilian homicides, not police-on-civilian."

Why would they do that? Embarrassment, or just preferring a lie that supports their agenda?

Posted by: rj at March 17, 2008 11:36 PM (NqJVA)

14 Police are civilians.

Posted by: brando at March 18, 2008 12:01 AM (rDQC9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Wright and Obama: It Only Gets Worse

The Wall Street Journal has published yet another damning sermon from Barack Obama's retiring minister of two decades, Jeremiah Wright.

The displaced anger, bigotry, and hatred displayed is chilling:

"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

As the story of Wright's forceful bigotry finally forced it's way into the mainstream media yesterday at ABC News with the story Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11, the people Barack Obama has chosen to surround himself with has come under sharp focus.

From a self-isolated, self-pitying wife, to a bombastic, bigoted minister, to an unreformed terrorist, Barack Obama has surrounded himself with very questionable ideological company, associations from which he has no defense. He wasn't forced to chose to spend time with this cadre of believers on the radical fringe, he embraced them willingly.

Predictably, as the media has come to focus on Obama's two-decade relationship with Wright, Obama supporters have been quick to attempt to minimize the damage. Unable to do it with a forceful denunciation of Wright's bigotry by Obama (Obama has only uttered the lamest of excuses), they have instead attempted to tar Republican candidate John McCain as being equally bad, for the support he has garnered from controversial evangelists Rod Parsley and John Hagee.

For those of you unfamiliar with these men, Parsley's most famous controversial statements include calling Islam a "false religion" that must be destroyed, opposition same-sex marriage, partial-birth abortion, hate-crimes legislation, and the separation of church and state. Hagee has been ripped an an anti-Catholic bigot, stated that Hurricane Katrina was an act of God against New Orleans for the city's "level of sin," and for claiming that the Qur'an has "a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."

There, of course, is a difference between John McCain's political endorsements by Parsley and Hagee, and Barack Obama's 20 years of willfully absorbing Wright's hatred, a toxicity to which he has willfully exposed family.

I addressed this attempt to equivilate Obama and McCain in a comment to the ABC News blog story Obama camp: 'Deplores divisive statements', which featured yet another inflammatory speech by Wright.

My comment read:

I see that some are already attempting to trot out a comparative argument, that Wright's offensive, bigoted, and paranoid rants are somehow lessened by invoking John McCain's support from John Hagee and Rod Parsley, two prominent evangelists who have also made provocative statements.

But here is the huge gaping difference between these attempts: Barack Obama has spent the better part of the past 20 years of his life listening to, absorbing, and yes, agreeing with Wright's sermons. If he did not agree with the bulk of those sermons, he would have of course left Trinity for another church--finding a church in Chicago that closely fits your own personal beliefs is not at all difficult, and Obama obviously agrees with Wright far more than he disagrees.

That Obama has spent 20 years listening to Wright, thought enough of him to use one of those sermons as the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," that he was married by Wright, had both of his children baptized by Wright and brought up in this church, listening to these paranoid and racist rants that differ little in substance from the words of a much more famous racist, Louis Farakkan, means that Obama AGREES with Wright far more often than he disagrees with him.

From that, what are we to make of Obama? Actions, indeed, do speak louder than flaccid conciliatory words that have only just now been uttered.

I say again the obvious: no American would spend 20 years listening to a minister with which he vehemently disagreed.

McCain, by comparison, is guilty of pandering to Haggee and Parsley because of the (unfortunate) influence they have over a powerful voting demographic.

I can find scant evidence that McCain has sat though one sermon from Hagee or Parsley, much less 20 years of them.

Which is worse?

The politician that panders for votes, or the man who has listened to and internalized anti-American, anti-Jewish, and anti-white messages for 20 years before ever once publicly disagreeing with them, and who is raising his children in this same toxic environment?

Not only am I certain Barack Obama is unfit to run this nation, I now question his ability to raise his own children, for the hatred he has willingly exposed them to since their births.

Yes, I went there. Read again Wright's rant in the WSJ article featured above, or some of his other hate speech (for that is what it is), and try to explain to me that a good parent exposes his children to an environment that exudes such naked anger, resentment, defeatism, and conspiratorial paranoia.

Perhaps some of you are comfortable having your children raised in such an environment, but I am not, and I do not think that someone who willingly exposes himself and his family to internalizing such vitriol for 20 years is the kind of person we need or want to lead this nation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (118) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The comments of his wife and his spiritual adviser is very disturbing. What I don't understand is how a man and his wife, who are upper class, can feel so persecuted.

When the Republicans nominated McCain I swore I would never vote for him. Obama or Hillary placed on the ballot forces me to reverse my pledge.
Are there no leaders in American politics anymore?

Posted by: Mekan at March 14, 2008 10:55 AM (hm8tW)

2 Ladies and gentlemen, this man WILL be called on to advise a President Obama.

Posted by: Techie at March 14, 2008 11:07 AM (AV8Z6)

3 So the question is - who is the real Obama? Is he the sunny, post-racial hoper, or is he the ideological confederate of his wife, his pastor and William Ayers? His voting record makes it clear that on policy he is a left-wing doctrinaire Democrat, but his appeal has been that he doesn't actually hate republicans like Hilary or Nacy Pelosi, he just diagrees with them, but can work to find compromises - but is this even true, or is he just a big smiley face pasted on a cauldron of hate and grievance? And if he loses to either HRC or the Maverick, will that just be proof of a conspiracy to deny him his rightful place (well, with the Hillabeast he might have a point....)?

Posted by: holdfast at March 14, 2008 11:20 AM (Gzb30)

4 Excellent post.

Might I add an obvious point--that in addition to being racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, and anti-American, Wright's comments are just plain stupid. I have to explain the factual errors in my daughters' science books regarding global warming. Can you imagine the amount of intellectual damage control you'd have to engage in with your kids after one of those sermons?

Posted by: Cowboy at March 14, 2008 11:26 AM (vASnq)

5 It's ugly - but those of us who'd been looking into Obama for a long time aren't very surprised, except perhaps by the fact that it's taken this long for some strong video to surface. Yet more evidence that the Clinton operation may never have been what it was cracked up to be.

Posted by: CK MacLeod at March 14, 2008 11:53 AM (8aPVo)

6 This article is right on the money IMHO.

This is the pastor who belched out his rasist, anti American, hateful garbage every single Sunday for 20 years of Obamas life AND for pretty much his kids entire lives.

I wondered why on earth Obama refused to wear a pin on his lapel of the United States of AmeriKKKa, thinking that it was some pathetic left wing pandering stunt but now it's crystal clear.

It seems now that after 20 years of fanatical preaching about how bad America is, how bad the white people are, how unjust the USA is, that Obama DOES hate the USA, he IS ashamed of what he feels America is....Viewed from his eyes, with everything he has been indoctrinated on from his "crazy Uncle" pastor(who is actually a crazy rasist) how can the USA be anything but the cause of everything thats wrong in the world today.

To end this post, Im listening to some guy telling a radio host that he couldnt understand what this minister said because its from a black mans point of view....My feeling on that statment would be as follows.

When I see a congregation whooping it up, dancing with glee and joy at a guy saying that the USA deserves what it got on 9-11.....I see absoultley zero difference than I did seeing Palastinians passing ou the candy as they too hooted and hollered,danced with joy as the actual 9-11 event unfolded.

But hey, thats my view.

Posted by: Drider at March 14, 2008 11:57 AM (l60EG)

7 In one of the sermons clips played yesterday by Rush, Rev Wright was shouting "...they want us to sing 'God Bless America?' No! God DAMN America!"

Suddenly, that picture a few months back of Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem doesn't seem so trivial. And one has to wonder, are Michelle Obama's divisive statements just evidence that she isn't as skilled at keeping it under wraps? Obama has been asked about this, and he chose to be vague and evasive ("I disagree with some of the things he says...", "I don't think my church has anything to do with the election..." (quoting from memory)). Unacceptable.

Obama's socialism was enough to guarantee never getting my vote, but I'll go further and state that I'll never give my vote for the person to lead this country to a candidate that just might hate the country. Period.

Posted by: Satanam in computatrum at March 14, 2008 12:09 PM (YLs4U)

8 So do Michelle and Barack [redacted] Obama hate whites, too? I can't say that's a quality I'd prize in my president.

Posted by: butch at March 14, 2008 12:12 PM (QR6Bj)

9
So do Michelle and Barack [redacted] Obama hate whites, too?


I strongly doubt it (Barack is half-white, after all), but Michelle Obama's Master's thesis did clearly reveal she felt alienated from whites. Alienation does not equal hate, however, so unless she says something more specific, I think that is going too far with a conjecture unsupported by the evidence at hand.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2008 12:18 PM (xNV2a)

10 Come on, Bob. To link Obama's parenting skills to his ability to lead the nation is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

It's obvious you hate the guy, and I agree this Wright guy is a kook, but this is really grasping at straws.

Posted by: dude at March 14, 2008 12:32 PM (MyDKI)

11 I honestly think that its more than feeling alienated CY.

If I was a member of that church for the last 20 years, listening to such bizzare sermons that puts my Ciuntry on the deserving end of every bad thing that comes our way, and I'm told it's due to the "white people" who run the contry and the world then I'm feeling a tad more than alienation.

Remember I'm not just the typical schmoo sitting in the front pew soaking up the venom, Im the guy giving large sums of my money to this church to do my part in keeping the venom flowing.

I'm not alienated...I'm pissed off, disgusted, and feeling victimized...those equal up to comming closer to hatred than alienation.

If I was Mcain, I would be searching both Heaven and Hell for videos of the Obama families physical reaction to some of these sermons as they are being given.
If they are dancing in the isle at this junk...well then...It would be interesting to see, to say the least.

Posted by: Drider at March 14, 2008 12:39 PM (l60EG)

12 Hey dude,

Kook?

If you tell me what your hearing from this guy isnt pure hared and racism on "parallel" with your typical old time KKK mettings then I suspect you have convienant tunnel vision.

Having your kids sitting through these...for a lack of a better word...sermons is at best borderline child abuse.

Posted by: Drider at March 14, 2008 12:47 PM (l60EG)

13 can someone please point to where anything he said wasn't true? we have bombed those countries and we have killed innocent women and children. how is that not evil?

I love how my fellow white people get up in arms when they hear stuff like this.it's like the entirety of u.s. history does not factor in their opinions. HELLO! did you forget that the black community has been struggling since slavery was ended. there has never been a formal apology for slavery and blacks have only been considered "equal" since the 1960's.

the great thing about america is that we can be ashamed of injustices carried out in our name and fight to end those injustices. Like it or not, we are responsible for 9-11. America gave weapons and money to mujahadeen fighters, who later became the taliban.
we gave weapons of mass destruction to iraq, and 20 or so years later invaded that country fro having WMD's. after all of this, we shouldn't blame ourselves? this is like giving a mugger a pistol and acting surprised when he takes your wallet at gunpoint as if it wasn't your own fault.

Posted by: bob cochran at March 14, 2008 12:58 PM (5EH/R)

14 Dude - Grasping at straws? Really?

Watch the videos that are now available and come back and say that again. Please.

Posted by: daleyrocks at March 14, 2008 01:00 PM (0pZel)

15 Now we know there is a lot of racism in the US>..It just goes the opposite of what we have been told for all these years. Apparently a lot of Blacks (hear the cheering in the back of the sermon!) hate whites. Obama has done more to harm race relations in this country than I could have imagined. IT certainly takes me back and now I would totally question every black person before I would vote for him whereas before I wouldn't have even thought of it.
Sad sad sad, & I wonder what country this 70 year old preacher would point to that has been better for huge numbers of blacks than the US? I do believe it was Muslim blacks that rounded up their own and sold them as slaves to the bad white guys long ago.
This whole affair with the preacher/advisor to obama has shaken my beliefs in the sameness of Blacks. Check out Oprah's show a few years ago about the conspiracy theories that Black hold against white people. A, isn't Obama's mother White?

Posted by: alaskan at March 14, 2008 01:12 PM (tkFKA)

16 Bob Cochran: Well, how about that we created the AIDS virus? Come on, you know that he is blaming us for the stuff that happened, not just stating that it happened. As if there were no justification at all.

Posted by: buford gooch at March 14, 2008 01:13 PM (wBI+T)

17 Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama can think what they want about America. That's their right. But we don't have to elect someone to the most prestigious post in America - the presidency, to someone who has no respect for our country. That's OUR right.

Posted by: Jo at March 14, 2008 01:17 PM (w5QCs)

18 Bob, did't you mean to end your post with ...Amen.

Your a typical example of the standard issue Anti American.

The USA gave weapons to people and they didnt like us in the end so they killed us, yada yada yada....yep....weapons industries are huge throught the world and some of ours made it into hands of fanatics due to bad policy or whatever, dynamics change throught history and I would agree that we should have learned by now on not arming and training groups such as Fatah.

But the thing is that the GREAT things the USA has done for the world are always overlooked by people like you.

I hear from "kooks" how we deserved 9-11 for instance and when asked exactly how people come to that conclusion they say we bombed and killed millions of muslims or some such nonsense and it becomes apperant that they say it just...because...because they hate their country.

It's pathetic.

Your reference to us deserving to be killed does not hold water...seriously try on focus on the many good things your country has done and you will be happier...You truley live in a country that is unique as any country throught history, pride is in order...not disdain.

Posted by: Drider at March 14, 2008 01:25 PM (l60EG)

19 I like the part where we imprisoned Mandela and supported apartheid too. And how we keep Third Worlders in grinding poverty to maintain our lifestyle.

Wright is a nutter and if you can't see that like a big flashing neon sign, you're a nutter too.

Posted by: Pablo at March 14, 2008 01:26 PM (yTndK)

20 HELLO! did you forget that the black community has been struggling since slavery was ended.

HELLO! Did you forget that it's 2008? And have you looked at Obama's private school upbringing or his current family income? Dude has NEVER struggled, except for maybe getting away from the cocaine. Which, of course, the white man made him snort.

Posted by: Pablo at March 14, 2008 01:29 PM (yTndK)

21 Welcome to a snapshot of the next POTUS. This is gonna be painful.

Posted by: mike at March 14, 2008 01:38 PM (o2MRO)

22 "Can you imagine the amount of intellectual damage control you'd have to engage in with your kids after one of those sermons?'

No. Because if you were at the sermon you probably agree with Wright.

Posted by: davod at March 14, 2008 02:19 PM (llh3A)

23 There is no damage control Davod.

These poor kids are sitting there soaking up all this hatred, watching mommy and daddy and all of the other adults just going at it no holds barred.

It is exactly like what you see with the Palasitnians....They teach their kids to hate their neighbors and they do...they grow up to become the product of their teachings.

I bet they dont cross their hearts at the jewish national anthem or wear a star of David pin on their lapels either.

Posted by: Drider at March 14, 2008 02:29 PM (l60EG)

24 Bob - the US was responsible for 9/11 like the French were responsible for WWII - let me guess -we just had it coming

Posted by: bandit at March 14, 2008 02:44 PM (D3sAj)

25
Obama has been the victim of racism.(And I hate that misused word, there is only one race...) He has not experienced overt racism that many Afro-Americans have.(I hate hyphenated Americans too...I'm just so hateful...)

He is the victim of soft racism, the soft racism practiced by liberals. Soft racism is equivalant to low expectations and not holding a person or group to the standard you set for yourself.

Affirmative action has reinforced soft racism in both the minds of "benevolent liberals", whose help they so desperately need, and limiting the goals of Afro-Americans. It kind of says, "No we can't, unless you help us..." or "No you can't, unless we help you..." (Makes you feel good about yourself, huh...)

Do Afro-Americans need help? My personal opinion is, only temporary. Can a society eliminate all racism? no... At best, we can equalize nepotism. I think that should be the new goal for Affirmative action.

Posted by: Sully at March 14, 2008 03:32 PM (AiJXe)

26 Obama missed the opportunity for a "Sister Souljah" moment. When he heard his pastor say "God Damn America," he should have stood up and walked out. Instead, he kept going to this church, giving it money, and picking this pastor as his campaign's spiritual advisor.

It's now very clear to me why Obama won't wear a flag lapel pin or put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance: he tacitly agrees with the Hate America speech of his pastor.

God help us if we elect a man like this to the highest office in the land.

Posted by: Rick K at March 14, 2008 03:34 PM (L1OZn)

27 equivilate = equivocate

Posted by: Lee at March 14, 2008 03:39 PM (/PA6u)

28 Bob Cochran 2008-03-14 12:58:
"we have bombed those countries and we have killed innocent women and children. how is that not evil?"

The abridged answer:

We bombed our enemies in those countries. The deaths of any non-combatant women and children that occurred from those bombings were an unwanted - from our viewpoint - consequence of our enemies holing up among the women and children. Their deaths resulted from our enemies' cowardice.

Our actions in prosecuting war against our enemies were not evil, but our enemies' actions that resulted in the innocents' endangerment were evil, and the blame belongs on them.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at March 14, 2008 03:40 PM (R09n5)

29 Obama's pastor also railed on about Obama's underprivileged status, how he's had to stand in the rain why a cab passed him by because of his color.

Please. Both Obama and his wife have Ivy League educations. They live in a $1.5 million house. Together they pull down over $500,000 a year. Their kids go to private school. If that's not evidence of how far this country has changed since 1960, nothing is.

Oh, and they don't have to worry about catching a cab; a limo takes them everywhere they want to go.

Posted by: Rick K at March 14, 2008 03:40 PM (L1OZn)

30 No, equivilate = equivilate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2008 03:41 PM (xNV2a)

31 The difference here is that some of Hagee's remarks are eminently defensible: there are numerous sound reasons why hate-crime legislation is bad, and the Quran does in fact give scriptural permission for enslaving and killing Christians and Jews (along with everybody else who isn't Muslim). I don't see anything Wright says as defensible.

Posted by: Bob Smith at March 14, 2008 03:42 PM (ps1Gn)

32 No wonder Mrs Obama is so openly hostile towards America, inspite of her well-known, one-time attack of "patriotism". Having soaked up Jerimiah Wright's incitement to Hate-speech for twenty years..no thinking person could possible believe that both Obama's do not actually approve of what their "friend, mentor & spiritual advisor" has been ranting about all these years. As for John Hagee, his "tell it like it is" style does offend some people.. just like the Bible does. He has also been misquoted and mischaracterized; probably on purpose.

Posted by: Dixie at March 14, 2008 04:11 PM (Js9z9)

33 Split hairs all you want, the bottom line is that when non-moonbat Moms and Dads hear Jeremiah Wright's rantings and learn that the Obama children were regularly exposed to this crap, they are going to question Barack and Michelle's judgment.

After all, the Dems are the nanny-state promoters. So here's a good ad: Jeremiah Wright rant followed by a voice-over question: Barack takes his daughters to this church. Would you want Barack exposing your kids to this?

Posted by: capitano at March 14, 2008 04:24 PM (+NO33)

34 RE: BOB COCHRAN'S POST:
"HELLO! did you forget that the black community has been struggling since slavery was ended. there has never been a formal apology for slavery "

Let’s see - half a million (mostly) white men died fighting to end slavery, and that’s not good enough. There needs to be a ‘formal apology?’ I suppose then, that as a Jew, I’m still waiting for a ‘formal apology’ from the Egyptians!! And who sold all these slaves to the slave traders?? Black Moslems!!!

"Like it or not, we are responsible for 9-11. America gave weapons and money to mujahadeen fighters, who later became the taliban." “we gave weapons of mass destruction to iraq, and 20 or so years later invaded that country fro having WMD's. after all of this, we shouldn't blame ourselves?”

Aside from overlooking the implicit lie that we “gave weapons of mass destruction to Iraq,” (please tell us what WMDs we gave to Iraq 20 years ago) what a simplistic view you America haters have. By your logic, we shouldn't have helped the Russians defeat Hitler, because The Soviets later became our enemies!! In life, Bob, one must survive TODAY'S problems and deal with tomorrow' problems TOMORROW.

Posted by: ALAN at March 14, 2008 04:28 PM (dFFC3)

35 Maybe, just maybe...we are missing the bigger picture here. Identity is a political construct in this primary.

If we peel the onion, at the core we may indeed find his wife and pastor.

It is not "necessarily" true that Dorhn, Ayers, Rev. Wright, and Michelle represent the "inner Obama"...but, if those birds are flocking together, it sure pays to look at his feathers.

Samantha Power, Brzezinski, ...it seems that Sen. Obama is a man who keeps close friends and mentors and advisors who have some strange notions about America, its allies, its enemies, Israel, Louis Farrakhan...

At some point, one has to question the company you keep closest... and how comfortable you must be with their worldview.

Sen. Obama has struggled mightily with distancing himself from some rabid, ugly, divisive and disturbing undertones from ...well...nearly everyone with whom he has his closest associations.

This is not just guilt by association, it is guilt by the complete failure of disassociation.

The people with whom we feel most comfortable, whose company we seek out, with whom we dedicate our elective time and energy...paint a picture of who we are. And for Sen. Obama,...Rev. Wright holds a large palette and paints with a broad brush.

Posted by: cfbleachers at March 14, 2008 05:17 PM (bL8P9)

36 It's entirely appropriate to judge a man by the company he keeps. A lengthy association with a raving racist grievance-monger like Wright reflects very poorly on Obama's character and judgment. I agree with Mr. Owens that Obama is unfit to be President.

If anyone still doubts, let's turn this around. What would you think of a presidential candidate who belonged to a church that's "unabashedly white", and published a newsletter article singing the praises of David Duke? How could such a candidate not possibly be considered racist himself?

Slavery was abolished over a century ago. Jim Crow died a well-deserved death 40 years ago. Get over it, already. One of my ancestors changed the family name because of anti-German sentiment during WWI; others had to deal with "No Irish Need Apply." I'm sure most people reading this could come up with something similar from their own family histories. I don't feel the country owes me anything for past injustices, and neither should you. Fix the problems of today, and move on.

Posted by: mwl at March 14, 2008 05:29 PM (DSeW+)

37 Does anyone still doubt me when I say that the 5th column backs this stuff to the hilt? Bob Chohran's position is mild compared to other's I've seen. It's what they're about.

Posted by: brando at March 14, 2008 05:29 PM (rDQC9)

38 Every U.S. President must stand foursquare behind this country, always placing its interests first. The Constitution of course does not say this literally. But its provisions concerning the President's duties and powers, considered together, require nothing less. As a former Con Law professor, Sen. Obama certainly knows that. The President has duties toward Americans, not Americans AND other nationals. And the first duty of any U.S. President is to keep this country safe from enemies.

Sen. Obama's decision not to wear a flag pin--trivial in isolation--becomes noteworthy in the context of statements by his wife and his minister. Who but a fool would have a lawyer who only half-heartedly advocated their interests? In the same vein, I want never to have a President with even the least reservation about representing the interests of the United States first, last, and always. I'm starting to suspect that Mr. Obama, in his heart, has some such reservation.

Posted by: Mike Hollins at March 14, 2008 05:42 PM (XeTMQ)

39 Clearly, we need more Christian-Republican Presidents, like John McCain. His Religious people who are backing him with votes and $ speak the truth. We must hate Catholics and see Armageddon happen in the ME to bring God back in all His Glory! With any luck, we can completely destroy the entire Earth with another Republican President. Praise be the war lovers, for they will profit from the misery of everyone else!

Posted by: Innocent Bystander at March 14, 2008 07:01 PM (+JNxq)

40 Innocent,

Yeah, ain't it terrible that the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed, under the watch of a Christian Republican President? Those people were so much better under the previous totalitarian rule, weren't they?

Go crawl back under whatever rock you came out from.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 14, 2008 07:20 PM (XoKp7)

41 Every aspect of Obama life from his mother, wife and "pastor", including friends with leftist terrorists, tells us that he does hold the typical leftist hatred for this country.

But I say that the Democrats should nominate him as their candidate because as we know he truly represents 90% of today's Democratic party. So let's find out once and for all if this nation wants this America, "white" and men hating platform to represent them to the world. No coverups by the MSM or politic-speak from the Messiah. Put everything on the table.

Posted by: LogicalSC at March 14, 2008 07:55 PM (ETOgT)

42 Innocent is exhibit B. Set in stone.

Posted by: brando at March 14, 2008 08:03 PM (rDQC9)

43 Brando, the incredibly desperate lefty spin on this issue seems to indicate that even the left realizes that this could be the issue that buries Obama's candidacy.

So it looks like McCain will either be battling Obama, with all the Wright baggage; or Hillary, with all her and Bill's baggage.

Suddenly things look pretty good for the gentleman from Arizona.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 14, 2008 08:14 PM (XoKp7)

44 Bob,

Your comments at ABC are spot on.

Obama was and is comfortable with what Wright preached because they reinforced his already held beliefs.

No one who loved their nation would sit through such rhetoric for 20 years....

Posted by: theMachiavellian at March 14, 2008 09:42 PM (6WIMS)

45 I find it funny how those that support Obama seem to feel they need to fall on failed attempts at insults to strengthen their stance. Is anyone able to provide any useful debate?

Posted by: Matt at March 15, 2008 12:10 AM (9V6Vj)

46 Innocent Bystander seems to agree with Obama that Saddam Hussein should still be in power. Iraqis, who executed him, disagree.

Posted by: Pablo at March 15, 2008 05:28 AM (GX41Y)

47 My cynical take. Obama is crafty not crazy. He doesn't believe in Wright's nonsense. Wright doesn't believe it either. It's simply red meat for a segment of his congregation.

Obama needed Wright--he had the money, power and connections on the South side--still does. Obama waited until the last minute to gently throw him under the bus because he still needs him. Remember where JFK stole the 1960 election? If it's close, Obama will need Chicago and the black vote in general.

This tempest will pass. It will be very difficult for Hillary or McCain to do too much with this without looking racist. He's apologized, repudiated, blah, blah. Let's move on.

Look for Hillary and McCain to inflict as much short term pain as possible, and then let it go for now.

But juicy edits of the Wright videos are being prepared as we speak. We may see them next month in PA, or this October.

Posted by: Old Dad at March 15, 2008 10:49 AM (JQwWt)

48 Obama's pastor also railed on about Obama's underprivileged status, how he's had to stand in the rain why a cab passed him by because of his color.

Bah. I've had a cab pass me by and accelerate, and I'm white.

There's more to it than skin color.

Posted by: rosignol at March 15, 2008 11:41 AM (A9g2a)

49 Yes, there is a lot of racism in the world - and Rev. Wright's sermons are examples of racism at its worst. The problem with his racism as opposed to the racism of the KKK is that Wright's racism is not viewed as racism by many people.

Posted by: TMS at March 15, 2008 12:28 PM (TTRo4)

50 Ladies and gentlemen, this man WILL be called on to advise a President Obama.

Posted by: Techie at March 14, 2008 11:07 AM
------------

Yeah, kinda like the bigoted religious spokesmen Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, Hagee, Reed, Rushdoony, Haggard, etc. have advised Bush and other high-ranking GOPers.

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 15, 2008 03:19 PM (+pVQp)

51 My cynical take. Obama is crafty not crazy. He doesn't believe in Wright's nonsense. Wright doesn't believe it either. It's simply red meat for a segment of his congregation.

Obama needed Wright--he had the money, power and connections on the South side--still does. Obama waited until the last minute to gently throw him under the bus because he still needs him. Remember where JFK stole the 1960 election? If it's close, Obama will need Chicago and the black vote in general.

Posted by: Old Dad at March 15, 2008 10:49 AM
------------------

My take too. What Obama is doing with Wright is no different that what McCain is doing with Hagee and Parsley. McCain needs them and the base they bring with them to win just like Obama needs the black voting base that Wright represents. Whether or not we the voters like this latest round of "religious-tinged political" pandering, McCain and Obama are just being politicians. In no way, shape or form do either of these men believe the extremist views of their "spiritual guides".

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 15, 2008 03:29 PM (+pVQp)

52 Cheesy, tell me, does Hagee pastor the church that McCain has attended with his family for the last two decades?

Did Hagee officiate at McCain's wedding?

Did Hagee baptize McCain's children?

Has Hagee been given any sort of official status in the McCain campaign?

I am sure you'll ignore these questions, but your refusal to answer will be an answer of sorts.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 15, 2008 03:50 PM (XoKp7)

53 If you had read Obama's statement (can be read at HuffPo, etc.) or heard excerpts of his interview with Fox's Major Garrett, you would know why Obama has stayed in his church and how he feels about the caring, pastoral side of Wright and the church. You'd also see that Obama does not agree with Wright's extremist views...just like McCain has rightfully said he does not agree with all that Hagee has said. As Old Dad very smartly pointed out both Obama and McCain are playing politics here but your political bias will not allow you to see the similiarities between the situations of Wright and Hagee/Parsley.

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 15, 2008 04:05 PM (+pVQp)

54 should read: As Old Dad very smartly pointed out Obama (and, in my opinion, McCain too) are playing politics.

Old Dad did not say McCain in his post.

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 15, 2008 04:11 PM (+pVQp)

55 Obama's getting what he deserves, all politicians have to pretend they are just regulah church goin' folks. Now he played the man's game and the man is playin' him. There is not a person on this board that really believes Obama agrees with or will espouse the more unpallatable statements of this pastor any more than people could believe that George Bush agrees with the segregationist rhetoric at Bob Jones University, but this is the hypocrisy you have to deal with in American politics, and it will be a test of his artfulness to see how he handles it.

Posted by: chris lee at March 15, 2008 04:21 PM (qTV/d)

56 Cheesy, one does not stay in a church 20 years if one does not agree with what's preached from the pulpit. I happen to be a lay preacher myself, so I know whereof I speak.

Also, one does not ask someone to be an official part of one's Presidential campaign if one doesn't agree with that person's views. Can you see Obama asking George Bush (either one) to be a part of his campaign? The very idea is absurd.

Your candidate, Cheesy, is in very VERY deep water, and all your thrashing about isn't doing a thing to help him.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 15, 2008 05:06 PM (XoKp7)

57 CP:

The whole problem Obama has with his church's retiring (head?) pastor is the length and depth of the association.

I am Catholic and was personally damaged by the "pedophile priests" scandal. Though, obviously, I denounce those priests who offended.

Obama is forever tarnished by his mute acceptance of Wright's "hate whitey" preaching for the last 20 years. His repudiation now rings hollow.

Posted by: Mark at March 15, 2008 05:30 PM (KDHro)

58 Unfortunately Mark, America seems to have the attention span of a doorknob, and will forget about this in a day or two. Hopefully there are enough intelligent voters left to throw off the mass idiocy.

Posted by: Matt at March 15, 2008 06:50 PM (9V6Vj)

59 PASTOR WRIGHT, "GOD BLESS AMERICAN, NO,NO,NO, GOD DAMN AMERICA". Maybe the pastor could be more honest by stepping up to the plate and allowing us to quickly free his pockets and sundry bank accounts of all the goddamn American dollars he holds, tax free!?!?!?!?

Posted by: MARYLOU JONES at March 15, 2008 08:47 PM (Rydm0)

60 And out come the BDS moonbats, attempting to equate what this RACIST, America HATING freak, is saying with President Bush supporters.

We aren't buying it fools. Oh, and quick bytw for you, President Bush isn't running for office, Obama is.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at March 15, 2008 10:06 PM (La7YV)

61 Muslims Against Sharia call on Senators McCain and Obama to cut all ties with their racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic supporters.

McCain: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccains-spiritual-guide-destroy-islam.html
Obama: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/03/racist-congregation-cheering-racist.html

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at March 15, 2008 11:14 PM (cJOhW)

62 Posted by: C-C-G at March 15, 2008 05:06 PM
----------


You're making quite an a$$ of yourself with these assumptions of yours. Obama is NOT my candidate. I am an independent who does not like any of the candidtes I have to chose from come election day. Also, I'm not thrashing about or trying to help Obama. Unlike you who can't see beyond his/her own political bias, I am able to see the issues of the Wright and Hagee/Parsley situations from a neutral viewpoint. Both Obama and McCain have explained their positions with regards to what their religious supporters have said in the past. What matters here is Obama's response to the situation...which he made by way of his online post and interview made with Fox. No doubt you will not accept Obama's answers but then it's clear you have no interest in fair and balanced analysis when it comes to the similiarities surrounding Obama's and McCain's religious supporters and their outrageous remarks.

Can I see Obama asking Bush to be part of his campaign? That very question is absurd as this is about religious leaders who make outrageous remarks and the candidates they support. How about asking why Bush and his campaign advisor Rove solicited advice from Dobson during the 2004 election...the same Dobson who has made many outrageous remarks himself. Why was this Dobson given info on Supreme Court nominees by the White House before most of the Congress knew this same info? Why Dobson, Hagee, Robertson, Falwell (all of whom have made extremist remarks that Bush should have been asked to denounce just like Obama has been asked to do with regards to Wright) and numerous other religious leaders (Haggard, Morrison, etc.) have been in White House meetings in order to have input on our foreign policy stances with regards to Iraq, Iran, terrorism in general, etc. Who should have involvement in the forming of our foreign policies? Leaders of ally countries, military, intelligence & foreign policy experts - yes; religious leaders especially those who make outrageous remarks - no.

Face it, politicians from both sides of the aisle use and are used by religious figures who make extremist remarks. I don't think it's too much to ask that matters like this one with Obama, McCain and their spiritual advisors be covered in an even-handed manner which you are obviously incapable of doing.

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 16, 2008 12:21 AM (+pVQp)

63 Cheesy, McCain hasn't been going to a church espousing these extremist views for two decades. He and his wife weren't married by an extremist pastor, nor were his children baptized by them.

McCain didn't use an extremist pastor's sermon for the title of his book, nor did he name any of these pastors to an official position in his campaign.

Obama is tied far, FAR more closely to Wright than McCain is to any extremist pastor on the right... and that fact is the one that you refuse to acknowledge. Why is that?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 16, 2008 08:49 AM (lueVj)

64 CCG- McCain and Obama are politicians who take great pains to play to the Middle for the most part. McCain is not going to espouse or endorse Hagee's end times views ALTHOUGH he needs and wants his endorsement. Obama NEEDS to be a part of a church AND esp early in his political career a BLACK church. It's hard to talk about American history , for ALL of it's tremendous accomplishments, in entirely polite terms. It's hard to talk about Christian theology and Christian American history in entirely polite terms. The effort of politicians today to play to the middle (whether the middle 'left' or 'right') is always threatened be the extremist views of many of their needed supporters.

Posted by: chris lee at March 16, 2008 09:20 AM (qTV/d)

65 Chris, why can't you lefties get the point?

* McCain has not gone to Hagee's church for 20 years.

* McCain wasn't married to his wife by Hagee.

* McCain's children weren't baptized by Hagee.

* McCain didn't take a phrase from Hagee's sermons for the title of his book.

* McCain didn't name Hagee to an official position in his campaign.

Obama did all of the above with Wright.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 16, 2008 10:40 AM (lueVj)

66 You are right on all of those points.

Posted by: chris lee at March 16, 2008 10:46 AM (qTV/d)

67 Glad you admit it, Chris. That means that you have to admit that Obama's relationship with Wright is far, FAR closer than McCain's with Hagee or any other controversial conservative pastor.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 16, 2008 10:50 AM (lueVj)

68 I could care less about McCain, Hagee, Obama, Huckabee, Parsley....whatever.

But as far as Pastor Wright's comments....the only thing NOT born out in documented history is the source of the AIDS virus.

We are the number 1 killer in the world.
We HAVE been involved in drug running.
We are the worlds number 1 exporter of weapons.
Racism is STILL alive and well in America (Ok, the welfare state AND affirmative action DO help keep racism alive!)
We DID bomb all those places.
We DID support S. Africa's Apartheid state and the imprisonment of Mandela
We DO ignore atrocaties perpetrated against Palestinians

Other than the AIDS thing, everything the Pastor said is spot on.

As a nation, and a free people, we have lost our way.

Posted by: Dan at March 16, 2008 10:52 AM (7/aXc)

69 This is Obama's dilemma. To get elected he has to be pallatable to Middle Class white america. He nevertheless needs the support of black america and the radicalized left. Although you can find lot's of examples of groundless "america" bashng amongst radicals in America they ARE at least willing to raise legitimate questions about American policy on issues or racism, sexism and imperialist ambition. Barack's challenge is to maintain his image as "safe" black man and hero to the radical left.

Posted by: chris lee at March 16, 2008 11:04 AM (qTV/d)

70 We are the number 1 killer in the world.

WRONG. try reading about Stalin, Mao, Hitler for starters.

We HAVE been involved in drug running.
A LIE. this is the Maxime Waters nonsense that a cretinous 3 year old would not believe. Of course, "progressives" are much more credulous and will believe--or promulgate--fairy tales like that.

We are the worlds number 1 exporter of weapons.
So what? If advanced weaponry caused wars the Europeans and we would be radioactive ash by now.

Racism is STILL alive and well in America (Ok, the welfare state AND affirmative action DO help keep racism alive!)
TRUE. Wrights' and Michelle Obama's comments prove that point, unfortunately.

We DID bomb all those places.
Yes. And I hope we would do it again under the same circumstances.

We DID support S. Africa's Apartheid state and the imprisonment of Mandela.
Support? As in trade with SA? Or do you think we sent them foreign aid in return for keeping Mandela in jail? What the hell are you talking about here other than bumper sticker slogans?

We DO ignore atrocaties perpetrated against Palestinians
Only the fabricated ones--which has been all of them so far. Like Jenin. But maybe if those animals would accept peace, finally, the deaths could stop.

Other than the AIDS thing, everything the Pastor said is spot on.
Wright is a psychotic hater who does not deserve to live in this country. I expect soon to hear Wright believes white people were created in a lab in Africa 6,000 years ago (a tenet of faith amongst the reason-deprived Nation of Islam nutcakes). Wright clearly would prefer to create a Zimbabwe or Cuba here--a racist/socialist state.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 16, 2008 12:19 PM (TzLpv)

71 Sadly, as is your pattern here, your bias is keeping you from understanding...it's almost as bad as your flippant assumption that Obama is my candidate. I haven't refused to acknowledge Obama's close ties to Wright and that he stayed with this church for 20 years. We all know these things are true so your repeating it over and over just makes you look silly. If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that I yielded the issue to Obama himself...the reasons he gave (in his Friday blog post and Fox's interview with Garrett) as to why he stayed with the church as HE is the only one who can truly speak to it. I also agree with the reasons Old Dad and now Chris Lee mentioned...that Obama needed the affiliation for political reasons but, of course, Obama won't admit to this just as no politician would.

As far as McCain goes, it's interesting that while it doesn't appear that he belongs to a church that has a pastor (Dan Yeary) who has made controversial remarks, McCain has publicly said that he continues "to establish relationships with people like John Hagee, Pastor Richard Land, my own Pastor Dan Yeary and others in the evangelical community". (BeliefNet interview) Both Hagee and Land are religious leaders who have made outrageous remarks themselves as has McCain's "spiritual guide", Parsley. McCain's willingness to carry on future relationships with them (and even campaign/fund raise with them) after knowing the extremist things they have said doesn't speak any better for McCain than does Obama's past and more recent affiliation with Wright. As Wright is no longer part of Obama's African American Religious Leadership Committee and no longer the pastor at his church, Obama won't have a continued relationship with him (as he clarified in the blog/interview) while it does sound like McCain hopes to continue with Hagee, et al.

I find it disturbing that these 2 candidates and their affiliations with controversial religious leaders are, unfortunately, being handled with the typical double standard. Your comments are proof of this and do nothing to better the political discourse in the US. It's all about excoriating the other side while even-handed analysis is pushed aside.

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 16, 2008 12:23 PM (+pVQp)

72 That last post was in response to C-C-G at March 16, 2008 10:40 AM

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 16, 2008 12:25 PM (+pVQp)

73 You keep making the same error, Cheesy, in trying to equate what McCain has done and what Obama has done. As long as you keep making that error, I will keep correcting it. There is no similarity at all between going to a church for a one-off speech and going to a church and listening to this bilge for 20+ years.

Once you acknowledge that there's a world of difference between the two, and I mean acknowledge in deeds, not just words--such as stopping with this silly "McCain does the same thing" nonsense--we can move on to another subject.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 16, 2008 01:09 PM (lueVj)

74 Ollie North participated in Heroin trafficing to support the sandinista gun running and Iranian hostage buyoff. He was convicted in federal court for lying about this.

We supported South Africa both diplomatically and economically. Not just as a trading partner.

There have been atrocities committed against the Palestinians. The history goes back well before WWII

You hope we bomb Women and Children again? C'mon...

I don't see Wright as psychotic. I see an angry black man.

Posted by: Dan at March 16, 2008 01:29 PM (7/aXc)

75 Ollie North participated in Heroin trafficing to support the sandinista gun running and Iranian hostage buyoff. He was convicted in federal court for lying about this.

We supported South Africa both diplomatically and economically. Not just as a trading partner.

There have been atrocities committed against the Palestinians. The history goes back well before WWII

You hope we bomb Women and Children again? C'mon...

I don't see Wright as psychotic. I see an angry black man.

More lies. If you examine even briefly the three felony counts North was convicted of even you would find absolutely nothing in them regarding drugs.

Regarding SA, so you are saying the US government did send aid to SA to help them keep Mandela imprisoned? How interesting. A cite would be nice for this. From somewhere other than Mother Jones, please. By the way, I thought that having normal economic and diplomatic relations with outlaw states like Cuba, Iran and SA was supposed to be a good thing.

Yes, there have been many atrocities committed against Arabs in Israel. All the real ones have been committed by other Arabs. As opposed to the nearly daily atrocities committed against Israelis combined with the falsity of virtually all accusations of atrocities committed by Israel.

Regarding the total war of WWII, fiven the same situations, I hope we would do the same thing. You are an ignorant fool to think otherwise.

You can think what you wish about Wright, as will I. We both can share his actual comments with friends and acquaintances and they will decide for themselves what best describes him--a delusional, racist hater of america or just "an angry black man".

Posted by: iconoclast at March 16, 2008 02:11 PM (TzLpv)

76 Obama attended that church regularly for 20 years and NEVER heard any such hatred coming from his pastor's mouth? And the media knew about these sermons through the years and never brought it up until they were forced to? Something wrong with this picture. Obama is lying and the media allowed it until this week. What else will they do to defeat Senator Clinton?

Posted by: Karol at March 16, 2008 02:46 PM (cVSTX)

77 No error on my part so there's no need for your so-called "correcting", CCG. Both men have connections to religious leaders with extremist views. Obama has explained why he stayed at his church and that Wright didn't make these statement when he was sitting in the pew. He has seen a good side to Wright that none of us know. If you choose not to believe Obama's reasons, that's your choice but it clearly shows your bias against Obama (which no doubt existed before the Wright fiasco ever came out). Wright is moving on and will no longer be part of Obama's circle. Meanwhile, McCain has said he plans to continue his association with Hagee, Land, Parsley and others via campaigning, fund raising and endorsements. This shows his current and future intentions in words and deeds. Your denial with regards to what McCain is doing with his Hagee, Parsley, etc. associations shows your inability to acknowledge that McCain is engaging in the same type of behavior you are condemning Obama for. A double standard for sure and very telling about your biases. Feel free to move along to another subject as I will no longer be responding to your posts. You're beyond help and your ability for critical thinking is totally screwed up by your lack of fair and balanced analysis.

Posted by: CheesyPoofs at March 16, 2008 06:51 PM (+pVQp)

78 The point, Cheesy, is that Obama has spent, if we count just Sundays, over 1,000 mornings in that pastor's company (20 years, 52 weeks a year = 1,040 Sundays). The number could be--and probably is--a lot higher.

McCain has spent, at most, 1% of that (10 mornings) with the controversial pastors you're trying to link him with.

The math is so simple most schoolchildren can understand it, Cheesy, why can't you?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 16, 2008 07:04 PM (lueVj)

79 "Obama has explained why he stayed at his church and that Wright didn't make these statement when he was sitting in the pew."

Cheesy. Please answer a few simple questions for me.

First off, exactly what explanation are you talking about? The only thing that I have heard come from Obama's mouth is that he denounces Wright's views. I also never heard anyone say that this was a new sermon for Wright. As a matter of fact, many news agencies report that they have been that way for years.

Do you know what sermon is in question? Well there are several. The first time he gave his "Audacity To Hope" sermon was in 1990. Obama was a regular visitor of the church at that time. Many, no most of the pastors that I have heard in my short 29 years on this earth have used the same sermon on more than one occasion when it was a strong sermon where they were trying to prove a hard point. So please do not tell me that you believe Obama's claim to have never heard such things come from Wright's mouth. There have been several documented cases where Wright preached in such a way. But I would be willing to bet that neither you nor the general public would take the time to figure out how often he spoke like that. Oh frigging well. People are stupid and will continue to live in idiocy.

Posted by: Matt at March 16, 2008 07:19 PM (9V6Vj)

80 Well, Cheezy claims to have left....hopefully he took his typical lefty moral equivalence response with him. Only someone willfully blind or intentionally deceptive would compare the racist, anti-American ravings of Wright with the statements of Parsley or Hagee.

So goodbye Cheezy. Don't bother to write.

Posted by: iconoclast at March 16, 2008 07:32 PM (TzLpv)

81 That would require them actually researching something for themselves. We can't have that can we?

Posted by: Matt at March 16, 2008 08:00 PM (9V6Vj)

82 No, Matt, some people have to have everything explained to them, because they're incapable of thinking for themselves.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 16, 2008 08:06 PM (lueVj)

83 Obama has explained why he stayed at his church and that Wright didn't make these statement when he was sitting in the pew.

So that's plausible deniability? Well, it would be, but...


Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the 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.”

That was over a year ago. Obama has just jettisoned Wright in the last few days after America has had a chance to see Wright in action.

You can buy the plausible deniability argument if you like, though it requires a willing suspension of disbelief. And it also requires ignoring Obama's own acknowledgment of the problem, as related by Wright, well over a year ago. Feel free to fool yourself.

Posted by: Pablo at March 16, 2008 08:52 PM (yTndK)

84 Both men have connections to religious leaders with extremist views.

Vincent Bugliosi, Sharon Tate and Squeaky Fromme all "have connections' to Charles Manson. But they're not all the same, are they?

Posted by: Pablo at March 16, 2008 08:58 PM (yTndK)

85 This whole issue is is one of equivocation, bias, and personal agenda. The defenders of Barack want him elected, they will play DOWN his connection to Wright because of it, the opponents of Barack want him defeated, they will play UP his connection because of it.

Posted by: chris lee at March 17, 2008 09:04 AM (6x0Nb)

86 Not quite, Chris. Even the Asia Times is weighing in on Wright.

Would they be pro-Obama or anti-Obama?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 17, 2008 12:21 PM (lueVj)

87 Thus illustrating my point CCG..and what pray tell is your bias or preference?

Posted by: chris lee at March 17, 2008 12:23 PM (6x0Nb)

88 This whole Barack and Wright thing is chilling for sure which is why who these candidates mix with is very important. Which is why since my guy Romney is out of the race and I will probably be voting for McCain, I have to say that his association with the likes of Hagee and Parsley bothers me. If he's smart he'll stay away from them and I've emailed his campaign so. It's only a matter of time before the media starts daily attacks on McCain in order to justify Barack and Wright. There's potential for a backlash on him because of what's happening to Barack. I'd like to ask the ones here who are not Barack supporters:

1) are you McCain supporters? are any of you Hillary supporters?
2) are you OK with McCain having ties to Hagee and Parsley in spite of some of their past words some of which I think are awful and very divisive?
3) or am I the only one who worries about Hagee and Parsley hurting McCain?

Matt, before you make smart-alecky posts about can't we have posters here doing research for themselves why don't you look up Barack's explanation for yourself. It's on the internet and he gave interviews on television. I just looked it up myself. The transcripts and videos are online. Up above it says that his explanations were given at Huffpo and in a FOX News interview. How about less rudeness and more manners.

Posted by: MajorJB at March 17, 2008 02:29 PM (+pVQp)

89 Chris, did you even read the article from Asia Times?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 17, 2008 06:59 PM (lueVj)

90 This whole issue is is one of equivocation, bias, and personal agenda.

Gee, I thought it was part of the character assessment process of a man who hopes to be the President of the United States of America. Perhaps it's that for me and what you said for you.

Posted by: Pablo at March 17, 2008 09:37 PM (yTndK)

91 Wow, no responses to any of my questions? Do the McCain backers here have no concerns about what Hagee and Parsley have said and whether it will hurt McCain?

Posted by: MajorJB at March 18, 2008 01:00 PM (+pVQp)

92 Major JB, Hagee and Parsley are largely irrelevant. Their relationship to McCain is that they're supporters. There is no comparison between that and the Obama/Wright relationship. Yes, they'll be used against McCain, but I don't think most people will care, as they'll see right through the effort, if they ever hear of it.

If McCain had the deep personal connections to either that Obama has to Wright, I'd feel differently. But he doesn't, and America is well aware of who and what McCain is. he's got an awfully long, awfully public record and attempts to paint him as an extreme Christian fanatic will fail.

Posted by: Pablo at March 18, 2008 04:28 PM (yTndK)

93 Thanks for being one who answered Pablo. I'm not worried that McCain will be painted as an extreme Chrisitan fanatic because I don't think that will happen. I do think that people will ask why is he continuing to associate with people who have said some of the things Hagee has said. There's plenty of Catholics out here who want McCain to have nothing further to do with Hagee, deep personal connections or not, because of his anti-Catholic rantings. I'd like McCain to keep his distance from Hagee and not campaign with him at all as I think if he does, it will only come back to bite him in the butt. Hagee and Parsley don't seem irrelevant to me so it looks like we're going to disagree on that point.

Posted by: MajorJB at March 18, 2008 09:05 PM (+pVQp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At PJM: Good News on Iraq Is No News

My latest article is posted at Pajamas Media.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:03 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 13, 2008

UNC Murder Suspect Also a Duke Murder Suspect

From WRAL:

A teen arrested in the death of a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill student has also been charged in connection with the death of a Duke University graduate student.

Lawrence Alvin Lovette Jr., 17, of 1213 Shepherd St., was arrested Thursday morning and charged with murder in UNC Student Body President Eve Carson's March 5 death. Authorities also charged him in connection with the January shooting death of Duke student Abhijit Mahato.

I'd like to know if investigators intend to ask Lovette and fellow Eve Carson murder suspect Demario James Atwater why they targeted college students.

Think it had anything to do with the strong suspicion that their victims would be unarmed?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:13 PM | Comments (60) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting.

Posted by: dude at March 13, 2008 02:30 PM (MyDKI)

2 Really? I think the distinct possibility that we have two dead students--and several more the victims of armed robbers just this week alone--inside campus grounds because students are known to be unarmed (whereas the general population in the area outside of these campuses is well known to contain the second-highest concentration of concealed carry permit holders in the state) is certainly a topic worth discussing.

Or would you rather that more students be targeted because you don't want to ask difficult questions?

Somehow, I suspect I know the answer...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 02:42 PM (xNV2a)

3 I'd just say that the Research Triangle is becoming a dangerous place to be a student...

Posted by: Techie at March 13, 2008 02:46 PM (AV8Z6)

4 For what it's worth even if they were allowed too, alot of students would choose NOT to carry a gun, even at their own peril. Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one. It's sad though, these people are constant targets to resentful townie's and other predators.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 03:53 PM (6x0Nb)

5 Having lived in the Triangle for the past 5 years going graduate school at NC State, I can tell you this violence is nothing new at all. Pretty much weekly we would have armed robberies on campus, and the tactics were becoming more and more brazen (one of the last incidents I remember, was two youths with guns robbing a group of 10 or so students). Murders happened and made the news for a day or so. What makes this situation different is it was a pretty blond up and coming girl from a well to do family that was murdered. Not guns or availability of them. Durham has some areas even the police will not go to. Though my wife was doing her residency at Duke we purposely chose to live over 30 minutes away from there, and even then the crime was reaching out. Ask yourself, how many murders happen in the US in a day, then ask yourself how many of them make the spotlight unless they are of a pretty white female..

Posted by: jambrowski at March 13, 2008 05:01 PM (QBqlm)

6 "Also according to an earlier post I don't know if both of these students would have been eligible to own one."

Both victims were over 21, neither has been shown to have a criminal record and both were residents of North Carolina for at least 30 days. More than likely, both victims would have been eligible. There is no way to know if they were inclined to exercise their rights, but they should have the option.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 05:13 PM (vmEFO)

7 Even if you are not a resident, and live on campus, all you have to do is get an NC state drivers license. You are then eligible to receive a CCW. NC is a shall issue, and an open carry state, so even if they could not get CCW, they can legally open carry anyplace that is not deemed gun free. Echoing Dog, but with a bit less tact. If they are allowed, but choose not to, then that is a failing on their part.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM (9V6Vj)

8 And, of course, even if only 5% of the students availed themselves of their right to concealed-carry, the criminals wouldn't know *which* 5% carries, so would be deterred from all of them.

Posted by: Zach at March 13, 2008 05:36 PM (lHN8H)

9 It's news because random murders like these are statistically rare. Something like 60% of all murders are black men killing other black men. That's terrible, but it's not news because it happens with such frequency.

There are very few random murders, and very few black man/white woman random murders. Especially of blond, smart, prominent victims on a college campus.

Posted by: BarrySanders20 at March 13, 2008 05:47 PM (qrqy4)

10 Allowing CCW on campus would not increase the gun crime rate; that's a gunbanner myth. There's no one single jurisdiction where it's been approved that the crime rate went up as a result.

In most places it's banned the real reason is ''because we can''.

Posted by: Orion at March 13, 2008 05:56 PM (FzhYM)

11 They're probably working on a resolution to condemn the victim for being part of the oppressive white establishment that forced these two young men down the path of violence.

Posted by: Army of Dog at March 13, 2008 06:04 PM (vmEFO)

12 BarrySanders20 is a fool, black on white crime has exploded exponentially in the past two decades. Fact, a white woman is 115 TIMES more likely to be raped by a black man than if the races were reversed. This is according to Gov't crime statistics that they are trying hard not to get into the MSM, look it up, fool!

Posted by: libsukbad at March 13, 2008 06:05 PM (Uu7ag)

13 The Triangle has some great areas and some quite bad areas. Duke has some very dangerous areas right next to the campus. A friend of mine (a female grad student) was robbed at knifepoint walking home for lunch from campus. Broad daylight.

UNC is safer, but yeah there's a lot of racial tension in the area. Franklin Street is the hangout area. On a typical Friday night going down that one street, you hit first the student area, then there is a stretch where local black kids hang out, then there is the section for young adult white townies. You can see all the racial and class divisions laid out very clearly on any weekend night.

There's more resentment to the Duke students since they tend to be richer and from NY/New Jersey. When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men. Most of the girls I dated were scared to go to Durham. A lot of very aggressive panhandling and begging. The black panhandlers stayed near campus, while the white mountain man panhandlers tended to stay on the intersection near the local Wal-mart. Oddest form of self-segregation I'd ever seen.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Southern liberal college towns. I like having over-educated waiters and plentiful live music -- and the surrounding Southern culture prevents the college town from going totally crazy.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:08 PM (Uxplv)

14 In the account of the crime I read, Ms. Carson was said to have been set upon by the beast around five in the morning -- before dawn, while out alone and at an ATM machine. If such are the facts, this fine young lady showed a lamentable want of good judgment. To linger alone, and in the dark, near an ATM is to court danger, whether you be a woman or a man, and whether the neighborhood be good or bad. May Ms. Carson rest in peace.

Posted by: Silber Streak at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM (sFrPS)

15 What has struck me since moving to the Triangle is how lax the court system is here. Over and over you read stories of murders or rapes that are committed by people either out on bail or who have multiple convictions for breaking and entering, A&B, or armed robbery. If the court system in Wake and Durham counties would focus more on locking people up than letting them go, we might have less of this nonsense.

Posted by: YankeeConfederate at March 13, 2008 06:13 PM (neulw)

16 dude,

We have more than two dead students; We have unarmed dead student after unarmed dead student for as far back as you want to look. And you complain because someone is looking at how this happens? Disgusting.

Posted by: Max at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM (RO9Ei)

17 "When I was there a few years ago, UNC also had a homeless shelter a block away from campus ... which primarily housed severely mentally ill older black men.'

I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's. You did tend to see a concentration of older, poorer folks around that place, but they tended to stay there. At that time, crime was pretty rare, and the Franklin Street merchants were vigilant about getting panhandlers off the streets and away from the students/shoppers. Street musicians were always there, but they were not only non-threatening, but usually pretty talented. Where else can you hear bagpipes playing at 1 am?

When I went back for a conference in 2003 or so, the mood had changed. The panhandlers were younger, far greater in number, and far more aggressive. I didn't see any attempts being made to get them off the benches or to stop them from harassing people on the street. I was both surprised and saddened to feel so harassed while walking so close to campus in the daytime. I used to walk home at 3 in the morning there and not worry about it. Looks like things have really changed.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 13, 2008 06:16 PM (snOiD)

18 The primary animal in this case was on 24 months probation for a conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. That's a Federal crime folks, and I believe it is a felony under North Carolina law as well.

Somewhere out there is a judge who handed down a pathetic sentence and a DA who accepted it, and didn't refer the case to the Feds. Both should share in the murderer's punishment.

Posted by: DaveP. at March 13, 2008 06:30 PM (3Aj1g)

19 "I used to volunteer at that shelter in the mid-90's."

I have been in NC off and on since the late 90s, and I agree, things have changed a good bit.

I am in Jacksonville, back when I first got stationed here it wasnt too bad. I could take a date out, walk around all night and people would tend to leave you alone (minus the occasional drunk Marine in a bar hitting on your woman). A year or so ago a skinny little guy tried to mug my then soon to be wife while we were out walking our dog. I do not know what kind of idiot tries to mug a large bald guy walking a 95 pound GSD, but it happened.

Maybe things aren't getting worse. Maybe the criminals are just getting dumber?

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 06:33 PM (9V6Vj)

20 I remember talking to one of the shop owners there on Franklin St. He'd complained to the town council when they installed those benches -- he said the homeless guys would just sit there all day and intimidate his customers. Especially since his business catered primarily to women ... but Chapel Hill told him he was being bigoted and installed them anyway.

I was there from 2001-2005. I felt safest in Chapel Hill. In Durham several times panhandlers would follow me to my car coming out of a bar late at night asking for money. Not a pleasant feeling. I didn't feel safe there alone as a guy, so I understand why so many of the girls I knew were afraid to go.

Southern college towns have that mix of young well-educated super liberal whites, and poor blacks ... so they tend to be very lenient to things like aggressive panhandling. At least that's my experience. Plus, the relatively wealthy young white college kids (especially the girls) give the beggars money cause they feel guilty for being ... white and better off.

Just to be clear, though. I loved my time there. And although some parts are sketchy ... nothing's as bad as when I dated a girl who was studying at Johns Hopkins in downtown Baltimore. Oh, man. Baltimore is terrifying outside of the Inner Harbor and Camden Yards. Some parts are like Escape From New York. Everything is just decaying.

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 06:42 PM (Uxplv)

21 Dude, how would you define the term "cheap shot"?

Posted by: buddy larsen at March 13, 2008 06:45 PM (5wL8o)

22 I was in Peppers Pizza on Franklin Street last fall. It was a Saturday afternoon and a beautiful day - full of families, students, etc. A homeless black man came in (I mention race only in the context of the story) and started trying to panhandle from the people eating. A man I assume to be the manager (also a black man) came over and politely but firmly told the guy he needed to go. The homeless guy started screaming F him and how no black people (he used the n word) were welcome there and he would kill anyone who disrespected him and on and on and on. I was sitting there with my wife and 3 month old daughter and was certain violence was going to break out. Fortunately, someone snagged a foot patrol of Chapel Hill police and they managed to get the guy out of there and took him into what looked like protective custody.

That was the first time I did not feel safe in the Triangle. I wish the law and order crowd was a bit more vocal and stronger down here.

Posted by: local at March 13, 2008 06:56 PM (neulw)

23 In the early '80s we had a rash of armed robbery on and around Vanderbilt campus. The fellow knew he had a lot of fairly well-off unarmed kids he could scare and intimidate. This only stopped when a plain-clothes campus cop put six holes in him durring another attempted robbery of what he most certainly thought was an unarmed student.

Bad guys are motivated by risk and fear. Do nothing to affect either and you just get more and bolder bad guys.

Posted by: s at March 13, 2008 07:04 PM (ljAGw)

24 A small point: a weapon and a CCW do nothing to protect you and the people around you.

Unless --

-- you have sufficient training to know what to do and how to do it.

You have to be alert enough to the situation, be able to stay calm and read the situation correctly, be able to draw your weapon without getting plugged whilst reaching for it, level, aim, shoot, and hit what you're shooting at.

If you can't do those things, you're pretty much useless, or worse, a danger to everyone else.

I write that and it sounds obvious, but it really isn't when people talk about CCW and shall-issue. It's not enough to buy a pistol and pack heat.

And so the question becomes, just how many people have the inner skills and the training to be useful in a terrible emergency?

Not as many as buy a pistol for 'protection'.

Near where I live (northern Illinois) we had a terrible shooting at the University. The shooter was a nutter, of course, and all the students could do is hide and run. But even if one of them had had a pistol, there's no guarantee at all that the outcome would have been different.

My point, I hope, is a simple one: it's not sufficient to have CCW. We need a sea-change in attitude and mindset. One in which more of our citizens, sober, careful, determined, and perhaps a little grim, ensure that in an emergency, they can be useful.

If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter.

Posted by: Steve White at March 13, 2008 07:44 PM (wJgSR)

25 I've lived in Durham since 1976, off and on. I've worked as a reporter and I've been part of the community, walking alone downtown at night, for three decades. Yes, I've seen aggressive panhandlers. Yes, I've seen groups of young men who made me uneasy. Yes, our house was burglarized in 1983.

But in 30 years I've never seen anyone so much as slapped.

That's not to say there isn't violent crime, but all of you who afraid to come to Durham need to get a grip. This isn't Newark.

In a few weeks, downtown Durham will be filled with film makers, from Martin Scorcese to young unknowns with a camera and a dream, for the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival. They're not afraid.

The Triangle is growing and there's a lot of money and a lot of poverty. Gangs have marked their turf and sociopaths know where to pick up a gun. This group of communities numbers more than a million. Yes, there are tensions. But why do so many of you choose to live your lives in fear?

I thought this was the home of the brave.

You know, Michael Peterson killed his wife and people weren't suddenly afraid of white novelists, thank God, or I'd never get another party invitation.

The reason people around here are so focused on the murder of Eve Carson has less to do with her being an attractive white girl than it does the senseless waste of a brilliant, engaging leader with more promise than 100 of her classmates put together.

I can't speak for Nancy Grace's obsession.

That woman's just crazy.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:03 PM (Bx4FB)

26 "God lord Bob. 2 dead students, and the only thing you can think to do is try to tie this to your overzealous pro-gun agenda. Disgusting. "

You obviously don't get it - it's not about a "pro gun" aggenda, it's about a "FOR CRYING OUT LOUD STOP PASSING STUPID LAWS THAT RESTRICT OUR ABILITY TO USE EFFECTIVE FORCE AND EFFECTIVE TOOLS TO DEFEND OURSELVES!" agenda.

People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue. I'm sure his comments aren't the "only" thing he can think of - but they're certainly one of the more obvious -- at least to us responsible adults who actually have to live in the real world vs. sticking our heads in the sand.

Posted by: Tim in TX at March 13, 2008 08:15 PM (Bo+Bw)

27 "If you don't have that, packing heat doesn't matter."

This is very true. If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times. No one, not one single person, can honestly say how they will react to a given situation, until they have been in it, and most of the time they will not have reacted the way they wanted to.

If you have not mentally prepared yourself to act, then you will not. If you do not act, then that weapon WILL be used against you.

Simply going to the range and blowing off a thousand rounds a weekend will not prepare you to defend yourself.

I am an assistant instructor at the MSOS, and I teach part time at one of the local ranges. When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves.

Defense is a mindset, if you do not have it, then you will die, and you are a liability to those around you.

in a stressful situation your accuracy will drop between 50 and 70%. Simply plinking targets will not help you with this.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:18 PM (9V6Vj)

28 Amen, Matt.

I shoot well for a weekend plinker and feel quite qualified to defend myself against any intruder as long as they stand still at 15 yards and hold an orange dot against their center mass.

The first time I was fired on I instantly became one with the earth, my molecules integrating with the dirt, desiring nothing more than to be invisible to the rounds smacking over my head.

It seemed like hours before I thought to return fire and by then it was over. That's after six months of training.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 08:26 PM (Bx4FB)

29 David, I thank you for your candor. There are not many that can speak with modesty. It is an odd feeling, is it not?

"People like us see the laws that turn our campuses into disarment zones and, therefore, inviting targets, as an important civil liberties issue"

Ok, it is story time.

Several years ago I was in Fallujah during the second push as well as after the push. After the push the theater commander decided that he was going to rescind the law governing weapons in the hands of the people (that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops.

As a Corporal at the time I obviously had no say in the matter, but I thought it was insanely frigging stupid. Did I say it was a stupid idea? Ok I did. That may be part of the reason I am still a Sergeant after ten years of service.

Well anyway. Once that command was given we saw a FRIGGING huge jump in SVBIEDs (if you don't know what that is Google it). Come to find out, the bad guys found out about this new "law" and exploited it. Because the honest civilian populous was nolonger armed, they were able to walk into any house on the block, yoke up momma and kiddies, then say "Drive this car into that ECP or momma dies."

After a bit of time, we dumped this stupid frigging law, and allowed the civilan populace to own and carry again. Guess what? We started to find more dead bad guys in the alleys, and the SVBIEDs tapered off. I frigging wonder why?

Care to take a guess?


I know that the U.S. is NOT Iraq. But the lesson is the SAME FRIGGING ONE WE HAVE TO LEARN HERE!

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 08:59 PM (9V6Vj)

30 "(that law said every fighting aged male was allowed one AK style weapon and two mags) in order to help protect coalition troops."

Crap, I am an idiot. That did not make any sense at all.

It should have read. (the previous law said every fighting aged male was allowed ect) but we took the weapons away because we wanted to make sure that only the bad guys had guns so we didnt shoot the wrong people.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:02 PM (9V6Vj)

31 Ha. It's OK, Matt, I got the drift. God forbid I get held up for my drunken syntax at 10 pm.

I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences.

Here in the US, training is all. I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school), but if you even suggest this, the 2nd Amendment absolutists burst into flames.

I don't know. I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand. I think these two b*stards are just sociopaths doing a bit of B&E. We'll see. But I don't think gun laws have anything to do with their crime, unless it is the ease with which bad actors like these can get their hands on one. Anyone want to bet it was stolen? I'll give good odds.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at March 13, 2008 09:15 PM (Bx4FB)

32 David. You seem to be a good egg. You really do.

All I am saying is please be prepared to use, if you have to.

I do not think that any classes should be required to carry, encouraged by a tax credit or something if you do receive professional training, but not required. Owning is a right, you can not require something, when it is a right.

"I don't know what to say about Iraq. Let the populace have weapons or not? I can see the logic in taking the AKs, but I can also see the unintended consequences."

I hear ya brother. It would have been shitty call, either way they went. I want to bring everyone home. But at the same time, I don't want to restrict the rights of honest people. That was the point of my idiocy above.

"I would gladly pass whatever tests they lay out so that I can keep my 1911 (and my M1 - I'm seriously old school),"

Nothing wrong with either of those weapons. I own them myself, and CC a full sized Kimber Custom Covert II (hey I am a big guy, I can CC a 1911). But good training is a must, IMHO, and if you are ever down in J-Ville, and near the Sports Mans lodge, I will give ya all the training you need. Or if you want to go the harder route, join the Corps, do a few years in the grunts. Then come to RSAS, and after ya pass that you will see me at the MSOS (that place is a black hole that I will never get out of).

"I don't think Eve Carson would be alive today if she'd had a Glock 22 at hand."

Well of course not, and please do not get me started on the non existent problem that the .40 attempts to solve.

But in all seriousness. Be it BnE, or whatever. If she had owned, and had been trained. She may have lived. If she died after that, at least she went out like she came in. Fighting.

Even with all the insane gun-laws we have, it is still easier to get a weapon off the street than it is to get one legally. But, it does tend to cost a bit more (depending on what you want).

Give me seven hundred and I can get you a Glock 30 with no serial.

Take 550 and go through getting a permit, then after waiting for a permit, you can buy your weapon (some states differ).

Gun laws only keep honest people honest. Nothing more.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 09:34 PM (9V6Vj)

33 Not that Ms. Carson's unfortunate judgment would help anyone, but as to being armed, whether or not you are a sharp marksmen, or even armed personally, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the criminal has a reasonable expectation that his efforts *might* be met with deadly force. Criminals understand logic, too, folks. Their moral judgment may be twisted, but their logical judgment is often reasonably sound.

Save for the occasional Chicago or VaTech psycho who gives little or no warning before completely losing his grasp on reality, most criminals commit crime with the expectation of getting a reward out of it. The reward may be an economic gain, a material gain, sexual gratification, or simply the adrenaline rush from getting away with an act of violence, but there is an expectation of getting a reward. Similarly, when there is a negative incentive, crime is less likely to occur. An average wallet-and-car-keys theft is generally committed by someone who has an expectation of getting rich today, and generally not by someone who expects he might get shot.

It doesn't mean the victim MUST be carrying. It just means that there is a real and randomized uncertainty as to whether the victim MIGHT be carrying. And if given a choice between a random citizen who might be carrying, and a naiive coed who is almost guaranteed not to be on account of well-known school policies, the criminal picks the easy target nine out of ten times.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, except possibly for self-blinded ideologues.

Posted by: anony_mouse_ at March 13, 2008 10:10 PM (WPfpc)

34 As a Duke alum who also is a strong 2nd amendment and pro-gun advocate, I must also admit that instinctively my first thought to this post (which I agree does raise a topic worth discussing) was, oh hell no, with all the frats and sororities and the heavy partying and extreme drunkenness that goes with it I would not want guns on campus.

Posted by: ER at March 13, 2008 10:15 PM (AiJT0)

35 Matt wrote:

"When at this range I constantly see numerous individuals out there shooting, firing dozens and hundred of rounds without ever holstering their weapon, firing single action, never doing the things they need, no the things they HAVE to do to prepare themselves to defend themselves."

I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire.

Posted by: Ripper at March 13, 2008 10:27 PM (8FvLX)

36 Steve, Matt, David, Ripper et al.,

Your comments are true from the point of view of the possessor of the CCW permit. However, if the restrictions against concealed carry by CCW permit holders on campus are removed or annulled then the dirtbags searching for easy targets no longer have reason to assume that the local college campus is full of them. The risk/reward equation tilts toward going elsewhere. Though practicing fast draw and target acquisition is a very good thing for the permit holder to do, most of the guys you're worrying about aren't thinking "I can probably get them before they get me." They're thinking "I might get killed."

While shooting these characters may be satisfying, better that they should all go to DC and start robbing city council members.

ER,
One thing made VERY clear in the CCW classes is that if you start waving your firearm around while drunk the permit is gone for a long long time if not permanently.

That however raises the heavily ironic possibility of a guy attacking someone from the unarmed party sorority being blown away by someone from Kappa Kappa Gamma or Hillel.

Posted by: Ed Nutter at March 13, 2008 10:54 PM (hI6PN)

37 It wonders me. Why, in every discussion of right to carry VS "Free Fire Zones" the ratbag scum committing the (insert violent crime of choice here___________) with a gun in his hand couldn't miss a flea on a running mongrel's ear at five hundred yards, but someone who wants to carry a defensive gun couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? Someone wanna 'splain it to me?

Posted by: Gerry N. at March 14, 2008 12:47 AM (wearR)

38 Abhijit Mahato and Eve Carson both lived off campus. Mahato was found shot dead in his apartment. Eve was found shot dead several blocks from her home, wearing a t-shirt and no jacket. LE says the ATM photos show the driver and someone else behind him with his back to the camera. I think Eve was abducted from her home, taken to the ATM, and was being held at gunpoint by the guy in back with her. I think both murders could have been prevented if the victims had guns they knew how to use at hand.

Posted by: DebinNC at March 14, 2008 01:37 AM (9LDO4)

39 "I'm a California CCW holder. I've been shooting for 35 years, I'm pretty sure I can clear the holster, focus on the front sight, and squeeze. But in order to practice drawing and firing I have to wait for a match and drive 90 minutes. None of the indoor ranges in my county will let civilians draw or rapid fire."

Well that is pretty frigging stupid. No offense, but I hate Cali, I hated it when I was there, I hated it when I went back, and I do not see much changing. But maybe I am missing something here. But just because they will not let you quick draw, does not mean you can not snap in on your own. Even allowing the weapon do drop down to your side, then rapidly acquiring the target will help. That is not rapid fire .

"They're thinking "I might get killed."

Call it a fringe benefit.

"Someone wanna 'splain it to me?"

First off, who said anything of the sort?

Secondly. If a bad guy is trying to rob ten people, aims at one, but hits another, then he did not miss. But if someone is carrying legally, fires on the bad guy, misses, and the projectile hits little old lady crossing the street, then he/she frigging missed.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:33 AM (9V6Vj)

40 After listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermons, I wonder why there is not more of this type of crime every day, everywhere where oblivious young white women come into close contact with young black men full of violence and entitlement-fueled hatred.

Posted by: Al Fin at March 14, 2008 07:51 AM (6PCBb)

41 David, your initial reaction to being shot at is one of the reasons for CCW. If you have a gun, but aren't ready to use it (and nobody is really ready, the first time), you become a ventilated ammo depot and source of a shiny new sidearm for the crooks...

IF they know you have a gun.

One cowering victim looks pretty much like another to a gun-wielding crook, as long as you aren't open carrying (or wearing a police/army uniform, waving your gun like a flag, etc). Most criminals aren't going to pat people down for extra weapons; they're in an even bigger hurry than their victims, which is why "WALLETS! NOW!!" is usually all you'll get out of them. CCW, if you take the "concealed" part seriously, will keep you alive (if victimized) in your critical first encounter, and more importantly, keep your gun out of the hands of people more willing to use it.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at March 14, 2008 09:11 AM (8Aysa)

42 "(and nobody is really ready, the first time)"

Much of the time they are not ready the second or third or fourth time either.

But there are things you can do to help prepare yourself.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 04:56 PM (9V6Vj)

43 Will the Take Back The Night clowns, the Duke faculty fools, and other dopey Durham activists who held canfdlelight vigils and marches against the falsely accused Duke lacrosse guys (ostensibly to protest abuse of women) even make a peep about this case? I doubt it.

Posted by: MJ at March 14, 2008 08:38 PM (AiJXe)

44 What the hell is wrong with you people? This is not a gun control issue, this is about a society that is fundamentally BROKEN. It's about two people who should've never been born because their parents were clearly not up to the task of raising two actual HUMAN BEINGS. Do you really think arming students is going to change what is at the root of senseless acts of violence like this? If you do, you're an idiot. For Christ's sake, wake the hell up and think about why we have so much senseless violence in this country. It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws. It's about raising children to be decent human beings and not pieces of human excrement like the two scumbags who took this beautiful life. Duh.

Posted by: Mark at March 17, 2008 10:33 PM (H02wZ)

45 "It's got NOTHING to do with restrictive gun laws."

There sir you are incorrect.

While things may have turned out different if their parents would have parented them, there is not much you can do to change that. There will always be bad parents. We attempt to educate people, we do what we can to make good parents. But the bottom line here is this, you can not make people do the right things. But you can give honest people the tools to protect themselves against idiots.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 01:51 PM (9V6Vj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Guilt by Association

The inflammatory rhetoric of Barack Obama's pastor of twenty-odd years has finally hit the mainstream media, as ABC News is reporting the story Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11.

The lede:

Sen. Barack Obama's pastor says blacks should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America."

The lede doesn't do justice to the actual language used by Rev. Jeremiah Wright or the repeated denunciations of the United States in his sermons, and I'll send you to the story itself to read his actual words.

Wright has had a great deal of influence over Obama as his pastor and spiritual mentor of two decades, in fact lending Obama the title of his book "The Audacity of Hope" from one of his sermons.

One cannot single out Wright as an isolated Obama associate.

To get a fuller sense of the kind of man Barack Obama truly is beyond soundbites and speeches, we are required to revisit the kind and caliber of people he surrounded himself with during his adult years.

In addition to accepting Wright's rhetoric for two decades, Obama has been married to Michelle Obama (formerly Robinson) since October of 1992, and she is known for having more influence over her husband than his closest political advisors, a fact hardly uncommon or surprising for a spouse. In her senior thesis at Princeton, Michelle Robinson focused on her feelings of racial isolation.

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."

It reads at the sad commentary of a person who has had the incredible advantages of an Ivy League education, but who can can only see herself through the prism of being apart and alone. These feelings perhaps indicate why she would feel drawn to the Trinity United Church of Christ where Wright preached his inflammatory style of racially-separatist doctrine, as he reinforced her long-held fears.

Having already spent much of her lifetime feeling like an outsider, and with a key spiritual influence attacking the United States, it is perhaps unsurprising that she finds connecting with her country—much less feeling "really proud" of it—an unnatural act.

In addition to such profound influences as his pastor of 20 years and his wife of more than 15 years, Barack Obama has had relationships with far more radical denizens of society, including unrepentant terrorist leader William Ayers of the Weather Underground.

The Weather Underground bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the State Department, and Ayer's girlfriend Diana Oughton and several other members of the group died while assembling bombs destined for a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

How did the Obamas interact with a man who said "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough"?

Barack served with Ayers on the board of directors of the Wood Fund from 1999-2002, and they are at least casual friends according to Dr. Quentin Young.

In addition to these individuals, add Obama's already infamous relationship with political fixer Tony Rezko, currently in the middle of a corruption trial that sees him accused of placing bribes and accepting kickbacks, including kickbacks funneled to Obama's 2004 Senate run. Obama has since given $150,000 raised by Rezko to charity. Rezko was also involved in the purchase of a Obama's home by buying an adjacent lot, then selling part of that lot to the Obama's at one-sixth the price Rezko originally paid.

My boss at Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon notes on his personal blog that he is "not much for guilt-by-association," a sentiment I generally share if the associate is only a fringe player in a person's life. For that reason support of Louis Farrakhan by Obama's church should not be held directly against Obama himself, especially as Obama finally distanced himself from Farrakhan.

But even without him, we are left with a disturbing picture of the people who have great, long-standing, and future influence in Barack Obama's life that cannot be easily dismissed.

Do Americans want as a president a man who sits in on board meetings with proud terrorists, followed a separatist and anti-American pastor for two decades, and who counts as his closest advisor a wife who has made obvious the disconnect she has with her country?

It is unfair to judge a man by casual associations, but no doubt fair to judge him on the company he keeps for years at a time.

Update: Rick Moran has strikingly similar thoughts, posted at almost the same time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:27 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I would add that Obama is obviously a smart, powerful, and persuasive person. It demeans Obama to suppose he was helpless to influence any of these actors and organizations in his life.

I'm a member of a progressive church. When I got tired of the all the anti-war complaining and organizing in the church sermons, meetings, and mailing lists, I, along with some other conservatives in the congregation, took action. We started speaking up at meetings, talking to the pastors, and vigorously debating the anti-war folks on the mailing list. It took a year or so, but eventually we persuaded the pastors and congregation to leave the anti-war politics out of our church.

Obama wants to be president and lead America to a better place. Why didn't he start with his own congregation?

Posted by: huxley at March 13, 2008 02:26 PM (sYW8z)

2 It was apparently fair game to look at Romney's church, and Huckabee's.

Why is Obama's church not fair game?

Oh, right, he has a D after his name instead of an R. The rules are different, apparently.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 13, 2008 06:04 PM (XoKp7)

3 I would argue that it is a bit more than just that C-C-G. For example, I do not know of anyone (that is not a member) that has a problem speaking out against the WBC. But it wouldn't be PC to talk bad about Obama's.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 06:12 PM (9V6Vj)

4 To me, Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor disqualifies him as a candidate. If Obama was white and had a white racist mentor, then he would have been chased out of Presidential politics already.

Obama has a pleasing exterior personality, but he has pandered to anti-white racists by being so close with that pastor. At least I hope he was pandering.

Sadly, judging by Mrs. Obama's anti-American rhetoric, Obama actually believes such extremism and is masking such horrible beliefs under his calm demeanor.

We've long since kicked White racists out of mainstream Presidential politics. Black racists should get the same treatment

Posted by: jim at March 13, 2008 07:03 PM (Uxplv)

5 A bit more blunt than I put it. But ok cool

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 07:19 PM (9V6Vj)

6 Actually, I don't care how much melanin someone has. Racists are racists and should not be sitting in the Oval Office.

And the fact that Obama has listened to this stuff for, what, 20 years and not only has he not walked out, but he's contributed large sums tells me what he thinks of this rhetoric... he agrees with it, obviously.

All the spin in the world won't change that.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 13, 2008 07:29 PM (XoKp7)

7 For some of you who are still tripping over the false accusation of Guilt By Association. The following makes you squirm a bit, doesn't it?

"How did the Obamas interact with a man who said "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough"?"

But not enough?. Would you have a problem voting for someone whose friend/associate said this?:

"I don't regret setting bombs in black churches; I feel we didn't do enough"?

The only difference between what Obama's friend reportedly said and my addition is that I specified a target. The circumstances are the same, but THAT association you'd have no problem condemning.

Posted by: Bill Smith at March 13, 2008 07:57 PM (7ZsCt)

8 My Dad always told me "if you sleep with dogs your bound to get fleas"

Posted by: tonynoboloney at March 13, 2008 08:34 PM (o+NV6)

9 hey, come on, at least he's not the most racist senator with a D after his name!

Posted by: ex-democrat at March 13, 2008 09:23 PM (CPE7i)

10 We are constantly told that hate is learned, hate is taught.

I have one question for Obama: "How could you expose your little daughters to the likes of Rev. Wright?"

Posted by: Maggie at March 14, 2008 08:23 AM (K8rep)

11 What can you expect folks. Try waking up.

Posted by: Will Becker at March 14, 2008 09:38 AM (vysVG)

12 In the case of M. Obama, what is cause and what is effect? Many educated blacks express feelings of extreme alienation. The more "education,” often the worse it is. Could it be that their image of themselves, their society and their place in it is the result of what passes for "education" these days? Four to eight years of extreme, left-wing, hate America first indoctrination is bound to have some effect.

Also, when the mind set of "America is evil and I am its victim" is re-enforced with substantial professional and economic incentives, it would take a rare character to rise above it. That is not to say the M. Obama's character is bad. She is ordinary and a product of the system that produced her. It is that system that is evil.

Posted by: George Bruce at March 14, 2008 10:37 AM (tj2NC)

13 One chooses a church that agree's with ones own beliefs. Enough said.

Posted by: kate at March 14, 2008 04:53 PM (k77Qx)

14 "She is ordinary and a product of the system that produced her. It is that system that is evil."

Once again, someone blaming the system, not the person. She is an adult, she is responsible for her actions just as any sane person is. This blame the system not the person crap has needs to stop.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 05:06 PM (9V6Vj)

15 Its fascinating how the American people are so easily distracted from issues that really matter. Opposed to getting titillated by who Obama and McCain's pastor is and what they think, you may want to take time to consider what if any of this has to do with your paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline; 63,000 jobs lost in the month of February; the war in Iraq which is siphoning off $13 billion a month; 47 million Americans without healthcare; the Gulf coast still resembling a war zone two years post-Katrina; a gallon of milk costing almost $5.00; the astronomical number of American homes in foreclosure; American banking systems threatening to go under with your money still in it; gang violence out of control in many parts of the country especially the Mid west; the number of children in this country living two to three times below the federal poverty level; education system shot to hell --and I could go on. Keep on focusing on the dumb stuff and this country will get the government you already have and deserve because you refuse to look through all the smoke and mirrors. Keep focused on the media and its titillation de jour and come November you will all be living in a tent and getting to work on a skateboard because you were too focused on somebody's pastor instead of the real issues. Stay drunk with distraction if you will. In the interim, I wish you well with the outcomes realized.

Posted by: brenda at March 14, 2008 08:08 PM (d/RyS)

16 Wow.

Just wow.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 14, 2008 10:44 PM (XoKp7)

17 Brenda, you are an idiot.

Posted by: Matt at March 14, 2008 10:48 PM (9V6Vj)

18 AMEN, BROTHER MATT.

Posted by: Jane at March 16, 2008 10:38 AM (vGBXm)

19 Matt & C-C-G, both bring up valid comments about the Obamas, however to call Brenda an idiot because of the points she brings up is demeaning to the arguments everyone is making trying to affect change. Brenda does bring up interesting points of view. For example, American homes in foreclosure, and some American banks looking to close...Its all linked together in the web of our "I'm entitled attitude". Those being forclosed on signed contracts with variable interest loans, only thinking of todays rate. The banks gave them those loans, knowing any blip on the horizon would blow the borrower out of the water. Both walked into their current circumstances with blinders on. Now everyones crying and not wanting to be held accountable.
Main stream media is providing smoke and mirrors to distract us, and make a huge profit doing it. I liken it to the Brits taking away Chinese currency in the 1800's and making opium legal tender. If more people are worried about wether or not Paris is wearing underwear, than who Obama idealizes, then main stream media is accomplishing its mission. We do get the elected officials we deserve. Thats what happens when 35% of eligable voters show up on election day.
As far as the war goes, I'm a combat veteran, and my son is serving in Iraq right now. Brenda we either kill them there or they kill us here.
Its just that simple. The hard part is finding goverment leadership with enough courage to do whatever is neccesary to win.
I'll close with my favorite qoute.
"No arsenal,or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women."
RR

Posted by: kevin at March 17, 2008 01:50 PM (d1zcP)

20 Kevin.

"demeaning to the arguments everyone is making trying to affect change."

I called her an idiot because she was unable to disassociate her views of the world dynamic from the topic of discussion. She used a typical sub diversion tactic, and it seemed to have worked. The topic is no longer being discussed, and you brought up the points she did.

Do you smell what I am stepping in? If not then please read the other posts I have made on this topic of discussion.

If you have any questions, my email is real.

Posted by: Matt at March 18, 2008 09:35 PM (9V6Vj)

21 To summarize Kevin and Brenda: Please look the other way.

Posted by: PR at March 19, 2008 08:48 AM (tfMGP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 12, 2008

Spitzer...

...resigns.

I have no pity for Spitzer, as he brought this upon himself. I do, however, hope that his family finds a way to cope in this most difficult and public disgrace.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:02 AM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I would say the same of Senator Vitter and his family.

Posted by: Dave from Oregon at March 12, 2008 05:13 PM (+/CEr)

2 I too have no pity for him. You do the crime, you do the time. But I will not condemn him for it. Most if not all of us have done something immoral at some time in our lives. At one point on a deployment to South America a buddy and I had a competition to see who could buy the most company in one night. I lost.

It is how and what we learn from these lapses in judgment that define who we are.

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:47 PM (9V6Vj)

3 I am not worried about the sex, it is that he tried to hide money transfers from the feds (and wife no doubt). People who hide large money transfers are prosecuted in this country.

Posted by: David at March 12, 2008 07:01 PM (cPLO6)

4 Spitzer's new campaign song: "I Fought The Law (And The Law Won)."

Posted by: C-C-G at March 12, 2008 07:08 PM (XoKp7)

5 "and we're supposed to overlook this mans issues"

Who said that we are?

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 07:41 PM (9V6Vj)

6 I am not worried about the sex, it is that he tried to hide money transfers from the feds (and wife no doubt). People who hide large money transfers are prosecuted in this country.

1) $5,000 is not a 'large money transfer'.

2) I have trouble understanding why someone should be penalized for the financial side of this. The money came from a legal source, and the appropriate taxes had been paid... so what is the government's interest?

Regarding the hookers, sure, give him the same penalty every other john gets- a fine, probation, and some public humiliation. But prosecuting him for trying to keep a hooker's fee off his credit card statement is absurd.

Posted by: rosignol at March 12, 2008 07:42 PM (A9g2a)

7 "and we're supposed to overlook this mans issues"

Who said that we are?

Care to deal with the comment in it's proper context Matt?

NO, too bad, here we go.

The law is the law, equal protection applies to governors, just as it applies to those who governors can grant clemency to. Prosecute, poor schmucks that couldn't get laid if they were an egg in a chickens butt get prosecuted for trying pay to get lucky with a $10 full service crack whore and we're supposed to overlook this mans issues BECAUSE he's the governor of New York, I'm sorry Mr. Prosecutor, fuck you, you have a job to do and it's clearly spelled out in writing, you've done it many times in the past, now do it again, IT'S JUST ANOTHER JOHN, get over it.

Equal protection and enforcement, Matt, when you grow up and grasp the concept come back and discuss it, until then devote your time to kissing ass for a 3.0 and finding a few years later you're mom and dad got screwed, and you have to live with it.

Posted by: boss429 at March 12, 2008 08:32 PM (O3voc)

8 He was turned in to the IRS and FBI by his bank for doing something those who are bribed tend to do.
As they investigated, they found this.
BUT
He has been doing this for almost 10 years. . .
In those ten years, he prosecuted some other prostitution rings, and several persons were threatened with or prosecuted for the same kind of money transferring. So the question becomes, Did he bust those other rings for the owners of his preferred ring? A little tit for tat? (Pardon the pun) Also. By calling for the hooker to go to DC for assignations, he violated federal commerce laws. Tis a no no to transport folk across state lines for immoral purposes.
Take the hooker deal out of this, and he was still open to blackmail, and committed possible commerce crimes.

Posted by: JP at March 12, 2008 08:49 PM (Tae/a)

9 Rosignol, we're talking more than $5,000. The LA Times reports :
The liaisons between Spitzer and a number of different prostitutes occurred around the country, including in Washington, D.C., and Florida, the sources said. For each encounter, Spitzer paid several thousand dollars, the sources said; The Associated Press cited a source that said the total could be as high as $80,000.

Second, how do we know the money came from legal sources? Again, the LA Times:

Spitzer last year had wanted to wire transfer more than $10,000 from his branch to what turned out to be the front for the prostitution ring, QAT Consulting Group, which also uses a number of other names, in New Jersey, the sources said.
But Spitzer had the money broken down into several smaller amounts of less than $10,000 each, apparently to avoid federal regulations requiring the reporting of the transfer of $10,000 or more, the sources said. The regulations are aim to help spot possible illegal business activities, such as fraud or drug deals.
Apparently, having second thoughts about even sending the total amount in this manner, Spitzer then asked that the bank take his name off the wires, the sources said.
Bank officials declined, however, saying that it was improper to do so and in any event, it was too late to do so, because the money already had been sent, the sources said.

Right there, he is in trouble for attempting to evade banking regulations... it's called "structuring," and is illegal.

You wanna back up and try your statements again, Rosignol?

Posted by: C-C-G at March 12, 2008 08:56 PM (XoKp7)

10 "Matt, when you grow up and grasp the concept come back and discuss it, until then devote your time to kissing ass for a 3.0 and finding a few years later you're mom and dad got screwed, and you have to live with it"

What the hell was this for? I only asked an honest question about a subject that I know little about. Go read the dammed responses again, and note what I said, and what others said.

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 09:15 PM (9V6Vj)

11 Second, how do we know the money came from legal sources?

We don't, but there is no evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land, and I'm not going to give that up just to nail a hypocrite.

Right there, he is in trouble for attempting to evade banking regulations... it's called "structuring," and is illegal.

...because it is something associated with laundering the proceeds of illegal activity. In my opinion- and yes, I am aware that it is only my opinion- in the absence of evidence that actual money laundering was going on, this should be a non-issue.

You wanna back up and try your statements again, Rosignol?

No, I'm fine with prosecuting actual crimes, letting innocent-until-proven-guilty remain the law of the land, and not throwing people in prison for trying to keep call-girl charges off the monthly visa statement.

I know Spitzer is a sanctimonious hypocrite, a bully, and many many other things. But the only actual criminal act I see here is hiring a prostitute. I would be content to just see him resign in disgrace, with his reputation and career ruined, and for him to be on the star of a well-publicized perp walk photo op, which will no doubt make the cover of the NY Post. But sending him to prison over this seems excessive.

If you feel otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing why.

Posted by: rosignol at March 12, 2008 09:22 PM (A9g2a)

12 Rosignol, I am speaking as a former employee of a bank. The act of deliberately splitting up a money transfer to evade banking regulations is itself a crime.

In fact, it's also a crime for a bank employee to suggest doing so to a customer... which is why I had to learn about it.

Please, try to gather more information before replying. Here is a good place to start reading.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 12, 2008 09:29 PM (XoKp7)

13 Speaking as an auditor who's *almost* a Certified Fraud Examiner (just have to take the test), any transfers of cash like that literally SCREAM fraud. I would have been digging deeper after the first few transfers, just as I'm sure the bank's internal auditors did. Plus, if he actually did try to talk someone into 'taking his name off' and that person followed basic banking procedure, the internal guys would have been notified of it and started looking in at that point for certain.

Posted by: Mark at March 12, 2008 11:21 PM (KDHro)

14 I have trouble understanding why someone should be penalized for the financial side of this. The money came from a legal source, and the appropriate taxes had been paid... so what is the government's interest?

The money went to an organized crime ring. And he's in a position to know exactly what laws he was breaking. He's probably got some RICO exposure here to boot.

Posted by: Pablo at March 13, 2008 08:53 AM (yTndK)

15 ...because it is something associated with laundering the proceeds of illegal activity.

Right, like prostitution.

Posted by: Pablo at March 13, 2008 08:55 AM (yTndK)

16 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atIPec6w5i0o&refer=home

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 04:52 PM (9V6Vj)

17 Glad to see Spitzer went ahead and got out of the governorship because he knows what more is going to be coming out. Get out of the way and let the NY government get on with its business. His enemies are probably having a great big laugh on this development.

Posted by: MajorJB at March 17, 2008 02:47 PM (+pVQp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

NC State: Gun-Free School Zone Not So Gun Free

I see N.C. State's new $250,000 WolfAlert system is having an effect on campus crime.

Or not:

Police at North Carolina State University are being especially alert after two armed robberies in two days, and they are urging the university community to do the same.

Investigators said one victim, a graduate student, was leaving a building on the Centennial Campus when two men armed with a handgun demanded his wallet late Tuesday afternoon.

Two male students told police they were near 2110 Avent Ferry Road at about 9 p.m.Monday when a man wearing a mask and armed with a knife robbed them.

In a chilling near parallel to the recent murder of UNC student body president Eve Carson, NCSU student Natasha Herting (running for student body president) and her roommates were victimized in an break-in of their off-campus apartment, leaving her to state:

"It was really scary just to think that you have no control – that someone could be in your apartment and you have four girls alone," she said.

The statement, of course is false. Four girls share that apartment, but they do have the legal option to assert control over the situation, even if they lack the inclination to assert that right.

Like everyone in North Carolina over the age of 18 who does not have a criminal or mental health record, Herting has the legal right—and one may argue, moral responsibility—to provide for her own safety by obtaining a firearm, learning to use it, and learning North Carolina's self defense laws.

As she and her roommates live in an off-campus apartment and are not subject to the restrictions of university-wide gun free free-crime zones, she very well could put herself in a position where at least she has some control over threats to her life.

Students on campus, unfortunately do not have such an option, a fact that criminals are are too well aware of.

Update: Durham police have detained a "person of intrest" in the Eve Carson murder case. The WTVD story is here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:41 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Your point is obvious and valid, I just don't see what your response to the counterargument is. Obviously you would make it easier for guns to be in the hands of wrongdoers as well. What's your response?

Posted by: chris lee at March 12, 2008 11:03 AM (6x0Nb)

2
Obviously you would make it easier for guns to be in the hands of wrongdoers as well.


Absolutely false.

Noting stated here can be intelligently argued to "make it easier for guns to be in the hands of wrongdoers as well."

Criminals, by definition do not follow laws, and therefore already have little compunction about carrying and employing weapons whenever it suits them. Your "argument" is daft.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 12, 2008 11:08 AM (xNV2a)

3 Putting aside the idea of "deliberate" criminals, think about "ordinary" people and crimes of passion, young adults going thru the depressions and moodswings of those environments, drugs, alcohol, arguments...

Posted by: chris lee at March 12, 2008 05:10 PM (6x0Nb)

4 "Your "argument" is daft."

Agreed. Chris, you are unarmed in a mental battle with an armed man. Stop now.

"Putting aside the idea of "deliberate" criminals, think about "ordinary" people and crimes of passion, young adults going thru the depressions and moodswings of those environments, drugs, alcohol, arguments..."

The above has been explained to you ad nauseum in other threads. I do not see a point in rehashing old arguments. You ignored the rational responses then, you will do so now.

CY, can you add an ignore feature to your blog? Please!

"Like everyone in North Carolina over the age of 18 who does not have a criminal or mental health record, Herting has the legal right—and one may argue, moral responsibility—to provide for her own safety by obtaining a firearm, learning to use it, and learning North Carolina's self defense laws."

Agree one hundred percent.

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:18 PM (9V6Vj)

5 Chris, Matt is right, you're bringing a slingshot to an artillery fight. Quit while your hindquarters are still attached to the rest of you.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 12, 2008 06:43 PM (XoKp7)

6 Every episode of crime of passion is committed by a person with a history of mental illness? Y you have never s een a n ordinary argument escalate out of ccontrol? Why are you people so rude and caustic by the way w hen someone presents an alternative point of view?

Posted by: chris lee at March 12, 2008 08:47 PM (qTV/d)

7 Dear Chris Lee:

Perhaps I can provide a bit of information that you might find useful. I have 17+ years of police experience and am a certified firearms instructor.

The argument that guns are uniquely dangerous among a given group of normal, average folks and that their mere presence will turn minor disagreements into shootouts is quite misleading at best. Firearms are already widely distributed through virtually every strata of society and no such widespread misuse occurs. College students at least 18 years of age already have unrestricted access to firearms. Allowing them to carry handguns on college campuses will not in any way endanger anyone, with the exception of career criminals, who, unless we truly believe that their depradations really aren't their fault, and they aren't responsible for their actions, should very well be in danger whenever they try to harm honest citizens.

Those who misuse firearms, with virtually no exceptions, have long criminal histories of violent and abberational behavior. Those who kill in the "heat of passion" are not, in fact normal citizens of any age, but are invariably criminals with long arrest records and very, very disturbed lives. Guns have no magical, evil powers such that otherwise normal people are compelled to do harm to others that they would not, without the presence of guns, do.

All of my years in police work taught me several incontravertible facts: Gun control has nothing whatever to do with controlling criminals. Criminals do not obey any law they consider inconvenient, gun laws included. No one, not the police, not the public, has anything to fear from an armed honest citizen because such people obey the law. Remember this: While the police love to catch bad guys in the act, they have no legal obligation to protect any individual citizen, and they know that catching someone in the act of rape, robbery, car jacking or other violent (to say nothing of non-violent) crimes is a very, very rare occurance.

So you see Chris Lee, putting a nice, new Glock in the hand of every honest, law abiding American of age would cause not a whit of harm, nor would it endanger anyone. Allowing criminals to have guns does put others at risk. Thank goodness we have more than 20,000 local, state and federal gun laws to regulate criminal use of guns because...darn. I forgot. They don't obey laws, do they?

So the answer is? More laws inconveniencing those who obey the law and pose no threat whatever? Well hey, at least we'll be making a statement and doing something, and expressing concern, and starting dialogues and being diverse and politically correct, and...Ahhh! I can't do this anymore!

Posted by: Mike at March 12, 2008 09:10 PM (SUmgE)

8 When we train kids from the 1st grade on to not fight back why are we suprised when they won't fight back? We've gt to somehow bring sanity back to our schools. I'm a firearms instructor and had a class of teachers in my carry class last Sat. When I raised this, they thought I was nuts. The concept of punshing the guilty party in a fight is an alien concept to them. The idea of fighting back in self defense, might as well tell them the earth is flat.

Posted by: Mike V at March 12, 2008 09:31 PM (6yZFo)

9 Mike..Mike..listen..relax and listen....I didn't say putting guns in the hands of the average person will AUTOMATICALLY make them want to shoot someone. I agree with the second amendment, people OUGHT to be free to responsibly own a gun, my question to the person who posted the topic, was what measures do you think would be necessary to deal with the foreseeable and reasonable objections to wider distributions of guns?

Posted by: chris lee at March 12, 2008 11:10 PM (qTV/d)

10 "was what measures do you think would be necessary to deal with the foreseeable and reasonable objections to wider distributions of guns?"

I don't see where CY is advocating a wider distribution of guns. Please point to where this state is located in the above article - maybe I parsed it incorrectly.

Posted by: Dan Irving at March 13, 2008 07:42 AM (zw8QA)

11 The argument of this post is that college students be allowed to protect themselves against the routine threats from outsiders who target young, unprotected students ( and unstable insiders who threaten their classmates) I agree, agree, agree..but what reasonable means of monitoring exactly who on campus has guns, where, when etc should be put in place or do you believe that's an unnecessary consideration? The issue hear is adult discussion not toxic insults.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 08:34 AM (6x0Nb)

12 Chris as you are asking seriously, here is your answer, as I see it:

There is not now a means of monitoring who has guns on campus in any great detail, as most campuses are wide-open, with literally thousands of points of ingress or egress. You are presently relying on citizens honoring the existing laws... period. this wold not change if CCH was allowed.

I would continue for a ban on handguns to remain as it typically applies to on-campus dorms (which I think is the typical restriction in campuses that presently allow CCH), but then, that was never much an issue anyway, as those students in dorms are typically underclassmen too young obtain CCH licenses in the first place. I'd also prevent CCH in the (now relatively few) on-campus events where alcohol is served.

Allowing CCH in administrative buildings, educational buildings, and commons areas (libraries, cafeterias, campus grounds and parking areas) is all most proponents are asking for, and yet opponents get hung up on the (frankly unrealistic and fictional) construct of a bunch of dorm room drunks or frat boys getting hammered and going on an angry drunken rampage because they have handguns.

There is nothing preventing that now, and yet I can't recall it ever happening.

It bears repeating, so that it sinks in: these mythical gun-carrying drunks would be people who are generally undergraduates who are not old enough to legally own handguns anyway in most parts of the country.

Those people who obtain CCH licenses and who carry on campus are typically going to be staff, faculty, non-traditional (older) undergraduates returning to school, and graduate students (In my life experience, one student I knew who carried was a nontraditional student, and the two others were graduate students (all were sober, rational people in their mid-20s at the time). In my recent CCH class, two of six students were university administrators, and instructors I've spoken with have consistently reported a high number of educators in their CCH classes.

All of these people tend to live off-campus, and avoid dorms and frat-house environments like the plague.

NONE of these people are the kind to threaten others, and CCH holders are said to break less laws (including even minor traffic laws) than the general population.

I don't know if this is because the kind of people who seek CCH are simply the kind of people who are sober and responsible members of the community to begin with, or if the fact they have now been trained and carry a concealed handgun imparts upon them a previously unheld feeling of responsibility because of their new status, but the net result is the same: a strong asset to the community who tends to take a far more measured approach to conflict resolution.

Also in my experience, the people who are most concerned about stopping CCH are those with very limited experience with firearms. I've NEVER heard of someone who took the time to take a CCH class and then felt that CCH was a bad idea.

Those with the knowledge seem to overwhelmingly agree that CCH in general and on campus is a good idea. That includes at least two LEOs I know who read this site (including Mike above) and a veteran commander who lives in a university town.

Chris, I'd invite you to sign up for a CCH class in your community. You might be surprised to find your perceptions changed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 09:14 AM (xNV2a)

13 "Those people who obtain CCH licenses and who carry on campus are typically going to be staff, faculty, non-traditional (older) undergraduates returning to school, and graduate students (In my life experience, one student I knew who carried was a nontraditional student, and the two others were graduate students (all were sober, rational people in their mid-20s at the time). In my recent CCH class, two of six students were university administrators, and instructors I've spoken with have consistently reported a high number of educators in their CCH classes."
If that's your model then fine, I'm skeptical that that would be the actuality, I am trying to survey the issues. Obviously we all wish this honor student had a licensed fire arm and blew her attackers brains out, but the reality is that everyone on campus shouldn't be permitted to have a gun.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 09:19 AM (6x0Nb)

14
Obviously we all wish this honor student had a licensed fire arm and blew her attackers brains out, but the reality is that everyone on campus shouldn't be permitted to have a gun.


Chris, you seem to be stuck in a thought loop you can't extract yourself from.

At no point has anyone ever suggested that "everyone on campus" should be armed, and we've provided specific examples of who by law, is eligible (over 21, CCH class graduates who, by definition, have passed extensive background checks and shooting competency qualifications).

This is a self-limiting sub-set of older undergraduates (typically seniors), nontraditional undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and staff (or guests). If you are under 21, you cannot legally obtain a handgun in most states, and you can't obtain a CCH. That is the actuality, by law.

If someone does not belong to the group above they are by definition a criminal, and laws on the books don't matter anyway.

Your present position is based exclusively on fear and ignorance, so please, educate yourself. I don't mean ignorance as a slur, either, but as a simple lack of knowledge on the subject that is painfully obvious.

Again, I'd invite you to sign up for a CCH class in your community. I'd be very surprised if you didn't emerge with a changed opinion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2008 09:30 AM (xNV2a)

15 I don't think CY or anyone else has argued that everyone on campus be allowed to have a gun. What we are saying (If I can speak for others), is that those who are eligible for carry permits (over 21, complete training, pass background checks) should be allowed to carry for their own defense if they choose to. I doubt even the most ardent gun rights advocate would argue that everyone be permitted to have a gun.

Posted by: Mike V. at March 13, 2008 09:41 AM (ecAVL)

16 "Your present position is based exclusively on fear and ignorance, so please, educate yourself. I don't mean ignorance as a slur, either, but as a simple lack of knowledge on the subject that is painfully obvious."
I have heard your arguments. I am saying the reality in american LIFE is that people get around these things. I asked for your take on the controls on campus gun possession, you offered them I acknowledged that I think they are reasonable but I expressed a pessimistic OPINION that there would be breaches and loopholes, I am not saying it WILL definitely or should happen but I am pessimistic. Relax. I got the answer you gave and agree with it. You people are ready to go to war over anything. Jeeez.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 09:58 AM (6x0Nb)

17 Chris,

You ask for civility your replies seem a bit condescending.

Yes there will be breaches. And yes there will be people that 'get around these things'. In all the people in those examples would be considered criminals and, since we can't account for criminals to follow laws in any rhetorical argument, they shouldn't factor. There are stop-gaps in place. That's the best we can do. The difference is that now, law abiding citizens will be able to help defend those around them when the wolf comes knocking. And maybe, just maybe, a potential shooter will think twice about going on a rampage at a University. If one person's life is saved because of this then it it's my opinion that any inconvenience felt by the presence of an armed sheepdog in class is well worth it.


((Using the whole wolf, sheepdog, sheep analogy. Think of the famous Team America analogy but with less objectionable language))

Posted by: Dan Irving at March 13, 2008 10:18 AM (zw8QA)

18 I admit I was unfair to many of the people on this post who gave thoughtful comprehensive replies, most did, I am working from my experience actually on other threads. I apologize.
---Team America was a great movie btw.

Posted by: chris lee at March 13, 2008 11:16 AM (6x0Nb)

19 "I agree, agree, agree..but what reasonable means of monitoring exactly who on campus has guns, where, when etc should be put in place or do you believe that's an unnecessary consideration? The issue hear is adult discussion not toxic insults."

Chris, North Carolina is an open carry state. Lift the gun free zone, they can carry open.

As has been said time and time again, proper training is one of the best ways to prevent idiocy with a firearm.

Posted by: Matt at March 13, 2008 04:57 PM (9V6Vj)

20 Chris, if those under 21 are obtaining firearms illegally, what in the world makes you think that a sign saying "gun free zone" is going to stop them?

If I treat you like a brainless idiot, Chris, that's because you cannot seem to comprehend simple concepts like that.

Posted by: C-C-G at March 13, 2008 06:15 PM (XoKp7)

21 Dear Chris Lee:

I'm listening Chris, and I'm quite calm thank you. Here's a bit of of the problem: "...what measures do you think would be necessary to deal with the foreseeable and reasonable objections to wider distributions of guns?"

Chris, the only reasonable objection to wider distribution of guns has to do with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It is an article of faith with those who cannot abide firearm ownership by the law abiding that more guns will equal more injuries, deaths, crimes, etc. This leads them, in every state where shall issue concealed carry is contemplated, to trot out the same old red herrings about shootouts when and wherever average folks disagree, The facts are well established and not at all hard to find: There is no downside to the law abiding having as many firearms as they like, In fact, just the opposite is true. An armed citizenry enjoys lower crime rates and greater security, personally and throughout the community as criminals can't know exactly who may be armed so must assume that everyone could be. The data is out there and it is conclusive.

In short, there is no such thing as a reasonable argument against any number of firearms in the hands of the law abiding. I'll say it once more: gun control has nothing whatever to do with crime control. Even anti-gun leaning researchers have, to their chagrin, proved it over and over, such as those who had to conclude--bless their integrity and honesty--that the ten year Clinton "assault weapon" ban accomplishing nothing at all, nor has its sunsetting been in any way detrimental.

Still, if one can't accept that the law abiding public doesn't break the law, it's rather hard to deal with these issues.

Posted by: Mike at March 13, 2008 10:05 PM (SUmgE)

22 "The statement, of course is false. Four girls share that apartment, but they do have the legal option to assert control over the situation, even if they lack the inclination to assert that right."

Unless they live in Durham, of course.

Posted by: Larry at March 14, 2008 01:03 PM (wXJ2J)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Reuters: Gun Owners "Not Just Urban Criminals and Drug Dealers"

Thanks clearing that up, as I was a bit confused.

The American affinity for guns may puzzle foreigners who link high ownership rates and liberal gun ownership laws to the 84 gun deaths and 34 gun homicides that occur in the United States each day and wonder why gun control is not an issue in the U.S. presidential election.

The owners are not just urban criminals and drug dealers. There are hunters and home security advocates, and then there are the gun collectors.

Not that it matters, but Reuter's reporter Tim Gaynor interviewed two men from Douglas, Arizona in this article, Alex Black and fellow gun collector Lynn Kartchner. For whatever reason, Gaynor neglects to mention in the article that Kartchner is not just a collector, but a gun shop owner, though that fact emerges in the caption of a story-related photo.

Perhaps ironically, another photo that was shot for the story shows a customer in a Cabela's store in Forth Worth, Texas, features Cabela's salesperson Larry Allen showing a customer a handgun.

The firearm in question? A Taurus revolver marketed as "The Judge" which gained it's name according to Taurus, "because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection."

The judges that prefer this revolver, presumably, are not just urban criminals and drug dealers.

Update: I would probably be remiss not to mention that like the author, I too, would like to see gun control advocacy made an issue in the 2008 presidential election.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:05 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 We Americans forget that the vast majority of Europe gives up it's political rights and freedoms pretty frequently, historically speaking. In our parents lifetime, Spain, Germany, Italy, the Eastern Block states, etc have all surrendered their political and human rights.

Posted by: Techie at March 12, 2008 10:15 AM (AV8Z6)

2 The article is actually very objective, amazing coming from Reuters. They didn't offer any "balance" by having a member of the Brady organization comment, for example. I thought the article was remarkably fair for the MSM.

Posted by: Robert at March 12, 2008 10:42 AM (hcsKC)

3 I carry a pistol, and I can guarantee you that it is NOT to protect me from NRA members or, legal permit holders.

Posted by: Joe Justice at March 12, 2008 10:45 AM (XLlwa)

4 Aw, c'mon! Why can't you all just admit to your inferiority and enslave yourselves to your betters?? Yeesh!

I carry (.45ACP Kimber Pro Carry) whenever and wherever it's lawful to do so. And I'll continue to do so...I don't think I qualify as an urban criminal or a drug dealer...I'm a teacher, a businessman, a firefighter, EMT, and a Soldier. None of which are probably popular with Europeans.

Orion

Posted by: Orion at March 12, 2008 10:53 AM (urNkV)

5 And, you know, *hobbyists*. I don't carry, hunt, or collect, but I do shoot (at the range) for fun.

Posted by: Kai Jones at March 12, 2008 11:09 AM (//srd)

6 As Ted Nugent says, if the only use for a firearm is to kill another human being, all of mine are defective.

I like that Taurus, BTW. Not a bad weapon for a judge to carry: powerful, simple and of limited range.

Posted by: Jeffersonian at March 12, 2008 11:14 AM (sdVks)

7 "[T]he vast majority of Europe gives up it's (sic) political rights and freedoms pretty frequently"

I have always felt that a great gulf between American and European sensibilities vis-a-vis government, rights and freedoms is informed by the fact that, as a society, we do not share the historical experience and culture of feudalism. For thousands of years and numerous generations many Europeans were mere chattel to the government and institutions, and the political culture that grew from that reality is still largly authoritarian, controlling and elitist. In America, however, many who built our political machinery have their cultural roots in specifically leaving behind feudalism and even actively fighting against its long reach.

Posted by: submandave at March 12, 2008 11:26 AM (UdYT0)

8 I once met a group of soldiers on holiday in Mexico; they came from England and the Netherlands. We got drunk and talked politics.

They told me that the United States has an advantage over Europe, politically, because we were lucky enough to invent our government while they merely inherited theirs, with 2000 years of warts. They seemed a tad envious.

Posted by: John at March 12, 2008 11:36 AM (tT2sa)

9 It does appear that they seem actually surprised about this novel Sociological discovery of theirs, almost at the level of, “Whoa! Gun owners can read and write, and they use SPOONS too!”
One real subtext of the story is that Americans maintain a vibrant interest in our actual History and the means by which we maintain our independence.
That is reflected in that same story-context is that Teh Yuropeen's are so ultra sophisticated and suffused with *it* they are disdainful and “over” History. Well, History may be done with them too as Eurabia takes over.
They remind me of the foppish idiots posturing in glossy Vanity Fair couture ads - hapless fashion victims.

Posted by: DirtCrashr at March 12, 2008 12:06 PM (VNM5w)

10 The column also insults the intelligence of foreigners.

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 12:07 PM (dOpeP)

11 None of you has mentioned the fact that all the Europeans who refused to give up their freedoms to the various tyrants either died fighting them or came here. We have a gene pool selected for those who will do what it takes to stay free.

Posted by: Mike K at March 12, 2008 12:31 PM (erFnD)

12 Jeffersonian said:
I like that Taurus, BTW. Not a bad weapon for a judge to carry: powerful, simple and of limited range

Not a bad concept for ALL of a judge's tools. Powerful, simple, and of limited range... ;o)

Posted by: Don at March 12, 2008 12:34 PM (zS9LP)

13 Well the reason for calling it the judge really ruined it for me. I always thought it was named the judge because it's the last thing a criminal wants to see aka the judge. Or even better would be the other two guns I wanted released by Taurus... The Jury, and The Executioner. Don't worry, they'll fire this reporter for being a gun lover soon enough.

Posted by: drdoct at March 12, 2008 12:36 PM (vYL+n)

14 84 gun deaths a day? 34 by homicide? Do we really think there are more accidental gun deaths than homicides in the US each day? Where did they get their facts? Something stinks here.

Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at March 12, 2008 12:37 PM (Pyd3M)

15 Is it true that Europeans EAT THEIR DEAD?

Posted by: Apollo at March 12, 2008 12:42 PM (PoTAh)

16 Mike K,

The gene pool is selected as you note. However it is subject to the same degeneration so prevalent in Europe. See the faculty of any Ivy League university for concentrated examples.

Posted by: Right Wing Nutter at March 12, 2008 12:45 PM (hI6PN)

17 Actually, the problem has always been in the numbers. When you have 300 million citizens and a 30k die every year, even from unnatural causes like "gun related homicide", it's really not the great tragedy, as cold as that may sound.

Further, notice how he splits out his numbers regarding "gun deaths" and "gun homicides". If you didn't know, suicide is the number one gun related death (54% I believe) in the United States per the Bureau of Statistics and spiked considerably after 9/11/01. Which is not unusual either.

Why aren't people demanding gun control laws? Ask yourselves, as you read this blog, how many of you personally know someone who was shot and/or killed with a gun? Not related to military experience, that is.

It's about 1 in 10,000. Not an epidemic. Certainly, not a good reason to change or damage a constitutional right.

Posted by: kat-missouri at March 12, 2008 01:02 PM (ZOc4K)

18 Subsunk, don't forget suicide. The gun is quite handy for suicide. Although most suicide I saw was brought on by health issues. Seems that some folks don't want to wait around for cancer.

Posted by: Peter at March 12, 2008 01:10 PM (d/RyS)

19 Mike K said:
We have a gene pool selected for those who will do what it takes to stay free.

Agreed . Another way in which the gene pool is selected is for religion. For those Europeans for whom religion was important, but who disagreed with the state religions of the countries they were born in, many came to the US where they could practice their faith without government interference.

Many Europeans who were not strong believers in the state religions, to whom religion was a matter of indifference , so that they did not feel degraded to outwardly conform to the state religions ( I obey but I do not comply), stayed in Europe.

So the gene pool in Europe has been self-selected for indifference to religion, as the gene pool in the US has been self-selected for those to whom religion is important. I am an American and an agnostic, but I do not feel the hostility towards believers that many in Europe do.

Posted by: Gringo at March 12, 2008 02:35 PM (w5N3E)

20 The majority of gun deaths in the US are suicides. Elimination of guns would turn most of those into drug overdoses, etc., and not reduce the number.

Posted by: Byron at March 12, 2008 02:51 PM (9oU1J)

21 When I first heard about gun control in a 9th grade Civics class (in 1949) I brought up the subject at dinner that evening - blindly following my teacher's influence (she was all for it; and a dyed in the wool liberal - an admirer of Claude Pepper).

My dad - whose role in life was to teach us to think for ourselves - said, "Honey, if you wanted to take over a country whose populace was armed, what would be the first thing you would do?"

"Get rid of the guns?" I answered. (Duh!)

"Yes!" my father said, beaming at me - his belatedly smart offspring.

As long as a large portion of our country is armed, that's as long as we will remain free.

A note to the "guns are evil" crowd: We also keep you free!

Posted by: Shi at March 12, 2008 02:53 PM (MiqvT)

22 I think Taurus is kidding about the origin of the Judge's name. I don't remember it being marketed under any other name (though it bears a resemblance to the Thunder Five); how were judges buying it before it was available?

Oh, and:

Not a bad concept for ALL of a judge's tools. Powerful, simple, and of limited range... ;o)

Brilliant. Wish like heck I'd written that.

Posted by: Mars vs Hollywood at March 12, 2008 03:19 PM (tEYz8)

23 "Perhaps ironically, another photo that"

I know the media gets it wrong all the time. But that is not an AK 47. AK 47s have milled receivers, that is a stamped receiver. But then again it is not a true AKM either because it is not select fire. Looks to be a parts gun made from a Yugo built barrel and receiver and more than likely U.S. manufactured trigger and bolt groups.

In echoing many of the others. I am in the military, hold a TS-SCI, and I carry a Kimber Custom Covert II (legally). Am I somehow a criminal?

"I carry (.45ACP Kimber Pro Carry) "

Good piece, but I prefer the full five inch.

I also own every standard issue service rifle the U.S. has ever issued, and am now working on my Russian collection.

"The column also insults the intelligence of foreigners.
posted by Matt at March 12, 2008 12:07 PM"

This was not me.

The real Matt

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:05 PM (9V6Vj)

24 Personally, I carry a copy of It Takes a Village with me for self defense, and read it aloud to attackers.

Posted by: mike at March 12, 2008 05:10 PM (kcdgj)

25 Sorry I quoted the wrong picture. I meant to put this one up.

"Gaynor neglects to mention in the article that Kartchner is not just a collector, but a gun shop owner, though that fact emerges in the caption of a story-related photo."

Posted by: Matt at March 12, 2008 05:11 PM (9V6Vj)

26 Most of the gun death statistics fall into four categories: 1)murder of victims, 2) homicide of criminals by victims, 3)suicides, and 4) accidents. The accidental death/injury toll is rapidly declining, and the criminals are being shot by more and more victims, due to concealed-carry laws. These are good trends. If the suicidal people do not have guns, they have unlimited other methods. The bottom line is, most of the people getting shot now deserve it.

Posted by: lynn kartchner at March 13, 2008 04:27 PM (vV+G9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

<< Page 128 >>

Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.1816 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1194 seconds, 666 records returned.
Page size 612 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.