March 16-18, 2008
Mar 16 14:10 Obama's Pastoral Problem Mar 16 21:01 Juan Williams on Pastor Wright, Obama Mar 17 02:18 Hail to the Behlings Mar 17 09:48 Rep. Bachmann Attacks House Dem Leadership on FISA Mar 18 04:46 Another DFL Powertrip Mar 18 05:27 Michael Crowley on Obama-Wright Relationship Mar 18 12:25 Digging the Hole Deeper??? Mar 18 22:34 Activist Justices vs. Strict Constructionist Justices
Obama's Pastoral Problem
Ever since Friday night, Barack Obama's life has gotten miserable. Since then, he's had to talk about his hatemongering pastor. Here's the video of Major Garrett's interview with Sen. Obama:
Watching Sen. Obama's body language during that interview, it's obvious that he'd rather be getting a root canal done without anesthesia than he wants to be conducting this interview. I'd further submit that he's got a credibility problem, especially after saying that he wasn't there for any of these incendiary sermons.
Sen. Obama said that he was "a regular attender in spurts" and that he started attending Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in "1991 or 1992." It's difficult to believe that Sen. Obama never heard any of Pastor Wright's hateful sermons. It's difficult to believe because Rev. Wright seems to have lots of hatred that he hasn't gotten rid of. Based on the video collage that FNC put together, it's obvious that Pastor Wright has gotten on that type of a 'roll' more often than Sen. Obama wants us to believe.
The Lady Logician told me this weekend that Malcolm X used the term "The chickens are coming home to roost." When you combine that with Wright's travelling with Louis Farrakhan to meet Muammar Qhadaffi, one wonders what Wright believes.
In one of his last answers, Sen. Obama says that Wright is a biblical scholar. That's insulting. There's nothing in the Bible that would lead me to accuse the US government of creating the AIDS virus to kill of black people. There's nothing in the Bible that tells me that FDR's administration knew about the bombing of Pearl Harbor, much less that they let it happen. This leads me to other questions I have about the congregation at Trinity.
What kind of congregation gets excited about their pastor making such wild statements? If you watch the video package FNC put together, it's pretty obvious that there was an abundance of people getting into Pastor Wright's anti-America distribes.
What kind of congregation gets whipped into a frenzy when the pastor doesn't get the concept of forgiveness? Clearly, Pastor Wright still thinks that "rich white people" still oppress blacks.
What kind of congregation wouldn't hold an elder meeting to discuss the possible termination of a hatemongering pastor like that?
During the interview, Sen. Obama also said that his wife Michelle doesn't hold Pastor Wright's anti-American views. There's no reason to take him at his word on that in light of her statements in Wisconsin :
Speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin today, would-be First Lady Michelle Obama said, "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."I find it more than a little difficult to accept Sen. Obama's statement as fact. Frankly, with each of the interviews he did, the excitement surrounding the Obama campaign has dissipated dramatically. He's no longer seen by huge blocs of people as the transcendant figure that he once was viewed as.
Then in Madison, she said, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."
He's had a miserable week this week. The biggest hint of that his admitting that Tony Rezko raised alot more funds than Sen. Obama initially admitted wasn't the worst news of the week. I suspect that things will get a bit rough for him now that some in the media have taken the kid gloves off for the first time. Another thing that I've noticed is that he doesn't hold up well when confronted by people like Major Garrett.
Until now, he's looked terrific against Hillary because she made stupid accusations against him. The minute that more intelligent arguments were made against him, he stopped looking superhuman. In fact, he started looking fairly human the minute Hillary ran the 3 am ad. The bloom is off the 'Obama rose' because he's finally getting scrutinized.
Finally, don't think that this is the last shoe to drop in this matter. Don't be surprised if people start asking whether Hillary's campaign had anything to do with putting this information out. If it's found out that they did, that could get ugly fast.
Posted Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 16-Mar-08 06:18 PM
The Bible says "By their fruits you shall know them..." and according to this, the fruits of this church are not so good.
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/from_the_pews_of_trinity_unite.html
This is the part that gets to me...
"On that Sunday people were standing against the wall and in the halls. People were still scared and shocked by what happened. Rev Wright's words may seem rascist to people who look at this world through rose colored glasses. You are the same people who think that the USA is the superior country and for some of you that white America is the superior race."
Would Dr. King have said that? Would he have judged white people by the color of their skin as this member of Trinity UCC is? Somehow I think not...
LL
Juan Williams on Pastor Wright, Obama
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams gave the most thoughtful perspective on the Wright scandal. Here's the Williams portion of the transcript :
WALLACE: Juan, let me get to what I think is the key question, because, and this is why I think it's different than one of the ministers, Hagee, who has supported McCain, but they don't have any real connection, and has said some horrible things about the Catholic Church.That's a pretty stunning set of statements. Juan Williams is one of the most honorable men in Washington. I don't think that the words statesman or ambassador are too strong in describing Juan Wlliams. That's why it's stunning to hear Juan Williams say that he doesn't know who Barack Obama is.
Obama's been a member of this church for two decades. He was married there. His children were baptized there. Does it say anything about him that he's a member of this church and he is a member of Reverend Wright's flock?
WILLIAMS: Of course it says something about him. And I think this goes back to what Bill was just saying. He joined this church really to solidify his credentials as authentically black and authentically a part of that South Side Chicago community, because it's the largest church there and Reverend Wright is well known not only in Chicago but nationally.
And he's known for making these outlandish comments. And he falls into a tradition of black ministers who, you know, they say it's social gospel, or whatever.
But really, what it comes down to is an expression of black nationalism and trying to affirm black folks and say, "You know what? Racism in this country's terrible and it's a burden to be black in America," and all that. But they go beyond the pale at some point, then, and start off with this whole victimization, blaming people, damning the United States. And it goes to the point, then, where I think it becomes sort of, it picks up and leads to what Michelle Obama said about, only for the first time has she, this Ivy League-educated prominent American lawyer, proud to be an American because you're having support for her husband.
I think that's wackiness. But yet that's the kind of thing that spirals out of this. And I think it's very key here that, unlike the notion that Barack Obama wants to advance that he didn't, or wasn't aware of it, I find that unbelievable, or that this is a crazy uncle speaking out, this is a man who he chose to be associated with.
It's not a family member. He chose to be associated with Reverend Wright and saw advantage in it. And that's why he exploited it up to a point when he realized, especially when he was announcing, that he couldn't have Wright by his side for the announcement in Springfield and now seeks to somehow distance himself.
But it speaks to his character, and it speaks to the judgment which is the basis on which Barack Obama has been running his campaign. So I think it could be a big problem.
WALLACE: Well, wait. I want to follow up on this, because, you know, look. Quite frankly, African Americans see a lot of issues differently than whites.
WILLIAMS: Sure.
WALLACE: And sometimes we don't understand. What do you think it says about Obama's character and his judgment?
WILLIAMS: Well, I think that what it says is that Barack Obama, who says he wants to be transracial, that he wants to be the crossover, I mean, he is the fruit of a generation.
This is the closest black people have ever been to having a president of the United States of America. And suddenly, you say "Wait a second, he's playing games and corners here on the race question."
He's not being straight ahead and saying, "You know what? I stand astride racial polarization." He's saying, "I play racial polarization at one moment to my advantage," Reverend Wright, "the next moment, I will distance myself and disavow Reverend Wright when that's convenient, too."
That is why I say for me, it just strikes, wait a second. I want to know you. I want to know what you think and who you are. And in this case, I realize I don't."
I think that it's noteworthy that Juan chastizes Michelle Obama, saying "But they go beyond the pale at some point, then, and start off with this whole victimization, blaming people, damning the United States. And it goes to the point, then, where I think it becomes sort of, it picks up and leads to what Michelle Obama said about, only for the first time has she, this Ivy League-educated prominent American lawyer, proud to be an American because you're having support for her husband."
As incredible as that is, Obama's church fired back this afternoon :
"Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s character is being assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe," the leaders of Trinity United Church of Christ wrote Sunday in a statement distributed to the media.With all due respect to TUCC's leadership, that's hogwash. Jerremiah Wright's character isn't getting assassinated. It's being called into question because he's said some hateful, inexcusable things. Wright's character isn't being called into question because he "preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe"; it's being called into question because he spewed anti-American bilge far too often from the pulpit.
Claiming that Wright's 36 years as pastor of the church, the largest United Church of Christ congregation, with 8,000 members, is being demeaned, Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, said, "It saddens me to see news stories reporting such a caricature of a congregation that has been such a blessing to the UCC's Wider Church mission,It's time for us to say 'No' to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends."
Juan Williams is right in thinking that he doesn't know Obama. It's because he only knows the media's charicterization of him. The fact is that the Agenda Media didn't do its job in telling us the truth about Obama. Instead of telling us who Sen. Obama was, they chose instead to tell us only about the public part of Obama. Had they done their job, journalists like Juan Williams wouldn't be disenchanted with the carefully crafted image of Obama.
Rest assured that this blog won't tell only part of the picture. That's my promise to the readers.
UPDATE: Hot Air has the video of Juan Williams' smackdown of Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama .
Originally posted Sunday, March 16, 2008, revised 17-Mar 1:14 AM
No comments.
Hail to the Behlings
Saturday morning, I had the privilege of being a delegate at the Republican Endorsing Convention for HD-15B. We had the privilege of endorsing Josh Behling as the GOP candidate for the HD-15B seat. Rand Olson gave a speech nominating Josh. Kari Behling gave the seconding speech & what a speech it was :
Hi I'm Kari Behling, and I would like to second the nomination for Joshua Behling's endorsement for the House of Representatives in District 15B.As good as Kari Behling's speech is on paper, it was more impressive in person. Kari was a bit nervous initially but she seemed to get more poised with each sentence. When Kari said that Josh is a good listener, she couldn't be more right. As Josh approached the podium, I wondered how Josh would respond after Kari's speech. Josh gave a strong, impassioned speech. By the time he finished, the delegates were smiling. They knew they'd just heard a strong speech by an impressive candidate. Here's the text of Josh's speech :
I would like to give you an insight into Josh as my best friend, husband and father. He is a very strong, loyal, and loving family man. He is a wonderful husband who always makes me feel like a queen.
He is an excellent hather. When we found out we were pregnant, we were so excited, and he wanted to tell everyone. Which he did, even before we had the chance to tell my whole family. His excitement and enthusiasm has grown each day with our son.
We are number one in Josh's life. He believes that families and parents raising children are the core building blocks of a great future.
Josh is also very determined, and works hard for what he believes in. He stands strong in his values. He is a man of his word, with great morals and principles. He does not back down from what he believes in.
He follows through with what he believes is right, and is honest in his every day activities. I have never known him to not give one-hundred percent.
Josh is also very patient, takes the time to listen, and is a great communicator. He knows how to explain his views in a way all will understand, yet he listens to others so he knows the whole story.
These are just a few of the reasons I love and fully support my husband.
Please join me in endorsing Joshua for the House of Representatives.
Thank you.
Thank you Rand & Kari. Again, I am Joshua Behling and I am running for the House of Representatives in House District 15B. I want to start out by thanking you for being here today. I know that this is one of the first nice Saturdays and I'm sure people would rather be outside. So it's great that you are here today.Josh has a challenge ahead of him but I'm confident that his message of low taxes, limited but intelligent government & personal accountability will resonate with the voters of 15B. We're fortunate to have such a candidate.
I spoke to you at the Precinct Caucus and have spoken to many of you since then. At the caucus, I spoke to you about what I stand for and what I believe. Today I want to tell you why I am running and why I am seeking your endorsement.
Let me start out by telling you the reasons that didn't influence my decision to run.
I'm not running because I was sitting around one night and thought, wow, I don't think I have enough to do.
I'm not running because I look forward to being away from my wife and son many nights at the Capital.
I'm not running to try and gain fame and definitely not to gain fortune.
I'm not running to get vacation days from work, even though I would love a vacation.
I'm running for State Representative to ensure a positive direction for District 15B and for the State of Minnesota.
I began campaigning in June of last year, and have already realized how much time and dedication it takes to do this. And believe me, when I am elected I will give all of my time and dedication to making sure your voices are heard in St. Paul.
I'm running for State Representative because as a Husband, I realize how much people have to sacrifice to make a better life for their family. I realize how much it costs to have a home, by gas, pay for groceries; and how hard it is to try and have something left over to take your wife out for dinner at a fancy McDonald's restaurant.
I'm running for State Rep. because, as a father, I want a better life for my son. I want Hunter to have a great education that focuses on core academics that he will use in the real world. I want him to grow up in a world where he won't be held back or chastised for saying the word "God".
Most importantly, I'm running for State Rep. because I believe that our party and all of you believe in a lower tax burden, a consumer driven health care system, fair funding of education, that every baby has the right to fulfill his or her own destiny, citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and because I want to be your voice, your vision and your eyes and ears watching out for your hard earned money.
I need your support today to be your endorsed candidate. I need your support tomorrow to tell people where I stand on issues. I need your help in 2 months standing up for me when the campaign season is in full swing. And most importantly, I need your help in November when it comes time to vote. I need every one of you to not stay home and make sure to go to the polls and elect me, someone who shares your beliefs, vision and priorities.
Together we will once again have our voices represented in St. Paul.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart for being here today and for all of your support.
God bless you.
Posted Monday, March 17, 2008 2:33 AM
No comments.
Rep. Bachmann Attacks House Dem Leadership on FISA
Rep. Michele Bachmann has an op-ed in Saturday's Strib in which she chastizes the House Democratic Leadership for letting the Protect America Act lapse. Here's how she states her case:
One of the critical tools that has allowed us to keep the homeland safe after 9/11 has been the Protect America Act. It updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to deal with new, deadly challenges in this age of terror, enabling intelligence services to immediately listen to phone calls made between foreign terrorists.The House Democratic leadership won't pay attention to their own representatives because they're interested in having their trial lawyer friends sue the government. The reason why they want that is for the documents they hope to unearth during discovery. They're hoping they'll discover some damning document during discovery.
But on Feb. 16, the Protect America Act expired, even though the Senate voted to reauthorize it with a strong, bipartisan vote, and even though the same bipartisan support exists in the House as well.
Why, then, has it expired?
Because the House Democratic leadership has simply refused to allow a vote, knowing it will pass. In fact, 21 House Democrats wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, urging her to bring the bill to the floor .
While this inaction may score cheap political points with the fringe elements of the Democratic caucus, American families are needlessly imperiled. This is not an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. This is fact, confirmed by our intelligence community and agreed upon by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Meanwhile, our intelligence-gathering agencies can't operate at peak efficiency :
We are less safe today and will remain so until Congress clears up the legal uncertainty for companies that assist in collecting intelligence for the government, and until it gives explicit permission to our intelligence agencies to intercept, without a warrant, foreign communications that pass through the U.S. Here's why:DNI Director stated forcefully during congressional testimony that his hands were tied because of the FISA Appeals Court judge's ruling. The Protect America Act rectified that problem. Now that it's lapsed, we've returned to operating with one eye shut.
- Intercepting terrorist communications requires the cooperation of our telecommunications companies. They're already being sued for having cooperated with the government after 9/11. So without explicit protection for future actions (and civil liability protection for the help they provided in the past), those companies critical to collecting actionable intelligence could be sidelined in the fight.
- It has already happened, briefly. "[W]e have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote in a letter dated Feb. 22 to Mr. Reyes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
It's important to ask if there are other reasons why Ms. Pelosi wouldn't let the Senate bill come to a vote. The answer is a resounding yes. To have this bill pass over her objections would make her look weak, unable to control her own caucus. She can't offord to look weak or ineffective heading into the white-hot spotlight of the election season.
If Ms. Pelosi can't control her minions on this vote, they might well rebel on other votes, too. At some point, she'll have to give in. The telecommunications companies won't cooperate without immunity. When the first commercials get shot of Mike McConnell testifying that his hands are tied because the Protect America Act lapsed, when that commercial shows the Senate passing the PAA renewal with immunity by a 68-29 vote, the average voter won't side with Ms. Pelosi. They'll side with Mike McConnell in a heartbeat.
Rep. Bachmann is right on the money in pointing out how the Democratic leadership has failed in its primary responsibility. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Posted Monday, March 17, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment 1 by conrruption at 18-Mar-08 09:08 AM
I am sorry to see that you believe Bachmann. The 19 terror reports were mainly accomplished due to FBI surveilling chat rooms.
As for other facts in the article. There were none.
Sorry to know that fear is your ally. Looking at one side of anything shows why this country is so divided. Believing what you want because you think you are right explains why whackjobs like Bachmann, years ago people like her would have been locked in a home, have a position in the congress.
It is sad to know that you do not look any deeper than the surface of what you want to believe.
Winning is not everything when the facts are not used.
Comment 2 by conrruption at 18-Mar-08 09:17 AM
The only reason that Bachmann should have written a letter was because she was upset that the telecoms did not get retroactive immunity. There have been alot of changes to FISA and there is no proof that the PAA did what she claims. The House did allow a vote.
What about the abuses of the FBI?
Total power abuse of Republicans.
Let's not mention that because well it is the past. It happened but it will not happen again.
The number 1 job of the gov is to protect her citizens and our forces are so thin could it?
What about our weakened economy. Our funds are tied up in China and the FED is pour out billions of corporate welfare. I thought that it was bad to condone bad behaviour. Or does that just apply to people on welfare not corporate welfare?
Comment 3 by conrruption at 18-Mar-08 09:18 AM
Is it a national security threat to be pour out all our money?
Where will it come from when we need it?
Comment 4 by Lady Logician at 18-Mar-08 04:08 PM
"What about the abuses of the FBI?
Total power abuse of Republicans"
I'm sorry - I missed it....when did the Clintons change parties? If you want to talk about "abuse" of the FBI and their files, nobody does it like the Clintons did it!
What corporate welfare would you cut? Sadly, the Fed's bail out of Bear Stearns was necessary in order to prevent a market crash that would have dwarfed the crash of '29. I'm all for cutting things like ethanol and biofuel subsidies, maybe reduce some other corporate "write offs". What would you cut?
Oh I have to ask - do you believe that your local phone company is listening in to your conversation right now? Do you think that is why they need "immunity"? Do you have any clue what the immunity is for or from?
Just curious as I work in telecom and I know the answers.....
LL
Another DFL Powertrip
Rep. Lyndon Carlson, (D-New Hope), has proposed putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would allow the legislature to call special sessions . Here's the analysis on the amendment:
Constitutional amendment; special sessions. Proposes a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to call a special session that could last up to seven legislative days. This would be done upon the written agreement of a majority of the members elected to each house or upon the order of the presiding officers of both houses. Provides that any bill may be considered whose subject is stated in the agreement or order that convened the special session.Frankly, the last thing we should accept is legislators being able to set the their calendar. First off, it isn't a good idea to give the legislature this much power, regarldess of which party controls the legislature. The last thing we need is to give legislators more time to spend more of our money. They've got enough time to do that already.
Submission to voters. The proposed constitutional amendment would be submitted to the voters at the 2008 general election.
There's another good reason why the Minnesota Constitution says that the governor is the only official who can call a special session. He's the only constitutional officer in the legislative chain who's accountable to each citizen of this state.
Having legislators controlling their schedule is inapprpriate because it doesn't incorporate anything to hold legislators accountable. How can someone in Crookston or St. Cloud or Owatonna hold speaker Kelliher or Majority Leader Pogemiller accountable? It's only logical that the governor, the person at the top of the legislative food chain, be held accountable for calling a special session. This amendment seeks to abandon the constitutional principle of checks and balances.
Frankly, this amendment won't have a chance to pass once people explain the impact this amendment might potentially have.
This constitutional amendment all but removes deadlines on getting bills done. Let's also recognize that it's an attempted end run around this governor. Those aren't the only negative things to this amendment. According to the amendment's text , it doesn't specifically limit the legislature to only calling one special session per year:
Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.Because it's vaguely worded, the legislature could call a special session for education, another for transportation, still another for jobs, another for health care, etc. Based on that information alone, why would we want legislators to have that much authority? Their authority would all but exceed that of the governor.
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, article IV, section 12, will read:
Sec. 12. The legislature shall meet at the seat of government in regular session in each biennium at the times prescribed by law for not exceeding a total of 120 legislative days.
The legislature shall not meet in regular session, nor in any adjournment thereof, after the first Monday following the third Saturday in May of any year. After meeting at a time prescribed by law, the legislature may adjourn to another time. "Legislative day" shall be defined by law. Upon the written agreement of a majority of the members elected to the house of representatives and a majority of the members elected to the senate or upon the order of the presiding officers of both houses, the legislature shall convene in special session. Any bill may be considered whose subject is stated in the agreement or order that convened the special session. A special session called by the legislature may not exceed seven legislative days. A bill may be passed on the day prescribed for adjournment of the special session. A special session of the legislature may also be called by the governor on extraordinary occasions.
Neither house during a session of the legislature shall adjourn for more than three days (Sundays excepted) nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be assembled without the consent of the other house.
2.1 Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2008 general election. The question submitted must be:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require the legislature to meet in special session for up to seven days upon the agreement of a majority of the members of each house of the legislature or upon the order of its presiding officers?
Yes .......
No ......."
This is intolerable. It's an unprecedented attempt to rewrite the basic structure of Minnesota's Constitution. One thing further: I'll bet that the DFL knows that this constitutional amendment doesn't stand a prayer in hell of passing. I'l bet that they're using this to push turnout. That's why it's imperative that we use it to push turnout on our side.
Let's use this initiative to highlight how power-crazed the DFL is.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:07 PM
No comments.
Michael Crowley on Obama-Wright Relationship
TNR's Michael Crowley has posted something on TNR's blog that is today's must-reading. Here's how Mr. Crowley cuts through the clutter and highlights what's important:
Jeremiah Wright's 2003 "War on Iraq IQ Test" underscores that the now-infamous Wright clips playing on television were neither isolated outbursts nor mere efforts at being "provocative," as Obama described the post-9/11 tirade to the New York Times last April. (People didn't much note this at the time because a) the Times didn't directly quote from the sermon and b) seeing/hearing the rhetorical power, and anger, of Wright's rhetoric takes it to a different and jarringly visceral level.) It's also clear that the question of whether Obama was present for those particular sermons now in the news isn't really the issue. Wright's oft-iterated political worldview, which apparently includes the belief that the US created AIDS to keep the Third World in poverty, should be quite apparent to anyone who knows him as well as Obama does.While it's important to know if Obama attended any of these services from the standpoint of whether Sen. Obama is honest, it isn't that important from the standpoint that he must have known that his spiritual mentor had a penchant for anti-American diatribes.
It's time for Sen. Obama to come clean, even if it costs him the election. Without giving the American people a straightforward, honest explanation, there's no way Sen. Obama will ever be Commander-In-Chief. It's just that simple.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008 5:27 AM
No comments.
Digging the Hole Deeper???
People have said that Sen. Obama needed to come forward and explain why he didn't leave Trinity United Church of Christ. Today he did that in this speech . In so doing, he's opened up new questions, questions that don't reflect positively on him. Here's one such passage:
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.Actually, I've never had a strong disagreement with anything that my pastors have said. That's because they've thought things through before they said anything from the pulpit. From what I've seen, it isn't that Pastor J-Wright hasn't thought things through. It's a matter of his letting his violent emotions control him.
That he's allowed himself to act on these disgustingly ill-informed emotions is testament to his being unfit to be pastor of any congregation, much less of such a large congregation.
It's also worth noting that Sen. Obama has all but admitted that he's heard Pastor Wright at his divisive worst. He tiptoed to the edge of doing that but stopped a step short of that. I'm not convinced that he didn't hear some of these hateful, anti-American diatribes.
Here's another passage that jumped off the page at me:
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.Again, Sen. Obama asks us to believe that a man who's spewed this awful stuff hasn't said anything controversial in his presence. Sorry, Sen. Obama, that just isn't believable at this point. The vile things that Pastor J-Wright aren't just things that he's said from time to time. They're part of who he is. The Bible instructs us that the things that we speak about are the things that fill our heart and head.
Pastor J-Wright didn't just let a few angry words slip from his mouth; he's let fly with one hate-filled diatribe after another. What does that say about where his heart was? Sen. Obama wants us to believe that Pastor J-Wright is a virtuous person. That doesn't fit with what we know about him.
Following that, Sen. Obama launches into a history of discrimination against the black community in which he makes legitimate points. What isn't legitimate, though, is how he uses a discussion on discrimination to distract us from his pastor. The questions raised this week aren't being raised because of discrimination. By every measure, Pastor J-Wright has tasted America's graces. He was a US Marine, something that should've given him opportunities to move beyond his anger.
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.I can't say that some of Pastor J-Wright's anger isn't justified. What I am saying, though, is that he's supposed to have gotten beyond that by now. At some point, it's incumbent on Pastor J-Wright to get beyond his hate.
This speech didn't get rid of Sen. Obama's Pastor J-Wright problem. It highlighted how TUCC was led by a hate-filled man who bought into every anti-American conspiracy theory that came down the pike.
Obama's J-Wright didn't disappear with this speech. He just temporarily distracted people for a day or two.
UPDATE: Jim at Gateway Pundit has a post up titled Barack Throws His Ailing Grandmother Under the Bus to Score Political Points . Consider it today's must reading.
PS to Obama campaign: Comparing your grandmother with Pastor J-Wright isn't the way you win white voters over. In fact, it's a good way to alienate them.
UPDATE II: This was an inartful way of rationalizing Pastor J-Wright's behavior. What makes it worse is that Sen. Obama said it while reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter. If he won't stand up to a hate-filled, bigotted man, what makes anyone think that he'll stand up to anyone?
Originally posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008, revised 19-Mar 8:52 AM
No comments.
Activist Justices vs. Strict Constructionist Justices
This afternoon, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on the questions that the strict constructionist jurists asked , it appears likely that DC's gun ban law won't be sustained. Here's what Stephen Breyer asked:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a "city with a very high crime rate to say 'no handguns here.'"Here's how Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Breyer's question:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: "What's reasonable about a total ban on possession?"Here's the Washington Post's reporting that makes me believe that DC's ban will be overturned:
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District's arguments, and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts, that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.Liberals thought that Justice Kennedy would vote like Sandra Day O'Connor. Based on his votes since Justice O'Connor retired, it's clear that they thought wrong. While Justice Kennedy isn't another Scalia or Roberts, it's clear that he isn't another Justice O'Connor either.
The amendment 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."
Kennedy said he thought the much-debated first clause was simply "reaffirming" the importance of the Constitution's militia clause and that it clearly stated "there is a right to bear arms" that is separate.
Here's another part of the Post's reporting that sounds reasonable:
But a finding of an individual right means the court must decide what kind of restrictions would be proper for legislation to impose and under what standard a court should judge them.I wouldn't be surprised if my Second Amendment friends took exception to my comments. That said, we regulate things because they conflict with public safety. The lone exception should be the First Amendment.
Solicitor General Paul D. Clement told the justices that too strict a standard would imperil the federal government's efforts to restrict machine guns or "plastic" guns meant to avoid metal detector screening. The right to bear arms, Clement argued, "always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms."
Alan Gura, representing those challenging the District law, said he agreed that the "government can ban arms that are not appropriate for civilian use," but he said handguns clearly are not included in such a restriction.
When the ruling is issued, likely in late June, the Roberts Court will likely restore sanity to the Second Amendment. That's the difference between an activist court and a strict constructionist court.
That's why it's vitally important to elect John McCain to succeed President Bush. If we can get another reliable strict constructionist confirmed, then we will have established sanity on the Supreme Court for another generation.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:36 PM
Comment 1 by Kevin at 19-Mar-08 02:18 AM
In general I agree with your analysis, however, I would have to point out that even the First Amendment has been subjected to regulation.
The most immediate example I can think of is needing a permit to protest.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 19-Mar-08 05:31 AM
Fair point Kevin.
Comment 3 by skep41 at 19-Mar-08 11:04 AM
This isnt the Roberts Court its the Kennedy Court. With four solid liberal votes and four solid conservative votes Kennedy is calling the shots. The other eight should just stay home and let Anthony decide what the law is.
The most immediate example of First Amendment regulation I can think of is McLame-Foolsgold, a bill two notorious libs have inflicted on our body politic to protect incumbents.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 19-Mar-08 12:00 PM
This isnt the Roberts Court its the Kennedy Court. With four solid liberal votes and four solid conservative votes Kennedy is calling the shots. The other eight should just stay home and let Anthony decide what the law is.I hate telling you this but Kennedy's become far more reliable since O'Connor retired.
Comment 5 by craig at 20-Mar-08 02:35 PM
I find it incredibly funny that the "strict constructionist" judges are the judges who would overturn a law, passed by elected legislatores, on Constitutional terms that are shaky at best, while the so-called activists are voting in favor of local government. The term "activist judge" has become such a conservative buzzword that it's lost all meaning. Judges are "activist" when overturns the will of the electorate, not when they vote conservatively. After all, one of the most "activist" decisions in Supreme Court history was the Lochner case, which was as conservative as you get and has become the standard bearer for judicial over-reaching. It was only with the Warren Court in the 1960s, which read civil rights (in other words, restrictions on the government's power to regulate citizens) into the Constitution when these rights weren't expressly found in the text.
Even the most ardent proponent that the Second Amendment grants an individual right has to accept that this position takes some parsing of the language. It's just not clear from the face of the amendment that the framers meant that every American citizen has an individual right to own a gun. In contrast to the 1st Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law" restricting the right to free speech, exercise of religion, press, etc., the language of the 2nd is vague.
Now, generally agree that the DC law was too restrictive; however, I don't think that DC violated the constitutional right of its citizens in passing that law. My response is somewhat akin to one of the dissenters in Griswold (the infamous Warren Court era case that found a "right to privacy" in the "penumbras and emanations" of the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments) Because the 2nd Amendment is so vague, it is ACTIVIST to read in a fundamental, individual right. Judicial RESTRAINT cautions that, in the face of vague constitutional language, the judge should err on the side of the right of the people to pass legislation that reflects local needs, rather than strike down a democratically-passed statute. Cases like Heller really highlight the hypocrisy of Scalia, Thomas, et. al's supposed commitment to federalism.
As an aside, if I were going to attack the DC statute's trigger lock requirement, I'd look to the 4th, not the 2nd, Amendment. After all, how can the state know the condition of the gun you stored in your own home unless they unlawfully search your residence? Unless the police have probable cause to suspect that you have a gun in your residence that was linked to the commission of a crime, they wouldn't be able to get a warrant to enter your home. Thus, the DC law cannot enerally be enforced without violating the 4th Amendment!
