Blogs For Victory

The internet tax is coming… and now I have to pay it as a resident of New York state…

Interesting 2004 interview – do read the whole thing, but this is striking:

GG:

Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:

Yes.

GG:

What is sin?

OBAMA:

Being out of alignment with my values.

Errrr…no. The definition of sin:

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Being in alignment with your values can be as much a sin as being out of alignment with them – because values created by a human being are, well, worthless…any one of us can think up anything we can to justify whatever it is we wish to do…but in the adherence to God’s values – to truth, that is – we do the right thing, always…and any time we stray from God’s values, we sin.

This does explain a lot – especially how Obama, after accepting Jesus Christ as his Lord, could attend for 20 years a racist, anti-American church and think, apparantly, nothing of it…Obama was adhering to Obama’s values. Time for a bit of a radical change Senator – time to kneel down and ask God to guide you. It’ll work a lot better – and you’ll never been entangled in a place like Trinity again.

And, naturally, a fascist:

President Hugo Chávez has used his decree powers to carry out a major overhaul of this country’s intelligence agencies, provoking a fierce backlash here from human rights groups and legal scholars who say the measures will force citizens to inform on one another to avoid prison terms.

Under the new intelligence law, which took effect last week, Venezuela’s two main intelligence services, the DISIP secret police and the DIM military intelligence agency, will be replaced with new agencies, the General Intelligence Office and General Counterintelligence Office, under the control of Chávez.

The new law requires people in the country to comply with requests to assist the agencies, secret police or community activist groups loyal to Chávez. Refusal can result in prison terms of two to four years for most people and four to six years for government employees.

No different from Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ho, Pol Pot…each, in turn, enjoyed their period of gushing support from the American left, and each of whom became a brutal, fascist dictator. Now Chavez. Any leftists out there want to rethink their earlier statements about how he was just fighting off Yankee Imperialism?

The media seems eager to write an unhappy ending for Hillary… but somehow, I’m not convinced she truly is planning to call it quits. This story seems to suggest she’s strategizing her campaign’s end.

Negotiations are understood to be taking place between the Obama and Clinton campaigns about the Illinois senator helping to repay some of the massive debt incurred by his rival. One of Hillary Clinton’s donors said that the former First Lady’s campaign was as much as $40 million in the red.

In a conference call with major donors this afternoon, contributors were told by Harold Ickes, a senior Clinton adviser, that she was unlikely to pull out of the race until the issue of her massive debts was resolved. The New York senator has lent her own campaign at least $11.5 million.

One source close to a major donor said: “It’s not about the vice-presidency or any other position she might get. It’s about the money – in particular the Clinton family money.” The Obama campaign might have to reach deeply into its well-stocked coffers in order to secure the full support of Mrs Clinton and her husband Bill in the November general election.

So, is it over? If i had to wager money, I would put my money on ‘no.’

Black Americans. Republicans. South Carolina – and a sign that we GOPers will no longer just write off the votes of oru fellow Americans who are black…we have the better program, and it is high time we helped them off the liberal plantation

Glenn McCall won a milestone intraparty election here during today’s state GOP convention to become South Carolina’s first black Republican National Committee member.

“It’s time for the Republican Party to get out of the foxhole. We need to go on the offense,” McCall said. “We need to come out and build bridges to new people. As a party, demographically, we’re hurting if we don’t.”

McCall, a retired Air Force officer who works for Bank of America in Charlotte and lives in Rock Hill, defeated interim RNC member Drew McKissick, a Columbia public affairs consultant with ties to the party’s Christian conservative wing. McCall is the York County GOP chairman, the state party’s only black county chairman.

Katon Dawson, the state Republican Party chairman, said McCall’s election was a “historic” one for South Carolina Republicans who have enjoyed only modest success in wooing blacks from the Democratic Party which usually gets 95 percent of their votes.

“There has been no leader in our party during my time as chairman who has been more passionate or authentic than Glenn McCall in living out the conservative ideals we hold dear,” Dawson said. “I couldn’t be prouder of his historic election as Republican National Committeeman from South Carolina. I look forward to serving with him.”

When the voting, alphabetically by counties, reached York County, McKissick made a motion that McCall be elected by acclamation and the voice vote followed.

Greenville Chairman Samuel Harms, who seconded McCall’s nomination, said, “It wasn’t even close” when York’s turn came.

In contrast to past outreach efforts that largely flopped, this year, five black Republicans are running in legislative primaries and two others are unopposed for legislative nominations, but face Democratic opposition in the general election.

Democrats have tagged us for years for an alleged “southern strategy” which claims we GOPers were just appealing to racist white Southerners…the reality, of course, is that white Southerners just don’t like pinkos, such as most Democratic leaders are. But we GOPers have failed miserably in our attempts to bring black voters back into the GOP (for 100 years, to be black meant to be Republican, after all), now we are starting to change that. Don’t expect it to happen over night – the left has very effective propaganda on this and they have successfully painted us as a party of racists…but as more and more black Americans rise to prominent positions in the GOP (and as black voters more and more understand they are taken for granted by the Democrats), we’ll have our opportunity to pitch the GOP message..and do a real “southern strategy”, where we take all the votes, black and white.

Victor Davis Hanson suggests that this whole issue might well cost Obama the election, and gives three reasons why:

First, he can never quite come clean about his past. Obama seems to claim that the problem with Rev. Moss and Trinity is the sudden attention given these men of faith and the difficult spotlight put upon them as a result of the Obama campaign.

But such public attention is NOT a problem for Trinity and Co.—only a problem for Obama. When the crowd rises to its feet to shout approval of a racist like Wright or Pfleger it is not because of sudden public attention, but because they wish to hear such racist scape-goating that apparently serves as some sort of collective catharsis…

…Two, Obama situates these scandalous incidents in terms of himself. So Wright is wrong for showing “disrespect” for Obama. Pfleger erred by “disappointing” Obama. But these reprehensible figures are not wayward disciples whose straying hurts the messiah, but rather hard-core calculating politicians who know precisely the cost-benefit ratios of their own rhetoric…

…Third, can’t Obama’s advisers warn him that he is falling into a disturbing pattern? When a dubious figure of his past courts controversy, he should not, in anger and in hyper-sensitivity, counter with blanket praise (cf. his kind words about Wright and Trinity) and then slowly qualify that until he reaches the ‘disowning’ phase. By now all of America knows the truth: Wright, Trinity, Moss, Pfleger, et al have never changed one iota. They are intellectually honest and candid in their extremist views; the only one who changed is Obama. So the question always arises-WHY?

One thing we have to be clear on here is that for all of Obama’s claims that Trinity is somehow mainstream in the Christianity practised by African Americans, the fact of the matter is that most African American Christians are, well, Christian – as an example, black minister T. D. Jakes notes a very traditional, evangelical set of beliefs for his ministry. As a Catholic, I could argue some of the theology, but I would – also – not feel unwelcome at Jakes’ church, nor would I feel even in the slightest that the church was other than Christian, and filled with my brothers and sisters in Christ. There is nothing there about “black values” or other racist claptrap we saw over at Trinity. The point here is that Obama didn’t have to join such a church as Trinity – he didn’t have to sit there for 20 years while the minister spewed racist, anti-American hate – he didn’t have his marriage performed and his children baptised by a hate-mongering con artist.

But he did – and he did it entirely by choice and because he thought it was a good thing. It is only as Trinity became a threat to his Presidential prospects that he started to modify his views on it – and then only haltingly and only taking the final step when forced to it by a racist “sermon” against Hillary Clinton, directly. Being there for 20 years means that either Obama is, himself, a racist or that he was just being politically expedient. Given that Obama’s mother is white, I discount racism as a motivator – so it falls to expediency. Given the nature of Chicago Democratic politics (corrupt and very leftist), Obama probably figured that his best way in was to latch on to the most leftwing expression of black politics in the city. And it worked splendidly – State Senator, United States Senator, millionaire author; everything went just fine until Obama had to step out of Chicago Democratic politics and present himself to the American people. At that moment, Obama discovered that the rabble-rousing racism of Trinity didn’t play well outside the hothouse of Chicago leftism. Obama was in a position akin to Wallace giving his “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” speech at the NAACP. Obama wants change – and the first thing he had to change was his dirty, Chircago laundry.

Obama still has the upper hand in Campaign ’08 – he is still the favorite to be the next President of the United States of America, but Trinity is like an acid eating away at his public persona, day by day. Unless and until Obama can fully explain to the American people why he latched on to racism and figured it was good for 20 years, that acid will eventually destroy him – the only question is whether this destruction will be prior to or after the election.

Because now even the French see the success:

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday that the security situation in Iraq was improving and reaffirmed France’s willingness to help rebuild the war-ravaged country.

“I have the feeling that things are better. Statistics show a drop in security incidents,” Kouchner told AFP after a working lunch with his Iraqi counterpart Hoshyar Zebari on the last day of his two-day visit to Iraq.

There is “an improvement in the situation in Iraq,” he said.

Kouchner also voiced satisfaction at efforts by the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, saying they were making “progress.”

“The Iraqis themselves, with their army, their administration, are taking charge of their own problems,” Kouchner said.

At the end of the day, it might be that the only people who think we are losing in Iraq are liberal Democrats…

From the New York Times corrections page:

An article on May 4 about black liberation theology and the debate surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr, Senator Barack Obama’s former minister, erroneously confirmed a statement by Mr. Wright that the United States has used biological weapons against other countries. There is no evidence that the United States ever did so.

First off – for the NY Times to even think that the US would have done such a thing reveals a strong bias against the United States. Secondly – for the NY Times to merely state there is no evidence, with the implication that there might be a credible accusation we did, reveals a vile hatred of all things American. In other words, just another day in the liberal media…

HAT TIP: NRO’s The Corner

Since we seem to have really hit a nerve lately with some lefties, I’ve decided to put up a sample of some of the comments which didn’t make the grade, just so everyone who is miffed over someone getting banned understands why we do it from time to time:

Guess what Mark? Racist scumbags like you…

Mark Noonan is a racist (expletive deleted)…

You racist (expletive deleted)…

Racist SCUMBAGS like Noonan…

Mark Noonan is nothing but a (expletive deleted) bitter little right wing racist toerag. He better hope that any ‘mullatos’ residing in North Las Vegas don’t catch up with his flabby little (expletive deleted)…

Mark is an authoritarian. A religious and ideological bigot…

I’d like to waterboard you. You exemplify everthing that is wrong with authoritarians. You should have your words shoved down your gullet until you choke on them. You are a pig headed pig…

Can you feel the love?

To put it in clear terms – I can put up with a lot, but I don’t want to come to the blog every day and be confronted with nastiness. If you wonder why a person gets banned, it is invariably some variation of what I’ve quoted above – some times without the overt obscenity, but with the general line of insults, and insults over a substantial period of time.

If you hate me, then your best option is to not come here – for your own good, go somewhere else and only come back at such time as you no longer feel hatred towards me.

Anna Quindlen demonstrates the rank arrogance of liberalism:

Scream, shout, jump up and down. No matter. The gay-marriage issue is over and done with. The upshot: love won.

Yep, we who feel otherwise might just as well pack it in – “love won”…and the kids, at any rate, are more in favor of gay marriage than adults, and their views not only won’t change to opposition, but will only become more pro-gay marriage as time goes on…so, might as well send that letter off to the Pope and get him to decree that 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian history are worthless…a tiny minority wants to do something strange, and not only do we have to allow it, we have to call it good. Just as in matters of abortion and global warming, the liberals have got the answer they want, and the answer is not even up for debate any more.

Pardon us for not rolling over and playing dead…I think we’ll have a vote in November in California which might come out a little different from the liberal’s preferred answer…and as the State of New York is being forced illegally by the governor of New York to recognise gay marriage, all we’re really doing is setting the stage for the one thing liberals really don’t want, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. If that is the only way we can protect marriage and say, “thus far, and no further” to an arrogant liberalism which seeks to ride roughshod over us, then that is what we will do. We are a nation of laws, not men; we are a constitutional republic, not a parlaimentary democracy…we will be America, not Europe, thanks very much.