Blogs For Victory

Wow, when I heard this clip on the radio today, I was shocked. Absolutely shocked:

On Philadelphia radio station WIP 610, Obama explained why he cited his white grandmother’s fear of black men in a speech Tuesday. He wasn’t saying that she holds racial animosity, but that “she is a typical white person,” Obama said, adding: “If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way.”

A “typical white person?”

Obamaniacs can try to claim that Jeremiah Wright’s sermons are irrelevant, but this comment, Obama’s own words, cannot be written off. Obama essentially implied that white people are racists. As a white person, Obama must have meant me as well when he suggested that white people are immediately afraid when they see a black person walking down the street. All I can say is “wow.” What an incredibly bad thing for Obama to say.

The kook left gets a little kookier – Barbara Ehrenreich in The Nation:

There’s a reason Hillary Clinton has remained relatively silent during the flap over intemperate remarks by Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. When it comes to unsavory religious affiliations, she’s a lot more vulnerable than Obama.

You can find all about it in a widely under-read article in the September 2007 issue of Mother Jones, in which Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet reported that “through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as “The “Fellowship,” also known as The Family…

…The Family takes credit for some of Clinton’s rightward legislative tendencies, including her support for a law guaranteeing “religious freedom” in the workplace, such as for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics.

What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including New Age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

Sharlet generously attributes Clinton’s involvement to the under-appreciated depth of her religiosity, but he himself struggles to define The Family’s theological underpinnings. The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the “meek.” They believe that, in mass societies, it’s only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God’s “dominion” on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it’s all about power–cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or “cells.” “We work with power where we can,” Doug Coe has said, and “build new power where we can’t.”

Interesting. Here’s a 2002 Los Angeles Times article on the group – which doesn’t quite paint it in that sinister a light, which thus proves that the LA Times is also deep in the sinister heart of the international right.

That aside – what the article shows is two things:

1. The far left really has it in for Hillary.

2. The far left cannot imagine anyone just being a Christian – if you are such, it must be for a nefarious purpose. They ain’t buying any of that “love your neighbor” nonsense…they know that what Christians want is to oppress everyone and force people to believe the world is 6,000 years old.

I didn’t know – but am pleased with the knowledge – that Hillary attends Bible study. Naturally, I’d prefer it for her to attend RCIA, but any exposure to the Word of God is a good thing. Given that we recently found out that Gorbachev was a closet Christian and this might have helped him to pursue a reasonable course, it can only be good for Hillary to get a bit of God into her worldview. Some day, she might even wake up from the haze of anti-human, far left policies which have infected far too much of what was once an honorable (though still mistaken) liberalism. Only in the minds of the hate-filled left can the fact that someone is seeking after the truth be considered evidence of evil intent.

Ok, boys and girls, here’s you big chance to just have at it…lefties, you want to endlessly rehash the reasons we went to war? Here’s you thread. RIghties, been burning for the 1,000th opportunity to make lefties look like fools over their views on the war? Here’s the place.

Alternately, you can discuss the continuing Obama saga; why Hillary is suddenly so quiet. Why recent polling shows McCain doing better and better against either part of HillBama. Why President Bush seems in such a fine mood these days. Why commodity prices took a dump the other day and why some have opined that oil prices will start to slide later this year.

Have at it.

Me? I think the cretin is dead – a grease spot in the Toro Bora: honestly, how hard would be be to get a good, clear picture of Osama holding up a recent newspaper, if his troops wanted to really prove he’s alive? Anyways, bin Laden, of someone claiming to be him, has issued a new series of threats:

DUBAI (Reuters) – Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden threatened the European Union with grave punishment on Wednesday for publication of cartoons mocking Islam’s Prophet Mohammad.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet coinciding with the birthday of Islam’s founder, bin Laden said the drawings, considered offensive by Muslims, were part of a “new crusade” in which Pope Benedict was involved.

“Your publications of these drawings — part of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican had a significant role — is a confirmation from you that the war continues,” said the Saudi-born militant leader, addressing “those who are wise at the European Union”.

You are “testing Muslims … the answer will be what you shall see and not what you hear.”

The usefullness of this diatribe is that it does serve to remind that the enemy is the enemy of us all – right, left; Christian, atheist; black, white…it doesn’t matter: if you are not Islamist, the Islamists have you scheduled for slavery, or for the chopping block. It doesn’t matter how much anyone tries to talk to them; doesn’t matter how much pressure is put on Israel; doesn’t matter if we close Gitmo and pull out of Iraq – the enemy is still going to be our enemy and they will attack us with all their might as often as they can. The pity of it all is that so many people from the most base of motives simply refuse to see things as they are – this war might well have been completely won by now if all of those who are enemies of the Islamists had stood together…but, no, people on the left preferred to hate President Bush…hating him, after all, is a lot less risky than standing up to people who cut off your head if you get in their way…

Answered over at Battle Born Politics.

From Rasmussen:

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of Americans would like to see U.S. troops brought home from Iraq within a year. That number is down four points from two weeks ago and two points from four weeks ago. Over the last twenty-three weeks, the number wanting troops home within a year has ranged from a low of 57% to a high of 64%.

Twenty-three percent (23%) now want the troops brought home immediately. That number is down six points from the last survey.

Those who live by the poll, die by the poll (to paraphrase a bit) – and our lefty friends have been sustained by poll after poll showing President Bush to be unpopular. Well, my view of polls is well known – they can be useful, but all of them are a mere snapshot in time. Still, it can’t be doubted that this poll is going to drive our lefties nuts:

The tiny minority who see President Bush as evil and the war as being for oil/Israel/Likud/Halliburton/Insert Conspiracy Theory Here are that 23% in the poll – the rest of America is ready to see us there for at least another year, or even longer (36% home within a year, 35% to stay indefinitely). Could be that by November, HillBama’s defeatism is an albatross ’round their neck.

The more we learn, the less we like:

Barack Obama had been a presidential candidate for more than a year before he outright repudiated his long-time pastor for racially charged, anti-U.S. sermons. But when talk show host Don Imus was in hot water 11 months ago for racially insensitive comments, Obama was the first candidate to call for his firing.

When asked about the different responses to his pastor and to Imus, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor questioned the premise of the comparison and defended Obama’s response in each case.

“He spoke out both times, so it’s entirely consistent,” he told FOXNews.com Tuesday.

Obama’s people must think we’re all idiots – or, knowing that for now only the lefties matter (ie, for the nomination) they realise that idiocy will go over well with their core supporters, and they figure the rest of us will forget this stuff by September. “Spoke out both times” doesn’t cut it, Vietor…he called for Imus to be fired for a poorly crafted joke…Wright goes on endless, racist, anti-American rants and Obama de-facto says he’s just a bit out there from time to time…

hyp·o·crite – noun – 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Or, failing that, just a picture of Obama will do…

Details over here…

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And Zogby says the people want McCain taking that 3am call.

In what is probably — in the long run — a bad move, Barack Obama is on the verge of giving a speech on race, with the apparent intention of limiting the fallout from the widespread exposure of the anti-Semitic, anti-white, and anti-American rhetoric of Obama’s longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

In announcing the morning address, to be delivered in Philadelphia, Obama would not say specifically what he will discuss, but suggested he wants to cool down the atmosphere after incendiary remarks by his pastor, retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., blanketed the airwaves over the past week.

“I am going to be talking about, not just about Reverend Wright but just the larger issue of race in this campaign, which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told reporters after a town-hall meeting. “Part of what I’ll do tomorrow is to talk a little about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”

I don’t see this speech being able to help Barack Obama at all. He can’t really expect us all to believe he was oblivious to Wright’s hatred. Are we really to believe that 20 something years going to that church that Barack just conveniently missed every single sermon that was controversial in nature? Give me a break.

Meanwhile, FOX News discovered that Obama’s church altered their website by removing the black supremacist material.

UPDATE: Campaign surrogate John Kerry gives poor defense of Obama on Don Imus show…

Looks like the state of New York can never catch a break. With the slimy Spitzer just barely out of office we learn this about the newly inaugurated governor of the Empire State.

The thunderous applause was still ringing in his ears when the state’s new governor, David Paterson, told the Daily News that he and his wife had extramarital affairs.

In a stunning revelation, both Paterson, 53, and his wife, Michelle, 46, acknowledged in a joint interview they each had intimate relationships with others during a rocky period in their marriage several years ago.

In the course of several interviews in the past few days, Paterson said he maintained a relationship for two or three years with “a woman other than my wife,” beginning in 1999.

As part of that relationship, Paterson said, he and the other woman sometimes stayed at an upper West Side hotel — the Days Inn at Broadway and W. 94th St.

That’s not even the worst part of it:

Gov. Paterson denies using state or campaign money to pay for liaisons with another woman during a rocky patch in his marriage.

Records show that in September 2001, then-Sen. Paterson’s campaign spent $456.46 for two nights at what was then called the Quality Hotel at 215 W. 94th St.

One check was dated Sept. 10 — the day before the 9/11 attacks — and the other Sept. 24. Both are listed as “office” expenses.

In an earlier interview with the Daily News, Paterson mentioned that his campaign paid for a staffer to stay at the hotel around the time of 9/11.

He said he did not remember the exact dates, but he acknowledged putting up one staffer there the day of the attack and another the day before the Democratic primary, which was Sept. 25, 2001.

Who knows if there’s anything to those allegations or not, but regardless, this is hardly the kind of news New Yorkers want to hear after the Spitzer Scandal.