I goess we could call these his "terminating the family" values:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16. You know, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

And how is that information working for the community so far?

Obama is stating publicly that if his daughters can't keep their knickers on when they become teenagers and they get pregnant as a result, he encourages them to get an abortion. Pregnancy is a "punishment," according to Obama, the man who tries to convince people he's not a radical, but just like one of us.

It was bad enough that Barack Obama wouldn't remove his daughters from exposure to Jeremiah Wright's unhinged rantings, and that he continues to have them attend a church where the current pastor is no less radical in his doctrine.

Now He's informed his chldren via the media that daddy will drive them to Planned Parenthood if they get knocked up.

Once again, Barack Obama is making me question not just his ability to lead this nation, but even his ability to be a marginally-responsible father.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:09 PM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

I ripped into Barack Obama's utter disdain of firearms and his desire for blanket bans on entire classes of firearms in a post for Pajamas Media back on February 22. The article, Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance, noted:

In his answers to the 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, Obama said he favored a ban on "the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons."

By definition, this would include all pistols ever made, from .22 target pistols used in the Olympics to rarely-fired pistols kept in nightstands and sock drawers for the defense of families, and every pistol in between. Obama's strident stand would also ban all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, whatever their previously legal purpose.

Obama's desire to ban all semi-automatic firearms (including those most commonly used for hunting and target shooting) and all handguns are positions well to the left of mainstream American views, as are many of the other political positions he took in the 1998 survey.

Running as a moderate and inclusive presidential candidate a decade later, Obama has tried to explain away his leftist positions on that survey, and an earlier 1996 survey, as being the work of campaign aides who misstated his positions.

The Politico bursts that explanation this morning, in a report that notes that Obama himself answered questions in an interview with the group that created the 1996 questionnaire, and even included the candidate's hand-written notes on an amended version of their questionnaire.

Some members of IVI-IPO, the group that authored the 1996 survey, are not happy with Obama's changing views.

The group had endorsed Obama in every race he'd run — including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) — until now.

The group's 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.

"One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?" said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group's treasurer. She volunteered for Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama's retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.

Other members of the group still support Obama, but it frankly doesn't matter.

Barack Obama has tried to package himself this time around as a uniting, moderating force in American politics, but his dozen-year long record from 1996 through his current Senate ranking as America's most liberal Senator shows him to be well to the left of mainstream positions not only among Americans in general, but even within the Democratic Party.

Instead of running on his liberal views, Barack Obama is trying to minimize the public's exposure to them without refuting his still-held radical beliefs, just as he's tried to run away from his relationship to a radical Marxism-inspired church with a bigoted, America-damning pastor without quitting the church or severing his relationship with Wright, just as he has no refuted his dinner-party friendship and board of directors relationship with a proud terrorist who lost his girlfriend in the group when she blew herself up trying to create bombs to target a dance for American soldiers.

Far from being a uniting force in American politics, Barack Obama has shown himself time and again to be a shifty radical attempting to lie his way into higher office. Unfortunately, his hope of surviving the general election un-vetted by the media and his opponents is falling apart.

Amusingly, the superdelegate system that Democrats created to avoid another embarrassing McGovern-type landslide defeat is primed to fail in it's primary mission by nominating another left-wing radical with little chance of winning, and a real possibility of of suffering another embarrassing landslide defeat once the gloves come off in the general election.

I can hardly wait.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:29 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 704 words, total size 5 kb.

Michael Yon is in Mosul, where we thought the bulk of the fighting in Iraq would be over coming weeks as Iraqi Army units supported by American forces are preparing to route out the last of al Qaeda's significant urban presence.

I shot him an email yesterday to see what he may have heard, and he got back to me this briefly this morning to point me to telephone call he recorded with Glenn Reynolds. You can hear it here.

He's also got a new book coming coming out, and you can follow the links to pre-order it at the link above.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't typically go after other bloggers directly, but this particular combination of smugness and idiocy got under my skin.

Perhaps if one intends to publicly attack a political figure for the craven act of extending a deadline when things start getting dicey in combat, one should actually verify that such an extension has been made.

It hasn't, according to the AP article appended to the very NPR story he linked to.

Al-Maliki's office also announced it has given residents in Basra until April 8 to turn over "heavy and medium-size weapons" in return for unspecified monetary compensation.

The deadline is separate from the three-day ultimatum announced Wednesday for gunmen to surrender their arms and renounce violence or face harsher measures, government adviser Sadiq al-Rikabi said.

The move instead appeared to be aimed at noncombatants who may have weapons like machine-guns and grenade launchers either for smuggling purposes or to sell to militants or criminal gangs.

Two different deadlines have been set down, the original being a deadline on small arms, and the second, separate deadline for "heavy and medium-size weapons." The small arms deadline has not been changed, and it is the deadline on larger weapons that takes effect on April 8th.

On the bright side, he can always find work among his peers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:38 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Break out your shovels, kids. It's getting deep:

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

Jeremiah Wright has never publicly apologized for any of his rhetoric, from his racial bigotry to his conspiracy theorizing, or his anti-Americanism.

Even with Wright gone, Trinity United Church of Christ still practices Black Liberation theology, a bastardization of Marxist socialism, racial victimhood, and Christianity—and pretty much in that order of importance—as Karl meticulously detailed in a post at Protein Wisdom. Wright's replacement, the Rev. Otis Moss, will not deviate from those teachings in any significant way, and Moss shows little signs of even toning down the rhetoric, as he compared criticism of Wright's comments to a lynching and compared Wright to Jesus in his Easter sermon.

Note well:

The criticism surrounding Wright has not softened the services at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama has been a congregant for 20 years. Instead, Moss defiantly defended their method of worship, referencing rap lyrics to make his point.

"If I was Ice Cube I'd say it a little differently — 'You picked the wrong folk to mess with,'" Moss said to an enthusiastic congregation, standing up during much of the sermon, titled "How to Handle a Public Lynching."

Barack Obama is lying when he says that Wright apologized, and lies by implication when he tries to convince America that Trinity has somehow changed with Wright's retirement.

The quarterback may have changed, but Trinity is still playing the same game, using the same playbook based upon radical victimhood, and Barack Obama is still apparently the head cheerleader.

If Obama was truly offended by Wright's vitriol, he would have walked out on Moss as well, a pastor mentored at Wright's knee and apparently cut from the same cloth, preaching the same shop-worn victimhood at the same church.

Barack Obama was not offended at the radical messages of hate being preached at Trinity, he was just offended that they was exposed.

Update: Comments whacked before. Now working.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:26 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

I have a pistol made in 1927, and have owned battle rifles and carbines made from 1945 to the Vietnam War-era. In these firearms I've more often fired modern ammunition of recent commercial manufacture, but I've also used surplus military ammunition, decades old. For many collectors of military firearms, shooting aging surplus ammunition is a commonplace proposition, and the results are generally acceptable.

There are however, several wars on, and civilian shooters in the United States are having to compete with government contractors who scrounge up that foreign surplus ammunition in large quantities to provide to U.S. allies under contract. The result is higher prices for quality surplus ammunition, or in some instances, little serviceable ammunition at any price.

The New York Times, God bless them, actually broke an interesting story today about one of those ammunition contractors, a 22-year-old Miami man who now seems to be in a great deal of trouble for selling Chinese ammunition he scrounged up on the world market and repackaged, which is a violation of federal law and his contract.

The relevant parts of this story are how the man in question, Efraim Diveroli, slipped through the cracks of the procurement system to become a supplier, and how some scrap-worthy ammunition was shipped to our allies. I'm sure as details of that SNAFU become available, they'll work to make sure that similar unvetted characters responding to vague RFPs can't game the system again.

I would take minor issue with the Times and other news outlets, however, for suggesting that older ammunition is inherently flawed or obsolete ammunition.

Ammunition can degrade over time based upon the chemical compounds used in its construction and the environmental variables under which it is stored. Ammunition manufactured to high standards and stored in specific, controlled conditions, however, can last almost indefinitely. Ammunition manufactured in the 1960s and properly stored can certainly still be viable and reliable, while ammunition created last week using substandard components may be scrap before it leaves the assembly line.

The author of the NY Times piece who broke the story, C.J. Chivers, deserves respect for some excellent investigative journalism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

His Vacuousness made an appearance at a townhall meeting in Greensboro yesterday, which was duly recorded by our local media.

It may come as a shock to some, but the candidate of "change" offered precious little of that miraculous substance during his appearance, instead relying on standard liberal doctrine that is far older than the candidate himself.

"We're at a defining moment in our history," Obama told a packed house at the Greensboro Memorial Coliseum. "We can't wait to fix our schools. We can't wait to fix our health-care system. We can't wait to bring good jobs and wages back to the United States of America. We can't wait to bring the war in Iraq to an end."

But how fresh are Obama's ideas, really? Does he represent change, or just recycling? Let's dissect the excerpts of his speech above.

Fix Our Schools
Hardly a revolutionary idea. As Obama was speaking in NC, perhaps we should look to Charles B. Aycock, North Carolina's first "progressive" governor, who became North Carolina's "Education Governor" during his term from 1901 to 1905. Aycock's role in some other historical moments are probably better left undiscussed, but the fact remains that Obama is recycling an argument almost 110 years old.

Fix Our Health Care
Refresh my memory... didn't the other Democratic presidential candidate work on this a decade ago? Such rhetoric has been standard fare from "progressive" reformers for more than 90 years, and even President Harry Truman had his national health care plan shot down in the 1940s. Obama is recycling ideas between 60-100 years old.

Good Jobs and Wages
Obama is sometimes credited for being a powerful speaker like William Jennings Bryan, and he doesn't mind borrowing rhetoric that echoes down through history from Bryan's 1896 and 1900 presidential runs, either. Change? He's offering rhetoric more than 100 years old.

End the War
Historian Henry Littlefield suggests that Bryan's anti-imperialism phase, which in some ways mirrors Obama's desire for a headlong retreat from Iraq, inspired L. Frank Baum's character of the Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz. Going back a bit further, Obama's rhetoric sounds even more like that of the "copperhead" Democrats of the U.S. Civil War, a faction of "peace" Democrats who were strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, demanded immediate peace regardless of the consequences, and railed about how that the conflict cost too many lives and too much treasure. Obama's recycling the ideas of abandoning a people struggling for democracy because things are just too hard, an argument more than 140 years old, and just as bad then as it is now.

Barack Obama's campaign is perhaps a campaign for "change," but it is change rooted in revolutionary politics from the 1860s to the 1940s. He echoes "progressive" promises of "change" heard by our great-great-grandparents, great-grandparents, and our grandparents (in their youth). He is a new salesman, offering old merchandise.

If he's lucky, Barack Obama can still convince folks that he's "retro," but the fact remains that most of his political ideas are older than the Model T Ford, as relevant in this modern world, and as just as costly to repair.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:05 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the wonderful things about modern communications technologies is that just about anyone can comment about popular culture and breaking news events as they happen. The downside? Just about anyone can comment about popular culture and breaking news event as they happen, and some of them work for news agencies.

The best examples of why this isn't always a good idea are the short-sighted, knee-jerk reactions of some journalists and pundits to the recent crackdown by the Iraqi central government on rogue Shiite militias and criminal gangs supported by Iran that have been operating in Baghdad and southern Iraqi cities.

For months and years we've had critics of the Iraq War whining that American forces would always be forced to take the lead in combat, that Iraqis were lazy and untrainable, and that Iraqi security forces were too corrupt to ever be regarded as a competent stabilizing force against rogue militias, Iranian infiltrators, and criminal gangs.

And yet as Iraqi security forces moved into Basra and elsewhere to combat criminal gangs and militias extorting profits from the nation's oil industry meant for distribution to all Iraqi's by the central government, do we hear anyone critical of U.S. and British involvement in Iraq praising Iraqi government forces as they mount their own major operations with limited U.S. involvement?

No.

Instead we get McClatchy's Washington "Truth to Power" Bureau running a headline that the attacks were "threatening success of U.S. surge." The truth, of course, is the exact opposite of what McClatchy reports.

Because the surge was successful and coincided with the Sawha movement among Sunni tribes, al Qaeda has been pushed into Mosul and the surrounding Ninevah province, where Iraqi security forces took the lead weeks ago in an operation that hopes to surround, cut off, and kill the last significant Sunni terrorist strongholds in Iraq.

Because of the success of the surge and the increasing competence of Iraqi security forces, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decided that it was time to lead an offensive in Basra, a city long controlled by competing Shia militias that are often little more than criminal gangs. Maliki has given the militias 72 hours to lay down their arms or face "the most severe penalties."

Iraqi-led missions are targeting both Sunni and Shia extremists in hopes of asserting the monopoly of force any country must have for stability, moves that should be seen as encouraging for Iraq's long-term future.

Sadly, most reporters and ( like-minded bloggers) seemed bogged down in viewing the still-breaking news stories in Sadr City, Kut, Basra, and other Iraq cities through the prism of short-term U.S. domestic political consumption, an arena in which they would hope to exert a corrupting influence.

For many of these people, success is not an option, initiative is to be panned, and gains made are to be spun away or minimized until a Democrat wins the White House and the war can be properly lost.

Unfortunately for them, the Iraqis seem to be taking an acute interest in determining the future of their nation on their terms, not those terms dictated by the media, Iran and others championing defeat.

The Prime Minister of Iraq is all but publicly daring Muqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian allies to engage Iraqi government forces to determine the future of Iraq, a battle that the Iraq government's forces would win convincingly.

These are moments of growth for Iraq's fledgling democracy worth celebrating... providing of course, you want the nation to succeed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:28 AM | Comments (50) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

Middle America, I'm sure this sort of stuff appears in your church bulletins all the time.

Israel and South Africa worked on "ethnic bombs" to kill blacks and Arabs, and Libya was designated as a terrorist state by the U.S. for supporting African liberation movements?

There is more nuttiness here than in a Payday bar, but rest assured that Barack Obama never saw this bulletin, and certainly doesn't agree with it, just as he's never seen or agreed with any of the other insanities that have been uttered in his church of choice over the past 20 years.

You'll note that this was published on Trinity's "Youth Day," as part of "Family Month" according to the note at the bottom left of the page.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:27 AM | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

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 (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

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 (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

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 (60) | Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 6 kb.

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 (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 769 words, total size 5 kb.

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 (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 724 words, total size 6 kb.

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 (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

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 (51) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

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 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)

43 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)

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

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

45 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)

46 Well, Matt? How many years have you served over seas? hmmmmmmmm...................

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

47 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)

48 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)

49 "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)

50 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)

51 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

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 (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 941 words, total size 7 kb.

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 (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 4 kb.

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 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)

3 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)

4 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)

5 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)

6 "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)

7 "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)

8 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+)

9 Best commentary by far on the Obama speech

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

10 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)

11 "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)

12 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)

13 "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)

14 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)

15 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)

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

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

17 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)

18 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 BHOÂ’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+)

19 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)

20 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)

21 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)

22 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)

23 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 olÂ’, same olÂ’ (i.e., blacks are angry, whites need to do more).

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

24 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)

25 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)

26 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)

27 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)

28 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)

29 "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)

30 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)

31 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+)

32 "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)

33 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)

34 The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 03/19/2008 A short recon of whatÂ’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)

35 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)

36 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)

37 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)

38 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)

39 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)

40 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)

41 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)

42 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)

43 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+)

44 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)

45 "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)

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

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

47 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)

48 "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)

49 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)

50 "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)

51 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)

52 ... 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)

53 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)

54 "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)

55 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)

56 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)

57 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)

58 "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

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. WhatÂ’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 thatÂ’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 (101) | Add Comment
Post contains 2543 words, total size 16 kb.

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 nationÂ’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 (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 781 words, total size 5 kb.

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)

15 Hiya! Quick question that's entirely off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My site looks weird when viewing from my apple iphone. I'm trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to fix this issue. If you have any recommendations, please share. Cheers!

Posted by: Reed at October 23, 2012 11:46 AM (2vu8L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment