Prejudice from the pulpit… again

Open your Bibles, please, to the second chapter of the Lamentations of Barack. It appears that Senator Obama has another unholy mess on his hands. This time from a Catholic priest who was a guest this past Sunday at the candidate’s church. From FOXNews:

Another Chicago minister is causing headaches for Barack Obama after he told the congregation at the Democratic candidate’s church on Sunday that Hillary Clinton felt entitled to the presidency because she’s white.

Michael Pfleger, a Catholic priest, issued a formal apology for his sermon Thursday after Obama put out a statement saying he was “deeply disappointed” by Pfleger’s remarks at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

“I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them,” said Pfleger.

In it, Pfleger, who is white, mocked Clinton for getting choked up on camera before the New Hampshire primary in January.

Okay… now some excerpts from the actual sermon. Remember this is a white Catholic priest:

“When Hillary was crying … I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white. And this is mine’,” he said, shouting at times. “Then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey I’m Barack Obama’. And she said, ‘Oh damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show’!”

After that, he simulated Clinton crying and then said: “She wasn’t the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people crying … I’m sorry. I don’t wanna get you in any more trouble. The live streaming just went out again.”

He also said at one point, “America has been raping people of color and America has to pay the price for the rape. “

So what’s the big deal as far as Obama is concerned? After all, he doesn’t have close ties to Pfleger the way he did to Jeremiah Wright…… RIGHT?

Well.. actually……

Pfleger is not a member of Obama’s church, but Trinity United confirmed he was a guest at the church Sunday.

Pfleger’s support of Obama is well known in Chicago; an Obama aide confirmed that Pfleger contributed to Obama’s state Senate campaign during his years in the Illinois legislature.

The aide told FOX News that when Obama was a state senator in 2000, he secured a $100,000 earmark for the ARK Community Center, a center attached to Pfleger’s St. Sabina church. The aide said the initiative was awarded to help keep at risk kids off the streets by giving them a place to play.

Pfleger was also once a member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, which is a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign, the aide said. But the aide said Pfleger decided to step down a few weeks ago from this committee, though the campaign did not request the resignation.

So even though Pfleger is not quite as cozy with Obama as was Rev. Wright, his righteous fingerprints can still be seen all over the Senator’s career.

In addition to the disturbing pattern we see emerging here, we also get a revealing glimpse into Obama’s overall campaign strategy on race. We suddenly realize that the reason Obama has always “officially” taken the high road on racial issues is not because of some inherent color-blind integrity he possessed. Rather he never brought it up simply because HE didn’t have to. Why play the race card when others can do it FOR you? Can I hear an AMEN?

Here is the YouTube clip of a very full of himself Pfleger going at it…


Lies and the lying candidates who tell them

Hillary Clinton

FOXNews.com has presented the first of a 3-part series called Trail of Tall Tales which will focus on some of the more notable falsehoods that have been propagated by the three leading Presidential candidates over the years.

Wednesday, they focused on Hillary. I feel for the editors at FOXNews who were obviously forced to whittle her legion of whoppers down to a mere twelve for the sake of brevity. Some of the gems covered here include Travelgate, sniper fire in Bosnia, the Vince Foster documents, Chelsea jogging near the WTC on 9/11, being named after Sir Edmund Hillary — and many other “misstatements” and “snafus” for which she has become legendary. After finishing the piece you’re left wondering… does this woman ever NOT lie?

Good reading:

Trail of Tall Tales: Hillary Clinton

The Untouchables

Michelle Obama

Sen. Barack Obama is apparently hopping mad at a YouTube video targeting his wife which was posted by Tennessee’s Rebublican Party last week:

Obama, his party’s presidential front-runner, and his wife, Michelle, were asked in an interview aired Monday on ABC’s “Good Morning America” about an online video last week by the state’s GOP taking her to task for a comment some considered unpatriotic.

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”

He called the strategy “low class.”

Stand-up kinda guy aren’t you Barack? So what about the video in question?

The video, posted on YouTube, centered on remarks Michelle Obama made while campaigning in Wisconsin last February, when she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.”

Michelle’s valiant knight angrily rose to her defense:

“Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that’s true for everybody, Democrat or Republican,” Obama said in the ABC interview, adding: “These folks should lay off my wife.”

Excuse me Senator Obama, but is this the same woman who one year ago reduced her professional responsibilities by 80% so that she could actively campaign for you? Is this the same woman who, according to the Wall Street Journal, recently “appeared at 33 events in eight straight days” and furthermore has earned the nickname of “the closer” because “she often pushes harder to seal the deal with voters” than you do? Sorry, Obama-boy, you can’t have it both ways. She’s fair game.

Same thing holds true for Chelsea Clinton, who gets paraded around to appear and speak at her mom’s campaign stops, yet acts taken-aback whenever a reporter dares to approach her, snobbily berating them and then walking off. She even snubbed a 9-year old kid, for God’s sake. So what happens when the press starts getting a little too close to Bill and Hill’s poor innocent little 28-year old daughter? Mommy pulls out her claws, of course.

You’re either in or you’re out, people. If you’re going to display yourself proudly on the front lines of a campaign battle, don’t be surprised when a few arrows come whistling your way.

The gaffe that keeps on giving…

Wow, what a gift Barack Obama is to George W. Bush and conservatives everywhere. Just when we thought he’d learned his lesson after his spasmodic reaction to George Bush’s “appeasement” speech to Israel’s Knesset yesterday, we get this from Foxnews

Barack Obama struck back at President Bush and John McCain in tandem Friday, saying the president’s criticism the day before of politicians who would speak to terrorists is “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s dividing our country and that alienates us from the world.”

Obama was campaigning in South Dakota, which holds its Democratic primary on June 3. But he used his appearance in the state to ratchet up his fight with the White House.

Again, who would even know about this excellent quote in Bush’s speech — in which he compared the idea of negotiating with terrorist regimes to the same type of ill-placed warm-fuzziness one American senator showed toward Hitler in WWII — if Obama hadn’t taken his big yellow highlighter to it and placed it squarely in front of our eyes? This is just beautiful. It’s the best PR that Bush has ever gotten for his firm and consistent stance against appeasement and I, for one, say keep bringin’ it Barack.

And he does. This time taking aim at potential Republican Presidential opponent John McCain:

He accused McCain of “fear-peddling” and of embracing Bush’s comments the day before during his address to Israel’s Knesset.

We seem to have really hit a nerve, here. Chalk it up to Obama’s inexperience? Well, we could if not for the fact that some other Dems — including none other than Hillary Clinton — have also decided to get in the act and stomp away at this flaming bag of doodie that has appeared on their front porch:

Though Bush never invoked Obama by name Thursday in that address, the Illinois senator and a chorus of prominent Democrats took the president’s remarks as a slam against him. Even Hillary Clinton — who has criticized Obama’s diplomatic policies — called the president’s comments “offensive and outrageous.”

Oh this is sweet. Thank you, Dems, for this unexpected gift. Meanwhile, the White House reacted to this controversy today by wisely deciding to play the “surprised” card:

Ed Gillespie, counselor to the president, said Friday the White House was taken aback by the backlash that followed Bush’s speech.

“We did not anticipate that it would be taken that way, because it’s kind of hard to take it that way if you look at the actual words of the president’s remarks, which are consistent with what he has said in the past relative to dealing with groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and Al Qaeda,” Gillespie said.

“And so there was really nothing new in the speech that anyone could point to that would indicate that.”

But Gillespie did go on to call out another famous patron of paranoia:

He said there was some anticipation that it would be seen as a slam against former President Jimmy Carter, who recently met with leaders of Hamas, but that it was not intended as a rebuke to him, either.

And with that, a new trap is set. Now lets see if Carter takes the bait as well. This is like shooting fish in a barrel….

After West Virginia win, Hillary now directs her steely gaze at party elders

Hillary Clinton in West Virginia

As expected, Hillary Clinton won in West Virginia with 67% over Obama’s 26%. and picked up 20 delegates. But delegates aren’t Hillary’s primary focus anymore as she turns her attention to persuading more superdelegates to join her. These, of course, are delegates who are not chosen by voters or caucuses, but are merely there because they are special people. Actually some of them may even be minor deities. These superdelegates hold super-powers which are immune to the forces of democracy. They can choose whichever candidate they please regardless of the popular vote (and you Democrat voters thought you had the power to decide who the nominee would be? Pptttttttth).

Hillary had this to say about her victory:

“There are some who wanted to cut this race short,” she said. “They say, ‘Give up, it’s too hard, the mountain is too high.’ But here in West Virginia, you know a thing or two about rough roads to the top of the mountain. . . .

Obviously Hillary has been reading my blog because she is stealing my mountain analogies. The LA Times highlights Clinton’s strategy in further detail

She campaigned heavily in the state, criticizing Obama’s healthcare proposals as inadequate and pushing her proposal for a summer-long suspension of the federal gas tax. She noted that no Democrat has won the White House in nearly 100 years without carrying West Virginia in November and likened herself to John F. Kennedy, who laid to rest doubts about his candidacy by winning here in 1960. (Kennedy needed a victory to avoid placing the nomination in the hands of party elders; Clinton is attempting the opposite, hoping to extend the race so party elders can make the final decision.)

And what would a Democratic campaign be without the obligatory Tom Petty song:

Clinton campaigned to the sound of Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down,” and many voters applauded the sentiment as they headed to the polls on a perfect spring day.

Actually, “Free Falling” would be more apt at this point.

The article goes on to point out the differences in demographics of Clinton voters vs. Obama voters. Apparently, in West Virginia at least, Hillary has been riding high on the rube vote:

West Virginia’s demographics closely matched Clinton’s political base. Interviews with voters leaving polling places showed an electorate that was 95% white, less educated and poorer than in most other states. Four in 10 were over age 60, and a little more than half came from rural areas.

Okay fine. But in an attempt to illustrate these stats, we are given quotes from two such voters. Problem is these words don’t just show us the mindset of the average Hillary voter, but rather that of the average Democrat voter.

Patricia Anderson, 59, a retired substitute teacher from Stonewood, had already voted for Clinton and was trimming a shrub in the yard of the tidy home she shares with her 90-year-old mother, another Clinton backer. “I just think she has the most solutions to our problems. The Clinton years were good years, and she can bring them back,” Anderson said.

Dorsey Claypool, 62, who drives a garbage truck, intended to vote for Clinton as soon as he finished work. “They always helped me every time I needed something,” Claypool said of Bill and Hillary Clinton. “They are good people.”

Wow. That’s truly scary. Of course, we’re told that Obama’s voters are smarter. But at the end of the day, they still ultimately buy into the same bill of goods as the people above: “We will make your life better.” “We will solve your problems.” “We will meet all your needs.” What’s scarier is that these two brainwashed people are a microcosm of the Democrat voter base which makes up roughly half the country now. This is the fruition of the dependency class that Democrats have worked so hard to cultivate over the past several decades. And it is growing by the day.

We conservatives need a little reminder sometimes of just what we are up against…

In the words of our prestigious former President, Ronald the Great: “Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem.”

Learn it. Love it. Live it.

SNL lampoons “sore loser” Hillary

I’ve never been a huge Amy Poehler fan. Mainly because her Weekend Update segments grate on my last nerve. Her smarmy smile and “aren’t I clever” delivery along with that irritating tendency to laugh audibly at Seth Meyers’ jokes off camera so as to further display how hip and cool she is for “getting it” annoys the bejeezers out of me.

But I must admit Poehler is good in some of her character portrayals. Her Hillary Clinton “sore loser” skit on SNL this weekend was pretty much on the mark. She nails Hillary’s condescending mannerisms here and the clip is spot-on in revealing what really goes on inside the woman’s head. I especially like the way she rolls her eyes when mentioning the “popular vote”! Pretty good stuff.

Here it is from YouTube:

Obama courts the envy vote: promises CEO tax hike
May 9, 08, 3:11 pm
Filed under: barack obama, campaign, ceo, democrat, liberal, obama, taxes

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer yesterday, Barack Obama promised to stick-it to evil Corporate America by raising “CEO Taxes” when he becomes President:

“If you’re a CEO in this country you’ll probably pay more taxes,” Obama said. Obama speculated his CEO tax rates “won’t be prohibitively high, you’ll pay roughly what you did in the 90’s when they were doing fine.”

Obama also said he would eliminate the Bush tax cuts and install what he called a “middle class tax cut.”

Blitzer asked Obama to define “middle class.”

Obama replied, “You know, I think the definitions are always a little bit rough” and said “if you’re making $100,000 a year or less, then you’re pretty solidly middle class…On the other hand, if you’re making more than $100,000 and certainly if you’re making more than $200,000 or $250,000, you’re doing pretty well.”

“Solidly middle class”? Says who? Apparently for Obama and liberals like him, it’s all about digits. $99,999 puts you in the middle. One more dollar and you’re a heartless corporate FATCAT — or at least you get invited to their cocktail parties. Either way, you clearly have more than you need and it’s time to give some of that excess wealth to those we have determined to be the less fortunate — that poor Joe who is struggling to make ends meet on a meager $50,000. Curiously enough, the less fortunate in this country still seem to have managed to scrounge up enough pennies on their paltry income for a satellite dish and a 42″ HDTV. But, as Obama and his ilk will gladly point out — they don’t own a private yacht like the average CEO does — and that’s just not fair.

In truth, it’s all relative. A person living in a hut in a third world country would view even the lower class in America as “well off” — and would probably wonder why some of them don’t work a little harder given the freedom and opportunities they have. The middle class would look absolutely fabulously stinking rich in their eyes. Two cars? Electricity? Plumbing? Life is sure good over there.

So where do liberals like Obama get their numbers? Nowhere. They are purely arbitrary and are based on emotion rather than any solid data. $100,000 “sounds” rich to a person making $36,000. But even someone making $36,000 a year can still have a decent quality of life provided they manage their money. Conversely, there are people making $250,000 who are barely living within their means. It’s all a state of mind.

But Obama’s philosophy is nothing new. It’s the typical liberal strategy — divide people into classes, pit the lower against the higher, and then position yourself as the hero who will charge in and make things right. Obama has merely tweaked it a little by giving the enemy a face — the face of Bob Nardelli, Michael Eisner or any other of a growing list of famous CEO’s who have become notorious for their apparent greed and excess. By adding this extra emotional layer Obama hopes to garner that “solid” middle-class vote.