Obama: Religious Right "Hijacked" Jesus

10,000 flock to church to hear Obama speak
By Manya Brachear
Chichago Tribune

HARTFORD, Conn. -- They came to hear a prophet. Some believe they did. Others heard just another politician.

More than 10,000 members of the United Church of Christ rose to their feet in a hockey arena here on Saturday to applaud one of their own who happens to be a Democratic presidential candidate--Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Weaving biblical imagery with political promises, Obama, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, encouraged those in the audience to follow their consciences and fight for a better America.

"Doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning," Obama told church members. "And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America--a principle we all must uphold and that I have embraced as a constitutional lawyer and most importantly as a Christian--means faith should have no role in public life."

He also accused the Christian Right of "hijacking" Jesus to polarize the public.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together. Faith started being used to drive us apart," he said. "Faith got hijacked partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," he said.
Read More.

Yes... those pesky religious right-wingers are using the church to divide Americans and promote their political agenda.

...No word on whether Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton were in attendance.

Selective Outrage

Read this article:

Israel suspends soldier in shield case
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM - The Israeli army said Friday that it was suspending the commander of troops seen using two Palestinian youths as human shields, the latest evidence that its soldiers still protect themselves with civilians in violation of international and Israeli law.
Full Story.

Note the moral outrage at the Israeli's actions. The Israeli soldiers are routinely bombarded with rocks and stones from Palestinian children, who are taught to hate Jews. In an effort to stop the attacks, an Israeli Soldier asked a Palestinian child to ask their friends to stop throwing rocks at them. The child willingly stood between the soldiers and the mob of anti-Semites. Peace activists and the press are now blaming Israel for using the child as a human shield in violation of international law.

Now read this story:

Unconfirmed report says BBC journalist slain

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A previously unknown Palestinian group said Sunday it had killed a British journalist kidnapped over a month ago by gunmen in Gaza City, but the claim could not be confirmed.
Full Story

Note the lack of outrage. No moral condemnation of the group. No moral condemnation of a people who believe that taking hostages and murdering them is an acceptable form of political/religious expression.

The peace activists and the press are eerily silent when it comes to the actions of Palestinian militant groups who brainwash children into blowing themselves up, kidnap journalists and murder them, etc. But when Israeli's ask a civilian, even a child, to try and help stop the violence, the Israeli's are "violating human rights."

Isn't there a difference between using a civilian who volunteers to be a shield and one who doesn't?

I don't know if I fully support the Israeli use of a child, even a willing participant; but it's not like they took children against their will and brought them into a gun fight. They didn't force the child to stand in front of their vehicle. Besides, don't the Palestinians routinely surround their top commanders with women and children? Why no outrage over that?

Why no outrage at a people who take an unwilling civilians hostage. Why no outrage over the ritualistic murder of Westerners and Jews?

How exactly is it that the press and the peace movement find the Palestinians to be morally superior and unworthy of criticism, but Israel and the West are somehow blameworthy for all sorts of human rights violations? What is is that I am missing?

Imus Should Apologize

That's right... apologiiiiize!

In all seriousness, though, I think Imus is an idiot. A moron. So what? He said something stupid. He is, in fact, a stupid person. So what?

He called a bunch of black female collegiate basketball players, "dirty, nappy, ho's." What further proof do you need that the man is an idiot? He said something stupid and hurtful. If he were a professor at Rutgers, I would think that firing him would be appropriate, but he isn't affiliated with Rutgers, so why should he be fired?



Black "civil rights" leaders, like Al Sharpton, are demanding Imus be fired. For what? Saying something that is racially insensitive? Imus is a SHOCK JOCK. He is paid to say things that are shocking and offensive. It is his bread and butter. It is supposed to offend some people, some of the time. It is what he does for a living.

How will firing this man make things right? Is referring to a black basketball player as a "dirty, nappy ho" an offense for which someone should automatically lose their job?

What about calling a white, male, lacrosse player a "rapist"?

How about calling our soldier's "murderers"?

How about labeling all Christians as "right-wing nut jobs"?

How about labeling a person who disagrees with allowing homosexuals to adopt children a "bigoted homophobe"?

What about blaming white males for every bad thing that has happened in history, while praising all women and minorities (especially blacks, and not including jews)?

Why are saying things which are divisive, provocative, and hurtful, wrong when it involves a black person, but "ok" when it is a white person, or a Christian, or a conservative, or a soldier?

Civil rights are about equality. I think equality has been accomplished... and then some... and yet the "civil rights" movement continues. To what end? To the end that saying something bad about a black person - placing blacks on a level that is above all other races, a people who cannot be criticized ever, even if it IS due (which in this "nappy hos" thing the criticism was not due) - should result in the loss of one's livelihood.

BUT, calling all white people racist, calling all Christians "nut-jobs," calling conservatives "reich wingers" etc., ad naseum, does not result in a firing, and in fact can result in tenure in a collegiate setting.

Think about what is happening here:
BLACK, FEMALE, COLLEGE ATHLETES.

Blacks, who once upon a time were not even counted as people for census purposes, who once upon a time could not vote, who once upon a time could not be taught let alone go to college...

Females, who throughout history have been oppressed, who once upon a time could not own property, who once upon a time could not vote, who once upon a time could not attend college...

College Athletes.. only recently in the history of American academia have women's sports been guaranteed funding and opportunity to the extent that men's sports receive funding and opportunity. Think about it... women's sports are a topic of discussion on national radio stations!

On an equality scale, where are we today versus where we once were?
It wasn't that terribly long ago that funding wasn't guaranteed for women athletes. It wasn't that terribly long ago that blacks DID have a difficult time getting into colleges.
It wasn't that terribly long ago that blacks had no rights in this country.
Look how far we have come! Look how far we have progressed!

Women are guaranteed funding for NCAA purposes. Qualified blacks are virtually guaranteed admission into colleges, almost always placed ahead of equally qualified white students (in the interests of "fairness").
Blacks can vote. Blacks are found in every economic bracket. Blacks are found at every job level. No where in our country (that I am aware of) is the exclusion of blacks thought to be acceptable.

In what way is this unequal? MLK's dream was that blacks and whites could one day attend the same schools and that black children and white children could play together. MLK wanted blacks to have equality. Blacks have equality. In fact, they have "reverse-racism" working in their favor. Because universities WANT "diversity," in many cases blacks are placed well ahead of whites. That isn't equality. I'm not saying that these programs must end, but I am saying that that is NOT equality.

Equality refers to opportunity. In America, you open your own doors. Sure, some people are born with a silver spoon. I imagine Will Smith's kids aren't going to have to worry too much about how they are going to pay for college. If one of Will Smith's sons wants to get into music or acting one day, his father will be able to help open doors for him. This is true no matter what your color, religion, sex, etc.

Look at the sort of things that were said about the Duke Lacrosse players. Who should have been fired for calling them racists and rapists? Were saying those things any less hurtful? They were males. They were white. They were probably rich.

Now look at what that idiot Imus said. Ok. He is an idiot. We all agree. Should he lose his job? For what? Saying hurtful things about black, female, possibly poor people? Is that equality?

To express outrage over the public ridicule of one group and not the other... is that equality?

Amazing Article up on Barking Moonbat

Check it out

The releveant quote from the article is as follows:

Pelosi’s spokesman Brendan Daly said the speaker was reluctant to weigh in on the incident without knowing that such a message would do more good than harm.

...

“The leadership discussed it and agreed that inserting Congress into an international crisis while ongoing would not be helpful,” Daly said.

Pelosi is traveling in the Middle East, where she plans to visit Syria, Israel and the West Bank.

Since when has Pelosi not wanted to "weigh in" on an onging international crisis without knowing that her message would do more harm than good? What the hell does she think her non-binding resolutions and timetables for withdrawel are doing?!?

Amazing. Kudos to the Skipper for fidning that gem.

Edwards: Jesus would be 'appalled' at US selfishness

Incase you missed this story last week:

Edwards: Jesus would be ‘appalled’ by U.S
Associated Press

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. - Multimillionaire Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards says Jesus would be “appalled” at how the United States has ignored the plight of those suffering around the world.

Edwards, who was recently criticized by his neighbors in North Carolina for building a monstrous estate reportedly covering 102 acres of land, said in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com that Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country’s willingness to go to war “when it’s not necessary.”

“I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs,” Edwards told the site. “I think he would be appalled, actually.”

NEWSFLASH: Hey Liberals: paying an accountant to figure out the way to pay the least in taxes, and then paying those taxes IS NOT CHARITY!!!!

I love when these elitist limousine liberals talk about how awful the plebian class is in America, how WE ALL ought to be giving more, and how taxes, in general, just aren't high enough. Maybe when you are as rich as they are and have so much that it is cheaper to pay a team of accountants to figure out how not to pay your taxes - when in reality they have so much they could just write the check and not even feel it. They want to raise taxes on those of us who don't "save" by hiring accountants while they figure out creative ways to screw Uncle Sam.

Then they have the audacity to say they don't need a tax cut (how many of them gave the money back though?) and that taxes aren't high enough. They have the audacity to think that they are charitable because they want to raise OUR taxes and make us adopt THEIR social welfare programs.

Hey John, if you want to give back to the community, why not open up your brand new mansion to the homeless? Why not make it a woman's shelter, or let some poor inner city kids move in with you so they can go to a good school. THAT is charity, not raising taxes on everyone else.

Year of the Pork?

Democrats to load Iraq bill with add-ons
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - While Democrats try to restrict how President Bush can spend the $100 billion he wants for Iraq, they also hope to load his measure up with $10 billion in add-ons — from aid for avocado growers to help for children lacking health insurance.

"The American people told us in the election that they expect us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility.

"After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

"In order to achieve a new America, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history."

Guess who said it?

That's right, Nancy Pelosi. Good to see the Democrats are serious about "fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and civility."

And since it was in the quote, "So our first order of business is passing the toughest ethics reform in history."

What did they do with that DEMOCRAT congressman who had $90,000 of bribe money found in his freezer? Impeach him? Nope. What did they do? Oh, that's right, they appointed him to the Homeland Security Panel. Nancy even defended this.

Al Gore’s Personal “Inconvenient Truth” Part II

Mad props to Bill Hobbes for these interesting developments:

As the controversy over global warming doomsayer Al Gore's voracious energy-eater mansion rolls on, there's an angle I think merits deeper investigation than it is currently getting. While much of the focus has been on whether or not Gore is an environmental hypocrite, the story has raised the profile of the role of "carbon offsets" in achieving a "greener," more environmentally friendly world.

In its original story, The Tennessean reported that Gore buys "carbon offsets" to compensate for his home's use of energy from carbon-based fuels.

...

So far, so good. But how Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
Source.

And this:

Al Gore claims to buy "carbon offsets" from a firm, Generation Investment Management, which he co-founded and serves as chairman. If you visit the firm's website, you will find no mention of carbon offsets . If Generation Investment Management sells them, they don't say so publicly.

So, what does Generation Investment Management do?

... what Generation Investment Management really does is manages investments in a portfolio of companies the list of which doesn't seem particularly "green."
Source.

If this story pans out, then Gore is a bigger hypocrite than we thought.

Al Gore’s Personal “Inconvenient Truth”

This one is juicy:

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average


Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.


###

­­­­­­­­­­
The Tennessee Center for Policy Research is an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions.

Like we didn't already know this. The guy flys around the world in private jets that omit more CO2 per flight than a fleet of gas guzzling SUVs, then has the nerve to look down his nose at the working class plebs and their awful habit of driving around vehicles large enough to transport their family safely.

The Irrelevance of Liberal Hypocrisy

Why Richard Thompson Ford’s opinion doesn't matter. (He's a moonbat)

Stanford Law School Professor and author of Racial Culture: A Critique,Richard Thompson Ford, recently wrote an article on Slate claiming Joe Biden’s latest racist sentiments, that Barack Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" do not matter ostensibly because 1) he is a Democrat and 2) actions speak louder than words.

Ford claims LBJ was a racist, but still passed civil rights legislation, therefore, LBJ’s "professional and personal dealings seem free of the stain of bigotry." In other words, actions speak louder than words.

Ford continues his point:

By contrast ... one need not think President Bush a bigot in his heart to think that his reaction to Hurricane Katrina bore the hallmarks of racial insensitivity. If Bush didn't care about black people in New Orleans, that was not because of his personal racial animus, but because of his institutional priorities. This was not a political constituency that mattered to him.

... a political party or executive branch that allows racial prejudice and indifference to affect decisions is a larger problem than the bias of an individual. Presidents don't make decisions in a vacuum—they make them as leaders of administrations and in reaction to political pressures. So, their decisions are more like institutional decisions. A president who resists the pressures to ignore the needs of relatively powerless minority groups, like the Katrina victims, is one who deserves our support—whatever his latent personal attitudes. My vote's with the next LBJ

Translation: Sure, Biden may be a racist at heart, and Bush may not be a racist at heart, but it is better to have a racist like Biden as president, who we can pressure to stick up for minorities, than a President like Bush, who is not a racist but will fail to stick up for minorities because Republican administrations do not favor minorities or feel their political pressure.

Let me break this down a little: Liberals like Stanford School of Law Professor Rich Ford believe that it is OK for Democratic leadership, even the President of the United states, to be bigoted racists... as long as they are Democrats. As long as they are "one of us."

Republican Racism = Condemnable, nay villifiable
Democrat Racism = No big deal.

Of course this is blatant hypocrisy, but Stanford Law Professors can justify such blatant hypocrisy. Rich Ford believes that the entire executive branch, which ironically is composed heavily of lifelong bureaucrats of both the Republican and Democratic persuasion, becomes a racially prejudiced branch of government, indifferent to the plight of minorities and immune to their political pressure when a Republican is in office; however, when a Democrat is President, even when he is a bigoted racist, the executive branch magically transforms into an institution which reacts to political pressures in favor of minorities.

Put another way, Rich Ford believes that it’s OK for Democratic Leadership to be racist because ultimately the racist leadership must appease their voting base, which is comprised of many black voters.

The irrelevance of liberal hypocrisy is this: no-one cares that a distinguished law professor from an elite Ivy League Law School, who is himself a minority, will write an amazingly hypocritical article downplaying remarks made by a disgusting racist like Joe Biden. The article will go largely unnoticed and pass quietly away into the garbage heap of history.

Here is the relevance of liberal hypocrisy: You get what you vote for. Enjoy your racist leadership, you deserve it for voting for them.

And a final note for Stanford Law School: You are only as good as your faculty.

Ford's Thinking at work: