Obama caught accidentally being honest

Speaking at a closed door event to liberal supporters in San Francisco last week, Obama uttered the following:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them and they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate, and they haven’t. It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Do you understand what he is saying here?  What he means by this?  Obama reveals in these comments not only his contempt for middle-class American values , but also for religion.  According to these comments Americans are bitter, selfish, hot-headed bigots.  There can not possibly be any logical reason to be pro-gun, or anti-illegal immigration in Obama’s mind, so it’s just because Americans are bitter and looking to explain their frustration.  That doesn’t even make sense!  How does being pro-gun explain or even justify frustration?  It doesn’t.  This is just standard liberal condescension thrown out as red meat for this audience.  And as offensive and patronizing as that is, it’s not even the worst part. 

The truly revealing – not to mention hypocritical – statement is the one he is making about religion.  According to Obama, Americans turn to religion because they can’t turn to government and use it as a vehicle for bitterness and frustration.  Don’t believe me?  Read the quote again, it’s there.  While offensive, and patently false, this view of religion is fairly common in the Atheist Part – I mean, Democrat Party.  Suddenly it’s easy to understand how Obama could sit in church listening to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years.  Afterall, that sort of frustrated hate speech is what church and religion are all about.  It’s what people disappointed in government must cling to in order to explain their frustrations, right? 

Obama has begun his attempts to make this look like a misrepresentation of his position and nothing more than a few poorly chosen words.  But isn’t Obama the candidate saying that words matter?!  Yes, he is!  That’s why you can’t believe these words were a mistake.  He said exactly what he meant, he just didn’t mean for us to hear it.  Even if you are deluded enough to believe the exact words were unintentional, the fundamental idea is still correct, as Obama himself said in Indiana on Saturday:

“[I] didn’t say it as well as I should have… [though] the underlying truth of what I said remains.”

So maybe he did not mean to say people “cling” to religion in order to “explain” their “frustrations” so much as they “turn” to religion as a means to “voice” their “bigotry.”  Okay, much better.  Glad we could clear that up.  Odd how the man who claims words should count, that they matter, only wants certain ones to matter and none to count against him. 

When the above defense didn’t end the story, or even meet with widespread agreement, Obama had to again address the issue and did so with the following comment in Pittsburgh:

“Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington, saying I’m out of touch, it’s time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.”

Okay.  While they were in Washington, you were sitting in Trinity United Church listening to Jeremiah Wright and developing your patronizing elitist view of the American middle-class… just taking your advice and cutting through the rhetoric to reality Obama.

Rosa Parks’ bus just ran over Grandma

Here are my thoughts on the latest chapter of Obama’s racial/political narrative:

So now Obama admits that he DID hear his pastor make comments like those we’ve all seen in videos, while sitting in church. His memory seems to have improved dramatically from last Friday when he hadn’t heard such comments before while in church. I think it should be clear to everyone by now that Obama is not some new kind of politician, dealing above the common type of politicking. The die-hard followers won’t of course wake up to reality, but I bet for many Kool-Aid drinkers that brew is beginning to taste rather bitter.

What this whole issue is about is political expediency. Early in Obama’s career he had to prove he was black enough for the black community. Being part white and fairer skinned, he needed to prove his chops. Enter his church. Now that he has 90% of the black vote in the presidential campaign, and white voters seem to be pulling away from him, he has renounced a lot of this rhetoric. But he didn’t do it well, so questions about his courage and sincerity are being raised. He isn’t courageous, he isn’t sincere. It’s all political. So much for being different.

All Obama had to do was come out today and say that the comments by his pastor are held by a segment of the black community, but not by him. That he does not share, nor condone, that mentality and that that is what his campaign is about; about a more positive approach, a more positive model to follow. He could explain that he didn’t leave the church because he didn’t want to run from that position within the black community, but instead wanted to provide an alternative.

Instead, he talks about the history of racism in an attempt to drum up white guilt, and throws dear old grandma under the bus in one of the most shameful and ridiculous examples of moral equivalence I have ever seen. But it’s bull.  And Obama knows that. He won’t mention it though for the same reason he didn’t condemn the pastor’s comments earlier, it won’t help him politically. He knew this was going to be an issue almost a year ago, but didn’t bother to address it until he was forced to for political reasons. Where was the leadership then?

While slow to get started, Obama is now doing the political two-step just as fast and well practiced as any other politician. It should be clear for everyone to see.

Obama’s Pastor

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the current controversy surrounding Obama and his relationship with his pastor, so I will not re-hash the details.

The problem for Obama here is that he is making judgement a cornerstone of his presidential bid, but where is the good judgement here?  Or does his sound judgement not apply to being a judge of character? 

Furthermore, his argument that he wasn’t aware of the long list of hateful statements by his pastor, whom he claims as a close personal friend and mentor, certainly raises concern.  If he could attend this man’s church for 20 years, consider him a close friend and mentor, yet not know he held these positions and espoused this sort of rhetoric, how in the world can we trust him to deal with foreign leaders?  Will he have any idea what their motives and intentions are?  This current development would suggest not.

This is to say nothing of a number of other questionable relationships – the likes of Rezko and Ayers, etc.  While every politician can be linked to questionable characters in some way, Obama seems particularly surrounded by such men in a more comfortable and personal way than most.

Obama’s Positions

I know many of you don’t follow politics much and may be wondering what Obama is all about, so I have written this blog to outline the key points you need to know about him as a candidate.  As you have probably heard, hope is a central theme to his candidacy and you can see how it factors in to his policies below:

Obama’s position on terror?  Hope they don’t attack.

His position on the economy?  Hope it gets better.

And government health care?  Hope we don’t die.

His views on taxes?  Hope we all like poverty.

Which leaves rational Americans hoping he doesn’t get elected.