Click here to view the embedded video.

The Daily Caller also emphasized these aspects of the ad:

[snip] Obama won the primary in a landslide. He easily won the 2004 election against a weak GOP opponent, after his main GOP rival quit the race when a Democratic-appointed judge unsealed damaging divorce testimony.

The 2004 video also showcases several recurring features of Obama’s speeches — his use of the passive tense to glide past controversial issues, his passive-aggressive portrayal of himself as the reasonable moderate among extremists, and his promises of benefits without costs.
[...]

He cites his attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ without mentioning the controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

[...]

He uses the passive tense to mention his 1996 race for a state Senate seat. That passive-voice phrase — “seven years ago, this opportunity came up to serve in the General Assembly in Illinois” — avoids any mention of the sharp-elbowed tactics that he used to snatch the seat from a veteran, female African-American Democratic incumbent.

[...]

“If there is an Arab American somewhere getting rounded up by [Attorney General] John Ashcroft, without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties even if I am not an immigrant,” he declares, three years after the 9/11 attacks. Ashcroft was not “rounding up” Arab immigrants in 2004, but was actually resisting efforts by police agencies to expand surveillance. (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, what a walk down Memory Lane this provoked, including some of the underhanded tactics Obama’s camp employed in addition to what was mentioned above. And as the article notes, Obama enthusiastically mentioned his active participation in his church. Yep, good ol’ TUCC with that paragon of Christian virtue, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As a reminder, here’s a bit more on TUCC and Wright:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Note that his “US-KKK-of-A” speech was in 2003, the year before this ad came out. Oh, and yes, he has retired now, to his million dollar mansion in a “white suburb.” Uh, yeah. And of course, it just reminds us of how many of Obama’s associates like Rezko, Father Fleger, Auchi, Khalidi, Meeks, et al., were allowed to slip on by our “esteemed” media…

I urge you to read the rest of the article to make sure you catch all of he nuances of Obama’s 2004 ad compared to his rhetoric today. It is mighty interesting.

And since it is Sunday, I have to leave you with something fun to bring a smile to your faces. This clip is from Jimmy Kimmel, getting parents to play a bit of a trick on their children post Halloween:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hilarious!

This is an Open Thread. Have a great day, everyone.

It made me mad. It is just more of the media’s continued unfounded, politically motivated, assault on Sarah Palin. They have attacked her mercilessly for three years, and now claim, after the constant harassment, that she has “darker tendencies”? Are you kidding me with this circular logic crapola??

And so, I was compelled to write this letter to the editor of the Post and Courier. I have no illusions they will actually publish it:

I read Molly Ball’s article on Gov. Palin. The emails requested back in 2008 from sites such as Mother Jones are proving to be a bit of a disappointment to all those who wanted to get dirt on the former governor. Turns out that she was – gasp – hardworking, warm, engaging, and dedicated to her state. Shocking!

But here’s the thing – to qualify Palin now as exhibiting her “darker tendencies” is disingenuous at best. The only reason these emails are even available was the desire to take down this qualified woman 3 years ago by the media when they filed their FOIA requests. They have hounded her, and her family, on a daily basis, flat out making crap up (like that she, personally, shot wolves from the air, which your newspaper has already dispelled). They have accused her husband of incest, claimed her baby was not her own, used despicable language to attack her, and her family, sent numerous reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on her, and AP reporters to “factcheck” her book. And now, Ms. Ball is claiming that Palin is a divisive figure. If she is, it is only because the media has MADE her a divisive figure.

Even more, why has the media never spent anywhere NEAR this much time investigating Barack Obama? He claimed he had no records, not even a datebook, of his time as an IL Senator. How is that even possible?? The media failed miserably in ferreting out why the two front runners for the IL US Senate seat both, mysteriously, had their SEALED divorce records unsealed just a few short months before the election, forcing them both to drop out, allowing Obama, once again, to run basically unopposed as he did when he ran for office the first time (he got everyone else thrown off the ballot – look it up).

Where has the media been in looking at his connections to Khalid Rashidi, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright? They could not be bothered to research the presidential candidate, or his methods for becoming the candidate, much less his associates, any one of whom would have brought down any other candidate. (How many people know about the rampant caucus fraud perpetrated by the Obama camp? There were complaints made to the DNC by a number of people, including Hillary Clinton, but the DNC turned a blind eye. Even worse, they took lawfully cast and certified votes for Hillary Clinton and GAVE them to Obama. That was the day this Yellow Dog Dem became an Independent.)

But to the VP candidate from Alaska the media managed to devote all kinds of resources. Lo, and behold – there is nothing there. Of course, that doesn’t stop Ms. Ball from making gratuitous, unfounded, slights against Palin, thus demonstrating her very clear bias even as she was tasked with acknowledging there was nothing there.

This isn’t journalism, this is tabloid writing. And you put it on the front page.

While I am at it, I would like to highlight something else from these emails that was in my local paper – and listen up all of you who made this salacious claim – SARAH PALIN DID NOT SHOOT WOLVES FROM THE AIR, AND WAS OPPOSED TO IT. Got it? Seriously. Oh, and the emails highlighted how much of a conservationist she really is. I bet that will stick in some folk’s craw…

Good grief.

Clearly, despite there being nothing there to attack Palin over, these rags will continue to make the kinds of gratuitous smears Ms. Ball did. They just cannot stand that this woman is exactly who she said she is and has demonstrated herself to be. I guess in the face of Obama’s failures, this must really get to them, so they have redoubled their efforts to go after her, not him. Pathetic. Be big enough people to admit you were duped, you were snookered, you were fooled, and you were wrong. Give it a shot.

And now, for our musical moment to take a break from this continued media folly, I leave you with this:

And just what is this issue? Well, Gibbs is now trying to convince people that Obama is really a mainstream Christian, not one who buys into Black Liberation Theology, as this article from the Daily Caller, White House Distances Obama From Liberation Theology, highlights.

Um, what? Since when? Well, since Gibbs decided to make this ridiculous claim followng Glenn Beck’s recent rally in Washington, DC:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs implied Thursday that President Obama does not subscribe to a version of Christianity dubbed as “liberation theology,” and argued that the president’s beliefs are more akin to traditional Protestantism.

“The president is a committed mainstream Christian,” Gibbs said, when asked whether Fox News personality Glenn Beck has been correct in describing Obama’s faith system as “liberation theology.”

“I have no evidence that would guide me as to what Glenn Beck would have any genuine knowledge to what the president actually does or does not believe,” Gibbs said.

Gibbs did not say outright that the president rejects liberation theology, which in general interprets the gospel of Jesus Christ as primarily a mandate to help the poor and needy, but also has many streams and variations on finer matters and points of emphasis.

“I don’t know the answer to that,” Gibbs said. When pressed again, he said, “I can only imagine where [Beck] conjured that from.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

He doesn’t know from where Glenn Beck got that idea? Really?

Well, perhaps Spokesweasel Gibbs should have watched the following video before making such an assertion:

Or maybe Gibbs should have done a little Google search on Black Liberation Theology, TUCC, and Jeremiah Wright. He would have found articles like this one, “Black Liberation Theology, In Its Founders Words.” And in this particular story, he would have noted very clear connections between Black Liberation Theology, TUCC, and Jeremiah Wright.

Oh, and then there is this one from The Christian Century, “Africentric Church: A Visit to Chicago’s Trinity UCC.” In this particular article, Gibbs would have found this:

[snip] James Cone, the pioneer of black liberation theology, is a much-admired figure at Trinity. Cone told me that when he’s asked where his theology is institutionally embodied, he always mentions Trinity. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Seriously, dude – it wasn’t that long ago, and we are not that stupid or gullible.

I cannot help but wonder how my former professor, James Cone, feels about this new disavowal from Obama’s camp. Or my former TA, Dwight Hopkins, another theology professor, and fellow congregant at TUCC. Though after the way Obama treated his former “uncle,” Jeremiah Wright, maybe they aren’t all that surprised. Or they shouldn’t be. I know I am not. How about you?

Now, I have said before I used to love the guy, DVR’ed him every night. But, once he started with the raging misogyny against Hillary Clinton, even defending David Schuster for calling Chelsea a whore and Hillary a pimp, I knew I could not stomach him anymore. But then again, I wasn’t an Obama sycophant like the vast majority of the JournoListers are, and Olbermann is. So imagine my surprise when I read that was one of the reasons they hate him, too:

[snip] At issue was a segment Olbermann had run about Carrie Prejean, the former Miss California who stirred debate in 2009 when she defended traditional marriage.

Following the segment, the subject on Journolist was “I hate Keith Olbermann again,” and the members of the list let it rip.

The Nation’s Katha Pollitt began the group’s rant. “He and Michael Musto did this whole long riff about beauty contestant Carrie ‘opposite marriage’ Prejean’s breast implants, stupidity, breast implants, tacky clothes, earrings, breast implants. They went on and on about how she was ‘part plastic’ and pathetic. You’d think they were celibate vegans who spent their lives zen meditating. It was just a whole TV humiliation of her, and it made me feel sorry for her, which wasn’t easy,” Pollitt said.

Michael O’Hare, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the segment was “about as funny as a rubber crutch. Odd when a reasonable person’s internal alarm doesn’t go off in a situation like that …’I’m going to ridicule a girl who’s obviously at her personal limits just trying to look conventionally pretty on national TV? What does that make me’?”

O’Hare even suggested friends stage an intervention for Olbermann. “If anyone on the list is a friend of Olbermann, friendship demands that you give him a head-up about this lapse,” he said.

Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”

Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize. [snip]

Click here to read the rest.

Incredible, isn’t it? A number of these folks really get it about Olbermann, and his blatant misogyny. No one was more surprised than I was, especially given the level of misogyny leveled at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by many on the left.

But still, Olbermann had some supporters, like David Roberts, who appreciated his getting out the liberal news to the masses, so there is that. But that is not so surprising.

And while I am on the whole JournoList thing again, Tucker Carlson, the Editor in Chief of Daily Caller has written a follow-up letter to address the expose of Journolist. He writes about the two arguments currently being used to justify what these journalists did, and some claims that they are making. Specifically, he wrote:

[snip]The response hasn’t been all that furious, actually, probably because there isn’t much for the exposed members of Journolist to say. We caught them. They’re ashamed. The wise ones are waiting for the tempest to pass.

There have, however, been two lines of argument that we probably ought to respond to, if only because they may harden into received wisdom if we don’t. The first is that our pieces have proved only that liberal journalists have liberal views, and that’s hardly news.

To be clear: We’re not contesting the right of anyone, journalist or not, to have political opinions. (I, for one, have made a pretty good living expressing mine.) What we object to is partisanship, which is by its nature dishonest, a species of intellectual corruption. Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama. That is not journalism, and those who engage in it are not journalists. They should stop pretending to be. The news organizations they work for should stop pretending, too.

The second line of attack we’ve encountered since we began the series is familiar to anyone who has ever published a piece whose subject didn’t like the finished product: “You quoted me out of context!”

The short answer is, no we didn’t. I edited the first four stories myself, and I can say that our reporter Jonathan Strong is as meticulous and fair as anyone I have worked with. [snip]

Click here to read the rest of the letter by Carlson.

I recommend reading the entire series at Daily Caller. It is certainly informative, though the piece about Keith Olbermann cannot help but make me smile. He SO deserves to receive this disdain by some of the very elite of whom he seems to count himself. Teehee! It couldn’t have happened to a more deserving fellow. To quote Jeremiah Wright, “the chickens have come home to roost!”

And how.

Huh. More evidence that Obama is not really clear on the definition of “controversial.” In case you need a reminder of the kind of message preached by Rev. Wright, here are some “highlights”:

What a moving message of love and peace from the reverend, don’t you think? Naturally, once his comments came to light, Obama did what he does so well – throw people under the bus. Yep, he quickly disowned his “uncle.” But, don’t you worry – Wright still loves him his Barry no matter how much distance Barry puts between them. Ain’t love grand?

One might have thought that after Obama dissed Wright, and distanced himself from his church of 20+ years, maybe Wright would have faded into the past. If that’s what one thought, one would be wrong. Oh, no, he is still out there, as this piece by Maureen Callahan indicates, Obama’s Race-Rant Rev. Rages On:

[...] During a five-day seminar Wright taught last week in Chicago, he was back at it, claiming that whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America.

“White folk done took this country,” Wright said. “You’re in their home, and they’re gonna let you know it.”

The course, advertised as focusing on politics and public policy in South Africa and America, was taught in a small, ground-floor room at the Chicago Theological Seminary, where Wright’s voice echoed out an open window. The class was composed of about 15 to 20 students, mainly older African-American women who would arrive early and giddily linger during lunch breaks and after class, looking for the reverend’s attention. (The course cost a little over $1,000 if taken for college credit and $300 if taken without.)

Holy moley. That’s a pretty good chunk of change to be lectured with hate speech, isn’t it? Wow – who knew? Ahem. But this is just the beginning of Wright’s vitriol:

[...]“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,” Obama said.

Yet during this course — which was described as asking, “What is the response and public witness of persons of faith to ongoing developments in both countries?” — Wright made many statements about what he believes are the true aims of whites and Jews.

“You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk,” he said. “And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble.”

He cited the writings of Bill Jones — author of the book “Is God a White Racist?” — as proof that white people cannot be trusted. “Bill said, ‘They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They’ll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin’, cause you not a brother to them.’ “

What the hell?? Where does Wright come off with this kind of incendiary speech? And WHY is he preaching this hate-filled rhetoric? What is he trying to accomplish with this?

One last little gem from the, er, “good” reverend:

[...]The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

“We probably have more African-Americans who’ve been brainwashed than we have South Africans who’ve been brainwashed,” he said, and seemed to allude to President Obama twice: “Unfortunately, I got in trouble with a fella for saying this . . . All your commentaries are written by oppressors.” At the mention of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan — whom Obama disavowed during the campaign — black leaders “go cuttin’ and duckin’,” he said. [...]

Well, Wright may have retired from TUCC – to his million dollar home, built by TUCC, in a predominantly white neighborhood, mind you – but it hasn’t stopped him from spreading his hate-mongering, racist tirades.

And our current president sat there for over twenty years listening to that rhetoric. Perhaps that explains Obama’s selection of an Attorney General who, after a biracial man was elected president, declared Americans “cowards” when it comes to discussions on race. Or maybe that explains why the Department of Justice
dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philadelphia without bothering to read the memoranda on the case first. Never mind that the attorney handling the case, J. Christian Adams, said it was as clear a case of voter intimidation as well as a violation of federal law as he had seen in his Department of Justice career, one he resigned over this case. And it sure explains Obama’s response to Israel and her prime minister.

Yep – I would say this explains a lot. Wouldn’t you?

**Condolences to the family and friends of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, the longest serving Congressperson, who passed away this morning at the age of 92. Sen. Byrd was a man I had admired, until the summer of 2008. Still, prior to that time, he did a lot of good for the country.

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

UPDATE: I had the story below ready to publish since I need to leave, but ran across this video from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show last night. So I’m adding this video without accompanying text because Maddow does such a great job of explaining not only Obama’s failure to live up to his campaign promises but also another instance of Obama’s thwarting of legislation to end “don’t ask don’t tell”:

Amy has found that Obama’s failure to issue an executive order (“stop loss”) or direct Congress has led to 230 service members being kicked out of the military under the policy since Obama took office. Despite Obama’s aversion to “hot button” issues, action may be taken soon. Following Congress’s August recess, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on “don’t ask don’t tell.” A member of the committee, Sen. Kristen Gillibrand, who was appointed to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s seat, is the force behind the push for Congressional action and convinced Chair Carl Levin to hold the hearing.

“Morning Meeting” devoted a full-panel segment to getting rid of “don’t ask don’t tell” and joining all of our allies in permitting gays to serve openly in the military. During the “Meeting” segment, the most clear, “let’s cut to the chase” advocate for permitting gays to serve in the military was the reserved-looking, older Gen. Barry McCaffrey (retired), an analyst for NBC and MSNBC News. (See the MSNBC.com bio of Gen. McCaffrey. The photo is from Wikipedia’s bio.)

There’s no video of the segment so I transcribed what Gen. McCaffrey said: “Whether the military wants to do it or not is irrelevant. The question is: Is private consensual homosexual behavior legal or not? The Supreme Court seems to have said a decade ago that states couldn’t pass laws affecting private consensual homosexual behavior.”

Gen. McCaffrey stated firmly that Congress “ought to step up to it” and change the law. The rest of Morning Meeting panel also said that Obama shouldn’t bother with a “stop loss” order (a half-measure), and instead demand that Congress change the law.

Of course, as Reverend Amy has told us, Obama is ducking the issue despite his campaign promises, and has taken no action of any kind.

Why Obama is so wary of the issue is unclear (unless it’s to appease his ultra-religious, vociferously anti-gay constituencies, including his old Chicago minister pals like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Rev. Otis Moss, and Rev. James Meeks). Obama’s reticence can’t be due to voters’ attitudes since “Morning Meeting” noted that a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans approve of allowing gays to serve freely in the military.

Included early in the segment was Dr. Nathaniel Franken, author of “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America” (Kindle edition). Dr. Franken pointed out that, under the current “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, over 13,000 service members have been discharged, including 1,000 “mission critical specialists,” 300 linguists and 60 Arab linguists.

“This is a national security emergency. It’s not just a gay rights issue. And President Obama does have the power to issue an executive order,” Dr. Franken continued. (Read more about Dr. Franken’s views in Amy’s June post.)

The “Morning Meeting” panelists concurred that if Obama is going to “take a hit” for issuing a stop-loss executive order, he might as well go all the way and compel Congress to enact a law to do away with discrimination against gays. But Obama hasn’t done a thing so far and shows no signs of taking actions.

In Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy’s story, “Stop Making Excuses For This Guy!!,” she takes on the gays who are still backing Obama:

Repeal the law – it cannot POSSIBLY take that long. Like I said, look how fast Obama got some other things done he wanted done. If he wanted this law repealed already, he would have. Rather, Obama chose to not even weigh in on this to the Supreme Court. LOOK AT THE FACTS, not the rhetoric!

Here’s the bottom line to the LGBT community: STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY. Stop humiliating yourselves hoping, crossing your fingers, and wishing that Obama is going to do right by you because he said he would, or because you think he’s “dreamy.” Had you opened your eyes and paid attention to his actions (or lack thereof) over the course of his political career, or the people with whom he chooses to surround himself, you wouldn’t have picked the guy you thought was “cool.” You would have supported the person who has stood with YOU for years. But you didn’t. And here we are, no farther along for it.

Aren’t you TIRED of begging for the crumbs to drop from the table?? Aren’t you ready to be a guest at the table, where you belong?? All the excuses in the world for Obama do nothing but let him off the hook, and diminish YOU. Seriously, you, we, deserve better. Deep down inside, you must know that is true. At least I HOPE you do…

U.S. allies openly permit gays to serve in their armed forces. Via AOL News:

Check out more of Amy’s posts:

• “Soldiers and WORMS” [WORM stands for "What Obama Really Meant."]

• “And The Hits Just Keep On Coming” (which links to even more posts)

• “Passing the Buck“

This section from “Passing the Buck,” exposes the real Obama:

Once again, Obama has found a way to NOT let the buck stop with him – he is proving to be quite adept at finding a way to not take a stand on stands he has previously taken. I know – it makes my head hurt, too, but that’s the reality of it. The title of this article really says it all: Obama Avoids Test on Gays in Military. Uh, yeah. You may recall that I wrote just recently about the Army Arabic linguist, Lt. Dan Choi, and his plea to Obama to not fire him from the Army (“Freedom’s Just Another Word…”).

Well, get this:

The Obama administration has decided to accept an appeals-court ruling that could undermine the military’s ban on service members found to be gay.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year ruled that the government must justify the expulsion of a decorated officer solely because she is a lesbian. The court rejected government arguments that the law banning gays in the military should have a blanket application, and that officials shouldn’t be required to argue the merits in her individual case.

The administration let pass a May 3 deadline to appeal to the Supreme Court. That means the case will be returned to the district court, and administration officials said they will continue to defend the law there.

The move comes as President Barack Obama attempts a balancing act on gay rights. He was elected with strong support from the gay community and promised action on a number of issues. But mindful of the complex politics, the White House has moved slowly.

Um, no – a glacier moves slowly. Obama hasn’t moved at all: … (Read all.)

Um, no – a glacier moves slowly. Obama hasn’t moved at all:

Amy, you crack me up even while you’re talking about a truly serious story that affects national security because the military is dismissing desperately needed Arab linguists and other “mission critical specialists.”

Since 2/3rds of the American people back the open inclusion of gays in the military, this action is not hazardous politically and should be taken care of right away. Get with the program, President Obama.

Camp David. I’m not kidding. The chapel at Camp David. Now he has an excuse to leave DC every weekend, if he wants. So he can go to church. Now, this may come as a shock to some of you, but Washington, DC, actually HAS some churches there. Heck, they even have a big, ol’ cathedral – perhaps you’ve heard of it, the NATIONAL Cathedral? Ahem.

But you know that’s not it. To paraphrase Michael Jackson, “sometimes (he) feels like somebody’s watching (him)…”:

Now, in an unexpected move, Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

A number of factors drove the decision — financial, political, personal — but chief among them was the desire to worship without being on display. Obama was reportedly taken aback by the circus stirred up by his visit to 19th Street Baptist in January. Lines started forming three hours before the morning service, and many longtime members were literally left out in the cold as the church filled with outsiders eager to see the new President. Even at St. John’s, which is so accustomed to presidential visitors that it is known as the “Church of the Presidents,” worshippers couldn’t help themselves from snapping photos of Obama on their camera phones as they walked down the aisle past him to take communion.

And how about that – right there in Time magazine – making the comparison between Bush and Obama! Teehee!

Seriously?? He was taken aback? David Axelrove has done NOTHING but MAKE a circus around Obama. Has he already forgotten his Greek columns in Denver? His plying people with food and drink to come to rallies (which the media conveniently failed to mention – except in Germany), so he could have HUGE gatherings to fawn all over him? C’mon, give me a break. I have never seen a man who wanted sycophants around him at every second – unless they are uncomfortably close. And then we see him getting irritable (“I just want to eat my waffles, okay??” Or whatever it was he said exactly…).

Now, I’ll grant you that it is inappropriate for people to be snapping photos of the Obamas while in church. A sense of decorum and decency would be nice, but sadly, we seem to be far from those days. Still, I have no doubt other presidents have had to endure people staring at them or what have you:

The challenge of not only being part of a church community but also praying in peace has long been a problem for Presidents, according to historian Carl Sferrazza Anthony. “McKinley hated having people staring at him while he read Psalms, sang hymns, put money in the collection plate or took communion,” he writes in America’s First Families. “By the 1920s, getting a presidential family in and out of church was a production. Secret Service agents had to cordon off a clear path from the curb to the church entrance before the Coolidges arrived … [and] they were swiftly escorted to their third-row pew.”

The Clintons attended Foundry United Methodist Church on 16th Street, and were particularly active during the years before Chelsea left for college. But White House aides say that security measures required by the Secret Service have become stricter since 9/11 and would cause significant delays for parishioners — and at significant cost to taxpayers — on Sunday mornings. Given Obama’s popularity within the African-American community, the President also worried that if he chose a local black congregation, church members would find themselves competing with sightseers for space in the pews.

Oh, isn’t that SO thoughty of the president?!? He’s always worried about the little people as he has demonstrated time and time again… Hahahahaha!! I could barely even write that out…Anyway, the Obamas won’t have to deal with the hoi poloi at Camp David:

The First Family won’t have that problem at Camp David, where the 150-seat Evergreen Chapel attracts a congregation of between 50 and 70 people most Sundays. The rustic stone-and-glass octagonal structure was built nearly two decades ago through private funds; President George H.W. Bush dedicated it in 1991. At the ceremony, Christian singer Sandi Patti sang and the late Cardinal James Hickey of Washington delivered a sermon calling the chapel a “witness to our common belief that we need to seek divine guidance in the conduct of our national affairs.”

Each week, regardless of whether the President is on-site, Evergreen Chapel holds nondenominational Christian services open to the nearly 400 military personnel and staff at Camp David, as well as their families. A music director from nearby Hood College coordinates adult and children’s choirs (Clinton sang occasionally with the choir when he visited). In December, the kids in the congregation put on a Christmas pageant and the chapel holds a candlelight service on Christmas Eve. The Bush family enjoyed Christmas at Evergreen Chapel so much that they celebrated the holiday there for all eight years of Bush’s Administration.

Well, you know, poor old Obama has lost his pastor, The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, over those little kerflufles at his church. You know the ones – when Wright was preaching his vitriolic, hate mongering sermons? Thus leaving Obama wandering in the desert without his former minister. But he is making do:

(snip)But Barack Obama found himself spiritually isolated upon entering the Oval Office. He famously broke ties last year with Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor, and resigned his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. So, just as he followed Bush’s lead in choosing Evergreen as a church home, the President is taking a page from Clinton’s playbook on this front: Obama has a small group of pastors he contacts for prayer and spiritual support (including two men who played the same role at times for Bush).

Those two, Kirbyjon Caldwell and T.D. Jakes, are both African-American ministers from Texas. Caldwell offered a prayer at Bush’s first inauguration and in 2008 he officiated at Jenna Bush’s wedding. By that point, he was an Obama supporter, even launching the website JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com last summer when the Focus on the Family leader accused Obama of “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview.” Obama chose Jakes to preach the sermon at a private prayer service the morning of his inauguration and reached out to him to pray by phone on other occasions.

While the other three leaders Obama turns to are all members of his Faith Advisory Council, when he contacts them it is to talk not on a policy level but a personal one. Otis Moss Jr. is a retired Baptist pastor who once served with Martin Luther King Sr. at Ebeneezer Church. His son is the new pastor — following Jeremiah Wright — at Trinity in Chicago, but Moss is the model of a proper old-school preacher and is the father figure of Obama’s group. His fellow council member, Joel Hunter, is a white evangelical and pastor of a Florida megachurch. And Vashti McKenzie is the first female elected as a bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

McKenzie isn’t surprised that Obama has reached out for prayer and guidance. “This President has not shown himself to be a person in isolation — going out on dates, spending time in the community,” she says. “You wouldn’t expect him to isolate himself spiritually. This is a man with a faith center, we’ve heard him give his testimony.” Her advice for how to build a life of faith within the White House? “Everybody needs to just back off and settle down. Let him choose where he’s comfortable, choose where he and his family are going to be spiritually fed, and then let it be his choice.” Amen. (With reporting by Elizabeth Dias)

Hold the phone – didn’t Wright say recently that Obama was like a son to him? Oh, I am pretty sure he did, as American Girl in Italy reported recently in “Reverend Wright Complicit In Murder At Holocaust Museum?“:

“Of course I voted for him; he’s my son. I’m proud of him,” Wright said. “I’ve got five biological kids. They all make mistakes and bad choices. I haven’t stopped loving any of them.

“He made mistakes. He made bad choices. I’ve got kids who listen to their friends. He listened to those around him. I did not disown him.”

Uh huh. I’ll say. But wouldn’t you LOVE to know what Reverend Wright means by that?? Anyhoo, I digress…

As for McKenzie’s claims, you have got to be kidding me. Because Obama takes his wife out on a date to New York on OUR dime, I might add, McKenzie extrapolates Obama likes to be among the people? Hogwash. He likes to be on stage, he likes the sycophants, but I (and others) have reported the numerous times Obama has gotten testy with people. Heck, I’ve never seen Hillary get testy even when men were screaming sat her, “Iron my shirt! Iron my shirt!” But Obama? Please. There was a post I saw the other day about Obama’s glares at world leaders who weren’t following the script, something his own aides pointed out. Here’s a little video of the Primaries to remind you:

Bit I digress again. The point is I think the Right Rev. McKenzie gives Obama way too much credit for wanting to be “sociable” and out with the people. Her statement is contradictory to the whole point of the article – Obama does NOT want to be around a lot of people, hence his desire to go to Camp David for church. And to get out of Washington AWAY from all of those people.

And isn’t it ironic that he has taken yet another page from the Bush playbook? Though this one won’t be destroying a bunch of lives like, say, “prolonged detention.” Perhaps Obama can pray about that while he is at Camp David…

(1) “Barack, Get Your Facts Right,” published on June 12, 2008

(2) “An Update on the Michelle Obama Rant, on June 7, 2008

(1) “Barack, Get Your Facts Right,” published on June 12, 2008

If Barack’s first foray into setting the record straight is a sign of how he would handle the weightier matters of the presidential office, boy are we screwed. Here’s what Obama considers a “lie”:

Lie:
Blogger Larry Johnson wrote on May 31st that he would add „New and dramatic developments. This is a heads up. I‚ll post the news Monday morning by 0900 hours. Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning. Barack‚s headaches are only starting.‰

Read the post

Truth:
Johnson posted no such update.

Barack? DUDE. Open your eyes brother. Here’s what I posted on Monday morning (17 minutes earlier than promised) on 2 June:

Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan Take On Whitey
By Larry Johnson on June 2, 2008 at 8:43 edt AM in Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Minister Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Whitey Tape | Edit
I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater.

That ain’t a “lie” Barky. It is a fact. Of course, most Barack supporters have trouble grasping this concept. Maybe that’s why they support Barack–does not require much intellectual effort. Simply close eyes and hold your nose.

(2) “An Update on the Michelle Obama Rant, on June 7, 2008

The recording that shows Michelle Obama saying disparaging things about white folks is for real. It is not part of some elaborate dirty trick. The people who have seen her comments describe it as “stunning” or “devastating.” I have not spoken directly with the people who have seen the tape, but I have spoken to two of my friends who are friends with those who watched the tape/dvd.

Are they playing me? No, but it is a valid question to ask. Two of my sources, who have recounted the reactions of their friends who have seen the Michelle “performance,” live on opposite sides of the United States geographically and politically. They do not know each other and had no way of knowing that each of them was talking to me. This is one reason I believe the report of the “tape” is true.

I also have learned that Obama campaign knew about this “tape” at least two weeks prior to my first blog item on the matter. And they are not laughing it off as a joke. (Note to Barack: There are leaks in your campaign.) Ben Smith’s report on the matter only tells part of the story.
The woman from McClatchy who dared ask the question was verbally assaulted by Obama aides. She was treated as if she had made a death threat.

Then there is the matter of the email/disinformation campaign the Obama folks are trying. First they sent some of their bloggers an email claiming that Michelle said “WHY DID HE” rather than use the pejorative, “WHITEY.” And now the excuse is being circulated that somehow I, or someone else, is cribbing from some silly book I have never heard of until now. A campaign does not react this way to a fabrication.

I apologize for any confusion generated from our effort to get on top of this. We made the mistake of putting up the claims from Hillbuzz, but have no way of verifying Hillbuzz’s claim that it is a recording that features Michelle Obama with the wife of Louis Farrakhan. That is not what the sources who have seen the “tape” have reported to me.

The sources who have seen the tape report that Michelle says disparaging things about “whites” and that Louis Farrakhan is visible. There is no identifying information on the segment they have seen to identify the location or time when this was recorded.

Why does this “tape” of Michelle Obama matter? The folks who have it are working to elect John McCain. They are using it now to raise money for a 527 effort that will attack Barack Obama. I am told that they fully intend to keep this “off-the-market” until after the Democratic Convention. The Republicans involved with this believe that Barack Obama is a more beatable candidate than Hillary Clinton and see the tape as reinforcing an image of racial division that will hurt Obama.

I support Hillary Clinton for President. I believe she will be a stronger candidate. And if I had the tape I would put it out in a heartbeat. Getting the tape out now does one of two things–either it persuades Super Delegates that Barack is not electable or it gives the Obama campaign time to repair the damage.

I now appreciate somewhat how Cofer Black, the head of the CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center, must have felt as he tried to warn Condaleeza Rice and the Bush White House about a brewing terrorist attack in the days leading up to September 11th. And please, I am not equating the Michelle tape with the attacks of 9-11. Rather I am focused on the point of what happens when someone has incomplete information, which warns about a future event, and tries to raise the alert. Just because Cofer Black could not say in late July 2001 that the coming attack would be carried out by 19 hijackers on four commercial airliners did not mean his intelligence was wrong.

Those who want to vilify me for having the audacity to raise this warning can have at it. I ran up against similar attacks and skeptics in May of 2003 when I warned that the Bush Administration had cooked the intelligence on Iraq. It is only now that we get a Senate Intelligence Committee Report and a book from Scott McClellan confirming what I said five years ago.

I caught more heat in October of 2003 when I defended Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer. Again, we had to wait until the trial of Scooter Libby to learn that the claims she was just a glorified secretary were lies. And once again Scott McClellan, Bush’s former Press Secretary, confirms that he was lied to as well about Valerie’s status and who was involved in spreading her name around town.

My efforts on those two issues earned me the enmity of many on the political right. On at least two separate occasions the Wall Street Journal editorial page attacked me by name and accused me of being part of a CIA effort to sabotage the policies of President Bush. Those charges were repeated and amplified in a subsequent book by Kenneth Timmerman,

Shadow Warriors

.

Now it is some on the left who are attacking me and behaving in the same manner as those who rejected my reports on Iraq and Valerie Plame. Now I am a Republican tool. Here’s a small, but representative sample of the “love” letters coming my way:

From: KC Broberg
Sent: Jun 6, 2008 7:17 PM
To: Larry Johnson
Subject: WHERE IS THE VIDEO BIG SHOT?

more lies from mr. johnson it appears. no video on whitey? shocker
keep up the good work – swift boating is really going to work well this time…..

or this

On 6/6/08 9:57 AM, “Ben Bulloch” wrote:

Crawl in a hole and bury yourself. You fucking toolbag.

and finally:

On 6/6/08 12:49 PM, “Alejandro Queral” wrote:

On May 26, you wrote in your blog: “I know for a fact that Barack and Michelle Obama would like the tape of her blasting “whitey” during a rant at Jeremiah Wright’s church to never see the light of day.”

Really? If that’s the case, where’s the video? You and I know that if such a video exists it would have appeared on YouTube by now. But the truth seems to be there’s no such tape not because it hasn’t appeared on the web but because you can’t even keep your story straight. If you knew anything for a fact, your story would at least be consistent. I especially love how your sources are “all Republicans with access to knowledge but who do not know each other.” How convenient. But you and I also know that most insiders with access tend to know, or know of, each other. I suspect you made this up to cover your ass: since you name no names and you say the Republican insiders don’t know each other, there’s no way for anyone to disprove you. How clever. I’m also amazed at the bold face lie you tell your readers: that Michelle Obama was at Trinity Church when she made the speech, only to recant later and admit that you “do not know where this [the alleged panel discussion] occurred.”

Please stop using your blog to spread lies and rumors. It is not making this country any better.

Alejandro Queral

Now for the shocker. If the election comes down to a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama I will vote for Bob Barr. I live in Maryland and my state is very likely to vote overwhelmingly for Barack. I continue to believe that Barack is not qualified by experience or temperament to be President. I will be happy to be proved wrong on that count. But, if elected, he is likely to revive memories of the failed Presidency of Jimmy Carter. How apropos that Jimmy endorsed Barack.

And I cannot support John McCain, who is staffing his national security team with many of the bozos who were instrumental in bringing us the debacle in Iraq. Of particular concern is Randy Scheunemann. A confidant of Douglas Feith, Scheunemann represents a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies in the Middle East. I’ll devote more time later to these issues.

Let me conclude with this–I think there is at least one tape/recording that will be released sometime after the August convention and is likely to be very damaging to the Barack Obama presidential campaign. While I hope that Super Delegates wake up and realize that Hillary is their best shot for victory in the fall, I realize I am swimming upstream. So word to Barrack and team–the tape is coming at some point and you folks better be ready to deal with it because, unlike the situations with Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, you cannot divorce your wife in the middle of a campaign.

A US Cardinal and several Bishops denounce the University of Notre Dame for inviting Barack Obama to deliver a speech at their commencement ceremonies. They are also pissed off about the Honorary Law Degree to be given to Barack “God Damn AmeriKKKa” Obama. A lot of Catholics are pissed of too, and over 210,000 of them signed a petition denouncing University of Notre Dame. For the Bishops, Cardinals and many Catholics the problem is Obama’s stance on LIFE:

US Cardinal DiNardo, Archbishop of Galveston-Houston:

“Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning.”

Texas Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin:

“it is very clear that in this case the University of Notre Dame does not live up to its Catholic identity in giving this award and their leadership needs our prayerful support.”

Indiana Bishop John D’Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend:

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

Arizona Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix:

“I am saddened and heavy of heart about your decision to invite President Obama to speak at Notre Dame University and even to receive an honorary degree,” began Bishop Olmsted.

But the prelate went further, charging that Fr. John Jenkins, the university’s president, has committed “a public act of disobedience to the Bishops of the United States” by inviting Obama to the May 17 Commencement.

These are fighting words. But the Cardinal and the Bishops miss the point. It’s not just life that is the issue here. It is also about fake Catholic Father Pfleger. Allowing Obama to speak at Notre Dame grants this trash credibility:

Cardinal DiNardo needs to reread his statement.

Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a ‘Teacher,’ in this case of the Law. I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

Obama’s more than a teacher of law and of abortion. Friends with Father Pfleger, who Obama called a friend and an advisor, Obama is a teacher of hate.

The 2004 Sun-Times article noted that “friends and advisers” such as Pfleger, “who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep his (moral) compass, he (Obama) says.” Based on Pfleger’s remarks, either he or Obama, or both, have, uh, lost their bearings.

Pfleger has had a working relationship with Obama since the late 1980s. As noted, he was one of Obama’s spiritual mentors. Between 1995 and 2001, Pfleger contributed a total of $1,500 to Obama’s various political campaigns.

Giving Obama a free degree and letting him speak is to accept the hate of Father Pfleger, who mentored Barack Obama. I am sure all those rich white Irish, Italian, Polish and Lithuanian kids from the suburbs of Chicago who work hard to pay money to attend the Catholic college mommy and daddy attended will want to sit and listen to a guy whose mentor said all white people are responsible for slavery and racism. I am sure all those rich white Catholics who will get a job in daddy’s business or with daddy’s friends from the old parish want to hear a man whose mentor said all of them are responsible for white privilege. I don’t think people go to a Notre Dame graduation to be told they are all white people who feel entitled.

That is what Notre Dame wants. Not just God Damn AmeriKKKa but also BLAME WHITEY and HATE WHITEY. Inviting Barack Obama to speak is inviting Father Pfleger and Reverend Wright to Notre Dame. Not a good move.

This is more about life. This is about ignorance and hate. The Cardinals and Bishops need to wrap their heads around that. If they don’t say anything about Obama and Pfleger, we’ll just assume the Cardinals and Bishops and the whole Catholic Church agrees with Pfleger and Obama and the God Damn AmeriKKKa Church both of them went to. That’s not the direction I think Catholics and Notre Dame want to go.

For the record, let me state I will not forgive Michelle Obama for her comments about Hillary during the primary. When asked if she would support Hillary Clinton were she to be the nominee, Michelle said “she’d have to think about it – it would “depend on her policies, her approach, her tone.” Her tone?! Mrs. Obama’s notorious statement that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country was, at the very least, ill-conceived. Finally, her diss to Hillary, the “if you can’t take care of your own house…” statement was likewise shortsighted.

However, it seems Mrs. Obama’s husband is having a little trouble taking care of his own house at the moment…Perhaps the first lady is learning these kinds of thoughts would be better kept to oneself. But this brings me to my point…

No matter how I may feel about Michelle Obama’s past statements or actions, she is not the President and cannot be used as a shield, a distraction or a whipping post for his faulty actions. By that very logic, if she is that all-powerful, she should have run for President, not he.

And if this woman is that strong, obviously, Hillary Clinton, with her experience and incredible smarts must be even stronger. Why is she not president today? Possibly because women are still subjected to this same idiotic double standard and a ‘blame game’ that defies all reason.

The UK article refers to Mrs. Obama’s 1985 Princeton thesis, “Princeton Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” guarded from publication prior to the election, in which she stated:

“I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don’t belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.”

Mr. Delingpole’s theory is that this separate attitude is to blame for her wish for revenge over past British hegemony, and thus, she instructed her husband to deliver a slight to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, although he cites no evidence to that effect. Delingpole states:

At the moment in Britain, we’re still in the “Doesn’t she look fabulous in a designer frock” stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we’ll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive’s wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair.

We may just LURVE Michelle’s fashion sense. But Michelle doesn’t reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman – William Wilberforce – brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.

The article refers to Michelle Obama as Lady Macbeth – the same disrespectful, evil name they coined to describe Hillary Clinton years before. By labeling Michelle Obama with the moniker of the overly-ambitious, evil wife, this article is intimating the Barack Obama is not capable of thinking for himself. So the beat goes on. Blame the wife. Blame the woman. It must be her fault. She is pulling the strings and telling her “weak husband” what to do.

But what does her 1985 thesis have to do with President Obama claiming he is overwhelmed and tired a mere seven weeks after taking office? Or that he cannot be bothered to find a more thoughtful gift than a boxed set of DVDs (in the wrong format) for a man who is going blind? For that matter, what would any of her actions have to do with the fact that Obama made a tax cheat Treasury Secretary, or any of his other missteps?

This is merely a milder version of the same sexist claptrap that Hillary has been subjected to for years. While I am not comparing these two ladies, it is a pattern that must be discussed. Frankly, I am sick and damned tired of this ‘blame the woman’ meme that is so popular here. The British obviously seem to suffer from a good dose of this nonsense as well.

This is not unlike our (awful) Chris Matthews and their (awful) Chris Hitchens, who, when the stink about Rev. Wright was discovered, tried to say that it was due to “Michelle’s influence” that President Obama sat in that church for 20 years.

I will repeat now what I wrote then – If the 47 year old (then) frontrunner for the Dem. nomination, millionaire, successful author, Senator, husband and father of two cannot figure out how to pick up his round behind out of a place he does not belong, regardless of what his wife is doing, then he had no business running to be President.

Whatever Michelle Obama’s thesis said in 1985, she is not the President of the United States. If President Obama cannot figure out the proper protocol or be classy or politically savvy enough to have a team help to figure it out for him, I am not going to blame her for that. He is to blame first and foremost. Surely there is a White House Social Secretary. There are people in charge of protocol instructing the President and First Lady as to the proper treatment of foreign dignitaries. They know better than to get last minute trinkets at the White House gift shop. Yes, Michelle should have known better, too – this was callous and thoughtless in my view. But the bigger responsibility must rest with the President. The buck stops with him – the man with his feet up behind the desk.

Barack Obama does not get a pass on any of his errors in judgment on account of his wife. And if this was a deliberate political slight to the PM, it is coming from Obama and his administration – he must take responsibility for it and bear the consequences, should there be any. And if it was mere carelessness or thoughtlessness, he may pay the price for that, too, down the line.

Again, I am not making a case for the first lady. I am simply pointing out that it is a very familiar pattern to say “oh, he seems nice, but that wife of his!!”

Speaking as a woman with a strong personality, I know all too well what it is like for a husband with an easygoing manner to be the guy doing all the glad handing, while refusing to be the disciplinarian, so guess what – that role falls to the wife by default. She winds up looking like the harridan by comparison. This is all, conscious or unconscious, image management on the part of the man and the woman gets stuck with the dirty work.

Clichéd as it is, how many times have you been at some function over the years and heard a husband describe his wife as “the old ball and chain” or some modern version of the same. It is another nail in the coffin of marital respect. Many men, even those who love their wives dearly, love to play this game. Oh “she’s got me whipped,” I just say “yes, dear.” More poppycock. Little boys trying to make their wives “mommy.” It is a bad habit and just as bad for the wife to engage in it by making their husbands the Peter Pans in the equation. And many do.

We all laugh it off but I wonder, if, at its heart, there is something more dangerous going on here – a need for the man to make less of his need for the woman by somehow dissing her.

Almost a year ago, when the writing was on the wall that the DNC was going to award the nomination to Obama no matter what, I predicted that if they did make it to the White House, the day would come when the press honeymoon would end, and Michelle, outspoken personality that she is, would finally see what it is like to be on the receiving end of some of the treatment Hillary knows all too well. Even if she receives one tenth of that foul treatment, Michelle Obama may yet rue the day she made her earlier statements. Mrs. Obama may yet understand what it means to take care of her own house – ‘cause right now it’s not looking so good.

Some I know who did not vote for Obama, Democrats all, by the way, find her even more hateful than him and miss no opportunity to tell me so. I find his egregious flip-flops, behavior and statements far worse, however. As much as I was avoiding the drooling media covering their every step, I made it my business to watch the Inauguration, their Sixty Minutes interview post-election, and also Mrs. Obama appearing before women in the military to coincide with Women’s History Month. On those occasions, I observed someone self-conscious, uncomfortable in her own person, awkward in the new role she has been given, working very hard to belong. This might be true of anyone in her position. In that Sixty Minutes interview, she was constantly casting sidewise glances at her husband, always checking him, seemingly worried he was going to make a mistake. I can see why. We will see what kind of First Lady she turns out to be – and no, I don’t much care whether or not she goes sleeveless.

But I do care that the President of the United States professed to be not only “ready on day one” but “right on day one” – apparently he is neither ready nor right.

While I may have reason to protest her behavior on certain fronts, I will always be aware to credit or blame her with what is hers, and not pretend that she wields all the power here.

If Michelle Obama winds up on the receiving end of sexist abuse, I wonder if she’ll speak our against the self-same behavior used against both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, being that she was so complicit in it, by virtue of her silence. How many other women out there were complicit in allowing Hillary, the stronger candidate, to be excoriated, yet said nothing in the face of this endless misogyinist assault?

Mr. Delingpole would not be the first person to try to project all the negative traits of the male onto the female. Perhaps the reason he and other sexists like him choose to blame Michelle Obama, and, to a greater degree, Hillary Clinton before her, is more out of fear of a powerful woman than anything else.

This irrational fear or envy, in part, explains why we do not have a woman president as we speak.

Ironic that on Inauguration Day, when President Barack Obama told Americans it was time to take personal responsibility and “grow up” as a country, some of his supporters behaved like spoiled children in booing George W. Bush.

And, sadly, neither Obama nor any leader in the public spotlight that day seized the moment to admonish the boorish behavior.

It would have been nice had Obama had the presence of mind in his inaugural speech to not only allude to scripture in saying it’s time to put away “childish things” but to also have told the boo-birds that their behavior was inappropriate and the embodiment of those “childish things.”

He might have said: “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me? When you boo the former president, you fail to understand what this solemn event is all about — the peaceful transition of power. This is not a football game. Nor is it a Third World bloodless coup. This is American democracy at work. If you can’t respect that, then leave. Now.”

Like I said, why the hell would Obama start now? He hasn’t bothered to say anything to any one of his minions at any point during the entire primary or election season, so why would he speak out for Mr. Bush?

And here is another little problem I have – him saying Obama should have said, “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me?” Um, what? Yes, we should all be happy for The Boy Who Would Be Dictator because this has nothing to do with our actual country. Wowie.

Mr. Frederick’s shock continues:

But no one mustered the courage to say that. While I thought Obama’s speech was otherwise thought-provoking and worthy, he missed an opportunity to call out these boors and chastise their behavior. By not doing so, I am afraid that Obama essentially condoned this kind of mob intolerance. There is already a hateful mean streak among some Obamamaniacs. Left unchecked, it can fester into something quite un-American and un-democratic.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.” And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the “one-finger salute,” thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Where in the HELL Has this man been? Clearly, he cannot distinguish between the mantras of the Obama Party and the REALITY of the Obama Party. How many, many times have we written about this, the cruel, aggressive, demeaning, sexist, even misogynistic behavior of Obama’s followers, and that is just toward Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!! It would seem Mr. Frederick’s blindfold and earplugs served him well if he was unaware of these, um, “shenanigans.” The “one-finger salute? Like the one Obama gave to Clinton detailed in THIS article?

He continues:

Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let’s also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be “jailed.” Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church’s way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

But of course. Target the Mormons, thus the Senate Majority Leader (why does everyone always forget that Harry Reid is a MORMON, and ANTI-Choice? I just don’t get that.) So, yes, Janeane, let us completely deny that even before the election, the NY Times was predicting that it would be OBAMA’S supporters that would vote IN Prop. 8. That, in fact, was the reality. It was the African American community coming out in droves that tipped the scales, as detailed HERE and HERE.

Mr. Frederick does touch on the issue of race, too:

There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright’s racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate — no matter the color of the person who makes them — and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up. (Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Well, that is just laughable – to expect the most juvenile, petulant, arrogant, immature, empty-suit to tell his minions to grow up. HAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, maybe when he does.

Beside that, though, is the convenient amnesia of Mr. Frederick regarding what the Rev. Lowery said at the inauguration (h/t to LisaB), highlighted in Pat Racimora’s article, “A Profound Prayer Until..>Wrong Turn!.” To recap, he said this:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Holy cow. Yeah, I think that qualifies as having a racial component.

But it also begs the question WHY Rev. Wright’s incendiary, separatist comments were not addressed more fully? And why his connection, as well as Louis Farrakhan’s, to Obama was continually glossed over by the majority of those in the MSM? Because they were afraid of being called racists? Or because they knew it would be real trouble for Obama if they actually did their job and exposed the belief system in which Obama was a willing participant? Some of us were paying attention, though. Do a “search at: NoQuarter on Rev. Wright, and you will get page after page after page of articles that at least have some mention of him, if not dealing with him directly (far too many to link to here), beginning with this one in March.

Same goes for the “boorish” behavior of Obama’s supporters. The Palin (and Clinton) t-shirts? The intimidation/bullying at the caucuses? “Iron My Shirt” buffoons? Obama turning away from Clinton without greeting her at the SOTU? Obviously, I could go on and on with examples, all of which have been well documented at NQ and other sites. Which raises this question: where in the hell has this guy been, expecting Obama to change his stripes NOW? Just because it was Bush being booed? Because at no time has Obama acted like a “grown up” when his crowds have gone off on his competition – not once. He has been their role model for boorish behavior from debates to rallies. So for anyone to expect anything different now just because he was sworn in a few times is nothing short of delusional.

So to recap, it is way past time to take off the blindfold and take out the earplugs. The booing? Typical. Comments like Garofalo’s? Typical. Intimidation of dissenters? Typical. (Don’t believe me? Just ask the Justice Department since they are suing the Black Panthers.) Racial division by clergy? Typical.

This is who Obama is. To expect him to challenge behavior in which he himself engages is nuts.

Wow, the memories this story brings back! Do any of the rest of you remember the utterly insane General Tony McPeak who Obama, straight-faced, introduced as his chief military adviser? (Which made us all gasp with genuine fear?)

I wonder where Gen. McPeak is these days? Have any of you seen him anywhere recently? Is he maybe 7,000 miles away under that bus in American-Samoa along with Howard Dean?

[See: "Notable Absence of Howard Dean, January 9, 2009."]

Gen. Tony McPeak, Obama’s top military adviser, was interviewed by a newspaper about the Israeli/Palestinian peace process:

The interviewer asked McPeak: “So where’s the problem? State? White House?”

McPeak replied: “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote — vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.”

Translation (as if it’s needed): Jews — who put Israel over every American interest — control America’s policy on the Middle East. And McPeak has the audacity to accuse Bill Clinton of McCarthyism.

For more on Gen. McPeak, read Larry Johnson’s post, “Senator Obama, Have You No Decency?” [The photo above comes from Saturday's rally in Medford, Oregon. Larry quotes from their speeches at that rally.]

Below, “Obama church published Hamas terror manifesto: Compares charter calling for murder of Jews to Declaration of Independence,” along with the PDF of the actual Obama church bulletin:

More:

Sen. Barack Obama’s Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s Declaration of Independence.

Yet more:

The revelation follows a recent WND article quoting Israeli security officials who expressed “concern” about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.

In his July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Wright reprinted an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, identified in the newsletter as a “deputy of the political bureau of Hamas.” A photo image of the newsletter was captured and posted today by the business blog BizzyBlog. The Hamas piece was first published by the Los Angeles Times, garnering the newspaper much criticism.

According to senior Israeli security officials, Marzook, who resides in Syria alongside Hamas chieftain Khaled Meshaal, is considered the “brains” behind Hamas, designing much of the terror group’s policies and ideology. Israel possesses what it says is a large volume of specific evidence that Marzook has been directly involved in calling for or planning scores of Hamas terrorist offensives, including deadly suicide bombings. He was also accused of attempting to set up a Hamas network in the U.S. …

He tried to set up a Hamas network in the U.S. Yet, Obama’s pastor for 20 years thinks so highly of him that he posts his writings in the CHURCH BULLETIN? I hardly know what to say.

NOTE: I have uploaded the actual church bulletin: tuccbulletin_july22.pdf

The “Pastor’s Page” (Jeremiah Wright’s page) features this: “A FRESH VIEW OF THE PALESTINIAN STRUGGLE,” written by Mousa Abu Marzook.

Richard Cohen’s sister is canceling her inauguration party because of President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to bless Mr. Obama’s taking the office of the Presidency of the United State.

According to her brother’s column in the Washington Post, what made her do this is the way in which Mr. Obama’s choice to pick this pastor for this occasion serves as a special sort of condoning of Mr. Warren’s views about gays and lesbians.

I agree with Richard Cohen, and apparently his sister, that these views should be regarded as totally unacceptable by anybody who has any sense of the importance of civil rights and indeed of human rights. I also agree with Richard Cohen’s view that as a somebody running for the office of President and who was at the time a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama had a particular responsibility for denouncing his then-pastor’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for giving the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a special award during the primary season.

I find it troubling that neither Mr. Cohen nor apparently his sister have not been, as far as I can tell, overly concerned by President-Elect Obama’s equally eloquent silence and inaction regarding the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and her supporters, particularly the sophomoric expression of these attitudes by Jon Favreau, the man writing President-elect Obama’s inaugural address. (I shudder to think what the reaction of the Cohen family would have been if Favreau had been found on YouTube horsing around calling somebody a “homo” – maybe then Richard Cohen’s sister would join us in our demand that the President-Elect fire this sophomoric bigot as his chief speech-writer. Whether a bigot is slick (Warren) or juvenile (Favreau), he is still a bigot.)

It is tempting to forget in this sort of dynamic who the real problem is. As is clear from what I have written so far, I wish Richard Cohen and his sister would be, respectively, writing about and canceling inauguration parties as much over Mr. Obama’s inaction in the face of sexism and misogyny as they are in the face of anti-Semitism and gay-bashing. And yes, I wish that Richard Cohen’s sister had paid attention to and given greater weight to the fact that she had the option to work to elect somebody who, both as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, repeatedly marched in Pride parades and met with editors of gay newspapers across the country rather than working for somebody who would not even have his photograph taken with Gavin Newsome.

But I am not falling into the trap that lies that way. Just because people got it wrong before does not mean they cannot help matters now. People can learn. So despite the bit of complaining above, I am not going to point a finger at Richard Cohen’s sister (or, for that matter, at Katha Pollitt for decrying the misogyny involved in the Warren choice when Pollitt, like Richard Cohen’s sister, opted to support Mr. Obama for the presidency when it was already obvious that he was complacent, to say the least, about sexism and misogyny). I am just pleased that they are starting to pay attention now and apparently coming to understand better who they voted for. To quote Richard Cohen: “The real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”

Aye, there’s the rub. During the primary season and the general election a friend of mine who spent some considerable amount of time listening to me lament the Democratic Party’s poor judgment in making then-Senator Obama their poster-child, kept saying to me that the real problem with Mr. Obama is that he is an “empty suit”.

That term seemed to me too tepid back then. But I have come to see it as the essential problem behind the problem of Mr. Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader, and possibly any kind of leader. To be a moral leader, to stand for something means that you have to fill out your suit, your office, your position. To be an “empty suit” is to be a person who cannot draw a line in the sand, precisely because you do not have an arm and hand within that suit to use to reach out and draw that line. To be an “empty suit” is to be devoid of the weightiness that real leadership requires, including the gravitas to admit to a mistake and change one’s position (drop the bigoted minister and lose the bigoted speechwriter; say you have been wrong to dig in your heels rather than listen to the concerns of so many of the people who worked so hard to elect you). To be an “empty suit” is to be a moral vacuum.

I refused to vote for John McCain for a number of reasons but among them was the fact that while I knew he had the capacity for moral leadership, I did not care for the directions toward which his moral commitments would lead my country. I refused to vote for Barack Obama because I knew he came up empty on the capacity for moral leadership.

In some ways, moral emptiness, especially in a President, is worse than moral wrong-headedness. The morally wrong-headed leader takes a stand, e.g. George W. Bush’s legitimization of torture, and one can rally people against the stand she or he takes. The morally empty leader takes no stand. Under these circumstances, her or his silences often allow people to forget that the blank that exists in lieu of a leader is the appropriate target of criticism. After all, it seems easier to go after people who actually do take stands (Rick Warren, for example) rather than the person who silently enables wrong-headed person to gain in stature. But this is sleight of hand. The real problem is the enabler, the person who allows the sophomoric sexist to put words in his mouth, the person who lets bigoted clerics and their churches affiliate with him.

So, to Richard Cohen’s sister and to Katha Pollitt, I say welcome to my party – the one that got lost in 2008, the one that expected moral leadership of a certain kind from a Democratic president. Now that you are here, I hope you can help me figure out what we are going to do with the empty suit about to occupy the Oval Office. If that empty suit thinks he can pick up sufficient evangelical money and votes in 2012, he is not going to listen to bloggers and op-ed columnists whose votes and followers he thinks he can replace with the support of the evangelicals, regardless of the detestable content of many of their views and some of their conduct. Personally, I do not think we can give the empty suit the sort of backbone necessary to resist the lure of that support. If we cannot give this empty suit some backbone, we need, as I have written before, to start figuring out how we can have a better candidate on offer in 2012. So to the people who are canceling their celebrations, may I suggest that they use the time and effort saved to start solving that problem. We need to coalesce now around somebody who can fight for a nomination by a major Party – probably the the Party formerly recognizable as the Democratic one – who is what Obama’s supporters hoped he would be and what I fear he is not.