Obamas Resign Membership from Trinity United Church
Saturday, May 31, 2008 at 07:46PM One word comes to mind with the resignation of the Obama’s from his longtime church Trinity United Church of Christ: INEVITABLE.
Barack Obama and his wife Michelle have resigned their membership at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, after controversies stemming from the congregation created a persistent distraction for Obama’s campaign.
The furor started months ago with the sermons of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. But Obama’s pastor problems were compounded this week by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, whose videotaped guest sermon at the church Sunday showed him taunting Hillary Clinton and saying she felt “entitled” to the presidency because she’s white.
For months Barack Obama tried to make sense of a membership to a church where racist and anti-American sermons were regularly preached. He said Jeremiah Wright was like that crazy uncle every family has, changed what and how much he heard of the sermons, and when it became unavoidable broke ties with Wright. But he said he would not leave his church and it was only the preaching that was tainted. The problem was that he couldn’t explain if it was the preacher and not the congregation why the people in the pews cheered and applauded the sermons. Hmmm.
The new “minister” at Trinity is as bad as Wright. Still the congregation of this church Obama refused to leave continued to roar with applause over the incendiary comments from Wright’s replacement.
Enter, creepy guest speaker at Trinity United (aka, the straw that broke the camel’s back), Fr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina in Chicago, a Word-based, Bible teaching African-American Catholic Church that believes in the power of praise and worship. Here is a portion of Fr. Pfleger’s profanity laced sermon from last week:
This weird Catholic priest should be excommunicated based on his support of abortion alone, but Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, addressed Fr. Pfleger’s sermon:
“Father Pfleger’s tirade would be inexcusable anywhere, but it is even more offensive when it happens in a church. It does not matter that it was not his own, nor does it matter that it happened in a church that has a record of allowing demagogues to exploit it. When churches become forums for political rallies, both religion and the First Amendment are corrupted.
“Obama and Pfleger are no strangers. Indeed, when Obama was in the state senate in Illinois, he conveniently arranged for Father Pfleger’s St. Sabina’s Church to receive state monies for its social programs. Of course, the guardians of church and state separation said nothing then and they are saying nothing now. That’s because they’re all in the tank for Obama. Just as important, why is it that of all the wonderful Catholic priests in the Chicago Archdiocese, Obama long ago chose Pfleger to hang with?
Truth be known, Pfleger has a very troubling history: he has welcomed the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan to preach in his church; he has hired prostitutes to worship there; he has been arrested for defacing billboards; and he once urged the crowd at an anti-gun rally to hunt down a gun store owner ‘like a rat’ and ‘snuff’ him.
“Senator Obama says he wants to bring people together. Then why does he choose as his clerical friends people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger? They are two peas in a pod, both equally divisive, separated only by the color of their skin.”
What made Barack and Michelle Obama officially resign from Trinity United Church of Christ? The answer is obvious: Barack could no longer stand behind the facade that it’s only the preachers (as if that weren’t enough) who were hateful, not the parishoners. Clearly the parishoners are ecstatic over these horrific comments made by all three flame-throwers at Trinity. Note the cheering, whooping and hollering from the people in the pews in the video above.
Trinity United is the gift that keeps on giving to the Republicans. McClellan who??
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1876296
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (33)
I love it when wingnuts like you pretend to be able to read minds, Amy. What card am I thinking of?
Now that Trinity Church is a non-issue, what will you find to write about? I'd suggest you take up some of the real issues facing this country in this election, but I've given up hope of ever reading anything with that kind of depth at your site.
You're thinking of the Ace of Spades.
Trinity is a non-issue only to Obama supporters who want this issue to go away, but to most Americans it matters and matters big. Obama's popularity has taken a hit in the last 2 months because of the problematic nature of his relationship with shady characters, not the least of which are Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Pfleger.
I can garauntee that if this were McCain it would matter!
How do you explain the message embraced by the people of this church and Obama's inability to distinguish between the church's approval of inflammatory statements and the person making the statements (to an accepting, applauding church)?
Obama's pattern of anti-Americanism cannot be explained away.
Supply proof of your claim, please. We already know you have a tendency to make claims that turn out to be utterly mendacious.
Okay,so he divorced his church for his career. Is he going to divorce his wife next? She says the same things that the pastors have said.
Liberals believe that once a person cuts themselves loose from an issue, its over - dead. Yet they continue to drag out issues that republicans have cut loose of. Its a double standard: Do as I say, Not as I do.
Obama did this because the attention to the hate preached was bothering the church - not him.
He has yet to denounce the hate speech from the pulpit.
Maybe because he still believes it?
"Now that Trinity Church is a non-issue, what will you find to write about? I'd suggest you take up some of the real issues facing this country in this election, but I've given up hope of ever reading anything with that kind of depth at your site."
I think we'd all like to 'take up some real issues', but to date Barack Obama has been as elusive as a coyote working his way through the flock, but here’s a couple of tid-bits to chew on:
Occasionally we get to see his substance via his background (like 20 years in trinity). One does become ‘the village idiot’ if one assumes he was not influenced by an individual (Wright) claiming authority from God.
Or how about the fact that Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).
Or how about the fact that though Obama has been extremely critical of the war on terror, and has accused the Military of sending ill-equipped troops to Afghanistan, has made grim statements about current conditions, and though he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs under the US Committee on Foreign Affairs, he has yet to hold one hearing on the goings on in Europe.
Or how about the fact that it has been almost three years (pre surge) since Obama has been to Iraq, and is relying completely on the media for information (or at least relying on the media to feed the nation), yet comments and criticizes with a voice of authority.
Perhaps these are the real issues facing this nation that you’d like to discuss?
Sorry, *US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
I see. Gawfer is one of those poor, incompetent fools who has no idea what Obama's positions on the issues are, nor how to find those positions. We'll leave Gawfer to marinate in its ignorance.
DELETED
Funny how the issues I just cited were ignored by you too... meatbrain. I'm guessing you were one of the 75,000 who showed up for the Obama rally in Portland, Oregon... Oh wait, wasn't that the free concert provided by the Pop Indie group Decemberists? You know, the group that named themselves after that group of Russian officers who sought to overthrow the Russian Government after defeating Napoleon, which resulted in the establishment of the KGB and subsequent Soviet Union?
Meatbrain, it's clear that you are an Obama Love-bot, being motivated by your passion/desire for, uh, emotional stimulus. Try Barry Manilow, dude. At least hasn't showed us any communist tendencies.
Funny how I ignore the babblings of a willfully ignorant jackwad who still doesn't know where to find Obama's positions on the issues -- nor even why it might be important for a citizen to know those positions.
DELETED
What, no Barry Manilow? Barry Obama instead, I see.
Why is it the only issues you are willing to discuss are the issues YOU deem 'actual'?
Could it be because you have no answer to the facts that I previously stated?
OK, since you don’t want to answer the previous issues, let me ask you about a very popular stance of the Obamas. That 'ever changing bar'. You know, the one Michelle took 71 minutes to describe... or describe how bad this country is. And how Barack, the man that reinstated her pride in this country is going to bring change? What and or how is Barack going to influence that ever changing bar? And by the way, what IS that ever changing bar? The freedom to assume entitlement?
Tell us Meatbrain, What draws a moth like you to the Obama light? Could it be the capital gains tax? Could it be his willingness to sit down with Ahmadinejad and Chavez while ignoring Patraeus and Crocker? Inquiring minds want to know.
Gawfer is terrified of any discussion of Obama's positions on the issues. This is because it not only does not know Obama's positions, it does not know how to find Obama's positions. It knows it is ignorant, and it is in ignorance and fear that it lashes out.
DELETED
I guess it is time for a witch hunt. Especially when those damned witches won't shut up. So where's traitors at? Anyone who says they buy anything President Hussein says on religion or faith is an America hating traitor. Sorry, turncoats, but after a Marxist preacher curses America, you either denounce him and his followers, including Obama, or you sand revealed as a traitor who curses America. After 20 years of faithful service, Obama can no more remove his heart from this "church" of Marxists any more than he can remove his middle name or his attendance at wahhabi madrasas as a child.
Barack Obama has been able to distance himself from the preachers of his church while maintaining proud membership. This confused me (not really) because the people in the pews were as enthusiastic at the inflammatory comments as the preachers were/are.
So, in steps a VISITING pastor from a Catholic church whom Barack Obama said, something like, Pfleger was a spiritual guide to him (I'll find the quote) and now Obama steps down? How easy would it have been to say, "Fr. Pfleger is a visitor, not a preacher of United Trinity".
Instead, Obama resigned MEMBERSHIP of the CHURCH. Over a visiting speaker? No, over the wild approval Pfleger's disgusting remarks were met with. No one in America who viewed the video can have any other view but that the PARISHONERS are just as bad as the preaching.
It's clear Obama couldn't stand the controversy any more, but he split with the church, the people in it, over a visiting pastor? Or over the people in it and their approval of those incindiary remarks. Obviously it is the latter.
I'm not. I've been to Obama's site. I've listened to his speeches. I still don't know what his positions are. All I see and hear are a lot of pretty words that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The individual is left to infer whatever meaning one deems relevant to oneself. Believe me, I've discussed this with an avid Obama supporter who has the common decency of being civil in his discussions but in the end, he can't tell me what Obama stands for, either.
All that aside, I'm rather looking forward to an Obama presidency. Sometimes you just have to give people what they're clamoring for before they shut up, listen, and learn.
Conservatives can be patient. We might not like what we have to go through but we can survive just about anything... because we're conservative to our toes, which is not just for a political statement. I doubt many liberals can claim the same. No, they'll be looking for Mommy (government) to kiss it and make it better.
meatbrain comes here and tries to change the subject from Obama's scandals to Obama's positions. Of course, when I write about his positions, meathead says it isn't substantive. Uh, maybe that's Obama's fault!
I've written about Obama's stance on Iraq, abortion, racism, religion, Planned Parenthood, Islam, science, foreign policy, NAFTA, illegal immigration, diplomacy, etc.
Again, maybe meathead is an Obama supporter and that's why he changes the topic at hand, but if anyone is unclear about Obama's positions it may be because Obama is unclear about them himself. I mean, aside from his ability to pimp "hope", I've done a better job explaining his positions on the subjects above than he has.
Finally, meatbrain, I ought to simply delete your comments with the condescending remarks (about me and my spine), but this time I will delete the rude remarks. Next time, however, all content in your comment box will be deleted. You are rude, condescending and your inability to treat a lady like a lady, or have a discussion without the verbal diahrea, is a reproach on your reputation. Oh, but wait; you hide behind a psuedonym.l
False. Obama's positions are readily available, and are clear and unambiguous.
Every "lady" of my acquaintance is capable of making an argument without resorting to mendacity.
Obama's 20 year relationship with his "moral compass and spiritual advisor" the racist and bigoted Rev. wright and the people that stand up and cheer his propaganda is only a distraction for the people who can't find a way to justify it.
There are a lot of democrats who have a big problem with Obama's serious lack in judgment whether it is concerning the 57 states in America he is campaigning in,his willingness to meet with terrorist dictators without preconditions and then lying about past Presidents who he said meet without preconditions (FDR,Reagan),and his being dead wrong in saying that the surge would not work.
This Democratic supporter appears to think there is a lot more to Obama's recent flight from Trinity:
The bad news for Obama could get a lot worse if this post is true:
BREAKING NEWS: Michelle’s Whitey Problem (Thread #2)
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/31/breaking-news-michelle%e2%80%99s-whitey-problem-thread-2/
THREAD #2 || Thread #1 is now closed.
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.
(via instapundit)
Now I know the source is seriously questionable,(Johnson is famous for his NYTimes article just weeks before 9/11 telling the world that Osama does not have the ability for a major terrorist attack in the US),But I am hearing that part of Obama's reasoning for his Judas moves on Trinity is there is a lot more to come.
Has anybody heard more on this?
It is hilarious to watch liberals call the support of racism and bigotry a distraction and then go on and on about
real important issues on McCain like his "age" and his "temper".
I honestly don't see how these people walk straight with their heads spinning so much.
Obama's perception: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#judgment
The Surge: The goal of the surge was to create space for Iraq's political leaders to reach an agreement to end Iraq's civil war. At great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006. Moreover, Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war.
Military Strain: The military is being severely strained by repeated and lengthy deployments. The Army and Marine Corps are facing a crisis as 40 percent of their equipment is either in Iraq or being repaired. This crisis has led many of our generals to conclude that current demands make our forces unable to rapidly respond to the contingencies we may face in the future.
Wrong: http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
Gawfer said:
"...Or how about the fact that it has been almost three years (pre surge) since Obama has been to Iraq, and is relying completely on the media for information (or at least relying on the media to feed the nation), yet comments and criticizes with a voice of authority..."
Dude, he is either wrong or diluted on every issue. Today, we discuss his pals at Trinity and their enthusiasm with Fr. Pfleger’s rant.
He's a man of very little character who has a distorted view of patriotism. One that allows him to forego placing his hand on his heart during the National Anthem and allowing his election office workers in Texas to display a flag with Che Guevara's image... Hey! What do you know; ANOTHER communist innuendo.
And frankly Meatbrain, calling Amy a liar is sub-adult in nature... Grow up.
BECAUSE! GAWFER! SAYS! SO!
But not because it can provide any evidence for its claims.
What does one call someone who deliberately makes false statements?
Little man, did I not provide a link, or was that an inconvenient truth for you to follow? Further, everything I've stated is quite verifiable.
And I've yet to see any intentional errors in Amy's post, yet you come to her site declaring her a liar.
BTW, thank you for your tribute to our fallen. I ride with the Patriot Guard and am a Veteran, so your tribute does mean something.
The link Gawfer supplied -- http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx -- provides no information whatsoever that would support Gawfer's claim that Obama says anything that is "either wrong or diluted" in the quoted statements of his positions. Gawfer seems to believe that providing a random, irrelevant link is a rational tactic. This tells us a great deal about Gawfer.
BECAUSE! GAWFER! SAYS! SO!
Argument by fiat is a standard feature of the wingnut way of thought. Because Gawfer thinks it is right, it must be right. It need not trouble itself with facts.
"False. Obama's positions are readily available, and are clear and unambiguous."
VIDEO:TOP ADVISOR LIES ABOUT OBAMA'S PRE-SURGE POSITION
posted at 6:44 pm on May 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/30/video-top-advisor-lies-shamelessly-about-obamas-pre-surge-position/
Via the Standard, a sweet piece of oppo research. January 2007: You can throw 30,000 troops at the problem and it won’t make a difference. May 2008: No one ever said it wouldn’t make a difference if you threw 30,000 troops at the problem
OBAMA DECLINES TO CRITICIZE ON HAMAS
Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:13pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1117477020080411
By Caren Bohan
INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter if he were to meet with Hamas, although Obama said he would not meet with the militant Palestinian group.
OBAMA SAYS IT IS NOT HIS PLACE TO CRITICIZE CARTER.
SO WHAT DOES HE DO,HE CRITICIZES CARTER:
OBAMA CRITICIZES EX-PRESIDENT CARTER'S HAMAS MEETING
Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:40pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1636948020080416
By Ellen Wulfhorst
"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."
REAL CLEAR DECISION MAKING THERE.
APPARENTLY OBAMA HAS PRECONDITIONS TO MEET WITH HAMAS ,BUT NOT WITH IRAN.
NYT: OBAMA WAFFLING ON DIPLOMATIC POLICIES
posted at 11:15 am on May 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/nyt-obama-waffling-on-diplomatic-policies/
Some reversals are so blatant that they just cannot be ignored. Today, the New York Times deconstructs the attempts by Barack Obama to spin away from his commitment to meet terrorist-sponsoring heads of state “without preconditions”, and finds then unconvincing
APPARENTLY OBAMA IS NOT AWARE THAT IRAN IS ONE OF THE LEAD SPONSORS OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD AND HAS CALLED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL ON A REGULAR BASIS.
OBAMA HAS NO NEED FOR PRECONDITIONS BUT IRAN CERTAINLY DOES:
IRAN SAYS IT'S RIGHT TO ENRICHMENT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
Sat May 31, 2008 6:43am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL3128545120080531
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium, a senior Iranian official said on Saturday, days before major powers submit an upgraded package of incentives to try to coax Tehran into halting the work.
"Suspending enrichment is not negotiable ... Depriving Iran of its right cannot be on offer," Gholamhossein Elham, the government spokesman, told a weekly news conference.
SO OBAMA SAID THAT HE WILL MEET WITH IRAN WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS,ONE OF THE WORLDS LEADING SPONSERS OF TERRORISM AND HAS MADE CLEAR THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL,BUT NOT WITH HAMAS UNLESS THEY MEET PRECONDITIONS,AND IRAN IS SETTING PRECONDITIONS BEFORE THEY WILL MEET.
SO MUCH FOR "CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS"
EVEN DEM0CRATS DISAGREE ON THIS:
Democrats Reject Obama's Foreign Policy?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/democrats_reject_obamas_foreig.asp
The McCain campaign notes that on yesterday's talk shows, three prominent Democrats distanced themselves and their candidate from his call for direct, presidential talks with the leaders of rogue states.
RICHARDSON: YOU DON'T TALK TO AHMADINEJAD
posted at 10:40 am on May 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/21/richardson-you-dont-talk-to-ahmadinejad/
BUT HEY, WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT,OBAMA THINKS IRAN AND N.KOREA ARE ONLY "TINY"
THREATS ANYWAY.
IRAN NOT A "SERIOUS THREAT"
posted at 9:15 am on May 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/iran-not-a-serious-threat/
Barack Obama gave an interesting description of Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and our national interests at an appearance in Oregon last night. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama told a cheering audience, explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.
Obama suggests that Iran isn’t a real threat because they only spend “1/100th” of what we spend on defense. Not only does that make it sound like the US is a much greater threat to world peace, but it ignores the entire issue of asymmetrical warfare. How much does al-Qaeda spend on its attacks? A lot less than Iran, I’d suspect. Does that make AQ a much lower threat? If so, shouldn’t we be bombing Iran in the next five minutes or so?
HOW MUCH DID AFGHANISTAN SPEND ON IT'S MILITARY CAPABILITIES BEFORE 9/11/01,THEY
TURNED OUT TO BE PRETTY DANGEROUS.
OBAMA ABSOLUTELY HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.
OHH!,WAIT,OBAMA HAS CHANGED HIS MIND!!
OBAMA:ACTUALLY IRAN IS A SERIOUS THREAT
posted at 4:09 pm on May 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/obama-actually-iran-is-a-serious-threat/
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said. “The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.”
IRAN IS A THREAT NOW,AND HE HAS BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT ALL ALONG,HOW COULD US DUMB
HICKS THINK OTHERWISE WHEN HE CALLS THEM A "TINY" THREAT.
IF BUSH'S POLICIES ARE TO BLAME,THEN THE UN AND THE EU ARE TO BLAME ALSO BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHO WE ARE WORKING SIDE BY SIDE WITH TO TAKE CARE OF IRAN DIPLOMATICALLY.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS YELLING ABOUT HOW THE WORLDS TERRORIST DICTATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED,AND IT IS FAILING,BUT NOT BECAUSE OF BUSH,BECAUSE TERRORIST DICTATORS CANNOT BE APPEASED.
"Memo to Obama: We have already offered WTO membership, an end to economic sanctions that prevent investment, and full diplomatic relations to Iran in exchange for an end to and a full accounting of their nuclear program. Iran rejected it, and so we have continued with economic and diplomatic pressure. The only difference between Bush and Obama is the notion that Obama would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, which he and his allies now claim he won’t do even while his website says he will."
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/mccain-responds-on-iran/
Y0U WOULD HAVE TO BE THE BIGGEST IDIOT IN THE WORLD TO THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF CLEAR,DECISIVE LEADERSHIP.
"False. Obama's positions are readily available, and are clear and unambiguous."
VIDEO:TOP ADVISOR LIES ABOUT OBAMA'S PRE-SURGE POSITION
posted at 6:44 pm on May 30, 2008 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/30/video-top-advisor-lies-shamelessly-about-obamas-pre-surge-position/
Via the Standard, a sweet piece of oppo research. January 2007: You can throw 30,000 troops at the problem and it won’t make a difference. May 2008: No one ever said it wouldn’t make a difference if you threw 30,000 troops at the problem
OBAMA DECLINES TO CRITICIZE ON HAMAS
Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:13pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1117477020080411
By Caren Bohan
INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday it was not his place to criticize former President Jimmy Carter if he were to meet with Hamas, although Obama said he would not meet with the militant Palestinian group.
OBAMA SAYS IT IS NOT HIS PLACE TO CRITICIZE CARTER.
SO WHAT DOES HE DO,HE CRITICIZES CARTER:
OBAMA CRITICIZES EX-PRESIDENT CARTER'S HAMAS MEETING
Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:40pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1636948020080416
By Ellen Wulfhorst
"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."
REAL CLEAR DECISION MAKING THERE.
APPARENTLY OBAMA HAS PRECONDITIONS TO MEET WITH HAMAS ,BUT NOT WITH IRAN.
NYT: OBAMA WAFFLING ON DIPLOMATIC POLICIES
posted at 11:15 am on May 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/nyt-obama-waffling-on-diplomatic-policies/
Some reversals are so blatant that they just cannot be ignored. Today, the New York Times deconstructs the attempts by Barack Obama to spin away from his commitment to meet terrorist-sponsoring heads of state “without preconditions”, and finds then unconvincing
APPARENTLY OBAMA IS NOT AWARE THAT IRAN IS ONE OF THE LEAD SPONSORS OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD AND HAS CALLED FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL ON A REGULAR BASIS.
OBAMA HAS NO NEED FOR PRECONDITIONS BUT IRAN CERTAINLY DOES:
IRAN SAYS IT'S RIGHT TO ENRICHMENT IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
Sat May 31, 2008 6:43am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL3128545120080531
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran will not give up its right to enrich uranium, a senior Iranian official said on Saturday, days before major powers submit an upgraded package of incentives to try to coax Tehran into halting the work.
"Suspending enrichment is not negotiable ... Depriving Iran of its right cannot be on offer," Gholamhossein Elham, the government spokesman, told a weekly news conference.
SO OBAMA SAID THAT HE WILL MEET WITH IRAN WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS,ONE OF THE WORLDS LEADING SPONSERS OF TERRORISM AND HAS MADE CLEAR THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL,BUT NOT WITH HAMAS UNLESS THEY MEET PRECONDITIONS,AND IRAN IS SETTING PRECONDITIONS BEFORE THEY WILL MEET.
SO MUCH FOR "CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS"
EVEN DEM0CRATS DISAGREE ON THIS:
Democrats Reject Obama's Foreign Policy?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/05/democrats_reject_obamas_foreig.asp
The McCain campaign notes that on yesterday's talk shows, three prominent Democrats distanced themselves and their candidate from his call for direct, presidential talks with the leaders of rogue states.
RICHARDSON: YOU DON'T TALK TO AHMADINEJAD
posted at 10:40 am on May 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/21/richardson-you-dont-talk-to-ahmadinejad/
BUT HEY, WHAT IS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT,OBAMA THINKS IRAN AND N.KOREA ARE ONLY "TINY"
THREATS ANYWAY.
IRAN NOT A "SERIOUS THREAT"
posted at 9:15 am on May 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/iran-not-a-serious-threat/
Barack Obama gave an interesting description of Iran and the threat it poses to the United States and our national interests at an appearance in Oregon last night. “They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama told a cheering audience, explaining why he doesn’t think we need to worry about “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran.
Obama suggests that Iran isn’t a real threat because they only spend “1/100th” of what we spend on defense. Not only does that make it sound like the US is a much greater threat to world peace, but it ignores the entire issue of asymmetrical warfare. How much does al-Qaeda spend on its attacks? A lot less than Iran, I’d suspect. Does that make AQ a much lower threat? If so, shouldn’t we be bombing Iran in the next five minutes or so?
HOW MUCH DID AFGHANISTAN SPEND ON IT'S MILITARY CAPABILITIES BEFORE 9/11/01,THEY
TURNED OUT TO BE PRETTY DANGEROUS.
OBAMA ABSOLUTELY HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.
OHH!,WAIT,OBAMA HAS CHANGED HIS MIND!!
OBAMA:ACTUALLY IRAN IS A SERIOUS THREAT
posted at 4:09 pm on May 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/obama-actually-iran-is-a-serious-threat/
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust,” he said. “The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They’re the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely.”
IRAN IS A THREAT NOW,AND HE HAS BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT ALL ALONG,HOW COULD US DUMB
HICKS THINK OTHERWISE WHEN HE CALLS THEM A "TINY" THREAT.
IF BUSH'S POLICIES ARE TO BLAME,THEN THE UN AND THE EU ARE TO BLAME ALSO BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHO WE ARE WORKING SIDE BY SIDE WITH TO TAKE CARE OF IRAN DIPLOMATICALLY.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT LIBERALS ARE ALWAYS YELLING ABOUT HOW THE WORLDS TERRORIST DICTATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HANDLED,AND IT IS FAILING,BUT NOT BECAUSE OF BUSH,BECAUSE TERRORIST DICTATORS CANNOT BE APPEASED.
"Memo to Obama: We have already offered WTO membership, an end to economic sanctions that prevent investment, and full diplomatic relations to Iran in exchange for an end to and a full accounting of their nuclear program. Iran rejected it, and so we have continued with economic and diplomatic pressure. The only difference between Bush and Obama is the notion that Obama would meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, which he and his allies now claim he won’t do even while his website says he will."
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/mccain-responds-on-iran/
Y0U WOULD HAVE TO BE THE BIGGEST IDIOT IN THE WORLD TO THINK THAT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF CLEAR,DECISIVE LEADERSHIP.
Well, if anything, you know your cars, Fiat was an Italian brand of auto that was quite popular here in the states. The Fiat Spider was very cool. Is Fiat still sold here?
Obama Love-bot: “Those dang facts that wingnuts throw up in every argument are so stupid. Don't they know reality is based on how one feels at any given time?”
Truth, (not Gawfer’s opinion):
Obama said: “…but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006…”
1. http://icasualties.org/oif/
2006 Monthly average of mortal wounds: 2.6
2008 Monthly average of mortal wounds: 1.2
Fact.
2. “…Obama has been extremely critical of the war on terror, and has accused the Military of sending ill-equipped troops to Afghanistan, has made grim statements about current conditions, and though he is the chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs under the US Committee on Foreign Affairs, he has yet to hold one hearing on the goings on in Europe…”
Fact.
3. “…Or how about the fact that Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison)…”
Fact.
4. “…75,000 who showed up for the Obama rally in Portland, Oregon... Oh wait, wasn't that the free concert provided by the Pop Indie group Decemberists? You know, the group that named themselves after that group of Russian officers who sought to overthrow the Russian Government after defeating Napoleon, which resulted in the establishment of the KGB and subsequent Soviet Union?...”
Fact.
These are facts, not because I say they are, but because, well… how does one explain facts to an imbecile?
I’m done.
Gawfer fails to explain why the "monthly average of mortal wounds" is an absolute indicator of the level of violence in Iraq. It picks a statistic at random and pretends it is relevant.
Gawfer claimed that Obama was wrong about the strain being placed on the US military. Now it wants to pretend that it never made that claim.
It certainly is done. It was done before it started.
I’m unsure why, in a thread about Obama cutting membership ties with his very controversial church, it is my or anyone else’s duty to discuss Obama’s other stances on the issues! Turning the channel to something more comfortable, are we?
Gawfer, you’ve joined the ranks of those who rankle meatbrain. When he writes “BECAUSE! (FILL IN THE BLANK)! SAYS! SO!” you know you’ve won. My theory is still that meathead and mudkitty are the same person. His spelling is better than KEvron’s.
Wouldn’t your judgment that I’ve made “deliberately” false statements make YOU a mindreader, meathead? Or just judgmental, take your pick.
Let’s get this conversation back on track. Middle Americans are wise to Obama and have noted his fishy associations with domestic terrorists, racist preachers and a church that loves them both. I’d say that spells TROUBLE for Obama! Bring it on, baby. Can’t wait for the Presidential debates.
I'm pointing out that you cannot discuss his positions, Amy. You are intellectually incapable of doing so. That is why you echo the wingnut chorus of tangential trivia.
That's right, Amy. Keep telling yourself that making assertions for which you can supply no supporting evidence constitutes a "win".
No. You were well aware that there was no "media blackout" of the Petraeus-Odierno hearing, Amy. You chose to lie about it nonetheless.
I indicated I was quite willing to discuss and you completely looked over my post... as if it wasn't there. That could lead one to conclude that your only business here is to throw around insults.
Amy, are you sure this isn't KEVron in another guise? Sure acts like him.
I've already pointed out all the topics I've discussed in depth on this blog about Barack's stances on Iraq, abortion, racism, religion, Planned Parenthood, Islam, science, foreign policy, NAFTA, illegal immigration, diplomacy, etc. Link above. Maybe meatbrain doesn't read other people's comments.
If you want to try to disprove any assertion made in this thread or entry, knock yourself out. Otherwise, it is rather embarrassing that you keep changing the subject of Obama's religious scandals, particularly considering the fact that he claimed to be a uniter. And a hopeful one at that.
Meathead's words are a clanging cymbal in the orchestra of intellect. Distracting and confusing. If he had an actual point to make he would just make it. Instead, it's change the subject and name call. That's so second gradish.
It's painfully obvious that this chuch has stepped far across the line of blending political speech with it's gospel message. Why haven't the feds stepped in and removed its tax expempt status?
Good point, Rutabaga. I recall separation of church and staters talking about yanking tax exempt status from churches that speak out against abortion from the pulpit thinking I guess that abortion is a political and not a moral issue.
Meatbrain is simply stating that instead of continuing with the church issue which is now over... As it would be for any Republican candidate (in their own party's eyes not by the other probably... As in this case ...) Plus the other side and people that still want to blow this issue up, have been saying that this is what he should do. So, he finally does it and you are continuing to slam him. That's really all it is................
Secondly, I agree with him being a true independent as do many here in my state of Missouri. We are sick and tired of these types of points and want to talk about REAL issues. Such as the economy, war, TAXES(does not hold well for Obama in my opinion but that is another story...), etc... To harp on a church for the past month is just ridiculous. If you want to discredit the man, go after his stances on the issues. TAXES, but now that I think about it... Maybe this is the best thing to come up with??
I mean, if you pick them apart, they are almost the same except for taxes and the war of course... I will also state that it is silly how the person you are trusting to be your leader(McCain) said to knock it off and people won't let it go... He knows better than anybody because he has been in the govt. SO LONG. If you pick apart 99% of their backgrounds you will find some dirty laundry... Just like any public/political figure... If you disagree with that I suggest you go spend some up close time with the world of politics...
Last but not least, McCain supporters, his team, whatever better get their act together because if any of you think that this bogus issue is going to work with the American people... You better be ready for President Obama. People are smarter than this and can see right through it... At least if they are not political, have an agenda, or on the verge of being retarded.... He has SO MUCH other stuff you could attack but McCain has a lot of similar views....
Can we say IMMIGRATION??????