Gregg Jackson at Pundit Review quotes a contrite Paul Weyrich saying that endorsing Mitt Romney was biggest mistake of his life.
In other words, Weyrich (finally!) understands why Mitt is Objectively Unfit.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Hugh “Objectively — Great, Great Day” Hewitt. You too, Laura “He’s a conservative’s conservative” (blech) Ingraham. You’re not off the hook either, Sean “Softball” Hannity.
This “should” mean that social conservatives won’t get fooled again by any future Romney run. Please let it be so.
Jackson and Weyrich are among those “who signed a letter to John McCain regarding his VP selection that appeared” last week in an Arizona newspaper with timing that coincided with a McCain campaign appearance nearby. The message (PDF image of ad is at link): Don’t you dare pick Romney — “An open letter to John McCain: NO Mitt.”
Whether McCain will heed the call is entirely another matter. Never underestimate the ability of a Republican to commit a monumental blunder.
Note to Bill Keane: I knew about this, but was most certainly not behind it. People with a lot more influence than me were (note to peanut gallery: Please resist the too-easy snark).
Related: This, from Allah at Hot Air, absolutely floored me — “After 18 months of Romney running for president, suddenly these guys have a problem with his record?”
Suddenly my a**, Allah. Also, quite a few Michelle Malkin and Hot Air commenters made you and MM quite aware of what Mass Resistance and others had been trying to get out about Romney, at least as far back as early December.
Update, 2 PM: An e-mailer tipped me to Rush criticizing Commonwealth Care and tracing it to Romney yesterday on his program (Story #4 in the Stack of Stuff) — “As you know, universal medical coverage, universal health coverage is the law in Massachusetts. And, as is the case, with practically every liberal do-gooder idea, and I know Mitt Romney did this, but this is what happens when you accept the premise of the left.” Bingo, El Rushbo.
_______________________________________
The people who don’t like me calling the sole remaining viable male Democratic candidate BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi†Obama) aren’t going to like these two things very much. Oh well.
But in the interest of, y’know, puttin’ it out there, here goes.
First, Reuven Koret at Israel Insider, which appears to be a mainstream publication, asked this question almost two weeks ago (i.e., I didn’t) — “Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?” Koret notes not-minor discrepancies between the Obama campaign’s denials and the historical record.
This second item is (I hope) a second- or third-degree-removed thing, but somehow I doubt that it is irrelevant.
(Warning: The video you will see if you follow the link contains large doses of profanity and extremely disturbing language. Again, this isn’t my work, but there’s no reason to think it’s not legit.)
Now that you’ve been warned; here’s the link to “Khalid Abdul Muhammad Speaks on the Devil.” Just when you think it can’t get worse, it does.
The close association between the beyond-redemption (barring a last-minute reconciliation with our Maker) hateful Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan appears to be a matter of historical fact, as does the close association between Farrakhan and the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) in Chicago, which gave Farrakhan an award because he has supposedly “truly epitomized greatness.” Muhammad founded the New Black Panther Party (Wiki says that “Muhammad is still venerated by members of the New Black Panther Party and seen as the de facto father of the movement”). Incredibly, the New Black Panthers had some degree of visibility on Obama’s campaign web site(s) until several weeks ago.
According to Wiki, “Muhammad is still venerated by members of the New Black Panther Party and seen as the de facto father of the movement.”
Muhammad also “accompanied Farrakhan on fund-raising trips to Libya.” So did the Rev. Wright on at least one occasion, “which was then illegal under U.S. law.”
I would guess that there’s more than a slight chance that someone can place the Rev. Wright in attendance at one of Muhammad’s hatefests — perhaps even after Barack Obama joined TUCC.
I’m sorry, but because of Wright, and Obama’s steadfast refusal to repudiate him and TUCC, the candidate is wayyyy too close to the Muhammad-Farrakhan poison for comfort.
I’ve waited for a month for something, anything to come from Barack Obama’s mouth, or his campaign, that might enable me to avoid what is now an inescapable (but not necessarily immutable) conclusion. The odds that it’s coming are ridiculously long, and as much as it doesn’t seem possible, the news about Wright’s and Obama’s associations could actually get even worse.
A person who without the judgment to run away from this garbage (and the breathtaking financial hypocrisy; Farrakhan’s too) as fast as he (and his family!) can, but instead hangs around for 20 years (just stop it already with the plausible deniability arguments), is …… (here we go) …… objectively unfit for the nation’s highest office and all that holding it entails.
I’m not saying that this “objective unfit” evaluation can’t be turned around, but I’m at a loss to see how Obama can make it happen, or to imagine that he has the will to do so.
Update: Infidels Are Cool (HT LGF) thinks this is news, and I guess to the general populace he’s probably right. It’s from the same New Republic piece I referred to when noting that when Obama was seen taking notes during a Wright sermon, he was likely doing so in the appropriate area of the church bulletins — the ones he said he never read.
IAC’s “news” is that, according to that New Republic article, Wright is a former Nation of Islam-style Muslim.
Update 2, 6 PM: Debbie Schlussel, from January 30 — “Obama’s Nation of Islam Staffers.” And more.
_______________________________________
Here’s an interesting item noted (and verified) at Jihad Watch that Patrick Poole brought to my attention via e-mail:
….. I am a law student at the University of Cincinnati. Last Thursday our school hosted a Sharia apologist from Saudi Arabia, Dr. Abdulkareem Hamad A. Alsaiygh. He’s Dean at the Center for Contemporary Islamic Studies and Dialogue among Civilizations, Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University.
The purported goal of his visit was to dispel myths that the West has about Islam and Sharia Law. Because of your written work and this website, a group of us were prepared to ask questions that cut through the typical obfuscating rhetoric of this Sharia apologist.
Among other things, our questions forced Dr. Alsaiygh to admit the following:
1. That apostasy is rightly punishable by death under Islamic law and the law of Saudi Arabia.
2. That there will never be a Christian church in Saudi Arabia.
3. That a Christian church is considered a national security risk to Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states.
4. That stoning is appropriate punishment for adultery.
5. That most women raped in Saudi Arabia deserve some punishment for “putting themselves in that situation.”
6. That “interfaith dialogue” could never include polytheistic religions.
7. That Christian evangelism in Saudi Arabia is a subversive act comparable to planning a terrorist attack in the US.
8. And that all these were “moderate” Islamic positions.
That’s a nice 8-point list to recall the next time you hear a “sharia’s no big deal” argument.
Here’s a related “hmmm” item: The web site of Muslims Against Sharia (MAS) has an Omaha address. Omaha was the last outpost of Ahmed Alzaree before he accepted, and then turned down, an appointment to be imam at the Islamic Center of Cleveland (blaming his fate on “bloggers” who exposed his “kill the Jews” end-times sermonizing).
Assuming MAS is legit, which one never knows, was its formation partially a reaction to possible sharia-based preaching by Alzaree at his Omaha mosque? Cleveland may be even luckier than originally thought that Alzaree backed out.
