April 8, 2008

Couldn’t Help But Comment (040808)

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 6:04 am

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.

Share

18 Comments

  1. If McCain wants to lose, he’ll pick Romney. Problem is his love of doing what conservatives don’t want him to do consequences be damned.

    Doesn’t matter who wins this election… we are so screwed.

    Comment by Rose — April 8, 2008 @ 10:02 am

  2. There was no link between Obama and Khalid Abdul Muhammad, but that didn’t stop you from linking to Muhammad’s outrageous video clip.

    Must Obama now repudiate all scary, black men?

    Comment by Tony B. — April 8, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

  3. #2, he must repudiate the black liberation theology that says, among other things that the “white church” is the Antichrist. If you disagree with that characterization, bring it up with Margaret Tavel of McClatchy. I haven’t seen anyone even try to refute it.

    That and other poisonous beliefs form a large portion of the foundation of TUCC, which Obama insists on continuing to be a member of, even though Rev. Wright’s successor from all appearances intends to change nothing of substance at TUCC.

    As long as Barack Obama doesn’t have the courage/judgment/common sense to disassociate himself from the ugliness of the Rev. Wright (the true extent of which is not yet known, and who indeed appears to have past unrepudiated ties to KAM) and TUCC, he (Obama) has shown that he lacks the courage/judgment/common sense to be president. Period.

    The candidate and the Rev. both knew that their association was problematic, and anticipated the need for Obama to throw Wright overboard at some point (as reported in NYT and elsewhere). I guess since others made hay about it first, he can’t do that without losing street cred. What total BS, and total lack of courage/judgment/common sense.

    And what about the until-recent visibility of the New Black Panthers (founded by KAM, still from all appearances believing most if not all of what KAM believed) on Obama’s web site(s) don’t you understand?

    Comment by TBlumer — April 8, 2008 @ 1:10 pm

  4. Anybody can start a group and post in that section of the Obama site:
    http://my.barackobama.com/page/group

    Unlike Hagee’s endorsement of McCain, any NBP endorsement for Obama was unsought and unwanted, so the post was removed.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08hagee.html?em&ex=1207800000&en=23e5181941c002ac&ei=5087

    Comment by Tony B. — April 8, 2008 @ 3:10 pm

  5. I have an intuition that McCain won’t pick Romney to be his veep. I don’t have a lot to base it on, just kind of a gut feeling I get from observing the primary campaigns. *shrug* like I said, just an intuition. My intuition and 2 dollars will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    Comment by Stephen Goldsworth — April 8, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

  6. #4, and I’m suppposed to believe the richest political campaign on the face of the earth isn’t devoting any resources to monitoring its groups?

    More relevant is what Shelby Steele wrote recently:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html

    The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

    What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn’t thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to “be black” despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn’t this hatred more rhetorical than real?

    But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one’s blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America’s television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

    Objectively. Unfit.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 8, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

  7. Obama is intelligent, honest and a man of peace. If that is unfit to you, then go ahead and vote for Bush’s follow-on. Third terms the charm, they say.

    For the record I don’t believe Jeremiah Wright is a hater. No doubt, he said some stupid things, but haven’t we all? Obama has disavowed the statements and forgiven the man.

    Tom, you still show no link between Muhammad and Obama. Given that fact, your linking to the video comes across as little more than race baiting.

    Comment by Tony B. — April 8, 2008 @ 8:05 pm

  8. #7, re-read Shelby Steele.

    Obama may be intelligent, but he is among the most intellectually dishonest people ever to seek public office. We may ultimately learn that he can outdo the Clintons.

    Otherwise, my comment 3 stands unrefuted. Your “race baiting” ploy is one of the last refuges of someone who has totally run out of arguments.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 8, 2008 @ 8:13 pm

  9. Why did you link to that inflammatory video?

    You acknowledged that the video was “a second- or third-degree-removed thing…” And it might have been, if you had linked Wright to Muhammad, but you didn’t.

    Race-baiting is accurate description.

    Now go pack. And have a safe trip.

    Comment by Tony B. — April 8, 2008 @ 9:53 pm

  10. This blog makes a very large assumption. Not ALL social conservatives agree with you. I for one am a social conservative and I want Romney on the ticket. He is smart, articulate, hard working, knows the economy and supports bills that strengthen the family.

    Comment by tp — April 8, 2008 @ 10:30 pm

  11. #10, social conservative who support Romney either don’t fully comprehend his history, or don’t care to know.

    If you support how he handled Goodridge in Massachusetts, your cred as a social conserviative is highly suspect.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 8, 2008 @ 10:56 pm

  12. #10:
    - Farrakhan – Libya.
    - KAM – Libya.
    - Wright – Libya (22 years after the fact excuse-making – not credible)

    Linked.

    Race-baiting: Desperate, irrelevant argument.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 8, 2008 @ 10:57 pm

  13. “Here’s a related “hmmm” item”

    Muslims Against Sharia have no connection to Ahmed Alzaree, or any other Islamic extremists. The group was created to counteract radicals’ rhetoric and provide the voice for moderate Muslims. MASH connection to Omaha is remote at best.

    Comment by Muslims Against Sharia — April 9, 2008 @ 2:41 am

  14. #13, the question is whether the org is a REACTION to Alzaree’s probable sharia advocacy, or just happened to form in Omaha.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 9, 2008 @ 6:25 am

  15. Race-baiting: Desperate tactic.

    Comment by Tony B. — April 9, 2008 @ 8:11 am

  16. #15, Too bad race-baiting isn’t present. Only linkage. Quit while you’re behind.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 9, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

  17. If you can “link” Obama to Muhammad, please do so.

    I don’t think you can even link Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, to Muhammad. I you could, I don’t think you would have written this:

    “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.”

    It was a garbage post, Tom. And race had everything to do with it.

    Comment by Tony B. — April 9, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

  18. #17, you’re officially wasting my time, and this thread will close.

    I just linked all three in #12, including Wright to KAM. Putting Wright in the same room with KAM at a hatefest would be a bonus, not a necessity.

    Obama is linked to Wright, who is linked to the hate of KAM and Farrakhan. I have said that Obama is way too close to the poison of KAM and Farrakhan. It’s a documented fact that he is way too close to the poison of Wright.

    You keep throwing up race, when it has to do with propagation of, and in Obama’s case, acquiescence to, condoning or, and possible acceptance of hate.

    You know these things, yet keep arguing as if you don’t. You’re being intellectually dishonest to the core, which is why comment on this thread is closed.

    It was a post about garbage, but not a garbage post. You should have quit when you were behind.

    Comment by TBlumer — April 9, 2008 @ 11:07 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.