Crackpot. Politician. Fool.

On the way home from running errands I was listening to the Michael Medved show on the radio. Medved was talking about Barack Obama's press conference yesterday where the candidate finally denounced his racist, anti-American pastor unequivocally. Like me, Michael Medved was skeptical of Obama's new found disdain for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Like me, Medved wondered how Obama could've sat in Wright's church for twenty years without knowing the man held such radical views. Medved offered three possible reasons for how Obama could've missed his pastor's hateful opinions. I'd like to share those reasons here because, as far as I'm concerned, they're right on the money.

Reason One

The first reason Medved offered for Obama's comfort with Wright is that he shares the man's crackpot worldview and is just hiding it. Obama's left-wing voting record lends credence to this speculation.

Reason Two

The second reason Medved offered for Obama's committment to Rev. Wright and his church is that it was a shrewd political move. Having been raised out of state Obama needed some political street cred to make it in Illinois and Chicago which could then propel him to national success. Joining Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ was the way to get that street cred. Obama knew about Wright's beliefs but calculated that they wouldn't be a problem because the country would never find out about them. He was wrong.

Reason Three

The third reason Medved offered for Obama missing his pastor's radicalism is that he was just too stupid to notice it.

There you have it folks. Crackpot, politician, or fool. The most plausible reasons for how Obama could attend a church for 20 years and not know about the pastor's off the chart radical theology. None of these reasons bode well for the senator from Illinois. Reasons one and three, if true, would end Obama's candidacy immediately. Patriotic and clear thinking Americans of all races won't vote for a racist, America hating radical. They won't vote for a fool, either. Reason two, though, could be the most problematic for Obama because it undermines his campaign's theme of change. If Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church just to advance himself politically then he's no different from virtually every other politician. His strong denounciation of Wright, coming only after his rhetoric began to significantly hurt his campaign, also marks Obama as just another politician willing to do anything to get elected. So much for change.

Personally, I think reasons one and three both explain Obama's closeness with Rev. Wright and TUCC. Political expediency is the main reason but I suspect there was and still is more than a little agreement between Obama and his spiritual mentor. You can't know someone for 20 years and consider him family without being comfortable with his whole persona. Yes you can disagree with your family and friends, but a fundamental disagreement on issuses like race and politics often means people go their separate ways or maintain only a distant relationship. If you overlook your relatives' or friends' beliefs it's probably because you find them to be within the realm of acceptability. I believe Obama found and finds Rev. Wright's beliefs to be within the realm of acceptability, and that's why Obama is NOT in the realm of my acceptability. I, and all of America, deserves better.

Remember The Protest!

Hey friends! I just wanted to remind you about the protest against illegal aliens this weekend, Cinco de Mayo weekend. I can't believe the time is upon us already! Remember, don't eat out from Friday to Sunday to protest restaurants supporting illegal immigration. If we can send a strong enough message to the restaurant industry maybe we can also influence other industries that support illegal immigration. American workers are the backbone of America's economic might yet we're constantly dissed by businesses which think they owe their profits to the cheap illegal labor many employ. This protest is to let restaurants and other businesses know that they owe their profits to Americans buying their products and that if we stop doing that their profits will dwindle no matter how many illegal aliens they use. And we may be getting some unexpected help.

I saw on The Glenn Beck Show a few days ago that some restaurants are starting to hurt from the rising cost of food and fuel. Fewer people are eating out for purely economic reasons; this is forcing restaurants to try things like serving less toast, serving smaller pieces of cake, and charging for formerly free extras like extra packets of ketchup. If this keeps up restaurants will take a hit to their bottom line more painful than one weekend protest can inflict. So even if people aren't avoiding restaurants specifically to protest illegal immigration they're still avoiding them and that could be a very good thing for us.

And here's another idea to register your disgust with illegal immigration and our government's failure to do anything about it. Cinco de Mayo is on a Monday this year. If you have children send them to school in patriotic clothes. Deck them out in the stars and stripes. Make it known that you believe in American nationalism, not Mexican nationalism in America. A couple of weeks ago, in the wake of the Absolut ad showing the southwest as part of Mexico again, it was revealed that nearly 60% of Mexican nationals believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico and that they are entitled to go there illegally. For them the border doesn't exist. But it does exist for me and for you. And we need to let the powers that be know that.

Patriotic Americans must get over our fear of defending our nation. We must get over our fear of being called racist, xenophobic, and/or fascist. Defending our country's sovereignty is none of that. Boycotting restaurants for one weekend and upholding American nationalism over Mexican nationalism is our declaration that America and her borders, language, and culture are worth defending and preserving. This is OUR country; come this weekend we need to act like it.

Theme For Our Soldiers

Here's a very sweet tribute to our brave and decent fighting men in Iraq. The photo at the end will make you cry.

I Wanna Be Oppressed Like This!

Take a look at this house. It's a $1.6 million dollar, 10,000 square foot minimansion being built in a ritzy Chicago suburb. Dig that entry way! And it's got a cool $10 million dollar line of credit attached to it. Oh, and did I tell you it belongs to Jeremiah Wright? Yes, THAT Jeremiah Wright.

It seems that Obama's former pastor is as big a hypocrite as Jimmy Swaggart. While preaching Black liberation theology and denouncing "middle classism", the dear reverend is quite happy to retire to a tony house in an overwhelmingly White gated community. I guess he couldn't find a Black neighborhood good enough for him. Apparently, it's ok to live with rich White people so long as you trash them in your sermons, thereby showing that your heart is still with the homies in da 'hood.

Ok, I'll be fair to Rev. Wright. This house isn't technically his; it's being built for him by his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. But still, this is the man whose "gospel" is that America is irredeemably racist and Blacks suffer great oppression here. Indeed, all Black folk's problems are the fault of Whites. Rev. Wright preaches this belief in spite of the glaring fact that his own life contradicts it. But why let a little thing like truth get in the way of the lucrative trade of race hustling? Obama's pastor will enjoy every inch of his home's 10,000 square feet. He'll enjoy every stroke on the golf course with his new, pale neighbors. And I'm sure he'll enjoy that $10 million dollar line of credit. Ahhhhh! Oppression never felt so good!

A Tribute To Our Troops

Here's a moving tribute to our fighting men and women from Kendra, who blogs at A Superhero, Princess & Monkey. Her words echo perfectly what's in my heart for our troops. I'm sure they echo what's in your hearts, too. Thank you, Kendra, for your "thank you" to our brave forces and for letting me post it on my blog.

Thank You

Since we just marked five years in Iraq I thought it would be appropriate to address the American Soldier.

To the Soldier:

Whatever reason inspired you to serve our country I just want to say, "Thank you". Thank you for being brave, for voluteering to serve our country. Thank you to your family whose sacrifices are what make it possibe for you to serve. Thank you for cherishing freedom and protecting me and those I love.

I can not begin to imagine what it must be like to be away from your family and friends, or what life must be like when you leave all that you know and love behind. I do not know you personally but I admire you for what you do and I am so very thankful.

To the family whose child did not return home, my heart breaks for you and I am forever grateful for the sacrifice you made. I will not forget them or you. To the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children who serve our country, I can not imagine what it must be like to be apart from those you hold so dear to your heart. Please return home safely.

I salute you and I thank you.

The Dems (Try To) Get God

Ok, I admit it. I didn't watch Clinton's and Obama's little town meeting on faith that aired tonight on CNN. I know. It would've made a great post, but I just couldn't bring myself to sit through it. I couldn't bring myself to endure what I suspected would be a blatantly obvious political ploy to win over religiously conservative voters, a ploy Dems have been using for a while now.

Dems have been trying hard to get religion ever since they lost the presidential election in 2004. Before then, the Democratic party had been staunchly secular. It was the party of choice for most unchurched voters, polls showed, as it supported a host of liberal causes rooted in a rejection of traditional, Judeo-Christian values. The defeat in '04, attributed to the overwhelming support "values voters" gave Republicans, forced the Dems to rediscover their collective soul. God became acceptable to them again...to a point.

While wanting to make inroads into the (conservative) faith community Democrats, especially liberal ones, didn't want to get too touchy feely with the divine. Rather than actually changing their fundamentally secular worldview Dems sought to convince the faithful that it was compatible with their God-centered one. And to a large extent they've succeeded. In the '06 midterm elections the Democrats received a larger than expected share of the White, evangelical vote and they stand to do the same in '08. The trick has been to get people of faith to "broaden" their concern from their usual hot button issues, i.e. abortion or gay marriage, to include such things as protecting the environment and caring for the poor.

I find this strategy insulting. It assumes that religious conservatives were backward, one dimensional voters until shown the way by enlightened liberals. Of course, this is garbage. Conservative people of faith have been concerned about a wide range of issues, especially helping the poor, for many years; they just haven't been inclined to view government as the solution. That's why the issues they actually voted on were rather narrowly defined. It had nothing to do with being narrow minded, ignorant, or uncaring. Religious conservatives don't need to be "enlightened" by anyone.

Still, the Dems' success in convincing a portion of the conservative faithful to rethink their political allegiance can't be denied, and tonight's forum is an attempt to solidify those gains. Will it work? Will Hillary and Obama be successful? I'm not sure. As disappointed and even disillusioned many people of faith are with the Republicans they also know that the Democrats haven't exactly been their friends. Hillary and Obama will have to walk a fine line trying to woo a lot of still skeptical "values voters" while reassuring their secular base they haven't gotten too cozy with the faithful. Watching the Dems trying to stay on that tightrope during the entire election season is going to be very funny.

Abortion Does NOT Protect Women's Rights

I got to hear John McCain's appearance on The View today. While asking McCain a question Joy Behar, one of the show's liberal hosts, said something that ruffled my feathers. She claimed that overturning Roe v. Wade, which McCain apparently wants to do, would take away women's rights. As a pro-life person nothing makes me madder than this enormous falsehood that legalized abortion promotes/protects women's rights. It doesn't.

First of all, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it would NOT mean the end of legal abortion. It would only mean that abortion would become a state issue, decided by the states as they see fit. Considering that legal abortion has been the norm for over a generation I seriously doubt if any state would outlaw it entirely. I do see at least some states putting more severe restrictions on the practice, though.

But even if abortion was outlawed in all fifty states it wouldn't mean the end of women's rights. The idea that it would is one of the pro-choice movement's most successful weapons against pro-lifers. When we march against Roe or against abortion in general we are routinely, even hysterically, accused of marching against women's rights. The fact that women are the backbone of the pro-life movement doesn't deter the accusation. But women's rights are bigger than abortion nonetheless. The accusation is false, and I'll tell you why.

The simple truth is that abortion has been legal in times and places where the rights of women were few or nonexistent. In colonial America, for instance, abortion was legal so long as it was performed before "quickening", the time when the mother could feel her baby move. The practice was common but this didn't translate into a high legal or social status for women. Society defined marriage and motherhood as their primary roles in life (anathema to feminists). They were not educated as much as men, if at all, and when married became legal dependents of their husbands. They had no legal right to their own children who went to the father in the event of a divorce. Clearly, the rights of women in colonial America left much to be desired in spite of legal abortion. And the same is true elsewhere in the world.

The Japanese legalized abortion in 1948, a full 25 years before it was legalized in America. Few feminists, however, would consider post-war Japan a hotbed of women's liberation. The same is true of India, which legalized prenatal infanticide one year after the US did. Far from protecting women, legal abortion is used to eliminate them. As many as 50 million females are reported to be missing from India's population, a holocaust due almost entirely to abortion. Rather than going through pregnancy only to end up with a worthless girl, many Indian women use ultrasound to find out their babies' sex and then abort their daughters.

A similar situation arose in China after that country instituted it's one-child policy. The practice got so bad that the Chinese government was forced to amend the policy and allow parents whose first child was a daughter to legally try for another one, hopefully a boy. But this only created another problem. Chinese women who wanted two children began aborting their male babies because the birth of a daughter ensured them the right to have another child. At first glance the abortion of boys in favor of girls seems like a pro-female act, but it's not. The reason Chinese women whose first child is female are allowed to try for another one is because sons are considered vital to the family whereas daughters are not. If the first child is a boy there's no reason to try for another one. Abortion fails to protect women again.

There are other examples I could site but I think you get the picture. Legal abortion does NOTHING to protect, enhance, or promote women's rights. Things such as the right to vote, own land, get custody of children, enter the professions, or go to school are not dependent on the "right" to abortion. The early American feminists were committed to suffrage, not abortion. Many of them, including Susan B. Anthony, were staunchly against the practice. Indeed, they saw the outlawing of abortion, which began in America in the mid 19th century, as progressive reform.

We pro-lifers, then, shouldn't be intimidated by the charge that we're against women's rights. It's a baseless accusation which reveals the ignorance of those who make it. Rather, we should hold our heads up high and continue in the long and proud tradition of fighting for the weakest among us, no matter what Joy Behar says.

Time To Protest!

In a previous post I wrote about how we conservatives seldom act en masse in support of any of our causes except opposing abortion. We complain loudly about the gun grabbers, the America haters and the illegal aliens but we do nothing about them. It pains me to say this, but it seems that we conservatives, while talking tough, have little stomach for even the mildest sacrificial action. Well, I hope to change that, at least a little bit. For the last two years I've an idea for a protest against illegal immigration, but I wasn't sure it would work. I'm still not sure, but if enough people join in it just might. What's this protest, or collective action, that I have in mind?

I propose that on the first weekend in May, Cinco de Mayo weekend, all patriotic Americans should "boycott" every restaurant in this country. Why do that? To send a message to businesses, which usually support illegal immigration, that their profits don't come from the illegal labor they employ but from the American worker/consumer buying their products. Nothing angers me more than hearing some libtard politician, activist, or economist claiming that illegal aliens are the backbone of America's economy. An anti-illegal immigration bill was recently defeated in Idaho because of economic fears.

Whenever I hear talk like that I feel personally insulted, as should you. Illegals make up barely 5% of the American workforce; the other 95% is made up of you and me. WE are the backbone of this nation's economic might. WE are the engine pulling this nation's economic train. Yet our contribution, our sweat and effort, is callously ignored by businesses--and politicians and activists--more concerned with profits and image than truth. If you listen to their propaganda you'd swear that illegal aliens are the only people in America who work. Well, if they're going to ignore our labor I say we ignore their cash registers.

Many industries choose to rely heavily on illegal labor but the restaurant industry is one of the most visible and easily targeted. Everyone knows where restaurants are and who's working there. In many eateries the illegal labor is blatanly obvious. If we, the totally dissed American worker/consumer, stop spending our money on them their income will come to a screeching halt. Facing a whole weekend of empty tables and dimished receipts will force restaurants and other businesses to realize just who's buttering their bread. Hopefully, that will translate to a very different stance on the illegal immigration problem.

Participating in this collective action won't be hard. All you'll have to do is not eat out for three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). If you think this'll be a problem for you start planning for it now. For instance, cook up and freeze some extra food now so you'll have "fast" food then. If you've scheduled little Johnny's birthday party at McDonalds for that weekend cancel it. Get creative and whip up an awesome party for him at home. Not only will this probably save you some money but Johnny will get a great lesson in the need to sacrifice for what you believe in.

It's not enough to whine and complain about illegal immigration. We have to DO something about it. We have to put our money where our mouths are. This "boycott" is a simple thing but it could have a big effect if enough people do it. I'm writing this post to get the word out to my friends in the blogosphere. Hopefully, you will then spread the word to your friends, who'll spread the word to their friends, till it's gone around the country. Those of you who are members of forums and/or Yahoo! groups can get the word out there, too. I've already done that. But however we spread the word it must be spread. This won't work unless we all work together. Are you with me?