The DaleyGator

Obama-Racist or Moral Coward?

Big speech in Philadelphia for Barack Obama today (March 18). Big for what it could mean for his presidential hopes, which had been going very well, until his pastor‘s rants tripped him up. Perhaps even for race relations in America, if Obama himself is to be believed, which, given his recent battles with honesty, might be a stretch.

For those who are not aware of why Barack Obama felt compelled to give a major speech on race in America, a quick review. Obama and his family are members of a Black church in Chicago. The Trinity United Church of Christ has a few problems with its long-time, recently retired pastor, Jeremiah Wright. It seems that Reverend Wright is quick to throw around wild accusations and racist sermons. Among his more infamous rants, include his accusing the United States of sponsoring terrorism around the world, and of giving drugs to Black Americans, and of lying about Pearl Harbor. He continually denigrates the USA for being a racist country, built on racism, calling America “The United States of KKKAmerica”! He has been caught bashing White people on video numerous times as well. His most despicable rant might have been the time he said America deserved 9-11. In this demented racist’s mind, we are no different from al Qaeda, and 9-11 was simply our chickens coming home to roost.

Perhaps more frightening than the consistently racist, bitter, and anti-American rhetoric spewing from Rev. Wright’s mouth are the responses the videos of his sermon’s show from church members. Hooping, hollering, raucous applause, and cheers follow his hate-filled rants. Particularly appealing to his flock was Wright’s claim that God should not bless America, but damn America for its “racism“. Its members, those that have been interviewed have tried to excuse Wright and his comments, “It is just being Black in America” said one church member on an ABC News video clip. Another just said Wright was just telling the truth in his sermons.

Therein lies the REAL problem with Barack Obama’s membership in this church. It is not so much that one church member says these things, but the long-time reverend says them. Worse yet, the members seem not only to tolerate the bigotry; they seem to revel in it! Therefore, the question, or at least the most pressing question for Obama is why he is a member of such a church. I mean, why would a man who has said he wants to be president of not Black America or White America, but all of America tolerate such teaching?

Obama, in his speech, offered up this “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”

Hmmm, condemnation does not seem to fit the bill here does it? After all, Obama has lied about being present when the radical Reverend Wright went on his tirades. Further, if Obama is so offended, why did he not walk out of that church the first time he heard Wright’s racist sermons and the exuberant support for them among the parishioners? Honestly, folks, would you stay in that church? Would you allow THAT preacher to not only marry you and your wife, but also baptize your kids? Would you, as a parent allow your children to be victimized by that racist environment? I cannot imagine too many of us sitting still while our church honored David Duke or some other White supremist. Yet Barack’s pastor honored Louis Farrakhan last year. Where was Obama’s outrage then? He certainly showed far more outrage at Don Imus over his remarks, which funny or not, WERE intended as a joke, about the Rutgers basketball team.

Obama offered up excuses for not leaving the church, and for not repudiating Reverend Wright in his speech today. Both, he said have done many good deeds and should not be reduced to sound bites. Hmmm, let me go back to Obama’s stance on Don Imus and his remarks for a second. Imus has done a great deal, and raised millions for charities, including ones that specifically help Black children. I guess Obama did not consider Imus’s good deeds when he condemned him.

Yet Obama excused his hateful pastor and his church that cheers the hatefulness. “The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS“.

Obama, continued, doing his best to sugar coat the church, its former pastor and his involvement with it. “Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes-bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. 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. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.”

Ah, we see Barack, those people, and their bitterness, and your pastor’s racist heart, and his anti-Americanism, and your fellow parishioners roaring approval of it, are part of you. I am not sure what you were trying to tell us today Barack, but I think we got the message loud and clear. Either you secretly approve of the hate at your church, or you are too much a damned coward to really stand against it. Either way, it speaks no good of you sir!

Armed Americans in Our National Parks? You BET!!

There is a storm brewing in America. The storm is over controversial issues, gun rights, and gun control. This saga will play out in the next weeks, or months, or a year, who knows. At issue is whether American citizens ought to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights by carrying their firearms in America’s national parks.

Now of course, this is a hot button issue, and it has so far been filled with the same anti-gun rhetoric proponents of self-defense and the Second Amendment have heard for decades now.

The original effort to allow Americans to exercise their God-given, constitutionally protected rights began with a proposed bill by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The bill would allow the application of state laws concerning the carrying of firearms to citizens visiting national parks. Seems like common sense doesn’t it? Why should a law-abiding citizen be expected to cede their rights to protect themselves in a national park? Frankly, the answer is very simple. They should not.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced his desire for a review and possible overhaul of federal regulations of carrying firearms in national parks. The National Rifle Association, to their credit, supports Coburn’s legislation, and I would argue that all Americans who see the benefit of concealed carry laws and the ultimate right of self-defense would also be supportive of this change. Americans ought never be asked, or forced to choose between being able to defend themselves and breaking laws that only benefit those intent on committing evil acts.

Ah, but, my friends, the Liberals who neither respect the Constitution nor subscribe to common sense, are, pardon the pun, up in arms over this! Yes, they are in the process of pulling out every tired, false prediction of death and doom if Americans are allowed their rightful liberties. You have heard the rhetoric before, surely you have. There will be blood in the parks, danger at every turn, wildlife will be butchered, and disputes over campsites will turn bloody, and so on. These are the same types of inane arguments used in every state that now rightly allows law-abiding Americans to carry firearms under concealed carry laws

These arguments have proven to be wrong time and time again. States that do allow concealed carry, and that is 34 states as of 2008, have NOT seen increased violence, or Wild West shootouts or the predicted “blood in the streets”. Instead, those states have consistently shown that these laws usually decrease violent crimes. The reason for this is very simple really. Criminals do not respect laws. Surely the asinine notion that creating “gun-free zones” will make us safer has been disproved with the various school shootings.

The evil people who committed these murderous acts did not see a deterrent in gun free zones. Instead, they saw easy prey. Folks, the bad guys are not hindered by feel-good, intellectually bankrupt ideals. They are, instead aided by them. The fact is the law-abiding are victimized more easily by those who do not obey laws when the law strips away the sacred right of self-defense. The Founding Fathers knew this, and any person who thinks, rather than feels about this issue knows it as well.

The fact proven by concealed carry laws is this. These laws make all of us safer, not less safe. Those opposed to this proposed legislation can whine about keeping our national parks “family-friendly” sanctuaries all day long. The fact is the presence of firearms in the hands of concealed carry permit holders does not threaten families, rather, evidence shows it PROTECTS families. The left can throw all their false stats and their emotionalistic talking points around all they want.

They can, and do with regularity, argue that very few gun owners use their guns to stop crimes. That is false and they damned well know it! They gladly quote stats showing that most gun deaths are not attributed to cases of self-defense. OK, but they exclude the fact that well over 90% of defensive gun uses do not involve the law-abiding citizen shooting anyone. Simply brandishing the weapon ends the threat. No one dies; no trigger-happy gun nut goes on a killing spree. Instead, a prepared and armed American defends themselves, or their loved ones or property, not by shooting the bad guy, but rather by showing that they are not a helpless victim. Predatory criminals, like all predators, prefer easy targets.

I speak not just from statistics or news stories on this. In 1998, as I left the restaurant I managed in downtown Dallas, I was confronted by an armed robber. There was no police, no touchy-feely gun control advocate; there was just the bad guy and me in a very dark alley. If not for my being armed with a Colt .45 I would have been robbed, and who knows what else? However, because I was armed and prepared, it was the bad guy, the criminal, that was forced to choose between retreating, which he did, and being harmed.

I can also speak from the perspective of a person who has hiked many miles in national parks. I have never been threatened, or harmed, but I have come across some individuals that made me uncomfortable. Perhaps, I had nothing to fear from these few individuals. Perhaps, my considerable size, and confident, prepared style prevented them from trying anything. However, what if I was a woman, hiking alone? What IF I was obeying the laws and was not armed? What IF one of those people who made me uneasy WAS a predator? Tell me, do you really think THEY would not try to harm me? Do you really think a law would stop them? No, indeed not. However, an armed woman, hiking alone? That would be much more likely to stop them.

The election of 2008 has been a frustrating one for Conservatives. This column represents my displeasure at being asked, ONCE AGAIN, to hold my nose and vote for the “lesser of two evils” by the GOP!

McCain? McCain? Are you kidding me? 2-7-08

OH BOY! Am I dreaming, or is John McCain going to be the GOP nominee for president? Please tell me I am dreaming and wake me up, please! Senator McAmnesty? Senator Gang of 14? Senator Tax Cuts for the Rich? How did this befall Conservatives in 2008? After the 2006 elections we Conservatives made it clear we were tired of being shortchanged by the GOP didn’t we. Tired of sellouts, RINO’s, and moderates. Surely, we would get a great candidate in 2008 wouldn’t we? Surely, we would not allow the next nominee to be one of the most glaring examples of our frustration with the GOP. Surely, we would not be stuck, yet again, with holding our noses while voting yet, here we are.So, how did this happen my friends? How is it that the two least Conservative candidates are still running while two candidates that are more conservative and one other less-than-Conservative flamed out? Well there is plenty of blame to pass around. First, there is the process we have allowed to be foisted upon us. This current media-driven way of choosing a nominee stinks frankly. It is not about ideals, issues, principles and it damn sure is not about substance.

Instead, it is about 30-second answers, quips in debates, and reducing candidates to raising their hands to questions as if they are third-graders! It is all about style, a popularity contest if you will. Consider the success of Barak Obama for example. He gives eloquent speeches, filled with talk of change, change, and more change. Of course, he is completely devoid of anything even remotely resembling plans for how to implement his changes. Ah, but the media loves this stuff, and they just fawn over Obama.

The media’s obsession with style does not fully explain the GOP situation though; there are other factors, some of them the fault of no one but failed campaigns. Rudy Giuliani, for example, saw his strategy to ignore the early primary states destroy his candidacy. Sure, he led big in Florida, California, New York, and other key states early, but other candidates, won Iowa, and New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and Giuliani, was forgotten frankly. His leads in later states evaporated, and he was doomed.

Then there is the Mike Huckabee factor to weigh. Huckabee was a non-factor early, but his strategy of courting Evangelicals by promising to do everything they wanted to hear sapped support from Fred Thompson early. One of the keys to Fred’s failure was Huckabee’s surge, which, the media, who despised Thompson, and did all it could to destroy him, made sure was front and center. Later, in Florida and especially on Super Tuesday, Huckabee really damaged Romneyy’s chances. Huckabee, who should have dropped out after Florida, and Romney split Conservative voters while McCain, who bombed among Conservative voters, cleaned up on moderates and independents. In my estimation, Huckabee is, and has been playing for a VP slot on the ticket, he knew he could not win, but he also knew he could derail Romney.

The third factor to weigh is the media’s coverage of the campaigns. The media did its level best to eliminate Thompson, and they were successful. They built Fred up to standards he could never attain. They beat the “Fred waited too long” drum, then they beat the “Fred has no fire in the belly drum”. Then they beat the “when is Fred dropping out” drums. They reported nothing but negative news about his campaign, even when they had to spin like tops to do it. When Fred was doing well in national polls the media told us that those polls did not matter, yet when other candidates did well in those polls, the media fawned over them. The media spun their line and too many voters bought it. Thompson was a candidate of substance, and too many Americans have been conditioned to look at style, not substance.

Romney suffered from media bias as well. When he was leading in delegates, he was never called the front-runner was he? Yet McCain received far better treatment didn’t he? Once Fred was gone, Romney was the next most Conservative candidate, and the media turned their spin machine on him. The media had great influence on voters with their spin on Romney, just as they did with Thompson. Those voters who do not take time to study candidates, or their campaigns can be swayed easily. They glance at headlines or polls, and they see McCain doing well, labeled the front-runner, even when he really was not, and they jump on the bandwagon, or at the very least, they give up on other candidates.

There is one more key factor in McCain’s looming coronation. The early states do not favor Conservative candidates. New Hampshire is an open primary, as is South Carolina. McCain cleaned up in the Granite State not because Conservatives came out for him, not at all. It was independents, and moderates that gave him a win. The same in South Carolina is true. An open primary favors less conservative candidates. McCain won those while more Conservatives candidates spilt up the Conservative votes. Had the early States been closed, and held in Conservative states, McCain likely would have been eliminated.

So, add up all the factors. The media campaigning against Thompson, then against Romney. Huckabee taking votes away from Thompson early and really hamstringing Romney on Super Tuesday. Giluiani imploding, allowing McCain to garner all the moderate and independent votes. Add it all together, and you know why Conservatives are left with the lesser of two evils option yet again.

So now what? Do you stay home? Hold your nose? Frankly, I doubt it matters; McCain will lose enough of the base to be run over in November. Get ready for four years of a Liberal administration. God help us!