I don't know who at the Obama camp thought it would be a good idea to let Obama's controversial pastor/mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright go on tour, but he's not helping his candidate any.  At Wright's appearances over the weekend, he is claiming that criticisms of his overtly racist and anti-American rhetoric are actually "an attack on the black church." 

In other words, if you object to him yelling "God damn America" from the pulpit, you're just a racist member of the "dominant culture" who's only out to smear black Christians everywhere!

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose post-Sept. 11 comments critical of America have raised questions about his relationship with Obama, has been on a multi-stop tour to restore his image and talk about his church. In addition to speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, he sat down for an interview with PBS's Bill Moyers in recent days.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. This is an attack on the black church," said Wright, who cast his appearance as part of a two-day "symposium" on the black church.

[...]

Playing off the crowd's energy, Wright even suggested he would be interested in the vice presidency.

[...]

Wright also reasserted Monday that Obama was only disavowing his former pastor's comments for political reasons.

I'm sure Obama must be glad to know that his mentor of twenty years is running all over the country telling people that Barack actually does believe that controversial crap that Wright's been preaching but that he's only saying that he doesn't so that he can trick us into electing him, a raging radical, to the White House.  That's gotta be great news for his campaign.  Sure it's the same game he played with NAFTA, but the public isn't supposed to find out about these things!  (Don't you just love his "new brand of politics?"  We've never seen such overt double talk from politicians before!)

Wright has also announced that he will play an extremely influential role in an Obama administration (whether Barack likes it or not), and he continues to claim that his comments have been taken out of context.  But, like any liberal trying to play this smoke and mirrors game, refuses to explain the "proper" context that would make his comments acceptable.

A Liberal New York Times columnist (please forgive my redundancy) believes that people will not mind paying so much in taxes if we simply start calling them "dues."

It’s time to take a page from the conservative playbook, the one where they reframe the debate by changing the language — for instance, calling the “estate tax” a “death tax,” or making equal rights for same-sex partners a “protection of marriage” issue. I propose we stop saying “taxes” and start calling them “dues.”

Yes, this is a little sneaky. Some conservatives may even call it Orwellian, and they ought to know. But the word “dues” also plays into the psychology of group identity, and that can work to the benefit of conservatives and liberals alike. Consider that “tax” comes from the Latin for “appraise” with punitive overtones of “censure” or “fault,” as if wage-earners have done something wrong by their labors. “Dues,” in contrast, is rooted in social obligation and duty.

Here are some disturbing results from a recent study:

In the YouGov survey, nearly half of all Arabs in the Gulf, Levant, and North Africa said that they have met someone who holds extreme religious views.  Asked under what conditions violence is permissible, more than 60% cited Western interference in a Muslim country, while 55% said offensive words or behaviour was a trigger.

Troubling?  Well the U.N. - always on the lookout for the newest, most cutting edge way to appease extremists - is trying to eliminate such "offensive words" from the world!

Arab and Muslim countries defended Tuesday a resolution they pushed through at the United Nations to have the body's expert on free speech police individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.

The United States, Canada and some European countries criticized the role reversal for Kenyan legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo, who has reported to the global body on measures by dictatorships and repressive governments to restrict free speech.

The U.S. and other Western nations warned that the Muslim-backed resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council could curtail freedom of expression and help dictatorial regimes block dissenting views.

Here are a few articles that may help clear the intentionally murkied water regarding Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill), and the man he used to refer to as his personal mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Rev. Wright has now resigned from his advisory post in Sen. Obama's presidential campaign and Wright's church is now comparing the recent media scrutiny of his  incendiary sermons to "the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr."

Just to recap, King said that he had a dream that his children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," and his assassination was a national tragedy.  Wright blames the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks and calls on God to damn the U.S. of K-K-K-A and then is rightfully scrutinized for his extremist beliefs.  Comparable?  You be the judge.

Obama said he never heard these sermons or even knew the kind of message being preached by his personal mentor of twenty years, though an eye witness account puts him in the church for the "Hate America" sermon on July 22 of last year, along with a Secret Service detail (they have been protecting Obama since last May).

This scandal clearly contradicts the persona that Obama has been building for nearly four years in the public eye.  How can a man who claims to be "post-racial" and "post-partisan" attend a church for twenty years that preaches such venom and hatred... all the while calling its pastor his personal mentor?

Remember when Berkeley City Councilwoman Dona Spring told us she was voting to grant special privileges to anti-war group Code Pink so that they could hold a protest outside the local military recruiting station?  She said that she would never grant such privileges to Conservative protesters because “this is different than abortion because we’re not saying anybody can’t go in there, we’re just trying to give them the other side of the story, so to speak.”

I've already posted one update showing this statement to be an outright lie.  Here's another.  To use Councilwoman Spring's logic, can you imagine if something like this happened at an abortion clinic?

Kusmiss said CodePink and a group called The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime began rallying at the center about noon Friday.

At one point in the rally, Marine Capt. Richard Lund returned to the center, where protesters had affixed signs and stickers on the windows. When Lund began removing them, protesters tried to stop him, police said.

Someone slapped a sticker on Lund's back.

When a police officer forced one of the protesters back from Lund, the protester challenged the officer, police said. Tensions rose but Lund did not want to pursue prosecution, police said.

Later at about 3 p.m. the women entered the recruiting center and sat down on the floor, blocking the door, Kusmiss said. Police warned them several times and tried to negotiate with them but they refused to leave, Kusmiss said.

Remember when CNN informed us that black women voting in the Democrats' primaries face "a unique, and most unexpected dilemma... Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?  No other voting bloc in the country faces this choice."

My question for CNN is, now that John Edwards is out of the race, what are white men to do?  "Should they vote their race (Hillary Clinton) or should they vote their gender (Barack Obama)?"  I doubt they'll take the time to write an opinion piece about that though.

Continuing to use the comparison used by liberal Berkeley Councilwoman Dona Spring (who said she would give special protesting privileges to anti-war groups that she would never confer on pro-life groups), can you imagine if protesters did this at an abortion clinic?

At the peak of the second "Funk the War" dance party/protest, the entire [Students for a Democratic Society] group swarmed the military recruiter at 14th st, with about half the group getting inside and the rest securing the entry and plastering windows with stickers...

After a loud commotion inside while outnumbered cops watched, recruiters finally managed to get protesters to leave-but not before literature and full-body length cardboard displays in the street window area were destroyed. In addition, hundreds more "Funk the War" stickers were plastered all over just about everything that would take them. By the time everyone was out it looked like a tornado had swept through the lobby. 

(Here's a 3-minute audio link of a protester describing the scene: dc.indymedia.org/usermedia/audio/4/sds_storms_recruiter_f15.mp3).

Again I ask, what would happen if abortion opponents stormed a clinic, destroyed literature, and posted hundreds of "abortion stops a beating heart" stickers on all of the walls and furniture (Disclaimer: I am NOT advocating that behavior).  Such an event would be reported by every news outlet in America and protesters would go to prison.

This is why Republicans should focus on winning over the base rather than the media.  Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) is the closest thing to a media darling that Republicans have had in my lifetime, mostly due to his unrelenting willingness to throw fellow Republicans publicly under the bus.  However, now that he's the only man between a Democrat and the White House, the courtship is over.  John McCain is getting dumped.

Only one month removed from endorsing him for the Republican presidential nomination, saying, "he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle," the New York Times is running a hit piece about McCain on their front pages, subtly accusing him of corruption and affairs (though they do not offer definitive proof of either).  The newest of their information is nearly a decade old and they even rehashed some stories that have been public for fifteen years or more.

Despite a career of pandering to these types, they've wasted no time in throwing McCain under the Straight Talk Express.  Maybe if he'd spent some time working with Conservatives rather than attacking us, we'd care a little about the smear.  Instead, it just seems like he's getting a taste of his own medicine.

Just so you know what we're dealing with here, I thought I might share a reader's comment with me about Baghdad's per capita murder rate being less than Detroit, Michigan.  "mdking" writes:

JLG, you are manipulating facts to suit your ideology! Just muster the humility for one brief moment to think that you might be wrong. You say, “That’s a murder rate that is comparable to some major American cities.”

That’s a murder rate comparable to NO American city. 5 dead a day times one year equals 1825.

New York had less than 500 murders in 2007. The LAPD reported 379 people had been killed in Los Angeles as of December 15, 2007.

You are either making your numbers up or quoting Fox News (which has said what you say). In either scenario, your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate.

"mdking" is obviously having trouble with the "PER CAPITA" part, so let's stick with the Detroit example.  Per capita refers to the number of murders per person living in a city.  Baghdad has a population of about 7,000,000 people.  Detroit has 900,000.  So of course, Detroit has lower absolute crime rates.  That’s like saying there is less crime in Boise, Idaho than in New York City.  Thank you Captain Obvious!

The question is “PER CAPITA,” or how many murders are there PER PERSON in the city?  That’s not "manipulating facts," as "mdking" charges.  It’s just how adults compare crime in cities that are vastly different in size.

At five per day, Bagdad would have (as "mdking" correctly calculated) 1,825 murders in a year.  PER CAPITA, that's one murder for every 3,835 citizens.

Now Detroit (again only about 1/7 the population of Baghdad) had 354 murders in 2006.  PER CAPITA, that’s one murder for only every 2,542 citizens or about out 1/3 higher than that of Baghdad.

"mdking" accused me of making up numbers and told me, "your powers of reason have no place in responsible debate."  Again, Liberals love to proclaim victory and try to silence their opponents before they've made a coherent argument.  It helps mask the fact that they have no clue what they're talking about.

But I’m not making anything up.  The new York Times quoted five murders per day in Baghdad (and Reuters now is reporting only four per day) and city populations and crime rates are public record.  Maybe "mdking" could try a little research before accusing me “making up [my] numbers.”  Ever use a Google search?

Again... not enough integrity to admit that our troops are doing great work on behalf of this country and not enough intellect to even explain their argument (other than quoting MoveOn.org).

"Dan (Fitness)" just won't give it up!  He responded to the New York Times article by completely ignoring the descriptions of Baghdad residents going about normal life, and instead focusing exclusively on the five murders per day, and asking "in what twisted world is that livable?" 

Well, the "twisted world" of the United States, actually.  Per capita, that's a murder rate that is only slightly higher than Los Angeles, California and is less than Detroit, Michigan.  Will he argue that those cities are "not livable" then?  I doubt it.

Yes, I believe the Surge was intended to clean up our mess.  Iraq was not livable for a couple of years there.  But our troops have done admirable work during the Surge, and thus, we don't need more surges "ad nauseum."  It's just a shame that "Dan" is just another Liberal who does not have enough integrity to give credit to our troops for their tremendous sacrifice.

I've responded to "Dan's" every accusation with documented fact and he can only come back with some emotional appeal.  Still the only supporting "evidence" he has offered is a MoveOn.org-funded study that was debunked approximately five minutes after it was released.  I won't continue to bore our readers with that sort of "debate." 

Here another, more recent refutation of the claim by "Dan (fitness)" that "Iraq is not livable again," and his accusation that I'm merely viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."  This article comes from the Associated Press as reported on the Seattle Times Website:

BAGHDAD — A year ago in Baghdad: Shiite militiamen and Sunni insurgents owned entire neighborhoods and key areas beyond. Iraq's government was adrift, and U.S. commanders weighed the real possibility of being trapped in a full-scale civil war.

In response, on Feb. 14, 2007, with the 82nd Airborne as the vanguard, Washington launched an American troop buildup that would climb to 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers by the summer.

A year later — through a mix of military might, new allies and some fortunate timing — Iraq looks very different.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government is still struggling to get firm footing but has recently tried to push through some of the U.S.-demanded political reforms for reconciliation.

The U.S.-led forces have successfully tamped down violence, and the Pentagon has forged critical pacts with Sunni fighters against al-Qaida in Iraq, which is trying to regroup in northern parts of the country.

After a sharp initial spike in military and civilian casualties, the numbers make a strong case that the surge generally accomplished its main goal.

I told you yesterday about an interesting exchange that has been taking place between myself and another blogger.  He has not yet responded to my post but I thought I would address a couple other parts of his argument about Iraq.  He said, "the country is not livable again," and then accused me of viewing the world through the "conservative black and white lens."

Well, here's an article from the New York Times, regarding the actual situation in Iraq:

The security improvements in most neighborhoods are real. Days now pass without a car bomb, after a high of 44 in the city in February. The number of bodies appearing on Baghdad’s streets has plummeted to about 5 a day, from as many as 35 eight months ago, and suicide bombings across Iraq fell to 16 in October, half the number of last summer and down sharply from a recent peak of 59 in March, the American military says.

As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

Iraqis are clearly surprised and relieved to see commerce and movement finally increase, five months after an extra 30,000 American troops arrived in the country...