the rev jeremiah wright (Obamas Pastor) lets whitey have it

Obama’s Pastor: ‘Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger.’ (Updated)

Obama’s Pastor: ‘Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger.’ (Updated)

Rick Moran
In an extraordinary video recording of Barack Obama’s pastor – leader of a church that the candidate says he consciously chose after a long search – the Reverend Jeremiah Wright lets loose with some of the most nauseating racist comments directed against whites imaginable:

During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said. “Hillary would never know that. “Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

In his Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

He begins with reference to the Romans, who crucified Jesus, as Italians, and thus white. The rest of the video can charitably called “racially confrontational.”

Obama makes no effort to hide his admiration for Reverend Wright, going so far as to take the title of his book – “Audacity of Hope” – from one of the reverend’s sermons. And he has never disavowed his relationship with Wright, only saying he disagrees with “some” of his statements.
Perhaps it’s time for this so-called “uniter” to cut his ties with such a rank racist.


Ed Lasky sends this along:

 ABC’s Brian Ross offered a report on “Good Morning America” on Thursday looking at the controversial views of Obama’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Among the comments captured on video: “God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human.” Sprinkle in a reference to the “US of KKK A,” and a suggestion that the nation invited 9/11: “America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Barack Obama: he talks about Wright’s work on South Africa  and other related issues-hey would that be condemning Israel for its ties with S. Africa and calls for disvestment from Israel..a la the divestment campaign involving South Africa? Comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to apartheid? Barack Obama’s “sounding board”, “moral compass”. “mentor”, and “spiritual inspiration” for over 20 years and whose church has been Barack Obama’s number one recipient of charitable donations (gee…maybe that is why Wright drives a Porsche), the man who married him and baprtized his two daughters. Or is that guilt by association?

BTW – the IRS is looking into Wright’s advocacy for Obama from the pulpit to see if it violates campaign laws regarding non-profit groups promoting a partisan view. Several conservative Christian pastors have been caught up in these investigations by the IRS and have been forced to halt their activities.

Obama’s Achilles’ Heel

Obama’s Achilles’ Heel

By Miguel A. Guanipa

When Obama last exposed his Achilles’ heel, it happened inadvertently and without warning, amidst a fawning crowd of regulars upon whom a mighty spell had fallen.

This possibly unscripted moment transpired when Obama, now revered for his uncanny ability to think on his feet, engaged in his latest ‘from the hip’ repartee to an earlier remark by John McCain, in which the latter jested that the young senator may not have heard the news that Al Qaeda was indeed alive and well in Iraq.
With the irreverent chutzpah of a snickering 8 year old tattler telling on his older sibling, Obama indulged an excitable crowd of adoring fans with the rather overused and unproven refrain that — contrary to McCain’s beliefs — Al Qaeda was not present in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion.
The argument that Al Qaeda is a brand new phenomenon in Iraq has been advanced in times past by no lesser luminaries than Senator John Kerry, who like Obama, is also renowned for a similar proclivity to engage in double-speak, and boasts of equally legitimate credentials on foreign policy matters.
Senator Obama’s response places him in a rather vulnerable position when it comes to terrorism, which may very well become — once again — the pivotal issue in the election.
It takes a unique level of access to highly classified information to determine where a terrorist entity like Al Qaeda may currently be setting up shop; I would think it takes an equal or higher level of access to information to enable intelligence agencies to ascertain definitively whether Al Qaeda was altogether absent in a particular region of the world where terrorist activity is virtually the order of the day.
Still it would be interesting to know how Senator Obama became privy to this provocative tidbit of information, despite the fact that this theory has long been discredited by world leaders who have become presciently aware of the global outreach of the Al Qaeda terrorist cell network.
One also wonders if Obama was implying that had Al Qaeda been in Iraq our military involvement would have been justified.  Presumably that was the substance of his answer to a question in which he tried to justify the peculiarly obtuse rationale for considering a return to Iraq after U.S. forces have been withdrawn, should Al Qaeda choose to re-establish bases there in earnest.
While the Democrats’ alternative is also found wanting in this area, Obama’s rather directionless stance on the Iraq situation — from a man who has anchored his campaign on the mantra of “change” — bespeaks a positively dangerous naiveté on his part when it comes to this serious global threat.
To suggest that American intervention begets more terrorism denotes a subtle endorsement of the novel diplomatic principle that a policy of retreat and noninvolvement would automatically yield better relations with the consistently volatile potentates of Middle Eastern regimes. This simple-minded sequitur continues to galvanize radical leftwing Democrats, who are already sold on the proposition that there is an inverse link between the number of terrorists in the world and the level of what is generally considered by them to be America’s modest record of charity and good will through its international relations role.
It is true that terrorism did not make the headlines as frequently when the United States remained basically uninvolved in the political affairs of countries that harbored terrorist organizations. This does not mean that the latter were heretofore virtually nonexistent and suddenly sprang up in response to the United States’ unjustified military intervention in other countries’ affairs.
This is not only a gross misunderstanding of the reasons for the existence of terrorism, it also dishonors the sacrifices of those who have the courage to be proactive about it, and what is worse,  it casts them as the culprits in front of a global audience.
By effectively engaging the terrorists, America has simply forced them to expose their clandestine operations, which only the ill-informed would deny have long been in existence. Until they reached an apex of sorts on September 11, 2001, the media had decided that such operations scarcely merited their attention. Since then, simply recycling the same old tune, that it is our fault terrorism has become such a problem around the world, no longer represents a viable argument against intervention anytime the sitting president  perceives a clear threat to national security.
Thus, for all of his impressive eloquence and oratory skills — both of which should come in handy as soon as global Jihad negotiators become amenable to discussing their demands over a cup of tea — Obama lacks one very important asset, and that is that he is unable to provide an original, sufficiently cohesive, real answer to the crucial question of how he plans to deal with the terrorism issue.
The McCain camp has not hesitated to capitalize on Obama’s diffidence masked as resolve. But they should go one step further, and challenge him to delineate a more comprehensive proposal on what he plans to do not only about the current problem of Al Qaeda in Iraq, but also that organization’s well documented goal of global chaos  for its enemies — an end towards which violence is often employed as a matter of practical necessity.

The Ethanol Hoax

The Ethanol Hoax

By Walter Williams
The Washington Times | 3/13/2008

One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, “America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.” Let’s look at some of the “wonders” of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.

Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These are far more expensive than pipelines.

Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That’s enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel — oil and natural gas — to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers — all of which are fuel-using activities. And it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

Ethanol is so costly it wouldn’t make it in a free market. That’s why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there’s a double tax — one in ethanol subsidies and another in handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.

Something else is wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar cane and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.

Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The U.S. position as the world’s largest grain producer and exporter means the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.

It’s easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country’s largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing it would be political suicide if they didn’t support subsidized ethanol production. That’s the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.

The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there’s a large benefit for them — higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout.

After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office for a heart-to-heart — you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive