About Me

Name:InchDeep
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 
SiteMeter

It Took 20 Years And A Presidential Campaign For Obama To Distance Himself From Racist Pastor.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:34:42 PM
Obama sends Wright to the back of the Campaign bus. From FOX News.

Obama: I Am ‘Outraged’ and ‘Angered’ By Wright’s Comments

Barack Obama appeared to disown his former pastor Tuesday, saying he was “outraged” and “angered” by Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.’s appearance the day before at The National Press Club.

In a press conference in North Carolina, the Illinois senator used his strongest language to date to denounce Wright’s controversial sermons and his public remarks since those sermons became national news a month ago.

“Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America,” Obama said. “I am outraged by the comments that were made, and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.”

“The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive but I believe they ended up giving comfort to those who prey on hate,” he said.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Takes Twelve Paragraphs.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:16:56 PM
The title of an article from TheNews.com is  Palestinian ‘traitor’ sentenced to death by firing squad. But, notice is takes twelve paragraphs, of an anti-Israel screed, before we hear about the hero who helped Israel eliminate terrorists. Terrorist who hide behind there women and children to boot.

Israel kills mother, four children in Gaza raid

Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The massacre is part of Israel’s attempts to destroy any regional or international effort to lift the siege and end violence: Haniyeh

BEIT HANUN, Gaza Strip: Four children, aged one to five, their mother and an activist were killed in Israeli operations in Gaza on Monday as Palestinian factions headed to Egypt for talks on a possible truce.

The four siblings—aged one, three, four and five—were killed when a tank shell hit their home in the town of Beit Hanun, and their mother died later of her wounds, doctors at the Kamal Radwan hospital said.

“I left the house just moments before to look for one of my children. I heard the sound of the explosion,” said 70-year-old father Ahmed Abu Maateq. “They had been eating breakfast and my wife had been holding our youngest child in her hands,” he said as he looked down at the blood, flesh and spilled milk splashed across the wreckage.

His wife and six children were in the courtyard in their pyjamas when the missile slammed into the front door of the house, he said. The remaining two children were hospitalised. “I hope to God that the same thing that happened to me happens to whoever fired that missile at my house, that what happened to my wife and children happens to his family,” Abu Maateq said, his eyes red with pain and anger.

Three Hamas fighters and another Palestinian were wounded in an air strike in northern Gaza later in the day. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak vowed the military would continue to target Hamas across the Gaza Strip, and blamed the Islamists for civilian deaths.

Hamas meanwhile lashed out at Israel, saying the strike undermined talks in Egypt aimed at securing a ceasefire in Gaza. Senior Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said the “massacre” was part of Israel’s “constant attempts to destroy any regional or international effort to lift the siege and end the violence.”

Palestinian militants fired at least 13 rockets at southern Israel, damaging a house in the hard-hit town of Sderot near the border, the army said. No one was wounded in the attack. At least 443 people, most of them Palestinians, have been killed since the restart of formal peace talks under US auspices at an international conference in November, according to an AFP tally.

The latest clashes came as delegations from several Palestinian factions headed to Cairo to discuss a possible ceasefire with Israel after the Islamist Hamas movement which rules the Gaza Strip held similar talks in Egypt.

Egypt has been serving as a go-between in truce negotiations as Israel refuses any direct contacts with organisations it considers terror groups. Members of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) and three smaller leftist groups crossed into Egypt via the Rafah border crossing with Gaza on Monday.

Islamic Jihad, which has carried out numerous rocket attacks on southern Israel, planned to send a delegation from Damascus to Cairo on Monday night. Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman will host the factions on Tuesday and Wednesday in a bid to draft a common position on the truce proposal.

Meanwhile the UN Relief and Works Agency said it will resume distributing food aid to some 650,000 Palestinian refugees in Gaza on Tuesday after a four-day interruption caused by fuel shortages.

Meanwhile, a Palestinian man was sentenced to death by firing squad on Monday for collaborating with Israeli intelligence, according to the head of security services in the West Bank town of al-Khalil.

“The military court sentenced sergeant Imad Mahmud Saad, 24 ... to the firing squad after finding him guilty of treason and of transmitting information to occupation forces,” Brigadier-General Samih al-Seifi told AFP.

The information Saad gave to the Israelis “led to the death of four wanted people, the destruction of a house and the arrest of several more Palestinians,” Seifi added. The death sentence decree must now go to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who has the power to pardon the prisoner.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ericka Anderson's Column On Human Events Asks A Good Question.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:49:57 AM
"If his former pastor doesn’t believe Barack Obama, why should voters? " The answer is they shouldn't. The country needs to kick Obamination and his pastor to the curb.

Read the Rest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From NRO "A Christian Farrakhan"

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:53:42 AM
A "Christian Farrakhan." Wish I had thought of it.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright has taken Barack Obama’s critically acclaimed race speech in Philadelphia, ripped it into bits, and tossed it in the air to serve as confetti for his parade through the media.

In that speech, Obama said Wright had been taken out of context, a defense the pastor has made himself. If only we knew the true Wright, Obama complained, instead of just “the snippets of those sermons that have run on an endless loop on the television and YouTube.” In his interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, Wright said the playing of his sound bites was “unfair,” “unjust” and “untrue.”

Then cometh the good reverend to step all over the out-of-context defense in a speech at the National Press Club. He defended his “chickens come home to roost” statement about 9/11 in exactly the same terms as in his original sermon: “You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you.” He stood by his damnation of America and his contention that the U.S. government had created AIDS: “I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

For good measure, he dishonestly denied Louis Farrakhan’s infamous denunciation of Judaism as a “gutter religion” and called him “one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century.” The more Wright talked, the more he sounded like a Christian Farrakhan.

Near the end of his majestically awful performance, he corrected reporters, telling them that Obama “did not denounce me. He distanced himself from some of my remarks.” About this at least, Wright was sober and precise. “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community,” Obama said in Philadelphia. At the Press Club, Wright similarly insisted that the attacks on him were an attack on the “black church.”

Obama and Wright thus slander both the black community and black church. As Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy CenterNational Review, Trinity United Church of Christ “is arguably the most radical black church in the country.” Its black liberation theology has been rejected by mainstream black churches, a source of frustration for its adherents. This theology is at the root of all that Wright says, so the “context” is as radical as his highly publicized fulminations.

James Cone, the founder of black liberation theology, forged a worldview mingling Malcolm X-style revolutionary black nationalism and third-world Marxism with prophetic Christianity. He calls it “a theology which confronts white society as the racist anti-Christ.” In a war against “white values,” black pastors must — as Wright has — reject “white seminaries with their middle-class white ideas about God, Christ and the church.”

When Wright came to Trinity Church in Chicago in the 1970s — invited to give the worship a more black inflection and foster stronger ties to the community — the middle-class parishioners who had beckoned him left when they got a dose of his radicalism. The national United Church of Christ denomination considered distancing itself from the Wright-led church. Yet Obama came — and stayed.

In search of an identity and a community, Obama found it in Trinity, where he was converted by Wright’s signature “Audacity to Hope” sermon and its black-liberation themes of the suffering of blacks merging with that of the ancient Israelites (not to be confused with today’s condemnable Israelites). Obama can’t be begrudged his youthful initiation, but remaining at the church for two decades? Wright is a canker on his candidacy, raising questions about who he really is and about his honesty.

In a slippery dance, Obama maintains that he was thoroughly shocked by Wright’s original radioactive statements and hadn’t heard him say such things, although he did hear other (always carefully unspecified) “controversial” things. The threat to Obama as the paladin of the “new politics” is that, as he dodges and distances on Wright, people will come to agree with his former pastor’s newly dismissive evaluation: “He says what he has to say as a politician.”

© 2008  by King Features Syndicate reports in the latest
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Young Punk "whatilearnedthisweek" Tries To Convicnce Everyone It Is The Smartest Thing In The Room.

Posted by InchDeep on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:12:59 AM

What you do when you have no life. You post comments on InchDeep's Blog. How pathetic.

From whatilearnedthisweek

Ok...

"Mr. Obama hangs around some people whom he refuses to repudiate in a way that I find convincing."


The standard for the call for "Repudiation" is somewhat vague. What I hear from most, including yourself, is:

1. A list of the wrongful actions of Ayers, Wright and more.

2. What follows is the Senator's refusal to Repudiate those men in absolute terms, instead of a denouncement of their actions.

3. Finally, it is concluded that the Senator is of Poor Judgment, and often Character, for his failure to direct his denouncement or repudiation beyond the actions of the aforementioned.

If I clearly understood the standard for "Repudiation" and witnessed its application consistently, for all persons, I would be inclined to share your conclusion. I Do Not find the Senator's Relationship with Ayers or Wright comforting. I Will Not question the Senator's Patriotism, as its standard is equally vague....

And this, since It is so self important takes two comments to vomit his drivel.

whatilearnedthisweek writes:

Ok... (Cont)

...Let's attempt to define the standard for Repudiation... Sincerely. And from this exercise, in short order, we can apply it evenly. I will take a swing at this first.... Repudiation should be demanded & expected if:

1. An individual's actions, by design, encouragement or negligence, results in the direct physical harm of a person. This standard excludes military conflict, capital punishment & abortion ..for now.

2. An individual's actions, by design, encouragement or negligence result in the destabilization or corruption of our government.

3. An individual's actions, by design, encouragement or negligence malign or slander our religious beliefs.


Now, it must be determine to whom these criteria will be applied... How many generations back? If we determine that the noted standard will apply to persons from 1950 forward, our list of qualified Repudiates will be quite lengthy, so you decide... but remember.... The standard must be applied consistently... No bias

I can hear  you yawning. Me too.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »