Things are better now. And I like this.

That’s right, buy that cap to the right. Show where your true affections lie! For every hat you buy by clicking on it here at MooreThoughts, we get a 4% referral kickback - that’s a whopping 68 cents per hat.

So, please, help Sarah and me retire early. Send little Catherine to college. Buy a hat!

The more one looks, the more appalled one should become. Barack Obama’s current mentor and former pastor has now been discovered on record calling Italians “garlic noses”.

I have just now realized how much the churches I’m used to have no “wow” factor.  No terrorist fundraising and no Italian ethnic slamming make for a boring bulletin insert. The audacity of hope flames out. And not all black churches are like this, contrary to the conventional wisdom the Obama campaign has been shoveling us from the pig sty.

But don’t worry, in twenty years Senator Obama never knew about any of his mentor’s racist proclivities, and only heard a few things that were controversial from the pulpit, making a pauper of the question as to whether Obama has the perceptive powers necessary to be President of the United States.

Why does The Tennessean have this headline

Metro must have fairness in its water funding plans

with this picture

If the editorial board has been hung over, that explains a lot.

Just days after AC Kleinheider is downsized at Channel 2, he signs on with NashvillePost.com

Adam “A.C.” Kleinheider, who until recently ran the respected VolunteerVoters.com site for WKRN-TV News 2, will on Monday join NashvillePost.com to augment the site’s breaking news coverage with a political blog.

Kleinheider ran VolunteerVoters.com for almost two years, amassing a loyal readership of local business and political leaders with his aggregation of and commentary on political blogs from all corners of Tennessee.

Kleinheider’s work will supplement the political reporting of NashvillePost.com veteran Ken Whitehouse, who among other stories recently broke the news that John Wilder will retire.

That was nice and quick.

Huh. I actually agree with Hillary Clinton

After more than a week of not commenting on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments, Clinton did just that. “He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” She also invoked Don Imus in comparing Wright.

Wait a minute! She must have been reading this blog…

On the heels of admitting numerous affairs, the newly minted governor of New York now reveals an old cocaine habit.

Barack Obama’s church used the pulpit and its Sunday bulletin to solicit funds for the terrorist organization Hamas.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t really “under fire” during her 1996 visit to Bosnia.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama exploited the 4,000th American casualty in Iraq in a political release. John McCain didn’t.

Then there was some Easter service at Obama’s church tearing crazy at the “lynching” of Jeremiah Wright. Hyperbole, for sure. Correct me folks, but I’m not sure it technically counts as a “lynching” if you tie the rope and kick the door open yourself.

was Senator Mike Williams wearing a NASCAR jacket during the professional eulogy of John Wilder this week?

Well, I’ve been pining about the Barack Obama fraud for some time now. His capture of centrist independents on his way to the Democratic finish line has been accomplished without running on his record. Suspending reality, it seems the prodigy from Illinois has made it official - he’s not a liberal

Also, and more immediately, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed Democrats as far out of step with the country’s values?

Obama, in an interview, said that “a lot of these old labels don’t apply anymore.”

He said he was a progressive and a pragmatist, eager to tackle the big issues like health care and convinced that the Democrats could rally independents and disaffected Republicans to their agenda.

A “progressive” and a “pragmatist”? I guess “liberal” is now officially a dirty word, not that “progressive” shouldn’t be. The old labels surely apply. Though differing in syllables, the resultant positions are the same.

If he wants to be a progressive, though, that’s fine. Progressives are the ones marching in circles every other week or so on the National Mall, yelling baseless refrains about blood for oil, shining grammatically atrocious poster board about how Castro is good, and screeching about how their free speech rights are being trampled. They are good for unity.

Good for the unity of decent, pragmatic Americans, that is.

As for Obama’s pragmatism, it is purely political. His actual positions fall off the left end of the Left’s flat Earth. He is pragmatic about joining a racially divisive church when running for local office, and then attempting to abandon it when the stakes get higher. His pragmatism even extends to his rhetoric, which covers up his out-of-the-mainstream idealogy. And he is pragmatic about his supporters, considering the ones in Ohio dupes with his NAFTA double talk with the Canadian.government.

Yes, in fact, he is pragmatic. And progressive. Being a liberal by another name just makes you a tired old liberal.

Former general and Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark is coming to Tennessee to campaign for newly minted Democratic Senate candidate Bob Tuke

Wesley Clark, a Four-Star General (ret.), was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000 and a Democratic candidate for President in 2004.

“Like countless men and women across this country, Bob Tuke has answered the call to serve his country. Whether it was as a Marine in Vietnam or as one of America’s most respected adoption lawyers, Bob Tuke has proven he is a man of honor and integrity. For these reasons I proudly endorse my friend Bob Tuke for the U.S. Senate,” said Clark.

General Clark plans to campaign with Tuke in Tennessee and “do whatever I can” to help him win his campaign for the U.S. Senate.

I guess Tuke finally figured out that Alvin York wasn’t available.

Cicero, Caesar, Kennedy and Reagan - step aside. You’ve been bumped. According to many, Barack Obama gave the greatest speech on race since Martin Luther King, Jr. on the National Mall.

Really? Doesn’t that discount what King did, and the violent, vicious opposition he faced?

Still, it was a good speech. It sounded nice. All his speeches sound nice.

Forgive me now, as I delve into the content a little bit.

He started by addressing his recent repudiation of Jeremiah Wright’s controversial remarks. We find out, contrary to what had been his party line up until yesterday, that he in fact had been present in the pew for many inflammatory things Wright has said. And apparently sat quietly through them, which demonstrates his leadership qualities, I suppose. He then cheapens the offensiveness content

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.

Well, yeah - but never like that.

His contention that he could not disown Wright any more than the black community was interesting, and unfortunate. He followed that by presenting a false choice

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.

For the largest part of those who will be voting in November, Wright’s beliefs, which only the most mind numbed Barack-bot thinks Obama didn’t know about and tacitly condone, do not see Wright’s commentary as anything remotely constructive in the racial discussion. The latest polls show 36% of independents think less of Obama because of his choice of pastor. Having supported, befriended, and funded Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pronouncements of racial unity ring hollow. It is entirely relevant to the race discussion what Obama thinks, and who he chose as his teacher and mentor. As someone who wants to be president, we as an electorate must consider all those who have influenced his thoughts. From Wright to his Marxist leaning mother, to his wife, who didn’t like her country until her husband starting running for president, the vetting has just begun. We haven’t even gotten to his political track record in Illinois, which thoroughly contradicts his empowering rhetoric. Barack Obama is still an undefined and evolving political quantity.

If you skim the speech, or listen to it with gaga goggles on, you miss a lot. Barack Obama is an intelligent and well-spoken attorney. I know my kind - especially those who are good. None of his words are by accident - every word possesses purpose and meaning. He first nominally condemned, and then eloquently justified the reasons for, Jeremiah Wright’s hate. The rest was well-said fluff, underpinned by some class warfare (How dare corporations make decisions that are good for their shareholders! ).

Obama embraced racial divisiveness when it benefited him in running for state office. Now that it is no longer beneficial to his national ambitions, he is attempting to abandon it. He is having it both ways, and the media is letting him do it.

We await the “big speech” this morning from Barack Obama on the topic of race

“I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but just the larger issue of race in this campaign, which has ramped up over the last couple of weeks,” Obama told a news briefing Monday in Monaca, Pennsylvania, the site of the next major Democratic primary vote on April 22.

“I think the statements that were the source of controversy from Reverend Wright were wrong, and I strongly condemn them,” Obama added. “I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate. … Part of what I’ll do tomorrow is to talk a little bit about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”

If he attempts to in any way justify his association with Jeremiah Wright, this has the capacity to make things worse.  He can best diffuse this by offering an unequivocal mea culpa, which he has not yet done, and is something I do not think he will do. He needs to throw his relationship with Wright under the bus.

He is right, though, that some in the black church community view this differently. In legal parlance we call that observation “begging the question”.  How that fact remotely justifies any of the hate speech from Wright is still in queue for an explanation.

I know the Reverend Wright controversy has already been written about extensively, including on the other side of this blog. However, though I may be late to the topic, I feel the need to share a few thoughts on the matter. It’s not because I’m excited that a politician from the opposing party has found himself in a bad position. This issue goes beyond being fodder for the talk radio and blogging pundits. Instead, I have grave concerns about Barack Obama’s character in light of this entire debacle. My reasons for not wanting him to be our next president now go way beyond disagreements over policy.

First, let me agree that you cannot be held accountable for the words spoken by your pastor. But, you can decide that he is not going to be your pastor anymore. During our search for a home church, Nathan and I walked out in the middle of a couple of services when we got offended by the words or actions of the pastor. Several other times, we stayed until the last “Amen” (probably to avoid banging into several families while exiting a pew) but never returned.

Second, maybe the preacher did have plenty of sermons during which he advocated Christian love and social justice. Bully for him! I still think that just one of his now infamous comments would be enough to drive me away for good.

It seems to me that you have to accept one of two ideas about Senator Obama at this time:

1. He’s a liar. Are we really supposed to believe that he never heard Reverend Wright share any of his racist and inflammatory views during private conversations? They undoubtedly discussed politics and current affairs … I’m sure that Obama got a glimpse of Wright’s strong opinions during that time. For Obama to get on TV and say that he never heard Wright say anything offensive, and certainly would have spoken up if he had, is just ridiculous. If someone is that angry at society and the perceived power structure in this country, it would be darn near impossible to know him for twenty years and have no clue.

or

2. He is the least perceptive human ever to walk the earth. If Obama was oblivious to his controversial pastor’s words, he did not do his research before deciding on a pastor/mentor. I guess he never interacted with his fellow churchgoers, who eagerly cheered and applauded Wright’s hateful rhetoric. He must have let his mind wander to baseball or an upcoming speech during Sunday services. Barack Obama is a very smart man, so I doubt this second option is possible.

I know that liberals detest our current president, whom they believe to be a liar and a dense man incapable of analyzing a Dr. Suess book. Why would they want to elect another president who must share at least one of these same traits in order to make his current story plausible?

To go ahead and address what I imagine will be a response to this post, I am not just “some white girl who doesn’t understand black churches”. I have attended services in black churches. Heck, I worked for the Democratic Party in Maryland for years so I’ve done plenty of campaigning in black churches. I will happily embrace a candidate who attends a black church, a white church or no church. I am saddened and frightened, though, by the thought of a United States president who would attend, adopt and financially support Reverend Wright’s church.

$250k can buy a lot of change

Little noticed in the wake of the Uncle Jeremiah flap over the weekend was another revelation by the Obama campaign

In an extensive 80-minute interview with the Sun-Times, White House hopeful Barack Obama laid out just how close he and indicted Chicago businessman Tony Rezko grew personally and financially.

Rezko could have donated as much as $250,000 to Obama’s campaigns over the years — much more than the $60,000 to $70,000 Obama’s campaign initially estimated, Obama said.

“Rezko was not my largest fund-raiser but a significant fund-raiser” on his campaign for U.S. Senate, Obama.

Obama estimated a total of $170,000 was raised by Rezko, he said. Could it be more than $170,000, Obama was asked. When pushed, he said it could be as high as $250,000.

Like a pro, David Axelrod made sure this little tidbit got out going into the weekend, and it got buried in his candidate’s ridiculous explanations regarding his knowledge of the positions of his pastor, mentor, friend, and “crazy uncle”.

Of course, the Obama apologists will explain you can’t be held accountable for the unsavory characters you associate with.

But what if there’s a trend?

I don’t like Jews, don’t care much for white people, and I definitely will not sing “God Bless America”

If you are an Obama supporter, “apologism” is your word of the day. I do feel for anyone attempting to explain away Obama’s erstwhile pastor’s (and I suppose, still mentor - he never said otherwise) insane, hate-filled, and un-Christian, remarks. The good news is that you will have plenty of time between now and November to refine the technique.

And you’re going to have to do just that. I offer up my own apologies for dashing the hopes of his supporters, but Barack Obama’s appearances on CNN and MSNBC last night did not change a thing (see, I can use “hope” and “change” too, and it actually has substantive meaning!). One cannot erase a twenty year relationship with someone you proudly previously called your mentor and spiritual adviser with two mediocre, rambling cable television news interview, pinned on the ridiculous assertion that you never knew about any of the abominable beliefs of Jeremiah Wright until the start of your presidential campaign. What Obama actually meant to say was that at the beginning of his presidential campaign a perceptive aide realized what Wright had said would be problematic, and then advised Obama to distance himself, which he nominally did.

The previous nineteen years or so before that, Obama apparently either agreed with Wright’s beliefs, going to church with people who, from the video evidence, with great gusto also agreed with his beliefs, or this is the most superficial mentor / mentee relationship in the history of mankind and Barack Obama never actually went to church. The third alternative is that he is a clueless idiot, which I personally do not believe to be the case. It is implausible he did not know about the core beliefs of his mentor and spiritual adviser before he ran for president. The closeness of the relationship he himself described confirms it. He must think us all dupes.

This last part is for any of you who watched the CNN interview last night in its entirety. I wouldn’t otherwise think much of it, but in light of the beliefs of his mentor, and that sermon about “God d*** America”, I must think more than none about it. At the end of the CNN interview, Anderson Cooper asked Barack Obama “Would you have a problem singing ‘God Bless America?’”, which is a legitimate question in light of his mentor’s beliefs, the video clip just shown, and some of the recent comments of his wife. In political terms, this is a softball on a tee. The appropriate answer would be “Of course not”, “No”, or as I’m afraid would happen with many politicians, breaking into song right then and there.

And the answer was (and I am paraphrasing) “I won’t do it here” and some un-witticism about having a bad singing voice.

And then there was an awkward pause, as Anderson waited for him to finish his answer.

It is troubling, in the context that this was asked, that this was all he had to say.

UPDATED SLIGHTLY at 12:57 p.m.

RELATED POSTS

The Crazy Uncle II: The Audacity of Hate

The Crazy Uncle: Maybe Barack Obama Should Want to be a Muslim

Candidate for the United States Senate Chris Lugo has come out supporting that tired old hag, the Department of Peace

That is why I am supporting legislation to establish a Federal Level Department of Peace and Nonviolence. The primary function of a United States Department of Peace will be to research, articulate and facilitate nonviolent solutions to domestic and international conflict. The Department of Peace will facilitate the most cutting edge ways to wage peace.

“Facilitate the most cutting edge ways to wage peace“? Verily, that is something only a liberal could say. But wait! The Department of Peace will also be used domestically

Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing new policies that address issues such as child abuse, domestic violence, gang violence, and cultural and racial violence. Statistics reveal that each year, medical expenses from domestic violence alone total at least $3 to $5 billion. Businesses forfeit another $100 million in lost wages, sick leave, absenteeism and non-productivity due to domestic violence. Teaching violence prevention and mediation to America’s school children is just one of the many ways a U.S. Department of Peace would reduce violence in our homes and schools.

It’s the liberal three step: 1) identify problems the federal government has no constitutional concern with; 2) usurp legitimate authority from the states and centralize the problem; and 3) create a new government department to spend money talking about the problem. This should only cost a few billion. Plus, the best I can gather, the sole function of the proposed “Department of Peace” is to talk about easily identifiable problems

Currently, no other federal agency or department looks at the root causes of violence or provides the President with counsel. There is an urgent need for a Department of Peace. Nuclear proliferation creates the critical need to interrupt the current cycles of violence internationally and domestically, criminal and domestic violence places intense financial pressures on the city, county and state government.

We do not need a new bureaucracy in the federal government to tell us about “root causes”. The problem with the Left is that when they speak of “root causes”, they usually end up fingering poverty, and then we’re all blamed for it, as if we’re the reason a third world government is corrupt, or are to blame for a “family” of multiple children growing up fatherless and unguided. Maybe it would be worth the billions, though, if the Department of Peace reported back that violence is caused by broken families, a lack of free market capitalism, and corrupt governments. Then we could get to the business of doing what we do best - growing the world’s economy.

UPDATE I wonder what the Department of Peace would do about this

The street is pretty much in flames. I saw a huge amount of military in the town.

It went crazy all of a sudden. All the Chinese shops were put on fire by Tibetans.

Tanks in the street. Tear gas. I saw people being carried away on stretchers and ordinary Tibetans going crazy.

I know. Let’s talk about the root causes of violence! Hey you, the Chinese guy in the tank … Stop that! Come here and talk this instant!

 The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece compiling Barack Obama’s pastor’s inane rants and proclamations. It also (alarmingly) includes every instance where Obama either stood silent, misrepresented, or stood with this awful man

As for Mr. Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be “provocative.”

Hearing Mr. Wright’s venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.

That was my thought. The man I would want to be president would have very proudly, publicly and noticeably risen from the pew and walked out. Then again, where you sit is where you stand. There’s more

Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his “sounding board” during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

And more

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright’s church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright’s perspective, Michelle Obama’s comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.

Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

The media have largely ignored Mr. Obama’s close association with Mr. Wright. This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama’s fundamental beliefs about his country. Those questions deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far.

This is not some minor association. Barack Obama is deeply embedded with Jeremiah Wright.  As Obama is running for president, and Wright has left his duties at the church to work for Obama’s presidential campaign, he absolutely must explain why.

I believe that Geraldine Ferraro was correct when she said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” And, I do not believe that sentiment is a racist one. But, hey, let’s continue to pull out the “Racist!!” charge countless times leading up to November until the accusation becomes utterly meaningless.

If Senator Obama was a white 40-something man who had been in the U.S. Senate for just over three years, do you really think he would be winning the Democratic primary right now? Would an overwhelming majority of black voters be selecting a white Obama over Senator Clinton? Doubtful. After all, Clinton is married to the first black president. Yes, I know, Barack Obama is also getting a lot of white support (starting with several people who share some of my DNA). But, without the strong numbers from the black community he would not be ahead in the delegate count. If Barack Obama was white, Hillary Clinton would already be the nominee and we would be discussing the McCain vs. Clinton showdown.

To admit this fact is not racist … it’s just an objective analysis of the numbers. What is so horrible about that?

I freely admit that Senator Obama is a talented speaker and an amazing politician. If I agreed with anything that he wanted to do to our country (and I do mean “to”, not “for” our country), I would be incredibly excited to support him. However, it is not beyond the bounds to, at the very least, bring up for discussion the impact that his race is having on his success.

Ferraro also (correctly) stated that she would not have been considered as a VP candidate for a second if she had been a man. Being a woman worked in her favor. Does admitting this fact make Ferraro a sexist? No … it makes her a realist. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous

It is instances like the backlash that happened to Geraldine Ferraro which exhibit a real threat to free speech. If we continue down this path of tiptoeing around real, honest conversation out of fear that we offend someone, what a pathetic and weak society we have become.

Don’t mind my crazy, America hating, uncle.

It certainly couldn’t be any more politically problematic than the venomous spewings of the leader of the church he belongs to. Or, even better, worse than having that same embarrassment of a “pastor” associated with his presidential campaign. The good Reverend Jeremiah Wright, apparently inspired with the same bastardized variation of the Holy Spirit that imbues Fred Phelps, could sink his campaign.

This is especially the case as Obama apparently condones his actions, having given thousands of dollars after his cockamamie 9/11 rant (”God D*** America, United States to blame for 9/11″ -Really, rev?) .

Now that we know Barack Obama has attended a church that makes Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas appear mainstream, some questions naturally arise. Having been a member of the Trinity United Church of Hate (sic) for so many years, with a clear affinity for what it apparently stands for as demonstrated by his support of it, Obama needs to offer some real answers. No glittering generalities. No long pauses studded with the occasional “hope” and “change”. None of the vague rhetorical chicanery for which he can attribute his fame will be accepted.

Let’s have some answers, Barack. With so many churches in the Chicago area, why go to the one with the racist, cursing pastor, who apparently hates America and white people? Obama says he’s like the “crazy uncle” everyone has. Maybe - but no one says you have to go to the crazy uncle’s house for Sunday dinner every week.