Obama Draws Not So Subtle Parallel Between Christian Right and Terrorists

Barack Obama has drawn a very disgusting parallel between the Christian Right and the Terrorists that have killed thousands of innocent people. According to AP(my bold):

Sen. Barack Obama told a church convention Saturday that some right- wing evangelical leaders have exploited and politicized religious beliefs in an effort to sow division.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," the Democratic presidential candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

By making the claim that the Christian Right has hijacked the Faith, Obama is putting them in the same league as Islamofascist terrorists. While some have claimed the principles of the entire Islamic religion support the notion of killing innocent people in the the name of religion, others have tried to throw Islam an Olive Branch by claiming it is a "religion of peace" and that this "noble" religion has merely been hijacked by terrorism. The claim that Terrorists have "hijacked" their religion is a very common claim that very few could have missed.

It is unthinkable that Obama is unaware of the venom and equality to terrorism when he chose to use the word "hijacked". It is obvious that he wanted to link the two entities as being on the same moral ground. The only way that this could not have been purposeful is that Obama (as many lefties do) takes it as a given that the Christian Right and Islamic terrorists are of the same stripe. Taking such a parallel for granted in his mind would eventually leak out into his speech. Whether the parallel was intentional or Obama's mindset that it is true caused this disgusting statement does not matter. Either way Obama believes it.

I am the first to admit that the Christian Right has its problems. So does the Christian Left. So does every political entity from all political perspectives. However, the number of people in all of these organizations, churches, clubs, etc. that would support or initiate the slaughtering of innocent people and rejoice in it is a fraction of one percent. Many from all persuasions simply think they are right and are using their influence to convince others that they are right. Many from all persuasions want to use their influence to shape public policy. The Christian Right is no different in this. People have a big problem with the Christian Right because they are well represented and are effective in shaping public policy.

To me, Obama's statement is not so subltle yet I have not seen anyone else point out this parallel yet. I am sure on Monday it will be brought out and we will see if Obama apologizes or not. My prediction is that he will deny the parallel and move on. Apologies are often demanded, but they make the apologizer appear weak: especially if it is obviously forced and insincere. The longer the time between the offense and the apology, the more damage occurs. Obama would be smart to just get it over with from the start.

Update: Here is a link discussing the hijacking of Islam by terrorists to give you a flavor of what I am referring to.

Presidential 2008 Election June 23, 2007 Snapshot

A month ago I began the first of planned periodic snapshots of the 2008 presidential election. I figure it is about time for another. While on the surface it does not seem that much has changed, underneath I can sense some rumblings that surely result in a new landscape by the time the summer apathy begins to wear off.

First, John McCain has very likely committed political suicide by supporting the immigration reform bill. His only hope is that the thing will pass to give the appearance of a political victory. However, by the time the dust settles most will remember that McCain-Feingold CFR was also a "political victory" but has since shown itself to be a dog. Creating law is only a victory if it is good for the people. I have seen reports that McCain's fundraising is really suffering. If this continues he could be the first to withdraw.

Last snapshot I predicted that Fred Thompson had peaked. In fact he has continued rising and is supposed to announce officially next week that he is in. As I have said, I think there are some good things about Thompson. I heard recently that people are not so much allured by Fred Thompson as they are by his TV character on Law and Order. I think this is right. That does not mean that Thompson is bad, it just means that we know more about his TV character and happen to like it. If upon getting to know Thompson, we find we like his true identity maybe he has a chance. So at this point I will change my opinion that he has peaked and say that he will have another growth spurt after announcing. I think his numbers will settle down by the end of summer. His strength of course will be the South. This will make him a very strong contender.

Rudy Giuliani will soon be toast. He has peaked and is slowly sinking. I think we know most of what there is to know about him and therefore his growth is not sustainable. I have not seen him or heard much from him in the media lately. Sure I hear mention of him on talk radio but nothing fresh and exciting. Nothing more hidden in the wings for just the right time either. Thompson has passed him in the polls and he will not get it back.

Mitt Romney is still my favorite to win. The more that is slowly revealed about him the stronger he appears. The Mormon thing may be a strike against him, however it also is one of the things that keeps the media reporting on him. There will be a fresh batch of coverage when the movie "September Dawn" is released. Thompson has the upperhand on him in the south but coming fresh off of Iowa and New Hampshire (which I think he will win), Romney will have momentum.

So that is this snapshot. Things could change very quickly and be a whole new race any time. Time will tell. The three major "I" factors going forward are immigration, income taxes and Iraq.

Don't Let the Door Kick You On the Way Out

Apparently Michael Bloomberg has tired of being a RINO and has left the GOP. Good riddance. According to WCBSTV:

"I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City," Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg, who joined the Republican Party in 2001 after spending his life as a registered Democrat, went on to discuss his progress in leading New York City.

Sorry. It will take switching back to Democrat to bring your affiliation into alignment with how you have led NY. Anyway, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Also, make a few calls to John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Chuck Hagle to see if they want to align their affiliation to their voting record.

George W. Bush is One Illegal Border Crossing Away From Being Branded By Both Sides as the Worst President Ever

We all know that the left has already laughably turned a blind eye to Jimmy Carter and labeled George W. Bush as the worst president ever. While I believe that certain circumstances could take place that would make a convincing argument that Bush made good decisions after all and was a very good president; in my mind just the right (wrong) person illegally crossing the US-Mexican border could not only erase any chance of a decent legacy, it could make the "worst" brand stick to him from both sides. One terrorist individual or group could slip through the swiss cheese and pull off a successful attack that kills thousands. If that happens while the Bush Administration continues its reckless stance on border security; the best legacy he can hope for is to be branded the worst president ever. At worst, Bush could be branded a traitor due to his willful negligence.

Bush has some flaws that can be absolutely maddening to both sides of the aisle. He can be stubborn in his policy and refuse to communicate any message supporting his policy. If you agree with his policy, you tend to overlook his stubborness. In fact you can view it as a strong will to do what is right. If you disagree, then it is foolish stubbornness. Either way you cannot overlook the fact that he refuses to defend himself and his positions.

The immigration bill that was declared dead is again being revived and some think likely to pass. Before Bush began fighting for its return and passage, I was certain we would wake up one morning to hear that it was passed in the dead of night. But Bush is insistent upon standing in the gap and championing this manure pile. He does not explain himself. He does not defend the bill with any details. It is all generic mish-mash that shows complete myopia on the border problem. Bush was prepared to go to war with two countries, spend billions, risk his whole reputation in order to keep this country safe. However, he is equally stubborn in throwing away the hard fought and expensive safety of this country by keeping a porous border.

If Bush or anyone else wants more immigration from Mexico, why does it have to be a support of illegal immigration? Why cannot those who want more immigration from Mexico work to seal the border and then double or even triple the immigration quotas. With a sealed border we could have as many or more people from Mexico immigrating to the US, but they would be verified with background and health checks. If if some disagree on the Mexican immigration quota, we could all have more confidence that those who come have at least been checked out
and that the rule of law has been followed.

We keep hearing of many OTMs (other than Mexican) being caught at the border. It is a certainty that terrorist groups around the world are aware of our Achilles heel when it comes to border control. It is only a matter of time before we pay the price for such irresponsible behavior. After such clear and strong arguments being presented to Bush during this debate, the buck will certainly stop at his feet when we do.

NASA Administrator Hits a Bullseye While Underlings Howl

I consider myself pretty well read on the Global Warming / Climate Change debate yet I do not recall anyone ever addressing the facet of the debate that NASA Administrator Michael Griffen has pointed out. ABC News reports Griffen's comments:

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

When I read this statement, I could only sit there with open-mouthed fascination at the sheer beauty of it. The bottom line is that Climate Change proponents have indeed arrogantly judged the current earth climate as the optimal climate. Any climate change that has and will occur is ordained a "problem" without any analysis or consideration to the contrary. In their rush to picture worst case scenarios of catastrophe, has any scientific group actually done any research on the final climate state and considered if overall, this final state might actually be better for many areas? As Michael Griffen deduces, only after knowing the final climate state and comparing it to the current climate state can we begin to analyze if there is a "problem".

He drives the point even further by noting that we must also consider who both is capable and has the right to decide what the optimal climate is. Are we going to leave such decisions to government bureaucrats or even one group of scientists instead of another? So there is a lot of analysis and many decisions to be made before we are in a position to determine if we have a problem.

The incredibly weakly reasoned response by NASA's resident climate alarmist was also reported by ABC News:

Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."

Hansen's response have all the power of "well you're stupid". Hansen completely avoids actually responding to Griffen's main point and sticks on message to the "we are beyond debate" meme. The sheer impotence of Hansen's comments must be an embarrassment to his supporters. I hope Griffen's point continues to be driven home in the debate. It is fresh and reasoned approaches like this to the public discourse that may yet save us from the madness the alarmists are driving us toward.

As always with posts on climate change, here are my five questions we need to answer before succumbing to Climate Change Alarmism:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?