The problem with this logic: none of the signatories professions or degrees were listed.

It’s amazing to me that any “self professed intellectual” would yearn for a “Saigon moment” in Iraq. Our flight from Vietnam, with South Vietnamese trying to cling to our helicopters is one of the most shameful moments in American history, and the images of that day are heartbreaking. Following our departure, millions were killed, and hundreds of thousands died trying to flee the Communist dictatorships set up in our absense. Our “defeat” in Vietnam has been used by every force that we have faced since as a reason to keep killing our troops even after we have crippled their military (hoping for a civilian retreat).

That bears repeating: Our retreat from Vietnam has directly led to every dead soldier in Iraq today.

The same thing will be true if we flee Iraq. We’ll send American troops back in under the UN (that is unarmed) after real genocide and civil war take place in the middle east. And the next time we have to use the military, it’ll just give the next force we fight a reason to keep killing our troops long after defeat is certain.

Absolutely shameful. What a douche.

ABC News played a story about who the troops supported this afternoon. Overwhelmingly, those soldiers interviewed supported Barack Obama, with a handful of Clinton supporters. One sole McCain supporter was shown, with the lackluster “Well, the war has paid my bills so far...why not more?” as his answer to why he supported McCain. This is the average makeup of the US military?

Is this why, by CNN’s report (hardly a conservative bastion) voted that military personelle voted nearly 3-2 for Bush over Kerry? 57%-41% a 16% lead? NPR reports that it could swing either way in 2008. IF (and even most liberals admit this is a huge if) the Democrats garner the military vote, it will be by the barest of percentages, and will be more dependant on veterans than active military. The military vote has traditionally always gone Republican. And there’s no shortage of soldiers who are not fond of Democrats, as evidenced by pictures like this.

So then, what are we to make of this nonsense report except that ABC is trying to paint a picture devoid of reality? And what of the lone soldier for McCain who sees war as a pay check? That’s the average Republican soldier? What a vicious slander. Once more the liberal media tries to pretend the military is overwhelmingly Democrat (who just want out of Iraq), while a few knuckle dragging war lovers on the Republican side cheer on the carnage.

But accusing Republicans of liking war or being warmongers is nothing new amongst leftists. Why should we expect anything different around election time?

Law and Order tonight was a full display of the New Blood Libel. It dreamed up an imaginary Church of jihad loving Christians, who were going to take up “war against the hypocrites”. A young boy is convinced to murder his mother for having an affair, with a Muslim no less, by his preacher. And an entire congregation calls him “God’s warrior”. As the police take the pastor away, you see perhaps a hundred children surrounding the police cars, threatening the cops with charges of “this is war”.

In the video they show, he asks the children, “What do we say to the Muslims who would face us? What do we say to the blasphemers who ruin God’s house?” Again the children chant “this is war!”

What point does this have other than to mock Christianity once more? The entire episode is a slander against good faithful men and women, by forcefully claiming that, not only this church, but the Christian men and women on the jury, sympathize with the pastor’s views, and agree with his inflammatory rhetoric.

The purpose of the blood libel was to convince the masses that a certain group of people were dangerous, couldn’t be trusted, and had to be removed, one way or another, from society. We see nothing less than that today in the relentless assault against Christianity.

Shameful.

Cross posted from Home of the Insane Reindeer

Further proving just how wrong those filthy rightwingers were about St. Obama, Trinty Church has recently issued a statement about Reverand White:

Mr. Moss invoked the 40th anniversary of the death of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., saying Mr. Wright’s character was being “assassinated in the public sphere because he has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe.”
...
“It is an indictment on Dr. Wright’s ministerial legacy,” Mr. Moss wrote, “to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite.”
He cited Mr. Wright’s development of ministries: “places for senior citizens, day care for children, pastoral care and counseling, health care, ministries for persons living with H.I.V./AIDS, hospice training, prison ministry, scholarships for thousands of students to attend historically black colleges, youth ministries, tutorial and computer programs, a church library, domestic violence programs, and scholarships and fellowships for women and men attending seminary.”

All of this, of course, is a neat little “look over there” trick, designed to deflect criticism.

No one at all is criticizing Wright for his contributions to humanity. They are criticizing him for his anti-Semetic and overtly anti-American remarks. And his seeming anti-white bias has put a couple people off as well.

Let us not forget that it was a 15-30 second video, shot on a phone that brought down Michael Richards, screaming “You can talk, you can talk, you’re brave now motherf**ker. Throw his ass out. He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! A n*gger, look, there’s a n*gger!” No one accused anyone of a hit job on Richards. No one said his remarks were taken out of context. No one demanded we look at how funny he was (or wasn’t) on Seinfeld. His remarks were taken at their racist face value and denounced.

It is not character assassination to point out someone’s own comments. It is not character assassination to show 3 and 4 and 5 minute clips of them talking. In one of these, the man even realizes that he has offended “some white people”, and much like Richards, tells them to get over it. “He’s preaching the Bible”, don’tchaknow? As long as there is no mitigating context that we’re missing, (and in Wright’s case, there clearly isn’t), playing his unaltered comments is nothing more than exposing people to his sermons. To compare him to the late great Dr. King is absolutely dispicible. Whereas King preached tolerance and told the black community to accept their white brothers and sisters (in an age where he was being sprayed with firehoses and attacked by dogs), Wright preaches about the evils of the white society to the black man (while he lives in luxury). The two couldn’t be further apart.

Mr. Moss added that the questioning of Mr. Wright added up to “an attack on the legacy of the African American Church which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world.”

And of course the parting racist shot. If you are against anything we do, you are an unmitigated racist, who just hates the black man.

This further strains Obama’s claim that he had no clue what Wright stood for. The very next minister defends Wright from these charges, echoing Barack Obama’s very same tone. “We can’t judge a 40 year career by a stupid thing said on occasion.” The question is...why not? That’s how we judge people in politics. How often is the assinine “Gays and single mothers helped cause 9/11” comment brought up, even now that the man is dead? It was a sad comment, and it rightfully tarred Falwell. The church simply wants a pass on Wright’s disgusting and reprehensible comments because he’s a black man, and black men, according to seperationist liberation theory, are supposed to stick together against white racist oppression (which this most certainly is...not honest criticism). Being black is the ultimate, get out of stupid free card.

While Trinity church would like to point to Reverand Wright’s years of service to the black community as a way to define him...it’s more appropriate to define him by his deep connections to virulent racist Louis Farrakhan, his support for suicide bombers in Palestine, his characterization of 9/11 as a way for “people of color to remind us they were still around”, and his many trips to state sponsors of terrorism.

Playing the victim card just doesn’t cut it here.

[B]ased on extensive interviews that I have done with the female relatives of the murdered Texas teenagers, it is clear that:

a) Amina and Sarah were expected to wear headscarves. Their failure to do so, their “hidden” lives as normal American teenagers, doomed them.

b) Amina and Sarah were expected to enter into arranged marriages against their will to much older Egyptian men whom they had never met. Their refusal to do so doomed them.

c) Amina and Sarah were expected to keep quiet about the horrific sexual, physical, and psychological abuse which was heaped upon them by their father, mother, and brother. Their failure to do so doomed them.

d) Amina and Sarah were not supposed to have “boyfriends.” At the very least, their friends, both male and female, were not supposed to be Christians. The fact that they were friendly with Christian male teenagers doomed them.

e) Amina and Sarah were supposed to learn to hate America and to choose Shari’a law. Their failure to do so doomed them.

These are only some of the “rules” that Amina and Sarah were expected to obey. One of my informants has quoted their brother Islam, who often stalked his sisters, as saying: “They knew the rules. They broke them.” Islam is saying that it is their fault that his father had to kill them.

Thus, whenever you see a woman in a face veil, headscarf, or burqa, it is very likely that these rules also apply to her.

Obama’s solution (to our disagreements about taxes): Shared sacrifice. If your last name begins with A through E, Obama will continue the Bush tax cuts. If your last name begins with F through L, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. If your last name begins with M through Z, Obama will raise your taxes. Now the following fiscal year, those with last names beginning A through E face a tax increase. The F through L’s get the Bush tax cuts. And the L through Z’s will have their tax cuts expire. The next fiscal year, Obama will rearrange the cuts, depending, of course, on your last name, and will continue this rotation every year of his administration.
...
Obama’s solution(on Iraq): Withdraw all troops by the year 2009. Then send them back in 2010, followed by their return to America in 2011, with another redeployment to Iraq in 2012. These on/off, every-other-year rotations would continue throughout his presidency. This satisfies those who want the troops home immediately. But it also appeases those who consider our national security dependent upon a military presence in Iraq. This policy also confuses our enemy, since they never know whether we are coming or going.
...
Obama’s solution (on health care): Provide universal health insurance to those without it. Allow those happy with their current health-care policies to retain them. Who pays for the uninsured 47 million? Tax Canada.
...
Obama’s solution (on global warming): Force Lutz to square off on pay-per-view against Al Gore in an Ultimate Fighting Championship no-holds-barred death match. The winner gets to decide America’s policy on climate change.
Hopefully this comforts the naysayers who doubt whether Barack Obama can, indeed, bring us together.

Read the whole thing. Elder demonstrates just why those who believe Obama can “bring us all together” are absolute idiots.