The Thomas Chronicles

I think this video speaks for itself. Here’s Obama’s spiritual mentor in his own words.

This is no minor thing. When the phrase “Hope and Audacity” comes straight from “Reverend” Wright’s “sermons”, the question again arises.

Who is Barack Obama?

A rather unusual series of comments have erupted in our political discourse of late.

Last Friday, Bill Maher made the breathtaking statement, “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” Was Maher referring to dictators the world over, like Kim Jong Il or the President of Iran or tribal warlords all over Africa? Actually, he was referring to our Vice President, Dick Cheney.

His statement simply echoed in concurrence to a commentor on the Huffington Post who said, “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.”

I admit that I do not take stock in Maher’s political views ever since I saw him on his now-defunct show “Political Incorrect”, but I find his recent statements as being utterly unjust and morally repugnant. To suggest in his glib self-righteous fashion that assassinating the Vice President of the United States is a good thing suggests a malignancy unparalleled in the history of acceptable behavior on television.

One can understand how Maher can disagree with our Vice President, but it is another thing entirely to endorse and hope on his demise. For those unwilling to crack open a dictionary or look online, here is the definition of treason:

From Dictionary.com:

trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

And here’s another from the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Truly, when did this kind of talk become acceptable in our national discourse? Is this just the further degeneration of the anti-Vietnam War, Baby Boom generation? Or is it something else… ?

Again, Sir John Harrington’s famous statement rings true, “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

And now from our political Right, Ann Coulter spouted this vile statement, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Ann Coulter has always employed shock tactics to get her point across, but what happens when that’s all you hear from her. Clearly, what she said here and what she said in her book, “Godless”, declares over and over her vitriolic ill opinion of homosexuals.

Here’s another definition— bigotry:

big·ot·ry /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

And again from the American Heritage Dictionary:

n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

To relegate an entire category of people into a state of constant belittlement and slander is bigotry. And, no, hatred of entire categories of peoples is not just an opinion on par with the dislike of tomato juice and the desire to part the hair toward the left rather than the right.

Ms. Coulter defended her remarks by saying (I’m paraphrasing), “C’mon, it was a joke! I’d never insult homosexuals by associating them with John Edwards!”

Well, howdy, har, har… This is about as bad as John Kerry and his botched “joke” about our troops being dumb and uneducated.

(Beware and be cautious when society suddenly uses the name of categories of people as epithets to pejoratively depict someone or something. The latest one to crop up here recently is people’s use of the term “Alcoholic”, as in “He’s such a f–king Alky.” Watch where this one goes…)

As I’ve said many times on this blog, I am very conservative, but this is where I part ways with most conservatives and many fundamentalist Christians. Many conservative bloggers who addressed this outrage framed the conversation in strictly tactical political terms. Which is to say: How has Coulter’s foul mouth harmed the conservative agenda?

Conservatives used to be known for independent thought along nationalistic lines rather than viewing everything through the narrow, toxic lense of politics. At least, that’s what I used to see in Reagan Republicans…

Perhaps we are seeing the first inklings of the end of political correctness in our society, but so far, this does not seem to be an improvement. I dislike political correctness because I think it is an outrage that anyone should constrict and control the thoughts on another. Political correctness disarms us to real threats by dislodging our ability to identify them, and it muddles our thinking into a subjective morass that’s unable to reason and come up with solutions.

But this rebellion against the strictures of political correctness we are beginning to see may not be the revolt toward independent, objective thought. As far as I can tell, this revolt might be toward the indulgence of prejudices and judgment. We already see it thriving throughout the blogosphere and swimming freely on the boob-tube.

It’s only a matter of time now. The edifice of political correctness will surely crumble, but others like myself wonder what if anything will arise from the rumble. Hopefully, what would supplant political correctness will be objective reasoning coupled to Christian compassion and agape love.

We are asking Christ for a revival after all.

Addendum 3/5/07:

Just an aside.

One of the accusations by our lovely Leftists against Cheney is that he helped the President concoct our war in Iraq to line his pocketbooks. Cheney used to sit on the board at Halliburton, and since Halliburton is going to win military contracts from this war and thus boost its stock, obviously Cheney coaxed our “stupid” President into war to fill his coffers. (It doesn’t matter that Cheney hasn’t sat on that board for years, even before the start of the war.)

You see, it’s all a lurid, smoke-filled room of conspiracies. You can almost see the Vice President laughing hideously somewhere behind the red curtains of the Senate or perhaps behind the closed doors of the Oval Office, jerkily rubbing his hands together Macbeth-fashion, but not to wash off all the blood (ha-ha-haaarghh-HA-HHHHAAAA!!!!! … you get the picture.).

Low and behold, Foxnews reported in a minor blurb on The Securities and Exchange Commission report that the Left’s paragon of patronage, Mr. George Soros, owns over 2 million shares of Halliburton which is worth more than $62 million. Moveon.org, Air America Radio, and others have accepted millions of dollars in contribution money from Mr. Soros.

All of these organizations have condemned, libeled and vociferously accused the Vice President of being corrupt and evil because of his association with Halliburton.

In a word, all these organizations and their followers got played. They are the shock troops and brownshirts they accused the Republicans of being. And they’re all dancing to Soros’s fiddle.

And please note, readers, Moveon.org and other Leftist organizations haven’t offered to give Mr. Soros back his (to use the words of the Leftists) … ahem… “blood money”.

Here’s one last definition for ya— Greed:

greed
noun
1. excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
2. reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice]

Related Posts:

Hot Air: The problem with Ann
Hot Air: CPAC Report: Michelle Interviews Sean Hannity
La Shawn Barber’s Corner: Bloggers Not Responsible for Commenters’ Libel
Towleroad: Politicians React to Ann Coulter Gay Slur and CPAC Events
The Daily Brief: An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter
Wizbang: Bill Maher Argues for VP Cheney’s Assassination
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Ann Coulter & Bill Maher Speak For Whom?
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia: Bill Maher, The Moral And Mental Wasteland’s Poster Boy
American Thinker: Coulter vesus Maher
Captain’s Quarter: An Open Letter To The ACU And CPAC Sponsors
Texas Rainmaker: Liberals’ Selective Outrage
The American Mind: An Open Letter to CPAC Sponsors and Organizers Regarding Ann Coulter
Patterico’s Pontifications: No Hate Speech by Prominent Leftists?

In a remarkable interview with Dan Le Batard of talk radio, CBS4 in Florida reported that former NBA star, Tim Hardaway, blasted homosexuals saying, “Well, you know, I hate gay people… I let it be known I don’t like gay people. I don’t like to be around gay people. I’m homophobic. It shouldn’t be in the world, in the United States, I don’t like it.”

In almost the same manner as how most Muslims deny Israel’s right to exist, it is becoming more acceptable here in the United States and in Europe to take the public stance that denies homosexuals the right to exist. Similarly, in defiance of all logic, people such as Sean Hannity are advancing the view that their homophobia is nothing more than an “opinion” rather what it is— bigotry.

It is very eerie how people can condemn an entire segment of the population for whatever reason— race, smoking, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political party affiliation, etc.— it is frightening how people condemn others so casually, as if they are not going to stand before God’s throne to answer for it…

Here’s a video with Tim Hardaway’s comments:

A few days later, after he was banished from NBA-sanctioned appearances for the All-Star weekend and after losing at least one endorsement (and lots of money), Hardaway gave this pseudo-apology:

“I don’t hate gay people,” Hardaway said. “I’m a goodhearted person. I interact with people all the time. … I respect people. For me to say ‘hate’ was a bad word, and I didn’t mean to use it.”

…

“It was like, you know, I had killed somebody. … I never knew that this was going to escalate that high,” Hardaway said.

Rather than actually apologizing, like so many other pseudo-apologies in the wishy-washy modern dictum, all Mr. Hardaway has done is assert the contradiction of his previous remark (”I don’t hate gay people.”) and reassure the public that he really is just a wonderful person (”I’m a goodhearted person…”). Correct me if I”m wrong, but I don’t see an apology.

In fact, from his own statements, he was shocked that there was an outrage at what he said, as though he “had killed somebody”, implying that he didn’t believe there was anything wrong with his derogatory statements.

His “apology” also begs the question: How real is this apology when he has only apologized for using the word “hate” and not the content of what he actually said?

Perhaps he should have said, “I very, strongly, vehemently, vociferously dislike gay people and don’t want to be in the same city-block as them, but I don’t hate them”?

We all know what would happen if the same thing was said about a black man…