Obama Secured $225,000 in Taxpayer Funds for Fr. Pfleger

After Pfleger donated to Obama, naturally.

Though the donations seem too small to be payoffs. No, the most likely motivation is ideological solidarity, or just paying off the right political figures.

I only put this in the sidebar yesterday figuring it was no big deal. I thought it was just incremental, didn't tell us much we already didn't know about Obama's church, and besides Pfleger isn't Obama's spiritual mentor like Wright was.

It seems I was wrong. Everyone's still talking about it.

So here it is, officially on the front page:

There's no question this is yet another hardcore race-baiting left-winger Obama counts among his ideological (and spiritual) soul-mates and political boosters. Once again the Obama's credentials as "post-racial" candidate and a "uniter" are brought into sharp question.

He seems, quite frankly, like the most radical leftist to ever with a strong chance of capturing the presidency, and that's including George McGovern.

Obama and Pfleger have put out the standard-issue pro forma bullshit apologies, apologizing, near as I can tell, for accidentally telling the world exactly who they are and what they think and what they would do with power, if only they could get their hands on it.

Idiotic: Once again, the MSM is attempting to play spokesman for Obama by promoting this video of a "GOP pastor" getting political at an invocation:

Um... seems sort of anodyne to me. It lacks the racism of Pfleger's rant, and is in fact specifically anti-racist.

They keep trying this. They attempt to claim "McCain's pastor," either Hagee or Parsley, is the equivalent of Wright, despite the fact that McCain barely even knows these guys, and certainly didn't sit in their pulpits for all of his adult life basking in racial hatred.

And now confronted with another Obama buddy who not only gets political at the pulpit, but gets specifically racist or race-baiting, they offer up a Republican who gets political at the pulpit. Hmm... Obama's friends do less-egregious thing Z and more offensive thing X, and some Republican does less-egregious thing Y, too, while condemning Obama's friends for doing more offensive thing Z, so... it's a wash? Huh? How did that happen?

Among other stuff Allah's link notes that the liberal line, here offered up for the billionth time by MSNBC hackette Mika Brezinsky, that white people cannot judge the roiling racism of Obama's church... even, as here, when it's offered by another white. Now that's nuance.

It appears we're going to get that long-anticipated Great National Discussion on Race after all, the one Obama claimed he wished to start but of course wants to avoid at all peril.

First topic in this Great National Discussion -- Are blacks entitled by the color of their skin to be racist, and are black candidates allowed, by the color of their skin, to count racists among their closest advisers, mentors, and political allies?

Yes or no? The answer from liberal quarters seems to be "Yes." I don't think the rest of the country agrees.

As I've said before, sure, I'll painlessly concede the liberals' talking point that white racism is more pernicious that black racism, in the main. But the fact that white racism might be worse in its overall effects than black racism does not in fact make black racism harmless or acceptable.

Murder is worse than manslaughter, but we don't routinely excuse manslaughter or claim "Who are we to judge?," now do we?

And that's where liberals want to take this argument. For a group which claims to be concerned above all else with racial tolerance and harmony, they sure seem to excuse racism pretty quickly when practiced by, or countenanced by, their fellow travelers.

posted by Ace at 02:12 PM

| Access Comments