Think About It

Air Force Major General Speaks on Terrorism

Once in awhile something comes in my e-mail that is profound.   I will warn you; this piece is long, but take a few minutes and read it carefully.  It’s important.

This is a powerful essay on the threat of Islamic terrorism.  Dr.Vernon Chong is, without a doubt,the most articulate and convincing writer I have read regarding the War in Iraq . If you have any doubts, please open your mind to his essay and give it a fair evaluation. It's also eerily applicable to other current issues, such as Iran 's nuclear program, immigration, NAFTA's impact on American jobs, trade deficits, etc. I had no idea who Dr.Chong is, or the source of these thoughts, so when I received them, I almost deleted them, as well-written as they are. But then I did a Google search on the Doctor and found him to be a retired Air Force surgeon and past commander of Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio ."

If you would like to see who this fine man is, go to this Air Force website and look him up: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5000"

Muslim terrorists and the U.S.A.   A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL

Dr.. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1 When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001.  The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2 Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks
happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush 2.  We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.

3 Who were the attackers?
In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4 What is the Muslim population of the World?
25%.

5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the
predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see http://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?

6 So who are we at war with?
There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid
verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:

1 Can we lose this war?
We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:
We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us.  However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.

Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that
there are more mosques in England than churches.

2 What does losing really mean?

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life
will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal
with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the
Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?

The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?
Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation.  Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil
rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?
No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our
Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict
and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the
Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.  Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of
some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can they be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the
Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of
comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this
prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned-- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.

These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't! If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses. What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"

I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are
united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the
election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the
critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is
your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves,
but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal .. and that
includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.

Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!

Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that
anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the
seriousness of this issue,is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and it's citizens.
Best we support them.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Associated Press is in the Tank for Obama

Hillary Clinton easily won the Kentucky primary by a margin of 2-1.  Conversely, Barack Obama easily won the Oregon primary, but by a much smaller margin than was predicted.  Apparently Associated Press (AP) is dropping all pretense of fairness in their reporting.  The polls in Kentucky had barely closed when Alan Fram, a reporter for the Associated Press, began spouting the Obama propaganda that the voters in Kentucky were a bunch of racist in-breds.  “Race played a decisive role in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lopsided victory in Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary in Kentucky,” wrote Fram.   The media gave the same spin to the West Virginia primary earlier this month.

Fram continued his racial rant, “Seven in 10 whites overall backed Clinton in Kentucky, including about three quarters of those who have not completed college. That made Tuesday's contest one of her stronger performances yet with those blue-collar white voters — little surprise considering Kentucky has one of the country's highest proportions of people who are not college graduates,” wrote Fram.   Fram’s message is clear:  If you vote for anyone but Obama, you are #1 white; #2 uneducated; #3 poor, and #4 racist.

The election analysis of the Oregon primary wasn’t in at the time of this writing, but if you read tomorrow’s analysis of the Oregon primary, I will guarantee that the pro-Obama media will point out directly or indirectly how well educated and enlightened the Oregonians are.   The message is clear: If you vote for Obama, you are #1 Open to diversity; #2 well educated; #3 poor to middle-class (no wealthy people); and #4 very cultured. 

Questions:

How long will the American public continue to buy into the “If you vote against Obama, you are a racist.” theme?

Will this theme play out before November?

Is this just a spruced up version of the old saw, “You didn’t give me the job because I’m Black?”

Obama's Journey Towards Appeasement

Wow, President Bush hit a nerve when he spoke to Israel’s Knesset.   Barack Obama and the usual suspects in the Democratic Party went ballistic.  So, what did Bush say that upset our liberal friends?  Bush spoke to Israel’s parliament on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the Jewish state, and as would have been expected, he pledged U.S. support for Israel and placed Iran on notice.  I am quoting much of President Bush’s speech, because it was a good speech, a speech that Churchill would have been proud to make.   "America is with you in breaking up terrorist networks and denying the extremists' sanctuary. And America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

Bush’s speech could have been given by a European leader before one of the crusades.  “The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle… This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own desire for power. They accept no God before themselves.

President Bush goes on to make it quite clear that the U.S. and Israel are now together in the struggle against radical Islam.  “And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties," said Bush.

“Then Bush turned his attention to the naïve among us.  “There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.  Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“President Bush then goes on to utter those lines that caused a hysterical breakdown within the Democratic leadership.  “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

“Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you,” said Bush.

“It is questionable whether Obama really took that much offense to President Bush’s comments or he simply saw this as a good opportunity to stir a national debate about the merits of face-to-face discussions with our adversaries in the Middle-East.  If that was Obama’s intent, then he has succeeded.  There are pros and cons to face-to-face discussions – and we will hear them all in the next few months.”

Questions: 

Is it wise to enter into sit-downs with the leaders of Hamas or Hezbollah?

Should our President meet with the President of Iran?

Obama has cited previous cases where U.S. Presidents have met successfully with our enemies.  He cites Reagan and Gorbachev, and Nixon and Mao as examples.  Did it work then and will it work now?

Obama and the PC Police

Hillary Clinton, as expected, trounced Barack Obama by a 2- 1 margin in the West Virginia primary last night.  Probably the most interesting thing to come out of this primary is the spin that is coming out of the Obama camp.  Obama’s spinmeisters, CNN,  and the mainstream media are hinting the reason Obama lost West Virginia is because the state is inhabited by working class whites (code for a bunch of inbred Jethros who are clinging to their guns and their religion).  It’s interesting to note that Fox is the only network that questioned the fact that Obama pulled in 92% of the African-American vote in North Carolina.  The not-so-subtle racist charge is intended as a warning for potential voters in the remaining primary states who intend to vote for Hillary.   CNN and other networks are reminding voters that it is not PC to vote for the white candidate.  How could you?  Shame on you?  The PC police are watching you.

This message, of course, is intended to carry over to the general election; however, allegations of racism, no matter how subtle, can backfire.  Americans are weary of the likes of Sharpton, Jackson, and the Reverend Wright. 

Questions:

Does Hillary stand a chance of winning the Democratic nomination?

Can Obama deny her the VP spot if she wants it?

Kansas Governor Sebelius Vetoes Power Plants

Kansas is emblematic of the war between sanity and the eco-nuts.  At issue are two 700 megawatt coal-fired power plants that were to be built in Holcolmb, Kansas, a small farming town of 2,000 that sits on the plains of southwest Kansas.  The Kansas legislature has tried and failed twice to build the two power plants.  Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius,  backed by the Sierra Club, vetoed the bills.  The Kansas legislature failed to muster the necessary number of votes to override her veto even though riders were placed in the final bill that would have mandated the energy company, Sunflower, to invest huge amounts in wind and solar energy.

The Governor’s veto is especially ironic in light of the sharply rising cost of oil, not to mention its availability.  But, in the most ironic twist of all, the U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world.  America is the Saudi Arabia of coal and has known coal reserves of 275 billion tons, which is nearly twice that of Russia and China.

Coal plant opponents are trumpeting the defeat of the power plant bills, saying this is the turning point at which Kansas will lead the country away from old energy sources toward more environmentally friendly types of energy.  Governor Sebelius, who is frequently mentioned as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, is asking legislators to work with her on a new comprehensive energy policy.

As could be expected, the vote fell along regional lines. Legislators who live in and represent the affected area voted for the bills.  Legislators in the more heavily populated eastern regions of Kansas voted against the bills.

The eco-nuts would have everyone believe that Conservatives love the smell of dirty air and prefer that their children and their children’s children be raised on a polluted planet.

The environmentalists have effectively shut down the building of more nuclear and coal fired power plants.  Solar has proved dicey at best in providing reliable ongoing power, so that leaves us with wind energy.
Wind turbines, as an auxiliary energy source shows some promise, but they are expensive to install - and the wind doesn’t blow all the time.
And, wouldn’t you know it, they are opposed by many environmentalists because they kill birds.  So that leaves us with.......?

As usual, the eco-nuts are long on criticisms, but short on coming up with VIABLE alternatives.

Questions:

At what point, will the people wake up and bring some sanity back to our energy policy?

How long will it take to produce viable alternative energy sources?

Will Obama adopt an eco-nut stance on energy?

Hillary Clinton's Secret Plan for 2012?

As the Democratic primaries draw to an end, so does speculation about what the loser will do and who they will or will not support in the general election.  “Rook” has some thoughts on how this may play out if Hillary Clinton loses the primary.

“Some of the more experienced political pundits are saying privately that Hillary feels she would be better off with a one term McCain presidency than a two term Obama. She can come back after it in four years, since McCain is too old to do two terms. And she hates Obama for stealing her big chance.

If they’re right, and if she doesn’t swing the super-delegates at the convention, then she may refuse to endorse Obama and might even support McCain behind the scenes. She obviously doesn’t care about the party and nothing else matters to her except getting into the white house.

Food for thought…”

Questions:

Will Hillary refuse to endorse Obama if he is nominated?

If the Democrats lose in December, which of them would challenge McCain in 2012?

Obama's Lie to Support Jews in Israel

Sometime when I hear politicians speak, I want to throw up.  On Thursday, Barack Obama pledged his support of Israel at an event sponsored by the Israeli Embassy.  At a celebration marking the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state in Washington, Obama said, `I pledge to you that I will do whatever I can in whatever capacity to not only ensure Israel's security but also to ensure that the people of Israel may thrive and prosper and build on the enormous promise that was made 60 years ago... So it is critical that we send a message around the world, we will stand with Israel, we want them around not just for 60 years but for 600 years and when I am president of the United States they will have an unwavering ally in me."

Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain also pledged their support of Israel, but in light of Obama’s incessant daily promises to cut and run from Iraq, his pledge to support and defend Israel has to go down in history as the biggest political lie since Hitler shook Stalin’s hand in 1940 and pledged his support to the Soviet Union.

This brings up many questions about Obama and his future policies, should he be elected President:

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, will it jeopardize Israel?

Does Obama see the inconsistencies between his campaign promises and his promises to the Jewish community?

Is there a connection between Israel and us being in the Middle-East?

Does the Jewish community understand the implications of Obama’s campaign promise to immediately leave Iraq?

Why haven’t those in the Jewish community condemed Obama’s promises to leave Iraq?

Should We Close our Military Prison at Guantanamo?

A friend and I got into a discussion the other night about our military prison in Guantanamo Bay.  He was outraged at the idea that the detainees were on American soil without having the rights and benefits of a detained suspect in our criminal courts.  Ah, where does one start.  Perhaps with this week’s news from the BBC in Iraq:  “Guantanamo Man' in Iraq bombing.”  It seems one Mr. Abdullah al-Ajmi, a former guest at our facilities in Guantanamo Bay took part in a suicide bomb attack in Mosul that killed several members of the Iraqi security forces on April 29.  Abdullah al-Ajmi had been in U.S. custody in Gitmo and because he was a Kuwaiti, the U.S. transferred him to Kuwait in 2005 where he was acquitted of terrorist charges.  More than 80 prisoners have been transferred to other countries, and over 200 have been released.

According to reports, Abdullah al-Ajmi and two alleged accomplices obtained new passports before going to Mosul through Syria.  Once in Iraq, the trio detonated two car bombs that killed the several members of the Iraqi security forces.

The ACLU  and an battalion of defense lawyers tried to make the case that these military combatants should be tried as criminals in the U.S. courts.  Apparently the Supreme Court cringed at the idea of seeing 400 O.J. style trials, so in a 6-3 decision they gave the U.S. Military Tribunals sole jurisdiction at this time.   

What exactly would the three presidential candidates do about our military prison in Guantanamo is unclear, but if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton get into office, they are pledging to bring the troops home, so presumedly the prison at Gitmo would no longer be necessary.

Questions:

If the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continues, what should be done with the 400+ prisoners in Guantanamo?

If we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, will the prisoners simply be released?

Do Military Tribunals provide adequate justice for detainees?
Should we close the prison at Gitmo and move it to Iraq or the Middle-East?

What will John McCain do with Gitmo if he is elected President?

What would Hillary or Obama do if elected?

Racism in America

Barack Obama won the North Carolina Democratic primary last night with 91% of the African-American vote.  Obama has racked up wins with 90+% of the African-American votes in other states, as well.  The pundits have said little about these startling statistics other than to merely cite the numbers. 

One can only wonder what the media pundits would be saying if Hillary Clinton had won 91% of the white vote.  Democratic Chairman Howard Dean, in a recent interview with Chris Wallace, charged the Clinton campaign with interjecting “race baiting” into the campaign by mentioning Obama’s connection with the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Wallace did not ask Dean if he felt the nearly unanimous Black vote for Obama was racist.   African-Americans in their quest for equality have filled hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits based on these kind of “underrepresentation” statistics that show that there is discrimination against them.  They often cite these types of statistics when Blacks are under “parity” in the work place, or these types of statistics are often brought out when they allege “red-lining” by insurance companies, and the list is endless.  I don’t hear anyone in the media mentioning these lopsided statics when racism is directed towards whites.

The questions are:

Is the media afraid to bring up the topic of Black racism?

Is it a matter of white guilt saying, “Let’s give the Black candidate a pass?”

Will the media ever challenge these lopsided statistics?

Obama Cuts Reverend Wright Loose

Coming off a loss in Pennsylvania and with the Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries just a week away, Barack Obama took a machete to his ties with Reverend Wright.  Speaking in North Carolina, Obama mustered up his best imitation of moral outrage and said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

Obama’s denunciation came the day after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave two high profile speeches laced with Farrakhan-like rhetoric.  Wright also made a statement that hinted at an off-the-record conversation between Wright and Obama.  Wright had stated, "If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected.  Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Obama, faced with another seven months of Wright’s bombastic racial remarks, undoubtedly decided it was time to publicly repudiate Wright before Wright could scuttle Obama’s campaign.  "What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

“I have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," said Obama. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.  Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed.  I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."

Obama has clearly cut his ties to Wright, the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and has been his pastor for 20 years. Obama titled his second book, "The Audacity of Hope,"  from a Wright sermon.

I suspect Obama may have waited too long before coming out with his denunciation of Wright.  First, Wright’s past statements are forever tied to Obama.  Second, Obama’s denunciation of Wright will not insulate him from statements made by Wright between now and November.

Reverend Wright wasn’t the only one who was left to twist in the wind; loopy commentators from CNN and other left-wing media outlets quickly rushed in to spin Wright comments before the NAACP as being some sort of stellar civil rights speech.  Oops!

In addition to your comments, the questions are:

Will Reverend Wright continue his high profile public appearances between now and November?
Will the media cover these speeches?
How will Wright react to Obama’s denunciation?
Will Obama’s denunciation hurt him with African-American voters?
How much will this help Obama with white voters?