The Differences Are Clear ...

... between Virgil Goode and the two major-party liberals he's running against:

Fight the Goode Fight!

Vote Virgil Goode for President.

Fr. Flakey in the News Again: Wants to "Snuff Out" K-Mart for Selling Easter Baskets with Nerf Guns

Ed Morrissey reports on Fr. Pfleger's latest left-wing, headline-seeking nonsense:

Remember Michael Pfleger, the radical priest in Chicago last heard from in the 2008 campaign, defending his friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright? The one who hung out with Barack Obama for decades, thinks that “America is the greatest sin against God,” and who wound up getting suspended by the Chicago diocese after making himself into a national spectacle? Well, Father Pfleger is back, baby, and he has a new eeeeeevil in his sights — guns. Or perhaps more accurately … gateway guns?

There was a time when kids wanting toy guns had limited media images of cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers to emulate. Today, not so.

So the Rev. Michael Pfleger said he is challenging the sale of the toys — in Easter baskets — to a generation plagued by more violent and rampant use of guns in their own neighborhoods.

“I am writing to express my concern and outrage that Kmart is selling Easter baskets, which are obviously for children, with toy guns in them,” Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church in Auburn-Gresham, wrote to officials at the big box retailer, in a Mar. 9 letter obtained by the Sun-Times.

“With the increasing gun violence in Chicago and across this country, I am amazed that you would choose to offer toy guns to our children to make them comfortable with playing with them. I am asking you to remove any baskets with toy guns in them from your store’s shelves immediately,” Pfleger wrote.

[...]

Pfleger then argues that Nerf is nothing more than a gateway to the harder stuff:

But equally important is that any psychiatrist will tell you a child who gets comfortable playing with toy guns and pointing them at people as a child becomes comfortable picking them up as an adult. In a nation that’s plagued with gun violence, neither Kmart nor any other store should be selling guns in Easter baskets to our kids.

[More]

My Comments:
Actually, Ed is mistaken in believing that guns are a "new evil" for Fr. Flakey (although targeting nerf guns seem to be a new twist in his opposition). In fact, it was a controversy over gun shops that first brought this pernicious priest to my attention:

On Saturday, as part of an Operation PUSH protest at Chuck's Gun Shop & Range, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's Church, urged the crowd to "drag" shop owner John Riggio from his shop "like a rat" and "snuff" him, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) said.

[...]

"I want the NRA [National Rifle Association] to understand - you have a lot of money, but money can't buy moral authority and it can't buy justice or freedom, and we will fight you, NRA," he says.

"We will fight you on every angle [sic], no matter how much money you've got, we will embarrass you, and we will embarrass every legislator that takes money from you. We will call them out by name, by district. We will expose you, legislators."

Pfleger then turns his attention to Riggio. "He's the owner of Chuck's. John Riggio. R-i-g-g-i-o. We're going to find you and snuff you out … you know you're going to hide like a rat. You're going to hide but like a rat we're going to catch you and pull you out. We are not going to allow you to continue to hide when we're here …"

[...]

The day before the anti-gun protest, the church hosted former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who was making a rare public appearance. Pfleger was quoted as describing the controversial Muslim activist as "a gift from God to a sick, sick world."

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Catholic Priest Calls for "Snuffing" of Gun Shop Owner and Politicos Who Support 2nd Amendment [UPDATED]

Obama-Supporting Catholic Priest Thinks White People Should Give Up 401(k) Accounts to Make Amends for Slavery [UPDATED]

Cardinal George Removes Fr. Pfleger

He's Baaaaack!

Humor: Fr. Pfleger on Gov. Palin

Romney = Kerry Redux [UPDATED]

Every day, I am more and more convinced that an observation I made over 4 years ago about Dullard Flip Rino is 100% correct:

Isn't Mitt Romney basically the Republican version of John Kerry? They're both shallow Massachusetts pretty boys with nice hair, lots of money, a patrician background, a liberal record, and a penchant for flip-flopping on the issues.

Of course, Mitt can't claim to have served in Vietnam [by the way, did you know that John Kerry was in Vietnam?], but he can say that his sons are "serving their country" by working on his campaign.

Massachusetts patrician "relating" to the common plebes:

“Can I get me a huntin' license here?”
~ John F. Kerry


“I've always been a rodent and rabbit hunter. Small varmints, if you will. I began when I was 15 or so and I have hunted those kinds of varmints since then.”
~ Willard Mitt Romney

And I'm afraid, if nominated, the "varmint hunter" will fare about as well (actually, probably NOT as well) as did the guy who wanted to "get me a huntin' license."


UPDATE
Romney at CPAC: My record is “severely conservative”

What the hell does "severely conservative" mean? Certainly doesn't sound like he believes being conservative to be a good thing. As the writer at HotAir points out,

The awkwardness of that phrase is Romney’s whole candidacy in a nutshell. The word “severely” is almost always used colloquially in a pejorative or clinical sense (“severely unhappy,” “severely handicapped”), yet he’s using it here in a boastful way, as if to say that he can be as strident and unreasonable as he thinks the crowd needs him to be to give them comfort on his ideological bona fides as nominee. I go back and forth between being annoyed that a guy as intelligent as he is can’t even fake his identification with the right more effectively and feeling sympathy for him that he can’t connect with his audience on a gut level.

I mean, SERIOUSLY.

Look, if you keep having to try to convince a doubting GOP base that you're "conservative" by continuing to mention that you're "conservative", but you don't even know the right words to use to convincingly make your case, there's a very good chance that YOU'RE NOT REALLY CONSERVATIVE.

And so it is with Dullard Flip Rino.

Is Jon Huntsman the 2012 GOP Dark Horse?

Tip of the hat to Rob Wasinger, the former Brownback chief of staff and 2008 presidential campaign manager who has endorsed Ambassador Jon Huntsman for the 2012 GOP nomination, for alerting me to this article by Deal Hudson on Ambassador Hunstman's prospects for winning:

... The question most asked about Huntsman is how Obama's ambassador to China, ostensibly a "moderate" Republican, could gain the nomination of a party presently being fueled by the energy of Tea Party and social conservative activists.

Huntsman's record suggests the possibility is not so far-fetched as some might think. Social conservatives may not realize that, as governor, he signed three pro-life bills to help limit abortions in the state of Utah. Huntsman also signed the most important school choice voucher program in the nation, a universal program not limited to low-income students in a particular district or poorly performing schools. Huntsman also signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans to own firearms.

As a fiscal conservative, Huntsman's credentials are unquestioned. While governor, Utah won an award from the Pew Center's Government Performance Project as the "Best Managed State in the Union," and in 2007 Huntsman signed the largest tax cut in Utah's history, earning his state the Cato Institute's number-one ranking in tax policy. Last year, Forbes magazine described Utah as the nation's leading state in job growth and the "best state" for business and careers. On top of all this, Utah's economy has recorded five consecutive years of 3.5 percent annual growth.

On Huntsman's effort to reform health care in Utah, he does not share the vulnerability of the other Mormon candidate seeking the GOP nomination, Mitt Romney. While Romney's health care program in Massachusetts is seen by many as a prototype for Obamacare, Huntsman's health care measures in Utah were designed to give individuals and families choices about their coverage and how to pay for it. For example, one piece of legislation gave citizens of Utah the ability to take defined contributions from their employers and buy their own coverage. Utah created a website called NetCare, allowing citizens to shop and compare health insurance programs.

The better-known GOP frontrunners for the nomination each has obstacles to overcome: Pawlenty will have to explain to Catholic voters why he left the Church of his birth; Romney's Achilles heel is health care; Gingrich's personal history will continue to dog him, and so on.

But Huntsman has a chance to define himself on the basis of a solid record in the midst of a field of candidates with multiple handicaps. There is good reason why David Plouffe, the former campaign manager for President Obama, said the prospect of a Huntsman candidacy makes him "a wee bit queasy."

[Read the whole thing]

As I told Rob in an email, I am not quite sold on Ambassador Huntsman yet. I have concerns about his views on "Cap and Tax" and on same-sex unions. In addition, it's fairly easy to govern as a conservative in a state like Utah, and I wonder how much of Governor Huntsman's conservatism was a product of where he was governing as opposed to who he is.

But, that said, he is one of the more intriguing possibilities in the GOP field, and I could very well be won over. Such is not the case, for example, for Mitt Romney. Absolutely nothing Romney does or says could possibly change my mind about his being, at heart, a liberal and a phony. I can't understand why conservatives who should know better, such as Kathryn Lopez and the rest of the gang at National Review (except for Ramesh), are so enamoured with Romney (who has NEVER governed as a conservative and who, prior to 2008, had always run for office as a liberal) a pass, while labeling someone like Huntsman (who has actually governed as a conservative) a "moderate". The comparison of the two is an interesting juxtaposition, not the least reason being the religion angle. At any rate, I call into question the conventional wisdom that Huntsman is a "moderate".

And I definitely hope he decides to run.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Why is Jon Huntsman Considered a "Moderate"?

PETA Objects to "Sarah Palin's Alaska"

Palin Eating Tasty Animals:

It was only a matter of time before People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) responded to the fourth installment of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” that aired Sunday night.

In the episode, Palin went hunting in the Alaskan tundra and shot, killed and skinned a caribou with her father and family friend.

On Monday, PopEater printed a statement released by PETA Vice President Dan Mathews, who said, "Sarah seems to think that resorting to violence and blood and guts may lure people into watching her boring show. But the ratings remain as dead as the poor animals she shoots.” The show’s ratings have indeed fallen since its premiere, but with 3.5 million viewers last week, the program is hardly “dead.”

Of course, both the network and Palin knew that an episode about hunting would stir controversy. They had Ted Nugent talking about the merits of hunting on SPAlaska.com before the show aired, and Palin posted a message about her intolerance of the anti-hunting brigade on her Facebook wall. “Tonight’s hunting episode ‘controversial’?” Palin asked on Sunday. “Really? Unless you’ve never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather couch or eaten a piece of meat, save your condemnation of tonight’s episode. I remain proudly intolerant of anti-hunting hypocrisy.”

President Clings to "Bitter Clinger" Meme

From the PostPartisan blog at The Washington Post:

... I thought President Obama struck the wrong note in answer to a question about the rally from Brian Williams of NBC News.

The president started off okay, acknowledging that “Mr. Beck and the rest of those folks were exercising their rights under our Constitution exactly as they should.”

But then he fell back on an abstract analysis eerily reminiscent of his notorious “cling to guns or religion” riff from campaign 2008:

I -- I do think that it's important for us to recognize that right now, the country's going through a very difficult time, as a consequence of years of neglect in a whole range of areas. Our schools not working the way they need to, so we've slipped in terms of the number of college graduates, you know?

A financial system that was not, you know, operating in a way that maintained integrity and assured that the people who were investing or who were buying a home or were using a credit card weren't getting in some way cheated. We had a health-care system that was broken and that was bankrupting families and businesses. All those issues are big, tough, difficult issues. And those are just our domestic issues. That's before we get to policy issues in two wars. And a continuing battle against terrorists who want to do us harm. So, given all those anxieties -- and given the fact that, you know, in none of these situations are you going to be fix things overnight. It's not surprising that somebody like a Mr. Beck is able to stir up a certain portion of the country. That's been true throughout our history.

That’s a pretty confident analysis from someone who admitted that he did not even watch the rally on TV. I’m not sure exactly how I would feel if the president labeled me an anxious member of a “certain” subculture manipulated -- “stirred up” -- by “somebody like a Mr. Beck.” But I am sure I wouldn’t feel respected.

[...]

This was such a silly political unforced error that I have to assume Obama committed it out of sincere belief...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Delegate Admits the Obvious: "Bitter" Was Indeed a Big Deal

What Obama Really Meant Was "They're Nuts"

Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

50 Things a Man Should Be Able To Do

At First Thoughts, Joe Carter has compiled a list of 50 things every man should be able to do, including, among other things, "perfectly cook scrambled eggs", "load, shoot, and clean a firearm", and "hug another man".

Once Again, the Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

For the second time in just over 2 years, the Supreme Court by a narrow 5-4 ruling has revealed to us that we have a constitutional right that (1) we already knew we had, (2) the Constitution plainly states we had, and (3) 200-plus years of a tradition of individual gun ownership in this country attests we had.

Item number (3) above, a guiding principle long championed by Justice Scalia in the application of so-called "Substantive Due Process" jurisprudence, is KEY to the majority's holding in McDonald v. Chicago.

Especially read Justice Scalia's concurrence, which eviscerates Justice Stevens' dissent and the "judge-as-enlightened-philosopher-king" mentality that undergirds the philosophy and jurisprudence of the judicial left.

It remains troubling, however, that constitutional protections such as the 2nd Amendment hinge on the swing of one Justice's vote.


UPDATE
I think the approach of my favorite Justice and personal judicial hero, Justice Thomas, which relies on the 14th Amendment's "Privileges and Immunities Clause" rather than the 14th Amendment's "Due Process Clause", is probably the "correct" one as a historical matter and from both an originalist and textualist standpoint.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and we're stuck with having to limit, if we can't outright undo, the damage wrought by an expansive and substantive reading of the Due Process Clause. Given the parameters within which the modern Court is working, I believe the preferable approach from a jurisprudential (as opposed to historical) standpoint is to follow Justice Scalia's lead in reading the substantive/fundamental "liberty" component of the Due Process Clause - i.e. those rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” - as one to be interpreted and applied in light of our nation's long-established traditions.

Hopefully, one day, Justice Thomas' constitutionally correct views will rule the day.


UPDATE #2
Another interesting component about today's ruling is that we're bound to hear from leftist commentators about the Court's "activist" ruling. "Activist" because the Court acted to strike down a locality's gun control law. But read the opinions (including the concurrences) of those who voted in the majority and then read the dissenting opinions.

Which ones read like the opinions of Justices interested in limiting the judicial role in creating Constitutional rights out of whole cloth, and which ones read like the opinions of Justices with a prediliction for picking and choosing which rights are "acceptable" for constitutional protection (even if found NO WHERE in the Constitution) and which are not (even if they ARE found in the Constitution)?

If the word "activist" means anything, it certainly applies more to the latter than it does to the former.

But this is nothing new to the constitutional debate over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states. I encourage you to read the history of the incorporation controversy in the Supreme Court, especially the debates between the late Justices Black and Frankfurter. Throughout most of their tenures on the Court, it was Black who was viewed as the "liberal" and the "activist" and Frankfurter as an almost reactionary "conservative". Black pushed for "full incorporation" of the Bill of Rights; Frankfurter opposed him.

Yet, Black's purpose for pushing for full incorporation was, in fact, one of judicial restraint. A huge opponent of the "Substantive Due Process" jurisprudence that held sway on the Court in the 1910s-1930s, Black sought to limit the role of the Court in picking and choosing which rights were deemed "fundamental" to ordered liberty and which were not, and saw full incorporation as one means of accomplishing his goal of protecting the constitution from judicial interference.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Dale Price on Heller (and Tony's Temper Tantrum)

Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone writes in The Washington Examiner:

... The educated class thinks that gun control can reduce crime. But over the last 15 years, crime rates have plummeted thanks to Giuliani-type police tactics and while 40 states have laws permitting law-abiding citizens to get licenses to carry concealed weapons.

"The educated class believes in global warming," Brooks notes. But ordinary Americans have been noticing that temperatures have not been rising in the last decade as climate scientists' models predicted, and they may have noticed those Climategate e-mails that show how climate scientists have been jiggering the statistics and suppressing opposing views.

On these issues the educated class is faith-based and the ordinary Americans who increasingly reject their views are fact-based, just as the Obama enthusiasts are motivated by style and the tea partiers by substance.

As the educated class bitterly clings to its contempt for the increasing numbers not enlightened enough to share its views, other Americans have noticed, even in the liberal heartland of Massachusetts, where Republican Scott Brown seems on the brink of an upset victory in the special Senate election next Tuesday. That would have reverberations for the educated class an awful lot like that tea party back in 1773.

[Read more at The Washington Examiner]

Law, Free Will, Choice, and Guns

Darwin Catholic (who, along with his lovely wife, Mrs. Darwin, will be meeting me for dinner and drinks tonight in Columbus) has an insightful post today at The American Catholic: "Law, Free Will, Choice and… Guns".

Two Seemingly Unrelated News Items ...

Obama boosts anti-abortion efforts

... Obama’s first 84 days in office have been like an extended recruiting drive for the anti-abortion movement, reinvigorating a constituency he sought to neutralize during the campaign. Activists report a noticeable spike in activity as Obama moves to defend and expand a woman’s right to choose an abortion – causing anti-abortion voters to mobilize in ways never needed during the Bush administration. So far this year:

— The Susan B. Anthony List says its supporters sent more anti-abortion-related letters, e-mails and faxes to Obama and lawmakers in the first quarter alone than during each of the last two years.

— The American Life League reported a 30 percent uptick in donations over last year.

— Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr., an anti-abortion Democrat who campaigned vigorously for Obama, has received more mail on abortion than on any other issue in 2009, spokesman Larry Smar said.

— Activists have sent more than 100,000 postcards urging Casey to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act, which would guarantee the right to abortion in federal law. Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund in July 2007 that “the first thing I’d do as president” is sign the act. “It’s been our biggest organized mailing,” Smar said.

— More than 261,000 people have signed an online petition calling on Notre Dame to withdraw its invitation for Obama to speak at the Catholic university’s May 17 commencement. The petition says Obama has carried out “some of the most anti-life actions of any American president," including expanding taxpayer-funded research on embryonic stem cells.

— And Americans United for Life plans to expand its plans to expand its staff in Washington and, after the post-election crash, recently upgraded its computer system to handle the bump in online activism.

***
To be sure, anti-abortion voters were never going to support Obama wholeheartedly, but because he worked hard during the campaign not to play up his differences with them, any signs that they are mobilized could cause him trouble down the road.

***
But anti-abortion activists say their e-mail lists, grassroots organization and online traffic show something is happening.

“A lot of activists are waking up,” said Joy Yearout, political director the Susan B. Anthony List...

(emphasis added)

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says.

***
The report says extremist groups have used President Obama as a recruiting tool...

(emphasis added)

Obama Voted to Prosecute Victims of Violence Who Defend Themselves with Guns

I'm the NRA, and I approve this message:




Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
I'm the NRA ...

Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

States Allow Deadly Self-Defense

Mark Warner Says "Right to Lifers", Homeschoolers, and the NRA "Threaten What it Means to be American"

(Hat tip: Regular Guy Paul)

Virginia's former Democrat Governor Mark Warner, running to replace retiring Republican (RINO) U.S. Senator John Warner, is contemptuous of pro-lifers, homeschoolers, and gunowners:


"Threatening to what it means to be an American"? Can you say projection? It's the secularist left that are threatening what it means to be an American in their efforts to transform this nation into something that it is not and never has been (and, God willing, never will be): a secularist nation with an unarmed and government indoctrinated populace at the mercy of the all-powerful State - just like the socialist countries of Europe (and Cuba) that the lefties so admire.

And it's no coincidence that the groups Warner names as "threatening" are, in fact, the very groups that stand in the way of the leftists achieving their harmful anti-American agenda.

And finally, as an aside, no wonder Sen. John Warner has said he may cross party lines and vote for Mark Warner to replace him. In addition to sharing a last name, they both share a similar contempt for the conservative base of the Republican Party.

I'm the NRA ...

... and I approve this message.

Quote of the Day: Karen Hall on "Big City Bigots"

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Karen Hall at Some Have Hats writes:

I just watched an Obama Camp spokeswoman explain, with a look on her face like she just stepped in a cowpile, that Palin's only experience is that she has been a "part-time mayor of a town with a population of under 9,000."

Gratefully, the reporter interviewing her pointed out that when Palin was working in such a meager position, Obama was a "community organizer" in Chicago. (And if Obama has experience running anything more complicated than his sock drawer, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what it was.)

I'd just like to say, as a person who grew up in a town of 1,200 and was raised by the Vice-Mayor: Obama's elitist, condescending, small-town-bashing bigots can kiss my ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-clutching @ss.

I have a feeling that a lot of people living in small towns across America feel the same way, and then some. And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm only from a town of 1,200, you know) but aren't there a LOT of those small towns? And with the polls so close, does it really make sense for the Obama camp to keep insulting the people who live in them?

I don't know. I reckon I gotta git one of them smart people from the big city to 'splain it to me.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
And as someone who grew up in a town of roughly 1,600, served as Mayor of a town of about 50, and currently resides in a small city of about 16,000, I'd just like to concur with Karen's sentiment.

The condescending elitists who are so dismissive of us "bitter" small-town folks who "cling" to God and guns will just never learn.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Delegate Admits the Obvious: "Bitter" Was Indeed a Big Deal

What Obama Really Meant Was "They're Nuts"

Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio

Dale Price on Heller (and Tony's Temper Tantrum)

Dale Price, in his usual erudite manner, dissects one blogger's fairly predictable (and poorly reasoned) negative response to the Supreme Court's decision in Heller:

... This has provoked this remarkable cork-popping tantrum over at Vox Nova, which can be summed up as "I don't like it, and you're a bad Catholic if you do!" The reasoning employed to reach its conclusions would have to undergo substantial revision and improvement to rise to the level of "half-assed." It is so indiscriminate in its raging that it manages to misunderstand or misuse the following concepts: Positive law, the Enlightenment, principles of legal interpretation, Anglo-American history, Catholic principles of solidarity/the common good, the gay marriage decisions, to name but six fatal flaws. Oh, and there's the usual Morning Minion Papal Bull infallibly declaring anyone who disagrees with him Malum Catholicus. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with his style, is a feature, not a bug...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

Catholic Priest Calls for "Snuffing" of Gun Shop Owner and Politicos Who Support 2nd Amendment

Supreme Court Tells Us What We Already Knew

The United States Supreme Court tells us that we have a constitutional right that (1) we already knew we had, (2) the Constitution plainly states we had, and (3) 200-plus years of a tradition of individual gun ownership in this country attests we had.

Feddie has the details on District of Columbia v. Heller at Southern Appeal: here, here, and here.


UPDATE
Obama's take on the Supreme Court's decision in Heller should be interesting. I'm betting he comes down on the side of not throwing away the "God and guns" vote in Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.


UPDATE #2
No sooner had I posted that update above than Christopher Blosser (via email) brought the following to my attention:

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

[More]

Obama-Supporting Catholic Priest Thinks White People Should Give Up 401(k) Accounts to Make Amends for Slavery [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: The Cranky Conservative)

We all remember the Catholic priest who Sharptonesquely called for the "snuffing out" of Chicago gun shop owners, right? Well, "Fr. Flakey" is back in the news, this time doing his best Jeremiah Wright impersonation:

This YouTube is now being sent to me by many readers. I'll have a transcript in a moment, but it features one of Obama's close friends, Fr. Michael Pfleger, preaching at Trinity United. This seems like an oddly-timed sequel to the Wright brouhaha, as we now have another Obama mentor giving a strikingly similar message.

UPDATE: Much like written words don't do justice to Jeremiah Wright's sermons, the video must be watched to be believed...

I must now to address the one who says, 'don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.' But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did! And unless you are ready to give up the benefits — Throw away your 401 fund! [sic] Throw away your trust fund! Throw away all the money that been put away in the company you walked into 'cause your daddy and your granddaddy and your great grandaddy —

(emphasis added)

Sound like many white people you know? Yeah, me either.

But wait, there's more:

... [garbled] expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don't want ot make this political, because you know I'm really very unpolitical...

***
Imitating Hillary's response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, 'Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!'

(mocks crying)

She wasn't the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!

[read the whole thing and watch the video].

(emphasis added)

As Jim Geraghty notes, "The argument that 401(k) accounts are inherent representations of white supremacy will be news to many, many Americans."

Uhhh, Cardinal George, I'm certainly not here to tell you how to do your job; but at some point you really ought to do something about this nutcase.


UPDATE
Elizabeth Scalia (aka The Anchoress) also has a post on this subject over at InsideCatholic.


UPDATE #2
Also at Creative Minority Report.


UPDATE #3
Obama “disappointed,” Pfleger “deeply sorry” for comments about Hillary

Wouldn’t you know it, not only is Obama surprised to find his friend of 20 years spouting the sort of rhetoric for which he’s famous in Chicago for spouting, but Pfleger himself sounds surprised. Amazing how much he and his circle of confidants managed to miss about their own behavior over the past few, er, decades.

[Read the whole thing]

Obama is, once again, shocked, shocked. I can't say it any better than this:

Funny how these longtime acquaintances of [Obama's] keep “surprising” him with incendiary racial rhetoric.

And here's the Pfleger endorsement of Obama that has apparently been "disappeared" from the Obama website:



UPDATE #4 (30 May)
Fr. James Martin, S.J., writing at the America Magazine group blog In All Things, reflects on what was most offensive about Pfleger's remarks:

... But there is a much simpler reason why the sermon was so unchristian: because it was uncharitable. Even when confronted the most unrepentant of sinners, Jesus of Nazareth never mocked, but only showed compassion, and gave people the benefit of the doubt. Or, as St. Ignatius of Loyola said in his sixteenth-century classic, the Spiritual Exercises, "Every good Christian is to be more ready to save his neighbor's proposition than to condemn it." That includes Hillary Clinton. Give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Seeing a Catholic priest belittle another human being, and publicly impugn her motives, from a pulpit was shocking to many people. It seemed fundamentally wrong. And it is, for contempt has no place in Christian discourse...

Certainly Pfleger's comments about Hillary! were deeply uncharitable. But she wasn't the only person treated uncharitably.

Pfleger's remarks basically accused ALL white people of piggybacking through life on the efforts of black people who were enslaved by our white slave-holding ancestors (as if we all have a slavedriver somewhere in our family tree - never mind that many of our ancestors may have arrived on these shores AFTER slavery had been abolished; or as if none of us have ancestors who paid the ultimate price in the War that ultimately freed the slaves).

And the notion that those of us who have been able to put back a portion of our own hard-earned dollars for our retirement are somehow obligated to give that "back" (to whom are we to give it, by the way?) in order to be "absolved" from our "sin" of just happening to be "white" is not only completely lacking in charity, but is racist. And racism, as we all know, was recently listed as an intrinsic evil by the USCCB in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

Fr. Pfleger owes an apology to more people than just Hillary! He owes an apology to ALL those he impugned as guilty of white supremacy for the mere crime of being white.

And this is the sort of "religious" figures with whom Obama has chosen to surround himself. "Post-racial", indeed.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Proposed Legislation Would Protect Access to Gun Stores

Catholic Priest Calls for "Snuffing" of Gun Shop Owner and Politicos Who Support 2nd Amendment

Why Is It Working-Class Whites That the Media Deems "Racist"

Jim Geraghty, writing at National Review Online, notes something that has also bothered me about the press coverage during the Democrat primaries. Black voters are going 90+ % for the black candidate, despite the fact that his opponent Hillary Clinton can hardly be described as unsympathetic to "African-American interests", and it's white working-class voters that get pinned with the "racist" tag?

Geraghty provides some examples from our friends in the MSM:

Thomas Frank, New York Daily News: "With the largest number of remaining delegates now being party insiders, they have to decide if Obama can overcome enough of that antipathy - essentially deciding if enough working-class whites will back away from the black candidate, whether because of the false Muslim rumors, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright flap or old-fashioned racism."

Mary Mitchell, Chicago Sun-Times: "For instance, reported on the New York Times blog on Monday was a piece by a reporter who went to a 'mostly white highly educated, professional . . . politically independent' area and found voters were 'unaffected' by the Wright controversy. But the reporter also found that while supporters of both Clinton and Obama said 'they did not think the Wright episode should change the race' they feared it might in other areas where 'people might be searching for some acceptable explanation for not voting for a black candidate.' That's a truth that many will call a lie."

Al Hunt, Bloomberg News: "There may have been some element of racism among these culturally conservative voters, who support Democrats if they think the politician is strong and empathetic toward their struggles; Obama appeared neither."

Richard Kim, The Nation: "Are white working-class voters really racist? How many and where? If a significant number of them are, should Democrats really court them on the terms of their racism? These are questions worth asking since, apparently, a lot of Democrats think they're valid. But as long as the Clinton campaign continues to code the fact that it is counting on a base of white racist support, we'll never have this conversation."

How about giving credit to the fact that there may be something other than "racism" to describe the antipathy of people toward a candidate who has been so dismissive of their mores by describing them as "bitter" and "clinging" to religion and guns?

And if "racism" is to be the all-explaining theory of the Democrat primary, then why is no one questioning the obvious "racism" inherent in Obama's 90+ % support from African-American voters? No other demographic group - including working-class whites - is voting in such numbers for any other candidate.

How the Dems Alienated Catholics and Working-Class Whites

Ramesh Ponnuru, writing at First Things, reviews Mark Stricherz' book Why the Democrats are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People’s Party:

It would have required a lot of prescience to predict in 1965 that American politics, for so many decades based on economic divisions, would soon split over social issues and, especially, abortion. But not even a very prescient observer could have correctly predicted which party would take which side in the coming battles. On abortion, in particular, it looked obvious which way it would break: The Democrats were the party of Catholic Northerners and Southern whites, the party that believed in using the power of government to protect the weak; the Republicans were the party with historical ties to Planned Parenthood.

Somewhere along the line, the parties switched places, with consequences—including the Democrats’ loss of their durable majority—that are plain to see. But how it happened still seems a puzzle, and, in his new book, Why the Democrats Are Blue: Secular Liberalism and the Decline of the People’s Party, Mark Stricherz has provided a crucial piece for solving that puzzle.

***
On Stricherz’s telling, a Democratic-party activist named Fred Dutton emerged as the reformers’ chief theoretician. Dutton thought that the New Deal coalition was breaking apart. Mass affluence was making the old economic issues less pressing. A rising youth and feminist vote held promise for the party’s future, but working-class white voters were, too often, hostile to “the forces of change.” What Dutton sought, writes Stricherz, was “a Social Change coalition, which would be composed of college-educated suburbanites, blacks, and liberated women, in addition to young ­people.”

***
Secular liberals, including feminists, pulled the party sharply left on social issues. Over McGovern’s objections, they tried to make the Democratic platform of 1972 support legal abortion; they later succeeded. In 1980, over Jimmy Carter’s objections, they succeeded in making the platform support taxpayer-funded abortion too. (Carter had signed the Hyde Amendment, which restricted funding.) Since then, every Democratic presidential nominee has favored both Roe and taxpayer funding of abortion.

Stricherz does not underscore this point, but I will: The Democrats who ran for president in 2004 and who are running in 2008 have almost all voted to keep even partial-birth abortion legal. Most of them have said that they would make sure that any justice they appoint to the Supreme Court supports Roe. Most of them have voted to treat assaults on pregnant women as crimes with one victim rather than two. In January, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sparred over legislation to protect children who survive abortions, with Clinton accusing Obama of opposing it too timidly. Every significant Democratic candidate has been forced to accommodate the party’s new orthodoxies in order to get ahead.

The party as a whole has suffered as a result. The new, secularized party nominating system had produced a candidate who could not be elected, and it would alienated working-class white voters and Catholics. McGovern himself saw the weakness of the new coalition. “Our main problem is the blue-collar Catholic worker,” he told Theodore White in the early fall of 1972. The new repeat the pattern often. The social issues, Stricherz insists, are a major reason Democrats have lost six of the last nine presidential elections.

[More]

(emphasis added)