Saturday, May 31, 2008

Obama Quits His Church

I think it is a good thing that Obama quit his church. Much as I like him, I do find it difficult to understand why he remained a member of the church for so long. I saw the "performance" of Rev. Michael Pfleger on CNN the other day. Pfleger "delivered a tirade against Mrs. Clinton that included fake tears, a high-pitched voice and top-of-the-lungs screaming." Pfleger is white, and the sermon seemed to me to be an attempt to (badly) imitate a black preacher's style in order to appeal to the congregation of the church. It was very strange, and I found it very offensive. I also didn't understand how he was even able to make such a partisan political sermon in the face of the Catholic Church's prohibition of priests getting involved in partisan politics.

1 comment:

  1. Please humor me for a moment while I state that no one likes being attacked by what I call blasphemous vagrants. Even worse, Obama exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve in a matter of days into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to set the wolf to mind the sheep. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that Obama wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because it's astounding that he has found a way to work the words "histomorphologically" and "parasympathomimetic" into his objectives. However, you may find it even more astounding that his morals are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: He believes that children should belong to the state. Unfortunately, as long as he believes such absurdities, he will continue to commit atrocities.

    I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that we could opt to sit back and let Obama push all of us to the brink of insanity. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. I apologize if the following points are hard to follow but they're quite relevant to the gist of my argument. First, Obama is unable to see any issue in a broad perspective or from more than one side. And second, what was morally wrong five years ago is just as wrong today. All of this means, of course, that even when Obama isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why there is no defense against ridicule. My peers claim that it is difficult for many people to accept that I indubitably think that we should refer to him using the sobriquet "Abhorrent Obama" because he's so thoroughly abhorrent, not to mention domineering. While this is clearly true, I suspect we must add that he is all too typical of the sort of nefarious administrators who let down ladders that the diabolic, directionless, and socially inept scramble to climb. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that if one believes statements like, "Disdainful, headstrong layabouts are easily housebroken," one is, in effect, supporting scabrous, immature heretics. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to refute Barrack Obama's arguments line by line and claim by claim will not rest until we do.