It continues to amaze me how even very astute commentators like Jennifer Rubin end up buying into the MSM coverups for Barry. NO, Obama did NOT quit or “depart” his church. Read his actual statement; he said he could not “continue attending while involved in a Presidential Campaign”. No mention of not attending once elected; much less of not attending if he fails to win the election. He then immediately stated that Trinity is “not worthy” ie. deserving, of being denounced.
In other words, being an avowed member is hurting his chances of being elected, and media attention needs to be diverted from that issue. But only for the length of the campaign. He has not “departed” the church, he is taking a 6 month vacation. He very well knows that should he lose in November, he will need the support of Trinity to retain his Senate seat.
Equally so his Indonesian Islamic education, his Communist high school mentor Frank Marshal Davis, his self-described “Marxist professors”, terrorists Ayers and Dohrn, convicted felon Rezko, his Black Marxist pastor and church, his earmark grants to Phleger, his Woods foundation grants to anti-gun ownership organizations….
None of those were a mistake, none of those deserve to be denounced, none of those are any less near and dear to him in his heart. Even racist, rabidly anti-Semitic, Black Muslim “Minister” Farrakhan can not be denounced, only certain unspecified “remarks” of his. As though Farrakhan is only guilty of an Imus type “gaffe”, rather than a lifetime of racist demagoguery.
All of these need to be hidden from the spotlight of media attention during the campaign. As Michelle said, press accounts of these issues “don’t benefit my kids”; nor his campaign either.
Please, please notice: he has not denounced or even renounced any of these !
He has excuse after excuse: not the man I knew, didn’t hear those sermons, pushed the wrong button when voting, platform statement was filled out by an aide not by him. Never once does he say that was a mistake, or I know better now. Never once does he say that he now sees the matter differently and would not make those associations if he could do it over. Not with a single one of them.
Is a man who even in the midst of a Presidential campaign cannot find it in his heart to denounce a terrorist who bombed the Pentagon fit to be Commander in Chief? Is a man who even in the midst of a Presidential campaign cannot find it in his heart to denounce racist Marxist Black Liberation Theology fit to be the President ?
By the clever ploy of denying that he “knew” or was “associated with” any of this, he can divert attention from the fact that he will not denounce any of it. He has used the denial of having “heard those {specific} statements while sitting in the pew” to divert press attention from the nature of the Black Liberation Theology that his church is based upon.
He denies being “closely associated with” Ayers, but will not denounce Ayers terrorist actions, any more than Ayers will denounce the radical revolutionary views he still holds and promotes.
In this sense, Obama is a refreshingly honest candidate. He could lie and say he does not believe in Black Liberation Theology, but he will not say that. He could lie and say he detests the left-wing revolutionary views of Ayers and Dohrn, but he will not say that. He could lie and say he is opposed to the DC and Chicago handgun bans, but he will not say that. He could lie and say he believes socialism is an ideology that was tried and proven a failure, but he will not say that.
Listen between the lines of the speeches. Hear not only what is said, but what is left unsaid. That silence is deafening.
