In case you fell victim to Barack Obama’s cynical attempt to bury a major news story by holding a press conference in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, on a Saturday night during the Democratic National Committee’s public fight over Michigan and Florida delegates, let me fill you in: Obama has finally resigned from that loony, racist church of his in Chicago.

Back in March, while delivering what the sycophantic mainstream media described at the time as the greatest speech since “I have a dream,” Obama assured us that he could no more disown his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, than he could disown the black community or his white grandmother. When Wright repeated in a National Press Club speech such outrageous statements as the idea that the U.S. Government created the AIDS virus in order to carry out genocide on the black community, Obama suddenly found the political courage to disown him. Bye-bye, pastor. But his 20-year affiliation with the church continued. So did his slip in the polls.

Now, an equally radical Catholic priest named Michael Pfleger, whose Chicago church just happens to be the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in public largesse at the hand of you-know-who over the years, has stepped so far over the line that Obama has had no choice but to formally sever ties with the church. Pfleger, a friend of Louis Farrakhan and other Chicago crazies, is another one of Obama’s many radical “mentors.” It seems that Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss, whom Obama has described as “a fine young pastor,” welcomed Father Pfleger into Trinity United Church of Christ to speak. This was not an unusual occurrence, but this time the cameras were on Pfleger as he mocked Hillary Clinton and called her a white supremacist.

The people in this church seem to delight in embarrassing their favorite son, and I have been at a loss to figure out why. Rush Limbaugh’s theory is that the Obama campaign saw their man’s numbers dropping and decided to stage Pfleger’s little performance in order to give Obama an opportunity to bail out of the church once and for all. Maybe, but I have two other possibilities.

In scenario number one, imagine it is this time next year and President Barack Obama is sitting in the White House. (I know it’s chilling, but stay with me.)

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is having trouble shaking down corporate America, whose attitude now is, “Hey, how bad can discrimination be? America just elected a black president. Take a hike!”

Al Sharpton now finds that he is ignored when he arrives on the scene of some trumped up example of American racism.

Funding at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has dried up, thereby no longer permitting the church to pick up the tab on Jeremiah Wright’s 10,000-square-foot mansion. And Rev. Moss has had to go out and find himself a real job.

Whatever would the Jacksons and Sharptons and Farrakhans and Wrights and all the other race pimps in this country — who have lived off the guilt of sincere white Americans for the last forty years — do if they actually had one of their own in the White House? Their free ride would be over. Ergo, they are trying to sabotage the Obama campaign.

(Note that this has the added attraction of demonstrating to the world what a racist country America truly is: “See? We had a good black candidate but whitey just wouldn’t let it happen!”)

In the much more likely scenario number two, these people are simply so steeped in their hatred of America and of the white race that they have no concept of how out of the mainstream they are. In their world, AIDS really was created by the United States government to destroy them.

How sad.

____________________________________________________________________________

© Copyright 2008 by Doug Patton
____________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online, TheConservativeVoice.com and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
____________________________________________________________________________

-By Warner Todd Huston

What would you say about photos of naked children — most of them girls as young as 13 — holding each other or by themselves in pensive poses? Would you imagine it to be thoughtful art or would your first thought be that it seemed like uncomfortable porn? Would you think it just a beautiful expression of humanity, or would you get a vague feeling that someone is getting his jollies from these pictures and it might be the so-called artist. And would it seem like a celebration or exploitation of children?

This is the argument currently going on in Australia over an art gallery showing of the work of photographer Bill Henson. Henson’s latest photo series shows several naked girls and boys, some prepubescent, in what some may consider alluring poses (though others might consider them merely thoughtful). The authorities were not amused by the exploitative photos and had them removed from the gallery. Even Australia’s new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has had his say about this incident describing the photos as “revolting.” He later added that he will not apologize for his comments.

Naturally, several in Australia’s arts community raced to Henson’s defense saying that it is an outrage to have had the gallery showing boxed by authorities. Even actress Cate Blanchett — herself a mother of three — has voiced support of the photographer.

The letter of support scolds all those who are offended by the photos.

The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists . . . does untold damage to our culture reputation,” the letter said.

“We suggest that the. . . criminalisation of laying charges against Mr Henson, his gallery and the parents of the young people depicted in his work would be far more traumatic for the young people concerned than anything Mr Henson has done.”

I’d suggest that a society that exploits its children for sexual titillation deserves to have it’s “culture” damaged.

But the question of the ultimate meaning and purpose of the photographs remains; is it porn or is it art?

I maintain that it is porn even if it is meant to be art because it is a sexualization of our children, especially our girls. Unfortunately, western society is devolving into anarchy where it concerns issues of morality. Our entertainment presents females sexualized at younger and younger ages all the time. Popular fashion has young girls dressing like hookers. Music shows them off like meat or treats them like second class citizens meant only for male satisfaction. Not only are younger and younger girls looked upon as sexual playthings, older women and motherhood is constantly devalued as uncool or something to be avoided.

This gallery showing, even if it isn’t meant to, exposes these young girls to leering eyes. The poses reveal these girls in alluring positions giving them a feeling of lost innocence, a feeling that something dark lurks beneath the plaintive gazes. It also adds to the great exploitation of girls across the spectrum in western society.

We should be protecting our children, helping them grow and giving them the time to do so far from prying eyes and lecherous intent, not presenting them as objects of desire and titillation.

This artist claims he is celebrating the beauty of youth. But, the one thing that makes youth traditionally beautiful is that freshness and innocence inherent with it. Photos that literally lay bare our young girls shatters that innocence and makes of them objects of lust. This sullies and blackens the very beauty that the artist claims to be celebrating, making of it a cheap thrill instead of something worth protecting.

The Australian authorities were right to box this pornography. Let us hope that they are strong enough as a society to put those responsible for the creation of this so-called art up on charges of child pornography.