COMMENTARY: Obama: Blind to evil?

Blind to sin? Not hardly. He's a fellow-traveler. He's a democrat - abortion, sodomy, women's lib, multiculturalism. Plus he's black and we shouldn't be making a stranger a ruler over us. God said that. Who doesn't think Obama is a stranger? And his former pastor?

Bravo for your writing truth. Even HRC has a better understanding of evil then BHO. The election motto should be "BHO has to go". Within his upbringing he had no good focus and what he heard as evil was from the Rev Wright. He was educated from the ultra-liberals point of view and not educated to think for himself and therefore cannot recognize what evil is about. Pres. Kennedy saw evil, fought evil and understood its existence as a need to continue the good fight. BHO cannot even recognize it standing before him.

Mr. Thomas should read the exploits of Guy Gabaldon to see how powerful words and persuasion can be. A non-intellectual like President Bush won't have much success in dialog, but a nuanced and schooled speaker may offer a semblance of settlement. War should be the culmination of previous failure of all other options.

Of course Guy Gabaldon was successful. Here's basically how he did it: We're coming with ten thousand marines in the morning. Surrender now or die in the morning.

Obama doesn't recognize evil because he was raised amongst it and is still amongst it today, and one cannot see outside the box while standing smack dab in the middle of it as he is. BTW, how many more failures of attempts at curbing Iran peacefully will it take, with more buildings coming down in Chicago and elsewhere this time around after we pull our troops out of their backyard? We've been taking their crap "peacefully" for decades now, ever since that thing called the hostage crisis nurtured for 444 days by the terrorist coddling Peanut Farmer, an Obama supporter. Then the big stick moved into Washington and the hostages came home the next morning. Is that lesson now forgotten? The job ain't near done in that neighborhood yet, and they are counting the minutes smiling from turban to turban until a fellow Hussein sits down on the carpet with them to "chat".

Obama is not going to win McCain or Clinton will a lot of dem. will give McCain a hole vote not the 1/2 vote the democratic rules committee they are so dum? don't ya'll think.

Obama proved Rev Wright was correct!!! Correct, right politically correct, that is. The fact that it is "painful" and took 20 years suggests that he agrees with these racists "under the covers". He resigned not necessarily because he wants to but because it is the only course open to him. he believes what is spewed at that so-called White hate church of Christ! WE DO NOT ACCEPT OBAMAS POLITICAL DAMAGE APOLOGY!!! SHOCKING Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs http://www.dontvoteobama.net An Obama Presidency Will Set Race Relations Back Decades Just this Sunday Father Michael Pfleger (a longtime friend and associate of Senator Obama) mocked Hillary Clinton & AGAIN ATTACKED WHTE PEOPLE at Obama's church OF 20 PLUS YEARS. "theres a whole lot of white people crying!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y http://www.dontvoteobama.net

The assumption here is that you should leave your church if your pastor says anything that offends you, or may be offensive to others. Be careful...

Obama looks evil in the face everyday. When he says hello to his wife, when he is counciled by his pastor wright, when he looks in the mirror. He is not what America needs and the change he is proposing is evident in the people he is willing to negotiate with. what a loser, not a dem but a communist!

Some of you gentlemen sound like the Germans that murdered the U.S. prisoners during the Battle of the Bulge. Do you plan on killing all Muslims? Others worry about the U.S. being too peaceful. Do you remember Korea, Vietnam, the Cold war, Gulf War I, Libya, Grenada? And the first commenter about being led by a stranger? When I was in the military or associated with it for over 35 years, Blacks were veterans, acquaintances, and great friends. To me, they still are. Take your fear-mongering and hate and emigrate to some other ill-educated and backward country... If any will accept you. Maybe the Khmer Rouge could use a few new lieutenants. See you at the book burnings. The rest of us will be trying to make the world a better place.

I believe Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin (www.baldwin2008.com) is the best person to help solve our problems especially the economy & moral issues. Michael Maryland

I completely agree with crayon1951, Obama is a communist, undeniably such. Communism is pure evil. We definately do not need to have a communist in White House. Great article BTW.

(this is part 1 of my response) To ascribe an abstract quality of evil to an entire religious population based upon the actions of a few particular fundamentalists is a flawed strategy for diplomacy. For example the evil the article identifies as a motivator for US involvement in World War II is not comparable to the current "US War on Terror." First and foremost, the emergence of a strong international coalition against the Axis in WWII indicates that the international community perceived the Axis as a threat to their national security and sovereignty. The inability for a stable international coalition and total involvement from participating countries in the current US invasion of Iraq proves that "evil" is inherently subjective: such that our perceived evil is not necessarily the perceived evil of our major military allies. Second, contending that Kennedy understood evil in the world without a discussion of how during his term, he sowed the seeds of US escalation in Vietnam (increasing US military presence from 800 to over 16,000) proves that Thomas' historical insight is limited (perhaps out of political motivation). Perhaps the only evil that is apparent is the resulting 1,000,000 civilian casualties from American escalation in Vietnam. Similarly, I find the article's development of societal flaws tantamount to the accusation that Obama's ideology is responsible for the sexual promiscuity of the characters in television show: Sex and the City. Cal Thomas' inclusion of this paragraph is devastating for the article's credibility and indicts his fundamental usage of 'evil' as paradigm for state action. First, an appropriate argument against sexual promiscuity would impact such a lifestyle as being responsible for the proliferation of STDs. Instead, Cal Thomas notes that such women are "slu-s" (choosing to rely on his grandmother's testimony). The inclusion of this fact is ominous in that the assumption it calls upon is that the impact of Obama's immorality is "slutiness"--perhaps Cal Thomas chose to include this to foster the development a "simpler time" image in the reader's mind where woman were proper, subordinate, and un-"sophisticated." It is also worth noting that there is no argument that explains why sexual promiscuity is unethical or immoral. Secondly and more importantly, to include this paragraph is a caustic reminder of the ways in which social conservatives conflate morality into a bendable political tool through fear mongering. To conflate voting for Obama as endorsing sexual promiscuity makes zero logical sense; Cal Thomas' analytical strategy thus relies upon painting an "Evil" in the readers mind that he hopes will overwhelm there logical and rational decision making skills.

(this is part 2 of my response) Cal Thomas shifts from discussing morality to explaining that Obama's foreign policy strategy lacks efficacy because he will not back up his diplomatic efforts with the threat of military force. First and foremost this is not a FACTUALLY accurate: Obama co-sponsored a bill to increase sanctions upon Iran and is increasingly vociferous about the emerging Iranian threat. Even if he is against military escalation, the fact that he has empirically backed up US diplomatic carrots with economic sticks like sanctions indicates that Cal Thomas' unconditional characterization of Obama's diplomacy is unfounded. Secondly, a number of scholars note that the US military is incapable of another military intervention because of an overstretch and over extension. Thus any threat of US military action and escalation will function as a weak deterrent to rogues and prevent compromise and cooperation (which as Cal Thomas would say: "is bound to encourage more evil"). To support further military intervention is to ignore the lessons Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other American wars of occupation. The only "Evil" produced is countless more civilian and American military causalities. Cal Thomas writes that the war in Iraq is necessary to complete our objectives. And what objective is that? I keep returning to the article looking for a definition for this analogous term and find no clear definition. Sensible readers can only turn back to his dictionary.com definition of Evil and associate it with his contextual definition of what American objectives are in the "War on Terror." Is it Thomas' contention that the US's role in the world is to rid it of "morally wrong, immoral, and wicked" actions? If that is true then should not America start by riding America of all the morally wrong actions that continue domestically? Obama's calls for reform of our tax structure, educational funding, health care, and numerous other areas seem more conducive to this vision of America's purpose than McCain's support for Corporations and close relationships with lobbyists. Terrorist attacks occur everyday and kill Americans everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cal Thomas-- Bush's intentional falsification of intelligence to justify military invasion and occupation in Iraq has been the CAUSE of more American (military) casualties than the September 11th attacks. Cal Thomas' inclusion of the potential for another terrorist attack is reckless and continues the fear mongering of the Republican party in order to scare voters to the poll.

(this is part 3 of my response) Cal Thomas and like minded individuals characterized by the endorsements comments below must realize that the real threat to America comes from zealous politicians that flaunt ideology and categorical imperatives in order to justify military action. The impact of such further military conflagrations will only further erode US standing in the world ensuring more rogue states in the future. The question voters must ask themselves this election is: Do we want a leader who will use another terrorist attack to erode our military and destroy US hegemony by engaging in further military interventionism? or-- Do we want a leader who will overcome this anxiety through humility and meet with our enemies face to face in order to create compromise and cooperation? Cal Thomas criticizes secular society in favor of a more religiously minded Christian society. Through reliance upon absolute moral imperatives derived from Judeo-Christian Ethics, Cal Thomas's pious zealotry is characteristic of the exact same religious fundamentalism motivating terrorists in the first place. And that is why it is necessary to move beyond black and white, right and wrong, good and evil--and all such false dichotomies that attempt to bifurcate the world into two abstract ideals that do not really mean anything in the context of US foreign policy.