Conservative Outrage Over Rev. Lowery's Benediction

It seems as though there is some rage brewing in the hearts and souls of some conservative commentators about the benediction that the Rev. Joseph Lowery gave at President Obama's inauguration ceremony yesterday. Here is the benediction:



The part of the benediction that some conservative commentators are fumed about, is the last portion. Glenn Beck, comfortable at his new home on FoxNews, breaks down just why he is so angry:



Beck is amazed that there was an objection to the Rev. Rick Warren saying a prayer at the Inauguration for simply agreeing "with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage". Beck even sarcastically throws in, "what bigotry there". In fact, the objections to Warren were not because he "agrees with much of Obama's platform on gay marriage", but rather because he has equated homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. This strays from the point, but needs to be corrected nonetheless.

Beck continues on that instead of Warren creating controversy, it was Lowery that stirred the pot when he asked god to:

help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Beck decries this statement as "America being called racist" and goes on to say that he wants to believe in the message of change, but that this appears to be the same old divisive language that we are used to. Talk about missing the point. Beck even tries to imply that Lowery's old age has something to do with his remarks. Beck assures Obama that he and his family have been "down on their knees" praying for his success and that he is perfectly fine with "brown sticking around". Thanks for clearing that up Glen.

Joining Beck in expressing outrage at this benediction is Michael Savage:



Savage calls Lowery an "old black racist" and proclaims "how dare he say 'when white will embrace what is right' when he was elected because of white people." I guess it didn't cross Savage's mind that just because white people voted for Obama, it isn't proof that racism doesn't exist. Certainly it indicates progress in the last 40 years, but it does not indicate the eradication of racism. Savage goes on to express his outrage claiming that he was offended as a white person and wonders what Lowery meant by "when black will not be asked to give back". "What in the heck does this old man mean," Savage exclaims, "...you mean they won't have to pay taxes?"

Too bad that Lowery said "when black will not be asked to get in back" and not "when black will not be asked to give back" according to the transcript of his speech. Amazing to see what some will try to do to a message that is meant for inclusion and it is equally amazing to see Michael Savage trying to pass as a moral authority on race relations. Are members of the right-wing trying to re-emerge by placing themselves upon moral high-ground? Stay Tuned!

Michael Savage Suggests Bombing Iran and Seizing Their Oil Fields in the Name of Democracy

Commentator Michael Savage has long been a controversial figure both on his long running radio program as well as his short-lived television show. (Savage was fired for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die" on the air.) On his radio program he has advocated putting the homeless in workcamps, stated that he would hang every lawyer who went down to Guantanamo, and played a song for Ted Kennedy by the band the Dead Kennedys after the Senator was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Savage came out with a short piece entitled "Making the World Safe for Theocracy" in which he likens the current situation in Iran to the rise of Hitler and advocates that the United States take military action against the country. Savage states that Iran "continues to challenge Western democracies" and has tested "missiles designed to do in 6 seconds what Hitler did in 6 years to 6 million Jews". Savage fails to provide this situation with much context including mention of the Israeli military exercise that took place a couple of weeks ago that was largely seen as a rehearsal for a strike against Iranian targets. Washington, the Bush Administration, and Israel have been rattling sabers toward Iran for quite some time over their nuclear ambitions and Iran has responded to the threats by test firing missiles and stating that they will retaliate if their country is attacked.

The Bush Administration continues to argue that Iran is on the path to develop a nuclear weapon dispite the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate stated that there is no evidence that Iran is developing such a weapon post-2003. Iran maintains that they are enriching uranium for peaceful purposes but contrary to the NIE report, both Presidential candidates in addition to the Bush Administration have continued to falsly claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Despite these facts, Michael Savage states that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "flaunting his nation's nuclear technology" and compares his actions to Hitler's defiant military build-up in the 1930's. Savage continues by labeling President Bush the "Chamberlain of our time" who just rattles sabers and "refuses to act".

Savage begins his last paragraph by asking the question: "And why won't Bush act to save Western democracies from this madman?" Posing this question implies that Western democracies are at a risk of destruction from Iran, this is misleading and quite contrary to the NIE findings. Savage concludes his piece:

And so to fuel his own vanity, he lets the cancer of Iran metastasize and spread throughout the world. If Bush were to unleash the military might of the United States on this petty dictator and seize control of the Iranian oil fields, we could regain control of the Middle East, boost John McCain's poll numbers, greatly reduce oil prices, and save Israel from a second Holocaust. Instead Bush has decided to make the world safe for theocracy. And that's something everyone but the far left Democrats understand we have to fight.

That's right, Michael Savage actually suggests that we "unleash the military might" of the United States on Iran and "seize control of the Iranian oil fields" in order to "greatly reduce oil prices". That is called pillaging and invading a country to gain control of their resources is against International Law. Nothing says democracy quite like pre-emptively striking a sovereign nation in order to gain control of their resources! Kudos Mr. Savage, you always seem to out-do yourself.