SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 12:36:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Obama's courageous speech, Part Two

Power Line

In my initial assessment of the text of Barack Obama's discussion of Pastor Wright and race in America, I argued that the speech was courageous by conventional political standards, but also contained evasions. Let me now identify what I think is the main evasion.

Obama attempts to put Wright's controversial and divisive remarks into context by considering the man's life. He explains:

<<< Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation. . .came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. . . .For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. . . .And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. >>>


But to understand is not to endorse, or even necessarily to excuse. Thus, Obama continues:


<<< The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow. >>>

So far, very good.

But here's the problem. If Reverend Wright was so profoundly mistaken about this key issue -- the "genius," of America and its capacity to change -- why did Obama embrace Wright's church? Why did Wright become his spiritual adviser and "uncle" figure? Why was it Wright who was able to lead Obama to Christ? Why not some other religious figure who understood the full vision Obama is now presenting -- America as "bound to a tragic past," but having already changed profoundly for the better and capable of furher positive change?
Why not someone i[n the] mold of Martin Luther King, who even prior to America's profound change for the better understood the country's greatness and capacity for redemption?

Obama does offer a response of sorts. He quotes the passage in his autobiography in which he describes the spectacle of the first service he attended at Wright's church -- the forcefulness of the pastor's voice and the shouting and clapping of his audience. But this is more of a confession than an answer. Obama was caught up in what a more detached observer might consider the hysteria of the moment. It moved him, as perhaps did the political potential of an alliance with a preacher who could drum up such hysteria.

Many of us have been caught up in the powerful emotions this sort of moment can engender. But ordinarily they do not lead to a close 20-year association with someone as fundamentally misguided (as Obama would now have it) as Wright.

This, then, is the evasion of Obama's speech. Why such a close and longstanding association with someone this "profoundly mistaken"? The answer, I have argued, is opportunism in part, but also a left-wing ideology that, whatever Obama may say now, is not so far removed from Wright's deplorable views.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 12:39:05 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
Do words matter?

Power Line

I could do without the stylized repetition of Obama's words in this YouTube clip, but I think those words, and the others in the clip, do matter. To Obama's detriment.

See YouTube clip here.
powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 12:43:23 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Throw grandma under the bus

Power Line

When seeking to extricate himself from the tight spot in which he has been placed by his long association with the spiritual leadership of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama hauled in his (living) maternal grandmother, Madelyn Dunham. Obama has previously characterized Mrs. Dunham as a "trailblazer of sorts, the first woman vice-president of a local bank." She had a direct hand in his upbringing when Obama chose to live with his maternal grandparents rather than his mother, who was then in Indonesia. Today Obama brought Mrs. Dunham into his speech for a cameo appearance as a white counterpart to the fulsome Reverend Wright:

<<< I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. >>>


Even amid the false equivalencies and obvious evasions of his speech today, Obama's misuse of his grandmother seems to me a striking sign of poor character.

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 12:59:15 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
From The Ryskind Sketchbook



web.mac.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 2:05:19 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
    The question still remains: Why did Obama, future author of
racial harmony, stay with a preacher whose black nationalist
leanings were no secret?

Guilting America to the White House

By Kathleen Parker
townhall.com/columnists
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Barack Obama is a magician.

He could tell me it's raining on a sunny day, and I'd grab an umbrella. He could tell me the moon is the sun, and I'd reach for my shades.

He could even tell me that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rants god-damning America and blaming AIDS on a white-man conspiracy were wrong but essentially justified by a racist past ... and I'd have to slap myself before I saddled up a polka-dotted horse and galloped down the Yellow Brick Road.

Obama's speech Tuesday from Philadelphia -- the city of brotherly love -- was eloquent, inspiring and will be read in schools for generations. But between the lines of change and reconciliation were a discomfiting hint of buried fury, a sense of racial righteousness and a tacit approval attached to his expressed disapproval of Wright's now-famous raves that will leave many Americans wondering: Is he with us? Or is he against us?

In a flourish of brilliance, Obama framed his Rev. Wright problem in the context of America's unfinished work toward "a more perfect union," as envisioned by the nation's forefathers. It isn't that Wright is off-the-wall, we were to infer. It is that our country is falling short of its promise.

Which isn't completely false, of course, but not completely true, either. America isn't finished with its business of equality -- and race does still bedevil us -- but our progress since the twin blights of slavery and Jim Crow isn't insignificant.

Ever conscious of his pledge to unity, Obama acknowledged as much, saying that Wright wasn't wrong to talk about racism -- even if it was one-sided. He was wrong to speak "as if our society was static: as if no progress has been made."

But what he didn't acknowledge is that Wright is completely off-the-wall,
even if the snippets we've seen are only a fraction of his life's work. Give Wright credit for helping the unfortunate and for leading Obama to his faith. But those accomplishments don't quite neutralize the anti-white message of the man Obama selected as his spiritual mentor.

Like the best politicians, Obama senses our restlessness. One of his many gifts is his ability to lull people with flawless logic and uplifting rhetoric.

Of course he disagrees with some of Wright's controversial statements -- just as most people disagree with some of what their pastors and rabbis say. We're yum-yumming that idea, thinking "Yeah, that's right," when our inner reality-checker kicks in and kills the buzz.

Then we remember that advancing lies and conspiracy theories that pit black against white is not, in fact, defensible. And that what many find offensive in Wright's statements is not comparable to the minor differences they likely have with their own pastors and rabbis.

The question still remains: Why did Obama, future author of racial harmony, stay with a preacher whose black nationalist leanings were no secret?

Obama said he could no more denounce Wright, who is "like family," than he could denounce the black community -- or his white grandmother. Instead, he praised Wright's larger presence and purpose in the black community as outweighing the YouTube replays of a profane man on the verge of paranoiac hysteria.

Moreover, the minister whom Obama first got to know 20 years ago spoke of "our obligations to love one another." But given Wright's racist eruptions, white Americans are justified in wondering whether those charitable thoughts also apply to them.

Finally, Obama suggested that if Wright is occasionally angry, he has a right to be, as does the community he serves. And if white Americans are startled to witness that anger, they haven't been paying attention.

That was a risky message, but one that counted on a reliable well of white guilt. Then Obama took another pre-emptive gamble and implored Americans to look at Wright's anger, rather than avert their gaze, and to embrace that anger as a prompt to change.

In other words, he artfully shifted focus from his still-perplexing relationship with Wright to our own dark hearts. The choice is ours, he said:


<<< We can focus on one ol' crazy uncle who sometimes gets a little carried away -- and in so doing, destroy the audacity of hope. Or, we can keep our nation's date with destiny, fulfill the dream imagined 221 years ago to form a more perfect union. >>>


And elect Barack Obama.

Anyone who fails to embrace the only appealing option -- eschewing cheap spectacle for a dance with destiny to the tune of hope -- begins to feel a little woozy and, oddly, un-American.

Abracadabra.


Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 2:36:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 90947
 
    Are we to believe that on the first Sunday after 9/11 -- 
when many Americans crowded into churches looking to mourn,
looking for answers, looking for community -- that Barack
Obama decided to skip church?

Obama's Church of Slurs

By Brent Bozell III
townhall.com/columnists
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

It's Damage Control Time for the liberal press. Count New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as one in the media masses who have been outraged, just outraged, at the supposed conservative bigotry against Barack Obama. This "most monstrous bigotry" isn't just about race but also religion. Stating his middle name and whispering on the Internet that he's a Muslim "are the religious equivalent of racial slurs."

Kristof concluded his March 9 column by quoting Martin Luther: "I'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."

Through months of outrage over Obama the Supposed Muslim, reporters have largely ignored the church Obama attends in Chicago. The Trinity United Church of Christ claims to be "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." It proclaims it's a church of "an African people, who remain 'true to our native land,' the mother continent, the cradle of civilization." You can't tell conservatives that if their church said it was "a European people," committed to the European culture and motherland, that reporters wouldn't smell white supremacy between the lines.

Then there is Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who in 2007 offered the "Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award" to a man who "truly epitomized greatness," anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam. Is Nicholas Kristof wanting us to believe that offering awards to Farrakhan is simply the act of a "foolish Christian"? It gives an entirely new meaning to Kristof's headline, "Obama and the Bigots."

Now some very disturbing Jeremiah Wright sermons are bubbling up, sermons where he screams until he's hoarse against America, so angry he can't resist bursting with profanity from the pulpit. In 2003, he built a grand government conspiracy against blacks:


<<< "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d--- America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." >>>


Five days after 9/11, Rev. Wright was condemning America as bringing on the al-Qaeda attacks with our own terrorism:


<<< "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he yelled. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." >>>


Are we to believe that on the first Sunday after 9/11 -- when many Americans crowded into churches looking to mourn, looking for answers, looking for community -- that Barack Obama decided to skip church?

ABC's Brian Ross found these words and then noted Obama has professed, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

How in the world can the same media that roundly condemned George W. Bush in 2000 because he "stood uncritically" at Bob Jones University now accept this crazy-uncle defense? ABC's George Stephanopoulos suggested Bush's standard stump speech there made him a "Kamikaze conservative." That was a single moment on Bush's campaign schedule. Barack Obama's been attending his crazy uncle's church for 20 years; that crazy uncle married him and baptized his children, too.

Once these statements hit the airwaves, Obama repudiated them but then suggested that those mean-spirited conservatives were at it again.


<<< "I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again," Obama declared. >>>

But the "forces of division" were right there within his campaign -- until Obama expelled his minister from his African American religious leadership team.

Barack Obama looks phony either way. Either he missed all of these sermons, meaning his "devout Christian" talk on CBS doesn't match his church attendance record, or he sincerely thinks that hateful, race-baiting, America-bashing sermons are part of a pleasant Sunday worship experience. The press has an obligation to pursue this.

If Obama really meant any of this rhetoric about healing racial divisions -- in any of his speeches over many months of campaigning -- he would have quit his hate-spewing minister and his Church of Slurs a long time ago. If the media ever meant to be fair and balanced instead of a real-life comedy sketch full of slavish Obama myth-builders, they would have found this story a long time ago.


Founder and President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell runs the largest media watchdog organization in America.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/19/2008 2:59:30 AM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 90947
 
    [B]anishment of race hatred has still not happened among 
some American blacks. Anti-white racism is still accepted
in polite company -- and in some cases, as with Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, it is publicly taught, enabled, encouraged
and exploited. It is popular: The Rev. Wright's
congregation stands and cheers his demagogy.

It's Time to Call the Democrats on Race Demagogy

By James Lewis
American Thinker
        For wicked men are found among my people;
they lurk like fowlers lying in wait.
They set a trap;
they catch men....
their houses are full of treachery"
- Jeremiah, 5:26

Donna Brazil, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, has been quoted deploring the Hillary-Obama race:

<<< "There's so much blood. Women want the White House. Blacks want the White House ... They don't know how it will end. It's so toxic." >>>


Gee, thanks, Donna. So setting racial fires against whites and Republicans is not toxic? It's bad if it happens inside the Democratic Party, but it's good if The Majority Leader of the Senate is driven from the leadership because of kind words spoken about an old man at a party? Ever since the Civil Rights Revolution America has suffered from racially divisive demagogy whipped up by the Left.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a very popular preacher of racial anger in Chicago. So is Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Cynthia McKinney, Professor Nikki Giovanni at Virginia Tech and far too many others. They always get favorable media coverage, because they are speaking for the Left.

If you look at conservative blacks, you see exactly the opposite: there are no more positive and constructive people in America than Justice Clarence Thomas, SecState Condi Rice, Thomas Sowell, Lt. Col. Allan West, Larry Elder, and millions more who are never puffed up by the media.

So the Left, and its mouthpiece the Democrats, have chosen the destructive demagogues and not the peace makers. So be it. But it's high time to call them on it. Voters must finally send that clear and unmistakable message: If you peddle hate, you don't get my vote.

The New York Times has somehow never been able to rouse itself to call the Rev. Al Sharpton what he plainly is: An anti-white race demagogue. In exactly the same way, the NYT and its ilk cannot call the Reverend Jeremiah Wright what he plainly is. Like the rest of the liberal white media, they somehow can't tell the truth about Louis Farrakhan or Elijah Muhammad. Their accusatory fingers only point to the David Dukes of this world.

Why not denounce all racial hatred, no matter what the source?

Democrats have protected, excused, and enabled race demagogues. In the days of slavery and Jim Crow they enabled white race baiting. Today they enable the black version. The motivation is the same: divide and conquer. Race baiting is the sleaziest road to political power.

Some time around and following the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s a spontaneous agreement arose and spread among everyday Americans to banish any expression of racist feelings toward blacks. Republicans and liberal Democrats happened to agree on that. (There were not many Republican politicians in the South at that time; they were nearly all Dixiecrats.) That doesn't mean white racism disappeared; but it had to go underground; it was made out of bounds in respectable company. Overt race hatred was treated with the contempt it deserved. That quiet national determination made possible the Civil Rights Acts, and opened the way for enormous improvements in the social and economic conditions of American blacks.

A key part of the civil rights revolution was to call the Southern Democrats on the issue of anti-black racism. It was no longer tolerated, and after many long years, the tide finally shifted.

That kind of banishment of race hatred has still not happened among some American blacks. Anti-white racism is still accepted in polite company -- and in some cases, as with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, it is publicly taught, enabled, encouraged and exploited. It is popular: The Rev. Wright's congregation stands and cheers his demagogy.

Wright's church is a power in the Chicago black community not in spite of its few racist flaws, but because racism appeals to an aching need for self-esteem among some blacks. Blaming bad conditions on others is a cheap way to feel better about oneself. That's why racism worked for the Nazis, and why it worked for poor Southern whites after the Civil War. But it's toxic to our social fabric.

In part, black racism is an understandable residue of trauma in black families who saw their own members hurt, oppressed and even lynched in the Jim Crow South. Part of it is anger about the ongoing poverty and social pathology of the black ghetto in inner cities all over the country. But far too much of it is simply taught as an acceptable attitude in life. And black racial hatred is constantly excused by the ideological Left, just as feminist hatred toward men is excused, and hatred for America is excused, and class envy is deliberately whipped up by irresponsible politicians. Black race baiting is simply segregationist race baiting flipped to the other side.

Here's the poet Nikki Giovanni, a tenured faculty member at Virginia Tech:


<<< Ni**er

Can you kill

Can you kill

Can a ni**er kill

Can a ni**er kill a honkie

Can a ni**er kill the Man

Can you kill ni**er

Huh? Ni**er can you kill

Do you know how to draw blood

Can you poison

Can you stab-a-Jew

Can you kill huh? Ni**er

Can you kill

Can you run a protestant down with your ‘68 El Dorado

(that's all they're good for anyway)

Can you kill

Can you piss on a blond head

Can you cut it off

Can you kill

A ni**er can die

We ain't got to prove we can die

We got to prove we can kill >>>


She doesn't leave much to the imagination, does she? But Professor Giovanni is celebrated, not criticized on the Left.

Senator Obama and his wife are in hot water for a very good reason. Race hatred is a corrosive acid in the body politic. It is inexcusable. The Left has winked at black hatred for whites for half a century. It is high time to call them on it. No, we cannot erase black race hatred any more than we can erase what is in people's hearts on any other matter. But we can ask the Democrats -- who represent black Americans -- to make it socially unacceptable, just as American whites have largely done in the last half century.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not doing black people any favors. By whipping up racial anger today, he is setting up ethnic conflict far into the future. Children growing up today in his church are absorbing his rhetoric, because Rev. Wright is a teacher. He prides himself on it.


Race hatred is a destructive human failing. It is not limited to white antagonism toward blacks. It is found among Africans and Chinese; every culture on earth has its own version. When the Nazis exterminated Jews, they were "whites" killing "whites" for elaborate "racial" reasons. When Hutus massacred Tutsis in Rwanda, they were "blacks" killing "blacks" for supposed racial reasons. It's high time for us to go beyond the one-sided fight against white racism alone.

If race hatred is bad, it is bad no matter who cultivates and teaches it. That includes the Rev. Jeremy Wright. It also includes his cheering congregation, including the Obamas.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

americanthinker.com



To: Sully- who wrote (64845)3/27/2008 12:48:54 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 
Uses of the past

Power Line

Lionel Chetwynd, the writer/director of "Hanoi Hilton" and other films, wrote this open letter to Barack Obama in response to the Senator's speech about race relations and Rev. Wright. Invoking his experience in moving beyond hatred towards Germans over the Holocaust, Chetwynd argues that "contextualizing" Rev. Wright's hatred was a misuse of a "teaching moment." The teaching opportunity consisted of "not explaining Wright's outrage to me, but explaining his outrageousness to him." That's because "we'll reach the post-racial era. . .by no longer justifying ourselves with what was, instead speaking to what now exists. Not deny the past, but recognize that's what it is: past."

Obama, of course, took the opposite view, citing Faulkner's quote that "the past isn't dead and buried; in fact, it isn't even past." Obama/Faulkner may be correct at some level; more likely there is no correct answer, it's just a matter of outlook. But I think Chetwynd has the better of the argument when it comes to which outlook is more likely to yield a post-racial future. He may also have the better case when it comes to which outlook Americans are looking for in an African-American presidential candidate.

Chetwynd concludes his message to Obama this way:

<<< You say you are devoted to Reverend Wright because he brought you to Christ. I can only imagine how powerful a relationship that forges. But, my imperfect understanding of the Christian Faith tells me you can do him an equally magnificent service: You can help bring him back to Christ. Show him redemption and salvation lie not in the satisfaction of doing little dances in a pulpit while you slander good and decent people. Teach him that great leadership and Christian love abjures the very filth - and I pick that word deliberately - that he spews on an apparently regular basis. After all, Senator, you know our government did not invent the HIV virus to kill African-Americans. You know, Senator, this is not the United States of KKK America. You know the truth of 9/11. At least you should. Both you and Michelle have benefited mightily from the new spirit that has come to America in the last two generations. I thought you were part of that. I thought you were post-racial.

But in your silence, in your justifications, in your facile instruction to contextualize, you seem just a more presentable version of those dreary self-promoters, Sharpton, Jackson, Bakewell and the rest. Surely this is not you. Please, Senator, be brave. Lead. From a position of honesty where context is our daily reality, not drawn from bitter memories, no matter how justified they once might have been. Deny Jeremiah Wright your comfort of "context". Be Presidential. To all Americans. >>>


powerlineblog.com