The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud
By Charles KrauthammerWASHINGTON -- The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which "controversial" remarks? (Back to Article)
(Click Here to Comment on All RCP Articles)
Join the Discussion | 456 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
May 05, 10:34 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I am a life-long Democrat. Barack Obama is a fraud. He is a mirror of whatever is politically expedient. I am 62 years old. I remember The Weathermen and Ayers, and Dorn, and Liberation radical theology beginnings within the Catholic Church. The Weathermen were brutal, but no less so than the socialist Marxist politics of Liberation Theology, a pseudo theology, which subsumes theology to politics, and which has been rebuked by every Pope, like them or not, since then until the present day. If Wright were a priest, he would have been silenced, refused authority to speak on behalf of Catholic teachinsg, or deemed a heretic long before now. Since his pseudo-theology emanated and grew within the Catholic Church, that Church's judgements about it are not irrelevant. Wright is a heretic and Obama is a Machiavellian. I am neither a political conservative nor an unthinking sheep of the Catholic Church. I am a Catholic. And, on the matter of Wright and Obama, Mr. Krauthammer has, indeed, penetrated and revealed the tacit premises and problems of both.
|
|
Apr 09, 02:39 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I have just read several articles here written by Mr Krauthammer - especially the one re: the speech from the prophet Obama. Thank you for it, glad to see someone has the guts to write what a lot of intelligent "typical white people" saw. Would love to see him write an article on Michell LaVaughn (Robinson) Obama's thesis which she wrote in college. Sorta fits the right in here!
|
|
Mar 29, 11:23 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Charles Krauthammer, you are a racist piece of human excrement.
I hope you succumb to a flesh-eating virus.
I hope you succumb to a flesh-eating virus.
|
|
Mar 28, 03:43 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Check it out here. Condoleeza Rice has quite a different view of the speech than you do Charlie. In fact she thought it was an important speech that needed to be made.
[www.guardian.co.uk]
[www.guardian.co.uk]
|
|
Mar 28, 02:45 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
In all fairness, FDR did know about Pearl Harbor. But HIV probably wasn't intentional. Jury's out on 9/11.
|
|
Mar 27, 10:41 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Posted by: Concerned
Comment: #275
Mar 21, 01:12 PM Report Abuse
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will disclose first off that I am Canadian.
I will tell you that any western country would jump at the opportunity to have Obama as president. The paranoid disdain and fear-mongering that most Americans have displayed is truly unbelievable to all abroad. You don't have an upcoming election, you have an opportunity. And you're seemingly intent on not only blowing it, but on very intentionally sabotaging it.
Perhaps you have to be outside of the country to see it, but this firestorm about his pastor seems more than ridiculous to most. Out of apparent fear of... something, lies are being told. Quotes are being misrepresented. Comments are presented out of context.
Instead of grasping what would be a chance to regain title of this planet's moral leader, we see this, and its disgusting.
Now go ahead. Blast away because I'm not from this country and it's not my business. It is my concern, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the character or the very nature of some whites is to reject with impunity the idea that it would even consider the opinion of foreigners to be important. Such goes to explain why the American mainstream media (MSM) is so absolutely bereft of news and opinions from overseas. It is of course, a reason why those here in the US are so unable to see how unreasonable they are in their views; and those like Chucky here are part of the mailaise which stokes their fears and keeps them locked into fatal mentalities of their own racial boxes.
Race is a big part of what America 'is' and come November, in my humble opinion, the majority in this nation are going to reject Obama and go with another comfortable white male. McCain, of course will be seen as the right choice by those who have already begun to ramp up their rationalizations of why Obama isn't the right choice. It is how America works for the black man, before he can be legally disposed to the trashbin of history, he must be demonized; it is simply not enough for him to be rejected on merit, he must be taken out to the largest tree in the woods and hung. And, the one large tree that some whites in America still have is race, and they will when the times comes, both unconsciously and consciously carry out the dirty deed.
Although, Chucky here will not admit it, America for most whites represents the embodiment of their essence and soul, and it is why they take such great offense at a Jeremiah Wright's comments but look the other way when Jerry Falwell says critical things about America. Falwell is white, and he carries the 'white priviledge' of being seen as someone who is delivering his words about America without malice or hate (as they see it), but Wright who is black, possesses none of this same 'priviledge' and he is assumed to be saying it out of a hatred of whites. And, at the same time they play this 'double standard' approach, they deny that they are even perceiving Wright differently, as it is Wright himself who magically has brought upon his own trouble, as they choose to ignore that he has said nothing different contextually than his white religious counterparts; Wright's crime is that he is not a part of white culture and in such a 'position' he does not have the priviledge of criticizing America.
The emotional and psychological roots of this 'white priviledge' is often not spoken of, or recognized or even presented as existing, yet it is at the center of how some whites have viewed and perceived themselves here in America, and their sole right to set the standard for what is acceptable and for what is not acceptable; politically, socially and economically. And for them, Barrack while being quite O.K. for many, can not and will not be able to transcend the one unseen barrier that exists between the Chucky types and himself; he is not white and in such of a realization he can not be seen as ultimately equal to them. And, basically my friend, their objections to Barrack is as ole as America's founding: pure unadulterated racism.
Obama is basically not one of them, thus they can not trust him, thus they can not believe him, thus they can not give him the benefit of the doubt that they still offer to one George Bush, even after Bush has entered the nation in the worst foreign policy disaster in 40 years. Bush, being white is still white, and with such a distinction will always possess legitimacy with certain corners of whites in America IL-regardless, how laughable and inane this fact may be.
When Obama reached out in his speech, in which Chucky here has roiled in the proverbial dirt, he and Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and others were simply reaching back from their perches of 'white American priviledge' to say no you are not one of us and you will never be one of us. And, as a Canadian it might be odd or strange for you to understand, but for some whites here, holding on and protecting their barrier of whiteness is as real today, as it was for the George Wallaces of yesterday, who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama and declared: "segregation today, segregation tommorrow, and segregation forever."
Racism, in America is no longer played out by the vile, offensive images anymore; but the basic genesis of where the over-the-top allegations about Obama, his wife, his susposed Muslim heritage, his name, his susposed lack of experience are simple evolutions of the once common direct hate that is no longer acceptable in polite circles, but which is still a part of the culture of some whites here who are today just expressing the same fears of yesterday. As Faulkner said, " the past isn't the past, in fact its never even past."
Sadly, there is still too much racism in some whites for an Obama to be a realization here in America.
Comment: #275
Mar 21, 01:12 PM Report Abuse
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will disclose first off that I am Canadian.
I will tell you that any western country would jump at the opportunity to have Obama as president. The paranoid disdain and fear-mongering that most Americans have displayed is truly unbelievable to all abroad. You don't have an upcoming election, you have an opportunity. And you're seemingly intent on not only blowing it, but on very intentionally sabotaging it.
Perhaps you have to be outside of the country to see it, but this firestorm about his pastor seems more than ridiculous to most. Out of apparent fear of... something, lies are being told. Quotes are being misrepresented. Comments are presented out of context.
Instead of grasping what would be a chance to regain title of this planet's moral leader, we see this, and its disgusting.
Now go ahead. Blast away because I'm not from this country and it's not my business. It is my concern, though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the character or the very nature of some whites is to reject with impunity the idea that it would even consider the opinion of foreigners to be important. Such goes to explain why the American mainstream media (MSM) is so absolutely bereft of news and opinions from overseas. It is of course, a reason why those here in the US are so unable to see how unreasonable they are in their views; and those like Chucky here are part of the mailaise which stokes their fears and keeps them locked into fatal mentalities of their own racial boxes.
Race is a big part of what America 'is' and come November, in my humble opinion, the majority in this nation are going to reject Obama and go with another comfortable white male. McCain, of course will be seen as the right choice by those who have already begun to ramp up their rationalizations of why Obama isn't the right choice. It is how America works for the black man, before he can be legally disposed to the trashbin of history, he must be demonized; it is simply not enough for him to be rejected on merit, he must be taken out to the largest tree in the woods and hung. And, the one large tree that some whites in America still have is race, and they will when the times comes, both unconsciously and consciously carry out the dirty deed.
Although, Chucky here will not admit it, America for most whites represents the embodiment of their essence and soul, and it is why they take such great offense at a Jeremiah Wright's comments but look the other way when Jerry Falwell says critical things about America. Falwell is white, and he carries the 'white priviledge' of being seen as someone who is delivering his words about America without malice or hate (as they see it), but Wright who is black, possesses none of this same 'priviledge' and he is assumed to be saying it out of a hatred of whites. And, at the same time they play this 'double standard' approach, they deny that they are even perceiving Wright differently, as it is Wright himself who magically has brought upon his own trouble, as they choose to ignore that he has said nothing different contextually than his white religious counterparts; Wright's crime is that he is not a part of white culture and in such a 'position' he does not have the priviledge of criticizing America.
The emotional and psychological roots of this 'white priviledge' is often not spoken of, or recognized or even presented as existing, yet it is at the center of how some whites have viewed and perceived themselves here in America, and their sole right to set the standard for what is acceptable and for what is not acceptable; politically, socially and economically. And for them, Barrack while being quite O.K. for many, can not and will not be able to transcend the one unseen barrier that exists between the Chucky types and himself; he is not white and in such of a realization he can not be seen as ultimately equal to them. And, basically my friend, their objections to Barrack is as ole as America's founding: pure unadulterated racism.
Obama is basically not one of them, thus they can not trust him, thus they can not believe him, thus they can not give him the benefit of the doubt that they still offer to one George Bush, even after Bush has entered the nation in the worst foreign policy disaster in 40 years. Bush, being white is still white, and with such a distinction will always possess legitimacy with certain corners of whites in America IL-regardless, how laughable and inane this fact may be.
When Obama reached out in his speech, in which Chucky here has roiled in the proverbial dirt, he and Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and others were simply reaching back from their perches of 'white American priviledge' to say no you are not one of us and you will never be one of us. And, as a Canadian it might be odd or strange for you to understand, but for some whites here, holding on and protecting their barrier of whiteness is as real today, as it was for the George Wallaces of yesterday, who stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama and declared: "segregation today, segregation tommorrow, and segregation forever."
Racism, in America is no longer played out by the vile, offensive images anymore; but the basic genesis of where the over-the-top allegations about Obama, his wife, his susposed Muslim heritage, his name, his susposed lack of experience are simple evolutions of the once common direct hate that is no longer acceptable in polite circles, but which is still a part of the culture of some whites here who are today just expressing the same fears of yesterday. As Faulkner said, " the past isn't the past, in fact its never even past."
Sadly, there is still too much racism in some whites for an Obama to be a realization here in America.
|
|
Mar 27, 11:56 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I commend you, Mr. Krauthammer, for your critical article on Senator Obama's response to Rev. Wright's remarks. As a democrat who is rather liberal in my views, I don't find myself on the same side of the fence as you on most issues. In this case, however, I do. Your analysis stands out as being more accurate than the many other articles that hailed Obama's speech as brilliant and one that dealt honestly with the racial issue in this country.
I would like to bring up one other point -- Obama's missed opportunity to demonstrate his ability to bring people together. He has based his entire campaign on this leadership quality. Yet, when a real-life test came along, he ducked. Rev. Wright has been spewing out untrue racial invective over a long period, the sole purpose of which was to incite hatred in the black community towards whites. When Obama first learned of this either directly or indirectly, he could have left his church, as you suggested. Or, he could have taken Mr. Wright aside, mentiioned how damaging his remarks were and persuaded him to lead his congregation to follow a more positive, constructive path to living in a diverse society. This approach would have been difficult, but he is telling the public that he has the skill-set to play this kind of role. Instead, he remained silent. He remained silent and remained a member of Rev. Wright's congregation. That might be understandable for many, but not for someone who is aspiring to the highest public office in the country and who has based his campaign on his ability to be an agent of change. Words are cheap. You can describe your abilities in the most glowing terms, but they will mean little unless they are validated through past actions. This is my disappointment with Senator Obama. His speech was beside the point. He was presented with a test of his leadership skills, and he declined meet the challenge.
I would like to bring up one other point -- Obama's missed opportunity to demonstrate his ability to bring people together. He has based his entire campaign on this leadership quality. Yet, when a real-life test came along, he ducked. Rev. Wright has been spewing out untrue racial invective over a long period, the sole purpose of which was to incite hatred in the black community towards whites. When Obama first learned of this either directly or indirectly, he could have left his church, as you suggested. Or, he could have taken Mr. Wright aside, mentiioned how damaging his remarks were and persuaded him to lead his congregation to follow a more positive, constructive path to living in a diverse society. This approach would have been difficult, but he is telling the public that he has the skill-set to play this kind of role. Instead, he remained silent. He remained silent and remained a member of Rev. Wright's congregation. That might be understandable for many, but not for someone who is aspiring to the highest public office in the country and who has based his campaign on his ability to be an agent of change. Words are cheap. You can describe your abilities in the most glowing terms, but they will mean little unless they are validated through past actions. This is my disappointment with Senator Obama. His speech was beside the point. He was presented with a test of his leadership skills, and he declined meet the challenge.
|
|
Mar 27, 10:54 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Charles Krauthammer is a mad Zionist warmonger from the Washington Post throwing propaganda just for the sake of Zionist warmongering.
|
|
Mar 27, 08:37 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I am very pleased to see that someone is actually analyzing and not fawning over Senator Obama. There has been too much fluff, and image stuffing and not enough in-depth questioning. It is nice to hear all the idealistic thoughts but taking action, walking out of that church is what Senator Obama and his family should have done. If our next President cannot act on a clear issue like this, hoping to save face and keep friends, then we can be sure that he would be ready to appease even the worst elements around. Didn't the world appease Hitler in the 1930s? I want a President with a backbone! And I don't see this from Senator Obama.
Please keep up your thoughtful analysis and writing.
Please keep up your thoughtful analysis and writing.
|
|
Mar 26, 04:24 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
People that turn humans into dependent children over their entire lives do not help the individual they turn them into slaves of the State. The State is responsible for everything: what you wear, where you live, what you eat, what you can say, what type of health care you get. etc. etc. In return, the individual gives up their freedom and very life to the dictates of the State. The reality is that where conservatism dies and socialism takes over, everyone is poor and slaves to the State. Whereas in a conservative, free market society the highest standard of living the world has ever known is here and now in America. However, if the libs like "melborg" get their way, we will all be equally poor, enslaved and living hopeless lives just waiting for the next hand out.
|
|
Mar 26, 04:14 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
,The 2008 Wall Street Journal Lead Editorial about Saddam's Terror Links. The article clearly shows one of the primary reasons President Bush went ahead with the invasion of Iraq post 9/11 was Saddam's links to terrorists. Obama makes the argument that the world would be better off if Saddam was still in power. However, given Saddam's links to terrorists a strong argument could be made that if Saddam was still in power, he would be thumbing his nose at us and actively producing weapons of mass destruction that he would be providing to terrorists. However the fact is Saddam is gone from Iraq and the US has made a commitment to the Iraqi people that we will protect them from Saddam's insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq. So number one if we leave Iraq now we will have betrayed our trust to the people of Iraq who have supported us and thousands could perish. Number two, we would be leaving Iraq in the hands of Al Qaeda who will be free to use Iraq as a base from which to attack the West. So when Obama and his supporters say lets get out of Iraq now with no thought of the consequences to the Iraqi people and to us it is very scary. The fact that Obama brags that he is the only one who had the vision to oppose the Iraq war is even more troubling given what the world would be facing now with Saddam still in power . Saddam would view the the US as a "paper tiger"and he would have no fear of pursuing his threats against the West. By the way, the description of the US as a "paper tiger" is Osama's description of the US after the U.S. retreat from Somalia in 1993. Just what will Osama think of the US if we likewise retreat from Iraq as Obama is proposing? My guess is the Osama would be applauding Obama's decision to withdraw from Iraq and gathering his forces in Iraq for the purpose of launching more attacks on us. In reality, Obama sounds a lot like Neville Chamberlain who promised "peace in our time" via the type of appeasement tactics Obama is proposing. As a result of Neville Chamberlain's naivete WWII was fought and millions perished. Just hope Obama is not another Neville Chamberlain?
|
|
Mar 26, 04:10 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Contrary to the opinion of the bulk of the pundits on the left Obama blew it in his so called better than the "I have a dream speech" as follows: (1) Compared his grandmother and Geraldine Ferraro's mild gaffes about race to Wright's extreme and vicious anti American and Anti White rants from the pulpit. (2) Made excuses for Wright's racist and anti-American rants by arguing that anything that is explainable is excusable in that what Wright suffered in the past is an excuse for his present racist rants. Turns out that Wright apparently was brought up by an upper middle class family and attended one of the best integrated high schools in his neighborhood. (3) Made the argument that there is a double standard for the whites and blacks in that blacks have been so oppressed it is not fair to judge blacks by the same standards as whites . The fact Obama has attended the best schools in the Nation and has an income in the million dollar range makes one wonder why it is not fair to judge Obama and his associations with Wright, Rezco and Ayers in the same way one would judge a GOP candidates association with David Duke for example? Furthermore, will Obama have the courage to defend the honor of any close ally when he attacks the honor of his grandmother in such a self serving way?
|
|
Mar 26, 03:04 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
A Brilliant Fraud. Well, let's just suppose for a second, just hypothetically that the commentator is correct. Well, he could then still only be the second biggest fraud. The biggest fraud is conservative economics. If Obama did pull off a fraud. Well, it was a fraud about political opportunism of the very most ordinary kind. (I don't really believe it was, but I'm going with the commentator's premise.) But, in the end, it is conservatism that unflinchingly watches the poor die in the gutter and feels nothing for them, and then it is conservatives who appear in church before God and claim to be the followers of Jesus.
I know what I'm talking about. I'm from Orange County, a place where everyone was, in the 1970s, Republican, Evangelical, or both. And the two groups were so hideous, that even though I was swimming in that culture, by my late twenties I had begun to see that I had grown up in a horrifically cold culture. My young world that was rife with "experiences with Jesus as our personal savior," and I had those personal relationship with Jesus experiences too. But sadly, in the end, our Evangelicalism was, not in all cases, but for the most part, the biggest fraud that ever hit America. Not all Evangelicals are frauds, but spiritual fraud, moral fraud, is more pandemic in that community than most any other, especially, and perhaps almost only when, it is infused with conservative politics.
There was a time when the vast majority of Evangelicals were indeed well meaning people. I experienced, in some way, the tail end of that good time. But then people started parading abortion photos around the church and getting political. And, ironically, our outgoing pastor, in his final sermon to us, before he retired, warned that making Evangelicalism synonymous with conservatism would destroy the faith of millions. His prophecy turned out true. Conservatism is a Koran-Torah-Bible style literalism, a book worship. The Atheist Conservatives worship the book: The Constitution, and treat is as scripture. And, just like the Fanatical Mullahs, they use its absolutism to condemn millions to economic death.
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe the commentator may not be religious or Christian, although he could surprise me and be both. But either way, at last, he gives doctrines to the dying, and not love or money. The mentally ill, the sick, the dying, the addicted and the lost don't need doctrines. The idea that doctrines will save the world is the great snake oil. The great fraud of our time, whether it be religious doctrines or economic doctrines, the result is the same, sociopathic social insanity. So while our commentator may have pulled off a "gotcha," he has done so on a petty point. But I should understand this, as a lawyer friend of a friend used to say, "If you've got the facts on your side, you argue the facts. If you've got the law on your side, you argue the law." I'm prepared to say that the Pharisees, and the Evangelicals, and the greedy CEOs, who, now, oddly, are of one flesh, have the law on their side. Big deal. THEY WROTE THE LAWS FOR THEMSELVES! But what they don't have on their side is the facts. The facts will defeat them at the polls. As our nation slips ever deeper into the worship of greedy people, and we continue to worship the rich and to vote in their interest, not our own, due to THE GREATEST FRAUD EVER, then the facts will begin to come knocking. To be honest, I can barely keep a conservative friend. NOTE BECAUSE WE PARTED, but because THEY'RE ALL FLEEING CONSERVATISM AS FAST AS THEY CAN!
The commentator doesn't mean to be a fraud. I really believe this, that salesman become hypnotized by their own snake oil, and come to believe it, in an emotional way. It's like alcoholism. It's an addiction. The commentator is just hooked on a giant lie, not that he meant to be a liar, but the conservative story line is just too much fun. You know, I had a lone Republican friend in Marin, who really did leave my life with a note. It read: "I know you're right, but it's just not fun." And I remember being a Conservative. And it was a gas. As another old friend used to say to me, "The poor are boring." And that, really, is why we keep buying conservative snake oil. We want anything but the poor, but that desire, is the great fraud. Obama's fraud, well, even if we grant it, and I don't really, still, it would be table-scrap sin. The deaths of millions of Americans, that will be the great judgment the conservatives will face.
Mel C. Thompson.
I know what I'm talking about. I'm from Orange County, a place where everyone was, in the 1970s, Republican, Evangelical, or both. And the two groups were so hideous, that even though I was swimming in that culture, by my late twenties I had begun to see that I had grown up in a horrifically cold culture. My young world that was rife with "experiences with Jesus as our personal savior," and I had those personal relationship with Jesus experiences too. But sadly, in the end, our Evangelicalism was, not in all cases, but for the most part, the biggest fraud that ever hit America. Not all Evangelicals are frauds, but spiritual fraud, moral fraud, is more pandemic in that community than most any other, especially, and perhaps almost only when, it is infused with conservative politics.
There was a time when the vast majority of Evangelicals were indeed well meaning people. I experienced, in some way, the tail end of that good time. But then people started parading abortion photos around the church and getting political. And, ironically, our outgoing pastor, in his final sermon to us, before he retired, warned that making Evangelicalism synonymous with conservatism would destroy the faith of millions. His prophecy turned out true. Conservatism is a Koran-Torah-Bible style literalism, a book worship. The Atheist Conservatives worship the book: The Constitution, and treat is as scripture. And, just like the Fanatical Mullahs, they use its absolutism to condemn millions to economic death.
Now, I may be wrong, but I believe the commentator may not be religious or Christian, although he could surprise me and be both. But either way, at last, he gives doctrines to the dying, and not love or money. The mentally ill, the sick, the dying, the addicted and the lost don't need doctrines. The idea that doctrines will save the world is the great snake oil. The great fraud of our time, whether it be religious doctrines or economic doctrines, the result is the same, sociopathic social insanity. So while our commentator may have pulled off a "gotcha," he has done so on a petty point. But I should understand this, as a lawyer friend of a friend used to say, "If you've got the facts on your side, you argue the facts. If you've got the law on your side, you argue the law." I'm prepared to say that the Pharisees, and the Evangelicals, and the greedy CEOs, who, now, oddly, are of one flesh, have the law on their side. Big deal. THEY WROTE THE LAWS FOR THEMSELVES! But what they don't have on their side is the facts. The facts will defeat them at the polls. As our nation slips ever deeper into the worship of greedy people, and we continue to worship the rich and to vote in their interest, not our own, due to THE GREATEST FRAUD EVER, then the facts will begin to come knocking. To be honest, I can barely keep a conservative friend. NOTE BECAUSE WE PARTED, but because THEY'RE ALL FLEEING CONSERVATISM AS FAST AS THEY CAN!
The commentator doesn't mean to be a fraud. I really believe this, that salesman become hypnotized by their own snake oil, and come to believe it, in an emotional way. It's like alcoholism. It's an addiction. The commentator is just hooked on a giant lie, not that he meant to be a liar, but the conservative story line is just too much fun. You know, I had a lone Republican friend in Marin, who really did leave my life with a note. It read: "I know you're right, but it's just not fun." And I remember being a Conservative. And it was a gas. As another old friend used to say to me, "The poor are boring." And that, really, is why we keep buying conservative snake oil. We want anything but the poor, but that desire, is the great fraud. Obama's fraud, well, even if we grant it, and I don't really, still, it would be table-scrap sin. The deaths of millions of Americans, that will be the great judgment the conservatives will face.
Mel C. Thompson.
|
|
Mar 25, 10:26 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
A very well-written article.
On the issue of white guilt, despite the fact that I am a white Southerner, I feel no guilt over slavery, often labeled "America's original sin," by the liberal media. None of my ancestors, as far as I can determine, ever owned slaves. Many Southerners did not ( 1/3 of white Southerners owned no slaves, 1/3 owned 1 to 5, and 1/3 owned 5 or more.) My American family tree is traced to a widowed or unmarried domestic servant who arrived from England in 1836 with six children in tow. And as far as slavery being "America's original sin," what nations or cultures in modern or ancient times did not foster the enslavement of others sometime in their history, including those of Africa--both Christian & Muslim. White people , too, have been enslaved at various times and places in the history of the world.
On the issue of white guilt, despite the fact that I am a white Southerner, I feel no guilt over slavery, often labeled "America's original sin," by the liberal media. None of my ancestors, as far as I can determine, ever owned slaves. Many Southerners did not ( 1/3 of white Southerners owned no slaves, 1/3 owned 1 to 5, and 1/3 owned 5 or more.) My American family tree is traced to a widowed or unmarried domestic servant who arrived from England in 1836 with six children in tow. And as far as slavery being "America's original sin," what nations or cultures in modern or ancient times did not foster the enslavement of others sometime in their history, including those of Africa--both Christian & Muslim. White people , too, have been enslaved at various times and places in the history of the world.
|
|
Mar 25, 10:17 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
rok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taking the arguments (or their surrogates) of
> anti-obama hysteria piece by piece:
>
>
> 1. The idea of “Obama is lucky to be who he is”,
> he is taking advantage of his race(s). Really
> Charles?
> On what planet do we live? If you were an ET
> coming from out of space and be able to understand
> the debate around him ( “third rock from the sun”
> case let’s say) you could get the conclusion that
> the blacks are the most privileged minority group
> in US, they dominate the congress, wall-street,
> media, universities being treated preferentially
> for reasons impossible for non-humans to
> understand, that the slavery was just the old
> jargon for “job” and jim crow laws a kind of
> welfare state. And now Obama is just another
> spoiled kid waiting in line for an ice-cream he
> never deserved, given him just by birth because of
> a social inertia.
>
>
> Let’s ask the other question, do you believe that
> the president Bush would have been elected
> president (or governor) if he WEREN’T white or the
> son of another president, and this question should
> be asked first of all by his supporters. Imagine
> him just for a second as a latino or black, and
> think what would media said about his swagger? Or
> imagine just for a sec, or two sec if we are
> really honest, a black president saying that
> nobody accused him of being Shakespeare? Any
> insidious smile or racial joke about this matter
> in the room corner or tv show? What would have
> been the "pundits" “explanation” for the real
> “root” of a black Bush (not the Chappelle
> masterpiece anyway) abilities (or lack of them) to
> read, write or speak as a mature person? Imagine
> black Bush and say it would have been not any kind
> of racist jokes about him, as they are no racist
> jokes about whites because Bush is who he is? Why
> nobody asked him/herself these questions in 2000?
> The same white liberals accusing in 2000 Bush of
> being an idiot just because he is from Texas now
> accuse Obama of being lucky because he is
> black???? In what century, country or planet do we
> live?
>
> The debate about this issue is nothing more than
> the worst kind of double standard, cultural
> paternalism and condescendence, ie the widespread
> opinion that if blacks fail is because of their
> fault, but if they succeed is because of the
> affirmative action. Conclusion a black kid will
> get from the debate: no matter what you do as a
> black person, you can not get a fair social
> “trial”, because always the rest of society will
> find ways to question your performance based on
> multiple standards.
>
> And the worst part is that the same people who
> voted for affirmative action (AA) now accuse the
> blacks of cheating the system and getting "free
> lunches" because of it. I remember and finally
> understand Malcom X saying that he preferred the
> white racists segregationist from South Africa to
> the fake “democrats” from his own country
> pretending to be liberals because at least they
> were honest. The only conclusion as a black you
> can get today is that the white America invented
> the AA just to have an excuse later to deny your
> success later in life. The blacks expected the
> south whites to believe this moronic idea, but not
> their white “friends” from Ivy League. Before
> asking the question if Obama had any advantage due
> to his ethnic identity, let’s ask ourselves in the
> mirror and analyze with the same rigor. And then
> throw the rock at him.
>
>
> 2. The second idiotic idea: Obama has a better
> treatment than Clinton ( the same variation of the
> same theme as above) and we were just excited by
> the IDEA of a black president, doesn’t matter who
> he is.
>
> It’s true that it was a lot of excitement when
> Obama decided to run, but this doesn’t mean we
> were biased in his evaluation since his life,
> words, choices, schools he went or books he wrote
> are scrutinized now in a way nobody else in modern
> politics had the “honour”. Remember Jesse Jackson,
> he run in ’84 and he didn’t get a free ride, on
> the contrary. What is weird, we now ask Obama to
> justify the words of the preachers he listened to,
> of his relatives, parents, friends, or enemies and
> this is leading us to the next “issue:
>
>
> 3. The preacher and the flock
>
>
> Nobody asked Bush to denounce right-wing preachers
> who blamed September 11 on gays and lesbians,
> civil rights and abortion and not on islamic
> terrorism, or Katrina on jazz, John Kerry was not
> asked to criticize the Pope for the usual
> intolerance against gays in catholic church
> sermons, and nobody asked Joe Liberman to
> criticize a sermon of his favourite rabbi he
> didn’t listen. How about Jesse Jackson and his
> comments that NY is too Jewish, or Al Sharpton
> obession with Joe Libermann in 2004? That was
> real antisemitism, and nobody bothered. Why nobody
> searches what kind of prizes and awards a member
> of KKK was given by a preacher Bill Clinton, or
> Carter, or Reagan admired?
> Why suddenly the religious America discovers only
> now that the priests are saying sometimes absurd
> ideas, and that they evaluate everything in black
> and white, salvation vs damnation, good vs evil,
> angel vs demon and us vs them? This is their job,
> this is how they are getting salaries, making
> binary distinctions.
>
>
> 4. the last stupid idea: Obama manipulates white
> guilt
>
> What Obama tried to do by presenting his
> grandmother racial stereotypes was not to make a
> moral equivalence between her actions and the
> reverend W. statements, he was just trying to
> promote his main agenda of fight against “politics
> of fear”. But the main fear is not that one used
> by Bush in his favourite wars. No, the main fear
> Obama tried to heal is the fear of the blacks that
> their white neighbours are just hypocrites who
> pretend to be tolerant (that this is not just
> another paranoia as republicans tell them daily)
> when in fact they are just keeping a distance. And
> who could blame them for such a fear since the
> only big friends they got in politics, The
> Clintons & Co, now showed their true colours out
> of the closet and those colours are not better
> than Jesse Helms. or maybe jesse helms might be
> offended to be compared to them, he was never
> arrogant.
>
> Obama is in fact walking a narrow racial rope in a
> way nobody else did it so far, and I am afraid
> nobody would be so powerful, intelligent and
> faithful to do it. And just look to the usual
> criticism: Initially he was not black enough to
> get elected, then we has not poor enough to speak
> for chicago, than he was too weak to make war,
> then naïve to promise to send troops to hunt bin
> laden&al-qaeda wherever they might be, and now he
> is too black to get elected . When we will ever
> grow up? And in the end of the day when a black
> man, remarkable in many aspects but imperfect in
> many others as he admitted with real guts ( the
> sniffing story, I want to see bill clinton saying
> the same about pot), dares to get the same job as
> a white man or a white woman, the last argument
> you have against him is an ad which is copied
> almost frame by frame from “The Birth of a Nation”
> of DW Griffith presenting the KKK as a protector
> of the poor whites against blacks who would rape
> your sleeping kid.
>
> To give a speech about race without making
> platitudes to please the audience in the way he
> did shows the he has faith in US, that he can take
> risks when almost everybody else would consult a
> focus group analysis and quantify votes lost/won
> based on political calculations. He is speaking
> like the rest of us were adults and the problems
> is not if America is ready for a black president
> but if Obama is ready to deal with such infantile
> minds. The real issue is not whether “ he is lucky
> to be who he is”, the big truth is that America is
> lucky that Obama is who he is.
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE, spare me, spare all of us your unadulterated BS. THE "PASTOR" IS A RACIST AND A HATER OF ANYONE WHO IS NOT BLACK!!! HE NEEDS TO THANK GOD THAT HE LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE THERE IS TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE COUNTRY HE HATES AND THE PEOPLE HE DESPISES. WE COULD ARRANGE A RETURN TRIP BACK TO WHERE HE SWEARS LOYALTY TO: AFRICA!!!
THIS IS THE REVENGE, VENGEANCE, AND BLOOD-IN-THEIR EYES TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT WILL TAKE OVER THIS NATION. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, YOU BET! THERE ARE TOO MANY ‘COINCIDENCES’ OF "ASSOCIATIONS" WITH CROOKED SYRIAN MOBSTERS LIKE REZKO, WEATHERMAN BOMBERS, HATRED SPOUTING "REVERENDS" AND BLACK MUSLIMS LIKE FARRAKAN, TO BE NOT LIKE THEM.
TWENTY PLUS YEARS OF INDOCTRINATION IN THIS TYPE OF 'IDEOLOGY', FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, DOES NOT WASH AWAY EASILY. IF HE, “CAN NO MORE DISAVOW REV. WRIGHT…”, IT MEANS HE AGREES WITH HIM, AND WILL JUSTIFY THIS MAN’S VENOM EVEN AT THE RISK OF HIS CAMPAIGN FUTURE.
EVERYBODY, IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP!!! LOOK AT THE TIP OF THIS ICEBERG. IS THIS where WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW OUR COUNTRY TO GO INTO THESE HANDS? PLEASE TELL ME NO. Too many issues have been raised throughout the presidential campaign about Mr. Obama's record as an Illinois and U.S. senator, about his affiliations with less than desired elements of society (Rezko, the weatherman, and Wright) but within the past three days, all these have surfaced to cast an alarming doubt about this man's JUDGEMENT. Sound judgment is what he has run his campaign on, and frankly, it has shown to be faulted at the very least. His explanations and excuses that he didn't know, wasn't aware of, his untimely "condemnations" of people who have been extremely close to him throughout his life, are not credible. HE IS DISINGENUOUS AND NOT TRUSTWORTHY AT ALL. HE IS NOT THE PERSON HE CLAIMS TO BE. HE PERSONIFIES THE AUDACITY OF DECEIT!
WHAT ELSE ARE WE GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT HIM NEXT?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taking the arguments (or their surrogates) of
> anti-obama hysteria piece by piece:
>
>
> 1. The idea of “Obama is lucky to be who he is”,
> he is taking advantage of his race(s). Really
> Charles?
> On what planet do we live? If you were an ET
> coming from out of space and be able to understand
> the debate around him ( “third rock from the sun”
> case let’s say) you could get the conclusion that
> the blacks are the most privileged minority group
> in US, they dominate the congress, wall-street,
> media, universities being treated preferentially
> for reasons impossible for non-humans to
> understand, that the slavery was just the old
> jargon for “job” and jim crow laws a kind of
> welfare state. And now Obama is just another
> spoiled kid waiting in line for an ice-cream he
> never deserved, given him just by birth because of
> a social inertia.
>
>
> Let’s ask the other question, do you believe that
> the president Bush would have been elected
> president (or governor) if he WEREN’T white or the
> son of another president, and this question should
> be asked first of all by his supporters. Imagine
> him just for a second as a latino or black, and
> think what would media said about his swagger? Or
> imagine just for a sec, or two sec if we are
> really honest, a black president saying that
> nobody accused him of being Shakespeare? Any
> insidious smile or racial joke about this matter
> in the room corner or tv show? What would have
> been the "pundits" “explanation” for the real
> “root” of a black Bush (not the Chappelle
> masterpiece anyway) abilities (or lack of them) to
> read, write or speak as a mature person? Imagine
> black Bush and say it would have been not any kind
> of racist jokes about him, as they are no racist
> jokes about whites because Bush is who he is? Why
> nobody asked him/herself these questions in 2000?
> The same white liberals accusing in 2000 Bush of
> being an idiot just because he is from Texas now
> accuse Obama of being lucky because he is
> black???? In what century, country or planet do we
> live?
>
> The debate about this issue is nothing more than
> the worst kind of double standard, cultural
> paternalism and condescendence, ie the widespread
> opinion that if blacks fail is because of their
> fault, but if they succeed is because of the
> affirmative action. Conclusion a black kid will
> get from the debate: no matter what you do as a
> black person, you can not get a fair social
> “trial”, because always the rest of society will
> find ways to question your performance based on
> multiple standards.
>
> And the worst part is that the same people who
> voted for affirmative action (AA) now accuse the
> blacks of cheating the system and getting "free
> lunches" because of it. I remember and finally
> understand Malcom X saying that he preferred the
> white racists segregationist from South Africa to
> the fake “democrats” from his own country
> pretending to be liberals because at least they
> were honest. The only conclusion as a black you
> can get today is that the white America invented
> the AA just to have an excuse later to deny your
> success later in life. The blacks expected the
> south whites to believe this moronic idea, but not
> their white “friends” from Ivy League. Before
> asking the question if Obama had any advantage due
> to his ethnic identity, let’s ask ourselves in the
> mirror and analyze with the same rigor. And then
> throw the rock at him.
>
>
> 2. The second idiotic idea: Obama has a better
> treatment than Clinton ( the same variation of the
> same theme as above) and we were just excited by
> the IDEA of a black president, doesn’t matter who
> he is.
>
> It’s true that it was a lot of excitement when
> Obama decided to run, but this doesn’t mean we
> were biased in his evaluation since his life,
> words, choices, schools he went or books he wrote
> are scrutinized now in a way nobody else in modern
> politics had the “honour”. Remember Jesse Jackson,
> he run in ’84 and he didn’t get a free ride, on
> the contrary. What is weird, we now ask Obama to
> justify the words of the preachers he listened to,
> of his relatives, parents, friends, or enemies and
> this is leading us to the next “issue:
>
>
> 3. The preacher and the flock
>
>
> Nobody asked Bush to denounce right-wing preachers
> who blamed September 11 on gays and lesbians,
> civil rights and abortion and not on islamic
> terrorism, or Katrina on jazz, John Kerry was not
> asked to criticize the Pope for the usual
> intolerance against gays in catholic church
> sermons, and nobody asked Joe Liberman to
> criticize a sermon of his favourite rabbi he
> didn’t listen. How about Jesse Jackson and his
> comments that NY is too Jewish, or Al Sharpton
> obession with Joe Libermann in 2004? That was
> real antisemitism, and nobody bothered. Why nobody
> searches what kind of prizes and awards a member
> of KKK was given by a preacher Bill Clinton, or
> Carter, or Reagan admired?
> Why suddenly the religious America discovers only
> now that the priests are saying sometimes absurd
> ideas, and that they evaluate everything in black
> and white, salvation vs damnation, good vs evil,
> angel vs demon and us vs them? This is their job,
> this is how they are getting salaries, making
> binary distinctions.
>
>
> 4. the last stupid idea: Obama manipulates white
> guilt
>
> What Obama tried to do by presenting his
> grandmother racial stereotypes was not to make a
> moral equivalence between her actions and the
> reverend W. statements, he was just trying to
> promote his main agenda of fight against “politics
> of fear”. But the main fear is not that one used
> by Bush in his favourite wars. No, the main fear
> Obama tried to heal is the fear of the blacks that
> their white neighbours are just hypocrites who
> pretend to be tolerant (that this is not just
> another paranoia as republicans tell them daily)
> when in fact they are just keeping a distance. And
> who could blame them for such a fear since the
> only big friends they got in politics, The
> Clintons & Co, now showed their true colours out
> of the closet and those colours are not better
> than Jesse Helms. or maybe jesse helms might be
> offended to be compared to them, he was never
> arrogant.
>
> Obama is in fact walking a narrow racial rope in a
> way nobody else did it so far, and I am afraid
> nobody would be so powerful, intelligent and
> faithful to do it. And just look to the usual
> criticism: Initially he was not black enough to
> get elected, then we has not poor enough to speak
> for chicago, than he was too weak to make war,
> then naïve to promise to send troops to hunt bin
> laden&al-qaeda wherever they might be, and now he
> is too black to get elected . When we will ever
> grow up? And in the end of the day when a black
> man, remarkable in many aspects but imperfect in
> many others as he admitted with real guts ( the
> sniffing story, I want to see bill clinton saying
> the same about pot), dares to get the same job as
> a white man or a white woman, the last argument
> you have against him is an ad which is copied
> almost frame by frame from “The Birth of a Nation”
> of DW Griffith presenting the KKK as a protector
> of the poor whites against blacks who would rape
> your sleeping kid.
>
> To give a speech about race without making
> platitudes to please the audience in the way he
> did shows the he has faith in US, that he can take
> risks when almost everybody else would consult a
> focus group analysis and quantify votes lost/won
> based on political calculations. He is speaking
> like the rest of us were adults and the problems
> is not if America is ready for a black president
> but if Obama is ready to deal with such infantile
> minds. The real issue is not whether “ he is lucky
> to be who he is”, the big truth is that America is
> lucky that Obama is who he is.
PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE, spare me, spare all of us your unadulterated BS. THE "PASTOR" IS A RACIST AND A HATER OF ANYONE WHO IS NOT BLACK!!! HE NEEDS TO THANK GOD THAT HE LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE THERE IS TRUE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE COUNTRY HE HATES AND THE PEOPLE HE DESPISES. WE COULD ARRANGE A RETURN TRIP BACK TO WHERE HE SWEARS LOYALTY TO: AFRICA!!!
THIS IS THE REVENGE, VENGEANCE, AND BLOOD-IN-THEIR EYES TYPE OF PEOPLE THAT WILL TAKE OVER THIS NATION. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, YOU BET! THERE ARE TOO MANY ‘COINCIDENCES’ OF "ASSOCIATIONS" WITH CROOKED SYRIAN MOBSTERS LIKE REZKO, WEATHERMAN BOMBERS, HATRED SPOUTING "REVERENDS" AND BLACK MUSLIMS LIKE FARRAKAN, TO BE NOT LIKE THEM.
TWENTY PLUS YEARS OF INDOCTRINATION IN THIS TYPE OF 'IDEOLOGY', FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, DOES NOT WASH AWAY EASILY. IF HE, “CAN NO MORE DISAVOW REV. WRIGHT…”, IT MEANS HE AGREES WITH HIM, AND WILL JUSTIFY THIS MAN’S VENOM EVEN AT THE RISK OF HIS CAMPAIGN FUTURE.
EVERYBODY, IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP!!! LOOK AT THE TIP OF THIS ICEBERG. IS THIS where WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW OUR COUNTRY TO GO INTO THESE HANDS? PLEASE TELL ME NO. Too many issues have been raised throughout the presidential campaign about Mr. Obama's record as an Illinois and U.S. senator, about his affiliations with less than desired elements of society (Rezko, the weatherman, and Wright) but within the past three days, all these have surfaced to cast an alarming doubt about this man's JUDGEMENT. Sound judgment is what he has run his campaign on, and frankly, it has shown to be faulted at the very least. His explanations and excuses that he didn't know, wasn't aware of, his untimely "condemnations" of people who have been extremely close to him throughout his life, are not credible. HE IS DISINGENUOUS AND NOT TRUSTWORTHY AT ALL. HE IS NOT THE PERSON HE CLAIMS TO BE. HE PERSONIFIES THE AUDACITY OF DECEIT!
WHAT ELSE ARE WE GOING TO FIND OUT ABOUT HIM NEXT?
|
|
Mar 25, 01:05 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Taking the arguments (or their surrogates) of anti-obama hysteria piece by piece:
1. The idea of “Obama is lucky to be who he is”, he is taking advantage of his race(s). Really Charles?
On what planet do we live? If you were an ET coming from out of space and be able to understand the debate around him ( “third rock from the sun” case let’s say) you could get the conclusion that the blacks are the most privileged minority group in US, they dominate the congress, wall-street, media, universities being treated preferentially for reasons impossible for non-humans to understand, that the slavery was just the old jargon for “job” and jim crow laws a kind of welfare state. And now Obama is just another spoiled kid waiting in line for an ice-cream he never deserved, given him just by birth because of a social inertia.
Let’s ask the other question, do you believe that the president Bush would have been elected president (or governor) if he WEREN’T white or the son of another president, and this question should be asked first of all by his supporters. Imagine him just for a second as a latino or black, and think what would media said about his swagger? Or imagine just for a sec, or two sec if we are really honest, a black president saying that nobody accused him of being Shakespeare? Any insidious smile or racial joke about this matter in the room corner or tv show? What would have been the "pundits" “explanation” for the real “root” of a black Bush (not the Chappelle masterpiece anyway) abilities (or lack of them) to read, write or speak as a mature person? Imagine black Bush and say it would have been not any kind of racist jokes about him, as they are no racist jokes about whites because Bush is who he is? Why nobody asked him/herself these questions in 2000? The same white liberals accusing in 2000 Bush of being an idiot just because he is from Texas now accuse Obama of being lucky because he is black???? In what century, country or planet do we live?
The debate about this issue is nothing more than the worst kind of double standard, cultural paternalism and condescendence, ie the widespread opinion that if blacks fail is because of their fault, but if they succeed is because of the affirmative action. Conclusion a black kid will get from the debate: no matter what you do as a black person, you can not get a fair social “trial”, because always the rest of society will find ways to question your performance based on multiple standards.
And the worst part is that the same people who voted for affirmative action (AA) now accuse the blacks of cheating the system and getting "free lunches" because of it. I remember and finally understand Malcom X saying that he preferred the white racists segregationist from South Africa to the fake “democrats” from his own country pretending to be liberals because at least they were honest. The only conclusion as a black you can get today is that the white America invented the AA just to have an excuse later to deny your success later in life. The blacks expected the south whites to believe this moronic idea, but not their white “friends” from Ivy League. Before asking the question if Obama had any advantage due to his ethnic identity, let’s ask ourselves in the mirror and analyze with the same rigor. And then throw the rock at him.
2. The second idiotic idea: Obama has a better treatment than Clinton ( the same variation of the same theme as above) and we were just excited by the IDEA of a black president, doesn’t matter who he is.
It’s true that it was a lot of excitement when Obama decided to run, but this doesn’t mean we were biased in his evaluation since his life, words, choices, schools he went or books he wrote are scrutinized now in a way nobody else in modern politics had the “honour”. Remember Jesse Jackson, he run in ’84 and he didn’t get a free ride, on the contrary. What is weird, we now ask Obama to justify the words of the preachers he listened to, of his relatives, parents, friends, or enemies and this is leading us to the next “issue:
3. The preacher and the flock
Nobody asked Bush to denounce right-wing preachers who blamed September 11 on gays and lesbians, civil rights and abortion and not on islamic terrorism, or Katrina on jazz, John Kerry was not asked to criticize the Pope for the usual intolerance against gays in catholic church sermons, and nobody asked Joe Liberman to criticize a sermon of his favourite rabbi he didn’t listen. How about Jesse Jackson and his comments that NY is too Jewish, or Al Sharpton obession with Joe Libermann in 2004? That was real antisemitism, and nobody bothered. Why nobody searches what kind of prizes and awards a member of KKK was given by a preacher Bill Clinton, or Carter, or Reagan admired?
Why suddenly the religious America discovers only now that the priests are saying sometimes absurd ideas, and that they evaluate everything in black and white, salvation vs damnation, good vs evil, angel vs demon and us vs them? This is their job, this is how they are getting salaries, making binary distinctions.
4. the last stupid idea: Obama manipulates white guilt
What Obama tried to do by presenting his grandmother racial stereotypes was not to make a moral equivalence between her actions and the reverend W. statements, he was just trying to promote his main agenda of fight against “politics of fear”. But the main fear is not that one used by Bush in his favourite wars. No, the main fear Obama tried to heal is the fear of the blacks that their white neighbours are just hypocrites who pretend to be tolerant (that this is not just another paranoia as republicans tell them daily) when in fact they are just keeping a distance. And who could blame them for such a fear since the only big friends they got in politics, The Clintons & Co, now showed their true colours out of the closet and those colours are not better than Jesse Helms. or maybe jesse helms might be offended to be compared to them, he was never arrogant.
Obama is in fact walking a narrow racial rope in a way nobody else did it so far, and I am afraid nobody would be so powerful, intelligent and faithful to do it. And just look to the usual criticism: Initially he was not black enough to get elected, then we has not poor enough to speak for chicago, than he was too weak to make war, then naïve to promise to send troops to hunt bin laden&al-qaeda wherever they might be, and now he is too black to get elected . When we will ever grow up? And in the end of the day when a black man, remarkable in many aspects but imperfect in many others as he admitted with real guts ( the sniffing story, I want to see bill clinton saying the same about pot), dares to get the same job as a white man or a white woman, the last argument you have against him is an ad which is copied almost frame by frame from “The Birth of a Nation” of DW Griffith presenting the KKK as a protector of the poor whites against blacks who would rape your sleeping kid.
To give a speech about race without making platitudes to please the audience in the way he did shows the he has faith in US, that he can take risks when almost everybody else would consult a focus group analysis and quantify votes lost/won based on political calculations. He is speaking like the rest of us were adults and the problems is not if America is ready for a black president but if Obama is ready to deal with such infantile minds. The real issue is not whether “ he is lucky to be who he is”, the big truth is that America is lucky that Obama is who he is.
1. The idea of “Obama is lucky to be who he is”, he is taking advantage of his race(s). Really Charles?
On what planet do we live? If you were an ET coming from out of space and be able to understand the debate around him ( “third rock from the sun” case let’s say) you could get the conclusion that the blacks are the most privileged minority group in US, they dominate the congress, wall-street, media, universities being treated preferentially for reasons impossible for non-humans to understand, that the slavery was just the old jargon for “job” and jim crow laws a kind of welfare state. And now Obama is just another spoiled kid waiting in line for an ice-cream he never deserved, given him just by birth because of a social inertia.
Let’s ask the other question, do you believe that the president Bush would have been elected president (or governor) if he WEREN’T white or the son of another president, and this question should be asked first of all by his supporters. Imagine him just for a second as a latino or black, and think what would media said about his swagger? Or imagine just for a sec, or two sec if we are really honest, a black president saying that nobody accused him of being Shakespeare? Any insidious smile or racial joke about this matter in the room corner or tv show? What would have been the "pundits" “explanation” for the real “root” of a black Bush (not the Chappelle masterpiece anyway) abilities (or lack of them) to read, write or speak as a mature person? Imagine black Bush and say it would have been not any kind of racist jokes about him, as they are no racist jokes about whites because Bush is who he is? Why nobody asked him/herself these questions in 2000? The same white liberals accusing in 2000 Bush of being an idiot just because he is from Texas now accuse Obama of being lucky because he is black???? In what century, country or planet do we live?
The debate about this issue is nothing more than the worst kind of double standard, cultural paternalism and condescendence, ie the widespread opinion that if blacks fail is because of their fault, but if they succeed is because of the affirmative action. Conclusion a black kid will get from the debate: no matter what you do as a black person, you can not get a fair social “trial”, because always the rest of society will find ways to question your performance based on multiple standards.
And the worst part is that the same people who voted for affirmative action (AA) now accuse the blacks of cheating the system and getting "free lunches" because of it. I remember and finally understand Malcom X saying that he preferred the white racists segregationist from South Africa to the fake “democrats” from his own country pretending to be liberals because at least they were honest. The only conclusion as a black you can get today is that the white America invented the AA just to have an excuse later to deny your success later in life. The blacks expected the south whites to believe this moronic idea, but not their white “friends” from Ivy League. Before asking the question if Obama had any advantage due to his ethnic identity, let’s ask ourselves in the mirror and analyze with the same rigor. And then throw the rock at him.
2. The second idiotic idea: Obama has a better treatment than Clinton ( the same variation of the same theme as above) and we were just excited by the IDEA of a black president, doesn’t matter who he is.
It’s true that it was a lot of excitement when Obama decided to run, but this doesn’t mean we were biased in his evaluation since his life, words, choices, schools he went or books he wrote are scrutinized now in a way nobody else in modern politics had the “honour”. Remember Jesse Jackson, he run in ’84 and he didn’t get a free ride, on the contrary. What is weird, we now ask Obama to justify the words of the preachers he listened to, of his relatives, parents, friends, or enemies and this is leading us to the next “issue:
3. The preacher and the flock
Nobody asked Bush to denounce right-wing preachers who blamed September 11 on gays and lesbians, civil rights and abortion and not on islamic terrorism, or Katrina on jazz, John Kerry was not asked to criticize the Pope for the usual intolerance against gays in catholic church sermons, and nobody asked Joe Liberman to criticize a sermon of his favourite rabbi he didn’t listen. How about Jesse Jackson and his comments that NY is too Jewish, or Al Sharpton obession with Joe Libermann in 2004? That was real antisemitism, and nobody bothered. Why nobody searches what kind of prizes and awards a member of KKK was given by a preacher Bill Clinton, or Carter, or Reagan admired?
Why suddenly the religious America discovers only now that the priests are saying sometimes absurd ideas, and that they evaluate everything in black and white, salvation vs damnation, good vs evil, angel vs demon and us vs them? This is their job, this is how they are getting salaries, making binary distinctions.
4. the last stupid idea: Obama manipulates white guilt
What Obama tried to do by presenting his grandmother racial stereotypes was not to make a moral equivalence between her actions and the reverend W. statements, he was just trying to promote his main agenda of fight against “politics of fear”. But the main fear is not that one used by Bush in his favourite wars. No, the main fear Obama tried to heal is the fear of the blacks that their white neighbours are just hypocrites who pretend to be tolerant (that this is not just another paranoia as republicans tell them daily) when in fact they are just keeping a distance. And who could blame them for such a fear since the only big friends they got in politics, The Clintons & Co, now showed their true colours out of the closet and those colours are not better than Jesse Helms. or maybe jesse helms might be offended to be compared to them, he was never arrogant.
Obama is in fact walking a narrow racial rope in a way nobody else did it so far, and I am afraid nobody would be so powerful, intelligent and faithful to do it. And just look to the usual criticism: Initially he was not black enough to get elected, then we has not poor enough to speak for chicago, than he was too weak to make war, then naïve to promise to send troops to hunt bin laden&al-qaeda wherever they might be, and now he is too black to get elected . When we will ever grow up? And in the end of the day when a black man, remarkable in many aspects but imperfect in many others as he admitted with real guts ( the sniffing story, I want to see bill clinton saying the same about pot), dares to get the same job as a white man or a white woman, the last argument you have against him is an ad which is copied almost frame by frame from “The Birth of a Nation” of DW Griffith presenting the KKK as a protector of the poor whites against blacks who would rape your sleeping kid.
To give a speech about race without making platitudes to please the audience in the way he did shows the he has faith in US, that he can take risks when almost everybody else would consult a focus group analysis and quantify votes lost/won based on political calculations. He is speaking like the rest of us were adults and the problems is not if America is ready for a black president but if Obama is ready to deal with such infantile minds. The real issue is not whether “ he is lucky to be who he is”, the big truth is that America is lucky that Obama is who he is.
|
|
Mar 24, 03:36 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
John Tallen Wrote: You Mean Mr Obama Right Who Has No Solution's Except Rhetoric,& BS,And What Issues Has Obama Moved Forward With.Most Of Congress Are Coming Out And Exposing Mr Obama For The Fraud He Really Is.He Accomplished Nothing While In The US Seante For Two Of His Years,And The Third Year He Spent Campaigning For President,So Tell Me Again What Issue's Do He Meet Head On.You All Have Been Bought On Obama's BS So Bad That It Has Made You Dillusional,& Stupid.............That What I Just Stated You can Look It Up For Yourself I Don't Do Pundit's Research For Them To Disavow From Their Ignorance,Happy Searching.
-------------------------------------------------------o
> Typical. Give a scathing critique of points and
> nuances without offering a real solution to
> anything.
>
> Hey Krauthammer, so what is YOUR take on the
> current situation with race in this country?
> Everything is nice and comfy in your neck of the
> woods, right?
>
> What is upsetting for me with these type of
> comments is the reluctance to admit to certain
> problems with race in our society and to try and
> find a solution or at least encourage a discussion
> on them.
>
> Stupid commentators like this guy and others, just
> love to point-point-point at problems with what
> others are saying and never address the fact that
> there truly is a problem in our society.
>
> Obama is far from being perfect, but he is at
> least courageous in taking issues head on.
>
> With a long list of Hagees, and Falwells and what
> nots straddling parties, I rather take Obamas
> advice and either address this issue seriously or
> just, like he said, make it a blood sport and
> cynically parade looped clips of some preacher.
-------------------------------------------------------o
> Typical. Give a scathing critique of points and
> nuances without offering a real solution to
> anything.
>
> Hey Krauthammer, so what is YOUR take on the
> current situation with race in this country?
> Everything is nice and comfy in your neck of the
> woods, right?
>
> What is upsetting for me with these type of
> comments is the reluctance to admit to certain
> problems with race in our society and to try and
> find a solution or at least encourage a discussion
> on them.
>
> Stupid commentators like this guy and others, just
> love to point-point-point at problems with what
> others are saying and never address the fact that
> there truly is a problem in our society.
>
> Obama is far from being perfect, but he is at
> least courageous in taking issues head on.
>
> With a long list of Hagees, and Falwells and what
> nots straddling parties, I rather take Obamas
> advice and either address this issue seriously or
> just, like he said, make it a blood sport and
> cynically parade looped clips of some preacher.
|
|
Mar 24, 12:32 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
"chickens coming home to roost"
listen to the entire speech instead of trying to insite a riot for your own selfish reasons.
remember that this type of quoting or witness faking used to be used in lynch mobs.
This is the just modern day lynching.
listen to the entire speech instead of trying to insite a riot for your own selfish reasons.
remember that this type of quoting or witness faking used to be used in lynch mobs.
This is the just modern day lynching.
|
|
Mar 23, 11:28 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I had begun to believe that with a black president the racial wounds that might still be there could be healed; that having a black president might boost America's reputation in the world. Even with his lack of experience surely Congress wouldn't let him do too much harm. Then center stage enters Reverend Wright and the knowledge that Senator Obama and his family have been listening to his hate speech for up to twenty years! If he isn't thoroughly indoctrinated with it why isn't he?
Was he daydreaming while sitting there letting his daughters hear the ranting and raving against
the "whitey".
Many years ago while channel surfing on Sunday morning I happened to see Reverend Wright spewing his hatred from his "Christian" pulpit. I was so stunned I couldn't believe it! The church
was packed! Do all blacks feel that way?
What can we do? Or whould I say what more can we do? Affirmative action did help so many black s in so many ways. Welfare programs helped so many. Didn't they or did they?
Michelle Obama was educated at both Princeton and Harvard. Did affirmative action laws help her with that? I am almost afraid to ask. Discussion on the subject of race is close to impossible!
But could she have accomplished that in other country? And until recently she has never been proud of her own county!!
Yes, this country could do well to have a black president. But could we have one that loves America?
Was he daydreaming while sitting there letting his daughters hear the ranting and raving against
the "whitey".
Many years ago while channel surfing on Sunday morning I happened to see Reverend Wright spewing his hatred from his "Christian" pulpit. I was so stunned I couldn't believe it! The church
was packed! Do all blacks feel that way?
What can we do? Or whould I say what more can we do? Affirmative action did help so many black s in so many ways. Welfare programs helped so many. Didn't they or did they?
Michelle Obama was educated at both Princeton and Harvard. Did affirmative action laws help her with that? I am almost afraid to ask. Discussion on the subject of race is close to impossible!
But could she have accomplished that in other country? And until recently she has never been proud of her own county!!
Yes, this country could do well to have a black president. But could we have one that loves America?
|
|
Mar 23, 09:04 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
It'll be so much fun watching these bitter people squirm, or heal, under President Obama.
Which will it be? Squirm like a nasty little bug, or heal and understand the grandeur of this moment in history?
Obama '08
Which will it be? Squirm like a nasty little bug, or heal and understand the grandeur of this moment in history?
Obama '08
|
|
Mar 23, 07:42 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
If I yell fire,when there is one,but I also sell fire hoses.Does that lessen the truth or the danger of the fire?
BO said there is a race problem to day in America, that is the responsibility of everyone.How does telling everyone that, even though his saying it may enhance his chances of getting elected,lessen the truth of the assertion? Spend more time on it's accuracy and less time on him.You all have the opportunity to vote for someone else.
I think it's not liberal guilt that gets so many folks annoyed,it's that he told an uncomfortable truth that goes to everyone's guilt,black and white.It's a new version of "the truth may get us a better country and perhaps him elected".If he is a fraud,he did a really bad job of doing it.CK saw right through him,almost immediately.Shame on BO for being so superficial,transparent and of course, wrong.Clearly not presidential material,much too stupid.
BO said there is a race problem to day in America, that is the responsibility of everyone.How does telling everyone that, even though his saying it may enhance his chances of getting elected,lessen the truth of the assertion? Spend more time on it's accuracy and less time on him.You all have the opportunity to vote for someone else.
I think it's not liberal guilt that gets so many folks annoyed,it's that he told an uncomfortable truth that goes to everyone's guilt,black and white.It's a new version of "the truth may get us a better country and perhaps him elected".If he is a fraud,he did a really bad job of doing it.CK saw right through him,almost immediately.Shame on BO for being so superficial,transparent and of course, wrong.Clearly not presidential material,much too stupid.
|
|
Mar 23, 05:04 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Best article I've read in a long time. Finally someone with courage and logic. I was a Democrat all my adult life - no more. How 51% of Dems could give power to someone with no experience - name one accomplishment other than beating Allen Keyes for the senate - is beyond belief. And how anyone could believe that Obama is not a politician like everyone else is naive at best. He will beholden to the very same people the Dems are trying to vote out of power. It will be Washington as usual. If you don't want race to be an issue and you don't want to divide the Democratic party then don't nominate someone who hasn't been scrutinized, vetted, and held up to the same standards as everyone else. Like I heard one pundit say, "the Democrats always fall in love on the first date and then act surprised when the date turns out to be someone other than they thought."
|
|
Mar 23, 03:53 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
onevoice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jupiter Wilson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How dare you call Senator Obama's speech a
> fraud?
> > When a person has the courage to bar his soul
> in
> > public in an honest and compassionate way, you
> > have the termerity to dissect and dismiss the
> very
> > essence of his message - the need to examine
> the
> > racism within each of us. Perhaps it makes you
> > uncomfortable to do so. You could learn much
> from
> > Mike Huckabee's response yesterday.
>
>
> Why did he give this speech now? Could it be
> because he is trying to salvage his campaign? If
> he was really as appalled as he says over Wright's
> comments then why did he appoint him to his
> Spiritual Advisory Committee? Obama is either a
> closet racist, a self serving politician using the
> Trinity Church and Reverend Wright to win
> elections at the expense of his children being
> indoctrinated with racist and hatred views or some
> guy sitting in a pew lacking the intestinal
> fortitude to confront a hate spewing, racist
> preacher. Any of these three possibilities
> immediately disqualify he from being worthy of
> leading this nation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jupiter Wilson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > How dare you call Senator Obama's speech a
> fraud?
> > When a person has the courage to bar his soul
> in
> > public in an honest and compassionate way, you
> > have the termerity to dissect and dismiss the
> very
> > essence of his message - the need to examine
> the
> > racism within each of us. Perhaps it makes you
> > uncomfortable to do so. You could learn much
> from
> > Mike Huckabee's response yesterday.
>
>
> Why did he give this speech now? Could it be
> because he is trying to salvage his campaign? If
> he was really as appalled as he says over Wright's
> comments then why did he appoint him to his
> Spiritual Advisory Committee? Obama is either a
> closet racist, a self serving politician using the
> Trinity Church and Reverend Wright to win
> elections at the expense of his children being
> indoctrinated with racist and hatred views or some
> guy sitting in a pew lacking the intestinal
> fortitude to confront a hate spewing, racist
> preacher. Any of these three possibilities
> immediately disqualify he from being worthy of
> leading this nation.
|
|
Mar 23, 03:21 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
realyt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did Obama give the Race speech to save his
> presidency?
And another thing.
My life was changed by imagining the horrors that humans suffered in being stacked like wood in those slave trader vessels.
Those who suffered are long gone. Thankfully, out republic did not participate in much of that horror.
Obama's father was from Africa. He is not a descendant of those horrors. In fact, he is not related at all to any of the prejudices he attempted to remind us of.
I have much more right to speak on these issues. How they have influences my life! I am white and all four of my grandparents were immigrants. I lived through busing and was abused and robbed. I have never harmed anyone; I mean that literally. I have always been non violent, though my family was not. The phony attempt to level the playing field for "blacks" by the Democrats has done nothing but violence to my life. It makes me incredibly angry to hear that "blacks" vote overwhelmingly for Obama. Especially since it has always been obvious that he is nothing but a campaigner. This is his sixth campaign in twelve years. I doubt he was at his church today (Resurrection Sunday). That is because instead of doing his job, he is on the campaign trail.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did Obama give the Race speech to save his
> presidency?
And another thing.
My life was changed by imagining the horrors that humans suffered in being stacked like wood in those slave trader vessels.
Those who suffered are long gone. Thankfully, out republic did not participate in much of that horror.
Obama's father was from Africa. He is not a descendant of those horrors. In fact, he is not related at all to any of the prejudices he attempted to remind us of.
I have much more right to speak on these issues. How they have influences my life! I am white and all four of my grandparents were immigrants. I lived through busing and was abused and robbed. I have never harmed anyone; I mean that literally. I have always been non violent, though my family was not. The phony attempt to level the playing field for "blacks" by the Democrats has done nothing but violence to my life. It makes me incredibly angry to hear that "blacks" vote overwhelmingly for Obama. Especially since it has always been obvious that he is nothing but a campaigner. This is his sixth campaign in twelve years. I doubt he was at his church today (Resurrection Sunday). That is because instead of doing his job, he is on the campaign trail.
|
|
Mar 23, 03:00 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
realyt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did Obama give the Race speech to save his
> presidency? No. He gave that speech to address an
> issue forced on him,
Actually, he gave a speech he forced on himself. Who can prove they are black? What does it mean?
There are no black people and therefore no issue.
Wait! The Democrats would have us believe there ARE black people, so they can give them entitlements, so the "blacks" will vote for them. (90+ percent? that is ridiculous) Now the spotlight falls on the fact that Obama has sworn allegiance to mother Africa. Ok, so what? But he also has sworn to help "blacks" at the expense, if not the intentional harm of whites. What ever "whites" are.
So, he basically gave a speech about the lies. Lies his pastor has told him. About doctrine that no one of any intelligence believes. Damn Africa!!!!! God Damn AFRICA!!!!! How does it feel??????
Race means that Jesus is Semitic. Not white, not black. Semitic. Bless the Palestinians? Yes! Bless the Jews? Yes! Should Israel exist? No. This is due to the Atomic bomb. It was the reward to Oppenheimer for running the Manhattan project. He lived out his days there.
Afterwards, Vanoveer Bush was empowered politically to keep the knowledge exclusively ours. He had a son who ran the CIA. His son and grandson became presidents.
People need to learn rudimentary history. It would help if people knew the history of this country before voting. But, that is not the law. Any citizen can vote regardless of how little they know.
Can we start the whole process over? Something went terribly wrong. If we voted tomorrow, the winner would be someone who will be 77 years old by the end of his first term.
My fellow citizen, great job!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did Obama give the Race speech to save his
> presidency? No. He gave that speech to address an
> issue forced on him,
Actually, he gave a speech he forced on himself. Who can prove they are black? What does it mean?
There are no black people and therefore no issue.
Wait! The Democrats would have us believe there ARE black people, so they can give them entitlements, so the "blacks" will vote for them. (90+ percent? that is ridiculous) Now the spotlight falls on the fact that Obama has sworn allegiance to mother Africa. Ok, so what? But he also has sworn to help "blacks" at the expense, if not the intentional harm of whites. What ever "whites" are.
So, he basically gave a speech about the lies. Lies his pastor has told him. About doctrine that no one of any intelligence believes. Damn Africa!!!!! God Damn AFRICA!!!!! How does it feel??????
Race means that Jesus is Semitic. Not white, not black. Semitic. Bless the Palestinians? Yes! Bless the Jews? Yes! Should Israel exist? No. This is due to the Atomic bomb. It was the reward to Oppenheimer for running the Manhattan project. He lived out his days there.
Afterwards, Vanoveer Bush was empowered politically to keep the knowledge exclusively ours. He had a son who ran the CIA. His son and grandson became presidents.
People need to learn rudimentary history. It would help if people knew the history of this country before voting. But, that is not the law. Any citizen can vote regardless of how little they know.
Can we start the whole process over? Something went terribly wrong. If we voted tomorrow, the winner would be someone who will be 77 years old by the end of his first term.
My fellow citizen, great job!!!!!
|
|
Mar 23, 12:54 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Did Obama give the Race speech to save his presidency? No. He gave that speech to address an issue forced on him, regardless of the presidency - if he would be only concerned with the presidency he would have said nothing at best or much less.
Should he have left the Church to prevent his kids hearing very occasional vitriol from Wright? No he should not have left the church because of occasional vitriolic comments. He should have ensured as a parent that his kids know the difference between right and wrong and feel comfortable making up their own minds. What other church could he belong to that would be meaningful under those circumstances?
Even the UK's Archbishop Rowan Williams today condemned greedy nations (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVnEl_oenBoCdvMV4TrFQi52jDtQ) - does that mean he should be sacked? Of course not...
Obama is the real deal. And as Gandhi said: first they laugh at you, then they disagree with you, then they fight you, then you win.
Should he have left the Church to prevent his kids hearing very occasional vitriol from Wright? No he should not have left the church because of occasional vitriolic comments. He should have ensured as a parent that his kids know the difference between right and wrong and feel comfortable making up their own minds. What other church could he belong to that would be meaningful under those circumstances?
Even the UK's Archbishop Rowan Williams today condemned greedy nations (http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVnEl_oenBoCdvMV4TrFQi52jDtQ) - does that mean he should be sacked? Of course not...
Obama is the real deal. And as Gandhi said: first they laugh at you, then they disagree with you, then they fight you, then you win.
|
|
Mar 23, 12:22 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mr. Krauthammer,
Great Column. I agree with all of it. I don't understand how anyone can allow their children to sit and hear these hate sermons. I thought we were suppose to grow and change with every generation. Well how can Obama's bring his children up differently if he is allowing them to listen to this. I know I wouldn't allow my children to hear this kind of talk.
I also want to know why after his great and wonderful speech he didn't have to answer any questions??
Great Column. I agree with all of it. I don't understand how anyone can allow their children to sit and hear these hate sermons. I thought we were suppose to grow and change with every generation. Well how can Obama's bring his children up differently if he is allowing them to listen to this. I know I wouldn't allow my children to hear this kind of talk.
I also want to know why after his great and wonderful speech he didn't have to answer any questions??
|
|
Mar 23, 04:39 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Great article. I'm only afraid it won't get enough exposure.
I've thought a lot about this speech since Obama gave it, and I think the moral equivalence issue is a bit more subtle than at first it appears. The real question, it seems to me, is whether the actions of Jeremiah Wright and Obama's grandmother are different in degree or in kind. Differences in degree can be justified, I think, by the unequal social pressures facing Blacks and Whites; but differences in kind are another matter, and I think Wright's actions are different in kind. He is not merely responding to fear and disharmony; he is augmenting them.
Neither do I believe the "white guilt" prong is a simple one to dismiss -- not because I believe Whites should feel guilty (I don't), but because the feelings of Blacks must be understood within the context of injustices they have suffered, both real and imagined, at the hands of Whites. I do not believe Black people deserve special treatment by our government, financial compensation, affirmative action, special privileges or a different standard than that which applies to White people; but context is nevertheless important for understanding how people think and feel.
Obama has fallen seriously short. Even supposing he himself believes what he said in his speech, he must answer for the moral equivalence he remarked upon, between what Wright has done and what his grandmother has done. He must answer for his execrable judgment in subjecting his daughters to the Wright's poison -- and, if by some incredible circumstance he was unaware of these positions taken very publicly by Wright, he then must answer for his blindness, because we can't afford to have such a clueless man in the Oval Office.
I suspect that Obama is merely a Christian of convenience, and that that is the core reality that is now catching up with him.
I've thought a lot about this speech since Obama gave it, and I think the moral equivalence issue is a bit more subtle than at first it appears. The real question, it seems to me, is whether the actions of Jeremiah Wright and Obama's grandmother are different in degree or in kind. Differences in degree can be justified, I think, by the unequal social pressures facing Blacks and Whites; but differences in kind are another matter, and I think Wright's actions are different in kind. He is not merely responding to fear and disharmony; he is augmenting them.
Neither do I believe the "white guilt" prong is a simple one to dismiss -- not because I believe Whites should feel guilty (I don't), but because the feelings of Blacks must be understood within the context of injustices they have suffered, both real and imagined, at the hands of Whites. I do not believe Black people deserve special treatment by our government, financial compensation, affirmative action, special privileges or a different standard than that which applies to White people; but context is nevertheless important for understanding how people think and feel.
Obama has fallen seriously short. Even supposing he himself believes what he said in his speech, he must answer for the moral equivalence he remarked upon, between what Wright has done and what his grandmother has done. He must answer for his execrable judgment in subjecting his daughters to the Wright's poison -- and, if by some incredible circumstance he was unaware of these positions taken very publicly by Wright, he then must answer for his blindness, because we can't afford to have such a clueless man in the Oval Office.
I suspect that Obama is merely a Christian of convenience, and that that is the core reality that is now catching up with him.
|
|
Mar 23, 12:14 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
JohnRB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is silly.
John... I wonder what other comments lie beneath the belittling "silly" phrase?
CK just pointed at the context of a speech that's made of manipulation on every side...
...i tell you what's silly...is that this 'emperor' has no clothes.....and few are willing to admit it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is silly.
John... I wonder what other comments lie beneath the belittling "silly" phrase?
CK just pointed at the context of a speech that's made of manipulation on every side...
...i tell you what's silly...is that this 'emperor' has no clothes.....and few are willing to admit it.
|
|
Mar 23, 12:02 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
thank you... Obama's speach along with much of the rhetoric in politics today blind the conscience ...
we need to hear your clarity Charles more often.
we need to hear your clarity Charles more often.
|
|
Mar 22, 11:48 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
Mister Snitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Obama left his church, would it be better off?
> Or doesn't that matter?Perhaps he SHOULD have
> left, to avoid just this kind of criticism. If he
> had abandoned his fellow churchgoers for the sake
> of his political career, would that have proven
> him to be a better man?
>
> I don't agree with many things said and done in
> this country. Should I leave it? Would the country
> be better off if everyone who objected to some
> policy left it? Krauthammer has plenty of cheap
> rhetoric, but no real answers.
The only credit I will ever extend to the "idea" that is B "uh" O "uh" is that he manned up for his Rev. Good for him. He is a stand-up guy.
Now man up and take all of the bullets you will continue to receive until you are trounced out on your eloquent ass. Did you really call out your grandma in your speech and then later call her a "typical white woman"? Do you honestly believe "keeping it real" will help you get elected? Do you want 100% of 12% of the population who usually doesn't even bother to vote? I will grant you that. Where do you intend to make up the rest?
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Obama left his church, would it be better off?
> Or doesn't that matter?Perhaps he SHOULD have
> left, to avoid just this kind of criticism. If he
> had abandoned his fellow churchgoers for the sake
> of his political career, would that have proven
> him to be a better man?
>
> I don't agree with many things said and done in
> this country. Should I leave it? Would the country
> be better off if everyone who objected to some
> policy left it? Krauthammer has plenty of cheap
> rhetoric, but no real answers.
The only credit I will ever extend to the "idea" that is B "uh" O "uh" is that he manned up for his Rev. Good for him. He is a stand-up guy.
Now man up and take all of the bullets you will continue to receive until you are trounced out on your eloquent ass. Did you really call out your grandma in your speech and then later call her a "typical white woman"? Do you honestly believe "keeping it real" will help you get elected? Do you want 100% of 12% of the population who usually doesn't even bother to vote? I will grant you that. Where do you intend to make up the rest?
|
|
Mar 22, 11:29 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
If Obama left his church, would it be better off? Or doesn't that matter?Perhaps he SHOULD have left, to avoid just this kind of criticism. If he had abandoned his fellow churchgoers for the sake of his political career, would that have proven him to be a better man?
I don't agree with many things said and done in this country. Should I leave it? Would the country be better off if everyone who objected to some policy left it? Krauthammer has plenty of cheap rhetoric, but no real answers.
I don't agree with many things said and done in this country. Should I leave it? Would the country be better off if everyone who objected to some policy left it? Krauthammer has plenty of cheap rhetoric, but no real answers.
|
|
Mar 22, 11:21 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
HeavyDoug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am beginning to understand that not looking at
> this man sermons and contributions is the shield
> these so called conservatives hide behind. The
> same people who support the troops but when they
> get injured put them in roach infested flea-bag
> motels. The same people who allow their children
> to be molested for decades by their church. They
> cannot face the truth that they allowed their
> country to become.
> Example : Murder a country of natives, then make
> John Wayne movies where they are heros.
>
> Example : Kidnap and enslave millions of people.
> Completly destroy their families, esteem, steal
> their labor and talk about what they didn't earn.
>
> Example : Giving chemical weapons to a maniac like
> Saddam Hussein and arming his enemies the Iranians
> at the same time. (Iran-Contra)
>
> Example : Creating and destributing crack cocaine
> in black neighborhoods to fund said Iranian
> weapons. Then imprisoning the victims of this drug
> deal.
>
> I am seeing the false face of you lying, lapel pin
> wearing, balls of confusion.
>
> We will combat you cowardice with bravery. Your
> ignorance with knowledge. You lies with truth.
> LOVE always conquers hate. And we do love you.
> And this country.
>
> YES WE CAN!
It is very simple you lazy-live in your parent's basement-please elect a dem so I can get more handouts without having to work for them-cowardly-terrified-tin foil hat wearing-olbermann fantasizing-I hate and am jealous of rich white men-college uneducated dummy. The greatest country on earth is the land of the free. You are free to leave. Pack all of the like-minded parasites who associate with you into your mom's minivan and roll out to Canada if you can somehow scrabble together the gas money.
If you need a handout in order to leave, I will pay your way myself.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am beginning to understand that not looking at
> this man sermons and contributions is the shield
> these so called conservatives hide behind. The
> same people who support the troops but when they
> get injured put them in roach infested flea-bag
> motels. The same people who allow their children
> to be molested for decades by their church. They
> cannot face the truth that they allowed their
> country to become.
> Example : Murder a country of natives, then make
> John Wayne movies where they are heros.
>
> Example : Kidnap and enslave millions of people.
> Completly destroy their families, esteem, steal
> their labor and talk about what they didn't earn.
>
> Example : Giving chemical weapons to a maniac like
> Saddam Hussein and arming his enemies the Iranians
> at the same time. (Iran-Contra)
>
> Example : Creating and destributing crack cocaine
> in black neighborhoods to fund said Iranian
> weapons. Then imprisoning the victims of this drug
> deal.
>
> I am seeing the false face of you lying, lapel pin
> wearing, balls of confusion.
>
> We will combat you cowardice with bravery. Your
> ignorance with knowledge. You lies with truth.
> LOVE always conquers hate. And we do love you.
> And this country.
>
> YES WE CAN!
It is very simple you lazy-live in your parent's basement-please elect a dem so I can get more handouts without having to work for them-cowardly-terrified-tin foil hat wearing-olbermann fantasizing-I hate and am jealous of rich white men-college uneducated dummy. The greatest country on earth is the land of the free. You are free to leave. Pack all of the like-minded parasites who associate with you into your mom's minivan and roll out to Canada if you can somehow scrabble together the gas money.
If you need a handout in order to leave, I will pay your way myself.
|
|
Mar 22, 10:14 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
WOW Grip man... you sure are smart. Please share with the world your analysis. We may not be able to understand your level of intellect but we could at least try.
GetAGripIII Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Posted by: Sam Clare
> Comment: #60
> "You're the sociopath.
> You've got the balls to think that A) you're a
> trained psychoanalyst, cool smiley you've somehow
> delved extraordinarily deep into Mr. Obama's
> psyche simply by watching him, C) you, as an
> untrained professional, somehow have the right to
> think that you should be influencing public
> opinion by spewing this @#$%&."
>
> "I'd love to actually go point by point and tell
> you why each of your charges is either stupid,
> untrue, or just unverifiable by anything but
> theraputic evidence... but I really, really don't
> feel like it. It would take pages. That's what
> thoughtful analyses take, pages. Not little
> definitions out of an old psychology textbook."
>
>
>
> Sam, does your therapist know that you are using
> the computer? You know, you might get in trouble
> if you are going against the house rules.
GetAGripIII Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Posted by: Sam Clare
> Comment: #60
> "You're the sociopath.
> You've got the balls to think that A) you're a
> trained psychoanalyst, cool smiley you've somehow
> delved extraordinarily deep into Mr. Obama's
> psyche simply by watching him, C) you, as an
> untrained professional, somehow have the right to
> think that you should be influencing public
> opinion by spewing this @#$%&."
>
> "I'd love to actually go point by point and tell
> you why each of your charges is either stupid,
> untrue, or just unverifiable by anything but
> theraputic evidence... but I really, really don't
> feel like it. It would take pages. That's what
> thoughtful analyses take, pages. Not little
> definitions out of an old psychology textbook."
>
>
>
> Sam, does your therapist know that you are using
> the computer? You know, you might get in trouble
> if you are going against the house rules.
|
|
Mar 22, 05:23 PM |
Report Abuse Reply |
I am beginning to understand that not looking at this man sermons and contributions is the shield these so called conservatives hide behind. The same people who support the troops but when they get injured put them in roach infested flea-bag motels. The same people who allow their children to