Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Obama vs. Wright: The Delicious Irony of Racism Charges


As Barack Obama distances himself from his former mentor, guide, friend and pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the irony of the "racism" charges launched at those who didn't like Wright's "God Damn America" takes center stage. Those who had criticized Wright's fiery comments and attack on a country he claims created HIV to kill blacks were routinely called "racists" by Obama cultists.

Are these remarks racist? These are responses to Wright's speeches and sermons:

--"...ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

They offend me. The rightly offend all Americans."

--"the insensitivity and the outrageousness of his statements..."

--"I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems."

--"when you start focusing so much on the plight of the historically oppressed that you lose sight of what we have in common, that it overrides everything else, that we’re not concerned about the struggles of others, because we’re looking at things only through a particular lens"

--"I didn’t see it as an attack on the black church"

--"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church."

Are those comments racist. Or not?

The speaker is, of course, Barack Obama. He is saying what many others have been saying about Wright's views.

But when non-blacks expressed those views, they were savaged by leftists and Obama supporters, who declared them "racist." That kneejerk reaction clearly shows that leftists aren't looking at the message: they only are looking at the messenger and whether or not that messenger fits their "posterchild" needs.

If the messenger is black, he or she and what they do or say automatically is right, nay, even brilliant. If the messenger is not black, they're bound to be racist or stupid rednecks from Pennsylvania or otherwise who cling to their guns and religion because they don't know any better.(A nod to Obama's wine-and-cheese comments in California.)

How can leftists now defend their race-based assault on those who didn't like what Wright was saying? Logically,they can't. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't.

And what of Obama himself? His wishy-washy, run-and-hide from this issue, has cost him a great deal. On the one hand, he didn't distance himself from Wright soon enough. His pleas of ignorance about Wright's views simply were absurd. Not only that, compare Obama's comments, above, to his friend the Rev. Al Sharpton's rhetoric and actions.



But now, suddenly, Obama criticizes Wright and steps back. But does he step up? No. Obama, long ago, could have handled this issue with wisdom, honesty, compassion, grace, and political saavy.

If he thinks America needs continued work on racism,he could have used Wright's "God Damn America" and other comments as his springboard. Here's how it could have gone, way back in this sorry, sordid tale.

"I am very saddened by my former pastor's attacks on my country. I agree that as a people, we need to continue our work on improving race and cultural relations. We have done a great deal in less than three generations. There is work still ahead, but I have faith that we will continue on this path together.

Attacks like the Rev. Wright have launched must cease if we are to work together. The people of the United States did not cause 9-11, and to say "God damn America" is an insult to the country, its people, and, given the substitution of hate for love, an insult to Christian spiritual beliefs."

Rev. Wright is correct in saying that we still have work to do. But he is very wrong in his attack on our country, and his use of religon to foster hate and anger.

For this reason, Michelle and I have, with great sadness, removed our membership from Rev. Wright's church."

Did Obama say --or do-- any of the above? No, he did not. Why not?

Obama didn't tackle this issue head-on for many reasons. The first is that he wanted the image and support base of his membership in a very large, very well-known black church.

The second is his reliance, as stated in his books, on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama did not choose Wright to baptize his children or conduct his marriage ceremony lightly. Nor did he, or could he, support the Trinity church for twenty years without supporting Wright.

The third is the dangerous one: does Obama secretly agree with Wright's views and presentation? Obama now says he doesn't. How much credence should we give Obama's sudden "wake-up" call and criticism of Wright?

Very little. Fact: Obama did not criticize nor distance himself from Wright until Wright did two things. The first was to keep grabbing the media spotlight for himself,while keeping a very sore issue for Obama in the public's eye.

The Obama campaign wishes that Wright's commentary could be swept under the carpet. Wright, however, has been using the controversy as his magic carpet ride to fame.

Obama speaks: "The fact that Reverend Wright would think that somehow it was appropriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry, but also saddens me." And there you have it--Wright is interfering with Obama and his campaign.

The second Wright action that led to Obama's sudden splitting from his former pastor: Wright's criticism of Obama. Until Wright attacked Obama, Obama was willing to play along in order to prove he's "black enough."

"And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," Obama told the media. How dare Wright say that Obama indulges in political posturing! (wink!)

When Wright attacked America, Obama said nothing except that he wasn't aware of Wright's views. When Wright attacks Obama, Obama ditches Wright.

That sounds like political posturing to me, along with a Hefty bag full of hypocrisy and deceit. Notice the language, too.

Obama to a questioner: "...I'll be honest with you." There are two important things to know about this phrase.

The first is that this phrase tacitly says "I'll be honest with you now because I haven't been before." People use this phrase only two ways: without understanding what they are telegraphing, or with understanding of what they are telegraphing. In the latter instances, the speakers usally think they can get away with it through charm and/or rhetoric. (Think: shopping for a car. "I'll be honest with you--my manager won't like that but I'm on your side and I'll go put it to him.")

The second important thing about the phrase "I'll be honest with you" is this: it immediately signals a prevarication of some type. If you say "I'm going to the grocery store now," do you say "I'll be honest with you, I'm going to the grocery store now."

If you say "I think the price on the grapes is outrageous, you don't say "I'll be honest with you, I think the price on the grapes is outrageous." You just plain say what you have to say.

"I'll be honest with you" signals discomfort, dancing around, some level of deception. As in: Obama's shifting stands on his former pastor and the message of his church.

As this issue continues, the layers of Obama are being peeled back. What we are seeing here is not change, but just another politician, trying to be everything to everybody.

Question: if Obama does this poorly dealing with a man who he has loved, and turned to for spiritual counseling, how well will he deal with real enemies and the stress of international politics? As Dr. Phil McGraw says, the best predictor of someone's future actions are their past actions.








One more note: Rev. Wright, stop hiding behind the church. Your accusations that "attacks" on you are not attacks on you but the "black religious tradition" are hypocritical. We are outright criticizing you. But we are not criticizing black churches. Stand up like a man and claim what is your problem. Don't spread it to all black churches and congregants.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Sneak Peek Video: Rev. Wright Tries to Cover for Barack Obama with Bill Moyers Friday Night





Here's a brief refresher on one small part of Wright's theology, which Sen. Barack Obama has followed and endorse for two decades.

"“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him.

The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means
at their disposal."

That theology is from Wright favorite James Cones. He's one of the most vocal voices leading the black liberation theology movement.




" Dr. Robert Morey points out that for Black Liberation Theology, "their focus is always on skin and not sin; race and not grace; gossip and not gospel. Racism is always focused on the outward instead of the inward because it cannot deal with the root problem of sin." The Ankerberg Theological Institute further explains the roots of the belief system.

Does Wright have Obama's best interests at heart? Consider that carefully. This attention hound and media exploiter has chosen to again raise issues that Obama's slick campaign staff have been trying to back and fill,and bury.

Which is more important to Wright--his ego, supporting Obama, or getting new venues to get his attacks on America attention? Hint: the answers are two of the previous three, and not in the order presented.



An exclusive CBS affiliate story makes more of this story clear.




Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Sex, Scandal & Perjury: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick Plays The Race Card & The N-Word

Another entrant in the politicians-behaving-badly non-beauty pageant: Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Boycotted by members of his own city council and surrounded by calls for his resignation, Kilpatrick sidesteps potential perjury charges in his own sex scandal to play the race card.

Using the n-word, Kilpatrick lashed out at media and citizens alike, accusing everyone, it seems of a "lynch mob mentality." According to the Detroit Free Press, "The mayor didn't get specific, but he almost certainly was referring to the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the long-rumored-but-never-proven Manoogian Mansion party, and the ongoing civil case in federal court that is generating speculation that a Detroit stripper was killed in a drive-by shooting because of her connections to that soiree and Kilpatrick himself."

This mess goes deeper than Kilpatrick's affair with a former aide. Two former Detroit police officers claimed that they were fired for investigating claims that Kilpatrick used taxpayer-funded security to cover up his affair.

The cops finally took things to court in a whistle-blower lawsuit that cost Detroit's citizens $8.4 million. That money would have purchased a lot of milk for school lunch programs.

Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press sums this sordid tale up best: "Was Kilpatrick's tirade at the end of his speech, in which he claimed the media and nearly everyone else are to blame for the brutal effects of this scandal on his family, his idea of taking responsibility? The shameful, divisive words he used to draw false lines between those who want him to own up and those he expects to give him a pass will serve only to prolong the agony in this community.

His words represented the height of irresponsibility, and seeped into gross negligence. His attempted humiliation of City Council president Ken Cockrel, who has handled himself with the utmost restraint and accountability during this mess, was unforgivable."

"The mayor still can't even bring himself to admit how he tried to deceive the City Council and the public, or explain why he sought to use the legal system to bury evidence of his affair with his chief of staff and his lies during the police whistle-blower trial. He has nothing to say about the widening scope of accusations and investigations."

As an embattled Kilpatrick hurled the n-word into TV cameras, blaming the whole mess on racism, he overlooked something important: the protestors carrying signs outside represented all of Detroit. Black hands carried signs, too.

For a mayor to interject the n-word and hide behind claims of racism in a city that's worked hard to overcome racial divides is despicable. Like New York's Eliot Spitzer (a white guy), Kilpatrick simply is another politician who talked ethics while living in hypocrisy--all at the taxpayer's expense.



Monday, February 25, 2008

The Waffle Watch: Part-Time Senator Obama , Race, Iraq, & The Poor

Although Sen. Barack Obama, the very junior Democrat senator from Illinois, apparently is now more a star than, say, Elvis Presley, it's still not a bad idea to get past the hype and look at reality. As this quick-look by CBS shows, Obama has waffled on Iraq for years.

Even though Democratic party apologist Sen. Dick Durbin spreads the justification jam, the message is clear: Obama's campaign is actually a giant moving waffle house. There's another hidden message in Obama's speeches, and here CBS shows a major one.

Obama speaks of his campaign bringing whites, blacks, and Latinos together and of working on anti-poverty programs for those groups. Memo to Sen. Obama: among Illinois' top 5 ethnic groups are the original inhabitants of this land: Native Americans.

Census results from the turn of the century show that about 100 tribes are represented in Illinois, most in the Chicago area. Many Native Americans were moved to Chicago during the government's ill-fated "relocation" programs designed to break up tribal communities and reservations.

Obama needs to check on poverty statistics and needs for that section of his constituency, which makes up slightly more than nine per cent of his state's population. It's apparent, though, that like most black politicians before him, Obama finds Native Americans to be invisible--to him, at least.

Someone might also want to tell Obama that there are Asians, in fact, many racial backgrounds, in his state, and home city, and that many of them are poor or working poor. Again, Obama makes it clear, to those who can get past the media hype, that his focus is on snake-charming the all-important black, Latino, and white voters.

Does America really want, or need, a president who not only is a waffle king, but who's only interested in serving only certain groups at his slick cliche cafe? We need to think about that.

There's another problem here: the issue of race. Obama's campaign waffles there, too. It's supposedly not about race, but the mantle of "first potential black president" gets whipped around in the air like a Spanish matador's cape.

Make no mistake, it is about race--as duplicitously defined by the Obama camp. If you support him, it's not about race. If you don't support him, then you're part of America's racial problems. The core message is subtle, but pervasive: a vote for Obama is a vote to prove the U.S. is not racially prejudiced; a word, or vote against Obama proves it is.

Or so the Obama camp would have you believe. In fact, the essence of racial equality in politics is that all candidates get evaluated by their record and their statements, regardless of their race.That applies to Obama, too.

If this country really wishes to continue to mature racially, then it's time to get past the rhetoric and the hype, and make one thing clear: voting against Obama is not a vote against blacks, or a vote for white domination. It's simply a vote that chooses another candidate as more qualified and more trustworthy, based on the individual voter's beliefs and choices.

Will some people vote against Obama because he is black? Of course. On the other hand, will some vote for Obama because he is black? Of course.. Interestingly enough, a vote for Obama because he's black isn't a racial choice, according to the leftist rhetoric, whereas a vote against him is. Or (back to the waffle counter here) a vote for Obama is a good racial choice, proving our racial fairness; a vote against is racism.

America doesn't have to prove anything racially. Within a very short time, the U.S. has moved from the rotten era of routine segregation (not to mention routine sexism) to an integrated nation. If you doubt that, check out the Secretary of State's office, the Supreme Court, and just about every facet of our daily lives.

Dealing with racial issues isn't easy. Xenophobia seems to be hard-wired into us as a species. We each have to outgrow that, just as developing babies in the womb have to outgrow vestiges of a tail and the stage where the fetus looks more like a newt than anything else.

The reality is that in no time, in no place, will prejudice ever be totally rooted out of the human race other than by education and cultural changes, such as those demonstrated in the U.S. in less than 50 years. To frame this election only in terms of race is the mirror image of pre-integration days, when everything was framed by race.

We don't have to buy into proving ourselves as "not racist" by voting for Obama. That needs to be repeated. Evaluate him fairly--which means looking at him without the "first black" rhetoric.

Because color, or racial background, is a lousy reason to vote for, or against, someone.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Jena: SPLC Says White Supremists May Show Up To Counter-Protest

The Southern Poverty Law Center warned in news releases Wednesday that it found several postings on white supremacist Web sites indicating counter-demonstrations might be held today.


The organization said it contacted State Police.


Sgt. Markus Smith, State Police spokesman, said there have been a "considerable" number of state troopers on hand.



Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |