The media is characterizing the current controversy as "Obama's pastor problem," when it is nothing of the sort. It should be called the "The Audacity of a Dope."
The other day, the American Thinker parsed Obama's statement in which he denounced a long string of comments by Reverend Wright, but not Wright himself, and it showed how, in lawyer-speak, it was a non-denouncing denunciation. But before the DVDs and NewsMax, the New York Times had said Obama would have a difficult time distancing himself from Reverend Wright.
Now ABC News', Jake Tapper, is saying that the reason Wright was disinvited from Obama's announcement of his candidacy was because of a Rolling Stone article from February, 2007 titled: "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama." Interestingly (in lieu of a more appropriate word), the original title of that article has been changed. So in addition to the question it raises about Obama, namely, "What did he know and when did he know it," Rolling Stone has its own question to answer: "When did you change the title, and why?"
That original title is pretty sobering, wouldn't you agree? But remember, this was a time when Hillary Clinton had already been pre-ordained to be the nominee, and Obama was the nobody he should have remained. Now, of course, it's nearly the reverse, so maybe that's why Rolling Stone has changed its title. What do you think of the updated one:: "Destiny's Child?"
New and improved? Uplifting? I mean, with a title like "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama," you might get a bad impression of the Senator, might you not?
A more neutral title would seem less prejudicial? Not "Destiny's Child," of course, I mean something like: "Obama - HUGGH, What Is He Good For?"
No, seriously, If the title had become "The Roots of Barack Obama," would anyone object?.
"Destiny's Child" makes Obama seem positively cherubic. Then again, maybe it's just me?
Last Friday, Bill O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg agreed that they've never seen the media as corrupt as it is now - nothing any informed person didn't know already. Still, when I saw what Rolling Stone had done, it shocked me. It may not set a new standard for brazenness, but it is an egregious breach of the public trust in my opinion, a bit like trying to put lipstick on a manipulator!?!
You can find the Rolling Stone article with its new title here. You'll also find a promotional link to another Stone article, title presumably unchanged, that reads - "Matt Taibbi on Mike Huckabee, Our Favorite Right-Wing Nut Job "
Rolling Stone, Feb. 2007:
This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from... Wright is not an incidental figure... (Obama)... uses Wright as a "sounding board"... Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons... the surprising thing - for such a measured politician - is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that's packed in there.
And this:
Obama could have picked any church... Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright...
Obama's life story is a splicing of two different roles... One is that of the consummate insider... The other is that of a black man who feels very deeply that this country's exercise of its great inherited wealth and power has been grossly unjust.
So Obama is being disingenuous, but it may or may not be with malicious intent. He not only had to have prior knowledge about his pastor's incendiary hate-speech even if he couldn't recite the entire spiel verbatim.. Three articles pointed that out last year before any of the reverend's actual remarks became widely known.
Today, James Taranto asked, "Are we wrong to think that Barack Obama's campaign is imploding?" He added that Jeremiah Wright "turns out to be a certifiable America-hating crackpot."
Obama's church has removed a black creed from its site, but on Barry Young's radio program today, his assistant said, "If I substituted 'white" for each mention of 'black," I'd be the biggest racist in the country."
Taranto:
Wright.proclaims himself an exponent of "black liberation theology." He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity. Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology (hat tip: Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist for the Asia Times):
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... 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.
Soaringly Palestinian!
Taranto: "Could Obama really have been unaware for all these years that his spiritual mentor follows a racially adversarial theology?"
Mr. Taranto refers to Obama's book: "Without evident disapproval (Obama) quotes a passage... in which Wright describes 'a world . . . where white folks' greed runs a world in need,'" and he notes that "Writing on the Puffington Host, self-described Obama backer Gerald Posner says...'"
There was no more traumatic event in our recent history than 9/11. Reverend Wright's comments would have raised a ruckus...coming so soon after the attack itself... If the parishioners of Trinity United Church were not buzzing about (them), then it could only seem to be because those comments were not out of character with what he (usually) preached... I have to wonder if it is really possible for the Obamas to have been parishioners--by 9/11 more than a decade--and not to have known very clearly how radical Wright's views were. If, on the other hand, parishioners were shocked by Wright's vitriol only days after more than 3,000 Americans had been killed by terrorists, they would have talked about it incessantly. Barack--a sitting Illinois State Senator--would have been one of the first to hear about it."
Taranto asks what Obama has to say for himself, and he answers his own question: "Essentially nothing. In his own Puffington Host post, the senator issues a series of condemnations without troubling himself to specify what he is condemning:"
In the same post, Obama States that Wright "has never been my political advisor." Wright served on an advisory committee for the Obama campaign - until last Friday.
Taranto continued:
Why does Obama feel it necessary to resort to these lawyerly--dare we say Clintoneque--evasions? Why can't he simply speak from the heart and tell us what he really thinks of black liberation theology? Two possibilities come to mind...
One is that Obama's condemnation and rejection of Wright's appalling statements is not sincere. That is not to say that Obama shares Wright's hatreds, we... would be surprised if he did. It may just be that the whole question is a matter of indifference to him, except inasmuch as it affects his own political ambitions. If Obama doesn't speak from the heart, perhaps it is because his heart has nothing to say.
At this point, though, "distancing" himself plainly is not enough. Obama needs to renounce Wright and his noxious beliefs forcefully and specifically, even if he personally is blasé about them.
But this brings us to the second possible reason he hasn't done so... it's not as if the malevolent minister is preaching to empty pews. There is a segment of the black community that embraces Wright-style bigotry... "I wouldn't call it radical. I call it being black in America," said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday... Wright's congregation has 8,000 members, the biggest in its denomination, according to the Religion News Service. Possibly Obama has reason to fear losing crucial black support if he expressly repudiates Wright and what he stands for.
I've been saying that the Democrats own racism in America, and I've also speculated that blacks may be more racist than whites. Last Sunday at Trinity Church, people such as myself were all accused of sullying the Church's good name, and that Church is huge as churches go. That community clearly doesn't see anything wrong with accusing America of genocide, asking God, from the pulpit, to damn our country, and that community doesn't see anything wrong with using vulgarities and mimicking sexual acts from that same pulpit. That community doesn't see anything wrong with blaming whitey again and again.
And Barack Obama claims he knew none of it and that he can bring us all together. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge made of DVDs to sell you.
]]>
So Ms. NBC canceled Imus because a lotta white people is scum. Here's the trail: Imus made some stupid and insensitive comments. Then the race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson went to work Then companies started to cancel advertising Then Imus started decrying the hypocrisy And voila, canceled. Now I'm never going to buy something from Staples or a product made by Proctor & Gamble ever again. I'd never buy anything from GM either, except that policy has been in effect since I've been an adult simply because they're crap. But the real problem is that white people determine what happens in this country, and they are responsible for all the stifling of expression and all the PC garbage that's become mainstream. Does anybody disagree that political correctness is an enormously bigger threat than Don Imus? Now by singling out white people, I'm not advocating any form of discrimination. But using the Imus case as an example, the furor is not driven by black people, just as the illegal immigration issue is not driven by Hispanics. When the screaming and whining started over Imus, it was up to rational, freedom-loving people of all colors to assess it and characterize it for what it was (juvenile and very inappropriate comments about some decent and undeserving young women). I don't know if a two week suspension was proper, but I do know that it should have been the maximum levied. The fact that it now wasn't is owing to white guilt or stupidity and our inability to recognize proportion and distinguish levels of right and wrong, not to mention that many lack a sense of humor and a sense of forgiveness and also have sticks up their behinds. I'm not arguing that black people shouldn't have their say, I'm saying that rational heads should prevail: realize the nature and context of the remarks, provide a measured response, and let that be the end of it. Then when the likes of Reverend Al continue to bellow, they should either be ignored or better yet, told to stick a sock in it. Instead, what I've witnessed is so many white people expressing their "righteous" anger, their outrage, and describing the comments as if Imus' actions were and have been for a long time the equivalent of Ahmadinejad calling for the annihilation of the Jews. Tonight, a white Denver news ho labeled O'Reilly a racist for his use of the term "illegal alien." If you don't believe me, catch the replay. And comments I've made in forums have labeled racist on several occasions. I dare say, when that happens, white support evaporates. They cry, you fly. Well, call me what you want, I'm still going to say what needs to be said. Of course, unlike Imus, I have nothing to lose. And if you've been following along here, you've seen one weasel already threaten to try to shut me up. Because that's what weasels do. Of course, other weasels fail to lend support for causes they know to be right. But every time they don't, they make it easier for them. You know, "those people." I have a comedy routine in which I'm outraged by the terms, "African-American" and "Native American," because they are discriminatory and elitist (take my word for it). Not everyone thinks it's funny - just as with all comedy. But in this case, I'm not funny and I'm racist according to some, because I say some things that might be incorrect or unfounded they think, and which are doubtless abhorrent to the Matthew25s and Jonathan Wards of the world who aren't just disgusted, they want to get you for it.. One joke, if I do say so myself, is ingenious, and I know Chris Rock could get away with it, but I supposedly can't - in polite white society, anyway. By this time you realize that Imus and I have a lot in common. We hate weasels. We also have a lot not in common. That's life. Then there's the stuff I don't know if we have in common: do you think he hates white weasels more than regular weasels? Is that racist?
So what does Michael Richards need to do to rehabilitate himself and his image? As it turns out, nothing.
It seems that the two sympathetic characters who had heckled Richards have now enlisted Gloria Alred's help in an effort to attain some much deserved compensation - thus proving that the label Richards'.pinned on them was, in fact, very insightful.
]]>