Barack Obama has been leading as much of a double life as Eliot Spitzer.
While talking about bringing us together and deploring “divisive” actions, Senator Obama has for 20 years been a member of a church whose minister, Jeremiah Wright, has said that “God Bless America” should be replaced by “God damn America” — among many other wild and even obscene denunciations of American society, including blanket racist attacks on whites.
Nor was this an isolated example. Fox News Channel has played tapes of various sermons of Jeremiah Wright, and says that it has tapes with hours of more of the same.
Wright’s actions matched his words. He went with Louis Farrakhan to Libya and Farrakhan received an award from his church.
Sean Hannity began reporting on Jeremiah Wright back in April of 2007. But the mainstream media saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no evil.
Now that the facts have come out in a number of places, and can no longer be suppressed, many in the media are trying to spin these facts out of existence.
Spin number one is that Jeremiah Wright’s words were “taken out of context.” Like most people who use this escape hatch, those who say this do not explain what the words mean when taken in context.
In just what context does “God damn America” mean something different?
Spin number two is that Barack Obama says he didn’t hear the particular things that Jeremiah Wright said that are now causing so much comment.
It wasn’t just an isolated remark. Nor were the enthusiastic responses of the churchgoers something which suggests that this anti-American attitude was news to them or something that they didn’t agree with.
If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church.
In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break!
You can’t be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views.
Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that.
The fact that Obama talks differently than Jeremiah Wright does not mean that his track record is different. Barack Obama’s voting record in the Senate is perfectly consistent with the far left ideology and the grievance culture, just as his wife’s statement that she was never proud of her country before is consistent with that ideology.
Senator Barack Obama’s political success thus far has been a blow for equality. But equality has its down side.
Equality means that a black demagogue who has been exposed as a phony deserves exactly the same treatment as a white demagogue who has been exposed as a phony.
We don’t need a President of the United States who got to the White House by talking one way, voting a very different way in the Senate, and who for 20 years followed a man whose words and deeds contradict Obama’s carefully crafted election year image.
HillBuzz has been struck by the Obama supporters who condone and defend the hateful, vile things preached in Barack Obama’s Chicago church. HillBuzz is also reminded of the simple fact that George W. Buch was relentlessly attacked for giving a speech at Bob Jones University — just giving a speech, in which he said nothing hateful. Bush did not contribute more than $20,000 to Bob Jones, the way Obama gave more than $20,000 to Trinity United Church of Christ. Bush did not worship at Bob Jones, the way Obama worships at Trinity United Church of Christ. Bush does not consider the leaders of Bob Jones friends, the way Obama considers Jeremiah Wright a friend of more than 20 years.
Obama lied on Friday 3/14/08 when he said he never heard hateful things in Trinity United. He recanted that in his speech on 3/18/08, when he said he was, in fact, in the church when hateful things were said. And yet, he did not condemn these statements. He did not speak out against them.
How can a sitting United States Senator, like Barack Obama, sit back and say nothing when Jeremiah Wright said these horrific things:
“Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary ain’t never been called a n——-.” Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ.
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America’? No. No. No. Not ‘God Bless America,’ ‘God damn America.’ God damn America for killing innocent people.” Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ.
“They will not only attack you if you try to point out what’s happening in white America. U.S. of KKK A.” “We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ.
“America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. … We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional killers. … We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. … We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. … We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.” Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ.
These attacks aren’t as vulgar as the ones Obama’s spiritual advisor and close friend, Jeremiah Wright, makes against Clinton on a regular basis, but they sure aren’t “the politics of Hope”
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, this is what Republican attack ads will look like:
The more you learn about him, the more Obama seems to be a conventionally opportunistic politician, impressively smart and disciplined, who has put together a good political career and a terrific presidential campaign. But there’s not much audacity of hope there. There’s the calculation of ambition, and the construction of artifice, mixed in with a dash of deceit — all covered over with the great conceit that this campaign, and this candidate, are different.
An Elegant Farce
Obama’s ‘conversation’ about moral equivalence.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Barack Obama’s Tuesday sermon was a well-crafted, well-delivered, postmodern review of race that had little to do with the poor judgment revealed in Obama’s relationship with the hateful Rev. Wright, much less the damage that he does both to African Americans and to the country in general. Obama chose not to review what Wright, now deemed the “occasionally fierce critic.” said in detail, condemn it unequivocally, apologize, and then resign from such a Sunday venue of intolerance — the now accustomed American remedy to racism in the public realm that we saw in the Imus and other recent controversies.Instead, to Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don’t quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more. Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.The Obama apologia was a “conversation” about moral equivalence. So the Wright hatred must be contextualized and understood in several ways that only the unusually gifted Obama can instruct us about:
1) The good that Rev. Wright and Trinity Church did far outweighs his controversial comments, which were taken out of context as “snippets” and aired in the “endless loop” on conservative outlets.
2) We are all at times racists and the uniquely qualified Obama is our valuable mirror of that ugliness: Wright may say things like “God damn America” or “Dirty Word” Israel or “Clarence Colon,” but then it must be balanced by other truths like Obama’s own grandmother who also expresses fear of black males (his grandmother’s private angst is thus of the same magnitude as Wright’s outbursts broadcast to tens of thousands).
3) We don’t understand Wright’s history and personal narrative. But as someone who grew up in the hate-filled and racist 1960s, it was understandable that he was bound to mature into his present angry anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-white mentality. (As if all blacks did?)
4) Indeed, Wright does nothing that much different from radio-talk show hosts and those of the Reagan Coalition who thrive on racial resentments. But whereas Wright has cause as a victim, his counterparts are opportunists who play on white fears.
5) And if we wish to continue to express worries about Obama’s past relationships with Wright — never delineated, never explained in detail — in trite and mean-spirited ways such as replaying the Wright tapes, then we have lost a rare opportunity to follow Obama into a post-racial America.
6) We, both black and white alike, are victims, victims of an insensitive system, a shapeless, anonymous “it” that brings out the worst in all of us — but it will at last end with an Obama candidacy.
The message? Some of us are never quite responsible for what we say. And Obama has no responsibility to explain the inexplicable of how he closely tied himself to someone of such repugnant and racist views. We will never hear “It’s time for Rev. Wright and me to part our separate ways, and here’s why.”Instead, the entire Wright controversy evolved due to America’s failure to understand the Wright’s past and the present status of race. No doubt, the next time some public figure utters a racist comment — and it will happen — we will then expect to hear about context that explains and excuses such an apparent hurtful outburst.Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama.
Obama Merely Changes The Subject
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election ’08: Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential.
Speaking in Philadelphia, steps away from where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were enacted, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president delivered an address that used the words “race” or “races” 11 times, “racial” or “racially” 15 times, and “racism” or “racist” six times.
But Obama’s recent troubles, which this much-hyped speech was supposed to put past him, are not about race relations. They’re about one churchman who happens to be black, whose views from the pulpit are repugnant and from whom Obama doesn’t seem to have the guts to distance himself.
Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer responding to his getting caught patronizing an international prostitution ring by giving a speech on the female physique.
The supposed divide between black and white is not the issue here; Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright is.
This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Yes, Obama claimed in his speech to have “condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.” But he quickly proceeded to equivocate regarding them.
The problem, according to Obama, is not that Wright is wrong about America being a racist society, but that he “sees white racism as endemic.” The problem is not that Wright has made statements that clearly seem anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli, but that he, as Obama puts it, “sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”
Obama’s pastor of 20 years is nothing more than “imperfect,” as Obama sees it. And so, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” He won’t quit this church where hate is spewed, and he doesn’t explain why over all the years he has never tried to straighten Wright out.
The rest of Obama’s speech was spent explaining and rationalizing hate such as Wright’s rather than denouncing it. Wright’s words “reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through,” the result of which has been “a cycle of violence, blight and neglect” still haunting America.
The solutions? Expanded government for one, of course. But while Obama concedes that “the erosion of black families” is “a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened,” he fails to understand what “Wealth and Poverty” author George Gilder knew back in 1981:
“What actually happened since 1964 was a vast expansion of the welfare rolls that halted in its tracks an ongoing improvement in the lives of the poor, particularly blacks, and left behind . . . a wreckage of broken lives and families worse than the aftermath of slavery.”
Another of Obama’s answers is that black anger and white resentment should give way to “the real culprits” — capitalists, or as Obama puts it, “a corporate culture rife with inside-dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed” and Washington lobbyists who support it.
The early reaction to Obama’s speech amounted to more media fawning on the order of that which was spoofed in a recent “Saturday Night Live” sketch. The Reuters headline was “Obama denounces preacher, urges race healing.” The Boston Globe titled its story “Obama calls for racial unity.” And the Washington Post proclaimed: “Obama Confronts Race in U.S.” A CNN analyst even compared it to Lincoln’s 1858 “A House Divided” classic.
Lincoln, however, used that occasion to warn that “this government cannot endure, permanently half-slave and half-free . . . . It will become all one thing or all the other.” Unlike Obama, Honest Abe wasn’t trying to have it both ways.