Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Where’s the beef?
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, January 31, 2008

ABC's Jake Tapper, after claiming his bit of incriminating evidence didn't come from the Clinton campaign, trots this out January, 2001 interview Obama did:

Discussing his opposition to Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, Obama praised newly-elected President Bush's new nominee for Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
“The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I don't think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.

"So I don’t want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive," Obama continued. "I think it’s legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn’t agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman’s right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn’t be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don’t think I would object. And I think that’s a fair position to take.”
Tapper points out that Rumsfeld was confirmed quickly by the Senate (including Hillary Clinton) without objection. He then concludes:
Obama is on the cusp of doing well on Super Duper Tuesday and has still never had a negative TV ad run against him, and it seems clear that Hillary Clinton is correct in her implication — he has not been fully "vetted."

There's a lot voters — and the media — do not know about him.
This makes no sense to me. What is Tapper talking about? How is thinking Rumsfeld, whose previous stint as SecDef couldn't be considered anything but "mainstream" suddenly, without proof (except that offered by 20/20 hindsight) be considered anything else at the time.

The interview is in January of 2001 - pre 9/11, pre-Afghanistan and pre-Iraq - in fact, 2 days "pre-Bush". And his remarks about his position on Ashcroft and in general, do seem to be reasonable about an administration which had yet to take office.

So what is Tapper trying to make out of this?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama supporter in any way shape or form, but I am a student of politics, the media and their interaction. Without making any suggestions as to intent, this article, at a minimum, seems to point out that "context" may be a word that is foreign to Jake Tapper.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
There’s a lot voters — and the media — do not know about him.
I play cards with a local Republican activist and we recently got into a discussion about who we believed the respective nominees will be. I speculated that it will be McCain and Obama, and that Obama would win in the general election.

He asked if I thought the fact that Obama was raised as a Muslim until he was 13 years old and went to a radical Muslim "Madrassa" was going to be a problem for Obama.

My answer was that it would only be a problem if people actually believe such nonsense.

My point is that Obama may not have properly vetted, but he certainly has been improperly vetted. I doubt if this will stick, since even the MSM is willing to debunk this stuff, but like the false "Serial Liar" meme about Al Gore in 2000, a story does not have to be true to be destructive.

The meme by Obama’s detractors these days has been:
Muslim radical
Won’t stand for the pledge or Anthem
Sworn in with hand on Koran
Reagan supporter (not sure why that’s a bad thing)
and now, thought Don Rumsfeld was mainstream.

By the way, though Dick Cheney has turned out to be quite the ideologue, people without faulty memories will remember that before he was Darth Vader, he was the hero Sec Def of the first Gulf War.

There will be a lot of information flying over the next 10 months, and a good bit of it will just be outright false.

Let’s see if we vote based on the false.

 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
Seems to me Tapper is implying that Obama hasn’t been vetted by a specific subset of Democrats: Those who thought Rumsfeld was a psycho the minute George W. Bush selected him.

You know, the netroots.
 
Written By: Joe Tobacco
URL: http://cadillactight.wordpress.com
I believe what Tapper is implying is "I just got money from Hillary"...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I think that the media is best understood as always acting on the assumption that their feelings and knowledge of the moment can be properly applied at any point in time; in other words, the media always lacks context. It is the same disease that has history professors in colleges evaluating Rome on modern Western terms rather than in the context of the times. It is a huge conceit, actually, and it seems to be pervasive in the media. It’s another example of "Bush lied!!!1!": if you don’t consider what people knew at the time, it’s easier to judge them harshly and thus to feel superior to them.

 
Written By: Jeff Medcalf
URL: http://www.caerdroia.org/blog

By the way, though Dick Cheney has turned out to be quite the ideologue, people without faulty memories will remember that before he was Darth Vader, he was the hero Sec Def of the first Gulf War.
In 2000 I was intrigued by Bush’s notion of "compassionate conservatism" and some of his ideas. I never was likely to vote for him, but I thought that perhaps in response to the Clinton years the GOP had developed some ideas to mix the notion of smaller government with concern for real problems. Then he chose Cheney. At that point, I could not support him. Cheney was my least favorite politician in the US because of the 1991 Gulf War and his desire to circumvent Congress (something Bush the Elder refused to do, to his credit).

I thought Rumsfeld was a good choice for Secretary of Defense, and many of his modernization ideas made sense at the time. The US actually won easily in Iraq, it was the effort to reshape the politics and culture that failed (my most recent blog entry, Jan. 30: Surge failure). I didn’t like Ashcroft because of his views on international law, which I think can’t work in the globalized 21st century.

Obama has said nice things about Reagan and Rumsfeld. For some, that’s a strike against him. But if he can get past Clinton, it can only help him.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
It’s more ’using what we know for a fact today to beat you over the head with for decisions you made last year when the facts weren’t apparent’.

How nice to sit in the (today) future and make up judgements about the past - like um, ’lying’ about WMD’s for example.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
And meanwhile Drudge helps McCain with a Y2K replay of his "I hate the gooks" quote.

"I hate the gooks"
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
(my most recent blog entry, Jan. 30: Surge failure).
Yup.

You’re still a f*cking idiot...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
How nice to sit in the (today) future and make up judgements about the past - like um, ’lying’ about WMD’s for example.
Don’t start.

Too late you already did.

The lie was not the suggestion that intelligence indicated that Iraq was likely to have WMD’s, that could be a considered a reasonably honest accounting of the intelligence.

The lie was to take intelligence that said Iraq MAY have some specific WMD and retell by saying Iraq absolutely has some specific WMD elements. These type of exagerrated (read dishonest) assertions were made hundreds of times by the adminstration.

The fact that we did not know that were exagerrated assertions does not make them any less dishonest, and the vast majority of these statements came long before the disputed "slam dunk" utterance.

You can’t say that Obama was exagerrating or lying about Rumsfelds mainstream appearance at the time.

Apples and oranges.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
These type of exagerrated (read dishonest) assertions were made hundreds of times by the adminstration.
And for years before by the previous administration.

Are you suggesting that Bill is in leage with Bush?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Obama’s comment about Rumsfeld from 2001 is meaningless, but so much of what the Left believes is meaningless that it’s anyone’s guess if it will have an impact.

What will destroy Obama is that he has belonged for two decades to a Afrocentrist, black nationalist church that teaches a racialist "theology."

So far the Clintons haven’t hit that, which suggests to me that their internal polls tell them they will win on Super Tuesday.

That’s not the thing that they want to use against Obama because it will threaten their support from black voters in November. They’ve already accrued damage in that respect, but they’ll heal that with a black running mate — I think it will be Harold Ford Jr.

The dillemma is that Democrats depend on getting 90% of the black vote, but Obama is such a vulnerable candidate (and the Clintons have been edging toward making him even more vulnerable) that taking Obama as the running mate doesn’t help with black voters because you already have 9 out of 10 of them. Harold Ford will do just as well and he’s a far more mainstream guy.

On the other hand, taking Obama opens the ticket up to the devastating "revelation" that he belongs to a racist church.

I would say that a year from now, if Obama doesn’t have the good fortune of losing the nomination soon, he’ll have about as much future in national politics as Tom Eagleton had after ’72.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The lie was to take intelligence that said Iraq MAY have some specific WMD and retell by saying Iraq absolutely has some specific WMD elements. These type of exagerrated (read dishonest) assertions were made hundreds of times by the adminstration.

The fact that we did not know that were exagerrated assertions does not make them any less dishonest, and the vast majority of these statements came long before the disputed "slam dunk" utterance.
No, the lie is right there in statements like yours, based on conveniently ignoring the fact that everyone, including Saddam’s own people, thought IRAQ had WMDs before we attacked.



And I wasn’t trying to ATTACK Obama, I was actually defending him - the point was, exactly what you’re doing - which is taking information available today and projecting it back into the past when people made decisions to do things without YOUR ’future seated’ ability to know for certain the information was bad.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
In fact, the "lie" was no lie at all.

Iraq did have shells with Sarin and mustard gas, but evidently too few or too old to pass the threshold set by the deciders of what is true.

Welcome to bizzaro world.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
It’s a bit tangential to the point of the article, but you’d think someone whose career was heavily based on public speaking would know better. The proof is not "in the pudding", "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". I’m not objecting because I object to linguistic drift, but "the proof is in the pudding" makes no sense (then again, I suppose expecting sense is being somewhat optimistic).
 
Written By: Lysenko
URL: http://
On the other hand, taking Obama opens the ticket up to the devastating "revelation" that he belongs to a racist church.
No more than the revelation that he was raised as a Muslim, being that both are false.

This has been reported on already, like the Madrassa story, but the media managed to vet it better before being embarrased as they were with the Madrassa story.

The reason it’s not a big story is because it is not a true story.

The church has described itself as "Afrocentric" and "unashamedly black and unashamedly Christian". But there is nothing remotely racist about it, and all ethnicities are welcomed and DO attend this church.

Hannity and Limbaugh, who I put up there with Martin McPhillips as far as intellectually honest, tried to make this an issue...
Sean Hannity, the conservative half of Fox News’ lightweight talk show, “Hannity and Colmes,” sounded as if this country was going to hypocritical hell. If a white presidential candidate’s church had a similar statement and “you substitute the word white for black, there would be an outrage in this country,” Hannity preached. “There would be cries of racism in this country.”

"True and Catch-22. If a white church plainly and proudly pronounced its whiteness, Hannity, Carlson and company would be right. But if it was the Holy Trinity Polish Church on Chicago’s North Side, proclaiming its Polishness, who’d care? This is how African Americans find ourselves in a trick bag. We’re defined racially even when we’re acting like any other of this nation’s ethnic groups. Issues knee-jerkily become black and white when in reality they may be African American and Irish American. Or Serbian American and African American. Remove black and substitute another American ethnic group so that Trinity’s Concept No. 6 reads: “Adherence to the Mexican Work Ethic.” Does that still sound separatist? Or racist? Of course not. But, if you’re insincerely espousing color blindness, while holding the race card up your sleeve, you know you can easily trump African-American ethnic pride every time."
So let’s add this one to the lsit of lies:
The meme by Obama’s detractors these days has been:
Muslim radical
Won’t stand for the pledge or Anthem
Sworn in with hand on Koran
Reagan supporter (not sure why that’s a bad thing)
Thought Don Rumsfeld was mainstream.
Belongs to a racist Christian church ( I like this one, they get him both ways, for being a Muslim AND for being a Christian, plus there’s the one where he is a Muslim pretending to be Christian)

You need to cut down on the Free Republic intake.





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
No, the lie is right there in statements like yours, based on conveniently ignoring the fact that everyone, including Saddam’s own people, thought IRAQ had WMDs before we attacked.
Look, I get your point, but you are missing mine. I understand that most people THOUGHT Iraq had possession of significant quantities of WMD’s, I am not trying to change that historical reality.

What I am pointing to are the statements by the adminstration, which ostensibly were based on the available intelligence not on what they were reading in newspapers from 1998, and based on the intelligence, there were hundreds of statements which exagerrated what was suspected and turned it into statements of unequivocal certitude.

Here’s a few examples out of hundreds:
Mr. Cheney: ’We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’" Said this in a press conference on March 17th, 2002. "We know they’re pursuing nuclear weapons." He said this in a press briefing on March 19th, 2002. "He is pursuing, activity pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." He said this on "CNN Late Edition," March 24th. "We know he’s got chemical and biological, and we know he’s working on nuclear."

"Meet the Press," May 19th: "But we know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons." "There is no doubt he’s amassing them against our friends, against our allies and against us." August 26th, 2002.

On and on and on. "He has in fact activity and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." September 8th, 2002, "Meet the Press."

"He has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons." March 16th, "Meet the Press."
The real revisionists (you) want to point to a quote where Cheney said "We beleive" in front of his statement, which would have been an accurate portrayal of the intelligence, but in all of these statements, there was no equivocation whatsoever, these statements gave the clear impression that there was no room for doubt, that this was not an estimate, but that these were absolute proven facts.

These were in fact false statements, and even if Iraq turned out to have had these WMD’s, the fact that we estimated they existed as compared to the assertion that we KNEW he had them, these statements still would have been lies.

If I heard that you MIGHT have a meth lab in your basement and I go to a judge and say that I KNOW you have a meth lab in your basement and I could get a warrant, and if turns out you DO have one, no one will be the wiser. But if turns you don’t, the fact that I lied about knowing facts versus suspecting something would come to bite me in the arse.

Bush is getting bitten in the arse.

Do you get it?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
No, the lie is right there in statements like yours, based on conveniently ignoring the fact that everyone, including Saddam’s own people, thought IRAQ had WMDs before we attacked.
That is definitely not true. The weapons inspectors, President Chirac, and other western leaders made clear that they had real doubts that Saddam had programs in place. They may have thought some leftovers from pre-desert storm were lying around somewhere, but they did doubt the claims made by the Bush Administration.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
the bumbling idiot Sarcastic, unable to see to his own political intersts, writes:
The church has described itself as "Afrocentric" and "unashamedly black and unashamedly Christian". But there is nothing remotely racist about it, and all ethnicities are welcomed and DO attend this church.
Suppose for a moment that a candidate attended a Christian Identity church that was "unashamedly white and unashamedly Christian," what exactly would an idiot of your dimension call that?

The fact is that the "black" and "Christian" aspects of Obama’s church are "unashamedly" amalgamated, and church members pledge to a system of "Black Values," so I wonder if you would feel "welcomed" by a situation like that.

From the IBD synopsis of the teachings of Obama’s church:
In 1991, when Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, he pledged allegiance to something called the Black Value System, which is a code of non-Biblical ethics written by blacks, for blacks.

It encourages blacks to group together and separate from the larger American society by pooling their money, patronizing black-only businesses and backing black leaders. Such racial separatism is strangely at odds with the media’s portrayal of Obama as a uniter who reaches across races.

The code also warns blacks to avoid the white "entrapment of black middle-classness," suggesting that settling for that kind of "competitive" success will rob blacks of their African identity and keep them "captive" to white culture.

In short, Obama’s "unashamedly black" church preaches the politics of black nationalism. And its dashiki-wearing preacher — who married Obama and his wife and now acts as his personal spiritual adviser — is militantly Afrocentric. "We are an African people," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright reminds his flock, "and remain true to our native land, the mother continent."
What you’re looking at there is a racialist program that would make David Duke blush.

Now, get busy attacking the source, and be prepared for when the New York Times is forced to report the same facts at a far less opportune time.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb lies:
The weapons inspectors, President Chirac, and other western leaders made clear that they had real doubts that Saddam had programs in place.
Boris, the very basis of the inference that Hussein retained WMD programs were the UNSCOM audits of what he had refused to account for by the time inspectors left Iraq in 1998. And if Chirac believed what you say he believed he should have had France vote against 1441, which demanded immediate and complete compliance by Iraq and left no room for Western "doubts." And Blix, on more than one occasion, reported that Iraq was not cooperating as required by 1441, starting with its Declaration after agreeing to meet the demands of 1441.

Blix’s non-germane comments about "wanting more time" were not the concern of 1441, which triggered "further material breach" the moment that Blix reported non-cooperation by Iraq, which he did on more than one occasion.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
It still eludes me how anyone can claim "dishonesty" for the pre-war WMD claims against Iraq. Doesn’t anyone realize how remarkably easy it would have been for a "dishonest" Bush and crew to ensure WMDs were found?
 
Written By: Arcs
URL: http://
Do you get it?
yeah, I get it. I think it’s a stretch to call them ’lies’ since I don’t think it’s nearly as tidy as you’d like it to be intelligence wise.

Scott - real doubts about WMD’s aren’t the same as ABSOLUTE CERTAINTIES.
When you’re screwing with devices that can annihilate a city you’d better err on the side of caution if you only have doubts.

And ARCS, thank you for a point well made.

Cap, we can agree on the Obama points though.
If people want to use his actual stands and positions and votes to disagree with him I have no problem with that, but making sh!tu p, or using inuendo, just pisses me off.
It pisses me off when either side does it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The idiot parrot McPhillips copies Rush and Hannity verbatim...
Suppose for a moment that a candidate attended a Christian Identity church that was "unashamedly white and unashamedly Christian," what exactly would an idiot of your dimension call that?
This sophmoric assertion has already been refuted...

"True and Catch-22. If a white church plainly and proudly pronounced its whiteness, Hannity, Carlson and company would be right. But if it was the Holy Trinity Polish Church on Chicago’s North Side, proclaiming its Polishness, who’d care? This is how African Americans find ourselves in a trick bag. We’re defined racially even when we’re acting like any other of this nation’s ethnic groups. Issues knee-jerkily become black and white when in reality they may be African American and Irish American. Or Serbian American and African American. Remove black and substitute another American ethnic group so that Trinity’s Concept No. 6 reads: “Adherence to the Mexican Work Ethic.” Does that still sound separatist? Or racist? Of course not. But, if you’re insincerely espousing color blindness, while holding the race card up your sleeve, you know you can easily trump African-American ethnic pride every time."


This is what McPhillips is doing, ignoring black as the ethnicity it is, and making it a racial issue. White is not an ethnicity, and the various ethnicities that make up white America DO proudly celebrate their ethnicities, as I celebrate my Irish heritage. Black, in this context, is a synonym for African-American, an ethnicity, not racial, but for the racially obsessed we will see these arguments.

I look forward with eager anticipation to this campaign season, and I pray you continue to make these arguments and expose yourself for what you are.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
It pisses me off when either side does it.
Fair enough, I’m with you.
It still eludes me how anyone can claim "dishonesty" for the pre-war WMD claims against Iraq. Doesn’t anyone realize how remarkably easy it would have been for a "dishonest" Bush and crew to ensure WMDs were found?
Go from being wrong with no consequences other than political damage to guaranteed impeachment and likely prison?

How many people would have to be involved in such a criminal conspiracy?

Any one of them who did not want to go to prison would have pretty much killed such a ridiculous contemplation.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
looker, there is no innuendo or making stuff up with regard to Obama’s church. It is what it is. White voters, and black voters, are being sold a tall tale of racial reconciliation by a candidate who has for twenty years sat and listened to the teachings of black nationalism and black separatism. When that becomes clear he will be rejected by white voters, as much for the facts as for the deception. The only whites who would embrace a candidate who belonged to such a church would be white separatists or extreme Left postmodern multi-cultis.

In fact, I think that Obama would embarrass mainstream blacks and they would vote against him.

Obama is a candidate who will never, ever get by the "what would they say if a candidate worshipped at a church that proclaimed itself ’unashamedly white and unashamedly Christian’?"

If the Clintons get boxed in, they’ll raise this. If Obama somehow wins the nomination, the GOP or their surrogates will raise it.

Obama is a candidate who preaches unity but has attended a separatist church for the better part of his adult life. He always had the option to get up and find another church. He never did, and it’s too late for him to do that now.

And I’m speaking against my own interest here because I think he’s an easier candidate to beat than the Hillary Clinton. But the nature of this church is a fact, not made up or innuendo, and any white candidate attending such a church would be gone from the race before the starter picked up his pistol.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Go from being wrong with no consequences other than political damage to guaranteed impeachment and likely prison?

How many people would have to be involved in such a criminal conspiracy?
heh - an argument for why 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This is how African Americans find ourselves in a trick bag.
Maybe if you dropped that "African American" crap...

Yer Black. You are an american with ancestry from Africa. Why do you demand to be called an African American, even if it’s 6 generations removed?

I don’t call myself a German American, even though I’m only 4th Generation.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
the bumbling idiot Sarcastic tries this bit of illogic:
This is what McPhillips is doing, ignoring black as the ethnicity it is, and making it a racial issue. White is not an ethnicity, and the various ethnicities that make up white America DO proudly celebrate their ethnicities, as I celebrate my Irish heritage
There is no Irish or Polish or whatever church that preaches Irish or Polish or white separatism. There are white churches that preach white separatism and they fall in the general category of Christian Identity churches and they are, ipso facto, racist. And there is a difference between ethnicity and race in the common parlance of American society.

A black Christian church that catered to a primarily Ethiopian or Jamaican congregation would be comparable to a white church that catered to a primarily Irish or Italian congregation, but there would be nothing racialist about those churches if their teaching was simply Christianity.

Obama’s church is a Christian Identity church in which the identity happens to be black instead of white. It teaches racialist dogma alongside Christianity, and just as racialist teachings negate the Christianity of white Christian Identity churches they do so here. Likewise there are many African-American protestant churches in the U.S., but there are very few that preach black nationalism and separatist dogma alongside the Gospel.

Obama’s church is not the equivalent of a Ukrainian Catholic Church or of an Ethiopian Coptic Church. It is the equivalent of a racist Christian Identity church.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
So, he goes to that church every sunday then - every sunday for the last 20 years. Or is he more just a member of the parish or whatever the correct term is?

Christ, as a youngster, before the ’Church’ got a new ad agency working for it (Buddy Christ!) I can recall being told my Protestant & Jewish friends were ALL headed to hell and they were heathens. This was a nice, main stream church with a Saint in front of it’s name, now known for practicing a massive pedophilia coverup (where I’m sure, had I been old enough, I would have been told to vote Democrat or end up in hell when the time came).

Thousands upon thousands of people in the DFW area head to main stream churches every sunday where they’re taught to villify people like Mitt Romney for his religion (whether or not I consider his beliefs valid being irrelevent).

I’ll have to dig into your evidence a little deeper before I suddenly get all angry about a guy who goes to a church where the guy up front is saying things I know I disagree with. I know damn well there are plenty mainstream churches where that happens every Sunday. No one it seems is terribly troubled by what their fellow voters are being taught in their mainstream churches unless it gores their ox.

As a practical matter I’m having a hard time imagining Obama creating some troubling ’black African/American’ reverse racist society if he gets to the White House.
Just as I’m imagining he couldn’t create an Islamist society if he were one himself.

Have some faith in the system. The President’s powers really ARE limited.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker:
Christ, as a youngster, before the ’Church’ got a new ad agency working for it (Buddy Christ!) I can recall being told my Protestant & Jewish friends were ALL headed to hell and they were heathens.
That involved a theological dispute, not a programmatic racial separatism.

In the United States there is a movement called Christian Identity that involves a white racist ideology. Obama’s church preaches a black equivalent of that.
As a practical matter I’m having a hard time imagining Obama creating some troubling ’black African/American’ reverse racist society if he gets to the White House.
There’s no need to imagine anything of the kind. The facts are sufficient: Obama is portraying himself as racial healer and uniter; he belongs to a black separatist church for most of his adult life. It’s the deception about that that does him in.

Mark the difference between belonging to a traditional protestant African-American black congregation with which we are all familiar vs. belonging to a congregation that preaches black nationalism and separatism alongside the Gospel. That is Christian Identity where the identity doesn’t happen to be white.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
So, armed with the knowledge he may be a closet black supremacist you are concerned he’d do what?

I don’t agree with the supremacist crap, again, from either side, but from a purely devil’s advocate position - How many Presidents have we had who implicitly understood and truly believed us white folks was just better and smarter?

See, I’m not seeing this unless it’s Obama up there pushing the black supremacy cause forward.
I don’t care if he goes to church and sacrifices chickens to Baron Samdi,
I just don’t believe Obama is a closet racist,

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Some righties act as if White Identity Politics and Black Identity Politics are equally harmful.

I agree that Identity Politics = Bad, but let’s not pretend that the reaction to an "African-American Church" and a "White Nationalist Church" should be the same. It shouldn’t: White Nationalism has manifested itself into Jim Crow, Church Bombings and Burnings, the Klan, on and on.

White Nationalism is far more harmful, historically speaking, than Afrocentricism.

Sorry, Martin-o, I don’t see any evidence that Obama believes what the Church in Your Deluded Head is "preaching".
 
Written By: Ayn_Randian
URL: http://
Anyone who doubts Martin’s characterization can visit the website of Obama’s church and see what you think. Here’s a particularly ripe passage that has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with black power politics. It’s entirely consistent that Obama’s church honored Louis Farrakhan with a Lifetime Achievement Award.

Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the "talented tenth" of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of "we" and "they" instead of "us".

—Trinity United Church of Christ, "The Black Value System"
So much for Obama as a uniter and a healer. Widespread knowledge of Obama’s church ought to be the end of his candidacy, as Martin says, but I’m not so sure. People are already overlooking so much about Obama—his near-complete lack of qualifications—precisely because he is black.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Ayn Randian,

First, note the difference between a typical African-American protestant congregation and a Afrocentrist, black nationalist congregation. The former is nothing extraordinary and well within the mainstream of American life and values; the latter is contrary to the very impulse that ended America’s sorry history of racism.

Second, if Obama doesn’t believe the teachings of his church, then how would he explain belonging to it for two decades. Actions speak louder than denials. "I’m telling you, I just attended those Klan rallies, I never bought into it."

Third, frank racialism conjoined with religion is dangerous. Period. Note the similarity between not buying into "white values" and not buying into "Jewish values" or not buying into "black values." This is an unacceptable association for any candidate for President of the United States, whatever his background.

looker:
How many Presidents have we had who implicitly understood and truly believed us white folks was just better and smarter?
Well, we had a long tradition of racism and segregation built into the Democratic coalition. That essentially ended 44 years ago with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Woodrow Wilson was a frank racist, instituting segregation in the federal government in D.C. after taking office. FDR’s New Deal coalition was utterly dependent on the segregationist South.

Is that sort of thinking tolerated in the United States now? Yes, it’s tolerated by white separatists and extreme Left academic multi-cultis. It is and should be intolerable to the other 99% of Americans.

Pooh-poohing Obama’s long association with this church is to condone something that would see a white candidate in a similar association out the door in a New York minute. And justifiably so. I don’t see any justification for establishing a double standard for views this extreme. The teachings of Obama’s church go way beyond the typical racial ambulance chasing of Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Do you find Obama’s association more acceptable because he’s being deceptive about it?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Buddy Christ
Baron Samdi
Dogma and Live and Let Die in one thread, impressive.
The facts are sufficient: Obama is portraying himself as racial healer and uniter; he belongs to a black separatist church for most of his adult life. It’s the deception about that that does him in.
The assertion that this is black separatist church is where this arguments falls flat. I suspect that Martin is testing this dirt out to see if it can gain traction, or just derision for it’s ridiculousness.

Caring for your ethnic group does not preclude you from caring from others. You call the afrocentric elements racists, but it’s not, not unless there is anti- white element, and there is NONE. The funny thing is when Bill Cosby suggests that black Americans do all of the things that this church suggests, he is lauded by conservatives, but then again, I am sure that if he were running for President, his quotes would be recycled as "separatist".

If a person cannot care about both the smaller group they belong to (black Americans) as well as the larger group (Americans), then all of this pointless, and John McCain can ONLY care about veterans, and Mitt Romney can ONLY care about Mormons, and Huckabee can only care about Christian Evangelicals. This is so ridiculous, and so typically slimy.

I really, really, hope this is the how you plan on going after Obama.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I’m not seeing a black supremacy thing in your example - I’m seeing ’watch out for whitey (the man)’ -

What’s ironic is that by recommending a shunning of ’middle class values’ they are ensuring pretty much everything they’re talking about in their ’watch out for’ example. Based on what I know of Farrakhan and the other promoters of separatism they just want to replace who ’the man’ is. It is indeed about control, and they want to be in control.
So much for Obama as a uniter and a healer.
so, that passage is Obama then, we’re all sure, right?

He IS his church then, that’s it, it’s been decided.

Do you find Obama’s association more acceptable because he’s being deceptive about it?
No, what I find deceptive on a daily basis is information available on the Internet that I can’t vet, and I’m not going to go calling the guy a racist unless I see him doing or saying something that I can identify as the behavior of a racist, like Farrakhan. So far I haven’t seen it.

I’m not throwing Romeny to the wolves because he’s a Mormon, and I’m not throwing Obama to the wolves because people find stuff on the Internet claiming he belongs to a racist church.
It was easy enough to find Ron Paul actually spouting some questionable philosophies, where are the similar quotes FROM Obama?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
For 20 years he’s belonged to the church (goes the mantra) - he wasn’t always a Senator, at some point he was trying to appeal to a small group to convince people that he needed to be their leader - where are the examples and quotes of him appealing to his demographic indicating he was up on blackness and down on whiteness?

Stop pointing to things others are saying that are in his church and give me some examples of things HE said.

Heh cap, I knew about Samdi long before I saw Live & Let Die, I wasn’t exactly a mainstream fiction reader as a kid - and working in a Library only made me worse.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
On another gedankenexperimental level -

Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and yet wrote about freedom for all.
What am I to think?
Perhaps in similar vein Obama might have thoughts of his own, right? And not necessarily views that his church might always agree with? They, in turn, might think things he doesn’t agree with wholeheartedly, yes?

No, he’s his church, bring out the chickens, the Loa must be appeased.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
the blithering idiot Sarcastic tries this:
The assertion that this is black separatist church is where this arguments falls flat. I suspect that Martin is testing this dirt out to see if it can gain traction, or just derision for it’s ridiculousness.
This is self-evidently a black separatist church. It’s message is blacks for blacks. Period. With "black" interpretations of scripture and "black theology." Rolled in with a victimology narrative that calls for a condition of "permanent" blackness, which is nothing more than a replay of racial destiny, which is a replay of white racism for blacks.

And I’m not "testing...dirt," I’m stating facts.

Any attempt by any white candidate to evade the consequences of this sort of association would be laughed off as ridiculous.

The narrative of Obama’s church is that blacks can only seek and find their way as blacks, and should only seek and find opportunity within the black community.

That is frank racialist separatism. The rhetoric is a dead-on match for German National Socialist rhetoric.

And what really concerns me here is how this will destroy race relations in the United States if and when this business comes up. It will force people to take sides in a distinctly un-united way, and it will set back racial reconciliation to the era of the black racial separatist Marcus Garvey and the Ku Klux Klan.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I’d also note that the victim ideology of Obama’s church blames the American "captor society" for black killings, even those committed by blacks against blacks.

This is one of the most poisonous beliefs circulating in our society. It demeans blacks as not being responsible for their actions and therefore contributes to the unmentionable statistic that blacks are seven times more likely to commit homicide than whites. As a consequence blacks are also six times more likely to be murdered, usually by other blacks.

There are many hundreds of regular Christian churches in Chicago, but this fringe church that teaches that America is responsible for black homicide is the one that Obama chose for his spiritual home and its pastor as his spiritual mentor.

Obama needs to repudiate this church, not just Louis Farrakhan or Rev. Wright.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
The narrative of Obama’s church is that blacks can only seek and find their way as blacks, and should only seek and find opportunity within the black community.
while I will concede I don’t agree with the message here - the tone isn’t the same as "kill whitey, drive him from the land, take his sh!t, ensure our purity" that you get from the white brand of that particular product line.

Again, devil’s advocate
Obama needs to repudiate this church, not just Louis Farrakhan or Rev. Wright.
if he did that, then we could stick to disagreeing with his liberal policies as a reason for not electing him?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker, if your argument reduces to mocking the idea that a choice a man makes every week for twenty years can’t possibly mean anything about the man, I gotta say that’s a fantastically uncompelling argument, bordering on the nonsensical.

Actions speak much louder than words. If Obama came out and denied all the implications with his words, I’m sure you’d buy it in a heartbeat and declare the debate over. But I will stick with the superior "actions speak louder than words" metric, thanks; there’s nothing he can say and little he can do (none of which is likely) to cleanse himself of this stain.

In the end, perhaps it means nothing. People change, and nothing changes a person like waking up one day and discovering you’re responsible for an entire country, white people, black people, and everyone in between equally. But it’s perfectly rational to use it as a window into his true character.
 
Written By: Jeremy Bowers
URL: http://www.jerf.org/iri
Every sunday, man you guys keep awesome records.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m awestruck that we ever gave Jefferson and his associates a pass then.
What with true character being your measure and all.

Just a bunch of evil white European guys, just like they say eh?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
What’s funny is the idea of Martin McPhillips "looking into" Barack Obama, as if he is pondering his candidacy to determine how he will vote.

Yeah, that’s what we need is Obama vetted a friggin freeper, LMAO.

Maybe we can get McCain vetted by the City Council of Berkeley.
But I will stick with the superior "actions speak louder than words" metric, thanks; there’s nothing he can say and little he can do (none of which is likely) to cleanse himself of this stain.
Show me a racist action!

And don’t say stepping into that church is a racist action, because you cannot point to any racist actions of that church, and don’t tell me that recognizing Farrkhan is a racist action, because then your logic would be this twisted nightmare of logic...

Farrkhan has made racist and anti-semitic statements
Jeremiah Wright is the Pastor of Trinity Church
Trumpet Newsmagazine is a magazine founded by Trinity
Jermeiah Wright’s daughter and contributor to Trumpet Newsmagazine recognized Farrakhan for his work rehabilitating ex-offenders (but not for his racist comments)
Obama attends Trinity Church but has formally disavowed Farrakhan, here...
"I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."
Ergo, Obama is a racist
I gotta say that’s a fantastically uncompelling argument, bordering on the nonsensical.
This sentence applies to the logic above, Looker’s argument is perfectly sound.



Here are Obama’s own words regarding some of the Church’s tenets...
…Obama said it was important to understand the document as a whole rather than highlight individual tenets. “Commitment to God, black community, commitment to the black family, the black work ethic, self-discipline and self-respect,” he said. “Those are values that the conservative movement in particular has suggested are necessary for black advancement.

“So I would be puzzled that they would object or quibble with the bulk of a document that basically espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help….”

In his published memoirs, Obama said even he was stopped by Trinity’s tenet to disavow “middleclassness” when he first read it two decades ago in a church pamphlet. The brochure implored upwardly mobile church members not to distance themselves from less fortunate Trinity worshipers.

“As I read it, at least, it was a very simple argument taken directly from Scripture: `To whom much is given much is required,’” Obama said in the interview.

But Obama scoffed at the suggestion that Trinity espouses a value system that seeks to help blacks exclusively. “If I say to anybody in Iowa–white, black, Hispanic or Asian–that my church believes in the African-American community strengthening families or adhering to the black work ethic or being committed to self-discipline and self-respect and not forgetting where you came from, I don’t think that’s something anybody would object to.
As I said,m if a person cannot care about the small groups they belong to, then leadership is an impossible dream anyway and we are all just blowing smoke, McPhillips just happens to be blowing out of his arse.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
looker — We are decades past the time when any serious presidential candidate gets a pass on bigotry or a long-term association with bigotry.
Again, devil’s advocate

Obama needs to repudiate this church, not just Louis Farrakhan or Rev. Wright.

if he did that, then we could stick to disagreeing with his liberal policies as a reason for not electing him?
That, and Obama’s near-total lack of qualifications. You have to go back to William Jennings Bryan, who in 1896 was nominated on the strength of his oratory to run for President with only six years in Congress, to find a candidate as little qualified as Obama. I’m astounded that even Democrats take Obama seriously.

Of course, part of the problem here is that the other Democratic candidates also have thin resumes. But Obama is, or at least should be, an embarrassment on this score.

 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Sarcastic — Obama’s response on TUCC’s The Black Value System may work for you but it remains a serious evasion to me.

The Nation Of Islam also upholds black discipline, black self-respect etc. For that matter, so did the Black Panthers. But that doesn’t remove the sting of a "Black Value System" that views America as a "captor society" responsible for black homicide and for forcing blacks into concentration camps. That’s nasty, bigoted, wacko stuff, and I think most Americans would agree.

I recommend that all Americans read the website of Obama’s church, especially "The Black Value System", and draw their own conclusions.

Furthermore the best solution I can see for race relations in this country is continued black movement into the middle class, not opposing black middle-classness as Obama’s church proclaims.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
heh - It’s about the change man, the change.

On a serious note - I’m trying to decide why I should feel that people who demonstrate ample ’qualifications’ at behind doors dealing, public double talk and the ability to milk money from the public coffers for their constituency on a regular basis are qualifications I think we should be recommending in a President.

At least if we’re talking about Senators and Congresscritters, and it appears with 1 exception, that’s what we’re talking about.

This has been fun guys. The election is going to be very interesting.

The worst part is I see strong potential for Martin’s statement to be reality before we’re done -
what really concerns me here is how this will destroy race relations in the United States if and when this business comes up. It will force people to take sides in a distinctly un-united way, and it will set back racial reconciliation to the era of the black racial separatist Marcus Garvey and the Ku Klux Klan.
I still don’t think he’s a racist - (shrug)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Of course, part of the problem here is that the other Democratic candidates also have thin resumes. But Obama is, or at least should be, an embarrassment on this score.
George W. Bush, not that he is a positive example of anything, but his ONLY experience was as a two term governor in a state with a weak governship where more executive power resides with others and his previous experience was primarily in failing business ventures.

And you want to say that Democrats should be embarassed? You guys elected this bufoon, so your collective right to complain about anything relating to a political candidate is hereby officially and perpectually rescinded.

I was disappointed that my favorites didn’t make the cut, and I felt that Biden had more and better experience, but this is a beauty contest, and now we are left asking who among those left in this beauty contest can lead.

There is nothing to suggest that Obama cannot lead, and plenty to suggest he can.

So why don’t you stick with not voting for him because you would not vote for Jesus if he ran as a Democrat, or more simply, because you disagree with his policy positions.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Sarcastic — I’m not crazy about Bush’s credentials in 2000 either, but two terms as governor of a large state, as well as being the son of a President, is far more relevant qualification for POTUS than four years in the senate and having lived abroad as a child.

I voted for Gore and feared the worst when Bush was elected. IMO we lucked out with Bush. In ten or twenty years we will look back at GWB as a strong, admirable president just as we do Harry Truman—whose poll numbers dipped to 22— today. I understand you disagree.

I think a presidential candidate needs far more than a suggestion that he can lead. He needs to have shown he can lead.

I wouldn’t rule Obama out as a candidate in four, eight, or twelve years. But right now he is way too inexperienced and unaccomplished. We know too little about him, and his church really unnerves me.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
the now snivelling idiot Sarcastic:
McPhillips just happens to be blowing out of his arse.
I have told you exactly what the meaning of Obama’s church is.

Obama’s statements about it are playing precisely off of the crafted presentation of the church itself to say "we’re black separatists, but we’ll change the subject if anyone else brings it up."

Racist white churches and organizations do exactly the same thing: "We’re for the white race living separately and want only the best for blacks in their separate world."

In fact, the identity politics are so thick in this matter that blacks who do not live according to these so-called "Black Values" are effectively accused of having false consciousness. That sort of thing suggests a cross-pollination with Marxism.

Typical of this sort of outfit, the church was founded circa 1961 but claims its roots go back 500 years, into the original victimhood of black slaves. Now, that was real, of course. Slavery did victimize Africans. But this church invokes a racialist vision that is the precise opposite of the Martin Luther King vision, and the precise opposite of the overall Christian vision.

Obama is engaging in a gross deception, and (addressing huxley’s suggestion) I don’t believe that there is any way that he can repudiate this church. There is no way out of this for him but trying to finesse it and hope that he gets away with the fundamental deception of calling for "unity" as a member of a black separatist congregation.

And don’t mistake separatism in this case as requiring physical separation. This is a belief in psychological, social, and economic separation.

I have no doubt that American blacks can do very well without having any absolute psychological cohesion with American whites, and I don’t think that the problems that black communities have imply that there is no formidable black culture, or sub-culture, in the United States. No one begrudges black Americans that sort of internal cultural cohesion.

The doctrine taught at Obama’s church goes way beyond that to a frank racialist ideology, and the fact that Obama has continued in that congregation implies that he subscribes to that ideology.

Does that make him a racist? I can’t say for certain, but there is no way that he can allay that suspicion at this point. He needed to leave that church a long time ago. Again, no white politician would survive for ten minutes coming out of a situation like that.

Only two basic groups of whites in America reject racial reconciliation (which is the very basis of Obama’s appeal to whites), and those groups are white separatists and extreme academic Left multi-cultis, whose embrace of identiy politics mirrors that of separatists.

When whites realize that Obama has deceived them, they will reject him.

And if the Clintons haven’t made this an issue it’s because they like what their internal polls are telling them.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin - Thanks for your posts. I’d tag on to agree that White Race advocates have gotten cagier with their rhetoric too and can make similar evasions to Obama’s, but it still boils down to some kind of racism and some kind of separatism, even if it’s not as clearcut the bad old days.

I grew up in the south and I knew people who were KKK and neo-nazi Christian. They were good people—they even liked some individual blacks—but they had bigoted, dangerous beliefs that must be spot-lit and opposed.

I can’t read Obama’s mind or heart. I suspect he is more of an opportunist than a racist, but I’m not liking his church, and I distrust his apparent need to prove his blackness. His Kenyan father left when Obama was young and Obama was essentially raised white American middle-class in his mother’s family—not that you’d know it from the church he has chosen. That’s weird.

If Obama wants to run for President of the United States, he has no business being a member of a racial identity church that talks about being black before being Christian, speaks of a commitment to Africa and to blacks but not to America, rants about a "captor society" and rationalizes a staggering black homicide rate as being society’s fault.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
The continuosly flatulating McPhillips erupts with this...
I have told you exactly what the meaning of Obama’s church is.
Yes, we know, straight from the Hannity, Limbaugh, Newsmax memo.

You’ll pardon the world if they don’t take your word for it
over Obama’s, he’s got quite a bit more credibility than you.
Obama’s statements about it are playing precisely off of the crafted presentation of the church itself to say "we’re black separatists, but we’ll change the subject if anyone else brings it up."
Wow, that’s just what a racist lunatic freeper would say.

(see how that works)
The doctrine taught at Obama’s church goes way beyond that to a frank racialist ideology, and the fact that Obama has continued in that congregation implies that he subscribes to that ideology.
And you know this because... what, you were there? There are white people there every day, and they are welcome, so I don’t know when these secret doctrines are taught. And by the way, a white supremacist (or separatist) church may SAY lots of things, but when push comes to shove, THEY have bouncers at the door, and brothers are not invited.

You reside in a rhetorical gutter, just where you belong.

In either case, you and your buddy were never going to vote for Obama, and anyone that would even ponder giving your opinions the time of day wouldn’t consider voting for Obama, so wallow in the mud of your own rhetoric.
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
Wow, that’s just what a racist lunatic freeper would say.
Lots of ad hominem, little in the way of fact or logic. But it’s what we’ve come to expect from you.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Lots of ad hominem, little in the way of fact or logic. But it’s what we’ve come to expect from you.
Steve, you obviously have not been following this thread, or else you would have noticed the first rude comment was made by Martin...
the bumbling idiot Sarcastic, unable to see to his own political intersts, writes:
And as to the particular comment you are referring to:
Wow, that’s just what a racist lunatic freeper would say.
This is sarcasm, you see Martin, when responding to Obama’s OWN comments about the church, made this ridiculous argument...
Obama’s statements about it are playing precisely off of the crafted presentation of the church itself to say "we’re black separatists, but we’ll change the subject if anyone else brings it up."
Which is another way of saying of Obama’s comments, that this is just what a black separatist would say.

Ignoring the argument in toto and coming after ME, now that’s just what I would expect from you.

But I am curious, my particpation in the discussion aside, do you buy into Martin’s argument, that this is some kind of white hating black separatist racist church?
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
In ten or twenty years we will look back at GWB as a strong, admirable president just as we do Harry Truman
Not a chance. True, Bush and Truman both had botched wars. Truman could have had the same result in 1950 as in 1953 if he hadn’t foolishly tried to "rollback" communism and thus get into a fight with the Chinese. The death and destruction from 1950 to 1953 were unnecessary. But it did have a conclusion shortly after Ike came to office that created stability in the region. That won’t happen in Iraq (again my most recent blog entry explains the problem - Surge Failure (but it’s not our fault))

But, of course, Truman is remembered fondly because of his actions to counter the Soviets in the Cold War. There is no such threat now as there was with communism, Islamic extremism is a mini-threat, able to have a terror strike now and then — though obviously they haven’t done well with that lately — but are a minority in their own culture, control no government, and are vastly overrated by some (though I think we are in a post-9-11 era, with a very different political dynamic than even a few years ago).
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Furthermore the best solution I can see for race relations in this country is continued black movement into the middle class, not opposing black middle-classness as Obama’s church proclaims.
You are mischaracterizing the meaning of this tenet (not surprising, since you have mischaracterized everything else).

In his published memoirs, Obama said even he was stopped by Trinity’s tenet to disavow “middleclassness” when he first read it two decades ago in a church pamphlet. The brochure implored upwardly mobile church members not to distance themselves from less fortunate Trinity worshipers.
Do you get that?

It means that you try to improve your lot, but you do not forget where you came from.
“As I read it, at least, it was a very simple argument taken directly from Scripture: `To whom much is given much is required,’” Obama said in the interview.
But I guess this is just what you would expect a black separatist to say.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
the sputtering imbecile Sarcastic:
You’ll pardon the world if they don’t take your word for it
over Obama’s, he’s got quite a bit more credibility than you.
Indeed, who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Boris Erb:
True, Bush and Truman both had botched wars. Truman could have had the same result in 1950 as in 1953 if he hadn’t foolishly tried to "rollback" communism
Indeed, Boris, why "rollback" any sort of totalitarian, soul-eating, destructive, anti-human ideology?

Can’t everyone see how wonderful the North Korean people have it today? After all, it’s only been at least three generations who have had their lives pissed down a Communist sewer. What was Truman thinking?

Don’t people understand that Iraq was better under Saddam Hussein? All he did was use the state monopoly on violence to murder people; he didn’t need to use car bombers. Can’t we all see how much cleaner it is to have the government murdering you?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin, you keep forgetting the happy kite flying under Saddam, there was a lot of happy kite flying, and now the Americans have taken that away with their predator aircraft shooting thosehappy kites down every day.

Some even have smiley faces painted on them, but the Americans shoot them down anyway. At least, that’s what most people say.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Indeed, who are you going to believe, Obama or your lying eyes.
Show me a SINGLE racist action or utterance from Barack Obama, and I’ll consider your assertion that he is a racist.

Other than that, to say his church is problematic is ridiculous, all churches would be problematic if we looked into their specific tenets. John McCain’s teaches that Mormons are going to hell if they are not saved by acceptance of their version of Christianity.

And Mike Huckabee, don’t get me started

This is jsut what you think might damage Obama, you don’t despise him for belonging this church one iota more than you already would for just being a liberal.

This has already been in the MSM, and it fell flat, and I can’t wait to see what happens if a candidate directly refers to his church in the way you have.
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
Doesn’t anyone realize how remarkably easy it would have been for a "dishonest" Bush and crew to ensure WMDs were found?
No freakin’ kidding. Apparently he’s only sinister enough to lie about it, but wanted to conduct an honest search once we got in, ostensibly to prove what he was lying about was false! Hilarious! This should shut up the nutroots, but it’s too good a slogan by now to give up and, well, damn logic anyway...
again my most recent blog entry explains the problem - Surge Failure (but it’s not our fault)
This is false appeal to authority in an MC Escher sort of way... you crack me up, sir...
Show me a SINGLE racist action or utterance from Barack Obama, and I’ll consider your assertion that he is a racist.
Uh, read his freakin’ book. He fully admits to hating whitey... but not anymore, of course. Who cares anyway? You wouldn’t believe it if he personally told you he was racist. You undoubtedly see electing this guy, as do many, as a way of boosting your nonracist cred. White liberal guilt is gonna push this guy over the top.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
He fully admits to hating whitey
Not once does he say he hated white people.

He admits being suspicious and distrusting of white people.

Imagine that, a black person being distrutful of white people in 1980’s Chicago.

The he was distrustful is no surprise, that he has risen above it, is encouraging.

You should try.
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
The he was distrustful is no surprise, that he has risen above it, is encouraging.

You should try.
I see, he gets the benefit of the doubt as far as you’re concerned, but I do not. No, you’re positive that I’m a screaming racist because I’m not gonna vote for the only black man running for President. It couldn’t possibly be his pocket socialism. As I said in a previous thread, this is what the next few years are going to be like. Try to oppose the figurehead minority candidate, be they black or female, and you’re a hater. Sigh. So juvenile, but here we are.

Thanks for the link, by the way. Good story full of anecdotes, with relevant time frames (as if "80s Chicago" was the symbol of white-on-black racism, he endured the worst whitey had to offer, no doubt). I could give you my own anecdotes regarding working as a medic in CA prisons (90s California, it was a terrible time) and the daily taunts and slurs regarding my race. On the other hand, I’ve had multiracial friends my entire life. Should I be distrustful or should I "rise above it"? Indeed, since I’m a white man, is there really anything to rise above in my case since I’m a walking symbol of minority oppression (well, in the US, anyway)?

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, John McWhorter, Janice Rogers-Brown, Michael Steele, Larry Elder: all would be greater candidates for my vote for President than Barry Obama who from what I can see was chosen strictly on speaking ability. If that’s your litmus test for President, fine. But the race-baiting is beneath you. You should try to curb that base instinct to use wedge politics in what should be more issues-oriented. But you knew that.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
But the race-baiting is beneath you.
This is not race baiting, it has nothing to do with race, as far as I know.

This is about assigning beliefs to Obama that there is no evidence he holds, but basing this assignement on cursory negative interpretations of some of the tenets of his church.

I don’t think Obama has the experience to be President, he was not the candidate I favored in the Democratic primaries, I was loudly favoring Joe Biden for hte Democrats.

That’s not what this is about either, this post was not written by an Obama supporter, it was written by someone who could smell the stench of dirty politics, and Martin McPhillips came in went from dirty politics to filthy politics.

If you don’t like Obama’s politics, fine, don’t vote for him. But this nonsense of asserting that he is a black separatist racist is pure gutter politics, and calling people on it is NOT race baiting.

For my part at this moment in time, with the choice between Hillary and Obama, I am not happy.
The he was distrustful is no surprise, that he has risen above it, is encouraging.

You should try.
I mean that you should try looking at his words and actions and trust your eyes and ears, not mistrust him based on what martin McPhillips claims about Obama’s church. But again, you don’t care whether he is trustworthy or not, in fact, you are probably most concerned that he IS trustworthy and would initiate liberal policies, right?
I’ve had multiracial friends my entire life.
"Some of my best friends are black" rotflmao

You have to look at this thread and look at the tortured logic used to attack Obama. When he says the rights things, he is accused of hiding his racism, with logic that essentially argues this his non-racist public history is exactly how a racist separatist would behave.







 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
But this nonsense of asserting that he is a black separatist racist is pure gutter politics, and calling people on it is NOT race baiting.
He may not be, but he sure as hell tolerates it. What would you say if I went to a church where white separatist views were tolerated? Why, you’d call me a racist, that’s what you’d do. At the end of the day, I don’t really care if he’s racist or not since racism is still very common in this country no matter one’s skin color. It’s not a tipping point for me in voting for him. He may as well be Hillary or Howard Dean as far as that goes. But for you to definitively declare that he is not, based on what I know about what he himself has written and what his church elders assert, is reaching at least. It only works one way for you and that’s fine. You should be honest about it, though. But as a liberal, you can’t without redefining some of the key tenets of your liberal faith.
"Some of my best friends are black" rotflmao
I didn’t say that either, but I knew when I wrote it what your reaction would be. Shrug. Another one in the racist cracker column for you. Kudos.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
What would you say if I went to a church where white separatist views were tolerated?
First, I do not agree that black separatist views are tolerated in the UCC. I strongly suggest that this church’s "unashamed blackness" is not about being separate from white people, but rather being supportive of the black community. I base this in large part on one significant difference between white separatist groups and this church, this church welcomes white people!!!

Black people are not welcomed, or even allowed in white separatist organizations.
But as a liberal, you can’t without redefining some of the key tenets of your liberal faith.
I don’t mind being called a liberal, but frankly, my views just don’t fit the ideology. I understand you thinking I am a liberal, but understand this, when I talk to liberals, they think I am a conservative.
I didn’t say that either, but I knew when I wrote it what your reaction would be. Shrug. Another one in the racist cracker column for you. Kudos.
My comment was an attempt at humor (hence the rotflmao), and a nod to the irony of making this statement in a thread where it was argued that the non-racist comments of Obama are just what a black separatist would say. the old joke is that a racist will say exactly that when caught being a racist. If someone wants to call someone a racist, they can find anything to base it on. For example, Affirmative Action, some people will call anyone opposed to AA a racist. I disagree. While a white racist would certainly oppose AA, there are sound reasons for opposing AA without being remotely racist. For my part, I will give people the benefit of the doubt unless they are overtly racist, like, for example, Louis Farrakhan.

A person can be race obsessed, and I think that is the case with some of the people that would buy into this whole "black separatist church - Obama’s a racist" meme. For other’s, it’s just dirty politics.
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
I base this in large part on one significant difference between white separatist groups and this church, this church welcomes white people!!!
Point taken.
but understand this, when I talk to liberals, they think I am a conservative.
I understand this to mean you talk to radicals.
While a white racist would certainly oppose AA, there are sound reasons for opposing AA without being remotely racist.
You’ve become redeemable. Just like that.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider