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

 
No wonder Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 14, 2008

Spend 20 years listening to this each Sunday and it's understandable:
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

Mr. Wright thundered on: "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 bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."
To those who tend to want to wave this off and say it is old news, two points: (1) this is a church Barack Obama chose to attend and (2) he has attended it faithfully, according to his own words, for 20 years.

Ron Kessler, who wrote the WSJ piece, points that out as well:
Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his "sounding board" during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright's perspective, Michelle Obama's comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.
Indeed it does. And I believe, by her statement, she has honestly reflected what she's been taught since she was 24 in that church. A legitimate question then is does her husband share that sentiment?

This isn't about some random minister endorsing Obama. Nor is it about a casual acquaintance. It is about the depth of belief Mr. Obama has for in the "theology" for which the church he has attended for 20 years stands - and preaches. Given what Mr. Wright has said consistently over those years, the focus of the church and the apparent close relationship both Obama and Wright have had it is fair to ask whether his beliefs agree with those of his church.

And if he says his beliefs are completely different than those espoused by Wright and the church, then it is entirely legitimate to ask why he continued to attend a church with which he completely disagreed. Because it essentially comes down to this:
Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.
It is entirely relevant and legitimate, given Wright's sermons, to ask why they stayed and whether that means they agree with him.

This, however, won't cut it:
As for Mr. Wright's repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be "provocative."
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I don’t think using the sermons of a church someone attended to try to attack that person is going to go anywhere. No traction, especially since the story is out early. It’s sort of like how people thought the Gen. Betray us ad was going to be big in 2008, or immigration. What political junkies notice often end up being greeted by the public with intense apathy.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
""We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college," "

John Kerry used this lie in 2004. THe press never bothered to check the validity of the statement. According to statistics it is as untrue then as it is now.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — You can spin this one down however you please and it’s true that some people, like yourself, will ignore this.

But I think the majority of Americans when they learn that Obama chose this pastor, who screams "God damn America" in a church sermon, as his spiritual mentor will think twice about Obama as the next president.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
More mush from Erb. Notice how he studiously avoids any judgment of the ethical or political implications in Wright’s statements.

"Nothing to see here. Move along, kids."
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Erb, you know Obama’s pastor has a role in his campaign, right? This is more than Obama just sitting and listening to sermons.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.
There’s a couple of black gals in congress might take issue with that, eh?
We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,
John Kerry used this lie in 2004. THe press never bothered to check the validity of the statement. According to statistics it is as untrue then as it is now.
And even if it were true, is it really my fault as a white guy that there are so many black people in prison? Were they literally FORCED to commit those crimes, did they (and do they) lack free will? Or are they individuals capable of rational thought, free to make choices as they wish?

And I’m sorry, they old line of "they had no choice, there’s no way for them to make their own way" doesn’t cut it. There’s plenty of people of color who have somehow managed to leave bad neighborhoods and make good lives for themselves. The one quality they posess that those in prison lack would be the ability to sacrifice the short term for the long term. Impulse Control. The ability to NOT commit a crime now without thought to consequences later. They plan, they work, they succeed.

/spit

Obama’s preacher, Obama, his wife, the whole lot seem to forget that God gave man free will. How man uses that free will isn’t anyone’s fault but the individual’s.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Its not exactly true, but neither is it false. Itl misleading.

http://www.urbanonramps.com/?p=653
A clear example is a 2001 Justice Policy Institute report stating the number of Black men in prison (791,600) was higher than the number of Black men in college (603,000). However, the study was reported by media outlets without a key stat. The number of college-age (18-24) African-American men attending college was higher than the number of incarcerated men from the same age group. The Justice Policy study included incarcerated men ages (18-55), which provided a larger sample group. In using the larger sample group, the data showed more Black men in prison than in college.

According to the Status Report on Minorities in Higher Education and the Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice statistics — In 2000, there were more than 469,000 African-American college-age (18-24) men enrolled in college, while 114,400 college-age men were in prison.
So yeah, he correct, but as usual stats and studies can be coerced into telling whatever story you wish them too.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
Actually Josh, that’s not gaming the stats. It’s outright lying.

It isn’t a statistical comparison when you use two obviously different sample groups.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
"And if he says his beliefs are completely different than those espoused by Wright and the church, then it is entirely legitimate to ask why he continued to attend a church"

Also, did he donate money to that church. It appears to me he had ample time to leave the church or protest these sermons...and/or stop his donations to that church. If he did none of the above it would seem he and his are in lock step with the word of the church no?
 
Written By: markm
URL: http://
Talk about a lack of judgment — just as this has apparently affected his wife, think about his kids listening to these hate-filled lies. Why would any person let their kids sit under such teaching if they disagree with it? The answer is either terrible judgment as a parent, or that they believe what is being preached. I thiink it is the latter.
 
Written By: Anon
URL: http://
This, however, won’t cut it:
As for Mr. Wright’s repeated comments blaming America for the 9/11 attacks because of what Mr. Wright calls its racist and violent policies, Mr. Obama has said it sounds as if the minister was trying to be "provocative."
Oh no, it won’t cut it at all.

I’m waiting for someone to get the holy grail- a shot of Obama during one of these screeds, clapping or nodding or whatever he does in that "church"

Because I’m pretty sure it does exist.

This "church" and this "Rev" remind me strongly of Wahabi Mosques, and what goes on inside them.

As this goes on, I have to give Hillary grudging credit. She’s a phony sleaze, but at least she makes no pretense about it. Obama is something else entirely, and the more we see, the sadder the whole charade becomes
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I don’t think using the sermons of a church someone attended to try to attack that person is going to go anywhere.
Dr. Erb, you may be right about whether this gains traction, only time will tell. It does seem that this isn’t going anywhere with his supporters and is being hoisted as "we told you so" by those on the right. As for myself, if this type of speech occurred at my own church (actually, my wife’s church...I’m not religious but I humor her... whole other story), I would have left. It’s that simple. I don’t think it is correct to characterize this as simply a sermon at a church that Obama happens to attend. This man is his mentor, and he has attended this church for 20 years. Obviously, these were not new ideas espoused by the minister, given his many historical references. The question is whether Obama also shares these same ideas. He has denied it. I don’t believe him. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, I would not support a man with a character so flexible that he continues for two decades to support a church and ministry with a message so divisive and full of hatred. I doubt that this is going to cause his campaign to come crashing down. But, I do believe that it will have an impact among certain demographic groups in the middle that he must win to take a general election. If it happened just before Iowa and New Hampshire, the entire primary may be different, so the timing is actually good. But, it definitely wasn’t inconsequential.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
I found myself in a church that took a very provocative stance to the Iraq War. The church leaders decided they had to act and produced a series of sermons against the war and these were followed by a series of petitions to Congressional leaders to end the war.

I don’t have a problem with a person’s ideology, so long as it is not imposed upon others. These church leaders took it upon themsleves to put every member of the church on these "petitions" and with that I and others took action. We met with church leaders and, after a considerable length of time, convinced them that their ideas were not shared by all and it turned out a vast majority of the Church membership took exception to the actions.

What would we have done? Left that church. And we made it plain to the leadership that was what would happen.

Nothing keeps Obama sitting in the pews of his church. He has the power of free will. He could pick up and leave at any minute and his staying tells me much of the man.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
There is no bottom to this well.

Did Obama feel comfortable exposing his daughters to Wright’s teaching?

Did it make no difference to Obama that he was listening to an unhinged racist and black separationist for twenty years?

Imagine a white politician trying a line like "I just attended those Klan rallies for twenty years. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything the Grand Imperial Wizard said. He’s more like a member of the family, a kind of uncle."

The "who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes" defense is all used up, by another con man called Bill Clinton.

Also, note in all these videos, apparently put out by the church itself, that the congregation goes out of its mind when Wright goes into these rants. Did Obama and his wife and his daughters sit there with their hands folded and silently disapprove?

Would it be too much to ask to not be asked to pretend that this is not exactly what it looks like?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Imagine a white politician trying a line like "I just attended those Klan rallies for twenty years. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything the Grand Imperial Wizard said. He’s more like a member of the family, a kind of uncle."
That would be Sen. Byrd...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Between Michelle and Wright, its beginning to look like Obama surrounds himself with people that Hate America or at least Hate White America. Without a record of disowning or refuting these comments, except with someone corners you with a camera in your face, why should I believe Obama truly thinks any differently.

I swear, 75% of conning an America is to keep an air of levelheadedness about yourself. 20% is making the con so grand or farcicle people’s pride prevents them from thinking you would try that on them. 5% is not getting caught on tape with your hand in the cookie jar.

Let’s hope something turns up to wreck that last 5%.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
McCain sought out the endorsement of Pastor Hagee, an avowed anti-Semite and anti-Catholic.

Oh, and he also said that the residents of New Orleans deserved Katrina for their immoral behavior.

For some reason, wingnuts don’t care.

Why is it ok for McCain to embrace a preacher who calls the Catholic church a "Great Whore" and seek out the endorsement of said preacher, and yet it is not ok for Obama to attend a church where Wright used to preach?

And if it is not ok, why are wingnuts so fixated on Obama, and so unfocused on McCain?

C’mon McQ - lay it on us - we want to know the difference.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
McCain sought out the endorsement of Pastor Hagee, an avowed anti-Semite and anti-Catholic.

Oh, and he also said that the residents of New Orleans deserved Katrina for their immoral behavior.

For some reason, wingnuts don’t care.
Yes, because McCain has attended Hagee’s church for 20 years, consulted with im before running, was married by him, uses him as a sounding board due to his well-calibrated moral compass...

Looking for votes is one thing. Buying completely the drek they are selling is another.

But considering how the left believes in so little (at least on a perminate basis, not just on a "what serves me best" basis), I would hardly expect you to understand that.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Its funny, McCain is a media creation and couldn’t have less to do with the core Republican Party or Conservatism without being in the Democrat Party.

So you are preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned mk. He’s yours. Blast away.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
Yes, because McCain has attended Hagee’s church for 20 years, consulted with im before running, was married by him, uses him as a sounding board due to his well-calibrated moral compass...

Looking for votes is one thing. Buying completely the drek they are selling is another.
I see. Well it’s nice to know that if Obama sought out the endorsement of Farakhan (not his preacher), wingnuts would not care.
Its funny, McCain is a media creation and couldn’t have less to do with the core Republican Party or Conservatism without being in the Democrat Party.

So you are preaching to the choir as far as I’m concerned mk. He’s yours. Blast away.
McQ has posted twice in two days about Wright and Obama. There has been no post on McCain and Hagee.

Wonder why.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Hey, mk,

If David Duke or Bobby Byrd were to run for President, would anybody believe the “I just sat in on the meetings. I don’t espouse all of their beliefs. You’re taking a 200+ year old institution and cherry picking certain passages to make it and me look bad” defense?
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
McQ has posted twice in two days about Wright and Obama. There has been no post on McCain and Hagee.

Wonder why
Because it’s (partly) his blog and he writes about what he wants to?

Because Obama is in the news and McCain is not?

Because he saw a puppy and was struck by inspiration?

The fact that you’re whining about "fairness" on a blog tells me that McQ has won the point, and you’ve conceeded.


PS- I still remember your breathless post about how the GOP was racist and such for choosing Huckabee in Iowa.

How’d that work out for ya?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
McQ has posted twice in two days about Wright and Obama. There has been no post on McCain and Hagee.


I notice in your childish tantrum that you don’t actually defend Obama, merely point out that McCain is just as bad.

You claim to be a lawyer, so theoretically, you should understand this:

Everyone here stipulates that McCain is a sh*tbag, and no one is excited about him as an alternative to Hillary or Obama.

NOW:present your defense of Obama’s 20-year attendance and support of a church that is clearly not just Afrocentric, but overtly racist and separatist.

Yes, McCain is the Antichrist. We agree to stipulate that fact. Explain how Obama should not be tarred with the racist brush for attending and supporting a racist church.

Or just do what you usually do - slink off like a whiny b*tch-boy when you can’t refute the argument.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Ronald Kessler in today’s Wall Street Journal:
The title of Mr. Obama’s bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright’s sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.
Please, stop the bullsh*t that receiving someone’s endorsement is anything like this.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
McCain sought out the endorsement of Pastor Hagee, an avowed anti-Semite and anti-Catholic.
Put up or shut up MK - you’ve come across with this bit twice, been challenged with actual quotes from Hagee that dispute your claims and have not answered the mail.

And, of course, you seem unwilling to deal with the obvious difference between Wright and Hagee - that McCain hasn’t attended Hagee’s church for 23 years by choice nor called him his mentor or sounding board.

Finally - if you find such an endorsement to be problematic for McCain, why don’t you find Obama’s 23 year relationship with Wright even more problematic?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Also, about the Senator Robert Byrd comparison, Byrd has the advantage of having made a transition from Old South to New South. Like a lot of old segregationists, he crossed the river, a long time ago, and became a reconciliationist and had his record essentially expunged (at least within the Democratic Party, which he led in the U.S. Senate for about a dozen years, late ’70s into the ’80s).

What we’re looking at in this Rev. Wright and his congregation and his now internationally and instantly famous parishoner is a movement in the opposite direction, away from racial reconciliation, away from MLK, into the nightmare of Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan.

I don’t care how good a talker Obama is, he cannot talk his way out of this. And if I’m wrong about that, and he does bullsh*t his way around this, then...I don’t know what country I’m living in.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Slightly off-topic...there was a recent post about the almost religious fervor among Obama supporters, complete with a video with chants of "Obama!"

It reminded me of something from my childhood. From the movie, For Those Who Think Young,

Ho Daddy

Now, substitue "Oh-bama" for "Ho daddy"....
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Guys, what’s the big deal about saying G** D*** America? Didn’t you know that 9/11 was God’s punishment rained down on America for allowing teh ghey? Per the religious right, He’s already done it.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Per the religious right, He’s already done it.
Like Olde Faithful, you are...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Serious question for Retief: You’re a democrat/liberal who is against the war in Iraq, correct?

Work with me here. Yes or No?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Guys, what’s the big deal about saying G** D*** America? Didn’t you know that 9/11 was God’s punishment rained down on America for allowing teh ghey? Per the religious right, He’s already done it.
Yeah, I remember Jerry Fallwell catching a boatload of flak for saying it. Don’t you?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs, Yes.

Steverino, I do remeber that the flak came mostly from the groups he was blaming.

The larger point is that such denunciations of the nation for alledged moral failings are not only the purview of Obama’s pastor, or The Left.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
The larger point is that such denunciations of the nation for alledged moral failings are not only the purview of Obama’s pastor, or The Left.
Retief — No such pastor on the right proclaiming "God Damn America" is mentoring a candidate likely to become the next president of the United States.

I for one consider becoming president a privilege and a trust, not an entitlement, not something to be bestowed on someone who can sit idly by while a friend, colleague, and mentor is screaming "God Damn America" in one way or another for twenty years from the pulpit of a church.

But that’s just me.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Huxley, No candidate on the right is likely to become the next president of the United States, so that’s neither here nor there. Anyway if your outrage hinges on the supposed differnce in degree of closeness of the relationships of various religious fringe figures to the candidates, you’re already sunk.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs, Yes.
So you think all Marines are murderers, rapists, and war criminals?

Fascinating.

I come to this conclusion because you are part of the anti-war left, and several of the anti-war left in Berkeley have been quoted as saying those very words.

Now, last question(s):

Since I’m fairly certain you don’t ACTUALLY think as I just "deduced", why do you use the lable "the religious right" when speaking of a few ignorant individuals who blame teh gheys for 9-11 and Katrina? Would not a truthful, non-partisan, non-inflamitory phrase be "some members of the religious right"? Or do you actually believe that I believe the cause of 9-11 and Katrina was "teh ghey bhutt secks"?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Steverino, I do remeber that the flak came mostly from the groups he was blaming.
That would likely be because you don’t frequent a whole bunch of right-win/conservative boards/groups/programs...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Sure Scott Jacobs, "some members of the religious right" would be more accurate, as not everyone who considers himself or herself part of the religious right has pledged allegiance to those words. But it wasn’t some random members of the religious right saying this. It was Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. Would you be happier if I called them the Religious Right? These are the guys who founded Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. I say religious right because, as these two members of the Religious Right reminded us, the position that "America is not right with God because of X" is actually an unremarkable and mainstream theme of that part of the playground, especially so in the 90s. The content of that message is identical Wright’s. It is different only in that last variable, the particular percieved breach of God’s will that is bringing down damnation. Just because they are not thundering G** D*** America from the pulpit doesn’t mean they aren’t preaching that he has, or will. It is all time same same.

Personally I find the redemption and hope side of things more effective than the fire, brimstone, and judgement. I’m hoping for Mercy myself, not so much on the Justice.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
So according to MK and Retief, Obama’s longtime Rev., friend and spiritual advisor, his pastor of 20 years, etc. is comprable to those who spewed hateful anti-semitism and horrible anti-gay rhetoric.

And you guys are trying to defend him?

When it comes to politics, you two are the like the French army.

This is how I know this is a deep, deep wound we’re seeing inflicted. Nobody is even trying to defend him, they’re just desperately trying to make sure that both sides are sunk deeper into the moral sewer.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
So according to MK and Retief, Obama’s longtime Rev., friend and spiritual advisor, his pastor of 20 years, etc. is comprable to those who spewed hateful anti-semitism and horrible anti-gay rhetoric.

And you guys are trying to defend him?

Shark, their only defense is tu quoque. They ignore plenty of conservative Republicans who have denounced Fallwell and his ilk, but still bring up his words. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve conceded this argument and are left trying to nip at the heels.
Steverino, I do remeber that the flak came mostly from the groups he was blaming.

The larger point is that such denunciations of the nation for alledged moral failings are not only the purview of Obama’s pastor, or The Left.
No, Retief, the larger point is that one denouncer of the nation is Obama’s spirtual counselor and a member of his Presidential campaign. The larger point is that while Republicans decry statements from Fallwell, I haven’t heard Democrats decrying this...in fact, all I hear from you and mkultra is, "Well, this guy did it, too."

If you can’t see why this pastor being so closely tied to Obama to the point of working in his campaign, then you are deliberately blind.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Put up or shut up MK - you’ve come across with this bit twice, been challenged with actual quotes from Hagee that dispute your claims and have not answered the mail.
Hagee said in his Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude to War" that the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves by rebelling against God.
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day...."

....

"[Then] God sent the hunters. The hunter is one who pursues his target with force and fear. No one could see the horror of the Holocaust coming, but the force and fear of Hitler’s Nazis drive the Jewish people back to the only home God ever intended for the Jews to have-Israel..."
You may not consider these remarks, and the sentiments behind them, anti-Semitic. I do. I tell you what - go up to a Jewish person you know and tell them that Jewish people brought the Holocaust on themselves due to their disobedience. Moreover, tell the person that the Nazis were simply carrying out God’s will.

Then duck.

I find it fascinating that winguts see no problem with blaming Jewish people for the Holocaust. They see no problem that their presidential candidate sought out and solicitied the endorsement of the person who spewed this bile.
McCAIN EMBRACES BIGOT ***LINKS TO ANTI-CATHOLIC HAGEE VIDEO***

February 28, 2008


Yesterday, Senator John McCain said he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.” The Republican presidential hopeful also called Hagee “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement,” citing the minister’s pro-Israel stance.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addressed this today:

“There are plenty of staunch evangelical leaders who are pro-Israel, but are not anti-Catholic. John Hagee is not one of them. Indeed, for the past few decades, he has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’
Again, this may be perfectly acceptable speech among some corners of wingnuttery. But I’m fascinated that McCain is receiving no flak from the MSM on this issue.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I’ll translate mkultra’s rather long post for all of you:

Mkultra:
I have no defense about Obama, but I can’t let the evil rightwingers win a point, so I’ll sit and whine "but mommy, they did it toooooo! and hope that I can either deflect enough of the conversation to cover Obama, or create a situation where the right can’t comment on it for fear of looking too hypocritical.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Again, this may be perfectly acceptable speech among some corners of wingnuttery.
Hey, "Godbag" seemed just fine coming from that one whack-job liberal blogger.

Wasn’t aware we could blame you for that...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I have to ask:

Are Retief and mk unable to discern the difference between someone who endorces a canidate, and someone who has been intimately associated with a canidate’s life for about 23 years?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I thought the French army’s greatest strength was politics? What’s to defend? Are you suggesting that Obama is responsible for every word Wright says? Coming after Hagee this looks like tit for tat, and, as the tit, it looses most of its power in diminishing the umph of the tat.

Steverino, Here. Now you can see that Obama has repudated those comments. I know you won’t ignore this denuciation and still bring up his words.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Scott Jacobs, unless you want to argue that the difference is that in one case the candidate becomes responsible for everything the person in question has ever said, it doesn’t matter.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
I’ll translate mkultra’s rather long post for all of you:
You don’t have too. It was pretty clear. Marginal quotes which can be interpreted any number of ways put forward proof positive of his charges.

Meh. They don’t seem to rise to the level claimed nor do they at all include the relationship being talked about between Obama and Wright (23 years).

Of course, conveniently ignored was the most important question I asked, namely:
Finally - if you find such an endorsement to be problematic for McCain, why don’t you find Obama’s 23 year relationship with Wright even more problematic?
Of course, I’m sure no answer will be forthcoming.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Now you can see that Obama has repudated those comments.
Actually he said he disagreed with those comments. And then he charged that his pastor’s comments were being "cherry picked".

Yeah, great "repudiation", Retief.

Sure would like to know what else he "disagrees" with that this guy’s been spouting for those 23 years.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Scott Jacobs, unless you want to argue that the difference is that in one case the candidate becomes responsible for everything the person in question has ever said, it doesn’t matter.
Yeah, didn’t think you could...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
and, as the tit, it looses most of its power in diminishing the umph of the tat.
Well....that’s the most unintentionally hilarious line I’ve seen in awhile.

I will refrain from inserting an Elliot Spitzer joke about the power of the t*t
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
McQ, once you get to parsing whether the repudiation was sufficiently enthusiastic or not, you’ve lost the plot.
if you find such an endorsement to be problematic for McCain, why don’t you find Obama’s 23 year relationship with Wright even more problematic?
Personally I find a desire for the destruction of Israel masquerading as a pro-Israel position problematic but find that calling America to account for the pernicious effects of policies like the War on Drugs unproblematic. Even if it is couched in inflammatory language.

Unintentional? You wound me. I believe the correct formula is that the tit must have twice the power of the tat to have equal effect.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
McQ, once you get to parsing whether the repudiation was sufficiently enthusiastic or not, you’ve lost the plot.
I’m not parsing a thing - you show me where the word "repudiation" or "repudiate" is used by Obama.
disagree

Main Entry: dis·agree

Pronunciation: \?dis-?-'gre\

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Middle English, to refuse assent, from Anglo-French desagreer, from des- dis- + agreer to agree.

1: to fail to agree

2: to differ in opinion

3: to cause discomfort or distress
And:
repudiate

Main Entry: re·pu·di·ate

Pronunciation:
\ri-'pyü-de-?at\

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): re·pu·di·at·ed; re·pu·di·at·ing

Etymology: Latin repudiatus, past participle of repudiare, from repudium rejection of a prospective spouse, divorce, probably from re- + pudere to shame

1: to divorce or separate formally from (a woman)

2: to refuse to have anything to do with : disown

3 a: to refuse to accept; especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force b: to reject as untrue or unjust

4: to refuse to acknowledge or pay
Got it yet, Retief? Figured out the difference between "repudiate" and "disagree"?

Obama did not repudiate the statement. He said he disagrees - differs in his opinion, fails to agree.

So, yes, Retief, words mean things and silly accusations of "parsing" notwithstanding, Obama didn’t repudiate anything to do with Wright’s statement.
Personally I find a desire for the destruction of Israel masquerading as a pro-Israel position problematic but find that calling America to account for the pernicious effects of policies like the War on Drugs unproblematic. Even if it is couched in inflammatory language.

Unintentional? You wound me. I believe the correct formula is that the tit must have twice the power of the tat to have equal effect.
Well its clear, given your mastery of the language, that you wouldn’t know a tit from a tat, and, as usual, have been reduced to evasive gibberish in answer to a fairly simple and straight forward question. Seems the drug inferrence may have some traction.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Who cares?

On this score....the damage is/will be done regardless of what defenses his acolytes come up with.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The main point about Jeremiah Wright, and his "mentoring" of his parishioner Barack Obama, is that Obama is running for president as a racial reconciliationist while he has spent twenty years as a member of a racist and black separatist congregation.

Stop the bullsh*t.

And part of Wright’s teaching, in separating blacks from whites, is to portray America as the criminal enterprise of "rich white people."

America, he is saying, is racist and evil, and blacks are a separate nation within America with no responsibility for racism or evil, not even when they are racist and evil.

Now, there are already threats of violence on the table if Obama is not nominated at the Democratic convention. This is not just a problem for Barack Obama. This is a problem for America, black and white. The best solution to that problem is for America to agree, in very short order, that Obama is not suited to be president no matter what he has led people to think he believes. His real life and his actions contradict what he has led people to think he believes.

As for the Democratic Party, it has wrought this mess with its dependence on and its fear of, race. It’s left with horrible choices, horrible leaders, and horrible candidates. I hesistate to say it, because I shudder to think what could happen, but it should force Obama to withdraw and then declare an open convention and bring in a slate of candidates.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
He doesn’t use the word. (And neither does Steverino; his choice is "decry.") Now, does one accept or refuse to accept a statement with which one disagrees? Does one own or disown a statement with which one disagrees? Sure, there is a difference in degree between the to words but both are synonyms for reject.

In what way is it evasive to say that I find Wright’s words inflammatory but generally unproblematic. I’d have to quibble with "The government gives them the drugs" but they build more prisons and pass 3 strikes laws to fill them and expect us to bless them!? No. Damn them! Sounds pretty uneceptional to me.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Victor Davis Hanson has this to say at The Corner, and I’m going to quote the whole thing, because I think he covers it all (excuse me for overindulging fair use):

====
Race and the Democrats, Part III [Victor Davis Hanson]

Betrayed?

The problems with Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama are fivefold. They won’t go away, but they will raise dilemmas for him that have no analogy, no parallel with other religious leaders of dubious past declamations who have supported the other candidates:

1) The Obamas were not merely endorsed by, or attended the church of, Rev. Wright, but subsidized his hatred with generous donations, were married by him, and had their children baptized by this venomous preacher; there is nothing quite comparable in the case of Sens. Clinton and McCain.

2) Rev. Wright’s invective is not insensitive or hyperbolic alone, but in the end disgusting. And when listened to rather than read, the level of emotion and fury only compound the racism and hatred, whether in its attack on the Clintons, or profanity-laced slander of the United States and its history, or in gratuitous references to other races. Its reactionary Afrocentrism, conspiracy-theory, and illiberal racial separatism take us back to the 1970s, and compare with the worst of the fossilized Farrakhan—and have no remote parallel in the present campaign.

3) Sen. Obama has proclaimed a new politics of hope and change that were supposedly to transcend such venom and character assassination of the past. Thus besides being politically dense, he suffers—unless he preempts and explains in detail his Byzantine relationship with the Reverend—the additional charge of hypocrisy in courting such a merchant of hate. And then he compounds the disaster by the old-fashion politics of contortion and excuse by suggesting the Rev. Wright is not that controversial, or is analogous to the occasional embarrassing outburst of an uncle—some uncle.

4) There is a growing sense of betrayal among some of his supporters. Sen. Obama promised to transcend race; millions of sincere people of both parties took him at his word and invested psychologically and materially in his candidacy. Part of his message was that collectively America had made great progress, and their Ivy League and subsequent careers, in addition to his rhetoric of inclusiveness and tolerance, bore witness to that progress in racial equality. Now we learn, that for much of his career, he was not only attending hate-filled sermons against “rich white people” and the “g-d d——d America” (in hopes of solidifying his racial fides in regional Chicago politics?), but subsidized that ministry of intolerance. So while he promised an evolution beyond the race-identity politics of Jesse Jackson or the Rev. Sharpton, his own minister trumped anything that either one of those preachers might have sermonized. All in all—a betrayal.

5) The timing is especially troubling. In delegate mathematics, Obama seems to have the nomination; but this scandal—and it is a scandal despite the best efforts of sympathetic journalists to downplay it—will only cause worry for the super delegates, who now must either nominate a candidate (no doubt the vast right-wing conspiracy is examining the multivolume DVDs of Rev. Wright’s collective corpus of hatred) who will bleed all spring and summer, or “steal” the nomination from the “people” and “hand it over” to Hillary.

So now in place of a critical discussion of issues from taxes to the war, welcome to the Politics of Change.
====

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The idea that all things happen according to the will of God (yes, the Nazis too) is not a novel doctrinal concept.

After 9-11 my pastor denounced Falwell from the pulpit. This was a pastor who agreed with his synod to refuse to participate in national prayer events that would involve the appearance of approval for various religions. "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." Sort of precludes pretending in public that people who don’t believe in Jesus are part of one big happy niceness. Maybe someone would think he’d be exactly the sort to agree with Falwell. Not so.

The Catholic Church has *graciously* taught for a very long time (I think they had a mini-reformation not too long ago, so probably this was before that) that NO ONE who was not Catholic was going to heaven. But that people who are baptized into other churches are actually Catholic quite against their wills so maybe they aren’t going to hell.

Wow, huh?

Christians are used to this. The whore of babylon that people specifically want to deny simply says... "you’re Catholic."

Suppose someone "converted" to Islam that way.

But no one *really* cares because most Christians are confident in their rightness such that the Baptists saying the Lutherans aren’t really saved or the Catholics worship the Pope or the Methodists or whomever else don’t have it right... why do you think there are so many denominations, Retief? In my life I’ve only met a single person, and a teenaged boy at that, who announced that because I was Lutheran and he was Catholic that "we hate each other." Oh, I’ve had plenty of good friends who figured that I was going to hell because my church was the wrong one but they didn’t HATE me.

My childhood pastor and the man who married me denounced a guest speaker from the pulpit for preaching against homosexuality while he was on vacation one Sunday. He specifically denounced using the pulpit in that manner. Not to say at all that homosexuality wasn’t considered a serious sin in that church but to use the pulpit to preach *against* any other group of people someplace else rather than instruct the congregation about the Word of God was not appropriate.

The pastor I had later who denounced Falwell denounced him because HE PRESUMED TO KNOW THE MIND OF GOD. Falwell was, in fact, "adding to the words of this book"... proclaiming something extra-Biblical in God’s stead. A worse sin by far than homosexuality which is only the flesh. I believe anyone "adding words" is damned. Quite a different level of error.

Any Christians who believe the Bible will have enormous issues with "G*d d*mn America." I grew up with a severe aversion to actually vocalizing "bad" words and I’ll say f*ck the f*cking f*ck before I will ever *ever* utter those words. I’m willing to say that the dear Reverend doesn’t believe in God at all. Lost soul. Maybe he likes the social aspects, the power, the community position and feeling that he’s helping... somehow. But believe in God?

Maybe after he retires he’ll get saved.

But really... Obama using "he’s almost ready to retire" as an excuse for a pastor who most certainly *wasn’t* almost ready to retire 20 years ago... or 15... or 10? What a silly excuse.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
I’ve twice in my life approached a minister to rebuke his sermon... once a guest speaker who went on some stupid rant about San Francisco... once a guest speaker at a church I was merely visiting who based his entire sermon on an event that never happened (concerning Janet Reno and something she didn’t say that supposedly proved a conspiracy of persecution of Christians.)

Scariest thing I’ve done in my life but I did it.

And this is the *minimum* that I’d require of someone like Obama. At the very *least* he’s got to have stood up personally and *told* Rev. Wright that he was wrong.

Minimum.

Because the president of the freaking United States of America had darn well better be braver than me.

Minimum.
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
He doesn’t use the word.
That’s correct. So he didn’t repudiate the remarks.

Instead he voiced disagreement. That’s a whole different kettle of fish and no, that’s not sufficient in case you were wondering.

The rest of your silliness isn’t worth commenting on, but do note that you should never, ever again accuse anyone else of "parsing" after that miserable exhibition of it you left staining the remainder of your comment.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Synova — Well said. I went up against my church too.

It seems to me the McCain campaign should put together a clip of Wright screaming, "God Damn America" with a caption reading:
If Obama won’t stand up to his friends when America is attacked, how will he stand up to her enemies?

McCain could run that from September to the general election and win without breaking a sweat.

 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
McQ, You gave the definitions, and I connected them. You don’t deny the connections merely fulminate.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
You gave the definitions, and I connected them.
There are connections and then there are con nec tio ns.

You’re are at best represented by the latter.

The bottom line, as you admitted, is he didn’t repudiate anything.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
How bout now? "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," Obama said. "I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Reverend Wright that are at issue." Sufficient for you? Can it ever be?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
How bout now?
Better. We’re getting there.

Now all he has to do is answer all those who will question why it took him 23 years to do that.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Let me ask the gang a question.

Would a candidate who belonged to the Nation of Islam and regularly attended services conducted by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan even/ever be considered as a candidate for President of the United States?

Well, aside from the fact that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches in a Christian church and Farrakhan preaches in a Nation of Islam mosque or temple, what exactly is the difference in their messages about race and America?

My take on it is that Wright is as vehemently anti-white as Farrakhan used to admit to being, and even more anti-American, by which I mean hateful about America.

Anyone is welcome to tell me I’m wrong about that. Tell me where Farrakhan said "Goddamn America" or that "the government created AIDS" to kill blacks.

Or that 9/11 was the "chickes coming home to roost" (a line delivered by Farrakhan’s former colleague Malcolm X on the occasion of JFK’s assassination, which I don’t recall hearing at any point from Farrakhan himself).

Again, would a follower of Farrakhan even/ever be considered as a candidate for President of the United States?

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"Because the president of the freaking United States of America had darn well better be braver than me."

Amen.

I can understand Obama sitting through one such sermon, out of misplaced politeness. I might have done the same. But to sit through such trash for years on end is incomprehensible to me unless you believe it. I don’t associate with people with such beliefs, and I expect other respectable people to shun them also. It defies belief that a supposedly intelligent, well educated, experienced and ambitious politician would associate himself with such beliefs. He must be either delusional or have extremely bad judgement. At best.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
We’re almost there.

Now all we need is some proof of Obama sitting there during one of those sermons, nodding or a-menning or clapping or whatever.

And then he’s toast.

Maybe later on, we can discuss the abject damage this phony and his hatemongering "Rev" have done to the african-american community’s cause. Because I can pretty much guarantee that plenty of people who were on the fence aren’t on the fence anymore, and won’t be much inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the next guy.

Once again, proving that black Americas’ problem.............is black America
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
as vehemently anti-white as Farrakhan used to admit to being
I dunno. He’s mellowed a lot since a jewish doctor took care of his cancer... :)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Black liberation theology is ’feel good racism’. It’s based on (obvious) emotion and of course facts are not tolerated. At least it makes the preacher and evidently the congregation ’feel good’. Truth is relative.
 
Written By: Zimmy
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