is that the repulsiveness of his rhetoric is made worse by the context in which it is manifested. Let’s just take the issue of his reflections on Romans and Jews. You might think this is evidence, despite the Reverend’s explicit stand on Israel, of a proper differentiation between between Zionists and Jews. You’d be wrong. The point is actually that the occupiers were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion . . . an idea that is difficult to square with scripture despite the subtext of Barrabas and the other two executed alongside him. Furthermore, that the occupiers were not people of color, but instead mainstream Europeans, i.e. unquestionable caucasoid.
Moreover, the point is to state in effect that the Jews, as participants in oppression and as unconverted have been replaced as a chosen people. In other words, what we have here is a radicalized version of the natural parallels that black slaves in the US and elsewhere drew between themselves and the Bible’s Jews. It is an identity-politicized version, and it is distinctly unsavory.
It certainly is puzzling that Obama didn’t recognize what a liability his association with such disgusting views would be. It’s true that the media fell down on the job of reporting this earlier. It’s only when Obama proved to be a formidable opponent to Hillary Clinton, despite the confident predictions of the MSM that she was going to be the nominee, that it became an issue, for reasons that ought to be clear to anyone who isn’t as loopy as Andrew. And ABC’s preferences will certainly be clear to anyone who’s read me or Karl on the subject. It’s that that finally drove this over the threshold of mainstream media consciousness. Had this been a white candidate, this would have emerged long ago, say what you will. In a country where it’s possible for people publicly to assert that blacks are incapable of racism, this is perhaps not very surprising.
UPDATE:
The freshman senator told reporters in July that he would overcome Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead in the polls because “to know me is to love me.”  ÂÂ
Just ask the person who knows him the best.
Taranto doesn’t hold back.
And, ferchrissakes, Melissa McEwen’s a victim. She’s right about one thing: Huckabee’s an asshole. But can she really believe that, had Huckabee become the presumptive Republican nominee, he would not have received intense scrutiny on that score? Might it be possible, just, that that was held in reserve for just such a contingency?
Of course not. Republicans get a pass because the MSM is right-leaning, right, Melissa?
Cobb understands this stuff better than I do (and points up MC’s piece in the Pub). Maybe he could take a cluebat over to Andy’s place.
Bingo. This is what I’ve been trying to get across here, however clumsily. The corollary is that today’s Jews are imposters, usurpers of God’s true Chosen. I’ve heard this for 15 years listening to afrocentric radio hosts and their callers. The most vile antisemitism is justified thusly. I haven’t heard all of Wright’s views on this, but given what snippets I have heard, I wouldn’t be surprised to find he’s of this kidney.
That only scratches the surface of what Sullivan does not get about Wright. More important, Sullivan is willfully blinding himself to the nature of the relationship Obama has with his church by relying solely on Obama’s public pronouncements. It will be harder for Sullivan to do that in the not too distant future.
Racists.
I’m fresh out of exclamation points; sorry.
Oh, and Jesus? Black as the ace of spades, thanks for asking.
There’s nothing particularly black about Ace. He’s kind of pasty, actually.
…oh, wait — that’s not what you meant, was it? Never mind.
Wow. Andy has issues. Let me break it down for him. Baracky “I got me some Jesus” Obama and his pissed-off wife have been giving tens of thousands of dollars to support an institution that spreads anti-American propaganda, and then have the audacity to claim that only HE can salvage America’s image in the world.
Andy thinks his readers are stupid.
Sullivan is willfully blinding himself? There’s a shocker.
Quick, somebody figure out whether Jeremiah Wright supports gay marriage! If not, Sullivan will jump ship straight into Hillary’s arms faster than you can say “Lesbian Softball League”
Of course, he will justify it on completely unrelated grounds.
I don’t agree with everything my pastor of 20 years says, but I’d still like to invite all of you to visit us at Westboro Baptist (check out our “Love Crusades” at http://www.godhatesfags.com/).
“To See What is in Front of One’s Nose Needs a Constant Struggle.” Blind Mellon Chitlin
Something was niggling at the back of my mind, then…AHA!
“The following are methods whereby people were granted citizenship in the Roman period:
* Roman citizenship was granted automatically to every male child born in a legal marriage of a Roman citizen.
* People who were from the Latin states were gradually granted citizenship.
* Freed slaves were given a form of Roman citizenship; they were still obliged in some aspects to their former owner who became their patron.
* The progeny of freed slaves automatically became full citizens.
* A Roman legionary could not legally marry, therefore all his children were denied citizenship, unless and until the legionary married after his release from service.
* Some individuals received citizenship because of their outstanding service to the Roman republic (later, the empire).
* One could also buy citizenship, but at a very high price.
* Auxilia were rewarded with Roman citizenship after their term of service. Their children also became citizens and could join the Roman legions.
* Rome gradually granted citizenship to whole provinces; the third-century Constitutio Antoniniana granted it to all free male inhabitants of the Empire.”
So, chalk another one up to ignorance of history.
[via wikipedia]
Salt Lick … you really are a pin head … :)
..and declares that Jesus was a black man. Who got himself kilt by fucking Whitey and the goddamn Jews.
Better yet, let’s just find out how many gay marriages he’s performed.
That only scratches the surface of what Sullivan does not get
about WrightFixed that for ya’
Feets, it’s not that Sullivan thinks his readers are stupid, although it seems he does.
In this case, the problem is that he’s a Brit. Even Americans who grew up in blue-state, Catholic or vaguely-Episcopalian cultures at least have a clue about the differences between That Old Time Religion and the more attenuated forms. If England has any snake-handlers they’re a teenytiny minority; the equivalent, over there, of the white-painted country church is a Church of England chapel with a “living” associated with it. There’s no way in Hell Sullivan could possibly grasp the nuances. It is, in fact, the source of his big beef with Bush, down at the root level. Since Excitable Andy has no clue how the system works but thinks he’s an expert, he ends up misinterpreting the political expedients.
Regards,
Ric
Re: Gay marriage
Wright is against them, but is okay with civil unions. Obama the same. And Sullivan is totally okay with that. I’ve noted it here before, though perhaps only in the comments section.
Wright is against them, but is okay with civil unions. Obama the same. And Sullivan is totally okay with that. I’ve noted it here before, though perhaps only in the comments section.
Same with GWB (and John McCain?), but that makes them theocons to nishi and andrew.
Maybe Nishi is Andrew.
Rich, chewy nuance in that Spengler piece.
Wright is against them, but is okay with civil unions. Obama the same. And Sullivan is totally okay with that. I’ve noted it here before, though perhaps only in the comments section.
That makes him a homo hating bigot just like W.
True, daleyrocks. He’s pretty much in agreement with Andrew on that score. I liked this:
That would be a first for a politician, I think. I know that when I go to Mass, it’s principally out of anthropological curiosity. And because I like to go slumming.
On this one Andrew likely would point to the support of the FMA as the true difference between Bush and Obama. He’d be right too, as far as that single issue goes.
If all this bad press over Wright and BarryO keeps up I’m wondering how long it will be before he’s dragging around a cross wearing a crown of thorns on campaign stops.
One of the things that makes any blogger look like a moron is defending the inherently indefensible. Screw nuance: wrong is plain old wrong, and knows no partisan affiliation.
Sullivan’s meta-nuance peddling makes him look like a fan-boy.
You see this all the time with buffs, who explain away their faavorite artist’s or athlete’s screw-up…”Well, I know Shadows and Fog wasn’t Annie Hall, but malkovich’s peformance was teased about by Woody’s…”
Seen plainly, there is no logical explanation for Obama’s pastor other than pure stupidity infused with racialist conspiracy mongering. I suspect this was a minority of his preaching, but a vein that Obama had much cause to be both aware and afraid of.
his inability to get in front of it speaks to political naivte as well as the broader inability in liberal precints to tell a black person spewing nonsense that they are a moron and to sit the fuck down.
Spengler starts off nicely, but again, just hits the tip of the iceberg.
Not that I’m complaining. I live in fear that someone will be thorough before I finish my piece.
For a journalist, you don’t appear to get out much.
Regards,
Ric
I think this Wright affair shows Obama for the spineless politician he is.
When your pastor spouts off nonsense and intentional inaccuracies, you first confront him/her, you stop supporting the ministry financially and then you leave if it continues.
I’ve had some pretty heated disagreements with pastors, and the good ones accept criticism and will take time to explain what they were trying to get at. Sometimes they hear from more than a few people and issue an explanation from the pulpit the following week.
I think Obama as State Senator and then as US Senator should have had the spine and the weightiness to set Wright straight. One could argue that it was Obama’s duty to do so for his constituents sake.
Bill Clinton… a guy who knows how to weasel… takes 9-11 truthers head on and shouts them down, Obama does nothing.
Obama knows that the US doesn’t disperse drugs into the inner city and when idiots like Wright or Dick Gregory with his claim the the US sprays manganese into the ghetto at nightime spout off such paranoia he needs to step up and point out that does not happen.
Where is the Audacity of Hope in telling lies like “more black men are is prison than are in college”? Obama needs to tell him… and anyone else that will listen that according to the US Census (information I hope the Seator has availed himself of) in 2002 there were 805,000 black men in college to the 757,000 in prison. But of college age youth 18 to 24 there were 473,000 black men in college to the 106,000 in prison. There are more blacks, male and female in college than there are prisoners of all races combined.
You would think that someone who claims to be all about Hope and Change would have felt the need to correct the record, but I guess not so much if the political winds were not favorable.
Which brings me to the real meat of why I dislike Obama… he won’t vote on anything that requires political risk or toughness… he votes “present”. He takes Hiilary to task for authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq when Obama wasn’t even an informed participant. When, if his record is any indicator Obama would have abstained.
BTW, inasmuch as topic is apparently irresistible, please take note of Andrew Sullivan, flaming hypocrite:
What SteveG said.
Oh, and that Melissa chick ain’t too bright, is she?
I honestly think that Obama’s church affiliation had a lot to do with his marriage. But I don’t care: bigotry is bigotry. At the very least, he should have stayed home on Sundays and told Michelle that any contributions to Trinity had to come out of her own checking account.
The very best-case scenario is that Obama is a coward, rather than a bigot.
Dumb Cow Licking Salt-
I don’t agree with everything my pastor of 20 years says, but I’d still like to invite all of you to visit us at Westboro Baptist (check out our “Love Crusades†at http://www.godhatesfags.com/).
Phred Phelps- Al Gore’s Democrat County Chairman…
Why are the Democrats so “racist”? (see also Bob Byrd…)
The very best-case scenario is that Obama is a coward, rather than a bigot.
Don’t forget opportunist, who has no problem allying with a racist church for political and personal reasons.
Then again, that also damns all our La Raza loving politicians.
Course, even La Raza’s more nuanced than this out-and-out demagogue.
Why are the Democrats so “racist�
Because they believe in racial and gender essentialism. It allows them to negotiate with and tinker with the groups. If everyone were an individual with their own history, luck, and merit, the world would be too complex for them to play King Solomon.
Then there’s just the hatred of “oppressors,” i.e., anyone or any group that’s successful (without them).
It also goes back to traditional ethnic-nationalism (every group must rule and judge its own), of which multiculturalism is just a sub-state variety.
Comment by Jeff on 3/17 @ 1:06 pm #
Salt Lick … you really are a pin head … :)
Thanks, Jeff. I rarely hit anything but I’m happy if they occasionally let me touch the stuff in Jeff G’s locker.
The bigger problem for Mormons in public office – especially national public office – seems to me to be the long period of racial discrimination in the Mormon Church.
The irony here is that the Mormons are the most-persecuted religious group in U.S. history. If anyone has the right to scream “God-Damn America!” it’s us. But we’re so freaking patriotic, we sent 500 men to San Diego at the request of the U.S. Army, who had the gall to ask us right as we were fleeing the country, leaving behind us the ashes of Nauvoo, having been given no protection from the mobs while in the country.
We ended up in a god-forsaken wilderness and we made it work, despite continued persecution and threats from the U.S. Army and government and even outright disenfranchisement. All the odds were against us, all society was against us, the weather was against us, and we still made lemonade out of those lemons.
So, sorry: I have little patience with grievance-mongers. If you can’t bloom where you’re planted, in a country where you’re not being hauled into concentration camps or executed on sight, there’s something wrong with you, not with the system.
I think Obama’s strong pimp hand will smite some people silly.
RC-this nave Wright is peddling something that is assuredly not my favorite brand of theology. I feel that he has harmed Obama’s campaign, perhaps gravely.
But I confess a weakness: I usually try and give a preacher something that passes for the benefit of the doubt, right or left. I reckon that his BS might be outweighed by his good.
when it comes to charlatans and evil ass-clowns like Westboro Baptist or jesse jackson, my forebearance gets the better of me, obviously.
this may well be the case here, at which I’ll cop to being wrong. Just boils down to keeping my mouth shut, I suppose.
I would like to formally renounce my previously noted forbearance on Rev. J. Wright.
Having just seen some of the drivel he has had up on his website, its pretty clear that the man is pushing mighty mighty close to anti-semitism. Oh, and BTW, its pretty safe to question his patriotism.
I apologize to Ric Locke for wasting his time with the comment above.
I can think of one Democratic constituency that this wont play well with.
I pinged Andy with my Pub piece… he promises to ‘air’…we’ll see…
From the Taranto link, one of Wright’s mentors speaks on Black Liberation Theology:
If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.
The only way Obama could listen to these people for 20 years and not pick up on what they are about is if he were dumber than datadave, alphie and cleo all put together and dosed with Thorazine. Which leaves two possibilities, it seems to me. Either he believes this too, and is lying about it right now; or he never believed it and just used Wright and the Church to get a foothold in Chicago politics. Either way, it is going to take some mad skills to talk his way out of this.
when I go to Mass, it’s principally out of anthropological curiosity. And because I like to go slumming.
Me? I’m a Eucharistic Minister; I go for the pre-substantiated communion wine.
Yummy.
Rev. Wright was a political power in Chicago. Mr. Obama wanted to get into politics so he chose a place, a patron to get him power. That is not unusual in itself. The problem is that Rev. Wright’s political power is very parochial; outside of local elections it isn’t going to be very strong. The politics of ‘us against them’ isn’t going to work unless others ignore that and exchange power. Mr. Obama used that power base as far as it could go.
I’ve seen that sort of work before, the late Coleman Young was a master at that sort of machine-politics.
The problem is when you try to break out into a national election. The machine can’t cover the nation – there are too many other patrons and players out there; and the message that worked with the home machine may not, will not, work elsewhere. When a candidate could tailor his speeches for each region and state, when his patrons could make deals with other patrons to cover the important cabinet and appointment positions it worked.
When you have a 24 hour news cycle and a leaky media, it don’t work so good. Speeches cross into other regions, positions cross into other groups’ ken. Questions get asked when there are no answers.
Late 19th-early 20th century politics, meet the new communication world.
Really, why is this an issue? I try to ignore this essentialist crap from any quarter, but you guys are whipping it good. Romney a Mormon? So what? Huckabee a Jesuser? OK, fine. Sure, White is incendiary and a google-eyed hatemonger, but Obama’s spiritual relationship with him is none of my concern. Could it be that John the Baptist, St. Paul, and St. Augustine might have held some obnoxious views in their time?
Quit slinging this hash; Obama needs to think and speak for himself. If, as you’re suggesting, he’s some kind of Black Muslim plant who is positioned to take over and crush whitey, the electorate should be smart enough to see it, without your “help.”
White? You take that back!
Dan-
Can we discuss what is an “appropriate” response to “questionable statements” regarding race/gender?
I offer this list-
1)Larry Summers (Womyn might not be into science/math as much as men)- lost his job.
2)Don Imus (Nappy-headed hos)- lost his job.
3)Jimmy “the Greek” (Slavery ‘explains’ the black athlete’s ‘superiority’)- lost his job.
4)Howard Cosell (Referred to Alvin Garrett as a “little monkey”)- lost his job.
5)David Howard (used the word “niggardly” among some ‘black’ constituents)- lost his job.
6)Isaiah Washington (called his co-worker a “fag”)- went to “rehab”– then lost his job.
7)Kelly Tilghman (used the word “lynch” while making a reference to a male Asian/African/Caucasian/Amerind) – 2 week suspension/ Al Sharpton wanted her to be fired.
8)Jeremiah Wright (The US”KKK”A is a racist conspiracy continually acting to keep the “black man” down)- acceptable because he’s an “old black man”…
…the electorate should be smart enough to see it…
I don’t care who you are, that’s funny right there.
Magruder: no harm, no foul. Like I said, you just need to get out more.
As I understand it, you’re in DC or environs. I assure you that you can easily find a church preaching very Wright-like doctrine in west Baltimore, and probably in the Maryland suburbs. Of course it wouldn’t be real comfortable for you, and might be hazardous to your health, to discover it.
“All politics is local”. Not really true, but a good first approximation. The objective of “multiculturalism” is Balkanization, leaving plenty of little feoffs and duchies for the Vanguard of the Proletariat to administer; their overarching philosophy is supposed to be the “Christendom” in that picture. Unfortunately for them, enfeoffed does not mean enfeebled, though that was the assumption. Their dependent victim-group has taken the philosophy and generated their own private spin, and the result strains Teh Narrative well beyond its design load.
Regards,
Ric
You don’t think the electorate is smart, B Moe? Interesting and telling, all at once.
Yes, Dan, I have renamed him “White” because that is my right as the sole proprietor of my language. Anything else you need?
cynn:
Quit slinging this hash; Obama needs to think and speak for himself. If, as you’re suggesting, he’s some kind of Black Muslim plant who is positioned to take over and crush whitey, the electorate should be smart enough to see it, without your “help.â€Â
This is how I see it, cynn: either,
1.) BHO accepts the good Reverend’s words at face value, i.e., that white America “invented” AIDS, planned 9/11, etc., or:
2.) BHO is nothing more than a typical politician; tacitly approving of Wright’s message at one expedient moment, and then disavowing it when it becomes a liability.
Choose to pick another alternative?
I won’t speak for B. Moe, cynn, but for myself, I am a fully paid-up member of the electorate, secret handshake, lapel pin, and all. One of the things we do from time to time is compare notes, especially about various outstanding features of the electoral landscape. It’s a valuable exercise. I’m grateful to those who point out things that escape my notice, and I hope that one or two people have found my input useful. This is one of the meanings of the word “community”.
I know that “Black Liberation Theology” exists, although I haven’t made a study of it; it isn’t a primary impetus for behavior around here. I wasn’t aware that Mr. Obama subscribed to it, even to the extent of regular attendance at and contributions to a church which uses it as its major teaching. Beliefs are none of my business; actions are, and a President almost by definition has the capability for effective action. A President who believed in and acted on Black Liberation Theology would be a horror on a level scarcely imaginable. It is therefore relevant to discover whether a credible candidate for that office is such a person.
From the standpoint of executing the duties of the Office of President, the best possible alternative is that Mr. Obama is a cynical opportunist who simulated respect for the Rev. Mr. Wright and his teachings in order to gain support in his quest for office in his home city and state. It’s not clear that discovering that that is so will help him in his quest for a national post; it is clear that, if he is sincere, his aims must be frustrated at almost any cost.
Regards,
Ric
Really, why is this an issue?
Because Wright isn’t making merely theological statements. If all he said was that Jesus was black or that God is black or that you have to have racism entirely cleansed from your soul to go to heaven or anything similar, no one would care.
But he’s making political statements from the pulpit. Frequently. Maybe weekly.
People got in Romney’s face because Mormonism isn’t trinitarian or because of esoteric points of doctrine that have nothing to do with how Romney would govern but that ruffle the average evangelical.
To the extent that anyone’s religion speaks to secular governance  e.g., God is the only sovereign of the Earth, and all human governments are illegitimate  it’s fair game. Doctrinal matters  the nature of God, life after death, etc.  are not.
Here’s an example cynn:
40% of people polled recently said that we can achieve our objectives in Iraq.
43% said that the troops should stay until Iraq is stable.
3%, then, think that troops should stay until someting that they think can’t be achieved is complete.
So, a significant portion of the electorate is criminally stupid.
He believes, Ric. He really do.
in the mean time. we’re raising taxes.
from the same interview…
Title-loans is when you give someone your title and a set of keys for repo convenience and they give you some pittance. And then you pay a kajillion dollars interest if you want to keep your car. It’s silly, but as a percent of the economy it’s less than insignificant. It’s significant evidence of this idiot’s profound unseriousness though.
on Iraq…
Yeah, ‘feets, he believes that shit.
Unfortunately so do a lot of folks.
One of the major components of the “crisis of confidence” is that traders are responding to the high probability that somebody who believes that shit, or is willing to go along with people who believe that shit, is gonna be in charge pretty soon. They’re cashing out, is what’s going on.
Regards,
Ric
so, um, Saddam was tried and executed, but not by the right people? I’m confused.
1. One Sunday his O-man’s woman woke him up and drug his half-black ass to church because she thinking O in need of some praise almighty. He was like, “wtf-up with that white devil hustlin’ pimp?” “Just nod your head, heathen fool.” So O started lookin’ aroun’, starin’ the Sunday best off all the junkilicious azz. From then on he liked it when his old lady drug the O-man Southside to the trunktacular bumpty bump called the hood church. The rest is chronicled.
That’s not how it happened. O-man had taken Wright tape-thingies with him to Harvard to listen to at night. It was for edification, but still I think probably he touched himself a lot.
Nothing nails down the military voter like promising them you will let an international tribunal investigate and prosecute them for war crimes.
Good one.
Barack Obama Doesn’t Care About White People
I have been unable to post any comments over at Protein Wisdom today. Odd. Here is the post I have been trying to get published over at the Pub, with some extensions… It was suggested at the Pub that Obama