We, The People

By absentee Posted in | | Comments (68) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Senator Obama, four score and one years ago, my forebears came to this continent, seeking liberty and dedicated to the proposition that Nazis were evil. Five score and more years ago, my great, great grandmother, a Native American, married someone who was, to her, a newcomer to this continent. I have ancestors from the Revolution to the Civil War, from here and from abroad. All sought life, liberty, and happiness.

My story, like yours, is a story of America, a story only possible in America. Yet there is a difference between us. You think that difference is slavery.

You are right, Senator, when you say that the good and the bad are part of the tapestry of American history. They are part of world history; they are a part of the individual life of each and every one of us flawed and sinful creatures huddling outside the gates of Eden, struggling to find our God.

However, the difference between you and me is not slavery. The difference is not the past. The difference between us is the future. I can not, and must not, live in the past. You said today, quoting Faulkner, "The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past."

It is past.

True, we must learn from and remember our past. The echoes of racism and slavery are here; they are in our every day. The echoes of the past ripple through these United States, they stain our conscience, they strain our unity. However, they are echoes. By their very nature, they come from the past. Echoes weaken over time and distance. They diminish. They die.

Those who, with courage and honesty, look at the great American landscape and see those echoes are right, and they are just. But they who take those echoes, who reinforce them, and give them greater amplitude ... they are wrong. Reverend Wright is wrong.

There can be no unity or reconciliation when the foundation is forever the stain of cursed evil. The future you design will have the same blood on its hands as the past. What unity, I wonder, can prosper, when the blood of the past remains unwashed.

No hope for a more perfect union can long endure while the echoes of the past are cast forward onto our future.

When Jesus spoke of forgiveness, it was not with strings attached. Jesus wants us to stop living as we did in the past, but also to stop living in the past. The tax collector and the prostitute were shown mercy and forgiveness. Do unto others is not the only social admonition in the Bible.

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you" ... just words?

You say you cannot disown Reverend Wright any more than you can disown the Black Community. That is not true. I do not tolerate racism in my life. If someone I call my friend turns out to be a Nazi, I do not shake my head and cluck my tongue, and then proceed to invite him to dinner. That is it; we are through. Would you honestly forgive me any less?

You know a little something about words, Senator. Words have power. Reverend Wright's words have power right now, out there in the world. You have disowned their application, but not their meaning. You have disowned their conclusion, but not their philosophy. You say he is wrong because his words imply stasis; that their profound mistake is not that they are about racism, but that they imply no achievement.

I suggest that the mistake in his words is far more profound than either of those things. The profound mistake is that they accuse me and my family of a mortal, unconscionable sin: That we hate, that we design to impede, that we intend to destroy, that we murder. His words are not simply about racism, Senator, they are about evil ... and not abstract evil; real, palpable, current evil. You cannot disown this man because of what he does for his community? Well I can, and I do. Teaching that white people are evil, that America is evil ... that is no community service at all.

You speak of your children; I have children too. Two sweet little girls who don't even know what racism is ... but they will. When people from the left side of the aisle are through with them, they'll know. Because what they are being taught, what they are learning from churches like yours, and from their schools, is that they carry that blood still. The blood of the past is on their hands. This will continue to be the lesson as long as politicians like you are willing to entertain, indulge, and encourage words like Reverend Wright wants to use.

You speak of hope for the future, Senator Obama, but all I hear are those echoes of the past.

I can forgive Reverend Wright, the man. You must forgive him, too. However, you must not excuse him, as you did today. This is what I mean by disown. You can forgive him, and you can love him, but you must stop enabling him. Don't have him over for dinner, as I would not have an unrepentant racist for dinner with my family.

Today you gave a great speech. You spoke some truths about race. However, your speech fell critically apart on the most important points. You tied your message of perfect union to partisan left-wing goals, and you refused to surrender the hatred in your own house.

If you believe, as you say, that now is the time, that we are who we have been waiting for, then lead by example.

Disown those who would live in the past, Senator. Own the future.

No hope for a more perfect union can long endure while the echoes of the past are cast forward onto our future.

I can't think of a more perfect way to say just this: We shouldn't forget the past, but we can't continue to make the past our future.

Thank you for a very eloquent response.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

and well stated diaries I have read here in a very long time.

Thank you.

post-bellum South, he was writing of a pathological dysfunctional preservation of the past, RECOGNIZED AS SUCH by the author, and recognizing that if the Southern people were to prosper and move on, they would have to give up the past.

Obama makes excuses for the angry Wrights to keep it up and lectures whites on how they msut abide it still.

Obama will never be POTUS. Never!

maybe your best ever absentee

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Good insights on Faulkner, thank you!

absentee

wonderful ...

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Teflonobma strikes again. The press is acting as if he is THE Second Coming. Disgusting.

But what else should we expect from the MSM?


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

Aren't you proud to know that our home town media is trying to rival that of New York and LA. I mean, even O'Reiley knows hot bad they are.

Oh well, at least we know that Redstate exists. I feel really sorry for the rest of the poor suckers that depend on the Post-Dispatch for their news.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

The editorialists in that rag are so far left (e.g. Eric Mink - Minko the Pinko) that they make Obama look like Reagan. But having just watched coverage of the Obama speech on Fox 2, you'd think the guy is MLKJr himself. I feel like I need to take a shower after watching that story.


The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

that Channel 2 would be more conservative now that they are fully affiliated with FoxNews. Many people thought wrong.



Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.

"The Best of Absentee--Collected Essays on Conservative Thinking in the Modern Political Climate" And I expect a signed copy, sir. This one you wrote with your whole heart and soul and it is a privilege to read something so well put together. Bravo, absentee.

Thanks janis! If ever there were such a book, whether I had anything to do with it or not, I guarantee you I would sign it for you.

absentee

Thanks and funny sig, btw.

absentee

I contrast this written word with reading Obama's speech. Obama's speech was full of empty platitudes & dancing around, trying to have it all ways. I'm sure it "sounded" good - Obama could read a selection on foot fungus & make it "sound" good. Absentee's diary post has substance. It takes a stand - the right stand.

Contrast is what I was going for whitehorse, thanks!

absentee

Completely and totally a grand slam!

I'm ready for you to join McCain and write some speeches for him.

You have a gift for making us dig deep and figure out just what that nagging in our gut is. We know something just isn't quite right, yet we can't always put our finger precisely on it. And then you write for us. And we all go "Yes!"

I had the very same thought about absentee writing speeches for McCain.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

c17wife and pilgrim! If I ever write a speech for anyone, I'll figure out some way to work you both in.

absentee

not just because of this blog by Abs, but others as well.

How about something along the lines of ESPN...
a Redstate Classics to see classic blogs by some of our best here at RS.......... so deemed by the Eds/Mods?..

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course

Surely all white people are guilty of slavery under the corruption of blood doctrine in Article III Section 3 . . . oh, er, hang on, the proscribes corruption of blood attainder.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Obama has to choose - continue to embrace that race-hustling crowd, or get serious about a colorblind future. Can't do both, although he is certainly ATTEMPTING to have his cake and eat it too.

We won't let him do that, even if the Treason Press will give him a free pass par usual.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies
-- Frank J

... and thanks for the read and reread!

absentee

I know we must somehow keep this story alive, but Obama did not excuse his pastor's hateful words. He has not encouraged such words, nor condoned them. Indeed, he disowned those racist words without equivication.

And he did not disown his pastor or his church. That speaks of strength to me, not political pandering.

You bring up the case of a Nazi "you call a friend." How convenient. What about racism in America (surely a topic closer to home)? Let's look squarely at the issue. How many of you have an uncle, grandfather, father, cousin, etc who is racist, and yes indeed, spouted racist language like Wright (only from a white perspective, not a black one)? Are these folks marshaled out of your life for being a racist? Have you disowned them?

My father was a real racist. The hard realties kind of racism. He talked about black folks as if they were animals, and he said things that I could never repeat. And I loved him like a father until he died and now I still love him. And he's a hero to me, a war hero, a family hero, an American hero. Yes, he was a virulent racist but I would never disown him.

Reverend Wright was Obama's pastor, not his father. But for a man who grew up fatherless, Wright was more than a pastor. He was a spiritual guide, and in many ways, a surrogate father. Think about that for a moment. What kind of character would Obama have if he disowned this man?

Do you advocate we disown all racists in our lives? Should we turn our backs on our church if they make racist comments? It is so comfortable to say these things, Absentee, because we say them about a Democrat, a liberal, who must be defeated come November at all costs. How comfortable would we be if we turned these thoughts on ourselves? Or are we all to conveniently deny there are no racists among people we love and admire?

All this rhetoric is weak-minded, it takes the easy road of hate. It's about politics, not about race, and not about the past.

Speaking of which, I cannot understand those here who so heartily embrace turning their backs on the past. Conservatives, traditionalists, no less -- individuals who should understand the importance of making history a central component to our way of moving forward. How convenient we deny this when it suits are own ends.

A more perfect union must be built upon the past, upon our reflections of it, I see this as a core tenant of conservatism.

Lastly, some words on Obama's speech itself. I didn't care much for the politics of it, where it bleeds out liberal bias, his jabs at corporate America and especially the Iraq War. But this speech was history in the making. No politician has ever spoken so eloquently and directly about race in this country. It was a remarkable speech that required a tremendous amount of political and personal risk. For us, there is a great deal of wisdom in recognizing when history is taking place.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

That is the point. There is no comparison between the mild recollection of Obama's grandmother, and the despicable madness of his pastor. What other comparison is there to the Wright Reverend than the ultimate counter point of view?

There are no people in my life, white or black or otherwise, who speak like the Wright Reverend, certainly not from a position of authority. Who despise America, and see organized mayhem in chaotic health issues, and chaotic karma in organized terrorism.

You wonder with curiosity that I would abandon such a person if they did? I suggest that is your failing, and Baracks, not mine. I will turn my back on such a person with gusto.

Obama excused the Reverend and that is the fact. I am reminded of some terrorism apologists, who say, yes yes, the Beslan massacre was tragic, but we should understand what the Chechen seperatists were on about.

No, I mustn't and, what's more, I won't.

Barack says to you, my those are terrible things, and I'm against them. How is he against them? Because a speech twenty years in the making says he is?

He says we must understand Wright's background. He says, he's a great guy otherwise. Obama attends the church for twenty years, allowing his children to learn this hate from their spiritual leadership ... that is indulgence. That is endorsement, mealy mouthed tsk-ing after the fact notwithstanding.

"turning their backs on the past"

An absurd assessment. You present a 1 or 0 answer to an algorithmic problem. Either I hold my children hostage as responsible for slavery, and therefore suspect for murderous intent, or else I am turning my back on the past? I reject your poorly-disguised race-trap out of hand.

"It was a remarkable speech that required a tremendous amount of political and personal risk."

Poppycock. That is what you and I wish it had been. That is what it could and should have been. That's the opportunity that Barack has squandered. And for what?

A weak campaign speech about how mean capitalists are ruining things for poor people, who are mostly black and suffering, but sometimes white, and therefore, oughtn't we let the Wright Reverend to his ranting in peace, indeed with our blessings and apologies?

If that is the frank and remarkable pinnacle of speech-making about race in modern times then you can have it.

absentee

I have to disagree with your reply to Bill. Like you I don't have anyone in my life who speak like Wright however I think it’s unrealistic to expect anyone to reject anyone they love and care for out of hand for having either problematic racial or political views.

I would suggest it is not a failing to understand that people are flawed and yet still to support them even while disagreeing with their positions or rhetoric.

Bill is correct in his assessment that understanding history is critical to understanding the modern era. If you seem to posit that only our modern experience matters then you will not have the wisdom and insight to deal successfully with the segments of society that are influenced strongly by their past. It is not the past that needs repudiating but the simplistic and antagonistic interpretations placed on it by present day demagogues.

I don't really disagree with your analysis of the latter part of the speech, but I think you overreach in the areas above.

Note the context of disown in my blog. Forgive, love, but don't invite to dinner. Perhaps that is not as easy with a family member, or not as necessary for a private citizen, but that is not the context of our discussion. We are discussing a pastor, a friend, not a parent, and his position of leadership in Obama's life.

Of course understanding history is critical, I've said so many times. But this is precisely what I mean by the 1 or 0 choice.

Simply because I refuse to pass blood guilt to my children doesn't mean I disregard history. Who has decided these are the only two options? If you forgive someone and move on, is this "ignoring" history?

I would turn my back on an unrepentant Nazi in my family, much more easily one in my pulpit. Without hesitation or remorse, and only the nagging emotional regret a weak human can expect. Life is hard, it sometimes requires hard choices. Especially for those who would lead, and especially when regarding precisely what they claim leadership on.

Bill is not correct about history. He and Barack don't advocate learning from it, they advocate living in it.

I do appreciate your discussion, DGaines.

absentee

I should say that I personally appreciate your voice absentee, and on more than one occasion I've read your reflections with enjoyment and thoughtfulness, even if we disagree. Just to throw that out there.

History. It's your decision to read simplicity into my assessment, but of course I advocate nothing of the sort. learning from history and using it as a guide for a way forward does not mean picking and choosing our most convenient or comfortable histories, indeed, the past represents a great challenge, perhaps greater than all of us here realize. When we look back on our country's past lucidly and without pretentions, we undertake a perilous journey. This doesn't mean you pass blood guilt on to your children, of course, those are your words and no one else's. Sober reflection of the past can (in fact should) be done without guilt, but that doesn't mean we should not at times feel shame.

For anyone who caught it, Angela Merkel's address to the Knesset two days ago was another sobering and beautiful assesment of the past, in which she acknolwedged German shame for the Holocaust. Powerful words of reflection on the past. Should we codemn her for not moving on?

I think part of what Senator Obama did yesterday was articulate his shame for his pastor's racism. He spoke bluntly about it, and did not use his "image" to hide behind difficult truths. I won't vote for the man, but I respect him for his actions. Politics aside, his words yesterday were the words of a patriot.

If you think his speech did not advocate learning from history, then surely you must have heard different words.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

For anyone who caught it, Angela Merkel's address to the Knesset two days ago was another sobering and beautiful assesment of the past, in which she acknolwedged German shame for the Holocaust. Powerful words of reflection on the past. Should we codemn her for not moving on?

Of course not, she was disowning racism. Obama has joined a voluntary organisation and chooses to be advised by a man who advocates it. The correct question should be, "would we condemn Angela Merkel if she went to neo-Nazi meetings and appointed a leading neo-Nazi as her 'spiritual advisor'" and, er, yeah, we would.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

It was not Obama and Merkel I was trying to connect, rather the need to reflect on history, even in shame, with absentee's assertions in this blog that we must turn away from the past, especially uncomfortable ones.

You're reading what you hope is there, so that you have protected opinions, rather than challenged thoughts.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

"absentee's assertions in this blog that we must turn away from the past, especially uncomfortable ones"

This is plainly false. Are you arguing in good faith?

absentee

Why is it that even when you click on "reply to this" you never actually reply to what I wrote.

Would you condemn Angela Merkel if, instead of apologising for the past, she was attending Nazi meetings and appointing Nazis to be her political advisors? If so, why does Obama get a free pass?

You keep trying to pretend that Obama's tasteless attack on his own grandmother makes it okay for him to hang around with racists and rely on racists to help him in his campaign. If David Duke was McCain's organiser in Louisiana, would that be okay with you?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I have not read Merkel's speech, but did she include in her address a statement that it was necessary for us to understand what was happening in Germany in the late 20s and early 30s so that we could then understand the holocaust? I’ll go looking for it, but I suspect that she did not.

Absentee -- an excellent essay.

M Penny

Mine was the original proposition, that being that we are passing guilt by blood eternally. If your counterpoint was, as it was, that I am therefore disregarding history, I submit no reading into your response is required. You've made them the two choices. Either I can indeed pass blood guilt forward, OR I can disregard history.

My original proposition was never, explicitly never, pick and choose history. Did I not say the echoes of our past stain our conscience? Sober reflection is what I advocate .. as opposed to the position of Reverend Wright.

"This doesn't mean you pass blood guilt on to your children, of course, those are your words and no one else's."

They are my words in response. Again I refer to the original blog:

"You are right, Senator, when you say that the good and the bad are part of the tapestry of American history."

"You said today, quoting Faulkner, 'The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.' It is past."

"True, we must learn from and remember our past. The echoes of racism and slavery are here; they are in our every day. The echoes of the past ripple through these United States, they stain our conscience, they strain our unity. However, they are echoes. By their very nature, they come from the past. Echoes weaken over time and distance. They diminish. They die.

Those who, with courage and honesty, look at the great American landscape and see those echoes are right, and they are just. But they who take those echoes, who reinforce them, and give them greater amplitude ... they are wrong. Reverend Wright is wrong."

This is how you summed up my position:

"Speaking of which, I cannot understand those here who so heartily embrace turning their backs on the past."

How can you not say you have given me only two possible positions. Either I can agree with Obama's assessment, or I am turning my back on the past.

I am manifestly not turning my back on the past, and that thinking is precisely what I am objecting to. Either I can take personal blame for the slave trade, by "understanding" a point of view that names me murderer, or I am just a whitey learning nothing from history. If you think that type of argument gets my dander up, then you are right.

absentee

You are jumping seamlessly here from Wright comments to Obama's assessment. They are not the same thing. Wright's views are racist and his history is distorted. Obama's speech offered that sober assessment of history. Your blog was about his speech, not Wright's comments. You seem to have a hard time making that distinction.

You use very strong words, and it seems those words are what's angering you. Who's talking about your personal blame except you? Who is giving you such stark choices regarding history aside from you? It seems your shifting your argument and shaping your own demons, which is right at the point where I (as I've learned from previous RS conversations) must disengage.

It seems that a lot of folks here did not take Obama's speech as a starting point for a discussion on race, but rather they saw an attack, a black man lecturing whites on racism. I really think that's unfortunate. And that's my last word on the topic.

_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

I don't know how to make it more plain. You took my assessment and decided that I was saying we should disregard history. I'm debating your mischaracterization. If you don't understand where personal blame comes into it, or how it is that Obama is as much the topic as Wright, then you didn't understand a single point I made since the first word of the title. That's not me shifting, it's you not getting what I say. And I really think that that is unfortunate.

absentee

in your life; let it be Barack.

A lot of people I know don't need a speech by BHO to be a starting point on race. We know about race, past,present and future...

You are right we should be aware of the past, and some of it's shameful parts. What you don't get is that many have decided not to let the past cripple us in the future, and never to allow ourselves to be SHAMED by those who continue to live in the past.

If you and others think there is a future in clubbing the crap out of everyone with the past, do it at your own peril. You and people like BHO and Wright will continue lose significance...we can only HOPE.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

having those who err over to dinner is one way to try and change the mistakes they have made in their life. I view this issue as a pragmatically political one. In reality we each must define lines of contact between those ourselves and those with whom we disagree.

I don't disown Thomas Jefferson because he owned slaves. I place him within his historical context. I make it known I don't agree, that I think slavery was abhorant but I hold to the "good" that I find. This is the paradox of history. Of any history.

With respect when referring to your hypothetical Nazi friend you state "That's it, we are through" this doesn't sound like love, forgive and hold the door open should change happen. It sounds like full repudiation the person in addition to the position.

Secondly I agree with you that the 0 or 1 proposition is what Wright is trying to create. I would deliniate between the issue of "disowning" and the issue of changing our views on race.

When I speak of history and the need to understand it I speak of it in the need for cultural and historical context as a basis for insight and decision making. I don't speak of it as a basis for making emotional connections that drive bigoted, pig headed or wrong rhetoric or behavior.

Obama's biggest failing in talking about racial history was not that he rehashed some of the wrongs done to blacks but that he tried to keep them relevent for today. What he should have said was:
--
These struggles and events of the past have held back the black community for too long because we have used them as excuses, holding to our pain, our challenges, and our past as friends rather than leaving them behind as the relics they have become. Those in any community, of any enthnicity who partake in the rhetoric of racial division and racial prejudice cripple our ability to achieve, to move forward and to fly free and to those who do so I say enough. It is time not to forget the past of our racial history, but to lay it to rest as a warning that no longer plays a role in how we live our lives today.
--

close. I particularly appreciated your comment in the blog "True, we must learn from and remember our past. The echoes of racism and slavery are here; they are in our every day. The echoes of the past ripple through these United States, they stain our conscience, they strain our unity. However, they are echoes. By their very nature, they come from the past. Echoes weaken over time and distance. They diminish. They die."

That's the sentiment we need to hear.

let me express my appreciation that you do your best to answer comments and clarify or comment additionaly as needed. This also makes your diary's greatly recommended.

I disagree on many counts, but undisturbedly, so no sweat.

To distill, I can't just chalk up Wright to the types of disagreements people can, like you and I, undisturbedly discuss. This isn't Barack's grandma feeling uncomfortable in Harlem. Have you watched the videos? Sorry, but unrepentant madness of this order I won't tolerate. That's a fact. Perhaps the modern view says understand and grow, but I am out with. And there is nothing contradictory with forgiveness and love. I forgive and love my fellow man without renting out my basement to Hitler. I see no contradiction.

Lines must be drawn, DGaines. Not all points of view are tolerable. Sometimes people are plain wrong and must be righted or be left. Especially in a position such as Barack's. And, again, let us not forget his twenty years of not even bothering to disagree.

There are a lot of things that Obama could have said, or should have said. That he failed to do so makes his excusing the Wright Reverend all the more bitter a pill.

absentee

Wonderfully articulated, DGaines
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future

Reverend Wright was Obama's pastor, not his father.

More or less right. Wright is Obama's pastor.

The trouble is, I think you take the wrong lesson from this. Your father may have been a terrible racist, but no matter what you think of his views, or of him, he was still your father. Wright is Obama's pastor because Obama wants him to be and for exactly as long as Obama continues to want him to be.

Your father could have been Grand Dragon of the Klan, for all I care. It would not reflect badly on you, only on him. But if, instead, you chose to attend the Grand Dragon's meetings, listened to what he said, continued to attend, asked him to be your personal and political advisor . . . well, that would reflect very badly on you.

In Germany, two of the people who constantly debate the Nazi legacy are Wolf-Rudiger Hess and Martin Bormann. Hess is a Nazi and Bormann is an anti-Nazi. Hess is named after Hitler - who was nicknamed Wolf. So was Bormann. His original name was Adolf Martin Bormann, but he changed it. At first, the change seemed odd to me. 'Martin Bormann' sounds more Nazi to me than 'Adolf Bormann', since it is the name of one of the leading Nazis. But then I realised, Bormann can repudiate his connection to Hitler, but he cannot repudiate his connection with his father. Hitler may not be his hero, but Martin Bormann will always be his father.

And this is exactly where your analysis falls down, along with Obama's tasteless reference to his grandmother. Obama has condoned his pastor's words. He keeps going to his church. He appointed him to an advisory panel of his campaign. If David Duke was advising the McCain campaign, would the matter get the same free pass from the media? Would it get the same free pass from you?

Wright was more than a pastor. He was a spiritual guide, and in many ways, a surrogate father. Think about that for a moment. What kind of character would Obama have if he disowned this man?

A good and decent one. But what kind of a character does he have in not disowning him? Well, the words that spring to my mind are 'weak, vacillating, fellow-traveller'.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

After twenty years of sitting in the pews of that Church, listening to Wright preach his wrongs, asking Wright to marry him and his wife, to baptize his children, and taking those children to his services, after one thousand and forty weeks of uttering not a single word of protest while this man spread execrable conspiracy theories and cursed at the nation he claims to love and now wants to lead ...

... Obama makes a speech after all this time, finally denouncing the hate and crazy but only when it is politically necessary, and you're falling all over yourself lecturing us about his sincerity? Is it really that easy to win you over?

I see my description of you as a style over substance man is accurate.

Romney/Pace 2008

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

I believe most Americans are sick and tired of the race baiting. Obama stepped in it yesterday and that will seal his demise.

Get ready for Hillary vs. McCain. Woo-hoo!!

P.S. Great work as usual, absentee. I envy your writing talent.

www.scottbomb.com

You took the fecklessness of Obama's statements and forged them correctly into a statement that is truly full of not just racial but human hope!

this issue is not so much that Obama did not throw Wright completely under the bus, but rather that he took the blatant hate and racism that is in Wright's speech and has embedded it into his policies.

The essence of the speech was that Wright is angry and uses race in an unproductive way--BUT the racism is real and plays into the liberal policies that Obama will propose to fix it.

Obama's racism is just articulated differently than Wright's.

"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)

Rev. Wright gets a pass on this. As an oppressed black person he is incapable of racism. Racism comes from power and the black person in America does not have access to the power of the white man. This is the teaching of the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is no such thing as reverse-racism. A black person can say whatever he wants about anyone without recourse. For being oppressed is to be black and to be black is to be like Jesus(Black Liberation Theology). I think we should all apologize for the sin of slavery and subsequent discrimination perpetrated on the black race. We should do this through reparations!(tongue in cheek)

I do believe that this is what is in Obama's heart. He will never admit it but how else can anyone explain his 20 year devotion to Rev. Wright. Obama must believe this stuff. Otherwise why would he put himself in this position to have to defend 20 years of attendance at this church?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

If he doesn't "keep it real", his political career goes bye-bye.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

What Barack Obama needs is a funnier preacher is all. I think the answer here is obvious enough--Obama/Huckabee '08.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrIKrK1Xso

Carrie

Obama said: "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person."

I doubt it, but even if he is, that doesn't mean we should elect a man that sits thru that hate for 20 years.

If most blacks are pathological, then they need to get fixed, and not on the backs of more white guilt.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service