Obama's Preacher....It's Hard Not to Agree.
UPDATE: Obama to give speech Tuesday addressing Rev. Wright.
The Wall Street Journal: "To be sure, such attacks often fail to mention that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain had a similar uncomfortable brush with controversy when he gratefully accepted the recent endorsement of Texas televangelist James Hagee, best known by some by some for referring to the Roman Catholic church as “the great whore,” and a cult. “I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee’s, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,” McCain said, during a recent stop in heavily Catholic New Orleans.
Will Obama get a similar pass? The Illinois senator clearly hopes Tuesday’s speech will help. An aide said it is specifically tailored to address the mess wrought by Wright."
*****
There is, at least in my mind, a political racial platitude to the whole controversy, still....I think it qualifies as worthy of analytical debate. This is one of those things which should be put into the context of it's actuality.
I, for one, find it difficult NOT to agree with this preacher's comments, sure they're not what the "status quo" says is acceptable, however the mere fact that some claim them unacceptable, does not necessarily confer inaccuracy.
Have factions in the US government, without the consent of it's citizenry, terrorized other nations? Read William Blum's "Rogue State", a literal plethora of our wanton disregard for the security of our nation as regards the tenents of democracy. But also a damning critique of our subversion of other nation states in this same pursuit. (think Taliban) What would you call the Iraq situation? Are the citizens of Iraq living in terror? I believe they are. I certainly wouldn't wish to be an Iraqi citizen under US occupation.
Have these same factions and their ideological or profiteering partners of the US government, without the consent of it's citizenry, sold arms to the Iranians who with "our" knowledge, sold them to the Contras.
"proceeds from the arms sales went to the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla organization engaged in an insurgency against the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua." ....?(wikipedia)
Have factions of the US government overthrown democratic governments of nation states and installed totalitarian regimes...? They have...time and time again .....without the consent of the citizenry of the America. Has factional involvement in these types of activities created animosity in the world for the US and have these animosities "come home to roost"? It's difficult to disagree. And when one considers the "players" involved, the focus becomes increasingly crisp.
Wikipedia: "The Wall Street Journal reported on January 29, 1997[45] on activities at the Mena, Arkansas airport allegedly involved then-governor Bill Clintonin a coverup of illegal drug-trading activity. The Wall Street Journal article goes on to state:
At the center of the web of speculation spun around Mena are a few undisputed facts: One of the most successful drug informants in U.S. history, smuggler Barry Seal, based his air operation at Mena. At the height of his career he was importing as much as 1,000 pounds of cocaine per month, and had a personal fortune estimated at more than $50 million. After becoming an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, he worked at least once with the CIA, in a Sandinista drug sting. He was gunned down by Colombian hit men in Baton Rouge, La., in 1986; eight months later, one of his planes—with an Arkansas pilot at the wheel and Eugene Hasenfus in the cargo bay—was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of Contra supplies.
In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a two-volume report[46] that substantiated many of Webb's claims, and described how 50 contras and contra-related entities involved in the drug trade had been protected from law enforcement activity by the Reagan-Bush administration, and documented a cover-up of evidence relating to these activities. The report also showed that Oliver North and the NSC were aware of these activities. A report later that same year by the United States Justice DepartmentInspector General Michael Bromwich also came to similar conclusions."
In my mind, it is within this context that the highly publicized preacher's comments were meant, however poorly delivered. The use of the words "factions of our government" would have been much more precise. One can only consider the preacher's words "radical" if one defines TRUTH as a "radical" concept..
![[]](/sites/all/modules/ecommerce/cart/images/cart_empty.png "View your cart items"){kind=spacer}
I don't think the preacher's
I don't think the preacher's comments are really what's problematic for Obama. There are two ways of approaching this either Obama is a "secret" black liberationists with left of center economic views, or his church membership was politically calculated out of a desire for black authenticity.
In the end I don't think there is anything radical about Obama. There is certainly no consistency with his economic views and those of Wright and the congregation. I can't imagine he would find many fellow church members that would support him being against a 20% cap on interest rates. I also don't think many "feel Obama" on why health care mandates are so bad. I also don't think many of the church members are with him when he states a freeze on housing interest rates with cause runaway inflation.
I think Juan Williams is right. This was a political calculation out of a need for authenticity. Unlike what Wright said about Obama coming from the Ghetto, his experience is nothing of the sort. He spent time in Hawaii, went to an upscale school in Indonesia, and lived his teenage years in Kansas. Obama was anything but the typical experience of an African American man in the ghetto.
Obama's problem is he is this empty vessel. He reflects black aspiration as well as white aspiration, although in the end they are quite different creatures. Earlier when Obama distanced himself from Farrakhan, Farrakhan told his supporters not to hold it against him. Now, as Obama distances himself from Wright, the church is fighting back.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/03/whats-new-8.html
I guess only time will tell how this all plays out.
Obama's Preacher
Bashing the United States is in vogue these days. Every liberal group in the US and the world is a "Bush Basher".
The question is why all the Anti-Americanism? The explanation is simple. "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it". Listening to the nightly news doesn't cut it.
The United States of America has done more to promote freedom and democracy than all other countries in the world combined.
Thanks to the United States both Germany and Japan are both democratic prosperous nations today.
With the help of the United States Iraq will become a democratic prosperous nation as well.
Never have I seen American liberals hate a President so much that they actually want the democratisation of Iraq to fail.
Anonymous
This isn't about "bashing" the United States. This is about getting at the truth of the matter and rooting out those who do not act in the interests of the American people. What would the people have chosen to do if they had been aware of the underhanded tactics of some of our nations leadership. We did not go to Iraq to bring democracy.
Remember, first we were told Saddam had links to Al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. All of this proven false later. What many do not know is that the Bush Administration assembled a "separate" intelligence group whose information they claimed as "factual". At that time they IGNORED the data from ACTUAL US intelligence agencies and invaded a country who was NOT a threat to America. Our own LEGITIMATE intelligence agencies did not find Iraq to be a threat to America at the time we invaded Iraq.
As for other interventions, most Americans were unaware of the facts in those cases also, until the damage was already done. William Blum site has a short history of some of them.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html
This is junk jounralism
Who actually believes that something one person said, is the complete and total ideology of another?
Especially a church employee.
To think that this pastor, is speaking policy for Obama is insane and insulting.
There is not one person on Earth, incuding the most militant Islamists, that agrees 100% with their religion.
America is not a religious state, and religion plays little to NO PART IN OUR NATIONAL POLICY.
It's offensive to see the media, and the foolish, claim this has some value in politics.
Obama's pastor was stupid to say what he did, and the media is worse for making the assumption that the interpretation of those comments, will mandate federal policy.
Faith based is junk based. Religion needs a major slapdown in America.
They are dangerous and have no place in public policy.
Faith is an internal and very personal ethic.
It is nothing more.
The media who report this non-issue are dsgusting and insulting to most.
Those who think this is important, are ignorant and dangerous people, who had already decided that Presidential qualifications are based on a lapel pin placement.
I hope that Obama is elected and he does one thing.
Bans junk journalists from the White House Press corp, especially Fox.
How about focusing on policy, instead of playing the GOP's favorite game...."What if..."
GF, remember you are known
GF, remember you are known by the company you keep, especialy if you want someone's vote,remember how fast David Duke was shot down, again so called guilt by association. I really wanted to support Obama, but now I am greatly dissapointed, I dont want my future president influenced by this kind of poison, I imagine 90% of the terrorist weve caught whould claim guilt by association too, the fact is this is his church (not your average church) where he, his wife and children are indoctrinated weekly by tis anti-American, kill- whitey retoric.
Obama's preacher
Ran across your blog while out cruising and though I'd add my two cents to the discussion. I have been following Rev Wright since Obama announced his candidacy. TV one broadcast Trinity every Sunday morning and I've watched it often, I've even watched some of the steaming video sermons. Rev Wright has never tried to hide his views, his sermons are available for purchase.
Now, as an african-american lesbian that quit the church over thirty years ago, I found watching his sermons refreshing. Not only was he anti-war, but he preached against sexism, racism and homophobia. He preached about personal responsibility, against miscogynist hip-hop and gangster rap and the gospel of prosperity. Not only did he take black folk to task, including other black mega-church ministers, going so far as to call them out by name, but he also took on politicians both on the state and national level.
Now, as far as separation of church and state, does that exclude ministers from speaking out against social injustice or does that mean that there is not an official church of USA? If it means the first, then we would have missed out with Malcolm X, Dr. King and Ft. Groppi in Milwaukee.
Now, don't get me wrong, I ain't no Obamaholic, I try and look at the issues and not let my emotional mind over ride my rational one. But the politicos had to listen to a lot of Rev Wright to find something to disagree with.
Post new comment