Uniquely Unfit
March 29th, 2008 at 09:43am Mark Noonan
An excellent description of Obama’s credentials, from Powerline:
There has been a lot of discussion about what Barack Obama knew about Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American, racist beliefs, and when he knew it. It turns out, though, that there is no mystery at all: Obama’s own autobiography, Dreams of My Father, answers the question. In Dreams of My Father, Obama describes the very first time he attended Trinity and heard Wright preach. What was Wright’s theme? A racist attack on white people. I heard this on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show today:
It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.
Obama describes himself being moved to tears by this sophomoric analysis of the world’s problems. By his own account, Obama wasn’t repelled by Wright’s racism, it was the very quality that drew Obama to Wright’s church!
It strikes me that Barack Obama is uniquely unfit to be President, or, for that matter, to serve in the Senate.
PAUL adds: It’s pretty clear that no form of Christianity other than black liberation theology had any chance of attracting Obama. Wright’s sophomoric ranting was a perfect fit for Obama. It made him feel authentically black (see Shelby Steele on this subject), it fit the anti-American narrative Obama had picked up in the Ivy League, and it was the best church around for advancing Obama’s career in Chicago politics. People have had religious experiences on considerably less than that.
I have to agree with that - Senator Barack Obama has proven himself to be unfit for the office of President of the United States. He belongs to a racist, anti-American church; will not disavow said church or its pastor; he subscribes to a belief system entirely at odds with the facts of history and basic Christian theology. Never in American history has a man so manifestly unworthy of the honor come this close to the White House. Our task as patriots over the next 7 months is to do everything we can to ensure that someone other than Obama is sworn in on January 20th, 2009.
There is one very useful thing, however, about the Obama campaign - it has brought this species of thought (at once tiresome and hateful) to the forefront of our political debate, and if we can crush it at the ballot box, it will cast such a light of negativity about it that no future national leader will dare embrace it, and we might even see the Democratic party start to disentangle itself from such paranoid, lunatic thinking. For far too long we have patiently suffered ourselves to be called racists, and the great achievments of our nation to be slandered by mountebanks on the make - let us hope that Obama and his “reverend” are the last we see of such things in our national politics.
UPDATE: Also discussed over at Battle Born Politics.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Racial Issues
204 Comments Add your own
1. hermie | March 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I have to disagree with your conclusion that the Dems may try to disentangle themselves from this thinking.
The current Dem party has depended upon this thinking to maintain a stranglehold on the black vote. Dems have used racial animosity to keep blacks and other minorities thinking that ‘middleclassness’ and free enterprise is actually a bad thing. Of course, the GOP is the embodiment of these two things, so naturally only the Dem party can keep them from being ‘inflicted’ on the black community.
2. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am
No Noonan not a racist attack on white people an opinion that takes the actions of a people that have enjoyed unearned privilege for 400 years to task. The more I hear the visceral reactions to being called something other than the shining light of hope for the world by my own people the more I think white Americans deserve the failure that will certainly rise out of a McCain administration.
Of course you guys will blame the Democratic Congress for everything that goes wrong but I am straying from the subject. America is a construct like any other nation state. It is better than any other to you because of the abundance that she has and you happen to be an enfranchised citizen. Note that what Powerline says is that Rev Wright’s first sermon is not an anti-American diatribe but a, “A racist attack on white people.”
That means white religion, white patriotism in the sense that America is a white nation and by inclusion white Christian religion. So what are we saying here? A black man can never be trusted as chief executive if he is associated with other members of his tribe that have an understanding that they have been maligned by white America?
This entire course of thinking is the de facto definition of white American racism; the idea that our race is “above” and “elect” and “anointed” and thereby “without fault” are the roots that water the tree of the sort of racism that breeds supremacists, identity church theorists and Klansmen.
The cool racism of wanting to “not be bothered with the whining of blacks” and the “being sick of blacks blaming whites for their troubles” is just a smaller form of the greater cancer.
3. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 11:06 am
As Bill Maher recently said:
So what about it, Noonan? - are you prepared to renounce the Catholic church forever? Or do you condone raping children and then covering up, over and over again for years?
Knowing that the Catholic church leadership repeatedly covered for child molesters, how can you stay in that church for years and years? I would have left that church immediately.
4. Canadian Observer | March 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”
Mark, if you, and others who call themselves Christian, categorize this bit of truth as racist, well then, the situation is worse than we thought.
Heaven help y’all.
5. Almiranta | March 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
And the apologists scurry out of the crevices to support attacks on this country.
Diane, from your post it seems you are black. At least you refer to “…the shining light of hope for the world by my own people ..” and then go on to refer to ‘white people’ as being apart.
We already know you are angry and deeply anti-religionist.
In other words, exactly the kind of person who WOULD eat up the kind of angry, virulent, anti-white, anti-American, rhetoric dished out by the Reverend Wright.
You sneer at the “visceral reaction” of people hearing their country vilified, its successes ignored and its failures exaggerated. But what kind of reaction WOULD be appropriate to being exposed to such a vile and nasty and bleak and inaccurate representation of this country?
You damned right my reaction was “visceral” It turned my stomach.
You claim that white people only love this country because we are”enfranchised citizen(s)”. That is a total load of crap. Every citizen of this country is “enfranchised” though some do lose their right to vote when they are convicted of felonies.
The surly addiction to past wrongs is going to drive the races even farther apart, if one race continues its self-destructive determination to never forgive, never move on, never accept the good because of a history that contained bad, never build on the lessons of the past but wallow in old resentments.
I am sick and tired of black people claiming that every single thing that happens is directed AT them, and only because of their race. The world is full of rude people, careless people, hostile people. We all encounter slights, insults, rudenesses, every single day of our lives.
But most of us are not so egocentric that we assume that WE are the reason for every other person’s actions. Most of us are not so passionately dedicated to the idea that every other person around us is thinking only of how to hurt US.
Your final statement is telling. You claim that the observations that many blacks “whine” and that many whites are “….sick of blacks blaming whites for their troubles” are just examples of racism. How convenient for you. How convenient to shift the responsibility for the actions of some onto the shoulders of others by blithely dismissing their observations as “racist”.
Well, you know what? What is coming out loud and clear, through this Wright thing, is not only that some blacks “whine” about the past instead of moving on but that there are actually huge numbers of people who gather to do just that, who seek out others with whom to share their grievances, who actually distort the loving and forgiving messages of Christ to try to justify this addiction to victimhood.
What really proves this is the attitude toward blacks who have shed the mantle of victimhood and moved beyond it to merely see themselves as PEOPLE, who have then interacted with the world around them as PEOPLE, and who have succeeded as PEOPLE. Not as members of any particular group, but merely as themselves. Because the vile and spiteful attacks on such as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice prove that there are people whose personal identity is steeped in victimhood, whose very beings depend on seeing themselves as being maligned and put upon, and who despise any whose lives show that they might be wrong. Those who step beyond this miserable self-idenity, who refuse to be defined by the actions of people long dead, who live in the PRESENT and who see themselves as individuals, are scorned by such as you.
I realize that once Barack and Michelle achieved the American dream, graduated with honors from their prestigeous Ivy League schools, gained success and wealth, they HAD to join up with the likes of Wright, or be condemned as “not being black enough”—-but how sad that a race shuns those who succeed and defines itself by those who not only do not succeed but who do not aspire.
6. Pain | March 29th, 2008 at 11:39 am
CO,
Yes it is worse than they think, indeed. Actually, the proverbial jig could be up, if this be the case. There is a concept of petroleum supplies called “Peak Oil.” Is it possible that America has reached the social condition of “Peak Whitey” where the power of white Americans to keep minority political and economic power at bay has reached its apex and now is in decline?
7. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Almiranta,
I have been made an “honorary sister” by more than one black sorority but that’s as close as this Swedish gal will ever get. I can barely tan my many freckled peach hide in the highest of UV conditions. My politics however are definitely more in line with those oppressed by my tribe than my own pale faced fellow travelers which I can understand gives you great lower digestive distress. Black people do not think that every little thing is directed at them because of their race YOU think that each time you hear a black person speak their mind openly because you have been taught generationally that you don’t owe a black man anything. That’s wrong on its face because all men are owed respect as citizens in free republic regardless of race or class.
I’d ask you if the Chinese came to America and occupied the land and took your women and children as slaves raped them and hung the men that tried to defend them and after 250 years of this when the Chinese majority decided to emancipate the white slaves they instituted laws to make sure that Chinese families got housing in the best areas and went to better separate schools.
In another 100 years a Chinese leader finally gets with the parliament and sees to it that civil rights are extended to all citizens of this new country. Now you can sit there and tell me that it would be okay to tell the descendants of this sort of massacre and inhumane treatment that they should just “move beyond” generations of second class citizenship and the paralysis of economic immobility for a large bloc of the poor? Please! You do your own Soul a great disservice in that sort of hubris.
Barack and Michelle Obama have the common sense and the depth in their Souls to realize that no matter what level of education they get the black experience that they bring to the table is both unique in the political arena and feared by millions of white Americans because of the moral debt that is owed.
The visceral reaction has nothing to do with a flag or the land it has to do with your race of people being told you are in a word human. Greedy, selfish, brutal, blood thirsty, hypocritical, lairs, cheats, thieves, molesters of children and physicists, musicians artists, mothers fathers, enlightened philosophers, great statesmen, poets, princes, mechanics, dreamers and visionaries. White Americans are all of those things, good and bad, wealthy and poor, sick and healed; all of that and more. But you Almiranta and millions like you do not want to see the warts, the cuts on your wrists from the last suicide attempt or the stained sheets from the last infidelity. The Who said it best it’s an eminence front, it’s a put on.
8. Almiranta | March 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
And of course someone had to invoke Bill Mahrer and one of his spittle-flying anti-religion rants.
But the truth of the scandal in the Catholic church, a truth ignored in Mahrer’s snide comments, is that the REAL scandal was homosexual predation.
But the radical Left can’t accept that. It can’t accept that homosexual men prey on young, barely post-pubuscent, boys.
Yes, the Catholic Church failed, failed miserably, when its sudden lurch to the Left included making the priesthood a haven for homosexual men. It exacerbated that failure by being so politically correct that it refused to address the issue but tried to cover it up.
The rant continues: “what do you do when your church hierarchy is caught up in a systematic and decades-long sex abuse scandal?”
Obviously what the Church SHOULD have done was step up, acknowledge the problem, identify the problem, and act swiftly and surely against those who were using the Church to prey upon young boys.
The question is, why didn’t it? And the answer is only partly that the Church was protecting its own—the real basis was the power and the determination of the radical Left to denounce the Church as “homophobic” and to launch huge and well-funded legal attacks on her for any effort to purge the priesthood of homosexual priests.
In retrospect, the Church was wrong—wrong for not recognizing the truth about the Left, which is that they will still turn on you even if you try to appease them. In this case, the Left has mounted a vicious and lie-based campaign against the Church based on allegations that, as Mahrer himself said ” ……the people being sexually abused were children? Hundreds of them….”
Well, no, Bill, they weren’t. They were adolescents, post -pubescent. Don’t get me wrong—what happened to these young boys was awful, it was wrong and it was vile and it was illegal and it should have been addressed immediately and with great vigor.
But the efforts to portray the homosexual advances of gay priests toward young men as a Church-supported pattern of pedophilia, with the implication that much of this involved priests and young girls, is simply part and parcel of the rabid and radical Left’s systemic attack on religion, coupled with its determination to never ever EVER portray any homosexual act in a negative light.
So here is a truth that Mahrer will never accept: Get rid of gay priests in the Catholic Church and the homosexual advances of priests toward young men in the Church will stop. Duh.
And Mahrer tries to conflate the homosexual abuses in the Church with the Wright problem.
Bill—did the Catholic Church ever preach that the Bible said it was OK for these deviants to use the Church as a stalking horse for young boys? Did any Catholic priest, ever, in any sermon, in any service, EVER preach to the congregation that the Church had a right to cloak its predatory gay agenda in the robes of the priesthood?
Did any Catholic clergyman ever, EVER, try to teach that the abuse of young men was right, was justified, was supported by Scripture?
Because, you silly moron Mahrer, THAT is the problem with Wright’s church, and with those who attend it. Only the most rabid feverswamp religion-hating uber-Lefty could possibly put together a string of such nonsense, such vitriol, and such insanity as Mahrer did.
And only a fellow traveller could swallow it, and like it so much he actually used it to make a point.
The point made was that the rabid Left truly IS rabid, and will go to any lengths, no matter how bizarre, no matter how twisted, to try to support their various loathings and grievances.
9. Magnum Serpentine | March 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
george is far less qualified to be president or Acting-President than anyone who has served the office since 1789.
Infact george is the worst president in history. And with that, Obama has to be better because george is on the bottom of the bottom.
10. Pain | March 29th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
We, Ourselves do not understand. This “lurch to the Left took place in the post war era in the United States? And the entire Catholic Church has become a victim of this vast Left wing homosexual conspiracy? This being the case wouldn’t this be an even greater reason to leave a religion rife with Liberal paedophiles?
Isn’t it more rational that in a need to seek out more men that were willing to become celibate workers within the Catholic church the standards were lowered which allowed men into the priesthood who were both homosexual and predatory? One does not necessarily certify the other to be sure.
And yes by moving priests that had raped children in the past the Vatican and several archdioceses did act to cover up their crimes. Whether they were “stalking horses” is a matter of semantics of the human tongue.
11. Almiranta | March 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Oh, get over it, Diane.
You belong to a “tribe” that thrives on feelings of persecution, so of course you identify with others who have also chosen to see themselves as victims.
The black people in this country who have chosen to move beyond second-class citizenship have done so.
I’m not going to fight the slavery wars again. We call this history because it happened in the past. And those who are determined to live in the past will never be able to succeed in the present.
I’ve been wronged many times, and have learned that carrying around hatred and resentment does not burden those I hate or resent—it is MY burden. And I chose to set this burden aside, and to move on, not choosing to cripple myself with unneccessary and unproductive thoughts and beliefs.
So the surliness of others about things over which I have never had control is not my burden it is theirs. I refuse to pick it up. I am responsible for what I do–not for what others do, not for what others did.
And the belief that white people all enjoy “unearned privilege” is so hateful, so insulting, so nasty, it makes me wonder why anyone would willingly shoulder it. But then, many do. Some of you just can’t wait to pick up that nasty, ugly, smelly burden, and insist on carrying it with you wherever you go.
Your choice.
But I refuse to accept this, or any of the other hostile and negative things you and your “tribe” and others want to dump on me.
I have earned every single thing I have. Would it have been harder if I were black? Probably. Would it have been impossible if I was surly, resentful, racist, resentful, hostile? Absolutely. Black or white, if I had tried to do what I have done with those attitudes, I would have failed.
And probably blamed others for my failures.
Would it have been easier if I were prettier? Smarter? Had parents to pay for an Ivy League education? Had connections in the business world? Had family money to finance my first business? You bet.
Would it have been harder if I were dumber? In a wheelchair? Yep.
That’s life. You play the hand you’re dealt.
If I had chosen to cut myself off from the blessings of this country because I got more emotional satisfaction from blaming it for everything that ever went wrong in my life, I would most certainly have made sure I was limiting my access to its advantages.
If no blacks had ever been able to succeed on their merits, I would give more credence to the belief that black people don’t stand a chance in this country.
But I not only see black people succeeding, on their talents, on their merits, I seem them shunned and reviled for doing so—by members of their “tribe”.
Which leads me to the conclusion that to many people, the goal is not to prove that blacks can succeed in this country but to prove that “blackness” is not compatible with success. Two very different things, when “blackness” is defined as hating whites, not trusting whites, not accepting whites, not moving comfortably in white-dominated circles, hating this country, clinging to old resentments, seething with anger at old and/or imagined insults, and working very hard to keep as much distance between the races as possible.
But I have often commented on the seething rage that attracts so many to radical Leftism—it is a political movement which recruits the angry, validates their rage, and sends them out to project their pathologies onto others.
12. Doug | March 29th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
If Obama is elected President, he would be the first racist President in my lifetime - that doesn’t necessarily mean he would be a bad President because of that, but he would be the first obvious racist one during my life.
13. jerry | March 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Doug-
Were you alive when Nixon was president? Because there are taped conversations of him railling against jews and n***ers.
Almiranta-
It was the left’s fault that those kids got raped by the priests. Man that is priceless.
14. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
11. Almiranta | March 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
That’s life. You play the hand you’re dealt.
Right. Play the hand you’re dealt. Gee I wish the guys in all those plantations in the South had felt like you we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Do you have any idea what the value of the work of slaves and the cost of the loss of their life was for those many generations? Twice the value of the US economy almost 30 trillion dollars in current terms. So you are saying, “Sorry for your bad luck.” You’ve earned nothing until you are able to climb down off that pedestal that’s made of human bones and admit that you wouldn’t be where you are if the real hard work hadn’t been borne on the backs of slaves. I freely admit that.
15. Canadian Observer | March 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Almiranta
It is apparent that you did not grasp the context of Diane Tomlison’s #7 post; or perhaps you did and are now waging an internal fight between right and wrong.
There is no shame, Almiranta, in abandoning ignorance and embracing knowledge. It’s ok to admit that you are human and can sometimes be wrong. It’s ok.
16. Almiranta | March 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“…you Almiranta and millions like you do not want to see the warts, the cuts on your wrists from the last suicide attempt or the stained sheets from the last infidelity. ..”
TMI, Diane. I really don’t need any more peeks into your own pathology. Eeeuuuuww.
Yes, Pain, the Church DID “lower its standards” when it accepted homosexuals into the priesthood. That was my point.
Actually, I think homosexuals can make excelllent priests. This is not a homophobic thing on my part. It’s the celibacy thing that fell apart.
It may very well have been a noble and Christlike motivation, opening up the priesthood to gay men. But when the ugly reality that some of them were using the priesthood to cloak their homosexual predatory natures, the Church found itself in a corner, unable to address the true nature of the problem—probably due to a combination of political correctness, the presence of homosexual men in high offices who hesitated to brand other gay men, fear of the powerful homsexual lobby backed by the radical Left and such as the ACLU, and the very human instinct to stick one’s head in the sand and pretend no one can see you.
The Church made mistakes. But the claims or implications that the Church supported child abuse, when children were not being abused but when post-pubescent boys were being assaulted by gay priests, were unfair, inaccurate, and widely spread by those more interested in damning the Church than in truth or justice.
You say: “….wouldn’t this be an even greater reason to leave a religion rife with Liberal paedophiles? ”
First, you persist in referring to these actions as “paedophilia” even after it has been repeatedly explained that sexual attraction to post-pubscent young people is NOT “paedophilia”. So your intellectual honesty appears to take a back seat to political expediency.
Second, you seem to think that one chooses a religion based on the individuals who happen to be, to some degree, representing it.
People join the Catholic Church because they believe in its doctrines, they believe it is the only Church created by Christ for His followers. It has survived for more than two millenia, and not because people dropped in and out based on the errors of those in leadership positions. The Church is the rock: people come and go.
Millions of Catholics protested the coverups of predatory homosexual priests. Millions of Catholics pressured the Church leaders to take more proactive roles in weeding out these predators. And BTW, the Church was NOT “rife” with Liberal predators—the percenage of predatory priests was very low.
But it would have been foolish for Catholics to abandon their religion because of the weaknesses of what were a very miniscule minority of its members, or the bad judgment of some of its leaders.
The reasons for being Catholic did not change.
And this is my point, and that of so many others—we choose our religions, we choose our parishes, because the TEACHINGS resonate within us.
And the TEACHINGS of Obama’s church clearly resonated within him, and within his wife, so much so that they have sent their young children to the same church, to lean the same teachings.
17. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
15. Canadian Observer | March 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Thanx CO,
For a bit there I thought I was speaking Dutch to a gathering of Welshmen.
18. Plantation Owner | March 29th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
If I knew then what I know now, I would have picked my own cotton!!!!
19. jerry | March 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Almranta-
You are wrong to assume that the priests were only attracted to post-pubescent boys. There are a number of cases where the abuses occured with boys as young 5-6 years old. Regardless, if they are 1 or 16 it is wrong and not the fault of the the left. It is the fault of the priests and the church for shuffling around known abusers.
20. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Almiranta,
Your post #11 is one of your best ever and SPOT ON!!
Diane, then in post #14 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that SHE DOESN’T GET IT.
Diane,
Which era has seen the most progress in terms of technological advancements and civil rights:
1800’s or the 1900’s?
And what is your opinion of Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, etc.?
21. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
But, happily, Almiranta knows nothing of the rage she perpetually accuses The Rabid Left ™ of.
So does anyone who is rabidly pursuing Senator Obama for his being a “racist” have any actual examples of where he engaged in a racist act or made a racist speech (”death to whitey” or “all white people are evil”) as opposed to being a long-time member of a Christian church that commenters here don’t approve of based on judgments from a distance? It is a Christian church with roots in a specific experience of being a black follower of Jesus Christ in America:
It is a truism that the greatest time of racial separation in America is Sunday morning, but that didn’t start with blacks Americans.
So, any examples of what Senator Obama himself did or said that everyone could agree was the unrepentant act of someone who holds “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” (courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online? Anyone?
22. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
To reply neocon the 20th century to be sure.
And on Cosby and Sowell I think they are both great minds and strong American voices. I disagree with some of their opinions but I think each of them would add something unique in an advisory role to whoever became president of the United States.
Let me offer you two what do you think of Ted Haggard and John Hagee?
23. Plantation Owner | March 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“You’ve earned nothing until you are able to climb down off that pedestal that’s made of human bones and admit that you wouldn’t be where you are if the real hard work hadn’t been borne on the backs of slaves. I freely admit that.”
There’s that “this country was built on the backs of slaves” nonsense again. Oh, please, slavery was in the south. Slavery was an expensive form of labor. Few plantation owners utilized that form. The real work was done by your Average Joe. The south was virtually destroyed by the Civil War. Union troops wanted to punish the traitors and very little survived and any personal wealth was taken.
You want to convince us that the south was rebuilt with slave labor?
“…people that have enjoyed unearned privilege for 400 years…”
What a racist thing to say. Painting an entire race with such a broad brush. I’ll have you know that I was not given anything by society, I have earned everything I have. Just because I am white does not provide me with what I need to live on nor did it get me through school. Nowadays, if you are a member of a minority YOU DO GET PRIVILEGE! It’s wrongly called affirmative action or reverse discrimination and by the government no less.
All these special programs in place, that gives them more opportunity, free money, free food, free just about anything and they still complain!!!
Why do you have so much have for your fellow man, unless they are of a certain race?
24. noodle | March 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Deleted - off topic.
25. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Call it nonsense if you want Plantation Owner [my that’s cute in a creepy Mandingo sort of way] but it is a fact that the South would have been uncultivated fields and the US economy would have collapsed in a trade deficit that would the current look tame if they had to rely on the Average white Joe to do the work of millions of slaves working in homes, fields and on boats all across the South. You act like the Confederacy wasn’t half of the USA.
26. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Almiranta -
“But it would have been foolish for Catholics to abandon their religion because of the weaknesses of what were a very miniscule minority of its members, or the bad judgment of some of its leaders.”
And the Trinity Church has tens of thousands of members and dozens of congregations around Chicago. So Obama should have renounced the church “because of the weaknesses of what were a very miniscule minority of its members, or the bad judgment of some of its leaders”… but it would be “foolish” for Catholics to renounce their church? Sounds like the very definition of a hypocritical double standard.
“First, you persist in referring to these actions as “paedophilia” even after it has been repeatedly explained that sexual attraction to post-pubscent young people is NOT “paedophilia”.”
My my - what diversionary delusions. Sounds just like Bill Clinton’s hyper-technical quibbling about the definition of “is”.
Well, whadya know! It’s not “paedophilia”! - it’s really called “sexual attraction to post-pubscent young people” (because that sounds sooo much better than “paedophilia”).
Question: if a priest fondles a 14 year old boy, is that paedophilia? Almiranta’s response: It depends on what you mean by “is” - and besides I prefer to call it “sexual attraction to post-pubescent young people”.
LOL!
27. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Not much.
28. Pain | March 29th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
24. noodle | March 29th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
One has to love people who think they are getting by on the principle of “Gott ist mit uns.”
We, Ourselves would prefer the adage, “keep your powder dry.”
29. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Diane,
Please prove your assertion that you claim it’s FACT that the south would have been uncultivated and the US economy would have collpased had it not been for slaves.
I want concrete proof, otherwise I will chalk that statement up to more politically-driven liberal sensationalism.
30. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Mark -
You never answered the question. Why are you still a member of a church whose head associated with and promoted members of the clergy who not only facilitated the sexual abuse and rape of hundreds and hundreds of children, but engaged in a decades-long cover-up of those crimes?
Why have you not renounced this church? Simply denouncing the offensive actions themselves - like Obama did - is apparently not enough, according to your logic. You must denounce the entire church… although even that is not enough because one will always wonder why you stayed in that church for so long after the sexual scandals and cover-ups by church leaders were revealed.
(again, using you logic…) Is it that you agree with priests molesting children? Must be so, because you stayed in the church. After all, if you are a member of that church, then you must agree with everything done and said by its leadership - right?
31. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
16. Almiranta | March 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
First, you persist in referring to these actions as “paedophilia” even after it has been repeatedly explained that sexual attraction to post-pubscent young people is NOT “paedophilia”. So your intellectual honesty appears to take a back seat to political expediency.
Second, you seem to think that one chooses a religion based on the individuals who happen to be, to some degree, representing it.
Okay for all that are interested the attraction by adults to adolescents is called ephebophilia. But in common use since we are not at a conference of the APA the term paedophilia is the common one used to describe sexual attraction to those deemed minors by the law.
Nice semantics dodge! Maybe we should just call it what it really is stautory rape.
And on the 2d point . . .
Isn’t that how you choose a place to worship? Yeah, yeah the trappings and tradition but none of that did anything to protect girls and boys from being raped, fondled and abused mentally.
Isnt this the whole meaning of the anger about Wright that he is “beyond the pale” in his discussions of race from the pulpit? The knowledge that you belong to an organization that is against the tenets of the religion. Can someone show me the Book of Cover Ups? C’mon Almiranta you can do better than that!
32. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
PO
>>>>”I have earned everything I have. Just because I am white does not provide me with what I need to live on nor did it get me through school. Nowadays, if you are a member of a minority YOU DO GET PRIVILEGE! It’s wrongly called affirmative action or reverse discrimination and by the government no less.”<<<
BINGO!
Im from the north, I have lived through the “civil rights” era.
Where im from there NEVER was separate ,drinking fountains, rear of the bus riding or any of the grievances the blacks had under the souths DEMOCRAT controlled states.
Im SOOOOOO over this hate whitey and “slavery” CRAP.
Im Irish, my ancestors were forced to migrate because of the British.
we dug the Erie barge canal, built the railroads, dug the mines, for PENNIES……..SO WHAT!
I believe i am blessed to be in this great nation by a quirk of civilizations.
I cant believe blacks dont honestly sit down and privately thank GOD their ancestors SOLD them to the white man, so some day they could partake of the American dream by just being born here.
Just look at some of the sally struthers videos of the african children with flies on their eyes and distended stomachs. This very well could be them if not for slavery…….GET OVER IT!!
Your relatives SOLD YOU, and some of our relatives bought you! WE OWE YOU NOTHING.
YOU OWE US ALL YOU HAVE!!
33. Mark Noonan | March 29th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Diane,
Your comment about our being the beneficiaries of privilege is just, well, foolish…its ahistorical, it is not grounded in facts or even a cursory understanding of what happened in the past 400 years…its pure, unadulterated, leftist bullsh**.
Obama’s family never suffered racism in America; never suffered under slavery - never, in short, had anything done to it…and yet he latches on to a racist, anti-American mountebank. Why? Because he’s a fool, and you’re a fool for believing him, and thinking he’s other than a con artist.
34. Mark Noonan | March 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Aaron,
Don’t be a fool - if Wright were guilty of sexual indiscretions, then the only thing Obama would have to do is call for Wright’s resignation…we’re not worried about Wright’s actions, but Wright’s ideology, and how much of that racist, anti-American ideology is shared by Obama.
And, finally, this is absolutely the very last time the scandal in the Church will be mentioned on this blog UNLESS I happen to write a post about it - no more attempts to change the subject. You &$*&%*(#’d leftists will address the issue at hand, or get lost.
35. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
29. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
In 1810 the die was cast in the new nation that was America. In the South one out of every 2 persons was a black slave. More and more slaves were being sold as commodities all over the United States. So from an economic standpoint slaves were doing the vast majority of non skilled field work the hard labor that whites did not desire to do. Also they were a valuable commodity that could replicate itself. Logically, if the South for many years was at break even or meager profit with a subtraction of the value of a growing slave population it appears clear to me that removal of the labor and commodity value would have bankrupted most of the South as a going concern prior to 1830. This, is precisely why there was no emancipation of slaves prior to the civil war and remains the reason why the South is so backward in many places to this day.
36. Mark Noonan | March 29th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Diane,
The value of the northern corn crop in 1861 exceeded the value of the sourthern cotton crop in 1861. It is a foolish myth that the wealth of America was built primarily upon slave labor…the wealth of a tiny plantation class in the south was so built, but slavery is a very inefficient means of production as the incentives are all wrong (with the slaves determined to do as little work as possible because hard work is unrewarded). Slavery perpetuated itself as a social arrangement more than as a necessary economic system - as proved by the ability of the south to continue to produce cotton post-slavery.
As a short course in what it was really like, I suggest “Battle Cry of Freedom”, which has an excellent portrayal of the American economy in the run up to the Civil War.
37. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Diane,
That’s an OPINION not FACT. Please learn the difference.
38. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
FrmMarine -
First, you don’t hear many blacks obsessing about slavery or demanding some sort of pay back for slavery, as you imply. Certainly, Barack has never been obsessed with anything of the sort. But there is undeniably a legacy of racial inequality that persists to this day from that tragic beginning. To say that today’s descendants of slaves are better off than most people in Africa in no way means that slavery in itself was a good thing, nor that the legacy of this slavery has been entirely overcome, not that blacks in this country are not happy to be Americans.
Second, I guess you missed these passages from Barack’s speech:
Read the full speech here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
39. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
And Noonan this is the blinding effect of white privilege in America. Any questioning of it or anyone pointing out that it exists is immediately met with shouts and insults and anger. What’s that all about? I didn’t call you a fool. I’m just giving you my opinion of matters as I see ‘em that’s all.
How can you honestly say what Obama’s mom suffered for having a biracial son? Or his grandma in Kansas for raising him? Come on Noonan this goes far beyond national politics into that dark place where our people have always been afraid to go.
You want America to stand up to fight this Islamofascist boogeyman that is possibly the greatest profit engine in the history of the world because they killed 3 000 people when the wealth of America was built on the backs of 20 million who died in bondage, millions more who suffered from overt white prejudice in the post reconstruction era and Jim Crow laws in the 20th Century. Can you fathom being a slave? I can’t can you imagine being five generations removed from slavery that would be jeremiah wright and even though none of the Noonan clan had any impact on Wright’s life millions of other white people stood by and did nothing for long enough that all of us bear a measure of that burden.
How is it that most of the wealth is still held in the hads of men and women whose faces look like mine? Do you think that’s a case of luck o th’ draw? How far do you have to go back to realize that these entitites made bank on the sale of slaves and the profit from the goods that were produced by their uncompensated labor?
And I will remain civil in this discourse no matter how many times you call me a fool.
40. What? | March 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Almiranta,
What is awesome about your comment in post 11 is that you first deny unearned white privliege:
“And the belief that white people all enjoy “unearned privilege” is so hateful, so insulting, so nasty, it makes me wonder why anyone would willingly shoulder it. But then, many do. Some of you just can’t wait to pick up that nasty, ugly, smelly burden, and insist on carrying it with you wherever you go.”
And then you confirm that it exists in this line:
“I have earned every single thing I have. Would it have been harder if I were black? Probably.”
That is hilarious! Good work for undermining your own arguement.
41. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
neocon,
remove a third of the value from the dow in one trading session and see what happens to the US economy
remove one third of discretionary spending from the US economy and see what happens.
opinions can be just as correct as peer reviewed research bub.
42. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
It’s simple, Mark. You don’t have to do anything but provide some concrete examples of Senator Obama’s own racist speeches or racist acts. It should be simple. After all, he’s been declared to be a racist here (”If Obama is elected President, he would be the first racist President in my lifetime,” opines Doug) so if he’s such a big racist then he must have some public record of such.
Of course, if the only intent is trying to justify from afar, on minimal “evidence”, that “[h]e belongs to a racist, anti-American church” and therefore is “uniquely unit” to be president then that’s something else. That’s just trying to avoid the responsibility of demonstrating that the standard that obviously applies to Senator McCain who can actively seek the endorsement of someone who slanders the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t apply just as freely to Senator Obama. So, come on. Prove that Barack Obama is himself a racist by his own words and own acts.
43. jerry | March 29th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Per Wiki- in 1860 there was approximately 3.9 million slaves in a country of 31 million people. That is I think like 12% of the entire population focused in the south producing cotton and other products being spun into textiles and other products in northern factories. Remove those 3.9 million people you drastically effect the economy of this country.
44. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Deleted - off topic.
45. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
aron
>>Second, I guess you missed these passages from Barack’s speech:<<
BUT
I didnt miss this…..http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/typical_white_factbased_reason.html
OR this
Trinity United Church of Christ
About Us
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
OR this……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5BxM
OR this…..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
46. What? | March 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Mark writes,
Diane,
Your comment about our being the beneficiaries of privilege is just, well, foolish…its ahistorical, it is not grounded in facts or even a cursory understanding of what happened in the past 400 years…its pure, unadulterated, leftist bullsh**.
Hmm, way to write a lot and say nothing, Mark. Insulting the writer does not prove your point, it only makes you look like you don’t have an argument.
Having stated evidence on previous occasion and had it ignored I feel I am pushing against a giant wall of willful ignorance. But here it goes.
Mark how do you explain the dispairity of wealth between whites and blacks? How do you explain the that children of middle class blacks are less likely than children of middle class whites to stay in the middle class? How do you explain discriminatory proctices of law enforcement towards blacks? Lower overall quality of schools with predominantly black students? The fewer number of blacks in high corporate office? Then there is the numerous antecdotal evidence blacks and white can point to as evidence of white privilege.
In short, we live in a society that is predominantly white. Being white within such a society is a benefit. Although affirmative steps have been taken to reduce this unwarranted privilege, it still exists.
I know you are going to say liberal social programs are the cause of all dispairity. This has been your fall back in the past. However, blaming government is shortsighted. It is a societal condition that only will be resolved with time and effort of society as a whole. No government program caused it and no government program will entirely fix it.
47. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Aron
>>>So, it’s more excusable to be a paedophile than to be in ideological disagreement<<<<
you left out THE major word defining your statement…….
CORRECT version…..
So, it’s more excusable to be a -HOMOSEXUAL- paedophile than to be in ideological disagreement
48. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
aron
“Mark how do you explain the dispairity of wealth between whites and blacks? How do you explain the that children of middle class blacks are less likely than children of middle class whites to stay in the middle class? How do you explain discriminatory proctices of law enforcement towards blacks? Lower overall quality of schools with predominantly black students? The fewer number of blacks in high corporate office?”
Maybe you should travel into the “HOOD” for these answers, and quit blaming ole whitey for all of these grievances.
49. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Race, Crime, and Violence
What is the color of crime in America?
Who is committing crime in this country and against whom? How much crime do blacks commit? Are Hispanics as violent as blacks? What about Asians? How much so-called hate crime is there in the country and who is committing it? The U.S. Department of Justice collects a huge amount of information on crime — enough to answer these questions. And, indeed, there are very substantial differences in crime rates by race.
Government statistics are essentially of three kinds: survey data, statistics on crimes reported to the police, and arrest figures. The annual Department of Justice survey is important because it gathers information on crimes that victims don’t report to the police. Even more important, every few years it gathers information on the race of both victims and perpetrators of violent crimes. It is therefore the only information about interracial crime collected at the national level. The survey is about as accurate a picture as it is possible to get of crimes Americans say they have suffered.
The Department of Justice also collects data on the number of crimes reported to the police and the number of arrests made — and racial data are included on most people who are arrested. Needless to say, these three kinds of information — crimes reported in surveys, crimes reported to the police, and arrests — represent a steady decrease in volume. For example, in 1997, the most recent year for which there is complete information, the annual survey found there were 1,883,000 cases of aggravated assault (attacks that could cause serious injury or death). Only 1,022,000 cases were reported to the police, and only 535,000 resulted in an arrest.
It is significant that the racial proportions for perpetrators as found in the survey data and the racial proportions for arrests are remarkably similar. Americans report in the survey that close to 60 percent of all robberies are committed by blacks and, indeed, 57 percent of arrests for robberies in 1997 were of blacks. The proportions are close for other violent crimes as well, which means that the police are arresting people of different races at essentially the same rates at which the public is being victimized by them. Endless assertions that the police arrest non-whites because of “racism” are largely false (see sidebar, p. 5).
A black is 103 times more likely to rob a white than
vice versa.
So who is committing the crime — and against whom? To start with the survey data on interracial violent crime, in 1994 (the most recent year racial data were gathered) there were about 1,276,000 single-offender crimes and 490,000 multiple-offender crimes. Although the survey categorizes victims and perpetrators as only “white,” “black,” and “other,” 89 percent of the single-offender crimes and 94 percent of the multiple-offender interracial crimes were committed by blacks against whites.
These are astonishingly lopsided figures. One way to understand just how lopsided they are is to express them as rates. The frequency of crime is usually expressed as a rate per 100,000 people. In these terms, 3,494 blacks out of every 100,000 committed a violent crime against a white person in 1994 while only 63 whites out of every 100,000 committed a violent crime against a black. The black rate is more than 55 times the white rate, meaning that the average black was 55 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. In the case of robbery, or “mugging,” blacks were 103 times more likely to go after whites than the reverse. These figures are shown on the graph on this page.
The numbers are even worse for group attacks. For overall group violence, the black-on-white rate is 102 times the white-on-black rate, and for robbery it is 277 times the white-on-black rate. It is very unusual to find multiples this great when comparing the behavior of different groups. If blacks are just two or three times more likely than whites to drop out of school or die of prostate cancer, it is considered a matter of national importance. But practically no one even knows that blacks are 50 to 200 times more likely than whites to attack someone of the other race. If whites were just four or five times more likely to attack blacks than the reverse, it would be considered a crisis that required national attention.
Some people have argued that blacks attack whites because whites are richer and more likely to be profitable robbery targets. However, fewer than 20 percent of all violent black-on-white crimes are robberies. The rest are assaults and rapes, which presumably do not have an economic motive. In 1994 more than 30,000 white women were raped by black men while only 5,400 black women were raped by whites (the latter figure is uncertain because the actual survey found too few actual white-on-black rapes to permit confidence in an extrapolation to the country at large). Blacks are thus approximately 40 times more likely to rape whites than vice versa. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that much of the violence committed by blacks against whites is motivated by racial hatred.
From the national survey data it is possible to tell how much violence is interracial and how much is not, and in fact there is more black-on-white violent crime than black-on-black. When blacks committed violent crime in 1994, they attacked whites 56.3 percent of the time, whereas when whites committed violence they attacked blacks only 2.6 percent of the time. This does not mean that blacks are victims of violent crime no more often than whites are. Even if blacks are victims of only about half of all black violence, that half is concentrated in the 13 percent of the population that is black. Therefore, blacks are still about five times more likely than whites to be victims of violent black criminals.
These findings from the national survey data are very important, but the data are limited to crimes of violence other than murder (you cannot survey a murder victim) and the racial breakdown of “white,” “black,” “other” tells us nothing about Hispanics or Asians. For information on other crimes and for better racial categories we can turn to arrest data.
Murder is, of course, the most spectacular violent crime but it is relatively rare. Of all violent crimes reported to the police, fewer than one percent are murder. In 1997 there were 15,289 known murders in the United States, which represented a rate of 6.8 per 100,000 Americans. This is the lowest rate since 1968, and represents the fourth straight year of decline. The murder rate hit an all-time high of 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980.
Of the 15,289 Americans who were killed in 1997, 49 percent were black, 48 percent were white and the rest were “other” with a handful of “unknowns.” More than half of those arrested for murder were black. Murder is the one crime for which the federal arrest data give some information about the race of both victim and criminal, and murder usually does not cross racial lines: Approximately 90 percent of murderers were the same race as their victims.
When murder is interracial, blacks are considerably more likely to be the offenders. There were approximately 1,100 whites killed by blacks and 480 blacks killed by whites, which means that a black was about 15 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa.
Because blacks are so much more likely to commit murder and robbery than any other racial group, the percentage of blacks in the local population is probably the best single indicator of the level of violence. The graph on this page, compiled by Glayde Whitney of Florida State University, plots the murder rate against the black percentage of the population for the 50 states and the District of Columbia (which is the outlying data point at the upper right). The trend could not be much clearer.
Puerto Rico is not included in Prof. Whitney’s data, but according to 1997 data, it had a murder rate of 18.9 per 100,000, which was three times the national rate of 6.8, and higher than that of any state. The murder rate was lower than that of the District of Columbia, however, which had a 1997 rate of 56.9. The states with the highest murder rates were those with the highest percentage of blacks: Louisiana (15.7 per 100,000) and Mississippi (13.1). The lowest murder rates are found in overwhelmingly white states like North Dakota (0.9), South Dakota (1.4), New Hampshire (1.4), and Vermont (1.5).
Needless to say, big cities with large black populations had the highest murder rates. In 1996, New Orleans came in first at 72 per 100,000 followed by Atlanta (47), Baltimore (46), St. Louis (44), Detroit (43) and Birmingham (42). By contrast, Seattle — mostly white — had a murder rate of seven per 100,000.
When arrest data for other crimes are compared by race, the results are as shown in the first two graphs on the next page. Here, arrest rates for different groups are calculated as multiples of the white arrest rate, with the white rate always set to one. The black rate of about nine for murder, for example, in the first graph does not mean that blacks committed nine time as many murders as whites, but that they were arrested for murder at nine times the white rate. Since there are about six times as many whites as there are blacks, it means that in absolute numbers, more blacks than whites were arrested for murder — in this case about 7,200 as opposed to 5,350.
The first graph shows a very clear pattern: Asians are arrested at lower rates than whites, and American Indians and blacks are arrested at consistently higher rates. (The “Asian” category includes Pacific Islanders, some of whom are quite crime-prone. Tongans, for example, are much more violent than Chinese or Koreans. However, their numbers are small and do not distort crime rates very much. All the data in this article on Asians also include Pacific Islanders.) As we saw earlier, arrest rates are a very good indicator of actual crime rates. Blacks are the most dangerous, crime-prone group in America and Asians are the least dangerous. Only a few crimes break this pattern. The second graph on this page shows multiples of arrest rates for atypical crimes. Gambling, for example, is the only crime for which Asians are arrested at a higher rate than whites (blacks are arrested at a much higher rate). Alcohol offenses are unusual in that whites are arrested for them at essentially the same rates as blacks, while Indians — true to their reputation — are the worst offenders. For white-collar crimes like forgery, fraud, and embezzlement, blacks are arrested at about three times the white rate and Indians at something close to the white rate. For most crimes, however, the pattern is consistent, with blacks committing the most crimes, followed by Indians, whites, and Asians.
Hispanic Crime
What about Hispanics? The national arrest data give the impression that Hispanics are never arrested for anything. Hispanic criminals are, of course, included in the four obligatory racial categories for arrests: white, black, Indian, and Asian. How many in which categories? The US Census Bureau gives us a clue. Its official estimate of the 1997 population divides all 268 million Americans into the four standard racial groups, but adds that there were also 29 million Hispanics who “can be of any race.” However, it also gives an estimate of non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, etc. Thus we find that according to the strictly racial classification there were 221 million whites in the country in 1997 but only 195 million non-Hispanic whites. When American Hispanics — approximately half of whom are Mexicans — are apportioned to the four racial categories, the Census Bureau thinks 91 percent are white, six percent black, one percent American Indian, and two percent Asian. This is crazy — it would be more accurate to consider the majority of them American Indians — but as far as the US government is concerned, almost all Hispanics are white.
This makes for odd census results. For example, according to the 1990 census, of the 3,485,000 people in Los Angeles, 52.9 percent were white, 13.9 percent black, 0.4 percent Indian, and 22.9 percent Asian — which adds up to 100 percent. This makes the city sound majority white. However, Los Angeles was also 39.3 percent Hispanic, and if we subtract the 91 percent of them who were probably classified as white, the real white population suddenly drops to 16.6 percent.
What does this mean for crime rates? Since at least 91 percent — if not all — Hispanics are lumped in with “whites,” if Hispanics commit crimes at higher rates than whites, official statistics inflate the white crime rate. Fortunately, some government jurisdictions can tell the difference between whites and Hispanics. The state of California, which has more Hispanics than any other, classifies its criminals as black, white, Hispanic, and other. The graph at the bottom of this page shows California arrest rates for the major violent crimes. As expected, blacks are the most violent, and specialize in mugging. Hispanics are roughly three times more likely than whites to be arrested for violent crime.
There is another way to estimate Hispanic crime rates. In 1996 the Department of Justice calculated incarceration rates per 100,000 population for non-Hispanic whites (193), Hispanics (688), and non-Hispanic blacks (1,571). Expressed as multiples of the white rate, the Hispanic rate is 3.56 and the black rate is 8.14. These multiples are close to the multiples for the California arrest data and justify the conclusion that Hispanics are roughly three times more likely than whites to commit various crimes.
We can calculate more accurate racial arrest rates if we separate out the 91 percent of Hispanic criminals we can assume are classified as white when they are arrested. By doing so, the white arrest rate decreases by about 20 percent and the arrest multiples for other races increase proportionately (in some cases Asian rates begin to approach white rates). The two side-by-side graphs on this page show how arrest rate multiples change when Hispanics are treated separately. For lack of more precise information, the Hispanic multiple is set at three times the white rate for all crimes even though there is certain to be some variation for different crimes. Both graphs are drawn to the same scale, with the white arrest rate set to one. They show at a glance how treating Hispanics as “whites” distorts crime figures.
It is worth noting that the survey data from which interracial crime data were extracted do not treat Hispanics as a separate category and probably includes virtually all Hispanics in the “white” group. It is therefore impossible to know how many of the “whites” who were reported to have done violence to blacks (or against whom blacks did violence) were actually Hispanic. If Hispanics commit violent crimes against blacks at a higher rate than whites — and judging from their higher arrest and incarceration rates for other offenses this is likely — then the survey data inflate white crime rates. The true figures for interracial crime are probably even more lopsided than those reported in the survey.
Disproportionate black crime rates have a seldom-discussed consequence: A lot of blacks lose the right to vote. In all but four states, felons cannot vote. In twelve states, a felony conviction can mean disfranchisement for life, but in most states, felons can reapply for the right to vote after they are off probation. Lefties have been wringing their hands over this, unsure of whether by calling attention to the number of blacks without the vote they can fight “racism” or whether calling attention to staggering black arrest rates will promote “racism.” Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project have plumped for the former, and report that two percent of all American adults are without the vote because of felony convictions and that among black men the figure is 13 percent. In seven states — Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming — a quarter of all black men are permanently ineligible to vote.
The lefties go on to point out that by 2020 about one third of all black men will probably have lost the right to vote. In the black parts of cities like Houston, Memphis, Miami, and New Orleans, as many as half the black men might be off the voting rosters. It causes the lefties great pain to imagine cities with black majorities but more white voters than black.
A very illuminating comparison can be made between arrest rates for blacks as compared to whites, and men as compared to women. We find that in terms of their likelihood to commit violent crimes, blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women. The first graph on this page shows the arrest rates for men for various crimes as multiples of the arrest rates for women. The next three graphs compare the male-female arrest multiple to the black-white multiple. Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more dangerous than women — and these graphs are not even adjusted for the inclusion of Hispanics in “white” arrest figures.
Everyone knows that a group of unknown men is potentially more dangerous than a group of otherwise similar women. It is entirely reasonable to take precautions around men that one would not take around women. From a statistical point of view, it is just as reasonable to distinguish between blacks and whites as carefully as one distinguishes between men and women. It would be foolish not to lock the car doors when driving through black neighborhoods.
Police, of course, know that blacks commit a great deal of crime, and this explains “racial profiling,” the practice of stopping and questioning proportionately more blacks than people of other races. The police would be crazy not to. They also stop more men than women and more young people than old people. The police know from experience who the crooks are likely to be. If they spent as much time investigating old Asian ladies as they did young black men they would never get their jobs done. Everyone understands that men are more crime-prone than women and they understand why men are stopped more often than women. It is only because of racial hysteria that so many people at least pretend to believe the police stop blacks more often than whites because of “racism.”
50. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Aaron,
Come on! Don’t be ridiculous. All you have to do to know for a fact that Trinity United Church of Christ (”You bestow upon us your Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.”) located at 400 West 95th Street in Chicago, Illinois is a “racist, anti-American church” is to watch a few video clips and read some extracts from webpages on their site.
I must admit that I’m a little puzzled by that reference to the “church” as “racist” and “anti-American”. Is it the building or just every single person who calls themselves a member. Shouldn’t the FBI’s Chicago office send a team of agents over to the building and start interrogating all these people? I mean, they’re all “anti-American”. Maybe we should tap all their phones and monitor their movements with round-the-clock surveillance. At a minimum, the FBI should have a file started on each and every one of them. After all, they’re “anti-American” so they are probably all plotting with terrorists.
51. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Mark -
“Obama’s family never suffered racism in America; never suffered under slavery - never, in short, had anything done to it…and yet he latches on to a racist, anti-American mountebank.”
Following up on Diana Powe’s line of questioning, I’d like you to present examples of Obama “latching onto a racist, anti-American mountebank”. Show me quotes from Obama himself that indicate that he’s racist or anti-American.
Mostly, you seem determined to afix guilt by association. When confronted with the absurdity of this kind of logic vis-a-vis your own relationship with the Catholic church, you get very upset.
And I have never heard Obama say that his family suffered from racism - this is just another typical straw man argument. But you sound so sure that his family hasn’t suffered racism. How would you know? In any case, show me where Obama has ever portrayed himself as a victim of racism. I’ve heard him say that being raised by a single-mother can be tough - but that’s true for people of any race. Mostly, I’ve only heard Obama say that he’s been incredibly blessed to be an American. You are once again purposely fabricating and distorting.
52. William Teach | March 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
And Diane wins the prize for most hysterical (I mean that in both ways) Liberal of the day!
Is the Church and so many of its members racist? Maybe. What they are is certainly bigotted and seperatist.
Imagine if this was a white church, and the white pastor was preaching in this manner, Diane. Would you and the rest of the liberal establishment be decrying the church, asking the Feds to investigate it and pull its tax exemption, as well as writing letters, filling out petitions, and protesting the church?
You know you would, even if you will refuse to answer honestly, Diane.
And their rhetoric sure sounds like they do not like America very much.
53. William Teach | March 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Yup, liberals never ever do that. I remember that every GOP congressperson or Bush admin member that even remotely met Jack Abromoff was immediately deemed dirty (while the Dems were not).
How about the libs convicting Rove for the affair d’Plame before the investigation had even started?
And there are even more examples.
Funny how liberals find it A-OK for Obama to go to the church for 20 years, etc and so on, and will make any excuse in the book up to protect him from his own past.
54. Tractatus | March 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Mostly, you seem determined to afix guilt by association. When confronted with the absurdity of this kind of logic vis-a-vis your own relationship with the Catholic church, you get very upset.
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure Noonan believes all this stuff; I think he might just see it as a good means of attack. Granted, he’s demonstrated an amazing ability to fixate on the speck in somebody else’s eye while ignoring the massive plank in his own, not to mention his unwavering adherence to his preferred narrative over actual fact, but I get the sense that perhaps he’s just trying out attack strategies here. The “Obama’s a commie!” one didn’t work, and neither did the “Obama’s a stealth Muslim!” But he thinks he’s onto something with this whole “Obama is a horrendous racist!” line, so he’s sticking with it for the time being, even if it involves blatant hypocrisy and a complete lack of understand of racial dynamics in the U.S.
Or maybe he really does believe it. Which would be kind of sad, but not exactly surprising.
I hope FmrMarine becomes the GOP’s director of minority outreach. Man, that’d be hilarious.
55. Aaron | March 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
William Teach
“Imagine if this was a white church, and the white pastor was preaching in this manner, Diane. “
Uh, Teach, this church has many white members, as well as white leaders: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw
56. William Teach | March 29th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I know they have some white members, but, that is not what I meant, Aaron, which I am sure you are aware of
57. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Here is a good article Mark;
this pretty well sums it up.
From The Chicago Tribune, February 06, 2007, Column:
Against Middleclassness? by Rich Lowry. “Vallmer Jordan, a
church member who helped draft the precepts, said they were
designed to empower the black community and counter a value
system imposed by whites. ‘The big question mark was
racism,’ he said. ‘Black disempowerment was an integral
part of that historical value system. It became
increasingly apparent to me that we black people had not
developed our own value system…… to help us overcome
all we knew we had to battle.’”
“A value system imposed by whites…” Is Jordan speaking of
the value system that kept families together and promoted
morality, industry and integrity, or the one imposed by
liberal dependency pimps since the Civil Rights Movement?
True enough that many blacks did abandon values; again,
this was due to the corruption of the black clergy by white
socialists and their black foremen. Trinity United seems to
have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Gravitation
toward an Africanized “year-round Kwanzaa”-based pseudo-
Christianity seems less of a solution than returning to the
moral and social conservatism Blacks held prior to the
aforementioned socialists gaining their stranglehold in the
black community.
So is Obama seeking to be our first black president, or our
first stealth black nationalist president? You see, were he
a run-of-the-mill insincere Christian of convenience like
Bill Clinton, Obama might belong to a run-of-the-mill,
lukewarm, large nondescript church. But he doesn’t. He
belongs to a church which is (as I indicated before)
blatantly afrocentric and even suggests the supremacy of
Africa’s descendants in America.
58. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
William Teach,
Your arguments would be more persuasive if you cared enough about accuracy to pay attention to how my name is spelled. Also, I note with interest your own utter dishonesty by asking a question and then dictating that I may only answer one way to be “honest”. The “what if it was a white church” canard is simply lame. Believe it or not, a person who is black in America experiences their social and cultural life differently than someone who is white in America even when the white Americans aren’t wearing hoods and burning crosses.
Take it away, Secretary Rice (emphasis added):
59. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Diane,
You’re comparing America 1860’s to todays America, which is patently absurd and dishonest. And you have not provided concrete factual proof of your claim. Therefore, you are a dishonest liberal sensationalizing opinions to further your political agenda.
tsk tsk
60. William Teach | March 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
In other words, you cannot be honest about it, and will instead deflect away. I’m not surprised.
61. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
TAC
LOL
>>>I hope FmrMarine becomes the GOP’s director of minority outreach. Man, that’d be hilarious.<<<
Im not a racist, but, - i am a realist.
The facts speak for them selves, I dont make them up. We have a HUGE racial issue in this country but by blaming the white man, and slavery for it is pure idiocy.
Men preaching this loonacy from the pulpit as earbamas “minister” does only throws gasoline on a very serious problem. Blacks could learn much from Cosby and the others who preach self determination, and HARD work.
I lived through the “civil rights” days, through the looting, burning, rampaging, murdering days in the 60 and 70’s where almost every major city in the US had riots costing untold billions.
I have seen beautiful areas turned into trash heaps by the people who live there, not by some mystical racism.
Any one of ANY color can and does move freely through my neighborhood, and its businesses. This is not true for other areas where ole whitey isnt welcome after dark.
We do have a racism problem here, it just does not live in my house or community. The solving of this horrendous problem will have to be solved elsewhere.
62. kimberly4victory | March 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
DianA: On the one hand, she said, race in the U.S. “continues to have effects” on public discussions and “the deepest thoughts that people hold.” On the other, “enormous progress” has been made, which allowed her to become the nation’s chief diplomat.
Get it. Enormous progress. She’s right.
I love how liberals are now quoting Rice, not once but twice (first in the open thread by Joe). And here I thought she was a liar, a bush apologist, blah, blah, blah.
63. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
neocon,
whatever let you children and grandchildren pay for in blood what you won’t with breath.
64. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
William Teach,
I also note with interest your failure to take up my challenge to demonstrate with Senator Obama’s own speeches and own individual acts what a big racist he is instead of trying to just imply that, “Well, he must be a big racist because I’ve decided (from a safe distance and with minimal information) that the church where he is a member is ‘racist and anti-American’”. Of course, when I called Mark on that, your response was to try to walk it back and say that “maybe” they’re not all racist but that they are all definitely “bigotted (sic) and seperatist (sic)”. Obviously, I’m pretty dense, because I would think that being bigoted and separatist would pretty much be the same as being racist if the bigotry and separatism were based on race.
65. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Diana,
They can’t because this is the same tech the argument rhetoric they used to whip up crowds for lynch mobs seventy yeras ago. It plays to that idea of ignorance than in a nation run by corporations that having a black man at its governmental apex could possibly cause anymore trouble than the neocons and whacko fundies that wander around the White House praying in little groups.
They’ve taken a great idea, the one of representative democracv and turned it into a pornography of fake religiosity and bloodthirsty bigotry. Reverend Wright called it as he saw it and if were Barack obama I would be in the front row of his church tomorrow morning.
66. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
dp
>>>>what a big racist he is instead of trying to just imply that, “Well, he must be a big racist because I’ve decided (from a safe distance and with minimal information) that the church where he is a member is ‘racist and anti-American’”.<<<
OK
let me get this straight…….
someone belongs to the KKK, the grand lizard or whatever marrys this man and his wife.
They become close personal friends. His children belong to the KKK junior achievers.
He tithes thousands of dollars to his KKK “church”.
Belonga to the organization for 20 plus years,
YET
When he decides to run for President his flying monkeys all scream “BUT HE never has said anything racist or hateful” ” you cant just lump them all together” line of B#!! S#!T
67. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
kimberly4victory,
Believe it or not, human beings are actually complex. So, yes, Secretary Rice can say things that are true about being black in America while at the same time serving the damaging purposes of the Bush Administration. Sorry about that.
“[S]he said, race in the U.S. ‘continues to have effects’ on public discussions and ‘the deepest thoughts that people hold’”. “Continues to have effects” today. Now. Witness the evidence of this thread and its comments.
So got any evidence that the junior senator from Illinois is a big racist based on his own speeches and own acts? He must have a public record somewhere of racist words and deeds since that’s the basis for his being “uniquely unfit” to be president.
68. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
FmrMarine,
Ahh, now we see. The Trinity United Church of Christ located at 400 West 95th Street in Chicago, Illinois is just like the Ku Klux Klan. There’s a newsy bit. We wait with breathless anticipation your pointing out all the times that church members have burned crosses, carried out lynchings of white people and engaged in personal acts of racial intimidation.
69. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Diane,
WHAT? Was that a drive by ad hominen attack because you’ve realized that I am correct?
And the sentence structure is horrible.
70. kimberly4victory | March 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I guess you haven’t read any of his books …
From ‘Dreams of My Father’,
“I CEASED TO ADVERTISE MY MOTHER’S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites”
From Dreams of My Father, ” I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”.
From ‘Dreams of my Father’, “The emotion between the races could never be pure….. the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART”
From Dreams Of My Father, “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. IT WAS INTO MY FATHER’S IMAGE , THE BLACK MAN, THE SON OF AFRICA, THAT I’D PACKED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES I SOUGHT IN MYSELF.
From Dreams Of My Father:
“THAT HATE HADN’T GONE AWAY,” he wrote, BLAMING WHITE PEOPLE,- SOME CRUEL, SOME IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”
71. FmrMarine | March 29th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
dt
caught you in another marxist urban legend.
>>>>They can’t because this is the same tech the argument rhetoric they used to whip up crowds for lynch mobs seventy yeras ago. <<<<
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9A00E3DF1F3AE633A25757C0A9659C946296D6CF&oref=slogin
72. Plantation Owner | March 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Race issues are a simple means of money making.
Just look at the existing poverty pimps that come out every election year. They go into the big cities, give out some t-shirts, food and promises to fight for them. In the end, nothing is done, but they have achieved their political positions. More of the same, keep them on the plantation and blame others.
Any highly questionable racial issues that comes out, you see the same individuals and parade in front of the cameras, rant and rave and receive “donations” for their continued fight.
It’s really pathetic to see these individuals exploit their poor counterparts for their own gain. Those who have wised up are always criticized by these race mongers as “uncle toms” and those who “acted white” to get where they are. Why? Because those who have wised up are a threat to the pimps and mongers - a threat to their way of life and status.
Truly pathetic.
73. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
A question to liberals,
If Obama has rightfully pointed out that Hillary is only wanting to accept the credit for the good things of the Clinton administration and distances herself from the not so good, isn’t that exactly what Obama is doing with Wright and Trinity Church?
74. kimberly4victory | March 29th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years,” Obama said. “While the anger is not always productive,” Obama continued, “[it is] real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.”
Yet while Wright, 66, no doubt had brushes with discrimination growing up in Philadelphia, it was nothing compared with what Condoleezza Rice faced — or, for that matter, what six million Jews who were slaughtered by Adolf Hitler faced.
In contrast to Wright, who attended an integrated school, Rice grew up in segregated Birmingham, Ala. Denise McNair, one of Rice’s friends and classmates, was one of the four girls who was killed in the Ku Klux Klan bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church.
Rice had to sit at the back of buses. When more whites got on, the driver would move a “Colored” sign farther back in the bus, making less room for blacks. Rice could not eat at the same restaurants as whites unless the restaurant had a separate room with a separate entrance for blacks.
She was not allowed to use the same drinking fountains or public restrooms as whites. But Condi Rice, a descendant of slaves and white slave owners, had something else going for her: Her middle-class black neighborhood had developed a culture separate from the rest of the city, one that shut out the racism all around and taught children they had to be “twice as good” to pull even with whites.
Instead of teaching Rice to carry a chip on her shoulder, as she has told me, Rice’s parents amplified those positive values, giving her a strong sense of self-worth.
Rice’s father, the Rev. John W. Rice Jr., instilled in his daughter the faith that she brought with her into the White House and the State Department.
While Rice is comfortable with her own heritage and often speaks before black groups, she does not dwell on the racism she experienced growing up. Above all, Rice is proud of America and the opportunities that everyone now has. Witness the fact that she is secretary of state.
What a contrast to the poisonous atmosphere at the church that Obama has chosen to attend for more than two decades and the demagoguery of the man he calls his friend, sounding board, and mentor.
By: Ronald Kessler
75. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Brilliant Kimberly
76. Robert | March 29th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Deleted - off topic.
77. js | March 29th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Deleted - off topic.
78. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
kimberly4victory,
Thanks for the extended quote from Ronald Kessler, who writes for Newsmax and who caused William Kristol to issue a correction and apology for repeating Kessler’s false assertion that Senator Obama was at Trinity on July 22, 2007 in the New York Times. Got any evidence of Barack Obama’s speeches or personal actions that demonstrate that he’s a big racist just like the Ku Klux Klan (as FmrMarine would have it)? We’re all still waiting. He’s such a racist it really can’t be hard to find all the hatred he has for people that aren’t black. I note that you’re wanting to pluck descriptions of feelings he had growing up as evidence of what a big racist he is today. How about something a little relevant given that he was describing how he used to feel in a biography designed to show his appeal to all voters.
79. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Meanwhile, js inserts yet another off-topic comment focusing on those particular js obsessions.
80. js | March 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
your slipping again DP
why is it that in just about every post you make, I can find a lie?
strange, and you say you are a cop?
not an honest one evidently.
isnt it funny how barak endorses abortion and sodomite marraiges, and you call me off topic?
instead, you need to stop the attacks on me, this is getting old….
81. Canadian Observer | March 29th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
In the current U.S. educational system, when American History is being taught to students, do teachers devote any time at all explaining what the consequences would be to a country that had enforced slavery on generations of a segment of its population?
There seems to be an outbreak of amnesia among certain individuals here. I realize that the U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to education, but, hey, that’s no excuse for ignorance in adults.
The information is there, educate yourselves.
82. neocon | March 29th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Co,
I guess in this case they become the leader of the free world.
83. Diane Tomlinson | March 29th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
FmrMarine
A nyt article on lynching from 1913?
Are you crazy?
84. kimberly4victory | March 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
DianA: You totally missed the point of my post. Obama’s explanation of why he is standing next to Wright on his comments is how poor Rev Wright and his generation can’t get past the hate and bitterness of what happened decades ago.
However, Rice, who personally witnessed hatred against blacks, was taught to rise above it. She didn’t harbor ill feelings towards whites or the country she loves, and instead, listened to the true teachings of our Lord … forgiveness.
I would hope if I had suffered so much hatred and pain from those of another race that I would do the same as Condi Rice, not Rev. Wright.
It takes someone of great character to do as she has. I admire her for that.
You can’t possibly deny there has to be some question of whether Obama believes what his pastor, friend and mentor of twenty years spouts. I don’t need to prove it. His membership in that “church” proves it and his relationship with the man proves it.
In the “snippets” of Rev. Wright’s rants against whites and America, his congregation certainly does agree with it by their shouts of “Amen!”
85. Jeremiah | March 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
However, Rice, who personally witnessed hatred against blacks, was taught to rise above it. She didn’t harbor ill feelings towards whites or the country she loves, and instead, listened to the true teachings of our Lord … forgiveness.
Exactly!
Amen, Kimberly4Victory, Amen!
–Jeremiah–
86. kimberly4victory | March 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama’s church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama’s attendance. Mr. Davis’ story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator’s attendance and Rev. Wright’s comments during his sermon. The Senator’s office declined to comment.
87. Diana Powe | March 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Yes, I can most certainly deny something for which there is nothing but inference and innuendo. It’s really and truly not that hard. If Senator Barack Obama is genuinely a big racist, which in this context, means he’s being accused of being anti-white, then there should be ample evidence of that fact. We should be able to read his speeches or accounts of his actions which demonstrates that he hates white people and thinks that black people are superior because they’re black. So, all you have to do is produce that evidence.
No inferences. No bogus concern-troll “questions”. The evidence by his own personal words and deeds that demonstrates that Barack Obama is a racist. However, we know the answer because I’ve posed this challenge and there hasn’t been one thing offered except your lame attempt at trying to use his feelings while growing up, described in his campaign biography designed to increase his appeal to voters of all races, to show that he’s a racist today.
By the way, there’s no point in quoting without attribution from Newsmax again in which they try to rehabilitate the story that Ronald Kessler tried to peddle with a source who has since waffled on his account and for which William Kristol has issued a correction and apology in the New York Times. If you’re going to quote a group of hacks like Newsmax at least show them the courtesy of giving them attribution.
88. Jeremiah | March 29th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
If Senator Barack Obama is genuinely a big racist, which in this context, means he’s being accused of being anti-white, then there should be ample evidence of that fact.
Well, it doesn’t take that much to figure it out, unless you’re as blind as you and as Almiranta always says your fellow travellers are…
Obama’s associations are proof enough, he doesn’t have to say a thing … anyone who is affiliated with the likes of Mr. Wright and Lewis Farrakhan and even his own father speaks volumes about his past….and naturally, Obama is going to do whatever he needs to do to deceive the American people to make them believe about him so that he can get the nod come the big day in Nov.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s a liar, just plain and simple …. he may put on a big suit and tie, and deliver a good speech, but that doesn’t cut it when you get down to the nitty gritty and 300,000,000+ American people are in the balance.
–Jeremiah–
89. Canadian Observer | March 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
If Obama becomes your President, America will have a chance at redemption.
It would show the world that you are putting to rest a grievous past and are indeed a great and noble nation, uniting together to forge a better and brighter future for all citizens.
90. kimberly4victory | March 29th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
DianA, DianA, DianA …
“Yes, I can most certainly deny something for which there is nothing but inference and innuendo. It’s really and truly not that hard.”
Okay. That’s your right. You can certainly deny and you can close your eyes to the fact Obama holds Rev Wright close to him as a friend and mentor for 20 years and DOESN’T listen to his anti-white, anti-American beliefs and DOESN’T agree with any of it, not one tiny bit of it.
After all, he’s already been caught in a lie about never hearing Wright’s racist rantings!
Why shouldn’t we believe him when he states he is not a racist? Because he has had a