Wow!!! Greta van Susteren just posted something on the Pastor J-Wright-Obama controversy. To say that it was a blistering attack on Sen. Obama’s observational skills is understatement. First, here’s what the AP is reporting on Sen. Obama’s statement:

Democrat Barack Obama says he was outraged by the comments of his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and saddened by the spectacle of his appearance on Monday. Wright said Monday that criticism surrounding his fiery sermons is an attack on the black church.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that Wright’s comments do not accurately portray the perspective of the black church. Obama said, “I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday.”

Wright’s incendiary comments have dogged Obama’s presidential campaign.

Let’s give Greta credit for asking the most pertinent questions in this paragraph:

Reverend Wright is not the man he thought he was…..so naturally people will ask: what took you so long to figure it out? 20 years and only yesterday? are you that oblivious or is this statement political and calculating? and others will applaud him…saying what courage to address the issue…that he is standing up for what he believes even if it means denouncing someone you had admired..and that he is showing candor…

(continue reading post »)

ABC’s Jake Tapper just posted that the Pastor Wright ad that the NCGOP planned on running won’t run, at least in a large part of the state. The people at those stations are kidding themselves if they think that this stops the so-called controversy. First, let’s identify the stations:

ABC Charlotte affiliate WSOC-TV and CBS Raleigh affiliate WRAL-TV are refusing to air the North Carolina Republican Party TV ad featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an ad condemned by both the RNC and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

“I just don’t think it’s appropriate to be on our air,” Joe Pomilla, general manager for WSOC-TV, told The Charlotte Observer. “I think it’s offensive, and I’m not real comfortable with the implications around race.”

Mr. Pomilla’s saying that the ad has racial implications is insulting. This ad doesn’t have anything to do with race except with people who think that everything is racial. This has to do with highlighting Sen. Obama’s relationship with extremists. That’s fair game.

There’s another question that begs asking, namely, would they have refused to run this ad if Hillary was making this buy? I suspect that they would. If they would’ve run this ad had it been Hillary’s buy, then isn’t that censorship?

It’s worth questioning Democrats’ objections to the ad based on this statement: (continue reading post »)

NRO’s Andrew McCarthy column introduces America to the Barack Obama that’s kept tucked in the closet.The picture he paints with Obama’s decisions isn’t pretty. The first glimpse into Sen. Obama’s beliefs is through his wife Michelle:

After four years at one of America’s most esteemed academic institutions, Michelle recoiled at the thought of “further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.” That the sky has been the limit for her, that she has managed to ride the “periphery” from Princeton to Harvard Law School, to one of the country’s top law firms, and to a plethora of prestigious institutional positions, has not much altered her perspective. Through the windows of her mansion on Chicago’s south side, American society still appears as a caste system.

The first question that I’d ask Michelle Obama would be about the belief system that’s required to ignore the realities that she’s ignored. She’s lived in a world that few are privileged to enter yet she’s utterly jaded. Why? What justification does she have for maintaining that mindset? It’s downright scary that a woman of that much privilege can think that way.

As scary as that is, it pales in comparison to Jeremiah Wright. Sen. Obama once called Pastor J-Wright his spiritual mentor. We also learned that Pastor J-Wright believed in something called Black Theology. Here’s the heart of Black Theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community…Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

As an evangelical Christian, I’ll confidently tell you that this ‘theology’ goes against the central teachings of the Bible. The Bible says that God isn’t “willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” That’s directly at odds with Black Theology. Black Theology is the polar opposite of the Great Commandment,too, part of which says that we are to love our neighbor as ourself. (continue reading post »)

Barack Obama continues to rationalize his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. On The View yesterday he said: “Had the Reverend not retired… I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church…”

About twenty years ago, my wife and I were invited to hear a speech. The meeting’s organizers seemed friendly enough and we felt comfortable in their presence. But as the speaker began to describe the importance of racial purity I raised my hand, stood next to my dark-skinned Indian wife, and asked for clarification. When the speaker reiterated his point, my wife and I got up and left. We never returned to the meeting place, nor did we associate with those who attended. We had nothing in common with those people.

It’s hard to understand why Obama exposes his wife and daughters to such people, UNLESS we accept that he exploits his family and congregation to gain the black racial authenticity that his white mother could not deliver. While I defend his right to associate with anyone, it’s hard to consider someone as a legitimate candidate for ANY public office who willingly exposes his children to the hatred celebrated by Wright’s congregation. It also explains his wife’s racial volatility and unexplainable shame of being American.

But to be a legitimate Democrat Party candidate, Obama (and other race-baiters) must implicate Republicans for the Democrat Party’s own racial history, and forgive guilt-ridden whites who submit to, and collaborate with, the Democrat Party’s patriarchal endorsement of black racial authority.

Without Jeremiah Wright and his primitive congregation, Democrats would dismiss the Obamas as just another high achieving black family trying to be white.

After posting these (1, 2) previous essays on the Democrat Party’s racist infamy, I received several more inquiries about their subatomic contributions toward civil rights. I hope to now answer those last questions.

While Democrats have changed their tactics, cosmetics, and geography since 1792, their perpetual expectation of black inferiority (and presumed racial superiority) remains the same today as it did in 1808 and 1908. A few quick examples:

1. Democrats who insisted that blacks were too stupid to hire in 1908 now use affirmative action to compensate for that same presumed racial inferiority.
2. Hate crime legislation implies that blacks who murder blacks deserve a lesser sentence than whites who (rarely) murder blacks.
3. Democrats who think black mothers have the right to kill their unborn babies are too stupid to manage school vouchers.
4. Democrats who support gun control presume that law-abiding blacks are too stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible to carry concealed firearms in crime-ridden cities where gang members regularly carry and use concealed firearms.

In 1808, blacks who sought freedom were beaten and murdered by Democrats, while Republicans established and operated the Underground Railroad.

In 1908, free blacks who embraced the Republican Party risked the terror and murder wrought by the KKK.

Because Republicans forced Democrats to end lynching and Jim Crow, free blacks are still demonized today in the form of Oreos, epithets, and social alienation. While this may seem like harmless fun to good ol’ boy Democrats, the stigma associated with personal achievement still cripples blacks who choose failure, mediocrity, and poverty to retain their black authenticity.

Unlike the black, white, rich, poor, gay, Christian, secular and Jewish Republicans who view and accept themselves as Party equals, Barack Obama affiliates himself with Trinity not because of Jeremiah Wright’s spiritual coherence, but to secure the “black authenticity” he needs to get other Democrats to accept him. But while Obama’s political choices are comparatively harmless, the fact that millions of black students still fail in school, or that black adults vote Democrat, to avoid the appearance of “looking white,” is a derivative of the black inferiority that Democrats have continuously promoted since 1792.

Self-depreciating minstrel shows that entertained Democrats 100 years ago have been replaced by gangsta rappers today and condescended to as the free expression of urban genius.

This political cynicism isn’t confined to black Americans either. Gay men who support and celebrate the freedoms established by the Republican Party are vilified and alienated by Democrats as self-loathing gays. Republicans bristle at lewd celebrations not because they’re homophobic as Democrats accuse, but for the same reason that San Francisco residents would oppose public heterosexual expressions by Richard or Lynne Cheney.

Although most Americans still oppose gay marriage, the Democrat Party promotes it as a civil rights issue; not because they believe rectal intercourse and fisting is healthy for America, but because they need ANYTHING to build upon their counterfeit human rights record to win votes.

The Democrat Party’s institutionalized sympathizers (public education, universities, and the media) have successfully sold their uninterrupted political contempt for blacks as a racial issue 1) by blaming ALL whites for the exclusive and well-documented sins of the Democrat Party and 2) by bestowing a false sense of racial innocence to those who embrace the Democrat Party and their (anti-) civil rights record. This historical perversion is what leads people like Barack Obama to ridicule his grandmother as a typical white person instead of blaming her for being the committed Democrat she always was.

Both essays (1, 2) illustrate that, since their party’s inception, 1) Republicans have been consistently preoccupied with freedom and empowerment for all Americans equally, while Democrats have been preoccupied with black inferiority, subjugation, and exploitation. In light of their history, further niggling about the synthetic or accidental contributions that Democrats made toward civil rights is an unproductive exercise in futility unworthy of anyone’s time.

Related essays:

An Offer of Proof (2006)
Challenging an Unreasonable Doubt (2008)

As much as Barack Obama’s pastor hates whitey, he apparently hates black people more.

Jeremiah Wright’s new 10,340 square foot four bedroom home is surrounded not by his loving black flock, but inside the gated community in Tinley Park, where only 1.9 percent of his neighbors are black.

Jeff Goldblatt (Fox News) also reports that Wright purchased the property for $345K in 2004 and sold it to his church (Trinity) in 2006 for $308K, with the proceeds going to a living trust shared with his wife. His church then secured a $1.6 million mortgage for the home with a $10 million credit line.

While tax expert Jack Siegel says there’s nothing technically wrong with the arrangement, it’s hard to imagine why the pastor disaster moved from the community that enriched him, unless he’s fully-retired from his career of exploiting gullible blacks to enjoy the rewards of white capitalism.

Prior to the Wisconsin Primary, Michelle Obama said that she was finally proud to be called an American. At the time, it seemed like a peculiar statement at the time. After reading Ed Koch’s column about the Obamas, her statement takes on a totally different complexion. Here’s the YouTube of Michelle Obama’s statement:

Here’s one of the key portions of Mayor Koch’s column:

It is also disturbing to me that Obama’s wife, Michelle, during a speech in Wisconsin last month, said, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Strange. This is a woman who has had a good life, with opportunities few whites or blacks have been given. When she entered Princeton and Harvard and later became a partner in a prestigious law firm, didn’t she feel proud to be an American? When she and the Senator bought their new home, was there no feeling of accomplishment and pride in being a U.S. citizen? When her husband was elected to the state legislature and subsequently to the United States Senate, didn’t she feel proud of her country?

As powerful a set of questions as that is, they pale in comparison to this portion of Koch’s column: (continue reading post »)

Two years ago, a liberal friend of mine told me that Republicans had introduced slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK to the United States, and that Democrats had always been champions of civil rights for Black Americans. Another friend, a successful physician, expressed surprise when I told him that Abraham Lincoln the first Republican president.

A few weeks later, I wrote this essay to illustrate how our public schools and media had successfully reinvented American history. It remains one of my most satisfying essays and one that still generates controversy.

Although I don’t ordinarily respond to Daily Kos moonbats, Brian penned this somewhat coherent response:

Phooey.

FDR, a Democrat, started efforts to end Jim Crow against the pressures of his own Party. Truman, a Democrat, desegregated the military by executive order against the wishes of Democrats AND Republicans in Congress. (Many associate this action with the Civil Rights banner being carried by the Democratic Party and the long association of the black community with Democratic Politics.)

JFK inspired a generation of civil rights activists. (Of course, there was Hoover’s investigations of civil rights activists, but go ahead, link Hoover to anyone but himself!)

LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act — which admittedly was opposed by many Southern Democrats. However, northern and Western Democrats, along with Republicans — the minority party — pushed it through Congress. (The GOP may want to say they did the CRA on their own, but the math wouldn’t let it happen.) LBJ championed the CRA and when signing it into law acknowledged that he “lost the South for the Democrats for at least a generation.”

Brian sucked Mike in as well, who suffers from what one psychiatrist calls Bush Derangement Syndrome. I decided to respond with something more formal before others got too confused. While Brian raises some good questions, I’ve sourced my answers.

FDR’s efforts began ninety years AFTER Republicans started them. Until the mid-1960s the overwhelming majority of Democrats who supported Civil Rights JOINED the Republican Party. The Solid South didn’t permit such “riff-raff.”

FDR’s effort to end military desegregation began in 1941 when socialist labor leader Philip Randolph began to organize black workers into a social and political force.

Although WWII demonstrated the need to enlist and integrate blacks, Democrats who controlled Congress throughout FDR’s presidency (1932-1945) ignored efforts to end segregation until Republicans gained the majority in 1947 – a year that coincided with Truman’s first presidential campaign.

When Truman’s Committee on Civil Rights recommended the end of segregation, Randolph threatened to organize mass civil disobedience unless the military services were immediately desegregated and Jim Crow laws ended. His appearance upset Democrat committee members like Richard Russell (D-GA), whose political careers were tied to segregation.

Truman tossed bones like Universal Military Training (UMT), but Congress rejected amendments by Republicans Jacob Javits and Adam Powell to desegregate the military and Truman signed it, allowing segregation to continue.

In 1948, Truman issued Executive Order 9981 which, on paper, required equal opportunity for black servicemen. A year later, Truman’s Armed Services Committee agreed that equal opportunity did not necessarily mean desegregate and, in their final report, recommended segregation to continue.

The Korean War finally began the end of segregation. In 1953, NAACP administrator Roy Wilkins reported that integration had begun around the fringes, although there was still no large scale changeover in the US. But in August 1954, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the end of segregation to be eliminated within a matter of months.

By the end of his presidency in 1961, Eisenhower had signed two civil rights bills and had successfully desegregated the military, years before LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA).

LBJ’s action destroyed the Solid South, which rebelled by shifting their vote to Goldwater.

Brian writes that the new, conservative Republican Party began to creep into the realm of the racist South, suggesting the Republicans embraced the entrenched bigotry of the South. Clearly, the opposite was true. Republicans don’t care how many angry bigoted ex-Democrats vote Republican. Why refuse their votes?

Brian’s insinuation that “the shift” changed the Republican support for civil rights is pap.

In 1948, the Solid South secured 98 percent of the vote by threats, terror, and intimidation. Although a lifelong supporter of civil rights, Goldwater goofed when he opposed the CRA for believing that it “exceeded the Constitutional powers of Congress.” Lifelong segregationists switched their support and the Democrats have celebrated black gullibility and white guilt ever since.

But for a moment, think about the lifelong Democrats of 1964: Was it really possible that Democrats like George Wallace, who defended segregation and Jim Crow for half a century, would support civil rights for the same blacks he hated the previous week?

Not a chance.

Not only did Los Angeles and New York City Democrats support segregation throughout the 1950s and 1960s, they also secured control of the two largest public school districts in the nation (LA & NYC).

If George Wallace, who hated black children in 1963, was suddenly given control of their school districts in 1964, what kind of education could we expect those children to receive by 1965, 1985, or 2005?

Is it really a coincidence that LA and NYC school unions, teachers, and bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrat? The fact that half of all black students in the 9th grade today won’t graduate high school would make Democrats like George Wallace very proud, which might also explain why Democrats like Brian and Mike are so confused.

The notion that the people who created, supported, and defended civil rights since 1854 would suddenly embrace bigotry is as preposterous as believing that the lifelong supporters of hate would suddenly find love for black Americans.

History speaks much louder than propaganda.

Conservatives have frequently complained about the media’s anti-conservative bias. That’s why it’s worth commending ABCNews for this article about the contradictions highlighted in Obama’s J-Wright speech. Here’s the opening of their article:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of “thousands of donors.”

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

This msut be one of the worst weeks anyone’s ever suffered in the history of American politics. The biggest problem currently facing Obama is the Pastor J-Wright problem. Sen. Obama initially told FNC’s Major Garrett that he hadn’t heard any of Pastor J-Wright’s inflammatory speeches. Yesterday, he admitted that he’d heard them but did nothing about them. (continue reading post »)

As I re-read Barack Obama’s celebrated defense of Jeremiah Wright’s indefensible pathology, I am reminded of astronauts from three nations who meet to promote their national space programs:

“Next year,” said the American, “we’re going back to the Moon.”

“That’s nothing,” scoffed the Russian, “Next year we’re going to Mars!”

Unimpressed, the Polish astronaut laughed at both. “That’s nothing,” he boasts, “We’re going to the sun!”

When the skeptical astronauts asked how he planned to overcome the sun’s heat and gravity, the astronaut replies, “We’ll go at night!”

To those with a fundamental understanding of astronomy and physics, the story is a joke. But to those who are too young, mentally impaired or gullible, the joke becomes an inspirational story of a superior space program.

Without a basic understanding of history, Americans aren’t likely to grasp the absurdity of an affluent half-white affirmative action beneficiary who exploits a Jonestown-like congregation and their whacky minister to gain black authenticity among frustrated Democrats who’ve been retarded and exploited by decades of indoctrination by Democrat-controlled dropout factories, the mainstream media, and the race-baiters who promote the political party of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation, while turning an anti-slavery icon into a present-day pejorative.

Like our sun-bound hero, the difference between this joke and inspiration relies not with Barack Obama’s ability to “transcend racism in America,” but with the profound gullibility of his audience.