asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Rev. Jeremiah Wright sets the Record Straight
Posted April 26th, 2008 by BLACK CELL
This is a link to PBS's Bill Moyers in a interviewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
I am very upset with the fact that I seen Wright in the negative lite (demagogue) when the reality is that the pastor was clearly taken out of context.
This is the scripture Rev. Wright was using to make the point
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html
The bible is like reading a double edge sward.
If I followed the rhetoric that repugs are using concerning Rev. Wright, I would have no other choice but to come to the logical conclusion that the Bible was a book written by terrorist & I don't.
I would love to hear what the popular white pastors have to say about this pastor, using the full context of course.
Most people hate the truth because the truth won't set them free, it will convict them & their little "G" gods.
Psalms Chapter 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat mourning and weeping when we remembered Zion.
2 On the poplars of that land we hung up our harps.
3 There our captors asked us for the words of a song; Our tormentors, for a joyful song: "Sing for us a song of Zion!"
4 But how could we sing a song of the LORD in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand wither.
6May my tongue stick to my palate if I do not remember you, If I do not exalt Jerusalem beyond all my delights.
7Remember, LORD, against Edom that day at Jerusalem. They said: "Level it, level it down to its foundations!"
8 Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us!
9 Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.
Table of Contents Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Footnotes
1 [Psalm 137] A temple singer refuses to sing the people's sacred songs in an alien land despite demands from Babylonian captors (Psalm 137:1-4). The singer swears an oath by what is most dear to a musician--hands and tongue--to exalt Jerusalem always (Psalm 137:5-6). The psalm ends with a prayer that the old enemies of Jerusalem, Edom and Babylon, be destroyed (Psalm 137:7-9).
2 [2] Poplars: sometimes incorrectly translated "willow." The Euphrates poplar is a high tree common on riverbanks in the Orient.
3 [9] Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock: the infants represent the future generations, and so must be destroyed if the enemy is truly to be eradicated.
New American Bible Copyright © 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., Washington, DC. All rights reserved. Neither this work nor any part of it may be reproduced, distributed, performed or displayed in any medium, including electronic or digital, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.
- BLACK CELL's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Happy Father's Day
Barack Obama's Speech on Father's Day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj1hCDjwG6M
Here is a link to my blog called, "The Politico Insider."
http://thepoliticolinsider.blogspot.com/
Black vs Black Surrounding Fatherhood
The debate surrounding Barack Obama's controversial fathers speech day is a great debate. I
Here is a link to my blog called, "The Politico Insider."
http://thepoliticolinsider.blogspot.com/
Transcript
Bill Cosby's Address at the NAACP's Gala to Commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education - 17 May 2004.
audio excerpt: http://www.mishalov.com/bill-cosby.mp3
Transcript: http://www.mishalov.com/bill-cosby-naacp.html
Clinton's former pastor defends Rev. Wright
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/pastor-of-clintons-forme_n_9368...
The senior minister at Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C., a church that the Clintons attended while in the White House, has risen to the defense of Barack Obama's former minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright's sermons have created a media firestorm over the last weeks that the Obama tried to dampen in a speech and Clinton recently commented on by saying "he would not have been my pastor." Snyder released a statement praising Wright as an "outstanding church leader" who has been "a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society."
This morning Snyder appeared on MSNBC and defended Wright. Snyder said that while he may not agree with everything Wright has said, he believes that "the church in America is stronger today because of [Wright's] leadership.
Watch the video of Snyder on MSNBC below (and click here to read more about Snyder's defense of Wright).
another interesting video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DiSutcBArDU
Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Antisemitism
ne 09, 2008
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
I admit it: in certain ways I have led a very sheltered life. My circle of acquaintances may have led me astray in understanding American antisemitism.
As an American, who grew up in the two decades just after World War II, I have long had a strong repugnance for even the slightest hint of antisemitism. During my lifetime, and in my own experience, the American gentiles I've known have had only the most unabashed love and respect for Jews. To be perfectly honest -- though it may make me seem incomparably naïve -- I didn't really think antisemitism could rear its ugly head in our Country ever, ever again.
Until I started following the threads of Obama's Chicago history, his church, his other associations, especially the religious ones, I honestly didn't think anyone but the scantiest few fringe neo-Nazis or throngs of Middle-Eastern Muslims still harbored Jew hatred.
I assumed Farrakhan got his antisemitism from the Koran. The Koran, after all, is pretty explicit about Mohammed's hatred of the Jews, most likely because the Jews stubbornly clung to the wisdom of their own prophets and refused to convert.
But when I read the Black Liberation Theology books of James H. Cone, I saw a subtly disguised, resentful kind of antisemitism which I had never encountered before.
The Gospel of Envy
Perhaps Winston Churchill was absolutely correct when he called socialism the "gospel of envy." It has always struck me as odd when populist politicians, posing as Christians, perpetually tempt people to envy, driving home the notion that some are poor only because others are rich.
It somehow never seems to dawn on either the politicians or those they are tempting that this flies directly in the face of the Tenth Commandment, "Thou shalt not covet..." Nor do these so-called Christians seem to remember that Jesus condemned the tempting of others to sin as far worse than the sin itself. "Woe be unto the tempters," Jesus admonished.
Nevertheless, black power preachers who ascribe to Black Liberation Theology seem to be masters at provoking envy in the name of Christianity.
One of Cone's earliest books, Black Theology & Black Power, was first published in 1969, only 24 years after the end of WWII. At the War's end, photographic and cinematic evidence of the Holocaust was spread worldwide and was met with horrific incredulity at what the Nazis had done to the Jews. Yet, Cone embeds within his call to black liberation a diabolical resentment that Jews, not blacks, could lay claim to the Holocaust. When I first read his words, they caught in my throat and I could barely believe they were on the page before me.
Cone is writing of "negro hatred of white people" not being in the least "pathological," but a "healthy human reaction to oppression, insult, and terror." He remarks that white people seem surprised by this hatred, but that they shouldn't be, because it's just a natural response to the horrors black people face.
This audacious vindication of hatred within a theology which claims Christian roots is absurd. But then Cone actually seems to express an inverted diabolical envy of Jews, precisely because of the Holocaust:
The whole world knows the Nazis murdered millions of Jews and can suspect that the remaining Jews are having some emotional reaction to that fact. Negroes, on the other hand, are either ignored or thought to be so subhuman that they have no feelings when one of their number is killed because he was a Negro. Probably no week goes by in the United States that some Negro is not severely beaten, and the news is reported in the Negro press.
Every week or maybe twice a week almost the entire Negro population of the United States suffers an emotional recoil from some insult coming from the voice or pen of a leading white man.
The surviving Jews had one, big, soul-wracking "incident" that wrenched them back to group identification. The surviving Negroes experience constant jolts that almost never let them forget for even an hour that they are Negroes.
Truly, without belittling or discounting in any way the valid claim that African-Americans have suffered more than their share owing to their race, the above statements by Cone seem to me like nothing short of a perverse Holocaust Envy. As a man utterly committed to the concept of black unity and power, Cone seems to express here true resentment that he can't lay claim to a Holocaust of his own to unite the black communities in the interest of his revolution.
Having been a curious reader about both the Holocaust and the American Civil Rights movement, I found these paragraphs of Cone's downright outlandish. If there ought to be one group of people, completely excluded from any resentment by blacks, it ought rightly to be the Jews.
During the Civil Rights movement, more than half of all lawyers, who came down South to represent blacks in the precedent-setting civil rights cases were Jews, even though Jews represent only 2% of the population.
Jews, along with blacks, founded the NAACP. Synagogues burned, right along with black Christian churches during that era.
And of all the peoples of the world, the Jewish people seem to have been the very first to abolish slavery. According to historian, Paul Johnson, "slavery among the Jews disappeared during the Second Commonwealth (530 BCE - 70 CE), coinciding with the rise of Pharisaism, because the Pharisees insisted that, as God was the true judge in a court of law, all were equal there: king, high-priest, free man, slave."*
If slavery is indeed the issue, then I must conclude that if the whole world had only paid heed to the wisdom of the Jews, an incalculable amount of human suffering in the developing world could have been completely avoided.
Africans would never have enslaved other Africans and sold them to slavers from Europe. Europeans would have stuck to the bartering of crops, instead of people. Muslims might not have considered conquered people mere fodder for profit. The United States would have been spared its birth defect of accepting slavery and the resulting Civil War. And on and on and on.
So, if any people, anywhere, anytime in the modern era ought to be completely exonerated in the eyes of blacks, it surely ought to be the Jews.
But this simply is not the case in the gospel according to Cone.
Chosen People Envy
Cone's black theology seemingly rests upon a single premise, the assumed mantle of most oppressed people. He even states emphatically, again and again, that God has chosen black people because they have borne the brunt of racial oppression more than any other people throughout history.
Therefore, God's Word or reconciliation means that we can only be justified by becoming black. Reconciliation makes us all black. Through this radical change we become identified totally with the suffering of the black masses. It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence.
To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!
- James H. Cone; Black Theology and Black Power; p. 151
Unfortunately, this flies in the face of the very Bible that Cone claims as the foundation for his theology. The Jews are God's chosen people. Blacks are gentiles just like the rest of us, who are not Jews.
And to single out black people as the most oppressed of all time defies any reasonable reading of acknowledged history. Blacks in sub-Saharan Africa ran their own affairs unmolested by whites for millennia while Jews were being enslaved, exiled and persecuted. If any group is going to get that "prize," it is most likely the Jews, not blacks.
Marxist Antisemitism
The black-power preachers, whether Christian or Muslim, have all been influenced by Cone's re-write of the Bible around Marxist political philosophy, so it really should come as no surprise when one of them brazenly hurls antisemitism into the public fray.
Marx pulled no verbal punches when it came to his desire to create a society "emancipated" from Judaism:
Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism - huckstering and its preconditions - the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man's individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.
Karl Marx; "The Jewish Question"; 1844
What should surprise -- and frighten -- every American, however, is when antisemitism does rear its beastly head, and others sit by and do nothing.
The question that personally haunts me now, perhaps more than any other I have about Barack Obama, is whether he has imbibed antisemitism as part of his 20-year training under the tutorial of Jeremiah Wright, using Cone's books for his entire foundation of faith.
Could it possibly be Cone's influence that has shaped Barack Obama's views on Israel, the Jews and the Palestinians?
I shudder at the implications of this possibility, as I believe should every American of conscience.
*Paul Johnson; A History of the Jews; p. 156.
For more on Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Karl Marx, please read the foundational columns for this article, part 1 and part 2.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at commonsenseregained.com
Here is a link to my blog called, "The Politico Insider."
http://thepoliticolinsider.blogspot.com/
The Rhetoric that Rev. Wrong created
America's Racist Left
Instead of merely ignoring the problems of African Americans, socialists and progressives actively contributed to them.
By Daniel J. Flynn
If Barack Obama becomes America’s first black president, he will fit nicely into a radical narrative that places leftists always and everywhere combating bigotry, shattering stereotypes, and advancing race relations. Indeed, merely to oppose him, as the Clintons, Geraldine Ferraro, and the voters of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Indiana have discovered, is to invite charges of “racism” from his enthusiastic supporters — a trend that is sure to increase now that the contest has ceased to be an intramural one.
But history rarely conforms to the scripts that ideologues write. Racism, as important to understanding the American past as class divisions are to understanding European history, stains the history of homegrown radicals just as it stains the history of the nation which those radicals sought to change so radically. The American history that the Left lambastes is the American Left’s history, too.
Welsh industrialist Robert Owen effectively launched the American Left that is recognizable to us today. His “Declaration of Mental Independence,” issued on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, assailed “a trinity of the most monstrous evils” — private property, marriage, and traditional religion. That program certainly sounds familiar. But one “monstrous evil” is noticeably absent from the utopian socialist Owen’s list: racism.
The ill-fated communal endeavor that Owen founded at New Harmony, Indiana, demonstrates how the white Left could be as snobbish toward racial minorities as the worst of their fellow countrymen. Owen’s Indiana commune excluded African Americans. “Persons of color may be received as helpers to the Society, if necessary,” New Harmony’s 1825 constitution condescended, “or if it be found useful, to prepare and enable them to become associates in Communities in Africa; or in some other country, or in some other part of this country.” In other words, anywhere but New Harmony.
The successors of 1820s’ Owenite communism, the movements inspired by Frenchman Charles Fourier that proliferated in the 1840s, exhibited a similar disregard for the plight of African Americans. Future presidential candidate Horace Greeley, future presidential assassin Charles Guiteau, and novelist Nathaniel Hawthorne were each caught up in the communal mania. But few blacks were. Like Owen, the Fourierists compared the condition of southern slaves favorably to that of northern industrial workers, providing fodder for apologists of the South’s “peculiar institution.”
For instance, the lead article in the inaugural issue of The Phalanx — the Fourierist’s official publication — claimed, “There are other social evils growing out of the same original falseness in the present system, which are equally unjust and oppressive as slavery, and which first demand our consideration.” The other injustices equivalent to slavery, the paper coolly noted, included “hireling dependence,” “monastic vows,” and “poverty.” Though slavers had no discernable role in the Fourierist craze, neither did African Americans.
Though antebellum utopians were largely indifferent to the plight of African Americans, the socialists and progressives who succeeded them aggressively advanced racist prejudices dressed up as science and progress. Instead of merely ignoring the problems of African Americans, the socialist and progressive Left actively contributed to them.
For Appeal to Reason, the most successful publication in the history of the American Left, segregation was intrinsic to socialism. Whereas “private ownership of industries mixes up the races, reducing blacks, whites, and yellows to a common level,” Appeal to Reason noted that “socialism would separate the races and lift them all to the highest level each were capable.” “The white worker in the shop, mine, and factory is told that Socialism means race equality,” the Girard, Kansas–based weekly explained, but in reality “capitalism has forced him to work side by side with the negro, and for about the same wage. . . . [I]n the SIGHT OF THE CAPITALIST ALL WORKERS LOOK ALIKE.” The Appeal, as did so many of its turn-of-the-century leftist readers, railed against the “yellow peril” and “Mongolian hordes” allegedly stealing jobs from “American” union workers.
“There can be no doubt that the negroes and mulattoes constitute a lower race,” Victor Berger, long the Socialist Party’s lone congressman, contended. “You know that capitalism never examines the color of the skin when it buys labor power,” the party’s national committeeman from Texas complained. When socialists acknowledged racial discrimination, they paternalistically counseled black Americans to abandon their selfish “personal” struggle for the “universal” struggle of the class war, which, when won, would magically solve all problems.
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger spoke at a 1926 Ku Klux Klan rally, used the “n” word in reference to blacks, and deemed Aboriginal Australians “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development.” “The Jewish people and Italian families,” she testified to the New York legislature, “who are filling the insane asylums, who are filling the hospitals and filling our feeble-minded institutions, these are the ones the tax payers have to pay for the upkeep of, and they are increasing the budget of the State, the enormous expense of the State is increasing because of the multiplication of the unfit in this country and in the State.”
Despite all this and more, a friendly historian recently judged, “Sanger was no racist.” Then, by this logic, neither were Theodore Bilbo and Bull Connor. To advocate certain progressive ideas is, for fellow progressives, evidence of innocence. And to do so under the guise of progress instead of tradition or habit, and with an intellectual’s accent instead of a redneck’s, provides immunity. Nonetheless, the progressive era resulted in the proliferation of miscegenation prohibitions, an increase in lynchings, and a majority of U.S. states backwardly codifying eugenics.
The open hostility to blacks that characterized the progressives and socialists transformed into cynicism for the Moscow-gazing Left of the ’20s and ’30s, which saw racism not as a problem to solve but a tool to embarrass America.
John Reed, canonized by the Hollywood Left in the Academy Award–winning Reds and the only American buried on the grounds of the Kremlin, casually referred to African Americans as “niggers” and “coons” in his letters to wife Louise Bryant. The Communist Party that Reed helped found embraced separatism and long advanced a plan of carving a black homeland out of the American South. Lovett-Fort Whiteman, the pioneering African American Communist acknowledged as “the Reddest of the Blacks” in Time magazine in 1925, endured worse than a few ugly names hurled his way. In the midst of the late-’30s Stalinist paranoia focused on one-time rival Leon Trotsky, Fort-Whiteman’s comrades denounced him in Moscow to their Soviet overlords: “Lovett Fort-Whiteman, a Negro Comrade, showed himself for Trotsky.” The verbal condemnation was a literal condemnation, and Fort-Whiteman, an American citizen, died in the gulag shortly thereafter.
The Communist Party banned Japanese Americans from membership after Pearl Harbor. Party chief Earl Browder rationalized that “the best place for any Japanese fifth columnist to hide is within the Communist party.” Alas, there is no honor among fifth columnists. Browder purged Japanese-American fifth columnists from the ranks not because of their seditious beliefs — actually a prerequisite for membership — but because of their ethnicity.
Upon Browder’s ouster, new Communist Party totem William Z. Foster decimated the ranks of his party by embarking on a crusade against “white chauvinists.” Though most of these “white chauvinists” were as real as the Trotskyites and White Guards that the paranoid Stalin perennially sought to root out, the campaign revealed a guilt-ridden vulnerability on race and an inability to address the issue with maturity. This white guilt and promiscuous use of insult terms such as “racist” in describing political enemies plagued the broader postwar Left as well.
Look for African Americans in the book that helped launch the sexual revolution, Alfred Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. They’re not there. Look for black officers of the Students for a Democratic Society. They’re not there. Look for African Americans among Democrats in Congress. Up until Pearl Harbor, there’s one there.
Yes, that Democratic Party, whose congressional delegation voted in greater percentages against the Civil Rights Act of 1965 than its Republican counterpart. The Democratic Party, that was so transformed by the civil rights movement that, by 1972, it had to write racial quotas into its rules governing the selection of convention delegates. Bilbo, Faubus, Wallace — all the memorable political bigots were Democrats, not Republicans.
Today, a remnant of that Democratic Party survives in West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who can boast of having served as both Majority Leader in the Senate and Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan. Given the long history of white supremacist attitudes harbored by so many of its officeholders and its more recent history of supporting racial preferences and quotas, the Democratic Party’s claim to Martin Luther King’s legacy of judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, is simply absurd.
A number of American leftists rose above their times on questions involving race. Bible-thumping abolitionists, the founders of the NAACP, and pillars of the civil rights movement, such as Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, were generally committed to some vaguely leftist set of ideas. But most leftists have reflected the times in which they lived — and a few have sunk beneath those times.
Seeing themselves not only apart from but above America, leftists imagine their ideological ancestors as immune from America’s historical stains. The Left has its own version of American Exceptionalism, one that sees radicals and progressives always at war with their nation’s sins — sins they so vocally rail against even after they have largely abated. Such a historiography tells us more about the present than the past. History is not as malleable to the wishes of today as today wishes it to be.
A Barack Obama presidency would not be a continuation of any long and noble crusade by the political Left against racism. If anything, it would atone for the Left’s history of participation in the distant travesties that it now, in such cowardly fashion, blames on others.
Here is a link to my blog called, "The Politico Insider."
http://thepoliticolinsider.blogspot.com/
The Fairness Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.
Black Cell: Inject the fairness doctrine into the debate & force repugs like Sean Insanity to allow honest & balanced info on their talk radio shows.
The repugs are about to give us propaganda radio to the extreme. They can't win the debate, so they need to screen out the informed callers & not interview qualified guest.
A serious debate surrounding The Fairness Doctrine will force repug talk show hosts to defend their perspectives & give us the avenue we need to counter their illogic. It will also force them to regulate themselves.
This is the link to Rush Limbaugh's list of radio stations (monopoly). Sean Insanity wont show his monopoly. Their conservative listeners are blind faith loyalist. They are more loyal to the talk show host than they are to their favorite repug politician. If a repug talk show host say that global warming is not real & president Bu$h says it is, the repug listener will ignore Bu$h & follow the lead of their Abubika (pagan god talk show host). They blindly idol worship conservative talk show hosts.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/rush.guest.all.html
The base for the repug talk show hosts are powerful, because they don't trust the ABC's, CBS's & the NBC's & they inform their friends to do the same. Repug host & religious leaders have laid the foundation to undermine the credibility of major television networks & newspapers years ago.
We may have the voters on our side; the repug base are looking to steal your joy, in a heart beat. If we don't counter every move they make, they will undermine our cause with vigor.
Change is Always Met with Resistance
Political Chess: purging the dead weight to make room for good
Senator Barack Obama should sit down & ask himself the big what If question. What if he lose? Then ask himself; if he did lose, why did he lose? It wont take rocket science to point his thoughts to Trinity United Church.
I never been a gang member. But I was raised around them. I have family members who are gang members. I also have nearly been killed by a few gang bangers. I have had to confront them with fear & trembling, but I did what I had to do to survive in the ghetto.
I also know that gang members don't operate like those Chicago pastor/ intellectuals who suppose to have Obama's back.
Even though I know Obama is qualified to be President, I am voting for him because he is a black man.
If Obama becomes the next President, he will contradict the message that many poverty pimps teach to the poor. They convince blacks to believe that a black person can't make it in racist Amerikkka. The living contradictions like to preach the foolishness to the poor, despite the fact that they, themselves are successful.
I have learned from studying people that with the right thinking, A poor person, or his or her next generation can be just as successful as former President Ronald Reagan, who came from a struggling family.
Reagan's dad was a shoe salesman & an alcoholic that didn't want his son to grow up struggling like he, himself had to. If Reagan's dad would have blames his circumstances on the man, he would not have been successful.
I really don't care if Trinity United Church put a white face on the stage & he preached a message that contradicted a bible scripture like Hebrews 17:14-17.
"Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. 15See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. 16See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. 17Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears."
The reality is, something is wrong with that church.
Until the Obama Family look within themselves & reject the message coming out of Chicago's, Trinity United church that suppose to be "of God & Christ," he will fail to become the next President.
Yea, those cats are Billary & Hillary's agents, but you can't defeat them without publicly rejecting what they represent.
In this blog, you are going to see classic cases of what's wrong with mixing politics & religion. Mixing politics & religion only corrupts that which is meant to be uncorrupted.
Let me add. White folks don't want to hear black people talking about race in a way that points fingers at their racism & ignores our racism.
Obama's pastor (new) problem: Apology / video
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obamas_pastor_ne...
Change is Always Met with Resistance
Black Cell: Beware of the Split Ticket Voters
Can Identity Politics Save the Right?
Fresh out of other options, the Republican Party's bid to regain power is likely to come in the form of a pander to "real Americans."
Mark Schmitt | May 27, 2008
There are two points at which a political party or an ideological faction can find its voice and begin to claim power. One, of course, is when it is at the height of confidence and electoral success, like Ronald Reagan's conservatives in 1981. The other is when it has hit bottom, when there's nothing more to lose, no constituencies to feed, no illusion that anything in the current strategy is working, no excuse for caution.
The Republican Party today is certainly not in the first position. But, with party identification favoring Democrats by the widest margin in 16 years, and Republicans losing even the battle for campaign money, the party may be close to the second. Parties in nonparliamentary, winner-take-all systems don't disappear. The recent resurgence of the British Conservative Party is a reminder that even after a decade of futility, a new leader, a vision, and impatience with the incumbent party can turn things around quickly. But for now, with Republican state parties in shambles, with no chance of reclaiming a congressional majority any time soon, and suffering, as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned, "a catastrophic collapse of trust," the GOP could be hitting that bottom, and grabbing desperately onto a frayed lifeline--the identity politics of American-ness--in a last bid for survival.
To appreciate the value of hitting bottom, consider what happened to the Democratic Party and liberalism. All through the Reagan and first Bush eras, and again in the Clinton years, Democrats always had something. The institutional heart of the party was in the House of Representatives, and during the Reagan era, the complacent assumption that "we'll always have the House" meant that many important Democratic figures didn't feel they had much stake in whether Michael Dukakis won the presidency or President Clinton succeeded. After the Gingrich takeover of Congress in 1994, the Democratic Party's purpose became identified with the personal survival and renewal of the Clinton presidency. Only after 2002, when the Democrats finally lost everything, when they reached the political equivalent of living in their car, did the path to renewal begin. Accelerated by the disaster of the war and awareness of their own complicity in it, enraged by the media and energized by new voices such as the "netroots" bloggers and the stellar candidates of 2006 and 2008, the Democrats proved that a party, and even its liberal wing, can turn things around almost completely in just four or six years.
The Republican Party, though, has always had a different attitude about risk, almost courting disaster while the Democrats postponed it. In Building Red America, his slightly belated 2006 opus on the Republican plan for permanent power, Thomas B. Edsall points to studies showing that core Republicans are "confident risk-takers"--white men with a very high tolerance for hazard. But as Edsall notes, they are so confident because they have been generally insulated from the consequences of their risk-taking--think of George W. Bush's career as an oil man, or of Bear Stearns, or of the quasi-celebrities whose messes are discreetly taken care of. And while conservative pundits and some of their politicians are in a state of panic, political strategists like Karl Rove carry themselves with the confident swagger of an investment banker who just lost $2 billion of someone else's money but still has the Fifth Avenue apartment and the house in Bedford. Rove's scheme to establish a 30-year reign of absolute Republican power increasingly looks like yet another gamble of the bubble economy, like a hedge-fund scheme that couldn't fail until it failed.
Whether it has a secret Swiss bank account of political capital or not, the Republican Party is not going away, and conservative ideas, despite their failure in practice, probably still have a hold on the American instinct. A fully ruined Republican Party could be as dangerous and consequential as one holding on to some scraps of power. But even if it retains the presidency, the party, and the conservative movement with which it became conjoined, faces deep structural problems--and the next moves are far from clear.
The Downfall
To understand the depth of the hole that the Republican Party finds itself in this year, set aside the presidential race for a moment and zoom out the map. The real secret of Republican success starting in 1994 and into this decade was not Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove--it was big-state Republican governors who were seen as successful in implementing actual conservative policies, from welfare reform to standards-based education reform to tax-cutting economics. In the late 1990s, you could start in Boston and drive out I-90 to Chicago, back up and down through the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper Midwest, and with the idiosyncratic exception of Indiana, the governor's name on every "Welcome to ..." sign you passed would be that of a Republican, most likely popular and considered successful. Although much of that success was built on accounting fraud (Christine Todd Whitman, that means you), it was these Republican governors who made voters comfortable with the idea that conservative governance could work. Republican governors of the 1990s produced the senators (George Voinovich, Lamar Alexander), cabinet secretaries (Tom Ridge, Tommy Thompson, John Ashcroft), and the president of the current decade.
Today all this is gone. There are still 23 Republican governors, but of the big states in the Northeast and Midwest, only Minnesota is governed by a Republican. A handful of the 23 are considered successful, mostly because they have moderated their predecessors' conservatism--notably Charlie Crist of Florida, who reversed many of the barriers to voting set up by Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, M. Jodi Rell of Connecticut, and Jim Douglas of Vermont succeed by accommodating liberal Democratic legislatures to such a degree that it could be argued that they give Democratic legislators a little more courage, because the governors will share political responsibility for tax increases or other policies that might bring a backlash. (I grew up in Connecticut, and it's unquestionably a more reliably progressive state now than when it had Democratic governors in my youth, passing domestic-partnership and real campaign-finance reform legislation, raising the estate tax, and moving toward a universal health program.) A few other GOP governors, including Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Jon Huntsman of Utah, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, and Sarah Palin of Alaska, are considered successful conservatives but run states that are so solidly red that for purposes of the presidency and the Senate, their success has little external effect.
Future governors, members of Congress, and policy initiatives will emerge from state legislatures, but those, too, have been flipping to the Democrats. Of the 99 state legislative bodies, Democrats control 58 and Republicans 40 (Nebraska's single house is nonpartisan), and only seven states are fully controlled by Republicans. In several cases, the new Democratic majorities have been bolstered by waves of party-switching. These are numbers last seen in the 1980s, when Democratic legislative majorities included very conservative Democrats in the South.
At the national level, Democrats in the House of Representatives have a robust margin of 37, which is likely to grow. (Only four Democratic seats are currently considered toss--ups.) The Democratic majority in the next Senate is almost certain to be big enough that it will not have to depend on Joe Lieberman continuing to call himself a Democrat, and it could reach 56 or 57. Most notably, unlike the last Democratic majorities in the early 1990s, this one will not depend on the party's ultraconservatives. The most conservative Democrats today--Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas--are vastly more liberal than their predecessors and, not being from the Deep South, don't have one foot out of the party.
Significantly, these Democratic majorities at every level are unshakeable in November. There are only 11 gubernatorial elections this year, and only three of those are considered competitive. Only one Democratic Senate seat is in play, and even that incumbent, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu, has been strong in polls. Retirements, scandals, and strong recruiting give Democrats an advantage in Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire, and several other states. While a few House Democrats who beat scandal--plagued Republicans in 2006 will have to struggle to hold on to those heavily Republican districts, a far larger number of Democrats are seeking to take the seats of retiring or weakened Republicans in districts trending Democratic. On April 22, a Democrat won the plurality of the vote in a special election for a Mississippi House seat in a district designated "R+10"--as Republican as it gets. On the same day George W. Bush set a new record for the highest disapproval rating ever recorded for a president. As blogger Matt Stoller wrote that evening, "The public hates Republicans."
John McCain may well win the presidency. If he does, though, it will not be because Stoller is wrong but because McCain is able to retain a reputation as somehow separate from the public's perception of the Republican Party--that he is honorable where the Party is corrupt, moderate where it is far right. A McCain victory will not in itself restore the Republican brand, although it may lay the foundation for a certain kind of comeback. While McCain's instincts are conservative, it's quite likely that a President McCain would look a lot like Gov. Schwarzenegger or Gov. Rell, with McCain having no alternative but to collaborate with a heavily Democratic legislative branch, perhaps being warmly received as a result. So while McCain might well win, and might even be deemed a moderately successful president, he will not do so by solving the deep structural problems of the post-Bush Republican Party and conservatism's decadent phase, but by divorcing himself from them.
McCain may be able to leave the Republican Party and the conservative movement behind, but it remains to be seen whether the Republican Party can divorce itself from the failures of conservatism. In theory, of course, conservatives and Republicans are not the same, and one can succeed while the other fails. After all, it's only been a few decades that the Republican Party has been distinctly conservative. But much of the success of both in the last decades has been in their mutual embrace. Republican moderates like former Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut chose to throw in their lot with conservatives like Gingrich not for reasons of ideology but because they saw the conservatives' passion as the means to a reinvigorated, aggressive party. And the conservatives--who had at first succeeded by building institutions outside of the party--then threw themselves into it completely. As a result, conservatism and the Republican Party now rise and fall together and cannot easily be disentangled. The Northeastern Republican moderates are now nearly extinct (Johnson was unseated in 2006), and conservatism has no other home. Bush, his administration, the Republican brand, and all but a few Republican officeholders are deeply unpopular and so is almost every aspect of conservative policy.
Conservatives like to construct an elaborate tale of betrayal in which the true faith can be restored by wresting it away from the unseemly ambitions of Republican politicians. But that story denies the reality that the downfall of both the party and the movement began on the very moment that Bush shed all the hedges and compromises--such as "compassionate conservatism" and the Medicare prescription drug benefit--and began to try to govern like a conservative. The Bush era ended two days after the 2004 re-election when Bush declared, "I earned ... political capital, and now I intend to spend it." Starting with the effort to privatize Social Security, everything went straight downhill. The rejection of the Republican Party came not because it failed conservatism but because conservatism failed.
The Paths Back to Power
Whether after a total defeat, losing both houses of Congress and the presidency for the first time in 16 years, or under the circumstances of a compromised, drifting McCain presidency, Republicans and conservatives will face the same question: How do they rebuild political power?
As Republican Party officials fade into insignificance (how many people would recognize the chairman of the Republican National Committee or even House Minority Leader John Boehner in an airport?), the face of the party becomes its pundits, bloggers, and former grandees like Gingrich, former Rep. Mickey Edwards, and Jack Abramoff–accomplice Grover Norquist. These Republicans are filling the bookstores with soon-to-be-remaindered titles like Comeback, Grand New Party, Reclaiming Conservatism, and Heroic Conservatism, all premised on one variation or another of the "we lost our way" theory.
Animating all these books is the idea of ideas or as they like to say, in a motto attributed to the agrarian conservative Richard Weaver, that "ideas have consequences." We have an intellectual history, conservatives often condescendingly tell liberals, while you just have feelings. "Conservatives won by out-researching, out-thinking, out-arguing, and out-smarting their opponents," former Bush speechwriter David Frum writes in Comeback, and lost their way when "conservatives began to argue that intellect no longer mattered to conservative politics."
The more specific ideas proposed in some of these books are mostly smart and palatable. If the intellectual commissars of the opposition party were Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, who in Grand New Party propose supplementing a mild social conservatism with actual economic supports for fragile families, our political system would be nicely balanced. If former Rep. Mickey Edwards' call in Reclaiming Conservatism for a respectful constitutional libertarianism and a restoration of the balance of powers were the Republican ideology, I would think of the party as a sometimes useful check on the ambitions of liberalism. But most of these ideas are not what they claim to be: plans for renewing the party by anchoring it in a rediscovery of the moral absolutes of conservatism. Rather, they are purely improvisational, tactical positioning--attempts to meet the public demand for action on health care and climate change without accepting liberal solutions, much like the Bush Republicans' attempt to meet the demand for prescription-drug coverage under Medicare. These are elegant, short-term compromises disguised as ideology. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Dozens of similar prescriptions were written for the Democrats during the wilderness years and formed the basis for the Democratic Leadership Council, for Clinton's second-term triangulation, and for the cautious posturing of Vice President Gore and Democrats in the 2000-2002 period. The difference is that all those proposals at least had parallels in the actual practice of Democratic politics. The Republican prescriptions exist in a hypothetical world, rather like the alternative historical fiction novels that Gingrich cranks out in between his visions of the future. "What if the Republicans had commonsense ideas?" is the new "What if the South had won the Civil War?"
If Republican politicians were testing these ideas on the campaign trail or in Congress, they might be of more than academic interest. Debates among the 11 initial Republican presidential candidates would have been expected to provide a forum for a range of ideas about the party's future. But it was not to be. A momentary glimmer of the Douthat/Salam theory was visible when Mike Huckabee talked about health care as a moral obligation, but he was so tied down by the most extreme version of the tax-cut agenda that he couldn't do anything with it. Mitt Romney briefly abandoned the laissez-faire economic dogma to speak of Republican investment in key fields, like green jobs and the auto industry, but those talking points expired as soon as they served their purpose of helping Romney win the Michigan primary, after which it was back to cutting taxes and doubling the size of Guantanamo Bay.
The eventual nominee, John McCain, brings nothing new to the table of political ideas, except for a uniquely militaristic view of American supremacy in the world. There is no philosophy of "McCainism" around which the election will revolve. Nor are there any up-and-coming Republican officials, with the possible exception of Gov. Crist of Florida, who take any of this reformist thinking seriously. Even Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, whose phrase, "Sam's Club Republicans" inspired Douthat and Salam, is a conventional tax-cutter and social conservative. Rather than reconstructing a coherent philosophy out of their compromises, Republican politicians fall back on a mode of argument (modeled on Gingrich, its original master) that involves making occasional grand and ridiculous gestures toward supportive government--"a laptop for every child" or more recently, advocating legislation to ensure "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security"--followed by a quick return to the traditional bromides about tax cuts and entitlements. One admires the conservative writers for their resilient commitment to the idea that ideas matter, in the face of all evidence that in actual Republican politics, they've never mattered less.
The second path for Republican renewal is to use the opportunistic power of pure opposition, free from the responsibility to participate in governing the country. The Republican structure was always a machine better designed for opposition than for governance, and the unity-in-opposition of the early Clinton years is surely the moment for which conservatives are most nostalgic. They are geared up to destroy the next Democratic administration as soon as it comes forward with any kind of tax increase, a health-care proposal, an initiative on climate change, a plan to end the Iraq War, or anything related to guns or gays.
In the 16 months since the Democrats took over Congress, Bush has been able to hold the initiative in part by operating as the opposition party from within the White House, vetoing and threatening vetoes, casting every Democratic effort to end the war or limit warrantless surveillance as surrender. But whether McCain is president or not, by the natural rhythm of politics, it will be almost impossible to sustain the kind of disciplined, crafty opposition that allowed the Republicans to set the agenda from below as they did in 1993 or 2007. For one thing, there are far fewer Democrats who will play along or be as easily spooked as they were in 1993. For another, holding together absolute party unity will not be as easy this time. What's in it for Sens. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, or Gordon Smith to join a vicious attack on a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton health proposal, especially if it reflects some of their ideas? It doesn't help them in their states, it won't help them get any closer to a congressional majority, and it won't exactly brighten their legacy. Pure opposition politics would be further complicated by the fact that the politics of taxes can no longer be cast in absolute terms. There is no possibility of extending all of the Bush tax cuts when they expire starting in 2010. There will be pressure immediately to work out a deal on the estate tax in particular, and permanent repeal is no longer a possibility. So even though Republicans will yell about the "biggest tax increase in history," it will be a debate about the structure of that large tax increase, not about whether to increase taxes. If Democrats can master the congressional agenda, they can construct a package that continues tax cuts for the middle class while restoring fair treatment of capital gains and dividend income. Ever since George H.W. Bush's 1990 budget deal, which raised some taxes, Norquist and other conservatives have insisted on an absolute choice between raising taxes and cutting them. But when it becomes impossible to cast tax choices in such pure terms, the most powerful weapon in the Republican arsenal of opposition will be lifted from Republicans' hands.
The Identity Pander
That leaves Republicans with a single alternative, one that's embodied in the slogan of McCain's first general-election advertisement: "The American President Americans Are Waiting For." It's the politics of identity--not necessarily racial or ethnic identity but identity as an American. The blog FiveThirtyEight.com, which has been gathering all sorts of data relevant to the Electoral College vote, recently noted a fascinating demographic fact: About 7 percent of people refuse to answer the Census questions about ethnic origin and instead write in "American." Those defiant Americans are overwhelmingly found in the states and counties that turned away from the Democratic Party in 2000 and 2004--the Appalachian belt running from West Virginia through Kentucky, Tennessee, and southern Ohio--which are also the counties where Barack Obama has done worst in the primaries.
David Frum calls explicitly for this brand of identity politics, declaring that while the Republican Party's issue positions have evolved over the years, "there is one thing that has never changed: Republicans have always been the party of American democratic nationhood," whereas Democrats "attract those who felt themselves in some way marginal to the American experience: ... intellectuals, Catholics, Jews, blacks, feminists, gays--people who identify with the ‘pluribus' in the nation's motto, ‘e pluribus unum.'" In case it's not clear, in Frum's Latin, "pluribus" means "parasites," and he tells us helpfully, "As the nation weakens, Democrats grow stronger."
In Frum's book, this ugly bit of identity politics is carefully nestled within thousands of words about policy. And this is how the code is supposed to work. The GOP's attack on "liberals" was always an attack on people not quite like "Americans"--secular, cosmopolitan, educated, egalitarian. When Republicans went after Michael Dukakis for his policies on crime, they weren't just saying his policies were bad. They were saying, he's not like us; he's a cold-blooded, academic mush-brain who wouldn't give his kids a whupping if they needed it.
The politics of American-ness needs to be cloaked in policy, simply because it's unpalatable otherwise. Without the helpful crutches of symbolic issues like welfare, crime, and immigration, the raw edges of the politics of people-not-like-us would be a little too uncomfortable, and not just for those of us who fall into one or more of the "pluribus" categories. But thanks to the unlikely trio of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and John McCain, the usual game is impossible. Clinton took welfare and crime off the political agenda. Bush made global belligerence and eternal tax cuts unpalatable. And McCain's inconvenient position on immigration takes away what Republicans last fall were dreaming would be their silver bullet. As a result, with Americans saying they are willing to pay more taxes for health care and better schools, with Republicans at a disadvantage in the polls on every single issue, there is no respectable costume in which to dress up identity politics.
Traditionally, the phrase "identity politics" has referred to the Democratic coalition's caucuses, interest groups, and competitive claims of wrongs to be righted and rights to be granted. Identity politics on the left, according to this very conventional wisdom, opened the door to an alternative politics of national identity on the right. And yet in 2008, the Democratic presidential nomination battle between an African American and a woman has not exacerbated left identity politics but brought it to a peaceful close. Obama is not Jesse Jackson; Hillary Clinton is not former Rep. Pat Schroeder. He chose to campaign on national reconciliation, she on bread-and-butter economics and her expertise on military affairs. Whereas McCain--a man whose known positions on the war and on the economy are deeply unpopular, whose other positions are endlessly shifting, whose party and ideology are rejected--is recast entirely in terms of his biography, his honor, his character, his American-ness.
This year the Republican argument is reduced to its barest essence: Americans versus "pluribus," unprotected by the politeness of issues or safer symbolism. Hence McCain's slogan, the politics of the flag pin, the e-mails charging that Obama doesn't salute the flag, and the attempt to associate him with the anti-American politics of 1968, when he was 7 years old. This, then, may be the ultimate high-stakes gamble for the party of confident risk-takers: Accept that everything else--ideas, competence, governance--is gone, and instead of trying to reconstruct it, as the books recommend, bet everything on the bare essentials of Republican identity politics, "The American President Americans Are Waiting For."
If it works, it will be in part because we--by which I mean the media and many Democrats--believe it will. We are easily spooked by the confident swagger of the Republicans, who not so long ago were plotting permanent world domination. But then, so was Bear Stearns.
If it fails, the Republican Party will be left with nothing. It will be a regional party, with no hold on government, no up-and-coming generation of politicians, no noble ideas which might have their day again. For Republicans, that may be the better result. It might take a decade, but like the British Conservatives, one day a new leader will emerge, read the books about reforming conservatism, embrace a new vision, and rebuild a party that can compete for power without trying to monopolize it.
Change is Always Met with Resistance
I really hope the DNC spit
spit Michigan & Florida's electoral 50/50 & convince the two to run on the same ticket Obama - Clinton.
It extremely lol, because repugs would have played themselves like fools for marketing her. She won't let women down. I don't know about Billary though???
Change Meet with Resistance & UNITE THE PARTY!
Reality Check: We can't Without Hillary
White women cold toward Obama
By: David Paul Kuhn
May 30, 2008 01:13 PM EST
Barack Obama’s favorability ratings among white women has declined significantly in recent months, particularly among Democrats and independents, presenting an immediate obstacle for the likely Democratic nominee as he moves to shore up his party’s base.
According to a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, half of white women now have a negative perception of Obama.
Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.
Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall.
White men, in general and among Democrats, have shown only a slight drop-off in their perception of Obama — one-third of the shift seen in white women. About 20 percent of Democratic white men have an unfavorable view of Obama, a figure which has remained stable since February.
Pew also found that among self-described Clinton supporters, the negative shift against Obama is more severe among women than among men.
The Pew findings come as Obama’s campaign struggles to close up the primary race while also attempting to avoid the perception of pushing Hillary Rodham Clinton out, for fear of offending her most loyal supporters — the largest bloc of which are white women.
Still unknown is whether white women’s support for Clinton would translate into problems for Obama in the general election.
See Also
* Gay marriage issue not over yet
* McClellan cocaine tale challenged
* The drama of Hillary Clinton
Intraparty divisions that arise during the primary season are typically mended over the course of the general election. Bill Clinton struggled with college-educated Democrats in the 1992 primary, as John F. Kerry did with young Democratic voters in the early stages of the 2004 race. Both candidates won back these blocs in the general election.
But the Democratic primary race of 2008 is without modern precedent, insofar as black support for Obama and white female support for Clinton are tied up in the symbolism of each candidate’s historic presidential bid.
“There is some sense of the visceral investment with Clinton,” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist. Lake believes once the general election is under way, these same white women will gradually move away from McCain over issues, with the expectation that Clinton will campaign on Obama’s behalf if he is the nominee.
“In the long run, women will watch Hillary Clinton’s reaction, how she’s treated by Barack Obama,” Lake added.
White women as a whole now prefer John McCain over Obama, by 49 percent to 41 percent. Last month, Obama was ahead of McCain among white women, 49 percent to 46 percent. The head-to-head matchup between McCain and Obama has not significantly shifted among white men.
“There is no question that white women were — especially older women, not young women — Hillary Clinton’s base in the primary, and there is going to be some repair work that has to be done,” Democratic analyst Anna Greenberg said. “There is no reason to believe that these Democratic white women are not pursuable.
“The priority is going to be to bring back these voters,” Greenberg added.
Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster who has worked with Lake on surveys of women, said that “the steady shift of white women away from Barack Obama” could prove “enduring heading into November.”
“These women have two issues at the top of their agenda that require experience and reasonableness — war and economy,” Conway said. “For many of these women, when they hear Barack Obama talk about change they hear revolution, not incrementalism."
Conway believes that McCain has particular strengths with these women that allow him to be viewed as independent of the Republican brand.
“Those women will likely vote Democratic down ballot,” she added. “This race is now Barack Obama vs. John McCain.”
Democrats have come closest to capturing the White House by winning minorities by large margins and nearly splitting white women, as they did in 2000. Republicans have generally relied on their dominance with white men to put them in the White House, while winning at least half the vote among white women.
Change is Always Met with Resistance
Rev. Wrong Meet Rev. Redrum
look who's next in the list of hate mongers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&eurl=
There's more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFFnumjco-Y
God is love: I think God is suppose to be love or ??? (The bull shshsh)
Change is Always Met with Resistance
Play Smashmouth football
Most people wont stand up for you, if you don't stand up for yourself.
Barack Obama needs to go back to his church & divide it to his benefit (behind the pulpit), or Billary & Repug Nation will divide them / pay them for their benefit.
If he divide the church to his benefit, they will become powerless towards his campaign. What will happen is they will start infighting every time someone step behind the mic & indulge in Repug propaganda.
How is he going to be tough with terrorist or at the negotiation tables with rouge leaders when he don't have the guts to power check (Political chess style) those who are a part of his spiritual family?
P.S. Please stop cruising; they are making him look like a coward :-(
Change is Always Met with Resistance
Faith-Based Lunacy
Hagee and Parsley make Wright look mild by comparison. In fact, I was not offended by Rev Wright's sermons when I heard a little of the context from which the youtube swiftboat snippets were taken. On the other hand, the more context I get of Hagee the more I see how dangerous this guy is. I have not researched Parsley at all yet. I think this is going to be a case of "you shouldn't have gone there" for the right wingers.
Now St. John is left stammering something about how Hagee endorsed him, not the other way around. But McCain ASKED for Hagee's endorsement and was proud to have it. No wonder he tried to stay out of the Rev. Wright fracas. And Hagee expects us to take his disingenuous "out of context" claims at face value?
Hagee and Parsley are just Christian Muktada Sadrs.
The first person I thought of was you, when I seen that CRAP!
Change is Always Met with Resistance
The Wright Side of the Brain
By HEATHER MAC DONALD
April 30, 2008
The list of Afrocentric "educators" whom the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has invoked in his media escapades since Sunday is a disturbing reminder that academia's follies can enter the public world in harmful ways. Now the pressing question is whether they have entered Barack Obama's worldview as well.
[City Journal]
Some in Mr. Wright's crew of charlatans have already had their moments in the spotlight; others are less well known. They form part of the tragic academic project of justifying self-defeating underclass behavior as "authentically black." That their ideas have ended up in the pulpit of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and in Detroit's Cobo Hall, where Mr. Wright spoke at the NAACP's Freedom Fund dinner on Sunday, reminds us that bad ideas must be fought at their origins — and at every moment thereafter.
At the NAACP meeting, Mr. Wright proudly propounded the racist contention that blacks have inherently different "learning styles," correctly citing as authority for this view Janice Hale of Wayne State University. Pursuing a Ph.D. by logging long hours in the dusty stacks of a library, Mr. Wright announced, is "white." Blacks, by contrast, cannot sit still in class or learn from quiet study, and they have difficulty learning from "objects" — books, for example — but instead learn from "subjects," such as rap lyrics on the radio. These differences are neurological, according to Ms. Hale and Mr. Wright: Whites use what Mr. Wright referred to as the "left-wing, logical and analytical" side of their brains, whereas blacks use their "right brain," which is "creative and intuitive." When he was of school age in Philadelphia following the Supreme Court's 1954 desegregation decision, Mr. Wright said, his white teachers "freaked out because the black children did not stay in their place, over there, behind the desk." Instead, the students "climbed up all over [the teachers], because they learned from a 'subject,' not an 'object.' " How one learns from a teacher as "subject" by climbing on her, as opposed to learning from her as "object" — by listening to her words — is a mystery.
One would hope that Mr. Wright's audience was offended by the idea that acting out in class is authentically black — it was impossible to tell what the reaction in the hall was to the assertion. But one thing is clear: Embracing the notion that blacks shouldn't be expected to listen attentively to instruction is guaranteed to perpetuate into eternity the huge learning gap between blacks on the one hand, and whites and Asians on the other.
* * *
Mr. Wright also praised the work of Geneva Smitherman of Michigan State University, who has called for the selective incorporation of Ebonics into the curriculum in order to validate the black experience. Mr. Wright gave another shout-out to the late Asa Hilliard of Georgia State University, who told us, Mr. Wright said, "how to fix the schools." Like Ms. Hale, Mr. Hilliard argued that disrupting the classroom through "impulsive interrupting and loud talking" is inherently black. His bogus Afrocentrism, propounded in his "African-American Baseline Essays," metastasized in educational circles during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Mr. Hilliard argued that Western civilization was at once stolen from black Africa and crippling to black identity. As the late Arthur M. Schlesinger recounted in his 1991 alarum about multiculturalism, "The Disuniting of America," Mr. Hilliard urged schools to teach black students that Egypt was a black country; that Africans invented birth control and carbon steel; that they discovered America long before Columbus did; that Robert Browning and Ludwig von Beethoven were "Afro-European"; and that the Atlantic Ocean was originally named the Ethiopian Ocean. (City College of New York laughingstock Leonard Jeffries—he of the infamous distinction between materialistic, aggressive European "ice people" and superior African "sun people"—contributed to Mr. Hilliard's book of essays, asserting therein that slavery was undertaken as "part of a conspiracy to prevent us from having a unified experience.")
Approving of self-destructive behavior in school is just one part of the vast academic project to justify black underclass dysfunction. The academy has also singled out crime as authentically black, another poisonous idea that Mr. Wright appears to have embraced. In his NAACP speech, he mocked the tendency of "those of us who never got caught" to treat "those of us who are incarcerated" with disrespect. In other words, we all commit crime, but only some of us get nabbed for it.
This leveling argument recalls the bizarre doctrines of University of Pennsylvania law professor Regina Austin. In a widely reprinted California Law Review article from 1992, Ms. Austin asserted that the black community should embrace the criminals in its midst as a form of resistance to white oppression. People of color should view "hustling" as a "good middle ground between straightness and more extreme forms of lawbreaking." Examples of hustling include "clerks in stores [who] cut their friends a break on merchandise, and pilfering employees [who] spread their contraband around the neighborhood." It never occurs to Ms. Austin that these black thieves may have black employers who suffer the effects of crime — as do the larger neighborhoods of which they form the essential fabric. Officially incorporating crime into the black identity, as Ms. Austin and Mr. Wright do, is a pathetic admission of defeat and marginalization.
* * *
To understand how such ideas become mainstream, one need only read the front page of yesterday's New York Times. There, television critic Alessandra Stanley thrills to the authentic voice of black America: Mr. Wright "went deep into context—a rich, stem-winding brew of black history, Scripture, hallelujahs and hermeneutics," Ms. Stanley effuses. "Mr. Wright, Senator Barack Obama's former pastor, was cocky, defiant, declamatory, inflammatory and mischievous." One might think that Mr. Wright's promotion of the idea that black kids can't sit still in class would raise some worries, even in a television critic. Surely Ms. Stanley would expect her own children to listen to their teachers. But the white elite's desire to avoid charges of racism cancels out all reasonable reactions to dangerous nonsense when such nonsense comes out of black mouths. The coverage of Mr. Wright's speeches beyond the Times has been just as silent about their crackpot Afrocentric pedagogy, meekly following the agenda that Mr. Wright set by asking instead whether the black church, and not Mr. Wright, was under attack.
Mr. Wright's speeches have shown how quickly academic insanity becomes incorporated into practice. And now we may be on the verge of seeing such madness spread into the White House. The mainstream media have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into questioning Mr. Obama's affiliation with Mr. Wright. By now, Mr. Wright's 9/11 and AIDS diatribes are well-worn — and Mr. Obama's repudiation of them a no-brainer. It is imperative that someone ask Mr. Obama whether he, too, believes that the way to "fix the schools" is through Afrocentric curricula and double standards in student discipline, and whether he, too, believes that blacks only think with the "right side" of their brains.
Ms. Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
Change is Always Met with Resistance
The Score
Obama 0
Mc Cain 7
After studying the affects of Rev. Wright to Barack Obama's campaign, I noticed that there were a few ways to counter the Repug Nation.
I don't think liberal whites can win in a face to face battle in the trenches with repugs. I believe extreme white bigots can sufficiently accomplish that goal for us.
How? Repugs like to use extreme rhetoric to control their base. But, when real extremist inject their perspective into the fray, repugs tend to try to distance themselves from the bigots perspectives. The key to defeating them is to inject real white extremist propaganda into the arenas.
Rev. Wright caused real white extremist to inject their perspectives to repug radio in a way that forced people like the mark levin repug radio host to admit that he knew Rev. Wrong's black nationalist perspective wouldn't fly from a President Barack Obama White house.
Most white Republicans don't want to be compared to white racist, they distance themselves from them as fast as they can. It makes since to use white extremists as well as normal black Christians, who critically think about issues, to undermine the repugs goals on talk radio.
The goal is to muddy the repug waters in a way that forces average white republicans to be either confused or quietly agree with Barack Obama's normal black Christian supporters.
Change is Always Met with Resistance
The counter to The Score
Repug talk radio host: Most black communities are riddled with black on black crime & their black leaders can't convince those who live in their communities to stop killing each other at such a high rate.
We should not allow Barack Obama to do to America what he and many black leaders have done for the black community... nothing.
Black Cell: The counter to my talk radio strategy that I posted (The Score) is a white conservative talk show host indulging in moderated white supremacist psychobabble, while the black critical thought is ignored & the white progressive thought defined as kooky.
On the other hand, those who speak with the southern white dialect contributing to a program that is entertaining & packaged to convince white Americans that Balack Insane Ben Ladden (Barack Obama) is an extreme socialist.
Change is Always Met with Resistance
Political Chess
The simplest way to defeat Republicans is to discourage their base from supporting the Republican Party, not pandering to them.
Republican voters scrutinize every thing a Democrat say, & turn a blind eye to what their own candidates are saying. The key is to never let them ignore the Republican liberal tendencies.
Conservative are the base for the Republican Party. They wont vote for a democrat but they will definitely NOT vote for a Republican who they perceive to not have their values.
In a chess game, a player makes moves that causes the opposition to react to his or her disadvantage. For example: I might move my black bishop next to the white rook forcing my opponent to move its rook out of its strategic position.
Once the white rook is moved out of its strategic location, It might look as if my black bishop is trying to attack another piece but the real goal is to force my opponent to focus on the bishop, while I am trying to defeat my opponent with a piece on the other side of the board.
The secret: Convincing the Republican base not to vote for a Republican is the equivalent of them voting for a Democrat, so it makes sense to indulge in muckraking not pandering in red states.
Mc Same is in a pickle; he wants to move his party to the left while his repug base is looking to unite his Party under a conservative message.
Here's one
Barack Obama don't want to appease Iran like Ronald Regan & Oliver North admitted to doing. Obama wants the members of his staff to talk with Iran in a way that is ethical & humane.
MSM, don't let videos like these only exist only on the internet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TafS2Uak8gw&eurl=
McCain Endorser Hagee Says Jews Have Dead Souls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju_8Sjdw_aQ&eurl=
John McCain was for Hamas before he was against Hamas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
Political satire: The HageeFather
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiUgQhsCBWg&eurl=
Some people love their race more than mankind... I don't
I met a white racist who works on works on my college's staff; I invited him to come read this thread yesterday.
The racist spend too much time focusing on the ills of the black people, who he can't stand, while ignoring the fruit of his superiors, who are successful black men & women.
I could easily pass a negative judgment on him; the racist appearance is no different than what he hates in the appearance in those whom he trashed.
I hope the white student who filed a complaint on him, because of his racism, drop the charges. I doubt she will stop perusing her suit against him because she can't stand bigots. I think one of her close family members was a bigot, & she can't stand being around those kind of people anymore.
It just goes to show that even when blacks aren't looking, you can get trouble for encouraging white students to buy into racism.
Winning Florida: Black & Latino relations.
Mexican nationalism is about as destructive as white supremacy & black nationalism
My former Afro American Studies teacher (Black Nationalist) said that most of the foreigners are taught to hate black Americans when they come to America. I personally know that the racist who are Mexican have played major role in feeding the divide between blacks & Latinos.
A lot of our / my Mexicans & Latinos friends see some of us / me as an exception to the rule. The Latinos & Mexicans that don't know us / me personally, see us / me as NIGGERS. They, the Mexicans use a slang word (Ma yate') to define black people. Most of our brown friends wont tell us the definition of the word.
The word means "worse than trash."
P.S. Edwards rhetoric makes Barack Obama's rhetoric look like scam.
Read the comments of those who say they will never vote for a black Presidential candidate. I know some of it is propaganda, but most propaganda is laced with truth.
Barack Obama can't just wear a flag pen or a sombrero (Mexican hat).
Barack Obama can't just go around Jewish people & say the things that whites say to manipulate them.
Balack Obama can't just sit in the background, while some great catholic priest endorse him. His candidacy has to be bigger than MLK, so he has to absorb some the pain, live up to his motto of "Change" or he will be considered irrelevant to all the factions, except black American.
THE COMMENT
Already this year, Latinos have proved their increased political clout.
In 2000, the Hispanic share of the vote was 5.4 percent. This year, Latinos make up about 9 percent of eligible voters. The record-breaking turnout in Democratic primaries and caucuses has included unprecedented numbers of Latino voters.
CONTINUE ON PAGE 1 2
JOIN THE CONVERSATION (read all 111 comments)
POST
Replies: 111
avatar for user Casaubon
Casaubon
Party: Conservative
Reply #1
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 6:13 AM EST
this fluff passes as a news article?
gebe here has been in DC to long.
Peace through Strength, Respect from Fear, & kill anyone using d00d speak
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user porthos44
porthos44
Party: Democrat
Reply #2
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 8:09 AM EST
I am a Hispanic and hate the term. But I understand why we do not like blacks or african-Americans. Blacks stiffles and brings education to a halt in the low-income cities while other immigrants want to learn. As a teacher I know that children of immigrants understand the value of and eduation and blacks get in the way. In Camden, NJ. 2/3 of senior high school student drop-out and 95% of senior can not pass the exit exam. Something must be done.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user Sunrise at Cotulla
Sunrise at Cotulla
Party: NA
Reply #3
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 9:48 AM EST
Why mention Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, who just endorsed Clinton, but not mention Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, who supports Obama? Both are from San Antonio, Texas. During the run-up to the March 4 primary in Texas I did volunteer work for Obama on the West Side of San Antonio, where a high proportion of the Latinos in San Antonio live. Although the majority of the West Side went for Senator Clinton, a respectable number went for Obama.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user yaquitheone
yaquitheone
Party: Independent
Reply #4
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 10:14 AM EST
How in the world that any thinking person who identifies themselves as Latino or Hispanic would vote for Obama is beyond me. Are you so ignorant to the fact of how deep anti Latino feelings run within the African American community from their popular culture, hip hop, where racist stereoypes of Latinos are rife in their lyrics to their comedians (Chris Rock and Tracy Morgan) who elicit howls from their black audiences by spewing filthy racist slurs passed off as comedy, and even in the pulpit where AfroCentric "Black Theology preaches a world/creation view from a totally black perspective. Black writers and social commentators have in large part turned to Hispanics as the new "Boogeyman" as to what ails the modern Black Man, demonizing Latinos as the latest threat to AfroAmerican advancement. Don't you read? Aren't you aware of anything that is going on in your own country. Don't you pay any attention to what is going on around you.yaquitheone
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user jwvotante
jwvotante
Party: Democrat
Reply #5
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 1:01 PM EST
OK. As a Barack Obama supporter, I am shocked and appalled that many Hispanics are going to flat out refuse to vote for Obama based on the color of his skin alone. How ignorant is that?? Granted the Hispanic community has a large voice in the election cycle, but is this really a positive one: racism??? Aside from all the hoopla on white working class voters, I think the media should further highlight this unfortunate sentiment amongst Hispanics.. Forget the fact that Obama and Clinton are almost identical in there policy initiatives and that Obama is leading the Democratic presidential campaign in all categories...Hispanics aren't going to vote for him because Obama's black???? This is so disgusting that they are willing to sign over a third term of Bush policies based on their disdain for African Americans..How pathetic..
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user Proud_Mama
Proud_Mama
Party: Independent
Reply #6
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 2:10 PM EST
I am shocked at the feelings that are being expressed here. One day maybe we accept that we can no longer afford to look at life through ethnic eyes. We are Americans. The power to move us towards a united country, despite our racial differences, can start now. Children are dying in the sreet because people have these weak pre-conceived notions about what thwey may think are actual facts.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user Roberto Bear
Roberto Bear
Party: Democrat
Reply #7
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 2:19 PM EST
yaquitheone: May. 14, 2008 - 10:14 AM EST
How in the world that any thinking person who identifies themselves as Latino or Hispanic would vote for Obama is beyond me. Are you so ignorant to the fact of how deep anti Latino feelings run within the African American community from their popular culture, hip hop, where racist stereoypes of Latinos are rife in their lyrics to their comedians (Chris Rock and Tracy Morgan) who elicit howls from their black audiences by spewing filthy racist slurs passed off as comedy, and even in the pulpit where AfroCentric "Black Theology preaches a world/creation view from a totally black perspective. Black writers and social commentators have in large part turned to Hispanics as the new "Boogeyman" as to what ails the modern Black Man, demonizing Latinos as the latest threat to AfroAmerican advancement. Don't you read? Aren't you aware of anything that is going on in your own country. Don't you pay any attention to what is going on around you.
AMEN Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldn't agree with you more.
NO! NO! NO! GOD DAMN OBAMA AND REV WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! YO'BAMA is UNELECTABLE, NOMINATE HIM IF YA WANT; CAUSE WE AINT VOTING FOR HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
avatar for user Dr Fumanchu
Dr Fumanchu
Party: N/A
Reply #8
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 2:52 PM EST
The oportunistic Clinton's are in it for themselves NOT for the Afican American or Latino/Hispanic population. Wake up look at it for what it really is.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user Obama Guy
Obama Guy
Party: NA
Reply #9
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 2:52 PM EST updated
yaquitheone: May. 14, 2008 - 10:14 AM EST
How in the world that any thinking person who identifies themselves as Latino or Hispanic would vote for Obama is beyond me. Are you so ignorant to the fact of how deep anti Latino feelings run within the African American community from their popular culture, hip hop, where racist stereoypes of Latinos are rife in their lyrics to their comedians (Chris Rock and Tracy Morgan) who elicit howls from their black audiences by spewing filthy racist slurs passed off as comedy, and even in the pulpit where AfroCentric "Black Theology preaches a world/creation view from a totally black perspective. Black writers and social commentators have in large part turned to Hispanics as the new "Boogeyman" as to what ails the modern Black Man, demonizing Latinos as the latest threat to AfroAmerican advancement. Don't you read? Aren't you aware of anything that is going on in your own country. Don't you pay any attention to what is going on around you.
Its crap like this that keep the bullsh*t between Black and Brown the way it is...how the hell can you be another minoritey and be bias againest. another group thats in the same boat. And its not just this idiot...I've seen quite a few "hispanics" log on this site talking that same trash "Latino's will never support a black man"...And your a bonafide retard if you think blacks just make fun of Latino's. I've heard more Latino's use the N-bomb around each other and blacks more then some black people. The Hip Hop Generation is full of our Latino brothers and sisters. The only people who have a issue culture wise is the older Latino's from the baby boomer generation just like it is in the black community. I can not wait tell we start getting old enough to where views lke your don't matter and its happening sooner then you think.
Any Latino that reads this I'm black and I do not have a single bad bone in my body for you. We face that same kinda bullsh*t in this country we are minorities but yet the jails in this country are full with either Laitno's or blacks...they're is a reason for that. They want us to hate each other.
This is by far one of the most racist comments I've read on ths site...And I'm just beside myself that it come out the mouth of a Latino...wtf is going on in this country. We already have whites that can't stand the site of a black man now Latino's are jumping on the bandwagon...your a damn fool if you thnks blacks aren' t offended by this type yof garbage...
Hillary Supporters...You don't win the white house without the Black Vote...
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user DaSwankOne
DaSwankOne
Party: NA
Reply #10
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 2:54 PM EST
"Blacks stiffles and brings education to a halt in the low-income cities while other immigrants want to learn." And you are a teacher? God save us all. If you want to play stereotypes, I think all Mexicans are non-English speaking, MS-13 wannabes need to go back home. How did that feel? It is about as accurate as the comments made by Hispanics in this thread.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
avatar for user El Viejo
El Viejo
Party: Democrat
Reply #11
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:16 PM EST
The most serious problems in America affect us all, regardless of our skin color. For most Obama supporters, race is immaterial. We're voting for him precisely because he is NOT "the black candidate" or "the white candidate" or anything else other than "the best qualified candidate" to represent ALL Americans. As a bilingual Texan married to the daughter of a Chinese immigrant, I'm supporting Obama because he's NOT the favorite of those who consider non-white or non-English speakers to be a "problem".El Viejo - Austin
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user WarriorG
WarriorG
Party: Independent
Reply #12
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:20 PM EST
I am also Hispanic and work with a plethora of African-Americans. Though I have a problem with the "Brotherhood" I also have several friends that are Black. What I do have a problem is that the Blacks that are in Power positions only look to bring up other blacks and by the way, that DOES NOT INCLUDE Black Females, they actually out number Black Males.
I have my reservations about voting for Obama for the same reason, though I would not vote for Hillary because she ONLY talks about going back to the 90's and reverse is NOT a gear I like.
So next I have is McNugget and he is a two-faced liar and as bad as Billary. So as a TRUE Independent I am stuck between a rock and a hard place because again we have no real good candidate.
As a American who is Hispanic, I need to hope and pray that Obama is not going to rely on the "Brotherhood" to carry him into office and not forget ALL the other Minorities, because if he really wants to bring this country together he needs to step up to the plate and Hire some more Hispanics and make sure they have a seat at the Table.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user AP02
AP02
Party: NA
Reply #13
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:24 PM EST
porthos44: May. 14, 2008 - 8:09 AM EST
I am a Hispanic and hate the term. But I understand why we do not like blacks or african-Americans. Blacks stiffles and brings education to a halt in the low-income cities while other immigrants want to learn. As a teacher I know that children of immigrants understand the value of and eduation and blacks get in the way. In Camden, NJ. 2/3 of senior high school student drop-out and 95% of senior can not pass the exit exam. Something must be done.
Are you for real??? And you're a teacher?? This is just too scary for words. To all my Latino/a brothers and sisters, this idea that all black people hate you is just not true. I can say that for sure b/c I'm black. I mean, wow. The level of bigotry displayed on this thread is truly astounding. And the fact that it's directed at one minority group from another is truly sad.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user DevyneOne
DevyneOne
Party: Democrat
Reply #14
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:24 PM EST
You know, some of the comments made by my black and brown sistahs and brothers reminds me of the Willie Lynch papers. Delivered on the banks of the James River in Virginia in 1712, Willie Lynch had this to say about controlling the slaves:
"I have a foolproof method for controlling your [black] slaves. I guarantee every one of you that if installed correctly it will control the slaves for at least 300 years [2012]. My method is simple. Any member of your family or your overseer can use it. I have outlined a number of differences among the slaves and make the differences bigger. I use fear, distrust and envy for control. These methods have worked on my modest plantation in the West Indies and it will work throughout the South. Take this simple little list of differences and think about them. On top of my list is "age" but it's there only because it starts with an "A." The second is "COLOR" or shade, there is intelligence, size, sex, size of plantations and status on plantations, attitude of owners, whether the slaves live in the valley, on a hill, East, West, North, South, have fine hair, course hair, or is tall or short. Now that you have a list of differences, I shall give you an outline of action, but before that, I shall assure you that distrust is stronger than trust and envy stronger than adulation, respect or admiration. The [Black] slaves after receiving this indoctrination shall carry on and will become self refueling and self generating for hundreds of years, maybe thousands. Don't forget you must pitch the old black Male vs. the young black Male, and the young black Male against the old black male. You must use the dark skin slaves vs. the light skin slaves, and the light skin slaves vs. the dark skin slaves. You must use the female vs. the male. And the male vs. the female. You must also have you white servants and overseers distrust all Blacks. It is necessary that your slaves trust and depend on us. They must love, respect and trust only us. Gentlemen, these kits are your keys to control. Use them. Have your wives and children use them, never miss an opportunity. If used intensely for one year, the slaves themselves will remain perpetually distrustful of each other."
Now here we are, nearly the 300 years later that he spoke of, and we are still distrustful of each other. We still are tearing EACH OTHER down, rather than banding together and demanding the rights and respect we ALL deserve. Don't you want to do something different? Don't you want something better for your children? I do.
"Unless we change our ways and our direction, our greatness as a nation will soon be a footnote in the history books" (Millett Kate)
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
avatar for user Vixxen
Vixxen
Party: Democrat
Reply #15
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:25 PM EST
"Blacks stiffles and brings education to a halt in the low-income cities while other immigrants want to learn." And you are a teacher? God save us all. If you want to play stereotypes, I think all Mexicans are non-English speaking, MS-13 wannabes need to go back home. How did that feel? It is about as accurate as the comments made by Hispanics in this thread. I agree Swank one. And I will add that as a BLACK American, I know that my community and the Hispanic community have issues with each other. I have seen first hand the racists attitudes from many Hispanics that do not like Black people and treat us like dirt when our people made a way for you guys to come over here and reap the benefits.Many educational problems in our schools is due to the fact that many students have to fight for attention from those non-English speaking children. I do believe that Sen. Obama will abandon black voters when he is the nominee for the growing Hispanic vote. He has thrown us under the bus for their vote before....
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user SHIMI The Entertainer
SHIMI The Entertainer
Party: Democrat
Reply #16
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:25 PM EST
I really dont believe your a teacher, and you say this drivel, I,m deeply offended with your statement,I,m a black Man from England and not all blacks stiffle the education process,what about the latinos who I know where born in this country and their english is poor? dont go making assumptions, In my neighborhood I live side by side Latinos whites, Arabs, Italians, blacks and latinos dont have problems everywhere in america, this is a myth
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user zora13
zora13
Party: NA
Reply #17
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:26 PM EST
Well i don't see any African Americans taking guns to the Arizona border to shoot latinos. I listen to black radio sometime and i've never heard the kind of hatred that the far right talk radio hosts spew against latinos. Theres not s single latino politician today that would've had a chance with the West Virginia type voters that Obama faced yesterday. So yes some latinos can hold hands with the West Virginia type voters and the far right that despises them or they can join the Oregon, Wisconsin coalition that is the future of the country.zora
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user D.affiliated
D.affiliated
Party: Independent
Reply #18
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:33 PM EST updated
This is an insubstantial fluff piece if I've ever seen one. But I must say that the comments by the bigoted Latinos here are a bit disconcerting. First of all, you are not voting for "black people" for President, there is no such thing, you are voting for a candidate based on the issues, and that candidate's ethnicity shouldn't matter. Should all white candidates be judged by the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney? To follow your logic, no one should ever vote for a white person again because Bush and Cheney show what white people are like in power. Is a vote for a white candidate a vote for all those skin heads and Aryan nation dumb---ks in the same prison as the blacks and latinos (and who are often the most violent criminals on the inside)? That is a retarded way of thinking and is not at all supported by basic logic. You people aren't too bright if that's how you really think. I heard a crime report the other day about some guy raping his 8 year old cousin, and before they said his name, I said to myself that he's probably hispanic. And you know what? He was (I've noticed a bit of a trend there and I'm guessing that that's a somewhat pervasive problem in their old country)? Does that mean that no one should ever vote for a Latino for office. And I must say, I've heard some black extremist theology before, but I've never heard of black extremists attacking Latinos (and come on, give me a break with the Chris Rock thing, he's a frickin comedian telling jokes, and he rags on EVERYBODY--one of his most famous bits is him ragging big time on black people). In New York, especially in the hip-hop community, blacks and latinos largely consider themselves one in the same (a lot of rappers use a derivative of the "N" word as a sort of street slang, and they don't even mind when latino rappers from New York use the word because as far as they're concerned, they're part of the same struggle and have many of the same experiences as them). It seems like that black/latino beef is mainly a west coast gang culture thing. Blacks and latinos that I know get along just fine. Bigotry is just soooooo passe now--come on, step into the 21st century dude.
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user EMD
EMD
Party: NA
Reply #19
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:36 PM EST
Some characteristics of the Hispanic electorate should give Mr. Obama pause. First, Hispanics do not suffer from White guilt, so all the blather about America's "original sin" of racism sounds like so much whining. You can't mau-mau a Hispanic. Such tactics will breed resentment. Second, Hispanics love America. So, America bashers like Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama are not well-liked. Even Bill Ayers will inspire anger among Hispanics. If it becomes clear to Hispanics that Mr. Obama doesn't mind such people, Hispanics will notice. Third, Hispanics are very loyal, and right now, for better or worse, their loyalties are with Hillary Clinton. They don't like the treatment she has gotten from Obama supporters, many of whom are America-hatin' mau-mauers. To win over these voters, Obama will have to call off the dogs, assuming the canines are under his control. Unless Mr. Obama has some smart advisers on how to deal with Hispanics, his current crew of political advisers won't be of any help in securing the Hispanic vote. When it's clear that Obama is the nominee, it will be very difficult to stem the tide of Hispanics moving over to McCain. He should consider a Hispanic running mate--but not turncoat Bill Richardson (see item 3).
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
default avatar for user cramos
cramos
Party: Independent
Reply #20
Date: May. 14, 2008 - 3:42 PM EST
..McCain has a far better chance to carry the national Latino vote, he is a man who can be trusted and has guts Within my family and circle of Latinos OBAMA is not an option....We do not trust him. We have no respect for a man who would label his grandmother a racist to further his political career. Family comes first to us. Religion is also important to us and the idea that he has attended a racist church for the last 20 years is to much for many of us to handle. Character is also important, and OBAMA's umanly whining(case in point after the ABC debate) says loads to us about who he is. Culturally for us, men take resposibilty for their decisions and actions, and not to do so is a character flaw.This goes to trust and we do not trust him. But the topper here is that hispanics when they come to this country receive their first dose of hatred from blacks who blame us for their poverty. What reason would we vote for OBAMA?cramos
ReplyReply QuoteQuote Report AbuseReport Abuse
The conversation continues in our forum. (read all 111 comments)
YOU NEED TO LOG IN TO USE THIS SYSTEM!
Email
Password Forgot Password?
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register Now!
VIDEO
A “mountain momma” in “almost heaven”
SLIDESHOW
Israel celebrates an anniversary, and both Dems celebrate victories.
Mike’s Playbook
GOP is flummoxed and House Republican campaign committee chairman in peril following Miss. disaster.
RSS / Widgets E-mail Alerts Multimedia Site Map
HOME ABOUT US SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION ADVERTISING INFORMATION PRIVACY POLICY EMPLOYMENT
© 2008 Capitol News Company LLC
Please read our Privacy Policy. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Service.
Change is Always Met with Resistance