Power Line News

barney - 21 March 2008 12:42 AM

el polacko - 21 March 2008 12:32 AM

can you imagine if hillary or mccain had said that the pastor or anyone else for that matter is a “typical black man” ?! they would have been forced to step aside and THEN burned at the stake.  why is it that, at every turn, barrack gets a pass ?

For two reasons I think:

1) Your premise is faulty
2) He’s talking about a member of his own family

ahh yes… i see now. it’s okay to make outrageous, racist statements as long as you are related to the person you are trashing. poor old granny. she stepped up to raise him when nobody else would and this is the thanks she gets. she once expressed a fear of a man harrassing her at a bus stop and now she’s the poster child for typical whites bred to have such ‘racist’ fears.
and, of course, the ‘typical white’ comment was all but ignored by all the major ‘news’ media tonight in favor of the story of how barrack has been “victimized” by some computer techs peeking at his passport info .. and more free airtime in the form of a larry king interview ..as a follow-up to last night’s ‘exclusive’ anderson cooper interview.. as a follow-up to the free airtime for his ‘major speech’.  i’m looking forward to the other candidates being afforded the same amount of free airtime. but meanwhile, did you see the hideous scarf hillary was wearing ? and is mccain an OLD man, or what ?!  nope, no bias to be seen here.. just move along.

TitanTrader - 21 March 2008 01:48 AM

Baldy Posted:
Me? I’m a typical American mongrel.

I’m Indian (with a feather, not a dot), Jewish (sort of, due to my paternal grandmother), French (in name only), German, Irish, and English...who knows if something else was thrown into the mix somewhere along the line.

However, a former coworker did call me the “whitest white man” he ever met. I somehow didn’t feel that I was empowered to call him the blackest black man I ever met...which really wouldn’t have been true anyway since he was pretty “white” for a black guy.

Ya know, the whole “white guy” “black guy” thing has gotten to be pretty silly. I didn’t even think of Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell as “black” until somebody made a point of referring to them as such.

Oh man, what a howler, you owe me a new keyboard.

I’m sorry. I blame the Irish in me since I just got home from a pub quiz, and you know how the Irish are when they’ve been drinking.

Two comments:

1.  Race riots in the United States are just as effective as Muslim riots in the Middle East.  In other words, the only ones who get hurt in race riots are the blacks themselves who see their neighborhoods burned down, their local stores looted, and their neighbors hurt, killed and/or jailed.  AND it stays that way for ever and ever because no one wants to come in and rebuild and risk losing their money in such an unfriendly environment.  So I really don’t see the threat of “race riots” as being punitive to anyone except rioting black folks (and perhaps Korean store owners having to defend their businesses with their own personal guns).

2.  There are two different issues in Obama’s remarks and mindset:  one is the issue of racism in the United States and whether or not he wants to institute financial and moral Affirmative Action for blacks only for ever and ever; the other is the anti-Americanism evident in believing that we deserved 9/11, and that America has never done anything that Mrs. B. Hussein Obama could be proud of.  The issue of racism is, I guess, important since blacks are still insisting that it *should* be important.  For the rest of us, given that every time Affirmative Action has been voted on for the last ten years or so it’s been voted down, I think we’ve pretty much declared it to be a done deal and have moved on.

So I am much more interested in Obama’s overt anti-Americanism than whether sex workers in the ‘hood should be called whores or ho’s, and if their hair is nappy or not.  I am appalled that while we are fighting a vicious enemy determined to turn us *all* into slaves and mindless zombies, Obama’s plan is to meet with the chinless wonder, Ahmadinnerjacket and the Russians and Chinese, too, to establish bridges of communication, the better to give our country more peacefully away. 

We’re being seriously asked to vote for a man who thinks that America should not have defended itself with Hiroshima, and that every tinpot dictator and terrorist in the world should have a crack at killing us because, somehow, he and his “spiritual mentor” think we “deserve it”?

And besides that, his ears stick out.

March 19, 2008

The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley and the Rest
Get Away with Everything

by Cenk Uygur

Rudy Giuliani’s priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of
molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1

Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works
with him.

Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as
equals and actively discriminated against them.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/

He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until
they were finally forced to change their policies to come into
compliance with civil rights legislation.

Romney never disavowed his church back then or now.

He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays,
feminists and liberals. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell

It was our fault.

Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will.

John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his
university’s commencement.

Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore.”
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393

He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union
http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/?page=1 (of course, the
Anti-Christ will also be Jewish
http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq72.html).

He has said all Muslims are trained to kill
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html and
will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes
is soon). http://youtube.com/watch?v=mOsYSwNrlBo

John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s
endorsement.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-ro…

Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record,
that he is not kidding.

Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down
from a “demon spirit.”

Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably
Muslim-Americans.

But since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it
should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what
Muslim-Americans think.

John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-ro…

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s?

You guessed it.

They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not.

If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of
these preachers, then what is it?

I’m willing to listen to other possible explanations.

And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after
are more important than the race of the preacher.

It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to
be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white
folks of not living up to their ideals.

I think there is another factor at play as well.

The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for
insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled
as anti-Christian.

But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone.

It’s easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes
American foreign and domestic policy.

If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans
or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all.

That falls into the category of “respect their hateful opinions
because they cloak themselves in the church.”

But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the
media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright.

Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley?

As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers
have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can
imagine - and hardly a peep.

If the disparity in coverage isn’t racist, then what is it?

the reason you have links to all the various preacher’s comments is because they WERE called out for their insane opinions (and any politicians linked to them had disavowed them).  in contrast, what barrack said in his ‘major speech’ was that his preacher should NOT be called out because of his being black and old-school.. and he was taken out of context even though the clips were from his own ‘greatest sermon hits’ dvd available in the church bookstore… and even his own granny was as much of a typical bigot ...  oh and it’s all whitey’s fault anyway.  nope.. nothin’ racist about that.

I’ve been kicking this idea around for a few days:  BarackO wasn’t suppose to be a major factor in this campaign. In other words, the degree and intensity of the support he has received was unexpected.  The plan was for him to make a serious run for the Presidency in 2012 or 2016, after he had gained more political experience.  Just a thought.

Anyway, I’m among those who believe (or just hope) that he is toast.

conservativeblackone - 21 March 2008 02:59 AM

It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to
be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white
folks of not living up to their ideals.

?

LOL, you’re rather euphemizing what Wright said.  Among other things, Wright accused Evil Whitie of inventing the AIDS virus to kill blacks. 

I actually agree that fundie ministers get let off too lighlty for some of the things they have said about gays, but the truth of the matter is, a lot of people agree with them on that, so there it is.  There’s a big practical difference between attacking gays and attacking white people en masse.  It’s a rather stupid way to go about getting elected President in a white majority country.

Falwell was roundly condemned and forced to backtrack for his stupid comment, so no dice, bud.  Anyway, the media views those folks with contempt, far more contempt that they have for Wright.  And you know and I know that none of these preacher dudes had the kind of personal influence over any presidential candidate that Wright had on Obama.  If they really had it would have been an issue.  The McCain thing is laughable.  Does anyone really believe that McCain is a religious fundie?  Sure, tell me another one.

Much attention has been given to the first part of Obama’s sentence—“a typical white person.” This is understandable.  This phrase makes us catch our breath.  We brace ourselves for what we believe is about to follow.  We expect an error of logic --an over generalization, a stereotype and we stop listening.  It almost doesn’t matter what comes next, because in the U.S. we believe that there is no “typical” anybody—or at least we want to believe that we believe that there is no “typical” anybody.  We so badly want to believe that we are a nation that takes everyone as an individual.  We want to believe that we greet every stranger without expectation or prejudgement.  That is one of our core ideals.  So when we hear a statement like “a typical _____________” (insert group of your choice) we cringe because maybe it reminds us of a sad part of our society’s developmental history that we are trying to put behind us.

Now what about the second part of his statement? What about the “views others of different races with fear and suspicion” part?  What if—(as remote a possibility as it might seem at this moment) what if the second part of Obama’s statement was actually true?  What would we do as a nation?  How would we respond?  What if, just as an experiment, we were to anonymously poll white people and ask them if they have felt fear or suspicion of people of other races?  What if white people reading this correspondence could, without judging themselves and without any fear of criticism, honestly ask themselves if they have felt afraid or suspicious of people of other races?  What if we also polled non-whites and asked them if they had ever had experiences that indicated to them that they were being feared or suspected of something?  What if we honestly asked these questions and all of our data suggested that in fact, our society DID actually have the problem that Obama describes?  What would we DO about it?  How would we respond?  THAT to me is the question we should be asking.  If we are ever to become the nation we wish to be, I think we need to ask ourselves, “What if Obama is right?” Perhaps he’s dead wrong, but as a country dedicated to the ideals we hold—that “all men [and women] are created equal”—and that we want “freedom, liberty and justice for ALL” then shouldn’t we maybe guard this ideal by making sure we’re living up to it?  Shouldn’t we take regular inventories of our anti-racist stock?  Shouldn’t we have a plan as to what to do if we find that we do dip, from time to time below our acceptable levels of tolerance?

Rather than getting upset, let’s check—let’s honestly check ourselves and make sure that we can say, without a doubt, that what Obama is suggesting is nothng more than overstated racial biases unearned by the whites in our society.  I’d like to see us put as much of our energy into that as we do on three words that some guy running for president said.

Thanks for reading.

The Professor - 21 March 2008 05:20 AM

Rather than getting upset, let’s check

Speak for yourself!
I’ve already gotten upset and I’m staying upset until I hear a lot more black people say that the problem isn’t white racism, but their own black racism and separatism.

let’s honestly check ourselves and make sure that we can say, without a doubt, that what Obama is suggesting is nothng more than overstated racial biases unearned by the whites in our society.

I “honestly checked myself” after the Obama speech and I can honestly say, without a shred of doubt, that what Obama is suggesting is nothing more than overstated racial biases unearned by the whites in our society.

Thanks for reading.

I normally don’t read the posts of a whiner, but I made an exception for you because you’re new.
I doubt that will happen again....

There is a huge, huge flaw in that professors “logic”. I find that many of us on the board are repeating this like a mantra: it isn’t about the color of the skin, its about the content of the character.

Are there bigots in America? Of course stupidity is a ubiquitous condition. But the reality is most Americans are simply too busy to care about the color of anybody. There is work to do and families to raise and a myriad of chores to get done.

I’m tired of smarmy jerks like the professor asking me to check my feelings and attitude. Reverend rage is a lying bigot and he lied about ME.

Barrack Obama and now this otis guy lack the moral courage to face that. Instead they are trying to turn this into MY Problem. somehow I and people like me have to understand the “black” perspective on things. Horsesh*t. The only reason that there are TWO perspectives at all is because idiots like wright foster the division.

Not a week goes by without some black youth or gang committing a heinous crime on the streets of Cleveland. yet reverend wright can’t bring himself to discuss the poor behavior of his congregation. NO sir, he must forgive them their sins by blaming ME.

Not this time.  The mainstream in America is open to all. Either jump in or shut up.

Conservativeblackone...This isn’t about some preacher spewing racist hate, its about Barack Obama’s true feelings and lack of judgement. Any man, black or white, who would sit thru 20 years of hysterical ranting by a Racist militant preacher is impaired. This man cannot be considered for Any political office, much less president.

The Professor - 21 March 2008 05:20 AM

What if—(as remote a possibility as it might seem at this moment) what if the second part of Obama’s statement was actually true?  What would we do as a nation?  How would we respond?  What if, just as an experiment, we were to anonymously poll white people and ask them if they have felt fear or suspicion of people of other races?  What if white people reading this correspondence could, without judging themselves and without any fear of criticism, honestly ask themselves if they have felt afraid or suspicious of people of other races?  What if we also polled non-whites and asked them if they had ever had experiences that indicated to them that they were being feared or suspected of something?  What if we honestly asked these questions and all of our data suggested that in fact, our society DID actually have the problem that Obama describes?  What would we DO about it?  How would we respond?  THAT to me is the question we should be asking.  If we are ever to become the nation we wish to be, I think we need to ask ourselves, “What if Obama is right?” .

I think it’s hilarious, with all due respect, that you seem to find this a deeply profound question.  You think it took Obama to come up with this?  He’s just trotting out the usual stuff from elite leftist social thinkers.  Of course a lot of white people are afraid of thuggish looking black men they meet might be criminals (are they “typical"--I’ll leave that to white man Obama).  You ever looked at the black crime rate?  Obama suggests whites who feel this way have been “bred” to it.  Hardly.  They’ve simply read the crime reports in the newspapers and seen them on television and heard about it from their friends or experienced it themselves.  Of course, with people like Revs Wright and Otis telling blacks that whitey is to blame for all their problems, it’s no wonder blacks commit crimes hugely disproportionately.  I’d be pretty p!ssed too if I thought the White Man had deliberately given MY people AIDS.  That’s what Obama ought to be addressing, if he really wanted to address problems in this country: Black paranoia and social decay.  How “typical” is that?  Of course, if he did, he like Wright, would blame it all on whitey, though he would use softer words.

That’s why Obama is just another fraud: he wants to equate passive white fear with affirmative black racism.  They are not the same things.  Back when blacks, oh, were being regularly lynched and denied equal protection of the laws, they had real complaints, now they are their own worst enemies in all too many cases.  That’s what Obama ought to address, but he’s just blowing hot air.

double post

Is it too much to ask that the LEADER of (what used to be) the most powerful nation of the world be intelligent and articulate?! Haven’t we all suffered enough under the seemingly never ending, 8-year reign of dummy under our current Commander in Chimp? As a pretty far left, uneasily offended liberal, I actually appreciate a straight shooter (yes, unfortunately as long as humans retain the sense of sight, color will always register in some way - I think Geraldine had to resign because she mentioned something about this 800 lb gorilla in the polling room). What I absolutely can no longer tolerate, though is STUPIDITY!!!! Obama’s statements are completely unacceptable on SO many levels! “TYPICAL WHITE PERSON?!” Are you SERIOUS?!! Someone who makes this kind of a blunder (and feels that people are typical based on their color, like cattle) this far along in his political career, has no business being elected! At least with our current chimpy, we got to laugh a lot when he screwed up, but there aint nothing funny about this boo-boo. Shoot - is it too late to get Hillary in there?!

A “Typical White Person”?!

I Wish ...

Obambi would define that for us.  Now, all we can do is speculate.

<chuckle>

Awwwwwwwwww ...

He’s just being a typical black.

.