Jeremiah Wright's (Obama's preacher) words taken completely out of context

**kwame k** · 03-22-2008, 01:12 AM

Wow, good sermon. Must of been a slow media day for them to dreg this shit up.

**kwame k** · 03-22-2008, 01:23 AM

Just think if this was Obama's preacher.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MpCTvRCr38I&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MpCTvRCr38I&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

**kwame k** · 03-22-2008, 01:32 AM

We had a guest speaker at our church. I'm glad that no one took his words out of context.
Just for fun...................
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/16YGYVEuWRs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/16YGYVEuWRs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

**rustoffa** · 03-22-2008, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by kwame k
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/16YGYVEuWRs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/16YGYVEuWRs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Those web classics never get old!!!

**DrMaddVibe** · 03-22-2008, 09:20 AM

The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud - By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 21, 2008

The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which"controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud
TOOLBOX
Resize Text
Save/Share +
Print This E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 1875 comments about this item.
View All Comments È
POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?

Discussion Policy
WHO'S BLOGGING
È Links to this article
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 21, 2008; Page A17
The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which"controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Charles Krauthammer - The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Elegantly crafted and delivered, Obama's race speech left key questions unanswered.

**LoungeMachine** · 03-22-2008, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud - By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 21, 2008

The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "

Too bad Dr.ASSPipe can't provide his own words.....

Needs to cut n paste other peoples' opinions instead.

Much easier than thinking for yourself, huh?

**Isaac R.** · 03-23-2008, 06:01 AM

Thks for posting that...perhaps if more ppl listened instead of just constantly talking and talking...

**vh rides again** · 03-23-2008, 11:24 AM

wow thats the first time ive seen that video.

same old ****** talk, heard it for 7 years, why the white man is the reason all us po black folk is suffrin.

poor obama, poor america.

i actually thought obama would be good for this country but seeing that these are the type of people who influence his life i have no intention of voting for him.

he should have distanced himself from that preacher along time ago.
since he didnt its pretty damning evidence that he has no qualms at all with his church leadership, up until now that this video has surfaced.
he should have denounced that shit a long time ago and moved on.

ive sat in church services in prison with 98% of the audience being black and it was nothing but a racist driven bitchfest from the opening of the bible to the closing of it.
i see no difference in this supposed preachers serman, i wonder how long it will be before he is brought up on charges of child molestation or theft,maybe missapropriation of church funds.

birds of a feather flock together.

**Nickdfresh** · 03-23-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by vh rides again
wow thats the first time ive seen that video.

same old ----- talk, heard it for 7 years, why the white man is the reason all us po black folk is suffrin.
...

Well, maybe an inbred such as yourself can take his speech point by point and show the flaws or his factual errors?

Because most of what he said are hard to refute...

And again, I could give a fuck what people have said that are not tied directly to Obama's campaign because he is not responsible for their rants...

**vh rides again** · 03-23-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, maybe an inbred as yourself can take his speech point by point and show the flaws or his factual errors?

Because most of what he said are hard to refute...

And again, I could give a fuck what people have said that are not tied directly to Obama's campaign because he is not responsible for their rants...

he may not be responsible, but he is definatley a member, and im sure thats not the first time that preacher has talked like that.
just the first time it was filmed.

and what kind of preacher uses gods name in vain?

you just keep sticking up for these people, see where it gets ya.

**vh rides again** · 03-23-2008, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, maybe an inbred such as yourself can take his speech point by point and show the flaws or his factual errors?

Because most of what he said are hard to refute...

And again, I could give a fuck what people have said that are not tied directly to Obama's campaign because he is not responsible for their rants...

his biggest error as far as im concerned is that like every other black that has an sort of public rant has always got to say the word white.
cant go 30 seconds without the word white coming out of his mouth, i would have more respect for him if he would just come out of the closet and quit beating around the bush, just another louis farrakan in sheeps clothing.

**Nickdfresh** · 03-23-2008, 12:26 PM

He's no Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is a conspiratorial hypocrite that is anti-semitic and is almost universally acknowledged to have behind the murder of Malcolm X...

**vh rides again** · 03-23-2008, 12:31 PM

nick

i already know your next move here, so let me just clear things up for you.

i dont really consider myself racist, but i do have beliefs that can be considered racist, i was made that way by blacks.

im all for every person in this world having a fair shake at a good free life.

i just dont step aside when i hear blacks taking advantage of some fucked up system that has came about in this country allowing them rights that arent afforded to me or any other white american.

im not stepping aside to a belief or a trend that allows blacks to scream the word ****** and get away with it when whites are wiped from their lives for even suggesting saying it.

if blacks want equality i suggest they play a fair game.

**Nickdfresh** · 03-23-2008, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by vh rides again
nick

i already know your next move here, so let me just clear things up for you.

No you don't...

i dont really consider myself racist, but i do have beliefs that can be considered racist, i was made that way by blacks.

So you don't consider yourself a racist. but everyone else would?

im all for every person in this world having a fair shake at a good free life.

i just dont step aside when i hear blacks taking advantage of some fucked up system that has came about in this country allowing them rights that arent afforded to me or any other white american.

Like specifically what?

im not stepping aside to a belief or a trend that allows blacks to scream the word ****** and get away with it when whites are wiped from their lives for even suggesting saying it.

if blacks want equality i suggest they play a fair game.

There are a lot of people calling for the gangsta rap-apes to stop using such words so freely...

But there is an accepted pretension of minority groups who consider themselves historically oppressed using words like "******" or "fag," to take away their power...