Friday, March 21, 2008

Obama's Closeness to Rev.Wright Still A Problem

Even after Barak Obama delivered his race speech, A More Perfect Union most of us remain unconvinced of any widening gap that exists between him and his controversial Pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Despite his overused "words of unity" between whites and blacks Obama still oversteps the main point about his pastor. Rev. Wright does not want unity with white people. Obama and his pastor stand worlds apart on this issue. Barak Obama will not recognize that his pastor does not bring a positive influence on the black community nor the overall community of American people.

My question is, "How can Obama speak of racial unity out of one side of his mouth and then closely embrace a spiritual mentor who delivers now widely publicized sermons contrary to any kind of racial unity?" Rev. Wright has been called a racist and a man who sweats anger towards whites. And this is Obama's spiritual mentor? As long as Barak keeps reaffirming the relationship he has with his former pastor, doubts will be raised as to what truly floats around in the mind of Barak Obama?

Listen to Obama's words about racism in America as depicted in his recent speech:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes . . . This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people.

Rev. Wright does not have a faith in the "decency of the American people." He said in one of his sermons that America is the "U.S. of KKK." This "man of God" does not want to end racism but to keep it going because it serves his purpose of keep the black community in a place of a perceived victimization to the "rich while man" as epitomized in the pastor's disparaging remarks about the well-to-do Hillary Clinton. The last time I listened to a democrat praise the Clinton's, Hillary's husband was tagged as America's "first black president."

Obama also remarked that the decency of America (which includes white people) made it possible for him to have his own" American story." Pastor Wright does not believe that! Rev. Wright preaches the gospel of black anger towards the white man.

But Rev. Wright led Obama to Christ, according to the Senator, and because of that Barak cannot disown him. He's like family. However, Wright is family by choice not by blood, so Obama has the ability to place a huge chasm between himself and his pastor.

I won't argue that God used Jeremiah Wright to guide Barak to Jesus, but that was twenty years ago. Since then Rev. Wright has gotten off track. Where is Jesus in his message now? Could he lead Obama to Jesus today or steer him to more anger and hostility towards white people and the U.S.

As long as Rev. Wright preaches this message of animosity towards white people, Republicans, the U.S. government and any black man or woman who is not a liberal democrat (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice), how can Obama not take a giant step away from his former pastor? How can he not disavow a man who once preached a message that honored Christ but has taken a detour of extreme black nationalistic theology and has found no Christian compunction to refuse to honor the Minister Louis Farrakhan?

We all know by now that Rev. Wright gave Louis Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award back in December 2007. Every year the Trumpeter Newsmagazine, the literary arm of Rev. Wright's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, offers awards to different individuals in various categories.

In a letter from the magazine's publisher, Jeri. L. Wright, the pastor's daughter, she writes, "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is the recipient of this year's Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award."

Barak Obama attends a church, whose magazine gave a lifetime achievement award to a man who is a serious anti-Semite. Louis Farrakhan is not some pesky little gnat that goes away after a few swats. Louis Farrakhan is a respected leader in the black community as we witnessed in his involvement with the Million Man March.

In the November-December 2007 Trumpeter magazine an article "An Empowerment Interview," gives the reasons why the award was given to Minister Farrakhan.

The article specifically records the view of Jeremiah Wright on Louis Farrakhan. In the piece Jeremiah Wright applaudes the Nation of Islam leader and remarks on his significant impact, "When Minister Farrakahn speaks, Black America listens."

Wright compares Farrakhan to the E.F. Hutton commericals. So when Farrakhan speaks of Judaism as a "gutter religion," the black community takes him seriously?

In Richard Cohen's Washington Post article he remarks, "Over the years, he [Farrakhan] has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- 'They helped him get the Third Reich on the road.'"

Louis Farrakhan is a man stricken, as Cohen rightly says, with "botulism of the mind." How can a Christian leader offer him a lifetime achievement award? How can Barak Obama embrace a Pastor who sees greatness in Louis Farrakahn and continue to attend a church that had no problems with a pastor who delivers hateful speeches about a country Obama would like to lead? It's mind-boggling that the impact of this paradoxical scenario has not hit the hearts and minds of Obama supporters a lot deeper.

How in the world did the congregants of the Trinity United Church of Christ listen to the anti-American, angry rantings of Pastor Wright for so many years and not make a moral and spiritual issue of it? I wonder if there's much difference between Pastor Wright's thinking and that of his congregation . . . a church Obama still attends.

Rev. Wright says of Farrakhan and his anti-Jewish conspiratorial thinking, "Everybody may not agree with him [Farrakhan, but they listen . . . His depth of analysis where it comes to the racial ills of this nations is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest." Rev. Wright, does that include his denigration of the Holocaust?

Barak Obama needs to connect the dots between his pastor and Louis Farrakhan. He can't just say to Hillary Clinton in a recent debate that he denounces the endorsement of Farrakhan if it "makes her comfortable."
Is he personally comfortable with Farrakhan's endorsement or did he simple tell the "rich white woman" what she wanted to hear ?

In no way do I think Obama shares the views of Farrakhan. But his pastor may! This is a pastor who prayed with the young senator just before his Illinois announcement that he'll run for the presidency. Cohen asks, "Will he pray for him before his inaugural?" I ask, "Will he pray at the inaugural?"

I will not take away from any good performed by Farrakhan in the black community. I had one Chicago resident tell me that where Farrakhan's followers live, there is no crime. In fact, I endorse his message of black self-reliance and his impact on the lives of young black men. But his achievements do not earn him the right for decent Americans to turn a deaf ear to his racist, anti-Semtic ravings! As I would critiicize any white man who espouses racism, I cannot turn away from the slippery forked tongue of Farrakhan when he speaks of white people as "blue eyed devils."

In the article in the Trumpeter Magazine, Wright continues to pile on the praise of Farrakhan, "His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powrfull critics.. . a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and purpose."

It's very clear where Rev. Wright stands . . . Louis Farrakhan is not a problem to him. Will Obama lose his Jewish support over this? Will it affect his perspective on Israel if he WINS the presidency and has to deal with Israel's leaders among whom are Holocaust survivors? Obama cannot flirt with Rev. Wright because the pastor lies in the same bed with Louis Farrakhan.

When I was a kid growing up in Newark, N.J., the neighborhood kids would choose up sides in order to play a game of street stickball. We would use any method available-"rock, paper, scissors" or "odds or evens." You had to wind up on one team or else you sat on the curb and watched.

Yes, Obama's speech was moving, but he still has not chosen sides on the Rev. Wright issue. He is attempting to play for his own team, the team of the American public and Rev. Jeremiah Wright's team all at the same time.

Knowing that Wright has honored Minister Louis Farrakhan as one of his all-star players, Obama has no choice but to choose to leave Wright's team and play for the other side-the side of justice, truth and integrity.

Has Obama got what it takes to make that choice or will he sit on the curb from 2008-2012?


Jarah said...

Most people would definitely see it as contradicting.

You might be interested in the Young Entrepreneur Society from the A great documentary about successful entrepreneurs.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

Muslims Against Sharia call on Senators McCain and Obama to cut all ties with their racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic supporters.


betsy784 said...

Watch Rev. Jeremiah Wright's 9-11 sermon in context
Already 180,000 people have watched this video

Jeremiah Wright's God Damn America in context
Already 40,000 people have watched this video

Louis Lapides said...

Muslim Against Sharia: are there more out there than Rev. Wright? How do you feel about cutting ties with the antisemitic and Islamic Louis Farrakhan?

Louis Lapides said...

Muslims against Sharia: I would put Muslims, who have attacked our country on 911 and are continually attacking our ally Israel under a different category. You cannot ignore that the majority of terrorist are connected to the Islamic faith. It is up to Islam not christianity to reel in these violent followers of Islam. I am not naive enough to believe all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists with small exceptions (Timothy McVey and the Unibomber) are Islamic.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"How do you feel about cutting ties with the antisemitic and Islamic Louis Farrakhan?"

If you click the provided link, you can easily find out.

"You cannot ignore that the majority of terrorist are connected to the Islamic faith."

We don't. You also cannot ignore the fact that majority of victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims.

"It is up to Islam not christianity to reel in these violent followers of Islam."

You are wrong. When the West (Christians and Jews) is supporting radical Muslims and ignoring the moderates, we have no chance to win the war for the soul of Islam.

Louis Lapides said...

Betsy784: I listened to the majority of Rev. Wright's sermon about the "chickens coming home to roost." I still find Wright to be anti-American. He speaks of "we" when it comes to bombing Hiroshima, Khadafi, etc. Does that "we" include black people or only white people? For him to call Israel state sponsored terrorism shows his deep ignorance of the Middle East situation? When did we bomb Panama? I don't recollect any one getting killed when Clinton bombed the pharmaceutical company? Khadafi was attacked because Libya took down a commercial flight over Lockerbee, Scotland killing 100s. There is a context to every attack of America on groups and countries that attacked us? Was the Civil War where 500,000 men died an act of terrorism. Wright is an ungrateful citizen of the U.S. How about the African tribes killing each other in Rwanda and the Islamic governments and right wing militia groups attacking blacks in the Sudan. Damn Rev. Wright for his jaundiced eye of hatred for America. He is a terrible influence for this country. Listening to the entire sermon only made me more angry than ever. He's not a man of God but a man of anger. The so-called innocents were not strictly innocent. Palestinians have used school building to launch attacked on Israel so they Israelis could not return fire and kill innocents. Who is responsible: the cowardly Palestinians for using children as a shield or the Israelis revenging the deaths of civilians and military personnel.

Louis Lapides said...

Muslims against Sharia: I appreciate your strong rejection of Minister Farrakhan. Yes, the majority of victims of Islamic terrorism is Muslims. That cannot be forgotten. I will need to dig deeper into the teachings of Rod Paisley. I do not embrace his approach or his ultra charismatic theology. I am grieved that McCain stood with this man. It looks like a great blog piece. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am not sure why Christian and Jews are responsible for dealing with Islamic terrorism. I am also not clear on what Islamic extremist governments we support . . . Pakistan . . . Afghanistan. Sometimes we have the support the lesser or great of the two evils to eliminate the other evil. It's all an sad but morally unclear choice we have to make. However, for America to play the isolationist role while Islamic terrorism grows is the worse choice we can ever make. We must stay in the game and do all we can to fight terrorism. Have moderate Islamic governments condemned Islamic acts of terror on a consistent basis? The beheadings of civilians working in Iraq; the horrible mistreatment of women in Islamic countries . . even our American feminist groups don't speak up on behalf of Muslim women world over. Thanks for your comments.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"I am not sure why Christian and Jews are responsible for dealing with Islamic terrorism."

Christians and Jews are acting irresponsibly by supporting Islamic extremists who are responsible for Islamic terrorism.

"I am also not clear on what Islamic extremist governments we support . . . Pakistan . . . Afghanistan."

How about Iran and Saudi Arabia?

"However, for America to play the isolationist role while Islamic terrorism grows is the worse choice we can ever make."

How about not financing Islamic radicals, for starters?

"Have moderate Islamic governments condemned Islamic acts of terror on a consistent basis?"

Can you provide an example of a truly MODERATE Islamic government?

Louis Lapides said...

Muslims against Sharia: we are supporting Iran? That's news to me. We're ready to make a major move against Iran in order to deal with their nuclear capabilities. We don't support them nor does the government have any trade deals with them. Maybe private companies but the government of the US does to recognize Iran as a partner in anything. President Bush condemned Iran as part of the axis of evil and he's right. Re: Saudi Arabia. The government of SA is not terrorist but the royal family is beholden to the Wahabists among whom is Osama Bin Laden. The US. must play chess with SA because we don't want Saudi oil to fall into the hands of the Wahabists. You still have not told me which Islamic extremists are supported by Christians and Jews. I need specifics.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"we are supporting Iran? That's news to me."

Maybe if you paid attention to the current events, it wouldn't be. Let's give you an example. Shell has multi-billion (with a B) contracts with Iran. Shell also sells gas in the USA. Where do you think some of those dollars end up? How about inviting Ahmadinejad or Rafsanjani to speak at Columbia or National Cathedral?

"The government of SA is not terrorist"

What cave do you live in?

Louis Lapides said...

Muslims against Sharia: Iran: Shell is not our national government but a privately owned company. I still think that the US government should regulate privately owned companies and prevent them from having dealing with Iran. Your comment about Ahmadinejad or Rafsanjani speaking at Columbia or National Cathedral is well taken. However, it created a lot of negative attention especially when Ahmadinejad spoke. I have spoken to many Iranians who think all the negative press about him is propaganda and that he's not so bad. Regardless, private companies putting money into Iran is different than the U.S. government doing so. A need for a grassroots refusal to buy Shell products is the only answer for now lest the U.S. steps in.

Regarding SA, I want to know how the royal family are terrorists. Other than paying off the wahabists, is SA sending money to Syria or Iran? You still haven't provided evidence. I am not defending SA; I think they're in cahoots with Bin Laden. But remember Hussein was sending Scuds to SA in order to grab SA oil, force American troops out of Islamic territory while he was also trying to grab Kuwait's oil. Other than the US, did anyone retaliate against Ira for attacking SA. If SA is terrorist, they are hiding it quite well under the garments of the royal family, both courted by Clinton and Bush.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

"Shell is not our national government but a privately owned company."

No, but the American consumer supports Iran by giving money to Shell and the American government supports Iran by letting Shell operate in the US.

"A need for a grassroots refusal to buy Shell products is the only answer for now lest the U.S. steps in."

We couldn't agree more:

"Regarding SA, I want to know how the royal family are terrorists. Other than paying off the wahabists"

Like that's not enough? How about millions of homicidal zombies being bred in Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas? Where do you think al Qaeda gets their recruits from?

"both courted by Clinton and Bush."

Don't even start me on those clowns!