Obama's speech on race

Obama's speech


There were parts of his speech that I really liked as he spoke of recognizing the anger that blacks and whites feel, but trying to rise above that. That is the promise of his campaign. One thing I'd been waiting to hear from him is, if he says he rejects Reverend Wrights diatribes against America, why does he? When he attends a church where the country that Obama wants to lead is regularly portrayed as a place of evils and a guilty history, it wasn't enough to say that the Senator disagreed, but he needed to say why he disagreed and what he found to admire and be proud of in our country.


Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion ofself-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.




However, I found it disturbing that he threw his grandmother under the bus by making her privately stated qualms about race equivalent to what Reverend Wright has been saying about white America. She is still alive. Did he call her up and let her know that he was going to tell the whole world that she had said things that had made him cringe?

And I keep on thinking about how he chooses to bring his children to hear these sermons that he says now he says presented "a profoundly distorted view of this country." Of course, just a few days ago he was saying that he hadn't heard anything like those clips that were being played on TV. I guess that denial is no longer operative.

And of course Obama was a lot more assertive in his condemnation of Don Imus's "nappy-headed ho's" comment and the effect that such words have on his daughters. As Ace points out, how does he explain to his daughters that the minister he takes him to hear says that the government created the AIDS virus to kill black people?

He implied in his speech that people found the sight of his reverend's sermons and the response among the congregation shocking because they don't know what the atmosphere is like in a black church. I find that insulting.

People weren't finding that laughter and humor what was jarring. It was hearing someone assert, five days after 9/11, that the "chickens were coming home to roost" or blaming white America for the AIDS virus.

So while his speech made have helped Obama burnish his credentials as the son of a white woman and an African man who can help our country bridge the wounds created by slavery and racism, he still hasn't fully answered doubts raised in many people's minds about bringing his family to attend a church where his country is regularly portrayed as a place deserving of attacks and terrorism.
 
I heard he is frineds with this guy





A visiting professor at North Carolina State University says the solution to the problems faced by many blacks is the extermination of "white people off the face of the planet."

Kamau Kambon

Kamau Kambon, who taught Africana Studies at the Raleigh school last spring, told a panel at Howard University Law School Oct. 14 this action must be taken "because white people want to kill us," the Carolina Journal reported.

Kambon, a Raleigh activist and bookstore owner, was addressing a panel on "Hurricane Katrina Media Coverage," broadcast on C-SPAN.

Excerpts of the speech can be heard here and the entire event is archived by C-SPAN.


Kambon told the audience white people "have retina scans, they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they're monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people, because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem."

The Carolina Journal said Kambon's remarks received slight applause in the room, to which he responded, "I don't care whether you clap or not, but I'm saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us."

Kambon has been a visiting professor at North Carolina State since 2003. His three-hour course last spring, Africana Studies 241, is described by the university as, "Second in a two semester sequence in the interdisciplinary study of sub-Saharan Africa, its arts, culture, and people, and the African-American experience."

A university spokesman told Carolina Journal the school currently has no listing of Kambon as a professor. He was listed on the faculty web page for Africana Studies as affiliated faculty, the Journal said at the time of publishing its story, but his name since has been removed.

In his Oct. 14 session, Kambon told the panel blacks are "at war."

White people, he said, had set up an "international plantation" for blacks, which made "every white person on earth a plantation master."

"You're either supporting white people in their process of death, or you're for African liberation," Kambon said, according to the Journal.

"White people want to kill us," he said. 'I want you to understand that. They want to kill you," he said. "They want to kill you because that is part of their plan."

Kambon, recipient of a Citizen's Award in 1999 by the local, left-wing newspaper Independent Weekly, previously was a professor of education at St. Augustine's College in Raleigh, a historically black institution, the Journal said.
 
:confused::confused::confused::confused:How can we call on the "good Muslims" to bravely denounce and actively counter the jihadi terror-endorsing clerics who give their children permission to kill and to hate on behalf of Allah when we seem to be afraid to ask the good African-American Christians to stand up against those, like Wright, who call for the "damn"-ing of America, blame everything on "rich white" people, blame Israel and Jews for a host of imagined sins, and tell their children it is their duty to Jesus to "destroy" people because their skins are white?:confused::confused::confused:
 
you TERRORISTS are lucky to have ME around

cause I have the best C n P's

of course most of you dont/cant read

and the other FRUITS have me on IGGY cause you cant stand the REALITY of LIFE

The peculiar theology of black liberation
By Spengler

Mar 18, 2008

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

What played out last week on America’s television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of “black liberation theology” and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.

One of the strangest dialogues in American political history ensued on March 15 when Fox News interviewed Obama’s pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, of Chicago’s Trinity Church. Wright asserted the authority of the “black liberation” theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:

Wright: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?

Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?

(crosstalk)

Wright: How many books of Cone’s have you head?

Hannity: I’m going to ask you this question …

Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?

Hannity: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.

Wright: You haven’t answered - you haven’t answered my question.

Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. They promote a “black power” reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.

Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, “I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.” But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. Obama wants to talk about what Wright is, rather than what he says. But that way lies apolitical quicksand.

Since Christianity taught the concept of divine election to the Gentiles, every recalcitrant tribe in Christendom has rebelled against Christian universalism, insisting that it is the “Chosen People” of God - French, English, Russian, Germans and even (through the peculiar doctrine of Mormonism) certain Americans. America remains the only really Christian country in the industrial world, precisely because it transcends ethnicity. One finds ethnocentricity only in odd corners of its religious life; one of these is African-American.

During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:

Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.

Theologically, Cone’s argument is as silly as the “Aryan Christianity” popular in Nazi Germany, which claimed that Jesus was not a Jew at all but an Aryan Galilean, and that the Aryan race was the “chosen people”. Cone, Hopkins and Wright do not propose, of course, to put non-blacks in concentration camps or to conquer the world, but racially-based theology nonetheless is a greased chute to the nether regions.

Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]

In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:

In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors … Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone]…

That is the “biblical scholarship” to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology…

Note

1. See William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
 
the KNEE GROW KNEE CAPPED?

of course this was BEFORE

the heroic:rolleyes: majectic:rolleyes: "speech":rolleyes:

On a conference call with reporters, top Clinton campaign officials are still carefully staying away from any comment on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright affair. Top Clinton strategist Mark Penn began the call by saying the campaign had seen "some significant developments in the last few days in the polling data." "There are some pretty big changes happening out there with the voters," Penn said. "While Sen. Obama was declaring himself the frontrunner in the race…the polls were saying something else…They are showing his lead nationally with Democrats has been evaporating….This suggests a very strong swing in momentum."

But when someone asked the obvious question — Do you believe any of those changes are attributable to the Wright matter? — the Clinton team demurred. "I don't think you can pick out any single issue here," Penn said. "I think that a process started of vetting and testing of Sen. Obama, and I think as a result of that process, there are a number of issues: what happened with Goolsbee and NAFTA, what happened with Samantha Powers…the Rezko trial and questions surrounding that. So I think there's no one issue." No mention of Wright.
 
So those who were not bowled over by the Obama speech are either fearful, racist, or both? Wow, that's a broad and baseless assertion. I am neither. My going-in proposition was that this speech was engineered to deflect the potentially damaging issue of the candidate being associated with the extremist views of his spiritual godfather. That is the only legitimate framework for an analyst to use in judging it. "Was it effective or not?" is the only question worth considering. I expected Obama to try to triangulate his way out of a problem. In that respect he did a great job — you can read whatever you want into that speech. And judging from the hyperventilation in some quarters it looks like it had an impact. But to me the speech was nothing more than another move in the chess match. Try to remain calm, we have a long way to go.
 
But to me the speech was nothing more than another move in the chess match. Try to remain calm, we have a long way to go.

I'll give him this: it was a gutsy move.
Most politicians wouldn't have tackled this kind of scandal head on. They would have talked through the media and insulated themselves.

Whether the move will pay off or not, we'll have to see.
 
Interview of DMX said:
Are you following the presidential race?
Not at all.

You’re not? You know there’s a Black guy running, Barack Obama and then there’s Hillary Clinton.
His name is Barack?!

Barack Obama, yeah.
Barack?!

Barack.
What the fuck is a Barack?! Barack Obama. Where he from, Africa?

Yeah, his dad is from Kenya.
Barack Obama?

Yeah.
What the fuck?! That ain’t no fuckin’ name, yo. That ain’t that nigga’s name. You can’t be serious. Barack Obama. Get the fuck outta here.

You’re telling me you haven’t heard about him before.
I ain’t really paying much attention.

I mean, it’s pretty big if a Black…
Wow, Barack! The nigga’s name is Barack. Barack? Nigga named Barack Obama. What the fuck, man?! Is he serious? That ain’t his fuckin’ name. Ima tell this nigga when I see him, “Stop that bullshit. Stop that bullshit” [laughs] “That ain’t your fuckin’ name.” Your momma ain’t name you no damn Barack.

I'm sorry for the n word, but I'd feel bad hiding what he said.
 
I'll give him this: it was a gutsy move.
Most politicians wouldn't have tackled this kind of scandal head on. They would have talked through the media and insulated themselves.

Whether the move will pay off or not, we'll have to see.
BS

all give THE SPEECH about whatever is topic de jour:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top