Blind Faith


“To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have lowered one’s own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.”

Read the whole article at: http://www.slate.com/id/2187277/

Advertisements

Obama’s Disingenous Speech

The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 21, 2008; A17

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003017.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

“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

Also see Thomas Sowell’s article at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/19/obamas_speech&Comments=true

“Like the Soviet show trials during their 1930s purges, Obama’s speech was not supposed to convince critics but to reassure supporters and fellow-travelers, in order to keep the “useful idiots” useful.”

….

“Best-selling author Shelby Steele’s recent book on Barack Obama (“A Bound Man”) has valuable insights into both the man and the circumstances facing many other blacks — especially those who were never part of the black ghetto culture but who feel a need to identify with it for either personal, political or financial reasons.

Like religious converts who become more Catholic than the Pope, such people often become blacker-than-thou. For whatever reason, Barack Obama chose a black extremist church decades ago — even though there was no shortage of very different churches, both black and white — in Chicago.



Democratic US presidential hopeful Barack Obama (D-IL) waves to supporters during a campaign stop in Plainfield, Indiana March 15, 2008. REUTERS/Frank Polich (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)

Some say that he was trying to earn credibility on the ghetto streets, to facilitate his work as a community activist or for his political career. We may never know why.

But now that Barack Obama is running for a presidential nomination, he is doing so on a radically different basis, as a post-racial candidate uniquely prepared to bring us all together.

Yet the past continues to follow him, despite his attempts to bury it and the mainstream media’s attempts to ignore it or apologize for it.

Shelby Steele depicts Barack Obama as a man without real convictions, “an iconic figure who neglected to become himself.”

Senator Obama has been at his best as an icon, able with his command of words to meet other people’s psychic needs, including a need to dispel white guilt by supporting his candidacy.

But President of the United States, in a time of national danger, under a looming threat of nuclear terrorism? No.”

Terrorists, Marxists, Leftists and the Democrats

With the help of Chavez, FARC is attempting to legitimize and mainstream itself, much as the genocidal PLO transformed, with the aid of useful idiots like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, from criminal terrorists to pseudo-statesmen. Democrats in Congress, succumbing to lobbying from FARC sympathizers and Marxist apologists, are stalling military aid and a free trade agreement. Undermining a close ally, in a despicable attempt to undermine President Bush and any success he might claim in South America. The Colombian people be damned, and the consequences, well, when are they ever a concern? The long view is an anathema to the left.

Read the article at:  

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/terrorists_marxists_leftists_a.html

There are no conservatives and there are no liberals.

“There are only tough-minded and tender-minded folk, as William James divided up humanity.”

“We don’t need a wishful thinker in the presidency. We need somebody who can be trusted to do the toughest and most important job in the world, and to do it supremely well. In any other job search we look at past performance to predict future actions. It’s the only reliable predictor. But if there is no past performance, we have nothing but Hope.

About half the voters are going to vote for Hope. It’s just their mentality. They live in Hope, and as Samuel Johnson remarked, in their case Hope always triumphs over Experience.

Vladimir Lenin said it, and it bears repeating. “‘The West are wishful thinkers. We will give them what they want to think.”  Of course he meant the Western Left. That’s how fat Western pilgrims to the starving Soviet Union were constantly bamboozled over seventy years. The Left still hasn’t figured out what went wrong. Lenin’s insight is still the standard playbook for politicians of the Left to bamboozle their followers.

Nothing has changed. Obama = Clinton = Kerry = Gore = Mondale = Dukakis = the New York Times Editorial Board. Most human beings cannot tolerate too much reality, and the coming election, as always, is about reality versus fantasy.

There are no conservatives and there are no liberals. There are only tough-minded and tender-minded folk, as William James divided up humanity. The tender-minded, wishful-dreaming, cotton-headed liberals must not be allowed to steer the ship of state in very, very dangerous times.
“Most human beings cannot tolerate too much reality, and the coming election, as always, is about reality versus fantasy.”

From James Lewis at http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/hillary_is_right_about_obama_1.html