Wright, Obama and the black church

By AmVet

May 1, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this

Five years ago today our fighter pilot hero of Alabama courageously landed upon the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln.

Along with McArthur’s wading ashore onto the Philippines, what a memorable moment in US history!

And what American will ever forget that now famous “Mission Accomplished” banner?

Sadly, it has become the very emblem of misjudgments and mistakes made.

And even more, a testament IMHO to the deadly and misguided ineptitude of the most arrogant and incompetent President in US history.

4061 Americans KIA.

Read ‘em and weep…

By jbmlaw

May 1, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I am a member at a mostly-white congregation of a church with a mostly-conventional Protestant theology and a mostly traditional service. The one time I attended a “traditionally” African-American church I participated in an admittedly-interesting service, although not one that particularly spoke to my metaphysical needs. The service I attended did not strike me as anti-American; I do not recall any condemnation of any, more positive, filled with various calls for �respect� for others, and patience and tolerance � nothing alien to my beliefs, although perhaps not anything essential to my religious beliefs either. (I define religious beliefs as the relationship between IHWH and man, with the inter-relationships among men a mere subset of the former.) The most striking element of the service I attended was a stirring music program, easily the best part of the service. The sermon was too long, but then any sermon that lasts more than 15 minutes is too long for me � I have a short attention span, and my mind wanders.

Perhaps the service I attended was not �The Black Church.� While I will defend the African-American practices I observed, I will not defend leftist politics masking as theology.

By TW

May 1, 2008 9:02 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten - you contributions to my thesis on �the many faces of racism� is most appreciated. The numerous examples within your writings this week may even necessitate a new chapter. Keep up the highly transparent good work.

By Redneck Convert

May 1, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

Well, everybody knows all us Southren folk have been real kind and gentle to Those People all our life. Long as they kept their place we let them go. Things was real good under the Jim Crow laws but some people just can�t accept something good. They want to change everything. Now we got Those People showing up in our schools and eating places and everywhere else. It just goes to show that being kind and gentle don�t always work. Now they expect to vote and even hold political seats. Like everybody else says on this blog I didn�t have nothing to do with how Those People wound up poor. Maybe my Daddy did but you can�t expect to blame me for what my Daddy done. I got what I got fair and square and you can�t blame me for taking advantage of some chances I wouldn�t have if Those People wasn�t slaves and such.

Anyway, I�m with Wooten. I don�t know what goes on in the churches of Those People though I�m glad they have enough respeck to not show up in our churches. You can�t preach love and understanding if you got a bunch of rabble-rousers in your midst. I hope they ain�t in their churches planning to take over our guvmint or do protest marches. This Rev. Wright sounds like just the kind of person that would cause us a whole bunch of trouble. Like the yankees that come down here in the 60s and tryed to change our good Southren way of life.

Anyway, this Obama is finished now. Time to elect McCain and let the Rev. Hagee and other Right-thinking people keep his librul ways under control. We need to give people tax credits so people can buy health insurance. If they don�t make enough to get tax credits that ain�t our fault. This is Free Innerprize, not some commie outfit. And we need to keep the tax cuts going so good people like jbmlaw and my boss can keep their country club membership and take their vacation in far-off places. And we need more godly conservative judges on the SC. Its time to put a stop to abortion and all the other sins in this country. Besides, it don�t look like we will make any gains in the House and Senate so we need a Republican President with the veto pen to keep things under control.

The boss at the warehouse looked at me kind of funny this a.m. I think he is making plans to lay me off. It ain�t my fault gas prices are so high and people ain�t buying beer as much as they use to. Besides, its Clintons fault. He done it first. If he had of left that intern alone we wouldn�t be in the mess we�re in.

I sure hope people on this blog don�t blast me and call me a librul again today. Its happened two days in a row and I get pretty tired of it. One even said my Mommy is in New Jersey. I guess its the price you pay for speaking out for godly conservative things.

Have a good day everybody.

By Craig

May 1, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Another day, another screed about the Rev. Wright. No mention of the vile John Hagee of course.

What a surprise.

Of course conservatives can’t talk about real issues - like the war, or gas prices, or the economy - since their champion simply wants four more years of the same failed policies.

By Ray

May 1, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Good article in the Wall Street Journal today talking about where all of Obama’s friends are at this time. Not one has stood behind him and supported him, including Je$$ie, Big Al, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney, Cornell West, John Lewis (who switched his support to Obama), Ophra and any number of white supporters, including the Kennedys, numerous white politicos, etc. You can do a lot of things in this country as a black man but one thing you cannot do is put down a brother, no matter how much of a wingnut he is. I wonder how many of his black “supporters” jump up and down in a similar congregation on Sunday. Mary Mitchell, and most of the black community have another allegiance in this fight and it is not to the candidate Obama. You can’t say those things, Barrack, and you are finding out that Wright speaks for more of the black community that you do.

By Truthifier

May 1, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

In yesterday’s blog, several people posited that if Rev. Wright were white we would not see so much attention being paid to him for his remarks. As an example of how a white minister with a record of making extremist statements is called out for his outrageous views, I would offer up the Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas. I think it is fair to say that if Mr. Phelps were serving as a spiritual advisor and mentor to either Hillary Clinton or John McCain there would be puh-lenty of complaining! And rightly so. Extremism, no matter the color of the person delivering it, is going to be rejected by most Americans.

By CJ

May 1, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

On Rev. Wright, ‘I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother’. I bet his white grandmother is anxiously awaiting his decision about her!

If all black churches, as Wright and his supporters would have us believe, preach hate against whites and America, then we have much bigger issues than the presidential election.

For the sake of putting this issue to rest, nominate HILLARY CLINTON! She has her issues, but none are as divisive as this one. Hillary will do an excellent job for us as President!

By Just Wondering

May 1, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

I’m not trying to fan the flames, seriously, but I have a question that perhaps someone here can answer. I know a lot of traditionally white churches have embraced diversity and opened their doors to people of all races. Is there a movement within the traditionally black churches to embrace diversity by welcoming whites and other races in?

By DichotomE

May 1, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

The very fact that AJC continually hosts blogs that displays the content like that seen in this one, is the prime indicator that we have much bigger issues than the presidential election. What country have you been living in CJ?

By Ray

May 1, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Why is this Wright thing such a surprise to white America? Have the soccer moms and dads had their heads in the sand for the last generation? Wright represents the racial tone of attitudes of the black community to whites and to America. Deny it all you want but the only people critizing Wright are whites. The liberal Demos are not putting him down for fear of loosing their voting base and black America is certainly not going to put down a brother. There is a spirit of hate and resentment just under the surface of most everything that has to do with black/white relations in this country and it is not going to go away anytime soon. We are two or more generations from electing a black president. Obama as tried but it is obvious that his campaign is coming apart because of this. I would like to have seen McCain beat him fair and square.

By Adam

May 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

It shouldn’t be a surprise that Obama supporters are anxious to see the Wright embarrassment go away and try to deflect the controversy back onto the evil white society. But the more we learn about the radical positions of Wright, Obama, Ayers and others the more we understand the real Obama.

Mary Mitchell is repulsed by the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church. I’m sure Klan members are equally indignant of the idea of criticism of what is said at the the Klan meetings. However when these equally racist environments are exposed, the participants want to quickly change the subject.

By CMS

May 1, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

O.K. Wooten, as a young reader of your column,an independent,and a 31 year old black man, this is about as much since that you have made to me. With that said I support Wright’s rhetoric as well as Obama’s position.

Because I grew up in a black church I fail to recognize the “radicalness” or Anti-American sentiments within Wright’s rhetoric. It is what it is. At the same time, Obama is a politician who has to appeal to the masses without alienating his base … I don’t envy his position at all, because he shouldn’t be defined by another man’s point of view.

Hell I’ve heard African American preachers say worse behind a pulpit that I don’t agree with, and as I’ve grown older I understand the need to get a different perspective on Christanity … its already divide enough. The ministry in general has strangle hold on policy making when there needs to be a true seperation of church and state, but this is coming from the mind of a liberal.

I respect the conservative right, you all make some valid points. But we are all the total of our respective experiences. And as black american my experiences in the church I was raised in, how I interact with my family, and society in general is simply different … not deficient.

By jm

May 1, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this

I wonder what Thinking Right would look like if Mr. Wooten was actually serious about the issues of the day rather than harping on about Rev. Wright (who is clearly maximizing his fifteen minutes of fame). Then I read this

I will let you get back to your daily dose of Rev. Wright is a baaaad person.

By Why wonder

May 1, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

What makes you believe that traditionally Black churches do not embrace diversity and welcome whites and other races? You see the Church does not belong to either Black nor White, the Church is GOD’S CHURCH which we are all a part of the BODY. My church is about 95% Black, however we do have some White members and a few Hispanics.

The problem is not at all coming from the Black perspective, rather Whites and other groups who too often through their predjudices are too fearful of the Black experience and somehow are convinced that it is an inferior one, even in the realm of religion. Blacks have never tried to prohibit Whites or other groups from worshipping with them, it has always been the other way around.

My particular church was integrated almost 40 years ago by a White preacher against death threats from some in the community. He believed that we are all God’s people and when the community began to change its demographic, so should the community church.

I challenge ANY non-Black who reads these words to walk into any “Black” Christian church in Atlanta. You will realize that those in the church will only see you as their brother or sister in Christ and not as a non-Black.

A bit if truth for you this morning.

By The surge is working...

May 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

Luckovich’s cartoon this morning hits the nail on Jim’s head. Create a diversion and maybe the voters won’t notice what a mess everything else is. Good plan, Jim.

How about a column on “Mission Accomplished”? about how April, 2008 was the deadliest month for US soldiers since September, 2007? or any of a myriad of important topics that actually affect our daily lives? Any possibility of that, Jim?

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this

CMS makes a good point. It is also a point that applies equally to white people. We are the total of our respective experiences. How we interact with our family, and society in general is simply different… not deficient.

By prince of peace

May 1, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this

Another day…Another Wooten screak concerning Wright.

This is what the right wing does best as taught by Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.

When you have nothing of substance to contribute..Keep hammering at the “SCARY” things like Wright, Willie Horton, Obama’s middle name.”

Sometimes this even plays out when the right wing starts eating it’s own as it did to McCain in 2000. Thank you Karl Rove.

But it’s not only Wooten who is complicit in this ongoing trash.

The Washington Post and NY Times published more than 12 times as many articles mentioning Obama and Wright as they did mentioning McCain and Hagee.

And, just for fun..The following from Bill Maher.

“Bush was all over TV this week. He was on ‘Deal or No Deal.’ Then he was on ‘American Idol,’
which was unexpected, because it’s usually only in the early episodes where they have the retards.”

By Bill

May 1, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

I grew up in the South during the most turbulent times of the civil rights movement. I learned good people could have insanely wrong beliefs. The real change in the South, and with those people, came through strong and ugly dialog.

There’s a change in how we talk about race since those days - there is no tolerance for extreme talk on either side in polite society. Instead we speak in platitudes and, whether we truly believe it or not, act as if there’s no longer a great divide between races.

We acknowledge that there are white and black racists but paint them all as insane or evil. It just isn’t so. There’s a difference between being wrong and crazy or evil.

By pigeon holing them we cut off all sensible discussion. So black racists only talk openly among others who hold the same views, white racists only talk openly among their own kind. So the extreme opinions are reinforced by that receptive audience.

I understand why people follow the politically correct line. It’s easier and less dangerous to just keep quiet. Extreme views from whites - and to a lesser degree from blacks - are quickly shouted down.

By hushing up the bigots on both sides, or dismissing them all as crazy, we let the hate smolder and grow unchallenged.

In my early days in the South, I saw true bigots change through the heated discussion (well, discussion is too polite a term for what was happening).

Many of the old southern bigots were otherwise decent. People can and often do have a weird mix of wrong-headed thinking and goodness. That should be obvious but it helps to say it.

The only difference with a racist like Wright - compared to the white racists I remember - is that it is easier for me to understand how so much hate could build up. It would be hard to argue that life has been equitable. And it’s especially true for those who grew up in Wright’s generation.

Foolishly or not, I’m heartened by the wide exposure of Wright’s views. He isn’t alone in thinking what he does - he spoke out instead of showing the outside world one face while reserving his extremist views for those within his inner circle. Maybe he spoke out because his feelings were hurt, maybe because he craves attention — heck, maybe he’s just nuts or plain evil. It really doesn’t matter.

I started by say that some white Southern bigots were decent folks. Some of them were not decent at all - some were evil to the tips of their toes. That may be the case with Wright. I have no way of knowing.

But I’m glad he is speaking openly instead of confining his venom to the pulpit. I hope he’ll be answered just as openly and with just as much emotion. In the process people on both sides will get bent out of shape.

Truth is, a little reshaping would be a good thing.

By Shar

May 1, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten: Your column should have begun and ended with the statement, “I�m not in a position to have an opinion on what transpires in black churches.” Instead, for the second day in a row you offer up commentary on events you have not witnessed and people you have neither met nor interviewed regarding issues you have not researched, all in the hope of arousing the passions of the similarly uninformed and for the purpose of deflecting attention and criticism of the indefensible policies of the people you support.

This is yellow journalism at its most shameless.

The tactic of using the moral authority of the clergy to incite passion over reason and to stimulate political action has been sharpened to a painful point by the current Administration. Republican assaults on the civil and privacy rights of gay Americans, our fellow citizens, was fed through conservative church pastors, primarily white, for the sole purpose of getting conservative voters to the polls.

If the tactic is offensive in one group, it is offensive in all. This is the lesson that Rev. Wright and Senator Obama failed to learn. Racism is destructive and wrong, regardless of who it targets. So is the manipulation of people’s spiritual beliefs for political gain, regardless of who is holding the strings.

Jbmlaw, who does not wallow in Mr. Wooten’s admitted ignorance, writes, “While I will defend the African-American practices I observed, I will not defend leftist politics masking as theology.” Fair and appropriate, as long as “rightist politics” are similarly abjured. Mr. Wooten does not share jbmlaw’s intellectual honesty, choosing instead flaunt his lack of knowledge in the pursuit of pandering.

By Just Wondering

May 1, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

why wonder @9:57, thanks for your reply. I appreciate your insight. I meant no offense, and was just genuinely curious about how black churches welcome others since we hear a lot of talk about the black church, but no one would ever refer to - the white church. It would be taken as racist. I understand that black churches came out of a time when blacks were not welcome in other churches but was just wondering how they are living in the now.

By Sassy~TU~Hunay

May 1, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

I wish Rev. Wright would sit his retired a* down and shut the hell up. All African-American preachers do not preach hate and spew the garabage that comes out of his mouth in their puplits.

By ron

May 1, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

Good morning, With their impatience,the black community is tipping it’s hand before their candidate is elected.They will destroy any chance he ever had of being elected.

There is a weak slate of candidates before us and the people will have to choose which one they think will do the least damage in the next four years.Hell of a way to run a country.

By Abomi Nation

May 1, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this

Great column Jim. The fact is the media has ignored the Black church and treated it as if it were off limits. White America has been given the idea that the Black church is nothing more than pretty gospel music sung in churches on Sunday.

There seems to be a serious double standard here. On one side you have the media exposing uncomfortable issues within White Southern Baptist, Catholic, Episcopal, and Mormon churches.

When it comes to the issues of the Black church however the media is somehow expected to remain silent. Self censored because of the fear of being called racist.

Focus on the pretty gospel music White America, then move on. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

By Ray

May 1, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

What’s it going to take in this dialog for both black and white to come to the center and get this behind us? This is one of the most important issues that we face in this country and we need to talk about and fix it NOW.

By Why wonder

May 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Just Wondering.

That is the very danger in allowing media to form our perceptions. It is unfortunate that our modern day media is used in a way that was never intended; independent/objective/impartial.

I’m just one who believes in “if you want to know how something really is, experience it for yourself firsthand”.

There is no “Black” church, only churches where the dominant demographic is Black. Again something that we have just bought into over time because of the social conditions that initially forced and continues to perpetuate it.

By getalife

May 1, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

The gop had nothing to run on until Wright hit the corporate media.

I say run Omama and lose to get the gop to clean up their mess. They can’t govern and this will finish off our country and their party. A draft, a depression, more wars is what this country deserves.

You get what you vote for.

By HIDT

May 1, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Jim, like me, you grew up in rural south Georgia. Were all the horses in your area dead from you beating them daily? I know you are doing your part to get Hillary nominated (which is fine with me, though I think McCain can beat either), but Wright’s 15 minutes should be long over.

By tommy

May 1, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

It is very sad that most of you taking part in this column are affraid to call Jerimiah Wright what he is a bitter old racist himself. That man is the classic racist being friendly to many caucasions then slamming them behind the door of his church. I wonder if all of you defending the black church realise that in this country we do have seperation of Church and state. But since many of the african americans refuse to move on past the 60’s they continue to hold political meetings and describe them as church. If it was a white church saying the outlandish and ignorant statements that the racist wright has said the entire media and the country would come down upon them with great vengance. Oh that’s right we already did that it was called clan meetings, and I am here to say that Wright is nothing more than a racist leader of a racially discrimminating and blaming church

By tommy

May 1, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this

It is very sad that most of you taking part in this column are affraid to call Jerimiah Wright what he is a bitter old racist himself. That man is the classic racist being friendly to many caucasions then slamming them behind the door of his church. I wonder if all of you defending the black church realise that in this country we do have seperation of Church and state. But since many of the african americans refuse to move on past the 60’s they continue to hold political meetings and describe them as church. If it was a white church saying the outlandish and ignorant statements that the racist wright has said the entire media and the country would come down upon them with great vengance. Oh that’s right we already did that it was called clan meetings, and I am here to say that Wright is nothing more than a racist leader of a racially discrimminating and blaming church

By Roc-a-fella

May 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

The Jeremiah Wright controversy demonstrates the arrogance and ignorance of white America. Additionally, it demonstrates the politics of fear that has driven so many out of the realm of politics and led to such apathy among minorities.

First of all, I emplore you to watch the entire sermons, not the Fox News manufactured, fear-invoking sound bites. Whether you agree or disagree with Jeremiah Wright, why not make a concerted effort to figure out why a decorated Marine/man of the cloth that speaks five languages with a Ph.D would feel this way? Why not get to the bottom of the feelings and try to address them? If the portion of white America that continues to fan the flames surrounding this nontroversy wasn’t so cocky and down-right stupid, we could turn this Rev. Wright nontroversy into a very enlightening experience for our country and possibly turn the page on America’s racist and hate-filled past.

However, the news media intent to increase ratings is focusing, instead of on a dialogue and solutions, on some contrived nontroversy that doesn’t impact how much I pay for gas or for a box of cornflakes or whether my cousin will make it home from Iraq alive and well.

Wake up America!!! Please show me where Barack Obama has done anything to demonstrate that he’s divisive. Examples please! This man has a white mother and white grandparents. He’s half white. How can he hate White America? Wouldn’t that translate into self-hatred?

The entire controversy is being flamed by the guilty conscious of white America that the half-black candidate will pay white America back for the atrocities that its inflicted on black people. Let’s be intellectually honest here. We had a couple hundred years of slavery, lynchings (I’ve seen pictures where the sheriff/representative of the government was present), segregation and Jim Crow. The people fanning this Wright nontroversy is intent on making sure that their racist chickens don’t come home to roost.

I hope all of my caucasian brethren that read this entry take one step back and try to put themselves in the shoes of black America. I hope they can show a little empathy considering the atrocities set forth above and finally understand that the American experience has been different for the black community. Next time, try to be understanding before condemning.

We’re in this thing together, so let’s make a change and move forward together to the next chapter of America. United we stand, divided we fall!!!

By tommy

May 1, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

It is very sad that most of you taking part in this column are affraid to call Jerimiah Wright what he is a bitter old racist himself. That man is the classic racist being friendly to many caucasions then slamming them behind the door of his church. I wonder if all of you defending the black church realise that in this country we do have seperation of Church and state. But since many of the african americans refuse to move on past the 60’s they continue to hold political meetings and describe them as church. If it was a white church saying the outlandish and ignorant statements that the racist wright has said the entire media and the country would come down upon them with great vengance. Oh that’s right we already did that it was called clan meetings, and I am here to say that Wright is nothing more than a racist leader of a racially discrimminating and blaming church

By deegee

May 1, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

“While I�m not in a position to have an opinion on what transpires in black churches on Sunday morning, if his conspiracy-laced anti-Americanism is indeed the black church in America, as Wright declared at the National Press Club, we � blacks and whites � are in trouble. And so is the ministry.”

That’s funny, JW says, while I’m not in a position to have an opinion on the subject, here’s my opinion…

“She, like most liberals, sees conspiracies and orchestrated campaigns � this directed at Wright � where none exists.”

Oh really???? JW editorializes on the Jeremiah Wright controversy 3 times in 4 days. This is the kind of B.S. that angers people. Peeing in one’s face and calling it rain tends to provoke people. Please, just have the nads to admit to what you are doing because it’s so obvious. You aren’t fooling anyone.

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this

Roc-a-fella the reason white people have such a hard time working through the race issue with blacks, is because everytime a white person expresses an opinion, people like you automatically start calling them arrogant, ignorant racists. Why bother.

By RCH

May 1, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

Mitchell is right:

And the notion that white pundits can dictate what constitutes unacceptable speech in the black church is repulsive to most black people.�

However, a potential President is a member of that church and it is not acceptable to most Americans .Recent poles have labeled that type of rhetoric hate full and racist.

Obama is no fool. Recent slides in pole numbers in Carolina and Indiana have brought this to light. He cannot when on the black vote alone and cannot risk alienating the white vote.

By jbmlaw

May 1, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Dear Bill @ 10:06, unless Glenn hops online, nobody can top your essay today, my compliments.

Dear Shar @ 10:08, thanks for the commentary, but my �intellectual honesty� requires that I disclose that it is specifically �liberation theology� that I had in mind with my closing comment. And as to equal condemnation of rightist politics masquerading as theology, I have to admit that I probably would never notice; my beliefs are integrated so thoroughly that I would be unable to distinguish one from the other. The obvious example is �abortion.� My thoughts on �abortion� are rooted in both religious belief and in my more political and ethical perceptions of the value of innocent human life. Similarly, if I were blessed with a pastor who distinguished, with a sneer, �government� from �Godly� institutions, I may attribute that to intellectual arguments � separation - within religious tradition rather than a political bias, although there is little question that conservatives and libertarians also politically embrace that religious doctrine, among many others. It seems to me that it is the left side of the aisle that most often chooses to reject much religious belief and doctrine and practice, thus my arguably too-broad-brush painting. Having said such horrible things, it would be intellectually dishonest for me to fail to acknowledge that I recognize thoughtful morality in such friends of the left as you and Southern Democrat.

Dear deegee @ 10:38, the line you quoted by Mr. Wooten is a sound argument. Your position, that condemning evil is as bad as the evil itself, is unreasoned.

By tommy

May 1, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Roc-a-fella, 1st let me comend you on not being brave enought to use your real name then stealing a hip hop labels name for your own. Second i have seen an entire sermon and in the entire sermon Rev. Wright said derogatory statements about whites, 27 times in only 38 minutes of footage. Also you ask where Obama has done anything wrong. He was a member for 20 years and only now does he denounce wright. Either Obama sleeps in church, agrees with Wright or just said what he said to get the media off his back. Whatever the case may be Obama is obviously a man who lacks the ability to recognize charecter as he has now cast Wright to the side and disassociated himself. You sound like a man angry at life and looking for someone to blame and us white people are getting tired of being the scapegoats. By the way I am a solid part cherokee does that give me the right to blurt out hate speech too.

By tommy

May 1, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

Roc-a-fella, 1st let me comend you on not being brave enought to use your real name then stealing a hip hop labels name for your own. Second i have seen an entire sermon and in the entire sermon Rev. Wright said derogatory statements about whites, 27 times in only 38 minutes of footage. Also you ask where Obama has done anything wrong. He was a member for 20 years and only now does he denounce wright. Either Obama sleeps in church, agrees with Wright or just said what he said to get the media off his back. Whatever the case may be Obama is obviously a man who lacks the ability to recognize charecter as he has now cast Wright to the side and disassociated himself. You sound like a man angry at life and looking for someone to blame and us white people are getting tired of being the scapegoats. By the way I am a solid part cherokee does that give me the right to blurt out hate speech too.

By Ray

May 1, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

I was visiting my pregnant 35 yr old daughter three years ago in Portland, OR and she informed me on Sat that we were going to the Redemption of the Lord and Saviour Baptist Church the following morning while she performed with the gospel choir. She stated that it was in a part of town that I don’t frequently go and that we would be in a definite minority in the congregation. As a minority of one, I sat in a pew and watched my daughter sing with a large number of decidedly overweight, very turned on and happy ladies who sang like nothing I have ever heard. On either side of me were very large ladies with pink and bright green finery, gloves, fancy hats and white stockings having the time of their lives. It was hard not to get caught up in what was going on and my clapping turned out to be some to the loudest.
The preacher gave a few words, then announced that since it was Super Bowl Sunday, he would keep the sermon short (about three minutes). The ladies on either side of me were sisters and invited me and my daughter to their home to watch the Super Bowl and eat dinner. The game was good but didn’t hold a candle to the hospitality and warmth shown by that family. We still exchange X-mas cards and when I visit Portland this month, I will definitely be in that pew clapping my hands again.

By Roc-a-fella

May 1, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

The Rev. Wright nontroversy demonstrates the arrogance and ignorance of those in White America that continue to fan the flames surrounding this nontroversy.

First of all, please watch the entire sermons prior to forming your judgment, not the Fox (a cunning and coniving, slick animal) News contrived and fear-invoking snippets. Whether you agree with Wright or not, you need to hear the entire sermon before commenting? If you won’t do that, you’ve lost all credibility.

This nontroversy has given America a great opportunity to turn the page on its racist past. What a wonderful opportunity for White America to say, hmmm…a decorated Marine/man of the cloth that speaks 5 languages and has a Ph.D has these feelings about America. I wonder why?

What an opportunity to step into the shoes of a class of Americans that have dealt with American government inflicted atrocities such as slavery, lynchings (I’ve seen pictures of sheriffs/government officials in front of a burned black man hanging from a tree), segregation, Jim Crow and the crack epidemic? What an opportunity to show a little empathy and say, hmmm…maybe the America that I live in is a little different than the one that others live in and maybe I shouldn’t immediately project my point of view on blacks and condemn them for the ills of their community (here’s your arrogance).

Instead, we allow the corporate-owned media, content on increasing ratings, and the racist in the GOP, like Newt Gingrich, to fan flames of fear throughout America. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Give me an example of Senator Obama being divisive. Examples please!!! Did we forget that this man is half black, half white? He has a white mother and white grandparents. How can he hate white people? Wouldn’t that be self-hatred?

The segment of White America that continues to fan the flames of hate surrounding this nontroversy are reacting to their guilty conscious. Their concerned that the half-black candidate will pay them back for the atrocities set forth above. They are concerned that the chickens in their racist past will come home to roost.

Ladies and Gents - don’t fall victim again to some nontroversy that allows a terrible candidate to run our country. We’ve been duped twice. Where would we be if the election of 2000 hadn’t been stolen from Al Gore? Wow!

We are in this thing together. I hope my caucasian brethern reading this blog entry will take this nontroversy as an opportunity to step into the shoes of black America. I hope each of you will show black people a little empathy and understanding.

I hope we all use this nontroversy as an opportunity to understand one another better. We are in this thing together. United we stand, divided we fall!!! We have been divided for way too long. Let’s turn the page on America’s racist past and move on to the next chapter of our Nation.

By the way, a racist with no power is just ignorant. In my view, it takes power to be a racist. If you don’t have any power over me and aren’t a part of the establishment, I could care less what you think. Just a little FYI.

By Steve

May 1, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Keep going Mr Wright you are going to go down in history as the man who singlehandedly scrubbed the idea of a black man being the first president of the US. Hate mongering is really getting to be very tiresome and totally living in the past.

By prince of peace

May 1, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

By Ray

Your remarks on the church in Portland hits home!

Being born and bred in that wonderful city I probably can give a good estimate of where this church is located.

It would most likely be in the Northern section with names like Albina, Union, Killingsworth, Mississipppi; am I far off?

Have a great time on your next trip there..Plenty of great places to visit, eat and perhaps make merry!

By AmVet

May 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

The surge is working…

How about a column on �Mission Accomplished�? about how April, 2008 was the deadliest month for US soldiers since September, 2007? or any of a myriad of important topics that actually affect our daily lives? Any possibility of that, Jim?

None whatsoever.

Jim is like the character played by Kevin Bacon in Animal House who keeps yelling “Remain calm. All is well!” during a street riot.

It appears that the “party of personal responsibility” is anything but.

And if you want an excellent political agent provocateur, our esteemed columnist is your man.

(HIDT is correct in noting Wooten’s following the “Mann Coulter Strategy” of doing his part in getting Hillary the nod.)

But blissfully the demise of their non-conservative conservatism is at hand no matter how this all plays out.

Then the “conservative” teeth gnashing will begin anew in earnest.

01-20-09 The End of an Error

By Curious Observer

May 1, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

How delightful to see all these children of racists and closet racists cry �racism� when it comes to the Reverend Wright. And then we get the pious sermons of the amoral jbmlaw et al., who believe women should be forced to have babies they conceive but don�t believe we have any Christian obligation to help support those children.

The entire episode involving Obama�s pastor is merely another version of swift-boating. The Republicans, who stand to lose big-time in the forthcoming election, will stoop to anything to keep a Republican in the White House. This particular ploy is aimed at prying blue-collar white voters from the Democratic camp. Republicans believe that the people who have suffered most during the current administration will bend over like a frat pledge and cry, �Please sir, I want some more!�

I note that these adherents of a color-blind society and moral purity say nothing about McCain�s proclivity for sleeping with women not his wife and his profane tirades against Senate colleagues. They say nothing about McCain�s involvement in the Keating Five and his willingness to seek out the endorsement of a pastor who exhibits contempt for Catholics and others not of his persuasion.

I don�t give a hoot if Jeremiah Wright says the moon is made of green cheese. He�s not running for election. This old red herring technique won�t work with this voter. Mr. Wooten may write about the Wright controversy until the election, if he so desires. He is merely preaching to the choir of Southern Republicans who are so desperate that they will resort to any dirty trick to see their candidate elected.

By ghost rider

May 1, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

By AmVet

May 1, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

“The surge is working�”

Only if you ask the gerbils who occupy the white House, and Petraeus, McCain, Lieberman, and Graham.

Any general, admiral or anyone offering a differing view soon disappears!

Happy “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED DAY!”

By deegee

May 1, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this

Dear jbmlaw@10:47, I’m not sure what you mean by your comment about condemning evil. My point is that the Wright controversy has taken on a life of its own over the last few weeks. Obama has handled the issue with dignity. Obama has a political record, a family life, a personal life, and has written two books that speak for his character and values. It is a disgrace on our electoral system to watch him being skewered by this controversy. There are thousands of ministers, priests, rabbis, omans, etc. that speak every week to their congregations. I doubt you will find many in the congregation that will agree with every belief their holy man preaches. But that does not preclude their finding spiritual strength in their sermons.

Using this issue in the way it has been used by Obama’s political opponents goes a long way to explain why the American voter is pi$$ed off and angry at the system and desire the kind of change around which Obama has centered his campaign.

By Adam

May 1, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this

Roc-a-fella and the rest of the Wright apologists want to staunchly defend this radical racist by suggesting, as Wright himself does, that anyone who hasn’t deeply studied his “Black Liberation Theology” and all of it’s nuances are unqualified to even suggest anything is wacky about his rants.

Jim Crow, lynchings, slavery, blah, blah, blah. Wright can preach his hatred and pass the plate afterward. Evidently he and Jessie, Al, and many others have found this to be a very profitable gig. Judging by his extravagant new house, the oppressive white society has evidently removed the boot from his throat and loosened it’s grip on his lifestyle.

When Wright says this isn’t about him, he’s correct. However, what it is about is OBAMA. What does he believe? Do we want to elect a president that shares Wright’s paranoias? Wright preached his poison for years and nobody really cared. We still wouldn’t care if it weren’t for the inconvenient fact that the guy shouting Amen from the front row for 20 years is now a candidate for president.

By Roc Returns

May 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Anonymous - the problem is that whites aren’t empathetic. You can’t come to the table thinking you know black people and what’s best. You have to come to the table with a listening ear and a willingness to learn before you speak. If you do that, we can have a very open and frank conversation. Most whites are ignorant about black culture. In order to make it in corporate America, most blacks have to assimilate to white culture, but whites rarely have to assimilate to black culture, which leads to this ignorance. We know about this ignorance and I personally wouldn’t hold that against anyone.

Tommy - there’s an old saying that a hit dog will holler. I guess you’ve been hit. Enough said.

Can you tell me that you’ve never heard a racist remark from a family member or co-worker or boss or friend? If not, you’re too racist to even realize racism. Have you never heard or thought, hmmm…black people are violent or let me lock my doors around blacks or Mexicans are criminals or whatever.

Did you denounce the person that made these comments?

Once again, show me what Obama has DONE to be considered a racist. Him sitting in a church for twenty years, how does that make him racist? This argument to me is terribly weak and elementary. You must be one of the dumb hicks that the media is pandering to. Anyone with intellectual muscle and being intellectually honest would destroy that argument in a moment.

What is racism to you and how does sitting in a church and listening make him a racist? Show me a statement from him that reflects these sentiments. Show me an action that reflects he’s a racist.

Your argument about judging character would kick all of the candidates out of the race. Let’s talk about judgment where it really counts and how McCain and Clinton voted to take us to war. We’ve all been duped by someone that we thought had certain characteristics and turned out to be a fraud. Let’s be real. You can’t hold that against him. Heck - most of America thought Bush would be a good president. I’ll do my best not to hold that against my GOP friends.

By AmVet

May 1, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

Frankly I am sick of this topic.

It was played out years ago with Graham, Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, Sharpton, et al…

Give me an ethical secular humanist to run the show who doesn’t have to explain his relationship with some demented and vitriolic “man of the cloth”…

By ron

May 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Bill @ 1006,I referred to the discussions you allude to yesterday.They were wild.They got results.I’ll reprint your post and reread it a few times until it all sinks in.I sincerely hope the next discussions are more civil.I’m sure there’ll be more discussions.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this

Yeah, the Black Church is in reality the Church of Very Fat Black Ladies wearing nice clothes and Fancy Dancy Hats, pretending they can sing…So What? The Free Masons and the Knights of Columbus look just as stupid in their funny looking costumes, and have for hundreds of years…Not to mention the pointy hatted Vessel of Christ on earth…Ranting and Raving is expected of the Revs in such churches, it serves as the Black talk radio….just like Rush, Sean, and that other idiot, I don’t recall his name…

By Lynne

May 1, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

On “Mission Accomplished Day” with 4,000 dead and counting….Jim Wooten is pondering about the black church. Well Jim, your fears are well-founded, indeed many black ministers share the same views as Rev Wright and for good reason. See, you’re such a perfect example of why. Just look in the mirror. You’re the real face of terror.

By RCH

May 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

* The Roc Returns*

Once again, show me what Obama has DONE to be considered a racist. Him sitting in a church for twenty years, how does that make him racist?

I guess sitting or marching at a KKK meeting isn’t racist either.

It is what was said that is important;by staying he endorsed what was said!

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this

Roc Returns you’re saying that white people are somehow obliged to let black people set the tone of the discussion. BOTH sides need to put aside there pre-conceived notions of the other. I accept your statement that white people in general do not know what it is like to be discriminated against, but that does’t mean that they are not thoughtful people with views that are not inherently racist. I have heard racist remarks from family members and friends. I’ve also heard racist remarks from black people. There is plenty of blame to go around.

By old91A10

May 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this

The real culprit is Barack H. Obama. He might have resolved this long ago, if he could only have been honest. Obama’s explanations have been nothing but misdirection, obfuscation, and equivocation — tantamount to lying.

Obama, his campaign, and his supporters have tried to point the finger elsewhere. Jeremiah Wright is the culprit. Hillary Clinton is the culprit. The media is the culprit. The GOP is the culprit. Ridiculous.

Obama’s stories have changed so often that even the Obamaniacs have whiplash.

Obama has done the same with regard to questions about Rezko. Denials and misdirections usually refer to a narrow strip of land, returned campaign funds, or billable hours. Even if I accept these explanations, I can not ignore eleven dilapidated buildings within jogging distance of his house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

The only explanation (by Obama’s staff) is ‘if he were aware, we would have passed it to proper authorities’ (my paraphrase).

Meanwhile, Obama is AFRAID to DEBATE. That is one of the final straws that brought three members of my family over from undecided or his camp to Hillary Clinton. Watch the inane screed from Obamaniacs on this.

By Charles

May 1, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this

The so-called educated African Americans were disappointed with Reverend Jeremiah Wright�s performance at the National Press Club. Specifically, most so-called educated African Americans had no qualms with his positions on the government introducing drugs into the black community or his questionable anti-American Radicalism because the man�s integrity and scholarship speaks volumes. But the so-called educated African Americans were not particular pleased with his antics/buffoonery during the question and answer period.

In the minds of the so-called educated African Americans, education is the tool which provides distinction from the average black person. Most believe that education elevates them to the level of educated white people thereby deserving equal status and treatment. Anyone could see that Reverend Wright�s antics didn�t resemble anything that a comparable white person would do. He is educated but wasn�t acting white. He was acting like the average black person having a ball; and that runs the risk of exposing the fa�ade of the so-called educated Negro. His antics terrified most of the learned integrationist Negroes through-out America.

If Black and White people can maintain separate institutions/churches, it bodes well for both peoples. It keeps the enemies of both groups, black and white, from exploiting the two groups. Should some black and white churches volunteer to integrate, the affect/ effect would be disastrous. It would be similar to the integration of Pat Buchanan and his brigades with Ross Perot and the Reform party. The Buchanan brigades entered the Reform party and destroyed all of its lofty possibilities. The Reform Party was transformed into a quasi-Republican Party; the very kind of politics that the newly formed Reform Party sought to escape. Consequently, many Reform Party members had no choice but to separate and reorganize the Reform Party anew.

In my opinion, the black church with all of its imperfections is the best religious institution that the country has to offer. It is one of last hopes for America; and especially African Americans. Let�s keep our churches/institutions separate for the sake of our nation.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

The ajc circulation may be plunging like a rock off an air craft carrier, but in the Gulf countires, newspaper circulation is growing rapidly…People read both a morning and an evening newspaper…The Financial Times just began a Gulf edition…these are not skinny little papers like the urinal, daily issues are the thickness of the Sunday urinal, chock full of ads….Not to help woodenhead in anyway whatsoever, but the ajc could offer a daily version in the Gulf, transmitted electronically for printing in the Region… English language papers are big sellers there….American corporations buy whole page ads to influence the money men in the Gulf…Delta, Coke, maybe even Home Depot is they were smart enough to open a store or two in the Gulf, would buy the ads…So what is the incremental cost of transmitting the ajc for printing in the Gulf…Very little, but Atlanta gets great exposure to one of the worlds new great money centers, local companies get the same exposure, and the Gulf readers get to read about the greatest Southern City in the usa….Naw, too much work for woodenhen…..Forgit it.

By Gerald Newton

May 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

No matter how much the black church may chastise Obama for trying to be too white, they will vote for him by the millions, because he is black. Streets filled with protests is a real posibility if he isn’t the clear winner in November.

By Roc Returns

May 1, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Let me take you intellectual peons on a journey to unravel your weak argument that Obama subscribes to Wright’s views and show you that its your fear/guilty conscious that makes you think he’s a racist.

First of all, Wright has been a preacher for 36 years. In those 36 years, we’ve come across 3 sermons that are problematic or controversial. In 36 years, there are nearly 2,000 Sundays to preach. 0.0015% of his sermons that we know about are controversial. Obama was a parishoner for 20 years which put him in the pews for approximately 1,050 Sundays with perfect attendance. He’s on record and its been proven that he wasn’t there for these 3 controversial sermons.

Are we ASSUMING that Jeremiah Wright preached the same type sermon every Sunday for 36 years? Are we ASSUMING that every Sunday for the 20 years Obama attended the church that these are the types of sermons that he heard? Are we forgetting that one sermon was after a once in a lifetime event called 9/11? Are we ASSUMING that Rev. Wright sermon on the Sunday after 9/11 had nothing to do with the emotions surrounding this catastrophy and reflect his daily beliefs? Are we ASSUMING that there was nothing else at the church that interested Obama like ministries or the congregation and the only reason that he went was to hear Jeremiah Wrights racist sermons that he gave every Sundy? Are we ASSUMING that there was a viable alternative as a church for Obama (any church doesn’t just cut it)?

It takes a racist that doesn’t want to give a black man the benefit of the doubt to assume that all of Wright’s sermons reflect the three controversials ones that have been publicized. Also, let me mention that this is a huge ASSUMPTION because if there were more, we would’ve heard about them by now.

Do you peons that continue to fan the flames surrounding this controversy now understand why its silly? I need you silly, intellectual peons to show me at least 1% of his sermons that reflect a racist view point before you criticize the man. I need you silly, intellectual peons to show me a sermon with Obama in the crowd cheering some racist point. Better yet, I need you silly, intellectual peons to show me Obama being a racist or promoting racist viewpoints. You can’t!!! Thus, you really on some silly argument that he sat in a church for twenty years with a preacher that made three controversial sermons and now he’s a racist. Stop being silly!!!

By the way, (i) Hillary’s not black, so she doesn’t know what its like to be a black man which was the heart of one sermon, (ii) the chickens coming home to roost comment was a quote of the ambassador to Iraq and one man’s patriot is another man’s terriorist, so stop being arrogant and ignorant and believing that America has never done anything wrong, and (iii) God is superior to America, so America is accountable to God for all of its evils.

I rest my case!!!

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

The zionist scum pushing for an American war against Iran better watch their backs….Egypt is on the edge of revolution….food prices are so high, people are ready to revolt, and Akmed and Abdul are there to help…Camp David has given the zionists 30 years of peace, which they have used to attack their other arab neighbors, and the Persians to the South East. Now, Islamic Brotherhood is in a position to inherit hundreds of M-1 main battle tanks, dozens of F-16’s and other advanced American weapons….Time to pay for your crimes, zionists….You can start by showing a little gratitude to Jimmy Carter and the American taxpayer who has made this 30 year peace possible….

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Gulf States May End Dollar Pegs, Kuwait Minister Says (Update4)

By Fiona MacDonald and Matthew Brown

May 1 (Bloomberg) — Gulf states are considering dropping their pegs to the dollar after the U.S. currency’s decline stoked inflation across the region, Kuwaiti Finance Minister Mustafa al- Shimali said.

Yes, there are some'' Gulf Cooperation Council states considering dropping their pegs to the dollar, which has fallen 13 percent against the euro in the last 12 months, al-Shimali said in an interview in Kuwait late yesterday without naming the countries.Some countries will do what we are doing.”

Al-Shimali’s comments may restoke speculation of a change in Middle East currency systems that eased after the United Arab Emirates and Qatar last month ruled out any revaluation or dropping the dollar peg in the short term. The issue will remain a key issue as long as inflation remains high.

Inflation is rising in the Gulf to a great extent because of loose monetary policy,'' said Marios Maratheftis, head of research for Standard Chartered Plc in the Middle East in a telephone interview from Dubai.Tightening monetary policy can only happen if they drop their currency pegs or strengthen the currency, preferably both.”

The U.A.E., Bahrain and Qatar lowered their benchmark interest rates today by a quarter point, matching a cut by the U.S. Federal Reserve a day earlier. The move is needed to maintain the dollar pegs. Saudi Arabia is on its weekend while Oman moves its interest rates in line with the London Inter Bank Offered Rate.

Gulf Inflation

Inflation is running close to 10 percent in Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., while Qatar’s consumer prices rose 14 percent in the fourth quarter.

The Kuwaiti dinar has appreciated 7.9 percent against the dollar since the nation in May became the only Gulf Arab state to drop its peg to the U.S. currency. Contracts to buy U.A.E. dirhams in 12 months time are trading at a 2 percent premium and Saudi riyal forwards are trading at a 1.3 percent premium to the spot price, suggesting that some traders are betting that those countries will follow Kuwait in revaluing. The link to the dollar meant that imports in euros and other currencies that have strengthened against the dollar became more expensive.

The idea of dropping the peg “has been started by other Gulf countries and they are partially going this way because the dollar has been going down for some time,” al-Shimali said yesterday.

Forum meeting

“This news has already been in newspapers,” al-Shimali told reporters at a meeting of the Fourth World Economic Forum in Kuwait today.

Reuters reported today that al-Shimali said he was citing newspaper reports and not expressing his own opinion when commenting to Bloomberg on the future of the Gulf dollar pegs.

When asked at the forum about Gulf states considering dropping their pegs, al-Shimali told reporters that he would not comment on behalf of Gulf states.

Officials at the Qatari, Omani and U.A.E. central banks were not immediately available. The Bahraini and Saudi central banks were closed today.

Revaluation speculation peaked in November after U.A.E. central bank Governor Sultan Bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said he was considering dropping the dirham’s peg to the dollar, and a Saudi Arabia central bank official said that Gulf states may revalue their currencies together.

All the GCC states, apart from Oman, are planning to form a single Gulf currency by 2010. The group’s central bank governors will meet in June in an attempt to get the project back on schedule.

The case for currency reform is strong,'' Simon Williams, chief Middle East economist at HSBC Holdings Plc, said in a telephone interview from Dubai.The inflationary pressures the Gulf faces not only demand a stronger currency, they also require an independent monetary policy. The issue is not going to go away, but I don’t believe that change is close.”

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this

Hillary’s face may not be black, but her heart is as black as midnight, with evil…..

By AmVet

May 1, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

No matter how much the black church may chastise Obama…millions…because he is black.

Gerald, that is a lie.

He is NOT black.

He is a mulatto. (the offspring of one white parent and one black parent or someone 50% black and 50% white)

Unless you consider his white mother to be nothing more than sliced liver.

The racial dishonesty in this country is still appalling…

By RCH

May 1, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

*Gerald Newton *

Remember, African Americans make up only 18% of the population. Hispanics make up a larger percentage, most of which will vote for McCain ( His push for the bill last year granting amnesty)

Many conservative Democrates are now leaning for John McCain as a moderate in the Republican Party.

The guilty “white” complex is not going to work.

So, should I get ready for riots?

By Half & Half

May 1, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this

Obama is half WHITE and half BLACK.

Is he not BLACK enough for some in the Black community or is it he is not WHITE enough for some of the Whites?

If he is not BLACK enough, then he is accused by some Blacks of “acting white.” If he is not WHITE enough, then he is accused by some whites of being a militant BLACK.

He just might be what this country needs - then everyone will have to accept some compromise.

By Really RCH

May 1, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

If you think that Hispanics are going to vote in numbers for McCain then you are stupider than I imagined.

By John Hagee

May 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

Give it a rest, you obviously have no issues of substance to talk about so you beat this Wright issue to death. Where’s the blog about John Hagee who said similar anti-American remarks, oh yeah he’s endorsed a conservative. You have no issues to discuss because everyone has been so terribly implemented by the republicans. Isn’t today ‘Mission Accomplished part 5’? What about something saying how much progress we’ve made in 5 years? The economy? Gas? The housing market? If there were a democratic President in office this is all you would be discussing, but since its not it doesn’t matter. You suck!

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

“Hillary�s face may not be black, but her heart is as black as midnight, with evil�..”

Now, that statement just makes you sound like a silly fool.

By GeezG

May 1, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

If we’d quit giving this idiot Reverend air time and page space, he’ll simply fade away…which is what he needs to do.

All the unnecessary publicity has pumped up his ego and his lungs so he keeps spewing. He’s not going to shut up until you start ignoring him and his nonsensical rantings.

By BS Aplenty

May 1, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Roc Returns @12:04PM

The fallacy of your argument falls around the premise you make that for an idea or behavior to be considered relevant it must be stated or acted upon many times. I assure you, it does not.

Not only does Mr. Obama have to repudiate the speech and conduct of his long-time pastor, but Mr. Wright needs to make the majority of Americans aware that the “black” church (whatever that is) does not agree with him,…or maybe it does…

By Chris

May 1, 2008 12:54 PM | Link to this

Wooten wrote, “In Wright�s case, it�s not a question of interpreting scripture, but of political radicalism and virulent anti-Americanism.”

BS!

Wooten and associates can pretend that this has nothing to do with racism, but Wright hasn’t said or done anything worse than Bill O’Reilly (al Qaeda should attack California), Pastor Hagee (the Catholic Church is The Great W*******), Falwell, Robertson, Ralph Reed or any other so-called “Christian” from the right.

Wooten and friends apply their double-standard reporting, ad nauseum, to the likes of Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, McKinney, and others specifically to foster hatred while simultaneously diverting attention from their looting of us and our country for personal gain.

Two days in a row about Wright. Nicely played Wooten…as always.

By RCH

May 1, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

ReallyRCH

Try this site;http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2008/02/04/willhispanicsvoteforblack_people

By sharon

May 1, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

Charles what is your “so called educattion? Reverend Wright has two master’s degrees

By jbmlaw

May 1, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

Dear Sharon @ 12:57, you confuse argument and credentials. Charles may make a brilliant argument without any credential, and Rev. Wright may make stupid arguments despite impressive credentials. Suggest you focus on Charles’s argument if you have a dispute with Charles, and cut the politics of personal destruction. Charles the man merits our respect, even if Charles’s argument might not.

By old91A10

May 1, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

@ Roc Returns — “peons” Well, that speaks volumes about you. I can only assume you’re one of those victims of Obamania whiplash, since you have just recapitulated one of his earliest explanations — to be on the same page, Obama now requires you to be accusatory not exculpatory — you zigged when Obama zagged.

Reverend Wright owes me no further explanations. Whether or not I agree with, endorse, rationalize, etc. his (many or few) words, I do recognize that he speaks from his own experiences and passions. He has every right to do so, and has remained true to his beliefs.

Obama is the culprit here. As in some other cases he has been all over the map for political expediency. He used Reverend Wright, then threw him under the bus. If Obama had been more forthright, this need not have happened.

You bring Hillary Clinton into the mix again. She did not bring this issue up. For the most part, she has addressed this in response to direct questions, and, for a politician, has used kid gloves, as far as I’m concerned.

Obama is afraid to debate!

By God

May 1, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

What fools these mortals be, idiots on the left and morons on the right. Bad enough most of you have allowed Rush, O’Reilly and the like to totally polarize you over the last 15 years, now you fall for the same tired old race baiting by the imbecile Wooten, day after day.

By Stinkfinger Willie

May 1, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

She has a point. It’s not only that black people are not the ones who keep instisting that Reverend Wright is anti-american, but it’s also suggests that white people believe that Blacks as a whole are anti-american.

By Roc Returns

May 1, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Anonymous - due to blacks having to assimilate into white culture, blacks do know a little more about white culture than whites about black culture. Thus, we should have the opportunity to set the conversation up and speak first to enlighten you, then we can have an open dialogue. What sense does it make to have a dialogue about something that you’re ignorant about (not an indictment on you, but you’re ignorant about black culture no matter how smart you are). Arrogance of many caucasians is what makes race a difficult conversation to have. You won’t admit the atrocities against black folks and how it has damaged our community, then you think you know more about us than we do. If you study history and acknowledge the atrocities and their impacts, then allow us to provide a little bit of enlightenment, then your stereotypes and ignorance will, hopefully, be cast aside and we can have an open dialogue.

BS Aplenty at 12:54 p.m.

Are you slow or just silly? Listening to one so-called “racist” speech or sermon in 20 years makes you a racist?

Even more slow or silly - making 3 so-called “racist” speeches or sermons in 36 years makes you a racist?

Tell me that you’re kidding. If that’s the case, every person in this country is a racist. You can’t tell me that each one of us at some point in life has not heard a racist comment from someone close to us and not done anything about it. Heck - every time that you hear the N* word and its racist connotations and you don’t beat down the speaker, you’re being racist based on your silly argument.

What if you have racist thoughts today and an epiphany tomorrow that causes you to change your thought process? Are you still a racist? What a silly argument you to make? I could go on for days refuting it. However, I will not participate in a battle of wits with you because clearly you are unarmed.

Once again, show me some action or speech that shows that Obama is racist. Let’s remove all of these assumptions that it takes to make the point that he sat in a church with a pastor that made three controversial sermons in 20 years therefore he’s a racist. Are you kidding!!! Let’s remember that there’s no proof that he heard any of these sermons and you’re assuming that these types of sermons were prevalent with no proof that he ever heard one.

By the way, how in the hell did Obama become accountable for the entire black church and be the candidate running for the black church?

These are the thoughts that prove my point that many in White America and all of those that continue to make this a story are racist. You think that all black folk think alike. You think that because Obama and Wright share a complexion and sat in church together, they think alike. You ASSUME that Obama is not an independent thinker with the intelligence to decipher what Rev. Wright is saying and dissent to portions of it that he didn’t agree with. You ASSUME that Obama is some mindless sheep that can’t think for himself.

This man graduated at the top of his class from two Ivy League institutions. If you had a brain and weren’t so arrogant, you would understand that it doesn’t hurt to listen to people, even if they don’t agree with you or what you think.

Maybe he went to the church because it had 8,000 congregants that could help him get elected in Chicago and couldn’t stand the pastor. There are too many unknowns for you to make the point that he follows everything that Wright says. The man has spoken out against Wright, but your racist viewpoint doesn’t want to believe the brother. You just ASSUME that he’s black and went to this church, so he’s a racist even though his mom and grandparents are white.

Once again, I will no longer participate in this battle of wits because you’re clearly unarmed.

By Stinkfinger Willie

May 1, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

tommy said:

“If it was a white church saying the outlandish and ignorant statements that the racist wright has said the entire media and the country would come down upon them with great vengance. “

No they wouldn’t. The media hushup on Hagee and Parsley is proof that you are wrong.

Ever notice when whites are called out on their ugliest and most subtle racism , instead of acknowleging it, they respond by trying to pretend that some black equivalency of racism actually exists and will want to engage their black accuser in some juvenilish “no you are…. no you are… no, you are” argument? It’s no wonder that these issues find there way in black churches on Sunday morning. It’s the only time when they ever get addressed.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

After Obama kicks the hags assets, let us all hope and pray that the hag follows the DC Madame’s example——take gitadyke with you, hag…..

By deegee

May 1, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

RCH, get real and try the Pew Research Center site. I know you won’t, so here is what they have discovered about Hispanic voters and the 2008 elections.

“Some 57% of Hispanic registered voters now call themselves Democrats or say they lean to the Democratic Party, while just 23% align with the Republican Party — meaning there is now a 34-percentage-point gap in partisan affiliation among Latinos. In July 2006, the same gap measured just 21 percentage points — whereas back in 1999, it had been 33 percentage points.”

By Aquagirl

May 1, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

Roc, anyone who thinks they are landing a devastating finish with such a tired, boring clinche is hardly going to win a battle of wits.

There is no point to conversing with a nutcase who thinks AIDS is a government conspiracy against blacks. This is a clearly prejudiced individual who has a gigantic notion Whites Are Wrong About Everything And Responsible For My Oppression —which rubs off on other folk, as you clearly demonstrate. You really think not accepting racist paranoid BS is arrogance? I don’t spend time indulging folks who think the holocaust was faked by Zionists either. How very close-minded of me.

Enjoy your place in an ethnic group that has high rates of incarceration and fatherless children, and little economic power. There, you feel validated enough in your suffering and oppression? Wallow. You’ll stay right where you are.

By Copyleft

May 1, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

Checking in again, looking for positive comments about presumptive Republican nominee Johnny McLame…

checking….

Nope, still nothing.

Boy, they REALLY don’t want to talk about their War Hero Candidate, do they? Gonna be fun to watch when people finally notice who the GOP has propped up as this year’s sacrifical lamb.

Democratic victory: As inevitable as the sunrise, and just as refreshing.

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I wonder why those that are having difficulties with Rev. Wright and his sermon in 2001 have a problem in discussing race?

Anytime a black person speaks out about the injustices being heaped upon them, the closet racists trot out and claim blacks are being racists, confrontational, un-American, not patriotic, so on and so forth.

When blacks protest that their constitutional rights are not being upheld, many claim that blacks are asking for “special considerations.” What considerations are available to anyone that is not enumerated in the Constitution?

Should blacks be repulsed by past words Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, John Hagee and other men of the cloth?

Does the fact that blacks were killed in church? Does the fact that blacks and whites were killed by a minister because they dared to point out the inequities of the application of the law?

Why has there been resistance when minorities wanted to put their lives on the line in time of war and were refused?

How do ones fail to comprehend that we are all in the same leaky boat?

By RCH

May 1, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

Degee

Then why did Bush carry over 40% of the Hispanic vote in the last election. Younger Hispanic voters did to favor Obama, but in the key states such as Fla. and California McCain is favored by the older Hispanic vote.

I guess we will see in November,

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

News reports indicates an audit by the VA indicates that Iraqi/Afghanistan vets are not getting adequate care for brain injuries.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080501/D90CUJG03.html

By catlady

May 1, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this

Heh, heh. The reporter said “denigrated”.

By jbmlaw

May 1, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

Dear Copyleft @ 2:23, you missed this one yesterday:

By jbmlaw April 30, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this OK, I�m under-whelmed with almost everything I know about John McCain, mostly political junk, but Karl Rove is making me rethink some. I still have serious doubts about his politics, but if half of the stuff in this article is true, McCain is truly a great man. By any measure the contrast with Obama�s shuck and jive, and with the Clintons, staggers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120951606847454685.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Dear Catlady @ 2:31, thus the defect of giving reporting credentials to one with no Latin background. If the reporter had any language training, “disparage” would have been the word of choice.

By Charles

May 1, 2008 2:45 PM | Link to this

Sharon,

I’ve always wanted persons to judge me by my arguments; don�t judge what I write by my educational attainment.

I have noticed that many of my colleagues preface their educational achievements before any informal presentation. Guess why? If their argument doesn�t hold water, their educational accomplishments will certainly cloud your perception it.

By getalife

May 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

The discussion about race has ended with lets move on.

“Quinnipiac: Clinton Shows Strength in Swing States The new Quinnipiac Swing State Poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton riding strong support among white working class voters to beat Sen. John McCain in three key swing states — Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

However, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, he’s in a tight race with McCain in Florida and Ohio, but takes Pennsylvania.

Florida: Clinton 49%, McCain 41%; McCain 44%, Obama 43%

Ohio: Clinton 48%, McCain 38%; McCain 43%, Obama 42%

Pennsylvania: Clinton 51%, McCain 37%; Obama 47%, McCain 38%

Said pollster Peter Brown: “If the super delegates are looking at electability, these results could be a shot in the arm for Sen. Clinton. No one has won the White House since 1960 without carrying two of these three swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And she clearly is running much better against Sen. McCain than is Sen. Obama, at least for now.”

Very strange the supers are going for Obama at this time.

It is like the Dems want to lose.

Probably don’t want to be blamed for what is coming like w did on the economy.

Why w and cheney are still getting a free pass is beyond me.

Folks should be screaming for their resignations but nothing but crickets.

Amazing.

By deegee

May 1, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

RCH, to answer your question, albeit rhetorical, more data from the Pew Research Center in December, 2007.

“Bush drew an estimated 40% of the national Latino vote in 2004 — a record for a Republican presidential candidate.1 As the 2008 campaign begins, most of his would-be successors in the Republican Party have staked out hard-line positions on illegal immigration, triggering concerns among some Republican commentators about a potential anti-GOP backlash by Latinos at the polls next year. There is a long way to go until the 2008 election, but the Pew survey of Latinos finds a number of potentially worrisome early signs for the GOP on this front. In addition to the already-noted decline in GOP affiliation among Hispanics, the survey finds:

* By 44% to 8%, Hispanic registered voters say the Democrats rather than the Republicans are the party with more concern for Latinos. However, a large slice of Latino registered voters (41%) say there is no difference between the parties. * By 41% to 14%, Hispanic registered voters say the Democrats rather than the Republicans are the party doing the better job of dealing with illegal immigration. Some 26% say neither, and 12% say they don't know. * Immigration has become a more important issue to Latinos since the last election. Some 79% of Hispanic registered voters now say it is an "extremely" or "very" important issue in the upcoming presidential race; up from 63% who said the same thing in June 2004. Immigration still ranks behind education, health care, the economy and crime, but it is the only issue that has risen so sharply in importance since 2004. * Some 41% of Latino registered voters say the policies of the Bush Administration have been harmful to Hispanics, while just 16% say they have been helpful. Another third (33%) say they have had no particular effect.

The survey also asked about preferences in the Democratic and Republican nomination contests. It found:

* Hispanics heavily favor Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination. The New York senator is supported by 59% of Latinos who are registered voters and align with the Democratic Party. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama draws 15%; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson draws 8% and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards 4%. * On the Republican side, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is supported by 35% of Latino registered voters who align with the GOP, followed by former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee with 13%; Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) with 10%; and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 4%.

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

@Charles,

Still waiting for that list of organizations that you purport that is helping minorities.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 2:53 PM | Link to this

ah guesses ah’m just uneducated, seeing as how i never went to kindergarden, let alone graduated….didn’t learn nuthin in kidergarden…today’s brats should work on their lower body strenth, it will serve them well in the future, workin on mah planatation, pullin the plow….ah especially likes usin upper class white kids to pull the plow….gitty up, mules….

By getalife

May 1, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

Have you noticed Obama’s call for talking about race has turned into lets move away from it. Lets move on, Obama and he is wife say now.

Mmmmmmm, why the change?

Did Obama’s race card backfire?

By RCH

May 1, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Degee

I would agree with you Republicans will suffer a backlash from the immigration bill defeat. But you have to remember,John McCain was the architect of that bill .He will tout this and his position left of the conservative republican majority.

What does Obama have to show for his 2 1/2 in the senate that has targeted Hispanics? NOTHING!!!

By Fulton

May 1, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this

Sorry, but you lost me @ “She, like most liberals.” That tells me enough about where this is heading so, I’m quiet sure there’s no point in reading the rest, since it all has been seemingly predetermined. Thanks and goodbye…

By Aquagirl

May 1, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

RCH, deegee’s statistics are correct, George Bush was a rarity. Part of the reason is his brother (and Governor of swing state Florida) is married to a Hispanic. Dubya’s nephew, George P. Bush,had a bright political career on tap before his uncle dragged the family name through the dirt.

By Seymour

May 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

What we need here is a little Boxing match where Bill Cosby knocks some sense into that twit Jeremiah Wright.

But seriously folks smile, until this came up I had no idea that this type of hatred and these nutty conspiracy theories were being taught by the “Black Church”.

I had always thought that the nice folks down at the local AME (African Methodist Episcopal) were good loving Christians.

By Charles

May 1, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

If I told you once, I’ve told you a thousand times. I’m not at liberty to provide credible African American organizations; certainly not any that I�m affiliated with. But I can provide an organization or website that�s worthy of my respect. www.radioliberty.com

Dr. Stanley Monteith recently interviewed Douglas Feith, author of War and Decision. Mr. Feith was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005; an outstanding interview.

www.radioliberty.com

By candy

May 1, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

I do not agree with Mr. Wright on a lot of points but on one point I do agree - that our hands as a country are not clean. Am I Anti-American if I happen to care about the pain and terror people outside of my continent feel? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. If I were a laundry woman or a kindergarten child in Nagasaki, I would have felt terrorized, terrible and terrified if my life was ripped apart suddenly in a form of military retaliation. Those civilians deserved death no more than the civilians of 9/11 and their lives were not less valuable. I would have felt just as much terrorized as I would if someone from Al Queda ripped through my life if a US soldier wrongly targeted my family as terrorists in Iraq and murdered them. Violence does beget violence and my life as an American has never been and never will be more precious than the life of a civilian in Iraq, Palestine, China, Somalia, the Sudan or anywhere else. My pain is not more important than the pain of the indigenous American Indians (and I�m sure the settlers viewed their scalping and terrorism but their attacks and defense) and my dignity is not more sacred than the Native Hawaiians. If that beliefs makes me Anti-American, then so be it. I dream of a better America than can leave its imperialistic roots behind. War is terror and terror is war � you advocate the use of bombs, guns and chemicals to quell you enemies without sponsoring terror. And last I checked. If our oil wasn�t under their soil, they�d have little interest our country.

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

@Charles,

I say to you again, you are a fraud and a charlatan!

Again, keep your hip away from the children you purport to help. They have been traumatized enough without you adding to their pain.

By Jillian

May 1, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this

Was being called a “n****” by a driver’s by on Ponce something of the past? Was the looked of shock on more than one employers face upon seeing my black skin something of the past? Was being turned down for an apartment by a man who was shocked to see a young black woman with a college degree something of the past? Don’t tell anyone to get over the past until you understand their present day experiences.

By Jillian

May 1, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this

Was being called a “n****” by a driver’s by on Ponce something of the past? Was the look of shock on more than one employer’s face upon seeing my black skin something of the past? Was being turned down for an apartment by a man who was shocked to see a young black woman with a college degree something of the past? Don’t tell anyone to get over the past until you understand their present day experiences.

By God

May 1, 2008 3:25 PM | Link to this

Candy - Nagasaki was very clearly an eye for an eye, old testament style, considering Pearl and the death march at Bataan. Sometimes you have to reap what you sow. You humans are incapable of rising above theft and murder, never have, never will. I know because that’s what I intended when I made you. I am god and I approve this message.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this

Hillary’s hissy fit at not being good enough for the nomination is destroying the democratic party…so we win, four more years of war…buy lockheed, boeing, and dow chemical - we will soon need a lot of napalm, mccancer face’s favorite weapon….Smells like, like your gasoline bill is about to triple….Victory, that’s victory it smells like…yeah, victory, mission accomplished smell….git those rug rats marching in line and on time, Akmed and Abdul are waiting in Tehran….Thanks, Hissy Fit Hag

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Roc, yes there were atrocities committed against black people. And many Americans died in a Civil War to right that wrong. And the government passed legislation to ensure that all citizens are afforded the same rights. But at some point, people have to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking backwards and instead face the future with some goal of bettering themselves. As for my lack of understanding of black people, you apparently know little about white people if you think that we are all ignorant racists. You say that white people should listen to blacks so that we can become enlightend about your plight. We’ve been listening for decades! Have you, and I mean you not the entire black population, ever taken the time to ask a white person how they really feel about race? To ask how they feel about being blamed for events in the past that they had nothing to do with? Again, a conversation is a two-way street but you seem to think it is only about black people lecturing white people on how ignorant they are. And for the record, I’ve never called a black person the n-word, but I sure as hell have been called a cracker before. I was even spat on by a black man once because I refused to acknowlede his shouting at me “yo, white boy!”. Are you willing to apologize to me for those acts of racism for which you have no direct responsibility?

By Charles

May 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

What on earth are you talking about? The only children that I have traumatized are my own. Hell no! No earrings, drawers showing, and absolutely no tattoos as long as they lived under my roof.

They are both adults and productive citizens today; thank God.

By JENNIFER

May 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

I THINK THAT OBAMA AND JEREMIAH WRIGHT ARE TRYING TO FOOL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH THIS STUNT. WRIGHT HAS BASICLY SAID THAT OBAMA IS A TYPICAL POLITICIAN WHO HAS TO DO WHATEVER TO BE ELECTED AND THIS SEEMS A BIT TOO PERFECT AND HAS COME AT THE RIGHT TIME FOR OBAMA SEEING THAT NOW HE CAN SAY THAT HE HAS DISTANCED HIMSELF FROM WRIGHT THROUGH FORCE EVEN THOUGH I HAVE LISTENED TO RECENT COLLECTIONS OF GREAT THINGS HE HAS SAID ABOUT WRIGHT AND NOT BEING ABLE TO ‘THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS’ NO MORE THAN HE CAN DISOWN THE BLACK CHURCH SO I SAY HE HAS ESSENTIALLY DISOWNED THE BLACK CHURCH BECAUSE WHITE AMERICA SAYS THAT HE MUST TO BE THEIR PRESIDENT. WHO ELSE IS HE WILLING TO GET RID OF IF SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP? HIS WIFE AND KIDS? I SAY OBAMA IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED AND THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT TO BE FOOLED BY THIS POLITICAL MANEUVERING. THIS IS A LIE.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this

Gee, doG, Nakasaki was a civilian city, pearl harbor was a naval base…ah don’t see the equivalency, not that i much liked the imperial japs, but those women, children, and old folks we nuked in Heroshima and Nakasaki will be waiting for you and your kind at the gates of hell, you will be their slaves for all eternity, sincerely, ~The Real God

By Charles

May 1, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this

Jackie,

What on earth are you talking about? The only children that I have so-called traumatized are my own.

Hell, no! No earrings, drawers showing, and absolutely no tattoos as long as they lived under my roof.

They are productive citizens today; thank God.

By Roc Returns

May 1, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this

Aqua Girl:

What a nimrod? Your arguing by extremes doesn’t work with an intelligent adversary. You can’t take some silly claim by Jeremiah Wright about AIDS and use it to undermine the history of goverment-sanctioned slavery, segregation, lynchings and Jim Crow in this country. I haven’t heard a single person on here say that American screwed up big time by sanctioning these things and that America has a hand in the ills of the black community.

I’ll admit that we have some work to do as a people, but only if, you admit that America is complicit in the issues of the black community.

You cannot use divide and conquer tactics on several generations of people and then wonder why the people don’t get along with each other. You can’t kill black people for learning how to read less than 100 years ago and not understand why 1 or 2 generations later the community doesn’t value education. You can’t cripple an entire generation of people by claiming that separate is equal and keeping all of the good stuff needed to advance as a people to yourself, yet attack the black community for not advancing.

Heck - my mother lived through segregation. You don’t think that impacts the way that I was raised? You don’t just wake up one day and say for 20 years I’ve been inferior to whites and today, I’m equal. I think that you are an idiot.

As soon as ignorant whites in the country (NOT ALL WHITES BC SOME ACTUALLY GET IT) admit America’s evils on the black community and stop blaming the victim, we can come together and try to move forward from our racist past. Until then…you’ll continue to be ignorant and I’ll continue to fight back.

By the way, I have a post-graduate degree and make nearly $200,000 per year. I own 3/4’s of a million dollars in assets and I’m under 30. It was all earned through education and hard work. Wallow in that you broke down mermaid! You wish you could be like me…

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

It is a good thing you are anonymous, otherwise we would have to call you STUPID. We did not fight the civil war to free the slaves, we fought to save the union, and impose the rule of the new york bankers and their ilk on the South…Slavery was just a handy whipping boy, whity in the North did not like black people any more than the southern slave owners….git use to it, you are STUPID

By COL.[retd]A.M.Khajawall

May 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

Dear Fellow Americans,

Our Great-grand Nation, the United States of America is and will face very critical “Challenges” in coming, months, years and decades.

In my professional opinion the critical characters of next would be our President are summarized as under.

Vision and true believe.

Character and compassion.

Presidential Temperament and Judgment.

Past versus future.

The one candidate among the remaining three candidates how meets all these characteristics is Senator Obama.

As an independent registered voter since 1974. I voted for Carter, voted for Reagan, voted for First and second Bush in 2000. Last interest and stopped voting.

This time we can not afford to stay on side lines and Washington stay the same. We can not afford our Greatgreat Nation to become less than what are. I need the sent message to the world, 24 hour corporate media and minor hateful partisan media to deprive, dupe, and derail us from getting right it this.

The family, fellowship, friends, faith, funds, with freedom and fairness and without fear and favor what is at stake this time. We can do it and I am sure the people of our Greatgrand Nation will do it.

God Bless our Great grand Nation, its diverse people. Our future needs stability, security, safety, and restoration of our due status in this Global World.

yours truly,

COL.[retd] A.M.Khajawall Forensic Psychiatrist. Disables American Veteran. Las Vegas Nevada.

By WLF

May 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

It seems to me the only people always being referred to as antiamerican for comments and beliefs or Liberals and racial minorities. Rev Wrights problem is he was flipit at the press club on Monday. The previous interview on friday he was much more subduded. My experience with the black church it has always identified itself with the jewish people of the old testament as in being enslaved.

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this

@Charles,

I recall that you stated you were working with those phantom organizations whose stated purpose was to help minority children and young adults.

I asked you specifically what you did and what your organization provided to bring a measure of structure to these young folks.

As per your usual refrain, the indicated the organizations were so secret, they could not be revealed.

Why is your organizational ties so secret that only you and a select group of others know and participate in these organizations?

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Link to this

Well Roc, ah hears their is a opening for a ceo of an upper class hooker ring in the DC metro area…seeing as how their current ceo just offed her self….It should be a move up for a, eh, excuse the vulgarity, pimp like you…..200K, thats a lot of johns…fire up that pink caddie, git them foxes in the trunk, ya got a new executive position in the big city….Say hi to George, Paul, Dick, and that ugly fat feller, Carl….

By Charles

May 1, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this

Well,

I have some pressing issues before me. I’ve got to sign off and earn my money.

It was good talking to everybody. I hope to see you all tomorrow; God willing.

By Gerald

May 1, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this

So Jim Wooten, the guy who endorsed Mitt Romney for president knowing full well that his Mormon faith teaches that blacks are the cursed seed of Ham, wants the full integration of churches? It proves that Wooten is not advocating service to Jesus Christ nor the actual cessation of racism, but rather a particular secular (worldly!) political viewpoint that has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. When judgment day comes, Wooten, what will Jesus Christ say about you? Here’s a hint: it will not be whether you are a patriotic conservative Republican or not. http://healthelandgeneraldocuments.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/the-three-step-salvation-plan/

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

With all due respect Mr. President, before you call anyone stupid you may want to have some facts in hand. Following the the Georgia Ordinance of Secession which in the second sentence states that the reason for the state seceding is slavery. Please read, if you can:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government. The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded— the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon. Time and issues upon slavery were necessary to its completion and final triumph. The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections— of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.

The Constitution delegated no power to Congress to excluded either party from its free enjoyment; therefore our right was good under the Constitution. Our rights were further fortified by the practice of the Government from the beginning. Slavery was forbidden in the country northwest of the Ohio River by what is called the ordinance of 1787. That ordinance was adopted under the old confederation and by the assent of Virginia, who owned and ceded the country, and therefore this case must stand on its own special circumstances. The Government of the United States claimed territory by virtue of the treaty of 1783 with Great Britain, acquired territory by cession from Georgia and North Carolina, by treaty from France, and by treaty from Spain. These acquisitions largely exceeded the original limits of the Republic. In all of these acquisitions the policy of the Government was uniform. It opened them to the settlement of all the citizens of all the States of the Union. They emigrated thither with their property of every kind (including slaves). All were equally protected by public authority in their persons and property until the inhabitants became sufficiently numerous and otherwise capable of bearing the burdens and performing the duties of self-government, when they were admitted into the Union upon equal terms with the other States, with whatever republican constitution they might adopt for themselves.

Under this equally just and beneficent policy law and order, stability and progress, peace and prosperity marked every step of the progress of these new communities until they entered as great and prosperous commonwealths into the sisterhood of American States. In 1820 the North endeavored to overturn this wise and successful policy and demanded that the State of Missouri should not be admitted into the Union unless she first prohibited slavery within her limits by her constitution. After a bitter and protracted struggle the North was defeated in her special object, but her policy and position led to the adoption of a section in the law for the admission of Missouri, prohibiting slavery in all that portion of the territory acquired from France lying North of 36 [degrees] 30 [minutes] north latitude and outside of Missouri. The venerable Madison at the time of its adoption declared it unconstitutional. Mr. Jefferson condemned the restriction and foresaw its consequences and predicted that it would result in the dissolution of the Union. His prediction is now history. The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.

A similar provision of the Constitution requires them to surrender fugitives from labor. This provision and the one last referred to were our main inducements for confederating with the Northern States. Without them it is historically true that we would have rejected the Constitution. In the fourth year of the Republic Congress passed a law to give full vigor and efficiency to this important provision. This act depended to a considerable degree upon the local magistrates in the several States for its efficiency. The non-slave-holding States generally repealed all laws intended to aid the execution of that act, and imposed penalties upon those citizens whose loyalty to the Constitution and their oaths might induce them to discharge their duty. Congress then passed the act of 1850, providing for the complete execution of this duty by Federal officers. This law, which their own bad faith rendered absolutely indispensible for the protection of constitutional rights, was instantly met with ferocious revilings and all conceivable modes of hostility. The Supreme Court unanimously, and their own local courts with equal unanimity (with the single and temporary exception of the supreme court of Wisconsin), sustained its constitutionality in all of its provisions. Yet it stands to-day a dead letter for all practicable purposes in every non-slave-holding State in the Union. We have their convenants, we have their oaths to keep and observe it, but the unfortunate claimant, even accompanied by a Federal officer with the mandate of the highest judicial authority in his hands, is everywhere met with fraud, with force, and with legislative enactments to elude, to resist, and defeat him. Claimants are murdered with impunity; officers of the law are beaten by frantic mobs instigated by inflammatory appeals from persons holding the highest public employment in these States, and supported by legislation in conflict with the clearest provisions of the Constitution, and even the ordinary principles of humanity. In several of our confederate States a citizen cannot travel the highway with his servant who may voluntarily accompany him, without being declared by law a felon and being subjected to infamous punishments. It is difficult to perceive how we could suffer more by the hostility than by the fraternity of such brethren.

The public law of civilized nations requires every State to restrain its citizens or subjects from committing acts injurious to the peace and security of any other State and from attempting to excite insurrection, or to lessen the security, or to disturb the tranquillity of their neighbors, and our Constitution wisely gives Congress the power to punish all offenses against the laws of nations.

These are sound and just principles which have received the approbation of just men in all countries and all centuries; but they are wholly disregarded by the people of the Northern States, and the Federal Government is impotent to maintain them. For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

[Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861]

By deegee

May 1, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

RCH, the immigration reform bill that died in congress last year was a compromise McCain-Kennedy bill. Whatever Kennedy gaveth in the bill, McCain tooketh away. That has not been lost on the Latino community. Additionally, McCain’s handlers are not going to allow him to campaign in Latino communities touting his stand on immigration reform. It wouldn’t play well for the base.

By Glenn

May 1, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

This is another of those occasions on which Jim can’t find a way into the conversation without falling back onto his old libberish. You know, it wouldn’t DO to discuss a—-dare I say it?—-relious controversy in terms of, uh…er…religion, so let’s just fall back on the lib stylebook and talk about this in terms of, um, what should the tabs be…race, integration, black church, white church, anything-but-Wright’s church, etc.

The surest way to keep talking three steps behind this weird election is to talk nothing but libberish, because that’ll ensure that when the campaign takes its next strange turn you—-and Jim Wooten along with you—-won’t be allowed to go to those places where liberals cannot go but where this campaign keeps going: the real world, as distinguished from the civics-textbook world where newspaper editors and other liberals have to live out their days.

Liberals usually arrogate the calculus by which they judge others. And yet, time and again in this still young campaign, the voters have registered their distaste for persons who simply fall ridiculously short of the standards they set for themselves.

By Antiwan

May 1, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

I think that both Obama and Wright are both correct. Wright is correct when he speaks about the things that America has done. America has had a history of racist and anti-poverty policy practices in the past and currently. If you need examples look at experiments at Tuskeegee, the internment of Japanese Americans and for those of you who will say that was the past. Look at the govenments abandonment of American citizens during Katrina, That was truly an Anti-American treatment of Americans by our government. Or look at the governments current immigration issues against our Latino population. Rev. Wright speaks to these issues. I dont believe everything that Rev. Wright says about 911. I do believe however that the our government took advantage of our outrage and fear and put us in a mis-represented war against Iraq. Rev. Wright speaks about this America. The fallacy in Rev. Wright thinking inwhich I believe Obama understands is that you have to see both sides of America. You have to also see the America of Promise and Hope for a better future. Obama knows that if America is to have hope of returning as the greatest countryon earth we have to force ourselves to look at both sides. He has to strengthen the strand that goes through all of us black, white,latino, asian, or what have you. He has to look at what is good for the common good. He can’t get bogged down in partisan politics.

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

@Glenn,

I have a quibble with your review of the liberals and their judgment of others.

If you listen to the conversation of liberals, I think you will hear them all speak of doing what is best for the USA, all inclusive.

You may not like the approach the liberals take, as I may not like the approach the conservatives take. The key to solving the problems are laying solutions on the table and pick them apart so that the only thing left on the table is what is best for ALL.

As you know, this ALL encompassing solutions will not be perfect, but it has been throughly reviewed in the public forum.

By George Washington

May 1, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

Well stupid, Georgia may have secceeded to preserve their high value slaves, but the yankee’s were in the fight to impose the will of the new york money boys on the uppity south….they used slavery as a weapon to damage the south, so they could impose the will of new york money on the tobbaco, cotton and other growing money making interests of the south. the yankees didn’t give a hoot about black people, just look at how they treated them after the so called war to free the slaves…they just want the slave owners to have new master of their own, new york and boston masters….The south should have burned washingass, new york, and boston on day one of the war….no prisioners

By For Real

May 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

What does Wright or any other pastor have to do with the price of gas, the price of food, or USA’s economy?

If you want a topic to debate back and forth try this one:

In 1980’s the CEO’s average salaries were 40 times the average workers salaries.

Today the CEO’s average salaries are 433 times the average workers salaries.

Oh and one more thing, how many average workers receive this type of benefits for being fired:

Sprint CEO was fired and received the following benefits:

40 million dollars

84,000/month pension for Life

Assistance with finding a new job

By anonymous

May 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

well dumbass (that’s you GW) you’re probably right about the lack of interest in yankees for the blacks of the south. i’m done with this back-and-forth for now, but it’s been entertaining to say the least.

By The Mother Tongue

May 1, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

WLF, perhaps an English translator would help. Your writing is incomprehensible.

By TheMist

May 1, 2008 4:19 PM | Link to this

In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to, “Ask not what your Country can do for you, but What you can do for your Country,” gave up his student deferment, left College in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.

In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)

The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy’s premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief’s medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery.

For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.

What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated. While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/ sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father.

Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.

Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the Country?

After leaving the service of his Country, the young African-American finished his final year of College, entered the Seminary, was ordained as a Minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America’s biggest cities.

This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retired pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.

By Jackie

May 1, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this

New Gallup Poll just released shows that Dubya has a DISAPPROVAL rating of 71%, the worst of ALL TIME.

Dubya has stood in our faces and misrepsented the truth, put our military in a bind they may not be able to get out of, depleted our treasury and subjected the citizens to a diminution of Constitutional rights.

Why is this man still President? Has he no shame?

By TheMist

May 1, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this