Home / ObamaPastor
Showing posts with label ObamaPastor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ObamaPastor. Show all posts
Barack Obama on what Whites think

Barack Obama on what Whites think

Barack Obama describing his first meeting with Rev. Wright:

"Reverend Wright shrugged. 'Some of my fellow clergy don't appreciate what we're about. They feel like we're too radical.'"

You can find a long set of his quotes here.
On the Wright Issue's Damage to Obama

On the Wright Issue's Damage to Obama

John Fund has this at today's WSJ's Political Diary:

Mr. Obama is going to have to address his continued weakness with white, working-class voters. He won North Carolina on the strength of getting 93% of the black vote, and since blacks made up a third of the electorate in the Tar Heel State, the African-American vote was able to carry him to victory. But he won only 38% of white Democrats and only 42% of independent voters.

In Indiana it was no better. He won half of the vote on the strength of his showing in urban Gary and Indianapolis, but was trounced 65% to 35% among white Democrats and also lost independent voters. The Rev. Wright and Mr. Obama's remarks in San Francisco about rural voters have taken a toll -- two-thirds of Democrats in both states who voted for Mrs. Clinton told exit pollsters they would be dissatisfied with Mr. Obama as the nominee. . . .
Obama's Meet the Press Interview

Obama's Meet the Press Interview

Obama on Meet the Press yesterday mentioned this:

And I--you know, some, some of the reporting that implies that somehow he's my spiritual advisor or mentor, as he himself said, overstated things. He was my pastor, and he built a terrific church.


Rev. Wright's sermons were filled with politics. It is hard to listen to them and not hear just a constant political discussion. I don't think that Wright knows the difference between politics and religion.

It's in my DNA to believe that we can bring this country together . . .


All I can say is that the Obama that I knew at Chicago didn't seem to want to discuss issues with people with whom he disagreed.
Why Oprah Winfrey left Wright's church

Why Oprah Winfrey left Wright's church

Newsweek has the explanation here:

According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church." Oprah's decision to distance herself came as a surprise to Wright, who told Christianity Today in 2002 that when he would "run into her socially … she would say, 'Here's my pastor!' " (Winfrey declined to comment. A Harpo Productions spokesperson would not confirm her reasons for leaving the church.) . . .

Friends of Sen. Barack Obama, whose relationship with Wright has rocked his bid for the White House, insist that it would be unfair to compare Winfrey's decision to leave Trinity United with his own decision to stay. "[His] reasons for attending Trinity were totally different,'' said one campaign adviser, who declined to be named discussing the Illinois senator's sentiments. "Early on, he was in search of his identity as an African-American and, more importantly, as an African-American man. Reverend Wright and other male members of the church were instrumental in helping him understand the black experience in America. Winfrey wasn't going for that. She's secure in her blackness, so that didn't have a hold on her.'' And while Winfrey, who has endorsed Obama and campaigned on his behalf, had long understood the perils of a close association with Wright, friends say she was blindsided by the pastor's personal assault on Obama. "She felt that Wright would never do anything to hurt a man who looked up to him as a father figure," said her close friend. "She also never thought he'd intentionally hurt someone trying to make history and change the lives of so many people.''


An interview with the reporter by Greta on Fox News can be found here. This is a very bad interview for Obama. Greta seems bothered by the fact that Oprah understood how bad this is but that Obama didn't. The explanation offered by the reporter doesn't seem to satisfy Greta and I don't think that it would satisfy my other people.
What the Wright affair is doing to Obama's campaign

What the Wright affair is doing to Obama's campaign

John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary has a new post about what the Wright affair is doing to Obama and Democrats generally:

A new Fox News poll may provide some evidence that the Rev. Wright affair is damaging the campaign of Barack Obama.

The poll shows that Mr. Obama's favorable ratings have declined among Democrats to a point where Hillary Clinton now has higher net positive ratings. Mr. Obama is viewed favorably by 63% of Democrats and negatively by 27%. Mrs. Clinton has a 73% favorable rating and is viewed negatively by 22% of Democrats. Specifically on Rev. Wright, 36% of Democrats say they would be disinclined to vote for Mr. Obama because of his ties to his former pastor.

Perhaps this explains why Travis Childers, the Democratic frontrunner in a special House election this month in Mississippi, has now gone out of his way to combat GOP attempts to associate him with the Illinois Senator. . . .
Why aren't Obama's political supporters coming to his aide this week?

Why aren't Obama's political supporters coming to his aide this week?

Dan Henniger has this very interesting observation at the WSJ:

At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.

No prominent black clergyman came forth to make even the simple point that Jeremiah Wright's notion of the "black church" is but one point on a spectrum of faith. Rev. Wright, now written off as a virtual nut case, got more support from black clergymen than did Obama.

Barack Obama was bleeding by Monday and needed cover. Where, when he could have used them, were Obama's oh-so-famous endorsers: Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Oprah, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Jay Rockefeller, John Lewis, Toni Morrison, Roger Wilkins, Eric Holder, Robert Reich, Ted Sorenson, Alice Walker, David Wilhelm, Cornel West, Clifford Alexander, Donald McHenry, Patricia Wald, Newton Minow?

Where were all the big-city mayors who went over to the Obama camp: Chicago's Richard Daley, Cleveland's Frank Reynolds, Atlanta's Shirley Franklin, Washington's Adrian Fenty, Newark's Cory Booker, Baltimore's Sheila Dixon?

It isn't hard for big names to get on talk TV to make a point. Any major op-ed page would have stopped the presses to print a statement of support from Ted Kennedy or such for the senator. None appeared. Call it profiles in gopher-holing. . . . .

Analysts and historians will spend years sorting through the lessons of this most bizarre of all presidential campaigns. The Obama desertion points in a few directions.

The nature of modern media coverage and the length of the campaign (two years!) has made these presidential candidates truly larger than life; indeed, they've become almost cartoon-like. Their personas dwarf and overwhelm the parties to which they nominally belong. . . . .
Obama's Minister's Inaccurate response

Obama's Minister's Inaccurate response

Rev. Wright claims that his statements have been taken out of context and unfortunately the media isn't calling his statements into account. On Monday Rev. Wright said:

"Have you heard the whole sermon?" he responded. "No. You haven't heard the whole sermon. That nullifies that question." He said criticism comes from people who only have heard sound bites playing repeatedly on television and have never listened to his entire sermons. . . .


Here is what I posted over the weekend along with links to Wright's "Goddamn America" sermon. I think that anyone who listens to this will be convinced that his speeches were accurately reported. If anything, Wright got off easy during that coverage.

Dana Milbank, at the Washington Post, described Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club this way:

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

In front of 30 television cameras, Wright's audience cheered him on as the minister mocked the media and, at one point, did a little victory dance on the podium. It seemed as if Wright, jokingly offering himself as Obama's vice president, was actually trying to doom Obama; a member of the head table, American Urban Radio's April Ryan, confirmed that Wright's security was provided by bodyguards from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American." . . .

Milbank's title for his piece is "Wright's Voice Could Spell Doom for Obama." It seems quite appropriate. C-Span has tapes of Wright's address at the National Press Club and an even more bizarre appearance at the NAACP. Here is a two minute segment from Wright's presentation.

What I find so disheartening is that Wright got such an enthusiastic response from those in the audience.
Wright: Obama still agrees with him

Wright: Obama still agrees with him

Politico has the story here:

[Rev. Wright] also insisted Obama “didn’t denounce” him and “didn’t distance himself” from Wright’s controversial remarks, but “did what politicians do.”

Wright implied Obama still agrees with him by saying: “He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was [portrayed as] anti-American.”
Comparing Rev. Wright's Sermon to what he claims that he said

Comparing Rev. Wright's Sermon to what he claims that he said

Fox News does everyone a great service by providing Rev. Wright's entire "God Damn America" sermon here. Rev. Wright claims that the "God Damn America" sermon was taken out of context. Sorry, but I don't believe that anyone can listen to this sermon and think that his "God Damn America" are taken out of context. The whole sermon is about how evil the American government is (e.g., the "government lied" phrase must have been used 15 to 20 times in Part 3). The "God Damn America" discussion is just summarizing what he was saying up to that point. The sermon starts off slowly enough, but by the time you get to Part 2 it is going pretty strong. The "God Damn America" phrase is in Part 3.

This is a very long sermon, but if you only have time to listen to one part, please listen to Part 3, which is about 16 minutes long.

No one can listen to this sermon and think that "God Damn America" sermon was taken out of context. Indeed, there are so many offensive things in this sermon that Obama was spared by the media just using the few out takes that were used.

UPDATE: Juan Williams gives his take on the issue here. Williams doesn't think that the quotes were taken out of context. Williams says: "[Rev. Wright] needs to take some responsibility."
Stuart Taylor Jr., on the controversial remarks of Michelle Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Stuart Taylor Jr., on the controversial remarks of Michelle Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Stuart Taylor has this week's piece here:

"Also disturbing is the bleak picture of America painted by Obama's closest adviser, his wife, Michelle, in highly newsworthy comments, most of which the media have chosen to ignore... All this from a woman whose own life doesn't seem so rough: She went from a working-class background to Princeton, Harvard Law School, and a $1.65 million mansion in Chicago. That's the mansion that the Obamas bought with a little help from their friend Tony Rezko, now on trial on unrelated corruption charges, months after Obama's 2004 election to the Senate. Meanwhile, Michelle's salary at the University of Chicago hospitals soared from $122,000 to $317,000.... But it also appears that [husband Barack] Obama shares the unfortunate tendency of many liberals to see far-left extremists (and of many conservatives to see far-right extremists) as kindred spirits. And there may be some resonance between [Obama pastor Jeremiah] Wright's angry vitriol and Michelle Obama's bleak vision of America"
Don Kates on Clinton and Obama

Don Kates on Clinton and Obama

Don Kates writes:

As puerile as Hillary’s excuses are (e.g. "sleep deprivation" caused her to three times claim having been under fire in Bosnia), they are no more absurd than Obama’s excuses for Rev. Wright.

Obama solemnly analogizes criticism of Rev. Wright to attacking somebody for "the five stupidest things" they ever said. That is persuasive only because Obama has implied a premise which is both missing and false. If someone frankly admitted "yes, I did say X and it was really stupid," I would have to admit to having said some really stupid things from time to time myself. But this is wholly inapplicable to Rev. Wright who has not disavowed even one of his bizarre lies. He does not admit that No, AIDS was not invented by America to commit genocide against blacks (or for any other reason); and, NO, the American government does not sell narcotics to blacks in order to imprison them (or for any other reason); and NO, the American government did not support South African state terrorism against blacks – in fact our sanctions against South Africa were a major reason for the fall of its white-only government.

Remember how Rev. Wright’s nonsense assertions came to light. Not because enemies of him or Obama gathered the nonsense up to criticize, No, it was Rev. Wright himself who had these bizarre lies recorded and put them on sale in the church store as exemplars of his views.

In sum, Rev. Wright has not disavowed any of these and other vicious falsehoods whose most charitable explanation is that he is sincere but mentally deranged. So Obama’s defense of Rev. Wright does not at all work and only raises more questions about Obama himself.

The refusal by American leftists to unhesitatingly condemn Rev. Wright is explicable as a matter of what might be called deliberate mental confusion. Instead of focusing on Wright’s deranged falsehoods leftists focus on his expressions of hatred for America. This appalls most Americans but is congenial to leftists because, just like Rev. Wright and Mrs. Obama, they too are ashamed of their nation. . . .
"OBAMA SUGGESTS HE WOULD HAVE LEFT HIS CHURCH IF WRIGHT HAD NOT RETIRED"

"OBAMA SUGGESTS HE WOULD HAVE LEFT HIS CHURCH IF WRIGHT HAD NOT RETIRED"

First, the fact that Obama is changing his position yet again on this issue indicates to me that there is still significant fallout from his association with Rev. Wright. Second, is he serious to be changing his position at this late date? Now Obama says this:

“Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church,” Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, “The View.” The interview will be broadcast Friday.


But in his speech on race he said this:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. . . . .

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias. . . .


When I read Obama's now famous race speech I realized how many logical holes and unanswered questions there are.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.


OK, that seems clear enough, but then he says:

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. . . .


So this week it comes out that Obama clearly knew of some "controversial" statements when he was apparently approvingly quoting from Rev. Wright's sermon on "where white folk's greed runs a world in need."

So what is Obama saying that he knew? For his new claim though, it really doesn't matter because in his race speech he knew everything and said that he couldn't disown Wright. Now he is saying that he was planning on doing just that. Of course, the Friday before the speech Obama said that he had only heard of one of these controversial remarks by Wright and on that Tuesday it appeared as if he were saying that Wright was acknowledging much more in order to put this behind him. If Obama was a typical candidate, the press would tear him apart for these statements.
A possible new problem for Obama regarding his pastor

A possible new problem for Obama regarding his pastor

Sean Hannity has information here that Obama called for Imus firing because of the horrible things that Imus said and that Obama would remove anyone from his staff who said something similar.
"Nobody on my staff would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody or any ethnic group and I would hope that NBC ends up having the same attitude."

I think that Rev. Wright's comments are much worse than Imus' stupid comment. This inconsistency on Obama's part seems devastating. Apparently, Clinton and Obama are going to debate again before the Pennsylvania primary. If Obama isn't asked about this inconsistency, it will be embarrassing for the questioners at the debate don't ask him about this.

UPDATE: John Fund at the WSJ's Political Diary had this to add:

Barack Obama's speech on race in America was a tour de force in many ways, but one section made me cringe and deserves some rebuke. There is an expression about ambitious politicians who would "walk over their grandmothers" in pursuit of their goals. Mr. Obama almost did that yesterday.

In explaining why he would not repudiate his extremist pastor, Mr. Obama said, "I can no more disown [Rev. Jeremiah Wright] than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

Now Mr. Obama’s campaign has made clear that his 84-year old grandmother, who has asked to be left alone, should be considered off-limits to political reporters. But yesterday, it was Mr. Obama who didn't leave her alone when he used her for one of the central themes of his speech. His behavior recalls the time when Bill Clinton regularly trashed his stepfather as a violent drunk as part of his 1992 campaign. The idea of talking about his stepfather's human frailties to advance himself politically struck many people then as a selfish act and a gross distortion of the loyalty family members owe to each other.


UPDATE2: This is also from the WSJ's Political Diary:

"How is it possible that a campaign apparatus that sniffed out Geraldine Ferraro's offensive statement to a local California newspaper (the Daily Breeze, 12th paragraph) did not know that Wright's statements condemning America were all over the Internet and had been cited March 6 by the (reputable) anti-Obama columnist Ronald Kessler? The sermon was also available on YouTube. In other words, how is it possible that a man who has made judgment the centerpiece of his presidential campaign has shown so little of it in this matter? One possible answer to these questions is that Obama has learned to rely on a sycophantic media that hears any criticism of him as either (1) racist, (2) vaguely racist or (3) doing the bidding of Hillary and Bill Clinton" -- Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen.


UPDATE3: Listening to Dennis Prager's radio show yesterday. Dennis during his second hour had a devastating discussion of Obama's speech when Obama discussed his grandmother and his comparison of his grandmother to the Rev. Wright. Dennis' point was how could anyone make a comparison between the supposed sins listed of his grandmother with Wright. For example, the one specific sin of his grandmother was that she was sometimes fearful of black men. Dennis, I believe correctly, noted that a large number of Americans both white and black could be fearful of young black men if the individual were alone in a dark parking lot and they were walking near young black men who were dressed in a certain way. How does his grandmother's statement compare to that of Wright that the government invented AIDS to kill off black men or that the government supplies black men with drugs to kill them and get them in jail? Or any of the other claims made by Wright?

Susan Estrich made the same point:

The critics will tell you that blaming white America for spreading AIDS to blacks is not the same as an elderly white woman admitting that she is afraid of black men, and that there is a difference between standing by the grandmother who raised you and standing by a religious leader who preaches hate.

Even Jesse Jackson admitted a few years ago to the sad truth that he was afraid of young black men. Most young black men don’t commit crime, but a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the minority who do. . . . .
The Question about Obama

The Question about Obama

Suppose that a white person belonged to a club where the president of the club made multiple racist statements. Suppose that the individual criticized the president of the club but still remained a member? How difficult would it be for the person to get confirmed by the Senate to any position?

Just look at the difficulty that judicial nominees have faced because when there were obsolete and nonenforceable covenants on their property. Or the difficulties that nominees have faced for belonging to all male clubs? If a Republican presidential candidate were discovered to have any of these problems, wouldn't his campaign have imploded? How about if it looked as if the Republican candidate made it look as if he was not being honest about what he knew about any of these things? Wouldn't the press have just torn him to shreds?

Obama apparently has a major talk to give Tuesday morning. It will be interesting to see if he changes what he admits to having known. The leaks of information contradicting his claims will slowly bleed the campaign dry. If he does come clean, will the press hammer him? Will the press be allowed to ask him questions after his talk? It will be very interesting to see what happens.

Here are Thomas Sowell's thoughts on this:

If Barack Obama was not in church that particular day, he belonged to that church for 20 years. He made a donation of more than $20,000 to that church.

In all that time, he never had a clue as to what kind of man Jeremiah Wright was? Give me a break!

You can’t be with someone for 20 years, call him your mentor, and not know about his racist and anti-American views.

Neither Barack Obama nor his media spinmeisters can put this story behind him with some facile election-year rhetoric. If Senator Obama wants to run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, then at least let the rabbits and the hounds know that. . . .


Here is an example of the types of leakage of information that will continue to occur:

IN the first sermon Barack Obama ever heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor railed against "white folks' greed," the bombing of Hiroshima and "the callousness of policymakers in the White House and in the statehouse."
For Obama, the experience was formative. The sermon's title, "The Audacity of Hope," became the title of Obama's second book and the theme of his presidential campaign. . . ..


Juan Williams was not impressed by Obama's talk on TUesday:

“I think it goes on,” National Public Radio national correspondent Juan Williams said of the controversy.

Williams, a FOX News analyst, questioned why Obama allowed himself to remain publicly associated with Wright. He said Obama did not address the “judgment and character” issues that he’s running on.

“I think he had to take responsibility … and that’s what he didn’t do,” Williams said. . . .


Some Republicans weren't as generous:

"It wasn't until he was forced to take a stand against Wright's screed that he finally did," Republican strategist Tony Fabrizio wrote in an email. "Why didn't he denounce what he said when he said it? Why didn't he distance himself then? What Wright said was no one-time slip of the tongue."
Real Problems for Obama

Real Problems for Obama

John Fund has this at the WSJ's Political Diary:

. . . . Still more evidence has surfaced that Mr. Obama likely knew a great deal about the content of his pastor's sermons. Last year, the New York Times reported Mr. Obama personally called Mr. Wright to tell him he was being disinvited from giving the public invocation at the announcement of Mr. Obama's candidacy. Mr. Obama explained the move by pointing out to his pastor that a recent Rolling Stone story called "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" had reprinted excerpts from Wright sermons. "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public," was Rev. Wright's recollection of what Mr. Obama told him.

The Rolling Stone story included the following Wright quote describing the United States: "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS.... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people.... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!... GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S***!"

At least one member of Rev. Wright's church apparently had her fill of such rhetoric. Oprah Winfrey, a staunch backer of Mr. Obama, began attending the church in 1984. But sometime in the mid-1990s, Christianity Today reports the superstar abruptly stopped going. It may well have had something to do with her desire to distance herself from his fiery speech. Rev. Wright criticized her absence, claiming that Ms. Winfrey has broken with his notion of "traditional faith."

Mr. Obama took a different path. He not only remained in the church, but in 2001, the same year Ms. Winfrey left, had his daughter Natasha baptized by Rev. Wright. The question more and more people are asking is: Why?
Obama interviewed on Fox News about Pastor

Obama interviewed on Fox News about Pastor

Obama wanders around a little and it would have been nice to have had about a five minute longer interview, but the interview that can be seen here was still useful. The huge problem for Obama is if Juan Williams is correct that Obama "knew" about these statement from Rev. Wright. You can see Juan Williams' discussion with Bill O'Reilly here and another discussion here. Juan WIlliams claims that the pastor is well known for these controversial positions. Williams said that Obama's claim that he didn't know about these statements by the pastor is unbelievable. Obama has said that he doesn't think that his church is particularly controversial. The pastor married Obama, baptized the Obama children, and did a public blessing of the Obama home.

Bill O'Reilly also has a discussion on this here. ABC News has some of the pastor's statements here.
MSNBC doesn't play what I thought were the worst statements, but you can see the Morning Joe's discussion here, Dan Abrams' discussion is here and Keith Obermann's discussion is here. For example, none of these discussions mention the supposed government plan to creating AIDS to spread it to blacks or more of his discussion about the government giving drugs to blacks to destroy them. Rev. Wright's discussion of Italians (he points out are White Europeans) persecuting Jesus (who he says was a black) and then drawing the connection between whites and blacks in the US and referring to the US of KKKA. He has said extremely hurtful things about conservative blacks. ABC News looked at a dozen sermons that were for sale on the church's website. According to ABC News, these extreme claims were brought up continuously. It would appear that these clips would have been representative. You can see some more clips and Media Matters' response here.

On Saturday Obama tried to explain Wright's sermons this way:

“It reminds me that we’ve got a tragic history when it comes to race in this country … But what I continue to believe in is this country wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions.”


OK, everyone agrees that there were horrible problems, but hopefully that doesn't mean that people are so paranoid that they think that the government today invented AIDS or supply dangerous drugs to kill people. But how does this explain any conspiracy theories behind 911? My guess is that relatively few people killed in the attack were black.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)