My eyes just opened wider than when Michelle Obama told the whole truth concerning her lack of pride in America until her husband got white votes in Iowa.
My conservative black friends told me long ago of the taboo subjects in black America. I have seen Clarence Thomas and others attacked over same. John McWhorter outlines them best in his “Losing the Race.” But I have to admit I was shocked tonight, when…
On Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes just now, Michael Steele came to the defense of Black Americans who have worked with the nation’s number one racist “in the field” due to the “black” perspective as opposed to Sean Hannity’s “white” perspective.
Hannity challenged a black liberal democrat on the show to admit what the liberal democrat would think of Hannity if he continued to attend a church that honored David Duke like Obama’s church honors Farrakhan.
America, especially including those that propose to unify said America, lend me your ears: There is no legitimate perspective from which one could do anything but be repulsed by Louis Farrakhan.
This issue is on the order of Holocaust denial. The rise of Obama proves Shelby Steele’s conclusion that white racism is no longer a significant factor in America life, but…
Apparently, given that even republican Michael Steele is willing to give Obama a pass on his Hate America Church/Black nationalist, separatist church and his stuttering 30 sentences vague half ass denunciation of something-Farrakhan, there is a cancer on Black America.
Well, we are about to cut it out. The occasion of Obama’s inevitable nomination makes the long needed operation imminent. And while we operate on blacks, we will finally have that conversation on race that Bill Clinton so craved yet saw within 25 minutes of the convening of the conference that no honest dialogue could be had since any white getting too close to the truth would be deemed a racist.
I thought to myself the other day, who are the top ten known prominent racists in America. Farrakhan came to mind first. Slam dunk number one.
People, the politically correct police are on the beat, and they apparently have already mugged Michael Steele.
Barack Obama is a card carrying member of the cancer. He must not be given a pass.
More importantly, we must use this occasion to force the lid off the pathologies in the Black community, one of which reserves respect for Farrakhan.
This is a deep sickness. A sickness so deep in white and black America that my first dead-tree MSM column with the Charlotte Observer addressed the issue:
Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.
Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.
This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.
Face down the PC crowd
I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.
King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.
Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
That was mu admonition to whites. Well, now Blacks, you can’t use the guilt of whites to hide your cancer now. Barack wants his hand on the button.
Yet, despite the above, Michael Steele’s comments tonight shocked me, and I guess I learned only recently how bad the sickness is from a man that has been a lifelong republican. A black man who was shocked at the level of inferiority shown by a lifelong black woman that wrote a letter to me objecting to my column on The Jena One.
I am not going to reveal either’s identity.
The issue is crystallized by Michael Steele. He was honest. He gives the black nationalist portion of the black community a pass.
I won’t. I wouldn’t have given them a pass even if one that attends such a church for 20 years wasn’t running for the most powerful job on Earth and who pretends to want to unify the nation while he and his children get schooled in the opposite in comfy pews.
I won’t give Obama or anyone that turns a blind eye to racism and hate. Why? Because I hate racism and love humanity, and because I have a special love for Black people, Black Americans. I spent 18 years in the party that egged this bullS**t on. I feel I was an aider and abettor in the destruction of the black family and in this PC pathology that gives Farrakhan, FARRAKHAN DANMMIT!, a pass.
I will not be silent.
I called out white racists and those that stayed silent in the 70′s, and I am calling out the black racists and those that turn a blind eye now.
Michael Steele, you insulted black people tonight, suggesting that the history of blacks has created a different perspective from which to view the relationship of Black America with Farrakhan.
I am reminded of the different perspective of plantation owners on the issue of slavery.
The perspective of the GOP was founded on the moral bankruptcy of the latter, and it stands now on the moral bankruptcy for the substitution of Farrakhan for Simon LeGree.
Simply put: Obama’s 20 year attendance at his church disqualifies him to President.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=3&oref=slo…
Period.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
February 29th, 2008 at 12:54 am
give it up Gamecock, you got bigger issues to deal with.
Tell me, what is worse, politically?
To recieve the endorsement of someone who calls the religion of 2.2% of the people a ‘gutter religion” , and to then reject and denounce that endorsement?
Or to recieve the endorsement of someone who calls the church of 24% of the people “the Great Whore”, and then embraces that endorser, and proclaims him one of the great Christian leaders of our nation?
February 29th, 2008 at 1:21 am
I didn’t hear a rejection of the endorsement, but if he did, it took the prodding of a Russert and a Clinton, 30 sentences after a simply “no” was called for.
But tano, this is about a much bigger issue than even Barack.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:26 am
“Obama’s 20 year attendance at his church disqualifies him to President”
Amazing, a Republican says a Democratic candidate should not win because he regularly goes to church.
Incidentally, what is John McCain’s church like? I haven’t heard anything on that since the debate as to what actual religion he was some time ago.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Incidentally, he did say he “rejected & denounced” the endorsement, it was in the section where Clinton said there was a difference between ‘rejected’ & ‘denounced’ (he had done the latter, but Clinton wanted the former). Obama clearly didn’t think there was a difference between the two words.
I’m not sure if there is a difference. In politics, words matter (“I am not intending to run for PResident at this time”, etc)
February 29th, 2008 at 2:14 am
#3 “his” church, not “church”
#4 show me in the transcript what he explicitly “rejects and denounces”.
You can’t, so convoluted and drawn out is the space between the questions and the “answer.”
What is significant is his stuttering, three times, for quite a number of seconds, as he rejected the idea of a simple yes or no to one of the easiest questions in America life, i.e. denouncing any and all things Farrakhan, not to mention the pause of 15-20 years of not only not denouncing Farrakhan and his own pastor that is just as vile as Louis, but in staying in the pews of that hate America first.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:24 am
What is most interesting is that no one said Mitt Romney’s attendance of a church that officially excluded blacks disqualified him. So there is already a racist double-standard. But I would go further and disqualify all catholics as well because the catholic church has been as racist (and sexist) as any organization in history. Hmmm, and what about McCain being given a pass for calling Asians “gooks?”
This piece is pure drivel. If politicians were excluded from office based on who they know, what organizations they belong too, and what their supporters say there will indeed be no one left.
February 29th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I should add that these types of posts seem intended to incite violence against Sen Obama, his family, and his church. I hope the FBI is monitoring hate-mongers and it is up to every good American to report threats.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Setting aside the poor writing of this piece for a moment, consider Tano’s point which was conveniently ignored.
Now back to your regularly scheduled hyperbole.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:59 am
#7- Huh? What are you talking about?
February 29th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Axel G.– Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the mormons have blacks in their congregations now. But I think, where your thoughts were heading, is correct that almost all American religions have racist/segregationist roots in their pasts. If historical racism was the standard then most protestants would also be disqualified.
The difference is that Obama is currently attending a church that actively discriminates and has only very grudgingly tried to distance himself when pressed. Surely you can see the difference.
And I believe that McCain used the word “gook” in reference to his torturers, not Asians. Nevertheless, it’s a slur he should not use since it is offensive to many Americans.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Bill,
No church can “actively discriminate” and qualify for tax exemption. That is the reason mormons stopped discriminating. The former pastor of the Unity Christian church Obama attends made questionable comments, but he has retired. So I think a lot of smoke is being blown.
February 29th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Axel,
So all those churches that refuse to have women clergy, and hold that “women should be silent” do not qualify for tax exemption? Or are you saying that churches can “actively discriminate” on gender but not race?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Jjust for the sake of argument, does that mean McCain should reject Hagee’s support too?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Gamecock, You’ve got it all wrong man. Only whites can be racist. Everybody in our PC world knows that.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I don’t make the rules, but I suspect the reason churches get away with not allowing women to be priests is because of ancient traditions across most religious faiths. I personally disagree with excluding women. Also, at least with respect to mormons, they exclude all women, but they allowed white men just not men of color. That is discriminatory on its face – mormons honestly believed persons of color were to be excluded. Finally, the point is that organizations are free to discriminate as long as they don’t get benefits from the tax code.
February 29th, 2008 at 11:49 am
So let’s make this perfectly clear. You are saying that the law states if a church discriminates on basis of race, but not gender it loses its tax exemption?
Does that mean native american religions that are only open to members of their tribe are not tax exempt?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Axel,
I just did a search at the IRS site. The only regulation I could find dealing with churches and racial discrimination is any private school they operate cannot discriminate on the basis of race or ethnic origin. Otherwise the SCHOOL loses its tax exemption. I could find nothing about the church itself.
So where is this phantom regulation that supposedly forced those allegedly greedy Mormons to change their policy?
February 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
#6 1978
February 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
#9 amen
#13 I forgot
February 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Michelle Obama: “Don’t Go Into Corporate America”
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTViZjhhNGI1Y2QxYjE0ZDc0YmMwMjJiNmUyZjQ3MmU=
February 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
After hemming and hawing ad infinitum, Obama eventually rejected, specifically, Farrakhan’s anti-semitic comments, but he never rejected Farrakhan, himself, or the militant racist/separatist Nation of Islam leader’s support.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Rev. Hagee said jews and their wickedness are responsible for the holocaust. Perhaps Aron Goldman doesn’t actually care about jews.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Axel G., are you honestly trying to make the argument that Hagee is anti-Israel?? Good luck with that one. The guy’s a nut, sure, but everyone knows he’s a huge fan of Jews because they’re an important part of his theology.
And you made up the tax exemption stuff– nice try. And no, discrimination laws won’t help you prove your point either (Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale).
February 29th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Aron please save all this stuff for the general…we will need you!!
February 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
In 1978 there were lawsuits challenging the mormon church’s status under 503(c) as a tax exempt organization. In 1979 blacks were admitted to the priesthood and it is speculated that the tax threat impacted that decision given the proximity to the lawsuits.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
#20 Women have told Rush that Michelle was dissing Hillary as a bad mom!
February 29th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Further information from the IRS tax code.
A private school cannot discriminate against race and remain tax exempt, UNLESS they are run by a church which discriminates AND the school only enrolls church members. If they enroll any “nondenominational students”, they cannot discriminate.
You still have not pointed to the IRS reg that specifically states a religion cannot discriminate on the basis of race and remain tax exempt. Instead, you now allege that the fear of lawsuits caused them to change their policy.
The Mormon Church, like many other large organizations, gets nuisance lawsuits all the time. Those 1970 era lawsuits were just one or two more drops in the bucket.
The church has been sued on their refusal to ordain women. They still don’t.
They have been sued because the plaintiff stated the President of the Church was so old, he couldn’t be trusted to run the church. Therefore the Government was supposed to put the church in receivership. They won that one.
Another recent lawsuit against the church actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court. A business owned by the Church whose sole purpose was to manufactured ceremonial clothing got sued because they had a policy of only hiring Mormons in good standing. The suit alleged under the equal employment act that they were discriminating on the basis of religion.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that a religion is in the business of promoting religion, and the employment regulations against religious discrimination did not apply to churches.
In the infamous matter of Polygamy, the church felt it was their right under freedom of religion to practice it. They fought it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. They endured dozens of men separated from their families to stand by their religious beliefs. The church leadership had to go into hiding. They had much church property confiscated because of it. Yet they held out until the Supreme Court ruled against them.
Do you still claim (with a straight face) that one or two nuisance lawsuits in the 1970′s was “…the reason mormons stopped discriminating”?
Here are some facts that might interest you. In the 1970s, there were dozens of congregations in Africa with thousands of members that took upon themselves the name of the church. They taught from the standard works, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. They baptized. They recognized Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and all the other presidents as prophets and studied their teachings. They got ahold of the curriculum of the church and taught that. They knew full well the policy on Priesthood. Yet at no time were they were officially part of the church. The church attempted many times to send missionaries, but no country would allow them in, probably because of their priesthood policy.
If you are looking for a reason for the policy change outside of a revelation from God to his duly authorized prophets, seers, and revelators; I suggest you look there. That makes far more sense than the threat of a nuisance lawsuit or two, one of dozens the Mormons get all the time.
Of course, then you are forced to address the question as to why all those thousands of people were so eager to attach themselves to a church that denied them full membership privileges that they created unofficial unrecognized versions of it to join. It does make one wonder, doesn’t it?
February 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Wow. I do find it fascinating.
An utter inability to deal with, or even to speak to the Hagee issue.
Do you guys not have the slightest shred of integrity?
Or is it that you are simply trying to silently signal everyone that, ok, Farrahkan is off the table?
February 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
#1/#28– I don’t see what’s so fascinating about your attempt to deflect the charges against Obama by introducing a nonrelated figure. You did nothing to “deal with” the original criticism, so why would anyone engage you? Especially sense you attempt to frame it in false terms. Obviously you have no knowledge of the Nation of Islam or you would feel very silly trying to make the argument one of relativity. Once you have the “integrety” to respond then I imagine you will have a base on which to position your own claims. Good luck.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
An utter inability to deal with, or even to speak to the Hagee issue.
Tano, It IS fascinating. Well, the author of this post won’t address it, but McCain has:
Wait…what? I’ve read and re-read this and cannot seem to find the word “reject”, “renounce”, or even “denounce”? Where is the conservative hand-wringing over this?
#29. Because Obama did reject it, despite this poorly written post by “gamecock”, which is nothing more than hyperbole and “dog whistle” politics. Of course Hagee’s endorsement of McCain is relevant. Carry on.
>crickets chirping<
February 29th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Although Caroline and Tano would like to pretend that Hagee is in the same league as Farrakhan, it’s simply not true. One man has condemned a religious faith in terms of theology. Another has condemned an entire race of people because of who their parents are.
And Farrakhan hasn’t limited himself to Jews. How about this one: “White people are potential humans — they haven’t evolved yet” Or even better: “Murder and lying comes easy for white people.” How about the myriad of statements against Arabs and Asians. Against anyone who isn’t a black African.
Farrakhan is a racist and a bigot. And although you may wish to make believe otherwise, McCain has never accepted the support of someone like Farrakhan.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Kip,
You are right, they are not in the same league.
Hagee is pining for the destruction of Israel as a harbinger for the Apocalypse.
Seems a tad stronger than calling something a gutter relgion.
Anyway, as to my lack of response to the original post…hey, its Gamecock. He is the crazy uncle in the attic around here.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Message from the attic to #32
see #31
This Baptist read recently that the Pope considers all Churches save for the Roman Catholic Church to be illegitimate. I am not offended. Bully for him that he thinks he has the truth on that issue. Mormons come to my house to try and convert me. Again, not offended. God will sort this out.
February 29th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Gamecock – re #33, that’s not really the point. You take Obama to the woodshed but remain mum on McCain/Hagee. Obama did reject/renounce/denounce, or whatever, Farrakhan. McCain welcomes Hagee’s endorsement.
Pity then, the poor unrepresented white, Christian, American male. What branch of government speaks for them. Besides…….all of them?
February 29th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
#34, I guess I am missing why Hagee should be treated the same by McCain as Farrakhan by Obama. What exactly are you saying?
February 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Obama said the words denounce and reject, but I defy you to identify to what those words were directed.
He sat in the pews of his church that preaches the same hate for 20 years even after it gave award to farrakhan.
That speaks volumes.
case closed
February 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Not necessarily, Gamecock. How many years were you a Democratic activist? Is the case closed against you?
February 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
18 years.
Yes, I left the morally and intellectually bankrupt party and never attended a hate america church. Ask me a yes/no question about Farrakhan and you get a yes or a no as the next utterance, rather than an Obama-like convolution for 30 senetences and never an emphatic yes/no to a specfic question.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I had never heard of this nutcase Hagee until just now. I saw a short video of him just now, and he’s certainly a disgusting turd.
I don’t consider him as bad as Farrakhan based on what I saw, but that’s just a question of degree.
McCain should forthrightly reject his endorsement. He could at this point, I think, plausibly plead ignorance of the guy’s nature (he’s hardly a household name, like Farrakhan), but time is running out on that excuse.
March 1st, 2008 at 12:51 am
McCain’s statement today: “Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.
“I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”
March 1st, 2008 at 9:01 am
case closed
Oh. What do you think this is, RedState?
It was ridiculous for Russert to try to equate Obama with hating Jews by using Farrakhan’s words. We have NOT seen the media doing the same to McCain in regards to Hagee and McCain has not rejected, renounced, or whatever-ed Hagee. Just said that he “disagrees” with him. Actually, a lot of the rightwing evangelicals have said horrible and utterly hateful things about my religion, Roman Catholicism, and yet the GOP candidates continue their pilgrimage to Liberty University for the blessing of the haters.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Gamecock,
“WHILE WE OPERATE ON BLACKS”…? How does your mind work that you would write something so crude
and so crass? I’ve read a lot of your posts, and have just become so turned off by your rants.
That, combined with the fact that so much of your analysis over this political season has proved
to be off the mark, I can’t really think of a good reason to invest any more time reading your
posts.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
RE: 41
“case closed
Oh. What do you think this is, RedState?”
That’s very funny