Obama's Brilliance Leads to Misguidedness!!

By now, if you’ve not had a chance to acquaint yourself with the fluentness of Senator Barack Obama’s latest speech you should. For it offered among other things, an insightful glimpse into the historical fabric of America’s rich and highly diversified past. And did so in such a way, which not only touched upon his personalized gift as a brilliant orator and instrument; but also helped address through symbolic means, the necessity, by which race as an element of America’s past, must never under any condition serve to partake of its oppertunistic future.

Like all commendable speeches, it demonstrated a keen sense of overt awareness and overall sensitivity to its chosen topic and subsequent content, thus allowing all within ear-shot, a chance to feel of its magnitude. However, unlike all defining speeches, which carry with them the voice of pronounced reason and applicability; Senator Obama’s most recent excerpt fails to transcend the bounds of universal acceptance. This is not to say nor suggest that his message, devoted to the issue of real life racism, hasn’t played a prohibitive role in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. But rather that in focusing on the lone issue of race, as a means of acknowledgement and justification for such acts of egregious vocal filth and tirades, Obama’s speech supersedes the true issue of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s influence and belligerence, as it relates to not only Obama’s personal life, but now his political one as well.

Hence the following three lengthy and highly articulated points I’ve attached to this post are important. For they examine and at times scrutinize the seriousness of not only Senator Obama’s - at times misguided speech - but also that of his church and pastor. My intentions for attaching such insight is two fold: First I believe it better serves to more fully broaden the scope of true inquisitiveness, by allocating necessary time to all sides of this dynamic discourse. And Secondly, I believe it sheds necessary light on “behind the scene” type issues, the likes of which present a more daunting perspective of Barack Obama's 20 year devotion to Reverend Wright's gospel of antagonizing division.

I know offer you Michael Medved’s “Three Big Problems With Barack’s Speech”

Misleading Comparisons. At several points in his talk, Obama directly equates the controversy over the Reverend Dr. Wright to the dispute over remarks by Geraldine Ferraro suggesting that the candidate wouldn’t be a leading presidential contender if he were white. After lamenting the fact that “the discussion of race in the campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn,” the Illinois Senator notes that “on one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action….On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential…to widen the racial divide….” Later, he pushes the same equation between comments by Ferraro and the unhinged sermons by Wright. “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.”

The comparison between the two firestorms amounts to a slick but unfair attack on Geraldine Ferraro and, by implication, her candidate, Hillary Clinton. No one in either campaign has defended the enraged remarks by Jeremiah Wright (“God d---n America!” or blaming the government for deliberately creating the AIDS virus) as legitimate or worthy of serious debate, but many responsible politicos and pundits agree with Ferraro’s observation that his race played an essential role in Barack’s rise. Moreover, Wright’s comments reflect a long, consistent career of impassioned hostility to the “white power structure” that runs “the U.S. of KKK- A,” while no one had ever before accused the reliably liberal Ferraro of racial animus of any kind.

This wretched analogy should make all of us cringe: there’s no arguable equivalence between his grandmother’s very private kitchen-table remarks (no matter how insensitive) and the very public and thunderous sermons of a famous clergyman addressing thousands of his congregants and later selling his hateful remarks on DVD. There’s also a world of difference between breaking with a blood relative whose home you occupied as a child, and creating distance with a religious mentor you selected as an adult. No one gets to choose his grandmother, but we do choose our pastors, priests and rabbis. Obama’s selection of Wright as his guide and guru says something profound about his judgment and outlook, while his connection with his grandmother reflects only the accidents of his birth and upbringing.

Distortion of Wright’s Afro-Centric Theology. In his address, Obama many times references the “comments,” “remarks” or “statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.” He speaks of “the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube” as providing the basis for “the caricatures being peddled by some commentators….”

Regarding this claim that revulsion to Wright emerged from a few randomly “cherry-picked” declarations, Pastor Frank Pina, a dynamic church leader who heads a vibrant multi-ethnic congregation in Everett, Washington, sent me an insightful e-mail.

“What I heard coming from Rev. Wright was not just a phrase taken out of context, but a philosophy,” he wrote. “And if you listen to all the different controversial statements, the GD America Sermon (not just a few statements) pretty much sums up the philosophy. And the way the congregation responds lets us know that the philosophy is not just the pastor’s, but the church’s. The point I’m trying to make is that making an inflammatory statement (or two) is not the same as a church’s or pastor’s philosophy. And if Obama didn’t know the pastor’s philosophy after being a member of the church for over 20 years…it speaks to the lack of judgment he has.”

Even the most cursory examination of the character of Wright’s congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, demonstrates that Reverend Pina’s point is both valid and powerful. The website for the congregation begins with an introductory paragraph under the heading, “About Us,” that unequivocally proclaims: “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”

For many years, the next paragraph (recently removed due to the Wright controversy) appeared on the website and shamelessly explained: “Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System….We believe in the following twelve precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.” Those “precepts and covenantal statements” include, “Commitment to the Black Community” (Number 2), “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’” (Number 8), “Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System (Number 11) and “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.” (Number 12).

A simple thought experiment can clarify the questionable nature of the ideology of Jeremiah Wright’s church. Try replacing the word “black” in the material above with the word “white,” and you’d see a perfect definition of the spiritual approach of the “Aryan Nations” or “Christian Identity Movement” or other neo-Nazi fringe groups.

Could the American people truly accept a President who chose long-term affiliation with an organization that says that “Black Ethics…must be taught” and requires “Personal Commitment to embracement of the Black Value System” --- not the American Value System, or the Universal Value System, or, pointedly, even the Christian Value System.

Obama’s church publicly and unapologetically promoted a “Value System” based on racial identity, not common heritage or American patriotism.

The additional “10-point Vision” of Revrend Wright (still featured on the church website) specifies “A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.” Nowhere in the “10-point Vision” or the “twelve precepts” or the 25 course offerings for religious education or in any other church materials do the organizers of Trinity mention anything at all about loyalty to the United States of America, or service to the nation that hosts the church, or gratitude to the amazingly benevolent society that has embraced one of the congregation’s members as a leading presidential candidate.

If Joe Lieberman had affiliated for twenty years with a synagogue that never offered prayers for America and its government (as nearly all Orthodox Jewish synagogues do, in fact), but instead emphasized a “non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL,” wouldn’t voters have questioned his outlook and judgment when he ran for Vice President?

In his speech, Obama suggests that his fellow citizens recoiled against Reverend Wright only because they failed to understand that his bitter rage stemmed from centuries of oppression and injustice. “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

Does Obama decry, or encourage, that segregation? If he condemns it, then why would he maintain a long-term commitment to a purposefully segregated, race-based congregation that elevates a mystical sense of “blackness” above Christianity, Americanism or common humanity?

Changing the Core Message of His Campaign. In all the ecstatic praise for Obama’s speech, there’s been little comment on the way the talk signals a dramatic, permanent, and possibly fatal alteration of his race for the presidency.

Until today, the Illinois Senator enjoyed spectacular success with his determination to run as the first-ever “post-racial” candidate for the White House.

He refused to allow himself to be pigeon-holed as “the black candidate,” and tirelessly emphasized his desire to unify the nation (“We’re not red states or blue states—we’re the United States of America!”). His campaign succeeded in large part because he implicitly promised to move our society beyond the long and tragic centuries of racial agitation and pain. Yes, he won overwhelming support in the black community, but he also drew huge majorities in states like Iowa, North Dakota, Idaho and Utah, with miniscule populations of African-Americans.

For more than a year, Obama has been offering a weary nation an irresistible deal. As Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele observed in his superb book “A Bound Man,” Barack represented the ultimate “bargainer” in a long history of African-American leaders who became popular by suggesting they could reduce white America’s burden of guilt. By generally avoiding discussion of race or race relations, Obama suggested that in supporting his candidacy, Americans could finally escape from the hurts and resentments of the past.

Here’s the deal, he seemed to say: if you elect me, we can at last put an end to all the lectures and breast-beating about our brutal racist history. When I stand on the steps of the Capitol building and take the oath of office as your president, that very act will put an end- forever- to the idea of African-Americans as second-class citizens. Rather than endless recriminations and accusations, we’ll all stand together as equals in the eyes of God and the U.S. Constitution.

Millions of Americans – including some conservatives who should have known better- rushed to take that deal, and embraced Obama’s candidacy.

But now, at a decisive point in the race, the candidate has abruptly changed the bargain.

Rather than promising less race consciousness, he now insists we need more. Instead of bidding to lead a post-racial-- or at least a post-racist—America, Obama’s speech tells us we must go back to picking at the old scab.

Actually, Barack was right the first time: putting race aside, affirming our common Americanism and humanity, can serve to heal old divides. Obsessing on racial divisions, focusing on “blackness” or “whiteness,” perpetuating the eternal cycle of grudge and guilt, only intensifies the fever associated with the nation’s most menacing disease.

Bill Clinton also believed that we needed more talk about race, and as president he participated in a series of televised “public dialogues” (amounting to tiresome gripe fests) that achieved nothing at all other than underlining Slick Willie’s enlightenment and compassion.

If the Obama campaign follows up on his over-praised speech and makes intensified race-talk into a new national priority, he may well destroy his chances of winning the presidency. The most “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party could celebrate prospect that a President Obama would get countless opportunities to deliver more lectures on slavery, Jim Crow, oppression, and race differences.

But less politically correct Americans may prove notably less eager to seize the chance for additional solemn scolding sessions like the one they just heard in Philadelphia. Most voters, black as well as white, feel weary and wary of the destructive cycle of accusation and apology, so that Obama’s new implied promise of a presidency of endless race-based agitation may well constitute an offer that we easily can refuse.

Prostitution, A Price America is willing to Pay!!

“Politicians take people's money with a promise to fulfill desires that supposedly can't be attained any other way. Prostitutes do the same, though by reputation, they are more reliable in delivering. It's not surprising for people in the same line of work to gravitate toward one another, as Eliot Spitzer and a woman named Kristen reportedly did in a Washington hotel room.”

While the vast majority of those whom grace the pages of my rather sporadic spouts my come to disagree with most if not all of the aforementioned quote derived from Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, I for one, found it to be interesting, insightful, and somewhat atypical. Although it is true that many like Mr. Chapman and I have come to view the personal actions and ultimate appetites of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer with great disdain, the reality still exists. Should men like Mr. Spitzer or better yet young ladies like “Kristen” really be charged and belittled before the courts of public opinion and judicial prudence? While, I’m neither suggesting nor condoning acts of such dastardly appeal, I am looking to further clarify the difference between two consenting adults exhibiting a taste for priced immorality, and those of whom do so without the association of monetary means or any other financial perk. For after all, hasn’t money and power always been associated with dashing –often times younger women – of whom are eager to meet and greet those in possession of secular prestige and wealth? Chapmen reiterates:

“It's not as though sex is otherwise divorced from money. If it were, hot young women would be found on the arms of poor older men as often as they are seen with rich ones. Had the New York governor wanted to buy a $4,300 bauble to seduce someone of Kristen's age and pulchritude, only his wife and his financial adviser would have objected.”

Aside from prostitution serving as a source of unethical devotion as it relates to appropriate partnership relations, it also has a certain illegal twist, that according to Chapman and I’m sure many others, carries with it a fragment of unnecessary legislative force and committed action. This attitude, which I initially shot down, was in one way or another refurbished, as I was forced to re-think my position towards prostitution, and the harsh reality of making such an act forcible illegal. Again Chapman states:

“As with laws against illicit drugs and unsanctioned gambling, this policy tries to suppress powerful human appetites and consistently fails. What one New Orleans mayor said applies to a segment of every human society: "You can make prostitution illegal in Louisiana, but you can't make it unpopular."

So is outlawing such acts through measures of state and federal statutes really the answer? Or do they instead look to further cloud the prevailing judicial approach, when it comes to “alternative” outlooks, regarding “sex” and “other” bedroom “behaviors”?

At present, the realm of sexual acceptance and with it a sense of fair and reasonable understanding has become blurred. For many, the notion of individuals, groups, or even married couples looking to extend the bounds by which such acts of desire can be more fully engulfed is becoming common practice. Again, I’m not advocating nor legitimizing that such demands or requests of a personal nature don’t bare substantial costs upon the landscape of a broader civil society, but rather looking to point out the exorbitant amount of hypocrisy surrounding America’s broad cultural standards and norms. After all, how else could one begin to explain the rejection of prostitution and other forms of sexual solicitation, but yet condone and at times even federally protect the rights and economic viabilities of sexually driven corporations or entities; namely those responsible for the selling and distribution of hard-line pornography, liberating sexual “literature”, and above all the mighty poll/lap-dance; the likes of which both men and women obligingly pay for.

This attitude towards –singled out societal approval – even carries with it significant financial costs, often brought about by de-legitimizing organizations, the likes of which are responsible for harboring environments of “meet and great” antics. This not only highlights the overwhelming costs associated with the loss of taxable revenue and other fees; but continues to place a higher burden on local, state, and federal agencies already strapped for among other things, money and man-power; with the exclusive duty of ridding the public of prostitutional influence. The likes of which, restrains and I believe greatly prohibits, law enforcement productivity and overall effectiveness.

Likewise, the risks often times associated with prostitution and those of human exploitation and de-humanization become unclear, as those standing in opposition look to collectively wrap them up under the same shared banner of deliverance. While the nature of prostitution may be justly linked to such undignified ploys, those proclaiming such charges of abuse and/or neglect, fail to do so with proper insight. For they once again fall victim to the rules by which our society is not only tolerant of, but at times willing to pay for. Instances such as these are present as Chapman points out in our “hired” help, via the millions of immigrant laborers and domestic workers, both of whom serve to meet the needs of an overwhelming populace eager to reap the rewards of cheapened exploitive efforts. This, as Chapman accurately points out, “is not taken as grounds to ban fruit picking or home cleaning”. Ah…. the seeds of hypocrisy reiterated once more!!

With the nature of such an issue all but insured to instill divisive outlooks, especially among alternative albeit competing interests, one thing is certain. As long as human appetites persist for all things self-serving, techniques as well as deception will continue to dominate the avenues of human capacities, expressed through individual capabilities. Thus we are all but ensured of future entanglements occurring not simply between former governors and high-priced escorts, but that of mundane, everyday, Jack’s and Jill’s!!

Obama's Rise, A Threat to "Identity" Poliltcs!!

In a system whereby political belligerence and staunch resistance have come to define the means by which political parties, lead by fervent political practitioners, advance utopian dreams of subjective direction. The 2008 Democratic Presidential race has proven, at least thus far, to be anything but customary. Instead of American’s both “left” and “right” being subjected to a sequence of mundane yet expected assaults directed solely upon opposing ideological viewpoints. This latest political battle, which has officially offset the politics of expectedness, has in one way or another forced the Democratic establishment and its chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, to confront its long standing wing of “identity” driven political devotion, and its rising son, Barack Obama.

With both candidates firmly looking to insure individual success and ultimate supremacy atop the peak of anti – conservatism, one thing is certain, either the winning nominee will rightfully achieve political primacy, and thus qualify him or herself to best maintain the broad - highly diversified Democratic base. Or through the use of non-democratic trickery i.e. “super-delegates”, the eventual nominee could objectionably seize perceived political candidacy. The likes of which would all but insure heightened party divisiveness, minority political disenfranchisement, and the eventual implosion of the Democratic political landscape as we’ve come to define it.

So why is it then, that in a time of “leftist” calls for drastic “change” accompanied by demands for vast improvement, are those within the party claiming to be capable of generating such measures, so undecided and misplaced? Could it be that many long time party loyalist are simply torn between which candidate they feel is best adept and therefore equipped to overcome the daunting questions/challenges that are all but insured to come? Better yet, could it be that the current hysteria surrounding Senator Obama due to his alluring magnetic persona and open – ended rhetoric, has indeed touched upon a new fragment of inspired Democratic voters, thus generating a disparity and unintended identity crisis between hard – line Clintonites and upstart Obomaniacs? Or perhaps this political meddling can best be summed up by pointing out the lack of “change” and overall "equality" the Democratic Party in and of itself has exhibited throughout its rather monopolizing and elongated existence.

While all three options are sure to play a role in the lingering debacle that has become the current Democratic Primary. Perhaps the lone issue of race, advanced through the tactful art of racial politics, best serves to exemplify Liberalism’s devotion to “minority” control. Especially when it deals with issues of political representation, alleged implementation, and overall inclusion.

Dating as far back as 1865 with the implementation of the first of three “Civil War Amendments” (See here, here, and here), America, in an effort to quickly dissolve the unjust practices of slavery, racial inequality, and opposition to universal suffrage, initiated the first of many widespread democratic ideals, the likes of which solidified a new era of approved state and federal standards. This new “awakening” if you will was even further enhanced by the passing of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent Voting Rights Act of 1965. Both of which looked to extenuate the political viability and/or capacities of disillusioned African-Americans, by exterminating southern Jim Crow Laws, based on public segregation and voter infringement.

While passage of such legislative provisions by Democratic policymakers proved worthy in assisting the gradual enfranchisement of African – Americans, if not minorities in general, into the system of checks and balances. It proved unwilling to accurately take on the demoralizing reality of legitimizing true independent leadership, removed from that of its own sense of “owed” emancipating authority. Thus, even though African – Americans among others where lead to believe they had rightfully attained proper validation for the first time within America’s confined political arena. Those possessing the true keys to political dynamics i.e. (Lyndon – style - Democrats) were instead looking to ensure a lasting legacy of minority monopolization, that when called upon, proved capable of routinely electing “white” opportunistic politicians, but certainly not one of their own.

Perhaps no better insight or example can be offered with respect to establishment driven politics of a Democratic fervor than to touch upon the vocal expression of Senator Hillary Clinton who on January 7th 2008 declared:

“Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. …It took a president to get it done.”

This thought was further captured in Charles Krauthammer’s editorial, Real First Black President, in which he goes on to espouse:

“The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results. Forty years ago, that arrangement — white president enacting African-American dreams — was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement — white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty — is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly. The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen — and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?”

Indeed the times and circumstances have changed. Therefore, not only is it possible but quite practical that all members of minority based constituencies, not just African – Americans’ can and should look to further their historic cause, as it relates to properly achieving true political leadership, independent and far removed from the binding agents of time-honored Democratic tactics and dependence. Then and only then will the true nature of political inequality be removed, proper independence attained, democratic participation employed, and true legitimacy restored.

But until such a realization is mutually understood, the projected future of the Democratic Party looks bleak. After all, how much longer can a party, established under the banner of civil-rights and definitive equality for “all”, look to suppress the will and vocal vivacity, the likes of which has not been seen nor heard since the great Dr. King?

Perhaps then, the message of a victorious young Senator from Illinois would finally resonate. And just think.... he wouldn’t have had to utter even a single word!!