Anti-Obamania!

Suddenly the conservative establishment has woken up to the fact that Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is vociferously anti-American and anti-white, and they are suggesting that Obama needs to dissociate himself from him or at least give a much fuller account of where he stands in relation to Wright’s statements. Where have the establicons been? And what has made them finally write about this now? The answer is that ABC News this week did a segment on Wright, quoting and playing video clips of some of his more pungent statements:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

Paul of Powerline, in addition to providing the video segment of a Wright sermon (linked in the previous VFR entry) where he speaks over and over about “rich white America” as the evil enemy, links a story at the Fox News site, where the sermon is discussed:

During a Christmas sermon, Wright tried to compare Obama’s upbringing to Jesus at the hands of the Romans.

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” Wright said. “Hillary would never know that.

“Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

In his Jan. 13 sermon, Wright said:

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

I’ve also heard that Bill O’Reilly on Fox has played a Wright sermon where he blames America for AIDS.

In response to this information, Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at the Corner, March 13, 2008:

Forget about Mitt Romney’s supposed Mormon problem. Barack Obama’s pastor really is going to be a problem for the senator—and should be.

And Paul of Powerline writes:

Obama should explain why he retained his apparently close affiliation with Wright and his church in more persuasive terms than he has to date. Otherwise, I think it’s reasonable to draw adverse inferences based on that affiliation, including the inference that Obama doesn’t quite measure up as a “post-racial” figure.

The establishment conservatives are writing about this now, in March 2008. VFR has been discussing Obama’s anti-white, anti-American church since early 2007. In Feb 2007 I wrote that the Trinity United Church of Christ

is drenched in an exclusivist, anti-American, black racial consciousness. Literally everything it cares about, it defines in terms of an all-embracing blackness. It defines ethics in terms of a “Black” ethics. It identifies itself solely and exclusively with Africa, which it calls the “cradle of civilization.” It places itself effectively outside America, which it speaks of only in negative terms of “the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism.”

Then in a long discussion about Obama on March 14, 2007, exactly one year ago today, in which some readers were saying that I was being too easy on Obama, I said that Obama had to give an accounting of his church membership:

Obama belongs to a church with an anti-white racial ideology. In the absence of strong statements and actions by him to the contrary, possibly including his dissociation of himself from that church, it must assumed he shares that ideology, and therefore is unqualified to be president of the United States.

Also, in early January, 2008, I grasped Michelle Obama’s anti-white message and said that what it portended about her husband’s possible presidency disqualified him. (Of course, I also regard McCain and HiIlary as being disqualified, though I think McCain would be the most damaging to the long-term prospects of the country, Obama the second most damaging, and Hillary the least damaging.)

So, it’s very welcome that mainstream conservatives are now saying something similar to what I began saying a year ago, though they are being more cautious in the way they put it. But even if the conservatives come out with a full-blown declaration that Obama’s association with Wright disqualifies him, we need to understand that this would not necessarily mean that Obama is on the ropes. He has an “out” all prepared. The “out” was revealed in an April 30, 2007 New York Times profile of Wright and Obama, “A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith”, that I linked at the time. The article ends with this:

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

So there you have it. Obama and Wright have known all along that exposure of Wright’s real racial message was likely, and they have had a contingency plan in place: Obama will depart Wright’s congregation or otherwise distance himself from him in a decisive way (more decisive than merely saying that he doesn’t agree with all of Wright’s positions), with no hard feelings between the two men.

But will this really clear Obama as far as America’s view of him is concerned? Obama has followed Wright as his spiritual guide for 20 years—almost his entire adult life. Does he get to dissociate himself from him only at the point of winning the Democratic nomination for president, and then everything is ok?

The deeper reality revealed in Wright’s sermons is the profound hostility that a large number of blacks entertain for this country. It’s good for white Americans to see this, as it will lead to increased white suspicion and intolerance of black attitudes, in place of the naive enthusiasm for Obama as the post-racial messiah that distracts so many whites, including conservatives, at present. Such intolerance will have one of two further results, both of them good: a firm white rejection of the black anti-American political agenda; or a realization on the part of blacks that their anti-Americanism is really unacceptable, and that they must give it up if they ever expect whites to accept them and perhaps to accept a black president. Given the depth of black racial resentment, I do not at all expect the latter to occur, but, to be fair to blacks and to those whites who still believe in the Dream (you know, the Dream), I mention it as a possibility.

- end of initial entry -

Mark Jaws writes:

I disagree with you Mr. A. Obama will be on the ropes soon—if not now, then definitely by the summer. His attempts to liken the raucously rabid Reverend Wright to a “disagreeable uncle” falls flat on its face for one simple reason. We do not get to choose our relatives, but in “searching for a church home,” Christians choose their pastors. And the Obamas’ having chosen this particular church, with this particular pastor, and having stuck with him for 20 years demonstrate egregiously poor taste, poor judgment, and dare I say?—“racial insensitivity.”

Tomorrow night, if you go out on the West Side and peer across the Hudson River and listen carefully, you can hear the engines of swift boats being revved up. The crews are loading their torpedoes and I am reaching for my checkbook. Let the Hunt For Red Obama begin.

(P.S. Swift boats don’t really have torpedoes, but I could not pass up the analogy.)

LA replies:

I didn’t say positively that Obama would get a clean slate as a result of breaking with Wright after following him for 20 years. To the contrary, I left the question hanging whether the break would work or not.

Adela Gereth writes:

Mr. Auster writes:

“The deeper reality revealed in Wright’s sermons is the profound hostility that a large number of blacks entertain for this country. It’s good for white Americans to see this, as it will lead to increased white suspicion and intolerance of black attitudes, in place of the naive enthusiasm for Obama as the post-racial messiah that distracts so many whites, including conservatives, at present.”

I wish I could agree completely. The deeper reality is that the profound hostility a large number of blacks entertain for this country is shared by many white leftwingers. While most white Americans will be put off by Wright’s anti-white, anti-American racism, some white leftists will no doubt be thrilled by it. They will see it as proof of Wright’s (and by extension, Obama’s) “authenticity” as a black man and also as validation of their own hatred of white America. They are in the minority, true, but look how far left they’ve already pulled the rest of the country. The last thing America needs is for these haters to be inspired to hate even more than they already do.

I’m afraid that given the extreme caution with which the media treat Obama and the ever-ready “race card” that is his to play, it won’t be too hard for him to distance himself from Wright (to whom he has been close for years) and to portray him as an extremist whose views he, Obama, does not share.

Interesting timing with the good reverend’s retirement. I’m betting that he tones his act down for the duration and that any further attempts to make a connection between him and Obama will quickly be denounced as racist in intent. I wouldn’t be surprised to see those videos of Wright’s sermons yanked off the shelves, either.

LA replies:

Adela G. may be right, but my reasoning works like this: When and if such anti-American statements are brought into the full light of day, they are not defensible by anyone. Their unacceptability becomes immediately manifest. Such statements and sentiments have only survived because they have been indulged in the separate hot house of the left that the mainstream ignores or indulges. If (and I repeat if) such statements are placed in full view, they will be instantly discredited, and even the people who have been making them will back away from them. What I am suggesting is that the scenario I have just described may end up being an unexpected benefit of the Obama candidacy.

Which also supports what I said a couple of weeks ago: Let’s stop being afraid of an Obama candidacy or even an Obama presidency: Let the subterranean nature and desires of the left and the blacks be revealed. Let’s have it out.

Adela G. writes:

Mr. Auster writes:

“If (and I repeat if) such statements are placed in full view, they will be instantly discredited, and even the people who have been making them will back away from them. What I am suggesting is that the scenario I have just described may end up may being an unexpected benefit of the Obama candidacy.”

I agree. If the majority of white Americans were to see Obama in the context in which he has chosen to forge his own identity as a black man, he wouldn’t have a chance at the presidency.

My worry is that Wright’s anti-white America message may not be placed in full view long enough. I’m betting Obama’s camp is scrambling to make this one drop out of sight and off the radar. I noticed we haven’t seen much of his grievance-mongering wife lately.

N. writes:

You ask, or strongly imply, the obvious question: why did no one in the conservative established press, both paper and web based, look at Obama’s church and pastor a year ago, or ten months ago, or last summer, or surely last autumn? I believe the answer is not hard to discern and it is twofold.

First, far too many conservatives were focused a year ago on the two “inevitable” candidates, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. In a sense, they were fighting “the last war,” a political campaign between the 1990s Clintons and the post-Sept. 11 Republican standard bearer. But even last year, some commentators were observing that the six years since 9/11 had seen some changes in what the polity is concerned about. By ignoring shifts in the political landscape, the conservative commentators talked themselves into a corner where all they could see was the wall of Rudy intersecting with the wall of Hillary. They were blind to the possibility of any other candidates.

Second, since most conservative commentators are right-liberal, I wager they were queasy about looking too closely at Obama’s church, for fear of being accused of racism. Rather than just face the facts squarely as soon as it was obvious Barack Obama was a potential Democratic Presidential nominee, they basically refused to do their job, for fear of being labeled racists.

Both of these errors could have been avoided if conservative commentators spent more time outside the echo chamber in which all too many of them seem to reside.

LA writes:

This is from an interview of Barack Obama by David M. Brown of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Q: I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but it’s all over the wire today (from an ABC News story), a statement that your pastor (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s South Side) made in a sermon in 2003 that instead of singing “God Bless America,” black people should sing a song essentially saying “God Damn America.”

A: I haven’t seen the line. This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.

Q: What about this particular statement?

A: Obviously, I disagree with that. Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it’s important to judge me on what I’ve said in the past and what I believe.

Is this a sufficient answer? I don’t agree with everything he says? He’s on the brink of retirement, so the fact that he’s been my spiritual mentor for the last 20 years is of no importance and I am not tied in any way with his anti-American anti-white sermons which I’ve been attending for the last 20 years?

This is not an honest and responsible answer, it’s not sufficient, and Barack Obama should not be allowed to get away with it.

LA continues:

I sent the above to David Brown of the Tribune-Review, and added this:

Instead of letting him give a superficial answer and then moving on to the next question, here’s the question you should have asked him:

“Why have you been following an anti-white, America-hating pastor for the last 20 years?”

The job of reporters, I thought, is to hold politicians down to real answers, not let them get away with evasive answers.

And here’s David Brown’s reply:

Hello Mr. Auster,

I appreciate your comments and interest in the story.

Thank you,
David Brown

* * *

This appears at the partisan left-Democratic website Talking Points Memo (which I hadn’t visited in years, since its host Joshua Marshall thoroughly discredited himself by becoming an all-out champion of Joseph “The Politics of Truth” Wilson), but it was linked from Corner:

Is Wright a “Death Blow” to Obama?
By David Kurtz

Like a number of emailers, TPM Reader JB is wringing his hands over Obama’s Rev. Wright:

The Wright time bomb appears to be detonating, now that the horse race narrative has stalled and the media needs new material. The inadequacy of Obama’s response is deeply discouraging. I was very excited about Obama, but I suddenly think Wright is going to deal a death blow to him on the “electibility” front. Michelle Obama’s comments and now the man who lead him to Jesus is saying “God Damn America”, and all BO can say is “I disagree”? He has to thow him under the bus and then back up over him again, but it does not appear that he will. Not clear it would even help that much, given the depth and length of their relationship. Sad to say, but it’s best this happen now rather than in October. As distasteful as her tactics have been, I suddenly think we may be better off in November with Hillary. Wright is cancer.

* * *

There’s a lot of of discussion of Obama’s Jeremiah Wright problem at the Corner. Most of the comments are glancing and superficial, as one expects in that venue. But John Derbyshire, who for once I’m in agreement with, is asking exactly the questions that ought to be asked:

Pastor Preposterous [John Derbyshire]

It’s nice that Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s pastor for twenty years, has been getting some air time. People still seem reluctant to acknowledge, though, the thing I said yesterday: that Wright’s views are not extraordinary or “unorthodox” among black Americans. In that milieu, they are pretty mainstream, and Senator Obama must be scratching his head and wondering what the fuss is about.

For example, Bill O’Reilly was hyperventilating on the telly last night about Wright’s having said, in a sermon, that HIV is a man-made virus, deliberately spread by the U.S. government in a plot to exterminate black people. In fact, a lot of black Americans believe this. Here is a 2005 poll showing that:

Almost half of all African-Americans believe that HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is man-made, more than a quarter believe it was produced in a government laboratory and one in eight think it was created and spread by the CIA, according to a study released by Rand Corporation and the University of Oregon.

I have no doubt that non-black Americans would be willing to vote for a black American as president. Not many of us, however, would be willing to vote for a candidate who thought of himself as black first and American second. That such people exist is proved by the success of Jeremiah Wright—and by the applause of his congregation.

Is Barack Obama such a person? If he is not, why has he been such a loyal member of that congregation, making five-figure donations to Wright’s church at least as late as 2006? Calling on Wright to bless his marriage and his house, and baptize his children? Using a passage from one of Wright’s sermons as the title of his second book?

On the campaign trail, Obama has certainly not come across as a white-hating, America-hating black radical. A man can be known, though, by the company he keeps. Obama has been keeping some mighty weird company.

Does the Senator believe, as his revered pastor does (and as that pastor’s congregation apparently does too) that HIV was made in a government lab? Perhaps someone should ask him. Perhaps someone should have been asking this stuff six months ago.

* * *

Paul K. writes:

It’s odd—I have been reading what you and some others have been saying about Rev. Wright for many months now, but it was not until I watched the video released by ABC News that his toxicity really struck me. It is far more shocking to hear his vitriol bellowed in Nuremberg-rally fashion than to read it on the printed page.

I am willing to listen to reasoned criticism from any quarter, but this visceral anti-white ranting is beyond the pale. Does David Duke sound anywhere near this hateful when he speaks about blacks? (I honestly don’t know.)

Obama is now claiming that somehow he didn’t happen to be present when the more inflammatory sermons were delivered. What an incredibly lame excuse. Would he have walked out? Would he have reconsidered donating $22,500 to the church, as he did in 2006?

If he survives this I will have to lower yet further my hopes for this country’s future.

A reader writes:

Sean Hannity feels that the business with Wright makes Obama untenable, and he also thinks Hillary is a no-go, so that leaves McCain of course. But what disgusted and utterly fed-up conservatives like me feel is in seeing the vigorous conservative reaction to Obama and Wright—that’s how conservatives will react with a Democrat in the White House. But with McCain in the White House, we will have more of the fawning behavior they displayed and continue to display with Bush.

BTW, Hannity interviewed McCain last night and asked him about the borders, and McCain insisted he would secure the borders, but for some reason, Hannity did not ask if McCain intends to work to legalize the twelve million illegals. Was he afraid to ask that, to find out what McCain really intends for us?

LA replies:

Exactly. This anti-Obamania is an uplifting thing, but not only because it could stop his candidacy. It’s uplifting because it shows the life that is in conservatives now and that would continue to be in them if Obama were elected—the life that would instantly leach out of them if McCain were elected.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 14, 2008 12:30 AM | Send