This video makes, in my opinion, too much of a big thing about the Islamic name issue in the beginning, when the real issue is his Christian religious affiliations. And to be fair, he doesn’t have to put his hand over his chest during the anthem, it’s for the pledge, but nonetheless, it’s an eye-opening video, especially for those who might consider voting for Obama. My favorite part is Obama criticizing Don Imus for HIS racist comments. You’ll also get the full Jeremiah Wright treatment, including him arguing (read: interrupting) with Sean Hannity about Black Liberation Theology. If you don’t understand what that is and how to connect the dots to che guevara, watch the video and see for yourself. The whole thing is pretty scary and I cringed every time I heard Wright say “G.D. America.”
Thanks to Ana Margarita Martínez
14 thoughts on “Barack Obama- a Video Portrait”
Comments are closed.
OK Todo el Mundo –
You can’t pick your (biological) Parents. You can and often DO pick your Pastor. Take it from there.
And I am so sorry – thought this guy might have been
“Coke” – as in THE REAL THING. Would it were so – seems not. -S-
I love it when people draw the horrible hypothetical, “what if a white person said what a black person said?”
Does historical context have no relevance? Through 200 years of oppression, we have ostracized the black community and the extremist views of Cone – which the video failed to demonstratively conclude were racist, it could only take excerpts that may have implied some impartiality, yet these works are not even currently taught in liberation theology.
What if I read the Torah, which forbids the consumption of crawfish, and determined that Jewish people are heretics for refusing such a delicacy? Don’t take one piece of an entire philosophy and claim that that is what it represents.
The reason a white person can’t say, “a typical black person,” is because we’ve worked the past 200 years to correct this ignorance. It’s not much better for a black person to say that kind of thing, but it’s a whole lot more warranted – you’re confusing equality with equity; the latter is what is relevant in this case.
Mike:
One piece? That video had a lot of “one pieces” which to most people who have not partaken in gallons of the Black Liberation Theology Kool-Aid, adds up to one bigoted candidate who looks for mentorship from a flagrantly unapologetic anti-white, anti-semite, hate mongerer. To say that the excerpts were just pieces that don’t represent the entire thing is just sticking your head in the sand. Those who back Obama don’t want admit that the great Orator has stuck his foot and Wright’s, in his mouth. It’s a wonder he can talk at all.
Listen guys the facts are out there. If people still want to vote for him, well they will just have to live with the consequences. I personally feel that Obama is socialist/communist racist. So unlike Castro, if Obama does get elected we must make sure it’s not for long. Get it?
“I love it when people draw the horrible hypothetical, “what if a white person said what a black person said?”
Love away, then. It’s 100% perfectly relevant.
There’s an old saying that you don’t dress for the job you have, you dress for the job you WANT. So anyone who is serious about achieving equality has to ACT like he’s already there in his mind and the rest will follow.
Historical context is important in addressing REAL psychological and social after effects of slavery and Jim Crow, but at some point the crutches have to be thrown away. You can’t continue to cling to wacko conspiracy theories and treat victimhood as an identity to be cultivated rather than a problem to be solved, otherwise you’re forever stuck in the very same slave mentality that makes equality impossible.
Historical context also doesn’t oblige anyone to cheer and say “Amen” when somebody like Wright says 2+2=5. Liberals somehow see that as enlightened, tolerant behavior but it’s nothing but the most crippling, condescending form of patronization and bigotry.
So at the end of the day, everyone has to be willing to jump up and down on the gonads of a black politician who associates himself with black racists for decades as passionately as they do when a white politician drives within 50 miles of where a Klansman once lived 70 years ago. Otherwise you’re reaffirming an infantilizing double standard that denies black people their full humanity by telling them they never have to examine their own souls for prejudice.
I also love how Obama is, by association, ideologically homogenous to the beliefs of Wright & Cone.
You Obama-knockers are interchangeably using the beliefs of Obama and Wright, even though Obama himself has recently completely disassociated himself from the man. Sure, Wright was his spiritual mentor, but none of Obama’s rhetoric has even come close to reflecting his extremist viewpoints. This argument is just so weak: Is President Bush a liar and lawbreaker because he received political advising from Henry Kissinger? Is Dick Cheney invested only in the interests of Haliburton because he used to be a CEO there? Do you understand the fallacy in your arguments?
Also, being anti-Israel is not being anti-semitic, especially given the fact Israel is not a theocracy.
Please come up with a substantial argument against Obama – this is laughable.
Yeah, he distanced himself from Wright, after Wright said HE was not running for President, he was running for Jesus. Seems it was Wright, not Obama, who got fed up first and wanted to cut ties with someone who wasn’t being true to himself.
As for anti-semitic- Wright himself presented Louis Farakhan with his church’s Lifetime Achievement Trumpeter Award last year. He is a friend of Farakhan, whom he praises publicly. Farakhan is a rabid anti-semite but you are right, this does not make Wright an anti-semite by association. He only hates Israel. I’m sure he loves Jews, though, and probably has many Jewish friends. Not.
Cut me a break. It’s pointless arguing with someone who is hellbent on defending everything said about Obama. As fellow contributor Alberto de la Cruz says, “arguing with a liberal is like wrrestling with a pig. All you get is dirty and the pig has all the fun.”
“I also love how Obama is, by association, ideologically homogenous to the beliefs of Wright & Cone.”
We also love how you completely ignore every point we make. Obama doesn’t HAVE to be ideologically homogenous with Wright; if he is even remotely similar, then he is a bigot. And again to the point, you would not be anywhere near this forgiving of a white politician in a similar circumstance. You would certainly not require McCain to be “ideologically homogenous” with David Duke or Tom Metzger to be justly troubled by a 20-year association between McCain and such kooks.
“You Obama-knockers are interchangeably using the beliefs of Obama and Wright, even though Obama himself has recently completely disassociated himself from the man.”
You cannot possibly be that dumb. This is political convenience and opportunism at its purest. If Wright had kept his mouth shut all this time, there would be no disowning of Wright and you know it.
“Sure, Wright was his spiritual mentor…”
And what is Wright’s “spirituality” all about again?
“…but none of Obama’s rhetoric has even come close to reflecting his extremist viewpoints.”
He’s running for office, remember? He can’t exactly campaign on the platform of “Kill Whitey, Kill the Jews”.
But let’s stop here for a moment and allow me demonstrate further my fairness to Obama. It may very well be that he is genuinely disturbed by Wright and has been for a long time, and that he kept him close because he really does view him as the tinfoil hat uncle that he can’t help but love — and that moreover, Wright’s views are held by a large enough segment of the black population that Obama couldn’t distance himself earlier because he feared being labeled an Uncle Tom and losing earlier elections. Fair enough.
But keep in mind that Obama’s wife’s statements very clearly show she has much more in common ideologically with Wright than Obama’s nice-guy public persona, and further, that people with views similar to Wright would inevitably be part of an Obama Administration, just as hard lefties like Donna Shalala were brought into ‘centrist’ Bill Clinton’s administration. Cabinet members influence the decisions a president makes, and have authority delegated to them and their underlings to make decisions presidents don’t find out about often until much later. Look how much trouble Bush has been having with State and CIA undermining him! And remember Jamie Gorelick building an unnecessary wall between CIA and FBI that kept us from connecting the dots on the 9/11 hijackers?
“This argument is just so weak: Is President Bush a liar and lawbreaker because he received political advising from Henry Kissinger?”
Your argument is weak. Henry Kissinger was not Bush’s spiritual mentor for 20 years and never advocated that God damn America. None of us believe Bush is God or infallible and we don’t ask for perfection from the people he consults with. All we ask is that a president’s closest friends and spiritual mentors not be race-baiting kooks.
“Is Dick Cheney invested only in the interests of Haliburton because he used to be a CEO there? Do you understand the fallacy in your arguments?”
You apparently don’t understand the fallacy of yours. What exactly is wrong with Haliburton?
“Also, being anti-Israel is not being anti-semitic…”
It depends on what you mean by anti-Israel. If you mean opposing some or all of its policies, you’re right. No nation is above criticism. If you mean Israel should cease to exist, you’re wrong.
“Please come up with a substantial argument against Obama — this is laughable.”
First, you have yet to give us a substantial argument FOR him. I’ve repeatedly asked you and other Obama supporters in here to do that and so far nothing.
But I’ll bite: Obama advocates discredited policies from the left wing nanny state government playbook. He has had far too long and intimate an association with an anti-American racist (Wright), an anti-American terrorist (Ayers), and his anti-American WIFE — not to mention his heavy left wing voting record in the Senate. He has also suggested over and over again that he believes you can negotiate with people hell-bent on killing you.
This leads any rational person to think his judgement on matters like war, terrorism, tax policy, the economy, racial issues, you name it, is suspect at best.
He freaks out and gives rambling incoherent answers when forced to think on his feet, as when Gibson and Stephanapolous asked him tough but legitimate questions about the capital gains tax. This leads any rational person to not only suspect that he doesn’t really study these issues in detail and therefore cannot anticipate an opposing argument and debunk it, it also makes one wonder how he would handle the pressure of dealing with someone like a Kim or Ahmadinejad who would be a lot tougher and far more devious than any journalist, especially if they believe the American president is weak and can be rolled.
Now tell me what’s wonderful about him that outweighs all that, other than that he will “bring change”.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a civil war.
Wow, I’m amazed at how hostile you people can get. I called your argument laughable – which it can be, at parts – but I did not expect to be called a pig and dumb. Maybe dumb, but categorizing me as a pig (along with every liberal) is a pretty strong indicator of just how divided we are. Shame we couldn’t keep this civil. Instead, you rehashed the same points you’ve been making, accused that I am not listening to what you are saying, yet have still not addressed my central argument.
Wright is not Obama. I don’t know many times I can say this before I give up on you all together. To which you reply: he doesn’t have to be, if he’s remotely like Wright, he’s already a bigot. Agreed, but nothing you have said shows Obama is remotely like Wright. Spiritual mentor ≠political mentor. I sympathize with your argument, yes it is disconcerting that Obama knew and took advice from this man for 20 years – but it is at that point that our arguments stray.
Claudia, I am not hellbent on defending Obama. I might not even vote for him, so please take your jump-to-conclusions mat and sell it elsewhere. I acknowledge that his relationship with Wright may seem compromising, I am merely expressing my opinion that I do not think it is important, to which you all have rebutted it is. So much so, that if Obama has gained Presidency, Zhang has suggested his policy will be kill whitey and kill jew. I can’t take you seriously when you say that, sorry.
The fact that you call me dumb but think that a first-term president would have the capacity to make significant socialistic change is a display of just how ignorant you are to the political process. Yes, Obama disowned Wright as a political move, but if any of his potential future policy even hints at being segregationist he will be screwed because of this Wright-fiasco. To that effect, Wright has provided a check on Obama’s ability to be “racist.”
Another tidbit: there may be nothing wrong with Haliburton, but to have a vice-president who has a vested interest in their profits is what we call unjust political influence.
The reason I defend Obama is because people on this board very hastily jump to conclusions. When I throw out a counter-argument, I am called a pig and dumb. How do you think that is conducive to political discourse? Lay off the O’Reilly Factor.
Also, the reason I do not present arguments proclaiming Obama is because that is not the subject matter at hand, and it would only further convolute the argument. I mean, that’s akin to me calling Cuba a mess of a country – but then someone rebutting “What about the free healthcare?” I try to stay on point.
Mike:
1) I did not call you a pig. I used an analogy in which I compared wrestling with a pig, which gets very messy and is enjoyed only by the pig, with arguing with a liberal, which, as you can see, gets very messy and the liberal enjoys the most. If you can find a direct quote from me where I called you a pig please do share and I will apologize since name-calling was not my intent. Otherwise, please do not twist my words to make it look like I am attacking you. You’re the one who came here to bait, as this was not a pro-Obama post so you surely knew your stance would incur feedback.
2) I do not watch the O’Reilly Factor. I do, however, enjoy Glenn Beck.
3) If your feelings are bruised so easily, then perhaps political discussions are not something in which you should engage. I hardly think this thread is hostile. The commenters here are simply passionate about NOT wanting Obama for president You will not change those minds about that any more than yours will be changed.
“Wow, I’m amazed at how hostile you people can get. I called your argument laughable which it can be, at parts but I did not expect to be called a pig and dumb.
*** The phrase was “you cannot possibly be that dumb”. As in, you’re not that dumb. As in, I was actually suggesting that instead of dumb you are being a bit disingenuous in saying you really think Obama’s denouncement of Wright is sincere. I have no problem taking the heat for that. Or for saying you’re a wee bit gullible. Feel free to rip me on both.
***For what it’s worth, I agree with Claudia that you’re being a little too thin-skinned. If you think Claudia was actually calling you a pig and that I’m calling you dumb, then we can in the same way say that you’re calling us “laughable”. But notice how we’re not freaking out over that.
“Instead, you rehashed the same points you’ve been making, accused that I am not listening to what you are saying, yet have still not addressed my central argument.”
*** Your central argument appears to be that decades of close relationships with racists and terrorist commies had no effect on Obama’s worldview. We have addressed it over and over, saying that (a) you can’t roll around in the mud with pigs for decades and not get dirty, (b) you would not accept a white politician with even distant relationships with white supremacists, and (c) his voting record and policy prescriptions suggest a VERY HEAVY influence by these people. Also please note that the mud and pigs comment is an ANALOGY. I am not literally calling Wright, Mrs. Obama, Ayers and Dhorn, et al, pigs. (But I am calling them dirty.)
“Wright is not Obama. I don’t know many times I can say this before I give up on you all together. To which you reply: he doesn’t have to be, if he’s remotely like Wright, he’s already a bigot. Agreed, but nothing you have said shows Obama is remotely like Wright. Spiritual mentor and political mentor. I sympathize with your argument, yes it is disconcerting that Obama knew and took advice from this man for 20 years “but it is at that point that our arguments stray.”
*** This is another example of how you say things that are vague and incoherent like Obama himself. Of course it’s disconcerting, and that is the point. That, and his crap-weasel behavior of first saying it’s impossible to disown Wright and then doing the impossible just a couple of weeks later only because Wright just continued to be the same Wright he has always been, is cause for major concern about Obama really thinks on these issues. Maybe even more important, it further illustrates just how slippery and evasive Obama is in general, that whatever Obama you see one day turns out to be a mirage the next. It’s not an isolated incident with him, it is a pattern of behavior. In that way at least, Wright is a better man than Obama — he isn’t afraid to let you know where he stands.
***And I ask again, if Wright is Obama’s spiritual mentor, what is Wright’s “spirituality” all about?
“Claudia, I am not hellbent on defending Obama. I might not even vote for him.”
***So it’s disconcerting, but not really because you’ll still likely vote for him.
“Zhang has suggested his policy will be kill whitey and kill jew. I can’t take you seriously when you say that, sorry.”
*** It was something of an exaggeration, but the point is that for decades Obama has hung out and broken bread and had intimate relationships with people who have said over and over they would like to do exactly that, some of whom would be part of his administration.
“The fact that you call me dumb but think that a first-term president would have the capacity to make significant socialistic change is a display of just how ignorant you are to the political process.”
*** So you’re saying it really doesn’t matter who is elected president because they’ll never really do anything in 4 years. So why not vote for David Duke or Tom Metzger or Fidel Castro or Kim Jong Il? Or Hitler too if he was alive? After all, as first-term presidents, none of them would have the capacity to make significant KKK or communist change. Or why vote at all?
Yes, Obama disowned Wright as a political move, but if any of his potential future policy even hints at being segregationist he will be screwed because of this Wright-fiasco. To that effect, Wright has provided a check on Obama’s ability to be “racist.”
*** That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve ever heard. Like saying a lit match provides a check on gasoline exploding. If Wright’s presence doesn’t provide a check on Obama getting elected, it won’t provide a check on him proposing and enacting hyper-PC laws and policies of all kinds, not just racial issues, for which he would have plenty of help from Pelosi, Reid & Co.
“Another tidbit: there may be nothing wrong with Haliburton, but to have a vice-president who has a vested interest in their profits is what we call unjust political influence.”
*** Before Cheney could run for VP, had to resign his position at Haliburton, sell any Haliburton stock or beonds he had, and he took out an insurance policy on any deferred income from Haliburton so that if Haliburton goes south, he would still get his money. In other words, he is 100% financially insulated from either the success or failure of Haliburton so there is no ‘unjust political influence’.
“Also, the reason I do not present arguments proclaiming Obama is because that is not the subject matter at hand, and it would only further convolute the argument.”
*** No it wouldn’t. Why you think Obama is still worth voting for in light of all this is VERY relevant to the discussion. That you keep holding back on that suggests to me that your attachment to him is strictly emotion-based or personality-based and not rooted in anything substantive.
*** From the clumsy phrasing and misuse of words, I’ve considered the possibility that English may not be your first language. If that is so, I do not hold that against you in the slightest so please ignore or at least forgive me in advance for what follows.
But the combination of that, the clumsy way you reason, and your shock at words like “pig” and “dumb” in a political argument strongly suggests to me that you’re actually just a very young native-born American, probably in high school, who has very little experience in debating the issues and not nearly enough life experience to understand the ins and outs of human nature.
If I am right about that, I appreciate a young person taking such interest in a presidential campaign but I have to stop here because I’d just be picking on a kid.
Zhang:
That is a great point about Mike’s age and by the email address it seems to make sense that he is still in school. Not that age invalidates his opinion but as a teacher of kids who think their political knowledge (both sides) is vast and bottomless, I’ve learned to just nod my head.
So, I’ll back off, too, because while the pig has all the fun, wrestling, when you wrestle with a piglet it’s just unfair. And you could hurt it, too.
You two are amusing. I mean, I’m amazed at how you can write so much yet fail to make any substantial arguments. You two are clearly just having fun, circumventing the actual arguments. Let me two know if either of you decide to, you know, grow up?
Both of you skirted around the name-calling bit, then proceeded to suggest I am too young to argue with you. Which is, another direct attack. It’s pretty obvious that when you have to resort to these attacks that your argument has decisively failed. So in that respect, I’m not insulted, I’m flattered. I’ll accept your forthcoming attack as yet another concession.
I’ll have you know I’m 21, though, and I’m sorry if you couldn’t keep up with me. Envy my youth.
My political knowledge is vast, but hardly bottomless. You, on the other hand, are a complete hypocrite. You have twice insinuated that I am unable to budge on my opinions – yet I have made multiple concessions in my arguments, it’s a shame you don’t realize how stubborn and partisan you are.
Please read this article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102903.html?referrer=facebook