I am so thankful for your article. I am so sick and tired of the MSM running the politcal show and showing their prejudicial opinionated mudslinging.

MSM, Not a word about "winter soldiers" gathering or the great banking bail out(factual truth) but they sure can jump in and call someone UN patriotic if they don't have that stupid flag pin on!

I can't hardly view MSM anymore w/o my blood pressure elevating through the roof!

You're right, No one reads the constitution or the Federalist papers. No one reads the Founders' input. They just follow like sheeple.

 Keep shleeping fascists. The liberal progressives have awaken from the 60's graves.

Please read the "plan" by Sara Robinson posted in a 3 part series on truthout.org "Taking it to the Strreets" is part 3 but 1and 2 are enclosed on the site. IMP!

We shall over come.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM

  (0+)

No one is denying Rev. Wright or Senator Obama the freedom of speech or the freedom of association. The media are (justifiably) trying to determine if the candidate shares the same extreme opinions as the clergyman. That's a legitimate question, given that the senator has such close personal ties to the outspoken Wright.

Why is it that when someone asks a few questions, you jump to the conclusion that a lynching is in progress?

by SunDance (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM

  (0+)

that if one person knows another person who has said something that they are not especially happy to hear, then the first person is not qualified to serve as President of the United States. That is what they are saying, and it is un-American in the most reprehensible way.

I go further to say that they are demonstrating the Fascist and tyrannical precepts that they subscribe to in trying to silence Americans who may put the lie to the filthy propaganda that they spread for profit.

Further, as a recommendation for remedy, I urge all free Americans to boycott these worse than useless sources of misinformation and those who profit from them that we may be relieved of their unwholsome influence at the earliest opportunity.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:19:16 PM

  (0+)

Obama already said that denies being in the church on those days.

If anyone has particular questions regarding exactly how he stands on a given issue then we need to ask him. I agree with that

The problem is Obama is being wrapped in a blanket of guilt by association What exactly is he being accused of? What is the accusaton against him? There is not even a clear accusation of wrong doing? Just a suspicion. But of what exactly?

Not specific issues and beliefs but blanket charges. Do you Barack Obama beleive these things-and their name is legion- and were you there on that fateful day? If you weren't we will find more .I don't know how he can even respond to this.

In fact I do not even know exactly what Obama is even accused of that is actually wrong. I don't know what Wright is accuse of that is actually wrong.

What I do know is wrong is the suppression of ideas and speech.

Pundits are now saying Obama holds a slight lead when he holds roughly the same amount of delegates he did before the tempest concerning Wright.

This man's politcal victories are being swift boated.

What would you call this? You have the right to call it what you want.  I choose political lynching. That is my right.

siriusss

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:48:11 PM

  (0+)

What exactly is so extreme about Rev. Wright's comments? His tone of voice? Do you feel every person who attends any church on any given Sunday in this or any other country ought to be held accountable for the words of the pastor?

And how many times have you personally told a pastor that you condemn his or her remarks?

What a sideliner.....

by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:43:20 PM

  (0+)

the author asks "whatever happened to free speech," and "...free association."  Good grief, grow up and lighten up: No one is denying free speech nor free association to Wright nor Obama.  They are free to say what they want, to associate with whom they choose.  But there are consequences for speech and action.  Get over the pity party for these bozos -- no one is denying anyone free speech, but they are being held accountable.  Is that so bad, to be held accountable for something you say?

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:36:32 PM

  (0+)

for what Reverend Wright said? There is no record of Obama having uttered such sentiments anywhere at any time. Obama tells us that he was not present when these remarks were delivered. The published remarks represent thirty seconds of talking out of reverend Wright's long career. But you expect Obama to answer for them?

How can you justify your position?

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:16:58 PM

  (0+)

No, you misunderstood.  I don't hold Obama accountable for what Wright said, not at all.  I replied to the author's two questions, both of which referred to first Wright (free speech) then Obama (free association).  Wright is the one whose free speech has not been denied as the author asserted, but he must be accountable for what he said.  Likewise, Obama has free association with whoever, and he should answer for it.  That's all.  The author made it sound as if these two rights were denied to these two men, and they weren't -- not at all.

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:59:53 PM

  (0+)

offered by a priest that was involved in sexual improprieties with minors? Are they complicit in the priests crime? If we are to hold everyone to the standard to which you hold Obama then we have certainly crossed a surreal boundary.

I'll give you a little guideline that you may find useful. There are candidates who can be unfairly character assassinated with guilt by association, and there are candidates who are actually guilty with or without associations. We've tolerated the latter twice. If you want a third go around, it's there for the picking.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:15:55 PM

  (0+)

There may have been Catholics attending mass conducted by a perverted priest, but did the parishoner know that the priest was a pervert?  Surely you can see a difference between your scenario and Obama being in the congregation while his Pastor spewed his hate-speech.  Which, by the way, both men have every right to do:  Pastor Wright can say what he wants, and Obama can sit there and listen.  That doesn't make me think that Obama agrees with him --  however, alledgedly, there is video of Obama nodding his head in agreement.  I don't know, I've not seen it myself, and if it's true, then Obama should explain exactly what parts of the anti-American diatribe he agrees with.

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:21:27 AM

  (0+)

But what exactly are those consequences? Who says what those consequences are? Is resigning a largely  ceremonial positon in a campaign sufficient punishment or losing a hard fought nomination for presidency the correct punishment?

What of Obama? He is not being chastised for what he said. He is being clobbered for sitting in a church on and off where those alternative view points  were aired.

His fitness for President is being questioned not for what he said. His fitness for President is being questioned for what he might have agreed with.

What did he hear and when did he hear it? Did he agree with it? Did he agree with it then but not now? If he agreed with it then but not now for how long did he agree with it? Do you believe him?

How can he be expected to respond to this?

It is repugnant.

Let's get back to the issues

siriusss

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:21:58 PM

  (0+)

I heard today that there is footage of Obama in church services when this guy is spewing his hatred of America and Obama is sitting there nodding his head. I've not seen it myself, but heard it's out there.

Obama fired Ms. Porter (I think that's her name) for calling Mrs. Clinton "a monster," so he should be a little bit more tough on a guy who blames America for 09/11 and inventing HIV to kill blacks.  Pastor Wright is delusional -- he should be in the pulpit teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, not passing on his insane notions about America.

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:04:29 PM

  (0+)

Do you have a link for that video?  I have not seen it. How do I know if it exists if it has been cut?   Even if the video exists and he is seen shaking his head, I do not think that  case can be made that he needs to apologize for anything.

 I did not think he needed to fire Smantha Power for calling Hillary Clinton a  monster. I did not think that  Hillary Clinton should ask Geraldine Ferraro to step down.

 I think that all this is a ridiculous  waste of time when serious issues faace our nation.

I don't how old you are but I remember the HUAC hearings. People were destroyed and blacklisted because of things they said  and might have thought.

I also remember there was a time when black men were hung because of what they might do or might have been thinkiing.

This train of thought and action flies in the face of the very foundations of our nation. 

If you are watching the news China is battling protests in Tibet for things the Tibetans  might say or do. I do not expect that behavoir here and I will not accept it.

But I do appreciate your thoughts

Siriusss 

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:00:30 PM

  (0+)

Well, I totally agree with everything in your last post.  I think "hate speech" and "political correctness" are terms invented by the left in an effort to control what others say and think.  I think it's outrageous that people can't say what's on their minds.  Here's another example: Personally, I can't stand Chris Matthews, I think he's an arrogant leftist.  A few weeks ago he made a comment that the only reason The Hildebeast (well, he called her Hillary) was elected to the NY Senate was because people felt sorry for because she was the victim of adultery.  Chris' very own buddies on the left were calling for his head on a platter.  Because of something that he SAID -- HELLO?!   Good people, it's just WORDS!!!  And it wasn't even that bad for crying out loud.

So, you see, I'm all in favor of people saying whatever they want to say.  But when you do say America invented HIV to kill blacks, you'd better be ready to defend your positions.  

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:27:11 AM

  (0+)

Shielah is more right than most (a pun, if that is how you want to take it).  In being correct, you can wonder off the mainstream path progressives want to take on this issue.  I am a leftie of the old school--though I stop short of being drawn into ideological boxes.  I don't join clubs nor organizations because they have a set of rules and regs and it bores me to conform.  True liberals by nature are nonconformists; as they used to say: I don't belong to any organized party.  I'm a Democrat...what 'appened on the way to election '08?  It's darn hard to get a pro-Hillary blurb posted.  Daily KOS is tossing them; my Yahoo boards are monitoring for what they call, "posts that bash Democrats or lack valid sources (no opinion, please) or are not in keeping with the Party line": which is to elect Obama--though, IMHO, he is unqualified with a very lax resume for POTUS.

But I degress: the Rev. Wright rant...Is it our fault that Barack Obama's choice of friends is questionable? Not only has the minister damned my country, he is fast with Louis Farrakhan, a man who makes Adolf look almost presentable.  Almost.  So we can forgive Obama's associates and his associates' associates but not Hillary's.  Interesting.

The most interesting aspect of this campaign season is Ted and Caroline's passing the JFK legacy to Barack.  To compare him with Jack Kennedy is  nonsensical.   Comparing Rev. Wright's hate speech and its inevitable fallout with the lynching of Emmet Till is equally self-serving; in both cases the analogies deligitimize the importance of such events in American history. 

Barack Obama's transparent attempts to pander to black voters, while yet holding his white base in tact is typical of how he has played both sides of the spectrum.  And without media help (which now is being lambasted by his constituents) he would never have come so far so fast.  Can we at least be clear on that point?

Dreams and fantasy are part of the same glossy mental illusion.  I refuse to get ensnared in that trap.

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 194 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 4:43:55 PM

  (0+)

I care that you are an American and the law is clear that we have the right to speak unpopular viewpoints. I care that we have the right to  associate with unpopular people.

 What law did Wright break in any of his speeches?

What law says that Wright is required to prove his loyalty because of those speeches?

What law says that ranting or anger  is illegal? 

What  law did Obama break?

What  law says that Obama cannot associate with an angry man? 

What law says that Obama must distance himself from any unpopular viewpoint?

What law says Obama is guilty buy association? 

Are we to take loyalty oaths now?

Did you ever know anyone who was the HUAC blacklist? I knew 3 people. People whose lives were torn apart by guilt by association.

Why are you so bent on labelling yourself left or conservative?

Aren't all people endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights? Aren't those rights  innate to all people regardless of race creed or political flavor?

Why does holding an alternate opinion require explanation?  

black white left right put people in a box if you want  but tell me this what law have these men broken that requires explanation and apology?

Give me a law because all you have given me is irrational emotion. 

siriusss 

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:17:07 PM

  (0+)

I am  not a supporter of the Demparty strategy ( think they go for a defeat) but it was a cheap shot and  it had GOP  Midas Ears all over it. That's why Obama, maybe, just brushed it aside.  In fact, I think the proper way would be in Hillary also condemns that  stupid attack on Obama. But she would not, I guess.

It is always a pleasure to read   such passionate and  succinct articles.

Thanks

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:37:50 PM

  (0+)

The Grand Old Party's Narrative, as perpetrated by the likes of Tucker Carlson (who has alot of time on his hands to watch old sermons now that his bad show has been canceled), Peggy Noonan, et.al......

Rev. Wright is an angry black man, and, well, you know what angry black men do to white women....don't you? Since Obama goes to Wright's church, we will hold him accountable for all the sermons that Rev. Wright has ever pronounced despite the fact that none of these words are Obama's. The Republicans are scared to death of Obama precisely because he slips out of the neat socio-cultural categories constructed to explain America, but which we all know are not true. Thus holding Obama thusly accountable, we shall scare white women using stereotypically hateful , racist, and misogynistic linguitic images of white women being raped by angry black men in the same way that the secretly angry black Obama will rape the United States of America.

 Completely racist, sexist, etc and the media has been getting away with it for over a week now.

I find it particularly offensive given that MSNBC is jumping on the bandwagon via Carlso and Noonan without challenge and MSNBC doesn't even have a black anchor...nil, nowhere, none. Even after the feigned on-air agony following the Don Imus dust-up...absolutely horrible, and the public ought to hold MSNBC to account....BIG TIME.

by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 2:54:30 PM

  (0+)

well, here's one white woman who isn't afraid of Obama as an angry black man, since, um, well, he's not a black man.  He's a mulatto.  He might be an "angry mulatto," but he's not an angry black man.  If the blacks can call him a black man, when he's half black/half white, I think I'll call him a white man. Same thing right?  Didn't MLK dream of a day that color of skin wouldn't matter, but that content of character would matter?  Man, I'm still praying for that day to get here, too, Dr. King.

I'm curious why the "black community" loves this guy, when any other time they'd label an articulate, intelligent, successful black guy an "uncle Tom."  What's up this time?  Just 'cause he's a Democrat, and he'd have to be a Republican to be an Uncle Tom? ...and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm serious -- can someone  clue me in on why this guy gets a free pass for being half-black and very intelligent? 

...and can I just use this conversation to say that I hate the term "african-american" the way it's used nowadays, especially for a mulatto for goodness' sakes.  Obama is no more of an African-American than I am a German-American (he was born in Hawaii, I was born in NY).   I personally know one true African-American -- he was born and raised in Africa, and legally immigrated to America.  Oh, yeah, he's also white.  A real "african-american," and he's white!  go figure!  :-)

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:19:36 PM

  (0+)

If you are saying that race is simply gene expression, then you are correct. Race is a fallacy

 I find the "mullatto" and Uncle Tom references a bit offensive.

 Are you suggesting that we go back to the octaroon laws that placed a person of color in a higher status than a dark person on  the basis that they were 7/8ths white and 1/8th black? That is what it sounds like.

 The fallacy of race DID effect millions of lives . The Civil Rights Act did not apply until to 60s.  People were refused the right to vote.  They could not send their children to white state run schools. They had to eat at seperate lunch counters and drink from separate drnking fountains.  I don't remember any anyone getting special dispensation from segregaton if they were "mullatto".

siriusss

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:22:52 PM

  (0+)

No, to me, race does not matter at all, and it shouldn't matter to anyone.  That was my point.  (The term mulatto shouldn't be offensive, it's what it is: multi-ethnic.  There we go again, being offended by someone's words (you being offended that I said mulatto.)).

So why is everyone eager to call Obama "the first black candidate?"  When he's the first mulatto candidate....  

Race shouldn't matter; unfortunately, to those on the left, it does matter.  They love to announce "the black candidate."  ...and he's not a "black candidate."  

Just as I also pointed out he's no more of an African-American (born in Hawaii) than I'm a German-American (born in NY).

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 8:31:35 AM

  (0+)

But ths whole race thing is ridiculous.

I just heard that there is a racial divide because blacks are voting for him! What?

I like Wright. I like you. I like the differient viewrpoints.

Maybe we can italk again after Obama speaks today

siriusss

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:08:23 AM

  (0+)

Please quit kidding yourself. You are a racist. The comments made by Rev. Wright have nothing to do with race.  He spoke of truths that all American people need to come to terms with and start making amends for.  He was not spewing hate.  He was saying WAKE UP! Open your eyes and see what our country has really been about. I only hope Barack agrees with him.  I also hope he never admits it. How you all spun this into a black, white, mulatto, african-american issue only confirms your racism.  Listen to the man's words.

by Mark_T (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:05:53 PM

  (0+)

...and sirrius, i'm still curious why you asked "what ever happened to free speech," and "whatever happened to free association," when no one has been denied neither.  The conversations get out of hand because of such exaggerations -- like you said, let's just stick to the issue.  And no one was denied any such freedoms, so don't whip it up as if they were....

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:30:39 PM

  (0+)

Ok, you Obama supporters---give me a break! I don't care what Jeremiah Wright said--he has the right to say what he wants. And, as Barack says "words are as important as deeds". I do care that Barrack Obama condones what he says by attending that church for the past 20 years, naming his book after a sermon Wright preached, and putting him on his campaign as its spiritual advisor. This is a church who gave Louis Farrahkan a "lifetime of achievement" award, for heaven sakes. If Obama can't take this, just think what the Repugs are going to do to him!

I think this should make every voter in the upcoming primaries re-think any support for Barack Obama.  I am sure there are many already experiencing buyer's remoarse.  They should have looked underneath the beautiful brown crust because there was no filling in that pie in the sky.  

by Merylr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:31:10 PM

  (0+)

Yes, we should take another look at Obama; and, the more I look the more I like (especially compared to the alternatives: more of the same...McCain and Clinton).

And Merylr ....really, you are so shamefully ignorant of your own American history....at least you could pretend like you are trying to understand, but instead you profess only more ignorance....

by Constance Lavender (90 articles, 0 quicklinks, 86 diaries, 217 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 6:01:00 PM

  (0+)

I don't think people in the media and many people at large understand our government and history

 Nothing in our body of law give a consequence to free speech but people have paid dearly for speaking.

I was glad to see Obama move away from race. Race should never be an issue.

siriusss 

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 6:33:54 PM

  (0+)

What the Reverand said was totally right as far as I am concerned! I think Jeremiah Wright would make a great vice president!!! Get over it! The times they are a changin AGAIN, and there ain*t nothin you can do, my dear sir! What is going to happen in AmeriKa in the coming years is going  to make the SIXTIES look like a tea party for nuns! *The times they are a changin again!  Let the Second AmeriKan Civil War begin!!!* (Lyrics by Jayne County)

by Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:04:33 PM

  (0+)

NOTHING! That is just it. I find it encouraging that Obama is open to new ideas and alternate thinking. You are a sane intelligent person open to unique points of view.

This falls under freedom of speech. This is protected under our constitution and Bill of Rights.

What IS scary is all the fear mongering exhibited by the largely white media.

This morning before Obama's talk I am watching MSNBC up to the minute. The 2 "white" talking heads are being reassured by a "black" talking head. The frightened "white" woman reaches out to the "black" commentator. He comforts her and  says

"don't worry he will unite us or step down." And then she says "Obama what do American's WANT or NEEEEED him to say?"  Well it beats me. I can't figure out what Obama can say  becasue this is an irrational discussion.

Or this one "Can he go on beyond race and gender?"

AAAAAHHHH!

This is ridiculous! Further it is racism pure and simple.The issue of black and white should simply be a matter of gnene expression and nothing else.

Obama cannot go beyond race and gender if the media plays on white American fears that a black man might be the most powerful man in the world.

Who is making the racial divide? Not Obama. He is trying to downplay it.

I wonder what is coming next. Will we hear " A vote for Obama means they will be moving in next door and there goes the neighborhood."?

This is horrendous!

siriusss

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:00:56 AM

  (0+)

Sirriuss, I think you might be a bit to the left of center, but I think we might be on the same page when it comes to a few "civil libertarian" positions.

You're right -- it's the media who is constantly pointing out "the black candidate," or the "female candidate."  WHO FREAKING CARES what color anyone's skin is, or what they have down there between their thighs?!  I think a big reason racism and sexism exist to the extent that they do is because the media is always whipping it up.  If they'd drop it, it wouldn't be an issue to most of us.  Race and gender should not matter.  Ideas, philosophies -- that is what matters.  I think Obama is probably a nice guy -- he seems like a decent guy, a good husband and father, and he's said he loves the Lord, and he doesn't have 20+ years of lies and corruption on his resume as does the other Democratic candidate.  And I'm loving it that he's giving Mrs. Clinton such a run for her money -- she figured this would be a coronation, not an election, that she "deserved" this nomination and would have it handed to her, in my humble opinion.  Nice guy that he might be, I won't vote for Obama though, 'cause I don't agree with quite a few of his positions.  And "change" for the sake of "change" is insane -- Hitler brought "change," didn't he?  NO, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler, so please, no one get your panties in a bunch.  I'm saying that change is not always good just 'cause it's change!  

by shielah jones (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:17:49 AM

  (0+)

I think it will be a very sad thing for the United States if any significant number of Americans view Obama as a "lynched" victim. He is a millionaire. What did he mean when he said, at his announcement speech in Springfield, IL in February, 2007, that he will "hunt down the terroists?" What did he mean when he told Time magazine in 2003, that his views on the war are essentially the same as those of George Bush? Why does he oppose the impeachment of George Bush and Dick Cheney? What is his view of 9-11, of the Winter Soldier hearings, of Guantanamo? The media's careful orchestrating of the presidential debates winnowed out the very strong peace candidates. Before Barack Obama is canonized, we need to know if his "Change" call really means anything.

by MyTwoCents (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 36 comments) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:48:06 AM

  (0+)

the peace candidtares are gone. The real change people have dropped out or are being marginalized.

We cannot even get to these issues because they are being obscured by a media circus fueled by racial fears.

What is more frightening to me is the attempts  to criminalize Wright's speech. Wright symbolizes the muzzle placed on any alternative debates such as 911, Kennedy assassination, Israel, Holocaust, income tax etc. Ron Paul's entire candidacy s being stone walled by the MSM because he addresses these issues.

In  this case the diatribes by the media were rife with white america vs. black america. I did not see that Wright called any of these issues white vs. black.  The white vs black came from the media.

I even heard one pundit, I think it was Rivera, say that Wright brought up govrnment involvement in  the AIDS epidemic, likening it to other conspiracy theories such as the Tuskeegee sphyllis trials.  That was no theory and it was whispered about for years before it was acknowledged

I was disapointed that Obama did not  point out that alternate opinions are protected under the Bill of Rights.

 So lets get on with the issues

siriusss 

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:18:01 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for taking up for Barak. He has been a member of that church for 20 years, but he would be considered a new follower of Jesus. As a member of a congregation, it is not his duty to discpline the pastor. That should be done by the elders or the deacons, ... or the board members of that congregation.

This is the only church Barak has been in. Please search for my most recent comment submissions on this matter. I have been raised in an entire generation of Christians and Christian preachers.

When I was a member of the board of my church, I was asked to confront and discuss some things with our, new, young, graduate of Yale Seminary, who couldn't write a decent sentence, on his activities. He cried and cried and cried, but failed to take my advice. He was so strong willed that he wanted to split the church over "his" church.

It was the board's decision to allow him to finish of his three years and ask him to leave, with a good letter of recommendation.

Our present preacher, my wife and I are not too happy with. I cannot attend church any more because I have a sleeping disorder. My wife attends, infrequently. Our two daughter and two sons learned to read music and play the bells in that church. They are all gone now, but the girls continue to play the bells in Bell Choirs.

If Rev. Wright is the man he should be, he should go on both ABC and FOX and apologize for his comments, under God and the world! 

by Dale Hill (59 articles, 0 quicklinks, 107 diaries, 350 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:10:01 PM

  (0+)

It has been a long time since I was in a church or synagogue.

As a child my parents were of different religions. During the 50's we were taken to a Unitarian Fellowship. The history of this church was that it was built in the 1830s to fascillitate the movement of slaves through the underground railway. At the time my family and I attended  time the fellowship consisted of soley of families blacklisted as communists. They were trying to stay alive financilally by pooling resources. Most of them were fiery atheists

In the early 60's the civil rights lead my parents to a passionate Lutheran minister. He brought to my entirely white community, the music of the black churches. He invited the black Muslims to speak from the pulpit and asked that our auxileries stand by with water when they marched.

Needless to say his contract was not renewed and he was quietly bought out from the remaining time of the contract.

That is a good idea that Wright should apologize to take the heat off Obama. There is in my mind no reason that he has to. He has done nothing wrong. but if he has offended than he may want to. I wonder if he or the congregaton havde thought of it. Wright may fear that he may embarrass Obama further if he opens his mouth.

Thanks for the site. I will look it up

Good luck fin your hunt for a church community. 

And thanks for the memories. >:)

siriusss

by siriusss (6 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 111 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:58:45 PM

  (0+)