Well we have all heard it.The Reverend Jeremiah Wright "God Damned" the US of A. He called it the US of KKK. Wow! he even said the attacks on 911 were the result of failed US foreign policy. Imagine that!
Let me tell you something. NOTHING Jeremiah Wright said terrorized or shocked me. In fact many of he things he said I have also said, though not from the pulpit and not in front of a camera. You see I agree with Thomas Jefferson in his second inaugeral address that " a government that can not stand up under criticism deserves to fall"
But what occurred in the media feeding frenzy after his comments went public, DID frighten me. You see, I was under the impression that the Reverend's speech was protected under the First Amendment Freedom
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I guess the talking heads can claim that they are not Congress and therefore this really does not apply to them. But what is it they are trying to infer that Reverend Wright has done?
Has Wright broken any laws? Has he incited his congregation to riot and mayhem? Is it illegal for him to speak these things or, god forbid, think them?
Doesn't anyone read James Madison anymore?
<<'The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. >>
-Annals of Congress 1789
BTW The Constitution bestows no special privileges to the press to deny others of their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech guaranteed to the press is the same freedom of speech guaranteed to the individual.
If the media does not understand the laws pertaining to freedom of speech of the individual, how can we trust them to understand the laws pertaining to freedom of the press? Is this why the press has been so woefully negligent in their responsibility to tell us truth even if it is inconvenient to our present leaders? Have they allowed so much censorship to their own stories that they now take it upon themselves to censor others?
And what about Barack Obama listening to Reverend Wright? Is the media suggesting that Barack Obama has no right of free association?Are they saying he was there to plot the overthrow of the government? Is the news media implying that Wright was inciting his congregation to break the law? Are they implying that Obama came to that meeting to conspire to commit a crime?
Or was Barack Obama in that church as a part of a peaceful and lawful gathering of citizens?Was he there because he liked that church and those people who went there? Is his right to peacefully congregate and speak freely protected by the US Constitution? Does the press know this?
There is also no evidence that Barack Obama agreed with everything Jeremiah Wright said! The media is saying that simply because Wright said something inflammatory and Obama might have been there, Obama is guilty by association of something though I am not sure what. That is as repugnant to me as the HUAC hearings and the Salem witch hunts.
To be honest with you, except for the lack of sheets I would say the mostly white news media is lynching that uppity boy.
Is Barak Obama the new Emmet Till? Till was a Chicago teen murdered by Mississippi vigilanties for speaking to a white woman. By strange coincidence Till went to stay and his uncle Moses Wright's house.
I am recently widowed. I am a writer, actress/director. I am addicted to Irish dance and belly dance. In practicing the latter I have been likened to Ethel Mertz dressed in Xmas tree lights.
My passion is Human rights especially in the US and China where I inadvertantly became the " Jesus is back and she is a woman" prophetess. That is me. It is a long story and not without a certain dark humour.
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, 198 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 12:58:10 PM
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, March 17, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM
The media (particularly FOX and ABC) are saying...
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. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 1:19:16 PM
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 (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 1:48:11 PM
What exactly is so extreme about Rev. Wright's comments?
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 (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 157 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:43:20 PM
whatever happened to consequences of free speech?!
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:36:32 PM
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. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 3:16:58 PM
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 4:59:53 PM
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. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 820 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:15:55 PM
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 8:21:27 AM
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 (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 3:21:58 PM
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 5:04:29 PM
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 (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 6:00:30 PM
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 8:27:11 AM
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, 191 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 4:43:55 PM
I do not care whether you are liberal or conservative
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 (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 5:17:07 PM
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 (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 226 diaries, 3212 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:37:50 PM
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 (44 articles, 0 quicklinks, 72 diaries, 157 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:54:30 PM
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 5:19:36 PM
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 (4 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 72 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 6:22:52 PM
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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 8:31:35 AM
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, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 2:05:53 PM
...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 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 5:30:39 PM
