Barack Obama’s Racial Juggling Act
His associates in Chicago, his carefully chosen bromides, and even the background he has decided to embrace explain much about Senator Obama's quest for power.
In a world where genetics and not culture matter, Barack Obama was “half black.” In the real world, however, he is a white kid who called himself “Barry,” attended private school in the paradise of Hawaii, and went home each night to a mother and grandmother from the plains of Kansas. The influence of Barry’s black (African) father was negligible at best, providing him with little more than the name that the child quickly rejected in favor of the more Anglo moniker he used every day of his young life.
Here’s a brief description — from Obama’s own website — of the people who didn’t abandon him when he was a toddler but, instead, changed his diapers, did his homework with him, and nurtured Barry into adulthood:
Barack’s mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton’s army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii.
But somewhere along the way Barry, always an ambitious lad, came to realize that there was more to be gained by being black — by going from “Barry” to “Barack” not only in name but in agenda.
The “black” Barack would get what the white Barry couldn’t: a sense of uniqueness, the benefits of affirmative action, the embrace of the “multiculturalists” in academia, and later the path to personal power and riches he sought in the overwhelmingly black wards of Chicago.
But simply calling himself “Barack” would not be enough to win him admittance to and support from the leftists in the universities where he first taught and then amongst the power brokers in the political movements whom he’d need to underwrite his thirst for power. To win their trust, allegiance, and support, Barack needed to do more than call himself “black” — after all, people like Condoleezza Rice and Bill Cosby call themselves black — he’d have to prove he was “authentically” black (i.e., held radical leftist positions).
Barry, always quick on the uptake, realized there could be no better way to prove his “true” identity as a black man than by joining the Afrocentric, anti-white, anti-Jewish church of Jeremiah Wright. In fact, he would, as always, go one step further; he’d become Wright’s protege. Similarly, Barry knew there was no better way to prove his leftist credentials to the folks in academia than to sidle up to terrorists — both foreign and domestic.
Soon he would become friends and colleagues with William Ayers — whose group had murdered Americans in the 1960s and, as recently as just a few years ago, in the wake on 9/11, proclaimed that the only regret he had is that it didn’t succeed in murdering more of his fellow citizens. And, just in case his resume wasn’t strong enough, he’d cozy up to Edward Said, the Islamist/Arab apologist who sought to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth.
It’s not that Barry necessarily believed in any of these causes — it’s hard to know if Barry believes in anything other than Barry — it’s that these are the kinds of things you did if you wanted money, power, and fame. And Barry wanted money, power, and fame.
Whatever doubts Barry — now insisting on only being called by his father’s African name, “Barack” — may have had about kicking in with hate-mongers, racists, and terrorists were quickly assuaged as the benefits began to roll in. In what seemed like no time Barry was teaching law, and then they made him a state senator and then a U.S. senator! His wife was given a cushy job at the university and the couple’s income rose to nearly half-a-million a year while they slept comfortably each night in a mansion purchased only with the “help” of Chicago mobster Tony Rezko.
And Barry’s friends, colleagues, and co-conspirators invested wisely. The young, handsome, articulate “black” man was good to his mentor at the church of hate, making sure to “kick back” a taste — nearly twenty-thousand dollars (virtually every penny the “caring” Obamas gave to charity) in 2007 alone. The university’s kindness to Ms. Obama was repaid by her husband’s advancing their radical agenda first in the state legislature and then in the United States Congress, where Barry would soon become the single most leftist of all U.S. senators. The terrorists, who would hold fundraisers for Barack, would be repaid by Barry in droves, with him not only supporting their agenda as a legislator, but using his first major national exposure — the nationally televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention — to spread the canard of an evil and bigoted America picking on the innocent Muslims, a standard tactic of the terrorists to dissuade legitimate investigation into their plots.
Yes, Barry’s arrangements were working out well for all.
But Barry got too big for his britches. His ambition soon exceeded his handlers’ needs. Barry wouldn’t be happy with the half-million dollars a year that he and Michelle were pocketing — in fact, Michelle would publicly complain about the struggles of getting by on such a piddling sum. It wouldn’t do for the Obamas to live in that crowded little mansion the mobster helped them secure; Barry and Michelle wanted to live in the White House. It simply would not be sufficient for Barry to share power with 99 other senators; he wanted all the power for himself and he wanted it now!
And thus, despite the fact that he had finished less than one-third of his first term as a junior senator from Illinois, Barry quickly announced that he planned to become president!
But soon Barry realized he had a problem. A big one. For the first time since he was a child, getting his way meant he had to connect not with the powers in the God Damn America community of the left, but the God Bless America community of the rest of America. But how could he win over mainstream America while not raising the ire of the people to whom he owed everything and who hated everything about America? How could he attract the folks without angering the people who not only made him but, as Barry would soon learn, could also break him?
But Barry, as always, had a plan. He would run as the Seinfeld candidate — the candidate about nothing. He’d use meaningless bromides that would soothe the one side but not offend the other. His speeches would be packed with empty words like “hope” and “change,” knowing that what each side hoped for and the change they envisioned would be diametrically opposed, but neither side would know which one he meant.
At first Barry’s cohorts on the left were displeased. He wasn’t shoving their message down America’s throats the way his predecessors — Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson — had. The old racist questions began to be thrown out about Barry. The leftists publicly challenged him, demanding to know if he was “black enough.”
But as Barry’s maneuvering began to see him succeed where Sharpton and Jackson had failed, Barry’s handlers saw the genius of his ways. Besides, while Barry wasn’t doing the things they wanted him to do — attacking America and Americans — they saw that he was using his surrogates, most obviously his closest and most intimate adviser, Michelle Obama, to do it for him. Yes, Barry was all smiles. Michelle was paying the angry black woman, advancing the hate-America-always crowd’s agenda by portraying America as “mean,” with a damaged “soul,” and with absolutely nothing (except Barry) to be proud of. No, it wasn’t what they had expected, but now so close to having their man in the White House, the preacher of hate and the terrorists would, in the words of Jeremiah Wright, allow Barry “to do what politicians do.”
And for more than a year Barry’s strategy paid off. Anyone who questioned him on his affiliation with his hate-mongering mentor or his work with terrorists or his affiliation with mobsters would be dismissed as “engaging in the politics of old” or “distracting us from the real issues,” with the legitimate questions going unanswered.
On those rare occasions when a question of substance could not be dodged, Barry would use his lawyerly skills of obfuscation and equivocation to, for example, “reject” the words of Louis Farrakhan while, with a wink and a nod to his cohorts, letting them know that he still highly respected the “minister.” And the left let Barry do what politicians do.
And then the roof caved in.
Videotapes of Barry’s hateful mentor began to surface through media sources his leftist allies couldn’t control. Fox News — especially Sean Hannity — was on the story and then talk radio and the blogosphere. When the first of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons of hate was posted on YouTube and people could see for themselves what the old media had been covering up, there was rightful outrage. Barry’s numbers began to plummet. He started to lose vital primaries. His whole act was falling apart. Barry knew he had to do something, for not even Chris Matthews — he of the tingling thighs — could help him now.
So Barry, the “post-racial candidate,” whatever that means, suddenly become the racial candidate — the guru of race, in fact — who would lecture the rest of America about all racial truths.
Barry, of course, knew from the start that this would have to be his greatest dance yet. The whole dynamics of his game would have to change. Now, instead of satisfying everyone by saying nothing, he’d have to hop back and forth from foot to foot, trying to soothe the rightful fears of the God Bless America crowd on the one hand and then cleverly signal to his people that he was really still on their side and that he hadn’t gone “white” on them. And, truth be told, Obama did as good a job as he could have possibly done. He’d be Barry one moment and Barack the next; he’d throw one side a bone and instantly snatch it back only to throw it the other way; he’d call the clearly hateful remarks of his mentor “racist” but then explain how it was really the white man’s fault that the man was that way. Yes, he’d give his handlers a little tap, but, to make up for it, he’d throw his own white grandmother under the bus.
It was a masterful performance. But it failed. It failed for the same reason that John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, et al. constantly failed: it was exquisitely full of nuance about things that aren’t all that complicated. With regard to the hate speeches of Jeremiah Wright, there can be no “on the one hand this and on the other hand that.” Either he agreed with his mentor of twenty years or he didn’t. Either the white man invented AIDS to murder people of color or they didn’t. Either innocent Americans deserved to be burned alive by the thousands on 9/11 or they didn’t. Barry’s game-playing served only to expose him as a cheap politician at best or someone in agreement with a hateful, anti-American, anti-white, antisemitic preacher.
But this wasn’t the worst of it for Barry, for his attempts at equivocation didn’t sit well with the God Damn America crowd either.
It was one thing for Barry to fail to play the angry black man for them and say nothing, but now he was saying things, things like comparing his benefactor, his mentor, the man who made Barry everything he is today, to a “crazy uncle” and, worse still, comparing him to some lily-white cracker woman from Kansas! It was time to do to Barry what Barry had done to his mother and grandmother: it was time to throw Barry under the bus!
Evan Sayet has rapidly become one of the most in-demand speakers in the country. His talk to the Heritage Foundation last year has become a phenomenon, with close to half-a-million viewers. It can be seen (and Evan can be reached) via his website at www.evansayet.com. The book Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals ‘Think’ — based on that talk — will be available soon.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
81 Comments
1. Peter Gee:Hmm, interesting enough but “Barack” not an African name as the author states, it’s a Muslim one, and he did not get it from his father as a tribal name but as a Muslim one. “Barack”, and I am surprised the media have not picked up on this, is of course a Luo ( his father’s tribe) shorthand version of the Arabic name Mubarak (blessed).
In fact “Barry” shares a name with the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak.
People are always stressing the “Hussein” of Obama’s name, forgetting the “Mubarak”
May 8, 2008 - 1:36 am 2. Kim Zigfeld:Though Obama claims to be interested in unifying the races, in fact he’s dividing them and trading on that division to become president.
He won North Carolina, for instance, because he grabbed the black vote by 13 to 1 over Clinton while losing the white vote nearly 2 to 1, with a huge uptick in black turnout — and that’s in his own party. In a national election the racial divide could be even more pronounced.
http://publiuspundit.com/2008/05/democratic_doings_in_north_car.php
May 8, 2008 - 2:48 am 3. sbourg:Evan: positively brilliant. Thank you. I don’t know, though, why you think that leftists agree that “Jews need to go”. I am certainly no expert on leftist thought, but this seems to be some crazy fringe tied to Islamic beliefs, and perhaps some nutcases like Jimmy Carter, but not very uniform among the left………fortunately. But, overall, your analysis is terrific……….especially calling him the “Seinfeld candidate”. That’s absolutely perfect. -SBourg, Maryland
May 8, 2008 - 4:04 am 4. Perry Birman:Barry can count on the “racial divide” to drive 90% of the black vote his way in the general election. But blacks vote 90% Democrat anyways, so there’s no real gain there.
But have you thought about the blowback?
What about the rejection of the black racist subtext of Barry’s candidacy from whites, hispanics, conservative Democrats, Republicans, Jews, etc.?
In other words, everybody else except Muslims.
Barry becoming the Democratic nominee is now assured; so too is his resounding defeat in November.
May 8, 2008 - 4:26 am 5. Concerned Citizen:Obama is the first affirmative action presidential nominee. Elevated far in advance of his experience and demonstrated abilities because of his race.
May 8, 2008 - 5:40 am 6. Marsouin:This guy is an unhinged megalomaniac - the Elmer Gantry for socialists. It’s mind-boggling that such an individual with no substantial experience can rise to the top of a major US political party.
May 8, 2008 - 6:07 am 7. Bill Hayden:It does put Barack into context, and it seems to fit what I have seen so far. However, the man is by far the best communicator and salesman in the race. I have long ago given up believing that the truth ultimately convinces people to do the right thing, and I still think over half of Americans will vote for this guy because they believe what they want to believe, and hear what they want to hear. I’m sad to say, I think the Democrats have succeeded in the politics of divide and conquer, and the bottom line is that the white liberals care more about getting their fair share of government regulations and taxes to feather their own nest than they do even about national security. The unions, academia, the lawyers, the big corporate welfare benefactors, the farm welfare benefactors, the social welfare benefactors, and yes… even much of the private business community like the many contractors who have come to rely on bloated transportation budgets for permanent job security with their road contracts (just as one example of how government spending pays their livelihood). The “red state” Americans who believe in less government, individual freedom and responsibility, I believe are now far outnumbered by the brainwashed masses of liberals that we have allowed the public school system and government funded leftist universities to create… as Aynn Rand predicted in her writing, this next election will give us in the results. A socialist President with a socialist congress. God save America, I hope I am wrong.
May 8, 2008 - 6:19 am 8. Insufficiently Sensitive:Both of the Democratic primary candidates are innocent of any real executive experience, and both are the products of, and enjoy the temporary spoils of, the twisted system of identity politics. Oh, one got her undeserved Senate seat through good old-fashioned celebrity-worship after basking without accomplishments for eight years of her old man’s Presidency, but that’s a side issue.
Whoever noticed that identity politics would Balkanize the USA, thirty or so years ago (and was shouted down for her audacity of describing what she noticed) was right on and should be thanked.
Thanks to the unanimous MSM cheerleaders for the grievance generation, the public is not well informed of how pernicious this race-gender spoils system is to the wellbeing of the nation at large. It’s not unthinkable that one or the other of these identity-brats might end up being President, with all the resulting disasters in foreign policy, and judicial appointments, and the shovelling of funds into the Angry Studies departments of universities to corrupt future generations away from the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
May 8, 2008 - 6:44 am 9. David Thomson:“A socialist President with a socialist congress. God save America, I hope I am wrong.”
I fear that you are right. The country may be doomed. This election is most likely the last chance to save the United States. John McCain is far from being a perfect candidate. He was not my first choice. Still, he is the only man standing between us and Armageddon.
May 8, 2008 - 6:48 am 10. Philip:He is hawaiian not black.
May 8, 2008 - 7:49 am 11. BMoon:Evan,
May 8, 2008 - 8:34 am 12. Ciscokid:You very accurately capture the essence of Barry-Barack and his Child Crusade for ruler of the universe. But with at least half the population living daily off peurile fantasies - from American Idol zombies to half-stoned students sitting in leftist lecture halls byday and video games at night- you have a dangerously large percentage of the population who are simply tired, not so much of the difficult geopoloitical realities of today, but of reality itself. That horde’s abject rejection of reality, and their realization of their utopian-driven political dream in the personna of this conniving megalomaniac, will result in a nightmare for us all.
I’m not Jewish but surprised on the majority of Jews who still support Obama. I can’t believe it. Only dogs ( no, I’m not calling Jews dogs & have tremendous respect for the religion the people & I support Israel ) are this loyal. Obama’s advisors & “former” pastor are clearly anti-Jew & anti- Israel. I would’ve thought Obama’s now “former” spiritual mentor Rev Wright, presenting an award to Louis Farrakhan as “man of the year”, would’ve been plenty enough for Jews to turn on Obama and bite him in the voting booth. Compassion & loyalty are admirable qualities but “misguided” excuses at best to automatically vote & support just any democrat. Evan Sayet is completely correct on his assessment of Barry Obama.
May 8, 2008 - 8:48 am 13. Buddy Saleeby:Peter Gee is a complete fraud. He/she says all those atricious things about Obama on every available online forum. Shame to him and let’s get moderate here. Obama asks us to do at least that much.
May 8, 2008 - 8:55 am 14. Buddy Saleeby:This freaking forum is a disaster for humanity.
May 8, 2008 - 8:58 am 15. Buddy Saleeby:Pajamas what? How about NO pajamas?
May 8, 2008 - 9:01 am 16. Buddy Saleeby:Screw this freaking site, the more I read the more I puke.
May 8, 2008 - 9:06 am 17. Buddy Saleeby:Who the hell are you people anyway???????
Of course you’ll zap me.
May 8, 2008 - 9:09 am 18. Buddy Saleeby:No big deal.
I’ll go back to themoderatevoice.com
Good people: I implore you if you are sane:
could Evan Sayet be more of a raving idiot, even if he tried?
Does anyone here wish to grow up???
May 8, 2008 - 9:20 am 19. Evan Sayet:A great deal of the confusion as to why Jews continue to vote for the leftist party comes from the fact that what defines someone as a Jew is different than for any other religion. To be a Christian you have to believe something — you have to believe Jesus Christ is your lord and savior. To be called a “Muslim” you have to believe something — you have to believe that the Koran is the final testament of God and Muhammad his perfect messenger. To be identified as a Jew one need not believe anything — one can even be an antisemite. All one has to do to be called a Jew is to fall out of a Jewish womb.
People who have Jewish values do not vote Democrat.
May 8, 2008 - 9:22 am 20. BMoon:Uh oh. Editors….a troll seems to have slipped through the cracks.
May 8, 2008 - 9:32 am 21. Buddy Saleeby:Dear Rational “BMoon”:
We MUST
Make sure, of course that
we’re all of the same color
and religion.
And have been brainwashed similarly.
No mixing allowed!!!
We should have nothing less.
Troll… Through the cracks?…
Are you perhaps paranoid?
Incapable of independent thought?
Sorry for interrupting your party, good people.
Ecch!
May 8, 2008 - 9:48 am 22. BMoon:Buddy,
May 8, 2008 - 10:09 am 23. momzen:Are you sure you are not a satire the typical Obamazombie?
To Ciscokid:
I am Jewish. I know the majority of Jews votes Democrats, but voting for Obama is like voting for Hamas and the destruction of Israel (as the State and the People). It makes me anxious. I hope that this time the Jews will have the common sense to vote for their true friend McCain and not for the disciple of an anti-Semite like Rev. Wright.
May 8, 2008 - 10:49 am 24. Buddy Saleeby:I suspect that Obama’s main adviser David Axelrod is Jew of Russian origin with an old socialist tradition. There are Jewish anti-Semites like Avram Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and many others, but these are pathological cases. But isn’t pathological that the white Christians vote for a sympathizer of Islamofascist and communist regimes like Obama, admirer of the priest, God knows of what cannibal demon, that preaches that all the evils come from America and therefore this country must be destroyed?
Jew Jew Jew Jew JewJew
May 8, 2008 - 10:56 am 25. Buddy Saleeby:Hamas Hamas Hamas Hamas Hamas
God, that sher feels good gittin that off my chest.
Could Momzen come off crazier than he seems, even as a stunt????
That’s all I’d like to know in this God-forsaken WebSpace.
What are the demograhics of this forum anyway?
Someone, please?
May 8, 2008 - 11:01 am 26. Evan Sayet:Buddy,
You have now posted three times and said absolutely nothing. Compare and contrast my article (and subsequent comments) in which I lay out fact after fact (Obama’s upbringing, his membership in a hate-church, his affiliation with domestic terrorists, his half-million dollar a year family income, the purchase of his home only with the help of mobsters, etc.
Now let’s revisit your latest post: Jew Jew Jew Jew JewJew
Hamas Hamas Hamas Hamas Hamas
God, that sher feels good gittin that off my chest.
It’s the difference between those who vote Republican and those who mindlessly vote leftist.
May 8, 2008 - 11:01 am 27. Buddy Saleeby:If you were a poet, instead of a rascal,
you’d know that all I’ve tried to do
is to say something real.
(At least to me.)
I don’t wish to prevent you from
voting Republican unto the grave.
As long as you can respect me as well.
May 8, 2008 - 11:11 am 28. Buddy Saleeby:Dear Momzen
You’ve dismissed Axelrod, Chomsky, and Finkelstein, saying:
“but these are pathological cases” ?????
Who gives you the right to determine what’s orthodox and acceptable and what’s “pathological.”
If you’ve got the bible on truth,I’d like to get a copy.
May 8, 2008 - 11:27 am 29. Random Observation:BS:
You come to a forum where people are voicing opinions which obviously don’t resonate with you, but at least they appear sincere. And your reaction is to rant repeatedly like a lunatic.
“As long as you can respect me as well.”
Respect you? Most people would cross the street to avoid you if they caught your act in person.
If you have an opposing opinion, voice it coherently. All are welcome here.
May 8, 2008 - 11:40 am 30. BMoon:Buddy,
May 8, 2008 - 11:41 am 31. Ciscokid:So far you have posted 11 times while saying absolutely nothing, except a few witless, half-digested ad hominem diatribes. I am sure in your High School they did not teach you analytical thinking, logic, or forensic discourse, but can you please try to say something? Anything?
Thanks Evan, for helping me understand a little better as to my earlier comment. Not fair but such is life hey? I grew up in Chicago on the nort (north) side in a Jewish neighborhood. I’m a Christian who was allowed by my parents(republicans in Chicago - so I know what it feels like some what to be a minority) to attend synagogue services with my friends. Jewish people always welcomed me into their homes, fed me (great food) & never once treated me different. Oh, I was set straight a few times, but nothing (never sit on the good furniture, even if it has plastic covers on it) I didn’t deserve. I know what you mean of personally, when you say of the “real” Jewish values though. Please keep up your good works speaking, writing & giving common sense factual rebuttals to what now seems to be, America’s decline from the backbone on which our great country was founded. “TOLERANT”, Judeo-Christian culture & values. As to Barry, I can’t wait until they come out with the general election campaign buttons. My simple choice would be – “who do you trust”? Elect McCain 08.
May 8, 2008 - 11:42 am 32. Buddy Saleeby:Mr. Random Observation:
Do you read your copy before clicking on the “submit” button?
You Quote me as simply saying:
“As long as you can respect me as well.”
And your only rejoinder is
“Respect you? Most people would cross the street to avoid you if they caught your act in person.”
OK. That’s clear enough. Thanks for your basic decency.
May 8, 2008 - 11:51 am 33. Buddy Saleeby:I understand that I have become a pariah around here.
May 8, 2008 - 12:01 pm 34. Ciscokid:But no one has answered my query
about the demographics
of “Pajamas”
You do seem like an awfully homogenous cluster of humanity.
Does anyone know?
Is it some kind of deep secret like Skulls and Bones?
One last thing Sayet. If I were standing next to you in a crowded room, I might have to move away. You sure do bring out the leftist nut job’s (Buddy Saleeby’s) from the woodwork. God bless you my man!!
May 8, 2008 - 12:14 pm 35. Buddy Saleeby:Is it a reflex action
for a member of the Republican party
to conjoin the terms “leftist” and “nut-job”
as if they were the same thing?
If so, why is that?
Have we nothing whatsoever to offer, by way of policies or vision?
And if we are to be despised, and rejected,
May 8, 2008 - 12:37 pm 36. Believer:are you able to make it on your own?
For the good of the country: I’m just asking…
This should get the widest circulation possible. Beautifully done.
Obama could usher in the death throes of our nation as we know it. We’ve exceeded the 200yr. average life span of a democracy. But he cannot do it alone. Our framers’ genius made us a Constitutional Republic.
We have checks and balances. It is all the more important that we elect not only a President that honors our founding principles - one who nominates Judges and Justices equally respectful - but Representatives in both Houses of Congress who will assure us continued life as the extraordinary nation we are. They should be Patriots all.
Not mentioned in this piece was the influence of the poet and Communist Party member, Frank Marshall Davis, on the young Obama. He refers to him only as “Frank” in his earlier autobiograpy. Davis arrived in Hawaii from Chicago, I believe, and was given the “heads up” about Obama’s family - becoming a family friend and one whom Obama turned to often. It would seem that Obama has been marinating in Marxist/Communist juices since childhood. This deserves further exploration.
And so he chooses to be vague. Is it because he believes in anything and nothing - only his personal ambition? Or, if he’s true to a lifetime of associations, could this be the “change” he cannot specify?
May 8, 2008 - 12:44 pm 37. Buddy Saleeby:Posters: Do you really want to be so:
Smug?
Self-centered?
Dogmatic?
Cock-sure of your every sacred pronouncement?
Conspiratorial?
Delusionary?
Cheney-esque?
Closed to anything new?
fear-mongering?
Then, good friends, you are ready to write editorials for Investors Business Daily…
May 8, 2008 - 12:59 pm 38. Promethea:Evan, I always enjoy your posts. Your blog seems to attract some really annoying trolls. Here you have a much better type of commenter (with one exception, obviously). Maybe you should post here more often.
May 8, 2008 - 1:06 pm 39. Justin:Good article. Thanks for keeping me informed. I can’t even remember what I saw in Obama. When he first came out I was optimistic about the guy because of the way he spoke and I wanted to believe we were about to have something to celebrate in the form of our first black president. I couldn’t believe anyone who spoke as he did, who radiated honesty like he did, could be anything but sincere. Then I found out about his past, his choices, what sort of people he personally identified with in his personal life and my hopes are now pretty much crushed.
I think that is why Dems are so obsessed with this guy. They have been going through a hideous episode of Bush Derangement Syndrome for the past 7 years or so and they are desperate for something to believe in. They will believe anything Obama has to say, especially because his true character behind the mask is a fair reflection of their own.
May 8, 2008 - 2:05 pm 40. BMoon:Evan,
Again, great post but try to leave the trolls back on your other blog. We are not accostumed to them here.
Buddy, I understand you are probably very, very young. Mercy on you. Hang around here. Read. Study. Learn. Think. Most of us were deluded, brainwashed lefties who had been overwhelmed by the leftist indoctrinations of our teachers and from peer pressure until reality bit, we learned to think for ourselves, and arose from the garbage dump of leftism.
May 8, 2008 - 2:07 pm 41. Roderick Reilly:Good Lord “Buddy,” could you be any more of a caricature of the “Moonbat” left while trying to paint the other posters here as ignorant clowns?
May 8, 2008 - 2:36 pm 42. Roderick Reilly:Has anyone noticed that the Obamas appear to be be fabulists?
The famous quotes lifted from Obama’s books about his grandmother’s alleged “racist” incident, and the little speech by his Grandad’s black friend about how Gramps could feel comfortable in the friend’s home, but Gramps couldn’t reciprocate, are so contrived as to be novelizations rather than real conversations.
As for Michelle’s bizarre account about meeting a 10-year-old girl supporter who supposedly burst into tears over a rather adult-sounding epiphany on how unjust America is: has anyone documented this incident? Did it actually happen, and — if so — did it go down as she described it?
The Obamas aren’t the first political couple to “fabulize,” but they appear to be even more eggregious than Bill and Hillary, or John Edwards and wife.
May 8, 2008 - 2:43 pm 43. Ruff:Evan, I think you did an excellent job and it would be difficult to deny what you said. Keep on speaking, writing, etc
I have a good friend who is a Jew - so I asked him why so many Jews are Liberal. He told me that almost every service he attends at his synagogue begins with a call to remember the poor, the less fortunate, and thus focuses on the social obligations the congregants have. Do you agree with his analysis ?
May 8, 2008 - 3:02 pm 44. USPatriot:Concerning poster Buddy Saleeby: Go back to the Daily Kos with your brethren and don’t forget to renew your membership with Moveon.org. Idiot.
May 8, 2008 - 3:05 pm 45. Lucifer:To Buddy Saleeby:
I like you very much. Your thinking has struck my endless imagination. So I warrant you the lowest place in my abysmal Kingdom.
May 8, 2008 - 3:30 pm 46. Evan Sayet:Ruff, the idea that the left cares more about the poor is ludicrous. It’s not a difference in degree of compassion, it’s a difference in our beliefs about the cause of their suffering and how best to ameliorate it.
The Modern Liberal believes that the confiscation of wealth from the successful and its redistribution to the failed is good policy. The problem is that it does nothing to actually help those who have failed not because of bad fortune (being born disabled or having lived through a tsunami). In fact, their indiscriminate policies of “helping” the failed is more than likely to INCREASE suffering by giving more power and funding to those whose behaviors bring about not only their own suffering but the suffering of others.
For example, sending massive amounts of cash to the Palestinians will do nothing to help the Palestinian people and only give more power to the terrorist leaders who impoverish the people in the first place and murder innocents in Israel.
The Republican method of increasing opportunity and targeting help to those who will actually be helped is a far superior way all around.
May 8, 2008 - 3:31 pm 47. baldilocks:I’m certainly no defender of Barack Obama’s and agree about why he latched onto Wright, etc., but millions of Americans who are half-black and half-white have called themselves black for a long time without having a political agenda. And the reality is that most of these persons have had blackness “thrust upon them” for centuries. These days some would prefer to be called mixed raced, others not.
However, you can’t make me believe that had Barack Obama arrived on the political scene and simply said that he was white *when asked* that many white people would not have raised the BS flag. (Black people would have simply pointed and laughed because he looks like one of our cousins). And then, when it was discovered that his father was a black African, that both whites and blacks would not have been screaming the word “fraud” at the top of their lungs.
One cannot have it both ways.
BTW, my father is from the same tribe as Obama’s father and I have similar parental circumstances. I call myself black also and no one turns a hair because my mom has some black ancestry, along with white and American Indian ancestry–like almost every other black American.
I mention the foregoing for those who ahistorically keep harping on this racial breakdown issue. One wonders where the line is drawn, that is, how much ancestry should one have before one is called one race or the other? The line keeps moving.
If you think that this is a stupid question and a stupid issue, then you’re getting my point.
As for the rest, carry on.
May 8, 2008 - 5:00 pm 48. George:Apparently black American Democrat voters have signed over their souls to the party of racism and just blindly vote. Don’t think they will read any article like this anyway. Its amazing how well the liberal media has brainwashed a large section of this nation into siding with a party that hates them(other then their vote of course).
May 8, 2008 - 7:05 pm 49. Justin:But why? We need to understand what drives them to vote left if we are to effectively communicate our message to them.
May 8, 2008 - 8:42 pm 50. Misanthropicus:RE #1: Buddy Saleeby - PJM, thanks for your open door policies. I had a pretty bad day today and when I came home & opened this screen - Wow! such an exciting new world! Love it, I am happy now, having some beer and studying Buddy’s pronouncements. PJM congrats - and now to Buddy: Buddy, I hope your efforts haven’t exhausted your intellect; if so relax a bit and come back, we we need you!
RE #2: Peter Gee & the Mubarack (Hussein) thing: Peter Gee, you are perfectly right and I know that you more than wonder about the “classical” media’s selective blinders in this case. Kenya, as all North/East African territories (I write “territories” because no African country is actually a country, i.e a polity where ethnic groups are welded together by ethos, tradition, culture, common interests or common enemies), has considerable cultural Muslim strains throughout its tissue - remember the scandal with Hussein’s photo in Kenya trying on a local garb? (Also nice to remember here the liberal media frantically describing that dress as African not Arabic - nope, that outfit is an Arabic/Muslim outfit, you can see it in Yemen but you can’t see it in Congo. And no matter how inclusive we are, ARABS ARE NOT AFRICANS).
RE #3: Evan Sayet’s piece: excellent, yet I’d say still a bit too friendly - Obama is a cynical operator whose ascenssion has been facilitated by accident (i.e. times, duble presidency, no incumbency, wars & international situations which, unfortunately, require more than a generation’s patience to solve, home economical problems (in very little extent caused by the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, etc, etc.) Just the inventory of these situations require lots of space - as far as rapid solutions for these matters, we fortunately have mister Obama! Gosh - I forgot! And mister Saleeby who surely can advice Obama on many intricate international problems.
May 8, 2008 - 10:23 pm 51. Diane:“And, just in case his resume wasn’t strong enough, he’d cozy up to Edward Said, the Islamist/Arab apologist who sought to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth.”
This is pretty sloppy thinking. Said was a Christian Palestinian, not an Islamist. And he never proposed wiping Jews off the face of the Earth. He publicly embraced the two-state solution and Oslo. I’m no fan of Said - he did a great deal of damage to the integrity of Middle East studies, and his post-colonial theory went on to poison the humanities and social sciences in general. But he was not guilty of these other charges you lay at his door.
May 8, 2008 - 11:22 pm 52. Ciscokid:I stand corrected again after reading today’s article by Richard Baehr on American Thinker. Seems the loyalty of Jews to the democratic party isn’t that blind after all, when it comes to Obama. There’s times I’m happy to be wrong and this is one of those times.
May 9, 2008 - 5:14 am 53. CarmenCozy:Misanthropicus
May 9, 2008 - 6:15 am 54. CarmenCozy:Misanthropicus
Misanthropicus
And so it goes
Thank you Diane
re Edward Said:
___”he never proposed wiping Jews off the face of the Earth”
Isn’t there an awful lot of this misrepresentation at this site?
Still:Go on, fellas, do whatever your limbic systems compel you to do… Truth be damned, of course…
May 9, 2008 - 7:22 am 55. Evan Sayet:Diane, perhaps my writing was a tad unclear (though I don’t think so). I didn’t call Said a Muslim, I said he was an Islamist/Arab apologist — in other words his policies seek to champion Arab and Islamic terrorists.
May 9, 2008 - 7:34 am 56. CarmenCozy:I, Carmen, am personally glad
___that we have PJM to keep
___the WesternWorld on an even keel,
___safe from the dangers that surround us.
Shall we be so fortunate
___to pull off another cycle of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz?
Now that would be a much appreciated return
May 9, 2008 - 7:45 am 57. CarmenCozy:___to “those golden days of yesteryear.”
___a secure hold on what’s right with America.
(None of this incendiary bullshit with Wright and Ayers, etc.)
Evan Sayet:
May 9, 2008 - 7:59 am 58. Sallust:My reading of Edward Said gives me no evidence that he was seeking “to champion Arab and Islamic TERRORISTS” as you allege. Can you please give a citation that would help me to understand the severity of your judgement? Until then, Diane’s views are the more empirically correct.
The story you tell is very old: the recurrent story of a demagogue who wants “money, power, and fame”. It reminds me the story of the Roman demagogue Catiline who wanted to destroy the Roman Republic and the Senate becoming the absolute Master of the State. All dregs of society (slaves, insolvents, common criminals, gladiators, whores etc.) united to his host of rebels. All means were good to reach his goal, and no moral scruple could pull him up. Catiline, like now Obama that leads the host of dregs of American society, is one of an endless line of political adventurers, but all of them have and had a common believe that where others failed, they will succeed. It is an illusion, but without illusions and hallucinations the human History would be too boring. That is why we, like spectators in a theatre, are watching this old comedy, where Obama-Arlecchino makes his acrobatic numbers and ends with “culo rotto”.
May 9, 2008 - 9:16 am 59. Believer:What’s most instructive, I think, is to take a look at the fruits of the labors of Obama, Wright and Ayers. The three have inhabited South Chicago for decades now providing their own particular brand of “aid” to a community in need.
Have they succeeded? Was it not just a mere week or so ago that the heart of their corner of the world was exposed to us all? Gun violence nearly out of control. Mr. Obama wanted to discuss - yes, discuss - the situation with the mayor. “It’s just heartbreaking,” he said.
What Obama unfortunately didn’t find so heartbreaking were the words of anger and hate - and the lies - that would incite one man’s passions against another. And this in, of all places, a House of God.
But the seeds have been scattered for decades now, taking root. And they are reaping what they’ve sown.
As I’ve said before, Mr. Obama is going to have to prove to me he can clean up the mess he and his buddies have created in their own backyard before I let him offer his “solutions” to the rest of us.
May 9, 2008 - 2:18 pm 60. Dave:“..for his attempts at equivocation didn’t sit well with the God Damn America crowd either.”
Superb article, Evan, one of the best I’ve seen combining Barry’s background and motivations, but this little tidbit doesn’t quite ring true for me.
WHERE have we seen any evidence that he has been reprimanded or had ANY loss of support by the “God Damn America” crowd? Sure, the wrong Rev. Wright might not appreciate being finally “disowned”, but I doubt even he has wavered one iota in support of an Obama presidency. The left is well accustomed to one of their own saying things which are “politically expedient” and I’m sure they see in Barry someone doing EXACTLY what he needs to do…in fact even Wright suggested just that!
May 9, 2008 - 3:19 pm 61. Sunny day believer:He is the Antichrist.
May 9, 2008 - 7:29 pm 62. CarmenCozy:He is the very epitome of anti-Christism !
May 9, 2008 - 11:23 pm 63. Nick:Obama is a Muslim.
May 9, 2008 - 11:29 pm 64. Misanthropicus:Believe it. I read it on the internets.
Why else would he choose to change his name from Barry to Barack?
How can the leftist nutwings even deny that obvious point?
Hillary may say that “as far as I know” he’s not a Muslim.
But Hillary is just trying to protect Barack.
O my worthy Sallust! (no irony here, just some supportive additions).
Quosque tandem abutere Catiline patientia nostra? (Catilina, how long will you abuse our patience?) NB: Misanthropicus is not a mighty latinist but oppressive schooling occasionally helps (rev. Wright wouldn’t go for this, some clapping and dancing swarms of kids will surely learn better/more than the dolts poring over some sooooo! irrelevant classic pages); also the school in cause had/has over the entrance gate a quite oppressive “Hic Docti Atque Bonni(?) Doceant” thing - for you to figure out who/why should be offended by that statement.
My good Sallust(ius), allow me channel Cicero’s best regards to you, Cicero who was in America during the Catilina turmoils, and who rightly attacked that early Obama with the above line which opens Cicero’s excellent (—-?? for Hanson this —-) which warns Americans about “[...] a demagogue who wants “money, power, and fame [...] the American demagogue Catiline who wanted to destroy the American Republic and the Senate [...] All dregs of society (MoveOn.Org members, insolvents, common criminals, liberals, whores, HuffPo incubi, etc.) united to his host of miscreants. All means were good to reach his goal, and no moral scruple could pull him up. Catiline, like now Obama that leads the host of dregs of American society, is one of an endless line of political adventurers, but all of them have and had a common believe that where others failed, they will [...]”
Sallust, good reminder for our times - and how I take the liberty to upgrade your description is by reminding Evan’s article readers that the ancient Catiline upheaval was followed by the Spartacus rebellion/upheaval.
Now, some will frown - wasn’t the Spartacus upheaval a super-superb thing? Kind of yes, kind of not, the answer is - THE CORRECT POSITING of Catilina’s (clearly a troublemaker/rabble rouser), and Spartacus’ actions should be done by rapporting their acts to the ways/views/practices & attitudes (gosh, I sound like Michelle Obama’s Princeton thesis) of the times/society they were living in, and this is actually the notion I want to lauch, O Sallust, from your Catiline post/trampoline.
I want to remind everyone that we live in an age & cult of a completely unwarranted Spartacus adulation (this early Che Guevara!) age & cult CREATED BY THE BOLCHEVICKSin the 20-s in Russia, then spread around the world by the communist Internationales of the 30-s and later which kept injecting and grafting the Spartacus’ inspiring legend (not that inspiring, actually), in any possible communism-serving/normalcy-destroying cultural & artistic representation (up to some quite sinister modern slavery manifestations - Kirk Douglas, Dalton Trumbo, remember the good old days of the Cold War? And the communist Spartakiades, in which cohorts of German, Russian, Romanian, Hungarian etc., terminally stereodized athlets were marching/performing & shortly dieing for the communism’s luminous future?
May 10, 2008 - 12:42 am 65. Misanthropicus:Very interesting, this Spartacus thing and how deviously it was spread around the world by the destructive left - unfortunately there are more than Tom Hayden, Ayres, Agee, Guss Hall, Elli Pariser, etc., etc., who wouldn’t accept the notion that the last shelter of a destructive, opportunistic political scoundrel is… Spartacus!
But since this Spartacus metastasis is a long story… O Sallust, my admirable friend! With Cassandra, Calhas ans Cicero watching us somberly, I still hope Bacchus, Aphrodite and Mercury hear my prayers and reward you abundantly with all what you deserve for your reminding us, fools numbed by prosperity and (apparent) safety, about the world’s folly and lurking perils - respectfully (and truly so), your best, Misanthropicus.
RE CarmenCozy RE (a number of) things:
1) Misanthropicus X3, And so it goes… - no comment;
2) [...] I, Carmen, am personally glad [[...] Shall we be so fortunate to pull off another cycle of Rumsfeld-Cheney-Wolfowitz? [...] (None of this incendiary bullshit with Wright and Ayers, etc.) [...]”
Lovely lines - last time I heard them was ningttime, around a bubbling cauldron during some Frazier Forrest/HuffPo retreat/invokations & group needles sticking in Dick Cheyney’s photo (I was there to help some OD cases);
3) CarmenCozy RE Evan Sayet: “My reading of Edward Said gives me no evidence that he was seeking “to champion Arab and Islamic TERRORISTS” as you allege. Can you please give a citation that would help me to understand the severity of your judgement? Until then, Diane’s views are the more empirically correct.”
CarmenCozy, some people (of course, the bitter, un-enlightened sort) will sure have a problem with your “epirical correct” problem - use as defense my prior mention to the bubbling cauldron in case of being questioned.
As to Said, he was a very bright fellow and pretty knowledgeable in his basic field (some literatures) - unfortunately Said was a carrier of the Lummumba/Gandhi/Dalai syndrome and the Manhattan liberals & NYT fell for it. Supporting terrorism, yeah, that is a bit too much - yet his post-colonial, righteous posturing sure was ancouraging for those needing just a push for blowing themselves (& others) to smithereens in cafes. And this comes from someone who for very long had harsh words for the Isreli policies in the West Bank & Gaza.
problem was a
May 10, 2008 - 1:14 am 66. Michael Canzano:Sayet is on the money with his assessment of B.O. .
May 10, 2008 - 3:04 am 67. Lazy is to Saturday as… « Obi’s Sister:Saleeby should move to Fallujah ,Cuba or Venezuela.
American Christian Infidel
[...] questions are to Real Answers. As HotAir would say, [...]
May 10, 2008 - 4:13 pm 68. R Faber:Pundits and debaters aside…America’s “governing elite” illustrates Shakespeare’s summation, “There’s small choice in rotten apples.”
America’s society stinks in all quarters. America is decadent…for we exalt honor, integrity, and justice…but we do not DO IT.
“There is none righteous, not even one…” Romans 3:10
People such as Saleeby clearly indicate the level of intellectual/moral freedoms America may expect from those who embrace Obama’s “change”.
“A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless.”Prov. 14:16
May 10, 2008 - 5:42 pm 69. Sallust:Sallustius Misanthropico salutem.
I was delighted to read your story about Cicero’s travel in America: escaping from Roman turmoil, he finds himself in the midst of American troubles: tribunes fight against consuls (President and vice President) and Senate (Republicans), the enemies stay at walls of the City, but the tribunes (Democrats) negate the danger saying that “war on terror is an empty word”. Nihil novum sub sole.
Some insignificant correction: Spartacus died in 70 BC in the battle at the river Silarus and Catalina in 62 BC in the Battle of Pistoria. I must say: Spartacus was a bandit that devastated and terrorized Italy and Catiline was a depraved person, but they were courageous men and died worthily. I don’t want to justify them: they embodied the forces of chaos and destruction, so their fate was marked like the destiny of all those who wish to overthrow the divine order of the World.
You know I was a companion in arms of great Caesar. This exceptional man was a brilliant general and a genial statesman. Pompey was a good general, but a mediocre and coward politician (a true Democrat). Theodor Mommsen in “Römische Geschichte” said about Pompey: “even the grace of gods can help no mortal who lacks courage”. Coward Obamus can only count on the grace of demons. What kind of grace is this, you will soon see.
Salve et vale.
May 11, 2008 - 5:34 am 70. Misanthropicus:Sallustius, Misanthropicus salutem. S.V.B.E.E.V.
With the due respect for Evan’s thoughtful article about Obama’s fraudulence (article which I already forwarded to many), I’ll take the liberty to add to my prior post/RE Sallust(ius)’ justifiably indignant & severe comparison Obama/Catiline (and to Sallust’s subsequent correction of
my chronological mistake) the following piece regarding Latin language.
-*-
BBC/Europe/May 10th, 2008 AD.
“Avete cybernaute!
Vatican gives Latin online boost/The saying of Mass in Latin has been promoted by the current Pope
The Roman Catholic Church, for centuries a bastion of Latin usage, has given the ancient tongue a 21st Century boost by launching a website in Latin. The Vatican website now has a section - Sancta Sedes (Holy See) - with Latin papal texts and religious works. Pope Benedict XVI is an advocate of Latin, allowing Mass in the language. But when a papal decree was issued only in Latin by mistake last June, there was confusion until the Vatican press office put out an Italian version. “It caused a bit of panic for my colleagues who had no schooling in Latin,” said the BBC’s Rome correspondent David Willey, “until the official translation finally emerged.” The Vatican website already has sections in English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish.
Ancient traditions
Fr Foster: Using Latin means you have to say something. For centuries church documents were all written in Latin, the mass was said only in Latin. Without a knowledge of the language you would not go far if you were an ambitious priest. But Latin has fallen out of favour in recent years
as the subject has been dropped from school curricula in many countries and normal Vatican business is conducted in Italian, or increasingly in English. But Pope Benedict wants the Catholic Church to keep its ancient traditions. After his election to the papacy three years ago, he addressed the Church’s cardinals in Latin. He has encouraged the use of the language in seminaries where new priests are trained. The new website will make sacred texts available in Latin. Last year he lifted restrictions on celebrating the Latin Tridentine Mass. The Latin Mass had been largely abandoned in the 1960s, as part of reforms to make Catholicism more relevant to its worldwide congregation. But Father Reginald Foster, an American priest who is the Pope’s official Latinist, praises the virtues and the clarity of the Latin language. “You have to say something and move on,” he says. “It’s not like French and some of these philosophical languages where you can write a whole page and say nothing - in Latin you
can’t do that!” Fr Foster has a weekly programme on Vatican Radio called The Latin Lover, in which he explains the historical and contemporary uses of the language.”
Misanthropicus: Loved it - and, strange enough, when I read it I suddenly remembered a resembling piece by, heavens! Alexander Cockburn himself, that somber, Orwell/Trotsky/Frenchie intellectuel who (at that time) was praising a Finnish radio station for worldwide broadcasting in Latin, this strangely grasping language…
Latin, this strangely grasping language: “Eheu, fugaces, Postume, Postume, labuntur anni, nec pietas rugis et instanti senectae oferet,” - Misanthropicus is certain that most of PJM enthusiasts have recognized in that line Brittney Spears’ melancholy evaluation of her footsteps in the eternity’s sands…
Salve et vale.
May 11, 2008 - 1:41 pm 71. CarmenCozy:Mr/Ms Misanthropicus:
May 12, 2008 - 7:07 am 72. Ladi:I would love to learn your detailed apologia that enables you to pillory the Dalai Lama or Mohatma Gandhi.
Have you lived a life that exceeds theirs in virtue?
Carmen
I read it somewhere last week that Hilarry is now racist, right? and that for saying she attracts more white voters than Obama. What about the 99% of Black people voting for Obama? (I guess, no problem with that!) What abouit a guy who starts his political career in the house of an unrepentant Home Terrorist??? What of an Obama that calls all white people ”typically racist, gun toting, bitter bible thumpers? What about the fact that the guy attends an American Hating, openly/unabashadely Racist Church for 20 years and still counting (It dont matter!) What about the Obama that does not respect the flag, place his hand on his heart for the anthem or wear the American flag pin (Oh! That’s the season of Silly Politics!) History will judge the MSM for skewing this democratic process in favour of this charlatan. You have all fallen for this guy’s African Voodoo. You say he’s a great orator but he delivers the same stump speech for a year now even i can recite it backwards! plus all his words are borrowed from somdone eone else and his so called Historic speech on race was nothing more than Betrayals (Grandma is still screaming under the bus!) Half Truths (I never heard him say those words, Did i hear him say those words? Absolutely!) and a perfect deflection from the issues in such a way that i never heard by even the most deft politician. The main point not addressed in the speech, Where was his judgement in staying in the church for 20 years/what does he believe??? The Teflon Donn cant hold a candle to this guy! The king and his unproud of America wife are laughing at ye all behind closed doors i bet. What a country! World Super Power indeed!
May 12, 2008 - 1:42 pm 73. Misanthropicus:To: CarmenCozy/RE: Mr/Ms Misanthropicus: I would love to learn your detailed apologia that enables you to pillory the Dalai Lama or Mohatma Gandhi. Have you lived a life that exceeds theirs in virtue?
Misanthropicus: Yo! I mighty have ― my name is Woytjla dba John Paul II and was very busy with my job in Saint Peter’s.
CarmenCozy/RE Misanthropicus: “[…] unfortunately Said was a carrier of the Lummumba/ Gandhi/Dalai syndrome and the Manhattan liberals & NYT fell for it. Supporting terrorism, yeah, that is a bit too much yet his post-colonial, righteous posturing sure was ancouraging [sic!] for those needing just a push for blowing themselves (& others) to smithereens in cafes. And this comes from someone who for very long had harsh words for the Isreli policies in the West Bank & Gaza. […]”
Dear CarmenCozy, I suspect that your query has been caused by above statement in RE Said a few slots above in this thread, statement which I will support in the following.
1) I do not pillory the Dalai Lama or Mohatma Gandhi. Actually I regard both with much indifference, I couldn’t care less about the current Tibet brouhaha, neither am I transfixed by Hindu bumper-sticker wisdom. (Note: I am Christian, belong to one of the oldest and widest existing Christian denomination ― not a Catholic, though ― but I am not a practicing person).
2) All religions, sub-religions, sects, etc. are attempts at addressing humans’ existential anxieties vis-à-vis eternity and gnawing anguishes vis-à-vis the purpose-of-/ meaning-of-life, anxieties which seem to be hardwired in human’s psyche. (Note: here I do not address one of other religion’s answer’s validity).
3) My scoring system for one or other religion comes from rather pragmatic analysis, in which I rate the respective religion’s value as to (a very, very summary list):
3-a) its (respective religion’s) essential objective (answering in a meaningful manner to mentioned, major existential questions) and,
3-b) since major religions have always overlapped polities/geographical areas for significantly long historical/civilizational periods I rate their worthiness by the their contribution to the betterment of those societies, this ranging… gosh, from authentically enlightening education, laws, arts and, yes! inquiry! (a fleeting thought: Gibbon has good words about Romans).
I see not much of 3-a and 3-b in the societies historically covered by the religions whose figureheads you appear to revere, Gandhi (a post-colonial hero) and the Dalai Lama (a figure whose main traction in the Western world is provided strictly by affectation, appetite for exoticism and infantile anti-Christianity) ― and since here, I see Islam as a remarkably anachronistic/(self)destructive piece of software.
May 12, 2008 - 4:01 pm 74. CarmenCozy:So, from this (admittedly pragmatic) position I find any comparison of these (and all other) religious belief system with Christianity a… Monty Python act. (Pre-emptive strike: Judaism: I know that some will be irked by this, but Judaism was/is in such a stubborn historical entwinnage with the Western World that for the purposes of this statement I willingly confound it with Christianity).
CarmenCozy, may Beethoven’s Misa Solemnis and Tolstoy’s Resurrection inspiringly hover your anxieties ― best regards, Misanthropicus.
To Misanthropicus
I sincerely thank you for your florid exegisis.
I can’t but read into it a protectiveness of all things Christian over all things not Christian.
Eventually humanity will transcend sectarian (or even racial) differences. You will not be an accomplice in such progress.
But, still, please wake me up when we get there.
Carmen
May 12, 2008 - 11:44 pm 75. Believer:Yes, Carmen, you do sleep.
But pray God opens your eyes. For then you will know that if there be any good thing in you, it is Christ.
May 13, 2008 - 10:41 am 76. CarmenCozy:Believer:
May 13, 2008 - 12:14 pm 77. Believer:Oh my Dear Dear Lord
I am heavy with sin
How can I be redeemed?
Shall I tithe?
Shall I kiss the sacred cross?
Embrace and Cherish my Rosary?
How mayest I enter into your celestial Kingdom?
Till though tellest me this I will stick with the latest from Albert Einstein, who in a newly uncovered document said this:
Belief in God a ‘product of human weaknesses’: Einstein
CBC.ca, Canada - 2 hours ago
Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” …
Einstein describes religion as ‘childish’ in letter now up for auction The Canadian Press
Einstein: Nothing ‘chosen’ about the Jews, Bible ‘childish’ legends Ha’aretz
Einstein thought religions were ‘childish’ Telegraph.co.uk
Jewish Telegraphic Agency - guardian.co.uk
all 70 news articles »
You can Google it yourself, if you’ve the courage
It begins with humility, Carmen.
A quality, quite obviously, in short supply in man.
May 13, 2008 - 2:14 pm 78. DMSlaughter:I don’t even know where to begin with this. My mind is reeling from the sheer level of vitriol, Evan, that you spew in this post. I apologize for this long-winded post, but this addresses not only your post but alot of crap I hear from others in my life.
First, I find your post to be intellectually insincere because you begin with the premise that everything Barack Obama has done from practically childhood to the present was formulated in a cynical, manipulative, egocentric fashion. This post’s glaring flaw (although I believe that many on here don’t see it that way because they desperately want to see it through the same cynical prism that you do, Mr. Sayet) is that you presuppose Obama to be utterly disingenuous in his rhetoric. You simply have no proof of this. For what it’s worth (and I’m sure it’s not worth much on such a frightening, close-minded website) I do believe that Obama wants to heal a racial divide in this country. I do believe that he wants to effect a change in Washington D.C.’s current slimy culture. And from my vantage point, while I’m not fully convinced he’ll be able to pull all of this off, he’s our best shot at the moment.
With that out of the way, let me begin on several factual inaccuracies in this post. First, you assert that Ayers and his misguided ilk murdered Americans. This is simply not true. While their bombing of American symbols of empire and status quo were horrendous, not once did those bombings kill anyone. The only deaths that resulted were from a bomb that accidentally went off in NYC–by some careless Weathermen making said bombs. In other words, while the Weathermen were indeed terrorists, they never intentionally set out to kill Americans. And as an equally important aside, you completely twist his words post-Sept. 11th: he did not say that the terrorists didn’t kill enough Americans. He said that the Weathermen had not bombed enough targets. While I certainly don’t agree with that statement either, it is obviously a HUGE difference, and you should be ashamed for that libelous comment.
Secondly, I would like to see the evidence that Constitutional scholar Barack Obama benefited from affirmative action. Your prejudice slips through when you assert that because he’s African American that he automatically benefited from affirmative action. That colors you in latently-racist overtones Evan and I don’t think you want that on your resume. Or maybe you do, as it might get you more invites to the Heritage Foundation and photo ops with Ann Coulter. I don’t know.
And the last of the inaccuracies, but certainly not the least, was that the Wright controversy was costing him primaries. That is simply not true. In fact, polls indicate that a majority of Americans simply didn’t feel that this was a major issue. And why? Perhaps because a majority of Americans hear things from their religious leaders they don’t always agree with–far fewer Americans would get up and storm out, never to return, and that’s because there are things that their religious leaders say that they DO agree with, which is probably the case with Obama. Now of course, in places like West Virginia and Western PA this probably was an issue, but then again so was his middle name–Hussein, as you continually slip into your posts–so then the senseless meme that he’s both an American hating Christian as well as a covert Muslim terrorist comes into play, which just shows how immature and pointless that argument really is. I’d also like to add that BECAUSE five minutes of that hateful sermon was leaked, which then became representative of a decades-long career at the pulpit, Obama I feel had a RESPONSIBILITY to address race, if for no other reason to address the outcry that the controversy created in the first place. In that Philadelphia speech, he spoke about the disenfranchisement of working class white males, a very real issue. But again, that is seen only as cynical political posturing by you Evan; if he had not addressed the issue, you would have accused him of avoiding the issue for political expediency.
So it’s fairly clear to me that you just enjoy using Barack Obama, the next President of the United States, as a metaphorical pinata on which you project your small-minded, fearful world-view onto. And I think that’s sad because, while some I know would smack me for saying this, you do have articulate moments, and how beautiful it would be if you used those moments for not fostering more cynicism in the world and instead spoke of hope and the potential for change, two things that Obama stands for, and that millions of Americans await as I write this. Or at the very least, use that brain of yours to figure out how you’re going to get your horribly disfigured, sidetracked Republican party back on the rails, as three stunning Congressional losses shows that your once proud party of fiscal responsibility and personal privacy has become a party of obscene spending on massive beauracracy and invasive violation of personal liberties.
May 21, 2008 - 2:59 pm 79. barack obama background:[...] and even the background he has decided to embrace explain much about Senator Obama’s quest for powerhttp://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-juggling-act-of-barack-obama/Barack Obama Change We Can Believe In DownloadsOfficial Website of barack obama 2008 Presidential [...]
Jun 4, 2008 - 7:41 am 80. tyngre:Interesting…black folks can’t win for losing! If Mr. Obama had gone by Barack as a child and then switched to Barry, you would have most likely written:
“But somewhere along the way Barack, always an ambitious lad, came to realize that there was more to be gained by being white — by going from “Barack” to “Barry” …”
Always a conspiracy, isn’t there?!
Jul 1, 2008 - 4:44 pm 81. the thinker:People! Be aware of Socialism with Islamic face! Don’t let our beautiful country become another “falling Empire”!
Jul 20, 2008 - 10:13 pm