From this article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_attack_fodder
by Nedra Pickler
Here's my favorite part of Nedra's opine-ion:
"Obama already is the subject of a shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet that falsely suggests he's a Muslim intent on destroying the United States. Obama is a Christian and has been fighting the e-mail hoax, which also claims he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and he's been trying to correct the misinformation.
"Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America," Obama frequently tells voters.
Z: Are we facing an even SLICKER willy? We lived through "I did not have sex with that woman" and now Obama DOES say the pledge...that is, when he's "in the United States Senate". Great, Obama. Just GREAT. And, otherwise......................?
20 comments:
Go to cafemom Z, or if you want I can put the link to the particular thread here. They've got her Thesis on there, Michele Obama's...they are BOTH, according to her OWN study separationist/pluralists rather than integrationist/assimilationists...
how are they going to square THAT with his whole "I'm going to bring the country together" schpeal?
Let me know...otherwise it's titled Michele is a Divider or something like that...
Pati
John Conyers is supporting Obama. In Michelle's study, Conyers represents the integrationist/assimilationist wing of the African American community... even though Michelle obvious leans towards the Stokely Carmichael separationist/pluralist wing (as evidenced by her 1st time proud of America comment).
With any luck, more African Americans will begin to think of themselves as Americans as a result of this election.
farmer john,
I don't think Conyers backing him is indicative of what Barak is. I think his own actions post college going back to the black community as an organizer and looking to provide assistance to the poor, plus his choice of church which is run by a pastor who promotes a 'black community, black issues first' ideology.
Unless, all you are saying is that perhaps with the backing of an integrationist that perhaps that will have an affect? Why do I not think so?
Pati
I think the church thing is mostly "Michelle". Obama didn't get religion till he met her.
But I think Conyers backing Obama is indicative of Obama's politics - integrationist/assimilationist... only under a New Left neo-MARXIST/socialist model, NOT an "American" one.
Farmer John, I sure do hope that's true that Black Americans start looking at themselves as AMERICANS from now on. Good point. It's ABOUT TIME. Haven't YOU always looked at them that way? I have. It breaks my heart when we dwell on DIFFERENCES, it's so wrong. Funny, I keep seeing so many White faces in the Obama throngs and so many men in Hillary's...yet the media just keeps on reminding us of how racist and sexist Americans really are. I keep hearing "You think THAT state can elect Obama?" on CNN. the implication is SO clear.
THIS is a perfect example of how our media tells us something quite different than the reality of any situation.
Obama's church's mission statement is AFRO-CENTRIC....How can Barack have gotten away from not disclaiming his pastor who gave an award to FARRAKHAN, for pete's sake? Man, Trent Lott made one statement about Strom Thurmond and HELL TO PAY, but............
I don't think Obama needs Conyers to reveal that he's a segregationist...funny, the word's turning on them, huh? But, you have to admit Obama's got a very thin line to walk on there....does he mention equality of Blacks without sounding like he's championing them over Whites? Does he leave it out when it's the pink elephant in the room? yet, I don't think he's said "We just have to get on as ONE PEOPLE..AMERICA" because he can't do that either, not with the pimps like Jackson and Rangel making their livings dependent on keeping Black Americans needy.
Jesse Jackson's sure quiet on the Obama run, isn't he? or am I missing something?
Obama needs to explain his ties to terrorist Ayers.
I saw that...you think anybody'll bring it up?
(great music at your site, I was just there..)
There's a photo of a Latino boy holding a sign made by the "Texas.BarackObama.com" (printed in small letters under the big letters)group which says;
"TEJANOS FOR OBAMA"
just thinking here that that's not exactly INTEGRATION? How's about "Americans for Obama" IN ENGLISH, por favor? Of course, I would prefer "NOBODY for Obama" but.........
Obama is playing a word game where he lives in a hazy rhetorical fog and attempts to appeal to all people in all things. No one has attacked him from the right yet and gotten him to fix his position nor revealled the roots growing out of his "socialist" corner... where he looses his appeal as a panacea for change agent.
Hillary hasn't attacked him because she lives in the same rhetorical fog. Sunlight would kill them both.
They're saying Hillary never once came out and directly said "YOU ARE NOT READY TO BE PRESIDENT" at the last debate because he is going to be the nominee and, if he is, McCain will be able to quote the Dem's own Hillary as having said so.
man, FJ, BIG games being played here. Some think there's HUGE stuff going on between the two camps right now.
I stupidly got my ulcers flaring by watching MEET THE PRESS (as if...four liberals and quasi republican David Brookes is a 'fair panel' apparently these days, right?) and boy, it is treated as an almost fait accompli (you should pardon the French..hmm!)
farmer john,
I just don't have the same outlook about the Conyers record or connection with regards to insight into Barak as you do, sorry. For me, there is too much conflicting information. Below are statements from Conyers own site:
Reparations
In January of 1989, I first introduced the bill H.R. 40, The Commission to Study Reparations Proposals for African American Act. I have re-introduced HR 40 every Congress since 1989, and will continue to do so until it's passed into law.
.................................................................................................................................
Voting Rights
One in fifty adults are currently or permanently disenfranchised of voting as a result state felony voting laws. 1.4 million voting-age African-Americans males are able to cast ballots but because of the state laws they are stripped of this right.
.................................................................................................................................
Foreign Policy - Haiti
On May 21, 2000, the Haitian people showed their strong desire for democracy. It was clear in the early morning hours, when at 5:30 am, dozens of voters were already waiting in line to cast their vote to shape their future.
Back to top.
.................................................................................................................................
Foreign Policy - Iraq
Congressman Conyers has been a staunch opponent of the war against Iraq since the moment President Bush and Vice President Cheney starting beating the war drums. Mr. Conyers voted against the 2002 authorization to use force against Iraq and in 2003 filed a lawsuit with other members of Congress seeking to bar the president from invading Iraq without an explicit Congressional declaration of war. He has voted against every war appropriation except one and was a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Congressman Conyers supports using Congress’ power of the purse to end the war in Iraq within six months.
NWW= So…let's see, Iraqis don't deserve a right to vote or US assistance in this matter? But, Haitians do…as do the Sudanese…
.................................................................................................................................
Foreign Policy - Africa
Mr. Conyers co-authored several letters regarding the security and conditions in Sudan, the need for increased peacekeeping in Africa, Debt Relief for Mozambique and other poor African countries. Mr. Conyers, along with the CBC have been stalwart in their efforts to keep the issue of Africa on the forefront of the US's agenda.
NWW= I wonder WHY the discrepency ….could it be 'race?' Below is from his bio on the same gov't page as the above…Where there is further statement about his concern for Haitians etc. I'm not saying he's necessarily whole-heartedly separationist/pluralist..but, founding a group to address Black and minority issues (how arrogant to think they are better qualified to speak, say for Hispanics or women, than say Hispanics or women…) is right in line with what would classify one as being separationist/pluralist. Perhaps, as Michele noted in her Thesis, his desire to move in the direction came about POST his initial belief or positive feelings toward 'integration /assimilation…
"Congressman Conyers is also one of the 13 founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and is considered the Dean of that group. Formed in 1969, the CBC was founded to strengthen African-American law makers ability to address the legislative concerns of Black and minority citizens.
In addition, Mr. Conyers is the principal author of the "End Racial Profiling Act," legislation that would ensure that the rights of all Americans are protected by banning racial profiling nationwide and by requiring all federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to take administrative steps to eliminate the practice. He also introduced the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act," legislation would place a wide range of hate crimes under federal jurisdiction and allow for enhanced support by the Federal government of local investigation and prosecution."
In any case, I don't see a HUGE push for integration in the ACTUAL involvements or associations in any of these people's lives. I don't know that you have any evidence that whether or not Michele 'chose' the church that it is in anyway, 'contrary' to Barak's beliefs or preferences…I would have to wonder about a man who would have his spiritual walk be dictated by a spouse, especially if it were counter to his own…So, I am not comforted by the Conyers association or his spouse's obvious outlook, and don't therefore, feel overly confident that Barak is any more pluralist minded than are those with whom he continues to surround himself.
Pati
Pati,
I think it has more to do with "working from within the system" to effect changes beneficial to the black community versus developing a completely independent self-sufficient/separate parallel black power structure and attempt to demand political change THAT way.
In other words, the separatists want their own "black states", separate but equal, whereas the integrationists want to usurp the existing state power structure to get it to serve their needs.
I'm not trying to make the case that Conyers is any less of an advocate for the black community than Stokely Carmichael was. I'm just saying that Conyers approach makes provisions for remaining united and integrated with whites... and Carmichaels does not.
And so Obama represents the "culmination" of Conyer's political aspirations for blacks... whereas Carmichael wants a black "Jefferson Davis" to unite Southern blacks, ethnical cleanse the area and seceed from the Union... or do the political equivalent of that (ie - African-American Musim's setting up their own Shar'ia laws and no longer following American law ala Louis Farrakhan's NOI).
And believe me, with the two approaches working together makes it much easier for a "separatist" movement to eventually succeed, as you can see how integrationists working from within the system can effect changes to things like "hate crimes legislation" which make it much easier for the Farrakhan/separatists to deviate from the white cultural norm, introduce more "African" practices, and not draw the attention of law enforcement.
More on the Stokely Carmichael black separatist wing (from Wikipedia)...
Carmichael saw nonviolence as a tactic as opposed to a principle, which separated him from moderate civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr.. Carmichael became critical of civil rights leaders who simply called for the integration of African Americans into existing institutions of the middle class mainstream. Carmichael believed that in order to genuinely integrate, Blacks first had to unite in solidarity and become self-reliant.
Now, several people have been upset because we’ve said that integration was irrelevant when initiated by blacks, and that in fact it was a subterfuge, an insidious subterfuge, for the maintenance of white supremacy. Now we maintain that in the past six years or so, this country has been feeding us a "thalidomide drug of integration," and that some Negroes have been walking down a dream street talking about sitting next to white people; and that that does not begin to solve the problem; that when we went to Mississippi we did not go to sit next to Ross Barnett; we did not go to sit next to Jim Clark; we went to get them out of our way; and that people ought to understand that; that we were never fighting for the right to integrate, we were fighting against white supremacy.
Now, then, in order to understand white supremacy we must dismiss the fallacious notion that white people can give anybody their freedom. No man can given anybody his freedom. A man is born free. You may enslave a man after he is born free, and that is in fact what this country does. It enslaves black people after they’re born, so that the only acts that white people can do is to stop denying black people their freedom; that is, they must stop denying freedom. They never give it to anyone.
Carmichael would probably be pro abortion, too. I heard a black man on radio the other day tell how many million black babies have died due to abortion.
Seems like there's a kind of denial of freedom in denying a poor little innocent baby the right to live. The percentage of black abortion is much higher than white.
Would America have been more united if we had millions more Blacks, making them less a 'minority' (with all the 'baggage' that term brings with it) in numbers than they are? Or would we have had more trouble?
I like to think the huge amount more would have better equalized them; forced whatever racist white America still existed/exists to "get on with it..How can you be racist against half of America? They're here, they're contributing, thank God we're all AMERICANS fighting what AMericans fight for."
Don't know why, but this discussion and the radio show I heard just seemed to meld in this one small point. Actually, I'm not even sure I do have a point here. ah, well...it's early here!!
I wonder
some call it genocide
Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion.
1,452 African-American children are killed each day by the heinous act of abortion.
3 out of 5 pregnant African-American women will abort their child.
Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry.
Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood sought to use abortion as a means to control black Americans.
Unfortunately she got her wish.
It all depends on the meaning of the word : Is, is.
Ummm....no controlling legal authority.
Mr. Obama is not Mr. Sunshine, he has a dark side, as some are saying, he has come from the very nasty politics from the Chicago Political Machine.
Man , Elmer's bro...the thought that a liberal like Sanger did this and nobody makes a huge deal about is so typical. if she were a conservative...oh, MAN.
What a terrible stat. I thought I heard 14 million..but couldn't imagine it could be even close...but it is. THIRTEEN MILLION babies killed; 'inconvenient','couldn't afford them', I guess. My guess is these babies could have been adopted to White families and we'd have a lot less racism today if that had happened.
But, I can be a Pollyanna. Sometimes.
Well, let's just update what has been spewing from Mr. Obama's mouth. For one thing, I am from PA and if that isn't ringing a bell about something he has stated recently (e-hem...), he is now trying to reconstruct his words and his thoughts as he tries (once again!) to cover for his inadequacies.
Rule #1: If you are speaking to a group of people from San Francisco, do not go badmouthing voters from another part of the country. Besides, once you do, how are San Franciscan's going to be so sure that you're not going to turn around and badmouth them? Credibility counts!
Rule #2: If you are going to try to reconstruct your thoughts by defending them, at least sound sincere and don't include an "uh" and "er" between every other word.
Character counts!
Does Obama have either? NOPE.
As for all of the "white faces" at Obama's events; well, let's just say that they use a certain tactic to show all of those white people in the background of the videos of his speeches.
Post a Comment