<p>I am saying that close ties to Nazis, KKK members, Nation of Islam members or (add your racist/anti-Semitic extremist group here) causes me great concern if those with such ties are running for the office of POTUS.</p>
<p>Obama is an unknown and his connections to Farrakhan and his ilk have not been fully explored. The Chicago black community, as evidenced by the reporting in The Chicago Defender seems to want to ignore the significance of such connections, if they exist, and close ranks in total contravention to the principles of Dr. M.L.King.</p>
<p>It seems to them skin color is more important than all else. The Chicago Defender is/was one of the most influential weekly newspapers for black Americans since the early 1900s.</p>
<p>According to the New Yorker profile of Obama by Ryan Lizza, he stepped on a lot of AA toes by not “paying his dues” and generally kowtowing to more powerful figures (I would not be surprised if that’s the reason for Jesse Jackson’s recent outburst). If you remember, the concern early on was that he was not “black enough.” That was true of the Chicago black establishment as well as more generally. he got trounced by Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther his first time trying for an Illinois Senate seat.
Ryan Lizza did a piece on Obama before the one for the New Yorker that has some of the same information:</p>
<p>Parent2noles, do you really not comprehend the difference between the non-racist pride some black leaders are trying to instill in members of the AfAm community, and the Pride rooted in the concept of white supremacy, promulgated by men like David Duke?</p>
<p>“his connections to Farrakhan and his ilk have not been fully explored”</p>
<p>His connections to the Gangster Disciples street gang haven’t been fully explored, either – I mean, have you ever seen the liberal mainstream media do a serious analysis of those ties? Obama has admitted to trying cocaine in his youth, and the mothers and grandmothers of many Disciples members attend Obama’s church! We have no other choice but to speculate that Obama may be sympathetic to the Disciples’ crack distribution efforts.</p>
<p>“in total contravention to the principles of Dr. M.L.King.”</p>
<p>Let’s put to the side the question of how black community leaders in Chicago came to lose sight of the “principles of Dr. M.L. King” when mastery of those “principles” comes so easily to p2n.</p>
<p>The real question is, when did black people become obligated to adhere to the “principles of Dr. M.L. King,” as opposed to simply doing what they think is best for their community today?</p>
<p>Barrack Obama attended the million man march (as a participant, not a leader), but was both disenchanted and inspired to take a different path. In an epilogue to his book, Dreams for my Father, published in 1995, he wrote:
<p>I’m still trying to figure out if the Pride of Farrakhan is anywhere near the pride of Bill Cosby. Am I to understand African Americans - to overcome a history of racism it is first necessary to practice some elements of it? </p>
<p>Marite and calmom, I’ll consider those readings as I have time.</p>
<p>I don’t get what you are referring to at all. To take “pride” in one’s own heritage, culture, or race is not to hate or be prejudiced against another --any more than it would be to take “pride” in one’s own family. </p>
<p>From the quotes of Obama above, where would you get any inkling of racism practiced against another group? He’s arguing that the black community needs to recognize commonality with other groups.</p>
<p>Why do you think that there is some sort of unilateral “black” agenda? There is no such thing, not even close.</p>
<p>If you really want to understand more about Obama, why don’t you read his first book? (Dreams of my Fathers). I haven’t read the book, but I know it is autobiographical and it was written right after Obama finished law school, before he had an established political career – so it might give you insight into what type of man he is. Reading his book doesn’t mean you have to agree with his politics or support him – its just that it seems that your viewpoint is now being colored by factors that have nothing to do with him.</p>
<p>It’s really long and rambling – but I scanned down to the end, and here are some excerpts:
</p>
<p>This is not an exhortation toward racism – this is a call for unity, a repudiation of violence, and a call for the men there to become engaged in their communities as productive citizens. He is decrying “white supremecy” but not white people or the white race – he attacks the notion of “black supremecy” as being “repulsive to god” as well. </p>
<p>Farrakhan has said a lot of hateful and controversial things in his time, but the Million Man March was more of a “mainstream” event, to the extent possible. So if Obama was there that day, listening to that speech and others like it, it doesn’t imply endorsement or alignment with things that might have been said by Farrakhan in other contexts.</p>
<p>p2n: May I suggest you read BEFORE posting any more of these questions? They smack of an agenda that is distasteful. Is McCain having to answer for every crank who is supporting him or even whose support he courted (a la Hagee?)</p>
<p>Farrakhan is not Obama, Obama is not Farrakhan. Is Obama going to have to be made to answer for the pride of each ane every one of his supporters? Is the pride AAs have in his candidacy any different from residents of a particular state being proud of a native son being chosen as a running mate? Or a member of a particular religion or profession or gender?</p>
<p>But again, the internet is your friend. If you want to know more about Obama (as opposed to raising questions about his principles, programs, character, etc…) there’s plenty available, all at your fingertips.</p>
<p>Really? OK, let’s start with these three questions:</p>
<p>a) Why does he claim terrorist bomber William Ayers is “just a who lives in my neighborhood” when he announced his candidacy for elected office from the front porch of Ayers house and served on the board of Ayers’ foundation?</p>
<p>b) According to his “autobiography”, he claims that Rev. Jerimiah Wright was his spiritual mentor and father figure. Given Wright’s outspoken belief in Black Liberation Theology, to what extent has The One embraced these religious/political beliefs?</p>
<p>c) Has The One stopped abusing illegal drugs and, if so, when? I’m not looking for an approximation or an “I think” answer from his campaign spokesman. I’m looking for a specific answer from the candidate.</p>
<p>^^True. I don’t think that McCain is Hagee or even Pawlenty, who may become his VP. If McCain is going to pursue the same policies as GWB, then his tenure in office would be a continuation of GWB’s policies during the latter’s two terms in office. But McCain has not really defined in which ways he is different from the current standard bearer in his party; he’s focused on attacking Obama, and not even Obama’s policies. So it’s hard to know what he would do differently from GWB.</p>
<p>The Word Clouds published in the WaPo over the weekend was quite funny. Made up of words found on the candidates’ websites, both had Obama in big bold letters at their center. Justified in the Obama case; but what about McCain’s?</p>
<p>ID: You can ask questions from the candidate himself.</p>
<p>How? He won’t even appear in Town Hall format.</p>
<p>I haven’t been overly pleased w/ McCain’s performance w/ his prepared remarks, but he continues to meet real people in real question & answer situations all day every day, and will field questions on any subject until the cows come home.</p>
<p>It’s the difference b/w “image” and “substance”.</p>
<p>Because Ayers is no “terrorist bomber”, but is instead a professor/activist for school reform and other fine causes in which Obama believes. Yes, in the 1960’s, when Obama was about six years old, Ayers was a member of the radical Weathermen group. While the group did blow up a few police statues in protest of the Vietnam War, and while a few of its members were killed while making bombs, calling Ayers a “terrorist”, thereby evoking memories of Tim McVeigh, is to act contrary to reason. Ayers was a 1960’s radical, an arrogant kid at the time (like many 60’s activists) who went too far in his struggle against the nation’s corruption. Today he is a professor at the University of Illinois and is known for his work in school reform. Ayers in fact became such an authority that when Chicago’s mayor wanted someone to start an organization to encourage reform, he picked Ayers. Later Barack Obama supported the organization by joining its board. It is because of Ayers identity as a school reformer, an identity that is widely recognized in the United States, that Obama joined Ayers’s organization. At its very best, calling Ayers a “terrorist” and implying he is somehow in collusion with Barack Obama is dumb. It is dumber than dumb. It is just plain stOOpid. At its worst, it suggests a lack of character.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Black Liberation Theology can be fairly complex. Your implication that the entire thought system is worthy of condemnation suggests to me a great, likely insurmountable ignorance of just what Black Liberation Theology is. Please list the specific concerns you have with Black Liberation Theology. Then we can talk about who believes what.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, of course Obama was man enough to admit his former drug use, and apparently in his book he writes that he stopped using drugs. So, if you wish to hear it from the candidate, you can always read his book. I haven’t read it, but of course I am not so dishonest and self-defeating that I would require it to answer such asinine questions as the one we are discussing here.</p>
<p>Ayers’ group actually formally declared “War” on the U.S. and he has recently (in adulthood) been photgraphed trampling on the American Flag.</p>
<p>How does someone like that gain any kind of standing in the community? He should be repudiated unless he pays a debt to society for his crimes and/or apologizes. He’s been quoted as saying that he doesn’t regret his actions & wishes he’d done more!</p>
<p>Well of course. It was a radical group that existed what, forty years ago in response to the U.S. war against innocent people. I don’t agree with it, but there is no way that group can be legitimately characterized as a “terrorist” group. It bombed no one but itself and some silly statues. It consisted of silly kids who tought they were helping a good cause against a corrupt government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Big deal. That is protected speech. I may not like it, but perhaps he was making a point that in fact expresses love of country. I must see the photo and understand its context before I judge it here. I do not trust you and your sort to get this correct because, to my mind, you have not shown much decency and integrity when it comes to representing your ideological opponents. I need to see this for myself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He has apologized for much of what took place in those days. He does not apologize for his motives. He gained stature in the community because apparently he is very good at what he does.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you misrepresent him here, likely from the New York Times article, which Ayers protested vociferously. He did not wish he had bombed more. He agrees that The Weathermen used ineffective tactics, since despite its nonsense the war persisted for another ten years. According to him, he was too self-absorbed and arrogant to see that more effective protests (than bombing statues) against the United States was needed, and he wishes he had developed these protests at the time.</p>
<p>It is apparant that you (and perhaps other supporters of The One) hold William Ayers in high regard.</p>
<p>I would, however, note the irony. While Barack Hussein Obama’s close friend William Ayers was building schrapnel nail bombs to inflict harm on statues as you put it, Senator John McCain was being tortured as a prisoner of war.</p>