Barack's great deception

In 1995, Barack Obama published an autobiography that has sold like hotcakes and helped make him and his wife quite wealthy people. Titled Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama's book got rave reviews, just like the national address he delivered in defense of his 20 years following the spiritual leadership of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I wrote at FamilySecurityMatters.com about the Wright speech when it was delivered back in March. Now a writer with the pseudonym Michael Gledhill has written a devastating comparison of the Barack Hussein Obama appearing in Dreams and the one now appearing regularly on your TV screen and about to be officially the Democratic Party's candidate for president. It is titled "Who Is Barack Obama?" and can be found in the September 1 print issue of National Review and at this link.

Numerous analysts of Obama's writing and speechifying have noted the same strength and weakness: well-formed rhetoric pleasing to the eye or ear but lacking substance. Dreams is full of substance -- but little or none that a patriot would recognize as suitable background for a U.S. senator, let alone for someone aspiring to lead our country as its president.

Just like his wife Michelle, the Barack Obama of Dreams was a bitterly race-conscious person with a high dislike for the United States. Or in the concluding words of Michael Gledhill, "Dreams from My Father reveals Barack Obama as a self-constructed, racially obsessed man who regards most whites as oppressors. It is the work of a clever but shallow thinker who confuses ideological cliché for insight – a man who sees U.S. history as a narrow, bitter tale of race and class victimization."

I am reminded of the supreme irony of the demeaning remarks Obama recently leveled at Justice Clarence Thomas. In contrast to Thomas's, Obama's youth (as well, by the way, as that of his America-hating pastor Wright) was Easy Street. As an intellectual and patriot, neither Obama nor Wright could carry Thomas's briefcase.

Ironies in Jackson puff piece

"I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man." So said Dr. King on the day before he was murdered in 1968. The quote appears in a photo caption with today's long, largely uncritical piece on Jesse Jackson in the Rocky. Jackson is seen next to King in that picture. M. E. Sprengelmeyer does a pretty good job of recapping Jackson's epic gaffe from this June when his raging jealousy and resentment of Barack Obama burst out in a comment (unknowingly recorded) about wanting to "cut his nuts off." But the article would be better journalism had it given us those four exact words, instead of the delicate euphemism the writer substituted.

Sprengelmeyer also fails to acknowledge the dark side of Jackson's 40-year career as a race-guilt hustler, with all the vast personal enrichment, prestige, and sexual license which are now uncomfortably contrasted with Obama's moral uplift speeches -- and which face extinction if America elects a black President.

That's the real source of Jesse Jackson's hot-mic indiscretion. Unlike MLK, he's worried about plenty, and he fears one man very much. Hence the castration fantasy. CNN's question to viewers a few weeks ago, quoted by Sprengelmeyer, "Has Jesse Jackson become irrelevant?", is in process of coming true with Obama's nomination, and will take hold with cold finality on Nov. 5 if Obama wins.

Another irony in this fawning three-page spread on Jesse the Great cropped up in the sidebar on lessons he allegedly learned from patching up a welfare-reform dispute with Bill Clinton at DNC 1996: "Set aside differences while the television cameras are on, deal with internal squabbles later." Bet he was wishing he'd taken his own advice on the Fox set, after the firestorm broke earlier this summer.

Racial demons still torment us

It is a faint memory now, but at the height of the civil rights revolution in the 1950s and 1960s, advocates contended for a color-blind society. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King persuasively wrote that all persons should be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Yet we are as race-conscious as we have ever been, if not more so. In fact, Americans have made great progress toward this humane vision of political community. Racial minorities are well-represented in all walks of life, in the arts, the professions and the workplace. But this change has been accompanied by a persistent demand for entitlements as distinguished from rights, which burdens white people with guilt and tarnishes the achievements of non-white people with preference.

A friend of mine who grew up in northern Florida and encountered ugly racial discrimination wrote 20 years ago that Americans were dominated by race in ways supposed to be extirpated by the success of civil rights legislation. The reason, he said, was that the idea of equality of opportunity had been hijacked by equality of condition. This unfortunate state of affairs has not passed.

Whether it is presidential politics or the most personal experiences of everyday life, race trumps everything. Americans are justly proud of the pending nomination of the first presidential candidate of African descent. It would seem to give the lie to those who write off Americans as irredeemably racist. Democratic voters and activists have freely consented to elevating Sen. Barack Obama to our highest office, and public opinion polls indicate that he has more than an even chance of being elected.

Yet Obama has already given the lie to our people’s hopefulness by emphasizing his race. Recently he voiced his concerns about the Republican campaign that will be waged against him. “We know the strategy,” he said. Republicans planned to make people afraid of him. They’d say “he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

Republicans have long and rightly feared that this was precisely the tack that Obama would take in his quest for national leadership. Despite all of Obama’s talk of “change” and “unity” and “bipartisanship,” he is indistinguishable from the Democratic liberals who, with the exception of the triangulating Bill Clinton, went down to defeat, from George McGovern to John Kerry. He needs race to distract the largely centrist American electorate from his unelectable political leanings.

Those who now swoon for Obama, whatever their race or ethnicity, are captivated by the thought of electing our first black president, indifferent if not oblivious, to the fact that, just as we cannot justify electing someone to office just because he or she is white, neither can we countenance voting for Obama just because he is black.

Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz has remarked on the Obama phenomenon in the course of concluding, as the headline for her column last week read, “American politics aren’t ‘post-racial’” She devoted most of her piece, however, to an incident at Purdue University that will strike most of us as bizarre. But in the current political climate, it is all too illustrative.

A student was “caught” last year reading a book entitled “Notre Dame v. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan,” a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s. Keith Sampson, a student employed by Purdue’s janitorial staff, was charged with reading a book during his lunch break with a title that offended black employees and students. It did not matter that the book told a story about people opposed to racism, which book Sampson had checked out of the university library.

One would think that the old admonition not to judge a book by its cover literally would be applicable to this case, but one would be wrong. Several layers of union and college officialdom took umbrage before the American Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education took up the student’s case and thus embarrassed all those seeking to prosecute Mr. Sampson for his “thought crime.” The resultant publicity forced University Chancellor Charles R. Bantz to issue an apologetic letter transforming the nature of the charge from one of reading a book to “harassing” other college personnel, which doubtless convinced nobody.

It’s as if we have all been forced to return to childhood, wherein distinctions between fact and fantasy have dissolved, and people are accused of whatever we believe or wish they were guilty of, so that the accusers can enjoy the satisfaction of being “little goody two shoes” above all reproach.

Unfortunately, the incident at Purdue is not isolated nor localized but has become typical and national. We, the benefactors of the civil rights revolution, should be placing its principles into practice by making decisions based on the merits of the case and the character of individuals. In countless instances across America, that is exactly what we are doing. But in our most powerful institutions we are failing miserably.

Barack spins for survival

Obama on the campaign trail isn't practicing what he preached (pun intended) in last week's widely praised speech where he sought a more open, honest dialogue about race in America. Barack Obama was in North Carolina yesterday, giving a new version of his stump speech. The senator has apparently found the Lord, and wants to share with his audiences just how pure and mainstream a religious man he is. He's on a new strategy to downplay his 20+ year association with Reverend Wright of the Trinity United Church in Chicago. The four-part spin goes something like this:

(1) Minimize it: In comments to one crowd, Obama called this whole issue of Wright an unnecessary "distraction" from the real problems people face in this country. "We can't lose sight of America's real issues -- like the War in Iraq -- every time someone says something stupid".

Now, calling Wright's sermons simply "stupid" is, in my view, a significant back-track from the major speech he gave last week on the issue of race, when he rejected Wright's views and condemned them.

Obama also stressed that Wright has given three sermons a week for 30 years and that those opposed to his candidacy had found "five or six of his most offensive statements" and "boiled" them down to play over and over. "I hope people don't get distracted by that."

Why should people get distracted by the fact that the spiritual adviser to the presumptive Democrat candidate for President of the United States should blame white America for 9/11, the Palestinian problem and all the problems of blacks in this country?

(2) Mainstream it: Yesterday, Obama spoke of the Trinity United Church as if it were the most tolerant, open congregation in the country. "Everybody is welcome to come to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street. It is a wonderful, welcoming church," he said. "If you were there on any given Sunday, folks would be doing the same things in church at Trinity as they do everywhere else. They're praising Jesus. They've got a choir singing. It's a very good choir. And the pastor is trying to teach a lesson to connect scripture to our everyday lives."

Unfortunately, Obama stopped short of citing the specific scriptures that tells us that the U.S. government created AIDS to destroy the black community, or that introduced drugs into black neighborhoods.

(3) Backtrack from it: Though in his widely reviewed speech on Race last week Obama admitted to having attended some of the Wright sermons that were universally found offensive, yesterday he backtracked, saying that Wright had said some "very objectionable things when I wasn't in church on those particular days."

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "in" is...if it means "in church" as actually sitting in the pews, or if it means "in church" as in standing in the parking lot where he couldn't really hear the sermon going on inside. Bill Clinton would be proud of such practiced dissembling.

(4) If You Can't Beat 'em, Join 'em: In Greensboro, Obama's campaign staff has found the Lord as well, now using prayer before his events, something that began since the controversy over Wright and his remarks. "Thank you for this time of excitement and enthusiasm," a local reverend prayed. "I pray a special blessing, oh God, a special blessing, on Barack Obama." The audience was then led in the Pledge of Allegiance. And if there was any question that Obama is a religious and patriotic American, he ended his speech with a "God bless America."

So, the candidate who wouldn't wear an American flag on his lapel pin is now cloaking himself in both the bible and the flag at his campaign events. Does this not strike you as a cold and calculating way of actually avoiding that real discussion of race that he says he so desperately wants in America?

This strikes me as disingenuous, and I hope most of America will not buy what Obama is selling now: a "slick Willie" style attempt to triangulate his position and his beliefs, with an obvious hope that the public will eventually be so confused by the ever-changing position that they will simply remember the last thing that the candidate says.

We've had enough dissembling in the White House. It is time for some straight talk!

Obie didn't make the sale

Obama failed to explain how a church can harmonize Wright's "God damn America" with Christ's "blessed are the peacemakers." My own limited experience worshiping in a black inner-city church has been diametrically different. Rather than Wright's hateful condemnation of white people, the message at this church contained not a tinge of racial exclusivity. [Editor: That's from Mark Hillman's latest Capitol Review column. Here's the column in full.]

Obama not so different rationalizing race, Wright

"If you really believe black people are 'fellow Americans,' then treat them as such." - John McWhorter, "Losing The Race"

If Barack Obama truly wants to transcend race, he would do well to apply the words of John McWhorter to his "explanation" of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Obama is supposed to be different: a messenger of hope and change, not just another beltway politician; an agent of reconciliation not grievances and reparations; a unifier who transcends partisan and racial divides.

That's why many gave him the benefit of the doubt when he explained that he didn't wear a U.S. flag lapel pin because he viewed it as a "substitute for ... true patriotism."

That's why some gave Michelle Obama a mulligan when she said, "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

That's why Obama's rating as the most liberal senator in 2007 by the respected National Journal never seemed to resonate beyond conservative circles.

However, in addressing his 20-year relationship with Wright, whom he calls his spiritual mentor, Obama sounded like every other scripted politician snared by a public relations debacle. Obama's devotion to Wright peeled back the veneer in a way that voters of every stripe could not ignore.

If he was prescient enough, according to fellow travelers, to have foreseen the perils of war in Iraq, how can he imagine that Jeremiah Wright never talked "about any ethnic group in derogatory terms" in private conversations?

If he really possesses "judgment to lead," why wasn't his judgment as keen as that of Oprah Winfrey who left Trinity United Church of Christ several years ago?

If his oratorical skills are so remarkable, why didn't he explain how sermons referring to the "US of KKKA" or "a world ... where white folks' greed runs a world in need" can conceivably coincide with aims for racial harmony?

The insurmountable obstacle for people who previously extended to Obama the benefit of the doubt is that the aforementioned can no longer be easily dismissed as aberrations or gaffes. Instead, they fit more easily into a profile of someone who doesn't afford that same benefit to others.

If U.S. flag lapel pins are symbols of superficial jingoism, were we to ignore that Obama surrounded himself with at least a half-dozen full-size flags for his speech explaining his relationship with Rev. Wright? Equally conspicuous was the absence of trademark signs sloganeering for Hope, Change, Judgment and Leadership.

Absent, too, was evidence of the courage so often assigned to Obama. Few people who take their faith seriously would continue to attend - much less donate $20,000 to - a church where the pastor regularly punctuates his sermons with rants like those Obama described as "not only wrong but divisive."

The very public rift between the Catholic church and parishioners who disagree with church doctrine on abortion and gay marriage is a marked contrast to Obama's supposed silent disapproval of Wright's message.

Moreover, Obama's assertion that Wright's church contains "the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America" should be insulting to black congregations that, regardless of their political ideology, recognize that the universal message of Jesus Christ compels Christians to preach the truth in love and to embrace forgiveness.

Obama failed to explain how a church can harmonize Wright's "God damn America" with Christ's "blessed are the peacemakers." My own limited experience worshiping in a black innercity church has been diametrically different.

Rather than Wright's hateful general condemnation of white people, the message at this church whose congregants were almost certainly aligned to the political left was vibrant, both spiritually and personally challenging, and although socially candid, contained not a tinge of racial exclusivity.

Accepting Obama's contention that Wright's public pronouncements do not square with his private persona requires, to quote Hillary Clinton, "a suspension of disbelief."

Obama's white grandmother, he says, confessed a fear of black men and uttered racial stereotypes. But she did so privately. People are generally more coarse and unguarded on any subject in their private utterances than in their public pronouncements. Obama would have us believe that Wright said things from the pulpit that he would never say privately.

The candidate who would unify us by transcending race has, unfortunately, resorted to the same race-based rationalizations that perpetuate division and thwart hopes for a post-racial society.

"A person you excuse from any genuine challenge is a person you do not truly respect," McWhorter writes. Obama's desire to be elected appears to have surpassed his desire to be respected.