Obama's Other Spiritual Mentor: Rev. Michael Pfleger
Christopher Hitchens' latest column in Slate states: "In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger--for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan."
Pfleger is the Pastor at St. Sabina's Catholic Church, on the South Side of Chicago. So I searched Westlaw's ALLNEWS database for "Obama and Pfleger."
According to the April 5, 2004 Chicago Sun-Times article cited by Hitchens:
Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn--Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.As Hitchens wrote, Rev. Pfleger is indeed an admirer of "Minister Farrakhan." Ambushed by a Bill O'Reilly camera crew, Pfleger stated: "He has--first of all, he has not called Judaism a gutter religion of blood suckers. That is not what he has said because I have heard that talk. I stick up for Louis Farrakhan because he is another person that the media has chosen to define how they want to do it. And they demonize how they want to demonize somebody. I know the man, Louis Farrakhan. He is a great man. I have great respect for him, ho has done an awful lot for people and this country, black, white, and brown. He's a friend of mine." (The O'Reilly Factor, Apr. 3, 2008.) Farrakhan spoke at St. Sabina's on May 25, 2007. (Chicago Sun Times, May 10, 2007.)
"I always have felt in him this consciousness that, at the end of the day, with all of us, you've got to face God," Pfleger says of Obama. "Faith is key to his life, no question about it. [It is] central to who he is, and not just in his work in the political field, but as a man, as a black man, as a husband, as a father.... I don't think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is."
Like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who was recently an invited speaker at Rev. Pfleger's church, Rev. Pfleger believes that "racism is still America's greatest addiction." (Chicago Sun Times, Jan. 17, 2004.)
In September 2007 in Iowa, Plfeger participated in forums on the role of spirituality in politics, which the Obama campaign had organized. (US Federal News, Oct. 1 & 14, 2007; Chicago Sun Times, Sept. 12, 2007). The Obama campaign touted Pfleger's endorsement, listing him as one of about a dozen prominent ministers who supported Obama. (Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL), May 8, 2007.)
As a state legislator, Obama obtained $225,000 in grants for St. Sabina. (Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2007.)
Rev. Pfleger was a prominent early endorser of Obama's successful 2004 Senate campaign, as well as his unsuccessful 2000 challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.
Rev. Pfleger's church has taken some admirable stands against the degradation of American culture, such as speaking out against abusive rap music, and hosting a speaker who exposed the anti-Catholic compilation of lies in "The DaVinci Code." (Chicago Defender, May 15, 2006.) St. Sabina also organized a rally against the genocide in Darfur. (Chicago Sun Times, May 19, 2005.) Rev. Pfleger appeared at a press conference to support state legislator Obama's bill requiring the police to keep statistics on the race of motorists who were stopped by the police, so as to deter racial profiling. (Chicago Defender, Feb. 20, 2001.)
Rev. Pfleger also appeared at a press conference announcing State Senator Obama's proposal to outlaw the sale of bidi cigarettes--a type of high-nicotine hand-rolled cigarette which is made in India. (Chicago Defender, Feb. 5, 2000.)
Rev. Pfleger does not respect the property rights of persons who sell products he does not like. He "is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards." (Crain's Chicago Business, Dec. 20, 2004.)
The Westlaw database does not indicate that Sen. Obama has participated in the project which has gained Rev. Pfleger notoriety among Bill of Rights advocates: his persecution of Chuck's Gun Shop. Since all firearms stores have been driven out of Chicago, the closest firearms store to Chicago is Chuck's Gun Shop, in Riverdale, a short distance south of Chicago. Pursuant to Illinois law, Chuck's only sells guns to customers who have already obtained a Firearms Owner's Identification Card (FOID) issued by the Illinois State Police after a background check. The employees of Chuck's Gun Shop have also voluntarily undertaken the "Don't lie for the other guy" training program sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to help gun store employees detect straw purchases (purchases by legal buyers conducted on behalf of prohibited persons).
Yet the Reverends Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson have been organized large crowds to repeatedly picket Chuck's Gun Shop. On June 23, 2007, Revs. Jackson and Pfleger were arrested for criminally obstructing the entrance to the store. The charges were eventually dropped, just as Governor George Wallace never was criminally punished for standing in a doorway to obstruct the exercise of constitutional rights. (The comparison is a little unfair, since Wallace eventually stood aside, whereas Jackson and Pfleger had to be physically removed by the police.)
In another demonstration at Chuck's Gun Shop, owned by John Riggio, Rev. Pfleger told the crowd: "We're going to find you and snuff you out....Like a rat you're going to hide. But like a rat, we're going to catch you and pull you out....We're going to snuff out John Riggio." Rev. Pfleger also promised: "We're going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws. We're coming for you because we're not going to sit idly."
Rev. Pfleger later denied that his words had been meant to invoke violence, or that he had known that "snuff out" means to "kill." Rather, the determination to "snuff out" Riggio was a determination to find out his home address, which was not publically available.
According to Roget's Thesaurus, "snuff out" means "kill" and is similar to the following words: "blow away, bump off, chill, dispatch, dispose of, do away with, do in, dust, grease, hit, ice, knock off, murder, off, rub out, stretch out, waste, wax, whack, zap." In response to Rev. Pfleger's words, Cardinal Francis George, of the Archdiocese of Chicago, stated: "Publicly delivering a threat against anyone's life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest." (Chicago Sun Times, June 8, 2007.)
Rev. Pfleger proclaimed that the protests would continue (and that he would refuse to pay a fee imposed by a city ordinance to pay for the police services necessitated by the picketing) until the Riverdale city council decides to eliminate all gun stores, and "vote Riverdale gun-free." Or as Rev. Pfleger's picketers chanted, "Vote Riverdale gun dry." (Chicago Defender, Oct. 29, 2007).
Every American voter will have to decide how much importance, if any, to give to Sen. Obama's association with Rev. Pfleger. In my own view, I give greater attention to a religious figure who is a long-standing personal advisor to a candidate than to a religious figure who is merely one of thousands of political allies whom the candidate seeks out during a campaign. In deciding how to vote, I ignore purely theological issues (e.g., whether the Mitt Romney's LDS view of the afterlife is more plausible or less plausible than John Kerry's Roman Catholic view), but I consider the extent to which the candidate's religious philosophy may (like any other part of the candidate's worldview) influence his or her public policy decisions. In my view, it is relevant that a candidate has chosen spiritual mentors who are bigots or who are hostile to constitutional rights. Senator Obama's close relationship with Rev. Pfleger makes me less confident that a President Obama would be a strong defender of the entire Bill of Rights and of civic tolerance.
Haven't we been through this a million times already? The Da Vinci code is a work of FICTION. Storytelling to entertain. Fiction is "lies," but the reader KNOWS they're lies.
OK. Per the OED 2nd ed., "snuff" in reference to animate objects and specifically people means:
And to head off any possible arguments of English English vs. American...American Heritage Dict. 4th ed.:
Faced with his statements, Rev. Pfleger is now trying to claim he meant something like 'ferret out.' At the start of the tirade (at least in the audio I've heard), that seems plausible, but Pfleger talks about "snuff[ing] out" opponents in a manner beyond 'ferret[ing] out' or 'locating/exposing', so that dog just won't hunt:
Since words do have meanings, Pfleger should be held responsible for what he clearly said.
I'm originally from Chicago, and we Chicago Catholics are pretty familiar with Fr. Pfelger. The "snof out" comment about John Riggio was just disgusting, and made me wonder were Cardinal George was at the time. If someone had taken his words literally and tried to kill Riggio, the Archdiocese could not have escaped moral resonsibility. Pfelger should have been "discplined," as they say, and sent to a monastery to "pray and reflect" for a time. We simply cannot have clergy suggesting that people need to be murdered.
His relationship with Farrakhan is likewise shameful. The the Church has not always had the--ahem-- best relatioship with Jews throughout history. And Farrakhan *has* said what Fr. Pfleger imagines he has not. When Pfleger blames these stories on a "media' campaign, he means, perhaps, the "Jew-owned media"? I wonder why he forgot the adjective.
He's a darling of some on the left in Chicago: he alternative weekly, "The Reader," has fawned over him, for instance. But taking up good causes for the very poorest people does not compensate morally for inciting hatreds and denying rights to others. Which is not my opinion, but rather the teaching of the Church that ordained Pfleger.
I don't think that this says much about Obama. (Full disclosure statement: I'm voting for McCain.) Cook County politics is: (a)Democratic; (b)racialized; and (c)a total mess. You have to deal with all sorts of folks to get anything done. Obama may have gone overboard in praising Pfleger. But it probably doesn't go beyond that.
What I find odd, however, is that Wright is hardly a novelty in Chicago's Black churches. And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Wright has made some horribly bigoted statements about Catholics and the Vatican as part of his ministry. (And anti-gay comments as well.) It's a sad thing, but these Black self-help-inspired Churches tend always to go down that road, at least on the South Side of Chicago.
If this is the case for Wright, that would present more of a problem for Obama. But Pfleger? I'm certainly willing to give Obama a pass on that one.
I have no doubt that he is far more popular in our country than traitorous neocons like Joseph Lieberman (Senator - Israel). Unlike Zionists, Farrakhan actually wants what is best for AMERICA.
Yet the Reverends Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson have been organized large crowds to repeatedly picket Chuck's Gun Shop. On June 23, 2007, Revs. Jackson and Pfleger were arrested for criminally obstructing the entrance to the store. The charges were eventually dropped, just as Governor George Wallace never was criminally punished for standing in a doorway to obstruct the exercise of constitutional rights. (The comparison is a little unfair, since Wallace eventually stood aside, whereas Jackson and Pfleger had to be physically removed by the police.)
You really think that this is a fair charge? George Wallace's defense of segregation really is equivalent to a wrongheaded attempt to picket a gun store? Really really?
Ya think most Americans are gonna agree with you? Ya think that this supporter of the Second Amendment agrees with you? Ya think that this supporter of McCain agrees with you? Do you have any idea how you're coming across? (I'm hoping "no.") And for what? Your aside regarding Wallace is completely irrelevant to your point. Why include it?
Please treat comparisons involving segregation and slavery the same as comparisons involving the Nazis: deploy them only when directly on point. This isn't.
Of course the obfuscating Zionist Koppel didn't want to mention those facts.
Huh. But when evil Zionists like Larry Silverstein say "pull," it makes them complicit in the WTC "conspiracy."
Wow! Those Jews sure are a tricky bunch!
For the curious, here is what the first thesaurus I randomly pulled up online says about snuff (Yahoo Thesaurus):
To perceive with the olfactory sense: nose, scent, smell, sniff, whiff. Idiom: catch (or get) a whiff of. See smells.
In any event, after reading login's rants, I reread Mr. Kopel's post. I fail to see where David Kopel pushes any "Zionist" agenda. The closest I could find (and I presume that this is login's evidence as indicated by login's two posts) is Kopel's discussion of Pfleger's relationship with Minister Farrakan. Unless I am missing somthing, (and please inform me otherwise, login), Farrakan is a lightning rod because of his anti-SEMETITIC comments, not his anti-Zionist comments. Unless, of course, you are equivocating the two.
I would love some enlightenment on these points.
What, did a Nation of Islam meeting let out early?
Statistics are only useful when their source is readily apparent. The stat cited came from the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, a defunct gun control group that's since been incorporated into Third Way, "a non-profit, non-partisan strategy center for progressives" dedicated to "advancing a 21st century progressive agenda."
The question of potential bias here is left to the individual reader...
Pfleger can quibble over what the meaning of the word 'is' is (or 'snuff out' in his case) in hindsight, but the audio I cited paints quite a different picture. One could argue Pfleger should have said 'ferret out' (my guess) or 'pull out,' but the reality is that he did not. Trying to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
I've heard a lot about Wright, now I know about Pfleger, but what about Meeks? In Wikipedia, I find a number of men named James Meeks, one of whom is a Baptist minister in the Chicago area and a state Senator who served alongside Obama. Assuming that's the one:
1) In 1998, Meeks led a movement to “dry up” Roseland Community by collecting votes to close 26 liquor stores.
2) According to a 2006 Chicago Sun Times article, his church sponsored a "Halloween fright night" which "consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals." He reportedly blames "Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain". That makes him anti-gay and anti-semitic.
3)Obama can hardly claim to be unaware of Meek's anti-gay leanings, since he was in the legislature when Meeks worked to defeat a LGBT anti-discrimination bill. (To be fair, I don't know the details of Illinois SB3186, and I oppose many proposed anti-discrimination measures on freedom of association grounds, but given #1 and #2, I think it's obvious that respect for other people's rights didn't motivate Meek's opposition.)
At least he's not a racist that I've found, and he's also into things that I strongly support: a (apparently private church-based) mentoring program for young mothers, trying to improve the schools by paying bonuses to experienced teachers for working in inner-city schools (but apparently not a supporter of school choice), and cameras in every police car. But overall aside from the anti-gay thing he's just what I'd expect from a very liberal Democrat: looking for government intervention into every problem, and with no respect for individual rights, only for the rights of the disadvantaged groups he favors.
And in these ways, he's the least bad of Obama's spiritual advisors.
Obama can choose who he uses as a spiritual mentor. That choice says something about his views/politics. Using that choice to judge his character is completely fair in my opinion.
Turning to the issue, I think it is very troubling that Obama not only accepts this rhetoric but affirmatively has said that Wright and Pfleger and essential influences in his life. When he goes public and says that, it is entirely fair to look at those who have such influence whether they are religious figures or not. Further, none of the issues set forth above nor from Wright relate to religious matters or theology -- they are comments on social or political matters. That seems an eminently fair subject of commentary.
It's amazing how American Zionists like Dave Koppel forget who Minister Farrakhan is. Do you remember the million man march?
I have no doubt that he is far more popular in our country than traitorous neocons like Joseph Lieberman (Senator - Israel). Unlike Zionists, Farrakhan actually wants what is best for AMERICA.
Remember people, if you say Zionist instead of jew, you can't possibly be an anti-semite or a bigot, no matter how much bile you spew.
This is WONDERFUL news. I did not know that people who did not like George Bush could simply give him the bin Laden family or Putin's viewpoints. I had up until now thought that we had to attack George Bush by the things George Bush actually believes in, or has done. Shucks, all this wasted time.
If you can show us where President Bush has ever publicly declared that Vladamir Putin or any member of the bin Laden family was a "spirtual advisor" or "mentor," then have at it.
End of discussion.
Actually, I think Cornellian's comment has quite a bit to do with the topic.
Obama can choose who he uses as a spiritual mentor. That choice says something about his views/politics.
It also says something about those who keeping flogging this issue, namely that they haven't got anything on Obama himself, so they resort to guilt by association attacks. Nice to see they also preemptively explain why they're giving McCain a free pass for sucking up to Hagee.
Yup. And this is where Kopel lost me. Anyone who says something as silly as this (the "compilation of lies in the DaVinci Code") has put himself on par with the Very Reverend Mr. Farrakhan.
Dave Kopel writes on how disarming was not part of Dr. King's message nor Gandhi's.
A man who promises to be a healer who actively supports radical racial conspiracy theorists should be exposed as the liar he is.
Accuse David Kopel of being an "American Zionist" (perhaps the poster was confusing him with David Bernstein but I have it on good authority that they are, indeed, two different people).
Provide dubious statistics about the gunshop picketed by Father Pfleger and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Compare Senator Obama's comments about Father Pfleger (and Rev. Wright) being "spiritual mentors" with President Bush's statements about "seeing Vladmir Putin's soul."
And smear Senator McCain by linking to a left-wing website and a book by an obscure author, but no other source.
Now mind you, some of these people were gleefully attacking John McCain for accepting John Hagee's endorsement but are now crying foul at any criticism of Barack Obama--making the preemmptive argument that to say anything negative about Obama's associations is somehow a variation of "Swiftboating."
Traditional fiction uses the real world with fictional characters doing fictional things and saying fictional things and coming to fictional bad or good endings.
Stories like DaVinci remake the real world and add the fictional characters.
So where a reader would be inclined to believe that, say, Travis McGee's Florida is full of shady developers (which is true), but that McGee did not exist, a reader of DaVinci would be inclined to believe that the history involved is true.
Authors have an implicit contract to get the real world right, and so readers are inclined to believe them when reading about some aspect of the real world unfamiliar to them.
DaVinci and such break the contract.
As such, discussing the reality is justified, as discussing the realities of Florida in opposition to McGee's renderings is not.
Amazing. It's so easy to keep a straight face at the keyboard.
Dave N. has pretty much said it all. I await the next attack on Obama for associating with the wrong kind of clergy. God forbid he ever runs into Sister Helen Prejean.
In other words, accusing someone of a crime merely because his associates are bad people is not necessarily legitimate. But criticizing someone because he chooses to associate with those bad people is entirely legitimate.
Unlike anyone else running for President, or currently holding that office.
And as Zathras says, Brown's book is based on pseudo-history -- he pretty much cribbed the whole thing from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, except he made 100 times more money than those losers.
(Note to self: write ready-for-screenplay "novel" based on premise that Chariots of the Gods? is historical fact; send to Dan Brown's agent.)
"And I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Wright has made some horribly bigoted statements about Catholics and the Vatican as part of his ministry. (And anti-gay comments as well.)"
Care to back that up? I'll bet you a box of gold-plated Krispy Kremes you can't.
By NEELA BANERJEE
Published: April 8, 2008
When Senator John McCain won the endorsement of the Rev. John C. Hagee in February, his campaign hoped it would shore up his conservative credentials among evangelicals and build enthusiasm among a voting bloc that would be critical for him in November.
But since then, Mr. Hagee has been on the defensive over some of his views about Catholics and Jews, and he and Mr. McCain’s campaign have been silent about his endorsement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/us/politics/08hagee.html
“In my view, it is relevant that a candidate has silently accepted the endorsement of those [
has chosen spiritual mentors] who are bigots or who are hostile to constitutional rights. Senator McCain’s [Obama's close relationship with Rev. Pfleger] action of accepting this endorsement makes me less confident that a President McCain [Obama] would be a strong defender of the entire Bill of Rights and of civic tolerance."Or has he adopted a left wing strategy to reflect his constituency? His political style, detailed here and elsewhere, is to seek consensus which will draw him to the center on the national platform. To the extent that his platform differs from Hillary's, it's to the right, e.g the greater role of the private sector in his healthcare proposal.
All this argument for guilt by association disappoints me. It's cheap-shotting. Further, it's not realistic. People don't drop their friends for off-the-wall political views. They just don't.
The amusing thing to me about Wright, and now Pfleger, is how comical it is for white people to find out what black people do in church on Sunday morning.
Apparently, some thought it was all just "hallelujah!" and gospel choirs and people flyin' up through the air like in The Blues Brothers. Remember James Brown preaching that sermon? THAT's how black people are supposed to act.
Not all this scary talking about politics and white people.
And lolcats! "If God wanted cats to speak, he would have given them tongues to speak with," Pfleger is rumored to have been overheard allegedly saying. "And not in that debased 'ebonics' text-message gibberish, either."
Has Obama denounced this anti-lolcat hate speech? Does Obama himself secretly hate lolcats? WILL OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LOLCATS BE TRASHED UNDER BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA?
OH NOES!!!!
Yes. politicians associate at times with people we might disagree with. A 1,000 word post on one side's associations is nothing more than hackery on its face because such similar concerns are never expressed against the other side.
It's intellectually dishonest and, really, beneath law prof norm.
There's a term for your tactic. Deliberately obtuse.
Point is, in DaVinci, Brown seeks to misinform his readers about the real world to make his fiction more compelling, with the result that his readers may believe that which is not true about the real world.
Potter does not.
As you know.
No question it's fair game, but it's an indirect attack rather than a direct one. Plenty of people have taken Ron Paul to task directly for things he said or wrote himself, but in the case of Obama the detractors use guilt by association.
It's almost unfathomable that after over a year on the campaign trail Obama seems not to have said anything to embarrass himself. Compare that to the record of Clinton or the inept McCain.
As a previous commenter said: if this is the best the anti-Obama crowd can come up with, the guy is gold in the general election.
See SeaDrive:
See also Anderson:
Please note, the post indicates that Mr. Pfleger is white and the post does not indicate the ethnic or racial make up of Mr. Pfleger's flock, but I give you points for insinuating that those of us who are disturbed are just closet racists.
In any event, assuming that this was not the case, I am simply thrilled to hear that black churches are (in the least) as nonchalant about antisemites as Rev. White and have no problem with "snuffing people out" as Mr. Pfleger apparently is. It makes a guy feel all warm and fuzzy inside to see that this is not problematic to at least some voters.
Personally, I would never have voted for him after I found out that he went to Punahou. I attended the (small) Catholic School across the street. Punahou (the large, expensive, private school) was founded by Congregational (Puritan) Missionaries from New England who didn't want their children educated with "natives". We didn't like 'punks from Punahou'.
The excoriation of Mr. Dan Brown seems to be based on this:
-- He wrote a work of fiction, using as his take-off point some crappy pseudo history.
-- He made a lot of money off his work of fiction.
-- Some stupid readers may believe that the DaVinci Code is, itself, based on historical fact.
-- Dan Brown is to blame because he did not insist that his publisher put a big sticker on the cover of his book stating, "This is a work of fiction. Nothing in this book should be construed as historical fact."
In case you don't believe me, this is Richard Aubrey's criticism of Brown
I'm curious: is this Kopel's problem with The DaVinci Code? Because it strikes me as a ridiculous argument.
How dare Shakespeare call his plays Henry IV! A real, historical figure! I always thought the dialogue in those plays was taken directly from hidden sureveillance microphones placed throughout Henry's palaces! Where's old Will Shakespeare's disclaimer? And he marketed this claptrap, in part, to the completely uneducated masses filling the lawns of the Old Globe! They might've thought it was historical fact. What an evil man!!
To me, the interesting thing about Pfleger is that, considering where and when he was born, he didn't grow up racist. All through the sixties, South side blacks moved westward, creating a ripple of integration followed by rapid resegregation. On the South side, racism against blacks was a given -- it wasn't even questioned. After the first blacks moved into a white neighborhood, real estate agents would encourage whites to sell before "property values dropped further." This was called "block-busting." Auburn-Gresham, home of Saint Sabina's, once all Irish Catholic, became almost entirely African-American. (A few whites remained, and I even know some whites who later moved in, professors at the nearby Chicago State University.) The almost all-white, largely ethnically Irish diocesan priesthood, was not notable for their racial tolerance. A very very few priests, such as Milwaukee's Fr. Groppi, publicly opposed racism. He later left the priesthood to become a Milwaukee bus driver.
Through the 60s, however, Holy Angels' parish school was notable for enrolling black children fleeing the wretched public schools of that era. As a condition of attendance, the pastor required school children to attend Sunday Mass with their parents, irrespective of their faith. As a result, many black Chicagoans converted to Catholicism. Fr. Pfleger serves many of these people.
Is anti-black racism gone from Chicago's South side? Consider that the elementary school athletics conference, the Southside Catholic conference, chooses not to admit Fr. Pfleger's school.
I'm not sure if you misread my comment or are agreeing with me with sarcasm (which I am not catching that easily). I would point to my earlier post at 8:15 a.m. and ask for clarification, but I "think" I understand your statement and agree with the sentiment.
Maybe that's because, at least so far no credible source has been cited. The article linked to is titled "Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'cunt'". Even if the event happened, it's a bit dated -- unless there's a history of similar conduct, remarks or associations over the past 16 years.
Next, the article is reviewing allegations in "The Real McCain" by Cliff Schecter. I had no idea who Cliff Schecter was, so I did an internet search. His website, http://cliffschecter.blogspot.com, proclaims:
and, elsewhere on his site I found "Cliff Schecter is a veteran campaign strategist and political commentator. Schecter is a regular contributor to the Huffington Post . . ."
The publicist for the book is a "Beau Friedlander". On a site providing information about him, under "Beau Friedlander’s Summary" I found the statement " Over a career in adult trade publishing that spans 12 years, he has worked in different capacities with a wide range of authors including Daniel Quinn, Joan Didion, David Means, Scott Ritter, Edward Said, Nicholas Montemarano, Greg Bottoms, Zinovy Zinik, Speed Levitch, and Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos."
In other words, Mr. Schecter has an evident agenda. The site you linked to reminds me of the recent NYT Page 1 article about SEN McCain citing as its sources 2 un-named, low-level, apparently disgruntled 2000 Campaign staffers who repeated gossip about McCain possibly having a relationship that could be construed as looking questionable, with a female lobbyist. Schecter appears to have about that level of credibility.
That's far different from looking at a person SEN Obama has identified as one of his 3 primary spiritual mentors. It is equally fair to look at people chosen by SENs Obama, Clinton and McCain as advisors in other areas, like foreign policy. Who the candidate chooses to seek advise and guidance from, that those advisors views, tells you quite a lot about who that person, as President, will seek advise and guidance from, and what views the President will receive.
One chooses, chooses, to spend time, mental energy, attention, and possibly money with some people and chooses not to do so with other people. Some of those with whom one does not associate are disliked, some not interesting, some just don't make the associate cut.
So those with whom one associates are a good reflection of what one likes, values, aspires to, is comfortable with. It tells us what a person chooses and is a good reflection of what he would choose in the future.
And that is a good thing to know about a presidential candidate.
It isn't as if one got cooties accidentally, brushing against someone on the subway.
Obama sat in the church for twenty years, apparently too zoned out to hear the sermons. That's a useful datum.
He bought the tapes and didn't listen to them....
He took his children there.
Can't mean nothing.
You could imagine if McCain had been snake-handling or something. Would that count? Dumb question.
in bizarro world, the city of chicago bans all abortion facilities from its city limits.
a clinic opens up outside the city limits, manned by Mr. Reggioo.
Jackson, Pfleger gather on the steps of Reggioo's clinic and block access. they are arrested, but not charged. Pflger repeatedly claims that Reggioo needs to be "snuffed out".
etc.
i also agree with the poster who said that pfleger (and especially jackson) are PROFESSIONAL orators.
it's a little difficult to believe that he didn't know darn well what "snuff out" means.
not saying i find it impossible, just unlikely.
i am trying to imagine an analogy in domestic violence cases.
an estranged boyfriend stands in front of a woman's shelter and says "i'm gonna snuff out sallie jane" (his ex). "we need to snuff her out" etc.
would the average leftist believe that he meant he just wanted to find out where she lives so he could send her flowers?
Ah, Pfleger is white? Fine. Wright is still black though, yes? As my parenthetical indicated, however, my opinion was formed re: Wright --
I've never heard of this Pfleger character till Prof. Kopel's weird post, which resembles the kind of thing I find in my inbox when the spam filter is down.
That's a deliberate mischaracterization of the situation.
Dan Brown has repeatedly claimed his trashy novel is based on genuine research and accurately reflects historical fact. He _encourages_ people to believe that the nutty, laughable theories in his book are not only plausible, but true.
Yes, as a general rule an author should not be held to believe the kooky ideas expressed by characters in his fiction. OTOH, when the author himself goes around claiming those ideas are true, that he has proof of their truth, and that people should believe in the ideas, that general rule ceases to apply.
Obvious fiction, like every other art form, is used as a vehicle for propaganda all the time, often with great effect. Brown is part of that tradition. People at the receiving end of vicious propaganda (such as a Roman Catholic priest responding to "The DaVinci Code") are entitled to respond. Its a bit rich to criticize their response by claiming they are overreacting to "fiction". I'm guessing most of those who dismiss Catholic concerns of "The DaVinci code" as absurd would be much less quick to dismiss Jewish concern over "The Turner Diaries" or black concern over "The Birth of a Nation".
This is actually my favorite part of the whole blog entry. Obama seeks to ban a type of cigarette....that happen to be different from the type HE prefers to smoke.
This little factoid reveals more to us about Obama's approach to government than would an entire book of facts about Pfleger's activism.
See, I tend to like giving people the benefit of the doubt. If I can find a good reason - any good reason - why something might not be horrible and unforgivable, I tend to accept it... because people who really are horrible and unforgivable tend to pile up a big long series of horrible and unforgivable things, and only a tiny fraction of them have a good excuse. So even if Pfleger is a nasty old evil person, giving the benefit of the doubt here will make little difference in the ability to draw a rational overall conclusion.
Is that so? Did you know that 49 Attorneys General wanted to ban bidi cigarettes also?
link
Weren't the baddies in DVC acting as rogue elements? I don't recall the story's saying that the Pope personally sent them on a mission to kill Tom Hanks or whomever.
Problem with the third-rate paperback is that it has convinced a number of people that certain things which are not true today are true today. Those institutions so misrepresented are likely to respond. I imagine some later Tudors have written on how their various kings were misrepresented. Their privilege.
So, I say, chill on the subject of those attempting to straighten out the public's views vis a vis da Vinci.
Although I suspect there are some who view the misapprehension as a positive.
Propaganda is not usually effective as a one-time ten-inch headline with exclamation points. It works better built into and leading from the generally believed.
For two fictional examples, see Wolfen and The Exorcist. They would be far less terrifying (the books) if the author were not canny enough to lead from the generally believed as true, to the believable, through to the unbelievable.
Anyway, the other point is that Obama chose to listen to Wright for two decades and it is hard to imagine anybody doing that without either approving or seeing nothing wrong with the messages. That's a useful thing to know about a presidential candidate.
Almost as impressive as Eliot Spitzer's courageous prosecution of call girl rings.
Ban Wolfen! Ban The Exorcist! The authors of both (as well as the author of the DaVinci Code) bear the satanic stain of "canniness."
Usual trope. Object to something, become a foe of the First Amendment. Don't you think everybody's on to that already?
Jeez. Get a new schtick.
"Why in the world would you have to "sniff out" somebody with a public place of business, whose name is in the phone book?"
Why in the world would you want to kill someone who didn't vote the way you wanted?
I mean, both scenarios are somewhat stupid, but one of them accuses a speaker of making death threats AND being stupid... while the other just accuses him of being stupid. If you apply a basic probabilistic analysis, clearly the former is either less likely than the latter.
Obama has over a decade of public service -- legislative votes, speeches, position papers, interviews. Not to mention two books of memoirs. If you can cite serious examples of how the suppossedly unconscionable views of Wright and Pfleger influenced Obama's speeches or actions, you feel free to do so. If all you can come up with is "they were his advisors, so he must think as they do," you appear to have confused the words "advisor" and "Puppeteer."
Both the Wright and Pfleger charges boil down to the argument that "Sure, over a decade in public life Obama hasn't said or acted on any of the rotten things those guys said, but he will just as soon as he's sworn in." That's a Manchurian Candidate argument, and it stinks.
On one hand he is a visible and vocal advocate for some of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods.
On the other he can be a self righteous camera whore.
On the whole I do respect him, but I think he dilutes his effectiveness by being so ubiquitous.
I wouldn't. On the other hand, I don't go around whipping up angry mobs, or organizing attacks on law abiding businesses in order to undermine the exercise of basic civil liberties. People who ARE in that particular line of work, (Sharpton comes to mind...) stupid as it may be, DO frequently publicly utter death threats, and then expect others to blow it off as meaningless rhetoric.
It seems to be an occupational hazzard among rabble rousers.
As for "snuff out", I think it is fairly obvious that Pfleger et al want to suppress Mr. Riggio's business - as one might snuff out a candle. I've never heard "snuff out" used in the specific sense of "kill" - not like, say "whack".
To be charitable to the good priest, you may be right.
The slang for "kill" would be "snuff", not "snuff out". One "snuffs" a person, or "snuffs out" a person's life.
In other words, if Pfleger said "the police need to be neutered" - I would assume he meant metaphorically and not literally.
I suspect he was, but only meant it as a rhetorical flourish. The problem is that angry mob management is inherently tricky, and even if 99% of your listeners understand you don't really want the man hauled out and beaten to death, or his establishment burned to the ground, that remaining 1% might be in a mood to oblige you.
Some readers might be interested in seeing the video of Michael Pfleger's speech at an anti-violence rally at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
Sun Times Article here.
Pfleger video here. If you let it play, it will be followed by Mayor Daley's video, which is definately worth a listen.
One of Daley's main gaffs was his statement: "Why is it when you sell guns that you don't need a license to sell guns?" Note Governor Blagojevich nodding in agreement to the statement. That statement seems totally out-of-place, given the many lawsuits Daley has filed over the years in attempts to have revoked the licenses of local Federal Firearms dealers...
Incidentally, these rallies were held on April Fool's Day.
Also I find the Da Vinci code stuff from half-way through the comments hilarious. God forbid Dan Brown "trick" people into thinking that things happened differently than the Bible says they did. That would really lead to a lot of people believing irrationally nonsensical stuff.
So, like, opposite of everything they said. Cool!
Now, if only Prof. Kopel's post had appeared a week ago.
Which of course is just fine, very traditional, etc.
Who is the bagman? He is a Chicago politician after all.
I think a good candidate for the bagman job is Tony Rezko. A Nation of Islam member.
Any news from the trial? Last I heard Obama had some kind of honorable mention.
Oh, did they break the windows or tear the store apart? Was there a riot following Pfleger's speech, or something?
We are talking about Chicago. Reflexive denunciation of the police after a shooting is almost justified.
Chicago is where I once practiced law. I remember when Joseph Gould was shot in '95. I remember the police "investigation" of the Ryan Harris murder. I've been following the Peterson case, lately, too. This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg.
There is an established pattern on the part of authorities in the Chicago PD, and both the Chicago city and Cooke County government of shrugging off credible allegations of misconduct by police officers. There is not much reason to trust any official explanation provided by the police about any particular controversy involving the police, including suspect shootings, whatever the circumstances.
And all of this is layered on top of a recent past of heavily racialized policing and a present of heavily racialized urban politics. Until local authorities and the department itself are willing to stop treating the bad apples in the Chicago PD with kid gloves, Pfleger's bleating is the least of their public image problems.
You have given cogent reasons not to vote for Phlegar, Meeks or Wright based on what they have done and said and you have convinced me not to vote for any one of them in the next Presidential election. I will also decline to vote for John Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, Pope Benedict XVI or the Bishop Don Magic Juan.
talleyrand
Wrong. Even BATFE says you can't use their trace data that way. A lost gun report results in a trace.
Sometimes I wonder about people who live in Binary World. (Philosemite: Green. Antisemite: Red) Although I despise Farrakhan, he nonetheless has led many black people to make something of themselves -- to clean up, drop the drugs, and work hard for a living. This has to be taken into account alongside his anti-Semitism. By comparison, I don't see, say, feminists making constant reference to "an abusive husband like Einstein."
But Dan Brown did put a preface in his book that claims "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate," religion, and secret societies. So it seems that he did make a positive claim of historical fact.
Considering that he named real names, of institutions which exist to this day... It seems that he has some obligation to tell the truth, change the names, or tolerate being debunked.
I strongly disagree with Obama's desire to repeal the Bush tax cuts.
I strongly disagree with Obama's perspective that semiautomatic handguns should be banned.
I strongly disagree with Obama's anti-free trade positions (cf. his statements on NAFTA).
I am strongly suspicious of the implications of his statement that his criteria for nominating Supreme Court justices with "heart" and "empathy." (Take a cheap shot at me if you like, for suggesting I want justices to be heartless, but we all know roughly what he had in mind, and originalism wasn't it.)
I vote on the issues. But Obama's candidacy is based in great part on "character" elements -- his image as a uniter and his message of hope and change. The fact that he has associated *very closely* with radicals who espouse fringe positions, including racial conspiracy theories, casts doubt on this aspect of his candidacy.
But Obama's world is much less tolerant.
I strongly disagree with Obama's plan to destroy private health insurance by creating a new federal system of mandated benefits that will make actual health insurance (as opposed to “prepaid health care) even less affordable for individuals and smaller employers.
I strongly disagree with Obama's plan to increase FICA taxes and make Social Security an even worse deal for my, my children’s, and my grandchildren’s generations.
I strongly disagree with Obama's plan to target his tax increases on investment and job creation particularly during an economic recession.
I strongly disagree with Obama's support for destructive corporate welfare programs like ethanol subsidies that hurt taxpayers, dairy farmers, and consumers by raising the cost of food, feed, and fuel.
Probably not on purpose, but possibly as an inadvertent result of something more important.
Question is, if it happens, at what point will the dems admit there may be a leeetle problem?
I have trouble posting links, but if you google you will get a link to Yuval Levin's 3/26/2008 entry for The Corner at National Review, which links to the newsletter itself.
The big issue here is that Obama's spiritual, honest, new-tone veneer has been pierced either way. Either his own affinity for hateful theology is real or his callous and calculating use of organized religion to make himself look like something he isn't is real.
I really have no idea which it is, but either way it doesn't speak well of him. As a person of faith, I would have preferred that Obama list no one as a spiritual adviser and simply state his own views only if they played into his decision making process.
You probably know people who worked with Obama at U. Chicago. Why don't you ask them what they think of Obama and his views on the Constitution, on race, on Israel and Palestine, and on Farakhan? Better yet, why don't you include quotes from Obama himself? Signifucantly, your entire post contains not word spoken by Baracak Obama himself.
Obama has no control over what religious leaders in Chicago say. They are not his policy advisors and there is no evidence than any of them has ever discussed policy or Constitutional rights with Obama. (And I think most people would agree that no one believes absolutely everything his pastor says--if you do, then you are a member of a cult, not a congregation.) I am sorry to say it, b/c I enjoy most of your writing, but your post is nothing but shallow McCarthyism and rank propaganda. And I think you are probably smart enough to know that.
Incidentally, if you posted the rumor that McCain called his wife a "trollop" and some other foul word, I would say the same. You could also conclude such a story with the sentence "Personally, I don't know whether McCain's statements indicate that he profoundly disrespects women, but every American voter will have to decide for himself the importance he places on the statements and the likelihood that they reveal McCain's stance on women's rights." That conclusion would be as ridiculous as the one you have made--actually, less ridiculous, because these are (reportedly) McCain's actual words--and the purpose of it would be equally transparent.
I'm all for disagreeing with this guy on political positions (he's clearly pretty unequivocal about gun control), but to pretend that he's out there advocating violence is intellectual dishonesty, and not worthy of this site (IMVHO).
First, to John McCall: A Roget Thesaurus organizes words by idea, not by definition. This makes it perfect for this comparison. If the idea behind "snuff out" is the same as "kill," then this man has, in essence, conveyed the meaning "kill." I use a Roget Thesaurus for songwriting often, as it gives you different ways to convey the same meaning, so you may better fit it into your work, or perhaps just try to say it in a way that is not cliche or overdone.
Secondly, I would like to say that Obama does not run a campaign of policies. If he did, then all his faults listed by MXE and Thorley Winston (which are the tip of the iceberg) would surely discount him. Instead, he runs a campaign of appearances, and as such, showing that he admires people like Wright or Pfleger, for whatever reasons, give him a poor appearance. I would say this is the logical counter-argument to his campaigning.
You mean one degree?
That's a false dichotomy. It's likely that he believes some of the things they believe, but not everything. I could be wrong, but it seems to me this is how most religious people approach their religion (and how members of political parties people approach politics and the party platform).
It is much more important to determine what his listeners understood "snuff out" to mean as one of them could have decided to act on that. Words have power. Our 1st Amendment could be more dangerous than the 2nd. People in his position need to be cognizant of the unintended consequences of their rhetoric.
I was there when he said it. His tone and the overall demeanor of his speech lent it the air of incitement to violence. I was taken aback.
there is a difference between saying you know someone and choosing them as a religious adviser. If Obama is choosing individuals that share a trait it is logical to assume that that trait is part of why they are being chosen or that he is unaware with that trait.
You are correct that people will indeed have some areas of variance with their clergy. We are not, however, dealing with merely a minor part of their theologies. The issues brought up are not about intra vs. super lapsarianist controversies The statements of his advisers are significantly drastic enough to be 'deal breakers' for most people.
I suppose you are right that there may be a third option: he disagrees with the outrageous statements and lacks the personal integrity to stand against his clergy without his feet being held to the fire by the national press. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on that one though. If thats the case I just feel sorry for him. I've been in the situation where people say racist things in front of me and I know that its hard to stand up against it (God knows I failed to do the right thing a time or two myself).
No, that is not logical. All three of them also have brown eyes. Did Obama pick them for that reason? No! Obviously, I'm having a little fun with you here, but you set yourself up. (I would also bet that you probably don't like Obama's policies and that influences your viewpoint on this issue.) First, I don't know what "trait" each of these guys has in common that you think is so appalling. If they share any trait, it is that that each one ministers to a largely black, urban and poor audience.
As to any political viewpoints that Barack Obama holds, why don't you look at his record? Or his statements? Or the statements about him by his colleagues in the US Senate or the Ill. House of Reps or the Harvard Law Journal or U. of Chicago faculty?
When arguing on the basis of indisputable facts, as Kopel has done here, there is no need for "reportedly," which serves as a transparently obvious attempt at bootstrapping from that which was so evidently deserving of little credence to start with. You have no choice but to use "reportedly," though when you imagine Kopel saying those things, things which you know neither you, nor anyone you know can prove up in the end. It is people who start with "rumors," and then facilely continue with to build on them using devices like "reportedly," in an effort to smear others who may be seen as engaging in "McCarthyism."
The original Talleyrand was quite a smart fellow. You should try harder to honor his memory by making intelligent rather than silly cases, like the one you have tried to make above.
I don't mind you having fun at my expense (although it seems like , but one cannot compare the trait of extreme left wing views (the value of them aside, they are legitimate views) with the color of someones eyes. I assumed that it would be obvious that I am not saying that any similar things are the same in such a way.
So let me be clear, I am saying that patterns exist and that when they do it is logical to ask why they do. The obvious answer is that eyes are common to homo sapiens, and therefore eye color is a poor indicator for study, but the views expressed by these clergy are not common in the same way --the views in question are not universal even among black urban pastors, and so they exist as plausible indicators of something else.
What is more eye color is, contacts aside, not something that is chosen, whereas public spiritual advisers are chosen out of an almost limitless sea of diversity. If there is some other larger constant thread between these clergy that is more honorable and prominent I'd be happy to hear it and believe that it is Obama's motivation.
As for what I views find unappealing: classism (in any form, i.e. against the rich or the poor), conspiracy theories, and the use of the pulpit to spread hatred or praise those who do. Really though if you need to have me list these things people find offensive in these clergy you haven't been paying attention to the news.
Lastly, accusing me of bias is a poor excuse for an argument. It is just as possible that my view of this situation is coloring my view of Obama or that your view of Obama is coloring your view of me. In either case I hope arguments and facts can some effect on our views or else this entire thread is just rhetorical self-abuse.
The fact is I would have more respect for Obama if he did agree with these clergy on these issues -- I can handle disagreements (If you're ever in NW Indiana drop me a line -- the first round is on me), but I have a hard time swallowing someone turning religion into a ploy to get votes, which if I had to choose a side is what it looks like Obama is doing. Mind you this no different from many politicians, but its still irritating.
This is your syllogism: Premise 1: Obama is the most left-wing Senator; Premise 2: those he has associated with hate America, Whites and Jews. Conclusion: Obama hates America, Whites and Jews. Even if I accepted your premises (which I don't), your conclusion just doesn't make any sense. So is it "left-wing" to hate America, Whites and Jews? Is that what you are trying to say?
You miss the point. Sorry if I wasn't more clear. The point is, who cares if McCain said something nasty to his wife? Whatever he said (whether he really said it or not) means nothing about what he believes or what kinds of policies he would enact as President. I picked that story not b/c I belive it, but b/c it is so inconsequential. In the same vein, what Obama's friends might say is irrelevant to Obama's policies and serves no constructive purpose. It's just an attempt to smear Obama by associating him with comments or positions articulated by other people. Both of these things involve the politics of personal destruction and have nothing to do with any real issue. Both stories belong on partisan left or right wing trash blogs, not Volokh (I couldn't imagine anything similar being posted on balkinization, for example). If you want to criticize Obama's policies on gun control, that's fine, and his positions on that issue are clear enough without resorting to a disguised ad hominem attack designed to paint Obama as Nat X.
I take your point. Sorry if I was having fun at your expense--I knew what you meant.
It very well may be true that Obama cynically picked his religion for political purposes, and if true, I could see why that would be offensive to religious people. But judging by his first book, it seems that he is sincere in his faith. Despite the snippets that are played endlessly on youtube and other media, it doesn't seem to me that anti-Semitism or anti-Americanism is a central tenet of this faith. I have a very hard time believing this is a church dedicated to the destruction of America or white people or Jews. I also have a hard time believing that anyone who has listened to Obama speak could believe that he hates white people (remember that his mother is white) or America or is looking to start class warfare. If you want to know what these three guys have in common, it is that they preach a message tailored to a poor black audience. I'm no theology student, but it seems that all three guys focus on Jesus' commitment to the poor. From what I've read, they also all preach a message of personal responsibility.
All of these guys have given many sermons over the years. Yes, they have said some crazy things (in my opinion, these have been overblown), but if you find your faith beautiful and hopeful, you don't abandon it just because you find some things about it objectionable. And just because you stick with your church doesn't mean that you espouse everything it's pastor says or believes. It would have been far easier and more cynical for Obama to have left his church behind when he contemplated running for Senate.
Indisputable that Obama has voluntarily associated himself with those who it can be reasonably argued "hate America, Whites and Jews." (I wouldn't argue such a bald, flat-footed, unnuanced claim as that, but it is anything but preposterous given what Wright and Pfleger have said at different times.
No one, except you talleyrand with your attempts to put silly positions in the mouths of those who haven't taken them, has "Conclu(ded): Obama hates America, Whites and Jews." That is only you hearing the echo within your own head. What can't be denied is that Obama has linked himself very closely to someone (Reverend Wright) who might be said to "hate() America, Whites and Jews." (I don't think that is the best way to characterize his rants against all of them at one time or another, but again it will do for these purposes.)
Now you ask, "So is it 'left-wing' to hate America, Whites and Jews? Is that what you are trying to say?" Well, we have Wright who few would not see as "left-wing" or "progressive" in a Radio Pacifica way. Can you come up with the names of any over on the Right who would score that "America/Whites/Jews" trifecta? You might come up with some who satisfied the "hate America...and Jews," at least the America they hold to be under the control of Jews (ZOG), "mongrelized," etc., but they exalt "whiteness," being White Supremacists. If you can bring to our attention individuals or groups on the Right who preach hatred of "America, Whites, and Jews," as Reverend Wright arguably has done, then we will have to reconsider. Can you, or are you just aimlessly, and recklessly ranting again?
Unless, you can come up with a real argument as a would-be apologist for Obama's association with the likes of Wright and Pfleger, I'll leave it at this.
The premise of Kopel's post is this: "I consider the extent to which the candidate's religious philosophy may (like any other part of the candidate's worldview) influence his or her public policy decisions." Kopel also points out that "Rev. Pfleger is indeed an admirer of 'Minister Farrakhan.' Ambushed by a Bill O'Reilly camera crew, Pfleger stated: 'He has--first of all, he has not called Judaism a gutter religion of blood suckers. That is not what he has said because I have heard that talk. I stick up for Louis Farrakhan because he is another person that the media has chosen to define how they want to do it. And they demonize how they want to demonize somebody. I know the man, Louis Farrakhan. He is a great man. I have great respect for him, ho has done an awful lot for people and this country, black, white, and brown. He's a friend of mine."
Then you have people posting comments about Farakkhan and anti-semitic positions taken by Wright. The implication is clear, and if you don't see it, you are being willfully blind.
"Nothing here turns on whether Obama is the most left-wing Senator as judged by ADA ratings."
True, but Ejo does seem to think that is relevant that Obama is "left wing." I don't believe it is relevant, even if it were true.
You said this: "If you can bring to our attention individuals or groups on the Right who preach hatred of "America, Whites, and Jews," as Reverend Wright arguably has done, then we will have to reconsider."
Now that's a silly and irrelevant argument. But let's come to the crux of my argument. It's that the best way to judge Obama's views and policies (which Kopel's post is supoosed to be about) is to examine his own record, statements, policy positions, and team of advisors. What his pastor said is just a sideshow.
A smart Obama-ite would try to minimize what is here about his "associations," not try to deny that there was anything problematic about it. Flat out denial, as some are trying, is counter-productive, just serving to call more attention to it. Crying "politics of personal destruction" is a stupid try too, since it will only convince the already convinced.
BTW, care to tell us what you think of Farrakhan, or of Wright or Pfleger as admirers of his? Do you, like login12356 think, "Unlike Zionists, Farrakhan actually wants what is best for AMERICA."? Do you, like Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger, "have great respect for (Farrakhan" and deny that Farrakhan is an out and out antisemite, among other things? What do you think of that "ethnic bomb" claim that ejo and yankev say Reverend Wright had printed in the church newsletter? HIV as a creation of the government? Or, will you waive all this off as inconsequential stuff as we scrutinize the candidates?
I'm not even slightly religious and I find it offensive.
Is it possible to be sincere in one's faith yet cynically pick one's religion? That would seem a non sequitur.
According to the study produced by the Library of Congress for the Department of the Army, Israel's arms trade with South Africa was estimated at between US$400 million and US$800 million annually (see Arms Trade and the Defense Industry, ch. 5). In 1986 Israel also imported approximately US$181 million in goods, mainly coal, from South Africa, and exported to South Africa nonmilitary products worth about US$58.8 million.
From the Federation of American Scientists, South Africa also acquired the technology to build nuclear weapons. South Africa developed at least six nuclear warheads, which it later acknowledged, along with a variety of missiles and other conventional weapons. These projects were undertaken with some cooperation from Israel -- another technologically advanced, militarily powerful, nuclear-capable nation surrounded by hostile neighbors.
Beginning in 1975 two test shafts over 250 meters deep for conducting nuclear tests were drilled at the Vastrap military base in the Kalahari Desert. A Soviet surveillance satellite detected these test preparationss in August 1977, and the Soviets notified the US of their discovery. South Africa was forced to cancel the tests in the face of diplomatic pressure from America, the Soviet Union, and France.
A flash over the Indian Ocean detected by an American satellite in September 1979 was suspected of being a nuclear test, possibly conducted by either Israel or South Africa, alone or in combination.
I'm not arguing that Pfleger was right to have used the term "snuff out" - obviously it is open to misinterpretation, and he should have been aware of this. But Pfleger is not running for office - I'll happily join you in chastising him for reckless speech, and that would certainly be grounds for not electing Pfleger to any political office, but I don't think it should have a significant effect on how people view Obama.
No I am sorry Federal Farmer but it does not work that way. Unless the gun shop had been indicted and all it records audited you would would not have such a number. When a gun used in a crime is traced back to the gunshop the records are checked. With Illinois' licenceing and the Federal background back you just do not get to 2000.
Yes I have read that number too. Somebody it lying. And that still does not justify the threats. When "we are going to snuff you our" is used there is no confusion. The man is a thug.
Are you aware that South Africa is under very different rule these days, and what were closely guarded state secrets before are not secret any more? Thus, bioweapons development programs and assassination operations have been brought to light, but no collaborations with Israel to develope nuclear weapons. Mandela is pro-PLO, not pro-Israel, so highly implausible that anything is being covered up to spare Israel embarassment.
I'm surprised you didn't suggest that both Israel and South Africa be viewed as reprises of the American story of cowboys and indians, that being your basis for understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
His voting record (very leftist) contradicts his current (relatively moderate) public statements. As for his team of advisors, isn't Wright his "spiritual advisor"?
I'm not claiming that any of the other candidates are any better. I long ago concluded that the Clinton marriage was an alliance of ambitious sociopaths. As for McCain, eight years ago I thought the Republicans couldn't have found a worse candidate than GW Bush. McCain has proved me wrong. That old joke that anyone who wants the Presidency has thereby proven himself unqualified for it is coming true...
Kopel's post is purportedly about Obama's substantive policies on "civil rights" (he specifically mentions gun ownership). There are several ways you can go about evaluating a candidate's position on civil rights. You could look at his voting record, for example. You could look at his political platform. You could look at his recent speeches. If you wanted to, you could compare these to his rival candidates' voting record on that issue. You could then make an argument about which candidate is likelier to support a position you prefer. We could do this for just about any issue, and there are many important issues in this election.
Another way you could evaluate a candidate's positions is to leave out any statements made by any candidate in this election. You could include only statements or stories about people who have associated with the candidate. You can pick and choose the nuttiest or most controversial statements made by those people, even those statements that have nothing to do with the issue you are purporting to discuss. Then you could suggest that these comments will reflect the candidate's policy positions.
No, that does not sound reasonable to me. It sounds intellectually lazy or dishonest. Instead of looking into the actual candidate's positions, you can just listen to statements that his associates have made? Far easier than doing the actual research, but far less likely to yield anything of substance.
Is it somewhat relevant that Obama has been friends with these guys? Only marginally so. It says nothing about what his policies are likely to be. The views of his poilicy advisors are far more relevant. That is why I say it is a sideshow ginned up as a distraction from more important issues. Like personal stories about McCain (and I am assuming for the sake of argument only that they are true), they are not important.
And no, I do not defend anything any of these guys has said, and neither has Obama.
you also said: "It seems you cannot point to it on the Right, so you are left to bluster, 'Now that's a silly and irrelevant argument.'"
Are you pretending not to understand? Unless you really think that the left wing is defined by hatred of Whites, America and Jews, then Obama's supposed left-wing orientation is a non-sequitur, although it seemed to be important to Ejo's argument. That is the point I was making, I don't see how you missed it. If you really are a neuro surgeon and you ever came near me with a scalpel, I would grab my powdered wig and limp away as quickly as my withered leg would let me.
markm says: "His voting record (very leftist) contradicts his current (relatively moderate) public statements."
Finally, we are getting somewhere! markm, you may be right.
So I gather neurodoc's position is that in the absence of South African corroboration, Israel's nuclear weapons are intended to be used solely against Arabs.
I see absolutely no justification for calling that scrutiny in any way "intellectually lazy or dishonest," as you do. Indeed, given the candidates' determined efforts to mislead the electorate, I think it a wise thing to do. (Obama and Clinton pander to Democratic primary voters, telling them that they are fundamentally opposed to trade agreements like NAFTA. While Obama is saying that on the stump, a top adviser of his is offering assurances to the Canadians that he doesn't mean it, he's just trying to get votes; and while Clinton is saying, notwithstanding that her husband was the force behind NAFTA, her top strategist is working with the Colombians to get them a NAFTA-like trade agreement.)
On the subject of advisers, I read today one of those "whose in, whose out" lists of politicos in this month's Washingtonian magazine. They listed as "out" Samantha Power, who Obama threw overboard when she called Clinton a "monster," saying that but for that lapse, she might have been Secretary of State in an Obama administration. Now the Obama campaign had already tried to distance themselves from people like Power, Robert Malley, and Brzezinski, because they are a turn off for many Jews, and Power may not have been too serious a candidate for a cabinet position, but given the disingenuity of all the candidates and their campaigns, I think we have to sift the evidence as best we can, and we can gain valuable insights by looking at their advisers.
Ive been a member of Pflegers church, and with pfleger Ive listened to Farakan, Ive read the final call, Ive had lunch in the restaurant, Ive walked on those streets calling out gangsters to change, I worked in Engelwood, and you guys get a snippet... whoops the worlds gone red. If your going to keep this in context or use appropriate information why doesnt one of you go visit pfleger at st. sabinas and report.
for me, I found him active in every area of the community, focussed on justice and life, supportive and dedicated
Id stand with him
.. and we do know of course why this was aired... dont we
alistair
white male AND european