Get it all on record now...

When Barack Obama said, "I seek daily to imitate his faith", he was not talking about Jesus ...

To whom is the Democrat presidential hopeful Obama referring? The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, of course. That news comes to us in the form of a piece written by a columnist and clergywoman who supports the junior senator from Illinois in his bid for the White House. (more at Bob McCarty Writes)

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the
German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because, he said, in words to this effect:

'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

This is a lesson in history not just for wars and the military, but for all things and especially for politics. Get it all on record now, specifically the relationships of Barack Hussein Mohammad Obama.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave an interview today, probably against the advice of Obama's advisers, and while Obama took a day to return to Chicago. Who can blame Obama for wanting to be out of the public eye as the quotes from Wright's interview are leaking out. However, Obama will HAVE to respond to them, perhaps in his long-awaited Sunday interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News.

Wright is playing the VICTIM now in an interview with Bill Moyers -- his first interview since ABC News Good Morning America first broadcast portions of his sermons ( to be broadcast Friday evening, April 25, 2008, on PBS.)

Wright says the use of the his controversial statements- -saying the US brought on the 9/ll attacks and that Black Americans should sing God Damn America instead of God Bless America—were "unfair" and "unjust" and were used "for some very devious reasons."

Click here to read a fuller version of the two Wright sermons, one from the first Sunday after 9/ll/, "The Day of Jerusalem's Fall" and the other delivered in April, 2003, entitled "Confusing God and Government."

Left out of the original sound bites broadcast on Good Morning America were Wright's version of how America was built on terror, his description of the United States "as an arrogant, racist, military superpower," and comments on the wealth or success of Oprah Winfrey, Colin Power, Condoleezza Rice and Tiger Woods. (ABC)

Wright says his sermons were deliberately taken out of context by the news media "for a political purpose" and to "paint me as some sort of fanatic."

Not one person needed to paint Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a 'fanatic', he did that ALL ON HIS OWN.

Comments

[yakira zivah]

lil bit:
I respect and understand the author's perspective of Rev. Wright's speech; however, it is very unfair to call him a fanatic. Sometimes the TRUTH really really hurts. If one reads Rev. Wright's entire sermon then one will understand why he says "God damn America". I do not agree with all of his points, but I do agree with most of his points. I do not believe for one second that Rev. Wright would cause any physical harm to any white american, nor did he say he wanted to hurt any white people. Rev. Wright only voiced his opinions against white america because of their past deeds of exploitation and murder- this does not make him a fanatic.

[fouse, gary c]

After laying low for a while, Jeremiah Wright is back on stage, kicking off a series of public appearances that must have Barack Obama squirming. This weekend, PBS' Bill Moyers will air his interview with the controversial pastor. Snippets (sound bites, if you will) have already been released.

Moyers, who runs the Public Broadcasting TV Network (funded by US taxpayers), is a spokesman for the far left who is angered by the encroachment in recent years of alternative sources of information. He is a reporter with a political agenda, which we as tax-payers have to partially fund. One would assume that his interview with Wright would be fawning, sympathetic, and designed to retrieve public support for Obama in the wake of his pastor's publicized rhetoric. That assumption has proved to be correct.

In the interview, Wright discards his angry rhetoric in favor of a low key, low octave manner in responding to Moyers' softball questions. He comes across as soft-spoken, totally in contrast to the angry sermons shown on TV- even in contrast to the belligerence he showed last year when being questioned by Sean Hannity.

Wright describes the words he spoke in his sermons as nothing more than "sound bites", which the media has "looped". He claims when asked if Obama ever uttered similar opinions to him that he never discussed politics with the senator. On the contrary, Obama is a politician and I (Wright) am a pastor. Never mind the fact that Wrights fiery orations were totally political in content.

It should also be remembered that Wright's words came to surface as a result of DVDs of his sermons that his church sold publicly. Sound bites?

If Wright is claiming that his words are mere sound bites that should be disregarded, then what about the words of other public figures? For example, were the words of Don Imus merely a sound bite when he referred to Rutgers women basketball players as "nappy-headed hos"? What about the words of Trent Lott, when he made a reference to Strom Thurmond's past run for the presidency when he was an unabashed segregationist? Was that just an unfortunate sound bite? What about the words of Rush Limbaugh when he made racially-tinged comments about Donovan McNabb? I raise these examples not to condemn or defend the speakers, rather to remind the reader that each of these three persons paid a price for their comments. Imus was fired from his radio job, Lott was forced to step down from his leadership position in the Senate, and Limbaugh lost his short-lived football analyst position. Were they just "sound bites"?

What about the words of former Weather Underground fugitives, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn-both associates of Obama and completely unrepentant about their pasts? Was it just a sound-bite when Ayers told the New York Times in September 2001 that he didn't regret setting bombs and wished he had done more? As late as 2007, we have him on tape telling an audience how bad his country is-racist, imperialist, homophobic, etc.) Similarly, Dohrn last year is on tape talking about America in terms such as "being in the belly of the beast" and the "heart of the monster". (Both are university professors.)

Free speech issues aside (which no one is debating), words do have consequences. If we stand up and make incendiary comments in public about our country or about other ethnic groups, then we should be prepared to defend them or accept negative consequences-at least deal with the disagreements and criticisms. People usually make a conscious choice to be controversial. This pastor has made his choice and is compounding it by not going away-to the detriment of Obama.

Wright has the misfortune of being the pastor of a presidential candidate-one who represents himself as one who would bridge the gap between white and black. Largely because of Wright's words, that has now been called into question and is a topic for legitimate debate. Similarly, the words, past and present, of Ayers and Dohrn, coupled with their associations with Obama, personal, professional and political, raise very appropriate questions about who this man Obama really is. Before he becomes our president, I think we have a right to know. Wright, Ayres and Dohrn are legitimate campaign issues that the mainstream media tried to ignore until they couldn't any longer.

Guilt by association? You bet.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

[fouse, gary c]

This week, the North Carolina Republican Party has came out with a political TV ad that highlights Rev. Jeremiah Wright, specifically, his "God D___ America" rant. The ad, while making the case that Barack Obama was too extreme for America, was directly targeted at two Democrats running for governor of North Carolina since they had both endorsed Obama for president. As a result, liberals and Democrats are up in arms over the ad, even as the Hillary camp plays on the same points.

In the wake of the ad, John McCain and the RNC have asked the NC Republican Party to remove the ad as being divisive. Up to now, the state party has refused to comply. Notwithstanding his disapproval of the ad, McCain is taking heat from Democrats. Howard Dean is attacking McCain for his inability to force the NC Republican Party to take down the ad.

Then there is MSNBC's blatantly partisan Keith Olbermann, who, last night, called the ad racist and attacked McCain in his "Worst person in the world" segment for his "connection" to those putting the ad up.

What connection, Mr Olbermann? John McCain has disowned the ad and tried to have it taken down (something he does not have the authority to do).

John McCain should be praised for his attempt to conduct a non-divisive campaign (at least to this point). But was the ad racist, as Olbermann and others on the left are charging? I think not. Just because Obama has a pastor who cries "God d___ America" and rails about white people and the "US of KKK", does not make those who point out the truth racists. If anyone is racist, it is Reverend Wright. I would agree that the two Democratic gubernatorial candidates of North Carolina should not be saddled with Jeremiah Wright just because they endorsed Obama. That is another step removed. At any rate, I don't consider the ad racist just because it criticizes a black pastor who has said outrageous things.

Olbermann's charges of racism surrounding the ad are to be expected. While he rails against Bill O'Reilly and Fox News ("Fix News" as he calls it.) on a nightly basis, Olbermann is a hypocrite when he makes these statements. His own show is nothing more than a one-sided exercise in bashing of Bush, the Republican Party and all things conservative. Unlike Fox, which has debates between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, Hannity and Colmes, as well as O'Reilly bringing on opposing voices, Olbermann debates no one. His guests every night are the same tired old faces, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Jonathan Alter and others who agree with him on everything. So now, Olbermann is attaching the "racist" label on the North Carolina ad without any explanation or evidence.

In the wake of the ad "controversy", David Axelrod, campaign chief for Obama, has thrown in his two cents worth with a comment about "white working-class voters" who will vote for the white candidate (as opposed to Obama).

Then there is Joy Behar of "The View". This morning, she joined the fray in bringing up the "Republican Attack Machine", that "will do anything to hold on to power- anything." What Joy refuses to understand is that Obama is still engaged in fighting off Hillary Clinton for the nomination. It is the Clintons that are playing the race card against Obama, not John McCain and his campaign. It is the Clintons who will do anything to win-anything.

In short, the NC ad, while stretching to connect Jeremiah Wright to the two Democratic candidates for governor, are not racist. If they are, then any criticism of a black public figure is also racist. I would like to think we have progressed beyond that point.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

[Karen]

Well done, Debbie. I love the whole I'm a victim act of Wright's. The line from the Wizard of Oz comes to mind - pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!