Don’t distract me with racist crap, when the question is about morals and culture
The American Spectator is a biased reporting source. One of their stories this morning caught my eye, because it took an unneeded swipe at someone in a hateful way. The Article is about ‘Crone Wars’ - the allegiance being expressed by mature women for Hillary Clinton.
That bitterness erupted like a volcano of venom Saturday, when some of Hillary’s supporters were manhandled out of the ballroom at the Washington, D.C., hotel where the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) was meeting.
Article author Robert Stacy McCain seems to be making a nearly reasonable news report of the incident.
One of the ejectees, an elderly Manhattanite who identified herself as Harriet Christian, stormed up to a phalanx of TV cameras and began ranting that, by denying Michigan and Florida the full representation that Clinton had demanded, the committee was rejecting “the best nominee that’s possible.” She continued:
“And the Democrats are throwing the election away! For what? An inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for president! And I’m not going to shut my mouth anymore!…I’m no second-class citizen — and g–damn the Democrats!”
Incoherent and irrational — and perhaps, in some sense, racist — as her rant may have been, Ms. Christian’s sentiments were echoed by other pro-Hillary protesters who were tossed out of Saturday’s RBC meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.
But where does “– and perhaps, in some sense, racist — ” come from? Barack Obama apparently believes - judging from his choice of churches and pastors - that he is a black man. That Sen. Obama considers his black culture to be an important part of who he is. So who is being racist by referring to the black candidate as a black candidate?
I consider that there are two aspects to ‘white woman’ and ‘black man’. First is race, that group of genetically inherited traits that are mostly common to members of a a race, that share certain genetic characteristics. Skin color, eye color, hair color - these might be considered racial characteristics.
Nearly completely unrelated to race, is culture. What religion you profess, what religious holidays you celebrate from Kwanza to St. Patrick’s Day to May Day to Easter to Ramadan. What social customs have become traditional in your culture, such as circumcision or considering the left hand unclean.
One of the frustrations of the Old West in America was the practice of some tribes of raiding for brides. With no concept of race, their capture of a woman made her a member of the tribe - while her parent culture considered her to remain of her parent’s race and culture. This was culture clash, not racism.
Where a Presidential candidate and public figure such as Sen. Obama has blurred the difference between his racial history and members of his race - who enjoy constitutional protections for their race - with the nearly unrelated issue of black culture which is a personal, individual and family choice. Black culture, unlike racial discrimination, is not protected by the constitution. And Senator Obama should have been aware that religious organizations that advocate violence against leaders and the government violate the law, and are *not* to be tolerated under the US constitution.
Which Jeffrey Lord reported, also in American Spectator this morning. In his article, “Backbone of a Chocolate Eclair,” Sen. Obama’s passive acceptance of Rev. Wright and other pastors preaching politics and hate - as a member of the church for 20 years - has to be seen as an endorsement and belief in the divisive rhetoric and hate for other races. The title of the article is a quote, Theodore Roosevelt once said of William McKinley, “the backbone of a chocolate eclair.”
The Lord article pointed out that Obama’s congregation, under Rev. Wright, might be the largest sources of donations and funds in the UCC. So the UCC has not mentioned any changes, or attempts to change or correct Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s old congregation. The UCC apparently provides for every member to take responsibility for the church. Every member has the responsibility and ability to rise in the congregation, challenge the pastor, and get the pastor removed, to correct errors.
So “Mr. Change”, Senator Obama, instead of changing his church from error - chose to leave. Leaving demonstrates an agreement with the message of racial division and hatred preached so elquently by Rev. Wright. Either that, or Sen. Obama refuses to bother trying to change his congregation, his ’spiritual family’ while also recognizing that he has to look like he isn’t still immersed in a religion preaching racial division and hatred. By not changing his congregation, by not calling the Rev. Wright in error - Sen. Obama endorses and approves every word spoken by his former pastor.
Sen. Barack Obama picked up another criticism over the weekend. “What has he accomplished?” a supporter was asked. And Sen. Obama’s record in the US Senate didn’t bring anything to mind. This is not the sign of an effective representative of a state. This is also a problem when trying to determine - would a President Obama be a ‘Black Power’ regime, or would he serve all the citizens of the United States?
Was Senator Obama ineffective in the Senate, or didn’t he try to accomplish anything? If he tried as was unable to accomplish anything, was he ignorant in his attempts, or did others refuse to work with him? Would a President Obama likewise face inability to learn the job or get others to work with him?
Would a President Obama be serving President Jimmy Carter’s second term? That is, would his idealism sound great, his wit and intentions honest and honorable, but be wrong-headed, ineffective, and unable to keep the nation running?