A rather timely
occurrence transpired just the other day: Apparently, since the Iowa
Caucuses people are trying to secure everything on one Barack Hussein
Obama that they can get their hands on. A gentleman who had stumbled
upon my column
(The New Media Journal, February 20, 2007) wrote to me claiming
that he couldn’t find much about [the issue the column addressed] in the
news. He actually did quite a bit of digging before writing to me, I
surmise to determine that I hadn’t just made the whole thing up. He
finished with the question: "Has anybody ever asked Obama about it?”
curiouser,” as Alice (of Wonderland fame) said...
Bearing in mind that
those who gave presidential hopeful Barack Obama victory in the Iowa
caucuses were dedicated Democrats, I don’t believe there’s any cause for
panic just yet. I’ve received a lot of flak not only for being an evil
race traitor (I guess some expected me to switch parties and support
Obama simply because we’re both mulatto), but for vigorously turning the
soil in his yard. Indeed, sometimes I feel like one gesturing wildly to
the beat cop to come see the dismembered body I just found in the
flowerbed, with the officer too eager to get to the pub to cross the
street and have a look.
they’re both white, it’s acceptable for me to declare that I’m
anti-Hillary because I believe she’s pathologically narcissistic and a
borderline sociopath, or that I’m anti-Edwards because I believe he’s an
elitist ambulance-chasing hypocrite who’s done more than his share to
drive up our medical costs and now claims to have a solution for
America’s healthcare woes. Criticize Obama, especially to the extent
that I have however, and somehow that places me lower than whale dung.
Obama has been handled
well and he’s got exceptional talent as a politician; this is
undeniable. Were I a Democrat or a nonpartisan voter listening to his
words, I might feel he could actually make a good choice, and a welcome
change, for America – something like the perception people – even
disillusioned Republicans – had toward Bill Clinton in 1992.
Early in the campaign,
Obama was challenged by allegations of "Islamic ties” due to the
Hawaii-born candidate’s childhood education at an interfaith school in
Jakarta, Indonesia. The references were cheap and worthless shots, and I
believe only served to "cry wolf” regarding Obama’s allegiance to our
nation in the age of Islamofascism. Personally, I think Obama as
president would almost certainly further legitimize and cater to fringe
black poverty pimps and "civil rights” organizations even more than the
far-Left at large does at present, but that’s another issue. To the
average voter, it doesn’t matter if his father was a radical Muslim and
his mother was an atheist and his stepfather was an even more radical
Muslim. It is what voters perceive (in him) that matters (to them), and
most have already established that they’re tired of the depths to which
modern politics has sunk in the dubious art of mudslinging.
I don’t see that issues
of faith – and Obama at least claims to be a Christian – carry much
weight with the majority of voters. Frankly, I’m more concerned with his
loyalty to the United States of America, and in my opinion, his public
refusal to place hand over heart and sing the National Anthem ought to
have creamed his campaign – but he skated.
This brings me to a
recap of the "Obamination” reference. Much more substantial are Obama’s
Chicago’s United Church of Christ, an extremely afrocentric
outfit that is pastored by Black Nationalist, the Reverend. Dr. Jeremiah
Wright, who preaches a separatist doctrine called "Liberation Theology.”
Obama had claimed Wright as his spiritual mentor and the latter was a
very prominent fixture at Obama events – until February 2007 and
Aside from some of the
more critical media follow-ups, most accounts were simply Wright and
other far-Left black talking heads rebutting the story outright with
arrogance, condescension, personal attacks on me and everyone else who
expressed the same concerns I had in my column, and the usual
boilerplate racist, culture of victimization retorts.
The story died, such as
it was; I don’t believe Obama personally addressed it at all, although
he did distance himself from the
foul-mouthed curmudgeon Reverend Wright. Even when Obama began
speaking out on faith in June, 2007 – an audacious and potentially
dangerous move – it was a mere media blip.
He skated again.
I believe that there
are many conscientious Democrat voters who hear his words and are being
misled, as were many Democrats, Independents and even Republicans who
believed the "New Democrat” con Bill Clinton put over in 1992. In truth,
Obama might not be any worse a President than Bill (yikes), but I hasten
to add that I count all of the pack vying for the Democrat nomination as
So are the media
ignoring the questionable aspects of this candidate because he’s black?
Yes and no. Part of his appeal to the establishment media and some
Democrat voters lies with his ethnicity. I know some black folks who
would vote for him if he had a murder rap in his jacket. I think the
reason he has skated on issues such as Trinity United, and even more
fundamental ones (such as his manifest lack of experience as a junior
senator) is that the far-Left and the more critically-thinking media are
fearful as regards charges of racism.
Obama probably skated
on the issue of faith for another reason as well. There’s a
condescending "conventional wisdom” that’s been fostered by the Left for
decades: It perceives black Democrats of faith as quaint, whereas white
Republicans of faith are quite likely closet neo-Nazis, or perhaps even
If Obama truly means what he says, then he’s the one getting over
– on all of the far-Left ideologues who will expect him to turn America
into Brazil once he’s inaugurated, but I’m certainly not going to give
him the benefit of the doubt just because he’s black. That, my friends,
would be height of hypocrisy.