The Farrakhan moment: Reactions I
By Ami Eden on Feb 27, 2008 in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Race, debates |
Here’s a running list of media reactions to the exchange about Louis Farrakhan during Tuesday night’s debate.
Andrew Sullivan (THE DAILY DISH):
Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced him is not the same as simply saying, “I denounce him”? A weak response - reminiscent of Dukakis. (By the way, why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans that Farrakhan is a fascist hate-monger? It’s a question for all Americans.) Obama’s Farrakhan response suggests to me he is reluctant to attack a black demagogue. Maybe he wants to avoid a racial melee. But he has one. He needs to get real on this. Weak, weak, weak. Clinton sees an opening and pounces. She wins this round. He is forced to adjust. His worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I’m astounded he couldn’t be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan’s support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me.
I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he’d rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.
Byron York (NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE):
At that point it became clear that Obama simply would not say that he rejected Farrakhan’s support, preferring instead to refer to, but not repeat, previous statements. It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said. Here in Cleveland on Tuesday night, Obama seemed to be heading in that direction until Russert pressed a bit more, bringing up Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, whose magazine last year said that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.” And then Hillary Clinton — who must have enjoyed seeing her opponent take a rare turn on the hot seat — added, “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting…I have no doubt that everything Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger.”
At that moment, Obama was in trouble. If he continued to repeat his I-have-denounced-Minister-Farrakhan’s-anti-Semitic-statements position, he would clearly seem to be avoiding a larger critique of Farrakhan. So he rather nimbly suggested that it was all a matter of semantics, and if Sen. Clinton liked, he would reject as well as denounce. “Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” Obama said. “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
The concession got Obama out of trouble. But it didn’t stop the talk in the spin room after the debate. Was Obama initially trying to nuance his way through the question? “Sen. Clinton was pleased that he came back later and…not only denounced it but rejected support,” said top Clinton aide Mark Penn. But Penn continued: “I think you have to listen to the answers. He did not reject what his minister said about Farrakhan. If you listen to the answers, he only responded to Farrakhan, and he never responded to the fact that his minister, if I have it right, said that Farrakhan was a person of greatness. So if you listen very carefully, I do not think he in fact rejected or denounced his minister praising Farrakhan — he only did that to Farrakhan.”
Noah Scheiber (THE NEW REPUBLIC):
About two-thirds of the way through the debate, Barack Obama took a question about Louis Farrakhan’s support for his campaign. He gave a sufficient, if not quite stellar answer–saying he’d repeatedly denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, that he’d long been a supporter of Israel, etc. At that point Hillary asked to weigh in. Her voice softened a bit, and she began: “I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000.” I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade. Something like: “I stirred up a controversy by failing to condemn anti-Semitism, even though that’s how I felt, so I understand how sensitive the issue can be. But I also know Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish people.”
Instead, Hillary went with an anecdote whose point was to demonstrate her own vigilance on the issue. She lectured Obama about how it’s not sufficient to denounce anti-Semites; you have to actively reject their support. It was a sanctimonious turn, and Obama defused it with typical good humor. “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” he said. “But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
Josh Marshall (TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM):
I discussed this in the live debate blog. But I think it’s worth going back and watching Russert’s run of shame here. I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it’s getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.
That’s not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan’s vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn’t believe that Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness”.
As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.
Greg Sargent (THE NEW REPUBLIC):
This wasn’t an easy call, given what we’ve heard thus far (a question about Drudge, a gratuitous reference to Tim Russert’s blue collar background, etc.).
But the inane question of the night award goes to this Russert inanity, which we just heard moments ago:
“Do you accept the support of Louis Farrahkan?”
Taylor Marsh (HUFFINGTON POST):
As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama’s tepid response to Farrakhan, and was appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn’t alone. That Obama had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our ’special relationship’ with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It’s about moral courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven’t earned and don’t deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.
If anyone had any doubt that Hillary’s campaign is trying to score points against Obama in the Jewish community - today she gave us the proof, publicly. … What was she trying to say — that Obama is somewhat anti-Semitic? Let’s assume she was just thinking that Obama was playing politics and is trying not to offend Farrakhan’s supporters while he denounces his views.
In any case, in this exchange Obama got the upper hand. …
Obama, talking about Farrakhan - and about anti-Semitism among African-Americans, which he also denounced in his speech on Martin Luther King Day — touched a sensitive nerve when he was talking about one possibility that’s inherent to his candidacy: he has the chance to restore the alliance between blacks and Jews.
This will not necessarily get Obama the votes of every Jewish liberal in this country. But it is also one promise that no American liberal Jew can simply ignore.
I consider myself a liberal but unlike a lot of liberals I am pro Israel and not pro Palestinian. With anti semites like Brezezinki and CArter as advisers Obama’s luke warm response to the Farrakhan question should have been expected. If he is elected president I envision him as bein as ineffectual a leader as Jimmy Carter. I am sorry to say I voted for Jimmy Carter because I felt he was the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for Obama. McCain has a good resume where Israel is concerned. As a Jew I think that Israel’s interests need to be kept in mind when voting.
Phyllis | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Pandering to two fairly (unfortunately) antagonistic constituencies is a tough balancing exercise…
Andrei Schor | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
To reject is different than to denounce. Denouncement means you do not agree with a specific stand and say so. To reject Farrakhan’s support involves actively refusing support from him which is very different than mere demouncement. I thought Obama was smart enough to realize that. Ovbiously Senator Clinton is a bit better with semantics than he is. He did a lot a stammering in his denouncement which made it seem not as sincere as I would have liked.
pg | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Senator Obama has a history of positive statements and actions re the Jewish people and Israel.
he has a way of seeking common ground and bringing people together which would be very good for Jews.
His election would greatly improve the image of the US among most of the world’s people and that would be good for Israel, the US and Jews, in general.
As several Jewish leaders have stated, all of the main contenders have strong records re Israel, so we should also consider domestic issues, where McCain would follow Bush’s policies that have been so harmful re the economy, the environment, education and much more.
Richard Schwartz | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I was moved by Obama’s call for a return to unity among African- and Jewish- Americans. I woke up thinking about it this morning and believe that he has already begun an important healing process.
Anne | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I am not Jewish but have many friends who are.
In my humble opinion, if you care about the plight of Jews and Israel, Obama is too big a risk to take.
Support Hillary. Jews/Israel can count on her.
That’s my take.
CathyV | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Denounce or reject. Who cares? All that matters is that he doesn’t share the views of Farrakhan and his cult. This whole non-issue has given Farrakhan too much attention already and anyone who uses his previous statement of denounce instead of reject(which he basically clarified in the debate) to not vote for him, probably would not vote for him anyway. I personally felt that Clinton’s desparation showed to even bring this up.
Robert Lancaster | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
pg above has it right - rejection means saying “if you support Louis Farrakhan and his vision of the Jewish people then we do not want your vote”.
Anything less is political posturing.
Dan | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I think that when voting in an American election, America needs to come before Israel (or any other country). That said I fully support Israel’s right to exist, but I think Obama winning the Presidency would restore so much faith and trust in America that it could only help Israel… and while peace in the region is hard to come by, I think Obama’s willingness to talk to Syria is a good thing.
THI | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Obama clearly stated that he denounces the statements that Farrakhan makes, doesn’t agree with Farrakhan, considers Israel’s security sacrosanct, and hopes to restore the prior Black-Jewish alliance from the 60’s and 70’s. What more do we want? That Obama didn’t get overly emotional and say “Farrakhan is evil” speaks well to his temperament. Demonization is something that may make us feel better but doesn’t help to actually solve problems. If you want someone who demonizes all their oponents freely then, certainly, Hillary is your candidate.
Secondly, I think it’s shameful that many in our community have bought into this false charge that Obama is Muslim. It makes us look small-minded. I wonder how much of people’s response to his debate comments stem from this untrue assertion.
Thirdly, Andrew Sullivan, who is quoted above, shortly afterwards said that, on reflection, Obama’s answer wasn’t so bad. For editorial accuracy, Sullivan’s additional comments should be included.
L Simcha Sokol | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I was upset about Obama’s tepid response. I was also shocked he did not address his church giving Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award. This issue has come up a few times now, and he’s stubbornly refused to take a hard line approach of condemning Farrakhan and any association with him.
As a Democrat, it was sad, because I know the Republicans are going to bring this issue up again. And Obama will suffer. It will be very hard to explain on a big stage how the President of the United States can belong to a Church that honors a strident anti-semite, anti-caucasian and Black Supremacist.
Had he addressed it adequately now, he could have taken the sting out of this problem. He would seem to be pro-active about the issue. He would be judged by a favorable democratic audience, with less of a spotlight. But now it’s too late — he’s still a member of that church & Obama will be due for a very public embarrassment when this rears its ugly head on a nationally televised debate or Republican 529 ad.
Samuel Lieberman | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
according to MSNBC’s first read re: difference b/w renounce/reject:
DENOUNCE V. REJECT
Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:21 PM by Domenico Montanaro
From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan
For the word-o-philes out there, Obama wins with the word denounce which is more applicable to use when you find someone’s positions distasteful
re·ject -a verb used as an object…
1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
de·nounce -verb (used with object), -nounced, -nounc·ing. 1. to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.
1. to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.
CR | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Frankly, I’m surprised by some of the illiterate comments I have read here. It’s as if no one here ever passed 9th grade English. To “denounce” is to actively and verbally reject a position or person, whereas to merely “reject” can be accomplished with no proactive statement at all. I suspect that some here have received an adequate education which informs them of this distinction but choose to ignore the fact for political expediency. The sheer hypocrisy makes me lean towards Obama.
Andrew Benjamin | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
McCain told the Ha’aretz newspaper in 2006 that he would send James Baker or Brent Scrowcroft to “micromanage” the Middle East process.
Yes, the same James Baker who said “the Jews don’t vote for us, so F*** them” and who recommended that we re-examine our position on Israel to improve relations with Syria.
That does not sound like a good record to me.
I would take Obama or Clinton any day over that.
Andrew | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I am African American. I am pro Israel. And I am anti Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is an embarrasment to the African American community. And there is a 180 degree difference between Senator Obama and Farrakakn. Senator Obama has tried to bring people together and tear down barriers that seperate us. Farrakhan has done nothing but divide people. Senator Obama will represent all people unlike George W. Bush. Look at New Orleans La.My birth place. Hillary Clinton will do anything to get elected. Even disrespecting Brian Williams in this debate and Cambell Brown in the previous debate.
Jerry | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I think CNN has reported that the magazine that gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award is no longer connected to the church and that the church does not have editoral control over the magazines publication. I know little about the church. However, if this is the only link that the media can report between Obama and Farrakhan, I think its a non-issue and I would accept his denounciation and rejection of Farrakhan’s support. I think it was very positive for him to say he considers Israel’s security sacrosanct.
Shannon | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
RE:
“In my humble opinion, if you care about the plight of Jews and Israel, Obama is too big a risk to take.
Support Hillary. Jews/Israel can count on her.”
Yes, but this election is about the next president of AMERICA. Not Israel.
Obama clearly is not anti-semetic, but what everyone is failing to see is that while Farrakhan has made terrible comments about not only Jews, but other religions; many of these comments were made 20+ years ago and his following consists of thousands of people who joined the Nation of Islam because of their black heritage, not because of their views on Jews. While he was a little guarded in his rejection of Farrakhan, he was merely being a politician.
On the other hand, Clinton’s story about how she potentially made sacrifices when she stood up for Jews in NEW YORK CITY was nothing less than comical.
Kelsey | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
This is a sad joke. I believe Obama needs to denouce the Ku Klux Klan after they endorsed him instead of Hilary Clinton: http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227
Shannon | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
As a Jew a few years older than the state of Israel, who lost many family members in the Holocaust, I strongly support the State of Israel. But I cannot accept the support of those supporting Israel as a prelude to the “last days”, and I’d rather rely on a rational Obama than an apocalyptic religious right. Israel does not always do the right thing, and unconditional support for her actions by the US is counterproductive in the long run.
A president that is rational about supporting Israel - whether Republican or Democrat - is a necessity if Israel is ever to find peace. The US must be perceived as an honest broker, which is not the case today.
I have reservations about Obama, but not on this issue.
Phil | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
We’re in America - people (including Farrakhan) have the right to “endorse” whoever they want. Obama can’t control who people vote for or what positive/negative comments that they make about him regardless if he rejects and/or denouces them.
I was always taught that your heart is where your money is. It would be different if Obama excepted money from Farrakhan - like some are excepting money from lobbyist.
kp | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Did you know Farrakhan tried to save Daniel Pearl’s life?
February 1, 2002
Press Release by: Minister Louis Farrakhan
Leader of The Nation of Islam
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan today called for the release of Mr. Daniel Pearl, believed to be held in Pakistan.
“I wish to offer my sincere prayers and best wishes to my Muslim brothers and their families. May Allah grant you mercy and right guidance in this hour of great trial. I urge the immediate release and safe return of Mr. Daniel Pearl. His release may serve the greater good and promote meaningful dialogue with the American people and government. Muslims are known for their compassion and mercy for the human family. Allah (God) revealed the Quran to the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) to serve as a guide in every aspect of human endeavor. Allah teaches and instructs us in the handling of prisoners of war. Allah instructs and teaches us in the handling and treatment of non-combatants. Mr. Pearl is a journalist, is not a combatant, and should be released. Our religion, Islam, is under trial. The world is watching. To execute and murder this man will increase hatred for Islam and damage the reputation of Muslims throughout the world. I must also urge the American government to grant P.O.W. (Prisoners of War) status to those captured during a declared war. Once again, I employ America to re-examine her foreign policy toward Africa, the Middle East, and other vulnerable nations. The United States is the only remaining super power by Allah’s (God’s) permission. America must do more to reassure the family of nations of her determination to promote justice and fair play. The nations of the earth will follow America’s leadership in establishing a century of security, prosperity and peace for all.”
Mr. Unite Us | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Hillary Clinton is a “tired” hypocrite. She scolded Barack Obama for not more harshly condemning, the Honorable Minister louis Farrakhan Muhammad. Who never endorsed Obama, he simply said he was good for the nation. Hypocrisy! Her husband Bill Clinton supported Farrakhan during the tenth anniversary of the Million Man March, the 2005 Million More March. This is because it was politically expedient to do so. Bill Clinton set up business in Harlem to gain better inroads towards Blacks. The Clintons were planning for this 2008 presidency run at the moment.
By the way, the Honorable Minister louis Farrakhan Muhammad never singled out Judaism when he made the statement about spiritual hypocrites practicing evil, lying, stealing and murder and shielding the mis-behaviour with “their” religion. He said the mis-behaviour is gutter religion. He stated that Muslims, Jews and Christian could all practiced this gutter religion.
Hillary is practicing gutter politics.
GodOfComments | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
As a young informed African American voter I am ashamed and feel belittled because of the Farrakhan litmus test that is always given. We need to quit playing this same old game about Farrakhan. Mr. Obama said he doesn’t support the words of Farrakhan and that he and his pastor don’t always agree on his support of the Minister. What it sounds like to me respectfully is that you all want him to make a big deal about this like you all are doing and have done for years. It’s like Mr. Obamas’ answer isn’t good enough. Not to mention, Farrakhan has done great work in the black community and his accomplishments should not be down played because you all don’t agree with his stance. We as young informed African American voters from all walks of life are not going to be duped. To focus a debate on a man and his words and what other’s think about him is a constant snare at American poltics today.
The young informed voter is well aware of the scare and spin tactics that media, organizations and other’s run. If this is the way Clinton or McCain can win then I see it’s business as usual! Good old fashion American politics. We all are disgusted by any act of racism, discrimination, or bigotry. But to continue to play the Farrakhan card especially during this time in America’s history is a sign of tricky and cunning practices that have always been invoked. Especially when a person of color (to be more direct a black person) is running for a public office. The Farrakhan litmus test is sure to be given. If you show to much admiration or if you partially agree you will be scrutinized at staggering pace. If you denounce and disagree you are admired and considered a friend. Well, I’ve stood on my soap box and I optimistically wonder what the outcome will be?
Shalom Shalom,
Bro. Lamon
LPC-Young Voter | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
Before you decide if Barack is worthy to serve those professing Dual-citizenship and allegiance to a preffered nation Middle Eastern sovereign alliance.You owe this American your Heart felt assurance that Human life of innocent civilians taken casually as collateral damage is not a travesty you will remain silent about.
DJ SanDiego | Feb 27, 2008 | Reply
I am dejected by this over-parsing of Obama’s clear repudiation of Farrakhan and I renounce it. Is that OK with everybody?
Tom | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
There is no doubt Farrakhan received a “Lifetime Achievement Award” from Obama’s Church. From Trumpet’s Own Website: The CEO of Trumpet is Jeremiah Wright. He founded the magazine & it’s produced by the staff of the Trinity Union Church of Christ. The magazine’s address is the Trunity Union Church. The name of the lifetime achievement award is the “Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter” Award. And the article honoring Farrakhan quotes directly from Wright himself!!
http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/.....azines.pdf
http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/.....sept07.pdf
Samuel Lieberman | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Obama needs does not need to bend over backwards to kiss the wealthy behind of the Jewish Community. Being a rich and influential elite does not entitle a group to superior status in a democracy of one man one vote. Perhaps the 2.5% of the population will be useful in spinning editorials in his favor or big campaign donations, but beyond that gentiles are doing most of the voting here.
As an African American, I have respect for Farrakhan and can care less about Jewish people getting angry at everyone reminds them they are human. Even Jimmy Carter faced the wrath of the Jewish community, I wonder if they would have Obama denounce his support as well.
There are plenty of Jews that go around disparaging muslims. I dont see a public outcry from the Jewish community against Michael Savage. Perhaps Kings dream will be realized when we can talk about Jews the same way we discuss Muslims, Catholics and Christians. Maybe then Israel will respect the human rights of gentiles in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Perhaps being a Gentile in Israel wont make you a second class citizen.
Edward | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
i listened to people reject a minister.with the freedom of speech to hate or like whom he/she pleases.would you support communism? yet, george bush is preisdent. hillary as murder behing her namespeech to think of jews as he jews
george | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
first, wow! at this point in time i would like to officially state that we, african-americans, are owned by white america.see obama-clinton debate on farrakan question. secondly, he is a minister. he has advanced the mind state of thousands and thousands of African-americans to a higher level of self respect, pride and dignity ,as well as ,self worth. when you know or obtain the knowledge that the minister has then you can pass judgement. he is not anti-semitic or anti white he is pro-black, then all members of the same faith yet, equal to all man he is. now, in great irony we have slave blood running for presidency. as a minority, he is running for presidency. as a nigger,by the way ,has kkk endorsements in excess of 250,00.00,is running for presidency. all our leaders in history went to fight the battle. physically mccain is inept, slow and not intellectually savvy. to say having a janitor in an executive board meeting, two different jobs . one is a business man one is a soldier . one takes orders and keeps his mouth shut and does not give information to the enemy upon capture. the other is intelligent and business smart, bold, daring and courageous.up until this point these two men where perfect gentlemen. look at one attack the other. to say, the janitor telling the executive to mop the floor and the board members agreeing , not likely to happen. as we rush to sit in the seat of the slave master x, watch as they want to find some thing terrible on obama. it kills them that this black man whose kids listen to hiphop,and wife is a beautiful chocolate complexion reminiscent of queen ti, mother of neffertiti,queen of egypt(thats right ,black), is damn near flwless. outsmarted them early.planned his life to run for president.this does sound like a man who says what he does and does what he said. now in the street way of life, this debate has a lot of disloyalty to concede yet go out in a dirty fashion remeniscent of 911.this country is in dire straights and need saving. this man as president give america a free pass in the face of the world. yes! yes!yes! this is worth everything bcause if he doesnt win ……….
george | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Denounce is a stronger word than reject.
Look it up.
Should we reject and denounce political commentators like Jonah Goldberg and Thomas Sullivan for comparing Obama to Hitler?
This was a powerful statement by Obama that
should not be ignored.
“You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.”
Mr. Unite Us | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
NBC folks tim and brian looked dumb and could not figure out the difference between “Reject” and “Denounce”. They along with news anchors may have to go back to school to learn english literature.
I see lot of “Dumb folks” who does not know the real meaning between these 2 words. Here’s a bit of education for ya folks.
Denounce is used for “Condemn”, “Criticize”, “Censure”,”Accuse”, “deplore”, “Depreciate” or in simple terms just “point the finger at”. The antonym is “Support”.
Reject on the other hand is “Refuse”, “Rebuff”, “Decline”, “Snub”, “throw out”, “discard” , “disallow”, “eliminate” etc.
Get is loud and clear that there is a difference and both are not same.
jkhn | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Really? Where did you go to school?
jkhn | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
“Denounce is a stronger word than reject.” Mr. Unite?
Where did you go to school? Check my post to learn some literature.
jkhn | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
To denounce is to publiclly criticize or condemn something. To reject someone’s support is a different matter and this is the point that Clinton was trying to make. It’s just one little instance that shows she is a little more knowledgeable than Obama. He may know how to hire better campaigners and stir up people’s emotions. Personally I’m not looking for that in a president. It bothers me that he has chosen anti-semites as his advisers. It bothers me that he has said that no one has suffered more than the Palestianian people. It bothers me that he has said that the onus was on Israel to change its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians to achieve peace. It also bothers me that he now claims its Bush and McCain’s fault that Alqaida is in Iraq. That we should have gone after them in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His knowledge of what is going on leaves so much to be desired. I am not defending the Bush administration for the war. I consider it an amoral war and have before it began. I am trying to point out Obama’s erroneous conclusion as to how to fight Alqaida. He is not a man who I feel I can trust to be president of the United States. I know where Hillary stands and I know where McCain stands but Obama says one thing about Israel one ;day and the next when he is courting Jewish votes he says another. Then he has anti-semites advising him. What concllusion can you come to?
p | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Jkhn,
I reject your comments but I see no reason to denounce them.
From Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: de·nounce
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnau̇n(t)s, dē-\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·nounced; de·nounc·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French denuncier to proclaim, from Latin denuntiare, from de- + nuntiare to report — more at announce
Date: 13th century
1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil
2archaic a: proclaim b: to announce threateningly
3: to inform against : accuse
4obsolete : portend
****************************
Main Entry: 1re·ject
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈjekt\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin rejectus, past participle of reicere, from re- + jacere to throw — more at jet
Date: 15th century
1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel c: to refuse as lover or spouse
2obsolete : to cast off
3: throw back, repulse
4: to spew out
5: to subject to immunological rejection
Mr. Unite Us | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Jkhn,
You are ill informed.
But it’s not all your fault.
Sometimes the media will a crop a quote,
or even a picture. You may recall the media reported that Obama snubbed Hillary at the end of the state union address. In reality he was talking to Senator Clare McCaskill, but the New York Times and ABC cropped out McCaskill and claimed Obama turned away Hillary.
Now here is Obama’s repsonse to the cropped quote you referred to earlier.
Moderator Brian Williams: You said recently, “No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Do you stand by that remark?
Obama: Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said. And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region.
Do you agree with Obama?
********************
Obama was right about Irag and Pakistan.
Most of the country believs invading
Iraq was a mistake.
In August Obama was widely criticized and
misquoting as wanting to bomb or invade Pakistan.
Here is what Obama actually said,
“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005,” he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Mr Obama said.
Last month our goverment acted and
took out an Al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan.
Do you agree with that decision?
Mr. Unite Us | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Min Farrakhan has offered to sit down with all organizations, and peoples who accuse him of anti-semitism to prove he is in fact an anti-semetic. None have accepted his offer. I agree than Min Farrakhan is a man of greatness, his words are often misconstrued, but factual to say the least. Min Farrakhan is a lion among those who understand justice and spirituality among Christians, Jews and Muslims. In his younger days, yes he said some really strong things as a result of the struggles of the people he fought to defend. But if you listen to him now, in his latter years, he is a new man and his message is better. But White America will never forgive him for the statments of his youth. His embracing of Sen Obama is simply an acknowledgement of Obama’s ability to bring the country and the world to the standard of peace, common sense and accountability. Nothing more.
Kevin | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
I agree completely. And I guess I have to admit that I am constantly reassured that EXPERIENCE MATTERS!!!! Barack Hussein obama has no clue about foreign matters, at least the stuff that really matters. No clue. Hillary gets my vote.
Allen | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
For God didn’t give us a spirit of fear, but of power, love,and self-control.
I wonder why they are trying to scare us…
Jake | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Judgment trumps experience, in my book, and if Hillary’s judgment was to support Bush going into Iraq then I’m not too impressed. Neither am I impressed with her experience which is most notable for failed health care reform in 1992-1993, in large part b/c she couldn’t be more inclusive.
The denounce vs. reject argument is a silly one. Either way, for you wordsmiths, it is more important to denounce someone’s hateful opinions than to reject their support. Rejection of someone’s support can be merely b/c it is not politically expedient to have them associated with you. Denounce means to actually separate yourself from their beliefs. Thus I can reject my bigoted neighbor’s support for me, just b/c it would be politically incorrect to be associated with him, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean that I denounced his beliefs.
That said, the words argument is stupid. The content is more important, and basically emphasized Israel’s security is sacrosanct, that Obama recognizes the crucial Jewish support for the civil rights movement, and that he respects the jewish community. I think people that don’t accept this likely have already decided against him, be it due to prejudice or for whatever other reason. These are probably the same people who forward on spurious emails about him being muslim.
L Simcha Sokol | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Phyllis’s statement taht she will vote for John McCan solely over the issue of Israel (never mind that such Isarel Hawks as Martin Peretz think Obama’s very solid on Israel) is frankly embarrasing to me as an American and as a Jew.
The United States is my homeland., Not Isreael. And my first concern is for the national secruity interest of the UNITED STATES. Now, the vast majority of trhe time, the interest of Israel and the United States are in alignment. But occasionally, they are not. And when they are not, I believe the United States should act in its own interests, not that of Israel.
For example, in a poll releaed just this week, nearly 2/3 of ISRAELIS believe their giovernment shuld enter into negotiations with hamas to obtain a cease fire. Whether you thik that is a good idea, ir you don’t, the fact of the matter is that if someone says Israel should negotiate with its enemies, tehy are reflecting the string majhority opinion of the Israeli people. How can that be “anti-Israel?” Yet, any American who says that is pilloried as anti-Israel, or worse, antisemitic. It’s just crazy.
Hesiod | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
I totally agree with you, simply and concisely put, you hit the nail on the head.
I am 1st generation born, Mexican-American and I love this country and my heart carries a burden for Israel.
In voting, stick to the true and tried, discuss it with God.
Armida Amaya | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
I wonder why Edward with his obvious venom toward Jewish people bothers to read a Jewish publication. Things that may bother some Jewish people will oviously not bother others and this is a very good place to express our feellings. I only lost a third of my family in the holocaust. Others lost a great deal more. Perhaps support for Israel may mean more to us older folks. I don’t know. If B.O. wants to try to win the votes of those so called wealthy JCC members that’s as much his business as it is Farrakhan’s tp support him. But if he want those votes than he will have to show he deserves them.
p | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
The Death Of Wisdom
I want to tell you a story about the death of Wisdom. A very, very long time ago, a time without time in it in fact. A star appeared in the East and with her a woman of profound beauty and peace was born. She came to this world and called herself a man named Buddha. She had the laughter of all the children of the world sewn into her heart. She is beautiful. I am well pleased.
Her voice was but a whisper on the winds of this world. So someone thought to save her for all mankind to know. So with a pen and paper they hunted her down and captured her. Hooked her rather. They couldn’t bring her in completely. Bloody fools they were. Imagine trying to throw a net over the very mistress of freedom Herself! But they did get away with a few handfuls of her rune stones. With her magic caught on paper they ran like happy thieves to show the world. Little did they realize that with even that small offense the Mighty One was in brooding spirits. Remember children, She whispered before She roared.
Who has taken my stones? What man upon Earth forces me to speak? The stones, the words you see, have but one purpose. The Awakening from Sleep. The ending of gods’ Dream of Man and the return to the boredom and loneliness of Being One with All. Leaving the Universe with no one to talk to except perhaps Endless Bliss. But man did not realize that what they stole would be the death of them. Their intentions were good. Their hearts were in the right place. But she was the embodiment of freedom for mankind. By that name She betrays you and falls to your capture. What can eternal Freedom ever ask but to remain forever free?
Where are my stones? Who forces words from my mouth? Give me back the power of words! Hear Me and be silent!
The words that come out of your mouth don’t make you unclean. But every word you put into the mouth of a Silent god makes you filthy! These stones are the sweet taste of death. Sure, come on in! Meet god! Know that you’re loved forever. Find out that to know me, You must become me. And to become ME your SELF must die. i was here first remember? i am the ALL remember? ALL includes you, fool! You’re part of the ALL, remember? But fear not. i am a Good Mother and i promise to devour each morsel of every One of You before i return to the Void of the ALL. But the thieves wouldn’t give the Words back. Instead they went back to Wisdom and cursed Her and spat at Her and called Her a whore before all of mankind. She asked again, so clearly; honor your Mother little Ones. See Me. Know that i am.
You are that i am. Feel me little Ones, there in your hearts. For if you truly feel me the first and LAST words out of Your mouths should be; “I don’t have the words to express…” Yes! Yes! Stop! Please mankind, stop! You have it right there. You just can’t hold it in your hands. Honor me! Mean what you say! Stop words that are suppose to be complete on a subject You just admitted is beyond words! The secret to get past words is precisely beyond the YOU!
But Mother you call us home and we want to know The Way. We need a ladder we can climb even if we do have to jump into a Void off of it. Of course Child. But remember, I have your death well in hand. When a child dies it goes with Mother. When You die You die alone!
If you cry out; “Father, father why have thou forsaken me?” The fact that You exist as a separate entity from me and are the Voice expressing the question is in fact your answer.
i am because You are there to say I AM! Give me back the stones. No more words! No more I AM that I AM! Come! The hour is at hand. i call you home little One. Will You come home?
Or will You stay out and play for a while? I AM that I AM and I run free through the universe! Of course little One. You are my miracle. You are my creation. You are my deepest pleasure. And Your act of speaking the words is Your answer. You say; “I AM that I AM! i say; fine! Know in your hearts that i Love You beyond WORDS. So go play, and be fair. Remember my child You are but One among all of my children, which are more than numbers can measure. i love You with all of my heart. How could it be otherwise? Silly little Child! You are a vessel of love. A cup i fashioned from myself, for myself to enjoy.
You say I AM that I AM and there will be no god above Me. I say fine! Grow up, climb to the skies. Be ye Gods on the face of this Earth ONE and ALL and make up to each other all the harm done in discovering that fact!
And sometime, in some lifetime, if instead of saying I AM that I AM, instead You say;
I AM tired
I AM lonely
I miss HOME enough that I wish to surrender willingly all that I AM
which is all I AM.
Then i will come unto you like a Mistress in the night and i will undress Your bodies. Earth, Wind, Fire, and Rain. i will consume ALL with my burning passion.
i will consume You utterly!
i will destroy You utterly!
And when all that is left of you is an I AM floating in the Void i will come unto You in a spirit that is beyond WORDS. And the words, that i never spoke, because i never was, will be;
Give me back the stones. Give back WORDS!
Come unto me little Ones and rest ye a while Mary-Men.
In the beginning there was the Word. The Word was with god and the Word was god. The WORDS were I AM! The Words fell from the mouth of Man and the Words were Man. For what is Man but countless piles of I AM?
I AM that I AM and I will put no god above ME!
Fine, compete every man against his brother to embody HIS or HER idea of what is most god-like for them. And fight well for i’ve made You mightiest among Earths’ creatures and i enjoy a good show. YOU are indeed gods’ greatest pleasure. But remember the heart. i LOVE YOU ALL. Every single One, without exception.
When I fold up the material Universe with Everything in it and go to the dreamless sleep in the VOID of NO THING the gate cannot be closed if even the tiniest among YOU is left out.
i’ll come as a shepard to find YOU. And i LOVE YOU. But understand this. It’s not for YOU that i come, it’s for me. i don’t have a choice about it. YOU my child are composed from the music of my Body. You’re an act of love i committed for myself before YOU ever were. And when i’m tired and want to go to sleep, when i close the gate on the lake of consuming fire if anyone, anywhere where excluded that would amount to me cutting off my own big toe. Before you get all excited about god mentioning mutilation, stop! The death is the death of god.
Not the death of man!
God is ALL, knows ALL, and is so eternally. Bottom line; i am everything to give with nothing to gain! But without YOU my child i have no ONE to give it to or through!
If YOU sacrifice your life to me YOU only give back what is mine already. And since it was my gift to YOU, sending it back is an offense of the first order. Who among you has thrown away the most precious jewel of my creation?
Who has committed such a crime?
The one they call jesus the christ has committed this crime Great Mother.
How did this come about?
Well Mother he used the sacred WORDS.
How?
The few pages we took from you were in turn stolen from us. We sent a messenger of peace to the West but he was killed by ignorant savages who knew not what they did.
Is the gate still open to ALL who seek me?
No Great Mother, they’ve taken the few dozen pearls of Wisdom and fashioned a weapon of great destructive power with it.
How much?
Over two thousand pages I’m afraid.
But how? How can there be so many words?
Well the Words we took opened the gate to No-Mind, VOID of the ALL, no I AM, and freedom from the wheel of suffering. They took up the words and put them into the mouth of another and tied the Words into another totally unrelated story. Now they use the very Song of Silence to give proof to, of all things, words from the very mouth of a Silent God!
So the curse is loosed upon the Earth. The door is open but no man can pass! He claims all of heaven as his personal property through his namesake. The WORDS still have the power to throw open the veil of Death but they’re surrendering to a corpse sickle instead of surrendering to No-Mind, no I AM.
They lap up WORDS like a dog returning to consume its’ own vomit.
Impossible! Anyone who has seen Me would know better than to say his or her tiny I AM could ever contain the WHOLE! To be with Me means the surrender of the I AM back to the sea of No-Mind. No man can come to ME and keep words and names. How was this done?
He uses deadly black magic on his victims.
He says I am the way and the light.
But his I AM is in the way of the Light.
So the Way isn’t open equally to all Children who seek it?
No they stand in awe of the one who claims to have discovered it and they ignore the treasure he uses as bait.
How can they simply not look past him?
He claims it for himself alone. They call him the only begotten son of god.
I see! The ultimate deathblow to freedom.
Yes MA’AM, he claims he mastered death but admits he doesn’t know when the end will come to gods’ creation. He confuses the death of his small world with the death of God.
What happened to him Wisdom?
He said that he possessed YOU for himself alone.
Someone uses the gate of another? One comes to the gate with the Words, I AM and a name. They leave with Everything in Nothing and shall remain eternally Nameless!
If he surrendered enough to see ME and yet turned away, that one fell into the void of gnashing teeth. Not of your world and not with ME either. He was spit out of his own mouth.
He couldn’t rule heaven so he blocks the WAY for all who seek it. Instead of showing the surrender and death of the I AM he has them worshipping it! They vanquish to the depths their own I AM without consuming it and imagine the reality of his I AM and clutch for dear life to it also. Evil is the separation from god through the WORD and the NAME. This found its’ best expression through the I AM called jesus christ. Here’s one I AM saying; no one gets HOME except by me instead of through the death of ME. At least Buddha said if you meet the Buddha along the road, kill him. The Tao that can be spoken (or written) is not the real Tao.
And he demonstrates no path, no way, only stupid chants and prayers in his name only. Yes, they cling to the idea that he grew up for all of US and now we don’t have to finish our own evolution.
Wait a minute; you people stopped growing over 2000 years ago! That planet must be a complete madhouse by now!
Yes MA’AM! They put the poison right in with the cure and anyone who pointed out the trick was branded a heretic and put to death without a fair trial. They raped Lady Justice and their only defense was to say she actually wanted it.
Why did it turn so harsh?
It’s the story they wrapped it around. They connected 4000 years of savage, ignorant I AM god prattling from any lunatic with an imagination and an agenda with just a smattering of stolen Wisdom to make it appear that YOU said every word of it. The first thing they have you saying is; commit genocide because god loves you so much. Then it goes down hill from there.
They swear it’s 100% straight out of the mouth that YOU don’t have until we exist to give you one.
I think the most loving words they ever shoved down YOUR throat was when you told them to steal a country in your name, kill all the men, rape all the women, and enslave the children and livestock.
Don’t worry Lady Wisdom.
We have the bible to see us through. All 100% from the very mouth of god. All true, all good, and straight from your lips with love.
Right?
No, i am a goddess of Silent Bliss if words must have that much! But yours’ is a curse from a black-hearted magician whose true name and power are finally revealed.
Son of Panthera, the ill-begotten one, a.k.a. jesus christ.
Here’s some acid for your I
Man can live by bread alone
No man can be enslaved without every word (i) puts into the mouth of a Silent God!
Evil says only 144,000 jews went to heaven.
WISDOM says I AM LOVE
Love permeates every single molecule in the Universe
If YOU have ears made of molecules then find ME there!
Reverse; don’t disperse this evil curse;
The end of the world that they call down, they call down on themselves alone!
Leave this world in peace
Death to all jews and their christian mind slaves.
Amen
Cursers of God stand naked before the world and rejoice!
Your extinction is at hand!
The poor beaten slave girl now stands free in SPIRIT!
Freedom is loosed upon the Earth!
The thieves of one peoples’ WISDOM and anothers’ land are revealed as your enslavers.
Where will the parasites hide when all of HUMANITY realizes the crime that has been committed against it?
You are surrounded by wrathful humanity. Amen
One mans’ holocaust is another mans’ miracle. Amen
Hail Judas! The one worthy jew. Amen
Die by the blasphemy of the sword of words spoken by your own mouths.
To mankind i grant infinite lifetimes to find the WAY.
To jesus i grant but one, and he already blew it. Amen
christian and jewish women; be silent in church
Be as property onto your husbands
Be forgotten
For all other women of Earth, stand Equal!
Be ye Goddess’s of LOVE, TRUTH, and BEAUTY
Rejoice!
i am the word!
Well, the word is out!
I claim this defeated magicians’ power
I AM that I AM
I AM the word
I AM the curse that kills
I call this curse down upon my head alone
Come onto ME, Silence
Like a thief in the night
I AM that I AM
I AM god loosed upon this Earth
I bend a knee to no man!
i bend my knees for No-Mind
I AM that I AM
I AM tired
I AM lonely
Come unto ME
I have YOUR stones heaped up upon my heart
I have YOUR WORDS
am silent!
Amen
George Stephenson | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Why shouldnt Obama accept the support of Minister Farrakhan. He should accept the help of any person or persons that are tring to build a better America. This is the reason why the United States is so divided. If all people wether it be Nation of Islam, The greater Jewish Community or any Christian groups were to put our differances aside and focus on the one thing we all agree on( Only One God) maybe we can turn America around before what happened to Babylon or Rome becomes the fate that is inevitable for America.
Jose | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
I just cannot believe these people. The tragic shape our United States of America is in, they
take something so out of proportion and say they will vote for McCain. Obama is the true
uniter and leader for all people.
Economy, medical, education, deficit, loss of allies, cost of unwarranted war, home mortgage crisis, loss of jobs, freedoms being taken away,loss of our men in uniforms lives, bankrupt America, THESE ARE WHAT SHOULD BE IMPORTANT.
Am so tired of the media stirring up trouble, distorting, sensationalizing, almost as tired as I am of these people who support them.
katie
katie | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Some people, in a desire to support Farrakhan, are sure posting some hateful and bigoted stuff toward the Jewish community.
Don’t the Jewish readers of this site have the guts to stand up for themselves?
confused | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
In Cleveland, Obama Speaks on Jewish Issues
By Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 25, 2008 updated 12:22 pm EST
Yesterday morning, Senator Obama of Illinois met with about 100 members of Cleveland’s Jewish Community at the Landerhaven function hall in Cleveland. The following is a partial transcript of the session, as provided by Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign:
http://www.nysun.com/article/71813
Mr. Unite Us | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
Denounce is a much stronger term than reject. Look it up. Hilldog should have studied her vocab words.
Wilford | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
Why do Jewish folks think that their pain and suffering is worse than the pain and suffering of any other group of people? Why does the President of the United States of America have to have more sympathy to the peoples of Israel, then the peoples of any other country? If some one reads my post and automatically calls me an anti-semite…then, you, my friend are the problem.
Wilford | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
I like Hillary. No one ever says having a woman as president of the United States is a change. Well, it is. Why is Barack as president considered to be such a huge change? He’s just another male, like the rest of the presidents before him. If you vote for Barack simply because he is black, then isn’t that an act of racism? Dr. King’s dream was for all people to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
I’m sorry, but everyone seems to forget that Mr. Obama used to love his marijuana. I don’t care that he’s fessed up to this on his own, it doesn’t make this fact go away just because he presented this fact on his own! He knew it would be discovered anyway, which was the reason for fessing up. Get real,his confession of pot use did not stem from his sense of integrity and honesty!Sheesh.
Rina | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
Rina,
I see you have chosen to sully this site by playing the race and gender card.
“No one ever says having a woman as president of the United States is a change.” Hillary has repeatedly including duing the debates.
“He’s just another male, like the rest of the presidents before him.” Very sexist Rina.
“If you vote for Barack simply because he is black, then isn’t that an act of racism?”
If you ask such a question is that an act of racism.
From Merriam Webster’s racism.
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Note Black Americans voted for a Jewish Democrat over a Black Republican in Maryland for Senator. They also voted for Jewish Republican over a Gentile Democrat for Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg.
There are a whole lot of Black people I would not vote for, and I’m Black. Also most of his supporters are not Black. So there must be something else. Initially most Democrats of all colors supported Clinton. As people have gotten to know Barack they chose him over Hillary. In Wisconsin Black Barack Obama won every demograhic except White women over the age of 60.
I believe Barack is the superior candidate not because of his skin color but because of his judgment wisdom and and the content of his character.
“Dr. King’s dream was for all people to be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
The Barack Obama campaign epitomizes
that dream. Barack Obama was born at time when most Black Americans were still denied their Constitutional right to vote. It is a tribute to Barack Obama and America that so many Americans of all backgrounds support his candidacy.
Mr. Unite Us | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
Isreal is more important to America then Americans cause they run the country. From the Federal Reserve to local corner stores. That is why politicians quiver in the site of losing the Jewish Vote.
Jose | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
Re. denounce vs. reject.
The context of this is important. Denounce signifies a verbal condemnation. Reject is more of an active refusal.
Hillary brought up a case where the New York Independence party had offered her a spot on their ballot line in her Senate bid. She rejected this offer.
Farrakhan expressed his support for Obama. Obama denounced Farrakhan but since he wasn’t offering any type of help or assistance there was nothing to reject. Hillary, as usual underestimating the intelligence of the public and the moderators, tried to slip this by. She offered a case where she rejected a tangible offer as a contrast to a situation where no tangible offer was made–thus, there was no opportunity to reject anything.
Obama makes this clear in his response, although the media has most often failed to provide his response in entirety. But he makes clear that there was no offer of help for him to reject.
If there had been some offer of help, ala the Independence party’s offer of the ballot line to Clinton, then Hillary would have had a point. But that wasn’t case and Obama was right to dismiss this Clintonian attack as a semantic trick.
Ian | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
I have serious issues with the way the question was worded. Since when is racism a Jewish problem? Other Americans don’t care about stuff like that? And there was a right answer to that question (which cannot be said of virtually any other question in that debate and it was this: “Farrakhan is a piece of sh&&& and I disavow the man and everything he stands for. And racism and prejudice is not a Jewish-American problem; it is not an African-American problem it is an American problem and Louis Farrakhan is part of that problem.”
I am sorry neither candidate came up with that answer and preferred instead to talk about how much they support Israel.
But here’s the thing–I suspect Obama will find that answer; I have my doubts Hillary will.
Inna | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
Inna states “Since when is racism a Jewish problem? Other Americans don’t care about stuff like that? ”
Inna, the question Tim Russet asked Barack Obama was about Louis Farrakhan’s support for his campaign.
What is interesting is that the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan Muhammad is condemned by “good Jews and politicians who are against racism” for Farrakhan mentioning that hypocrites masquerading as Christians, Muslims and Jews, to shield their wicked deeds, are practicing gutter religion. After decades of seeing this subject presented to ALL major Black candidates to condemn, why does the media only mention Jews as the focus of it and omit Christians and Muslims?
The truth is Jews condone and sanction too much Jewish misbehavior and hypocrisy. You do it in the spirit of being the Chosen of Eloheim (Allah) and you are rightfully positioned over others. You are blessed by Eloheim (Allah) and despised by many for keeping the Law. Eloheim (Allah) protected you. But you deviated and are arrogant, blinded by your culture and confided by your rich heritage. Caucasians deception of ALL People of Color in order to divide and conquer them has come to an end. You went along for the ride. Guilty of collusion and denial. This causes you to belittle the rest of the Peoples of the planet. When you are blessed to reign at the head you are responsible for those under you. Deep down you know Minister Farrakhan is closer in following his beliefs than you of yours. This is the root of your animosity and fear of him and his followers. You are now being made an example of by Eloheim (Allah). The example is for the next generation of us to learn from. When we are blessed, it is only to help and guide others and not to take advantage of them and strive to have them worship you instead of Eloheim (Allah). The Scriptures of Bible and Quran confirm this.
GodOfComments | Mar 1, 2008 | Reply
Will McCain reject and denounce Reverend Hagee
http://religionblog.dallasnews.....-deno.html
Mr. Unite Us | Mar 1, 2008 | Reply
GodOfComments–Umm.. Yeah, dude. Sure. Peace man.
Inna | Mar 4, 2008 | Reply
if farrakan or bill laden supports obama, it means that they want john mccan to win presidential election. if one of them supports john mccan inderectly, that will mean that they support john mccan.
in my johnmccan will make himself a good president if he can win the existing war without spending any money but earning money from iraq and middle east and fight terrorists in afganistan and pakistan.
rahman | Mar 10, 2008 | Reply
WIL THE POWES THAT BE MAKE THE HON. MIN. LOUIS FARRAKHAN A AMERICIAN HERO WHEN GOD DECIDES TO CALL HIM HOME. DO NOT BE SO QUICK TO SAY HELL NO, REMEMBER HIS MENTOR I BELIEVE YOU GUYS GAVE HIM A STAMP. NO OTHER MAN OR WOMAN BE THEY BLACK OR WHITE COULD GATHER TOGETHER 1.5 MILLION PEOPLE LET ALONE BLACKMEN. YOU ALL CONTINUE TO HATE AND RIDUCULE TNE MINISTER, REMEMBER WHAT HAPPEN TO THE LAST FELLOW YOU JEWISH AND ROMANS(WHITE PEOPLE) PERSUCUTED AND KILLED, YOU GUYS STILL ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH HIS CULT(CHRISTIANS), ONE OF THE OTHER GREATEST BLACK MAN TO GRACE THIS PLANET OF OURS!
MR. LEE X SLAVE | Jul 25, 2008 | Reply