Bombshell Obama Pastor Video

[chris1gill]

Bush has an MBA from Harvard.

But he was a C student & that's with a tutor

 

[chris1gill]

& the CEO from Bear Stearns may be available.

I just spit my drink out laughing, could you warn us first?

 

[N.Bailey]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

(I just noticed the forward is by John McCain!)

Maybe you have to purchase this book, but what they tackled on the site really wasn't dealing with the evidence in the video series I linked to; for the most part anyway.

While I cannot see the plane hitting the Pentagon (and I've viewed it frame by frame), unless one can explain where those passengers are, I think that's a hard sell.

I also wouldn't want to put much weight on the temperatures that were going on inside those towers as they were burning. This was a pretty unprecedented situation and I'm not sure that we have a way of determining how hot it might have been to any degree of certainty. I can buy though that the steel would be weakened, but to bend like it had without cracking at all, though?

I heard early on that the government shot down flight 93. Many people came forth immediately with this information. Does it really matter though? If they could have shot them all down, many lives would have been spared. It's likely they shot the plane down, but it's also likely that it crashed. Ultimately, it changes nothing.

These are about the only issues that the link talked of from the video series I watched. Perhaps there are all kinds of theories out there? I don't doubt that for a minute. The series I watched comes in 19 parts and is roughly 10 minutes per part (though the first couple are pretty short). That's a lot of video.

Like I said, maybe the book covers more, but the website didn't. I'll run some searches and see if I can come up with some other links that counter this. Trust me when I say, I do not want to think that anyone in this country could be responsible for 9/11. If you've not done so, maybe you could look at a few of the clips yourself. Ultimately, it may all be completely false, but I'm telling you, a very strong case was indeed made.

btw: thanks for the links.

 

[N.Bailey]

Some of the things were really simple, like Bush saying he saw that first plane hit the towers on the TV at the school. Well, we then find out, there was no video of the first plane hitting till Sept. 12. Then they say, perhaps he confused the 2nd plane with the 1st, but then we're shown him being told about the 2nd plane.

Another showed Bush in an interview where he talks of the explosives, but then hurries to back peddle it. Rumsfeld makes a similar mistake. I think Cheney makes one too, but I could be wrong about that.

They show how the guy who'd just taken over the lease invested like 15 million and walked away with 7 billion after it was all said and done. He had just gotten the lease, too.

They say foreign papers have reported that many of the high jackers are alive and kicking, then go on to tell you where exactly they are and what they're doing.

All of these IMO should be able to be disproved pretty easily if they're not true. Please know, this is only a wee tiny tip of the iceberg and these issues aren't even the bigger ones.

 

[Charade]

Some of the things were really simple, like Bush saying he saw that first plane hit the towers on the TV at the school. Well, we then find out, there was no video of the first plane hitting till Sept. 12. Then they say, perhaps he confused the 2nd plane with the 1st, but then we're shown him being told about the 2nd plane.

Another showed Bush in an interview where he talks of the explosives, but then hurries to back peddle it. Rumsfeld makes a similar mistake. I think Cheney makes one too, but I could be wrong about that.

They show how the guy who'd just taken over the lease invested like 15 million and walked away with 7 billion after it was all said and done. He had just gotten the lease, too.

They say foreign papers have reported that many of the high jackers are alive and kicking, then go on to tell you where exactly they are and what they're doing.

All of these IMO should be able to be disproved pretty easily if they're not true. Please know, this is only a wee tiny tip of the iceberg and these issues aren't even the bigger ones.

Just think of these two words. Occam's Razor.

 

[CPT Tripss]

That might not be a good idea, if you haven't heard, some of the banks are headed straight into the gutter..... Stay far far away from bank exec's

geez . . . did I need a

 

[SwedishMeatball]

CNN is reporting that allies of Wright are firing back and calling this a character assasination of Wright, and are angered at Obama for denouncing his pastor. I don't know why they're upset with Obama since he didn't denounce the man, just those particular statements. Even Wright saw the writing on the wall some time back and expected that Obama would have to disassociate himself during his political run for the WH.

 

[CowboyCO]

I also wouldn't want to put much weight on the temperatures that were going on inside those towers as they were burning. This was a pretty unprecedented situation and I'm not sure that we have a way of determining how hot it might have been to any degree of certainty. I can buy though that the steel would be weakened, but to bend like it had without cracking at all, though?

I heard early on that the government shot down flight 93. Many people came forth immediately with this information. Does it really matter though? If they could have shot them all down, many lives would have been spared. It's likely they shot the plane down, but it's also likely that it crashed. Ultimately, it changes nothing.


btw: thanks for the links.

The PM report explains the metal question very plainly, but I'll put it more plainly.

Take a 4 sticks of butter out the fridge, unwrap them and set them on end in a squarre about 4 inches apart on your counter. Take a gallon of milk and set it on the butter. The butter supports the weight of the milk. Remove the milk.

Now, allow the sticks of butter to warm up to room temperature. Then set the gallon of milk om top of the butter. It sags and squashes even though it has not melted.

Warming up the butter makes it weak. Same thing with steel, or any other compound. Even though the melting point of steel is 1800 degrees, you do not have to to melt it to compromise its strength, the same as with the butter. The steel wouldn't crack for the same reason the butter wouldn't fracture. It is getting "softer" on the molecular level.

As for shooting down a plane-- there is no evidenve whatsoever. Theorists talk about the F-16 from Montana, but PM exposes that theory. Everything happened way too fast to ID the 4 planes among 4,000 commercial airliners and intercept.

Cockpit recordings and phone calls from Flight 93 draw a clear picture of what happened. To suggest otherwise spits in the face of the heroic acts of people who knew they were dying to save the lives of perhaps thousands of Americans.

Butif you are still buying in to any of it, please vote for Obama. He's also telling a fairy tale as well.

 

[CathrynRose]

CNN is reporting that allies of Wright are firing back and calling this a character assasination of Wright, and are angered at Obama for denouncing his pastor. I don't know why they're upset with Obama since he didn't denounce the man, just those particular statements. Even Wright saw the writing on the wall some time back and expected that Obama would have to disassociate himself during his political run for the WH.

Wow - Interesting.

(very great explanation of melting butter edited out)

Butif you are still buying in to any of it, please vote for Obama. He's also telling a fairy tale as well.

 

[DISUNC]

Butif you are still buying in to any of it, please vote for Obama. He's also telling a fairy tale as well.

...BUT without a Happy Ending!

 

[N.Bailey]

The PM report explains the metal question very plainly, but I'll put it more plainly.

Take a 4 sticks of butter out the fridge, unwrap them and set them on end in a squarre about 4 inches apart on your counter. Take a gallon of milk and set it on the butter. The butter supports the weight of the milk. Remove the milk.

Now, allow the sticks of butter to warm up to room temperature. Then set the gallon of milk om top of the butter. It sags and squashes even though it has not melted.

Warming up the butter makes it weak. Same thing with steel, or any other compound. Even though the melting point of steel is 1800 degrees, you do not have to to melt it to compromise its strength, the same as with the butter. The steel wouldn't crack for the same reason the butter wouldn't fracture. It is getting "softer" on the molecular level.

As for shooting down a plane-- there is no evidenve whatsoever. Theorists talk about the F-16 from Montana, but PM exposes that theory. Everything happened way too fast to ID the 4 planes among 4,000 commercial airliners and intercept.

Cockpit recordings and phone calls from Flight 93 draw a clear picture of what happened. To suggest otherwise spits in the face of the heroic acts of people who knew they were dying to save the lives of perhaps thousands of Americans.

Butif you are still buying in to any of it, please vote for Obama. He's also telling a fairy tale as well.

Actually, everything I mentioned in that post was not any of the things in the video that I put weight on.

It was the only information addressed in the link provided, though.

Flight 93 could go either way for me. Immediately, people started saying they watched it explode, but at the same time, we immediately had the other version, too. It's not biggie to me either way. If it was hit, there would be no way that the government could have possibly known that they were trying to overtake the plane. They'd have simply wanted to get it down ASAP while it was in such a rural area.

As for the Steel, I'm not really talking about the melting. Yes, they had some melting at the base, but I don't think there is anyway to measure anything to any scientific degree of certainty. There was bending of that steel though, but there wasn't cracking. Again, when was the last time scientists had this type of scene to compare it to? To my knowledge, these are the only 3 steel buildings to EVER burn (tower 1, tower 2, and tower 7). There were some steel beams though that looked like they were at an angle. The type of angle one would get if rigged to purposely blow. This is the type of information I would like to look at more in depth.

I doubt you watched the videos (if you did, these truly wouldn't be the issues you'd be addressing). Until you do so, you really aren't in a position to say it's nothing. While it may be nothing, concluding so without watching it would be an uninformed opinion. That's not what I'm looking for.

I don't think in general that we have the information at our disposal to say it's factual or not. That's why we're forced to believe what others are saying. Then it begs the question of, it their information truthful, or is there a bias? I think we all know a case can be made for just about anything if you're doing some major cherry picking.

Fear not though, I will keep digging to see what I can find. I really don't like to be spoon fed information (not saying you or anyone else does either by that statement).

 

[chris1gill]

Coming from an Evangelical upbringing where hate was pretty much espused every sermon three times a week, I found this pretty accurate (and yes, you bet we voted Republican):

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Email
Print
Comments
Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:



If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.


And this:


In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....


Then this:



There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html )

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

 

[chris1gill]

CNN is reporting that allies of Wright are firing back and calling this a character assasination of Wright, and are angered at Obama for denouncing his pastor. I don't know why they're upset with Obama since he didn't denounce the man, just those particular statements. Even Wright saw the writing on the wall some time back and expected that Obama would have to disassociate himself during his political run for the WH.

Well just think back to that hate mongering radio show host that put on a show before one of John McCain's rally's... McCain came out when everyone was gone and denounced what he said... that guy went on for 3 days about how he'd been thrown under the bus....

i just read what CNN has up, they are not attacking Obama but rather the press which put four clips into a soundbite and made that a representation of what defined the church..




(CNN) -- The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's former church criticized the news media Sunday for coverage of his sermons, saying in a statement that Wright's "character is being assassinated in the public sphere."

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, defended Wright, saying he "has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."

The statement came two days after Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a longtime friend of Wright and attendee of the church, denounced sermons that have become the subject of recent controversy. Obama called them "inflammatory and appalling."

"It is an indictment on Dr. Wright's ministerial legacy to present his global ministry within a 15- or 30-second sound bite," the Rev. Otis Moss III, the current pastor of the church, said in the statement.

"The African-American Church was born out of the crucible of slavery, and the legacy of prophetic African-American preachers since slavery has been and continues to heal broken, marginalized victims of social and economic injustices," Moss added.
Don't Miss

* Controversial minister off Obama's campaign
* Clinton apologizes to black voters
* Election Center 2008

"This is an attack on the legacy of the African-American Church, which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world."

In the same statement, the Rev. John H. Thomas, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ -- the denomination to which Wright's church belongs -- said the news media were creating a "caricature" of his congregation.

"It's time for us to say 'No' to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," Thomas said.

The sermons in question became the subject of scrutiny last week after being highlighted in an ABC News report.

At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is easier than Obama's because of her skin color.

"Hillary was not a black boy raised in a single-parent home; Barack was," Wright says in a video of the sermon posted on YouTube. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary! Hillary ain't never been called a '******!' Hillary has never had her people defined as a non-person."

Wright, who retired this year from his post, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"

In denouncing those sermons Friday, Obama defended his 20-year relationship with Wright, saying that the pastor has served him in a spiritual role -- not a political one

 

[N.Bailey]

chris1gill,
Since reading this thread, I have done a lot of soul searching. I want to thank you for providing these links.

While I hate zero tolerance policies, I must admit, I have zero tolerance for political grandstanding (which probably makes me a hypocrite, but I can live with that).

 

[Charade]

Actually, everything I mentioned in that post was not any of the things in the video that I put weight on.

It was the only information addressed in the link provided, though.

Flight 93 could go either way for me. Immediately, people started saying they watched it explode, but at the same time, we immediately had the other version, too. It's not biggie to me either way. If it was hit, there would be no way that the government could have possibly known that they were trying to overtake the plane. They'd have simply wanted to get it down ASAP while it was in such a rural area.

As for the Steel, I'm not really talking about the melting. Yes, they had some melting at the base, but I don't think there is anyway to measure anything to any scientific degree of certainty. There was bending of that steel though, but there wasn't cracking. Again, when was the last time scientists had this type of scene to compare it to? To my knowledge, these are the only 3 steel buildings to EVER burn (tower 1, tower 2, and tower 7). There were some steel beams though that looked like they were at an angle. The type of angle one would get if rigged to purposely blow. This is the type of information I would like to look at more in depth.

I doubt you watched the videos (if you did, these truly wouldn't be the issues you'd be addressing). Until you do so, you really aren't in a position to say it's nothing. While it may be nothing, concluding so without watching it would be an uninformed opinion. That's not what I'm looking for.

I don't think in general that we have the information at our disposal to say it's factual or not. That's why we're forced to believe what others are saying. Then it begs the question of, it their information truthful, or is there a bias? I think we all know a case can be made for just about anything if you're doing some major cherry picking.

Fear not though, I will keep digging to see what I can find. I really don't like to be spoon fed information (not saying you or anyone else does either by that statement).

Maybe you missed my earlier reply. You might want to consider Occam's Razor for your answer.

 

[CowboyCO]

Actually, everything I mentioned in that post was not any of the things in the video that I put weight on.

It was the only information addressed in the link provided, though.

Flight 93 could go either way for me. Immediately, people started saying they watched it explode, but at the same time, we immediately had the other version, too. It's not biggie to me either way. If it was hit, there would be no way that the government could have possibly known that they were trying to overtake the plane. They'd have simply wanted to get it down ASAP while it was in such a rural area.

As for the Steel, I'm not really talking about the melting. Yes, they had some melting at the base, but I don't think there is anyway to measure anything to any scientific degree of certainty. There was bending of that steel though, but there wasn't cracking. Again, when was the last time scientists had this type of scene to compare it to? To my knowledge, these are the only 3 steel buildings to EVER burn (tower 1, tower 2, and tower 7). There were some steel beams though that looked like they were at an angle. The type of angle one would get if rigged to purposely blow. This is the type of information I would like to look at more in depth.

I doubt you watched the videos (if you did, these truly wouldn't be the issues you'd be addressing). Until you do so, you really aren't in a position to say it's nothing. While it may be nothing, concluding so without watching it would be an uninformed opinion. That's not what I'm looking for.

I don't think in general that we have the information at our disposal to say it's factual or not. That's why we're forced to believe what others are saying. Then it begs the question of, it their information truthful, or is there a bias? I think we all know a case can be made for just about anything if you're doing some major cherry picking.

Fear not though, I will keep digging to see what I can find. I really don't like to be spoon fed information (not saying you or anyone else does either by that statement).

While you are digging, you might look for proof that the moon landings were staged as well.. Just Google it!

 

[N.Bailey]

Maybe you missed my earlier reply. You might want to consider Occam's Razor for your answer.

I truly wasn't knowledgeable enough to know what you were saying, but upon reading your post earlier, I ran a Google search.

I saw nothing in any of the those links (hits) that proved that the government wasn't responsible for 9/11.

As I've already said, I don't like to be spoon fed my opinion, I believe in cold hard facts; not speculation, not gossip, not political grandstanding, and most definitely not, cliches.

For the record, I appreciate your civility. I've read and agreed with many of your posts thru the years here and I will continue to do so.

 

[N.Bailey]

While you are digging, you might look for proof that the moon landings were staged as well.. Just Google it!

Yeah, that's the theme, bash the poster when you can't tackle the evidence. IMO, you just lost the argument with your childish, immature, responses.

Sorry, you can put me on ignore, I'm not interested in uniformed opinion.

Again, these videos may be way off the mark, but you've not done or said anything that would counter them. You just attack. As an American, that is your right and I would die to protect that right.

 

[EMom]

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits.

Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.

The denomination I attended as a child and throughout my teens began to lean heavily to the right in the late 70s/early 80s. What I heard from the pulpit was NOTHING compared to what this article describes....much more tame. They just began to get too close to political endorsements, etc. and to get too involved in pushing certain social issues for my taste. I'm sure what this author writes about actually happened in some churches, I am merely making the point that what happened in mine was MUCH more mild by comparison. And yet, I spoke with my feet and walked away from this denomination at about 18-19. You see, it just isn't that hard to do. If what the church or minister says offends you, if it gets too close to interfering in politics and you're not comfortable with that, if you can't endorse what the church/minister stands for.....then LEAVE. I know exactly the era the writer is talking about and many people left churches at that time because of exactly that issue. I don't care if the church is speaking against gays or gritching about how The Man has kept Blacks down....If it is offensive on either side of the political spectrum, walk out. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Hmmm....I heard a lot more than what you heard in those rantings......I mean, sermons. And while Hillary Clinton may have never been called a n****r, I am certain she HAS been called a witch with a B. Strong, assertive women get that a lot. It's called sexism. It's a form of prejudice and while Obama hasn't experienced it, that doesn't make it any less real. I hear plenty of racism coming from Rev. Wright's mouth. Should God damn him too? What about violence in the Black community? They do have that, correct? So they should be damned as well it seems.

Aaaahhhh, the race card. Here we go again. Any time anyone says anything less than glowing about Obama, his team, his backers, etc., the screeches of "RACISM!" are immediate and deafening, whether they are accurate or not. I'd say the Obama-ites play the race card just as well and just as frequently as anyone in this campaign. They just use it to ward off any probing questions they don't want to answer. And his opponents and even objective observers will pull back, for fear of being labeled a racist. Well, not every criticism of him is about race and we have a right to examine his background as carefully as we would any other candidate's. He seems to have some sort of bubble around him. Checking out the sermons of his minister/spiritual guide/mentor/close friend of 20 years (meaning he turns to this person in times of need) is legitimate. And being concerned when you hear the racist trash coming from Wright's mouth is legitimate. Yes.....plenty of us saw it as racist. He hates "Whitey." The Man is oppressing Blacks and we're The Enemy. Exchange "White" for "Black" or "Jew" and you would have a KKK rally. Questioning whether it is believable that Obama had no clue until recently that his minister had ever said such things or held such beliefs is fair. What has race got to do with that? It's a credibility issue.

I am sick of the race card being used not to ATTACK Obama, but to ward off any and all legitimate questions regarding his fitness for office. If race really has no place as an offensive weapon, then it should not be used as a shield against legitimate and fair questions either. Should Democrats be so eager to have the first Black man in the White House that they do not bother to really get to know what is behind the image? The same goes for having the first female president. I'd love to have either of those. It's about time. But I want a qualified one who will represent ALL Americans. And to know the answer to that, questions need to be answered, not just indignantly brushed aside with cries of "Race card!"

 

[EMom]

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois, defended Wright, saying he "has preached a social gospel on behalf of oppressed women, children and men in America and around the globe."

(Repeat after Rev. Wright: Blacks=Oppressed and Whites=Oppressors)

"The African-American Church was born out of the crucible of slavery, and the legacy of prophetic African-American preachers since slavery has been and continues to heal broken, marginalized victims of social and economic injustices," Moss added.

(Black ones, not White ones. Because only Blacks can be broken and marginalized and it is the Whites who are breaking and marginalizing them.)

"This is an attack on the legacy of the African-American Church, which led and continues to lead the fight for human rights in America and around the world."
(BLACK human rights, that is.)

In the same statement, the Rev. John H. Thomas, the general minister and president of the United Church of Christ -- the denomination to which Wright's church belongs -- said the news media were creating a "caricature" of his congregation.
(It's not a caricature. It's just a window into something terribly unpleasant and at times downright ugly.)

"It's time for us to say 'No' to these attacks and declare that we will not allow anyone to undermine or destroy the ministries of any of our congregations in order to serve their own narrow political or ideological ends," Thomas said.
(I sputtered my drink on that one. How ironic that he can refer to someone else as having a NARROW ideology.)

At one December service, Wright argued Clinton's road to the White House is easier than Obama's because of her skin color.
(Aaaahhhh....So it's okay for THEM to talk about race as an advantage/disadvantage, but let the other side do it and they are immediately labeled as racists? Quite the double standard there.)

Wright, who retired this year from his post, also says in the video, "Who cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and in a culture controlled by rich white people?"
(Yes, Whites are rich and Black are poor and powerless. Just look at Barack and Michelle Obama for proof of that. Oops. Never mind. And there are no poor Whites....nope.)

Spin it all you want, I know what I heard. And I know what I saw.....A congregation full of clapping, cheering churchgoers who seemed to agree with his hate.