Jude 2

I didn't hear it, but I read it on Drudge.

I have a book entitled "The World's Greatest Speeches", containing about 300 or so of them from ancient Rome and Greece to the 1950's (the book was published in 1958). It covers every political stripe without comment. I've read almost all of them, many several times over.

I read Obama's speech on Drudge because it was printed in much the same way, untarnished by others' 'objective' reports. I don't want Obama as president, and I don't trust his judgment. I specifically am 180 degrees out of phase with his policies.

But, when I read the speech, I was moved by what I saw as raw honesty. It may not resolve the tensions people feel about his connection with Jeremiah Wright, but I think it answers it completely enough and honestly enough that Obama deserves -- for now -- the benefit of the doubt about whether he agrees in any measure with the hateful words of the man.

I also thought it was one of the single best speeches I've read. Were it not for the need to address the Wright issues, the moral clarity of the need for justice would've been such that no decent person could reject its logic. That, however, does not mean that decency requires adapting his means to get there.

It has also, and perhaps this is a flaw of my own judgment, but it has also given me this simple opinion of the man Barack Obama, that he is shooting straight as he is politically capable of doing. I think he's a basically honest guy, and I am under no illusion that his honesty is somehow good for us. His honesty may be very bad for us as it gets implemented into policy. But, if given a choice today between Obama and Hillary Clinton, I would run to vote for Obama and you'd have to handcuff me to the poll and force my hand to vote for Clinton.

As it is, I won't vote for any of them, including John McCain. I'm not sure which of them will harm us most, and I'm not ready to surrender my vote to the pragmatic determination that McCain is the least evil. I did that when I voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988 instead of Jack Kemp, and I've done it ever since. I'm just not going to do that anymore.

But, don't worry ...... I'm NOT voting for Obama.

dolfan wrote:
As it is, I won't vote for any of them, including John McCain. I'm not sure which of them will harm us most, and I'm not ready to surrender my vote to the pragmatic determination that McCain is the least evil. I did that when I voted for George H.W. Bush in 1988 instead of Jack Kemp, and I've done it ever since. I'm just not going to do that anymore.

But, don't worry ...... I'm NOT voting for Obama.

I feel your pain. I, too, am struggling with what to do with my presidential vote. I can not, and will not, ever vote for Obama (or Hillary if she somehow steals the election from him). By the same token, I don't want to vote for McCain. He's stabbed me and my conservative brothers in the back way too many times for me to trust him.

There's a part of me that says, "if you don't vote for McCain, you're just helping Obama win." And that's true. However, if we conservatives roll over and vote for McCain as the lesser of two evils, then we'll get more like him in the next election, and the one after that. And guess what? We'll deserve it. We'll be the lap dogs of the Republican party, just like blacks are the lap dogs of the Democratic party. Our vote will be taken for granted.

I ain't going out like that.

Idealism is a great virtue......it also causes nations to collapse. I too am apalled that our real only choice is not really a good one.

However, pragmatism is also a virtue. I know as do you both (dolfan and dajudge) that McCain is a one term person simply by age. A great deal is going to depend on who his running mate is. I personally believe McCain is a set up. A very conservative person like Mike would not have a chance against Obama or Clinton. It is "the democrats year" .

I think the reps know this and they are offering a lesser evil so that in 4 years the implosion of the democratic party will be complete and the VP will be an "incumbant" party favorite.....now we see Mike as the running mate that could.

But then you could just say I'm a dreamer. I still think the dem. nominee will be GORE.

And btw , dolfan, Obama has already lied about being at church when this type of preaching was being done.

dolfan wrote:...when I read the speech, I was moved by what I saw as raw honesty.

It was definitely that, perhaps too much so for his own good. I'm not sure we're capable of an honest (national) discussion of race.

15:30 - 24:30 is particularly worth a listen.

Can be heard here.

I hope all of you read this at least a few more times.

Newt was on OReilly last night and said originally he was moved by the honest efforts of the young man......then he said he read the speech and became outraged at his attempts to compare apples to oranges...using the issues of Wright and his white grandmother.

Obama is a true racist and will do horrible damage to this country if elected.

Dr. Ron wrote:I hope all of you read this at least a few more times.

Newt was on OReilly last night and said originally he was moved by the honest efforts of the young man......then he said he read the speech and became outraged at his attempts to compare apples to oranges...using the issues of Wright and his white grandmother.

Obama is a true racist and will do horrible damage to this country if elected.

I'm going to be honest with you that I didn't read it that way. I believe he's honest-to-God connected spiritually with this Wright. He honestly sees him differently than we do, and you could expect that to happen. I have somoene that I view in a way that, even though I disagree with some things he's done (disclaimer: ummm, he hasn't done anything wrong, just sort of disagreeably), I wouldn't disown him any sooner than I would my own brother. Now, is the question this: Can someone who has done so much good (giving Obama the benefit of the doubt that Wright has, in fact, done good), do so bad that we toss him on his ear personally?? I'm not sure the presidency is worth that, and I'm even less sure it requires it.

I think Obama views Wright as one who is as integral to his being where he is today as his own grandmother. Both of them influenced him, he says, for the good, and both of them did evil but he's not going to disown either of them for it. Is his grandmother's evil on the same scale as Wright's? I don't know, and neither does Newt, God love him. Obama's description didn't make me think so, however. But, as for its impact on HIM personally, which was the issue being drawn in his speech, it was profound enough that he wanted nothing to do with it even from someone he loves. That's the very idea he expressed about Wright, too. I don't see it as apples and oranges. I see it as a faulty (IMO) judgment of one's character flaw, but then again, I haven't walked in a black man's shoes. Now, this doesn't mean that I think all that mess about the rage of the black man is justifiable. It does mean that he has a point that's being avoided by conservatives, if not made fun of outright, that the black man's experience uniquely colors his perceptions of this country. We can't understand it from the outside. That doesn't consign us to some corner to wait while the heathen rages. But, it does mean that there's a fundamental disconnect between whites and blacks, and no small part of it is demonstrated in the systems that we, the whites, support politically (as in the example of the criminal justice system).

I view Obama's speech as drawing us to those issues, calling us to attend to them in ways that do not contribute to the environment of rage that we are ---- yes, guilty ---- of helping build. It wasn't black tax dollars that declared and implemented a war on drugs. It was white politicians elected by white voters and who used white collar and white blue collar tax money to build jails to house black men. Meanwhile, drug use skyrockets in white communities, rich and poor. You don't see meth raids in the country club homes even though their teenagers are using it in record numbers. You see police posts in black neighborhoods, and they don't stray from them far. Let us live in that kind of occupation for a while and see if we don't develop some deep resentments. But, falling on old, tired and tried-and-failed policies and excuses and cliches and attitudes will not change anything. I don't think Obama's the answer, though. I think what he would do would make it worse.

But, I think it's time we quit retreating behind the familiar lines of blame and look at where the money is going and who benefits from the problems being so bad.

For example, it wasn't black people that put gangster rap in the mainstream of our culture, and glorifies violence and drugs and misogyny and fathering children without strings. That's all white behavior as much as it is black behavior. It is Jewish and white record executives/Hollywood producers (yes, Jews do run Hollywood, and that's not a secret) and black moguls working together to create it. But, we look askance at it and them for consuming what we produce, and for letting it shape their communities. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

It wasn't black people who asked for a quasi-military police presence in their backyards and to be warehoused in jails built by large companies who make out like bandits on government contracts and who, in turn, make large campaign contributions to the legislators who vote to build new jails. It wasn't black people who funded community bloc grants for 100,000 new policemen to be thrust primarily into urban and black communities. It was a white president named Bill Clinton and a Republican congress headed up by one Newt Gingrich. A fraction of the money spent by Gingrich and Clinton on drug prosecution was spent on drug prevention and treatment.

And, nothing can be done in the hearts of people by the government. That's the biggest hurdle of all. All of the policies mean nothing, really, in the end. That's my big point of separation with Obama. He wants to blame lack of big spending on education in black communities for the lack of black hope. His solution is no different than any other that's been offered. But, the difference is, a black guy's the one in charge of all that money getting thrown around, and the white liberals are apoplectic about it. Then, you've got crazies like this fellow in Harlem whose only complaint is that Obama is not black enough --- sorry, guy, you're as vile as Wright but not nearly as relevant as even old Bill Clinton these days; you've got your 15 minutes of fame, hope you enjoyed it.

The only group with a solution to the problem doesn't even see it. The church. As Obama quoted yesterday and we've all heard ad nauseam, Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America. That's not going to get any better because we've abdicated moral responsibility to the government anyway -- the same government responsible for all this mess. We'll just go to church and let the government sort all that other stuff out. Hallelujah! We're a joke, by and large. And, a tragedy because we're on the cusp of the Answer but unwilling to be changed in ways that matter and unconvinced (if not unconcerned) about the need for it.

dolfan, I love you man but it is clear you "bought it"
Read Regie Hamm's blog on Obama....regiehamm.com


I know you know much of wereof you speak, being a lawyer and all, but you are doing some of the same things that Obama is doing.....if a black man goes to jail it is because he broke the law. I don't buy the " there is a disproportionate number of blacks"

If the Wrights and the grandmothers would shut up about slavery they know nothing about, and preach the true gospel, then maybe the "worm would turn" I was a prison chaplain for two years in a tough place...Atlanta Federal. I've been there too.

Dr. Ron wrote:dolfan, I love you man but it is clear you "bought it"
Read Regie Hamm's blog on Obama....regiehamm.com


I know you know much of wereof you speak, being a lawyer and all, but you are doing some of the same things that Obama is doing.....if a black man goes to jail it is because he broke the law. I don't buy the " there is a disproportionate number of blacks"

If the Wrights and the grandmothers would shut up about slavery they know nothing about, and preach the true gospel, then maybe the "worm would turn" I was a prison chaplain for two years in a tough place...Atlanta Federal. I've been there too.

I understand why you think I bought it. I haven't. I said yesterday and today that Obama's speech was as honest as he's politically capable. It was calculating as to Wright, and a 40 foot jump shot at the buzzer. It didn't work, evidently. But, I do think that the Wright issue clouds over the other things he said, and that they are worthy of separate consideration.

The disproportionate number of blacks is a symptom of law enforcement policy. It is not an excuse for lawbreaking. But, the laws themselves are designed to empower the agents of enforcement to put the black men behind bars in disproportionate numbers. The fiscal policies are also designed to do the same thing. We replace plantations with prisons is all we've done. We don't lynch black men; we make the penalties for drug use and sales severe, and we pay cops to buy drugs from black men and we put black men in jail. It's all very legal and proper now, you see.

How would we feel if one of every 12 white men didn't have the right to vote? White men are the engine of commerce and the leaders of government. We'd trip over our own feet to change that. We're not concerned enough about the black man's fate that we should consider the same thing will happen to his family and his community. And it has. Ah, but they're lawbreakers. Yeah, but we're the law makers. When it comes to make or break, and you're a black man in America, odds are high you'll break BECAUSE of the what the white establishment makes.

Incarceration rates for black men are 5.5 times higher than white men. Are they that much worse in their character than we are? That's an astounding statement that I challenge anyone to make. But, you don't have to --- we've already made the case. We've got laws, you see. "We're a nation of laws and not of men." Then, there's something badly wrong with the laws, and they didn't make themselves.

That's impressive Tim. Bless you.

dolfan wrote:

Dr. Ron wrote:dolfan, I love you man but it is clear you "bought it"
Read Regie Hamm's blog on Obama....regiehamm.com


I know you know much of wereof you speak, being a lawyer and all, but you are doing some of the same things that Obama is doing.....if a black man goes to jail it is because he broke the law. I don't buy the " there is a disproportionate number of blacks"

If the Wrights and the grandmothers would shut up about slavery they know nothing about, and preach the true gospel, then maybe the "worm would turn" I was a prison chaplain for two years in a tough place...Atlanta Federal. I've been there too.

I understand why you think I bought it. I haven't. I said yesterday and today that Obama's speech was as honest as he's politically capable. It was calculating as to Wright, and a 40 foot jump shot at the buzzer. It didn't work, evidently. But, I do think that the Wright issue clouds over the other things he said, and that they are worthy of separate consideration.

The disproportionate number of blacks is a symptom of law enforcement policy. It is not an excuse for lawbreaking. But, the laws themselves are designed to empower the agents of enforcement to put the black men behind bars in disproportionate numbers. The fiscal policies are also designed to do the same thing. We replace plantations with prisons is all we've done. We don't lynch black men; we make the penalties for drug use and sales severe, and we pay cops to buy drugs from black men and we put black men in jail. It's all very legal and proper now, you see.

How would we feel if one of every 12 white men didn't have the right to vote? White men are the engine of commerce and the leaders of government. We'd trip over our own feet to change that. We're not concerned enough about the black man's fate that we should consider the same thing will happen to his family and his community. And it has. Ah, but they're lawbreakers. Yeah, but we're the law makers. When it comes to make or break, and you're a black man in America, odds are high you'll break BECAUSE of the what the white establishment makes.

Incarceration rates for black men are 5.5 times higher than white men. Are they that much worse in their character than we are? That's an astounding statement that I challenge anyone to make. But, you don't have to --- we've already made the case. We've got laws, you see. "We're a nation of laws and not of men." Then, there's something badly wrong with the laws, and they didn't make themselves.

I just stumbled onto this and wanted to add.

My barber is a 66 year old white man.. struggling to stay in his home. He purchased his home 30 years ago in a then decent neighborhood. He paid his home off several years ago and recently his wife died. He doesn't want to move from his neighborhood and really can't due to his financial situation.

But since late November of 07 his house has been broken into 5 to 6 times by some black youth/gang members. He states that breaking in.. doesn't really bother him.. it's when they ransack his house completely. Turn EVERYTHING inside out. 50% of what he owned is now gone. Literally everything looking for money for drugs or valuables - even the milk jug is ripped open.

He's approached the Mayor, City Council, and police chief and pleaded for them to clean up those local streets. Pointed fingers and neighbors help.. Nothing happens - the break ins continue. He is unable to get any assistance other than a report and "We'll look into it".

Recently they broke open his wife's framed picture (one of the last she took) that had her favorite necklace included. This final straw has forced him to take actions into his own hands. He wants revenge and will now kill.

So the unfair racial laws are doing this to these young black men? Bunk. These vultures have no respect for anything or anyone. Regardless of color.. your personal actions will result in your personal situation.

Only the love of Jesus can save them thru some truly effective ministries or revival. That IS the only hope. Nothing else.

It is impossible, really, to take any one instance of crime and say it would or wouldn't have happened if policies had been different. People are bad, inherently bad. I haven't said or supported the notion that people commit crimes because of unfair racial laws, especially property crimes. Your barber, however, could've just as easily lived near a mainly Latino neighborhood where Mexican kids did the same thing, or in a white neighborhood where either spoiled white kids or poor white kids did it.
The fact that these kids are black did not make them break the law, and the fact that the law exists on property crimes does not exist because they are black. But, the incarceration rates on property crimes are low, too. However, in 2004, according to the Department of Justice, arrest data for property crimes by race indicated that 70.8 percent of arrestees were white, 26.8 percent were black. With the heavy police presence and heavy foot traffic in predominantly black communities, I think it is somewhat safe to assume that there is not a higher level of undetected property crimes among blacks than among whites. My point being that the example doesn't tell us anything about justice for blacks in America, let alone anything about how reasonable they are or aren't about it, and it doesn't say anything about the fairness or unfairness of the adminstration of laws. And, it is almost unheard of unless in an exceptional case where police set up a theft sting and search people walking down the streets for stolen goods. That's not what's happening in black neighborhoods and communities.

I'm not in this hunt. Frame it however you like.

I chant Personal responsibility for all regardless of color. Have everyone focus on paying taxes and insurance like everyone else.