• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama's Pastor: U.S. to Blame for 9/11

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation,” Obama wrote that he had known of similar statementsby Wright over the years, which he strongly condemned. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881

Explain to me how this is not a contradiction.
Either he knew or he didn't know. His spin
causes a contradiction.
I thought the same thing. Obama should have been a tad more careful denying he knew anything about this. He really came across as lying and I think that will be the issue soon rather than the preacher's crazy preaching.



My Conclusion, Whether these comments happended in his persence or not is a non-issue because obama still knew yet choose to stay and still to this day does not repudiate the man.
And that will be the second issue.
 
Until someone sends me a copy of the Barack Obama political newsletter, I think it's pretty assured he doesn't feel the same way.

Pastors need too be venomous at times. You can't be lukewarm and expect people to stay with you. I'm sure he'd much prefer to have an awake congragation that disagrees with him to some degree than one that's half asleep and doesn't feel one way or the other.

If you believe people in his position are as blanket as they present themselves, much along the lines of Ann Coulter, you need to watch less TV.

Honestly, I've been to churches of all sorts growing up, and I disagree with about EVERYTHING they've told me. And yes, some were BLCK Churches. And yes, they were just as fire and brimstone on an irregular basis. For the most part, it comes with the territory.
 
Last edited:
But Thorn, suppose someone went to the church of Ann Coulter for 20 years, had her baptize their children and perform their wedding vows, then claimed they never heard Ms Coulter spew anything typical of Coulter speak? Would you find that a credible position?

I agree nothing Obama has said suggests he follows the positions of Pastor Wright. But what about Obama's claim to know nothing of Wright's positions?

Obama's Chicago Pastor No Longer Serving on Campaign (Update3)
Obama gave $22,500 to the church in 2006, according to his income tax records. Trinity, whose motto is ``Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian,'' espouses a ``black value system'' emphasizing commitment to the black community, family and work ethic.

Obama said he wasn't aware of Wright's incendiary comments until he began running for president early last year.

``If I had heard any of these statements, I probably would have walked up and I probably would have told Reverend Wright that they were wrong,'' Obama, 46, told CNN.

Sept. 11

In one sermon, shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Wright said ``America's chickens are coming home to roost,'' referring to U.S. foreign policy.

In another sermon, Wright said the government "lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.'' He also preached the kind of racial politics that Obama has said he is working to end.
Are we to think this is the first time Obama has heard Wright speak of who he blames for 9/11 or HIV?

I suggest perhaps the honeymoon is over and we may be seeing the real Obama not yet revealed.
 
Last edited:
This is from a year ago:

NYT: Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized
“When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, “with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.

Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.”

According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

Then there is this:
Rolling Stone has changed the title of this story, but you can still see it in the page title and the web address: Campaign ‘08: The Radical Roots of Barack Obama. The new title: “Destiny’s Child.”

And, Rolling Stone Changes Headline From Obama's 'Radical Roots' to 'Destiny's Child':
Back on Feb. 22nd, Rolling Stone published their in depth story (6-pages on the net) about Barack Obama's "charisma" under the title, "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama." However, the story has lately been retitled "Destiny's Child." One might wonder why Rolling Stone made the sudden change avoiding the word "radical"... unless, that is, one were living under a rock and isn't aware of the trouble Barack is lately having with the anti-American and racist ranting of his "spiritual mentor," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

Many hard questions arise over Rolling Stone's self-censorship. Why did they make the title change? Why did they feel "radical" was good this morning, but not later the same day? Does Rolling Stone regret not having the journalistic integrity to stand for what they originally wrote? Why did they not append a notice about the title change to the story? More pointedly, has Rolling Stone registered as official Obama Campaign staffers? After all, they are obviously offering Barack some free damage control.

Destiny's Child (Feb 07)
The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite ten essential facts about the United States. "Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he intones. "Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS ******"

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

Obama wasn't born into Wright's world. His parents were atheists, an African bureaucrat and a white grad student, Jerry Falwell's nightmare vision of secular liberals come to life. Obama could have picked any church — the spare, spiritual places in Hyde Park, the awesome pomp and procession of the cathedrals downtown. He could have picked a mosque, for that matter, or even a synagogue. Obama chose Trinity United. He picked Jeremiah Wright. Obama writes in his autobiography that on the day he chose this church, he felt the spirit of black memory and history moving through Wright, and "felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.
The RS article is from a year ago.
 
The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation,” Obama wrote that he had known of similar statementsby Wright over the years, which he strongly condemned. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23634881

Explain to me how this is not a contradiction.
Either he knew or he didn't know. His spin
causes a contradiction.
He's talking there about the statements made after and about 9/11 i.e., which he didn't hear. These are similar to other statements Wright made blaming America for this and that which Obama did hear and which were not hung on the peg of 9/11.

Got it?

My Conclusion, Whether these comments happended in his persence or not is a non-issue because obama still knew yet choose to stay and still to this day does not repudiate the man.
He has very very strongly condemned all his anti-American statements, though. I dare say there are right-wingers who still hang out with Robertson --- his remarks about 9/11 didn't turn him into a pariah, they just got him ticked off for those particular statements.
 
He's talking there about the statements made after and about 9/11 i.e., which he didn't hear. These are similar to other statements Wright made blaming America for this and that which Obama did hear and which were not hung on the peg of 9/11.He has very very strongly condemned all his anti-American statements, though.

I think you missed the point I was making. I'm not denying obama has condemned his pastors words, The point I was making is he never repudiated the man. obama knew about the crazy things his pastor had been saying prior to this public outing, yet he still did not repudiate the man then either. Have you really looked into BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY of obama's chruch? It's pretty concerning.


I dare say there are right-wingers who still hang out with Robertson --- his remarks about 9/11 didn't turn him into a pariah, they just got him ticked off for those particular statements.

Are any of those right wingers who hang out with robertson running for president? If so, For how long? Also how close is their relationship? Are we talking political appearances such as a chat, hand shake, dinner, photo op, or Obama/wright uncle-like relationship? if it's a Obama/wright uncle-like relationship that would be pretty concerning.

His pastor gave him the title to his book.
His pastor wed him to his wife.
His pastor baptized his childern.
His pastor was a monumental inspiration to him.
 
Last edited:
As for the Rev, so lame he's camp, and I'd "lmao" if not for the sad fact that despite how blatantly racist (and therefore hypocritical) and laughably wrong he is, more than a few people - not just blacks, but the ever-brilliant white guilt yahoos as well - will defend and even believe him, just like a lot of blacks defended (or at least were apologists for) Vick - ie because he's black. But that's not racist.

:rolleyes:

Well what the hey, Jeese J and Sharpton (ad nauseum) have gotten away with it for decades; why not him?

Also I love the "being black hurts Obama" bit - yeah, that's why he's a leading candidate (and IMO a shoe-in) for president in the first place. In fact, if he was white, I doubt he'd even be in the running.

As was said earlier, if the black/white thing was all flipped around, most of us well know what the result would be. That reverend AND candidate would all but be labelled "KKK" and their reputations damaged beyond repair. But for Obama, this is little more than a bump in the fender.

Gotta love the "equality."

Are you Geraldine Ferraro?

TAM;)
 
True, obama did denounce his pastors comments, he however did not repudiate his pastor. which begs the question. Where does obama's allegiance lie, with America or with his uncle-like pastor of 20 years? Any pastor mean spirted enough to imply 3,000 people pretty much got what they deserved on 9/11 and the government created Aids inorder to kill blacks is not a man of god in fact he has proven himself to be a mean spirted, paranoid, hate monger, one with a moral compass would completely repudiate. Espcially if this man with the moral compass was in obamas position. Other wise, obama's support could start to dwindle. Infact, by november it could be completely dwindled once people realize obama hasn't made any effort to distance himself from being a member of his separatist church. Now, when one connects the dots; Black liberation theology + Pastor Wright's comments + Michelle obama's essay and her recent comments. It lays out a case that perhaps obama is a black separatist shill. Not saying he is, but people will suggest the possibility. Which in the end could cause voters to have second thoughts like a gold fish come november.

http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm
here is an essay on Black liberation theology so people understand what it really is.I'm open minded so I went right to the route of obama's indoctrination. I read this essay inorder to find the truth. It's concerning.


This argument is not about other black/white churches acting this way. (which is alarming in the 21st century don't get me wrong) The argument is about obama a democrat running for president who is associated with a tinhat-racebaiting-paranoid- meanspirted-hatemongering-pastor who pratices archaic 1960's Black liberation theology which in actuality has nothing to do with spiritual religion. Now, If you think this isn't going to hurt obama's chances down the road you're being naive.

And without question Obama's name was politically brought up in his pastors seperatist sermon. Infact he attacked hillary clinton for being wealthy and white. Of course there were two messages being made here. 1.) The impression Whites still loath blacks. 2.) Obama deserves to be president more than hilary clinton does, because obama grew up black and poor and has had it supposedly rougher, while hilary grew up white and privileged and has had it supposedly easier. Never mind the fact they are both wealthy today and in the exact same poistion as each other today; running for president of the united states of America. That is a shameful race-baiting pseudo-religious way to campaign for obama all in the cloak of socialism. Not to mention, it is the wrong message to be sending to your own people, especially in the 21st century. And even though I acknowledge obama's message as different from his pastors, I can't help but think obama's political views in actuality are pretty similar to his pastors but just not publically pronounced. Sort of like how a old white man still calls black people the N-word in his own home. Which still suggests the possibality obama could be nothing more than a separatist shill.

The whole ideology behind this Black liberation theology is to be Anti-white American christian. Which I would of agreed with back in the 60's. Now being Anti-white American christian does not mean a white person can't join this church, because his chuches ideals are based on one's attitude and action towards black liberation. Which just so happens to have nothing to do with any other kind of racial liberation. Thus, This 20th century black liberation theology which infact surved it's purpose back in the 60's now in modern times makes anything someone does or says that is different or that is opposed to their radical black liberation theology automatically an opresser. Thus, by todays standards this theology has become a pseudo-victimology doctrine in need of modern reform. Other wise they stay the slave and become the thing they set out to repudiate.

In other words, it's not a liberal chruch thing, nor a conservative chruch thing, it is a outdated extremist radical church of the 60's thing. Voting for obama and the religious left would be analogous to voting for Bush and the religious right. This sort of issue is exactly why I never voted for bush in 2000 or in 2004. I just can't vote for someone who has a continuing relationship with a kooky separatist pastor with a 1960's mind-set who involves his so called religious organization in state politics rather than in spiritual meaning where it belongs.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a tough thing. This man taught Obama about god, about love for his neighbour, and many other righteous things over those 20 years. While the pastor clearly said some very horrible things over those years, they were said in a handful of sermons, out of thousands. To condemn the entire man for some things (yes hateful) he SAID is a little tough for the man who considered him a friend.

Put yourself in his shoes...really, not just a glancing thought of it, but really bury yourself in the situation from Obama's POV, and ask yourself would you condemn and reject THE MAN?

Tough call.

TAM:)
 
Pastors need too be venomous at times.
At the risk of sidetracking too much, sorry, no. They should be (ie don't necessarily "need" to be) PASSIONATE at times...not "venomous." That's but one of numerous reasons why this guy is a classic example "men in cheap cloth" and gives such people (and religion on the whole) a bad name. I've been to many services of varying faiths and have never witnessed anything even remotely as hateful, hypocritical, and/or outright revolting as this guy. In fact a great number of them were United Church of Christ services and none of the ludicrous BS this guy is spewing is what they're about at all - in fact quite the contrary, the thing that impressed me the most about it was their willingness to listen to other viewpoints and be tolerant/accepting of other people.
 
True, obama did denounce his pastors comments, he however did not repudiate his pastor. which begs the question. Where does obama's allegiance lie, with America or with his uncle-like pastor of 20 years?
And this is something that you can find out by reading what Obama has said.
 
I think you missed the point I was making.
Au contraire. I think you just missed my point.

There, I was responding to your point that there was an apparent contradiction between Obama saying that he wasn't present to hear Wright say those things, and saying that he'd heard him similar things. In the first case, he was talking about America-bashing statements connected with 9/11, in the second case he was talking about America-bashing statements not connected with 9/11.

I agree that he has not repudiated Wright as a man, though he has condemned his America-bashing statements in the strongest possible terms.
 
When Islamic militants start blowing up buildings in Canada, I will then agree that America's foreign policy has nothing to do with their hatred of the USA.

They dont hate us for "our freedoms" folks. They dont hate us because we eat cheeseburgers and listen to rap music.

They hate us for what we have done in their part of the world. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can work on the real problem.
 
I thought the same thing. Obama should have been a tad more careful denying he knew anything about this. He really came across as lying and I think that will be the issue soon rather than the preacher's crazy preaching.


He was very careful with his words, but at the same time, staked out a precarious position. There are probably teams of Clinton operatives already buying up every preacher DVD and cell phone movie looking for more examples of hate, and they might find the golden bullet - Obama there in the video or confirmed to be there in the church on that date.

Inch by inch, Obama is falling back to earth.
 
When Islamic militants start blowing up buildings in Canada, I will then agree that America's foreign policy has nothing to do with their hatred of the USA.

They dont hate us for "our freedoms" folks. They dont hate us because we eat cheeseburgers and listen to rap music.

They hate us for what we have done in their part of the world. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can work on the real problem.

What if what we have done to their part of the world (being friends with Israel, stationing troops in Saudi, recognising the Spanish govt as the legitimate rulers of Al Andulus, etc) is fine by our lights but not by theirs? What if we see their desires as unreasonable?
 
You know, thinking about it a little and Obama's refusal to wear a flagpin on his lapel takes on a little more meaning now perhaps?

What was maybe a self described innocuous stance at first now makes me think what if he is buying these sermons much more than he's admitting?

Kinda makes me wonder..
 
You know, thinking about it a little and Obama's refusal to wear a flagpin on his lapel takes on a little more meaning now perhaps?

What was maybe a self described innocuous stance at first now makes me think what if he is buying these sermons much more than he's admitting?

Kinda makes me wonder..

I don't think so.

Honestly, why does it matter if someone wears a little flag pin on his lapel? Does it honestly make someone unpatriotic to not wear one?
 
I don't think so.

Honestly, why does it matter if someone wears a little flag pin on his lapel? Does it honestly make someone unpatriotic to not wear one?

For a layman no. For a guy running for president of his country I think it does matter to a degree yes.
 
When Islamic militants start blowing up buildings in Canada, I will then agree that America's foreign policy has nothing to do with their hatred of the USA.

They dont hate us for "our freedoms" folks. They dont hate us because we eat cheeseburgers and listen to rap music.

They hate us for what we have done in their part of the world. The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can work on the real problem.


O Rly?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHRkMcVrt2w&fmt=18
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom