Obama Must Explain Wright's Influence

The flawed concept that only the white man can be racist (I am Hispanic) is nowhere more evident than on Mr. Obama's pastor and Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Senator Obama needs to explain these concepts, the origin of the money for his Chicago mansion, and his position on NAFTA.

Great article.

Thank you. I have appreciated your kind support to my posts.

My concern over Wright grows every time I hear Obama talk about uniting this country.

wright has written 4 books.

that's 2 more than obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

Not sure what Obama has to explain, any more than if you said the Pope
was your spiritual leader. Doesn't mean you agree with everything he
does.

Thank you, Everyonesfacts, I appreciate your link to Rev. Wright. Knowledge overcomes fear.

Wright is more than just a preacher; he is Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years and the man who converted him to Christianity.

Of course, not all Catholics agree with the Pope. Many Catholic leaders proved that they serve the People of the United States and not the Pope.

John F. Kennedy assured the American people that he would govern by the Constitution, not by the dictates of his religious leaders.

However, there have been, and are, other Catholic politicians to take it upon themselves to impose Rome's views on their constituents. Robert P. Casey, Governor of PA, is but *one* example. This is unacceptable.

What does Obama need to explain?

Wright preaches black separatism.

Obama needs to categorically repudiate the concept of black separatism, or he might as well be the first segregationist President of the 21st Century.

Wright demands slavery reparations.

Obama needs to unequivocally define his position on slavery reparations, one way or the other. He gave a slippery answer in the South Carolina debate that antagonized both pro- and anti-reparationists.

Currently, Congress is studying whether to pay reparations to the descendants of four million African slaves, who were brought to the United States between 1619 and 1865. See Rep. John Conyers web site about reparations and H.R. 40.

As a point of reference, my ancestors arrived here during the 20th Century, and worked menial jobs, too. So, why should I pay reparations???

In my view, unless Obama categorically repudiates the concept of slavery reparations, he also will be the President who presides over our second Civil War. This issue is explosive, and even is contentious in the black community.

If Obama explains those points, as Kennedy explained his positions, he will go a long way to settling misgivings among non-blacks and black alike on these topics.

it is the government.

This might be hard to understand for some, but our government is 200
years old and still the SAME government as during the antebellum
period, if it did wrong it COULD have to pay out. This is the equivalent
of a 200 year old man, in legal terms.

That you are a taxpayer this would indirectly effect you and directly
effect your wallet.

Imo, the government didn't do anything legally wrong under slavery since it was legal.

Allowing Jim Crow is a different story since under the 14th Am. those
states should have been disenfranchised and the Congress and Executive
were negligent of their duties.

Please note the links / citations under the wiki article they are active and
the fox pdf is pretty funny. hannity reading books!

Everyonesfacts, your statement that "It's not you who pays reparations, it is the government" directly conflicts with your later admission that "that you are a taxpayer this would indirectly effect you and directly effect your wallet."

Your logic escapes me.

I am as much part of today's Government as is George Bush. In 2010, I also will be as much part of the Government as the next President. My Father was as much part of the Government as was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

You seem to think that I am confusing the constructive person of the Government with the real persons of myself and other living taxpayers.

Legal fictions do not alter practical realities.

People who were the slaveowners are dead. Claims to their estates and companies of slaveowners cannot be made because those estates have undergone enormous changes in the 140-400 years of slavery - most no longer exist. Those slaveowner lands were subdivided dozens of times over anf the plots of land are owned by people of all races.

The Government of 1865 is not the Government of today. The slaveowner Government was abolished with the passage of the 13th Amendment.

The self-entitled hordes of any type who think the Government is some abstract well of money and largesse are little more than deluded and greedy parasites.

WE, the People, are the Government. WE, the People, pay taxes.

WE, the CURRENT People, would be required to pay reparations. You admit that I would be required to pay reparations, directly or indirectly, by sending my money through a middleman, which you call the Government.

As it stands, I pay for the impact of slavery every day. Every program begun in the 1960's and since, in the War on Poverty, in pursuit of the Great Society, in Affirmative Action, Medicaid, WIC, and educational grants attempting to end "historic disparities between the races" were a form of reparations.

don't bother getting into it with our troll called everyonesfacts. It'll just give you a headache. Usiing Wikipedia as a source just doesn't fly.

Blacks in America, of whom only a small percentage actually trace their heritage back to slaves as the majority have immigrated here in the past 100 years, still have a much better life here than in Africa. If they want reperations, we can just return them to THAT life. Somehow I don't think they'd appreciate it.

I have a story about Obama's pastor as one of my featured articles, with portions of the 'church' website, BEFORE they changed it a few months ago as his candidacy became serious.

Thanks, I'll check out your blog. Some of the material available directly or indirectly through Google suggests that Wright ought to have IRS issues. Apparently, he does. There's much more to this, beyond "guilt by association."

The US government is 200+ years old.
The US government of 1865 is the government
today. That is where you are wrong. It has
changed as you will during your lifetime, but
your are still the same mhu cao. Older hopefully
better but the same person.

You, I agree are a part of the government.

Should you pay for some wrong you did 10 years
ago to someone?

It would depend on the circumstances.

So, to clarify, yes, you might have to pay for
reparations.

I believe they are not necessary for slavery
because of its distance and it was legal. But
interestingly the government, we the people, the
US taxpayer, did pay reparations for Japanese
internment. That included immigrants and people
born after 1945

The reparations as far as I know do not target
or ask former slave owners to pay the $ it asks
the US government the same one still in existence
before 1865.

Were the programs of the 1960s reparations for
slavery? Maybe, but I would need literal proof.
Certainly, the condition of African Americans
from Jim Crow prejudice had more to do with it.
As I argue if separate but equal, not that I
agree with it, had been practiced we would not be
having this debate. imho.

Belgium's government agreed to pay reparations
for the Holocaust this week:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ja6QQXK25__dUcFekTa0RoFo tFggD8VBGA7O0

I've challenged you before to correct inaccuracy
or fallacies in any wikipedia link but YOU NEVER
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO.

If the source is inaccurate lets hear it.

If not, shaddup.

I'm considering a general post on this issue.

In short, if the government pays reparations, that means ***I*** pay reparations. Your abstractions are fantasy.

I did nothing wrong. I will be penalized for something that occurred long before my ancestors set foot on this land. Payments will go to people who have ancestors that came to the US after mine, but married into former slave blood.

The government is considering reparations for ***the descendants*** of four million people brought here as slaves between 1619 and 1865.

That is between 7 and 20+ generations of offspring of those 4 million people, who have since intermixed many times with immigrants of other races, moved to other countries, become extremely successful, and otherwise are many, many times removed from the initial direct injury of slavery.

As a practical matter, it is just not doable, beyond something symbolic. Believe me, a symbolic payment would raise more controversy than none at all.

If Belgium is restoring stolen paintings and other identifable valuables to holocaust victims or their immediate families, that's all well and good. If they are paying "reparations" to survivors or their immediate families, then the number of payees involved are small and well-known.

However, your comparisons with Belgium or other socialist European countries are meaningless. I don't live in Belgium or any other socialist, self-hating place.

I won't pay reparations, directly or indirectly. I will fight reparations payments with every fiber of my being.

If Americans are hoodwinked into paying reparations then, mark my words, there will be a movement to reverse any and all benefits currently enjoyed by "minorities." They got their due, so now we are all equal. Equal is equal.

You claim to have the facts when, in reality, you mix partial fact with delusion, poor research, and illogic. What's your interest in reparations?

mhu cao writes:
"In short, if the government pays reparations, that means ***I*** pay reparations."

That's what I wrote.

"I did nothing wrong. I will be penalized for something that occurred long before my ancestors set foot on this land."

I didn't say you did. But the government
arguably did do something wrong. Thus if they
decide to make up for a past wrong the government
will have to pay out. Yes that will affect you.
As you know the government payed "reparations"
to internment survivors:

http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/civilact.html
http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/clinton.html

These reparations were paid by people who did
nothing wrong. The question is should the US
government, which is still in tact since
ratification of the Constitution, pay
reparations. Texas v. White settled this
question legally.

Then you tell who would get reparations.
I agree with your conclusions of who pro
reparations supporters say should get $.

"As a practical matter, it is just not doable, beyond something symbolic. Believe me, a symbolic payment would raise more controversy than none at all."

I am not for reparations.
This I already stated.
I agree on your second point too.

"However, your comparisons with Belgium or other socialist European countries are meaningless."

That they're socialist is neither here nor there.
The point is governments do, including the US,
pay for past wrongs. See Tom Bender's _Nation
among Nations_ for how American fits into world
events.

"I won't pay reparations, directly or indirectly. I will fight reparations payments with every fiber of my being."

The proper fight is to tell your representatives
how you feel. Whether or not you pay taxes is
up to you.

"If Americans are hoodwinked into paying reparations then, mark my words, there will be a movement to reverse any and all benefits currently enjoyed by "minorities." They got their due, so now we are all equal. Equal is equal."

Is there almost any legislation, other than
affirmative action that can be qualified as
such?

"You claim to have the facts when, in reality, you mix partial fact with delusion, poor research, and illogic. What's your interest in reparations?"

I don't know of any partial facts I've used.
I conceded that you are a part of the government.
What poor research are you referring to?
I'm not even sure you know what logic is.
If you can show me where I don't show logic I
would be glad to hear.

Reparations is interesting. So I assume my
interest is the same as yours.

Thank you for the links to material, I will read them. I appreciate the effort.

Socialist nations redistribute wealth and punish financial achievement. They consistently support inefficiency, prop up a few pet projects to have shining models for the world to see, and revel in self-loathing and mediocrity.

At this point, reparations would be an exercise in socialism.

Affirmative action is but one of the many programs that could be classified, albeit rather coldly, as reparations.

Many city folk have no clue of the suffering of non-blacks in this country beyond their metropolitan areas. Perhaps, at best, they acknowledge it politely but quickly close their eyes. The bulk of the anti-poverty efforts since the mid-1960's has been poured into the inner city.

Entire societies have been built around the inner city welfare apparatus - social services, public infrastructure, security, food and housing subsidies.

Because the others are scattered in rural areas away from the lazy eye of the press, the liberals and socialists in this country scoff at them as hicks or rednecks or farmers or country folk. Most of them are white and, somehow, unworthy of assistance.

I submit that such disparate treatment may amount to reparations. Set-aside programs and other mutations of Affirmative Action are frankly in that category. So, should we deduct the cost of these programs from the amount owed in slavery reparations?

Again, this is redistribution of wealth - socialism.

Everyonesfacts,

As far as telling my Representative and Senators, I do. I also tell my State Legislators and Governor.

If it comes down to an added tax for reparations, I would not doubt that we, as a country, would be on the verge of national hostilities.

As it is, should either Democrat be elected, I will face substantial increases in taxes from every angle, and I need that money to prepare for the forced retirement that folks of your generation are imposing on older workers in senior positions.

I've experienced the worst that Democrat Presidents could offer up over the past half-century. By the time I recovered from Carter, I ended up suffering from Clinton's faux pas.

People thought the economy was great then, because he shifted a lot of money, even the surplus, to social programs and "feel-good" initiatives, without giving a crap about the future price.

Clinton made the inner city church folk feel real good by making everything a felony, including tiny amounts of crack. He made the prisons explode, at great expense to us all.

In fact, Clinton fiddled while the surplus burned, and the severe tech recession, felt in 2001, gained steam. Many of the screwy monetary policies that trouble us now had their roots in Clintonian regulatory reform in the mid- to late-90's.

That 9/11 came on top of that debacle didn't help the economy. D@mn Bush all you want, but I suspect that he couldn't say how bad things were then, at the risk of encouraging terrorists even more. He had to suck it up and try to make it all work. I'll bet he'll be the happiest man in the world on Jan 21, 2009.

I'll leave it there - I am tired. I also note with a touch of chagrin that I supplied no references for my statements above. Fair enough. Leave it anecdotal. There are enough people over 45 who know what's happened that much of what I say is self-documenting.

When you inject blatantly erroneous statements as facts to support your biases. In 1900 the African American population was approx or 8 million or 11% of the population while black immigrants totaled less than 25,000. Today there are appox 34 million African Americans or 13% of the population, while black immigrants total approx 1.1 million individuals. Do the math, your assertion that the majority of African Americans are not the descendant of slaves is specious.

Perhaps it betrays *your* agenda.

I don't know what to think, because there are no accurate resources.

Congressis lokking at reparations for the descendants of four million African slaves brought to the US between 1619 and 1856.

Now, that accounts for somewhere between 7 and 20 generations. Each of those generations has intermarried with all races, has attained different ethinc mixtures, has scattered to the furthest ends of the earth and back, and the bloodline may be diluted to the point of inconsequence.

For example, each successive generation dilutes blood by one-half. Mathematically, raise 2 to the power of the generation.

gen1: black + white = half;
gen2: half + asian = quarter;
gen3: qaurter + native american = eigth
gen4: eighth + white = sixteenth
gen5: sixteenth + asian = thirty-second
gen6: thirty-second + native american = sixty-fourth
gen7: sixty-fourth + wjite = one hundred twenty eighth.

So, since 1865, there have been 7 generations, and a person who was the fruit of a black and white pairing, could have a supergreatgrandhild, who is only 128th black.

If you to this calculation for 20 generations (2 to the 20th power), you end up with a person who today is 1,048,576th.

So, who should get the reparations? Who is black "enough"? Someone whose slave blood amount to one part in 128 or one whose blood amounts to less than one part per million?

So, how many people can this account for? Well, do the above "generation calculation" for each of the four million slave descendants, and you get a number that exceeds the number of people currently living in the United States, or even the world.

Some people now listed as "white,"asian,""native american," etc." may actually have slave blood, too. So, let's set the number at 200 million - conservatively. 200 million people in this country who are "black enough" to receive reparations.

(continued)

On with the previous, Bryce.

So, with the cutoff at 200 million "black enough" to receive reparations, we be sure to cut off defectors. We will exclude those living in Canada or Europe or England who left the US for political reasons - move your meat and lose your seat.

Next, how much does each get? Tops, $10,000. Now that mushrooms to $2 trillion. Does snyone realize how much that is? Do you think a thousand bucks will do?

OK, so now, who pays? Let's say those currently living in the United States between 2010 and 2060, allowing for the natural comings and going, and we have a steady average state of about 150 million taxpayers - actual workers paying tax, not just oxygen suckers. (Less than 50% of the population works)

Let's back out around 40% of the workforce because we know they are black enough - so we have about 90 million payers. (Round numbers)

So, $2 trillion broken over 50 years is $40 billion.

Doing the math provides a rough estimate that every working non-black in this country would need to pay about $500 taxes per year for fifty years, just to cover the reparations for a very low estimate.

That's $500 that does not go to your retirement, your healthcare, your kids, your food, your roads, anything.

It goes to make better the lives of others who bear a symbolic burden for a wrong performed before most people immigrated to this country.

It makes no sense, no matter how it is calculated.

So, it really doesn't matter if Crawfish is right ot wrong, Bryce.

Don't support them, my rap with crawfish is the notion that most blacks in the US are not the descendant of slaves. An absurd attempt to abbrogate the scar of slavery at it rankest.

Bryce, thanks for your clarification.

It would be helpful to me, and perhaps informative to others, if you were to provide a link to an authoritative source of data about the breakdown of who today's blacks are.

The government is considering reparations for ***the descendants*** of four million people brought here as slaves between 1619 and 1865.

This represents between 7 and 20+ generations of offspring of those 4 million people. A conservative estimate of today's slave descendants number over 250 million - almost the population of the entire US. Even a middle of the road estimate could put the number of descendants in the billions.

Many of these descendants may have a minute fraction of slave blood, may have since intermixed many times with immigrants of other races, may moved to other countries, become extremely successful and poor again, and otherwise may be many, many times removed from the initial direct injury of slavery.

Proving up who is a slave descendant is very difficult. Some very few have documents, so what do the rest do?

In fact, your impression may be just as wrong as you believe Crawfish's to be.

So, if you could dig up some accurate stats on who is who, we'd all benefit.

Thanks.