Obviously, I am not talking from the left.  For them, the man for whom the worshiped is still worthy of that adoration.

No, I am talking about those on the Wright right who are willing to look at the facts and evaluate what is happening here, unfettered by Obama-mania.

One note though.  It occurred to me that acting shocked and surprised that Obama has sunk to moral equivalency and relativism is disingenuous.  The fact is that the Democrats have lived in a world where the actions of many are dismissed, excused, forgiven and forgotten, solely based on party affiliation.  If you doubt that, look up the varied crimes and indiscretions by McKinney, Kennedy, McDermott, Hastings, Frank, Byrd, Clinton, Kennedy Jr, Ballance, Reynolds, Studds and many many more.  

But I digress.  Where to start…

Hot Air Says:

ABC News took a closer look at the Barack Obama speech on race yesterday and found curious discrepancies from past positions. Brian Ross and Avni Patel also note similar contradictions in Obama’s positions on Tony Rezko. It looks like some of the media has finally begun vetting the Democratic front-runner for the nomination:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of “thousands of donors.”

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage. …

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wright’s sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes,” he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Michael Medved offers this:

Both of the common reactions to the Philadelphia speech – either praising it for its emotional and inspirational impact, or analyzing it in terms of its strategic political consequences – fail to come to terms with its substance, or to recognize the more troubling elements in the address. Barack’s big moment features content that is shamelessly manipulative, blatantly misleading, deliberately deceptive and even dishonest.

…

In all the ecstatic praise for Obama’s speech, there’s been little comment on the way the talk signals a dramatic, permanent, and possibly fatal alteration of his race for the presidency.

Until today, the Illinois Senator enjoyed spectacular success with his determination to run as the first-ever “post-racial” candidate for the White House.

He refused to allow himself to be pigeon-holed as “the black candidate,” and tirelessly emphasized his desire to unify the nation (“We’re not red states or blue states—we’re the United States of America!”). His campaign succeeded in large part because he implicitly promised to move our society beyond the long and tragic centuries of racial agitation and pain. Yes, he won overwhelming support in the black community, but he also drew huge majorities in states like Iowa, North Dakota, Idaho and Utah, with miniscule populations of African-Americans.

…

But now, at a decisive point in the race, the candidate has abruptly changed the bargain.

Rather than promising less race consciousness, he now insists we need more. Instead of bidding to lead a post-racial– or at least a post-racist—America, Obama’s speech tells us we must go back to picking at the old scab.

 Victor Davis Hanson:

The Tragedy of Obama’s Speech

The tragedy of Obama’s speech and the mindless endorsement of it was the rejection of any constant moral standard—an absolute sense of wrong and right that transcends situational ethics, context, and individual particulars. And once one jettisons such absolutes, they won’t be there when one wishes to seek refuge in them in a future hour of need.

When he failed to “disown” Rev. Wright, and then brought in parallels of things purportedly as bad, or offered excuses that Wright had done good things to balance the bad, or that there were certain mitigating circumstances that explain his hatred, then the universal wrong of Wright’s racism and lying disappears and with it any ethical standard by which we have moral authority to condemn such vitriol.

That this self-serving relativism was used to address a self-induced political disaster is especially unfortunate for a self-appointed moralist. I think the liberal blanket endorsement of the Obama speech will later come back to haunt its enthusiasts, once they see the creepy freak show that emerges from the woodwork, immune in public discourse now from absolute standards of rebuke.

Never at a loss for words, Ann Coulter weighs in:

But the “post-racial candidate” thinks we need to talk yet more about race. How much more? I had had my fill by around 1974. How long must we all marinate in the angry resentment of black people?

…

We treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their temper tantrums right in front of them with airy phrases about black anger. I will not pat blacks on the head and say, “Isn’t that cute?” As a post-racial American, I do not believe “the legacy of slavery” gives black people the right to be permanently ill-mannered.

…

Meanwhile, at least since the Supreme Court’s decision in University of California v. Bakke in 1978 — and obviously long before that, or there wouldn’t have been a case or controversy for the court to consider — it has been legal for the government to discriminate against whites on the basis of their race.

Consequently, any white person 30 years old or younger has lived, since the day he was born, in an America where it is legal to discriminate against white people. In many cases it’s not just legal, but mandatory, for example, in education, in hiring and in Academy Award nominations.

The speech seems to have had an effect on Obama’s campaign as well, besides the removal of Wrights endorsement and the moving of the Black Values.

Obama Camp Rejects New Black Panther Party Endorsement After Removing Web Posting

Barack Obama’s campaign has rejected the support of the New Black Panther Party, after removing an endorsement by the group from its Web site Wednesday.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor issued a statement rejecting the Panther backing, and told FOXNews.com: “The page in question has been removed from our campaign Web site. It’s our policy with any content generated by a group that advocates violence.”

The blogosphere was buzzing Wednesday about whether his campaign planned to remove the Panther posting, just one day after the Illinois senator delivered a speech calling for improved race relations in America.

The New Black Panthers, who inherited their name from the Black Panther Party of the 1960s, had the page on the Obama campaign’s public forums. The group’s message said it is backing Obama because he “represents ‘positive change’ for all of America. Obama will stir the ‘Melting Pot’ into a better ‘Molten America.’”

Well, a least one good thing happened.

Let me close with this.  What is happening is that we are being advised not to make race an issue by Obama insisting that race is always an issue.  We are enabling hatred and distrust and excusing it because our new victims can’t help themselves.

Once upon a time actions had consequences, values were absolute and personal responsibility was taken for granted.

Now, we hem haw and fidget.  No one is to blame, it is just the way white people are.

Remember Caprice Hollins in Seattle and the University of Deleware anh their attempts to poison peoples minds with definitoins like this:

“A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination. (This does not deny the existence of such prejudices, hostilities, acts of rage or discrimination.)”

“REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites. In the U.S., there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.’”

“A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called “blaming the victim”). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent.”

Consider that this is the definition of racism that many liberals operate under.

Then, for homework, listen to the average liberal talking head, Wrights rants and Obama’s soeech again, this time with those definitions in mind.

The you can see what they really think.

 Trackposted to MM, STA, ST, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Right Truth, Adam’s Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke Gingrich, The World According to Carl, Miss Beth’s Victory Dance, The Pink Flamingo, , Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS