Subject: Obama Paper/ Thoughts Finally done.
I cannot believe it has taken me so long to write this. Also it is too long and rambling.
I do not understand how all the smart people on TV and Radio - Ross Linbaugh, Hannity, Brit Hume, OReilly do not understand and /or have not focused on the fact that the Wright relationship is an ongoing problem and he should not be let off the hook.
How can we get some of the persons listed above ask some of the relevant questions.
My thanks for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Roger Gerstenfeld
Below is a copy of the text also attached as a word file.
Obama Thoughts and Concerns
The "Obama Myth"
Obama is an attractive, extremely well spoken young man who radiates a kind of attractiveness. He has the ability to have people who support him think that, basically, whatever views they are holding, that he is holding these also. [This is despite the fact that many who support him may hold contradictory views example Reverend Wright.] He is kind of a blank slate upon which his supporters are able to cast their wishful hopes/ views.
The problem with this is no one knows what he really believes. No one has tied him down to what position he has on controversial views of some of his supporters. No one has asked many questions that need to be asked. See below for more detailed list of questions; For example, does Obama believe blacks should get reparations? If a black man is less qualified for a job, should he get the job? Is it acceptable for Palestinians to suicide bomb civilians in Israel ? Is deviant black liberation theology [which he now after years of hearing it has finally said is wrong] as repugnant as White Supremist theology?
The press seems to be giving Obama a free ride by not questioning him particularly about Jeremiah Wright. The Jeremiah Wright association has ongoing significance in this election. The Wright relationship showed
1) Obama had not condemned bigoted speech for years.
2) that Obama closely associated with persons form many years who express bigoted views.
3) it is expected Obama will appoint a number of blacks to prominent position. Are these appointees going to include persons who hold black separatist views or bigoted views? Once elected he has largely a free hand in appointing persons to office.
It is dangerous to have an election where no one knows what, at the core, Obama stands for.
"Teflon" versus "Gorilla Glue"
On one of the radio shows the question was asked was Jeremiah Wright, for example, a one time passing problem, which would be forgotten - a "Teflon" occasion. Or did the past relationship with Jeremiah Wright show an ongoing problem? If this relationship with Jeremiah Wright caused ongoing problems, it would be a "Gorilla Glue problem."
To make Jeremiah Wright, Gorilla Glue, one simply has to show that this past relationship is part of an ongoing problem. A REVIEW OF THE FACTS SHOWS THAT OBAMA FAILED TO FAULT FOR YEARS HATEFUL SPEECH WHICH WAS BOTH RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC, ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI ISRAELI, ETC. Would not any white politician associated with someone who made such hateful speeches be immediately rejected by the media and society? In Obama's case, he was a member of the congregation for 20 years, had his children baptized there. He never spoke out against these statements which he had heard for years until running for President when it became a political necessity/ emergency. Over the years, rather than condemning Wright, Obama had a very good relationship with Jeremiah Wright, calling him his "mentor" and even named his book
class=Section2>
"The Audacity of Hope" after one of Mr. Wright's sermons. The concept or myth of Obama that he is as a person who would eliminate prejudice and bigotry in this country is directly contradicted by his acceptance of bigoted language from someone he is very close to. Even if one accepts his condemnation of Wright, which is a pretty big assumption based on his long friendship with Wright, his 20 years attending a church that preached black racism, one would have expected this champion who would eliminate bigotry would have eloquently spoke out against this racism. The fact is Obama did not. He listened for years and did not condemn Wright's speech which most Americans find hateful and unacceptable.
OBAMA'S GORILLA GLUE
1] APPEARS TO SHOW OBAMA CANNOT BRING RECONCILIATION AND THE STOPPING OF HATEFUL SPEECH IN THIS COUNTRY. A direct conclusion from his long association with Jeremiah Wright.
The fact is that Obama had a very close relationship with Mr. Wright. The fact is he was a member of that church for many years, a congressman, and a well respected member of the congregation. The fact is also that Obama has an extremely liberal voting record and has political positions which nationwide many may oppose.
If Obama cannot stop unacceptable and hateful speech in a congregation where he is a respected member for 20 years, how can he be expected to stop of hateful speech in this country with parties with substantial ideological differences? [Alternatively, this failure to stop hateful speech could show that either he found this hateful speech acceptable or that he was unable to stop the hateful speech. Either way Obama does not succeed.]
If Obama has associated with people teaching hate and racism and, if one assumes he will appoint a number of blacks to high position in his administration, how do we know we won't get persons who have extreme views? Are his appointees going to have such views as blacks should get reparations for slavery, or less qualified blacks should be hired over more qualified whites, or that affirmative action should only benefit poor blacks and not poor whites? The fact is that Obama has associated with persons expressing extreme and hateful views - why should one assume that this acceptance and association with persons for many years with unacceptable views will not continue, particularly after he is elected when he has a relatively free reign to chose whom he wishes.
WHAT POSITION DOES OBAMA TAKE ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES?
Please note that Obama if running to be President of the United States , President of all Americans - Whites and Blacks, President of Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. He should not be a "black President" but an "American President who happens to be black."
Please note: Obama should "oppose hateful speech" POWERFULLY AND ARTICULATELY. He is a powerful speaker and simply saying that Jeremiah Wright's statements were wrong when it was a political necessity yet still maintaining his association with him does not appear to meet the test of strongly "opposing" hateful speech. One should note also the reaction of the congregation glorifying Jeremiah Wright. Rather than condemning the hateful speech of Jeremiah Wright, the congregation praised him. This seems to make clear that the congregation either accepted the racist, bigoted and unfactual statements made by Reverend Wright or were willing to overlook these statements which many Americans find unacceptable to be said by anyone.
SHOULDN'T OBAMA OPPOSE POWERFULLY AND ARTICULATELY THE FOLLOWING; [at least we should know what his position is.]
RACIAL ISSUES - Do not forget what Farrakhan and Wright have said and distributed flyers in the church.
1] SHOULD BLACKS GET REPARATION FOR SLAVERY?
2] SHOULD A LESS QUALIFIED BLACK BE PROMOTED OVER A MORE QUALIFIED WHITE OR LATINO PERSON?
3] IF A WHITE AND BLACK ARE EQUALLY QUALIFIED, SHOULD THE BLACK BE PROMOTED?
4] If THE PRESIDENT'S JOB IS TO WATCH OUT FOR ALL AMERICANS, SHOULDN'T POOR WHITES BE GIVEN A HELPING HAND WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AS WELL AS POOR BLACKS?
5] SHOULD AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BE USED TO PROMOTE MIDDLE CLASS BLACKS TO HIGHER INCOME LEVELS AND NOT DEAL WITH POOR AMERICANS OF ALL COLORS?
MIDEAST - Note Wright has supported Farrakhan, Qadafi, spoke and posted anti Israeli documents.
1] Do Palestinians have the right to suicide bomb civilians in Israel ?
2] Is such action, though wrong, alright due to the hardship of Palestinians?
3] Do Palestinians have the right to send rockets aimed at civilian targets?
4] Is such action, though wrong, alright due to the hardship of Palestinians?
5] When Israel is attacked by missiles aimed at civilians, does Israel have the right to respond to such attacks with attacks targeted at those sending the rockets.
6] Does Obama condemn the Palestinians for sending rockets from civilian locations causing the military response to have a likelihood [no matter how careful Israel is] to cause civilian casualties [in what Israel considers a necessary defense of its citizens from rocket attacks and bombing].
7] Does Obama condemn the Palestinians [and other terrorist groups] for using civilians as shields?
8] Does Obama condemn the Israelis for killing civilians when the civilians are near or adjacent to a legitimate target? Or is it the Israelis fault for retaliating.
9] When Palestinian civilians are killed near a military target by Israelis, does he blame the Israelis for these deaths or does he blame the Palestinians for deliberately carrying out attacks from civilian areas?
10] If Hamas is building reinforced bunkers to send missiles into Israel , does Obama accept the right for Israel to defend itself by moving troops into Gaza ?
11] In the Oslo treaty Gaza was supposed to be a demilitarized zone - as agreed by the Palestinians and Israel . Is Obama going to condemn Hamas for heavily arm an area which is in direct violation of the agreements?
12] Is Obama going to recognize that Israel 's self defense may make offensive actions necessary and, if such actions are taken, will he support Israel ?
13] Does Obama believe Israel has the right to exist as a country?
14] Does Obama believe that Iran should not get nuclear weapons?
15] Does Obama condemn Iran for arming groups which we call terrorist, such as Hezbollah and Hamas?
16] Does Obama condemn Iran for encouraging its proxy Hezbollah to wage an offensive war against Israel with no provocation at all?
17] Does Obama condemn Iran for encouraging Hamas to maintain attacks on Israel and arming them?
18] Does Obama feel the world and the US is at risk if Iran gets nuclear weapons - either directly or thru its proxies?
UNIONS
Obama was a union organizer.
1] Does Obama believe that people who do work poorly should be able to be fired - whether union or nonunion? This applies to teachers as well as other workers.
2] Does Obama support secret ballots for voting for unions? This way someone who opposes the union can vote secretly and not get flack or repercussions from those supporting the vote for a Union .
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS -
Should be clarified so as not to preclude politically correct rational thinking.
1] Deviant Islam and Deviant Christianity [Probably deviance in all religions.]
2] Racial Profiling versus "Statistical Profiling" [or 'Statistical Racial Profiling"]
3] Is Obama eliminating race as an issue or is he creating race as in issue?
1] Deviant Islam and Deviant Christianity [Probably deviance in all religions.]
Deviant Islam
I grew up with my best friend being a Moslem in Washington DC . He was a wonderful open minded young man, who respected the views of Jews and Christians, who later became the Pakistani Ambassador to the UN. Today there is a narrow minded, hateful part of Islam. I do not understand why whenever there is a suicide bombing or beheading or killing why the President does not say something like "It is a disgrace for a Moslem to kill a Moslem. It is a disgrace on the Islamic religion. [maybe add] a religion of peace." It just seems plain common sense that a Moslem should not kill a Moslem. Once Moslems find killing Moslems unacceptable, the killing of other civilians may become unacceptable. Also we do not want to have a new suicide bomber replace the one who has just killed himself.' I think Milt Romney is right when he said we should have like a publicity campaign. Given time a campaign should work - just as in Iraq the people got tired at all the civilians being killed. People would like to think their lives are safe.
Deviant Christianity - Forms of Black Liberation Christianity appear to be Deviant.
If a white man went to a church teaching white supremist views, he would be rejected as a candidate for high office in this country. For some reason this has not happened with Obama, perhaps because he appears such a likable young man. This does not change the gravity of his association with the church that teaches hate and prejudice. It may well show that he is tone death to some forms of bigotry and/or show that he has some bigoted views which many Americans would consider unacceptable or bigoted.
First, this black libertarian church does not seem to recognize that America is the land of opportunity. While it calls itself Afro-American, almost all those I know who actually came from Africa have found this land to be the land of opportunity and have been successful. Those I know reject, even say they do not understand this attitude of rejection of the greatness of this country and the opportunity here. Also those that come from the Caribbean similarly reject this attitude of what they call some "American Blacks" and many do not want to have anything to do with this inaccurate, narrow minded and bigoted view. If I understood them, they think these people have a sickness. They also do not understand how these people reject those Americans, who happen to be black who are trying so hard to improve the lives of American citizens both black and white and those who are so well respected. People like Collin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had unflattering references to them by Jeremiah Wright. Collin Powell recognizes, as most Americans do, that it is important to get our people of all colors educated. I presume he understands this is a way all Americans can participate in the American dream. The views of Bill Cosby, who also sees the need for education has been rejected by many blacks. Powell, Cosby, and many others believe that education is very important and with an education one can have a good life in this country. Yet this deviant form of religion does not stress the need for education and understanding but teaches that this country is not the land of opportunity. It teaches hatred of whites, teaches and/or leaves brochures in its churches teaching anti-Semitism, hatred of America , etc.. The negative mind set on America is clear when Mrs. Obama said it was the first time she was proud of this country - when Obama was being supported for President. Their view does not recognize how many in this country were always against slavery. They seem to overlook that freed slaves in this country were not put into slavery but that the slaves actually came from Africa and were resold here. This was wrong. But wasn't putting them in slavery in Africa wrong also.
This "liberation" church does not even care if what they say is without factual basis, they are "liberated" from facts, making such false statements as aids was a white disease designed to infect black people. This church appears to teach hatred of whites, of America , of Jews, of Israel . When one confronts them and they admit a statement is wrong, they refuse to admit the wrongness of the statement and try to fool us by saying the statement must be understood in the context of the speech or n context of the "black experience." This of course is nonsense. The black experience should make one more sensitive to racism- not condone it. This excusing racist statements is just unacceptable - just as it is unacceptable for whites to make racist statements against blacks. So it is unacceptable for blacks to make racist statements against whites, particularly from the pulpit of a church. These people should remember the words of Martin Luther King
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. [Emphasis added]"
One further negative aspect is that this church appears to teach the attitude of victimization that they are victims, rather than this is the land of opportunity. It does not appear to appreciate the beauty and opportunity in life, particularly the opportunity for black people today. It seems to overlook the important basic value of the need for education. It overlooks that so many black people and people of all colors have come here have prospered, that groups other than blacks have been equally or more prejudiced but found this the land of opportunity. They seem to overlook the Indians in this country, Jews who have been prejudiced against for thousands - not hundreds of years, Orientals who were discriminated against from the time of the gold rush in California . These people do not asking for reparations, but are thankful for the opportunities this country has. Amazingly the Hmong tribe which supported us in Vietnam came from a primitive culture in Asia . These people, who could not even read, looked very different, came here and, I understand, almost all their children took advantage of the opportunities here, graduated high school and college and have prospered. It just does not do any good to feel sorry for oneself. The job is to find opportunities and make something of yourself whether as a carpenter, tradesman or in a field which requires a higher education or just finding an opportunity.
One of the major problems today, in addition to education, is drugs. I do not know how to approach this. But why do not the churches try to have drug testing for all students. How can a student learn if he is high on drugs? Also, testing should reduce the use and trafficking in drugs - a major source of violence in schools and the black community. If these people really want to cure the drug problem, have them tell the schools that they authorize their children to have periodic drug tests. Also having life stories of people who came from the neighborhood who got educated and became successful or just plain had a good life would be a good example so show the members of these churches that life is not difficult. There is no secret "white key" to success. Are you trying to tell me that a good carpenter or electrician, one who works hard and treats people fairly, will not have many employers seeking to hire him or her?
Isn't it the duty of the media as well as good people everywhere to let those teaching bigotry in the name of black liberation theology to calmly and firmly reject this hate speech. The people in these churches may be basically good people and we should appeal to their better instincts to do away with this hatred and bigotry and treat all people "by the content of their character." Wouldn't Martin Luther King say, if one judges a person by the "content of their character' a person teaching hate would be judged unfavorably.
2] Racial Profiling versus "Statistical Profiling" [or 'Statistical Racial Profiling"]
One should not let the wish of being "politically correct" stop one from recognizing the realities of life. At MIT there used to be a course on Oil well drilling economics. Simply it taught that if the expected value of the oil coming out of the ground was greater than the cost, plus a minimal amount of profit, that one should consider drilling. The same economics applies to decisions in every day life including security screening.
BAD RACIAL PROFILING: My wife is German from an old family. After the war, one count was convicted of murder. The German newspapers were talking about all nobility being murders. This was inaccurate profiling. Freedom of religion [or class or group] means that each group has the right to have crooks, as well as doctors, scientists, etc. [Actually the likelihood of Counts having a higher percentage of murderers seems far fetched.] One person being a murderer does not mean all persons of this same group are murderers. One has to look at the group as a whole. One of the major ways to spread prejudice is by distorting the statistics [by saying the ridiculous statement for example all nobility are murderers]. Interestingly, sometimes stereotypes are contradictory, but this still does not stop people from prejudice. You have the fat beer bellied German and the skinny Prussian German - direct opposites but those prejudiced against Germans will use what ever stereotype fits at the moment.
APPROPRIATE STATISTICAL PROFILING: When experience shows a correspondence of a profile to reality, a statistical reality, then the "statistical profiling" is not only appropriate but useful. For example, most terrorists have come from Arab countries and are of Islamic background. Not all are, but well over 90% are. Why is it that my wife, who is a 70 years old, 5'8" blond lady from Scandinavian stock, repeatedly stopped at the airport and carefully searched? She knows that the reason is that the TSA does not want to use Statistical reality and focus, as it should, 90% of its searches on Muslim persons. This they think will offend Moslems. Unfortunately, the percentage of terrorists who are Moslems is a reality. One should calmly tell them that the searches are based on statistics, are reasonable actions to take, and are not prejudiced in any way. The fact is that there are adequately few Muslims and so many persons being searched, that searching all Muslims would be statistically reasonable.
If these people are Americans, they should want America [and themselves] to be safe. My wife's uncle was a German here before World War II. During World War II he was repeatedly checked out and searched. His position was that the searches were reasonable, that he wanted America to be safe; he cooperated fully with the searches, told them to search him carefully. He was not offended at any searches nor should the Muslims. Now today, some take a directly different and confrontational attitude. Some Muslims go into a plane, sit in many seats, and get up and disturb the others on the plane who are obviously afraid of a possible terrorist attempt to take over the plane. They complain that their right to pray has been effected - they deliberately ignore the reality of September 11, of attempts at shoe bombing planes, etc. They do not respect the right of Americans to live in peace with less fears of terrorism. They overlook all the respect and understanding given Muslims in this country when not at the airport. They do not respect the right for us to use reasonable statistical profiling. Is there any question that with reasonable statistical profiling, security would be both more thorough and substantially less costly? The savings could be spent on more advanced machinery. It does not make sense to waste money on unnecessary searches to appear to be politically correct. However, the fact is that "statistical profiling" should be "politically correct" and if people do not understand this, they ought to correct their views.
Similarly, when Jesse Jackson, indicated that he was relieved from a safety point of view that the person walking behind him was white, not black, Mr. Jackson was not being prejudiced against blacks. He just was recognizing the statistical reality that 75% of young black men have a criminal record and most violent crime in the cities is done by blacks. His concern was reasonable and not an example of prejudice. Similarly when Obama's grandmother said something about concern about blacks, this could have been the same statistical observation - and not a form of prejudice. This is why many thought Obama had "thrown his grandmother under the bus" when he referred to his Grandmother as prejudiced. If Obama is to stop racial prejudice, he has to understand the statistical reality of life today. The way to solve problems is to deal with them and not to dance around them or to fail to recognize the reality of the problem. By the way the classification of his grandmother as a "typical white person" was prejudiced in itself. He was not or did not want to recognize the reality of crime in the city - a reality Jesse Jackson recognized.
3] Is Obama eliminating race as an issue or is he creating race as in issue?
It is ironic that Obama came as the example of how this country has overcome judging people by the color of the skin. Now with Jeremiah Wright, Obama has turned that view upside down. It is he who is judging people by the color of their skin. To me this is a great step backward. When I first heard Obama I was impressed with him as an attractive young man who was a wonderful speaker. I am conservative and differed from his views but thought he was a wonderful American and a voice who would contribute to this country. It did not do any harm that he was black. In fact I thought it was nice he was black, but I respected him as an American, an intelligent person, not really caring about his color. When I heard the hateful speech of Jeremiah Wright I realized that the great advance of not "judging people by color of their skin but by their character" was not the case with Reverend Wright. No self respecting American should accept any excuses for Wright's hateful speech.
This, by the way, is uniquely due to Obama. If Colin Powell were running for office or Condoleezza Rice, they would be respected as good Americans. They would never attend a church teaching this hatred. In fact, ironically, Jeremiah Wright does not seem to respect these two due to the unflattering reference he makes to them in his sermon. Similarly, Bill Cosby or Juan Williams or Ward Connerly would not listen to such bigoted speech.
The point here is that the Obama should have been viewed as an American, who incidentally is black, and who represents American values standing up for all Americans. By his attending a church that teaches hatred and bigotry shows that he has not met the test. To me Obama is tainted, just as someone who has been a member of the Ku Klux clan is tainted. I wish him the best, hope he can remove the taint, and hope he can be a force for good and the removal of bigotry, But the Jeremiah Wright relationship shows me that his first task should be with firmness, love, and gentleness tell those people in the congregation with whom he is close that teaching hatred, bigotry, and stating false facts is unacceptable behavior that must be stopped immediately, that America is the land of opportunity and one should focus on how to take individual action to find these opportunities and not blame others - whether it be whites, Jews, Catholics, etc for their failure to achieve success when others of the same color [and other colors] find this a country of wonderful opportunity and fulfillment.
