It's about our community and our spirituality!

The Slander Of The Gander

I absolutely positively cannot wait to get my hands on the latest copy of the New Yorker.  The art cover features Barack and Michelle Obama in their true guise, at least according to a lot of less than well informed Americans who get their information from an institution of inconsequential integrity such as FOX News, more accurately described as the bizarro world news network.

Despite his protest to the contrary a lot of hardworking, white Americans cling to their bitter belief that Mr. Obama is a closet Muslim and Ms. Obama is a fist bumping terrorist who is also a Louis Farrakhan devotee and is the leader of the Chicago chapter of the Osama bin Laden fan club.  Ms. Obama loves Osama so much she married a man whose name is just one letter away from the terrorist leader.  I would not be surprised if there was a rumor floating about that she was set to live in Omaha until she realized it didn’t rhyme with Osama or Obama.

The magazine features an illustration from Barry Blitt named The Politics of Fear in which the Democratic presidential nominee and his wife are shown wearing traditional Muslim garb in the oval office of the White House, presumably after Mr. Obama won the presidency.  The drawing of Michelle Obama has a huge angry black woman afro while wearing fatigues and combat boots with an automatic assault rifle over her shoulder.  Mr. Obama is wearing a traditional Muslim headdress and attire ala Osama bin Laden style.  And to top it all off the stars and stripes is shown burning in a fireplace blaze while Osama’s portrait hangs above.

The only thing the cartoon needs is little caricatures of Sasha and Malia.  It would be the icing on the cake of comic fabrication to see the two girls depicted with bomb vests and copies of the Quran while wearing the traditional garb of Arab women.  I know that they’re much too young to be wearing the covering from head to toe.  But we are trying to drive home the point that the reality surrounding the Democratic candidate has been distorted to the point of severe absurdity.

This is not the first time the Democratic presidential nominee has been lampooned.  Dozens of cartoons of the Senator from Illinois appear in various newspapers, weekly and monthly periodicals, websites, and elsewhere on an hourly basis.  He has been satirized on Saturday Night Life.  Comics galore stand in line to ridicule any weakness in his political armor.  And even one of the hardest working white joes in the workforce is ready to make a dime off of this historic presidential run of an African American by plastering a picture of the monkey Curious George with the caption Obama ’08 on a t-shirt.

The official response from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign referred to the illustration art as tasteless and offensive.  If anybody has a clear reason for being offended by this lampoon it would be the Muslim community that continues to be slandered by an affiliation with terrorism and unpatriotic tendencies.  Mr. Obama refused to give an opinion about the cover.  Other people have made their much less than favorable opinion known.  Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, many people will continue to unfairly associate his character with a negative stereotype without any foundation in reality.  Not unlike the way Mr. Obama continues to hold fast to his opinion that black people need to take more personal responsibility for the conditions of the black community before the nation takes any social responsibility.

At the annual NAACP convention Mr. Obama reiterated his call that black people show greater responsibility for improving their own lives.  Mr. Obama urged Washington to provide more education and economic assistance.  He called on corporate America to exercise greater social responsibility.  But he received his largest applause as he urged blacks to demand more of ourselves.  Said Mr. Obama, “I know some say I’ve been too tough on folks talking about responsibility.  NAACP, I’m here to report [that] I’m not going to stop talking about it.  Because as much I’m out there to fight to make sure that government’s doing its job and the marketplace is doing its job, none of it will make a difference, at least not enough of a difference, if we also don’t at the same time seize more responsibility in our own lives.”  I guess the other racial groups don’t have to have any personal responsibility.

Mr. Obama insists on holding steadfast to the notion that the black community is somehow more corrupt or somehow more irresponsible than any other race of people.  A cursory glance at headlines would support Mr. Obama’s assumptions.  But the headlines are controlled by a dominant community that would rather backhand people in the black community than extend a helping hand.  We all could take more responsibility for our communities.

For example, Mr. Obama could have gone before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and tell the Jewish community that Israel could take more responsibility for ending the tensions with the Arab community and Iran in particular.  Mr. Obama could stand at his podium and tell Hillary Clinton to take more responsibility for the debt she incurred when she campaigned against Mr. Obama.  I didn’t see anybody say John Edwards or anyone else deserved a handout for racking up debt.  What makes these other examples of irresponsibility so much more tolerable?

I seriously doubt that the problem of broken families in the black community is significantly more of a problem than the broken families in other communities.  I have to admit that I have not seen any numbers on the subject.  But if the propaganda that says black crime is so much more staggering than white crime compared to the actual crime numbers broken down by race is any indication, I have to say that unless Mr. Obama can produce some actual numbers from credible sources, all he is doing is reinforcing the negative image of the black community to his supporters who want to believe the stereotypical hype against black people.

There is little to support Barack Obama’s emphasis calling for more responsibility for the black community in relation to the level of responsibility in other community’s.  No matter what the reality is Mr. Obama will cling to his supposition that black people are the most irresponsible community of people in America.  So why would he of all people expect anything less from those of us who think he is a Muslim and his wife is a whitey hater with nothing to support their claims?  The way I see it, what’s good for the slandered goose is even better for the slandered gander.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - Posted by | African Americans, Barack Obama, Black Community, Black Culture, Black Hair, Black History, Black Men, Black On Black Crime, Black People, Life, Michelle Obama, Politics, Racism, Thoughts


  1. Loved the post… unfortunately there are lots of numbers that show blacks are the underdogs in this country. I saw a study recently that showed 12% of black males aged 25-29 are currently incarcerated, and more than 50% of black children are born into families where no father is present. We, as a race, gotta get it together. Obama stands for change and personal responsibility… there is no “quick fix” and at the end of the day, if we’re to get anywhere at all, white people will need to open their minds and stop thinking we are “lesser than”… but blacks will need to not only learn to forgive, but step up to the plate as well.

    Comment by chaze77 | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  2. Thanks for the feedback chaze77,

    It might be true that twelve percent of black males aged twenty five to twenty nine are incarcerated and more than fifty percent of black children are born into homes where no father is present. But what I’d like to know is what are the comparable numbers for other racial communities? And with the percentages, what are the raw numbers? My point is not to say that the black community couldn’t or doesn’t have to do better. I know first hand that we can. But why is there such an emphasis on the black community to do better and not the same requirement for anyone else?

    We as a race have got to get it together. We the human race. No one is in any position to point the finger at any single group and say that they are the ones with the problem. As far as I can tell, no racial group has got their act together.

    Mr. Obama isn’t the only one to say that the black community has got to get its act together. George Bush says the same thing. In fact, most people in the Republican Party have been saying for years that people in the black community don’t need any programs to help level the playing field. All we have to do is pull ourselves up by our boot straps. And while we are doing our best to pull ourselves up, institutions like the American Medical Association have a history of doing their best to minimize the number of black people becoming doctors.

    The black community has a long history of being served rhetoric that sounds good and emphasizes personal responsibility. How can black people exercise personal responsibility when so much of corporate America refuses to exercise social responsibility to the black community and give black people the same opportunities for jobs and advancement as it does with the white community? How can black people get an education without the same financial support and resources that are much more abundant in the other communities?

    As far as I know black people are ready to step up to the plate. Unfortunately, too often the plate is pulled right out from under black people just when many of us need it most.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  3. I hate what the magazine cover implies…though I dig the ‘fro!

    Comment by Tracey Ricks Foster | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  4. Thanks for the feedback Tracey Ricks Foster,

    The implication I get from the magazine cover is that it is ridiculous to continue with these unfounded accusations simply because Mr. Obama is black and people will grasp at any straws to hate him.

    And I have to agree with you. Michelle Obama would probably look kickin’ in one of those supersized ‘fros!


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  5. Just one caveat: BHO turned down cushy job offers to work as a community organizer in Chicago; he chose to start off life working with poor African Americans.

    He also was brutally honest about his own shortcomings in his first book; instead of saying “you should do better” his message is “WE should do better”.

    Comment by blueollie | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  6. Thanks for the feedback blueollie,

    I had another visitor to my blog that summed it up very nicely!

    “I will warn you that the Barack in ‘The Dream of My Father’ is the 1994/95 Barack who still had ties to Wright and TUCC. The Barack that attended the Million Man March and was looking for a solution for the issues that affected the black community. That was the Barack before national fame, before he entered into politics and before he was running for president of the United States of America. I believe that at heart he knows the truth yet he cannot express it or act on it. This is just as problematic as him not knowing. It means that he knows better but is grandstanding.”RhondaCoca

    If I am wrong and if Mr. Obama becomes president and is able to implement strong, positive changes for the black community then I will be more than happy to admit that my suspicions were overblown, I was wrong, and other people had a lot more more faith than I. But until then, based on his current behavior and the behavior that he has displayed throughout his campaign as well as his early actions as a Chicago politician, more people should be asking Mr. Obama tough questions about his black community affiliation.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  7. Well, the numbers I have show that while 12% of black males aged 25-29 are incarcerated, 8% of hispanics within the same age group are in jail, compared to 2% of whites…


    Some of this is due to racism within the system- black men simply tend to be scapegoats in our society- but some of it has to do with the desperation our people are facing.

    I agree with what you have to say about corporate America which is why I support Affirmative Action whole-heartedly. Yeah, Affirmative Action as it exists today isn’t perfect, but it’s the best chance we have. Until something better comes along we need it.

    I think my beliefs differ from people like Bush simply by virtue of the fact that I don’t believe any one group of people can “get it together” by themselves. Bush and company seem to think blacks need to stand on their own two feet- by themselves- with no help from corporate (white) America at all.

    My question is, while blacks are steppin’ up to the plate, what are whites doing to help? As a group that has oppressed us for hundreds of years, don’t they bear some responsibility too? Of course they do…

    And yet, where are they?

    Comment by chaze77 | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  8. Thanks for the feedback chaze77,

    I have no doubt that the black male is incarcerated at much higher rates than others. Like you said, no doubt the result of overzealous prosecution and law enforcement of people in the black community. This manifest itself when we see cops claiming to be so afraid of a black man that we excuse these cowards who empty their guns into unarmed black men minding his own business.

    But Barack Obama says that too many black men are not facing their responsibility as fathers. These are the numbers and percentages I’d like to see. He repeatedly claims that black men need to do better. Why only black men need to be called out and not white men? Why not all men in America? The black presidential candidate who should have an idea of how the black community is constantly slandered in the public perception should know better than to make unfounded accusations unless he is truly doing his best to pander to the white community.

    Like you, I believe that the black community cannot do it by itself. If we are supposed to be a part of the American community we need to be treated as part of the national community. We are supposed to be a compassionate country willing to help others in need. Until the other is our own black community and then the nation wants to wash its hands of the problems we face. And the dominant community is directly responsible for the conditions of the black community. We didn’t get this way by ourselves. We won’t get out of this condition by ourselves. When will America take responsibility for the condition of the black community?


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 15, 2008 | Reply

  9. Chaze 77,

    My friend, you have never studied social science.

    You keep saying this,

    ” I saw a study recently that showed 12% of black males aged 25-29 are currently incarcerated, and more than 50% of black children are born into families where no father is present.”

    1. are you aware that there is pervasive instituionalized racism that has caused a disportionate amount of black men to be imprisoned many of them with wrong sentencing and for petty crimes. White men are treated differently by the criminal justice system. My mother worked as a probabtion officer in New York for 23 years. White men got short probabtion sentences for crimes they should have gone to jail for while black men got jail time for crimes and misdemeanors that they should have been on probation for. That creates a disprotionate amount of black men in prison.

    2. Mabye you should read what I wrote over at the post discussing Jesse jackson. I am tired of people equating a single parent household with a deadbeat dad! Just because a father is not in the home does not mean that he is not in the child’s life. There is nuance behind the statistic and it has been addressed already! So if a man divorces and moves out, he is a deadbeat. If thats the case, then with the white communities 50% divorce rate, we should slap those labels onto them.

    Example 1#

    My uncle is divorced. His wife lives in Princeton, NJ with his daughter. He lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn. He is in my cousin’s life. He takes care of her! He pays for her schooling. She spends weekends with him and his girlfriend. he takes her out places like on vacation etc. He drives out for her parent-teacher meetings but he is not in the home. her home is down as a single parent household because she resides with her mother.

    Example #2

    My friend Craig has a two children (two sons) with his ex-girlfriend. They both live in Brooklyn. The children live with her in a two bedroom apartment off of Flatbush. He lives in Fort Greene. He sees his children and is in their life. he even works two jobs so that he can pay for catholic schools. He does not want to send them to the crumbling NYC public schools. The ex-girlfriend is looked at as a single mother but the father is in the children’s life.

    Truthfully, these are all complex issues that cannot be solved with superficial answers like the ones Obama likes to provide. The man is often elementary at best when it comes to AA’s.

    What sickens me is the way in which people reduce a group of people to a stat. Stats are numbers. They do not speak to the real nuance and individuality of the people that it is used to “represent”.

    Comment by Rhondacoca | Wednesday, July 16, 2008 | Reply

  10. Bottom line: Black men stop committing crimes; Black men stop going to jail.

    Comment by Marcia | Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reply

  11. Thanks for the feedback Marcia,

    But I don’t think it’s that simple. For example, when Amadou Diallo was shot and killed by being shot forty three times by police, he wasn’t committing any crime. He was walking home with a bag of groceries. When Sean Bell was shot and killed by police officers he was on his way home on his wedding day. One police officer was so afraid for his life that he emptied his pistol, reloaded, and emptied it again. When Robert Davis was in New Orleans asking police officers information, the closest he came to committing a crime was calling the police officers unprofessional. And they beat that man like a rented mule.

    So the bottom line of black men will stop going to jail when black men stop committing crime is nothing more than rhetoric and propaganda intended to excuse our social racism by putting the impetus for our tolerance for the abuse of black men squarely on the backs of black men. We accept the propaganda that if black men just start behaving themselves, American soceity would not have to work so hard to keep black men in line. We need to learn to stop listening to the propaganda coming from the racially generic dominant community that just so happens to be predominantly white and learn to defend our community as a unified people.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reply

  12. The satire backfired because there was too much truth to it. I mean, when was the last time one met a pro-partial birth abortion Christian? The question isn’t why 10% of Americans think Obama is Muslim, but rather, what evidence is there that he is anything but? Why are we to believe that he associated with his father’s blackness and NOT his Muslimness? Even Obama’s mother was a dhimmi before her time and young Obama couldn’t help but notice the power play of Islam.

    Comment by thordaddy | Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reply

  13. Thanks for the feedback thordaddy,

    However, I must admit that I seriously doubt that being pro-choice and being Christian are mutually exclusive. Besides, even if he was not a Christian doesn’t necessarily mean that he is a Muslim or that being a Muslim is akin to supporting abortion. And what does that have to do with him supporting Osama bin Laden and burning flags or Michelle Obama toting assault rifles? I do believe that there is a bigger picture here that shouldn’t be diluted down to just one issue.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reply

  14. brotherpeacemaker,

    The point is that the satire is bolstered by truth and not by ignorance and therefore we have the outrage. If there is evidence of Obama’s Christianity then where is it? There is evidence of his Muslimness. If there is evidence of Michelle’s love of America then where can it be found? There is evidence of her distaste for America.

    I believe the burning flag was symbolic of Obama’s association with Rev. Wright and the poster of OBL sort of encapsulates the whole perceived ethos of the Obamas.

    You’ve already chided Obama for his stance on blacks and his Christianity is nonexistent. So, who and what is Barack Obama?

    Comment by thordaddy | Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reply

  15. thordaddy,

    I really don’t think that this satire is supporting any hidden truths. You claim there’s no evidence of the Obamas being Christian despite the fact that, like you said, they had an affiliation with a Christian reverend. The only thing the burning flag symbolized was the belief by some Americans that they hate America enough to burn the flag. The only people who believe that the cartoon is based on truth are the people the cartoon is actually ridiculing.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Thursday, July 17, 2008 | Reply

  16. Thordaddy,

    What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. What religion are all the doctors, nurses and abortion seekers? Who knows, but I bet the majority of them call themselves Christian.

    “Why are we to believe that he associated with his father’s blackness and NOT his Muslimness?” My parents are Christian and I don’t associate with that religion. So I guess it is pretty easy for a child especially one that really has no contact with that parent to NOT practice their religion.

    What proof do you have that John McCain actually loves America even though on several occasions he said that he didn’t “truly” love America. Or how about telling us all what evidence that you have that he is indeed a Christian? Would a Christian really want to engage in a war where millions of innocent lives will be lost? Jesus and god are against war, it says that killing is wrong. Can you explain why a good Christian would be involved in going against the bible like that?

    You my friend are exactly why the New Yorker did the satire. You and people like you are so mired in your ignorance that you will believe anything you hear.


    Comment by theblacksentinel | Friday, July 18, 2008 | Reply

  17. theblacksentinel,

    You’re not being serious, are you? I’m ignorant because I don’t believe the Obama’s are Christian loving American patriots? And you are outraged by the satire DESPITE all the evidence of such radical dispositions?

    There is evidence upon evidence for Barack’s Muslimness, Michelle’s distaste for America, their ties to left-wing anarchists and a family embrace of radical black theology/ideology. All this was satirized in the New Yorker and it backfired because the radical anti-American profile of the Obama’s is dead on and you don’t want other to know.

    Please provide evidence to the contrary so as to show how much the Obama’s are really Christian loving America patriots? And then name another well-known “Christian” that sanctions partial-birth abortion while you collecting that other evidence?

    Comment by thordaddy | Friday, July 18, 2008 | Reply

  18. No, absolutely NOT. You are an ignorant person because you try and make ties to things such a abortion and Christianity as if only “heathens” are involved in the practice.

    Anyhow, why don’t you show proof? I don’t need to since they are asserting that they are indeed Christian. Go to a Christian church, were married in a Christian church, NEVER attended any mosques or otherwise participate in Muslim things. That should be evidence enough. For one thing a Muslim is NOT going to play the role of a Christian for any reason, that is against their religion. Just like I am sure you won’t play the role of a Muslim or would you?

    I don’t know if they are loving patriots. But they haven’t shown me anything to the contrary. You talk about this as if you know them first hand and have had then tell you personally that they ARE indeed Muslims and hate America. If they did then that would be different. But we both know that they did no such thing. So lay out your proof. Since you seem to think you have so much.

    How about I tell you all the well known “so called” Christian who sanction murder! Every preacher the right wing has stumping for it from Rod Parsley to Pat Robertson to Kenneth Copeland and all the rest. Are saying that the Iraq war is good for our country. Now you tell me the difference between partial birth abortion and an infant getting killed in his/her mothers arms with one of our soldiers bullets or our bombs. Better yet tell me the difference between our bombs and guns killing a pregnant Iraqi woman and partial birth abortion? Not a damn thing. At least not in gods eyes, I am sure. You see you can’t sit and sanction the killing of gods children by one means and then cry about killing them some other way.

    The majority of these Christian right leaders are a bunch of phony losers anyway. Since Obama didn’t say he agreed with it he said that if it was medically necessary then people should have access to it. And the fallacy that you liars would have people believe is that people are just lining up for partial birth abortions when they only do them on women when it is life or death for her. Not to mention you and your little Christian faction all talk about hating abortion but if your sister or wife were raped by some “crazy Muslim” I doubt very seriously if you would be that opposed to it then.

    I am waiting for your proof and while your at it why don’t you tell me all the well known preachers on the right who have said that the Iraq war is wrong.

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Saturday, July 19, 2008 | Reply

  19. theblacksentinel,

    You chimed in about the cover of The New Yorker and basically gave the left-wing spin that the cover was a satire meant to ridicule the right-wing caricature of the Obamas. What you don’t explain is WHY those very same left-wingers are so MAD at your OWN attempted left-wing propaganda? You claim that your outrage is the result of the perpetuation of the lies and smears being told about the Obamas. So I have you a challenge? Name the lies being told by this cover?

    Afterall, I’m not really sure WHAT you are taking issue with because you haven’t rebutted my actual statements, namely, there are NO other well known “Christians” that advocate for partial-birth abortion. In fact, to support the infanticide of your future progeny seems far more heinous a moral failing then taking a war to your avowed enemies and in the course of such action killing (not murdering) innocent children. Or, are you of the understanding that advocating for partial-birth abortion is far less morally corrupt than the accidental killing of innocent children in the course of war?

    Comment by thordaddy | Sunday, July 20, 2008 | Reply

  20. No I didn’t give the left wing spin on anything. You gave the crazy right people spin by saying that all the satire was true. I have yet to see a left wing person say anything close to what I said to you. You are pointing the finger of propaganda all the while spewing it. That is hypocrisy in America for you.

    I never said anything about being mad at the perpetuation of smears on the Obamas. I personally think you are dodging the issue which was to show me the well known pastors who don’t support war or more precisely this criminal war in Iraq. But instead you talk about things I never said in an attempt to get off the topic at hand. I am asking you what is different about partial birth abortion and war killing pregnant women, babies and people in general. You can’t answer so you deflect with a bunch of finger pointing propaganda I never spoke about. Good one, but it doesn’t work with me.

    I don’t care one rats ass about any well known Christian and probably couldn’t name many if you paid me. That is not the issue for me. You claim that Christians hate partial birth abortion and would NEVER sanction it. But, now you want to tell me that somehow killing in war is acceptable and killing in medicine never is. You hypocrite! There is NO difference in how a person was murdered. The infant, baby or child is still dead arent’ they? Someone’s future progeny is murdered aren’t they? So how is one more acceptable than another in your world. In my world death is death and you can’t have it both ways.

    There is NO such thing as an accidental killing in WAR. You are going there WITH THE SOLE PURPOSE OF KILLING. So to me if I am going to call for the end to infanticide it doesn’t matter HOW it is occurring it must be stopped. You can sit there in your shroud of hypocritical better than thou stupidity all the while sanctioning one form of MURDER while trying to chastise another. You supposed Christians are the epitome of hypocrisy. Killing is killing you will never be able to explain to god that somehow killing in a war was OK because they are your enemies. But killing for medicine is worse because I say so. Get real. Good luck at the pearly gates because you will need it hypocrite.

    Just remember when you go down the road of one killing is more heinous than another you lose ALL credibility. I can make a case as to why partial birth abortion is better than a sexually driven murder of an infant using your logic. So you have absolutely no moral leg to stand on now.

    Goodbye, you ARE the weakest link!

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Sunday, July 20, 2008 | Reply

  21. theblacksentinel,

    Sorry, but you are all over the place. This post was about Obama and The New Yorker cover. You want to claim that Obama is a pro-partial birth abortion “Christian” and the cover of him in the turbin is a gross mischaracterization. But, WHAT is YOUR PROOF that Obama is a Christian and NOT a Muslim and hence the claim that the cover represents a gross micharacterization? Furthermore, the cover characterized Michelle as a radical-leftist. Again, what is your proof that this a gross mischaracterization?

    Secondly, if you can’t differentiate between the gruesome PURPOSEFUL killing of one’s own flesh and blood and the accidental killing of innocent children in the course of destroying our avowed enemies then you my friend must be a modern liberal?

    Comment by thordaddy | Sunday, July 20, 2008 | Reply

  22. Thordaddy,

    Give me a break already. You are the one that brought up the abortion. I could care less if he supports abortion, hell I do as well. There was a picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton dressed in African Muslim garb, does this make them Muslims as well? That is just the most ridiculous assertion.

    Also, I never said that him being characterized in the magazine is a gross mis-characterization. I think you need to go back and re-read who said what. I spoke to you about what proof you have. Whether or not he is or is not a Muslim is beside the point. I don’t believe he is one. But to play the devils advocate here what if he is, then what? What does that mean? Are you somehow saying that being a Muslim is a crime? Because if you are suggesting that him being a Muslim makes him unfit or that you HAVE to be a Christian in order to hold office then you my friend are the same type of bigot that Christians constantly claiming are working to silence your hypocritical religion. Remember what this country stands for? FREEDOM! Of religion being one of them.

    Like I said before there IS NO ACCIDENTAL KILLING IN WAR!! Damn can’t you get it? They are killing people because it is a war. And you are a sick person if you are going to tell me that it is OK to kill a child in war but not in medical facilities. God does NOT talk about these so called avowed enemies in the bible. Why don’t you enlighten me with the verses from the bible that say that it is morally just to kill people in the attempt to kill your avowed enemies?

    You are a hypocrite and don’t have a moral leg to stand on. You are through in my book. You have NO credibility. I am serious I need you to quote me the scripture that tells good Christians that it is OK to kill but only in war. I thought your ten commandments said THOU SHALT NOT KILL! They didn’t say thou shalt not kill with a side note saying unless you are fighting your avowed enemies then it is morally and spiritually OK.

    Like I said before you and any other Christian who believes that it is OK to kill in war are nothing more than morally bankrupt individuals picking and choosing what you believe in the bible. Prove what you are saying by giving me the bible versus that talk of abortion being wrong and war killing being justified. I don’t have a problem being called a liberal, but at least I am not a hypocrite.

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Sunday, July 20, 2008 | Reply

  23. theblacksentinel,

    You think all that internet chest-bumping is substitute for intellectual argument?

    Is Barack Obama a Christian or Muslim?

    I say there is far more evidence of both his Muslimness (his ancestry being the most obvious) and his non-Christianness (advocating for partial-birth abortion).

    Are the Obama’s anti-American?

    Again, the evidence supports this view. From left-wing ideological stances to a 20-year membership in a radical black church to friendships with some of the most radical elements in our society (Wright, Ayers and Farrakhan), the evidence is convincing.

    In addition, we have the statements of Michelle Obama. From being “proud” of America for the “first” time, to America being a “mean” country to suggesting the assassination of her husband at a gas station by some rednecks, Michelle was then forced to “soften” up her image. Meaning, she needed to quit being the “angry black woman” we all could see.

    All this stuff is well-known and yet your intellectual stance is to pretend as though you were in a cave while the media rolled out the Obamas. Or, you can just say you like all that radicalness and the cover was spot on?

    Comment by thordaddy | Monday, July 21, 2008 | Reply

  24. thordaddy,

    It is pretty obvious that you are inclined to believe exactly what the satire of the Obamas is trying to depict. I really didn’t expect anyone would be so inclined as to make this an issue. There is no evidence that Mr. Obama is a Muslim or Ms. Obama hates America. It’s all propaganda designed to make close minded people of rather limited understanding fear that which the Obamas represent. These are the type of people who are more likely to get their news from FOX.

    I am no fan of Mr. Obama. But I have to say that I have never heard Mr. Obama advocate partial birth abortions. While this single factor appears very important to you, everyone who defends a woman’s right to control her body is not a Muslim. Abortion is very different than war. Abortion is the termination the potential of life. War is the termination of actual life. But somehow god fearing people, who believe murder is a heinous act, believe the murder of people during war is okay.

    There is a lot of talk about fanatical Islam being dangerous. But in all honesty fanatical Islamic believers are no different than fanatical Christian believers. Each will defend whatever they want to believe with a total lack of evidence to back it up. These beliefs will drive these people to justify whatever they do because nothing else matters. The bible says thou shall not kill. But a fanatic will say that there is an unwritten exclusion that says war is okay.

    The cover was in fact spot on. People who want to believe the crap about the Obamas are the very people the cover art is trying to impact. Does this mean I live in a cave? In all honesty it really doesn’t matter. People will believe whatever they want despite any proof or claim to the contrary.


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Monday, July 21, 2008 | Reply

  25. Thordaddy,

    How about this? I don’t give a rats ass about the Obama’s and this satire or whatever YOU wish to believe it is. YOU are the one making it an issue. I think it is a magazine cover to me and nothing more. You can think whatever you want. You seem to be really confused as to your beliefs. You now say that you don’t know anything about Obama and partial birth abortion when in fact YOU ARE THE ONE WHO PUT IT IN THIS CONVERSATION!!! Here are YOUR words – “I mean, when was the last time one met a pro-partial birth abortion Christian?”

    Murder is murder am I correct? So how can killing here be different than killing there? AGAIN QUOTE ME THE SCRIPTURE WHERE IT SAYS THAT KILLING IN WAR IS ACCEPTABLE AND ABORTION TYPE KILLINGS IN NOT!! You are dodging the questions because you CAN’T validate your beliefs and just like a good Christian if you can’t produce facts just continue to barrage a person with the same old rhetoric over and over.

    You talk about how people will try and justify things as killing in war (which by the way you have many times now) and that they back it up with nothing. You are very erratic in your thinking. This is the argument I am using to correct your broken thinking.

    If you think that the cover is spot on then *clap* *clap* *clap* for you! Do you want a cookie now? I don’t think you live in a cave I think you are indeed a hypocrite without one shred of evidence to back up what they say. I think that you are truly confused as to what you have been saying. You are agreeing with what I just said that you were doing. Because you have yet to prove there are any scriptures to back up YOUR claim that killing in war with your enemies is acceptable.

    In light of the fact that you seem to be scattered in your thinking. I will no longer continue a conversation with you unless you figure out (by re-reading the comments) exactly what it is that you believe and or what it is that you are arguing for or against.


    Comment by theblacksentinel | Monday, July 21, 2008 | Reply

  26. theblacksentinel,

    If in the course of his perceived getaway with my young daughter in tow, I spring from the bushes to deliver a vicious left hook to said pedophile, obliterating the left orbital, which in turn the fatal blow was induced via head bouncing off pavement, I have merely killed this man. Rightly so, of course. This is something different from murder. Certainly you are not so “progressive” as to not recognize the difference?

    But that is not a perfect analogy to the particular argument you have, rather, it is the foundation for the understanding that although some can claim killing and murder to have the same meaning, a more nuanced and traditional understanding recognizes their fundamental difference in meaning.

    You imply that partial-birth abortion is fine as you support it, but “killing” innocent children in the course of war against our avowed enemies (jihadists) is evil and immoral. And then you have the incredulous task of asserting my hypocrisy? At least I recognize the innocence of those children while you can’t even acknowledge the humaneness of that which dies via sharp instrument in the back of the brain. That which is America’s future progeny. Could anyone mistake that stance for being pro-American or Christian? Being called a hypocrite by you is nothing but a compliment.

    Comment by thordaddy | Monday, July 21, 2008 | Reply

  27. Thordaddy,

    Again, the end result of any type of killing is death. The method for getting one to that end result is irrelevant. You wish to justify a killing by the means of the killing. Sorry death = death. You don’t have degrees of death. I am not asking you whether or not the justice system will see that particular killing as less wrong because of the circumstances that led to the killing.

    Don’t put words into my mouth. If you look at my last reply I said that I support ABORTION. I never said that partial birth abortion is “fine.” I feel that partial birth abortions should be taken on a case by case basis. Not done on any person who feels they want it. I never said that killing anyone is evil and immoral. I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy. You are the one who claims you are a Christian and killing innocent babies is wrong. But then you try and quantify some killing over others by saying they are our avowed enemies and in war that makes it OK.

    I am NOT a Christian and don’t recognize any so called “evil” or “immorality” which both are subjective. Your ideal of immoral and evil are certainly not mine. I am trying to make you realize that you can’t have it both ways. Allow killing of innocent children in war, then say abortion is so wrong. Either you are against killing innocent children or not. The question here is NOT if “I” feel that killing innocent children. You raised the issue so deal with the issue.

    I unlike you recognize the life of ALL children not just those being aborted in America. You seem to think that only these children deserve to live. It is fine and dandy to kill our avowed enemies children. That is the hypocrisy that I am trying to point out to you. You seem to want to push your views then try and play hot potato with them after you see how ignorant they are. I know that you don’t mind being called a hypocrite seeing as you seem to be totally aware of your hypocrisy.

    But really WHERE ARE THE SCRIPTURES TO BACK YOUR STATEMENTS OF KILLING OUR AVOWED ENEMIES CHILDREN IS FINE JUST NOT ABORTION? I have asked you 3 times now and you continue to come back with more hypocritical rhetoric and not one shred of your Christian proof that indeed there are cases where killing is justified in the eyes of god.

    I just can’t get it through to you that your whole premise of it is OK to kill those babies there, but not these babies here. How does that make any sense? That is my whole problem with you. You are making no sense. I think this is the last reply to you I have unless you bring your bible scriptures. Because your argument is less than Christian as you have claimed yourself to be.

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Monday, July 21, 2008 | Reply

  28. theblacksentinel,

    If I kidnapped you and you became my slave, would it be wrong for you to kill the slave master?

    You claim it is hypocrisy for me to advocate against pro-abortionists like Obama and yourself while supporting a war that intends to kill our avowed enemies with the hope that innocence doesn’t die?

    And your stance is one that supports the intentional killing of YOUR OWN baby brothas and sistas while VOWING to refrain from warring with your avowed enemies because it might kill THEIR innocent children?

    Do I have this right? Again, being called a hypocrite by you is a serious compliment.

    Comment by thordaddy | Tuesday, July 22, 2008 | Reply

  29. If women who want the option for an abortion would just take the time to declare their unborn children their avowed enemies or enemy combatants everything will be fine!


    Comment by brotherpeacemaker | Tuesday, July 22, 2008 | Reply

  30. Thordaddy,

    I know I said I would not speak to you again without the scriptures that show it is OK to kill in “certain” circumstances. But your comments are so ridiculous I just can’t help myself. Reading your replies are like watching a train wreck, you just can’t turn away it is so gruesome.

    Whether or not I would kill you is not the point. I would be committing murder and according to YOUR religion I would be committing a sin regardless.

    Also, when did I tell you that I personally believed that war is wrong. Calling you on your hypocrisy and showing your arguments to be ridiculous should not confuse you into my personal beliefs. You see I don’t follow a book where killing babies through abortion is immoral but killing your avowed enemies is, when the “good book” says murder is a sin.

    I don’t care whether you feel you have the right to kill avowed enemies or not. I think that you should either follow your bible or not. If you are going to start adding addendum’s to your bible then what good is the book and how useful is it in your argument that good Christians don’t agree with abortion. What it says is that you don’t “really” follow your religion or your bible. Because if you did, then YOU would see that it says murder is a sin.

    And until you can show me the scripture in your bible that says murder is OK in certain circumstances then you don’t need to ask me anything about murder under this or that circumstance. I am NOT the one standing on the premise that “good Christians” don’t support murder [when conducted as abortion]. That is you. So you need to qualify your stance. I don’t need to qualify it for you.

    So for the umpteenth time where is your scripture sir? Or are you going to continue to ignore this in hopes that it goes away so that you can continue to half ass quote what good Christians should or shouldn’t. What is this based on if not your bible? So just admit that a non Christian has more information about your religion than you do. And you can sit back and actually learn something.

    Also, anyone who is of sound mind would not want to be called a hypocrite in any way from anyone. Since they would have the good sense to not be the pot calling the kettle black.

    Comment by theblacksentinel | Tuesday, July 22, 2008 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: