Columnist Prelutsky: Obama "sort of reminds me of David Duke"
SUMMARY: Columnist Bert Prelutsky said of Sen. Barack Obama: "To be fair, I acknowledge that he has a pleasant smile and speaks better than most politicians. The truth is, he sort of reminds me of David Duke," former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.
In a column posted January 14 at Townhall.com and January 16 at conservative news website WorldNetDaily about the role of religion in presidential campaigns, former Los Angeles Times humor columnist Bert Prelutsky said of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "To be fair, I acknowledge that he has a pleasant smile and speaks better than most politicians. The truth is, he sort of reminds me of David Duke." Duke is a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and former Republican member of the Louisiana House of Representatives.
In the column, Prelutsky asked, "Why is it, I wonder, that nobody is asking Barack Obama about his religious convictions?" and, referring to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, asserted that Obama is a "member of a black church that apparently feels it owes greater allegiance to Africa than to America." The latter statement echoes a January 11 entry on the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog, in which Media Research Center director of communications Seton Motley questioned Obama's allegiance to the United States and claimed that Obama's membership in Trinity -- which is predominantly African-American and professes to "remain 'true to our native land' " -- "seems to stand in diametric opposition to ... the oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States," as Media Matters for America documented.
Discussing all three major Democratic presidential candidates -- Obama, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) -- Prelutsky wrote: "I consider all three of them to be anti-military, tax raising, left-wing flyweights who would bury this country in entitlements while essentially ignoring Islamic fascism. I regard them as three run-of-the-mill hacks who would bring tears to the eyes of John Kennedy if he were around to see what's happened to his party's leadership over the past 45 years."
From Prelutsky's column:
Why is it, I wonder, that nobody is asking Barack Obama about his religious convictions? From what I've gathered, they're far more fascinating than [former Massachusetts Gov.] Mitt Romney's [R].
For over 20 years, Sen, Obama has been a faithful member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. The other day, I paid a visit to Trinity's website. There I read that the vision statement of the TUCC is based upon something called the systematized liberation theology that began in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone's book, "Black Power and Black Theology." Dr. Cone believes that black Christians should not follow the "White Church," as it had failed to support them in their struggle for equal rights in America. I suspect that most white Christians would disagree.
Trinity United boasts that it is a congregation "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." What's more, "it is a congregation with a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. We are an African people, and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization."
Its pastor, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., has referred to "white arrogance" and "the United States of Whiter America." To my ears, that sounds unashamedly black, but I'm not so sure about the unapologetically Christian.
Furthermore, Rev. Wright's church publishes a magazine, The Trumpet. Not too surprisingly, all things considered, the recipient of the 2007 Lifetime Achievement Trumpeter Award for Social Justice was none other than Louis Farrakhan, the fellow who plays the race card even better than he plays his violin.
Now, my own reasons for hoping that Sen. Obama is not elected president next November are pretty much the same reasons I object to Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. I consider all three of them to be anti-military, tax raising, left-wing flyweights who would bury this country in entitlements while essentially ignoring Islamic fascism. I regard them as three run-of-the-mill hacks who would bring tears to the eyes of John Kennedy if he were around to see what's happened to his party's leadership over the past 45 years.
That being said, I have no idea how a member of a black church that apparently feels it owes greater allegiance to Africa than to America and that pays homage to a bigot like Farrakhan, has the gall to present himself as the one candidate who can bring us all together.
To be fair, I acknowledge that he has a pleasant smile and speaks better than most politicians. The truth is, he sort of reminds me of David Duke.
people like this should be stripped of their citizenship. It feels like during the last seven years freedom of speech has gone crazy.
HAHAHA bizarro, bizzaro...
anyone seen Sealab 2021? That episode was hilarious.
"Don't you mean 'bizarro shut up'"
They need to make new episodes.
Well the Democrats played the "race" card the moment Donna Brazile misinterpreted Bill Clinton's "fairy-tale" remark & implied it all about race. After that, the Obama-Clinton camps, surrogates, & supporters began throwing charges of racism or race card playing all over the place to an eager press that thrives on controversy...
I'm not the least bit surprised of what is crawling out of the woodwork now.
You know what's really sad Doris, that up until the past few weeks Obama's race had not been a huge part of his candidacy. Instead I think most of us viewed him as an inspiring young but talented man with the potential to take the torch & bring our country out of the dark Bush years with the promise of hope for a better America. He was truly living out MLK's dream as a man not being judged by the color of his skin but for content of his character. Even though I'm a Conservative I was considering him as someone I could vote for.
Now, because some foolishly played the race card they have sadly opened the door to the scum among us that had been quietly lurking waiting for their chance to spout their vicious racism.
Yeah the far right would never ever have thought of injecting race into a political campaign if it hadn't been for those dumb Democrats.
Jesus, you're naive.
My point is one had nothing to do with the other. Anything else is you trying to put words into my mouth.
A reasonable person might conclude the far right would talk about Obama's "racist" church because that's what they do just like the Democrats agreed to drop the arguing about who's being racist because that's what they do.
Yeah the far right would never ever have thought of injecting race into a political campaign if it hadn't been for those dumb Democrats.
Maybe, maybe not. The FACTS are that the Democrats did inject race.
You'll just have to live with that Johnny One Note.
The far right won't drop it because they're appealing to their base. They were at it long before last week and will keep at it until election day if Obama is nominated or until he is out of the race.
I have to call this one for you, Johnny...
signed, truthandjusticeusamericapatrioticallyproclamating
Damn those Democrats for putting ideas into the heads of the far right nut jobs.
So you are excusing the Dems that played the race card. Wow what a surprise...
Don't you ever get tired of being Johnny One Note?
The connection you're trying to make between Brazile and Prelutsky is bogus.
The point, Johnny One Note is I was originally commenting to MickD's post about this columnist Bert Prelutsky & then to Doris about how the worst of the worst will now feel less inhibited about spewing their racist crap because thanks to the Dems playing the race card so publically they probably figure they can get away with it with less scrutiny.
A dustup? Yeah, in your dreams. Will you ever be honest?
Don't be ridiculous.
They don't even feel the need to be honest.
Tommy,
Johnny One Note is hopeless.
Just another tool.
However, the far right will carry on with their smear campaigns against any and every Democratic contender as long as there is a far right.
Surely some one as reasonable as you can see that that's a fact beyond denial.
Can you tell me what the far left equivalent of Jerry Falwell selling videocassettes about the "Clinton Cocaine Cartel" on Hannity and Colmes is?
Listen, I'll think you have a point when I see daily columns in the papers and clips on the news about how Bush is a dry drunk who lied about being brought to Christianity by Billy Graham.
I don't think so.
DB,
I know you are just offering your personal opinion but I vehemently disagree and reject your analysis completely. There are racists of every color and political outlook. To accuse a political philosophy as having more racists than another is silly. Do you have any facts or statistics to back you up?
It is readily apparanat that many people here fall prey to the same sort of prejudicial bigotry toward conservatives as racists do toward people of different skin color. I am amazed more people here don't recognize they engage in the same type of false stereotyping that racists are themselves guilty.
There are many valid reasons to be conservative and many reasons to disagree with liberal philosophy and creeping socialism. To identify anyone who is an originalist/conservative as racist or suggest that racists tend to be conservatives is biggoted in and of itself.
C'mon. You can all do better than labeling the other side as a bunch of racists. It doesn't lend any credibility toward any of your arguments and only shows your lack of understanding regarding conservatism.
"To accuse a political philosophy as having more racists than another is silly."
Sorry to go all Godwin on you, but you do know that Nazism is a political philosophy, don't you? Would you really argue that there are just as many racist Green party members as racist Nazis? How about comparing Conservatives to Nazis? Do they have the same percentage of racists?
Comparing philosophies to attitudes about people is nonsensical. Not all philosophies are created equal, like people are. It's not as if they're discriminated against by matters of appearance. They're evaluated by their merits and tenets. That makes it exactly opposite of racism itself, which ignores a person's merits due to skin color.
By the way, did you read this quote? "Those who search in the Republican Party haystack for racist needles, ignore the mountain of evidence about racism in the Democrat Party." It seems like that person thinks that there is more racism in one philosophy than another. Isn't that silly? Who would ever link to such a person?
Yikes! Just yikes!
Disagree with his policies. Disagree with his positions on the issues. Say you don't like him, that's fine. To equate a black man with a grand wizard of the KKK? Holy sheep shite Batman. The world has now gone crazy.
Observation slightly off topic:
Funny thing is a few of us here are slammed here almost every day as being in the KKK. It happened again today in another thread.
If it is okay for the enlightened here to do so, why is it beyond the pale for Pertlusky to do the same thing to a liberal?
ps. I too think Pertlusky is way over the top and reject the reference to David Duke. I disagree completely. I think a better comparison would be to Obama to Tom Cruise. :-)
If Obama belonged to a racist organization, then the comparison could be made. If he had a history of racist comments, then it could be made. Otherwise, it's unacceptable.
Who are you using as an example of someone being said to be in the KKK? Finarfin?
AA,
Some people believe that under only an extreme circumstance would a liberal ever be racist, much less be accused of one........where, on the other hand. it's quite common for conservatives to be thought of in that vein, and of course reflexively accusing them of it is usually justified.
Ideology and political affiliation have nothing to do with it.......there are decent people, and scum, from all ideologies, sadly.
That's easy.
"the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change."
This works for sexism as well. Traditionally, minorities and women don't hold the positions of power, in business or in government. Preserving the status quo would limit any such changes.
The argument isn't that the philosophy encourages or accepts racism, it's that there's nothing about it that's antithetical to it, like there is with liberalism. There's nothing about the philosophy itself that's at odds with racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc.
Conservatism is based on tradition and stability, methodical change, yes - but that in and of itself does not promote or advocate discriminating against someone simply because of race. Rather it is about lower taxes and regulation, personal responsibility, strong defense. Liberalism is absolutely what you have described, but neither, in their purest form is discriminatory based on race or sex.
Any deviations of that have been corrupted and perverted for political gain, for political reasons, by both parties. I still maintain that neither ideology, by itself, encourages racism, or sexism.
"in their purest form"
They've both deviated so far from that...
I said myself that conservatism doesn't encourage racism. Your question was how they were a more "viable mix" than racism and liberalism. They're a more viable mix simply because the philosophy doesn't explicitly preclude anything of the sort, therefore they can go together. It violates the core principles of liberalism, while it does no such thing for conservatism.
And like I said before, political parties are a different matter, because not every Dem is a liberal. A party can be corrupted and still be a party, but when you violate a philosophy you can no longer be said to subscribe to it.
"[Conservatism] is about lower taxes and regulation, personal responsibility, strong defense."
A weak middle class
Circumvention of rights to collective bargaining
Profit at the expense of the environment
Profit at the expense of the sick and injured
Government imposed restriction on who you can and cannot marry
No minimum standard for how much a person’s time and labor are worth
Unrestricted free markets that promote predatory and dangerous business practices
Corporate welfare for industries that are already insanely profitable
Corporate welfare for companies that export American jobs
Bomb first, ask questions later
Liberalism is full of racists. Look at Farakan. He is racist and anti-semitic. He is being honored by Obama's church. Would anyone classify him as a conservative? Robert Byrd is another example. Doesn't he still use the N word and held leadership positions in the KKK? I have seen many union people express racist viewpoints toward Mexicans and the people of the Far East. I have talked to Mexican-Americans who were Democrat organizers express racist attitudes toward blacks. There is bigotry of all sorts in the liberal world.
Yes there are racists who Conservative but to say there are more is purely conjecture besides being a silly argument to being with.
When Is Racism Not Racism?
By Frances RiceThe double standard looms large when Democrats practice racism. Those who search in the Republican Party haystack for racist needles, ignore the mountain of evidence about racism in the Democrat Party.
Recently Democrat Senator Joe Biden boasted proudly on FOX News that his qualification to be president was enhanced because his home state of Delaware held blacks in human bondage. “You don’t know my state,” Biden crowed. “ My state was a slave state.“ Imagine the media firestorm that would have ensued if a Republican had uttered such an outrageously racist comment. Biden was also given a pass when he lamented on camera that Americans can’t go into a Dunkin Donut restaurant without seeing dark-skinned Pakistanis or Indians from India. Senator Hillary Clinton set the tone for this type of race-based slander when she insulted Mahatma Gandhi of India who was a role model for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by calling Gandhi a gas station attendant.
Equally reprehensible rhetoric came from Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy when he unabashedly referred to black judicial nominees as "Neanderthals". Democrat Senator Harry Reid punctuated Kennedy’s slur on black professionals when he appeared on Meet the Press and attacked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, demeaning the justice as an incompetent Negro, incapable of writing good English. “Slap at Thomas stinks of racism,” was the headline of the New York Daily News’ December 7, 2004 editorial.
In an similar display of racism reminiscent of Jim Crow days, an era of discrimination ushered in by Democrats, Democrats threw Oreo cookies (black on the outside and white on the inside) onto the stage during an appearance of Maryland’s Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele. Two members of the Democratic Senatorial Committee (DSCC) resigned in September 2005 after admitting they illegally obtained Mr. Steele’s credit report in a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal offense. The two culprits were Katie Barge, the DSCC’s research director and her deputy, Lauren Weiner. Ms. Barge recently pled guilty to a misdemeanor.
Democrat talk show hosts and cartoonists showed their racist underbelly when Dr. Condoleezza Rice was nominated to be the first black woman secretary of state. Pat Oliphant drew Dr. Rice as a big-lipped, buck-toothed squaking parrot, smearing her as a empty-headed stooge. Jeff Danzinger depicted Dr. Rice as a stereotyped “mammy,” barefoot and ignorant. Ted Rall referred to Dr. Rice as President Bush’s “House [N-word]”. John Sylvester, a white liberal Democrat in Madison, Wisconsin, characterized Dr. Rice on his radio talk show as a stupid, servile black woman, calling her an “Aunt Jemima”.
When Dr. Rice appeared before the Senate for her confirmation hearing, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, the former “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan, led other Democrats, including Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, in a filibuster of Dr. Rice’s confirmation. The New York Post skewed Byrd for blocking Dr. Rice’s confirmation and wondered if Byrd was motivated by racism. Given Byrd’s history, the answer is a definite yes. Although Byrd officially left the Ku Klux Klan in 1943, he continued for years afterwards to advise the terrorist group that was started by the Democrats. In the early 1970’s, Byrd pushed to have the Senate’s main office building named after Democrat Senator Richard Russell, Byrd’s mentor and leading opponent of anti-lynching legislation. In 2001, Byrd was forced to apologize for using the N-word on television.
There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
President Bill Clinton's mentor was J. William Fulbright, a staunch segregationist, and none of President Clinton’s inner-circle of advisors were blacks. Clinton failed to take action to stop the massacre of over 800,000 Rwandans. Without congressional or UN approval, Clinton sent 20,000 troops to help the white Europeans in Bosnia, but refused to send troops to help the 800,000 blacks in Africa.
Clinton also refused to help black longshoremen who were called the N-word on the job and denied promotions. When a federal court ordered several hundred major shipping companies to adopt an affirmative action program to hire and promote more black longshoremen, Clinton refused to enforce the court order. Clinton not only refused to help blacks in the longshoremen case, but he also had his Attorney General, Janet Reno, file a class action, reverse discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a group of white janitors at Illinois State University to stop the University from hiring blacks. While Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, he was sued by several of his back employees for discriminating against them.
In stark contrast to their rhetoric, Democrats, by their actions, demonstrate that they are hostile to civil rights and economic prosperity for blacks. After five years of research, inner-city minister Rev. Wayne Perryman wrote a book entitled Unfounded Loyalty that exposes the Democrat Party’s 150-year history of racism against blacks. Based on his research, Rev. Perryman sued the Democrat Party for reparations. The Democrats came into court, admitted their racist past, then refused to apologize because they know that blacks will vote for Democrats regardless of the harm Democrats cause to blacks
Sorry for the small print. Here is my link
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.OtherNewsWhenIsRacism&tp_preview=true
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Black_Republican_groups_radio_ad_accuses_0921.html
This has already been covered. You're conflating "Democrat" with "Liberal", which are not synonymous. And is anyone really supposed to be swayed by the argument that because nobody calls Farrakhan a conservative, he must then be liberal? How dishonestly simplistic can you get?
I find many of the examples you've pasted to be weak. Criticism of any black person's performance or capability is "racism". The oreo cookie incident is exaggerated at best, and pure fiction at worst. Two women illegally obtained Steele's credit report, which translates into racism because...? The bit about Strom Thurmond is classic, as if he was a defender of black people. Later on in the article it talks about Clinton's mentor being a segregationist, but Thurmond was a segregationist himself! So Clinton is a racist because he's associated with a racist, but a Republican segregationist would have been lynched for his pro-black views. Right. And of course the article ignores the well-known history of dixiecrats jumping ship to the Republican party when Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act.
I've criticized Hillary and Biden for their comments. You know why? Because I'm a liberal. I don't accept racism. It is not consistent with the principles of the philosophy, period. Anyone who claims to be a liberal while expressing racist views is either a liar or doesn't know the actual meaning of the term. If you want to say there's racism in both parties, that's surely true. To say that it exists in all philosophies is simply nonsense.
I agree.
Or so says Frances Rice the head of the National Black Republican Association.
Play the race card much Frances?
Here's some more of her handiwork:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4226082201739577043
"Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the black Republican nominee for Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat, disavowed the ad Thursday and called for the Washington-based National Black Republican Association to stop running it. In a statement, he said it was "insulting to Marylanders and should come down immediately."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14940841/
Please try to cut and paste from a credible source next time.
Steele lost the election to Ben Cardin by 170,000 votes (54-44%) .
As one who has had mixed feelings in the past on this whole Obama church dustup, and basically feel now that Obama is not defined by it, nor should it have this inflated relevance in the campaign - I would suggest that Obama perhaps think about coming out in front of this, before it leapfrogs from the rightwing columns and blogs to more mainstream media outlets.
This is just the kind of undermining subtle messages that the Republicans will try and hang on him if he becomes the nominee, they will inextricably link him with the more controversial tenets of his church, and we will be spending the better part of the general campaign watching both sides battling it out over this - and we needn't be.
Obama should, or maybe he has already, issue a statement and be very clear about this entire thing, before it becomes too big and out of control to handle. I usually say ignore it, but perhaps that isn't the best course of action here.......Obama is more than capable of dealing with this in his eloquent and truthful way.
A welcome consession Tommy.
To bad there's no picture of Bert P. I'd like a chance to compare him to something. My bad there.
I once edited a monthly magazine in L.A. My pesky publisher kept pestering me to add Mr. Prelutsky to our roster of contributors. But I resisted. I complained that he wrote like Oscar Levant on steroids. Nobody liked him. I certainly didn't. I thought he was uncouth and opinionated and out of touch with the prevailing Weltanschauung. Interesting to see he hasn't changed a bit in almost 30 years, only now someone is giving the s.o.b. a regular bully pulpit. Isn't it rather unseemly for a Jew to be a racist?
Oh! We actually did ask him to write for us, but as I recall he only lasted a couple of issues. I was happy to see him go. He was easily the most obnoxious person I have ever had the displeasure to meet.
"I consider all three of them to be anti-military, tax raising, left-wing flyweights who would bury this country in entitlements while essentially ignoring Islamic fascism"---BP
His implication is that to want-to-want to reduce military spending is to be against the military. This is a false assumption if the money for the military is being recklessly borrowed.
It could also be read he believes that to be anti-military is a bad thing in and of itself. This is also false as the military is only an arm of the government of the people of America. If it's screwing up regularly or being used to launder massive tranfers of wealth, the country should disfavor it. The country does not exist for the military; the military serves the people of this country. The interests of the country are primary, not the interests of the military.
I'm assuming you typed those idiotic assumptions because you wanted your piece to get attention; so I'll overlook your statements. BTW most Caucasians do behave arrogantly.