Minneapolis radio host Baker promoted video of pastor calling Obama's mother "trash"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On his radio show and website, Chris Baker promoted an Internet video in which the Rev. James David Manning of ATLAH World Missionary Church in Harlem says: "The difference between Obama's mama and Bristol Palin is that Obama's mama was trash. I mean, she was dirt. She was a bag of trash sitting on the sidewalk waiting there in Honolulu on one of those streets for the garbage truck to come by and pick her up and take her to the dump."
During the October 7 broadcast of his Minneapolis radio show, Chris Baker promoted an Internet video featuring the Rev. James David Manning of ATLAH World Missionary Church in Harlem making derogatory remarks about Sen. Barack Obama's mother. Baker said of the video, which was featured as the "Daily Download" on Baker's website, "Oh God, you have to -- you have to see this. This guy -- I mean, this guy just goes off. And he's not really wrong, either. That's the best part, at least, you know -- at least, in my hate-filled opinion." Baker also repeatedly played clips from the video of Manning saying, "Obama's mama. Yeah"; "Obama's mama"; and "Yeah."
The video, titled "Manning's Fierce Prayer for Bristol Palin" -- Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter -- was posted on YouTube on September 2. In the footage, Manning repeatedly refers to Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, as "trash," saying: "The difference between Obama's mama and Bristol Palin is that Obama's mama was trash. I mean, she was dirt. She was a bag of trash sitting on the sidewalk waiting there in Honolulu on one of those streets for the garbage truck to come by and pick her up and take her to the dump." Manning later said: "[M]y mama told me back in the '50s and the '60s, the only kind of white women that would take up with a black man back in the '50s and the '60s was a trashy white woman. The only kind of white woman that would take up with a black man in the '50s and the '60s was a sloozy, was a floozy, was a lowlife, snail-eating, white woman. That's the kind of woman that Obama's mama was." He also said: "Want to talk about Bristol Palin? Let's talk about that piece of trash called Obama's mama. Want to talk about Bristol Palin? Let's talk about that trash that hatched Obama. Yeah."
As Media Matters for America has documented, Manning has previously made inflammatory remarks about Obama, saying on February 16 that Obama "was born trash," "pimps white women and black women," and is an "emissary of the devil."
From Baker's website:
From the October 7 broadcast of KTLK-FM's The Chris Baker Show:
[AUDIO CLIP: Obama's mama. Yeah.]
BAKER: You have to go to the website, by the way, KTLKFM.com, the -- probably most radical yet hysterical download of the day.
[AUDIO CLIP: Obama's mama.]
BAKER: Yeah. This guy's definitely going to be thrown out of the brothers club, no doubt.
[AUDIO CLIP: Obama's mama. Yeah.]
BAKER: He is not happy with Barack Obama and not happy with the attacks on Sarah Palin's daughter.
[AUDIO CLIP: Obama's mama.]
BAKER: You ought to hear what this guy says about her.
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: He -- it is -- I mean, this guy goes off, and it's like 10 minutes, but it's the download of the day at KTLKFM.com, and maybe -- you know what? This posting -- this video --
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: -- could maybe help us beat snagglepuss [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT].
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
PERRY: 'Cause it's that bad, you think?
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: So -- in fact, anytime someone asks me a question and I answer in the affirmative, I'm not even going to say it, I'm just going to hit this button.
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: Let's try --
PERRY: Should the Vikings have kicked away from Reggie Bush last night after he returned a punt for a touchdown?
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
PERRY: Oh, wow.
BAKER: See how that works? See how that works? Am I smoking hot?
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: Absolutely.
[...]
BAKER: We started out talking football, and I gotta be honest with you, they -- this team, you know, I'm glad they won, don't get me wrong. I'm very happy that they won last night, I'm glad they bet these Saints, even though I think it is really a hate crime to beat the Saints, because as we all know --
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: -- New Orleans suffered enormously under Hurricane Katrina, and I think going into New Orleans and beating them in their home stadium --
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
BAKER: -- is really a hate crime.
[AUDIO CLIP: Yeah.]
PERRY: Sick and wrong.
BAKER: Yeah, I mean, I really do, I believe so.
[AUDIO CLIP: Obama's mama.]
BAKER: That is the -- this is the funniest video. I'm telling you, dude. You haven't seen it, have you?
PERRY: No, I haven't.
BAKER: Oh God, you have to -- you have to see this. This guy -- I mean, this guy just goes off. And he's not really wrong, either.
PERRY: Is it --
BAKER: That's the best part, at least, you know -- at least, in my hate-filled opinion.
Wow. Seems that the whole Republican Party has numerous "Pastor Problems".
Chris Baker can say whatever he desires.However, the saddest part of this creature is that he learned this stuff from his mother. That is his reasoning/excuse. How many of you would be proud to be raised by Ma Baker? Does this creature of Ma Baker have any siblings? What about his offspring?
P.S. Mr. Baker, neither woman is trash. Go tell your mom that.
You're assuming that Mr. Baker had a mother. It's pretty clear to me that Baker comes from a broken home.
"[M]y mama told me back in the '50s and the '60s, the only kind of white women that would take up with a black man back in the '50s and the '60s was a trashy white woman. The only kind of white woman that would take up with a black man in the '50s and the '60s was a sloozy, was a floozy, was a lowlife, snail-eating, white woman."
"And he's not really wrong, either."
Is it possible to be more racist than this? By this logic we should never have mixed marriages, because only "trashy white women" want that. That movement has no merit, because the proponents are just whores.
These guys can talk until November 4th, then they can choke on their own bile. By all means, work together as "Bigots Against Obama", get that message out there. Surely people will recognize racist rhetoric from 50 years ago as the change we need today, right?
This goon's show must be skyrocketing, because I cannot fathom why MMFA would pay close attention to such a bottom feeder. "The brother's club"? Really? What garbage.
I totally agree. I mean it's one thing to highlight Limbaugh or Hannity, they are nationally known media figures, but this petty shock-for-attention guy is as low as low can get. Obviously he's trying to get some exposure, I think giving him any attention whatsoever is just feeding the beast.
I can't speak for MMFA, but this worm probably represents a substantial percentage of the Rush Limbaugh wannabees contaminating the local airwaves all over Red State America. Troglodyte Talk Radio is how the GOP keeps its base frothing and drooling with Pavlovian reliability.
I think it's worthwhile to monitor these Knuckledraggers.
My fear, and I know we have all had this discussion here, is that perhaps MMFA gives these awful, awful shows credibility, and even notoriety, to the people that would honestly listen to such garbage. It's a feather in the cap for a guy like this to say, "Hey, the homosexual mafia smear merchants at mediamatters HATE me!"
You're right. These little fish swimming in big ponds need one thing, attention. They are like bratty kids whose only way to get it is to be a bully, even a scolding is better than nothing. So this guy actively tries to be provocative and offensive in hopes to get noticed, to give him what he wants is giving him what he wants. If he thinks it works, he only tries harder.
Also, MMFA is obviously free to highlight whomever and whatever they choose, that is not the issue. But they and their readers should also acknowledge the downside in exposing these guys, to say it keeps them on their toes and they may think twice before uttering another piece of filth is exactly the opposite of what appears to be happening, they are that much more emboldened to keep at it.
I tend to agree Tommy, but I do see this as a systemic problem throughout the Republican party and the right in general. The tone of the McCain/Palin campaign has has degenerated to the point that everything short of using the "N" word to describe Senator Obama is being used.
When I see people at Palin rallies yelling "traitor" and "kill him" and see emails and radio shows where Obama's dead mother is defiled by these bottom dwelling thugs I'm not only ashamed to share a country with these people, but also to share a species.
What they don't seem to understand is that whoever wins in November, will have to govern. The McCain camp makes the Bush administration really seem like they're the great uniters. If the Republican candidates don't start to dial back the smears and they were to win, i doubt there will be an election in 2012.
The last few days seem like Nuremberg in 1935.
I totally agree with everything you said.
You can bet that, behind closed doors, their conversations are liberally peppered with the "N" word.
I have no doubt that Obama, should he win, will get the Clinton treatment. They will start on the day after the election with their smear campaign, and will do their best to cripple the government with endless investigations. If they manage to take back one or both houses of Congress in 2010, Obama's agenda will be DOA, and they'll fabricate some reason to try and impeach him.
Oh, and how long before they reverse their admonition against criticizing the commander in chief while we have troops in harm's way? One day? Two hours?
"The McCain camp makes the Bush administration really seem like they're the great uniters"
Actually...... if you look at it from the opposite point of view..... BushCo and McCainCo are uniters.....
They are uniting those of us that actually care about this country, care about equality, care about her Constitution, the Rule of Law, decency, etc, etc.....
So.....we can say that Bush has a 25% approval rating.... or we can say loudly that .... 75% of us are united in our repudiation of all this rightwing corporate ideology of hate, racism, and sexism and will in the end, band together this Nov 4th and put Obama in the White House.... which will force this country to confront all the racial/sexist issues that are being ignored and/or being made worse by those in power now!
Well....... at least I hope that this is the case......
It's a question of priorities. People who poison the dialogue with sexism and racism should be monitored. That's more important than some vague concern about "emboldning".
Where are there any signs that this person has a concept of "shame"? I don't see any. And if that's the case, then there's really no way to influence his behavior either way. He'll say whatever he wants with no filter at all. It seems odd to argue that racism shouldn't be noted because it's going to make a shameless person say shameless things.
Vague concern about emdoldening? Well if you don't give a damn if highlighting their crap emboldens them, then I wonder how concerned you are about how poisonous their rhetoric is at all, apparently not much.
If you read my post, you'll note that I don't see how he can be "emboldened" at all. Would he not have said this if he hadn't been mentioned a couple of times previously? Why? What was stopping him?
That's the point, that there is no difference. He'll do it either way, so you might as well make note of it and let people know what's going on.
The suggestion that I can't care about the dialogue if I disagree with you is noted.
Well, if you somehow feel armed and more informed because you are now aware of some local shock jock's bigoted comments, then good for you.
And you can deny all you want that giving him attention emboldens him, but when slime this are ignored and their words only travel so far, they might, just might, rethink their slimy words and possibly, just possibly, they may try elevating their discourse and see if that gets them some publicity. If you'd rather not see if that happens, then I say again I don't think you really care about the dialogue, so yes, it is noted.
And that is just as plausible as you're "he'll do it either way" declaration, since neither of us knows for sure, do we?
Well, if your argument is that both scenarios are equally plausible, then it's hard to believe you would abandon monitoring racist commentary for that reason. There should be a solid justification for that sacrifice instead of mere speculation.
Monitoring racist commentary by some local idiot to what end? To stop it? You're the one who said "he'll do it either way".
So it would appear that you are the one doing mere speculation.
I'm not the one who wants to stop monitoring this sort of thing based on it.
To what end? To inform people. So that we know what boundaries are being pushed, what lines are being crossed. So we establish a pattern for individuals, radio stations, networks, etc.
I care about that purpose because I care about the state of the dialogue. Get it?
What I get are these facts. This Baker guy has been highlighted here 4 times in 5 days, and his schtick has gone from talking about homeless people voting to calling Obama a "little bitch", and now promoting a video calling Obama's mother "trash".
So tell me again how highlighting him has done one damn bit of good, with all your silly "So that we know what boundaries are being pushed, what lines are being crossed. So we establish a pattern for individuals, radio stations, networks, etc.", whatever the hell that drivel means?
Face it, the only reason he is highlighted here is so posters can T off on him, that's it. All your lofty goals about patterns and lines being pushed is baloney, and you know it.
Tell me what the harm is supposed to be. Are we supposed to believe that MMfA is the only way that these people get publicity? Conservatives don't push this sort of thing on their own? How did Limbaugh get so popular without MMfA "emboldening" him?
It does good because we know. And if there's a hundred of these twits, then that helps to understand the big picture of what's going on in the media. Are there any liberals who behave this way? We should know, because it makes a difference in judging the nature of the ideologies. If there were a hundred liberals and one conservative that behaved like this, you can be damn sure that it would be about biased airwaves or the "unhinged" nature of the left.
You've praised the efforts made here in the past. What do you think the purpose of anything posted here is, exactly? Please be specific.
I have said over and over this website offers a valuable service when it comes to highlighting misinformation put forth in the media. MMFA's bias does not concern me because they are upfront about it, they are honest in that regard. When a member of the media misinforms or distorts or lies about something, an issue, policy, or a relevant piece of information, then to correct the record is important. There is good reason to believe that by doing so the person in the media, who did the misinforming may very well think again before either being lazy, manipulative, or intentional in their misinforming. I applaud a watchdog website, any watchdog, who takes the time to research and set the record straight.
On the other hand, highlighting stupid remarks by media personalities may show them to be jerks, but it does not make them think again before doing it, obviously not or they wouldn't be subsequently highlighted so often. It gives them publicity and attention, what they crave.
MMFA is free to do what they do, and we are free to comment on it.
It doesn't stop people like Hannity or Limbaugh, now does it? Obviously not. They get "subsequently highlighted", as do several other misinformers. So it can't just be about theoretical results. There's a purpose whether people "may very well" think twice about what they do or not. By your logic, the first few times someone gives false information on the air it can be posted here. After that, it's clear that the highlighting does no good, so they should stop covering that person's misinformation. Right?
Hateful, extremist rhetoric in the media is just as important as misinformation. You can't recognize the problem if you don't document it.
All I can do is repeat this from you and laugh hysterically; "So we establish a pattern for individuals, radio stations, networks, etc".....yes, one of these days I am hoping to see a pattern from Hannity and Limbaugh, on the edge of my seat. Let me know when we have enough of their examples to "establish that pattern"
Priceless.
That pattern is established, and so those two have no credibility. And after that point, you highlight what they do to continue the pattern and to assert that they haven't changed their ways.
Do you think MMfA should stop covering them? Apparently you think it serves no purpose, since they've never altered their behavior.
Oops, attention refs, goalpost shift. Your initial rationale for covering these guys was, in your own words, to "establish a pattern", so now you say the "pattern is established", so, which is it?
How is that supposed to be inconsistent? You cover it to establish a pattern, which continues over time. Otherwise it's "we haven't heard anything about him lately, he must be getting better". That's why you keep covering it.
Please explain what's unclear to you about this.
Plus, it has the side benefit of disproving the frequently held assertion that Conservative Talk Radio dominates the market due to "superior content".
I think we can lay that puppy to rest.
I think that Tommy is right, this is just some local hack that got word that he was mentioned on MMFA and now trying to see how many times he can get this free pub. You better believe he reads this, look how many times this week he been on here. He was just a local hack in Omaha also and tried the same here,he was ignored,ratings tanked and then he was gone to Texas. Same thing there also, now he's in the frozen tundra of Minnesota trying it again. He's a three time looser looking to make a name because he thinks he just might get picked up by Westwood or the Holy Grail... to sub for rush. He's strictly a bottom feeder and always will be.
Is he a loser or is he looser (meaning not tight)?
I received an email today that stated Obama's mother was a street hippie in Honolulu.
I hope they keep this stuff up. I'd love to see someone ask Roberta McCain what she thinks of what some of her son's supporters are saying about Barack Obama's mother.
The McCain campaign has now sunk to the level of a third grade school yard taunts
This is the lowest of the attack. Bringing in someones mother. Hey, Ma Bakers' son, she had her child. And that seems to be your worst nightmare at this time.
What kind of christian reverand goes around putting people down? Oh, that's right, the republican kind...
I've never heard of these worthless pr!cks either, but it's still conservative misinformation - and the lowest of the low to attack one's mother. Seriously, this guy Baker wants to be treated like a man, but acts like he's a third-grader on the playground.
This bastard needs a time out!
This bastard needs a time out!
;)
Let's see...Obama's mother was trash just because she married a black man? Spouting that line of reasoning qualifies Chris Baker for KKK membership.
BTW, Obama's parents were educated people...and they were married. The unmarried Bristol Palin is a high school dropout as is her teenage lover.
The GOP let those two drop out of school? That doesn't look good. You'd think they would've lined up some "homeschool" program for them at least.
I'm glad that Baker mentioned that his opinion is based on sentiments from the 50s and 60s because it illustrates white values in the pre-Civil Rights era. Among many whites anyone who consorted with a black person was derisively labelled a n**ger lover. And with respect to Obama's mother the term could be applied literally, making her even more offensive to many whites. Apparently Baker would have felt more comfortable in that era...
..anyone who consorted with a black person was derisively labelled a n**ger lover.
Irony, several months ago, I was with some work acquaintances (Clients and competitors), all very Republican, and as the topic turned to politics, one of the people who knows me a little better, pointed to me as another was doing some Obama-bashing, and said with a big smile on his face "He's an Obama'Lover!".
It didn't even click at first, but I realized later that I'd never heard anyone say "Clinton Lover" or " Huckabee Lover". The guy who said it was probably in his mid-50s, and I don't think he even realized he was digging up the old fears of his childhood.
..anyone who consorted with a black person was derisively labelled a n**ger lover.
Yes, I've had this little bon mot thrown at me. It was more direct than your Obama Lover comment. And I guess by Baker's "logic" I would be a whore too.
I'm like you though, I don't tend to take offense even when I should. Don't you hate that when you think of it later and say to yourself, Damn I probably should have been offended. Well, in this case more offended for the idiot that said it, to be sure. Creeps!.
Hi JJ, I'm sure you've been much more directly on the receiving end of this stuff than I have. I think that's what bugs me, is at least I'd know how to respond to the direct,overt stuff. I get frustrated at the more subconscious stuff, the people who don't even seem to realize the emotions that are controlling their actions and words.
I guess this stuff does creep into the subconcious. But it still astounds me that these supposedly morally superior people aren't either a little more self aware or introspective. Of course that would portend that they actually are morally superior. Ha!
Also interesting that, considering how many of these are self-described Christians, their most devastating insult aimed at those who don't hold an irrational hatred for another group is an accusation of loving that group or a member of that group.
Media Matters please take down the picture of this ugly piece of filth. It's not as bad as the one with the soccer ball but it still annoys me. There's a reason this guy is on the radio and not tv.
And you all thought Michael Savage was bad...
I would like to dedicate a song to Rev. James David Manning, sung to the tune of AC-DC's "Thunderstruck."
You've been . . . COLOR STRUCK!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, COLOR STRUCK!
I encourage everyone here to go to Bakers's website link provided by MMFA and inform him of the eerie resemblance he and his mother have to the KKK. The only difference being skin color. My guess is that this guy is one of the "men of God" who want for nothing. A wealthy "man of God." Could that be coonsidered to be an oxymoron?
A wealthy "man of God." Could that be coonsidered to be an oxymoron?
Sounds a bit like one of those damn Calvinists. They who believe that only the moral deserve riches and those that don't have riches are immoral. Okay, that's pretty simplistic, but breaks it down to it's essense. Anybody have a good defense of Calvinists? I do know some people try to defend it. To me, whaterver argument is made, it always comes back to the same thing, for me anyway.
I would argue that many Republicans have adopted the Calvinist philosophy, or a bastardization of it. Don't you remember the columns and blogs criticizing the victims of Katrina for their "immorality"? Frequent posters here have, in the past, expressed the view that poor people are poor "by choice" or because they deserve to be poor.
The bottom line is that they use this reasoning to convince themselves that if poor people deserve to be poor, then we don't have to give up any of our tax dollars to help them.
Frequent posters here have, in the past, expressed the view that poor people are poor "by choice" or because they deserve to be poor.
Yes, and it seems like people like my parents who grew up dirt poor but were able to make it during the 50s and 60s into middle class are some of the worst offenders of this philosophy.
A lot of people on the right will claim there are no poor people in the US. I remember a study a couple of years ago by some conservative think tank that said people on welfare alll have color televisions and refrigerators and the average square footage of their homes is bigger than the average square footage of most homes in Europe so they can't really be considered poor and if they are it's their own fault for spending money on luxury items like color tvs and refrigerators.
"The bottom line is that they use this reasoning to convince themselves that if poor people deserve to be poor, then we don't have to give up any of our tax dollars to help them."
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." John Kenneth Galbraith
Calvinists? Aren't they sorta like Zorro-asterisks?
Hey Scott, I've been wondering where in South Texas you're located. I'm in Texas too, but a little north of Dallas.
Ma'am, I am honored to be noticed. I'm down here in Victoria, a/k/a The Golden Crescent, a/k/a the Crossroads. Wherebouts little north of Dallas?
Denton county. About 28 miles north of downtown Dallas off I-35. And I noticed you because of not only because of your moniker, but you're funny too. :-)
I just can't type worth crap today. Sorry people. My mind is a jumble.
Yes, I know, I do have that effect on purty girls. Seriously, I've been following your conversation with the Colonel and nerzog, and they both kinda struck close to home. Both of my parents are from Mississippi, and my Daddy's family was very poor and pretty hard core Presbyterian. Of course, I think my folks are two of the sweetest people in the world, but some of that Old South remains, whether they are conscious of it or not. Neither of them are overtly judgmental, and Daddy appears to be a recovering republican. My mother, however, would not vote for Obama if her life depended on it. She would be terribly offended if I were to say it out loud, but I'm afraid the real reason for that is the unspoken basis lying deep beneath in her subconscience.
That should probably be "her subconscious". Sounded like I knew what I was talking about until that.
Ha! I've made that very same mistake.
My Mom has bought all the righty talking points hook line and sinker. I just tell her that I "didn't bring her up right". :-) She thinks I'm kidding :-( I wish I were.