Politics

Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

Steve Urkel.

Posted to Politics on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:30:55 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

You asked for more controversial submissions, I deliverify.

Imagineer if you will if one of the leading candidates to be the Republican nominee for President belongs to a church which espouses:

"the White Value System written by the Manfred Mann Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Kilmer in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1.    Commitment to God
2.    Commitment to the White Community
3.    Commitment to the White Family
4.    Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5.    Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6.    Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7.    Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8.    Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Ghettofabulousssness"
9.    Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10.    Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11.    Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12.    Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System. "

Now stop imagineering, change "Republican" to "Democrat" and "White" to "Black" (and a few other details), and you have the reality of the church Barack Hussein "Black Osama" Obama (Word to yo mama) belongs to, quoted word for word from its website.

I think we can safely say that a Republican candidate who belonged to the White equivalent of TUCC would not be tolerated. Should Obama's affiliation be given a pass? It likely will be. What justifies this double standard? Is it justifiable?

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by Steve Urkel, Barack Obama, race, elections, religion (all tags)

This story: 21 comments (11 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

tomc.

Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:47:39 PM EST

3.00 (informative)

I was in Atlanta a few years ago, and while traveling on their tram system, found myself standing beside a young (in her 20s) black woman wearing a T-shirt that listed pledges like "I will only marry a black man"...

But basically there's a difference between a majority that talks about purity and their desire to spread that purity throughout the land, and a minority group that's trying to hold onto its identity.

Still, I have problems with both.

At least I now know why there aren't more black people in the middle class.

5

^ 1

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

Steve Urkel.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:47:48 AM EST

none

I'm not offended by that woman's t-shirt. Even if one accepts that there should be non-discrimination in employment, to me it's ridiculous to extend that to marriage, as if one is obligated to give equal weight to every potential mate regardless of origin as one would job applicants. I also don't think anyone truly can.

6

^ 1

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

MayorBob.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 08:51:16 AM EST

5.00 (astute, astute)

You got all that from a black girl with an assertive message on her tee?  What message would have gotten from a middle-aged woman wearing a tee with "I'm With Asshole" printed on it?

Frankly, I've never been bothered by all those messages for minority groups to have pride in their identities, to recognize and stand up for their rights.  In my mind the key to being able to accomplish stuff like raise yourself up the socio-economic ladder is to believe there is nothing essentially wrong with who you are.

Tending to final details.

7

^ 1

Ok, now I'm confused

Lou.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:01:47 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

At least I now know why there aren't more black people in the middle class.

Because they won't marry whites?  I know I must have read that wrong.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

8

^ 7

Re: Ok, now I'm confused

ms sue.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:17:43 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

Thanks. I join you in your confusion. I read that sentence a couple times and figured that I must be missing something.

9

^ 7

Re: Ok, now I'm confused

tomc.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 07:23:34 PM EST

none

Because they won't marry whites?

Umm, no.

Because the link to the church asked its members to eschew the middle class.

I read the links before I post comments on stories.

Well, once in a while, anyway.

2

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

3fingerspointback.

Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:53:40 PM EST

4.00 (funny)

I think we can safely say that a Republican candidate who belonged to the White equivalent of TUCC would not be tolerated.

What about Romney?  zing!

More seriously, the professional pantsshitting going on over Romney's announcement at the Ford Museum is misguided.  I've been to the place, and they didn't sugarcoat, glorify, or hide Ford's antisemitic behaviors.  It's "outrage" like this that hurts the credibility of Jewish groups.

(is 3fingerspointback)

3

Offensively racist?

profwhat.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 02:51:13 AM EST

4.00 (astute)

I don't see this as offensively racist, unless it reflects a clear antipathy toward other races.  Things like "Commitment to the [White/Black] Family" and "Adherence to the [White/Black] Work Ethic" are a long, long way from "Refusal to Hire [Black/White] People" or "Rounding Up And Lynching [Black/White] People Without Trial."

I'll admit that I would be more uncomfortable if there really was a church that referred to things like a "White Value System."  But that's only because there have been crazy white racists who have talked about similar things in the past, so if I encountered someone talking like that in the present I would assume they are also a crazy white racist--otherwise, they would choose words that would not give rise to that confusion.  But other phrases you could use, like "the values of our Founding Fathers," will not cause me to bat an eyelash.

4

Short PoMo Answer

uncarved block.

Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 06:33:55 AM EST

5.00 (interesting, brilliant)

   (I don't feel right posting too long of an answer, seeing how I voted against this running. But I've got a spare five minutes, so here goes.)

    "Black Power" groups and churches, by accepting up front their marked (in contrast to unmarked) status actually reinforce the status quo at the cost of a small bit of rebellion. Powerful institutions are flexible, weak ones are not (one of the reasons the Soviet Union had no staying power), and the US has one of the strongest social structures ever seen.
   "White Power" groups then, by exchanging unmarked for marked status, are a bigger threat to the existing system than radical groups like MOVE or the Black Panthers could ever dream of becoming. Not to get too Sun Tzu, but some conflicts are lost simply by joining them, and this is one instance.*
   By being a member of TUCC then, Obama has demonstrated an acceptance of the current class/race system of a most non-threatening kind; if he really was really radical (ie going to change things at the root) he'd be a Catholic, or even a Lutheran.

   *Note that this is compatible with individual racism. It's the organization and calls for action that makes "White Power" groups dangerous.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

10

Shot Your Wad, Steve?

charlies.

Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 08:32:09 PM EST

none

If this post is the worst that the right can say about Sen. Obama, he looks better all the time.

January 20, 2009. Justice becomes possible.

11

^ 10

This is nowhere near the worst I can say

Steve Urkel.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 11:25:03 AM EST

none

I don't have a problem with B. Hussein Obama  belonging to a racialist church, I'm interested in exploring the double standard.

12

^ 11

Re: This is nowhere near the worst I can say

Thalia.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 01:35:44 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

And how do you feel about G. Herbert W. Bush?  And why do you think his middle name is of any interest?  Anyway, Herbert is at least as lame a name as Hussein.

Thalia

13

^ 12

Re: This Thread Is Lame

charlies.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 03:15:32 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant)

Speaking of lame, what's the idea of putting up a poll asking which "hate" groups I belong to, misspelling the name of the Democratic Party, and limiting me to a single choice?  During the last half-century I have never beloged to fewer than four of the listed groups. I especially like it when we Kiwanis go slit some Republican throats.

January 20, 2009. Justice becomes possible.

15

^ 13

I left off the Peace Corp. Can you belive it?

Steve Urkel.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:23:50 PM EST

none

"I have never beloged to fewer than four of the listed groups"

You were in the Our Gang? Which one were you, Porky or Froggie?

16

^ 13

Lame is as lame does

Lou.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:36:11 PM EST

none

It is sad when people "try" to be funny.  It hardly ever works and instead of laughs, all we get are embarrassed silences.

You just want to cut a fucking tomato and get on with your day

14

^ 12

Re: This is nowhere near the worst I can say

Steve Urkel.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 04:20:06 PM EST

none

Herbert?  Are you serious? The only reason I voted for him was because  I assumed the H stood for Hitler.

17

^ 14

Re: This is nowhere near the worst I can say

Thalia.

Sun Feb 18, 2007 at 06:25:42 PM EST

none

It's Herbert.  And Herbert is almost as bad a name as Elmer.

18

^ 17

old man names rock

Steve Urkel.

Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 06:27:58 PM EST

none

Guess what? The woman I pay for sex is pregnant with twins, and we are going to name them Herbert and Elmer.

Unless they're boys, then we're going to name them A stick.

Don't forget to check out the Russian Bigfoot -------->

19

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

shatov.

Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 10:24:39 PM EST

none

I find it interesting that you emphasis B. Hussein O.'s Muslim middle name in a story about his membership of a Christian church. Actually, scratch the 'interesting'. I find it funny. How much more clearly could you highlight your prejudices?

The tenth point at the bottom of the churches website reads:
"A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY."

This is emphasises the big difference between a white supremacist group and a black power group. One is concerned with suppressing a mistreated group, while the other one is concerned with boosting their own social position. The actions taken by these different groups speak for themselves.

When black power groups cross-over into hatred of whites/Europeans I will, and have, object to it. But that simply is not the case with this church. They want to promote blacks values and community? Well, good for them. If you can find something on their website denigrating whites, then we can have a discussion.

20

^ 19

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

zyxwvutsr.

Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 03:33:54 AM EST

none

A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.

This is emphasises the big difference between a white supremacist group and a black power group. One is concerned with suppressing a mistreated group, while the other one is concerned with boosting their own social position. The actions taken by these different groups speak for themselves.

If they are truly concerned with boosting their own social position, then #8, Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness," becomes even more curious. If you are a member of the downtrodden, and you hope for economic parity, how can you simultaneously reject aspirations to becoming members of the middle class?

The obvious answer is socialism. That is, they hope to find economic parity not by improving their own lot, but by dragging down the rest of us. Let's hope they do not succeed.

21

^ 19

Re: Major Candidate Belongs to Racist Organization

Steve Urkel.

Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 07:55:22 AM EST

none

I can't laugh at someone because they're mulatto? It's not my fault his name is comical. If Rudolph Guliani's middle name was Mussulini, or Hillary Clinton's middle name was Evaperon, would that be off limits to laugh at? Of course not.

"This is emphasises the big difference between a white supremacist group and a black power group."

But there isn't a big difference between the stated goals of the Kinists and Obama's church.

"One is concerned with suppressing a mistreated group, while the other one is concerned with boosting their own social position."

Kinists claim they don't wish to supress other races, they merely wish to support their own.

This story: 21 comments (11 from subqueue)
Post a Comment