I have noted previously that I have found it quite curious that Barack Obama always refers to the number one racist in America by the honorific “minister”, as do his supporters and those that respect him, whereas most everyone else refers to him as ‘Louis” Farrakhan.

I always have deemed this significant, as I think it provides a window into Obama’s thought processes and, I think, that this, along with his friendly associations with an unrepentant terrorist and his “bitter” remarks about white people that prefer Hillary to him, is evidence of his extreme ignorance and naiveté, born of his life within a leftist cocoon.

Even during his latest “race”, i.e. Jeremiah Wright, damage control speech, when he is ostensibly denouncing the Black Muslim leader thought to have been involved in the assassination of Malcolm X after X discovered that white people were not devils, he still can’t bring himself to refer to this sick racist creep without the title of respect:

Not once,

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

but twice.

And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

Barack Obama says he wants to “bridge gaps”, but there are some bridges Obama will not cross, and one, is to disrespect Louis Farrakhan. Barack found out this week that not only was the din of his 20-year pew parked butt political calculation possibly non-transferable beyond the level of senator for a deep blue state, but also that his audaciously hopeful, hate America minister is quite ready to hate him.

I wonder if the veteran of the “Chicago Way” of politics, living in a Big House Rezko made possible, finally got the message that he dare not dis Calypso Louis is public?

“Minister” Farrakhan, Barack?

To what does he minister, other than hate?

This reminds me of Albright’s champagne dance with the man in North Korea that reduced his people to eating tree bark.

Yet, you deem Tom Coburn equivalent to an unrepentant terrorist? Your kind of unity would have us all killed.

[update]

James Taranto’s WSJ, Best of the Web column echos and expands on this issue:

Where They Agree
Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright seem to agree that Wright speaks for black America:

• Obama, March 18: “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”

• Wright, April 28: “This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It is an attack on the black church.”

Is Wright really representative of “the black community” or “the black church”? We noted this exchange on Fox News’s “Special Report With Brit Hume” last night:

Mort Kondracke: The idea that all this is an attack on the black church is utterly false. Juan Williams, our pal, is the author of a book on the black church, and he says that there isn’t one in ten black churches that indulge in this kind of nationalism that Reverend Wright practices.
Hume: When I was covering the Jesse Jackson campaign in 1988, he campaigned from the left and he did a lot of his speaking at black churches. And I went to those churches with him many times and I heard him speak, and he never said anything like this.

And I said that to him here the other day, and he said no, no, no, I’m not going to touch that.

Then again, if Kondracke and Hume are right, why did the NAACP invite Wright to speak at its Detroit chapter’s dinner on Sunday? The Detroit News reports on the speech:

Wright delivered an unapologetic speech on Sunday, alternately fiery and humorous as he defended the preaching that has taken center stage in the presidential campaign. . . .
While Wright’s remarks have been condemned by Republican politicians and pundits to Obama and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, the minister got a rousing standing ovation at Sunday night’s Detroit NAACP Fight For Freedom Fund Dinner before a crowd of nearly 10,000.
Before Wright spoke, a series of Detroit religious and civil rights leaders defended him against what they called unfair media attacks and praised his ministry.

Wright is “a great champion of freedom,” said the Rev. Kenneth Flowers of Greater New Mount Moriah Baptist Missionary Church and the head of the local NAACP’s religious affairs council.

Flowers compared Wright to biblical prophets and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a man “who’s not trying to please the establishment, but to please our God.”

One of Wright’s comments yesterday was especially pernicious:

“Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn’t make me this color.”

Wright was born in Philadelphia in 1941.

Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780. Wright’s description of himself as having been “in chains” and “in slavery” is merely vicarious. (Presumably he believes it was God who made him “this color.”) But what is really appalling is the suggestion that Farrakhan is praiseworthy because he “is not my enemy”–i.e., that offenses against blacks are the only ones that count. There is no getting around that this is a racist view.

Where are the moderate black clergymen and political leaders who have stepped up to say that Wright does not speak for them? That’s not a rhetorical question; if you have examples, please send them along.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns

The HinzSight Report

The Minority Report

Race 4 2008

“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson