Obama quits Trinity
...announced Saturday evening that he had resigned from his controversial Chicago congregation, Trinity United Church of Christ, “with some sadness.”
The move completes Obama’s slow walk away from a church that began receiving huge scrutiny late in the campaign’s primary season.
Obama has said he was not present for the most controversial sermons, and said he did not know about them until he began running for president."
Meanwhile, did you know that we Americans elect two presidents, one for us and the other for The World?
So says Simon Jenkins in a piece from the UK Times, dated March 9, 2008:
One belongs to domestic America but the other belongs to the world.
The first president is America’s business. While those who know and love that country may be concerned at its economic and political health - and therefore intrigued by the contest - this president is the one most voters have in mind.
The globalised president is a different matter. This leader must represent America’s values - and consequent actions - everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.
Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.
All three presidential candidates have qualifications to be this global president. In public statements they have acknowledged the strategic mistakes made in America’s attempt to police the world through a “war on terror”. All have proposals for restoring America’s relations with the world.
The candidates for the global presidency will not be judged by experience, programme, oratory or novelty. They will not be judged by the prospect of likely success in office, which is always unknowable in foreign affairs. Few American presidents are seen to have been successes on leaving office. The art of presidency is that of managing perceived failure. The candidates will rather be judged by what they symbolise, by the package of expectations that they carry with them to the White House. Here it is simply incontrovertible that the election of Barack Obama would transform, indeed electrify, America’s image worldwide.''
The Jenkins piece is referenced in The Week magazine, in a piece called How they see us: What a black president would mean for Europe
I don't think this piece is online; it's in my hard copy which just arrived in the mail.
The piece also quotes Francois Durpraire in the Paris Libération as saying that the 'disaffected youths' who were 'venting their frustration and hopelessness' in the recent riots and car burnings are now inspired by Obama, so much so that they now have "something to smile about." Obama, we're told, has the ''power to inspire pride and hope even in the slums of another continent. Think about that. Much has been written about what an Obama presidency could do for race relations in the U.S., but only now are people starting to realize that a win by Obama could even improve race relations here in Europe."
Next, the same piece in The Week tells us that Thomas Klau in Germany's Financial Times Deutschland finds this an uncomfortable thought -- but only because it would dismay Germany that 'barbarous, immature America'' could be the first to elect a black President. He says it would force Germans "to ask ourselves questions we have never asked before....We Germans pride ourselves on our social tolerance and progressive thinking, but come election time we take it for granted that all major candidates will be white-skinned.'' This would lead to some kind of crisis of conscience, apparently, and the appearance of 'cracks' in Europe's self-image. Painful soul-searching in Europe will ensue, so he says, if we barbarous Americans elect a black President first.
Now, Germany has a population of 82 million plus. 91.2 percent of the population is German.
2.1 percent are Turkish, and 6.7 percent are ''other'', including other European nationalities. So why on earth should Germany feel it's necessary to elect a black President?
And why should France concern itself with how the rioters feel about having a black President of the United States?
More to the point, why should we Americans concern ourselves with what others want, especially non-Europeans occupying Europe?
There should not be a 'global presidency'. Unfortunately, that seems to be what we have now, and the candidates we are being told to choose between are all globalists who will, in fact, not be representing our interests in any meaningful way.
But to return to the Simon Jenkins piece, despite the obvious fact that he neither knows nor ''loves'' the America that I know and love, he does touch on something that I've emphasized here: the symbolic significance of a black President. He implies that the non-white world everywhere will see Obama's election as a triumph for them. He puts it in syrupy liberal terms, referring to ''hope" for these poor underprivileged "youths'' in Europe, but it's evident that they will see it as a sign that the sun has set on whitey's ascendancy, and their day will have come.
This idea that we ''ought'' to have a black President is another one of those contradictory liberal ideas. Race doesn't matter, and it's wrong to choose based on racial criteria, so we've heard for 50 years and more. Now, suddenly, it's right to choose Obama because of his race.
And the idea implicit in this cheering for the election of a non-white President is that he is superior based on his race. His racial makeup qualifies him in a unique way to be President. So race does matter, the liberals are now admitting; and not only that, but it appears that the black race is superior in some way to the White race. And all these years we've been hearing that the races are absolutely equal. So Obama can do what a White President could not do; only a President with African genes and sufficient melanin in his skin can 'inspire' and 'give hope.'
Monochrome would become colour. A drone of antagonism would turn into a cry of pleasure. With the genes of an Irish-American and a Kenyan, and the nurture of Hawaii, Indonesia and Chicago, Obama has personal roots in four continents.''
What a load of multiculti claptrap and self-abasing Afro-olatry Mr. Jenkins dispenses. And by the way: why should some sort of rootless cosmopolitan outsider be preferred as our President?
In choosing a president for a world half of which America seeks to evangelise, voters could hardly find a candidate better cast. He embodies a yearning expectation of a new contract and a new beginning.'
The fact that Jenkins and all the other servile White liberals yearn for their own people to be overthrown and displaced in favor of resentful outsiders is an appalling commentary on our age. Much of the world seems to have gone collectively insane.