A common theme among liberal apologists - including here at Sound Politics - for Barack Obama's long-time association with Jeremiah Wright has been to point to inflammatory remarks from pastors endorsing John McCain or otherwise identified with right-of-center politics.
That never really held water given the distinction between accepting an endorsement from someone and choosing to attend, join, and donate to their church. Even more so when that latter decision extends over multiple decades, demonstrates an apparent interest in having one's children experience that same environment, and includes becoming closely associated with the pastor in question.
A correspondent from Reuters has now provided an overdue comparison between Wright and McCain's own home pastor. Put simply, it is stark.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 22, 2008 07:18 PM | Email ThisCall me cynic, but I think Obama chose Wright's church not for the sermons, but for the votes the reverend delivered at election time.
Remember that Obama started going to Wright's church when he got involved in Eastside Chicago politics (er, organizing - as Barack would say!). And the good reverend delivered his congregation at the ballot box when Obama ran for Illinois offices.
There is nothing extraordinary in this, but it doesn't make Obama look particularly good when he is campaigning against this type of political cronyism.
Posted by: deadwood on March 22, 2008 07:21 PMCare to back up your post with proof?
Posted by: Ragnar on March 22, 2008 07:22 PMHe sat there for 20 years allowing himself, his wife and worst of all, his impressionable children to sit there and listen to racist, anti-American spewing.
Are you trying to claim political expediency is more important than the values his family learns over 20 years?
Are you kidding me?
I hope to God he makes that claim. I hope he make it loud and often. It will seal his fate.... as a duplicitous typical do anything to win liberal loser.... the very thing he's been claiming not to be.
My God, what kind of minds and souls do these liberals have?
Posted by: Ragnar on March 22, 2008 07:28 PMFollow the link for the whole discussion, which illuminates Wright's church as black nationalist powered by victimology.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html
Mr. Obama has a bit of explaining to do if he's to 'bring us all together' with his spiritual guides, who don't appear to have any desire to bring together all Americans for the next century or two.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 22, 2008 08:00 PMWhat kind of morals does this imply? Why none of course. What made you think a demorat politician would be anything other than an amoral pandering skunk?
So no, I am not kidding you. I really think that this is what Obama brings to the presidential contest.
At least the Republicans have a somewhat less pandering, flip-flopping, fool to run against him. I would have preferred a better candidate, but what the heck - he ain't a Clinton, he ain't amoral, and he honorably served our country.
Posted by: deadwood on March 22, 2008 08:07 PMIn this they have sewn the wind and they are about to reap the whirlwind. They are hoisted on their own petard and the smarter ones among them know it. Identity politics, good God a blind man could see this train wreck coming six months ago. I don't believe for a minute that Obama's campaign for presidency started out as a serious run, I believe that he saw this as a trial run that would set him up for a future serious run. He is a victim of his own success and when his campaign took off his hubris overcame his better judgment. I am almost certain that he thought that by 2016 Wtight would have been eight years removed and he would not be having to fight this fight. I think, going in, it would be eight years of Hillary followed by him.
What has happened is the Democrat's worst nightmare, an African-American in the lead but seriously wounded, yet with an African-American constituency who identifies with, and is sympathetic to, the forces that are his downfall among the remainder of the electorate. Looking at the polls is illuminating, black support solid, if not growing. Progressives support solid and holding. Every other demographic's support plummeting, exponentially I might add.
What can the Democrats do? Obama is mortally wounded at this juncture, but with his support among blacks solid or climbing if they choose another candidate they will so anger the black base that it will do untold harm to their coalition's chances of holding power into the foreseeable future. Remember the Democrats are not much more than a coalition of those who choose to identify themselves as part of a recognized group of victims. There are only two of the Democrat core constituencies that there is no way they can afford to loose, blacks and supporters of liberal abortion law. Without either of these they cease to be relevant.
I return to my earlier statement that we are about to be witnesses to history - the meltdown of a major political Party in America. How so, because if Obama is the candidate the 527s are already gearing up and in the Wright material alone there is going to be a visceral reaction (we have seen it in the polls already, and it isn't leveling off it is getting worse for Obama every day) expressed among every demographic group except blacks and self described progressives.
Posted by: JDH on March 22, 2008 08:22 PMThey have done to themselves what no one could do from the outside. Blacks are integral to the Dems, lose them and it's lights out.
Many blacks view the world through a lens that you and I do not possess because we did not grow up surrounded by this message. The message resonates with them for one simple and recognized reason - repeat a message (even if it isn't true) often enough and sooner or later it resonates especially when it is validated by those with authority.
Leftists have inserted this message into academia and therein have given it respectability. This was a calculated policy designed to force a wedge between black America and perpetuate a sense of entitlement.
Entitlement is powerful stuff, that is why politicians have sought to inculcate a sense of it. But it is a sword that cuts both ways.
By God, this is bad news for the Democrat Party and the Party elders are not sleeping well. Mark my words. I don't see a way out of this trap.
Now the real kicker is this, the Democrats own "labor" and the Democrats don't own labor. They own own the blue collar unions in as much as they own the leadership and therefore they own the money that the blue collar unions spend on politics. BUT they don't own the rank and file's vote in a way that is commensurate with where their money goes. Blue collar union members are absolutely shocked and horrified by Wright and Obama's association. Look at the polls. They are the ones driving the astronomic shift in polling numbers. They have voted solidly, but not OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat recently. For them to shift to an overwhelming Republican vote the leadership will have to follow, or reap the consequences. The polls show that they are so horrified by Obama's candidacy that a tidal wave of disgust has been manifest within their ranks. Visceral is the word for their revulsion.
To keep blue collar labor, Hillary must replace Obama. Obama the candidate, lose blue collar labor and the moderate middle. Hillary the candidate, lose blacks. Their only safe constituency is liberal abortion supporters. They absolutely NEED all three or they are done as a national player. It's as simple as that, and I don't see how they do it.
Posted by: JDH on March 22, 2008 09:33 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8654497
"Somehow, the Re-create 68 organizers think their right to express themselves is somehow more important than that of others, and that's just wrong.
They are planning to ask the host committee to share space at the park that day. It's strange that they're at once asking for an accommodation and threatening to overrun the park.
Re-create 68 has spent considerable time trying to dissuade people that the group is not trying to recreate the bloody violence of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Yet Spagnuolo offered this up when the lottery was finished: "They're creating a very dangerous situation. They should be ashamed of themselves.""
Posted by: JDH on March 22, 2008 09:46 PMOne must have an OBJECTIVE sense of what constitutes LEGITIMATE political action and what does not. The left has advanced the cause of situational ethics and a delegitimization of objective standards ans so I have no sympathy for the predicament Denver causes them today.
Posted by: JDH on March 22, 2008 10:15 PM1. Senator Obama is a pol, who knew.
2. I don't believe he agrees with a lot of Rev. Wright's crap. He is a pol. who knew.
3. The superdelegates hold the keys to this. It is not so much them giving their votes to Senator Clinton as it is a good old fashioned brokered convention because they don't want to lose the Black vote, but they know that people like Stefan and Eric will be flying the Rev. Wright flag. The calculation is whether Senator Obama will play ball and let some one like Vice President Gore head the ticket. They are pols, who knew.
4. Now regarding Rev Wright. He is an ordained minister of the Church of Christ. All denominations have procedures for dealing with heresy. The Archbishop of St Louis just kicked a couple of people to the curb. Why doesn't one of the incensed United Church of Christ Members file a complaint to get him defrocked?
5. Yo, Eric this church Senator Mc Cain attends has 7,000 members. Is that too big? Also, he changed from Episcopalian to Southern Baptist. Smart move, if one is a republican. My advice to Senator Obama, start hugging a Methodist or if Bishop TD Jakes has room on his calendar for a meeting, hug him. After all, every one here is a pol. Who knew.
Posted by: WVH on March 22, 2008 11:57 PMThe fact is that since Johnson was never hit in World War 2; that he served as a navy officer only in that war; that Wright served as a Marine and became a corpsman... IN 1963 there a better than even chance that whoever "St." is full of shit.
This ain't Kos or Huffer, moron. Take it somewhere else.
Posted by: Hinton on March 23, 2008 12:13 AMPlus when did GOP become the Political Correctness police?
Is that the GOP? The atheist PC squad? Wow.
Proof? Here's a Photo.
Yeah, what a horrible American. *rolls eyes*
Posted by: BBQ on March 23, 2008 07:40 AMObama can show all the photos he likes, but it isn't going to change what Wright has become, or what Obama sat and listened to for 20 years.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 23, 2008 07:40 AM24. Wright claims that the white man invented AIDS to deliberately infect the black race, and you call this truth? BALONEY! This man is deranged.
Posted by: NW Denizen on March 23, 2008 07:51 AMPerhaps you should show more balance as McCain's pastor, Dan Yeary, does:
"Yeary was sympathetic as a fellow pastor and said while he did not agree with Wright's comments, all preachers eventually got caught in the trap of their own exuberance."
"I'm sure John McCain would probably say the same thing about me if he were asked 'So, do you agree with everything your pastor says?"' he added with a laugh.
Posted by: Jeremy on March 23, 2008 07:55 AM
To quote Rocky's trainer Mickey:
" you can hope in one hand an crap in the other, see which one gets filled first"
Mr. Change and hope is little more than a Huckster trying to sell a bill of goods that is of no value. Hopefully, the electorate will see through this shallow man before November.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2008 08:18 AMGood points. But you won't get any acknowledgement here. Just like SP blames Liberals and Dems for letting the media, Soros, Moore, KOS et.al. think for them, Republicans on this thread are in the same trap. Using Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, conservative rags, to cull their points from. I can't imagine that even one of them will take the time to find the entire sermons and put context around anything,,,,,it doesn't fit their agenda. Their agenda? A republican in the White House at any cost. Even one that professes to be a duplicate of Bush.
Now I voted for Bush, argued Libs why he was better than Kerry, and as bad as Bush has been I believe Kerry still would have been worse. That isn't the case, as I see it, with Obama v. McCain.
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on March 23, 2008 08:28 AMpersonally, I think you're confused.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 23, 2008 08:38 AMThere are lots of reason one might choose a church: proximity, family, history, friends, atmosphere, etc. And one might be willing to overlook the occasional misguided sermon if the rest balance out.
Posted by: Giffy on March 23, 2008 08:56 AMCheck out the latest. Long time lefty playwrite David Mamet has finally awoken from his leftist stupor. When is our local crappy playwrite and lefty blogger going to wake up too? Probably never because he has nothing else to fall back on but being a shill for the left.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 23, 2008 09:01 AMThe picture proves he was in attendance, if that is indeed him... Whoop de flippin do ... he was a MEDIC... Whoop de flippin do, so was my dad during WWII.
The wrong Rev Wright story is NOT going away for old Barry (just call me BAAAHHHrack middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAHHHHHma.
So much for the 'post-racial' candidate
~~
March 23, 2008
Divides Obama Doesn't Bridge
~~
Rev. Wright is Voice of Doom for Dems, Sunday, March 23rd 2008, 4:00 AM
Nope it's definitely not going away.... poor Barry (just call me BAAAHHHrack middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAHHHHHma and those horrible greatness thwarting "TYPICAL WHITE" PEOPLE.
As I said yesterday, Whorrabullary can't win and Barry (just call me BAAAHHHrack middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAHHHHHma can't escape his alliances.
Tim Egam of the NYT calls them the "Donner Party Democrats"... Yum, yum. little libs...eat up!
You live at Pacific Beach as well? Maybe you live at a college dorm at the UW, right?
Whatever your flavor, you have pointed out a demo that is important to whatever ticket the dems assemble and that is the young.
There are some here that would never vote for Senator Obama, no matter what he did or did not do. For some, it is they only vote for those who espouse their same principles and it is not an issue of race of religion. Governor Romney faced many issues because of his religion. Senator Obama is facing issues because of his race and Rev. Wright. Rev Wright, who fits the sterotype of a really scary Black man as opposed to Senator Obama, who in many minds fits the sterotype of an evolved Black man gives folks whose real issue is race, a weight to tie Senator Obama to and turns him into a scary Black man. The emphasis is on "BLack."
This might be 1964 all over again and this tactic might work. Who knows. I expect that even with the Rev. Wright campaign, this election will be closer than many here think. There are fairminded people of all political persuasions who simply don't want to return to 1964. So, if partisans want to test my theory, keep pushing Rev. Wright. In fact open up more threads, buy tv time and print time, make Rev. Wright the poster for all that is wrong in this country. At the end of the day, he is not running and it isn't his platform that the voters will be chosing. Many voters already know that.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 11:25 AMFollowing your logic, WVH, I should be SanFranGran Nan Pelosi's biggest supporter: she's Catholic and Italian, as am I. OOOPS, I despise her, so I guess your stereotype/commonality theory isn't quite working.
I despise the failed policies of rampant liberalism and I wouldn't vote for anyone promulgating the lies and promises of more liberalism. I could care less about Barry (just call me BAAAAAHrack, middle name fear bomb CENSORED) OBAAAAAHma (or Whorrabullary, for that matter) EXCEPT in the context of their bordering-on-Marxism liberalism and the destruction it is bringing to safety, morality and economics of my country.
Posted by: Ragnar on March 23, 2008 11:41 AM" The laughable part of it all... very amusing to me is that some of them are still planning to vote for one of these Democratic clowns. "
Nope, it ain't over.
Yep, it's absolutely delicious.
I said this:
"For some, it is they only vote for those who espouse their same principles and it is not an issue of race of religion."
So, unless you have undergone some sort of conversion and probably will be on tv talking about it. No, I don't expect you to vote for Rep. Pelosi. There are many here that would vote for what they thought was their version of "conservative" no matter other attributes.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 11:52 AMCall me a skeptic but I'd like some real proof that this incident ever occurred.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 23, 2008 11:55 AMI would have no problem voting for a black person for president or any other political office....just not Barak Obama, who by basis of voting record is considered the most liberal of our 100 senators. Obama has attempted to paint himself as a new breed of politician. Sorry folks, he's just a fresh face for failed, weary, Karl Marx socialism.
The Dems never seen to learn that the folks are sometimes willing to vote for liberal congressional porkers to bring the bacon home, but would never allow Algore, Kerry, McGovern, Dukakis, Hillary or Obama to conduct foreign affairs from the Oval Office. And especially not now.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 23, 2008 01:02 PMSame thing I told Ragnar,
I said this:
"For some, it is they only vote for those who espouse their same principles and it is not an issue of race of religion."
Rev. Wright is not running and I expect that someone will find a way to give him a foundation grant for study in Africa for the next two years.
There are some real differences between the two parties. I suspect that the superdelegates of the dems, who after all, are elected politicians, will put together some sort of ticket including Senator Obama.
At some point, waiving the Rev. Wright flag will reach the point of diminishing returns. The Rev. Wright issue, if one wants to use the same type of politics as the "Willie Horton" ad may have peaked early. "Willie Horton" came after Dukakis was nominated and before the election. "Rev. Wright" is before a candidate has emerged from the August convention. I suppose timing is every thing.
The question is not so much whether you or any individual here will vote for Senators Clinton or Obama, the question is whether the republican party will use tactics which mirror the Southern Strategy of the 60s? This country very much needs party alignment of people of color based on ideology rather than I will vote AGAINST republicans because a particular strategy.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 01:24 PMSenator Obama's voting record in the Senate reveals far more than the church he attends. As you say, "Rev, Wright is not running", but Obama's voting record is right there on the ballot with him. I'm betting that as the campaigns proceed, discussion will focus more on the Senator's positions on issues and less on his affiliations.
Posted by: Saltherring on March 23, 2008 01:50 PMProof? Here's a Photo.
First off, you are going have to provide some historical, verifiable context to that photo. Second of all, in the age of photoshop, pictures can be manipulated to look like anything, so a photo sourced from a blogger is not proof of anything. Lastly, it looks to me like he was an orderly, not the operating physician, unlike what was portrayed at #1 above. What was the operation? An appendix removal? Hemmorroid?
Provide the link to the national archives that supports this story?
Finally, Benedict Arnold was a highly decorated solder in his early year before he turned traitor. So a photo from Wright's early days says nothing about his current state of mind.
Posted by: NotProofofAnything on March 23, 2008 03:13 PMDo you live on Beacon Hill as well? How is the weather over there? Say hello to WVH and the rest of the Black Liberation Theology mainstreamers .
Posted by: TypicalWhitePerson on March 23, 2008 03:19 PMShadyAftermath @24,
How are things on Beacon Hill with you, WVH and the rest of the racists mainstreamers?
Being a "typical white person", I don't get up to that area as a fear of black men has been "bred" into me.
"Senator Obama is facing issues because of his race and Rev. Wright. Rev Wright, who fits the sterotype of a really scary Black man as opposed to Senator Obama, who in many minds fits the sterotype of an evolved Black man gives folks whose real issue is race, a weight to tie Senator Obama to and turns him into a scary Black man. The emphasis is on "BLack." "
Tsk WVH, that isn't even a new tactic. Is that all your group from Beacon Hill can come up with? Basically the old meme "if you don't vote for Obama, you are racists"???
Really, I'd have thought mainstreamers like yourself would be more creative.
Voters are smart enough to know that people succeed or fail based on their principles, not their skin color. And isn't it interesting how there was no mainstreamer outcry when Micheal Steele was the subject of leftists underhanded tactics or Condoleesa Rice was called a house (N-word) by the very white Mr Ted Rall?
If you mainstreamers wish to be believable, you really ought not have selective outrage. It leaves a trail that exposes your agenda.
The all the others on Beacon Hill I said hello and Happy Easter to them.
There is indeed a huge difference between listening to decades of sermons, a few words of which use rhetorical excess to emphasize points, and in actively seeking the endorsement of a gutter bigot. The difference just runs in the exact opposite direction from which you claim.
Posted by: tensor on March 23, 2008 03:42 PMtensor/tc/wvh
Hope you all had a nice Easter celebration on Beacon Hill.
I am sure that as an angry leftist afflicted with BDS, you judge Bush quite harshly because of that. Do the misdeeds of another excuse one's own misdeeds? That is your thesis.
Manstreaming black racism is no better than mainstreaming white racism.
Sen. McCain actively sought the endorsement of a raging anti-Catholic bigot, a dishonorable action, which the author of this post attempts to neuter by an Orwellian use of "accepted". If anyone really believes that Rev. Wright is as bigoted against us whites as Rev. Hagee is against Catholics, please provide quotes from Wright which are anywhere near the level of hatred exhibited by a man whose endorsement Sen. McCain actively sought.
P.S. BDS actually refers to the irrational belief that President Bush is competent. I'm free of it.
Posted by: tensor on March 23, 2008 05:59 PMYour continued glossing over Wright/Obama is truly breathtaking and reality-denying. If that makes you sleep better fine.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 23, 2008 07:17 PMGlossing over means what, that there are certain realities.
1. Rev. Wright is not running
2. You can run threads with every Youtube imaginable showing exerpts of Rev. Wright 24/7 and you can buy air time, print space and do whatever. Rev. Wright is still not running. If the hope is that Rev. Wright is forever intertwined with Senator Obama, go for it. I hope that republicans do that and I hope this site does that as well. Either this will be the generation that "Willie Horton" politics ends or it won't. So, run more ads, using Rev. Wright as the poster to assist the campaign of Senator Mc Cain. I doubt that you can help him that much with this type of campaign, but knock yourself out trying.
So, put up some more threads and let's get more bloggers in on it. E-mail these threads to every one of your friends, let's see what you can accomplish.
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 09:10 PMFalwell clearly and unambiguously blamed Americans for 9/11 -- when everyone else in our country wanted unity and healing. No right-wing politician ever had to explain their associations with this hate-monger. President Bush actually honored this dishonorable preacher, to the criticism of no one who has criticized Rev. Wright. It's hard to see this as anything other than a double standard, possibly based on the skin colors of the two preachers.
As far as Wright's preaching, he was denouncing the gap between our country's promises, "... of liberty and justice for all," and our long history of racial bigotry. I would like to think someone who served in our armed forces would get the benefit of the doubt, but amongst the modern-day right wing, stuffed with chicken hawks, that's a foolish hope.
Posted by: tensor on March 23, 2008 09:22 PMTypical said this:
"tensor/tc/wvh
Hope you all had a nice Easter celebration on Beacon Hill.
I am sure that as an angry leftist afflicted with BDS, you judge Bush quite harshly because of that. Do the misdeeds of another excuse one's own misdeeds? That is your thesis.
Manstreaming black racism is no better than mainstreaming white racism."
I don't know where Tensor and tc, live, but I don't live on Beacon Hill, it is a great neighborhood. Here are the demographics:
"Beacon Hill has, throughout its history, been home to successive waves of immigrants and is still Seattle's most racially diverse neighborhood. In the mid to late 20th century, the district became predominantly Asian, and this can still be seen today in the many Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino businesses that line Beacon Avenue South. According to the United States 2000 Census, the population of Beacon Hill is 22,300, and remains racially diverse: 51% Asian, 20% white, 13% black, 9% Hispanic/Latino and 7% other. [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Hill,_Seattle,_Washington
Because of its diversity, all three of us could met on Beacon Hill and all of us would feel comfortable. Beacon Hill is an example of what the state of Washington is becoming and why the republican party is absent in cities. I don't know if you are a republican or libertarian. Republicans have no urban strategy and if you are a republican, you certainly aren't helping the cause.
Now, for your other comments. I have never said that I agree with any statements of Rev. Wright. I simply pointed out that many of those so incensed by Rev. Wright conveniently give a pass to Rev. Hagee for calling the Catholic Church a great whore. Or Dr. Paul in his own words as reported by TNR. What you seem to have a problem with is bigotry is bad and if you single out one bigot, you can't give others a pass.
So, do you find the comments of the others just as offensive? I didn't notice several posts by you for the comments by Dr. Paul. I think this is just a strategy to bring out others like you. Go for it. Post 24/7. The democrat's convention is in August, so if you want to try and influence things, go right ahead,
Posted by: WVH on March 23, 2008 09:26 PMHow is beacon hill? Tell the mainstream gang hello for me.
Rev. Falwell blamed his fellow Americans for 9/11, with his host, the Rev. Robertson, agreeing with him. I don't recall a Republican politician having to explain continued associations with either of them. My complaint is about the large and obvious double standard on display here.
Sen. McCain actively sought the endorsement of a raging anti-Catholic bigot, a dishonorable action, which the author of this post attempts to neuter by an Orwellian use of "accepted". If anyone really believes that Rev. Wright is as bigoted against us whites as Rev. Hagee is against Catholics, please provide quotes from Wright which are anywhere near the level of hatred exhibited by a man whose endorsement Sen. McCain actively sought.
Well let's see. Wright said white people invented AIDS to kill off black people.
Did Hagee say the same thing about Catholics?
James Cone, the founder of the Black Liberation Theology on which Wright has based his hateful words had this to say:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. [1]
There is no comparison. Give it up mainstreamer.
Note
1. See William R Jones, "Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology", in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
For someone who spent every other post associating David Duke and Ron Paul for much less than what Obama has been doing in attending the hate speech sermons every Sunday for over 20 years, you sure are a hypocrite.
Clearly the endless threads on this must be having an effect because you are on here in one of your many aliases (tc/tensor/wvh) constantly attempting to spin it in a positive light for Obama. Of course we do realize that is your job as a mainstreamer but you really ought to try to assemble more plausible excuses to not look at the man behind the curtain.
Say hello to the rest of the Beacon Hill crowd.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Last updated 9:37 a.m. PT
Police investigate apparent murder-suicide
By CASEY MCNERTHNEY
P-I REPORTER
Seattle police are investigating what they describe as a murder-suicide, in which a man apparently stabbed his mother to death Saturday before killing himself.
Officers were called about 5:15 p.m. to a house in the 8600 block of Beacon Avenue South, across Interstate 5 from Boeing Field, where they found a woman bleeding and unresponsive, police spokesman Jeff Kappel said. The woman, believed to be in her 70s, was pronounced dead at the scene.
Police searched several surrounding blocks after finding nobody else in the house, he said.
Kappel said officers eventually found the woman's 52-year-old son face down in the street in the 8500 block of 37th Avenue South.
"When they turned him over, they found multiple stab wounds to the chest," Kappel said of the man, who died at the scene. "Officers found a knife a few yards away."
Names of the man and woman were not released Saturday night.
-----------------------------------------------
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Beacon Hill groper now up to 21 victims
SEATTLE -- Seattle police are still on the hunt for a man who is accused of groping 21 women over a three-year period. And now police believe the man is getting more violent.
Our newspaper partner, the Seattle P-I, reports that the man appears to be targeting Asian women as they walk to and from three bus stops in the Beacon Hill area.
And yet each time, the man has managed to get away.
-------------------------------------------------
Posted by: TypicalWhitePerson on March 23, 2008 11:05 PMObviously you are not from around here, Pacific Beach or some other non-diverse locale? Maybe in addition to hating Blacks, you also despise Asians as well. Beacon Hill is an Asian community.
In the mid to late 20th century, the district became predominantly Asian, and this can still be seen today in the many Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino businesses that line Beacon Avenue South. According to the United States 2000 Census, the population of Beacon Hill is 22,300, and remains racially diverse: 51% Asian, 20% white, 13% black, 9% Hispanic/Latino and 7% other. [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Hill,_Seattle,_Washington
It is a great neighborhood! Now, densely populated areas all over the world have crime, so that proves what?
Regrading your lame accusations, you said:
"For someone who spent every other post associating David Duke and Ron Paul for much less than what Obama has been doing in attending the hate speech sermons every Sunday for over 20 years, you sure are a hypocrite."
You probably didn't read far enough in my comments. Bush 41 was confronted with a situation involving a bigot. He:
a. Acknowledged the incident
b. Disavowed the support
c. Returned to money
Dr. Paul was less than stellar in kicking David Duke to the curb.
Senator Obama has disavowed Rev. Wright's remarks which is more than Dr. Paul wanted to do with his friends. See TNR.
I don't know if you are a republican or liberatarian, but David Duke ran as a republican and I don't know if he still chairs a parish or county republican group. Duke seems to have an affinity for libertarians, but he realizes they have no chance for being elected. He joined the republican party because he considered it "mainstream."
Regarding "mainstreaming" this is what the ADL or Antidefamation League says about Duke:
"David Duke has embraced the Internet as a key to the future of the white supremacist movement. An article featured prominently at his site, "The Coming White Revolution -- Born on the Internet," outlines his high hopes that the Internet will "facilitate a world-wide revolution of White awareness." In particular, Duke believes the Web will shatter the control of his "unrelenting enemy," the "alien anti-White" media:"
http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/duke.asp
Regarding your comments about me and other posters, tc and Tensor:
1. Point to where we have ever said we hate an inidividual or group on the basis of race, religion, creed or national origin.
2. Point to where we have ever said we do not support this country and its insitutions.
3. Point to where we have ever said we endorse the statements of Rev. Wright, Rev. Hagee, or David Duke.
The tools of the "mainstreamer" are misinformation, misquotation, mistake, and misanthropy.
If you want to be effective in Seattle, you need a better grasp of the context so you could better describe the things you hate.
Posted by: WVH on March 24, 2008 12:30 AM