From Baarswestside:

“It’s heartening to learn that the U. S. Congress is targeting ministries that it suspects of violating the IRS nonprofit rule. Guess which ones? Trinity United Church of Christ which under Jeremiah Wright cursed America and hustles votes for liberal Democratic candidates? St. Sabina’s under Fr. Michael Pfleger which hits whitey and urges the election of Barack Obama for president? Rev. James Meeks who is both pastor of Salem Baptist church and a Democratic state senator and who regularly mixes political agendas with theological ones?

No. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has launched a probe of six conservative televangelists which, Grassley said, “share the same branch of evangelicism and…promote socially conservative and public policy positions.” Meaning pro-life and anti-homosexual rights.

Guess Grassley is missing a few of the anti-homosexual ones….”

(Excerpted from http://baarswestside.blogspot.com/2008/06/illinois-state-senator-and-rev-meeks.html)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121254834844844045.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Obama We Don’t Know

With Barack Obama clinching the Democratic Party nomination, it is worth noting what an extraordinary moment this is. Democrats are nominating a freshman Senator barely three years out of the Illinois legislature whom most of America still hardly knows. The polls say he is the odds-on favorite to become our next President.

Think about this in historical context. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were relatively unknown, but both had at least been prominent Governors. John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Al Gore and even George McGovern were all long-time Washington figures. Republican nominees tend to be even more familiar, for better or worse. In Mr. Obama, Democrats are taking a leap of faith that is daring even by their risky standards.

No doubt this is part of his enormous appeal. Amid public anger over politics as usual, the Illinois Senator is unhaunted by Beltway experience. His personal story – of mixed race, and up from nowhere through Harvard – resonates in an America where the two most popular cultural icons are Tiger Woods and Oprah. His political gifts are formidable, especially his ability to connect with audiences from the platform.

Above all, Mr. Obama has fashioned a message that fits the political moment and the public’s desire for “change.” At his best, he offers Americans tired of war and political rancor the promise of fresh national unity and purpose. Young people in particular are taken by it. But more than a few Republicans are also drawn to this “postpartisan” vision.

Mr. Obama has also shown great skill in running his campaign. No one – including us – gave him much chance of defeating the Clinton machine. No doubt he benefited from the desire of even many Democrats to impeach the polarizing Clinton era. But he also beat Hillary and Bill at their own game. He raised more money, and he outworked them in the small-state caucuses that provided him with his narrow delegate margin. Even now, he is far better organized in swing states than is John McCain’s campaign. All of this speaks well of his preparation for November, and perhaps for his potential to govern.

Yet govern how and to what end? This is the Obama Americans don’t know. For all of his inspiring rhetoric about bipartisanship, his voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate. His policy agenda is conventionally liberal across the board – more so than Hillary Clinton’s, and more so than that of any Democratic nominee since 1968.

We can’t find a single issue on which Mr. Obama has broken with his party’s left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Mr. Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the “change” he’s proposing isn’t merely more of the same, circa 1965.

There is also the matter of judgment, and the roots of his political character. We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Mr. Obama’s handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions. He has by stages moved from denying that his 20-year attendance was an issue at all; to denying he’d heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary remarks; to criticizing certain of those remarks while praising Rev. Wright himself; to repudiating the words and the reverend; and finally this weekend to leaving the church.

Most disingenuously, he said on Saturday that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.

A 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Mr. Obama mentioned three men as his religious guides. One was Rev. Wright. Another was Father Michael Pfleger, the Louis Farrakhan ally whose recent remarks caused Mr. Obama to resign from Trinity, but for whose Chicago church Mr. Obama channeled at least $225,000 in grants as a state senator. Until recently, the priest was connected to the campaign, which flew him to Iowa to host an interfaith forum. Father Pfleger’s testimony for the candidate has since been scrubbed from Mr. Obama’s campaign Web site. A third mentor was Illinois state Senator James Meeks, another Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics.

The point is not that Mr. Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the Senator’s own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate’s vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Mr. Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them. The question is what in fact Mr. Obama does believe.

The young Senator has been a supernova exploding into our politics, more phenomenon than conventional candidate. His achievement in winning the Democratic nomination has been impressive. Now comes a harder audience. The presidency has to be earned, and Americans have a right to know much more about the gifted man who is the least tested and experienced major party nominee in modern times.

The National Review Online, Jim Geraghty, June 3rd 2008

Flopping Aces has put together a video on Obama’s “Three Wise Men.” A late, but probably worthwhile observation, comparing the three:

Fr. Michael Pfleger, in what he called an apology for his sermon that depicted Hillary Clinton screaming, “a black man is stealing my show”:

“I apologize for anyone who was offended and who thought it to be mockery, that was not my intent, nor my heart.”

This reveals to us that Michael Pfleger believes that everyone around him is astoundingly gullible. Watch the sermon again. As he grabs a handkerchief to wipe away fake tears in his imitation of Hillary, is there any part of you that doubts the intent is to mock Hillary Clinton?

This man thinks we’re stupid. He thinks we’ll believe anything he tells us.

Then of course, there is Obama’s other other spiritual mentor, Rev. James Meeks, preaching from a pulpit, “We don’t have slave masters, we got mayors! But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated. You got some preachers that are house n———! You got some elected officials that are house n———! Rather than them try and break this up, they’re gonna fight you to protect that white man!” Meeks then told local news that when he used the term, “house N-word,” he meant it as a “term of endearment.”

Again… this man thinks we’re stupid. He thinks we’ll believe anything he tells us.

Ironically, as jaw-dropping as Jeremiah Wright’s words were, I can’t necessarily find a time he let out a whopper and tried to pass off such a laughable excuse. Among the three, Wright is the comparably honest one, who doesn’t try to convince us we didn’t hear what we just heard.

Which lesson did Obama learn from these men? Perhaps we can see it in his first response to the matter, posted on Huffington Post: “the sermons I heard [Wright] preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.”

This man thinks… well, you know the drill.

Jim Geraghty

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWJkNjgzZWRiZDljMTkxOGFhNjM1ODU0MjRlMjU2YTM=

If (Bobby) Rush Retires, Many Are Ready

–Kyle Trygstad, RCP, June 2, 2008

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) had a cancerous tumor removed some three months ago and has been seen little on Capitol Hill since. The possibility that the eight-term congressman could retire from his Chicago-based seat has a number of would-be candidates waiting cautiously in the wings, the Chicago Sun-Times’ Laura Washington writes.

Barack Obama once coveted the Chicago seat, challenging and losing to Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary. The candidates that Sun-Times columnist Michael Sneed reported last month who were interested in the job include Seventh Ward Alderman Sandi Jackson (the wife of Second District Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.), Sixth Ward Alderman Freddrenna Lyle and Carolyn Rush, Bobby’s wife.

Washington writes in her column today that the list of potential candidates is much longer than that. It also includes: Fourth Ward Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, State Senator Kwame Raoul, State Senator James Meeks and State Senator Jacqueline Collins.

If Rush does decide not to return to Congress, there would not be a Democratic primary. Rather, the First District committee would gather and choose a candidate for the general election. Rush won the primary, held on February 5, by a wide margin.

As Washington writes, “The party insiders will cut a shady deal and pick their own hack. That person will win, be able to serve a full, two-year term and will be difficult to dislodge the next time around.”

Still, after Sneed’s column ran last month, Rush maintained he had no intention of retiring. “I am and I remain a candidate for re-election in the November general election and look forward to serving the people of my district,” he said in a statement.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/06/if_rush_retires_many_are_ready.html

“What is the role of the church? Obama sees the black church as the key to his plan for collective social and political action: ‘Obama…spoke of the need to mobilize and organize the economic power and moral fervor of black churches. He also argued that as a state senator he might help bring this about faster than as a community organizer or civil rights lawyer.’ Says Obama, ‘We have some wonderful preachers in town – preachers who continue to inspire me – preachers who are magnificent at articulating a vision of the world as it should be.’ Obama continues, “But as soon as church lets out, the energy dissipates. We must find ways to channel all this energy into community building.’ Obama seems to be holding up people like Wright, Pfleger, and James Meeks (who he has listed as his key religious allies) as positive models for the wider black church – in both their rhetoric, and in their willingness to play a direct political role. If anything, Obama would like to see the political visions of Wright and Pfleger given greater weight and substance by connecting them to secular leftist political networks like Acorn.”

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-no-liberation.html

“Obama again apologizes for a pastor’s comments” (John McCormick and Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune) – Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign on Thursday was forced to again apologize for the remarks of a Chicago pastor and friend backing his candidacy who spoke from the pulpit of Obama’s longtime South Side church.

chicagotribune.com
By John McCormick and Manya A. Brachear

Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign on Thursday was forced to again apologize for the remarks of a Chicago pastor and friend backing his candidacy who spoke from the pulpit of Obama’s longtime South Side church.

In an Internet video recorded Sunday, Rev. Michael Pfleger, an outspoken activist Catholic priest, is seen mocking Sen. Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

“When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on,” Pfleger said. “I really believe that she just always thought this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife, I’m white and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate and then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama,’ and she said, ‘Oh, damn. Where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show.’ “

Obama expressed disappointment.

“As I have traveled this country, I’ve been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us,” Obama said in a statement. “That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric.”

Speaking as a guest at Trinity on Sunday, Pfleger mocked the tears Clinton displayed shortly before the New Hampshire primary in January.

“She wasn’t the only one crying,” Pfleger said. “There was a whole lot of white people crying.”

Then, Pfleger, who is white, seemed to indicate that he might be going too far. “I’m sorry. I don’t want to get you in any more trouble,” he said, as the church’s organ began to play to signal his exit from the pulpit.

CLINTON CAMP OUTRAGED
Clinton’s campaign condemned Pfleger’s remarks.

“Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. “We are disappointed that Sen. Obama didn’t specifically reject Father Pfleger’s despicable comments about Sen. Clinton, and assume he will do so.”

The church has been Obama’s spiritual home for years and also triggered a controversy this spring over remarks made by Obama’s longtime pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

In late April, Obama denounced remarks from Wright after the retiring pastor gave a fiery appearance at the National Press Club, reaffirmed his view that the U.S. government may have initiated the AIDS epidemic to wipe out racial minorities, and praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as one of the most important voices of the 20th Century.

Obama has not attended the church since the controversy over Wright erupted in mid-March.

Pfleger, a longtime friend of Wright’s and Obama’s, could not be reached for comment.

“I regret the words I chose Sunday,” Pfleger said in a statement released by his church, St. Sabina. “These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”

The campaign said Pfleger stepped down several weeks ago from the campaign’s Catholic Advisory Council.

Earmarks to St. Sabina
In a Tribune story a year ago, Obama defended special budget earmarks for his district while he was a state legislator, including ones that went to programs associated with Pfleger’s church.

Pfleger gave Obama’s campaigns $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced at least $100,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.

In that story, Pfleger said he made those donations personally, not on behalf of the church or to win grants.

Rev. Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School who attends Trinity, said Pfleger’s charged remarks reflect an old-school approach. “One of the hallmarks of preaching is the speaker is expected to combine their interpretation of current events with the divinely inspired message from above,” he said.

Hopkins said Trinity’s current pastor, Rev. Otis Moss III, who is shown in the video introducing Pfleger, has been more careful and nuanced in the sermons he has delivered during the political season.

Excerted from the American Thinker. By Ed Lasky, May 30th, 2008.

When the Illinois Hate Commission was found to have on its board. a Nation of Islam member- Sister Claudette Marie Muhammed who proudly stood up for Louis Farrakhan, the notoriously anti-white and anti-Semitic Minister (or as Barack Obama refers to him using the honorific “Minister Farrkhan,” a controversy erupted. She refused to denounce his racist and anti-Semitic remarks,and refused to resign.

The Board’s three Jewish members resigned in protest. Father Michael Pfleger not only supported the Sister’s refusal to condemn Farrakhan’s racism, he said this of the resignation of the Jewish members of the board, “Good Riddance.”  

With his latest, belittling rant against Hillary Clinton, Pfleger may also be a misogynist , as well.   Obama’s has identified Father Pfleger as on of his three spiritual mentors. The other two, Pastor Jeremaih Wright-much commented upon- and the Reverend James Meeks, who has his own trail of controversy (among which includes a dislike of gays) , Meeks has also been a beneficiary of campaign contributions from indicted Obama pal, Anthony Rezko.  

No wonder Barack Obam has not problem with the prospect of going on a “Great Haters of America” tour of the world. He appears to have no problem empathizing with their views of America-or Israel for that matter.   Much more about Pfleger by David Kopel at Volokh Conspiracy  and our own Rosslyn Smith.

Here’s the Pfleger endorsement of Obama that has been scrubbed from his site:

“Many undecided voters are being confused not only by the rhetorical babble of the candidates running for office, but also by TV media analysts offering biased views.

They, and members of the press, regard Barack Obama as a superstar candidate. Most disturbing is the deception and prevarication by the candidates themselves. How many members of the press and TV analysts researched Obama’s true identity and reported their findings to the voters?

Messrs. Fred Siegal and Stephen Sprussel submitted articles printed in the May 5 issue of the National Review concerning Obama. Apparently, Mr. Obama was not truthful regarding his relationship with Tony Rezko and the Revs. Jeremiah Wright and James Meeks, says Mr. Siegel. Mr. Sprussel related how Tony Rezko raised thousands of dollars for Obama’s campaign and helped him purchase a million-dollar home.

Without authenticity for these articles, the writers could normally be charged for slander. An eerie silence by Mr. Obama and his advocates only construes that the reported information is truthful.

It’s time we learned about the real Barack Obama before going to the voting booth.”

William L. Santos

Port St. Lucie

Genuine and enduring relationships are built on support, loyalty and mutual respect. The bedrock of respect is accountability. We tend to think of loyalty and accountability as diametrically opposed: the George Bush style of “With me or against me” or the “I am 100% right/you are 100% wrong” advocate/adversarial approach of our legal system.

But before the LGBT community segregates itself into “unquestionably loyal of Obama” and “unquestionably skeptical of Obama” camps, perhaps we should re-consider our common ground:

As a community, LGBT’s are a minority on the national stage. For the simple reason we are different than the majority, we remain a premier lightning rod that attracts the hatred and villification of the ignorant – who sadly comprise a much-larger contingent of the populace. We may not like it, but the fact is we are a wedge issue and will be played as such by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The advancements we’ve enjoyed are by an large the result of the brave and determined work of people who tenaciously demanded to be afforded the dignity and respect due all Americans. But we’re still a long way from that goal.

A message of inclusion carries both hope and risk for our community. It may enlighten our antagonists; on the other hand, it may forego our interests in order to bridge larger groups.

Perhaps now represents the moment in our history where we can be both loyal to a candidate and hold him/her reasonably accountable to upholding their pledges of dignity, respect – and action – to our community.

Hispanic suburban grandmother and pledged delegate for Obama, Linda Ramirez-Swilinski, used an unfortunate and innappropriate word at the edge of her own backyard. She was swiftly asked to resign for her “divisive” choice of words.

Thereby, the Obama campaign set a precedent: pledged delegates who make divisive comments should be asked to step down.

Comments directed toward the gay and lesbian community should be held to no less of a standard. Yet the sensitivity applied to Ms.Ramirez-Swilinski stands in stark contrast to the campaign’s decision to allow James Meeks to serve as a pledged delegate. The double standard applied to Reverend Meeks’ long history of “divisive and unacceptable” vitriol toward the LGBT community does not relfect and the honor bestowed on him as a delegate to the DNC convention do not reflect well on the campaign’s vetting process.

Suburban Obama Delegate Forced to Resigne over ‘Divisive’ Remark

Chicago Sun-Times, Abdon Pallasch, April 8, 2008

Moving to nip in the bud some potential bad press, White House hopeful Barack Obama’s campaign persuaded a delegate to step down after she was ticketed for calling her neighbor’s African-American children “monkeys.” Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski, a Carpentersville village trustee, was elected as an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention. She sports an Obama sign in her front yard. The only Hispanic on the board, Ramirez-Sliwinski has been a strong voice for Carpentersville’s 40 percent Hispanic population.

Ramirez-Sliwinski admitted she used the word “monkeys,” but said she did not intend racism. She said she was only trying to protect them from falling out of the tree. Told of the incident Monday by the Sun-Times, Obama’s campaign called Ramirez-Sliwinski and persuaded her to step aside as a delegate because the campaign felt her remarks were “divisive and unacceptable.”

For over two months, we have been asking the Obama campaign to justify its continued close affiliation with the anti-gay fomenter of homophobia and race-baiting Reverend and Senator James Meeks.

From May 6-8th, the campaign had yet another opportunity to offer a reasonable explanation for its contradictory and capricious decision to allow James Meeks to serve as an Obama delegate. Instead, the Obama campaign chose to break its months-long  “blanket of silence” by effectively stating that while Obama disagrees with Meeks’ positions, the reverend leads a very large congregation of voters that is frequented by important officials – and therefore should not be held accountable. 

The refusal of the Obama campaign to reasonably explain its contradictory and capricious decision to allow Reverend James Meeks to represent the National Democratic Party at the 2008 convention is unconscionable.

The campaign’s position is in total contrast to both the views Obama espouses AND HIS CAMPAIGN’S OWN established precedent of requesting pledged delegates that make divisive comments to step aside.

Their decision is unprecedented, particularly in light of how the campaign swiftly asked Linda Ramirez-Swilinski to step down from her position as delegate after she made an unnaceptable and divisive racial comment – but one that was also not a matter of her public policy. 

At the time, the Obama campaign stated:  “her remarks were ‘divisive and unacceptable.’[...] ‘Given the incident, she is stepping down as a delegate and will be replaced,’ said campaign spokesman Ben Labolt.”  (Chicago Sun Times, April 8th, 2008).

·         In the course of July 5, 2006 attack, Rev. James Meeks ranted:

“We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated.”

“You got some preachers that are house n*##@*s. You got some elected officials that are house n*##@*s. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man,” Meeks said in a sermon tape which he later defended in an interview with Chicago CBS2 reporter, Mike Flannery.

New York Times Syndicate

March 29, 2008

“And this clerical vileness has now reached the point of disfiguring the campaigns of both leading candidates for our presidency. If you think Wright is gruesome, wait until you get a load of the next Chicago “reverend,” one James Meeks, another South Side horror show with a special sideline in the baiting of homosexuals.   An Illinois state senator, he, too, has been an Obama supporter, and his church has been an occasional recipient of Obama’s patronage. And perhaps he, too, can hope to be called ‘controversial’ for his use of the term ‘house nigger’ to describe those he doesn’t like and for his view that it was ‘the Hollywood Jews’ who brought us Brokeback Mountain.’”

Obama is no King, and Neither are his Spiritual Mentors

New York Times Syndicate

April 8, 2008

“The thing that this gaggle of cranks and parasites has in common is the extreme deference with which it is treated by the junior senator from Illinois. In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger-for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan. This crossover stuff is not as “inclusive” as it might be made to seem: Meeks’ main political connections in the white community are with the hysterically anti-homosexual wing of the Christian right. If Obama were to be read a list of the positions that his clerical supporters take on everything from Judaism to sodomy, he would be in the smooth and silky business of “distancing” from now until November. And that is why he hopes that his Philadelphia speech, which dissociated him from everything and nothing, will be enough. He seems, indeed, to have a real gift for remaining adequately uninformed about the real beliefs of his “mentors.”

 Reverend Meeks preached to his congregation that homosexuality an “evil sickness.”2

March 2003: Black Illinois LGBT groups formed a protest at his office over his refusal to meet with them to discuss human rights legislation. Meeks insisted the bill would “lead to gay marriage.3

May 2003: Meeks is interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times: “Senator Meeks…has said that the bible says that gays should not marry or have sex. He has spoken about not wanting sissies in his church and that the women of his church should protect their men from the sissies.” 4

 Jan 2005:  During the critical moments when the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill to prevent LGBT discrimination, Meeks actively campaigned against the measure – and then delivered his vote: Nay. Obama was apparently unable, unwilling or uninterested in lobbying Meeks to do otherwise – even to vote “present” on the measure. The bill would have failed had it received one less vote.5The Windy City Times describes Meeks’ behavior leading up to the vote:

“We knew he would vote against it. We were angry about it, but we knew.” However, McHale admitted that Meeks acted a bit strangely in the time leading up to the vote. “He was a bit bizarre during this whole episode. He would walk up to Rick [ Garcia, Equality Illinois’s political director ] , give him a big hug and a kiss, and then run around the Capitol, saying that passing the bill would lead to gay marriage. Sen. Meeks was definitely exhibiting some bipolar behavior.”

March 2006: In a televised Sunday morning sermon, Meeks is alleged to have complained in a televised sermon about “Hollywood Jews for bringing us Brokeback Mountain.” 6

May 2006: When Meeks ran as an Independent for governor of Illinois, he announced: “Come on with me, white churches. Call me and tell me to run for governor. You’ll have [Republican nominee], who believes in abortion and gay rights and [Democratic Gov.], who believes in abortion and gay rights. Theologically, politically, for the white conservative voter, I’m their guy. I have their philosophy. 7”

October 2006: Meeks’ church sponsored a “Halloween fright night” which “consigned to the flames of hell two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals.”8

February 2007:  A newsletter by the SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER (SPLC) included Meeks in its “Top Ten leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement.” According to their profile:9

“Last year, he ran for governor as a virtual single-issue candidate, drawing national support from Christian fundamentalists by boldly vowing to fight marriage equality at every turn.”

Despite his virulent anti-gay stance, in June 2002, Meeks invited accused sex offender R. Kelly to sing at his church’s kindergarten shortly after the singer was released on bond for child pornography.10

 References:

1 www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/353782,CST-NWS-rezpols23.stng
2 www.wctimes.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=16472 
3 www.thecapitolfaxblog.com/wp-mobile.php?p=1399&more=1
4 www.wctimes.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=7141
5 www.suntimes.com/output/washington/cst-edt-laura12.html 
6 Obama’s Friends Are Hardly Admirable, C. Hitchens, Sun-Times 04/12/08
7  www.wctimes.com/gay/lesbian/news
8 www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/religion/117630,CST-NWS-HELL31.article
9 www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=410
10 Tarnished R. Kelly Needs Prayers, Mary Mitchell, Sun-Times 06/11/02

“The Miracle Man” on Chicago’s South Side

In 1985, Reverend James Meeks, 51, became pastor of his own Salem Baptist Church on Chicago’s South Side. His church has since grown to 29,000 members (about 6,000 regularly attend Sunday services). In addition to being pastor of a 29,000 church, Reverend Meeks is also:

1. Executive vice president of Jesse Jackson Sr.’s National Rainbow-Push Coalition;
2. A second-term Illinois State Senator;
3. A former (2006) candidate for governor of Illinois;
4. An Obama delegate to the 2008 DNC Convention in Denver;
5. A religious advisor to Senator Barack Obama.

From his humble origin, Reverend Meeks now travels (with two bodyguards) in a $100,000 Jaguar and private jet that are owned by the church. Like Obama, he received substantial campaign contributions from Tony Rezko. Meeks’ take was over $20,000, making him the 14^th largest recipient of Rezko’s largesse.¹  According to the website of his Salem Baptist Church:

“Meeks’ practical and charismatic style of instruction motivates the hearer to take action and has resulted in accomplishments of miraculous proportions.”

“Pastor Meeks views this position as an extension of his ministry to serve people of all races, classes, and backgrounds for the establishment of God’s Kingdom in the earth.”

“There has not been a stronger or more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been.” – Barack Obama

Will Our Support Be Taken for Granted, Its Value Diminished?

Is our love affair with Obama an infatuation (with all the risks the word implies) or are we entering into a relationship of substance and mutual respect? Is it his aura or his deeds that have enraptured our hearts and imaginations?

If Obama wins the nomination, it will be easy for him to assume that he will de facto have the support of the gay and lesbian community: John McCain simply leaves little alternative. But is it in our best interests to support this assumption? Must we freely hand over our unqualified support, or should we negotiate along the way? Perhaps the general election will be our last opportunity to construct a framework that will hold an Obama administration accountable to promises made.

Are Loyalty and Accountability Mutually Exclusive?

Genuine and enduring relationships are built on support, loyalty and mutual respect. The bedrock of respect is accountability. We tend to think of loyalty and accountability as diametrically opposed: “With me or against me” or “I am 100% right/you are 100% wrong” advocate/adversarial approach of our legal system.

But before we fully segregate ourselves into “unquestionably loyal” and “unquestionably skeptical” camps, perhaps we should re-consider our common ground: 

As a community, LGBT’s are a minority on the national stage. For the simple reason we are different than the majority, we remain a premier lightning rod that attracts the hatred and villification of the ignorant – who sadly comprise a much-larger contingent of the populace. We may not like it, but the fact is we are a wedge issue and will be played as such by Republicans and Democrats alike.

The advancements we’ve enjoyed are by an large the result of the brave and determined work of people who tenaciously demanded to be afforded the dignity and respect due all Americans. But we’re still a long way from that goal.

A message of inclusion carries both hope and risk for our community. It may enlighten our antagonists; on the other hand, it may forego our interests in order to bridge larger groups.

Perhaps now represents the moment in our history where we can be both loyal to a candidate and hold him/her reasonably accountable to upholding their pledges of dignity, respect – and action – to our community. 

It’s The “Small Things”

Big, sweeping plans and pronouncements by politicians usually end up just that: big sweeping pronouncements. More often it is the small things - day-to-day attention to detail – that brings positive change.  But as human history attests, we instinctively prefer the endless search for the one “be all” messianic figure to the daily grind of detail. 

Problem is, those easy-to-ignore details can quickly morph into patterns. Calculated or not, those patterns send signals. In our case, it’s whether the President of the United States regards the LGBT community with  respect, ambivalence or scorn. Thus attitudes and policies are set.

Naturally, good politicians are adept at the art of denial. This has put our community in a lose/lose situartion for too long: If we protest patterns of slights, we are branded as trifling, extremist - or mocked as paranoid.

We Won’t Fall For That

With respect to presidential candidate Barack Obama:

We believe that small acts matter.

We will hold an Obama administration accountable for acts both big and small.

We will do so with a framework for accountability that keeps a factual record of actions measured against promises and ideals put forth to gain our support.

We will ensure all aspects of the framework is pubic, and remain open-minded with respect to suggestions for improvement.

We will not be deterred by rhetoric, browbeating, intimidation or pleas for “unity.”

Most importantly, we will be fair. If he is elected, it will either serve as a testament to achievement or an accounting of duplicity.

What We’re Talking About:

Obama’s actions so far are at best ambivalent, and frequently antagonistic. As a community, we seem disinterested in questioning the disconnect between his words and his actions. 

We have been eager to overlook misrepresentations Obama has made to us as well as his troubling associations with homophobic bigots. One case in point:

Remember Obama’s South Carolina Tour?

With the “cured homosexual” turned outspokenly anti-gay Pastor Donnie McClurkin? “

Is this a proud pathway?

Obama’s second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: his “kingmaker,” Illinois State Senate Leader Emil Jones. Jones engineered Obama’s rise in state politics and into the U.S. Senate, and their relationship offers insights into the unflattering political realities that accompanied Obama’s climb from obscurity:

Illinois State Senate Leader Emil Jones: Obama’s Kingmaker

Jones helped Obama by assigning high profile legislation to the candidate, thus filling out his thin record as a state senator. Most of Obama’s “accomplshments” in Springfield were created by Jones. He showered Obama with prominent roles in getting legislation through the senate. In almost every case, the legislation was the work of Obama’s senate colleagues. Jones simply stripped their name from the work and added Obama’s. In some cases this included legislation that was written, introduced and passionately championed for years by other lawmakers. Is that a record to be proud of?

At one point during Obama’s 2003 Senate campaign, Jones set out to woo two African-American politicians miffed by Obama’s presumption and ambition. One of them, a state senator, had scoffed that Obama was “so ambitious he would run for “king of the world” if the position were vacant.” Jones got the two men’s support. When Obama asked him how, Jones said “I made them an offer, and you don’t want to know.”

Jones sought to unify black Chicago behind Obama in February 2007 when he told black a large gathering of black Democrats they don’t “owe” anyone, alluding to, but not mentioning by name, Bill and Hillary Clinton. “Obama is our son,” said Jones.

Jones is the sort of “old-fashioned, wheeler-dealer” and relic of the Cook County Democratic machine. He is known to employ all the ”old politics” that Obama denounces. His latest controversy is over his attempt to block legislation aimed to end his state’s “pay-to-play” tradition – where people wanting government contracts contribute to politician’s.

Obama supporters see the alliance as an example of his ability to get things done by working with all kinds of people. Critics see it as hypocrisy — Obama refusing to speak out against the kinds of abuse he claims to oppose.

McClurkin is a virulent, “ex-gay” preacher who condemns gay and lesbian people to hell.  He told the Washington Post that he’s in “a war against the curse of homosexuality.” Moreover, he is the poster boy for the African-American “ex-gay” movement, claiming he was a homosexual, but was “cured” by religion.

Professionally “Ex-Gay”

McClurkin is one of three gospel acts performed on Obama’s “Embrace The Change” tour in South Carolina. The three-stop tour was meant to shore up Obama’s position with black voters before South Carolina’s primary. Despite heated protests from LGBT groups, Obama refused to remove McClurkin from performing repeatedly in the tour.

New Hampshire State Rep. Mo Baxley said “In this circumstance, Obama’s actions speak louder than his words and we can not support a candidate that harmed the LGBT community in South Carolina in his quest to become president.”

Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said: “There is no gospel in Donnie McClurkin’s message for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. That’s a message that certainly doesn’t belong on any presidential candidate’s stage.”