Someone asked me what I think of Rev. Wright's comments which aired on Fox News.  I don’t think Rev. Wright was being racist, per se, I think he was tailoring his message to a specific audience of low income black people for the purpose of giving them a message in a language they can understand ...

Ironically, I believe the only reason that the Rev. Wright excerpts were compiled and aired on National TV is because Hillary supporters (Fox News) are trying to do the exact same thing ….  convey a message to white people in a language they can understand ...

Most people don’t understand the power and influence of the media, and most people don’t recognize when they are being manipulated. But media savvy people like the ones at Fox News understand that piecing excerpts of Rev. Wright’s sermons in the manner that they did is powerful enough to influence human behavior [for their friend Hillary] and boost their own ratings [another version of the two for one that Hillary talks about].   Let’s not forget these News outlets must make a living too.  The techniques used to create the Rev. Wrights excerpts were the same subtle techniques used to manipulate people into buying one brand of cereal instead of another.   

The reason black people were not offended by the Rev. Wright video, is because blacks were not the intended audience.  Black people understand the Black Church, the method in which Black Preachers preach, and Black culture.  It was white people that were the intended audience of this video and the video was designed to have a shock value and to invoke basic emotions of fear and pride in the white identity.  Many white people have never been to a Black Church, have never seen a Black Preacher Preach, and don’t understand black culture, which includes Black people still struggling to heal generational wounds from slavery and jim crow laws.

In my opinion, the reason white people are offended is because the producers of the video did their job, offend white people.  Keep in mind, Rev. Wright’s intention was not to offend white people, he did not preach this sermon to a white audience.  Rev. Wright was speaking to a black audience in a language black people understand.  This is not to say that intelligent people were not in the audience, but the rule of journalism is to write and speak in a manner that an 8th grader can understand regardless of the composition of the audience.  I imagine that most people in the church that day have been called a n*gger at some point in their life, so they would not have had an overwhelming urge to quit the church or denounce the Reverend.  I imagine if they applied for a job ten years later and learned that they were being judged by words their pastor said ten years earlier, I imagine at that time they would explain that they are not a racist, but I can’t imagine that any black person would have done any denouncing, rejecting or disassociating before that point because Rev. Wright was not conveying a message to promote separatism.  He was conveying a message in a language his audience understood … that is that Hillary can never understand the feeling that a black person gets after they have been called a n*gger.  As hard as it may be for some to swallow, it is a true statement, not a racist one.   I think if white people were to really examine the video, they would find that it is Rev. Wright’s  presentation that is offensive, and not necessarily his words.  If you don’t believe me try this test … Close your eyes and imagine for a moment that Rev. Wright is a white man and that in a very respectful manner he said “Hillary does not know what it is like to be a black man.” Do you think the statement bears any truth?  Would you still think the remark was racist if a white man made the remark in a respectful manner?  

What if a white man, still being respectful said,“Hillary does not know what it is like to be called a n*gger.” Would you think the statement bears any truth?  Would the white man be a racist for making this statement?

We heard that Rev. Wright is a former U.S. Marine.  I think it is fair to assume that he has been involved in wars and has more first hand knowledge of how America has acted in other countries, than people who have not put their life on the line for this country.  If Rev. Wright had said in a respectful manner that during his tour as a U.S. Marine, he participated in the bombing of other countries.  Would you still think he was Anti-American?  What if  Rev. Wright said in a respectful manner that his interpretation of the Bible says that anyone who kills the innocent will be damned and that instead of blessing America, it is his opinion that God is going to damn America for killing innocent people … is this really an anti-American sentiment or just the opinion of a citizen who the country gives the right of free speech?  Does God render punishment for  killing innocent people?  Has America killed innocent people?

Ultimately the way we each individually react to Rev. Wright’s comments will depend on our frame of reference, our understanding of communication and the art of persuasion, our willingness to face the truth, and our political objectives.  For me, I can’t jump to any conclusion about Rev. Wright because I don’t have enough information to.  All I have is 2 minutes out of 30 years worth of sermons that have been cut and paste and aired on National TV for the sole purpose of painting Rev. Wright as a racist.

Now to the question of whether I believe Obama knew what his Pastor said, I think Barack Obama knew that his Pastor communicated to the congregation in a language members understand, (which some people would find offensive) but I believe Obama when he said he was not there for the sermons in question. I believe he does not support the divisive tone of the sermons and I believe he will do everything in his power to unify this Country and give us a better standing in this world. 

I believe Obama, because of my own experience with church.  In 1973, I was 11 years old and my friend invited me to go to church with her.  My family was poor and my best outfit was a pants suit that my mother made.  She could have made a skirt suit, but she made pants so that my legs could be warm in the winter. Well I went to the Christian church with my friend wearing the pants suit.  When I got to the door, the woman at the door said my friend could come in, but that I could not because I was wearing pants.  So my friend went in and I went home.  On the way home I asked myself would Jesus have turned me away.  Jesus answered "No.  I would have let you in. " From that time until approximately 1995 I never stepped foot into a Church because I thought they were all hypocrites.  Then I was required to take a Christian ethics course in college.  I explained to my teacher that I did not go to church because I thought churches were full of hypocrites.  My teacher said something so astounding to me, that it made me go back to church.  She said “Christians trust in the Lord Jesus Christ they do not trust in man.  Christians receive salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, they do not receive salvation through man.” No matter what church you walk into you will find men, women, ministers and pastors all who fall short of the Glory of God,  but we remember this  … man is merely the vessel through whom God speaks and operates, so it is quite possible for a man of God to speak God’s words, but yet fall short of the Glory of God.  When you go to church, you are going to hear God’s word and to praise God.  You are not going to church to praise the man who is delivering the message of God.

My teacher’s words made it possible for me to go to Church and hear and discern God’s message, while at the same time looking past, but praying for the weaknesses and faults of my pastor.  There are many things that my pastor has said that I don’t believe or agree with, and frankly are not the word of God.   But that does not stop me from going to church to listen to his sermons, because I never know, God might speak through him that day.

Have McCain and Hillary forgotten that the role of President is comprised of many functions, Commander-In-Chief being only one?  Another major function of the President is to be Chief Executive  Officer (CEO) of the Federal Government.   The CEO is responsible for management and budget.  So instead of answering who I want to answer the phone, I'd rather answer who I  want to manage the budget.  If we use the financial management of the candidates' campaigns Barack Obama would win by a landslide.  Not only has he raised more money than both Hillary and McCain, he is is the only one who has effectively managed his campaign's budget.  Both Hillary and McCain ran out of money, and Hillary had to loan herself $5,000,000.  The questions I would like to ask Hillary and McCain is to name their specific experience with respect to managing budgets, and have them explain how that experience was applied in their campaigns?  That way the American people can get a feel for what to expect with respect to managing the American budget.