Archive | January, 2008

Race: Obama versus Billary

15 Jan

I had to take my car to the dealership for the usual yearly maintenance today and this morning I heard the Roland S. Martin show and the topic was whether or not preachers and pastors should be political and if so, how much.  So, when I got back in the car after picking up the car this afternoon, the radio was still on and I heard the dulcet Arkansas tones of former President William J. Clinton. 

Naturally, I knew that this was “Keepin’ It Real” with your host Rev. Al Sharpton, or should I say Sha’pton.

Despite the various pronunciations of his name, I have much respect for Sharpton and the work that he has done with the National Action Network–2007 was definitely a banner year for him.  However, it appears that in this race that he has stopped short of endorsing Hill’ry for president, and I’m quite interested to know why has he?  Does he know the level of alienation he may receive from some, even those who are city chairmans for the N.A.N.?  Be that as it may, my particular issue I had with him today was his guest and just how today’s program was handled.

It was quite interesting to hear callers call in and ask our 42nd president what was Hil’ry’s stance on various position and what would Hil’ry do if she was elected to office.  Well, duh, just ask Hil’ry!  But I guess, her husband is just as good as her; because since the New Hamps— primaries apparently, there are four top runners for the Democratic nomination: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hill’ry Clinton and Bill Clinton.  It appears to me and the UNN that in fact the Clinton’s are tag-teaming Obama and his campaign.  But, last I checked, Hill’ry’s name is the only one that is on the ballot, and not her husband.

At this point in the race, the fallout concerning race is palpable in the African American community.  Even though polls have historically been erroneous (one need only look at the Iowa caucuses and the N.H. primary), it appears that the African American community was only looking for one reason to vote for Barack Obama, one that perhaps Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson had failed, for whatever reason(s), to accomplish: simply to be electable.  Perhaps the African American community was sick and tired of endorsing symbolic candidates, but really wanting to endorse one who could win.  As Hill’ry cried after she saw her sweeping victory crumble following her 3rd place loss to Obama and Edwards, the black community realized that Obama had a chance, and poll numbers have changed as much as 40 percentage points according to some sources in favor of Obama over Clinton.

The palpability of the fallout had a name today and its name was Bill Clinton.

The Cliff Kelley Show, here in Chicago is the talk show following The Al Sharpton Show at 3PM, and the first caller of the show launched into an invective against Al Sharpton about how could Sharpton allow for Bill to speak on behalf of Hill’ry and how insulting it is to his listeners to insult their intelligence do such.  He was on such a roll, he continued to talk about how much of a stepin’ fetchit Andrew Young and Rep. John Lewis were for their anti-Obama comments (I personally wished he had laid Bob Johnson out for his Uncle Tom comments as well).

Some black people want Hill’ry, who has less elected legislative experience than Obama, simply because “da Clintons been good tuh-rus,” but meanwhile, the Clintons have been treating the black community like he did Monica Lewinsky: using us whenever it was politically advantageous–and he’s good at it, so we keep coming back for more.  Lest we forget the welfare to work program which had marginal benefits for some, but devastating impacts for others–or even NAFTA which has had devastating impact on this current jobless economy, but you see no one talks about that.  Even today, one of the latter callers asked what was Hill’ry’s position (visibly I’m rolling my eyes as I write this) on the North American Union (I might get an FBI file for just typing that) as it relates to the immigration and jobs for people who are born citizens here in the U.S. to which the words North American Union DID NOT come from his mouth and he simply dealt with the issue of immigration.

Even as I write this and the 5 o’clock news has just wrapped up here in Chicago, it was a big enough news story that it had its own special segment.  So to those, who feel that we must repay the Clinton’s with our vote because they have been “good tuh-rus” then, they need only watch who’s really playing the race card, and who’s pandering to who.

Keep it uppity, JLL

obama-vs-clinton.jpg

Why I Can’t Praise White Jesus

14 Jan
This is another post from a Facebook note from May 9, 2007  
The dominant culture in the global society is white, male and heterosexual.

The following piece is not a rant or a diatribe against white people nor is this piece written as an invective against the white race. However, this is a piece that is written to uplift my African and American ancestry. I am a proud African American and don’t want to be anything else.

When white people embraced Christianity they flipped everything upside down and Europeanized everything and made everything that was not white, evil. Meaning that everything of color was bad. This is why when white missionaries went to African and Asia, they told the indigenous people of the lands that everything–down to their name–was heathen and not Christian. In order to be “saved” white people made the African and Asians change their names from what their mothers and fathers named them, to in order be named by Europeans.

I cannot understand why we hold up this Michaelangelean portrait of Jesus! Michaelangelo did not see Jesus no more than you or I did–Michealangelo was painting a picture of his relatives!!!! So of course Michaelangelo would paint a white man. So when all of these people run around and say they have visions and say Jesus looks just like he did in the picture I really the validity of their vision.

So, if white, heterosexual males are the dominating class and race why should I worship and follow and image that they portray? Why should I support and embrace something that was used to oppress me? This is why, for me, I unequivocally cannot embrace white images of biblical characters. Particularly that of Jesus.

Imagine in the pre-civil rights period here in America where in black churches, pictures of a white Jesus hang, but yet outside of the church building a white face was that of oppression–how can one worship the oppressor? This is why liberation theology preaches that Jesus and God embodies that of the marginalized and oppressed.

Jesus Aint In The Old Testament!!!!!

14 Jan

This is a repost from my Facebook profile.

Okay, here’s Intro to NT or HB (Hebrew Bible or Old Testament) 101–

EXEGESIS–the careful investigation of the original meaning of a text in its historical and literary contexts; the word comes from a Greek verb meaning “to lead out of” (Greek “ex” = “out”; “ago” = “to lead/go/draw”)

EISEGESIS–Reading into a text what isn’t there. Interpreting it by different rules than a consistent understanding from the Bible. Using a presupposition to arrive at the meaning, by ignoring the language and culture it was used in.

Okay, many preachers and Bible readers perform eisegesis and I’m asking you try exegesis. Eisegesis is when I read a text and seven objects appear, or Joshua and Israelites walked around the wall seven times and I say that “seven is the number of completion.” There’s no where in the text that explicitly states that, we as Christians just like the motif of seven in the Scripture text. Just because the writers of the various books like to use the number seven doesnt mean anything—they just like the number seven, and then it provides continuity in the text, because all we know the redactors could have changed those numbers in order to have a nice neat story.

Exegesis is when I do a word study on a particular adjective or noun or verb in the particular unit (for HB) or pericope (for NT) and I check to see where else in the scripture does that adjective, noun or verb appear and compare and contrast the context in which that word is being used. Then one can ask the question why or why not the narrator chose to use that particular word in that particular context.

And a simple exegesis is to just read the text in the unit or pericope in its entirety, not just one isolated verse pulled out of its context. And to DEAL ONLY WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE TEXT! Christians love to put their own feelings and issues and opinions into the text and that really aint the writer of the text meant!!

Also–here’s a note for preachers and other readers of the Bible–JESUS AINT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT!!! Christian tradition would tell us that the major prophets in the Protestant canon (that means Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel et.al.) foreshadowed Christ’s coming because its convenient to our faith story–but puh-leez understand PARTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN MORE THAN 500 YEARS BEFORE JESUS WAS BORN!

Now it is the great charasmatic preaching tradition to create a hermeneutical bridge that puts Jesus in the OT and its usually done in the last 5-10-25 mins of the sermon depending if your Baptist, regular crazy Pentecostal- or COGIC and it goes something like this (borrowed from a Rudolph McKissick sermon)

Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when Cain killed Abel (deep breath)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when Moses killed the Egyptian (deep breath)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when David lusted after Bathsheeba (deep breath and random Hammond B3 Music)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when the Jews went to Babylonian captivity (deep breath and more random drum playing)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when they killed John the Baptist (deep breath and random piano tinkling)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when the Pharisees accused Jesus (deep breath and more random noises from the Leslie)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when the Jews accused him (deep breath)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when they hung him on the cross (deep breath)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) when he diiiiiiii(big whole step swoop)iiiied on Friday (deep breath and the organist starts doing random stuff now)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) on Friday (deep breath)
Satan thought he could laugh (growl) on Saturday
Awww shucks, y’all know where i’m going with this, but
EARRRRRRRRRLLLLLYYYYYYYYYY (and the organ just screaming as loud as the preacher) on SUN-dey morning (growl) He got up (growl) with all power (growl) in His hands (growl) won’t He do it….

and you can figure out the rest.

I wrote all that to show that a “hermeneutical bridge” was built that “took Jesus through the forty and two generations” and then and only then can one preach an OT text and end up at the end of the sermon talking about Jesus because JESUS IS NOT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

So if you got any questions, hit me up.

But I’m sick and damn tired of all these damn people that get up talkin all this nonsense, hell take some time and do your homework with the text you gotta preach. And for those of us who like to do Bible study on our own, just try and look at the text in a different way. Actually, here’s a suggestion–try and read a passage of scripture as if you were an atheist or a non-Christian–so that means all of your prescribed notions and ideologies don’t exist–and you gotta discount that “All things work for the good of them…”

That’s the note for the day…

FOOL FEST 2007 NOMINATIONS

14 Jan

One of the things that I noticed this year was that people really do dumb stuff.  Now, this does not make me the arbiter of what is smart and what is dumb, but I do believe that I have a pretty good handle on what is.  I say so because, in the spirit of good ol’ Hil’ry, of my track record and my experience: I’ve sucessfully navigated 23 years of life, somewhat on my own and a lot with the help of the community–be they my parents, my extended family, various teachers and professors, others at my church and not to mention from my friends.  I believe that friends are the best tell-tale sign of one who has participated in a Fool Fest, for any year that is.  Generally those that are alone are participants in Fool Fest: this means that there is not community of believers that will endorse their outlandish behavior.

Well, what do I mean by Fool Fest?

Fool Fest participants must first be oblivious.  They must be oblivious to what’s going on around them for them to continue doing what they’re doing as though it is alright.  It also does help someone in the nomination process if they happen to have a funny odor, look like Jim Carrey’s character from Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events for example.

Fool Fest participants must be convicted by what they do.  There should be nothing or no one able to convince a Fool Fest participant that they were wrong.  If someone admits wrongdoing, or ignorance, then they have disqualified themseleves from Fool Fest.  This means that even after the main event (see below for details concerning the main event), and someone tries to inform the participant how bad it was, and the participant invokes a deity or a spirit as their reason for acting why they did, and convinced that they are right, then they are a perfect candidate.

Fool Fest participants must cause shock and awe.  The shock and awe must occur at the main event.  The main event is when the Fool Fest participant has caused a public spectacle of themselves.  Because they are oblivious and convinced that they have a right to do what they are doing, it generally causes shock by the audience member.  If it is a one-on-one interaction, then that person is a mere runner-up for Fool Fest, they may actually have a vendetta against the opposite party.  Shock-and-awe at the main event occurs, for example if during a church service an individual believes that they are qualified to play, sing or even preach and in-fact what spews from their mouth and emits from their body is a “hot mess.”  When audience members are laughing out loud or leaving the room or totally shocked at the proceedings then, one has officially participated in Fool Fest.

#1 ITC Late Night/Chapel Service

Even though this is my school, I must say that once I got to the seminary level that people were better trained and educated than what they really were.  Now this nomination does not diminish the wonderful and exellent classroom experience that I am receiving–it is bar none in the world as far as I’m concerned, but that’s as far as I’m willing to go.  The late-night experience is supposed to be one training and practice, not one of showing off and being seen.  This is where us seminarians are supposed to take what we’ve learned in our practicums and classrooms`and  bring them to a community of positive criticism before we take the foolishness back to our respective churches.  But I’ve heard and seen people this last year who were simply atrocious get up and preach, sing and run service.  And this was not just late-night services, this was also from the Tuesday-Thursday chapel services.

#2 Hazel O’Leary, President of Fisk University

As a proud graduate of Fisk University, ‘o6, I fail to see how has Ms. O’Leary not been able to garner nationwide support for the Fisk University?  Any time a board of directors or president of an institution fails to garner money and support means that the donors are hesitant about the direction of the institution.  If Ms. O’Leary could  suggest the portion of the sale of the Georgia O’Keefe collection and proceed to do so and drag Fisk through a year long court battle with the estate of Ms. O’Keefe and spend money that the school could have used for other purposes.  She acted with impunity and seemed oblivious to the outside world, and based on some students, seemed oblivious to some student concerns and she showed herself capable of being a member of the “whew! we barely made it” group, as she limped the school’s budget to the end of the fall 2007 semester.  She has convinced herself that she is right, and no doubt has surrounded herself with yes women and yes men who do not ask for outside help.  But, by now, that bridge has been crossed and washed away disabling the option to hire outside help because of the shoe-string outfit cutting costs in all areas possible.

#3 Britney Spears

Well, need I say more?

#4 State of Georgia concerning the Genarlow Wilson case

The fact that the Attorney General of the state attends Ebenezer Baptist Church which is not shy about its heritage as being the home church of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his father, and that he listened to the pastor speak against the injustice of keeping Mr. Wilson incarcerated and still did nothing!  While the rest of the country was looking stunned that such a public case was continuing, especially with a black state attorney general, Mr. Thurbert Baker was looking quite the fool.

#5 Sean Hannity et. al.

Hannity was the spokesperson for fooldom following the announcement of Barack Obama’s run the presidency in February 2007.  This was on the basis of opposition research in the form of FOXNews and MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson (who I will deal with in a moment) and their reactions towards Obama’s church’s Black Value system.  Aside from the fact that Hannity did not deal with the issues counterpointed by Obama’s pastor, Hannity looked quite the fool by spouting his random knowledge in the area of theology–however not liberation theology as Obama’s pastor, and my senior pastor as well, pointed out.

Tucker Carlson also in an MSNBC clip mentioned Barack Obama as not being a “scary guy” and yet again, this plays into the notion that he normally should be a scary guy.  Now in all fairness, I don’t watch MSNBC, let alone Tucker Carlson, however, such a comment can definitely be interpreted as one about Obama being a black man, and that in fact black men are inherently scary and that’s an idea that I outright reject and will no longer entertain such foolishness from bottom feeders such as Hannity and Carlson.

Finally, following the March 1st interview of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright by Hannity and Colmes there was a follow-up to that interview with Jesse Lee Peterson and Michael Brown, a Democratic strategist.  I don’t know how Christopher Hitchens could allow his fingers to type about how Jeremiah Wright being “demagogue…with reverend in front of his name” but not talk about Jesse Lee Peterson, who has his own website and is the founder of some crack pot organization on which Sean Hannity is a board member.  Jesse Lee Peterson, upon review to this website has no visible resume of his academic acheivements, but yet it is a public fact that Jeremiah Wright has earned masters and doctorate degrees.  Anyway, Jesse Lee is the one being nominated for Fool Fest on the basis that he called Trinity United Church of Christ a racist church and other inane accusations rounding them out by saying “they even call themselves black.”

Need I say more?  I think not!

Now, I’m sure other’s have more to say.  If you have other’s you’d like to nominate, please send in your comment, and I’ll post my final thoughts later.

 Keep it uppity, JLL

The Antichrist Is Here–and its more than one!

9 Jan

I’m really not one to use a lot of theologically loaded words to describe how I’m feeling.  When I do use these “churchy” words and phrases, generally my friends know I’m poking fun at those who use them and really mean it.  This is a result from my parents who, although are fundamental in core Christianity, err on the side of liberalism as it relates to everyday life.  So I was quite shocked when she invoked I John chapter one in reference to someone on the TV who was commenting on last Thursday’s Iowa caucus.  Well, I knew it was ABC News, and there’s only one person my mother can’t stand on ABC News and that’s George Stephanopoulos–whom my mother is persuaded is a “mini antichrist.”

Now I haven’t heard him “deny the Father” as I John chapter one says or proclaim high christology, which goes against I John 4, which speaks to one admitting to Christ coming “in the flesh” so for the purposes of The UNN, he is not the antichrist, but I still have a bone to pick with him–and that damn George Will!

stephanopoulos.jpg

But first Stephanopoulos.

He made a comment on Thursday night while outside the state house in downtown Des Moines, Iowa looking casket ready as a result of bad makeup and bitter cold temperatures talking with Charlie Gibson, that “of course the African American” votes went to Barack Obama.  My mother blanched as only she could and I had to shush her in order to finish listening to their commentary and wait for the commercial break.  Up until then Stephanopoulos never had said anything that I had taken and particular issue with. 

Well, those days are now over.

As I move closer down the spectrum in my belief that he may in fact be the antichrist, I just couldn’t believe that a journalist fixed their mouths to say that “of course the African American” votes went to Obama in a state where 93-98% of the populace is white.  Even though The UNN does unashamedly and unapologetically endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States, it should NOT be assumed that The UNN endorses Obama because of the same racial background.  I (The UNN) endorse Obama because he speaks the change that I want to see in this country.  Being from Illinois, I know his record in the state senate and what he endured when he lost his campaign against Rep. Bobby Rush in the 1st U.S. Congressional district here in Illinois.  Also, I have a memory of when Barack Obama was running for state senate and him being a member of our church prior to him being a superstar politician.  The fact that he is African American is merely a plus!  African Americans have never voted on someone on the sole basis of their skin color–if that was the case, Harold Washington wouldn’t have been the only black mayor in the history of Chicago. 

george-will.jpg

Now, George Will said on the same night as well, following a wonderful report from Donna Brazile, that that Thursday wasn’t so much a win for Obama as it was a loss for those like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton echoing the same sentiments that he had in Newsweek that “all the others still subscribe to a racial narrative of strife and oppression that has remained remarkably unchanged through 50 years of stunning progress, of which Obama’s candidacy is powerful evidence.”

Oh, you know where I could go with this one; the myriad of issues I have with such an uninformed statement.  Briefly, I take issue with this because primarily it means that to be rich, white and old, as George Will, one can speak with impunity against people such as Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  If George Will would actually listen to Operation Push on the radio he would realize where Jackson stands on the issue of race in the face of blistering statistics–something Will likes to quote as well.  If George Will took the time to read Jackson’s syndicated column that runs in the Chicago Sun-Times, he’d know that Jackson is a man of reputable ilk.  He is not to be messed with, and how dare George Will speak from his seat of white privilege?  But I guess, its white privilege, he wouldn’t notice that he’s doing it.  And as far as Al Sharpton is concerned, anyone who remotely listens to Al Sharpton’s show knows that for all intents and purposes that he’s in Hil’ry’s camp.  Al Sharpton has consistently beleagured Obama for not pressing the issues of poverty and health care as they relate specifically to the black community. 

This is what I’ve been saying for quite some time now, when we have people like George Will and George Stephanopoulos who have dismissed and disregared Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as viable sources of political information, then how dare we as the black community disregard them as well?  To whomever is reading this, I challenge you to name five NATIONAL (and I stress national and I do NOT count the dunderheads that FoxNews consistently finds to spew their own slanted rigamarole as the sole viewpoint of black America) political commentators, either television or print media.   Even when I challenged myself at first, it took some time.  And even though it can be done, the fact remains that most cannot do it.  This does not mean that I agree with everything Al Sharpton has to say, but I believed he hit the nail on the head when he appeared on the Jimmy Kimmel Show (Sharpton is the only reason I watched that trash that night) when Kimmel asked him who would he endorse.  Sharpton replied, to the effect, that his job was to turn up the heat, on all of the candidates, and who ever could stay in the kitchen and take the heat would get his endorsement.

I will close simply by saying this: if race is not an issue, then what does it profit George Will and Stephanopoulos by extension, to even mention it? 

Keep it uppity, JLL

coming up, The UNN’s nomination for Fool Fest 2007.

Hillary Clinton Did Not Win the New Hampshire Primaries

9 Jan

happy-new-year.jpg 

To my viewers, my apologies for not having a blog post for the New Year like most everyone else did, but I had had quite a weekend, resulting in some flu and cold like symptoms for the rest of the week following New Year’s Day.  That being said, I do owe a blog on Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses and I have quite a rebuttal to two political pundits–one whom I respect and one whom my mother, in the spirit of the pastoral epistle of 1 John, is the anti-Christ.  But first, lets talk about more current events and work our way back to the Obama event of 2008.

If I could give this post a subtitle it would be “Oh, to be from New Hampsh–, oh you know what I want to say” because that’s how I’m feeling right now.  If I was living in New Hampshire right now, I’d be quite smug.  And it was evident that two of the people that were interviewed with ABC Channel 7 in Chicago were just that–smug.  And that smugness won out at Hil’ry (same as cel’ry) Clinton was declared the winner of the New Hampshire primaries.  I fail to see just how off the polls were saying that Barack Obama had anywhere from a 5-13% point lead over Hil’ry following Obama’s unprecedented win.  But, I suspect, these were the same polls that said Hil’ry should have won Iowa.  However, reports are that those in the Clinton camp also believed these poll numbers and that they were expecting a loss, even a third place loss. 

hillary-clinton-1.jpg

Well, something is wrong here!

Are the New Hampsh– voters that smug about their being the first primary in the country that they dare lie to reporters to spice up their dull existence as the the state that ranks 44th in land area and 46th in total area of the 50 states, and 41st in population?  Seriously, this state gets zero national press unless a moose goes on the rampage and kills someone at the local supermarket.  Many people don’t know Concord as the state capital, nor how to correctly pronounce Nashua.  Would it be far-fetched for them to get a gleam in their eye around the Januarys of years divisible by the number four in anticipation of “all eyes on them” in the national race for the president of the United States?  Shame on New Hampshire voters, who will forever be referred to as New Hampsh– by the UNN, for misleading the American public into thinking one thing and then doing another.

However, in the fairness of news, one pundit did note that polls are misleading for the main reason of cell phones.  Many young voters, such as myself, do not have a land-line phone, we carry cell phones.  And in fact pollsters do not poll cell phone numbers.  However, I hardly think this is the case to swing a 5-13% point lead to a -2% loss; for as I type this CNN is reporting 91% of the precincts with Hil’ry leading with 39% of the electorate to Barack’s 37%.  Which leads me to the issue of delegates.

Let the Uppity Negro Network be bold enough to say HIL’RY CLINTON DID NOT WIN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARIES–she tied it.

The popular vote, she did win, but in the race that is determined by the number of delegate votes, Hil’ry tied with Barack Obama, meaning that if for some strange reason the Democratic National Party held their convention this week, Obama would win because between the same nine voted he garned tonight, along with his would-be cast votes from Iowa, he’d win.  So is this merely a front where we’ve been duped into thinking that Hil’ry is the “Comeback Kid #2″ as Andy Shaw et. al. of ABC 7 Chicago reported tonight on the 10 o’clock news, where in fact she merely tied with Obama in the New Hampsh– primaries?

Well, let it be said that The UNN was among the first to see it as it was, and call out her win as a farce and a front.

Keep it uppity, JLL

coming up next, The UNN’s break down of Hillary’s cry and who are the political antichrists of the 2008 Presidential election.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers