Something David Horowitz and I agree on

Starting in March 2008, I’ve said several times that, as astonishing as it may sound, Obama is a bigger liar than Clinton. Clinton lied constantly, effortlessly, he was the biggest liar anyone had ever seen. But in the Jeremiah Wright affair Obama lied about his entire life, denying that he knew anything about the hatred spewing from the pulpit of the man who had been his pastor and personal spiritual guide for 20 years. No lie Clinton told was of that scale.

Horowitz has made exactly the same point. On October 31, 2008, in a column re-posted today at FrontPage Magazine, Horowitz wrote:

… Obama’s lies make Clinton’s pale by comparison.

Consider that Obama’s closest counselor and spiritual guide over a twenty year period is a racist kook, a Jew-hating, terrorist-loving acolyte of Farrakhan. When confronted with this fact, Obama responded he had no idea who Jeremiah Wright really was. What Clinton lie comes close to that in brazen coolness? Or this one: My name is Barack Hussein Obama; I grew up the son of a Muslim father and went to a Muslim school in an Islamic state, but I wasn’t raised as a Muslim—I’ve always been a Christian. I do not believe being raised as a Muslim should matter. But I believe the lie should.

However, the odd thing is that even as Horowitz was calling Obama a bigger liar than Clinton, i.e., he was calling Obama the biggest liar anyone in America had ever seen, he was severely chastizing other Obama critics as sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome and telling them to “shut up.” By January 20, 2009 Horowitz was in an ecstasy over Obama’s inauguration and the new, racially unified America that he felt had come into being, a unity made possible by race-conscious nonwhites’ racial identification with Obama and race-unconscious whites’ approval of that non-white racial identification. In other words, Horowitz was ecstatic over white racial dhimmitude to nonwhites. Moreover, Horowitz continued to call Obama critics deranged until, in the late spring, shocked by the extremism of Obama’s actions as president, he became one himself.

- end of initial entry -

Dan M. writes:

Horowitz’s hypocrisy regarding Obama’s lies about his pastor reminds me of an ongoing conversation I have with a self-identified conservative black pastor. This pastor is a close acquaintance and has no issue taking Obama to task for his ugly statism. However, he did concede that Obama’s election gave him (and many blacks he knows) both a sense of pride and one of misgiving. The misgiving stems from the utility and habit of believing blacks (of ability) remain oppressed in modern liberal society. Obama makes that claim more difficult to sustain. I realize that you’ve demonstrated that no amount of black accomplishment will put to rest the overarching liberal and black contention that racism is systemic. However, for more reasonable blacks (and liberals?), Obama does seem to challenge that idea. Seems like Horowitz was celebrating this possibility.

This reminds me of a question I’ve wanted to ask you for some time. I’m curious if VFR has any black readers who are largely in agreement with your views on race. You see, your writings and those of many of your readers, have greatly influenced my views over the last few years. I’m looking for reasonable ways to engage in conversation with conservative-leaning blacks, such as my acquaintance, that will move them toward traditionalism without alienating them. Is there room in traditionalism for reasonable blacks—in other words—a way to express ideas we believe to be truthful that seem highly likely to offend or at least be met with serious resistance?

LA replies:

I’ll try reply to this later.

Alex K. writes:

Horowitz paraphrases Obama as having said, “I’ve always been a Christian.” Has Obama actually said that, or something that could be paraphrased that way? It’s a hugely brazen lie if so, contradicted by his own words. But when did he say it? Also, Obama’s treatment of Wright I would say went more like this: First, he did not deny knowing who Wright “really was,” he denied only that he didn’t witness a few incidents of exceptionally harsh language. He gave a big speech admitting he did know who Wright “really was” but that what Wright was, was okay because of racism against blacks. Then when Wright wouldn’t go away he suddenly claimed to have discovered that Wright was something he hadn’t realized and cut ties. All of this is much worse and much more blatant than merely claiming not to know who Wright was. That he got away with it shows that this is not just an issue of his lies but an issue of the public being willing and desirous to see in Obama whatever they want (this may be declining for at least part of the public).

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 04, 2009 07:23 PM | Send