Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said in excerpts from an interview released on Thursday that people airing snippets of his fiery sermons were trying to paint him as "some sort of fanatic."
Wright, who has kept a low profile since repeated televised airings last month of segments of his sermons, is semi-retired from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a church the Democratic presidential candidate joined 20 years ago.
In grainy video of sermons he delivered years ago, Wright is seen calling the September 11 attacks retribution for U.S. policies and condemning America's failings on race.
At one point he shouts to his congregation, "God Bless America? No, God damn America."
"The persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the communication perfectly," he told PBS' Bill Moyers in the interview to be broadcast on Friday.
1. Dilbertnomore wrote:
The offending clips were lifted from the “Best Of” DVD sold by Rev. Wright’s church which, presumably, Rev. Wright had at lease some degree of editorial control over.
I’m not quite right because I choose to believe my lying eyes instead of what you are telling me.
Paint me embarrassed. For sure.
April 26, 6:42 pm | [comment link]
2. Albeit wrote:
His Church is providing him with a $1.6 million retirement home, as a part of a $10 million line of credit taken out by the congregation. Hmmmm!
April 26, 7:36 pm | [comment link]
3. Dave B wrote:
I watched the interview and found Rev Wright to be disingenuous in both his sermons and his explanations. In his G D sermon I think it is OK to point out the failings of the Government but to ask God’s wrath to be poured out is over the top. Does Rev Wright really want God to damn America as God damned Israel? Does the Rev Wright really want young men turned into slaves; women to become the property of war to be raped and made concubines, old people left to die or killed, the land left desolate, the treasury looted and all that was honored destroyed! Is this really what the Rev Wright wants? Why not pray for those put in authority over you, ask God to bless America and stand beside her and GUIDE her so we can be a just people? I could go on and on about Japan during WW II, maybe Japan’s chickens came home with the nukes. That Senator Obama spent twenty years with Wright as an advisor and confidant leaves me dumb founded!
April 26, 7:39 pm | [comment link]
4. Harvey wrote:
Seems like Mr Wright isn’t up on remembering the ten commandments and completely forgot one in particular.
April 26, 8:19 pm | [comment link]
“Thou shalt not use the Lord God’s name in vain. The Lord will not hold him guiltless who uses His name in vain!!”
5. wamark wrote:
Wright and Obama are both members of the the ultra-left and soon to be extinct United Church of Christ (UCC). There is no radical and unscriptural idea (embraced by the popular culture) that they don’t champion. Nuff said.
April 26, 9:43 pm | [comment link]
6. Ed the Roman wrote:
I’m still waiting for the context in which those remarks are not treasonous blasphemy.
April 26, 10:36 pm | [comment link]
7. John Wilkins wrote:
I would point out that each of the preceding comments seems not to have listened to the entire sermons, nor the interview with Bill Moyers.
A little background: Pastor Wright did not only enlist as a marine, he reenlisted as a Navy man. I would warrant that generally, this is not the act of someone who is anti-American. There are easier ways to do it.
Dave B actually illustrates how real the misunderstanding is: in fact Pastor Wright did not WANT America to be damned. He was repeating from scripture what happens to a nation when it doesn’t care for the poor. Theologically, it was a justified critique of henotheism: that one’s nation can take the place of God. He doesn’t want American bombs to kill innocent people, and worries about God’s judgment. Likewise, his statements implicitly condemn those who kill innocent Americans.
The first comment makes me wonder what he sees. After all, I saw the entire sermon and found his description of the psalm illuminating. I understood it as a warning TO the faithful. I didn’t find it unpatriotic at all. Perhaps we should talk about why we see it differently.
what is also clear is that the commentators didn’t hear what he said in the interview about his experience regarding 9/11.
April 26, 11:37 pm | [comment link]
8. John Wilkins wrote:
I would also add for #3 - that Wright’s critique would have also held for Japan. If you had listened closely, Wright argues that violence breeds violence. What Dave could not hear, however, is WRight’s note - how easily we justify the killing of Japanese Civilians because of our own righteousness. Or any civilians. Or any babies. Because their people attacked us. How easy it is for us to do. For anyone.
And this is sin. And it is hard to hear.
April 26, 11:44 pm | [comment link]
9. TACit wrote:
It is trivially easy for anyone with a computer to look at video clips of Rev. Wright on YouTube and judge for him/herself whether he has been ‘painted’ unfairly - or whether Moyers may be attempting to re-paint the picture…..
April 26, 11:55 pm | [comment link]
As I watched such video clips, what mostly occurred to me is that this man is somewhat unhinged, and has no compunction about exciting his audience who resemble an overwrought fringe group. He does not make logical connections - indeed, he constructs illogically - in addressing the flock he should be striving to educate and set on a right path. It did chill me inwardly to imagine that a potential POTUS, one Harvard-trained, no less, might have listened to such for 20 years without recognizing the deep and urgent need to correct Wright, in his delivery at the very least.
10. John Wilkins wrote:
You’re probably right, Tacit. I’m glad that I had the opportunity to listen to his sermons directly and also witness the power of the church’s ministries. If he is unhinged, we certainly need more unhinged Christians, because they are doing the work. If you need help with the logic, let me do so.
After 9/11 he discussed the psalm 137. You know it, right?
He discusses the direction of the psalm: the faithful who want revenge. First against the armed enemies. And then (in his words, “the babies”) the innocents. Remember what he does in the sermon then? He says, clearly, that he intends to digress. So he digresses (a fairly standard element in some preahcing styles). He referred to a former soldier/analyst on Fox news who was discussing how this attack happened. Wright then entered into a litany of various sorts of ways our country has terrorized others. It’s not a pretty picture, of course, but it is true. Then he uses the code many blacks use (the chickens) but in the CIA it’s called “blowback.” Then - to put it in another way he says, “violence breeds violence.”
I hope that helps.
April 27, 12:07 am | [comment link]
12. azusa wrote:
OK, John/Gawain, 9/11 was payback for Hiroshima. Got it.
April 27, 3:23 am | [comment link]
Now, how ‘bout Aids being invented by the US Government to wipe out blacks?
(I have other questions when you’ve answered that one, but they can wait.)
13. Dilbertnomore wrote:
Let’s suppose Rev. Wright has been taken horribly out of context and our lying eyes are completely wrong. Why then has the man in the public eye who knows him best dropped him like a hot rock and put as much distance between he and him as possible? If Rev. Wright has been wronged why has Mr. Obama not come to his defense? If Rev. Wright is right why is not Mr. Obama wrong?
April 27, 7:27 am | [comment link]
14. Henry Greville wrote:
Excuse me for mentioning it, but does any Episcopalian not recall moments when the rector or assistant or visiting preacher has not given a talk at sermon time that was disagreeable? I was taught during confirmation that the important thing was to attend one’s local parish regardless of sermon quality, since the purpose and hope of regular worship is to encounter and praise God by means of the entire corporate liturgy. To choose a parish based on the preacher, I was told, was to make the first mistaken step towards worshipping an idol rather than God.
April 27, 8:06 am | [comment link]
15. John Wilkins wrote:
The Gordian -
Do you think that is what he was saying? Are you even trying to understand what he is saying? Perhaps you want him to be a fanatic. it makes it easier to dismiss what he’s actually trying to say.
For I didn’t hear him as saying that. I did hear him as saying to his congregation - as Americans - that we’re also capable of acts of violence. Yep - we got hurt by people doing acts of violence against innocent people. And you know - we’re going to use our hurt to justify hurting other innocent people. We’ll say “the japanese” or “The Iraqis” washing our hands clean of the innocent Japanese or Iraqis just trying to make a living.
Tacit - I know the sermon. In fact, I heard it. Why is it we heard different things?
Dilbertnomore - Obama publically disagreed with Wright for 2 reasons.
1) he actually disagreed with what he said about politics
2) Obama wants to become president.
But disagreement doest not mean abandonment. And they both understand the distinction between a prophet and a king. Wright remarked that they do not generally talk about politics.
But wright’s spiritual gifts are quite apparent. You can tell by the fruits: 9000 members. Biblical preaching. Strong ministries.
Of course, the world doesn’t like Wright much. Thus, the soundbites.
April 27, 8:31 am | [comment link]
16. azusa wrote:
John Wilkins/Gawain: “Wright then entered into a litany of various sorts of ways our country has terrorized others. It’s not a pretty picture, of course, but it is true. Then he uses the code many blacks use (the chickens) but in the CIA it’s called “blowback.” Then - to put it in another way he says, “violence breeds violence.” “
Like I said, Wright’s message was: ‘9/11 was payback for Hiroshima etc’. Are YOU even trying to understand what he is saying?
Now please answer my question about Wright’s statement that the US Govt invented Aids to kill blacks. I’ll take silence on this to mean tacit agreement.
April 27, 8:46 am | [comment link]
17. John Wilkins wrote:
Anonymous/Gordian, if he said it, I don’t think he’s right. I don’t expect him to be right about everything. Why should I? I probably associate with people myself who don’t pass muster. Glad Jesus isn’t around to be under our judgmental eye, these days.
Still, I do think that government policy towards AIDS was pretty abominable. But he’s wrong. I can construct reasons why it is believable, given that the government use African Americans as experiments at one time. I admit, I’m interested in how he got to believe what he believes. I suspect you merely want to label him insane. Again: I know people who know him well (Wright and I had the same adviser). And I think Fox has an interest in exploiting these statements.
A couple other things: Your use of “payback” implies that he approves of “payback.” I don’t think that’s right.
But do you think people don’t want payback? They sure do. We wanted payback in Iraq and Afghanistan. We justify it by calling it “national security.”
Perhaps you might have detected a hint of Schadenfreude in his message, almost like Jonah. Perhaps. But what I heard was that God will transform us from seeking violence to seeking peace. Even the faithful want to smash babies - not just Muslims, not just atheists, Christians. Do you disagree?
Likewise, you seem to agree tacitly with his point, that violence does breed violence. But it is uncomfortable to acknowledge how easily we participate in it ourselves.
April 27, 12:04 pm | [comment link]
18. Fr. Greg wrote:
RE: “GD America”
The issues are different. The preaching style is different. However, I’m not sure the content is that much different from a statement coming out of the white Evangelical community and often attributed to Billy Graham:
“If God does not judge America soon, then He will owe an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.”
April 27, 12:40 pm | [comment link]
19. azusa wrote:
“I suspect you merely want to label him insane.”
April 27, 1:43 pm | [comment link]
Not at all. He’s a political demagogue, just like Jesse Jackson. He’s sincerely religious in his own way, too. But peddling falsehoods and whipping up animosities falls FAR short of the Gospel of Christ, whether from the left or the right. He’s the mirror image of the Right he despises.
” Again: I know people who know him well (Wright and I had the same adviser). And I think Fox has an interest in exploiting these statements.”
Well, knock me over with a feather. To think they lack the objective, disinterested purity of ABC, CBS, MSNBC….
You can see the entire sermon of April 2003 on the Fox website and judge for yourself.
20. Dave B wrote:
John Wilkins-As I said before and I stand by my statement, Rev Wright is disengenous in his sermons and his spin on them. We bombed Libya because Kadafi was involved in the terrorist bombing of a Disco Tec and was training and arming terrorists. No one I know of rejoiced that a child was killed; the pupose was to take out Kadafi. The US military goes out of its way to avoid “collateral damage”. President Bush took great pains to point out that muslims were not responsible for 911 and we did not wish harm to the people of Afghanistan, but the people that harbored Ben Ladin and his group. The people of Japan were not sitting at home peacefully minding there own business. All these events happened in a historical context and it is easy to score points by ignoring what was going on. During the interview Rev Wright also attempted to justify his relationship with Farrakhan and justify Farrakhan’s racism and anti-Semitism by saying what wonderful things he has done in the black community, what a bunch of horse hockey! I tried to LISTEN to the Rev Wright with my heart but my head kept getting in the way.
April 27, 2:15 pm | [comment link]
21. Dave B wrote:
John violence breeds violence but so does ignoring violence. We had two embassies bombed, the World Trade Center the first time, Kobar Towers, and the USS Cole with out an adequate response. Ben Laden felt he was free to do what ever he wanted with minimal reaction from the US. If England under Chamberlain had stopped the Nazi in the Suderland WWII could have been avoided, but of course Chamberlain insured peace in our time and the chickens came home to roost.
April 27, 2:23 pm | [comment link]
22. Dilbertnomore wrote:
#15 thanks for the two excellent reasons for excusing Mr. Obama from dumping his pastor of twenty years because he just discovered the pastor held politically incorrect views and he (Mr. Obama) wants to become President. All this time I was under the misperception Mr. Obama was trying to tell us he wasn’t the typical political animal commonly found in these seasons. Glad you cleared that up. That puts things in an entirely different light. All my doubts are cleared, much to my relief, now that I can rest assured Mr. Obama has no qualms dumping any old friend or associate who gets in the way of his desire to become President. Pragmatism personified wholly unencumbered by personal loyalty. How can I contribute?
April 27, 6:18 pm | [comment link]
23. HowieG wrote:
After reading the responses to the main article, it has become very clear to me that the form of teaching/actions called “Liberation Theology” has shown, once again, how dangerous a “modern” “new way” of teaching the Gospels can become. Instead of teaching us how to be “Liberated” from the tyranny of Sin, we get Wright’s antics of pushing a social form of the Gospel that is close to, if not already over the line, a false gospel.
The Roman Catholic Church learned this in the 60’s and 70’s. You would think other Christian based Churches would have learned it too.
April 27, 10:01 pm | [comment link]
24. John Wilkins wrote:
Dilbertnomore, I don’t understand your comment. Obama has always been clear that he is a politician and not a prophet. He didn’t abandon Jeremiah Wright, but he didn’t talk to him about politics. Why should he? As Gordian noted, Wright is often wrong about politics.
But Gordian doesn’t know much about how the black community works. They are suspicious (as he is) of the mainstream media. Of course, I heard the sermon he mentions. And I found it spot on. Offensive? Well, Jesus was pretty offensive to people’s personal pieties. Unpatriotic? Probably. But patriotism isn’t a Christian virtue. It’s a pagan virtue. It’s theological equivalent is henotheism.
Does he have equivalents on the right? Perhaps. Although I think that Wright’s scriptural knowledge is much more thorough, and his ministries seem a lot less self-serving than televangelists on the right.
Liberation theology, alas, is thoroughly scriptural and is based on the idea that people’s lives are actually found in the bible. But you don’t eliminate the verses about what God thinks of the poor, and of nations who don’t care about the poor.
April 28, 8:09 am | [comment link]
25. Ed the Roman wrote:
John, Wright was in the service when I was a little boy. Whittaker Chambers was in the Communist Party when my father was a little boy. Josef Stalin was in seminary when he was a little boy.
People’s thinking can change over forty years. Wright’s sure did.
I could have asked also about the Hamas letter in the church bulletin, the Israeli project to build a bomb that kills Arabs and blacks, AIDS as a domestic genocide project, crack as a domestic genocide project, the “garlic-noses” reference, the comparison of 3d Marines to the Roman legion that carried out the Crucifixion, any number of things. Again, in which context is this not violently hostile, bigoted and deluded?
A lot of people took offense at what Jesus said, but not because He was making insane false accusations.
April 28, 9:58 am | [comment link]
26. John Wilkins wrote:
Ed, I’m guessing you’re white. You see him as hostile, bigoted and deluded. He is clearly hostile against racists. I’m not sure where you get bigoted. He does tend to read some literature that should be handled carefully. He is, however, an avaricious reader. He tends not to trust the media.
Look, Ed, you don’t trust him. Can’t change that. I actually knew people there. I work with black pastors. The black experience, generally, in this country is one of perpetual disappointment. A love of the idea, but a feeling of always being let down. When Wright says it is the black church people are upset about, I think he’s right. Like lots of conservatives, blacks don’t trust the media or the predispositions media types have. I put his questionable views in the context of his lack of trust in what the media generally says. Do you trust the media Ed?
If one was reading that Hamas was combatting corruption in Fateh and was the only social service network in Gaza, you might have a different view. DNA bombs - well - that’s just a military doing its job. Why wouldn’t Israel be developing one. AIDS and crack as domestic genocide? Well, it happens to be the experience of the black community. It certainly didn’t get any help for these ravaging problems.
“Garlic-noses” might be in bad taste, but is that an insult? I wouldn’t be offended if someone called me a “curry nose.” It’s what I love to eat. And look - everyone gets offended. It’s the way things go.
And as far as the analogical speaking: he is simply bringing life to the texts, making the bible real to our contemporary situation.
But if you ever get a quote by him saying that whites are inferior, or that Israelis are subhuman, or if Italians are dull, or that the military was a pacifist organization, then I’ll stand corrected. As his mentor, Martin Marty once wrote, “The four S’s charged against Wright — segregation, separatism, sectarianism, and superiority — don’t stand up, as countless visitors can attest. I wish those whose vision has been distorted by sermon clips could have experienced what we and our white guests did when we worshiped there: feeling instantly at home.
It would be unfair to Wright to gloss over his abrasive — to say the least — edges, so, in the “Nobody’s Perfect” column, I’ll register some criticisms. To me, Trinity’s honoring of Minister Louis Farrakhan was abhorrent and indefensible, and Wright’s fantasies about the U.S. government’s role in spreading AIDS distracting and harmful. He, himself, is also aware of the now-standard charge by some African-American clergy who say he is a victim of cultural lag, overinfluenced by the terrible racial situation when he was formed.
Having said that, and reserving the right to offer more criticisms, I’ve been too impressed by the way Wright preaches the Christian Gospel to break with him. Those who were part of his ministry for years — school superintendents, nurses, legislators, teachers, laborers, the unemployed, the previously shunned and shamed, the anxious — are not going to turn their backs on their pastor and prophet.”
This is from a white, mainstream professor of Church History.
April 28, 2:27 pm | [comment link]
27. Dave B wrote:
John Wilkins this is a direct quote from Wright’s statements today “And if you saw the Bill Moyers show, I was talking about — although it got edited out — you know, that’s biblical. God doesn’t bless everything. God condemns something — and d-e-m-n, “demn,” is where we get the word “damn.” God damns some practices.
And there is no excuse for the things that the government, not the American people, have done. That doesn’t make me not like America or unpatriotic.” So I guess Wright was damning America. The more I read what you write the more you excuse and make excuses for the Rev Wright because he is from the “black tradition”, doesn’t trust the government ( who does?), had the black experiance, did al this good work,etc etc etc!! At what point do you find him indefensible and wrong instead of Wright?
April 28, 5:30 pm | [comment link]
28. John Wilkins wrote:
Dave B - um - I’m not sure what the issue is. Wright isn’t damning America. He’s reporting. It’s part of the prophetic tradition.
Its a warning about the heresy of patriotism. Its technical name is “henotheism.” Add how we generally ignore the poor, and read what the prophets say.
It’s in the bible, Dave.
If I thought Wright wanted it, well, that would be a problem What he wants is the transformation of your soul - that you would reject the killing of innocents, even in the name of your country. And that you would see that it is everyone’s responsibility to care for the poor. Reject violence. Care for the poor. As he said - he’ll go after Obama as well.
If I thought Wright was really a racist or hated America, I’d agree. Alas, he sees our country with unvarnished eyes. I don’t hear it. His commitment and my own personal experience make the big media representations unbelievable.
Our God is no respecter of any country - including the country of the faithful.
That’s the bible. Do you disagree?
April 28, 11:51 pm | [comment link]
29. TACit wrote:
I’m just guessing, John Wilkins, that maybe you haven’t been outside the US very much? Lived overseas? Travelled far or for long, seeing other countries? Especially not recently?
April 29, 1:55 am | [comment link]
30. Dave B wrote:
John Wilkins, I don’t know what eyes Wright sees America through. America has repented for what went on at Tuskegee. Try to get authorization for human use in any medical experiment. Rev Wright was in the Marines for 6 years. Wright knows Americans are not Roman Legions. American soldiers and units are placed in harms way as trip wires to PREVENT violence and agression for instanace look at Boniface at Pamunjon in Korea (during the year I was Korea we did not have one crucifixion). I know Wright has heard about SOFA, status fo forces agreement, that tells you what happens when you violate various laws and customs in the countries where you are based, these rules do not always favor US forces. I provided anesthesia for a lot of poor people in Foreign countries as a member of the US military. We do care about the poor. NOBODY REPEAT NOBODY but a few sick people wish harm to civilians and people in the military will risk thier lives to prevent harm to the inocent (US special Forces in Iraq in desert shield abondaned there position and risk thier lives because they were discovered by a little girl), they could have killed her and gotten away. Look at the use of our militrary during the tsunami. America has spent more on the war on poverty than can be imagined. To prevent poverty almost all you need to do is graduate from high and not get pregnant or father children till you are married. In some cities less than fifty percent of children graduate from high school and what is the unwed birth rate? If you do become pregnant you can actually live off the government pretty well. Why doesn’t Wright preach about that instead of GOD damn America? Our poor are better off than many non poor in other countries. The poor in America haven’t suffered a rice shortage. My only conclusion is Rev Wright is a flame thrower and demagogue.
April 29, 5:47 am | [comment link]
31. Dave B wrote:
John Wilkins have you ever heard of Water Reed, what about Gorgias, the clean up up at Jones town, Hondurian earth quake relief, Tsunami relief as mentioned just to name a few military legion expedations to advance the Roman frontier. There is all so something in the Bible about bearing false witness!
April 29, 9:13 am | [comment link]
32. libraryjim wrote:
I remember a natural disaster struck somewhere in the world shortly after Katrina and two other hurricanes had struck the US. The US pledged a certain amount in aid, and the UN ambassador from France (?) got up and castigated the US for pledging so little, since we were such a wealthy nation. Yeah, after all the aid we have given freely, without expectation of return or re-payment. He later apologized, but his first comment exemplified the attitudes of Europe towards the US—based on false impressions, I might add.
I can understand outsiders not understanding us enough in their criticisim of us, but it really hurts when a fellow American can’t take the time to get his facts straight and asks God to “d@mn” America for defending herself against foreign agressors (his comments on using the atomic bomb on Japan), and then echoing Farakhan in saying ‘our chickens are coming home to roost” when we are senselessly attacked by cowards who kill 3,000 innocents in an act of war.
No, he is guilty of more then hyperbole, he is guilty of preaching hatred from the pulpit, hypocracy in enjoying the blessings of this country to curse it, and then bearing false witness against a former (current?) parishoner who he mentored for 20 years.
Obama is guilty, too, of pretending he wasn’t influenced by Wright for those 20 years he considered him a mentor and friend.
April 29, 6:07 pm | [comment link]
Jim Elliott <><
33. libraryjim wrote:
do you remember this email that circulated around 9/11, written by a Canadian, Gordon Sinclair, over 28 years ago? It is, IMO, worth repeating here:
“This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans.
I’d like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don’t they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes?
Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times - and safely home again.
You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.
I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don’t think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I’m one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those.”
Stand proud, America!
(Although to corret one point: I do believe that other countries offered assistance after Katrina.)
April 29, 6:14 pm | [comment link]