WTF? John Conyers others in audience as Farrakhan rails against "Satanic Jews"

[cali]

This is disgusting. It's fucking inexcusable. Shame on Conyers and other dems who arranged this and attended it.

Shame on Conyers. Shame on the local branch of NAACP and its chair.

The leading Jewish civil rights group in the U.S. slammed anti-Semitic comments made in a Detroit church by Minister Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam. The Anti-Defamation League is also calling upon Detroit leaders who invited Farrakhan and hosted his talks last week in Detroit to condemn his remarks.

At Fellowship Chapel in Detroit, Farrakhan railed Friday night against what he called “Satanic Jews” and the “Synagogue of Satan,” which he said controlled major institutions in the U.S. He also alleged that President Barack Obama “surrounded himself with Satan ... members of the Jewish community.”

Attending Farrakhan’s speech were the pastor of the church, Rev. Wendell Anthony, who heads the Detroit Branch NAACP; U.S. Rep. John Conyers, a Democrat from Detroit; Detroit City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson, and other religious and political leaders.

<snip>

Anthony, Watson, Conyers and Farrakhan’s office did not return calls today seeking comment.

<snip>

http://www.freep.com/article/20130522/NEWS01/305220133/Anti-Defamation-League-slams-Louis-Farrakhan-remarks

[loli phabay]

1. im not sure what they thoight farrakhan would say, this is his normal stuff

[Happyhippychick]

86. Exactly

[The Magistrate]

2. Rep. Conyers In Particular, Ma'am, Needs To Cut This Fool Off At The Knees

It is not like Farrakhan cannot be expected to spew swill like this; no one can really claim to be surprised.

[cali]

8. It seems a little late for that suggestion

he's been not cutting him off at the knees for years. In other words, he's condoning this hate.

There really is no other way to see it.

[The Magistrate]

12. Nonetheless, Ma'am, He Had Best Talk Up Now

[kelliekat44]

6. +1,000

[cali]

11. are you kidding?

Farrakhan is a hateful bigot.

[cali]

45. so what? does that make Farrakhan less of a bigot?

pathetic. but then it's you.

[The Link]

13. I don't think Hillary Clinton shares your admiration for the guy.

Neither does President Obama.

Where did you get your alt media inspired viewpoint?

[The Magistrate]

18. You Know, Sir, A Lot Of People Have Suggested You Are Simply Trolling The Site

This comment makes them look pretty accurate in their suspicions. It seems aimed at pure trouble-making. It does not seem of a piece with most of your other comments, if these were to be taken as honest expressions of a political commitment.

"What was your name in the States? Was it Wilson or Johnson or Bates?"

[The Magistrate]

37. You Have Crossed The Line, Sir, Into 'Way Too Fucking Obvious' Territory....

"Don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs."

[ProSense]

46. Well said. n/t

[The Magistrate]

77. I See He Has Left The Thread, Ma'am

My alert did not carry, but I stand by it.

For the record, he did indeed defend Farrakhan, urging that he be treated as a respectable public figure, which in this context amounts to endorsing the comments cited above. Nor do I believe for a moment he actually thought the link was not to the Detroit Free Press but to Free Republic.

[redgreenandblue]

79. I eventually gave up alerting on his posts.

He is pretty good at knowing how to get close to the brink without crossing it. The best I could ever do was "3-3 Leave", but his act was obvious months ago.

[premium]

80. I called him on that,

told me he didn't defend Farrakhan, when I tried to rebut his statement, he had already self deleted.
I guess he couldn't get out of here fast enough.

[rl6214]

56. Not when that speech reaches hate speech levels.

[JVS]

108. Great, now you scared him into self-deleting!

[geek tragedy]

19. Freep is the Detroit Free Press, not Free Republic.

The only bigot under discussion here is Farrakhan.

[choie]

20. if you had actually read the article

you'd see it was from the Detroit Free Press

[longship]

32. Freep.com == Detroit Free Press.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. You don't know the Detroit Free Press? Seriously? You are trying to claim that is Free Republic?

Are you being duplicitous or are you just admitting you did not even read the article and that you are deeply uninformed?

I am not surprised to see you defending yet another homophobic bigoted millionaire. It is the people who lend legitimacy to hate mongers that allow them to continue spewing hate. They are in fact the same as that which they defend or excuse. To suggest that the Detroit Free Press is FR is a mendacity that is typical of those attempting to excuse the inexcusable.

[leftynyc]

62. The newspaper is the local paper in Detroit

The Detroit Free Press. They unfortunately have a web address that many mistake for that sewer on the right. And farrakhan is a fucking asshole.

[graham4anything]

65. My mistake. I didn't know that it wasn't. Which skewered my thinking

and I thought it was a rightwing smear.

my apologies.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

100. Bwwwwaaaahaahaahaahaa!!!!!!

Did you just apologize to the "alt-media"? Good for you.

[premium]

69. Are you really going to go there?

This man is a hateful racist bigot and Conyers and company have known this for years given Farrakhan's past history of hateful speeches.
Rep. Conyers and the others should have stood up and walked out as soon as that bigot started talking.
You just get more and more bizarre with each passing day.

[premium]

71. Not what I said,

they should all be called out every time they utter hateful words, no matter who it is.
You attempted to defend this racist bigot and got called on it and now you're trying to backpedal as fast as you can, guess what, it won't work.
Tell me this, do you still defend Farrakhan's word's.
I refuse to use the title Minister, IMO, he's no man of god.

[Nye Bevan]

4. I'm really really hoping that no DUers try to defend that bigot Farrakhan in this thread..... (nt)

[geek tragedy]

7. Too late, look above nt

[Nye Bevan]

10. Yep. (nt)

[loli phabay]

9. pretty much guarenteed.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Already done and the poster tried to claim Cali is linking to Free Republic as part of the defense.

Unreal what goes on here.

[Ikonoklast]

81. I will defend him.

Farrakhan has every right to say what he wants to say.

And we have the right to call him a bigoted asshole.

[premium]

83. Nobody's saying that he doesn't have the right spew his hate,

the problem was the Rep. Conyers, IMO, didn't get up and walk out at the first utterance of hate speech by Farrahkan.

[Ikonoklast]

87. Why should Rep. Conyers be held responsible for the speech or actions of others?

When I listen to someone I disagree with, politically, socially, or otherwise, I refuse to accept that I am responsible for or agree with anyone's ideas except my own.

Was Conyers nodding his head in agreement? Was he giving that little shit Farrakhan the finger the whole time?

The idea that Conyers didn't react the way some people think he should have is to me a hindsight type of judgment.

"I would have done *this* if I was there, so Conyers should have done the same!"

Except that most of us would have sat there in stunned silence at the blatant display of hate and bigotry.

[premium]

88. Did I say that Conyers should be held responsible for Farrahkan's speech?

Nowhere did I even indicate that, if that's how you read it, then you're wrong.
I did say that IMO, Rep. Conyers should have gotten up and left as soon as Farrakhan started on his hate filled, bigoted speech.
Maybe you're right that most would have sat there in stunned silence, all I can go by is what my reaction would have been, which would consist of calling him a racist bigot and then walking out on him.

[Ikonoklast]

90. Many in this thread are excoriating Conyers.

They make the leap that his lack of action equals consent.

He might have been ignoring Farrakhan every second he was flapping his gums on stage, waiting for the next speaker to say something intelligent.


So much angst over such a non-issue by the "I would have done this but I wasn't there crowd!"


I equate stuff like this to the gunners who tell us what brave actions they would have taken to save lives against the bad guy with a gun, except IRL most of them would do what everyone does, run for their lives.

[premium]

92. Fair enough,

I can only say what I would have done in that situation. At the very least, Rep. Conyers should publicly condemn Farrahkan, but, that's only my opinion.
Not going to change my opinion of Rep. Conyers, whom I greatly admire.

[geek tragedy]

5. About time for Conyers to retire, his brain can't be working right. nt

[geek tragedy]

16. Sure, there's freedom to hang around Farrakhan and David Duke

and repulsive bigots like that.

But, for leaders to do that shows impaired judgment.

[geek tragedy]

24. The source link is the Detroit Free Press. nt

[Enrique]

27. freep.com is the Detroit Free Press

a normal daily newspaper.

[geek tragedy]

43. Oy. nt

[loli phabay]

17. really, you dont have a problem with the crap this guy spews.

Where do you draw the line.

[Number23]

103. Wow.

Lots of ugly shit in this thread.

[geek tragedy]

104. Well, given the welcome one of the US's most prominent hate figures

got at this event, yeah there's going to be some ugliness.

Farrakhan is Fred Phelps on LGBT and David Duke on Jews.

No excuses for lending Farrakhan that kind of legitimacy.

Conyers has since apologized for Farrakhan's remarks, but what the hell did he expect?

[dsc]

14. gee amazing how hanging with a muslim with sincere religious beliefs is downright awful

but when Obama had a radical Christian cleric denounce gays on the campaign trail we were told that was perfectly acceptable. I wonder what the difference is.

[The Link]

21. Are you referring to the '08 campaign?

To be fair, Obama himself had a bigoted view of gays at that time. Having someone that shared some of those views is not unusual.

[dsc]

23. this went far beyond not favoring marriage

McClurkin believed gays were Satanic and could change.

[The Link]

26. I believe the use of an anti-gay religious figure was a calculated move to garner votes.

I don't support it in any way. I would hope that it was not supported here at the time it was happening.

[dsc]

36. it certainly was

[cali]

35. so post that quote

I can't find it

but in any case. McClurkin, the ex gay homophobic, should never have been used by Obama and he and his message were repudiated by Obama.

[dsc]

53. Here are some of his finest

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2009/11/watch-donnie-mcclurkin-rants-against-tonex-homosexuality-and-gay-youth-at-cogic.html

the above has him calling us perverse, and vampires.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/29/obama-supporter-god-delivered-me-from-homosexuality/

that is the link to what he actually said at the concert in question. He claimed he could change.

[premium]

73. Pres. Obama's views have evolved on the Gay Rights issue,

Farrakhan's racist, bigoted views haven't, in fact, they've become much worse over the years.

[HiPointDem]

130. there was also the little thing about the saddleback church guy who gave the inaugural blessing

or whatever...being connected to the 'kill the gay' stuff in uganda.

yep, pretty hypocritical...

[cali]

25. what on earth are you babbling about?

first of all, dear, there was a huge stink here about Obama consorting with anti-gay clergy. Secondly, are you actually supporting this
unequivocal bigotry?

[dsc]

31. No I'm not

but the fact is many, many people defended Obama having McClurkin as an emcee for his first SC campaign event. We were told that it was the only way to appeal to blacks, we were called racist for bringing it up. And if you dare try to say I am lying I will find thread after thread doing exactly these things. I think all bigots should be treated the same but a rather large swath of DU feel that one bigot, McClurkin should be treated quite differently from another bigot.

[cali]

39. I remember it. Yes, there were some who defended it. They were wrong. Just like YOU are

YOU are defending sick shit as "sincerely held religious beliefs".



Shame on YOU

[The Link]

50. Religious beliefs, regardless of inherent bigotry, can be sincerely held.

The President himself opposed same sex marriage for many years based on his religion. I have no doubt he was sincere in those beliefs, as I have no doubt that he has rethought his views and changed.

[dsc]

60. you don't think Farrakan sincerely hates Jews?

He is nothing if not sincere. Sincere doesn't mean right, it doesn't mean good, it doesn't mean the person's views should be taken seriously. It means he believes what he says and he believes it for religious reasons. BTW this is why people on my side of gay rights find the notion that religion excuses bigotry so appalling. The fact is the Klan had chaplins who one assumes were sincerely religiously opposed to civil rights. Farrakhan is sincerely opposed to Jews for religious reasons but just like Klan chaplins and just like McClurkin they should be told that they can't have their way because their views are, no matter how sincerely held, wrong for society.

[BainsBane]

28. I'd see Farrakhan if he came to town

that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. Ridiculous outrage. Conyers isn't responsible for what someone else says. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from Fox news.

[geek tragedy]

41. He's responsible for sharing a stage with him

which is an implicit endorsement of Farrakhan's legitimacy.

How would we react if Paul Ryan shared a stage with David Duke?

[BainsBane]

48. the article doesn't say they shared a stage

It said Conyers attended the event. Black Muslims have left Farrakhan behind. This sort of ideology isn't common anymore.

[geek tragedy]

57. The Detroit establishment opened up its arms to Farrakhan at this event.

There's a collective lack of judgment and leadership going on there.

Every decent person in attendance should have walked out when he started spewing hate.

[choie]

51. Conyers is a congressman

and as such, needs to come out against bigotry of ALL forms...

[BainsBane]

52. I certainly agree with that

my point is that hearing someone speak doesn't mean one has the same views.

[premium]

76. What Rep. Conyers and the rest of his entourage should have done

was get up and walk out at the first utterance of hate speech, he didn't. I greatly admire Rep. Conyers, but not on this incident.

[BainsBane]

112. He has repudiated Farrakhan's comments

http://www.freep.com/article/20130523/NEWS01/305230119/John-Conyers-apologizes-for-Farrakhan-s-anti-Semitic-remarks

[premium]

122. Saw that last night,

and I commend him for that.

[cali]

123. It strikes me a purely political. He waited almost a week and only did it when

he'd been raked over the coals for not saying anything.

[cali]

54. and that says a great deal about you. I'd no more go see him then his white counterpart, David Duke

your mewling defense is what's ridiculous and sick.

[BainsBane]

58. Hardly surprising

that you respond with vitriol. The Nation of Islam has played an important role in Civil Rights in this country, as reprehensible as you might find that. I'd see Angela Davis too, and Malcom X if he were still alive. I'd see a lot of people because I like to learn things. I want to hear what they have to say myself.

[cali]

66. Farrakhan is a hate monger. Do you actually think it's acceptable to say that jews

are satanic? it's no more acceptable than the far right wingnuts who claim Islam is satanic. It's all hate and it should all be repudiated in the strongest of terms.

[BainsBane]

107. Of course I don't

think it's acceptable.

[BainsBane]

110. You know who else is a hate monger

Netanyahu and Likud. I don't recall similar threads from you about Presidents and Secretaries of State meeting with them. Or does the fact they kill Arabs make it better? Farrakhan's views on Jews are entirely offensive, and frankly I'm surprised he still talks that way because the Nation of Islam no longer endorses such views. Unlike Likud and other right-wing elements of the Jewish government, he isn't actively murdering children. For that matter, our own government does the same thing with drones. I happen to consider killing people more serious than hate speech.

[cali]

115. then you should fucking read my posts in I/P, genius

just do a search.

[Le Taz Hot]

106. Fascinating that you mention

Malcom X considering it was agents of the Nation of Islam who had him killed. Yeah, I know, it was never proven but it was common knowledge. He was being threatened and his family was being threatened. Why? Because 1) he was about to expose Elija Mohammed as the fraud he was and 2) because, during his pilgrimage he discovered the version of Islam he had been taught was a bastardized version of the real Islam. And who took over and moved up significantly in the organization after Malcom X was murdered? Why, Himself, of course.

[BainsBane]

111. If Elijah Mohamed or someone else in the Nation of Islam

had Malcom X killed, they did so with the complicity of the FBI.

[Le Taz Hot]

116. So that makes it all better.

[BainsBane]

117. No, why must you invent things?

Isn't the written word enough to work from?

[Le Taz Hot]

118. Because I like to call out redirection and diversion

when I see it. People use it when their argument becomes untenable.

[BainsBane]

119. You are the one who speculated on Malcom X's murder

but my doing so is redirection? How is that?

I don't know what you think is so untenable about my argument.
You're angry because I said I don't believe someone to be responsible for what another person says in an event at which he is an audience member. So I must assume you have never left your house because there is no way you can have avoided listening to something objectionable in your life. Do you vote? Do you get so angry at people who do vote? Every politician does something objectionable at some point. We are responsible for our own actions and words. Not those of everyone we come into contact with.

[kestrel91316]

34. Nation of Islam is right up there with Scientology when it comes to

religious wackiness. UFOs, aliens, blah blah blah.........

I had an assistant years ago who fell in with the NOI crowd for a time (before she worked for me). Said her BF demanded that she cover her hair (like muslim women do), but then there was that whole UFO/alien thing, too. She eventually ran screaming from him and it.

[siligut]

44. Here, Farrakhan turned the eugenics argument against the white guys

Over the years, Farrakhan has drawn criticism for comments seen at times as being anti-Semitic and anti-white. On the radio show where he spoke about his Detroit visit, he said of whites: “Genetically, you are inferior. ... We can wipe you off the Earth just cohabiting with you and that’s why your population is going down.”

Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, looks forward to Farrakhan’s visit.

“He is one of the most respected people in the black American community,” said Walid, who is African-American. “I know he has some critics, but no one can take that away from him. ... He speaks to the concerns of the common, everyday black person in urban areas throughout the country who are struggling.”

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013305160082

I know this is a crapfest and the Free Detroit Press abbreviated as "freep" is not lost on me, but damn, the irony is killing me.

[notadmblnd]

102. if I'm not mistaken, the Free Press is the liberal paper in Detroit and

The Detroit News is considered conservative.

[Capt. Obvious]

47. Farrakhan is a fool

Free Masons run the country.

[leftynyc]

59. What were they expecting?

Invite a snake, expect to get bit.

[LuvNewcastle]

72. That's what I think about it.

I wouldn't spit on Farrakhan if he was on fire. It's sickening to me that any politician would attend an event where he was speaking. They might as well be at a Klan rally; it's all the same to me.

[leftynyc]

82. I'm not anywhere near his district

but I can tell you I would skip the race rather than vote for someone who does not condemn that maggot.

[LuvNewcastle]

85. +1000

There really shouldn't be any debate about that assclown. It amazes me that anyone here is defending Conyers over this. Well, I'm amazed by some of them, anyway.

[leftynyc]

95. Sadly

it doesn't surprise me even a little bit.

[Behind the Aegis]

98. Doesn't surprise me either.

The only thing I find surprising is only one person did a "HEY! Look over there!" using Israel, and one other used the same tactic but substituted the ADL for Israel. Isn't it amazing that a discussion about anti-Semitism suddenly turns into "well, Israel...", "But, but but...the ADL never says anything about anti-Muslim things (which is not even remotely true)," and "Yeah, but "X" group has it worse, Jews are doing well in (insert profession)."

Some things are sooooooo predictable!

[denverbill]

63. I find it interesting the language like that about Jews generates much more rebuke than

when similar language is used against Muslims.

After all, we have elected Republicans and candidates openly using almost exactly the same language toward Islam, and while DUers may gripe about it, I never heard other Republicans or the ADL raising much of a stink about that.

That being said, I completely reject Farrakhan and think it was pretty stupid to invite him or attend an event he was going to be speaking at.

[Nye Bevan]

64. "Macaca" caused quite the shitstorm though, didn't it? (nt)

[cali]

68. not at all true.

similar language against Muslims is excoriated even more unequivocally here.

Other more subtle anti-Muslim comments, alas, are countenanced.

[denverbill]

78. I said that DUers denounced anti-Muslim comments.

What I don't see is Republicans or the ADL denouncing people making anti-Muslim comments.

Rush Limbaugh will probably have a lead story about how awful it was a top Democrat attended a conference where someone called Jews satanic, then he'll go right on to call Muslims devil-worshippers and never get a peep from any mainstream Republican or the ADL.

[Behind the Aegis]

121. Maybe you don't see,because you don't want to see.

The ADL has often spoken out against a variety of bigotries including Islamophobia and anti-Arab bigotry. You know what I find interesting? Every time someone or some group goes all out in his/her/their anti-Semitism, folks come strolling by to complain about the ADL or others not condemning Islamophobia, but either don't say shit about the anti-Semitism, which is the topic, or give a casual "well, it is bad, but...."

You can search for your own proof, but to get you started: ADL'S Abe Foxman denounces anti-mosque rally as 'un-American'.

[malaise]

74. If Bibi can be the leader of Israel I have no problem hearing from LF n/t

[leftynyc]

84. That tells me all I need

to know about you.

[cali]

93. care to explain that?

what on earth does that have to do with Farrakhan making frankly hateful, bigoted comments?

[malaise]

94. One of them only makes comments n/t

[cali]

96. good grief but you're consistently confused

it's just an inane comparison.

we're talking about democratic politicians attending an event where bigotry and hate is expressed toward a religious/ethnic group without any denunciation of that. It's like a republican going to a a David Duke event where Duke talks about blacks being inferior. It's simply not excusable, dear. that's so basic.

gad.

[malaise]

101. That's your opinion n/t

[cali]

114. It's DU's opinions that bigots and those who support bigots don't belong here

[geek tragedy]

105. You realize that's anti-semitic, right?

"So long as Israeli Jews elect one guy, I'm perfectly okay with Farrakhan channeling Adolf Eichmann when talking about American Jews."

Charming.

[RZM]

127. LOL. So it's the Jews' fault you listen to Farrakhan

That's classic right there.

[Poll_Blind]

89. While Farrakhan is typically odious, make no mistake: His comments are rooted in the BIBLE.

The whole "Synogogue of Satan" thing is directly from Revelation 3 : 9. The point it makes is about worshipers of Satan pretending to be Jews and does not appear to be directed at Jews overall.

People like Farrakhan have a field day with this and I have no way to prove this, but my guess is there are quite a few people who eat that stuff up, whether they understand what the terminology and sentiment of the original commentary mean or not.

Vile persons like Farrakhan operate behind the aegis of the bible and the bible gives ample coverage.

PB

[Aerows]

91. There are some

fucked up people in this world.

[Blue_Tires]

97. I'm more shocked he didn't think Kwame Kilpatrick should be in prison...

the anti-Semitic stuff he's *always* said...

[marshall]

99. Sadly anti-semitism is either accepted or turned away from

It's just part of living in the 21st century. The Holocaust was almost a century ago.

[Yo_Mama]

109. Isn't this normal for Farrakhan?

Was anyone surprised?

[hrmjustin]

113. Conyers should have known better.

[Union Scribe]

120. What, he wasn't here to share muffin recipes??

I agree with all the posters saying people should have known what was going to happen. It's like inviting a klepto over and being surprised your candlestick is missing afterwards.

[aikoaiko]

124. He's kind of the Alex Jones of the disenfranchised black community.

Wackadoo will always have an audience.

[Harmony Blue]

125. The reason he has an audience

is that he does make a lot of salient points, disregarding his anti semtism and anti-gay remarks of course.

[cali]

126. he makes more insane points than sane ones and you cannot disregard

his bigotry and hate anymore than you can disregard David Duke's- or excuse the people that buy into or ignore the hate.

[aikoaiko]

128. Some would probably say the same of Alex Jones

Salient points at least to his audience.

[cali]

129. The same should be said of Alex Jones