Posts Tagged ‘bitter’

‘Together We Thrive’ Slogan Used In Tucson ‘Memorial’ Came From Organizing For America

January 13, 2011

Obama gave a very good speech last night.  But when he said:

“But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together…”

I would have believed it to be far more sincere had Obama mentioned his own spiteful and polarizing rhetoric –

Didn’t Obama spend more than 20 years with a church that by any reasonable standard would be readily identified as a racist hate organization?  You remember: that whole sordid “God Damn America” thing?

Didn’t Obama say of rural white Pennsylvanians, “they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”?

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

Didn’t Obama say, “I don’t want to quell anger.  I think people are right to be angry.  I’m angry!

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

And there are so many others.  Even ones that most people would find minor, such as the campaign slogan, “Fired up, ready to go!”, should sound sinister given the attack that Sarah Palin’s “Don’t retreat, reload” has received.

– and disavowed many of his own words as contributing to the hostile climate that we have seen spring up in his presidency.

Obama ran as the man who would transcend the political divide by rising above partisan and polarizing politics as usual.  That was his core promise to the American people.

But in reality – as affirmed by the American people – he has been the most polarizing president in American history.

It’s always do as I say, not as I do with Obama.

We’re not supposed to make a great tragedy political???

Tell it to Obama:

“Together We Thrive” was the slogan (and just when in the hell did Memorial services start getting “slogans”?)  of the Tucson memorial service.  You know, the one where the crowd cheered as though they were at a political rally, rather than at an event to mourn and honor people who were just ruthlessly gunned down by a psychopath.

Here are the T-shirts printed with the political slogan (yes, we can factually say that this is was very much a political slogan, having been the slogan of Obama and his “Organizing for America” organization):

And just when the hell was the last time you attended a memorial service for people who were gunned down and murdered or maimed, and received a T-shirt with bearing a political slogan???

The mainstream media continued to make it all about Obama, with the headline, “Obama Could Get Political Boost From Tucson Speech.”  They say:

President Barack Obama’s consoling, sermon-like speech at a service for the victims of the Arizona shooting rampage steered clear of politics, yet it may have given him one of the biggest political boosts since he took office two years ago.

“Steered clear of politics”???  The partisan crowd cheering at the “memorial service” were literally wearing their politics like T-shirts!!!

I mean, my God.  I’m just disappointed now that I didn’t get my Bush 9/11 victims memorial speech commemorative T-shirt, featuring a George W. Bush for president election slogan.

Meanwhile liberals are congratulating themselves at their marvelous “tolerance” expressed in Obama’s speech, even as they continue to pile on in their hate for conservatives like Sarah Palin.

And here’s the fruits of Obama’s ostensible call for tolerance and understanding:

Death threats to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin have increased to unprecedented levels in the wake of Saturday’s shooting in Tucson, an aide tells ABC News.

Following the attack that seriously wounded Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others, Palin has found herself embroiled in a firestorm of controversy. Numerous left-wing commentators have accused Palin’s hard-hitting partisan rhetoric of influencing accused shooter Jared Lee Loughner.

The Daily Caller reported that dozens of Twitter users called for Sarah Palin’s death in the hours following the shooting, with some going so far as to wish for her assassination.

Major mainstream media figures continued to demonize Sarah Palin even after Obama’s speech.  Keith Olbermann attacked her for speaking out in her video one day after attacking her for not speaking out.  Bill Press said that Sarah Palin’s self-defense against the vicious leftwing attacks against her reminded him of a terrorist hostage video.

Sarah Palin’s worst “crime” was coming out with a map that “targeted” vulnerable districts for Republican election victories, including Gabrielle Giffords’ seat.  It is conveniently overlooked that the DEMOCRAT PARTY has used similar maps.  It is conveniently forgotten that powerful leftwing site Daily Kos targeted the moderate Gabrielle Giffords.  It is conveniently forgotten that Daily Kos featured an article literally saying of Gabrielle Giffords, “she’s dead to me.”

Funny.  I don’t recall Sarah Palin saying that Gabrielle Giffords was dead to her.  All she did was use a map the same way Democrats have been doing basically since Lewis and Clark rowed around America in their canoes.

All I can say is I watched the Tucson memorial service.  I thought the Native American blessing thing was bizarre (were any of the shooting victims Native American?).  I thought the University of Arizona president thought the event was to celebrate his university.  And I thought the cheering at what was supposed to be a memorial service was just flat-out wrong.

But even the cheering dims in sheer brazenness to the “Together We Thrive – Organizing for America” political sloganeering.

It very much seems to be ALL about politics to the left.  Because they don’t seem to believe in anything else but raw political power.  And that goes from the lowest leftwing blogger furiously writing in his parents’ basement all the way up to the president of the United States.

Advertisements

Pennsylvanians Can Add “Racists” To Being “Bitter”

October 16, 2008
Democrats view of Western Pennsylvanians

Democrats' view of Western Pennsylvanians

We all remember Barack Obama’s description of Pennsylvanians to a group of wine-sipping pinky-in-the-air San Franciscans:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Well, apparently Pennsylvanians agree with that assesment; after all: the guy who so opined is well up in the polls there.  Pennsylvanians are poor, helpless, bitter, gun-toting religious freaks who are too stupid to tolerate anyone who isn’t similarly a poor, helpless, bitter, gun-toting religious freak like themselves.

Well, since Pennsylvanians don’t seem to mind being called all that, Rep. Jack Murtha – the “hero of Haditha” – decided to label them as “racists” too.

I mean, why not?

Murtha said:

“There’s no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area,” Murtha said. “The older population is more hesitant.”

Maybe he was just dotting the i’s, making sure Pennsylvanians – who clearly can’t be all that bright – understand that “antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment” is really just a wine-sipping pinky-in-the-air way of saying “racist.”

Congressman Jack Murtha is one of those human beings who is literally not worth his weight in pig poop, in my humble opinion.

But he stands in the fine tradition of Democratic politicians.

I don’t know, Pennsylvanians: at some point, I suppose I’d start to get really angry at the Democrats who keep raining piss down on you from lofty Mount Olympus.  I suppose you can prove them right by voting for them.

What If Obama Loses “Bitter” Pennsylvania?

September 22, 2008

DNC Chairman Howard Dean is hardly alone in calling Pennsylvania a “must win” state for Barack Obama.  But it’s a genuine possibility that he won’t.  Chris Matthews, that paradigm of journalistic objectivity, confessed to his “worry” that Obama may not be able to carry either Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Hillary Clinton carried Pennsylvania over Obama by 10 points, fueled at least partly by Obama’s infamous “bitter” statement about Pennsylvanians at an elite San Francisco fundraiser:

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Who wants to bet that Pennsylvanian voters won’t be reminded of that one a few thousand times between now and November?

Lest we forget, the pre-primary polling had Obama gaining on and actually overtaking Clinton in Pennsylvania.  And then they actually voted.

The current Real Clear Politics (RCP) average has Obama up by only 1.8 percent, which is within the margin of error.  And there are good reasons to believe that Obama will not do as well as the polls indicate.

There is a current barrage of stories that are already blaming racism for a potential Obama defeat.  These stories, while undoubtedly attempting to solicit a “guilt vote” for Obama, may actually backfire, as voters angered by having their motives questioned and impugned may harden against Obama.

If Barack Obama loses Pennsylvania, he will be the political equivalent of a smoldering chunk of dead meat.  Most experts agree that he MUST WIN Pennsylvania due to the electoral map calculus, and the loss of this state will likely single a very long night for Obama supporters.

Obama: Because America Is No Longer What It Once Was…

August 9, 2008

Barack Obama – the so-called “master orator” of the left – often has an awful lot of difficulty making his way through a sentence without a teleprompter.

Or as one youtube video reviewer characterized Obama’s speeches:

Uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, er, CHANGE! er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er ummm,ahhh, er, ah, um uh, uh, uuhhh, uh, ahhh um, er, uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, er,CHANGE! er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er ummm,ahhh, er, ah, um uh, uh, uh, uh,, ahhh um, er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er ummm,ahhh, er, ah, um uh, uhhhh, uh, uh,, ahhh um, er, uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, er, CHANGE! er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er um.

I see this as a metaphor for just how completely over-hyped Obama truly is by the left.

I don’t think it’s just Obama’s words that fail him during unscripted dialogues; I think his rationality and common sense tends to go out the window as well.

With that little introduction, we turn to the encounter in Elkhart, Indiana, with a seven year old girl asking Obama why he’s running for president. Obama replied:

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.” [Youtube].

The first question that ought to come to mind is, “When was it better?” Was it better before the Civil War, when slavery was legal? Was it better during all those years of “separate but equal” courtesy of judges who imposed their own views upon the Constitution rather than strictly interpreting its clear intent?

Was it – in some liberal fairytale fashion – somehow better during the Clinton years? Was everything bright and happy and wonderful, and then Bush was elected, and we all became bad people living under a wicked king? Is that it? Is Barack Obama our Prince Charming, who will wake this country up with a kiss as he takes the oath of office and restore everything that is good and wonderful throughout the land?

Why is Obama – who is presented to us constantly as the personification of hope – so negative about America?

If he isn’t elected, would he tell that little girl, “I’m afraid you have no future, after all”? Is Obama truly our Messiah, and rejecting him is tantamount to throwing away our very futures?

Rush Limbaugh had this to say:

LIMBAUGH: Alright, now here’s he’s brought it home. He had trashed his country in Germany, he has seen the result of that in his plummeting poll numbers. And now he does it again in Elkhart, IN. A 7 year old little girl. You’re running for President Sen. Obama, a little girl asks you a question, “Why did you start running for President?”

It’s a 7 year old Senator. Ya tell her because you love the country. You tell her because this is the greatest place on Earth. That we’ve got challenges, but you want to help the country through it. You don’t tell a 7 year old that her country isn’t what it once was. You do not lie to 7 year olds and tell them that your country sucks. You just don’t do it Senator.

This dark view of America AND ITS PEOPLE has come out before:

“You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said in an address to fundraisers in San Francisco last week. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

And Barack Obama is well-married, in the sense that his wife Michelle thinks exactly the same way he does:

“Sometimes it’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America.” [Youtube].

And:

“Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.” [Youtube].

And how could we forget the views she expressed to The New Yorker:

[Michelle] Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

And this bitter, cynical young power couple – like many Americans – found themselves a church that represented their views about life and the world:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

And, of course, I could provide quote after quote to describe the unrelentingly dark and negative view the church the Obamas chose had about America and about Americans.

If you don’t think there’s a pattern for a dark and even un-American view of this country, then you are a fool (or a liberal, which in my view is merely a fool by another name).

I don’t want Barack Obama’s America; I want Ronald Reagan’s America:

Reagan was described as an eternal optimist. He offered Americans a positive, uplifting vision of America and its future. Former President George Bush said of him, “Our friend was strong and gentle. Once he called America hopeful, big hearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair. That was America and, yes, our friend. And next, Ronald Reagan was beloved because of what he believed. He believed in America so he made it his shining city on a hill. He believed in freedom so he acted on behalf of its values and ideals. He believed in tomorrow so the great communicator became the great liberator.” President George Bush observed, “He came to office with great hopes for America. And more than hopes…Ronald Reagan matched an optimistic temperament with bold, persistent action.” It’s important for leaders to hold an optimistic view of the world, so that they can stir the aspiration of people who will then follow with enthusiasm to achieve great accomplishments.

Just as Ronald Reagan’s vision of America and the free people who inhabited it was positive and uplifting; Barack Obama’s vision of America and of its people is negative and dark.

I came across an American Thinker article titled, “Blessing vs. Damning America” by Paul Kengor that is worth reading on this subject.

If you want a president who has the optimism to be able to lead America and Americans to greatness, don’t vote for Barack Obama. He simply doesn’t have that spirit within him, and you can’t give what you don’t got.

Obama’s ‘English’ Comment Yet Another Proof of His Elitism

July 14, 2008

Barack Obama, campaigning in Georgia, offered the following pearl of wisdom regarding America’s lack of foreign language proficiency:

“It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German,” he had said. “And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is ‘Merci beaucoup.’

I can’t help but remember one of his other critical lectures regarding the ignorance of Americans:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I guess you can add “the English language” to that list of things that Barack Obama thinks Americans are bitterly clinging to.

Barack Obama came under a lot of fire for little “bitter” remark. I myself was actually much more upset by the incipient Marxism that Barack Obama revealed in his thinking, but the criticism that stuck was that Barack Obama was arrogant, and an elitist. He went to some bunch-of-money per plate pinky-in-the-air fund raising event in San Francisco, and proceeded to tell a bunch of fellow arrogant elitists what he really thought about those idiot hicks over in Pennsylvania.

The charge of “elitism” has continued to resonate with the voters:

(CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama is saddled with a potentially toxic image problem: that he has an elitist attitude.

Well, I really don’t want to give the Obama campaign any useful advice, but one thing I’d tell their guy if I were inclined to help him is: “Hey, Barack, if you really truly want to dispel the impression that you’re a condescending elitist jerk, please, PLEASE, don’t tell us simple-minded Americans we’re not as smart as those sophisticated Europeans and then throw out something in French.”

Jesse Jackson was completely unfair in claiming that Barack Obama was “talking down to black people.”

He talks down to white people too (excepting European white people, of course).

You can say that our first metrosexual candidate for President is an equal-opportunity condescending elitist jerk. He looks down on pretty much everybody.

Obama’s right in a narrow sense, of course: Americans for the most part haven’t bothered to learn a bunch of other languages. Instead, Americans have occupied themselves with building such a great, such a wealthy, such a powerful, such an influential country, that everybody else in the world found it necessary to learn to speak English.

Unlike Barack Obama, I like the American way better.

On a sheer practical level, one must understand the sheer size of the United States relative to Europe, and the absence of the influence of foreign languages upon American culture.

In terms of size, if you overlay the United States over Europe, the U.S. literally either covers or overlaps Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Italy, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia Herze-govina, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, Russia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Sweden, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria. We don’t have anywhere NEAR the constant “international contact” with languages that Europeans routinely have due to the small size of the countries, and we’re isolated by two oceans to boot. It’s simply ridiculous to expect us to have the same grasp of other languages that people living in countries you can drive through in a few hours have.

In terms of influence, our only foreign language-speaking neighbor – Mexico – is frankly insignificant to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Mexico’s economy has been in a perennial state of shambles for over a century now. Apart from being polite, why should Americans learn to speak Spanish?

And related to that last point, just what language should Americans learn? French? (Seriously, WHY!?!?) Chinese? Russian? Maybe we should learn Arabic, so we can better beg them for oil if – heaven forbid – Barack Obama gets elected and cuts off all our domestic oil production?

The simple fact of the matter is that Americans haven’t learned foreign languages because we haven’t needed to. And if Barack Obama is somehow ashamed of us for that, that’s really just his problem, isn’t it?

There’s another thing about Obama’s “English” remark that underscores his arrogance and elitism: he frankly thinks he knows better than an overwhelming majority of Americans on the issue of just what language Americans ought to be speaking in this country.

According to Rasmussen Reports:

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Americans believe that English should be the official language of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that only 11% disagree and 4% are not sure.

You know who issued Executive Order 13166 into law requiring multilingualism in federal documents? The last Democrat president we elected. He smuggled this unpopular edict into law in the waning days of his presidency.

That’s just the kind of exposure to foreign languages that Americans don’t need. And it’s just the kind of stuff that Barack Obama – “I know better than you, merci beaucoup” – is going to give us if he’s elected President.

The real danger for Obama is that his arrogance and elitism could – and frankly should – become a unifying narrative, where absolutely everything he says or does becomes interpreted through the prism of “elitism.”

Charles Krauthammer recently did a rather masterful job of connecting Obama’s dismissals regarding his rampant pattern of recent flip flopping with his personal arrogance, for example:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: What impresses me is his audacity. Everybody moves to the center after securing the nomination. There’s nothing new under the sun there.

He did it in a particularly spectacular way with the flips that you talked about. There are a couple of others on NAFTA and flag pins, and he does it all within about three weeks. It’s sort of unprecedented.

But he goes way beyond that. On each of these he pretends that he has never changed. He says, yes, I said the gun bill was constitutional and I supported it. And now he supports the Supreme Court decision that rules it unconstitutional, and pretends it is the same decision.

But then he goes beyond that, reaching an almost acrobatic level of cynicism here, in which he says, as you indicated, Fred, anybody who believes otherwise, anybody who believes he is not actually a flipper and he hasn’t actually changed, is himself cynical, or, as he puts it, “steeped in the old politics,” and so cynical that they can’t even believe that a politician like him would act on principle.

What non-political no-self-interested reason explains his change on campaign finance other than the fact that he has a lot of money and he would lose it otherwise if he had stuck to his principles?

What non-self-interested reason explains his flip on guns, on FISA, on the flag pins, on everything? But he thinks he–what impresses me is his intellectual arrogance. He thinks everyone is either a fool who would believe all this, or a knave who is somehow distorting his words.

So Barack Obama is pretty much “talking down” to the American people as a matter of routine.

Sadly, too many Americans might just prove to be too dumb to recognize it, which is why Krauthammer ends his above analysis by saying, “I think he will get away with it.”

The only thing worse than being “talked down to” is being dumb enough to allow the tactic to succeed.

Tell you what: come November, I hope the American people overwhelmingly vote to say “good bye” to Barack Obama. They can use as many languages to say it as they want: Adios. Au Revoir. Auf wiedersehen. Ciao. Sayonara. Ma’a salaamah. Namasté. Zai jian. And please don’t let the door hit your rear end on the way out.

Obama’s ‘Cling to Religion’ Remark Reveals Marxist Worldview

April 15, 2008

What should we make of Barack Obama as we evaluate him as a potential president of the United States?

In a previous article (Jeremiah Wright As Barack Obama’s Political Albatross), I explained the profound connection between the “black liberation theology” of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the “liberation theology” that emerged from Latin America in the early 1970s. The former is a branch from the tree of the latter, and the roots of liberation theology are Marxist to the core.

When the Marxist Sandinistas wanted to spread revolution to Nicaragua – which was well over 90% Roman Catholic – they realized that they had to enlist the cooperation of the Catholic clergy if they wanted to have any hope of installing a Marxist regime. To this end, a small group of Marxist-Catholic theologians concocted the combination of carefully selected teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow capitalism and any government that supported it.

These “liberation theologians” saw every biblical criticism of the rich as a mandate to “expropriate from the expropriators” (in Marx’s words), and viewed every expression of compassion for the poor as a call for an uprising by proletariat peasants and workers against capitalist oppression. Rather than viewing Marxism through the lens of Christianity, they viewed Christianity through the lens of Marxism. As early as 1972 (the same year Jeremiah Wright came to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago), the Catholic Church (at the 1972 Sucre CELAM conference) was officially repudiating this new theology as heresy.

John Paul II criticized liberation theology at the 1979 Puebla CELAM conference, saying, “this conception of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive of Nazareth, does not tally with the Church’s catechisms.” Former Cardinal Ratzinger – now Pope Benedict XVI – strongly opposed certain elements of liberation theology. Through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Ratzinger, the Vatican twice condemned the liberationist acceptance of Marxism and violence (first in 1984 and again in 1986).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Black liberation theology does little more than particularize the Marxist doctrine of class struggle specifically to blacks.

So from the point of view of orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholic teaching, black liberation theology is simply the poisonous fruit from a poisonous tree. Elements of liberation theology are partially true, but as is the case so often, these partial truths amount to complete lies when they are stripped of their context and bundled in a package of Marxist dialectic.

When revelations of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racist, anti-American remarks first began to surface, Democratic supporters of Barack Obama quickly claimed that these were just a few comments that were taken out of context. But when one considers black liberation theology, and when one listens to the words of numerous other black liberation theology theologians, this defense quickly becomes untenable.

When Jeremiah Wright talked about “white greed” in his now-famous “Audacity of Hope” message, he was perfectly expounding on black liberation thought. When he claimed that white America deliberately created the AIDS virus as a genocide against blacks, he was accurately exegeting black liberation ideology of class based warfare against the oppressed black class. Or, expressed negatively, when he said that anti-crack cocaine penalties were instituted by racist legislators for the purpose of incarcerating as many blacks as possible, how was that in any way contrary to his central theological beliefs? When Wright denounced Israel as a Zionist state that imposed “injustice and … racism” on Palestinians, how was this not in perfect accord with his theology? When Wright railed against “AmeriKKKa” in his sermons, just how was that contrary to black liberation thought? And when Wright lectured American society that it deserved 9/11, was this in any way out of bounds with either the teachings of black liberation theologians or the Marxism from which they derived their message?

John Perazzo put it this way: “When we read the writings, public statements, and sermons of Rev. Wright, we quickly notice his unmistakable conviction that America is a nation infested with racism, prejudice, and injustices that make life very difficult for black people. As he declared in one of his sermons: “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!… We [Americans] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.””
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=c19d4d91-618e-40d3-a5d9-c07d7a87a5ba

Given Wright’s profound hostility for both the U.S. and Israel, is it in any way surprising that he so very publicly embraced and acclaimed the virulently anti-American, anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan? Jeremiah Wright says, “When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens.” I point this out to ask this: why on earth would Rev. Wright even make such a statement unless he thought Black America should listen to Farrakhan, a documented anti-American racist?

For his part, the very recently retired Rev. Jeremiah Wright himself laid to rest any claim that he really didn’t mean what the hateful explosions taken from his sermons seemed to mean. The Reverend came back from a visit to Africa that conveniently removed him from the media spotlight (and demonstrated why Barack Obama probably wishes he’d stayed in Africa) and performed a marriage ceremony at Trinity United Church. He could have just conducted a simple wedding ceremony, but he chose not to. He could have acknowledged how wrong and hurtful his words have been, but he chose not to. He could have attempted to claim that what appeared to be such hateful words had been somehow taken out of context, but he chose not to. Rather, at a sacred ceremony celebrating the union of a man and a wife, the same pastor who had similarly joined in matrimony the hands of Barack and Michelle Obama once again used his pulpit as a platform to angrily blast away at those who had exposed his message.

What does any of this have to do with Senator and presidential hopeful Barack Obama? Nothing, if you listen to the spin of Obama supporters. Senator Obama always managed to be consistently and conveniently absent whenever these statements – and however many like them – rang through Trinity United Church, and, besides, you can’t convict Barack Obama with guilt by association. Barack Obama hasn’t said anything like this, after all.

Well, not so fast.

It simply stretches credulity to believe that Barack Obama never heard a hateful word come out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth during his twenty years in the church.

In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama in his own words recalled his first meeting with Wright in 1985 in vivid detail. The pastor warned the young, politically ambitious, up-and-coming community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. In other words, he was warned from the get-go.

John Perazo writes, “American voters ought to have more than a passing interest in the fact that when Barack Obama formally joined TUCC in 1991, he tacitly accepted this same Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor. Moreover, he pledged allegiance to the church’s race-conscious “Black Value System” that encourages blacks to patronize black-only businesses, support black leaders, and avoid becoming “entrapped” by the pursuit of a “black middle-classness” whose ideals presumably would erode their sense of African identity and render them “captive” to white culture.”

Both the title of Obama’s second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 came right out of Wright’s sermons. “If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from,” says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left who knows both men, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

But none of his core theology? None of his ideas or beliefs? Preposterous.

It is frankly impossible not to see the profound impact Jeremiah Wright has had on Barack Obama. Their relationship – and Wright’s influence – goes far deeper than the surface realities that Rev. Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their children.

We have already heard Wright’s poison come out of the mouth of Michelle Obama. Her expression of her lack of pride in her country throughout her adult life, and her comment that “America is a mean place in 2008,” could have come right out of her pastor’s mouth. Her feelings are certainly incongruous with her own privileged history as a Princeton University graduate or her high-paying position with a hospital in Chicago, to say the least.

But what about Barack Obama?

A lot of the connections between Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama are carefully camoflaged by Obama’s polished rhetoric to avoid the overt bitterness and racism of his mentor while retaining Wright’s substance. For example, in his “Audacity of Hope” message, Jeremiah Wright railed against “white greed.” Barack Obama’s message is, “The biggest problem facing America is greed.” Now, Senator Obama, are you referring to the greed of poor, oppressed blacks, or to the white greed that your pastor talked about in that sermon that inspired your book? Senator?

But now we’ve got a naked expression of black liberation theology Marxism revealed in all its polished prose.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiments as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said at an April 6 fundraiser in San Fransisco.

Hillary Clinton immediately pounced on the “elitism and condescension” of Obama’smessage (and c’mon, it’s just not every day someone with $150 million gets to say stuff like this and mean it!). And, yeah, it sure is those things, being that it is a message explaining to wealthy liberal San Fransiscans the uncomprehending stupidity of white working class Pennsylvanians, who can only dully cling to guns and religion the way a frightened child might cling to a teddy bear.

Some analysts picked up on the “bitter” part of the explanation. Others picked up on the “cling” part.

I want to make sure you pick up on the Marxist part.

Karl Marx famously claimed that religion was an opiate of the masses. He was explaining his view that the wealthy bourgeoise cynically used religion as a device to keep the poor, simple proletariat happy in their misery and squalor so they would find it immoral to rise up and overthrow their capitalists oppressors.

Immediatly after the flareup over his remarks, Barack Obama, speaking from Muncie, Indiana on April 12, said, “I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter.

“So I said well you know when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”

Well, I would agree that everyone who views the world through the Marxist perception of liberation theology, dialectic materialism, and religion-as-opiate, might know that it’s true. But everyone else should frankly have a lot of problems with Obama’s views.

I also noticed that on this second go-around, Senator Obama didn’t add his “antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiments” remarks to his revised list of “what [working class Pennsylvanians] can count on.” Adding those little items to the security provided by religious belief and the right to bear arms somehow just doesn’t sound as good, does it?

At the CNN “Compassion Forum” on April 13, Obama explained that “Religion is a bulwark, a foundation, when other things aren’t going well.” Okay. Just as long as we don’t think that religion actually reflects simple reality, or that people are religious because there is a Creator God who cares about us and has a plan for our lives. Thank God (well, er, thank the liberal equivalent of God, anyway) that Barack Obama isn’t one of those “fundamentalists,” right, San Fransisco? Otherwise, he might oppose abortion and the homosexual social agenda.

Eventually, the crushing impact of the poll numbers – which now have Senator Hillary Clinton up by 20 points in Pennsylvania – will force Senator Obama to do a better job of distancing himself from his formerly expressed views. Just as with the previous firestorm over the Rev. Wright’s hate-speech, the Obama campaign seems to be progressing from a casual dismissal, to a few casual words of dismissive explanation, to a half-hearted apology, and – if all else fails – to a full-blown speech. Only this time, it will be his very own words that are at issue.