Posts Tagged ‘context’

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God (Part 3): Having Faith Like Jesus In The Bible

December 17, 2013

Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God

Jesus, Son Of Man, Son of God (Part 2)

I have an analogy for what faith is like: at what age do you think the average child is when he or she realizes that one day – if they live long enough – that he or she will be old and gray?  How many times do they have to hear their grandparents say things like, “When I was your age…” or “When I was a little girl…” before they realize that their grandparents were once children like them and one day they’ll be old like their grandparents?  And yet, how many people – old or young – seriously live for the future???  My point here is that you can intellectually know something is true, but at some fundamental level simply refuse to believe it and act accordingly.  Obviously, if you know one day you’ll be old, common sense tells you that you ought to start seriously planning for that eventuality.  BUT VERY FEW PEOPLE DO THATHalf of Americans have ZERO savings for retirement.  People are even dumber in the shorter term: how many people know they shouldn’t eat something because it’s bad for them and then eat it anyway???  I’ve certainly done that.  You know you’ll pay dearly for something you’re doing now in the future, but you just don’t care BECAUSE YOU WANT WHAT YOU WANT NOW.  It’s not that you don’t know what will happen; you simply put it off, refuse to think about it.  And so with believing in God and the Bible.  I don’t need to keep wondering if there’s a God or if the Bible is His Word any more than I need to question if I’ll one day be old and gray like my grandparents were.  The difference between “knowledge” and “faith” is that extra step: “okay, there is a God and the Bible is His Word.  What should I do with those facts?  In what way should they make a difference in how I live my life?”  And then you ACT the way your common sense based on what you KNOW tells you how to act.  Knowledge becomes faith when you start making your decisions based on what you know about God and His Word.

There are many people who just can’t ever get to that point to true faith, no matter how much they “know” about God, just as there are many people who just won’t get messages such as, “You know you can’t eat like that or you’ll have a heart attack and die.”  The morgue proves the latter situation.  And the atheist is ultimately rather like my dog: I watch the beautiful sun set and contemplate its significance and my own significance before it; my dog sees it get dark.  I take communion and meditate on the sacrifice of Christ as exemplified in the elements; my dog eats crackers.  But we’re often like that, too.  Just as the atheists simply refuse to go to the next level – beyond what God and simple common sense say is self-evident – too many Christians simply refuse to act based on the knowledge that they either already have or truly ought to have.  And we have maybe just enough faith to be saved but not enough faith to actually live out our faith as a result.  There’s just a super-massive disconnect between what we know and how we act in spite of what we already know.  Which of course describes “foolishness.”

I’ll personalize it: When I stand before God, I won’t have the excuse of just not being sure that He’s actually there.  I don’t doubt that God is here for a second any more.  And yet how many times have I refused to think and feel and act given what I already KNOW is true!!!

To wrap it up in a nice little bow: there simply comes a point when you need to just BELIEVE your Bible really truly is the “Word of God” and therefore as a common sense RESULT of that knowledge treasure it, hunger for it and JUST READ IT.  And believe the message it has for you and be transformed daily by that message.  That’s the way the world ought to work if you’ve got common sense and it’s the way your spirituality ought to work if you’ve got any wisdom (which is just “spiritual common sense.”  I submit that “wisdom” is far more about “integrity” than it is about “intelligence.”  Wisdom isn’t about what you know; it’s about what you DO with what you know.  “Wisdom” is knowledge rightly APPLIED.  If I know that the Bible is truly God’s Word to me, and if I am wise, what will I do?  I’ll apply that knowledge by reading my Bible!  Every time I read my Bible I get another chance to hear the voice of God.  And so therefore I’ll read my Bible with a submissive heart that is at the same time eager to learn and obey.  But how many of us are FOOLS more often than we are WISE???

Now, as we read our Bibles, we may ask, “Is this experience subjective or objective?”  It’s both – to a point.  It’s subjective in the sense that I read the Bible in a personal sense as “God addressing me.”  But ultimately the Holy Spirit’s testimony invariably directs us AWAY from ourselves to the objective authority of Scripture.  The Bible is what it is, not what I want it to be or try to twist it into being.  To apply this to my friends and family, if our relationship is all about me, then I’ll tend to subjectively interpret things they say to my own advantage; but if I truly love those people, I’ll try to understand them in the way they intended to be understood.  It’s the same way with God’s Word.  I recall the comedy sketch where a man is reading a Bible and someone asks, “What are you doing?” and he replies, “Searching for loopholes.”  When we read our Bible as “God’s Word,” we will tend to read it in an objective (and LITERAL) sense.  But yet another fact is that my experience of reading God’s Word is not merely “a private matter”; rather it is an experience common to all God’s people.  The Christian community, led by the Holy Spirit, ought to serve as a check and balance against over-subjective implications or experiences.

Consider, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” (2 Tim 4:3).  As a student in seminary, I first began to see a problem that has perverted much of higher education.  At the graduate level, the student is (particularly at liberal universities) encouraged to consider for a dissertation a completely different approach, a new way to interpret, etc.  But historic Christianity was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).  There’s a fundamental tension there.  Do you see that?  You practically BEG for heresy to enter into your domain.  And that’s exactly what has happened at many schools that began as institutions of the Christian gospel that were perverted into synagogues of Satan. Each generation was like a tide that progressively carried out the foundation as every new class searched for something new and different.  As culture changes, I want to be able to innovate such that I can reach people in new ways – but with the same gospel that Jesus and Paul taught rather than one that is “modern” and “contemporary.”

Now, one could contrast two fields such as science and religion and see the differences with one being intended to innovate and the other being intended to conserve (the teaching/values of God handed down to us).  But even THAT isn’t correct, because science ALSO has been severely distorted and altered and perverted by the constant itching for the next new thing, the next scientific fad.  C.S. Lewis wrote about how easy it would be to pervert science into a religious system by requiring obedience to its findings, by instilling groupthink and promoting a lack of healthy skepticism for its conclusions, and by dominating society.  I think all that has already happened.

Ultimately, Christians simply have no choice but to recognize the authority of the Bible as God’s Word.  It comes from beyond ourselves as we simply allow God to be God.

What is “inspiration”?  It is the activity of the Holy Spirit whereby He superintended the human authors in Scripture so that their writings became a normative expression in human language of God’s Word to all humanity.  To call the Bible “inspired” is merely another way of saying that it is God’s authoritative self-revelation.

God was directly involved in the writing of the Bible: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16).  God’s breath is a graphic metaphor in the OT for the action of God, particularly through His Spirit (see Gen 2:7; Job 33:4; Ps 33:6).  The statement that Scripture is “God-breathed” affirms its divine origin and character and implies something much stronger than the English word “inspired”; in this sense they are EXPIRED – breathed out by God.  Note in 2 Tim that the object of God’s action is the written Scripture; the human writers aren’t even mentioned.  They are of course involved, but the actual forming of Scripture is referred wholly to God’s activity.  Note that “all” refers to the entire Bible, rather than merely some parts of it that may seem more “inspired” (such as the “Thus says the Lord” passages in the OT).

Another key passage of the doctrine of Inspiration is 2 Peter 1:19-21 – “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  This passage confirms and actually extends the teaching of 2 Tim 3:16.  The words in the Bible did not emerge from the writers’ private reflections, but rather “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”  That same word “carried along” is used in Acts 27:15 to describe a ship “carried along” by a powerful storm.  God’s “carrying” is far more gentle than that of a storm, but this is a strong statement of the divine activity in the production of the entire body of Scripture.

The third key passage is John 10:34-36: “Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”‘?  If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and Scripture cannot be set aside--what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”  The exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees goes back to Psalm 82 regarding the discussion of “gods” in the law, but I cite this regarding something Jesus says about the Law: I prefer the rendering of the KJV and NASB, “and the Scripture cannot be broken.”  That same conviction of Jesus about the absolute authority and complete inspiration of Scripture emerges when Jesus equates the words of the OT with the voice of God.  See Matt 19:4-5 – “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?”  So we have, “the Creator…said.”  And the man leaving his father and mother part is Gen 2:24 – which does NOT quote God as the speaker.  It is Moses editorializing the meaning of Adam’s words in vs. 23.  The point here is that whenever ANY Scripture speaks, it is God speaking.

I am going to here ask a question: in your view, are the red-letter words of Jesus in the Gospel more or less inspired than the black letter words in the Gospels, or than the epistles of Paul, etc.?  Do you see why the words of ALL Scripture are ALL equally inspired???  The same Jesus who spoke the authoritative words of God in the Gospels was under the power and inspiration of the same Holy Spirit who spoke the authoritative words of God in the Pauline epistles.  Which is to say that St. John was just as inspired when he wrote the Book of Revelation as he was when he wrote his Gospel.

When St. Paul (or any of the prophets or apostles) and Jesus meet, there is no question which one will bow down before the other.  Jesus us Lord.  But that is not at issue when we talk about the authority of the Bible.  Rather, the same Holy Spirit that spoke through Jesus also spoke through Paul and the apostles and the prophets.

There’s a saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”  Someone who wants to hold that the sayings of Jesus are more authoritative than any other writings in the Bible may have a sincere desire to uphold the authority of Jesus, but what has that person in effect done?  Undermined the authority of the REST of the Bible.  Think about it: if the Bible that the prophets and apostles wrote has 100% authority, how then can the “red letter” passages of Jesus have more than 100%/absolute authority???

Jesus is God.  But He NEVER put “His” authority over or above the authority of the REST of Scripture.  Because the rest of Scripture – ALL of Scripture – is the Word of God.  And God never contradicts God.

When we talk about inspiration, we use two adjectives – “verbal” and “plenary.”  The doctrine of verbal inspiration holds that the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible were not merely inspired in the topics or the ideas they described, but in the very WORDS that they used.  Note that this does not mean that God “dictated” the Bible, but rather that he chose, shaped and guided his human vessels such as that they – through the agency of the Holy Spirit – were accurately thinking and writing the thoughts of God.  “Plenary” means that the inspiration described above in “verbal” applies to the whole Bible, to “all Scripture” (2 Tim 3:16).  This is not to say that every single part of the Bible is as equally significant as every other part, any more than that every brush stroke of a painter is just as significant (e.g., the background of “Mona Lisa” is not as important as the face and the smile – BUT THE SAME ARTIST PAINTED THE ENTIRE PAINTING).  So we can rightly consider some books “background” (e.g. “Leviticus”).  But Leviticus is just as much the Word of God as the Gospel of John.

How does God’s Word revealed through human agency work?  There will always be a mystery this side of heaven.  But assume for the sake of discussion that I am right now completely filled with the Holy Spirit.  Would you say that a) I am still me or that b)I have become a “godbot” or a theological meat puppet that God dangles on a string?  I am stating categorically that I would still be me – and in fact I would be the IDEAL me, the very best me that I could possibly be.  Put another way, at the moment of the Rapture, do you believe that YOU will be a recreated meat puppet, OR do you believe that you will maintain your unique sense of identity?  Again, I believe we will still be the same people – just perfected examples of the same people.  In heaven, I will still be “me”; but I will be the me that God always intended for me to be.  I will be the perfect me. And l’ll be able to express God’s thoughts in my words.

Now, in the unique case of the prophets and apostles who wrote the Bible, should you believe that when the Holy Spirit came upon them that God obliterated their individual personalities?  Absolutely not!  God doesn’t work that way (I have frequently wished that He would!).  Rather, under special inspiration, God guided and shaped each writer’s experiences, thoughts, feelings, etc., in such a manner that they thought God’s thoughts after Him.  And they expressed those thoughts – in their own words – exactly as God intended.  Because they were uniquely filled with the Spirit of God.

Orthodox Christians who believe in the faith “which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) understand that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.  Both of these terms are nothing more than the inevitable concomitant of the divine authority and inspiration of the Bible as God’s Word.  To assert with Jesus that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17) and to literally appeal to its very letter (Matt 5:18; Luke 16:17) is the essence of what we seek when we use terms like “infallible and inerrant.”  “Infallible” carries the primary quality of not being misleading.  All the Bible’s assertions are truthful and worthy of confidence.  There is a contrast between God’s eternal self-testimony with human fallibility.  There are a few things that must be understood, such as that “infallibility” refers to God’s message as a whole rather than in isolation.  For example, if we quote James’ question, “Can faith save him” (James 2:14 KJV) with its implied answer “no,” we miss the point of the Book of James.  The infallibility of Scripture is attained when we read James 2:14 within the total framework of the letter of James as set alongside the complementary teaching of the rest of Scripture.  Another qualification of “infallibility” is the intention of the author.  Scripture is infallible ONLY AS CORRECTLY INTERPRETED; it does NOT follow that every human interpretation of the Bible is infallible.

“Inerrant” conveys the sense that the Bible has been supervised down to its very words by the God of truth, and therefore we can be confident that it will be free from error.  Thus whenever the Bible prescribes the content of our belief (doctrine) or the pattern of our living (ethics), or records actual events (history), it speaks the truth.  We go back to the intention of the author or speaker: the inerrant truth of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son does not require us to assert that there has ever been such a family or that the events of the story actually occurred.  It was a parable and the inerrant truth was the meaning of the story, not the historicity of events.  Again, like infallibility, we find that only when any passage of Scripture is interpreted in harmony with the rest of the Bible and we consider the author’s/speaker’s intention, will the inerrant truth be plainly perceived.

So having the very Word of God, how should we interpret it?  Let’s talk about “hermeneutics,” the science of interpretation (that’s what the Greek word “hermeneutics” means, “to translate or to interpret”).  To be properly interpreted, the Bible must be interpreted literally (i.e., the historico-grammatical method), with the natural, straightforward sense of a text being fundamental.  This sense does NOT demand “literalism.”  We do NOT need to interpret 2 Chron 16:9 (“For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth”) as meaning that God has a whole bunch of eyeballs sweeping over the globe.  We rather understand it as being a passage that literally teaches God’s omniscient knowledge.  Further, we interpret according to the original meaning of a passage, and therefore we must seek to understand the original setting as we try to relate a passage to ourselves.  We interpret according to literary form, and thus read poetry or parables differently than we would read historical narrative or doctrinal passages.  And we interpret according to context.  We do not take a verse in isolation, but we also read the rest of the paragraph and we also understand what we read as it relates to the rest of the Bible.  The Bible must be interpreted by the rest of the Bible.  This is known as “harmonization.”  There is a unity and a self-consistency in Scripture that derives from its Ultimate Single Author God.  Also, the Bible must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit.  True spiritual understanding is not natural to us; it is God’s gift (Matt 11:25; 16:17).  It is crucial to understand that God’s Spirit is HOLY, and what we understand of God’s truth is therefore related more to the extent of our obedience than it is to the capacity of our brains.  Jesus taught, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matt 5:8).  Note He did not say, “Blessed are the vast in intellect” or “Blessed are the weighty in academia.”  How far one can see depends upon how high one has climbed and NOT to how well one is equipped.  We have to approach Scripture in an attitude of prayer from an obedient heart if we seek to rightly understand it.  Finally, the Bible must be interpreted dynamically.  Hebrews 4:12 teaches, “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”  God’s Spirit is a living Spirit and He uses His Word in accordance with His goals for His people, their regeneration and sanctification.  And therefore the Word of God as we rightly divide it (2 Tim 2:15) must be brought to the surface and put to work in the present rather than being a scholarly tome that gathers dust on a shelf.  Therefore, having asked, “what did this passage mean in its own time and context?” and “what does it mean in the light of the whole of Scripture?” we must additionally ask, “what does this mean today – here and now – in the lives of people today, that person I’m trying to reach, and my own life?”

Advertisements

The Democrat Party As The Party Of The Clean, Light-Skinned, Coffee-Serving Negro

January 11, 2010

Apparently, liberal filmmaker Oliver Stone is planning to give Adolf Hitler the sympathetic treatment that the left could just never bring themselves to give to George Bush.  Said Stone:

“Stalin has a complete other story… Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can’t judge people as only ‘bad’ or ‘good.’ Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He’s the product of a series of actions.”

That pesky objective, transcendent Judeo-Christian morality.  Good thing we have postmodernist liberals around to tell us that we can’t judge whether Hitler and Stalin are ‘bad.’

Apparently, the left is willing to see anyone in a more favorable light.  Again, except for one George W. Bush.

That’s pretty much the way it is.  Liberals will give their own – even the most vile of their own – the benefit of the doubt.  The only unpardonable sin for these people is being a conservative.

A book entitled Game Change reveals Democrats demonstrating profound racism, with both Harry Reid and Bill Clinton letting us know what they REALLY think of their darker-hued brethren.

But the narrative is pretty much that they’re Democrats, so there clearly must be some other explanation other than racism.  And as long as other liberals agree that the liberals can’t have been racist, everything is clearly okay.  Just a slip of the tongue.  Nothing to see here.

It was just last month that Harry Reid invoked slavery to attack Republicans, which is to say that Republicans were as guilty of opposing health care as they were during the days of slavery.  Only, of course, it was DEMOCRATS who were the party of slavery, and it was Republicans – the Party of Lincoln – who literally went to war in their opposition to defeat the Democrat Party of slavery.

Well, the same mealy-mouthed racebaiter who insinuated that Republicans were racists last month is having his own racist attitudes revealed this month.

Two journalists, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, made this assertion in a book to be released next Tuesday.

“He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” they write.

Here is what Senator Reid had to say: “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words,” Reid said in a statement to CNN. “I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments. “I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama’s legislative agenda.”

I’m sure that Joe Biden quickly jumped in to add that the light-skinned African Americans are “clean” compared to the dark-skinned ones, too.

The funny thing is that Reid’s liberal defenders are pointing at “context.”  They claim that Harry Reid was speaking POSITIVELY about Barack Obama, so what Reid said really wasn’t all that bad.

But the “context” in which Harry Reid was speaking positively about Obama was that he was a “light-skinned” negro, rather than one of those foul, dirty DARKIES.  And what Harry Reid was marveling at was that Obama – unlike all those darkies – talks fancy white rather than that slovenly “negro dialect.”

I mean, seriously, if I were a dark-skinned black guy who occasionally said “ax” instead of “ask,” I’d be awfully pissed off at this arrogant elitist white bastard who leads the United States Senate – and at the party he belongs to.

Harry Reid’s Democrats weren’t nearly as forgiving toward Trent Lott as they think we should all be now.  Trent Lott was trying to honor long-serving US Senator Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday and made a comment that admittedly could have been said a LOT better.

The words that doomed Trent Lott’s political career:

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

For what it’s worth, just to underscore the obvious massive hyperbole, Trent Lott in fact did NOT vote for Strom Thurmond; he was only seven years old when Thurmond ran.  Note, also, that Trent Lott did NOT say, “When Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat segregationist, we voted for him so we could keep black folk in the back of the bus.”

He was trying to honor an elderly man who had landed in Normandy on D-Day with the 82nd Airborne Division, and been decorated for heroism, among other things.  Lott wasn’t honoring racism or segregation; he was simply honoring an old man who had been America’s longest serving US Senator.

Trent Lott apologized, too, and attempted to explain what he had intended to say.  But his words fell on deaf ears with Democrats screaming for his head.

Now, maybe Trent Lott should have resigned for his apparent racial insensitivity.  But only if Harry Reid should resign, now.

Barack Obama, who so “graciously” accepted his fellow Democrat’s apology, had no graciousness in his heart for Trent Lott.  He demanded Lott’s resignation.  And in the December 12, 2002 issue of the Chicago Defender, Obama had this to say:

The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.”

And if the Democrat Party doesn’t want to be the Party of light-skinned African Americans who don’t have a Negro dialect, they should stand up and drive out Harry Reid.

When the Don Imus “nappy headed hoes” comment came out, Barack Obama tore into Imus, saying he should be fired.  But how are Harry Reid’s comments one iota less heinous than Imus’, particularly given that Imus’ words were at least offered as a joke, rather than as a serious and honest assessment, as Reid’s remarks were?

What if a Republican had said exactly the same thing that we now know Reid said?  Do you seriously think Obama would have benignly accepted his apology?  Or would the president have angrily told the country that the Republican “acted stupidly,” before really launching into him?

Michael Eric Dyson, a professor at Georgetown University, said it this way:

To be honest, the Republicans are given a high hand here because our side refuses to say anything that is even intelligible or coherent about the issue of race and to sweep it under the carpet as if it makes no difference. If a white Republican had said this, this would be huge news. They would be making hay out of it, calling for his resignation. I think we’re hypocrites and we’re morally weak here.

[Youtube video]

And how about Harry Reid?  How did Reid deal with the remarks made by Trent Lott, his Senate colleague from the other side of the aisle?  He uttered words that now resound with rank, vile hypocrisy:

“He had no alternative,” said Reid at the time claiming, “If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

Yeah, we sure see how you practice and how you play now, don’t we, Harry?

Trent Lott is GONE for lifting up a 100 year old man on his birthday.  And he didn’t even say anything about light-skinned versus dark skinned Negroes, or Negroes with versus without “Negro dialect.”

Let me ask you a question: one day soon, Senator Robert Byrd will retire from the US Senate.  Do you think that Democrats will say kind words or harsh words about the career of the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan?

What will they say to honor the man who once said:

“The Ku Klux Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth in West Virginia”.

What are they going to say to honor the man who once wrote:

“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side… Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

Shall we stipulate up front that every single Democrat who ever has had or ever will have a single kind word to say about Senator Robert Byrd or his career be required to submit his or her resignation and forever afterward wear a scarlet “R”?

Democrats were the party of slavery, and the party of the Klu Klux Klan (and see the link here for a thorough treatment).  They were the party of the Klanbake at the 1924 Democrat National Convention.

But at some point, the Democrat Party began to morph into the party of the immediate post-civil war reconstruction, when elitist whites decided that ignorant, inferior blacks couldn’t do anything for themselves.  They needed whites to lead them.

They went from being the Confederate Party of institutionalized slavery to the Union Party of the white benefactor, as epitomized by the words of the Colonel James Montgomery character in the movie Glory:

“They’re little monkey children, for God’s sake. And you just gotta know how to control them.”

Good little monkey child.  Keep voting for us and we’ll keep handing out bananas.

Although, to be fair, in the case of Harry Reid, apparently we’re only talking about the DARK-skinned Negroes.

If you can’t own them outright, then bribe them with handouts until you basically DO own them.

Here’s what should be a famous line after Obama was elected:

“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help he is going to help me.”

This exchange should be even more famous:

KEN ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN: I don’t know. His stash. I don’t know. I don’t know where he got it from but he’s giving it to us, to help us. We love him. That’s why we voted for him. Obama! Obama!

Another line of dialogue from the movie Glory comes to mind, with Sgt. Major John Rawlins telling an embittered and defeatist Private Tripp:

“And dying’s what these white boys been doin’ for goin’ on three years now.

Dyin’ by the thousands.  Dyin’ for you, fool!

I know, ’cause l dug the graves.

And all the time I’m diggin’, I’m asking myself, “When?”  When, O Lord, is it gonna be our time?”

Time’s comin’ when we’re gonna have to ante up.  Ante up and kick in like men.  Like men!

You watch who you call a nigger.  If there’s any niggers around here, it’s you.”

And in the film Pvt. Tripp DID “ante up.”

That’s what the Party of Lincoln wanted for black people going on 150 years ago; and it’s what we want for black people today.  Now, as back then, we want black Americans to be able to ante up like men and take responsibility for their own lives rather than leashing themselves to the welfare lifestyle and race-based preferences.  And live in the pride, dignity and freedom that such self-responsibility engenders.

Blacks were slaves to the Democrats into the 1860s.  And then beginning in the 1960s they started becoming slaves to the Democrats again.  Today the Democrat Party owns their vote, even though the Democrat Party is the party of the four deadly S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Meanwhile, in the words of wised-up former leftist radical David Horowitz, “black Americans are the human shields of the Democrat Party.”

And they were far more noble in the 1860s, because unlike today, they didn’t sell themselves into slavery for welfare checks, “community reinvestment” loans, affirmative action quotas, and all the other programs that so corrode the black community today.

That’s the gist that emerges from my reading of Anne Wortham’s incredibly powerful article, “No He Can’t.”  She ends her article saying:

You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine – what little there is left – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

The very worst of shackles are the kind you put on yourself.

And worst of all, blacks have been co-opted into participating in their own genocide.  While blacks only account for less than 14% of the population, 36% of all abortions in the United States kill black babies.  Half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.  And black babies are five times more likely to be killed in the womb than white babies.  The liberal and Democrat-supported Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist eugenicist who shared the same views as liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

And we find that the targeted killing of black babies is still very much at the heart of the liberal and Democrat pro-abortion agenda today.

Alveda C. King writes of this Democrat Party-supported holocaust:

[Martin Luther King, Jr.] once said, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate.

When will blacks turn away from the Democrat Party and say, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”?  (as spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., registered Republican).

Harry Reid’s comments are excused because Harry Reid is a Democrat – and I suppose that racism is simply to be expected of these people.

I leave you not with Harry Reid’s racism, but with the transparent racism of the previous Democrat president – a man who was actually called “the first black president” – Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy that Obama ‘would be getting us coffee’ a few years ago: ‘Game Change’

BY Helen Kennedy
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Sunday, January 10th 2010, 2:44 PM

Bill Clinton helped sink his wife’s chances for an endorsement from Ted Kennedy by belittling Barack Obama as nothing but a race-based candidate.

“A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,” the former president told the liberal lion from Massachusetts, according to the gossipy new campaign book, “Game Change.”

The book says Kennedy was deeply offended and recounted the conversation to friends with fury.

After Kennedy sided with Obama, Clinton reportedly griped, “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

The revelations in “Game Change” are guaranteed to reopen the 2008 Clinton racial wounds that had been scabbing over amid his post-election public silence and his wife’s high marks as Secretary of State.

Laden with potent pass-the-torch symbolism, the January 2008 endorsement of Obama by Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg was a pivotal campaign moment that allowed the Democratic establishment to abandon the Clintons.

Bill Clinton wasn’t the only one to bungle handling the Kennedys –  the book says Hillary Clinton managed to alienate Caroline by fobbing off a key request on staff instead of calling personally.

When a group of prominent New Yorkers headed to Iowa to campaign for Hillary Clinton, Caroline “dreaded” getting a call to join them because she “would have found it impossible to refuse,” the book says.

When Hillary Clinton’s staffer called, someone “who sounded awfully like” Caroline said she wasn’t home.

Bill Clinton, whose stock with black voters was so high he used to be referred to as “America‘s First Black President,” severely damaged his rep in his overheated drive to help elect his wife.

The Democrat Party stands nakedly revealed.

Martin Luther King famously said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Well, at least Harry Reid grants that wish to light-skinned African Americans who don’t have a Negro dialect; Bill Clinton even wants that group of blacks relegated to serving coffee.

Frankly, while Harry Reid owes black people more than just an apology, he owes white people more than just an apology, too.  Why?  Because he assumed that all the other white people thought in the same racist terms that he did.

I suppose it’s possible that whites were dumb enough to think that way last year.  But they sure aren’t thinking that way now.

I end with what liberals need to hear:

Dear Liberals,

Please be advised that your Race Card account has been closed.  This decision was based on your account history of excessive over-limit spending.  Please destroy your card immediately as it will no longer be honored.

Sincerely,
The American People

.

Obama As Joker And Typical Hypocritical Liberal Outrage

August 7, 2009

Pictures of Obama as “the Joker” above the label “socialism” began popping up around the L.A. area.

Needless to say, liberal outrage was swift to follow.

It didn’t matter that liberals had already come up with the idea themselves to attack George Bush.  Nor did it matter that this was the work of one anonymous person, versus the fact that the “Bush-as-Joker” project was created by a major mainstream media outlet in Vanity Fair.

Joker_Bush

The blatant hypocrisy in crying “FOUL!” over the picture of Obama as Joker never even enter into the liberal mindset that saw no problem in the picture of George Bush as the Joker.  Hypocrisy is such a part of them – the very atmosphere they breathe – that they appear as completely unaware of their hypocrisy as a fish is unaware of the water around it.

Noel Shepperd at Newsbusters demonstrates the outrage from the mainstream media surrounding the “Obama-Joker” stunt that somehow never managed to materialize when a major media outlet portrayed Bush as Joker.

Oh, the OUTRAGE (pronounced in identical cadence to the “Oh, the HUMANITY” famously uttered by Herbert Morisson at the explosion of the Hindenburg):

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson is calling the depiction, politically mean spirited and dangerous.

Hutchinson is challenging the group or individual that put up the poster to have the courage and decency to publicly identify themselves.

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery,” says Hutchinson, “it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

And how long did you think it would take for some leftist goon to depict it as an act of racism? I mean, after all, we ALL know there is a long historic association between “the Joker” and the negro, going all the way back to when Cesar Romero played the role on the the campy Batman program in the 1960s.

Who could have missed the obvious anti-black racism of that role?  No one I know, anyway.  And, of course, when Jack Nicholson reprised the role in one of the more recent Batman movies, I remember everyone saying, “There they go with that racism again!”

I am now immunized from any charge of racism.  I have a knee-jerk response: “That is a terribly racist thing of you to say, you racist bigot.”  When charges of racism are unleashed like a flood, it simply turns into water flowing off a duck’s back.  The real racists are the people who keep leveling the charge for partisan ideological effect.

I think my favorite pseudo-outraged piece by the pseudo-intellectual Lost Angeles Times is this one:

Reading into the Obama-as-Joker poster … or not

11:50 AM, August 5, 2009

Joker There’s nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons — as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them — context is key.

The New Yorker magazine’s infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster — which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet — communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word “socialism” has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in “The Dark Knight”) was a rabid anarchist, which doesn’t jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster, the mystery “artist” behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It’s from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey’s “Hope” — one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster’s white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he’s not? Again, it’s impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race — the white makeup doesn’t necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law — which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality — a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it’s a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade — an act of cultural terrorism? — and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

— David Ng

First notice the complete omission of the Vanity Fair attack against Bush.  Mentioning it would obliterate Ng’s thesis, so he simply doesn’t mention it.  But isn’t the fact that it was done to Bush part of the overall “context” in understanding why it might be done to Obama?  Why bother yourself with revealing something that would only serve to demonstrate how truly full of crap you are?

Then there is the reference to the New Yorker cover featuring Barack and Michelle Obama “in radical drag.”  It’s not the Obama’s we’re mocking, it’s conservatives.  So it’s okay.  You see, it’s perfectly acceptable to fabricate a straw man by which to mock and attack conservatives.

Whether Vanity Fair or the New Yorker, the point is the same: if you’re a Joseph Goebbels-modeled propagandist, as long as you’re not negatively depicting your fellow Nazis, pretty much anything goes.  The left is always able to create a self-serving “context” to declare what is and is not in bounds.  “Joker-Bush” is perfectly acceptable; “Joker-Obama” is immoral, dangerous, and racist.  Says we.

Then there’s the dismissal of “Joker-Obama” on the grounds that Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist – and Obama is clearly not.  Let’s put aside the fact that “the Joker” has been around for a loooooooong time prior to the Heath Ledger movie role, and that it is frankly asanine to define the meaning of the Joker strictly within the Heath Ledger-created “context.”  Let’s put aside that Cesar Romero’s Joker and Jack Nicholson’s Joker were just thugs (as in “Chicago thugs”) with an unusual pigmentation.

Was George Bush an anarchist?  You see, that’s why any analysis that really wanted to take itself seriously needed to mention the Vanity Fair “Joker-Bush.”  If Bush wasn’t an anarchist, and the left used the Joker anyway, then how is it somehow suddenly intellectually stupid for the right to use the same motif?  Other than the fact that Goebbels never turned his propaganda against the Nazis?  What about the simple playground rules that if you punch me in the mouth, I get to punch you back?

In any event, the Lost Angeles Times writer concludes that Obama as Joker “is completely devoid of context — literary, political or otherwise.”

I’ve got two things to say to that.

First of all, it there is absolutely no related context, then why is everybody talking about it?  Why didn’t they talk about Bush-as-Joker the same way?  Good satire simply has to have some direct relationship with the object of the satire.  And the closer to reality the satire comes, the more powerful it is.  If there’s no connection, the joke is literally lost.  So I would ask the Lost Angeles Times, why is it that some lone guy put up a poster of Obama as the socialist “Joker” that struck a powerful chord, while a giant magazine published a nationally distributed cover that failed to strike anything?

And secondly, I would submit to you that there very much IS a context.  And that context is that President Obama, like the Joker, is “changing” society in what will be an incredibly destructive way.  Like the Joker, who loved to mar traditional societal representations with his own image, Obama is out reshaping and distorting and perverting our society into his own, yes, socialist image.  I can’t help but think of that elderly woman who got so tired of seeing Obama that she sold her televisions.

Joe the Plumber heard Obama talk about “spreading the wealth around” and responded by saying, “That sounds like socialism.”  And Joe the Plumber was right: it DID sound like socialism because it WAS socialism.

The Obama campaign came out in a fury that he was not a socialist, and that his policies were not socialism.

Then after Obama won election, the leftist magazine Newsweek triumphantly exclaimed:

And Earl Ofari and David Ng want to tell us it is somehow “mean-spirited and dangerous” to simply state the truth?

We’re seeing what is being done with the “Joker-Obama” poster to what is being done with the “manufactured anger” over health care town hall meetings.  Just as it was the left that FIRST attacked George Bush as “the Joker,” it was also the left that began using the tactics that liberals are ascribing to conservatives confronting Democrat politicians over health care.  An article written back in 2001 records how the left would show up and simply shout down conservative speakers such as David Horowitz, Ward Connerly, Dinesh D’Souza, and many others.  They weren’t even allowed to clear their throats before they were shouted down.

This is part of the larger category of how the left used to say “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (usually erroneously attributing it to Thomas Jefferson) when Bush was president, only to depict conservatives as being obstructionist and immoral for protesting President Obama’s policies.

This tactic of blatant hypocrisy is only successful because the mainstream media are themselves major participants in that leftist hypocrisy.

Hopefully, by pointing out these blatant acts of mainstream media hypocrisy and pseudo-outrage, we can turn the spotlight of legitimate criticism on them, rather than on the false target of conservatives.

Obama’s Hypocritical Denunciation of Wright Is Too Little, Too Late

April 30, 2008

Barack Obama has decided it was time to pack up the campaign bus and move on. But before pulling out this time, Obama finally decided to throw his pastor under it.

I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” Obama said in a last-minute press conference today. The candidate said that after watching Wright’s appearance from Monday, “What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for.”

I’d sure like to know whether Barack Obama was in his church – as so many Americans were – the Sunday following 9/11 when Wright offered one of his most inflammatory ravings of all. But this issue has exploded beyond such questions.

It’s frankly way past time Obama repudiated Jeremiah Wright. He should never have attended the extremely radicalized Trinity United Church in Chicago in the first place. He should have walked away in outrage twenty years ago.

Given full, repeated opportunites to show how he had been “taken out of context,” Jeremiah Wright instead demonstrated that he stood by every “sound bite” he had spoken exactly as it had been depicted. He does believe America is a terrorist nation who deserves terrorist attacks to be directed against it. He does believe that white America created AIDS as a genocide against people of color. He didn’t back away or in any way change the context of any of his radical statements.

By speaking out, Rev. Jeremiah Wright reveals that the “spin” that much of the media – and Barack Obama himself – had been putting on the story for the last couple months was a flat-out lie. These were not sound bites taken out of context. It was malicious to claim that Wright’s sermons had been deliberately taken out of context, because the charge was an attempt to assasinate the characters and reputations of men and women who are now revealed to have been right all the time.

You may despise Fox News’ Sean Hannity and love PBS’ Bill Moyers, but Hannity has been demonstrated to be the objective source, and Moyers the biased ideologue.

Conservatives keep saying that the elite media is biased to the left, and the elite media keeps proving that the allegation is completely true. You have only to go back and review every story that characterized Jeremiah Wright’s remarks as “soundbites” and “thirty second loops” spun “out of context” to see that the media was doing its own spinning out of a pro-liberal and pro-Obama agenda.

For the most part, there was simply no possible context that could have made most of these remarks palatable. America with three Ks, America as a terrorist state, America as a racist developer of genocidal death-viruses. Good luck with that, “What-the-Reverend-really-meant-to-say”-project.

But we still have another spin on this story. We still have the excuse that somehow Barack Obama never heard any of this stuff, and just didn’t know it was going on for all these years.

I can see it now:

Several thousand people settle into their pews as the worship team finishes leading the music.  Rev. Wright steps into the pulpit  to preach. The auditorium quiets down.

“Is he here?” The doormen charged with monitoring Barack Obama’s attendance shake their heads.

“Well, then, America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. 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. 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.! 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. 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!”

And then a security radio crackles in with a report that Barack Obama has driven in and is walking toward the auditorium.

“And Jesus said, love your enemies. Do good to them that hate you,” Wright sweetly and sublimely preaches as Obama files in and takes a pew.

The rest of the congregation smiles knowlingly. And the vast conspiracy, which has succeeded in keeping Barack Obama completely in the dark for twenty years, has succeeded yet again.

The problem with this scenario is that the facts simply say otherwise. Allow me to quote myself from 19 April:

First of all, it is a frankly incredible claim. Barack Obama spent 20 years in this church, and 20 years in an intimate personal mentoring friendship with Jeremiah Wright. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. has been well-known for being a fiery radical way out of the mainstream ever since he coming to the church in 1972. The fact that Wright married Barack and Michelle and baptized their children are only embarrasing details. And Barack Obama had no idea what his mentor for twenty years stood for? When the Reverend Wright delivered a particularly offensive, hateful and anti-American sermon, no one ever told Obama about it? The fact is, in his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama himself reveals this argument for the lie it is. In a vivid description recalling his first meeting with Wright back in 1985, the pastor warned Barack Obama that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. And when Obama disinvited Jeremiah Wright to give the convocation speach at his announcement of his presidential campaign last year, he essentially told his pastor that he was too extreme for Barack to openly associate himself with him.  Obama knew.

When the video of Rev. Wright’s hateful, racist, anti-American rants first became public, the Obama campaign indignantly indicated that there was nothing worthy of bothering itself about. They had no problem with anything Wright had said. Later in the day, as the video of the ranting pastor spread, the campaign offered a lame dodge. A little after that, Obama himself offered that he’s never heard any of the remarks. Then he gave his speech saying, “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

And, of course, the left-leaning media swooned over the speech.

Well, I guess now he’s disowning the black church.  Sorry grandma. You gotta go.

Obama personally records the warning that Wright gave him about the church’s radicalism. The only thing that changed since that day in 1985 was that Barack Obama’s political ambitions have grown to the point where his twenty-year “association” (a word the liberal media loves to use to imply a bogus “guilt by association”) is no longer expedient for a man who had used the influence of Trinity United and its pastor to climb the ladder in Chicago politics. Obama had found the church offered him street credibility with common black folk as well as powerful local connections. And now he finds it politically expedient to bite the hand that fed him.

Obama chooses some interesting words to describe his reason for distancing himself from Wright. “What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for.”

Jeremiah Wright’s worldview has not changed. He is presenting the same worldview that he has been presenting for twenty years.

Let me quote myself again from 15 April, and note that I specifically refer to Jeremiah Wright’s worldview:

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?

Has Barack Obama, the Harvard Law School graduate, the former editor of the Harvard Law Review, and full-fledged elitist intellectual snob, somehow been totally unaware of black liberation theology? Was he totally unaware of the teachings of his church? Was he completely ignorant of the beliefs of the man who led him to his faith, who married him, who bapatized his children, and who taught him and mentored him for twenty years?

Get real.

Now the Obama campaign is pitching itself as the poor victim of this crazy Jeremiah Wright. And the media is just gobbling it up. But a New York Post story coming out today quotes a source that is problably closer to the mark; that the pastor felt betrayed by a man who had once embraced him as a friend, a mentor, and a spiritual guide. That the pastor feels betrayed that Obama is now distancing himself from views that he knew Wright had had for years and years.

Joe Scarborough is claiming that now that Obama has finally come out and denounced Wright that no one can bring this up any more, as though by sheer brute force of ultra-left-wing will can overcome every question and doubt that this relationship so justifiably raises. What is this guy putting in his coffee?

The media spins, and most of the media spins fast and furiously left. But the truth of the matter is that Barack Obama’s central campaign theme is, and has always been, a fraud. There’s nothing new about him, he isn’t the candidate of hope, and the change he will bring will only be for the worse.

Barack Obama’s close and long-term relationship with Jeremiah Wright calls his character, his honesty, his integrity, and his own beliefs into open question. Should we believe his current campaign spin, or should we believe his actions over the last twenty years?

Jeremiah Wright’s Stupid Views on Black and White Learning

April 29, 2008

I can pretty much stand by what I’ve said before: a Jeremiah Wright in context is nothing but an even more racist, more hateful, more anti-American Jeremiah Wright than a Jeremiah Wright out of context. Now – in living, glowing context – Jermemiah Wright is saying things that would make even a self-respecting fascist blush.

You have simply GOT to hear these words from Wright, spoken before a cheering crowd of 10,000 at the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner sponsored by the NAACP on April 27.

In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.

Miseducation. Miseducation incidentally is not a Jeremiah Wright term. It’s a word coined by Dr. Carter G. Woodson over 80 years ago. Sounds like he talked a hate speech, doesn’t it? Now, analyze that. Two brilliant scholars and two beautiful sisters, both of whom hail from Detroit in the fields of education and linguistics, Dr. Janice Hale right here at Wayne State University, founder of the Institute for the study of the African-American child. and Dr. Geneva Smitherman formerly of Wayne State University now at Michigan State University in Lansing. Hail in education and Smitherman in linguistics. Both demonstrated 40 years ago that different does not mean deficient. Somebody is going to miss that.

Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different. In fact, Dr. Janice Hale was the first writer whom I read who used that phrase. Different does not mean deficient. Different is not synonymous with deficient. It was in Dr. Hale’s first book, “Black Children their Roots, Culture and Learning Style.” Is Dr. Hale here tonight? We owe her a debt of gratitude. Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.

And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin. Dr. Hale’s research led her to stop comparing African-American children with European-American children and she started comparing the pedagogical methodologies of African-American children to African children and European-American children to European children. And bingo, she discovered that the two different worlds have two different ways of learning. European and European-American children have a left brained cognitive object oriented learning style and the entire educational learning system in the United States of America. Back in the early ’70s, when Dr. Hale did her research was based on left brained cognitive object oriented learning style. Let me help you with fifty cent words.

Left brain is logical and analytical. Object oriented means the student learns from an object. From the solitude of the cradle with objects being hung over his or her head to help them determine colors and shape to the solitude in a carol in a PhD program stuffed off somewhere in a corner in absolute quietness to absorb from the object. From a block to a book, an object. That is one way of learning, but it is only one way of learning.

African and African-American children have a different way of learning.

They are right brained, subject oriented in their learning style. Right brain that means creative and intuitive. Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn’t stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them.

Reverend Wright believes that white children and black children learn differently. White children are left-brain object oriented; and black children are right-brain subject oriented. White children are “logical and analytical.” Black children are “creative and intuitive.”

Imagine if a white man had said that. Imagine, furthermore, if the pastor of John McCain’s church had presented such a pet theory to a national audience. There would be a firestorm of unimaginable proportions. As it is, not so much as a peep from the elite media. They are too busy hoping that they can either whitewash Wright’s views as “an acceptable form of culturally-black expression” or at least distance Barack Obama from any damage if plan A fails.

Jeremiah Wright says, “Turn to your neighbor and say different does not mean deficient. It simply means different.” The problem is that different actually very often DOES mean deficient. Pol Pot was different from the Dalai Llama. Adolf Hitler was different from Winston Churchill. Ice cream is different from colon cancer. Saying “different is not deficient” over and over again don’t make it so.

Do you see the can of worms Jeremiah Wright’s views open? should we now re-segregate our schools, so that black right-brain children can learn “their kind’s” way? The answer is ‘absolutely yes,’ according to Barack Obama’s mentor. And decades of hard-earned integration go right down the drain. Different classrooms come first. Different water fountains and bathrooms, of course, presumably come later. Do you see how completely radical these views are?

And, if there truly is a biological difference between black and white intelligence, as Wright claims, how does that not mean that one might very well be superior to the other? The record of history comparing the success of white European society to that of black African society now comes into play as a rather powerful prima facia argument that “logical and analytical” biologically trumps “creative and intuitive.” Racists have been making the very point that Wright embraces for generations. And from that understanding of difference, they argue to the deficiency: Prior to and during the Civil War, southern white elites professed to be taking care of blacks through the institution of slavery. “Blacks can’t think like whites. They are like monkey-children, and we have to use our superior white intellect to take care of them,” they claimed. We got the phrase, “That’s mighty white of you” from that sort of attitude. Jeremiah Wright himself now opens the door to a return to some of the darkest racial times this country – and the world – has ever seen.

You simply must understand that the kinds of “differences” Wright points to have been – and are to this very day – viewed very much as “deficiencies” by many others who have dreams about solving such “deficiencies.” Jeremiah Wright, who argues that he is “descriptive,” not “divisive,” is indeed extremely divisive – and this particular brand of divissiveness has led humanity down dark and terrifying pathways.

Genuine Christianity – unlike Wright’s racist brand – does not fixate on such “differences,” but instead fixates on the image of God that all humanity shares in common. It’s not about what separates us, but what we share in common.

I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King, Jr. said rather famously. But let us instead follow the thought of Jeremiah Wright and separate those children on his perceived difference in learning ability?

Let me take you down that dark path, from the idea to the consequences:

Out of Darwinism comes social darwinism. If the former theory is true, the latter is a necessary corolary. And Darwin’s subtitle for The Origin of Species was “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Darwin described the development of life-forms in terms of an ongoing struggle for existence. The result of this struggle would be a natural selection of those species and races who were to triumph over those weaker ones who would perish.

In his Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

People have argued about Darwin’s racial views, but don’t think for a nanosecond that a vast array of intellectuals did not pick up on the clear implications of Darwinian thought – or that the consequences of that thought brought us horror on a scale that humanity had never dreamed of in its worst nightmares.

Francis Galton ackowledged that he was greatly influenced by Darwin’s Origin of Species. In his book Hereditary Genius he extended Darwin’s theory of natural selection into a concept of deliberate social intervention in his work, which he held to be the logical application of evolution to the human race. Galton was by no means satisfied to let evolution take its course freely. Having decided to improve the human race through selective breeding, brought about through social intervention, he developed a subject which he called “Eugenics”, the principle of which was that by encouraging better human stock to breed and discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock, the whole race could be improved.

Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

In his essay, Eugenics as a Factor in Religion, Galton laid out arguments that would one day lead to Nazi death camps. He left no doubt about the link between evolution and eugenics: “The creed of eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution; not on a passive form of it, but on one that can to some extent direct its own course….”
http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/legacy.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301
http://www.galton.org/books/memories/chapter-XXI.html

A quote from Tom DeRosa’s “From Darwin’s Theory to Hitler’s Holocaust” fills in the picture:

When Hitler came to power in 1933, he installed a dictatorship with one agenda: enactment of his radical Nazi racial philosophy built on Darwinian evolution. He sought, in Darwin’s terms, to preserve the “favoured” race in the struggle for survival. Brute strength and [superior white Aryan] intelligence would be the driving force of the Nazi plan.

The first task was to eliminate the weak and those with impure blood that would corrupt the race. These included the disabled, ill, Jews, and Gypsies. Second, the Nazis sought to expand Germany’s borders in order to achieve more living space, or “Lebensraum,” to make room for the expansion of the “favoured” race. Third, the Nazis set about to eliminate communism because of its threat to the Aryan race and because, according to Hitler, communism was the work of Bolshevik Jews.

The plan quickly unfolded. An order to sterilize some 400,000 Germans was issued within five months of Hitler’s rise to power. The order, set to take effect on January 1, 1934, listed nine categories of the unfit to be sterilized: feebleminded, schizophrenia, manic depression, Huntington’s chorea, epilepsy, hereditary body deformities, deafness, hereditary blindness, and alcoholism. The Nuremberg Laws were passed in 1935 to prohibit marriage between Jews and Germans and to strip Jews of their German citizenship.

The Nazis established eugenic courts to ensure that the eugenic laws were enforced. To identify the unfit, German eugenicists compared the individual health files of millions of Germans with medical records from hospitals and the National Health Service. The American firm, IBM, aided the effort by automating a national card file system that cross-indexed the defective.

American eugenicists celebrated the German sterilization program. A leading U.S. eugenics publication, Eugenical News, published an admiring article on a German eugenics institute and extended “best wishes” to its director “for the success of his work in his new and favorable environment.” The New England Journal of Medicine editorialized in 1934 that “Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit.”

Eugenics in America was not a fringe movement. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 1927 ruling that authorized the sterilization of a “feeble minded” Virginia woman. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

DeRosa points out that “Today when evolutionists are questioned as to how Darwinian evolution gave birth to Hitler’s Nazism, they immediately want to beg the question, answering that racism has nothing to do with science. They are correct! Racism has nothing to do with science, but it has everything to do with evolution—a fact that is unavoidable.”

It might be worth mentioning at this point that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in order to put her philosophy of eugenics to life. And blacks were near the top of her list of “deficients.”

Eugenics is back in the news today. Recently, a UCLA pro-life student group conducted a “sting” that exposed the fact that the organization created by racist-eugenicist Margaret Sanger may well be as racist as ever. An overwhelming number of “Family Planning clinics” are located in predominantly black neighborhoods, helping black women terminate half their pregnancies.

Pro-abortionists call it “exercising a woman’s right to choose.” Francis Galton called it “discouraging the reproduction of less desirable stock.” Should I again mention Jeremiah Wright’s mantra, “Different does not mean deficient” here? I argue that such views are morally deficient.

Black pastors are coming out in force to condemn the genocide of black babies in Planned Parenthood clinics. Unfortunately, Jeremiah Wright is not among their number; he supports abortion. I don’t know how he feels about the fact that half of all black babies are killed before they can see the faces of the mothers who don’t want them.

Now, I have no doubt that Jeremiah Wright would immediately disassociate himself from Nazis, from eugenics, from the genocide of black babies, and maybe even from Darwinism.

The problem is that there is a world of unintended consequences. Liberals once added a luxury tax on items such as yachts to collect more revenue. They were very quickly forced to suspend the tax because wealthy people quit buying yachts resulting in the layoff of thousands of workers. In this case, Wright wants to pursue an agenda of black racial separatism, but I am arguing that the consequences for blacks will be anything other than good.

The problem is that, for all of his intelligence, Jeremiah Wright is a moral idiot who does not understand that Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and every other racist social Darwinist would listen to the comments I’ve quoted from Jeremiah Wright and completely agree with them.

The problem is that ideas have consequences, and Jeremiah Wright has a head crammed full of vile ideas.

The problem is that the more the American people hear these vile ideas, the more they will legitimately question whether a man who sat under such teaching for twenty years is fit to be president.

Jeremiah Wright Sermons Transcripts: Context Doesn’t Help

April 26, 2008

I found a partial transcript of several of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial remarks in fuller context in the Chicago Tribune. I probably don’t need to say that the Chicago Tribune would tend to be as friendly toward Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright as any paper in the country.

By and large, reading the context pretty much reads just like the “out of context” sound bites.

They have his “chickens coming home to roost” bit from 16 September 2001; his July 2003 “God damn America” tirade; and his “Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinski. He was riding dirty.”

Too bad they didn’t have his sermon that blamed white Americans for creating the AIDS virus as a genocide against black people. I would have really liked to have heard that one in context.

From the interview with PBS’ uber-lib Bill Moyers, I understand that Rev. Wright believes he was taken out of context and that everyone in the media should feel very, very bad.

Let’s try to get past the blatant fact that Bill Moyers is – and always has been – a liberal hack with a taxpayer-funded power-base which he uses to rip at Republicans and conservatives (check out this link and then this one for speeches in his own far-leftist words [but WARNING: they are long, boring, and dripping with sanctimonious self-righteousness!]). Yes, Moyers does his liberal, Obama-loving best to help Wright whitewash his comments without raising the type of objections fair-minded journalists would be inclined to raise. In spite of all that, it was still interesting to hear Wright’s “woe is me for I have been wronged” remarks regarding his racist, anti-American rants.

Jeremiah Wright is a man who believes America is a terrible place, but – to his credit – at least he’s consistent: he believes America has ALWAYS been a terrible place. Reading these transcripts from the Chicago Tribune, and listening to several other remarks that have become public, Wright pretty much rips America upside-down from day one. Our founders were immoral slave-owning hypocrites, we have always been a racist country from day one, that sort of thing.

That’s the context, folks. There is simply no getting away from it. More context simply reveals more anti-Americanism and racism. Does the fact that he finds a quote from some former ambassador named Edward Peck in any way distance himself from the message he is presenting on 16 September 2001? Absolutely not. It is a fool’s argument. Wright simply found a quote to use as a leaping-off point – and believes me, he LEAPS OFF.

Let’s agree that America is not a perfect place (and keep in mind that if it is, you’d better leave, because YOU WOULD RUIN IT!). We’ve done bad things. And black people have been the victims of a number of those bad things that America has done. Just in case some of you didn’t know that, okay?

But this is a man who does not say ANYTHING good about America. Not a (to put it terms that Wright likes to use, “Not a G-D thing”). Listening to Wright – in context – you learn that the United States of AmeriKKKa is vile, it is hateful, it is racist, it is immoral, it is corrupt, and on and on and on.

More context only serves to reveal more of his blatant hostility to America.

It is because of the tutelage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that Barack Obama’s wife Michelle has never been proud of this country in her adult life, and believes “America in 2008 is a mean place.”

I read more of his sermon from FIVE DAYS AFTER INNOCENT CIVILIANS WERE ATTACKED BY MURDEROUS TERRORIST COWARDS, on 16 September 2001, and I frankly want to puke all the more. He goes back to World War II to prove how we bombed Japan and killed women and children to drive his point home. He omits the fact that the United States was simultaneously fighting the two most despicable regimes in the history of the planet, and had to go to the bloody mat to defeat enemies who were far too full of hate to ever surrender. World War II was our greatest hour: but for Jeremiah Wright and his followers, it is our greatest shame.

Read about the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews perished, the slave labor, the rape of Nanking, the Korean women forced into prostitution, the despicable medical experiments performed on human beings, and so many other ugly, ugly facts about these enemies, and draw your own conclusion. We live in a dark and terrible world, and we have often been called upon to stand up and fight; to fight for freedom, for what is ours, for what is right.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese would not surrender.  Period.  American intelligence estimated that an invasion of Japan would consume four million lives – and that fully one million would be ours.  After we destroyed one city, we gave Japan an opportunity to surrender; they refused.  It took a second city to shake them out of their confidence that they could never be defeated.

Allow me now to respond to Jeremiah Wright’s self-serving exegesis of Psalm 137:9 and put IT into context. Remember, this is the Bible. It’s the story of God and His people. You don’t just read one verse and think you understand the whole story. So let’s look at the greater story:

In Genesis 13, God promises the land of Israel to Abraham’s descendants [Interestingly, Israel is the ONLY land that God ever gave to a people as an “everlasting possession” (Gen 17:1-8); and yet it is the land whose possession by that people is most reviled and most doubted. Just a little food for thought]. In Genesis 15:13-16, God tells Abraham that his descendants will one day inherit the land – but not for another four generations, because “the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.” After those four generations had passed (and the iniquity of the Amorite WAS complete), God commanded Moses and Joshua to take the land. He commanded them to conquer it, to drive out the inhabitants and kill them.

Missionaries talk about “power encounters.” In the time of the Old Testament, every people had their own gods. And if one people defeated another, it was because their god/gods were stronger. When the Amorite was as depraved and wicked as they could get, God sent His people into the land, and God played the game of “power encounter” with those people, and the God of the Bible demonstrated that He and He alone was the God of gods. These people were evil beyond persuasion. They could and would only understand violence. And so, in Exodus, Joshua, and in other sections of the Old Testament, God revealed Himself to all the peoples around through violence and war. And these wicked people got Jehovah’s message the only way they could understand it.

So when I read Rev. Wright’s exposition of Psalm 137:9, I see a man who is quite literally characterizing the VERY GOD HE CLAIMS TO WORSHIP AS BEING AS TERRIBLE AS HE SAYS THE UNITED STATES IS. There’s no such thing as a “just war” for Wright. America CAN’T be “just” for Wright. America is just – to again quote Michelle Obama – “a mean place.”

For Jeremiah Wright, there is no good in America. None whatsoever. There is no coming to the defense of his country. Even World War II was an example of an immoral United States of America for him. He is simply too bitter and too full of hate to see the good in this country.

Jeremiah Wright wants us to see how – in context – he’s really not such a bad guy. But he won’t give the United States that same basic privilege. He won’t allow any “context” to color his anger and bitterness against America, or against the white people who live in it.