Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same

It’s really an amazing thing to see: the love affair between Islamic fascist jihadism and the progressive left.

I long ago documented Barack Obama’s LONG association with radical Islam.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

Khalid al-Monsour and Rashid Khalidi are bad, bad news if you AREN’T a radical Muslim who is very, very comfortable with terrorism in the name of your ideology.

And the left’s intimate love-affair with radical extremist (violent as hell) Islam run deep, deep, DEEP.  Just recently the uberleftist Brandeis University “disinvited” a female Muslim who has refused to shut her mouth about the viciousness of Islam toward women.  And the soon-to-open 9/11 Museum is taking a lot of flack because it has words such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihadism.”

This brave Muslim woman wanted to tell the truth about what is going on in the lives of these poor, oppressed women who are forced to undergo genital mutilation, endure rapes without having the right to report crimes against them, not be able to drive, not able to even leave the house without an escort, wear a giant tent called a hijab that covers everything but their veiled eyes and the tips of their feet, etc.

And how DARE she do that!  It’s an OUTRAGE!  And liberal Democrats are FURIOUS.  Furious enough to attack her for the cardinal sin of being “intolerant.”

Hint: it sure aint Republicans getting behind these Muslim whitewashers of truth and reason.

So there’s a good question for discussion: why the hell would liberals (well, PROGRESSIVE liberals given the fact that these cockroaches have nothing to do with ACTUAL liberalism) would be such ardent supporters of the people who quite possibly despise them even more than I do.

The answer is actually very simple.

The most fundamental reason is the fact that progressive “liberalism” is based on racism and the fabrication of various racial minority groups into a voting bloc.  Basically, if you recognize and affirm what a truly inferior and pathetic human being you are, and therefore see yourself as a victim of everybody and everything you disagree with, you too can be a “liberal.”

And radical Muslims – yes, terrorists like Osama bin Laden – very much and in the exact same “liberal” tradition view themselves as “victims” of the same “capitalism” and “Christendom” that progressive liberals so ardently despise.

Given that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and given that jihadist Islamic fascists hate most of the same things that progressive liberals hate, they are bedfellows.  Even though these Muslim fanatics would love nothing more than to slit the throats of every progressive liberal on the planet when they’re through using them as useful idiots and ideological human shields.

It boils down to this: if you’re a black Muslim in America today, which party and which president do you vote for?

I’ll leave it to Nation of Islam founder Lois Farrakhan to put that one to bed for me:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Oh, yes, when Obama campaign chief David Axelrod called Obama “black Jesus” and when liberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama is “sort of God” and when liberal idiot Spike Lee said you can divide history into BB before Barack and AB After Barack; when Obama literally has such a God-complex that he made the whole nation and the flag which symbolizes that nation about himself, when senior Obama White House advisors literally go to churches to preach Obama; and most definitely when liberals are selling “artwork” that pictures Obama’s face and phrases such as “prophecy fulfilled,” they are mouthing Louis Farrakhan.

But you’ve got to ask, why do liberals love Islamic radicals so much?  Why are the two ideologies bedfellows?

Because they’ve got an awful (and I emphasize these people are truly “awful”) lot in common besides the fact that Muslims tend to be racial minorities and therefore are held sacrosanct by the Democrat Party no matter how utterly wicked and violent and rabid they are.  Not that being wicked, violent or rabid in any way, shape or form is a barrier to being a Democrat, mind you.

Other than the racial minority thing, which is frankly enough to solidify the connection between liberal Democrats and the radical jihadist fascist left all by its lonesome, Islamic fascist have three other things that progressive liberals hold dear:

The second thing that binds Islamic fascists and liberalism together is a love of fascism and the exaltation of the State as God.  That is a cornerstone of both fanatic Islam and fanatic progressive liberalism alike.

Muslims refer to the concept of Khilafah.  Basically, think of the world as one Muslim Caliphate.  And you have the dream of Muslims.

Liberals want the same damn thing: they want one-world government.  They want a mega-socialist all-powerful totalitarian State.

Now, progressive liberals might argue that Muslims want to rule in the name of God and liberals want a godlike all-powerful State that has absolute authority over human lives entirely apart from God.  But in point of fact, the two become the same thing.

In North Korea, dictator Kim Il-Sung, then Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong-Un are worshiped as GOD in their atheist state.

In the atheist state of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao was likewise worshiped as GOD.

Leftists cannot help themselves.  In order to BE a leftist, you have to have the insanely arrogant belief that YOU should be the one to pull or push up or down all the levers and YOU should be the one who pushes or doesn’t push all of the buttons of state.  Liberals don’t believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to govern their own lives and their own affairs; rather, they feel that THEY ought to have the power to FORCE individuals to comply with what THEY want.  Or else face the power of their State.

The most rabid Muslims really aren’t very different.

Put another way, both the Ayatollah AND Barack Obama love to dictate government by use of “executive orders.”  See here and here for just two of myriad examples of our Thug-in-Chief’s abuse of power, of the separation of powers and of the Constitution.

The third thing both the progressive liberal left and radical Islamic jihadist fascism have in common is an utter contempt for and hostility to Christianity.

Piss Christ was the result of a liberal “artist” being paid government dollars from a VERY liberal National Endowment for the Arts program created by DEMOCRATS.

I wonder how Democrats would have voted for “Piss Mohammed.”  I think all reasonable people know what these cowardly liberal cockroaches would have done.

Progressive liberal Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to advance an anti-Christian agenda to overthrow Judeo-Christianity as the moral framework for society.  Because they think they’ve got a far better framework.

The fourth thing that progressive liberal Democrats and their jihadist Islamic fascists both have in common is a rabid intolerance of free speech.  You need to understand why both come to the same exact perspective from opposite ends of the spectrum: for Muslims, the suppression of free speech and individual freedom and liberty is all about the fact that in Islam the individual is nothing and the Islamic State is EVERYTHING.  And thus you have the right to shut up in Islam if you disagree with Sharia or the Khilafah Caliphate State.  In progressive liberalism, the suppression of free speech and individual liberty is based on the opposite of Christianity: in Christianity, you are created in the image of God and you have God-given rights, including the right of free speech and individual freedom and liberty.  Under progressive liberalism, you are nothing but DNA (i.e. chemicals) conditioned by your environment; you have no free will; you are merely a herd animal.  And liberals view themselves as your masters who reserve for themselves the right to make all of your herd decisions for you.  And so under progressive liberalism, you have the right to shut up if you disagree with political correctness or the Socialist Welfare State.

What the left has done is as fascinating as it is dishonest and hypocritical.  Think of 1978 and the ACLU-backed ruling that Nazis had the right to march through a town (Skokie, Illinois) that was heavily populated by Jewish death camp survivors.

This was, of course, racism at its worst and its ugliest, given the history of 6 million Jews murdered like insects during the Nazi Holocaust.

But, under the guise of liberalism, free speech was so sacred, so sacrosanct, that even the very ugliest speech needed to be protected at all possible costs.

Now, fast forward a few decades to Donald Sterling, a man whom the left wants to strip a one-billion-PLUS dollar franchise from against his will because he said a bunch of ugly racist garbage over what he thought was a private phone line.

Let me explain what happened: liberals took advantage of free speech to get their feet and their ideology in the door and then they slammed that door shut.  They don’t need it any more.  You have the right to shut up.  Or lose your property (like Donald Sterling) or your career (like the Mozilla CEO who committed the unpardonable sin of believing he had the freedom to donate to a political cause liberals don’t support).

Don’t tell me that the precedent of going after a racist like Sterling won’t soon be exploited to go after Christians like me who believe God rather than Obama when it comes to homosexual marriage.

Think of the bastions of liberal progressivism otherwise known as “universities.”  Think of what recently came out of a liberal progressive student who basically has the same job that Obama had when HE was a liberal fanatic at Harvard:

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

Stop and think (liberals being incapable of either being that as fascists they love to rush to exploit the emergency of “crisis”): liberals love the idea of destroying a Donald Sterling because, racist (LIBERAL) roach that he is, they know that they can exploit the legitimate moral revulsion against racism to “progressively” demonize OTHER areas – such as opposition to homosexuality or opposition to big government, or support for voter IDs, etc., etc. ad nauseum – to their heart’s content.

Progressive liberals, if anything, are even MORE rabidly intolerant against free speech than the most fanatic Islamic fascists.

So you see, on numerous fronts, to be a radical terrorist Muslim jihadist fascist is to be a radical totalitarian liberal progressive fascist.  The two have the same basic worldview and it is therefore no surprise at all that one protects the other.

If you get in the way of the machinery of either one, they will crush you.

 

 

 

Mainstream Media Tyranny-Helpers: Reuters, CNN Allow Themselves To Be Human Shields To Protect Libyan Command/Control Center

Here’s one: Gaddafi is a tyrant, and mainstream media “journalists” apparently don’t mind helping him stay in power as they pursue their own tyrannous agenda:

EXCLUSIVE: Libyans Use Journalists as Human Shields
By Jennifer Griffin & Justin Fishel
Published March 21, 2011
| FoxNews.com

 EXCLUSIVE:  An attack on the compound of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi on Sunday had to be curtailed because of journalists nearby, Fox News has learned.

British sources confirmed that seven Storm Shadow missiles were ready to be fired from a British aircraft, but the strikes had to be curtailed due to crews from CNN, Reuters and other organizations nearby. Officials from Libya’s Ministry of Information brought those journalists to the area to show them damage from the initial attack and to effectively use them as human shields.

The curtailment of this mission led to a great deal of consternation by coalition commanders, sources told Fox News, but they opted to call off the mission to avoid civilian casualties.

During a Pentagon briefing on Monday, coalition commanders said the huge compound was targeted due to its air defense systems on the perimeter and a military command and control center. It was not targeted to kill Qaddafi, commanders said.

Meanwhile, U.S. military officials said on Monday that Qatar is sending six planes to Libya to participate in support missions, becoming the third Arab nation to send aircraft to the African nation. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) also announced on Monday that its role in Libya is “strictly confined” to the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Libya.

In coordination with Turkey, the United Arab Emirates has sent a ship loaded with medical and humanitarian aid to Libya — in addition to two UAE planes sent to the country last week.

The U.N.-approved no-fly zone over Libya is working and will soon be expanded to Tripoli as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south from rebel-held Benghazi showing “little will or capability” to operate.

Ham said U.S. and U.K. forces launched another 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles over the past 24 hours at sites controlled by Qaddafi. The targets included regime command and control facilities, a surface-to-surface missile site and an air defense station, according to Ham, the operation commander who added that there was no direct coordination among allies and anti-Qaddafi rebels.

Once again, Fox News demonstrated it’s “right wing bias” by refusing to send a reporter to a location at the invititation of Libyan officals.  The senior Fox News reporter on the ground (Rick Leventhal) suspected the Libyans were trying to use him for propaganda, if not as a human shield.  This behavior by Fox News is quite unfortunate.  They really need to listen to icon of progressive journalism Walter Lippman (according to liberal intellectual Noam Chomsky):

The intelligent [elite liberal] minorities have long understood this to be their function. Walter Lippmann described a “revolution” in “the practice of democracy” as “the manufacture of consent” has become “a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government.” This is a natural development when public opinion cannot be trusted: “In the absence of institutions and education by which the environment is so successfully reported that the realities of public life stand out very sharply against self-centered opinion, the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality,” and are thus able to perceive “the realities.” These are the men of best quality, who alone are capable of social and economic management.

As journalist great Walter Lippmann saw it:

Adherents of democracy, he wrote back in 1925, “encourage the people to attempt the impossible”—that is, to exercise sovereignty, and this can only result in their “interfering outrageously with the productive activities of the individual.” This must at all costs be avoided “so that each of us may live free of the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd.” Even earlier, in his Public Opinion, Lippmann seized on the behaviorism of J. B. Watson (his book, Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist appeared in 1919) to bulwark his attack on democracy. For the mechanical behaviorist view of thinking as pure stimulus and response of the human brain as a mere switchboard—was the source for Lippmann’s invention of the concept of mental “stereotypes.” With this, Lippmann reduced the “reality” of democracy to the manipulation of the “herd’s” mind by the propagandistic conditioning conducted by the elite. Similarly, psychoanalysis and pragmatism appealed to Lippmann—as did eugenics for a time—as scientific demonstrations of the irrational and amoral nature of man, as clinchers that the masses, in Mencken’s phrase, were the “booboisie.”

Then, of course, there are the great words of another fellow who has profoundly shaped American progressive journalism, Edward Bernays:

In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.

And Fox News, of course, just isn’t living up to this tradition of wise and benevolent propaganda at all.  Unlike the heroic journalists who placed themselves in harms way to get the story and to prevent the hated West (because until they are fully socialized they remain the greatest enemy) from undermining the wise and benevolent leadership of Jeremiah Wright’s and Louis Farrakhan’s esteemed friend Muammar Gaddafi.

Jeremiah Wright was Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for about 23 years, so he’s clearly a profoundly spiritual and wise man.  And Louis Farrakhan is black, and therefore the virtuous victim of white bigotry.

But Wright’s relationship with the controversial Farrakhan extended far beyond an award.  In 1984, Wright personally accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to meet with Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli. In 2008, Wright even predicted his association with Farrakhan and Gaddafi may cause political headaches for Obama’s presidential aspirations: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit [Gadhafi] with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell,” he said.

And, of course, it almost certainly would have.  Except the “intelligent minorities” understood that revealing the truth would have outraged the ignorant “bewilderned herd.”  Fortunatey, the tremendous journalists from Reuters and CNN were on hand to prevent that from happening.

Just as they were fortunately on hand to prevent the evil American and British pilots from taking out Gaddafi’s primary command and control facility.

Of course, if you are a true believer in mainstream media journalism, you are an atheist.  But even though you obviously can’t thank God for the presence of the media, you should thank somebody (Big Brother Obama, perhaps?) that mainstream media outlets like CNN and Reuters were on the scene to keep manipulating the bewildered herd’s mind through the construction of propagandistic condition.

Just In Case You DIDN’T Know Why Obama Has Refused To Denounce Gaddafi By Name

Question: why has Obama’s response to the genocidal conduct in Libya by dictator Gaddafi been so extraordinarily weak?

July 17, 2010
O what a web
Camie Davis

Remember as a kid drawing connect-the-dots pictures?  Simply follow the dots and a clear picture emerges.  As an adult, connecting the dots of Obama’s actions leads to an oxymoronic picture.  A clear picture of a murky web.  Obama’s actions continually link him to people and causes that the majority of Americans do not support. The recent event of another aid ship sailing to Gaza is an example of to whom and what the strands of Obama’s web link him, and unfortunately America.

Last year, right around the time Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi called Obama “our son,” Obama earmarked $400,000 for two Libyan charities. The money was divided between two foundations run by Gaddafi’s children; Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, run by his son Saif, and Wa Attassimou, run by his daughter Aicha.  What noble causes did our tax dollars potentially help support thanks to Obama’s generosity?

Funding of the ship Amalthea:  The Amalthea sailed to Israel with the intent of breaking the Israeli blockade on Hamas.  It carried aid for a pseudo humanitarian crisis and supporters who were said to be “keen on expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people in the plight amidst the siege imposed on Gaza.”  The ship was funded by Saif Gaddafi’s charity, Gaddafi International Charity and Development Association.  Obama’s friend, Bill Ayers, joined attempt #1 against Israel’s blockade on Hamas.  Saif joined attempt #2.  One has to wonder which of Obama’s friends will step up to the plate at attempt #3. 

The release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi:  Saif Gaddafi was involved in negotiating the convicted bomber’s release, and accompanied him back to Libya, where al-Megrahi was praised and welcomed.  For those who have forgotten the extent of the carnage of the Lockerbie bombing, 270 people, including 189 Americans, were killed.

Honoring Iraqi journalist, Muntazer al-Zaidi:  Al-Zaidi is the journalist who threw his shoe at President George W. Bush.  He was given a bravery award by Aicha Gaddafi’s charity, Wa Attassimou.  The charity stated that al-Zaidi’s actions “represented a victory for human rights across the world.”

As long as we are connecting the dots between Obama and Libya, now seems a good time to remember that the state department issued an official apology to Libya after spokesman P.J. Crowley made disparaging comments about Gaddafi’s call for jihad against Switzerland.  Apparently Crowley spoke on instinct instead of running his reaction by Libya’s “son” first.  As an Obamian spinmeister, Crowley learned that one doesn’t speak ill of “family.”

What a web Obama continues to spin.  One can only hope he falls into it soon, before all of American is smothered by it.

You’d actually think that would be complete, given how much damning association is there.  But you’d be wrong:

Obama’s Mystery Links to Qaddafi Uncovered

By Aaron Klein

As pressure mounts on the White House to intervene to stop Moammar Gadhafi’s bloody crackdown in Libya, many commentators have been wondering why Barack Obama has been cautious in his criticism of the dictator after the U.S. president so fervently supported the removal from office of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

But Gadhafi has been tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual adviser for more than 23 years.

The Libyan dictator also has financed and strongly supported the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Obama has ties to Farrakhan and his controversial group. Read more at wnd.com.

Qaddafi: Barack Obama Is Friend

By Roee Nahmias

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi considers the US president a blessing to the Muslim world. In a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a “friend” and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US.

…

He said, “Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama.” Read more at ynetnews.com.

And even THAT doesn’t tell the whole story, given the exchange Obama had with Tim Russert in 2008:

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”

RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

And, of course, Israelis know a lot better now:

Only four percent of Jewish Israelis believe President Obama’s policies are pro-Israel while half oppose a temporary freeze of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, a poll released on Friday found.

The survey, conducted by the Jerusalem Post, found that more than half, 51 percent, considered Obama’s administration to be more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, up slightly from 50 percent in June.

The percentage of Jewish Israelis who consider Obama to be pro-Israel was down from six percent in a much-cited June 19 poll. By comparison, 88 percent of those interviewed in the June survey thought former President George W. Bush was pro-Israel.

And there is frankly more than that. 

All I know is Obama is carrying so much baggage he should be working as Gaddafi’s porter.

Obama was late criticizing Egypt’s Mubarak.  He had his vice president go out and say, “Mubarak isn’t a dictator.”  And only began to criticize Mubarak when it was obvious that that was where the wind was blowing.  And then he said Mubarak’s name over and over and over again.

Obama has yet to specifically mention Muammar Gaddafi by name.  Even as the man massacres his people by the thousands.

If Glenn Beck Hijacked Martin Luther King, Then Martin Luther King Hijacked Abraham Lincoln

A pretty good (certainly not completely objective, but by today’s horrendous standards of objectivity pretty good) article by Mary C. Curtis sets up the dilemma of Glenn Beck’s “8/28” rally at the Lincoln Memorial:

Glenn Beck Rally in D.C. Saturday: Honoring MLK’s Legacy — or Hijacking It?

Forty-seven years ago today, hundreds of thousands of Americans joined the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom and witnessed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his “I Have a Dream” speech, which summed up the hopes of generations.

Today, crowds are repeating that trek – by bus, train, car and plane — to the nation’s capital, with their own hopes and dreams about what America should stand for.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin — two conservative stars known more for their divisive political views than for their King-like stands for social justice — will lead Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally to pay tribute “to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.”

At the same time, the National Action Network plans a “Reclaim the Dream” rally in Washington to honor King and the civil rights movement in its own way. Its leader, the Rev. Al Sharpton, acknowledges Beck’s right to rally, but not his claim to a part of King’s legacy.

One thing all sides and Glenn Beck himself can agree on: Beck is not Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Nevertheless, when Beck and Palin speak to a crowd gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, just like that day in 1963, the symbolism will be unmistakable.

Cindy Spyker, who is driving a group of 10 from Charlotte, N.C, has been to Washington before, for the 9/12 taxpayer rally last year and the protest of the health care reform bill. A member of CAUTION (Common Americans United to Inspire Our Nation), she said Beck is “one of the very few people willing to say what needs to be said, whether people like it or not. America was created on Christian-Judeo values.” The country has “turned away from faith,” she said, and “has to get back to principles like honor.” Spyker, 51, said of today’s rally: “Of course, it’s not so much the civil rights thing. What he’s trying to get across — content of character — is not about what we look like. It’s about who we are and how do we conduct ourselves, especially when people aren’t watching.”

Marette Parker will be taking a bus from Charlotte to a different Washington destination. Parker, 42, who is organizing a North Carolina chapter of National Action Network, is attending the group’s rally, starting at Dunbar High School and followed by a march to the site of the proposed King Memorial, which she said is “long overdue.”

Parker said that if King were alive today, he would “be proud that times have changed,” but would be saddened by problems that still exist. “We all have to come together as a community,” she said, “to mentor and motivate our young people.” She thinks Beck’s rally is “trying to hijack this particular day and steal media coverage,” she said. “We can’t let this happen.”

On his radio show Wednesday, Beck said: “I know that people are going to hammer me because they’re going to say, ‘It’s no Martin Luther King speech.’ Of course it’s not Martin Luther King. You think I’m Martin Luther King?” He said he has prepared only a few talking points so he doesn’t get in the way of “the spirit.” Though he has said the date wasn’t chosen with the anniversary in mind, when he found out he called the coincidence “divine providence.”

Whites “do not own” the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, and “blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” Beck said on his show in June. “Not only is the event non-political, we have continuously encouraged those attending to avoid bringing political signs, political flyers, ‘I heart the RNC’ T-shirts and other similar partisan paraphernalia. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about politics. This isn’t one of them.”

Like I said, Mary Curtis did fine.  Her only display of bias is her describing Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as harboring “divisive political views” without characterizing Al Sharpton the same way.  Because I can guarantee you that conservatives find Sharpton’s views every iota as divisive as liberals find Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin’s.  But I can live with that.

What I can’t live with is the notion that Glenn Beck has “hijacked” Martin Luther King, whether he intended to make the great civil rights leader a major part of his event or not.

So-called black “civil rights leaders” are arguing that Glenn Beck has no right to hold his August 28 event in front of the Lincoln Memorial because that hearkens us to Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech.  And that hijacks the legacy of Martin Luther King – who was black.

But if that’s the case, then Martin Luther King himself was hijacking the legacy of Abraham Lincoln – who was white.  Glenn Beck hit that one out of the park.

For those lefties who argue that Glenn Beck should be banned from “hijacking” King not because of race, but because of ideas, then conservatives can argue that King STILL hijacked Lincoln.  Because Abraham Lincoln didn’t stand for the radical race-based crap that the left argues that Martin Luther King epitomized.

The greatness of both Lincoln and King was that they transcended their race and became moral heroes of every people of every color and even every creed.

And like it or not, Glenn Beck has as much right to appeal to Martin Luther King as any black person does.  And it’s frankly racist to argue otherwise.

And speaking of racism, how would blacks have reacted had whites staged a counter-event to compete with, say, Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March?  You don’t think there would have been cries of outrage?  Yet that’s basically what Al Sharpton did today.

One of the interesting issues underlying this debate about “hijacking” comes from the most famous lines in King’s speech:

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four 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.

For the most part, that last line almost seems to be an embarrassment of the pseudo civil rights movement of today.  Maybe Martin Luther King said it, but he didn’t really mean it.  And conservatives are determined to hold the civil rights movement accountable to that standard.

As the pro-liberal and pro-Democrat so-called “civil rights leaders” denounce Glenn Beck and conservatives, which side is guilty of refusing to make “the color of their skin” the primary issue?

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white Republican politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

It’s not simply that liberals aren’t advancing a color-blind society; it’s that all they see is color, and they rabidly fixate on color and use color as an ideological weapon in every single imaginable way they can.

And, yeah, for the record, I’m just as sick of this crap now as I was back then.

One of the things that made Martin Luther King a transcendent figure was the fact that he straddled more than just a far left ideology.  He reached out and touched ALL people of ALL races.  Frankly, if he didn’t do so, he really isn’t all that great of a figure.

Some of what King said touched white people.  That was why his movement was ultimately so successful.  And why shouldn’t the white Americans who changed their views because of that movement be banned from it now?

The so-called “civil rights leaders” of today don’t want America to know how profoundly racist the Democrat Party has been throughout its history.  And they certainly don’t want you to know how rabidly racist and even rabidly anti-Martin Luther King the “spiritual mentor” of Barack Obama was.

But here’s a quote from Jeremiah Wright:

The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: “It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do.” Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, “born in the oven of America.”

And why does Jeremiah Wright – Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for more than twenty years – so despise Martin Luther King?  Because Martin Luther King wanted racial equality, and an emphasis on individual character.  Whereas so-called “civil rights leaders” like Jeremiah Wright want the emphasis to be on race-based preferential treatment apart from personal character.

But at least Jeremiah Wright – bigot that he is – had the integrity to honestly represent Martin Luther King’s primary message.  In that, he is far more honest than men like Al Sharpton, who dance around it with racial rhetoric, but never land on the heart of King’s message.  Sharpton will give equality with one finger, and then immediately take it away with the other hand.

The fact of the matter is that Martin Luther King was a registered Republican, as was his father before him.  And the fact of the matter is that:

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Not many people today – black or white – know that we would have had a powerful Civil Rights Act in 1957, but that Lyndon Baines Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and other Democrats opposed it.  The mainstream media propagandists have really done their job well.

Nor do they know that the often-lauded 1964 Civil Rights Act was largely the result of Republicans’ efforts and support:

Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. Johnson played no direct role in the legislative fight, so that it would not be perceived as a partisan struggle. There was no doubt that the House of Representatives would pass the bill.

In the Senate, Minority Leader Everett Dirksen had little trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon also lobbied hard for the bill. Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield and Senator Hubert Humphrey led the Democrat drive for passage, while the chief opponents were Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, of later Watergate fame, Albert Gore Sr., and Robert Byrd. Senator Byrd, a former Klansman whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate”, filibustered against the civil rights bill for fourteen straight hours before the final vote. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 126, a vote in which 79% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted yes. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964.

Liberals have fought long and hard for racial quotas and preferential treatment for blacks.  But the greatest civil rights leader of all was fundamentally opposed to them.

Let’s listen to Frederick Douglass, escaped slave and greatest of all champions of civil rights, has to say:

Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.”  On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”

So, as a Republican, exactly why is it that I should be banned for life from honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King, and why can’t I explain what aspect of his message won my support?

Al Sharpton and those who decry Glenn Beck as “hijacking” Martin Luther King are profoundly wrong for insinuating that nothing Martin Luther King preached supported the Republicans’ message.  Especially when King himself was a Republican when he was teaching those things; and especially when it was Republicans who were hearing his message and responding to the changes he urged on America.

And for the record, given the fact that Glenn Beck specifically focused on honoring our heroic troops and the tremendous Special Operations Warrior Foundation (go here to donate), it’s all the more despicable that demagogic ideologues such as Al Sharpton would demonize it.

I’ll guarantee you whose side our SEALs Delta Force, and other Special Operations warriors are on, whose children will be provided for if they fall fighting for this nation because of Glenn Beck’s event today.  Beck raised more than $5 million today.

Update, August 30: Al Sharpton said this about Glenn Beck:

“They want to disgrace this day and we’re not giving them this day. This is our day and we ain’t giving it away,” said Revered Al Sharpton. He and other civil rights leaders staged a separate rally nearby to mark the dream speech anniversary.

A day for “us.”  Black people.  And specifically, only black people who think like Al Sharpton.

The only racist bigot who “disgraced this day” was Al Sharpton and those who think like him.

AmeriCorps Pledge Challenge: Read It Out Loud Without Sounding Like A Little Marxist

The AmeriCorps Pledge.  Try to read it out loud, WITHOUT sounding like you just joined the Young Pioneers or the Hitler Youth.

“As an AmeriCorps member, you are expected to adhere to the AmeriCorps pledge. ( If you don’t have a pledge certificate, ask your project director for one.) The pledge represents the commitment you have taken to serve not just this year, but in the years ahead.”

The AmeriCorps Pledge

I will get things done for America –
to make our people safer,
smarter, and healthier.

I will bring Americans together
to strengthen our communities.

Faced with apathy,
I will take action.

Faced with conflict,
I will seek common ground.

Faced with adversity,
I will persevere.

I will carry this commitment
with me this year and beyond.

I am an AmeriCorps member,
and I will get things done.

Ah, yes, the Solemn Promise:

I, Barry Hussein Obama,

joining the ranks of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization,

in the presence of my comrades solemnly promise:

to love and cherish my Motherland passionately,

to live as the great Lenin bade us,

as the Communist Party teaches us,

as require the laws of the Young Pioneers of the Soviet Union.

And let’s not forget the rules.  Rules are important, you know:

• Young Pioneer is a young communism builder, labours for the welfare of the Motherland, prepares to become its defender.
• Young Pioneer is an active fighter for peace, a friend to Young Pioneers and workers’ children of all countries.
• Young Pioneer follows communists’ example, prepares to become a Komsomol member, leads Little Octobrists.
• Young Pioneer upholds the honour of the organization, strengthens its authority by deeds and actions.
• Young Pioneer is a reliable comrade, respects elder, looks after younger people, always acts according to conscience.
• Young Pioneer has a right to elect and be elected to Young Pioneer self-government institutions, to discuss the functioning of the Young Pioneer organization on Young Pioneer gatherings, meetings, gatherings of Soviets of Young Pioneer detachments and Young Pioneer groups, in the press; to criticize shortcomings; to submit a proposal to any Soviet of the Young Pioneer organization, including the Central Soviet of the V. I. Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization; to ask for a recommendation of the Soviet of Young Pioneer group to join VLKSM.

Yes.  We need more of THAT kind of thing.  That’s why we so desperately need the Obama Youth now.  I had this brilliant idea of militarizing the Obama Youth into little fascist Brownshirts.  But – as the the following video demonstrates – someone beat me to it.  Those nice boys sure do adore their fuhrer, don’t they?

Oh, liberals love to say that Republicans are fascists.  That’s in spite of the fact that fascism is clearly a disorder of the political LEFT, and it’s in spite of the rather obvious fact Republicans never had their children bask adoringly in the beatific glory of a new Reich under George Bush or Dick Cheney.  And I somehow don’t remember “the cult of McCain” marching around, either chanting creepy slogans, either.

But no matter how many frightening parallels there might be, you know what Democrats will always say:

I still remember this glassy-eyed little girl singing, “We’re gonna spread happiness! We’re gonna spread freeeeedom! Obama’s gonna change it, Obama’s gonna lead ‘em…”  That one made me realize that we’re really not that far from finding ourselves in some weird sci-fi flick involving weird children taking over one city after another.  Is it those vacant doll eyes, or the words she’s singing, that are scarier?

Children used to sing songs to another leader:

Adolf Hitler is our Saviour, our hero
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world.
For Hitler we live, for Hitler we die.
Our Hitler is our Lord who rules a brave new world.

I have never heard children singing the praises of Reagan, or either Bush.  But there were freakish children crawling out of the woodwork to sing about their messiah Obama.  This bizarre devotion to a politician is as mystifying as it is terrifying to a student of history.

I remember this political re-education camp for kindergartners:

I still remember Louis Farrakhan saying:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

And I still remember Spike Lee saying:

It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.

I don’t know about you, but that’s how I date things now.  It’s the year One AB.  It helps me better understand why the Mayans predicted the cataclysmic apocalypse on December 21, 2012 (according to that old “pre-BB/AB” calender).  Unfortunately, Spike Lee’s Before Barack-After Barack calender only has four years in it before liberals completely ruin the world.  It’ll be just like the Ghostbusters said: “Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!  The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”

Okay, maybe it will just be no jobs, no economy, government control over all health care and all use of energy, and a bunch of weird fanatic kids running around taking over the world for Dear Leader Obama.

The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE) will massively increase the Americorps program to the tune of $6 billion.  The money quote:

But the bill’s opponents — and there are only a few in Congress — say it could cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers,” many of whom could be forced into service since the bill creates a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service.”

NO! Cram ideology down the throats of young “volunteers”?  PREPOSTEROUS! Never gonna happen.  Okay, maybe it will happen just a little bit…

Quite a shame that only a few opposed this in Congress, given the fact that the model this new “Obama Youth” program is based upon – Americorps – qualifies as “number one” in Heritage.org’s list of political slush funds.

A political slush fund to indoctrinate younp people into leftist ideology?  What could possibly be wrong with that?

House Passes Volunteerism Bill Critics Call Pricey, Forced Service: The legislation will expand the1993 AmeriCorps program to match the renewed interest in national service since President Obama’s election, which backers say is crucial in tough economic times.

Denial of Service: The battle over AmeriCorps

Obama Axes AmeriCorps’ Inspector General (see my article for more on why this was so blatantly political and wrong).

AmeriCorps volunteers used for political purposes

Obama’s AmeriCrooks and Cronies Scandal

Americorps has a recruitment ad (which your dollars paid for) that is pure propaganda, associating themselves with people and events that have nothing whatsoever to do with them as they attempt to leech more and more government funding.

Now, all that sounds well and good.  But just consider that the communist Young Pioneers depicted themselves as loving and cherishing the Motherland passionately; being a builder and labouring for the welfare of the Motherland; being an active fighter for peace; being a friend to workers’ children of all countries; upholding the honor of the organization, and strengthening its authority by deeds and actions; being a reliable comrade; respecting elders, looking after younger people, and always acting according to conscience.  It all just sounds so good; can I sign up and be a communist Young Pioneer or join Americorps too?

Now, Glenn Beck came out with a theory which would sound preposterous unless you watched some of the videos above and realize a few key facts:

1) The minimum wage increase forced through by a Democrat-controlled Congress will result in over 10% of the minimum wage workforce losing their jobs.  Young people ages 18-24 will be far and away the hardest hit.  Young minimum wage workers WILL be hurt by this program.

2) Americorps is competing for the same people in the same age group.  “Volunteers” are actually paid to perform activities which are in fact political.

3) MICHELLE OBAMA on 2/18/2008 is on the record preaching, “Barack Obama will require you to work. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Glenn Beck says,

They are steering our youth into community service. Ted Kennedy and his ilk are even pushing the idea of forced service. They’re incentivizing working for the government with promises of paying off college loans. The catch, of course, is you have to federalize your loan before they’ll pay it. He wants you to be a bureaucrat slave to government.

It’s hard to believe that a President of the United States would deliberately torpedo minimum wage jobs to force young people out of the private workplace and into one of his government “volunteer” service organizations.  But it was awfully hard for me to believe a lot of things I’ve seen this president do.

Obama has talked about “fundamentally changing the country.”  He has said, “We’ll transform America.”

Obama has incredibly radical theoretical constructs:

“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Even the Warren Court wasn’t radical enough for what Obama wanted to do.  He wanted to radically take the country further away from the founding fathers.

But to implement such “transformation” requires an army of leftist foot soldiers (preferably foot soldiers who are paid by federal funding, such as ACORN and AmeriCorps).  You need to have mobs to protest every “lack of government social resources”, to challenge the status quo at every turn, to push for the liberal social agenda.  You need those foot soldiers implanted in neighborhoods and cities across the country who are at the call of Team Obama – whether it’s answering the call to shake down banks, or form a housing entitlement mob, or foster voter fraud, or create statistical shenanigans with the census.  You need community organizers and the bitter mobs they organize.

Enter Obama and the organization he’s building:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Michelle Malkin has just written Culture of Corruption to explore “ObamaCorps” and how this army is being created.

There is another, even more sinister cospiracy.  Because all of this reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – much more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will win the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

When Bill Clinton was president, I disagreed with many of his policies.  But I have no memory of being literally creeped out by any bizarre cult-like followings.  And I certainly didn’t constantly have to suffer legitimate fears that he was trying to fundamentally transform the very essence of America.

Frightening Obama Videos: The Afrocentric Socialist Redistributionist Radical President?

Some recent videos – especially in the aftermath of the “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe the Plumber – really fill out the vague, fuzzy, shallow, prettily-lit with halo aftereffects Obama economic and tax policy.  In his discussion with Joe Wurzelbacher, Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

If you got your job from a homeless guy, Obama is right.  Vote for “bottom-up economics.”  If you got it from a business, Obama is wrong.  It is and always has been the wealthy who have created jobs with their investment and their leadership.  When you tax businesses and corporations, you punish the success which results in job-creation.  That is simply as obvious as it can get.

Obama has decried the charge that he’s a “socialist.”  His surrogates allege that merely calling a black man a “socialist” is racist to try to take it off the table.  It is frankly stunning how often the “transformational” candidate has played the race card.

But some recent footage from Barack Obama’s past puts all of this into clear perspective.  If you want to know who Barack Obama is and what he really believes, now you finally have your chance.

First, consider this (youtube link with audio available here):

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

The Constitution – you know, the thing our Presidents have sworn to uphold for more than 220 years? – is viewed by Barack Obama as having an “enormous blind spot.”  Our founding fathers were similarly blind.  There’s a “fundamental flaw” with the system of government that has made this the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Don’t worry: Barack Hussein Obama will fix what shortsighted figures like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and so many other men – who envisioned a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” – were just too ignorant to get right.

Now let us turn to a transcript of another statement from Barack Obama that reveals his attitude favoring “redistributionist change” (youtube video is here):

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way.

You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

So even the most radical Supreme Court in history that created rights out of such fantasies as “penumbras formed by emanations” wasn’t quite radical enough for Barack Obama.  He refers to the failure of a “court focused” movement to bring about desired reparations and redistributive changes, most specifically the redistribution of wealth.  He is opposed to the very framework of the Constitution.  He doesn’t like the “essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution,” and bemoans the Warren Court’s failure to “break free” from the “enormous blind spots” of our founding fathers and in our Constitution.  The fact that the Constitution is framed in terms of limiting the power of the government to help or to harm, rather than specifying all the goodies that government must give you is deemed by Barack Obama as a tragedy.

Obama apologists are claiming that Obama repudiates an activist court; but he does no such thing.  He merely says that – as a practical matter – the Supreme Court has had a hard time trying to “legitimize opinions” and that certain radical judicial activist programs were “hard to manage” and “hard to figure out.”  His final sentence reveals that he is by no means through with radical judicial activism: “Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

Give him a chance to appoint three Supreme Court Justices – as many say he may well be able to do if elected (as older liberals retire) – and you will get a chance to find out what damage three young radical activists can do.  As a single example, Obama has repeatedly cited his opposition to homosexual marriage; does anyone actually believe he would do anything other than appoint judges who would impose the very homosexual marriage Obama claims to oppose on society?

But now let us further consider some further statements from Obama, found in earlier interviews and statements going back to 1995 (youtube link here):

OBAMA:  I worked as a community organizer in Chicago.  I was very active in low income neighborhoods, uh, working on issues of crime and education and employment, uh, and seeing that in some ways certain portions of the African-American community, uh, are doing as bad, if not worse, and recognizing that my fate remained tied up with their fates, that, uh, that my individual salvation, uh, is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.  Um, Unfortunately, I think that recognition, uh, requires that we make sacrifices, and this country has not always been willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring about a new day and the new age….

OBAMA:  In the last year, African-Americans have lost their jobs at a faster rate than at any time in a quarter century.  That’s a wrong that needs to be made right. [snip] There’s a certain race weariness that confronts the country precisely because the questions are so deeply embedded and the solutions are gonna require so much investment of time, energy, and money. [snip] Unfortunately, we’ve got caught up in ideological battle where one party says, the only way to create job opportunities is through the marketplace and governments should not be involved at all, whereas my argument would be we also have to make sure that people are trained for jobs, that they’ve got child care, uh, so that they can go to a job, that there’s affordable housing in those areas where jobs are being created, that entrepreneurs in minority communities are getting financing to create their own businesses and to create jobs in those communities, and all of those involve not just individual responsibility, but also societal responsibility….

OBAMA:  Because I think of the problems that African-Americans face in this country, we tend to have a sanitized view in the African-American community about what is going on in Africa.  And the truth of the matter is is that many of the problems that Africa faces, whether it’s poverty, uh, or political suppression, uh, or ethnic conflict, uh, is just as prominent there and can’t all be blamed on, uh, the effects of colonialism.  What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or, uh, Los Angeles or, uh, all kinds of places on this earth, and that is the tendency for one group to try to suppress another group in the interests of power or greed or, uh, resources or what have you.

Now you should start to remember many of the things that Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said that become so incredibly relevant.  Obama may phrase his positions, views, and beliefs in more flowerly and non-threatening ways, but his worldview is basically identical to Jeremiah Wright’s – which is why Obama stayed in Wright’s church for 23 years while he preached:

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere … That’s the world! On which hope sits.”….

“The government gives them [African Americans] 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 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 into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”….

“We’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college,” he said. “Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body.”….

“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 (Nelson) 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.”….

“We started the AIDS virus. … We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty.”

“The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”….

And I would argue that with friends such as Rashid Khalidi, Mazen Asbahi, Raila Odinga, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama’s own involvement with Louis Farrakhan (in addition to Obama’s longtime membership in a church which officially supported and awarded Farrakhan), we can also attribute the following Jeremiah Wright statement to Obama’s worldview:

“We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. … We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. …”

We can also consider the radical educational and racial views that Barack Obama partnered with William Ayers to fund, and consider the extremely similar views championed by Jeremiah Wright.  They all championed an incredibly Afrocentric vision of education.

Barack Obama’s views – which he has NEVER been called to fully explain and defend by the mainstream media – are incredibly radical, just as are his open associations and partnerships with radicals (which have similarly been whitewashed by a shockingly partisan media).

There’s more.  The same Barack Obama who claimed that the United States was “fundamentally flawed” and that the Constitution of the United States “reflected an enormous blind spot” also compared the United States to Nazi Germany:

“…just to take a, sort of a realist perspective…there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

Sooshisoo has the video with further commentary of this unfortunate episode.  Suffice it to say Barack Obama would be the first U.S. President who ever trashed the Constitution which he would then swear to uphold, and the first President to compare the political philsophy of the country he would lead to “the doctrines of Nazism.”

When you combine the fact that we are facing a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and a filibuster-proof Senate led by Harry Reid, along with the fact that the media has overwhelmingly proven that it is little more than an open apologist for liberal causes, we are facing a genuinely terrifying prospect for any but the very farthest members of the radical left.

Joe Biden Predicts World Will Test Barack Obama With Hostile International Crisis

Joe Biden predicts that the world will test a young and inexperienced Barack Obama with an international crisis if he is elected President, and that it might look like he won’t know what he’s doing:

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. “This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

My first thoughts are these:

1) Maybe we should elect an older, experienced President the world WON’T test with an international crisis.  Remember that Kennedy flailed wildly and failed badly in his first tests (does the Bay of Pigs ring any bells?).  Foreign policy experts have laid the erection of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile crises as resulting from key mistakes in John Kennedy’s early months in office – and Kennedy himself described his “without preconditions” meeting with Nikita Khrushchev was an “unmitigated disaster.”  Vote for Obama.  Vote for a major international crisis that just may reveal that this arrogant young punk is in way over his head.  Time to start playing Hillary Clinton’s “3 AM ad” again and again with soundbites from Biden’s speech and his previous denunciation of Obama’s readiness.

2) Joe Biden calls on the American people to stick by an Obama-Biden administration even though it might look like he doesn’t know what he’s doing and his decisions are unpopular.  My response: you mean the way Democrats stuck with the President in Iraq? They couldn’t wait to cut and run, to declare defeat, to try to prevent the President from bringing us toward victory with the surge strategy.  They supported the war, and immediately turned against it when it began to become politically advantageous to do so.  Why on earth should anybody stick with these people, given their own craven example?

Mark Joe Biden’s words.  And mark mine: Obama WILL be tested, because there is no reason to believe the man has the stones to stand up to evil, or even understand it.  Given his career 97% record with voting with his Democrtatic leadership (that would be Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi), there’s no reason to believe he can stand up to anything.  David Freddoso spends nearly 300 pages documenting the fact that Barack Obama has never stood up to his political machine, but has merely went with the flow to suit his own political aspirations.  A man with genuine moral courage wouldn’t have spent 23 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church.

Joe Biden assured us that Barack Obama will have a “spine of steel”; he has omitted the fact that the man has a guts of jello.  Do you really see the guy who opposed the war in Iraq, and who opposed the highly successful surge strategy with dire predictions that he subsequently purged from his own website, would attack Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons?  He will face the same problems that Bush faced: a lack of perfect intelligence; an apathetic Europe; a weak and corrupt United Nations; and a UN-veto-weilding Russia and China that are determined to prevent any meaningful sanctions against their Iranian ally.  He won’t attack Iran, and nothing he does do will matter.

Former UN ambassador John Bolton has predicted that Israel would attack Iran BEFORE the next President is sworn in.   How’s THAT for an “international crisis”?  That would probably be the most terrifying event the world has ever seen.  You want Barack Obama being the one to answer THAT 3 AM phone call?  I mean, realize that even Joe Biden “has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing – that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.”  Biden said Obama is “not ready” to be president, and that “the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”  Based on Joe Biden’s own words about Barack Obama, I wrote an article titled, “Obama Not Strong, Not Ready.  Just Ask His V.P.”  You don’t just take back words like that because Obama offered you a career upgrade.

John Bolton specifically predicted that Israel would attack Iran if Obama is elected, in another interview.  And why shouldn’t they?  Barack Obama is a man who said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, and then almost immediately reneged on his statement when Palestinians complained.  Does that show steadfast support, or a pandering waverer?  Obama has had several friends who were profoundly anti-Israel.  Should that be a basis for unqualified Israeli trust?  We’ve had anti-Semitic bigot Louis Farrakhan (honored by Obama’s church for lifetime achievement) as the “Messiah.”  Only this “Messiah” will pursue anti-Semitic policies.  Jesse Jackson said that under Obama there would be “fundamental changes,” and that key among such changes was the fact that “decades of putting Israel first would end.”

And Israel should just place its national survival in the hands of a President Barack Obama?  They should just assume that this man – who has already waffled with a key Israeli issue, who has numerous friends who are anti-Semitic, who can’t be trusted – to prevent a country that has called Israel a “rotting corpse” and promising that it is “doomed to disappear” from getting nuclear weapons?

I personally believe that Israel will realize that the United States under Barack Obama will very likely not do anything to keep its most hated and hateful enemy from acquiring nuclear weapons, and will feel that it has no choice but to take matters into its own hands.  They will probably do it before the election, while a very lame duck President Bush is still ostensibly in control.

What will Obama do in this scenario?  Do you trust him?  What will he do if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz and gasoline immediately goes up to $14 a gallon?

People who don’t care about foreign policy just because the media is focusing on the economy are lemmings and fools.

Jews And Americans Alike Need To Fear Obama Presidency

You often don’t hear the truth about a politician from his or her own lips.  Politicians know how to cautiously craft their speech; they know how to distort, misrepresent, and flat-out lie.  No, you often have to get the truth about a politician secondhand.

At the first World Policy Forum held in Evian, France (Barack Obama loves world policy forums and has chided Americans for not being able to speak French), Jesse Jackson had this prophetic word for his hearers:

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

In other words, the guy who has known Obama for years, known his family, and helped him get his start in politics says, “Be afraid, Jew: Obama is going to end your world in order to build a better one.”

France loves Obama.  But Jews shouldn’t  And Israelies certainly shouldn’t.  You can’t trust him on his stand for Israel.  He’ll say whatever he needs to say, and you won’t know what he really believes until he gets in power.  To Jews he said, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”  And then he turned right around and said to Arabs, “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”  You don’t know Barack Obama.  But Jesse Jackson sure knows him.

By the way, France willingly participated in helping the Nazis round up Jews to feed into their Holocaust death machine.  And it still has a great deal of Antisemitism to this day.

Last week I wrote an article titled, “Barack Obama Proclaimed As Messiah – The Beast Is Coming.”  I conclude in that article: “The United States isn’t mentioned in Bible prophecy.  Now we begin to see why: we wont’ matter because our economy will be in ruins.  And we certainly won’t be the kind of nation that will be willing to come to Israel’s aid against the beast when they need us most.”  Frankly, I didn’t realize that Barack Obama already had undeclared plans to undermine the Jewish state in order to advance his idea of a “new America” that will “fundamentally change its foreign policy” to “heal wounds” by cutting “Zionists” out of the picture.

Christians like myself view Jews as “God’s canary in the mine.”  How a nation treats the Jews demonstrates its moral condition.  As a nation blesses the Jews, God will bless that nation.  And as a nation curses the Jews, God will curse them (eg., Genesis 12:3).  But as I have already also written, Barack Obama would be President of God damn America.  So it doesn’t surprise me at all to learn from a key longtime Obama confidant that Barack Hussein Obama would pursue a policy that would damn America.

It was primarily American Jews – greatly assisted by American Christians who believed the Bible – who helped conceive and lay the groundwork for a Jewish state in the land that God gave to Abraham and his descendants as an eternal possession (Genesis 17:8).  The United States was the first nation to officially recognize the state of Israel.  And the United States has been a better friend of Israel and the Jew than any nation in the history of the world.  And the United States has been blessed as no other nation in the history of the world, I believe, as a direct result.

Barack Obama, the false messiah who would undermine this nation’s foundations and leave it a hollow shell by means of his disastrous policies, would sever that relationship of blessing and turn it unto divine cursing, according to a happy Jesse Jackson.

Let us not forget that Jeremiah Wright engaged in antisemitic rhetoric at Barack Obama’s church; and that Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church named vitriolic Antisemite Louis Farrakhan it’s Man of the Year; and that Barack Obama actually helped lead Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March.  And then Louis Farrakhan in turn declares that Barack Obama is the messiah.

Campbell Brown wrote a commentary titled, “So what if Obama were a Muslim or an Arab?”  I wrote an article titled “Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats And Obama” without mentioning either Obama’s race or religion.  With all due respects to Campbell Brown, if Barack Obama is elected President, we are going to very soon discover that worldviews matter.  And Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, ACORN, and yes, Jesse Jackson ought to tell us that Barack Hussein Obama has a very radical worldview, indeed.  He has simply been smart enough to conceal both his worldview and his agenda.

Barack Obama will bring monumental change, no question about it.  Given the fact that if he is elected, he will likely have such an overwhelming majority under Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives and Harry Reid’s Senate that Republicans won’t be able to do anything about anything, Obama would likely have more power than any President in our lifetimes.  There will be change like we have never seen.

God bless America, or God damn America: which one will we choose?

Obama Leaves Trinity 23 Years Too Late To Matter

Well, Barack Obama has left Trinity United Church. He has demonstrated that he is morally qualified to be president.

Oops. It’s 2008, and NOT 1985, when the move would have demonstrated that he actually had a functioning moral compass.

Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago was no more toxic last Sunday than it was over twenty-three years ago when a young Barack Obama first arrived. In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Barack Obama recalled a vivid description recalling his first meeting with Wright back in 1985. The Rev. Wright warned Barack Obama that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. It’s not that Obama didn’t know about the radicalism at Trinity. It’s that he didn’t care.

Obama has said that Jeremiah Wright was instrumental in attracting him to the church he joined and has acknowledged he titled his book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Wright’s sermons. One of Wright’s sermons, “The Audacity to Hope,” was so inspiring to Obama that he titled his book “The Audacity of Hope” after it. That message, by the way, contained the phrase, “white greed drives a world in need.”

So you can only imagine how Jeremiah Wright must have felt when Barack Obama threw him under the bus and denounced his views when they were the exact same views he had been preaching the day Obama came to the church 23 years before. Obama was fine with them before they became national public knowledge, and disapproving of them after. But Wright had been preaching the same message when he married Barack and Michelle Obama; he’d been preaching the same message when he baptized their daughters; he’d been preaching the same message when Barack Obama asked him to serve on his campaign’s spiritual leadership council. And in point of fact, he had been preaching the same message the day Barack Obama dis-invited him to speak at the event announcing his candidacy for president.

Of Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama, one of these men has been consistent his entire career; and that man has been Jeremiah Wright, not Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright didn’t just begin saying this stuff at age 72; he’s been preaching the same message to the same choir for well over thirty years. Does anyone actually believe that Jeremiah Wright just discovered his message?

Wright spoke out to defend himself and the views he had held over his long career in ministry. He said that Obama was denouncing him because he was a politician, and was saying things that politicians say and doing what politicians do. Obama attacked the man who he had once so proudly endorsed as his spiritual mentor following that revelation, saying, “What I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing.”

Which is, of course, exactly the sort of thing that would make a posturing political demagogue angry.

With this prelude, let me interact with Barack Obama’s press conference announcing his withdrawal of membership from Trinity. But let me begin by asking the questions that pointedly WEREN’T asked at the press conference:

* How on earth can you possibly justify having remained in that church environment for 23 years?

* Are you suggesting that Jeremiah Wright just recently discovered these views, and in no way harbored them all along?

* How can you have endorsed Jeremiah Wright, calling him your spiritual adviser, your uncle, your mentor, your moral compass, and then disavow this man who has been preaching the same message all along? How are you not responsible for his teachings and views when you so completely endorsed the man for so many years? What about other friends and spiritual advisors you have similarly endorsed over a period of years, such as Rev. Michael Pfleger? What about Rev. Otis Moss, who you again endorsed this very day? He embraced Pfleger as a friend of Trinity, and then specifically thanked God for Pfleger’s hateful remarks immediately after he made them! How on earth can you claim not to in any way be responsible for these peoples’ views when you have endorsed the people who have been saying these things for years?

* Do you endorse Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan as your church has officially done? Why on earth would you remain in a church that would endorse such figures of hate and divisiveness?

* As an ostensible intellectual, are you completely ignorant of the teachings of the black liberation theology embraced by Trinity? Are you ignorant of where it derived from or what it represents? How do you – as a self-acknowledged intelligent man – justify sitting under the teaching of what is clearly a blatantly racist and anti-American theology?

Now let us look at Obama’s version of reality in his leaving Trinity Church as given in his prepared remarks:

We have many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend there. We are proud of the extraordinary works that the church continues to perform throughout the community, to help the hungry, and the homeless and people in need of medical care.

I have tremendous regard for the great young pastor who has taken over – Rev. Moss – and continue to admire the work that Rev. Wright did in building up the church. But it’s clear that now that I’m a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity – including guest pastors – the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements, and principles.

We obviously saw an example of that in the recent statements by Father Pfleger, who is someone I have known, who I consider a friend, who has done tremendous work in Chicago, but made offensive statements that had no place in our politics and in the pulpit; that unfairly mocked and characterized Senator Clinton in ways that I think are unacceptable.

It’s also clear that Rev. Moss and the Church had been suffering from all the tension my campaign has visited on them. We’ve had news organizations harassing members at their homes and their work places. We had reporters grabbing church bulletins and calling up the sick and the shut-in in an attempt to get news about the church. We’ve had news organizations scrutinizing Rev. Moss’s sermons and attempting to make political hay out of even the most innocuous or innocent remarks by him. That’s just not how people should have to operate in their church. It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.

Barack Obama speaks of the politicization and news coverage of his church as though both he and the church are somehow victims. It is true that no president in recent memory has ever had his church become such an issue. But, in the words of Rolling Stone Magazine (which is liberal to its core):

This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama’s life, or his politics. The senator “affirmed” his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a “sounding board” to “make sure I’m not losing myself in the hype and hoopla.” 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 come from 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, “just look at Jeremiah Wright.”

The thing that makes Trinity United Church so incredibly relevant politically is because it is 1) such an intensely radical church environment, and 2) because Barack Obama is so intimately connected with a pastor who has been demonstrated to be a purveyor of anti-Americansism and racial hatred. You’re just not going to find anything like that in an examination of the church affiliations of John McCain, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and on and on. None of our presidents who have come before would ever have dreamed of joining such a radical church, or so deeply embracing such divisive pastors.

As I have pointed out before:

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?

As for his “many friends among the 8,000 congregants who attend” at Trinity, is Barack Obama referring to those thousands of cheering congregants who gave the hate of Michael Pfleger a standing ovation, and who similarly rose to cheer the rants of Jeremiah Wright? Michael Pfleger, by the way, is not merely a “guest speaker,” but a regular speaker at Trinity. Was he referring to the Rev. Otis Moss, who called Pfleger a “brother beloved, he is a preacher par-excellence, he is a prophetic powerful pulpiteer” before his message and said “We thank God for the message, and we thank God for the messenger. We thank God for Father Michael Pfleger. We thank God for Father Mike” after the message? How on earth could Barack Obama continue to call Otis Moss a wonderful young pastor and speak of his tremendous regard for this man who so embraced and applauded anti-American hate and anti-white racism?

In the same message in which Pfleger mocked Hillary Clinton and spoke of her feeling that she was entitled to the presidency because she was white – and that many white Americans were crying with her – Pfleger also said, “Racism is still America’s greatest addiction. I also believe that America is the greatest sin against God.”

And I cannot help but watch and read Barack Obama’s statements – as well as the Democrat’s embrace of this man – with stunned amazement. He is not outraged by the statements themselves as much as he is offended that they have been broadcast and covered in a way harmful to his candidacy. There is simply an appalling lack of outrage over appallingly outrageous statements that we now know so thoroughly characterize the life and soul of his church.

Obama said, “I am not denouncing the church. I am not interested in people who want me to denounce the church because it’s not a church worthy of denouncing. And so if they’ve seen caricatures of the church and accept those caricatures despite my insistence that’s not what the church is about, then there’s not much I can do about it.”

Obama’s description of “caricatures” hearkens to his previous statements that his pastors’ views had been taken out of context in endless loops. But we now know that the views we have heard are neither caricatures or statements out of context: rather, Wright defended them one by one, and they accurately represent the pastor’s position. Furthermore, the church congregation that embraced these radical preachers wildly cheered and applauded all these terrible remarks – including the very worst ones. How one earth does one NOT find all the church worthy of denunciation?

And Obama said, “I have to say this was one I didn’t see coming. We knew there were going to be some things we didn’t see coming. This was one. I didn’t anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subject to such challenge and such scrutiny,” said Obama. He said it has been months since he has been at the church, on Chicago’s South Side. “I did not anticipate my fairly conventional Christian faith being subjected to such…scrutiny.”

I ask, how can a candidate for the highest office in the world be so uncomprehending? How can he show such idiotic personal judgment? How can he even condemn these remarks when he sees them as “conventional”? There is no question that he is taking a whining tone here; it’s not that outright offensive vile hate was coming out of the church; it’s that he didn’t anticipate his “fairly” conventional Christian faith being subjective to scrutiny. He still doesn’t get it. He has said he disapproves of or disagrees with the remarks that now number in the dozens; but there is simply no demonstration even yet that he was genuinely offended by anything other than the attention these many statements of hate received.

Obama’s defenders have analogized the toxic environment of Trinity with the revelations of the sex abuse of priests in the Catholic Church. But there is no similarity, unless the priests in mass after mass shouted out that they were abusing young teenage boys as the crowds screamed and applauded their approval. The abuses occurred in secret, and their revelation brought outrage; the sermons of Jeremiah Wright (and now Michael Pfleger) occurred at the pulpit in the midst of a cheering congregation.

Similarly, Obama’s defenders have attempted to create a moral equivelence between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and John McCain and John Hagee and Rod Parsely. Again, come on! McCain barely knew these men. They weren’t his friends. They weren’t his “spiritual advisors.” They didn’t marry him or baptize his daughters. McCain didn’t write books named after their sermons. And McCain didn’t endorse them – as Barack Obama has specifically endorsed his growing list of radical reverends – they endorsed him. Only fools would accept such a ridiculous comparison.

And Obama’s defenders have said that a candidate for president ought to be able to hear divergent and even divisive views without having those views ascribed to that candidate. Obama himself said, “I do think that there is certainly a tradition in the African American church, but I think there’s a tradition in a lot of churches, to speak out about injustice, to speak out against issues like racism or sexism or economic inequality. And, you know, my hope would be that pastors who — well, let me put it this way. My hope would be that any presidential candidate can go to a church and hear a sermon and even hear some controversial statements without those views being imputed to them and being subject to the same exacting political tests that a presidential candidate or that presidential candidate’s statements would be.”

But then let all the people who hold this view go to a white supremacist church and listen to their views for 23 years. Let them bring their families into this environment, and let them say of the white supremacist church pastors what Obama has said of the radical pastors of his own church. You know that they would never do this, because they could not stomach the message. The point is that Obama – and these knee-jerk liberals who are defending him – do and have affirmed the radical, racist, anti-American message of Trinity United Church. Obama’s membership is no big deal to such people simply because don’t have a problem with the church’s teachings.

This is a church and a pastoral leadership affirmed by the church that has embraced the person and teachings of Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam. It is a church whose poison has repeatedly been demonstrated for everyone to see. And anyone who would tolerate such an environment for any length of time has no business of ever being a president of the United States.