Posts Tagged ‘Michelle’

Audacity Of Indifference: Obama Believes American People Too Ignorant, Selfish To Understand Truth About His Path To Economic Disaster

July 9, 2011

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Obama top political advisor David Plouffe said.

That’s good for Obama, given that Obama promised the American people that if his $3.27 TRILLION stimulus porker was passed, unemployment would go down to 7.1% by now, and instead it just rose to 9.2%.

Plouffe’s comment was brought up to White House press secretary Jay Carney, who had even more to say about just how profoundly stupid Obama believes the American people are:

Earlier this week David Plouffe, one of Obama’s senior advisers and an architect of his 2008 campaign, was panned for saying “the average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.”

In a condescending way, White House press secretary Jay Carney basically told the press corps  the same thing. Carney told ABC News’ Jake Tapper that Americans talk to each other about their feelings of the economic situation rather than “analyze the numbers.”

“I don’t know where, you know, the voters that some other folks might be talking to — but — or — but most people do not sit around their kitchen table and analyze GDP and unemployment numbers,” Carney said. “They do not sit around analyzing The Wall Street Journal or other — or Bloomberg to look at the — you know, analyze the numbers.”

It’s too darn bad we don’t know how to read, analyze or think, or we’d know what a total abject failure Jay Carney’s boss truly is.  If we could just learn to read or count, we’d fix Barry Hussein good in 2012.

Carney began this dissertation on the ignorance of the American people by first saying,

“Well, I understand that we’re engaged in the – or rather, the Republicans are engaged in a primary campaign, trying to get some media attention.”

As though that should somehow insulate Obama to whatever they say (we know that Obama has NEVER campaigned, and transcends politics the way the gods transcend humanity, after all).

I came across someone who did a good chunk of the assessment of Obama’s latest job figures and the reality of the pain that increasing numbers of Americans feel as a result of Obama’s economy for me:

You’re a just bunch of dullards who don’t care about unemployment, or the deplorable state of the U.S. economy, or the out of control spending by a socialist kleptocracy.

Here’s the numbers:

The GDP is the measure of a country’s output at any given time. The nation’s $14 trillion+ debt now equals the TOTAL  U.S. GDP, and exceeds the world’s economic output.

The official unemployment estimate is 9.2%, but when you figure in all of the people who simply stopped looking for work or have run out of unemployment benefits that percentage increases.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, now stands at 16.2%.

I analyze Obama’s abject, deliberate destruction of America’s economy, every day.    Jobs, along with businesses are leaving America thanks to the idiotic regulations, high taxes, the trade deficit, government spending, and unions that price their people and jobs right out of the country.  Tens of thousands of jobs have moved to communist China, which means we’re propping up an enemy of the United States with capitalist dollars.

But the American people are too damn stupid to understand all of that.  How can the ignorant dirty masses possibly understand?  It is better that Obama TELL THEM what to think, is it not?  And no one should listen to Republicans, after all; they’re campaigning, you know.  And Obama would never do anything so crass as that.

Still, Carney’s hand-waving dismissal of the Republicans’ points make it somewhat interesting to find out what those points actually ARE:

Tim Pawlenty pointed out that Obama is “dangerously detached.”  That whole “I feel your pain” thing is simply absent from Obama.  He stands far too far above us to feel or understand our mortal pain.  Our duty is to worship our messiah and have faith in him and in his Marxist ideology come what may.

But Mitt Romney probably most hit the nail on the head:

“Today’s abysmal jobs report confirms what we all know – that President Obama has failed to get this economy moving again. Just this week, President Obama’s closest White House adviser said that ‘unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers’ do not matter to the average American.

“If David Plouffe were working for me, I would fire him and then he could experience firsthand the pain of unemployment. His comments are an insult to the more than 20 million people who are out of work, underemployed or who have simply stopped looking for jobs. With their cavalier attitude about the economy, the White House has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of indifference.”

That opens the door to another thing Obama assumes you are: too selfish to care about other people.

If you have a job, or are getting your welfare check from the government that the government has redistributed from someone who IS lucky enough to have a job, you clearly don’t give a damn about how much millions of Americans are suffering.  That was at the heart of both David Plouffe’s and Jay Carney’s point.  Let me provide the full David Plouffe (did I mention he’s Obama’s TOP political advisor?) statement:

“The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said. “People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate; they’re going to vote based on: ‘How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?’

That’s right: if I’m doing okay, or at least if my family’s getting enough of the welfare pie, screw America.  Who gives a damn if everybody’s out of work?  I’m a DEMOCRAT; I’m getting MINE.  Barry Hussein took somebody else’s money and gave it to me so I’d vote for him.  Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate.

Amity Schlaes made a good point about the Great Depression in her book The Forgotten Man: “The Great Depression wasn’t that bad if you had a job.”  And that was true; particularly if you didn’t give a damn how much other people were suffering as a result of FDR’s terribly failed and immoral policies that kept America suffering for seven full years longer than was necessary.

Obama assumes that a majority of American voters are as selfish and self-centered as he himself has proven to be in his personal life before running for president.  Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These are the hypocrite vermin who constantly lecture us about how “the rich should pay their fair share.”  And these slime certainly should.  But of course, while they screech the Marxist screed of class warfare, they know that they’ve written the tax laws to benefit themselves and their supporters – to the extent they even bother to follow those tax laws that they demand everybody else follow to begin with.

“The audacity of indifference.”

Barack Obama and the Democrat Party don’t care if millions of Americans are out of work and suffering as the result of their policies.  All they frankly cynically care about is whether they can exploit that suffering to their own political advantage.  And whether the American people are ignorant enough and selfish enough to fall for their lies.

Advertisements

Democrats Actually CONTINUE To Defend Cop Killer-Celebrator ‘Common’ Invite To White House

May 17, 2011

This is absolutely bizarre to me.

Barack and Michelle Obama had a poetry night at the White House.  Among the invited honorees was a rapper named “Common” who has actually celebrated two different CONVICTED cop murderers.

Again, not just ONE cop murderer, but TWO:

  • Assata Shakur, also known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster.  She escaped prison and fled to the communist nation Cuba, where “Common” actually went to visit her prior to his “A Song for Assata.”   
  • Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of the 1981  murder of Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner.

Two murdered police officers.  Two convicted cop killers.  And the man who celebrated those cop killers was personally invited by the Obamas for a reading of his “poetry” in the White House.

The garbage excuses I have heard from Democrats are absolutely incredible.  As genuinely depraved as I believe Democrats are, they never cease to surprise me with their moral depravity.

The latest defense was offered by Jon Stewart – and of course immediately picked up as a talking point by the left.  I blocked someone as a lying vermin, and he posted back with – of course – Jon Stewart’s talking point.  Said talking point is that if you exclude “Common” for celebrating cop killers, you must also discard any invite of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and Bono.

What is interesting about this assortment of singers is that the above list consists of – in order from above – 1) a left wing radical; 2) a hard-core Democrat; and 3) a liberal.

Let’s take Bono – who apparently wrote a song called “Native Son” about an American Indian named Peltier who killed two FBI agents – first:

Bono fans fill Obama coffers
The presidential hopeful has found just what he’s looking for in U2 devotees as they swell his campaign reserves
Times, August 30, 2008
By: Colin Coyle

One is charismatic, plays to packed stadiums and wants to change the world. The other is Bono. Now a group of U2 fans, struck by the parallels between Barack Obama and the Irish rock star, have become one of the U.S. Democratic presidential nominee’s most enthusiastic band of supporters.

U2 fans for Obama, a collection of 103 U2 devotees, has raised almost $18,000 (EU12,200) for the presidential hopeful’s campaign and organised more than 600 events to date.

The group, whose website and blog are linked to the presidential candidate’s official homepage, believe that “since Bono can’t run for U.S. president, Obama is the next best thing”. Their blog declares that members “see in Obama a progressive Christian who embodies the ideas and sentiments…so compelling in U2’s music.”

The politician is already an avowed fan of the band, recently telling Rolling Stone magazine that U2 is on his iPod playlist. Bono attended the Democratic convention in Denver last week where he heard two U2 tracks, “City of Blinding Lights” and “Beautiful Day,” bookend Obama’s acceptance speech early on Friday. “Beautiful Day” was also the musical backdrop a night earlier when Obama introduced Senator Joe Biden, his nominee for vice-president, to the Denver crowd.

Oh, yeah, that one sure puts us conservative Republicans to shame.  He’s clearly one of our guys, right?  I mean, we’re responsible for this guy, right?

Oh, that’s right: WRONG!!!

I’m not going to bother to see if Bono was ever invited to attend anything during the Bush presidency, but if he was, I’ll bet you it was because of his humanitarian efforts, rather than because of his songs.

Then there’s Bruce Springsteen.  I don’t know what cop killer this turd eulogized, and I really don’t care.  But here’s the skinny on him:

‘The Boss’ would hire Obama for the top job
CAMPAIGN ’08: RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE
Rock star Bruce Springsteen endorses the Illinois Democrat. Clinton wins over salsa artist Willie Colon.
April 17, 2008|Johanna Neuman and Noam N. Levey | Times Staff Writers

Bruce Springsteen, the poetic rocker whose lyrics have chronicled the hardships of working-class Americans in struggling factory towns, on Wednesday endorsed Barack Obama for president.

The support that the music star known as “the Boss” threw behind the Illinois senator was a highlight of a relatively quiet day on the campaign trail, as Obama and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared for Wednesday night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia.

Okay, that’s two scratched off the list of three.

How about Bob Dylan?

Well, according to Democrat Underground:

“Joan Baez spoke of Dylan’s liberal political bend in “No Direction Home.” He was not a conservative.”

Then there’s such lines as this one from Dylan:

As Bob Dylan sang, “I’m liberal but to a degree. I want everybody to be free. But if you think I’m going to let Barry Goldwater move in next door to me and marry my daughter you must think I’m crazy . . .”

And Goldwater, of course, was the Republican nominee who was destroyed by the famous/infamous 1964 “Daisy” ad (you know, the ad by Vietnam warmonger Lyndon Johnson that implied Goldwater was a warmonger).

So Dylan was really just a garden variety liberal: he was the kind of hypocrite who was liberal, and therefore tolerant of everybody and everything but people he disagreed with like conservatives.  Then the intolerant hater burst out of his chest like that creature from Alien.

So I can draw two conclusions from this: 1) if you sing songs celebrating cop murders, YOU ARE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.  And 2) Democrats are so insane that they actually justify Obama inviting a rapper who celebrates two cop murderers by citing three other liberals who also seem to have celebrated cop killers.

Only a Democrat is morally sick and psychologically irrational enough to see the reason in this defense.

Allow me to also point out that this black president who made sure we all understood that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” (conclusion determined after stating he didn’t know any of the actual facts) invited a black man who eulogized two Black Panthers who both murdered WHITE police officers.

Also allow me to point out that there is a direct link between Barack Obama and “Common”: both were members of Jeremiah Wright’s demonic racist and un-American church.

Here is Trooper Werner Foerster, who was MURDERED by Assata Shakur:

And here is Philadelphia Police Department Officer Daniel Faulkner, who was murdered by Mumia Abu-Jamar.

Take a good look at these two white men who were murdered by Black Panthers as they tried to do their duties maintaining the thin blue line between civilization and total anarchy and mayhem.  And tell me how you would feel about a president inviting a singer who wrote songs celebrating the murders of two BLACK police officers by two convicted white Ku Klux Klansmen who were nobly fighting for “white justice,” or “white power,” or “the cause,” or however the hell you want to phrase it to make it like “Common’s” eulogies.  Because THAT is EXACTLY what we have in the case of two Black Panthers murdering two white police officers.

Hey, how about if your next president invites a singer who soulfully and spiritually eulogizes James Earl Ray – the “so-called” but actually innocent man convicted of the murder of Martin Luther King???  Here’s an article from – you guessed it, Democratic Underground – saying James Earl Ray is innocent.  Hey, why not celebrate him as some kind of hero?!?!?!

If you are a Democrat, and you are not personally ashamed of your Disgrace-in-Chief, you are simply a cockroach masquerading as a human being.

How Much Have Obamas Spent On Clothes?

October 24, 2008

It’s kind of funny to me.  When John McCain and Sarah Palin point out that Barack Obama “palled around” with terrorist William Ayers (“partnered with” is a better way to put it), the all-over-the-air and way-over-the-top Democratic talking point was that this was an attempt to take attention away from the “real issues.”  Journalists told us that with so many issues of profound importance facing the country, focusing on something as trivial as a terrorist buddy was ridiculous.  And then the “bombshell revelation” that the McCain-Palin campaign might have spent $150,000 outfitting Sarah Palin and upgrading her image for the campaign hits like some major scandal.  And THAT’S relevant!

You don’t hear the drive-by mainstream media condescendingly pointing out how irrelevant Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is, or how this is a clear attempt to distract the public from the damage created by the “Joe the Plumber” situation.  Nope.  The media would never dare apply the same talking points to Republicans that they routinely use to justify and support Democrats.  Goebbels never turned on Hitler, you know.

In any event, I read a few condescending stories from the leftist media (such as the Huffington Post), but couldn’t find any reference to what Barack or Michelle Obama spent on their clothes.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that they’ve both spent a ton of dough.  The Politico article says that, “A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.”  But keep in mind that every penny of McCain campaign money is accounted for due to public financing regulations, whereas we have no idea where more than $200 million of Obama’s money came from.  And we also come to find out that designers have given wardrobes to Democratic candidates in order to garner publicity, which itself amounts to a violation of campaign laws.

Hillary Clinton’s famous pantsuits costs more than $6,000 each – and  she had a LOT of pantsuits.  And it turns out she probably didn’t pay anything for them, according to the woman who designed them for her:

One of Mrs. Clinton’s famous political fashion designers, Susanna Chung Forest, who designed Hillary’s pantsuits, which, that’s gotta boost the resume. She says that it would be unusual for a candidate as famous as Sarah Palin to need to buy clothes at all, meaning most of these women are not buying their clothes, they’re given to them by the designers in order to get publicity, just as Hollywood starlets on the red carpet before the Emmys and the Oscars, those gowns are all donated.

We also find out if we dig around long enough out that Obama is getting his suits at Barney’s, and that Michelle wears Maria Pinto, Valentino, and other top fashion brands.  And we learn that people who live in designer glass-houses shouldn’t throw diamonds:

The current issue of Harper’s Bazaar notes that the Democratic presidential candiate’s wife wears Valentino, among others. Looks like when the Obamas say “spread the wealth around,” they mean at top shelf department stores.

I’m not outraged at this. The pressure of being in the public eye is understandable. What’s disturbing is the double standard. Michelle Obama gets hailed by the fashionistas while Palin gets crucified and mocked by the fashion police.

These same liberals who are now appalled at the Palin shopping spree are the same ones that thought it shallow and superficial to discuss Newsweek’s obvious recent cheap shot cover of Sarah Palin because we have more important fish to fry. Where are these people now to shout that this issue is trivial? And how do they manage to get so fired up about Palin’s appearance all of sudden?

This latest attack on Sarah Palin is geared to undermine her as a real “woman of the people.”  But the reality is that it shows that she IS a woman of the people.  She didn’t have the kind of clothing that would withstand the unrelenting glare of the national spotlight.  How many “women of the people” do?  This woman who sold the governor’s private jet, got rid of the governor’s limosine, fired the governor’s chef, etc. clearly IS a “woman of the people” whether the McCain campaign upgrades her image or not.  And given the fact that the Obama campaign has easily outspent the McCain campaign 4-1, what does it matter that the McCain campaign believed that upgrading the image of an attractive candidate was money poorly spent?

The McCain campaign has reported that the clothes will be sold off and the proceeds donated to charity after the election.

Now let’s get back to the serious issues of the campaign, such as how Barack Obama is a socialist who will keep Joe the Plumber from being able to buy a small business so Obama can “spread the wealth around.”

Obama Campaign: Why William Ayers Matters So Much

October 21, 2008

William Ayers was – by any meaningful definition of the term – a terrorist.  He bombed public buildings, such as the Pentagon, the Capital, and New York City Police Headquarters.  Although his case was thrown out due to government misconduct, the evidence is clear that William Ayers – by his own admission – was a terrorist who said, “Kill all the rich people.  Break up their cars and apartments.  Bring the revolution home, kill your parents – that’s where it’s really at.”  This is a man who said – in a day of mourning and anger following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 – “I don’t regret setting bombs.  I feel we didn’t do enough.”

William Ayers didn’t make that horrible statement when Barack Obama was 8 years old (FYI, Ayers’ last self-acknowledged and most well-known bombings occurred in 1972, when Barack Obama was eleven years old).  Ayers said that when Barack Obama was 40 years old.  Nor did Obama work in direct partnership with William Ayers when he was 8 years old; he did so beginning when he was 32 years old.  In other words, he was old enough to be held responsible for his relationships and alliances.

[John] Murtagh, whose father was a New York Supreme Court justice when his family’s home was targeted, put out a statement on behalf of McCain’s campaign Wednesday claiming “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family.”

Obama has said his relationship with Ayers did not extend beyond serving with him on an education board in Chicago. He has condemned Ayers’ Vietnam War-era attacks, and his campaign has said Obama did not know of Ayers’ radical past when Ayers held a campaign event at his home for Obama in 1995.

But Murtagh cast doubt on the narrative out of the Obama campaign, saying it would make the Democratic presidential candidate “the dumbest man that ever graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School” if he didn’t initially know about Ayers’ past.

Barack Obama said he didn’t know about William Ayers’ radical terrorist past when he held his first campaign fund raiser in William Ayers’ home – and directly benefited from Ayers’ clout – in 1995.  But Obama had already known and worked with Ayers for a couple of years (beginning in early 1993), and Ayers’ Weatherman terrorist background was common knowledge in Chicago.  It is very much like someone in New York serving on a couple of boards with Joe Namath and claiming that he was never told that Namath had been a football player.

The article quoted above also notes that Michelle Obama worked with William Ayers’ wife – and convicted terrorist – Bernadine Dohrn.  Murtagh says, “I believe if the senator were to come clean and tell us the full story, we’d find out this relationship well predates the fundraiser held in the Ayers home. It goes back to the ’80s.”

William Ayers wasn’t some irrelevant and tangential acquaintance; he was a powerful and influential supporter of Barack Obama at an early and critical stage in an inexperienced Barack Obama’s career.

To begin with, the William Ayers relationship – and Barack Obama’s attempts to distance himself from that relationship – reveal the cynical and deceptive personal character of Barack Obama.  The only thing worse than having a bad association is having a bad association and then regularly lying about it.  Obama has lied about his relationship with William Ayers.

But, believe it or not, that’s not the worst of it.  That Barack Obama has “palled around with terrorists” is only part of the problem.  [For the record, there have been a lot of virulently anti-American friends in Barack Obama’s Rolodex.]

You need to realize just what Barack Obama did while serving on those two boards with William Ayers.  It isn’t pretty.

Stanley Kurtz, in an article titled, “Wright 101: Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism,” says:

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

Let me begin by asking the following question: would it bother you if I – as a white scholar – asserted that white brains were different than black brains, and that black children are incapable of learning the same way white children do?  That is precisely the position of Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, spiritual advisor, and mentor for 23 years.

Now let me point out as a further preamble that William Ayers – in a book timed to be released after the election in order to keep Obama out of trouble yet benefit from the publicity surrounding the Obama-Ayers link – will be titled Race Course Against White Supremacy.  Ayers used to be a radical bomb-throwing terrorist.  Newsflash: since then he’s been a radical bomb-throwing educator.  It’s too bad that this book will come out too late for voters to understand the incredibly radical agenda that William Ayers – and Barack H. Obama – have regarding education.  The fact is, Obama didn’t just “pal around” with Bill Ayers; he partnered with Ayers to advance and fund an incredibly radical education agenda.

In 1996, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge gave the Coalition for Improved Education in South Shore (CIESS) a $200,000 grant.  CIESS was made an “enternal partner” linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the “South Shore African Village Collaborative” was thoroughly “Afrocentric” in orientation.  It continued to receive large grants from Annenburg throughout the period of Barack Obama’s oversight as a board member.

Stanley Kurtz documents the relationship between Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and what turns out to be an extremely troubling “Afrocentric” curriculum advanced and supported by Ayers and Obama and which Kurtz describes as a “carbon copy of Jeremiah Wright’s worldview.”

The Afrocentric “rites of passage” movement begins with the presupposition (in the words of the Journal of Negro Education) that public education in the United States is shaped by “capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression.”  Is that your view of American public education, PTA mom and dad?  It is Barack Obama’s, given his support for and funding of the movement.

According to the Afrocentric system championed by William Ayers and Barack Obama with Annenberg money, American values “have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values.” American socialization has “proven to be dysfunctional and genocidal to the African American community.”  And the “answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed ‘to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.'”

Supporters of the “rites of passage” movement (such as Barack Obama and William Ayers in their decision to fund them) viewed these programs as “a social and cultural ‘inoculation’ process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society.”

Jacob Carruthers, a leader of the “rites of passage” movement funded by Annenberg money under Barack Obama, “dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.”  His mission, as detailed in his book Intellectual Warfare, calls upon society to “dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples.”  According to Carruthers, “The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.”

As Stanley Kurtz explains:

Carruthers’s goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: “…some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture.” The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: “We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist….” In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn’t mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa’s original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Kurtz also says:

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers’s training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: “As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey….” These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC’s curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers’s concerns about “menticide” and “genocide” at the hand of America’s white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: “Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us.”

You might have noticed that the three R’s don’t seem to be very important.  They aren’t, for this Obama-funded racist and anti-American ideology masquerading as a curriculum.  It is a curriculum Barack Obama, as a friend of William Ayers, a board member with Annenberg, and a congregant for 23 years in Jeremiah Wright’s church, has supported for most of his entire adult life.  In his conclusion, Kurtz says:

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn’t warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled “rites of passage” as “rights of passage,” hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children’s reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge’s own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg’s “external partners” had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It’s time for McCain to say so.

Barack Obama has promised to increase the funding of our nation’s already massively funded public education system by about another thirty percent.  Just realize that – based on his past history – President Obama will use that money to radicalize your little darlings, rather than try to teach them.

Still think William Ayers doesn’t matter?

See also Stanley Kurtz’ articles:

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism

Obama’s Challenge: The campaign speaks to “Radicalism.”

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown? A cover-up in the making?

Democrats Viciously Attack Sarah Palin As Bad Mother

September 1, 2008

Do you wish you had a nickel for every time you heard the phrase, “the Republican attack machine“?  Would you buy your own island if you had all those nickels?

Republicans, we are told, use dirty tricks.  Democrats, on the other hand, are represented as being pure as the driven snow.

You want proof?  Just look at John Kerry; he was “Swiftboated” (the fact that 264 of John Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat veterans signed a petition against him, and only 13 took his side, is apparently irrelevant.  And Barack Obama told Tennessee Republicans to “Lay off my wife” for attacking some of her public statements.

You can’t get lower than that, can you?

Until we start to learn that liberals will dredge to the depths of hell to get as low and dirty as they can, and then they will keep on digging.  And they will stop at absolutely nothing until they have reached absolute rock bottom.

John Kerry Swiftboated?  It turns out that if he’d been a Republican, he would have been accused of having committed incest with both of his two daughters, secretly fathering children by his children, and then selling his incest babies into slavery in Cambodia.  Barack Obama’s wife attacked for her public statements?  It turns out that if Barack had been a Republican, Michelle would have been accused of leaving her two girls in a sealed-up car for hours while she smoked crack cocaine.  And let’s not forget the reports that Barack Obama has been engaging in “down-low” gay sex with a clandestine group of several men, and locks his children in a dark storage closet for hours at a time while the liaisons are talking place.

Do you think I’m exaggerating?  Just wait until you see what liberals are saying about Sarah Palin as a mother, and what they are saying about her family.  What I have seen in the last few days’ coming from Democrats is the most vile, twisted, despicable, pathetic, disgusting, hateful, and loathsome attack I have ever seen. (more…)

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

April 15, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, not so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what about Barack Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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