Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
Obama went to Jeremiah Wright’s racist and anti-American Trinity United Church for twenty years and fell asleep every single time just as the sermon was about to begin? That was always a giant load of bovine fecal matter:
After years of denying that he heard the radical preaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ for 20 years, there is new video of the reverend in which he says, “I’ve been preaching the same way since I was licensed to preach in 1959, ordained in 1967. Barack was in elementary school when I was ordained. CBS, ABC, MSNBC and Fox News spent $4,000 each buying 20 years of my sermons so they could hear what Barack Obama heard for 20 years.”
Barack Obama is a liar and a coward.
And if John McCain had ever spent ONE Sunday – let alone TWENTY YEARS’ WORTH of Sundays – in such a toxic hellhole as Jeremiah Wright’s cesspool pulpit, he never would have been elected dog catcher, let alone the Republican Party nominee.
Jeremiah Wright is back. Let’s hear what Barack Obama listened to and believed for twenty years:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered three fiery sermons about faith, race and politics at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia
Wright said Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas worships “some other God” outside of “Allah and Yahweh” (who are the “same” he says)
Obama’s former pastor called Thomas Jefferson “a pedophile”
He sees “white supremacy” driving “world policy”
Wright condemned the U.S. military, saying, “fighting for peace is like raping for virginity”
The Rev. Jeremiah Wright became a household name during the 2008 presidential campaign. The fiery preacher, who was President Barack Obama’s pastor for two decades, has since retired from his position at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois. However, he’s still an active figure in geopolitical and faith movements, as his bizarre commentaries often offend detractors and inspire intense debate.
Last week, Wright spoke at Metropolitan Baptist Church in Charleston, West Virginia, as part of a week-long revival event. His controversial words took aim at Thomas Jefferson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the media and plenty of other targets.
“I’m not divisive, the media is divisive,” he said, going on to lament the soundbites he claims were unfairly used to disparage him during the 2008 campaign.
As could be expected, the three evening sermons he delivered during the revival often turned to themes and subjects much more controversial than alleged media bias.
“Believers beware,” Wright preached in one of his lessons. “There are some conversations you will find yourselves in in which there is no communication taking place.”
He went on to speak about Jesus and Pontius Pilate in John 18 in the Bible, saying that they were speaking “two different languages.“ This sermon quickly delved into his belief that ”the Italian army — Roman soldiers“ were ”occupying Palestinian territory.”
Then, Wright found himself discussing U.S. operations in the Middle East, while also taking aim at FOX News personalities Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity.
Bill Ayers & Rev. Jeremiah Wright
“I was in the military six years and neither Hannity or O’Reilly was in the military,” he proclaimed. “Let me tell you one thing they taught us in the United States Marine Corps…fighting for peace is like raping for virginity. Those are oxymorons, but that’s what we do in the name of regime change.”
The controversial preacher also showed no love for Justice Thomas, as he told his audience that, though Thomas “looks like” them, he is “worshipping some other God.” He also made an intriguing comparison about the God of the Hebrew Bible and the Lord depicted in the Quran.
“The god of racists is not the God of righteousness. The god of the greedy is not the God of grace. The god of Wall Street is not the God of Main Street,” Wright proclaimed. “Those are two different gods and I ain’t talking about Allah and Yahweh. Those are the same names for the same God.”
He continued, taking a jab at Thomas and his Christian faith.
“And I’m not talking about black and white…some of ya‘ll think I’m talking about white folk,” he said. “There’s a whole lot of folk who look like you who are worshipping some other God — somebody shout Clarence Thomas. Hallelujah!”
Wright also tackled racial issues, while waging a bizarre accusation at Thomas Jefferson.
“There are politicians who are making decisions about you, about your life, about your future, about your family about your children — and the real tragedy is they live in a different world from your world all together,” he proclaimed. “There are people in power right now who have opinions about you based on their privilege of skin color.”
As he spoke about race, Wright’s rhetoric intensified.
“I am in the text. Pilate was European…Jesus was not European. They live in a world shaped by European standards of beauty, shaped by Moynihan studies, shaped by bell curves — they live in a different world from your world all together,” he told the audience. “They are ignorant and arrogant and these are graduates of Harvard and Yale setting policies over you based on the stupidity of David Hume…Voltaire, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Thomas Jefferson — a pedophile — Theodore Roosevelt and a racist Supreme Court.”
But he wasn’t done there.
“The ignorance and arrogance of white supremacy have the movers and shapers of world policy living in a different world from people of color all together,” Wright raged on. “And the sooner you realize that the better off you’re gonna be.”
Early on in this same address, while speaking about Luke 19, Wright took aim at conservatives, saying, ”You will not hear this passage of John 19 preached on Wall Street. You won’t hear this Luke 19 Scripture exegeted in the comfortable pews of the rich folk, the greedy folk or the Tea Party praisers.”
It is in this chapter that Zacchaeus, a tax collector, encounters Jesus and subsequently decides to change his ways, pledging to give half of his possessions away. Additionally, he offers to give back four times what he owes to anyone he has cheated. Clearly, the preacher sees conservatives as “greedy folks.”
“That is called restorative justice and theology – restore the stuff that the greedy stole from the needy,” Wright continued.
Watch comments cut together from all three of Wright’s speeches, below:
The Blaze’s Benny Johnson contributed to this report.
Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama worship the same god, and his name is Beelzebub.
When Jeremiah Wright says that “There are people in power right now who have opinions about you based on their privilege of skin color,” he might actually have a point. In spite of the fact that the president of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States are every bit as black and every bit as race-baiting as Jeremiah Wright, it nevertheless is true that when he needs to get elected, Barack Obama’s campaign team looks like this:
But according to the anti-Semitic bigotry that Jeremiah Wright taught Barack Obama, they’re probably all Jews, too. Probably kind of on the same operating theory upon which Harry Truman used Nazis, you know.
Here are the lyrics to the vile loathsome crap that passes off as “poetry” to Barack and Michelle Obama:
A Letter to the Law
Dem boy wanna talk… [indistinguishable]
Whatcha gon do if ya got one gun?
I sing a song for the hero unsung
with faces on the mural of the revolution
No looking back cos’ in back is what’s done
Tell the preacher, god got more than one son
Tell the law, my Uzi weighs a ton
I walk like a warrior,
from them I won’t run
On the streets, they try to beat us like a drum
In Cincinnati, another brother hung
A guinea won’t see the sun
with his family stung
They want us to hold justice
but you handed me none
The same they did to Kobe and Michael Jackson
make them the main attraction
Turn around and attack them
Black gem in the rough
You’re rugged enough
Use your mind and nine-power, get the government touch
Them boys chat-chat on how him pop gun I got the black strap to make the cops run They watching me, I’m watching them
Them dick boys got a lock of cock in them
My people on the block got a lot of pok* in them and when we roll together we be rocking them to sleep
No time for that, because there’s things to be done
Stay true to what I do so the youth dream come
from project building
Seeing a fiend being hung With that happening, why they messing with Saddam? Burn a Bush cos’ for peace he no push no button Killing over oil and grease no weapons of destruction How can we follow a leader when this a corrupt one
The government’s a g-unit and they might buck young black people
Black people In the urban area one
I hold up a peace sign, but I carry a gun.
Peace, ya’ll.”
So let’s honor “poets” that say killing police is a good thing. Let’s honor a guy who said we should burn George Bush to death for the war in Iraq, etc.
I can imagine a “poet” writing a “poem” that “cleverly” connects the similarity in the names of Obama and Osama. And then “cleverly” suggest that Obama should share the same fate Osama just received.
And I imagine that there would probably be a market for garbage like that, masquerading as “art.” Because there are a lot of diseased minds in this country.
But here’s the difference: George and Laura Bush would not have had that filth corrupting their White House if they’d been president and first lady for a million billion years. And in this case the “diseased minds” belong to Barack and Michelle Obama.
I will never understand how Barack Obama can give one astonishingly hypocritical moral lecture after another, and then invite moral filth like this into the White House.
If a Republican President were to invite the “white” equivalent of this cockroach “Common,” the media would spend the rest of his presidency seeing page one stories about his racism.
For what it’s worth, this “Common” guy came out of Jeremiah Wright’s and Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church. Which is just one more illustration of what a moral sewer this synagogue of satan truly is.
“Common” also eulogized a convicted cop murderer (Assata Shakur) in a song titled, “A Song for Assata,” in which he said of her: “Your power and pride is beautiful. May God bless your soul.” Shakur, a violent racist Black Panther formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, was convicted for the 1973 slaying of Trooper Werner Foerster on the New Jersey Turnpike. She escaped prison in 1979, and is living in asylum in Cuba.
I shouldn’t even have to adress how vile it is to sing “inspirational” songs in celebration of something that evil. The only thing I can think of that would be more vile than that would be for a president and first lady to celebrate that kind of moral filth in the White House.
I have always said that Barack Hussein Obama is a genuinely evil man. It just keeping getting easier and easier for me to stand by that statement.
Liberals live in a world of massive hypocrisy and gigantic double standards. I think of how they demonized – and continue to demonize – the Tea Party movement as being violent and white. And then we saw what white liberals in Wisconsin were capable of. For the record, Tea Partiers NEVER threatened to molest a liberal politician’s kids; “obstructionist” “Party of No” Republicans NEVERleft their state because they were too undemocratic to vote; Tea Partiers NEVER smashed windows and rioted in political offices; and they most certainly NEVER caused $7 million in damage with their vandalism. But none of that matters when hypocrisy defines your entire ideology.
Obama gave less than 1% of his income a year to charity until he decided to run for president. But now this man who refused to give his own money even to charties he most strongly beleived in is a strong proponent of forcing others to give their money to a government they rightly increasingly despise. Being generous with other people’s money isn’t righteousness; it is wickedness. The man is a quintessential hypocrite.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
Are you a white member of a labor union? If so, you are a racist. Especially if you’re one of them Wisconsin white union workers. You’re the most racist of all. F-ing rabidly racist, in actual point of fact.
SEIU Executive Vice President Gerry Hudson
On Union Members Attitudes About Immigration Reform at Georgetown University
4/6/2010
“I’ve organized huge numbers of conversations among workers about immigration, comprehensive immigration reform. And there is significant worker opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. And, appallingly, among African-Americans. People have gone overtime in trying to organize a battle royale – right? – for the country between African-Americans and Latinos on this whole issue. So I’ve got a feeling it’s got some legs.
What’s interesting to me is it doesn’t take a whole lot to argue, at least African-American workers, to another place. It doesn’t take a whole lot. And I’ve spent not a lot of time doing it, but I I’ve had some success. And so I think we need to spend more time doing it, try to figure out what’s the best ways to get it done. But I think we can get the work done.
On white workers, I think we’ve got some real problems. I’ve spent a lot of time in Wisconsin and places like that where I have heard some of the most anti-immigrant sentiments around. It’s also, and this is where you get the black workers first; it’s so fucking rabidly racist – ’till black people get scared. They don’t just mean you. So you can organize them quicker.”
Man, can you just imagine the unreal media circus feeding frenzy that would have ensued if a white member of a powerful pro-Republican organization which was getting more visits to the White House than anybody had said this kind of vile crap about black people??? I mean, just to say that black people are “fucking rabidly ANYTHING” would have raised a stink with a giant mushroom cloud that would have been visible from neighboring galaxies.
What we have here is a racist black man who hates and demonizes white people. And incredibly, the white people he seems to have the most naked and open contempt for are SEIU white workers.
Understand, Gerry Hudson isn’t talking about conservative tea party white people; he’s talking about very uberliberal Service Employees International Union white people. I mean, the mainstream media have been out spewing never-actually-witnessed allegations of tea party racism like machine gun bullets. But the nastiest racism – the “fucking rabidly racist” racism – is coming from those white liberal Democrat union neanderthals. Just ask the SEIU.
I’ve always said, if you want to see hatred and racism, just look at the left. And here is a classic example of a) a black leftist demonizing white people as a racial group; and b) a leftist pointing out it’s the white liberals who are “fucking rabidly racist.”
It’s just a giant neon sign of liberal racism from every possible angle.
I think about “rabid,” and I think about that leftist ObamaCare supporter that bit the finger off of a man who merely happened to be passing by.
There’s another angle to this, of course. Because once again, the massive hypocrisy of the self-righteous liberalism raises its festering, putrid head yet again.
To paraphrase Clark Griswold, it’s about time that the American people realize what cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit hypocrites that liberals truly are.
Here’s a story out just yesterday about MSNBC “journalist” Norah O’Donnell describing Newt Gingrich’s “racism” for his remark about Barack Obama’s ability to shoot 3-pointers:
The question of the day: What could a leftist possibly say on MSNBC that would be so far out, so ridiculous, so inane that even the network’s other leftists scoff?
The answer: Norah O’Donnell’s claim that if a Republican says a Democrat is athletic, it’s some kind of nefarious secret code that really means “negro.”
Newt Gingrich, speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, said that “shooting three-point shots may be clever, but it doesn’t put anybody to work.”
Referring to President Obama, Gingrich said, “What we need is a President, not an athlete. We need somebody who actually focuses on getting people back to work.”
That’s when Morning Joe guest host O’Donnell accused Gingrich of being a racist.
“But I’m not sure what he means by this particular sound bite,” O’Donnell said, “and I think it’s open to some criticism because it suggests that the President is an athlete and some people may suggest, you know, because all black people are good athletes. I mean that’s what it sort of sounds like to me.
The reaction on the Morning Joe set was instantaneous. Even the other leftists couldn’t help but make fun of O’Donnell’s “interesting” interpretation.
Apparently, the Republicans racist code is an ever changing thing. Last year, they told us the word “socialist” was code for “negro.” This year, “athlete” is the new code word. And later this year, it’s going to be “incumbent.”
What about the flat-out proclamation that white people are “fucking rabidly racist,” Norah??? Apparently, THAT didn’t bother you enough to file a report.
Now, I want you to understand: as far as the lamestream media is concerned, Newt Gingrich making a remark about Obama’s ability to shoot a basketball – which not only the media but Barack Obama himself have frequently alluded to – is racist. But a black SEIU executive vice president saying poor white workers as a class of people are “fucking rabidly racist” – is not racist.
That’s the level of leftist ideological propaganda masquerading as legitimate news we’ve plunged into. There’s you liberal media demagogic double-standard wrapped-up with a nice little bow tied around it. That’s largely how ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and newspapers such as the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, operate every single day.
Raise your hand if you plan to vote for that white guy and his “fucking rabid racist” commitment to all those white values.
Raise your hand if you intend to vote for the white man who went to a white church with a commitment to the white value system whose preacher – whom he described as his spiritual mentor – shrieked out a sermon about black folks’ greed driving socialist screed. How about if that white politician wrote a book using the title of that sermon???
And, by the way, if you’re a black person, and you DON’T vote for my white values candidate, YOU ARE A RACIST!!! And you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Just who the hell are these people to lecture anybody about racism???
And just who the hell are the mainstream media “journalists” – who have been the gatekeepers of an incredibly hypocritical double-standard – to lecture us???
There are a bunch of white people out there who just want to be able to take care of their families who are constantly getting labeled as “racist” by people who seriously ought to take a long hard look in the mirror. Not that these people are even morally capable of meaningful self-reflection.
It’s time that decent people of ALL melatonin levels went after these race-baiting demagogues and shamed them out of the public domain.
Whalen: Umm, well there were two larger men, one looked kind of Hispanic but I’m not really sure. And the other one entered and I didn’t see what he looked like at all.
And even then she didn’t say that the men were black.
But that doesn’t stop the REAL racists from attacking her.
Lucia Whalen tearfully said, “I was called racist – I was scorned and ridiculed because of things I never said.” And the people who made her cry, the people who attacked a woman who performed a public service by getting involved and calling the police when she witnessed a possible crime in progress, are the ones who are racist.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — The woman who dialed 911 to report a possible break-in at the home of black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. said Thursday she was pained to be wrongly labeled a racist based on words she never said and hoped the recently released recording of the call would put the controversy to rest.
With a trembling voice, Lucia Whalen, 40, said she was out walking to lunch in Gates’ Cambridge neighborhood near Harvard University when an elderly woman without a cell phone stopped her because she was concerned there was a possible burglary in progress.
Whalen was vilified as a racist on blogs after a police report said she described the possible burglars as “two black males with backpacks.”
Tapes of the call released earlier this week revealed that Whalen did not mention race. When pressed by a dispatcher on whether the men were white, black or Hispanic, she said one of them might have been Hispanic.
“Now that the tapes are out, I hope people can see that I tried to be careful and honest with my words,” Whalen said. “It never occurred to me that the way I reported what I saw be analyzed by an entire nation.”
Cambridge police Commissioner Robert Haas acknowledged that the police report contains a reference to race, but said the report is merely a summary of events. The arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, has said his information on the race of the suspects came during a brief encounter with Whalen outside Gates’ house; she contradicted that Thursday, saying she made no such description.
The arrest of Gates for disorderly conduct in his own home by a white police officer sparked a national debate over racial profiling and police conduct. The controversy intensified when President Obama said police “acted stupidly” when they arrested Gates, his friend.
Gates has said he was outraged and has demanded an apology from Crowley; Crowley said he followed protocol and responded to Gates’ “tumultuous behavior” appropriately.
Whalen, a Harvard alumni magazine employee who is a first-generation Portuguese-American, said she lived in fear during the immediate aftermath of the arrest when she was dogged for comment and maligned based on the information attributed to her in the police report.
“The criticism at first was so painful I was frankly afraid to say anything. People called me racist. Some even said threatening things that made me fear for my safety,” said Whalen, whose husband, Paul, put his hand on her shoulder in comfort her as she spoke. “I knew the truth, but I didn’t speak up right away because I did not want to add to the controversy.”
She said she felt more comfortable speaking publicly after the tapes were released. She refused to answer any questions about the police report or what she saw that day.
“I am proud to have been raised by two loving parents who instilled in me values including love one another, be kind to strangers and do not judge people based on race, ethnicity or any other feature than their character,” she said. […]
“I was called racist and I was a target of scorn and ridicule because of the things I never said,” she said. “The criticism hurt me as a person, but it also hurt the community of Cambridge.”
Lucia Whalen was raised by her parents to love one another, to be kind to strangers, and to not judge people based on their race, ethnicity, or any other feature but their character. Martin Luther King would have applauded her as everything he wanted to see in an American.
But the “Civil Rights” movement was long-ago hijacked by people who actively despise Martin Luther King’s prescription:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Unfortunately, we now have men like Henry Louis Gates, Jeremiah Wright, and the close personal friend of both men, Barack Obama. And they are men who seem to have King’s standard turned completely around.
Watch Henry Louis Gates and tell me that he isn’t consumed by race and by racism, as opposed to concentrating upon the content of anybody’s character:
GATES: Probably. I didn’t know until — in 1959 we were watching Mike Wallace’s documentary called “The Hate that Hate Produced.” It was about the Nation of Islam and I couldn’t believe — I mean, Malcolm X was talking about the white man was the devil and standing up in white people’s faces and telling them off. It was great. I mean, it’s what black people did behind closed doors, but they would never do it in — I mean, they were too vulnerable to do it, say, where they worked, at the paper mill or downtown, as we would call it. And here was a guy who had the nerve to do that, and I think if I had been a character in a cartoon, my eyes would have gone Doing! — like this. I couldn’t believe it. As I sat cowering in a corner of our living room, I glanced over at Mama and her face was radiant. I mean, this smile — beatific smile started to transform her face. And she said quite quietly, “Amen.” And then she said, “All right now,” and she sat up and she said, “Yes.”
Gates describes his and his mother’s experience with hard-core racism – the labeling of an entire race of people as “devils” – as a spiritual epiphany bordering on a religious experience. And what chance did Sgt. James Crowley have when a 911 call reporting a possible break-in have when he encountered such fanatic racist zeal?
And there’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Sgt. James Crowley – who appears to be a model police officer – thinks anywhere nearly as poorly of black men as Henry Louis Gates thinks of white men. And it has been Gates who has made the incident not only racial but racist since the moment he first laid eyes on Sgt. Crowley. Because Gates was a racist since long before the two men ever met.
Describing Crowley as an “outstanding police officer,” the president said: “Even when you’ve got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.”
That’s nice, Barry. Are you saying that even an outstanding (white) police officer is still racially biased, or are you saying that the African American community is so trapped in racism – like Obama’s own close personal friend ‘Skip’ Gates – that it doesn’t really matter how racially sensitive a white officer is?
“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know – there’s a reaction in her that’s been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
Maybe Obama is saying that Sgt. Crowley, as a “typical white person,” has his racism “bred into him”? (Didn’t Jimmy the Greek get fired for saying something about racial “breeding”?). Perhaps THAT is why Obama was so quick to jump to the conclusion of racial bias – even right after admitting that he didn’t know any of the facts of the case – in his now infamous press conference?
Let us not forget, in the first Jeremiah Wright sermon Barack Obama ever heard he heard Wright describe a world where “where white folks’ greed runs a world in need.“ And something clicked for Obama so powerfully that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright became his pastor, his mentor, and his spiritual leader for the next 23 years. And Barack Obama voluntarily submitted himself and his family to plenty of sermons demonizing the white man in the years since.
I listened to the tapes of the hateful sermons that came out of Barack Obama’s Trinity United Church, and I couldn’t get past the question, “How could Obama stay there for so long?” Obama said that none of those hateful messages impacted him, but there is little question that they in fact affected him deeply.
There are racist white people. There are racist black people. And God knows we don’t need any more of either. The question is, who showed their racism in THIS case? Lucia Whalen and Sgt. James Crowley, or Henry Louis Gates and Barack Obama?
This isn’t about whites vs. blacks. Rather, it’s about a terribly bitter attitude that holds on to racism and officially institutes that racism into social policy – this time just in reverse. It’s perfectly okay to embrace naked racism, as long as you are a member of a “minority.” It’s okay to embrace a “wise Latina” who thinks her decisions are better than those of a “white male”; but a white male who thinks the same of a minority be destroyed. It’s okay to have a “Black Caucus” in Congress; just don’t you DARE have a white one. And as a result the racism of that white Boston cop is rightly damned; the racism of a black Harvard African-American Studies professor is wrongly celebrated.
During his campaign, Barack Obama presented himself as a man who transcended race, and stood as the man who could heal any and all divides. He spent 23 years in a racist church that demonized ‘white America,’ but we believed him because he gave a nice speech. He selected a racially biased “wise Latina woman” who trampled on the rights of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. But that doesn’t appear to matter, either. And now he’s demonstrating that he holds the same racially biased attitutudes as his “friends.” And he doesn’t transcend anything.
“During the 2008 election, 38 percent of blacks surveyed thought racial discrimination was a serious problem. In the new survey, 55 percent of blacks surveyed believed it was a serious problem, which is about the same level as it was in 2000.”
It is frankly amazing to consider that Barack Obama – the first black president of the United States – hasn’t done ANYTHING to change the racial attitude of African-Americans. And the only possible conclusion is that this president has utterly squandered a truly historic opportunity due to his own increasingly apparent personal inadequacies.
I most certainly think race relations has become a serious problem due to Barack Obama. Because he could not help but drag the ghosts of too many men like Jeremiah Wright and Henry Louis Gates with him. And Barack Obama may have the political intelligence to say the “right” things in the future, but – to quote one of his speeches – they will be “just words.”
When Obama, Gates, and Crowley (who is reportedly bringing a lawyer and a union representative to the meeting) get together for a “beer,” you can bet that there will be a lot of empty and hollow “just words” floating around. This entire meeting is nothing more than a political attempt by Obama to fix his own major screw-up.
John Edwards to his class warfare cue from Karl Marx and turned “the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie” dialectic into “two Americas.”
Well, I think that both Marx and Edwards are full of crap; but there clearly are two Americas these days.
I think that Barack Obama’s pastor, spiritual mentor, and member of the family for 23 years hit the “two Americas” nail closer to the head. Jeremiah Wright said there were two Americas, too:
There’s the United States of God bless America, and there’s the United States of God damn America. Ronald Reagan tried to lead us toward the former, and Barack Obama will try to lead us toward the latter. And we shouldn’t confuse Wright’s and Obama’s two America’s anymore than we should confuse Marx’s and Edwards’ version.
Am I being unfair? Absolutely not.
Barack Obama made this church – and its theology, and its pastor, and its congregation – his home for 23 years. That’s a long time. It’s way past long enough to realize that you’ve made a mistake. And it’s way, way past long enough to claim ignorance as an excuse. How many years can you freely choose to immerse yourself in an environment before you become personally responsible for your choice?
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.”
So I’m looking at him.
John McCain once had the famous line that “I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw K.G.B.” Well, when I look into Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama’s eyes I see, “God damn America.”
The whole nation looked at Jeremiah Wright, and we all heard him shout, “God damn America!” And how Barack Obama’s congregation cheered and applauded when Rev. Wright shouted, “No, no, no. Not God bless America. God damn America!” We heard him viciously attack America and white Americans on any number of fronts. Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years – who married him, bappized his children, and was like family to him – said that racism was how this country was founded and how it is still run. He said that America was the number one killer in the world. He said that we immorally bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye. He said that we killed women and children by bombing Cambodia, Iraq, and Nicaragua (where Marxist liberation theology came from). He said 9/11 was merely America’s own chickens coming home to roost and we deserved to be attacked by terrorists because WE were the real terrorist. He said that the government gives black people drugs just so it can put them in prison. He said that AIDS is a white-America-created genocide against black people. He spelled America with three KKKs. The very sermon that so inspired Obama that it inspired his book title, “The Audacity of Hope,” had the phrase, “white greed drives a world in need.”
If you would have sat through that year after year, then you vote for the man who did sit through it year after year. Vote for God damn America.
Jeremiah Wright preached his famous “God damn America” message and all the others before thousands of Barack Obama’s fellow congregation more than five years ago. Barack Hussein Obama’s pastor preached a lot of vicious, vile, racist, and profoundly anti-American stuff while Obama’s fellow congregants stood up and cheered. And it never bothered Barack Obama one little bit until the public started finding out about it.
Obama said he wasn’t ever at the church when anything REALLY bad was said. But how could such an intelligent man be so completely ignorant, and be such a pathetic judge of character? Thousands of his friends heard those messages, and the same vicious stuff that was coming out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth on Sundays was similarly featured in the Church’s Trumpet Magazine (which featured Obama on its cover several times). Even AFTER those “soundbites” came out, Obama continued to sit on the fence. He said he could no more disown Wright than he could disown the black community. In the same way that we would later find out that Obama did not care about the terrorist past of William Ayers – whom Obama partnered with to advance a “education” agenda that taught children radicalism rather than “the Three R’s,” Obama revealed how comfortable he was to be immersed in a radicalized environment.
He continued to remain in the church after ALL of the above sermon messages surfaced, and he remained in the church until it became more of a political liability than an asset.
Barack Hussein Obama has known about Jeremiah Wright’s radical nature from day one, and embraced it. The Rolling Stone biography of Obama continues:
In his 1993 memoir “Dreams from My Father,” Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.
And that incredibly radical influence is very much a part of him, as the Rolling Stone article embraces:
Obama has now spent two years in the Senate and written two books about himself, both remarkably frank: There is a desire to own his story, to be both his own Boswell and his own investigative reporter. When you read his autobiography, the surprising thing — for such a measured politician — is the depth of radical feeling that seeps through, the amount of Jeremiah Wright that’s packed in there. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising.
It isn’t at all surprising that a man who spent 23 years immersing himself in the radical theology of a radical spiritual guru at a radical and racist church would himself be a radical. What is incredibly surprising is that so many millions of voters would so ignorantly and so naively dismiss that background and embrace the man who was so profoundly shaped by it.
So they are voting for God damn America.
I’m not going to try to tell anyone not to vote for God damn America. If you want it, vote for it. I’m simply saying, don’t be an uninformed ignorant fool who doesn’t even have a clue who the man he or she is voting for actually is. You aren’t what you say in your flowerly speech; you’re what you do. And for the overwhelming majority of Barack Hussein Obama’s life, he has been a willing part and participant in God damn America. Open your eyes.
Father Michael Pfleger, an invited speaker at Trinity United Church in Chicago, was introduced by the Rev. Otis Moss – who has received Barack Obama’s full endorsement – as a “brother beloved, he is a preacher par-excellence, he is a prophetic powerful pulpiteer.”
This is because Pfleger is a black liberation theology advocate just like Jeremiah Wright. It’s because he has been lauded by Trinity’s Trumpet Magazine as “afro-centric to the core.”
You have GOT to see the Youtube on this:
Pfleger exercised his prophetic gift by saying the following.
[garbled] expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don’t want ot make this political, because you know I’m really very unpolitical.
When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’
Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’
Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’
(mocks crying)
She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!
After concluding, Otis Moss – Barack Obama’s “wonderful young pastor” – 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.”
The verbal picture is of a racist Hillary Clinton demanding her God-given entitlement as a white person, and a sea of white people – racists all – crying along with her.
And to complete this picture, you should know that earlier in that same message, Father Pfleger had said:
“Honestly now, to address the one who says, ‘Don’t hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.’ But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did … and unless you are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the monies you put away into the company you walked into because your daddy and grand daddy. …”
Shouting, Pfleger continued, “Unless you are willing to give up the benefits then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation, because you are the beneficiaries of this insurance policy.”
So, if you are white and you are considering ever retiring, you pretty much meet Pfleger’s definition – and by logical extension the Trinity United Church that cheered his views – of being “racist.” I hope you’re not one of “those people.” I mean, if you haven’t already sold everything you own and given it to your closest African-American neighbor, you know what to call yourself, right?
Now, of course, we are once again going to hear about the fact that “you can’t make Barack Obama guilty by association,” blah blah blah.
And don’t you dare condemn the church. Or the congregation. Don’t you dare condemn the thousands of people loudly cheering hateful message after hateful message.
It’s just funny to me how these longtime acquaintances of Barack Obama’s little circle of hate keep “surprising” him with incendiary racial rhetoric.
It’s just funny to me that a politician who claims to represent “hope” and “change” can spend some 23 years sitting in a toxic environment, and somehow never be offended enough to leave.
You see, I come from a tradition that I guess must be courageous beyond imagining in the postmodern world: I come from a tradition where you don’t associate yourself with despicable views. If you go to a church that broadcasts this kind of vile nonsense, you leave that church. You don’t stay there for 20-plus years, and then “disassociate” yourself from the message.
So Barack Obama says “As I have traveled this country, I’ve been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.” Like he’s some lawyer parsing some legal technicality rather than a man appalled at blatant racism and hard-core Marxist apologetics.
Pardon me for viewing that as a cynical, cowardly detachment from shocking and horrifying views.
Forget world leaders, totalitarian regimes, and sponsors of global terror. This politician can’t even figure out how to deal with the lunatic views of his own church.
Barack Obama is in a real political bind now: if he leaves Trinity United tomorrow, he implicitly acknowledges that he never should have been there in the first place, because nothing new is going on there that hasn’t been going on for years and years. And if he doesn’t leave, he continues to implicitly affirm that there isn’t really anything so bad about the views that the church continually expresses.
Let me describe the kind of guy whom Senator Barack Obama considers “a wonderful young pastor.”
He’s the kind of man who calls the biblical patriarch Abraham a “pimp,” and says that Noah and Moses were thugs. He’s the kind of pastor who says that Jesus has a “soft spot for thugs,” and assures his congregation that everyone has some “thug proclivities.”
# Noah was a “thug” who “was drinking much gin and juice and got drunk on the eve of reconstruction.”
# Abraham “pimped his own wife.”
# Jacob was a “hustler” who “stole his own brother’s birthright.”
# Moses was a “thug” and “if he got mad would give you a royal beatdown.”
# Sampson was a “thug” and a “player.”
# David was a “thug,” a “shot caller,” and a “player,” and a man after God’s own heart.
Strangely, most of these statements actually have a certain legitimacy to them (although Jacob did NOT “steal” his brother’s birthright; Easau sold it to him as per Genesis 25:29-34; Moses gave that “beatdown” early in his life prior to hearing God’s call as per Exodus 2:11-14; and the account of Abraham “pimping” his wife was actually more a tale of a frightened sojourner concealing his marriage in order to save his life as per Genesis 12:10-13.
And I would even acknoweldge the statement that “Jesus has a soft spot for thugs” in the sense that He has a “soft spot” for sinners in need of a Savior.
But – from these relative high points – the sermon goes down hill pretty fast from there.
Ronald Kessler, the chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com, has it this way:
While Moss has not expressed hatred of America and of whites, as Wright did, in a sermon on YouTube, Moss derides middle-class America for not accepting the “prophetic brilliance” of thugs.
Referring to these thugs, Moss says sardonically, “There are times when our prejudice keeps us from hearing ghetto prophets, who preach a brand of thug theology which keeps us from hearing the truth from their lips because of their course language and ragged subject-verb agreement.”
To applause, Moss approvingly cites Tupac Shakur, a “gangsta” rap star with a long arrest record. Before being fatally shot in a drive-by attack in Las Vegas in 1996, Shakur faced a 120-day sentence for probation violations stemming from offenses including assault and battery and a 1994 sexual abuse conviction in New York. Shakur served 11 months in prison for his involvement in the sexual attack on a 21-year-old woman in a New York hotel room.
Judge Daniel P. Fitzgerald of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan described it as “an act of brutal violence against a helpless woman.”
Shakur had also been convicted in Los Angeles of assault and battery on a music video producer and for carrying a loaded, concealed weapon.
Most Americans look to places of worship for inspiration and moral and spiritual guidance. Moss’ message is the opposite. Claiming Shakur’s message speaks to our “current condition,” Moss blurs the distinction between right and wrong: He says those who don’t get that a rapper like Shakur is a prophet and biblical figures are thugs are confined by “bourgeois paradigms.”
Instead of condemning those who break the law, Moss says to exuberant applause, “Our society creates thugs. Children are not born thugs. Thugs are made and not born.” He adds, “This is good news for somebody who has a proclivity for ‘ghettoistic’ conduct.”
Indeed, it is good news for those who do not want to be held accountable for their own conduct. In making that statement, Moss endorses the message of many black leaders who encourage blacks to see themselves as helpless victims of a bigoted society. As outlined in the Newsmax article “Rev. Wright Furthers Black Victimhood,” the victim mentality limits blacks’ aspirations and torpedoes their chances at success.
I agree with Kessler’s assessment, and add to his observations the following:
Contrast Rev. Moss harsh, nearly vindictive assessments of these great men from the Bible with his overly gracious (to say the least!) view of Tupac Shakur as “a prophet.” And then the Reverend Moss – who called the prophetic composer of many of the songs in the Book of Psalms a “thug,” a “shot caller,” and a “player” – proceeded to quote at length his version of “prophetic song.”
Psalms is the longest book in the Bible, with 150 chapters. Maybe it’s just me, but somehow I don’t see this ditty making the cut and becoming the 151st Psalm.
I want you to understand something about the Bible; it is a story of God’s people, who are viewed warts and all. We know how these men started out; we even know how they managed to slip and fall down mid way through the journey of life. But ultimately, these stories are not about the men and women who slip and fall into the mud, but about the glorious God who is at work in their lives, and who brought life after life to triumph after triumph.
So Christians are aware of the dark side of its saints; but they are far more aware of the side that God created and developed in them.
Read Hebrews chapter 11, “the Faith Hall of Fame,” for the contrast of the spiritual Christian view with that of Obama’s new pastor:
# “It was by faith that Noah built an ark to save his family from the flood. He obeyed God, who warned him about something that had never happened before. By his faith he condemned the rest of the world and was made right in God’s sight” (Heb 11:7 NLT).
# It was by faith that Abraham obeyed when God called him to leave home and go to another land that God would give him as his inheritance. he went without even knowing where he was going. And even when he reached the land God promised him, he lived there by faith – for he was like a foreigner, living in a tent. And so did Isaac and Jacob, to whom God made the same promise. Abraham did this because he was confidently looking forward to a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God. It was by faith that Sarah [the woman Abraham allegedly “pimped out”] together with Abraham was able to have a child, even though they were too old and Sarah was barren. Abraham believed that God would keep his promise. And so a whole nation came from this one man, Abraham, who was too old to have any children – a nation with so many people that, like the stars of the sky and the sand on the seashore, there is no way to count them…. It was by faith that Abraham offered Isaac as a sacrifice when God was testing him. Abraham, who had received God’s promises, was ready to sacrifice his ownly son, Isaac, though God had promised him, ‘Isaac is the son through whom your descendendts will be counted. Abraham assumed that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life again. And in a sense, Abraham did receive his son back from the dead.” (Heb 11:8-12; 17-19 NLT).
# It was by faith that Isaac blessed his two sons, Jacob and Esau. He had confidence in what God was going to do in the future. It was by faith that Jacob, when he was old and dying, blessed each of Joseph’s sons and bowed down in worship as he leaned on his staff.
# It was by faith that Moses, when he grew up, refused to be treated as the son of Pharoh’s daughter. He chose to share the oppression of God’s people instead of enjoying the fleeting pleasure of sin. He thought it was better to suffer for the sake of the Messiah than to own the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking ahead to the great reward that God would give him. It was by faith that Moses left the land of Egypt. He was not afraid of the king. Moses kept right on going because he kept his eyes on the one who is invisible. It was by faith that Moses commanded the people of Israel to keep the Passover and to sprinkle blood on the doorposts so that the angel of death would not kill their firstborn sons” (Hebrews 11:24-28 NLT).
# Well, how much more do I need to say? It would take too long to recount the stories of the faith of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and all the prophets. By faith these people overthrew kingdoms, ruled with justice, and received what God had promised them. They shut the mouths of lions, quenched the flames of fire, and escaped death by the edge of the sword. Their weakness was turned to strength. They became strong in battle and put whole armies to flight. Women received their loved ones back again from death” (Hebrews 11:32-35 NLT).
These aren’t stories about “thugs”; these are stories about the God who transforms life after life when those lives come into contact with the living God. Trinity United Church of Christ fixates on where the saints of the Bible were at their worst, and leaves them there in an artificial portrait of negativity. And then it’s pastors paint a picture of victimhood and blame to justify that bleak portrait of the world.
Genuine Christianity – whether believers are red or yellow, black or white – fixates on the God who brings His saints to ultimate glory through faith. And when believers see that God, they can look beyond their circumstances and find the positive.
That’s the real problem with Trinity United and with its pastors former and current: there is a presentation of constant, unrelenting resentment, racism, and victimology, a seeing of the world through the prism of Marxist (i.e. liberation theology) thought rather than through the eyes of faith in the Christ of hope.
I don’t know what Trinity United Church teaches, but it isn’t the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
Let me share the real message of hope and change found in the message of Scripture:
Ephesians 1:12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
Ephesians 2:12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Philippians 1:20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Christ shall even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death.
Colossians 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
1 Thessalonians 1:3 constantly bearing in mind your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the presence of our God and Father,
2 Thessalonians 2:16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace,
1 Timithy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope;
Titus 2:13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus;
Hebrews 3:6 but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end.
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Peter 1:13 Therefore, gird your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;
Do you see the difference between what the Bible proclaims – and what Christian pastors preach to congregations of every race under heaven all over the world – with the message that Jeremiah Wright and Otis Moss preach?
It’s strange that Barack Obama – as the “candidate of hope and change” – chose to spend so much of his life surrounded by such a toxic congregation, filled with the despair of abandonment and the stagnation of racism, instead of seeking a congregation that genuinely understood the true hope and change found in the Christ he claims to worship.
Start Thinking Right 