Richard Cohen’s sister is canceling her inauguration party because of President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to bless Mr. Obama’s taking the office of the Presidency of the United State.

According to her brother’s column in the Washington Post, what made her do this is the way in which Mr. Obama’s choice to pick this pastor for this occasion serves as a special sort of condoning of Mr. Warren’s views about gays and lesbians.

I agree with Richard Cohen, and apparently his sister, that these views should be regarded as totally unacceptable by anybody who has any sense of the importance of civil rights and indeed of human rights. I also agree with Richard Cohen’s view that as a somebody running for the office of President and who was at the time a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama had a particular responsibility for denouncing his then-pastor’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for giving the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a special award during the primary season.

I find it troubling that neither Mr. Cohen nor apparently his sister have not been, as far as I can tell, overly concerned by President-Elect Obama’s equally eloquent silence and inaction regarding the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and her supporters, particularly the sophomoric expression of these attitudes by Jon Favreau, the man writing President-elect Obama’s inaugural address. (I shudder to think what the reaction of the Cohen family would have been if Favreau had been found on YouTube horsing around calling somebody a “homo” – maybe then Richard Cohen’s sister would join us in our demand that the President-Elect fire this sophomoric bigot as his chief speech-writer. Whether a bigot is slick (Warren) or juvenile (Favreau), he is still a bigot.)

It is tempting to forget in this sort of dynamic who the real problem is. As is clear from what I have written so far, I wish Richard Cohen and his sister would be, respectively, writing about and canceling inauguration parties as much over Mr. Obama’s inaction in the face of sexism and misogyny as they are in the face of anti-Semitism and gay-bashing. And yes, I wish that Richard Cohen’s sister had paid attention to and given greater weight to the fact that she had the option to work to elect somebody who, both as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, repeatedly marched in Pride parades and met with editors of gay newspapers across the country rather than working for somebody who would not even have his photograph taken with Gavin Newsome.

But I am not falling into the trap that lies that way. Just because people got it wrong before does not mean they cannot help matters now. People can learn. So despite the bit of complaining above, I am not going to point a finger at Richard Cohen’s sister (or, for that matter, at Katha Pollitt for decrying the misogyny involved in the Warren choice when Pollitt, like Richard Cohen’s sister, opted to support Mr. Obama for the presidency when it was already obvious that he was complacent, to say the least, about sexism and misogyny). I am just pleased that they are starting to pay attention now and apparently coming to understand better who they voted for. To quote Richard Cohen: “The real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”

Aye, there’s the rub. During the primary season and the general election a friend of mine who spent some considerable amount of time listening to me lament the Democratic Party’s poor judgment in making then-Senator Obama their poster-child, kept saying to me that the real problem with Mr. Obama is that he is an “empty suit”.

That term seemed to me too tepid back then. But I have come to see it as the essential problem behind the problem of Mr. Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader, and possibly any kind of leader. To be a moral leader, to stand for something means that you have to fill out your suit, your office, your position. To be an “empty suit” is to be a person who cannot draw a line in the sand, precisely because you do not have an arm and hand within that suit to use to reach out and draw that line. To be an “empty suit” is to be devoid of the weightiness that real leadership requires, including the gravitas to admit to a mistake and change one’s position (drop the bigoted minister and lose the bigoted speechwriter; say you have been wrong to dig in your heels rather than listen to the concerns of so many of the people who worked so hard to elect you). To be an “empty suit” is to be a moral vacuum.

I refused to vote for John McCain for a number of reasons but among them was the fact that while I knew he had the capacity for moral leadership, I did not care for the directions toward which his moral commitments would lead my country. I refused to vote for Barack Obama because I knew he came up empty on the capacity for moral leadership.

In some ways, moral emptiness, especially in a President, is worse than moral wrong-headedness. The morally wrong-headed leader takes a stand, e.g. George W. Bush’s legitimization of torture, and one can rally people against the stand she or he takes. The morally empty leader takes no stand. Under these circumstances, her or his silences often allow people to forget that the blank that exists in lieu of a leader is the appropriate target of criticism. After all, it seems easier to go after people who actually do take stands (Rick Warren, for example) rather than the person who silently enables wrong-headed person to gain in stature. But this is sleight of hand. The real problem is the enabler, the person who allows the sophomoric sexist to put words in his mouth, the person who lets bigoted clerics and their churches affiliate with him.

So, to Richard Cohen’s sister and to Katha Pollitt, I say welcome to my party – the one that got lost in 2008, the one that expected moral leadership of a certain kind from a Democratic president. Now that you are here, I hope you can help me figure out what we are going to do with the empty suit about to occupy the Oval Office. If that empty suit thinks he can pick up sufficient evangelical money and votes in 2012, he is not going to listen to bloggers and op-ed columnists whose votes and followers he thinks he can replace with the support of the evangelicals, regardless of the detestable content of many of their views and some of their conduct. Personally, I do not think we can give the empty suit the sort of backbone necessary to resist the lure of that support. If we cannot give this empty suit some backbone, we need, as I have written before, to start figuring out how we can have a better candidate on offer in 2012. So to the people who are canceling their celebrations, may I suggest that they use the time and effort saved to start solving that problem. We need to coalesce now around somebody who can fight for a nomination by a major Party – probably the the Party formerly recognizable as the Democratic one – who is what Obama’s supporters hoped he would be and what I fear he is not.

The latest, it seems they sent out invitations to a White House Hanukkah party using a Christmas Card.

That wagon is not carting in the Hanukkah Bush! You can’t see it in the small print here, but the wagon says White House Christmas Tree 2008

The New York Post has the story here

At least the Jewish people are known for their sense of humor.

“It’s absolutely bizarre to receive an invite to the White House for Hanukkah in a Christmas format,” said one person who was invited. “They should have consulted with their chief of protocol before sending this out. This belongs right in the ‘Weird But True’ column.”

Jewish community leader Isaac Abraham of Brooklyn had a simpler explanation.

“It’s obvious what’s going on here: The Christmas tree is being taken out of the White House and the menorah is being brought in the back,” he quipped.

You couldn’t make this stuff up. And with the Bush Administration we have never had to.

To everyone here at No Quarter and all of our readers, have a great Thanksgiving.

Rob

While the President-elect eventually won over most of the American Jewish community by throwing a few folks under the speeding bus and speaking in centrist tones, there have always been concerns by some Israel supporters about his close associations to fervent Palestinians like Rashid Khalidi and anti-Israel advisors like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Andrew Malley.

Caroline Glick does an excellent job of listing those concerns in the Jerusalem Post. You can read that here

If Glick is right and the United States is ready to change its stance towards Israel, this policy will need to be sold to an Israeli government that always puts the safety of its nation first (in other words, we’ll blow up Iranian nukes whether the U.S. likes it or not) and the American People. If he tries to sell that, the only person who could sell it is Hillary Clinton.

While we have had numerous posts on the political implications of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, we haven’t had much discussion about what her presence would mean to Obama administration policy around the world.

While the world is excited about Barack Obama’s election, he has no credibility on the world stage and has not yet earned the trust of our allies. Through her own work and the goodwill former President Clinton has abroad, Senator Clinton has that trust and credibility. Whatever President Obama wants to sell, he may just need Hillary to sell it.

The concern is, would he use her to try and sell this:

As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that Bush hasn’t already offered?

What it can offer is Israel.

Over the past few years, Obama’s top nuclear nonproliferation adviser, Joe Cirincione, has repeatedly advocated placing Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table and offering it up in exchange for an Iranian pledge to end its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert Gates – whom Obama is considering retaining – insinuated in his 2006 confirmation hearings that Iran is only building nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel. Gates, it should be recalled, has been instrumental in convincing Bush not only not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, but not to support an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear installations.

What is profoundly distressing about statements by men like Cirincione and Gates is what they tell us about the strategic reasoning informing the incoming Obama administration.

Again, I have no idea if this is what an Obama administration will do. Would Senator Clinton as Secretary of State even go along with this kind of policy? What I do know is this, if the new President really wants to change our foreign policy approach radically, John Kerry or Bill Richardson won’t be able to do the job. They can’t walk into a room with other world leaders and say trust me. Hillary Clinton can. That may be why she really is being considered for the job.

Don’t believe me. Take a look at this sarcastic woman talk about her New Party. And who “Split us into groups” again?

Here’s Donna telling us all about her “New Party”. Check out her snide face and hear her snide voice. Good luck with that Donna. Paul Begala also warns arrogant Donna that she is going to need all the people she is insulting to win this election. Nobody can deny it. We were told to go to hell. Well we don’t plan on doing that, instead we plan to vote.

So now there’s a recent study discussing the very warning given to arrogant ass Donna Brazile, the one who was going to”Change the Demographics of her “New” Democratic Party. Now she needs us. We’ll be back when people like Donna are no longer in charge, for starters. We are going to take back our party. Again. This is not the first time elite socialist fringe snobs tried to hijack our party. It seems the one thing our party learns from history is how to repeat their mistakes over and over and over again.

The majority of this party is not interested in busting their butts at work and then “sharing” their gains with people who don’t. The majority of this party is not interested in sexism and misogyny. The majority of this party does not belong to MoveOn. The majority of this party is not interested in allowing dependent children, off-the-cliff radicals, old hippies stilll on the bong, left over cranks from the failed AmeriKKKan Socialist, Communist, Marxist and Stalinist parties pick presidents.

And the majority of the Democratic Party will NOT be staying home on November 4, Donna. Get that idea out of your head.

A study surprise! reveals that Barack Obama needs us now. Of course, the Race Card has to be played with respect to the “White Vote”. Once more, my party wants to ignore the impact of PUMA at their own peril. So be it.

But it’s pretty safe to say that playing the Race Card every five minutes hasn’t exactly endeared white people to the Obama candidacy. Threatening people and calling them racist has backfired. Refusing to recognize that there are plenty of reasons why people will never vote for Barack Obama that have little to do with his color. Like sexest piggism and socialism, for starters. His rude, threatening and savage followers would be right up there on the list too. People don’t like to feel threatened. And people don’t like to have real issues ignored and twisted into a “Race Card” discussion. It not only ticks them off, but it’s been done and overdone so much by Obama and his surrogates, that the effect is now just a lot of Eye Rolling when it’s heard again. And again. And again.

There are plenty of reasons why many Democrats aren’t interested in Barack Obama. The report mentions the “White working class”. Those are those Bitter Hicks With Guns. Does anybody really expect them to forgive Barack Obama for his tasteless, snobby, downright ignorant remark about them at a fundraiser at Billionaire’s Row in San Francisco? Really?

Does anyone really expect all Hillary Clinton supporters to forgive Barack Obama for his attempt to destroy her and his coordinated attacks on her because she is a woman? Really? Really? How arrogant can you get?

Does anyone really expect all Jews in America to rush to the polls for Obama when every Jidadist in the Middle East has endorsed him? Really?

Does anyone really expect all of us well-educated Hillary supporters to forget being constantly referred to as “Downscale” and “Low Information”? Really?

Does anyone really expect women to give him their undying support after his disgusting behaviors toward women in this campaign? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect everyone in America to forget Reverend Wright’s disgusting remarks? Does anyone really expect every Italian-American to vote for a guy whose 20-year pastor calls them Garlic-Noses? Really? Really?

Does anyone really expect that Seniors, who have lived long enough to recognize BS when they see it, are endeared en masse by Barack Obama, whose followers have consistently insulted them as “old people”?

Has anyone heard Barack Obama say one helpful thing to Native Americans?

Does anyone really expect all Latinos in Florida to worship a man who wants to talk to Castro with no pre-conditions? Really?

Does anyone really expect all gays and lesbians to be in love with Barack Obama when he refused to have his photo taken with the Mayor of San Francisco? Really?

If all of these people happen to be white, then the real thing the report reveals is that Barack Obama, his surrogates and his followers have insulted plenty of white people in this election season. In droves. The Democrats might like to continue the “Race Card” with their studies, but the truth is, their loss among Democrats consist of the people they insulted and decided they didn’t need any longer. And that’s not going to go away.

Here’s Politico’s take on the report:

In an election year where Barack Obama pledged to change the electorate, the centrist Democratic Leadership Council has weighed into the debate with a detailed report arguing it will be difficult for Obama to earn enough African American and youth support to compensate for enduring Democratic failures with white voters.

The report, titled “Who are the swing voters,” finds that the party must make historic inroads with working class whites in order to create a sustainable presidential majority.

It’s hardly news that the Democratic Party has struggled with white voters. Democrats have not won a majority of whites since 1964. Since 1980 though, Democrats have struggled to even remain competitive among whites, particularly men, and that has allowed Republicans to dominate the last quarter century of presidential politics.

The DLC set out in its analysis, an early draft of which was provided to Politico, to investigate the most influential swing blocs for Democrats. It concluded that slight but significant gains with working class whites— who constitute four in ten voters and were defined by the DLC as white high school graduates without a four-year college degree—is the best means to enlarge the Democratic coalition.

“There has been so much emphasis on new entrants in the electorate, and this report is historic and not predictive, but history tells us it would be an unusual circumstance if we witnessed a massive shift in the electorate,” the DLC analysis reads.

The report calculates that a 10 percent increase in black voter turnout amounts to a 1-percentage point uptick in the overall electorate, assuming all other groups remain constant.

That means that if the black voting rate rises from 60 percent to 67.2, the level of whites as measured by the Census Bureau, it amounts to 1.7 million votes— less than George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2004.

“None of this means that the 2008 election could not be decided because of a radical shift in the electorate—by a dramatically increased turnout among critical constituencies or by a sharp shift in party identification, for example,” the report reads, “But historical voting patterns say that would be an unusual occurrence.”

The DLC study looked at the exit polls of the last five presidential elections as well as the 2006 midterm election.

The report, authored by Al From and Victoria Lynch, described black voters, self-identified liberals, and “strongly pro-choice” voters as the most influential legs of the Democratic coalition.

The DLC calculated that about four in ten voters in presidential elections are part of this Democratic base. John Kerry won 80 percent of these voters, meaning Democrats only amounted to about a third of the electorate. That number will likely be higher in 2008 as Democrats enjoy a newfound party identification advantage, though one that multiple polls show lessened in late summer.

The report strongly suggests, however, that it will be difficult for the Obama campaign to win if he does not improve Democrats’ appeal to the white working class.

The report also paints two blocs of working class whites:

“A typical male voter in that category will likely be between 30 and 59 years old, live in a suburb or small town in the South or Midwest, and be married with no children living at home. He’s likely to be a Republican or independent, moderate or conservative, not a member of a labor union, pro-life, and in favor smaller government. Finally, he’s most likely to be Protestant but not a weekly churchgoer.”

So as I listened to Michelle Obama introduce her husband at the DNC, I wondered why she didn’t include his educational achievements. Since the multi-racial Obama poses as an African American (although he is not descended from slaves and his family never suffered under Jim Crow), and uses the “self-made man” mythology to sell himself–raised by a single mother, fed on food stamps, etc–you would think that graduating from Columbia and going to Harvard Law would be hawked in detail. We have heard that he was the first African American to become president of the Harvard Law Review, only to learn it was a political move by Harvard during a time of racial tensions on campus.

Moreover, Obama appears to have never actually written anything. That’s sort of like becoming the head chef of a fancy restaurant but never cooking.

In fact, Obama’s educational history has been intentionally omitted throughout his political primetime. When asked about his undergraduate training at Columbia University, The New Times states that Obama “declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.” Why would that be?

What we know is that Obama graduated from a Hawaiian prep school with a B- GPA. He then went to Occidental College, about which we know little to nothing, and then to Columbia University. According to conservative journalist, Jack Cashill:

We know enough about Obama’s Columbia grades to know how far they fall below the Harvard norm, likely even below the affirmative action-adjusted black norm at Harvard.

So how did Obama get into Harvard Law School five years after graduating from Columbia? if his LSAT scores had been something to brag about, you know he would be bragging.

Connections are everything, as the saying goes, and that is nowhere more true than in academia. During his time at Columbia, Obama made two very important connections: Bill Ayers and Edward Said. Cashill reports:

There are any number of possible reasons for Obama’s reticence about Columbia: his grades, the courses he took, his writing samples and, of course, his associations.

At that time, for instance, both Bill Ayers and Obama fell within the orbit of left-wing Columbia superstar Edward Said. Just recently out of hiding, Ayers was attending the Bank Street College of Education, which adjoins the Columbia campus.

Edward Said (pronounced Sayeed)

Edward Said became famous for his critique of American attitudes toward eastern cultures, particularly Islamist Arabs. His scholarship contributed to the concept of “the other,” a useful way of understanding prejudices and biases The idea that some people discriminate against others whose beliefs, skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc, differs from their own is helpful in understanding and correcting discrimination and in teaching our children to be open minded.

However, this theory is now put into service by the so-called “progressives,” who use it to ridicule people who differ from them: Clinton Democrats, Republicans and certain strata of Americans. Rooted in anthropology and literary theory’s appropriation of Marxism, the postcolonial theory of Said et al is at the root of Obama’s distain for the “bitter” working class Americans who cling to their guns and their religions.

It is of course ironic that the educated latte drinking members of the so-called “Whole Foods Nation” find “others” inferior to themselves. As anthropologist Clifford Geertz writes:

What [educated people] worry about is provincialism — the danger that our perceptions will be dulled, our intellects constricted, and our sympathies narrowed by…acceptance of our own society.

Provincialism is not a compliment. It means unsophisticated and “country”–as in country-and-western, backward, rural, redneck, hick, shitkicker and so on. Said taught that Americans were biased against Arabs, but the American students who studied with him use this theory as justification to be biased against America.

Obama studied with Said at Columbia. Said was a Palestinian by birth and a pro-Palestinian activist in life. He said that he was a “Christian wrapped in a Muslim culture.” Said’s essay, Between Worlds, reveals an even greater connection between student, Obama, and professor, Said:

With an unexceptionally Arab family name like Said connected to an improbably British first name (my mother much admired the Prince of Wales in 1935, the year of my birth), I was an uncomfortably anomalous student all through my early years: a Palestinian going to school in Egypt, with an English first name, an American passport and no certain identity at all.

Barack Obama breaking bread with Edward Said

No Quarter has many excellent posts on radical Bill Ayers and his long relationship with Barack Obama. And to complete this three-way embrace, Edward Said wrote a back-cover endorsement on Bill Ayers’ 2001 Fugitive Days. Said reveals how close they are, at least ideologically, when he wrote:

“For anyone who cares about the sorry mess we are in, this book is essential, indeed necessary reading.”

Khalid al-Mansour

Donald Warden (aka Khalid Al Monsour), founded the Berkeley based African-American Association (AAA) and became the mentor of Huey Newton, one of the founders of the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers are said have broken from Warden’s AAA group due to disagreements about economics. According the UC Berkeley’s chronology of the Black Panthers:

(1961) Huey Newton, a black militant activist student, meets Bobby Seale while attending Merritt College (Oakland, California). Both join the Afro-American Association, a black cultural organization led by Donald Warden.”

(1965) Huey Newton’s mentor, Donald Warden, creates Economic Night in a storefront located next door to the future Black Panther Party office on Grove Street, Oakland.

Larry wrote this piece on Khalid al-Mansour, the person who helped Obama get into Harvard. Al-Mansour is a Texas-born African American whose birth name was Donald Warden. Among other things, he is known by some for his rabid anti-Semitism (see this video). And Cashill adds this:

As far back as 1988, however, Obama had serious pull. He would need it. As previously reported, Khalid al-Mansour, principle adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, lobbied friends like Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama’s behalf.

An orthodox Muslim, al-Mansour has not met the crackpot anti-Semitic theory he could not embrace. As for bin Talal, in October 2001, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent his $10 million relief check back un-cashed after the Saudi billionaire blamed 9/11 on America.

Percy Sutton, a Manhattan Borough president for 12 years was among the most powerful black politicians in New York. In the YouTube below (previously posted by Larry, but please watch it again), Sutton describes how al-Mansour introduced him to Barack Obama, asking him to help get Obama into Harvard.

Cashill writes:

“I was introduced to [Obama] by a friend,” Sutton told the interviewer. Sutton named the friend as “Dr. Khalid al-Mansour.” Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

Knowing that Sutton had friends at Harvard, al-Mansour asked Sutton to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.”

So who is this Dr. Khalid al-Mansour? A quick Google search finds this biography from African Venture Partners:

Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tario Al-Mansour is an internationally acknowledged advisor to Heads of State and business leaders in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and North America. He has been actively involved in structuring investments and joint ventures worldwide for over 35 years. Dr. Al-Mansour was also responsible for the Africa investment activities of Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal’s investment company. During his distinguished career, Dr. Al-Mansour has been a guest lecturer at Harvard University, Bombay University, Columbia University, UCLA, University of Kenya, London School of Economics and the University of Ghana.
In addition to Africa Venture Partners, Dr. Al-Mansour sits on the Boards of: Saudi African Bank; Kingdom Holdings, Africa; Multimedia Super Corridor (Malaysia); Space Tech Inc.; AmNet Corp. International; New Avenues Fund Ltd; United Bank for Africa; United Networks; and Landmark Entertainment.

Dr. Al-Mansour has authored 24 books and is listed in Who’s Who in the World; International Who’s Who in the Arab World; Two Thousand Men of Achievement; Royal Blue Book of London; World’s Who’s Who of Intellectuals and American Hall of Fame.

Dr. Khalid Al-Mansour has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Howard University (Phi Beta Kappa) and Doctor of Jurisprudence from the University of California at Berkeley.

In a fascinating academic article entitled The US Organization, Black Power Vanguard Politics, and the United Front Ideal: Los Angeles and Beyond, Scot Brown discusses the history of various Black nationalists groups. He states this pertinent information about Donald Warden/Khalid al-Mansour:

IN 1963, KARENGA met with Donald Warden, a bay area nationalist who headed the Afro-American Association. Bay Area activists Ernie Allen, Jr. (Ernie Mkalimoto), Huey Newton, Bobby Seale and Ken Freeman were also members of this group. Karenga accepted Warden’s invitation to head the Los Angeles chapter of the group. Ayuko Babu, Tut Hayes, Akida Kimani, and Lloyd Hawkins figured prominently in the association’s Los Angeles chapter. The association functioned primarily as a study group and lecture forum — members frequently spoke outdoors to black community audiences (sometimes called “street speaking”).

DONALD WARDEN RECORDED his association’s street-speaking style in an album called Burn Baby, Burn, released in the aftermath of the Watts explosion. An instrumental track and chorus-like affirming voices that call and respond to his assertions, accentuate this recording’s non-stop nationalist proselytizing.

For those of us who remember the Watts riots of 1965, the phrase “Burn Baby, Burn” has very specific associations of molotov cocktails, bloody street fights, “race” riots and death.

What does it take to get into Harvard Law School?

Khalid al-Mansour (aka Donald Warden) asked his friend, Percy Sutton, to help Obama get into Harvard. With friends like al-Mansour, who needs good grades, high scores or affirmative action?

The relationship between Obama and al-Mansour deserves further research.

We have written in detail about the Obamas’ associations with other Black nationalists, and this information about Khalid al-Mansour adds yet another layer to the story.

Check out other related No Quarter reports:

Black Liberation Theology

Obama the Stealth Socialist

What Lies Beneath Barack Obama

Wheel…of…Theology

First, here is video of Father Michael Pfleger on June 22, 2008, at St. Sabina in Chicago:

Despite the “Statement of Cardinal Francis George” on May 30, 2008 — “concerning remarks of Fr. Michael Pfleger about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during an address at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday May 25, 2008″ — Father Michael Pfleger, a radical activist priest, was permitted to return yesterday, after a three-week suspension, to his St. Sabina parish in Chicago.

Always the self-aggrandizing showman, Fr. Pfleger made a grand entrance — invoking the image of legendary boxing champion Muhammad Ali.

St. Sabina’s ushers distributed “light-blue fliers with a silhouette of boxing great Muhammad Ali in fighting stance that read: ‘Ain’t nothing like a comeback’.” The congregation rose to its feet, cheering Fr. Pfleger on as if he were entering a Las Vegas boxing arena for the championship fight of his life.

So what, you ask. Here’s why it matters: Fr. Michael Pfleger is a decades-long intimate confidante and associate of Barack Obama — as well as Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, Mother Khadijah Farrakhan (Farrakhan’s wife, seen here with Michelle Obama), the homophobic Rev. James Meeks, Trinity’s new minister Otis Moss, and more.

Exhibit One attesting to the Obama/Pfleger closeness:

In April and May, when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama became estranged, it was Father Pfleger who spoke directly with and counseled both men, frequently. (It is astonishing, to me, that a presumptive presidential nominee would take regular phone calls from Fr. Pfleger, but it is true, according to Chicago media.)

Exhibit Two attesting to Pfleger’s involvement in the Rev. Wright/Obama saga:

Fox News’s Greta Van Susteran reported, on several shows, that she ran into Father Pfleger at Washington, D.C.’s National Press Club, during Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s now infamous Q&A, after which Obama finally severed ties publicly with the Reverend who “is like a father to me.” (At whose behest did Father Pfleger fly to Washington, D.C. for the press club appearance? And why?)

Further, Father Pfleger created quite a group for St. Sabina’s fundraising committee, including Chicago mayor Richard Daley, Illinois state treasurer Alexei Giannoulias, and — get this — Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod.

From Truthteller’s “Saint Sabina Raises the Roof on Obama’s Den of Political Tricks and Corruption [Update]“:

[V]iew some of the names on this list of fundraisers:

• Richard Daley, the corrupt Obama backer behind the Hired Truck Scandal, an elaborate network of cronyism and corruption that rocked Chicago City Hall in 2004, 2005 and 2006;
• David Axelrod, Lead Strategist of the Obama campaign and Political Consultant to Richard “Hired Truck” Daley who also served as Consultant for Exelon, the Illinois nuclear giant whose lobbyists convinced Obama not to regulate companies that contaminated groundwater with radioactive toxic waste; and
• Illinois state Treasurer Alexei Giannoulias, whose bank, the Broadway Bank, granted loans to known mobsters and to indicted political fixer and Obama patron Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Father Michael Pfleger used to be featured on Barack Obama’s official Web site section for “Faith Testimonials.” Larry Johnson displayed the screenshot of Pfleger’s endorsement — now removed, of course, from Obama’s site — in his April story, “What Would Tip O’Neill Do About Barack’s Pastors? [Updated].”

Fr. Pfleger’s endorsement of Barack Obama is on Obama’s official Web site:

(Click on the image to see the full-sized screenshot of Pfleger’s endorsement [formerly] proudly displayed by Barack Obama.)

Barack Obama’s campaign staff hurriedly removed Father Pfleger’s testimonial after Larry Johnson’s story appeared.

Just as they’ve removed numerous other sections of their Web site when the material was exposed and became embarrassing to the Obama campaign.

These “now you see it, now you don’t” stunts ought to concern every voter.

Why on earth would the Obama campaign post the testimonial of a known radical priest who hangs out regularly — and constantly praises — Minister Louis Farrakhan, a known anti-Semite and black separationist?

What kind of judgment does that show about Obama? And his staff?

Why did Obama and his staff ever post this extremist’s photograph and words in the first place?

Surely Barack Obama himself saw the Father Pfleger testimonial and personally approved its appearance on his official campaign site.

We know that the two men are longtime close friends and fellow collaborators — for at least two decades — so perhaps Obama okayed the testimonial in honor of their friendship. But any politician with even minimal common sense would know better than to put this radical’s photograph and words on prominent display on his official campaign site.

By the way, Larry Johnson wrote in his must-read April story that his own former pastor told him about a conversation he once had with Tip O’Neill. The great Speaker of the House told Larry’s pastor this:

Politicians need to learn an important skill. If you are hearing things that go against your values you get up and walk out.

The troubling problem is that we do not know what Barack Obama’s true “values” are. Are they those of his longtime extremist friends Father Pfleger, Rev. Wright, and Bill Ayers? Or did Obama betray his own true “values” for over two decades by continuing to associate with these radicals and extremists?

In either case, Obama’s judgment is in serious doubt.

::::::

Thanks to V for the video, now up at NoQuarter’s channel at YouTube.

While researching the source of Michelle Obama’s alleged “whitey” rant, we discovered direct connections between the Nation of Islam (NOI), Stokely Carmichael, Jeremiah Wright’s Black Liberation Theology and, most prominently, Louis Farrakhan.

According to Larry Johnson’s sources, the Michelle Obama tape captures her in sordid company:

The sources who have seen the tape report that Michelle says
disparaging things about “whites” and that Louis Farrakhan is visible.
There is no identifying information on the segment they have seen to
identify the location or time when this was recorded. [emphasis added]

Those who are following this matter will recall that Michelle Obama, when asked about these allegations, is reported to have said that “whitey” is not a word used by African Americans today. However, we documented that Mrs. Obama’s primary text for her Princeton thesis was Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s 1967 book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America, and we showed how Carmichael used the term “whitey” repeatedly, thereby establishing an epistemological connection between Carmichael and Mrs. Obama. In other words, Michelle Obama is the intellectual offspring of Stokely Carmichael.

Before going further, it should be noted that Reverend Jeremiah Wright was once a member of the Nation of Islam, though it’s not clear when he was involved with NOI. Ryan Lizza of the New Republic first reported that:

Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had
studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”[Emphasis added]

But back to Stokely Carmichael. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has released hundreds of pages from their files on Stokely Carmichael. It’s a treasure trove for those interested in the history of the civil rights movement. What we found most interesting, however, were the large number of documents connecting Carmichael with the NOI. For instance, the document below is an Airtel sent to Director Hoover on July 29, 1966, from Chicago. The subject is Stokely Carmichael and it concerns NOI leader Elijah Muhammed’s “CALL FOR SUMMIT MEETING, MAJOR CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS.”

There are three areas of interest for us: first, the Airtel came from the city of Chicago; second, the year 1966 (more on that later), and third, that the Nation of Islam — in the manner of the infamous mob meeting in Apalachin in 1957 — was organizing all of the major civil rights groups.

It has been widely reported, and documented here, that Carmichael was an “Honorary Prime Minister” of the Black Panther Party, and that he was the leader of the innocuous sounding Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). The following document, however, shows that Carmichael was open to violence as a political tool–see the highlighted sentence below–”This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic hang-up,” and that he was indeed a founder of the Black Panther Party:

In the following document we initially noticed Carmichael’s willingness to use violence. He is paraphrased as saying that “in his opinion, the black man is justified in using any means at his command to obtain what he believes is due him,” indicating an acceptance of violence as seen through a racial frame. What’s more interesting, however, is the next paragraph. “Louis Walcott, Minister of the New York City Muslim Mosque, Nation of Islam, also participated in this conference.” See the second paragraph below:

The name Louis, of course, was glaring. Could it be he? A quick Google search linked to a 1996 Morning Edition transcription of a Bob Edwards piece on Farrakhan:

The early life of Louis Farrakhan, who grew up as Louis Eugene Walcott, was heavily influenced by his loving but demanding mother and his poor but safe neighborhood of Roxbury, Boston, in the late 1940s.

Over the last decade, Louis Farrakhan has emerged as one of the most visible and formidable black political leaders in America

Let’s add up what we have so far: Stokely Carmichael, Michelle Obama’s primary source and intellectual ancestor, shared the stage with Louis Farrakhan, the same man who she allegedly shared a stage with when she said “whitey.”

Carmichael and Farrakhan may have shared more than a stage. The document below indicates but doesn’t conclude that Carmichael may have been a Muslim himself. Although heavily redacted, the FBI’s source said that “Stokely Carmichael, [redacted] as ‘one of us’ which this source interpreted as meaning a member of the Muslims.”

Whether or not Carmichael was a Muslim is unclear. What is clear is that at sometime in the summer of 1966 there was a meeting of the minds between some civil rights groups, black radicals, and the Nation of Islam. These groups organized into a force promoting and preaching a racist form of black nationalism. The document below describes a meeting that clearly shows this union of forces: Carmichael and Minister Louis “made it clear they wanted to unite with all Negro groups regardless of philosophy.” Note the date of August 18, 1966:

This takes us back to Jeremiah Wright and the question of when Wright was a Muslim. According to Wright’s Wikipedia entry:

In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

“In 1966, as a U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman,” the Wikipeida entry continues, Wright assisted with the care of President Johnson. Extrapolating from these dates, it appears that Wright was in Maryland between 1964 and 1966, and this may have been the time when he was a member of NOI. Wright didn’t start at Trinity until 1972, and evidently received spiritual training after receiving a master’s degree in English in 1969.

Also in Maryland in 1964 was Stokely Carmichael, where he was arrested “as a result of demonstrations in that city.” This doesn’t mean that Wright knew Carmichael, but surely Wright was cognizant of Carmichael’s work and of NOI as well. This is likely the time when he was a “Muslim and black nationalist.”

However Wright was radicalized, it is clear that he consciously appropriated the language and tenor of the Nation of Islam.

Wright’s statement that 9/11 was deserved retribution (“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans…America’s chickens are coming home to roost”) is a perfect echo of Malcolm X’s statement that “The assassination of Kennedy is a result of that way of life and thinking. The chickens came home to roost.”

Although it appears that Wright began his focus on Black Liberation Theology sometime after 1966, his racial attitudes and rhetoric have imitated that of NOI since at least 1970. Wright’s blaming the United States for creating AIDS to kill minorities is but just one example of his thinking being in lockstep with NOI.

Black Liberation Theology was first formed in 1966. According to NPR:

Black liberation theology originated on July 31, 1966, when 51 black pastors bought a full page ad in the New York Times and demanded a more aggressive approach to eradicating racism. They echoed the demands of the black power movement, but the new crusade found its source of inspiration in the Bible.

Keep in mind that NOI’s Elijah Mohammad called for a summit of black leaders on July 11, 1966, only 20 days prior to the official formation of Black Liberation Theology. If the dates don’t convince you of a synergy between NOI and Black Liberation Theology, please note Wright’s mentor — and Black Liberation Theology founder — James Cone’s words about NOI’s Malcolm X:

Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’ The false Christianity of the white-devil oppressor must be replaced by an authentic Christianity fully identified with the poor and oppressed.

The black intellectual’s goal, says Cone, is to “aid in the destruction of America as he knows it.”

Couple these words with Wright’s own view that:

There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’

In 1998, Louis A. De-Caro, Jr. published a book titled Malcolm and the Cross: The Nation of Islam, Malcolm X, and Christianity. De-Caro’s book underscores the racial nature and revolutionary intent of the NOI’s promotion of a black “Christianity”:

Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam based their religious orthodoxy more on the Bible than on the Qur’an. In part, this was because they sought to convert black Christians. More- over, Elijah Muhammad taught that the Bible, actually the story of “dark people,” had been distorted by the white man in order to enslave and oppress black people in the United States.

PaganPower succinctly captures Michelle Obama’s thesis and shows how it dovetails with the thinking of Cone and Wright:

A logical expansion of this would be to say that white people, because of the color of their skin, have a separate innate belief system and have their separate innate set of morals too. In other words, it’s all in the melanin.

The Nation of Islam and Black Liberation Theology are two doors to the same room. Black Liberation Theology is a “palatable” form of “Christian” black nationalism. The fiery anti-American, race-baiting words of Wright, Meeks, Pfleger, and Moss are from the same philosophical cauldron as the Nation of Islam. It’s obvious now why Wright’s Trumpet Magazine featured Farrakhan on the cover:

Some have said that Michelle Obama’s thesis proves nothing because it was written more than 20 years ago. We suggest that it was no accident that the Obamas sought out Wright a mere 2-3 years after she wrote her thesis and stayed with him for nearly 20 years, even while he preached the vilest and most hateful sermons that our nation has been forced to hear. TexasDarlin writes:

It’s no wonder that the Obamas joined Trinity United, grew close to Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, and actively defended the church. And there is no doubt in this alert reader’s mind that Michelle Obama clung to Trinity as long as possible politically and, unfortunately for her husband, perhaps many years too long for most voters’ palates.

But the Obamas’ connections to the Nation of Islam go deeper than Rev. Wright. Louis Farrakhan’s political connections extend to the Obamas directly through Chicago politics and Tony Rezko. Larry Johnson writes that:

Before Barack came on the scene, THE MAN in his political district was Louis Farrakhan. No one could take Alice Palmer’s seat without Farrakhan’s blessing. No one. I do not fault Barack Obama for seeking out the blessing of Farrakhan, but the story of what was done behind the scenes to get rid of Barack’s predecessor—Alice Palmer—has not been told. A knowledgeable source tells me that Tony Rezko played a direct role in this feat. And Rezko has been tight with Farrakhan.

At some point, probably between 1964-66, Jeremiah Wright was a member of the Nation of Islam and was indoctrinated into its odious brand of racist theology. And make no mistake, Wright’s race-baiting is not indicative of the vast majority of black churches. A pastor at LivePrayer writes:

Please hear me very clear. Black liberation theology is a perverse view of the Scriptures and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a radical view held by a very small minority of black pastors. This is NOT representative of the black church or the overwhelming majority of black pastors who preach and teach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ without looking at it thru the lens of color. Every black pastor I know condemns Dr. Wright and this perverse racist theology.

In 1966, a group of “Christian” ministers, at the behest of Elijah Mohammad, began to preach the same teachings as NOI. Stokely Carmichael and Louis Farrakhan actively worked to bridge the gap between these two groups, and Carmichael would soon publish a book espousing much the same separatist ideas. Carmichael’s book “guided” Michelle Obama’s thesis and soon she and Barack would join Trinity United Church of Christ.

The continuity of the teachings of Carmichael, Farrakhan, Cone, and Wright is incontrovertible.

Christopher Hitchens asks:

how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

And of course there is this picture of Michelle and Mrs. Farrakhan, a picture which speaks more than a thousand words:

In light of the breaking news……that Cindy McCain may have used one of Hershey’s cookie recipes, for a “Presidential Bake-Off Contest” (This story was covered like breaking news today on MSNBC—you can see the Daily Kos kids vitriolic coverage HERE.)

….The Chicago Against Obama team has done our research, and learned that Michelle Obama has been passing off Mona Khalidi’s falafel balls as her own…….Mona gave Michelle the recipe at one of their frequent dinner parties……and Michelle perfected the recipe, while babysitting the Khalidi kids from time to time…….

For those who don’t know Mona Khalidi….you may know her husband Rashid Khalidi……a good friend of Senator Obama.

If you do not know Rashid, here is a quick snapshot of his bio, and relationship with the Obama’s (Information Sourced Here):

-Khalidi was the director in Beirut of the official Palestinian press agency, FAFA

-Khalidi received a $70,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, from the Woods Fund (The agency which Obama and Bill Ayers are board members)

-Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives

-Khalidi has direct ties to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)

-Khalidi, Ayers & Obama taught at the University of Chicago

-Just last week, Obama termed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a “constant sore” in an interview just five days after Khalidi wrote an opinion piece in the Nation magazine in which he called the “Palestinian question” a “running sore.”

-The Obama’s frequently had dinner with the Khalidis..and babysat their children

-According to a Los Angeles Times account, Obama said his talks with the Khalidi’s served as “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. … It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation – a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

PLEASE NOTE: The first part of this posting is an attempt at satire, sadly, the second half of the story is not….it’s the truth…..

_________________

About The Author:

The author of this blog is a “typical white person“, and therefore, fits into Barack Obama’s core demographic (white, college educated, narcissistic, self-loathing, never happy enough, urban dwelling, materialistic, indie music loving, Kanye West music loving, wine drinking, non-interesting job holding, and happy “for the first time”-Americans). The author lives in downtown Chicago. Like most people in his demographic, the author has read “The Audacity of Hope”, and initially, really wanted Obama to succeed. Unlike most of the aforementioned people, the author began to do his own due diligence on the candidate, and began to realize that Barack Obama is really just Tony Robbins w/ a slightly darker skin pigment, and vocal cadence. The purpose of this blog is to let all urban-dwelling, truth-seeking, “typical White/Black/Asian/Hispanic/Middle Eastern/Gay/Straight/etc… people”, come out of the closet and say ” I really don’t like this guy”…. I know he’s multi-racial, cool, endorsed by Wyclef Jean….all things that are tough to stand up against….but feel free to do it here.

Word

EMAIL RAY: snitchellreport@gmail.com

Evidently, Obama has hijacked the DNC and moved it lock, stock, and barrel to CHICAGO!!! WOWIE ZOWIE!! How do the OTHER 57 states feel that the DNC has now become the BONC? Holy freakin’ Toledo.

This is really hard to fathom. Obama is a JUNIOR Senator. Hell, he has barely been there for his first term, and certainly has done very little real work since he has been so busy stealing – um, I mean – campaigning – for votes.

As we all know by now, he could not even chair his own subcommittee on piddly matters like AFGHANISTAN and NATO because he was busy running around the country on his Unity Unicorn. And now, and NOW – he has essentially taken over the ENTIRE DNC.

How does this happen, I ask you? Is it that people have HANDED over that much power to him, and if so, WHY? Why would they give a junior senator who has essentially ZERO experience, the reins to the WHOLE enchilada??? If I were still a Democrat, I’d be mighty upset by this.

Even still, I have never, in my entire 50 years on this planet, EVER heard of a presidential candidate having THIS much power over the organization, never mind one who had so little experience. Oh, wait – there hasn’t BEEN a presidential candidate with so little experience before – maybe THAT’S the issue!!

If we only had people who had relationships with nefarious people, some flat-out criminal, and NO real Congressional experience, maybe THEY would have hijacked their entire political organization, too!!! Who knew?!

Well, good luck with all of that. As Texas Darlin’ has already pointed out at NoQuarter, Obama and the DNC are having a hard time raising money.

Wow – what a surprise, NOT!!! See, evidently, none of the muckety mucks at the DNC bothered to read all of our emails telling them we would not give them one more NICKEL if they kept shoving the least experienced, most poorly prepared, candidate down our throats. And, they must have hit the Spam button when we kept telling them we would NOT support their pick over the most QUALIFIED candidate, who was heads and shoulders above her competition. Maybe they thought we would all fall in line after all, being the good little women (and men who support a qualified woman) we were, and toe the line after all, hanging the specter of John McCain over our heads. Oooohhhh, scary!!! (Seriously – I am not voting for McCain, but he cannot be anywhere NEAR as bad as Bush, could he?)

Surprise!!!! We were all telling the truth!! We WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA PERIOD!! We will NOT support their mind-boggling choice to be the DNC nominee. Nope – not when we have seen the one whom we COULD have had!!

Why in the HELL would we want someone who really DOES flip flop around on every single issue and answer, someone who makes OUTRAGEOUS claims like NO ONE has done more for the LGBT community, or for women, or for Israel, or just NAME a group, than Obama has.

After I picked myself up off the floor laughing myself silly on THOSE stupid comments, you have this guy saying he NEVER said he would pull the troops out of Iraq. WHAAA??? Is Obama REALLY so naive as to think we don’t have VIDEO TAPE?!?!?!? Really?? He said it over and over and OVER again in every single one of those debates.

Now, I thought HIS people were supposed to be all of the edumacated (!) ones, but thank HEAVENS I had a good Logic professor while pursuing my undergrad degree in Philosophy, and a good ethics professor for my Master’s of Divinity, concentrating in Ethics, ’cause I detect not only some logical fallacies here, but some downright LIES.

This man’s lack of an ethical base is but ONE of the MANY reasons I will never vote for him. I have seen the alternative, and having seen her, someone who really HAS done a lot for the LGBT community, for women, for the working poor, for veterans, and I could go on and on, cannot, absolutely WILL not, support this sham of a candidate who has hijacked the entire party. Like I said, Good luck to ‘em all!

I guess THIS will learn me to take a vacation during a presidential election cycle!! Sheesh.

::::::

From my blog, Rabble Rouser Ruminations.

I will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black]community first and foremost

Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites…it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first

there is a distinctive Black culture different from White culture.

[A] Black person may have all White friends and prefer these friends and their activities to those with Blacks without the individual believing that he/she is White

Are these the long-awaited excerpts from Michelle Obama’s “whitey” rant? No, these gems of racial “tolerance” come from her Princeton thesis. As the Obama campaign unleashes its Orcs to stifle dissent and cover-up Michelle’s greatest hits, we believe an analysis of Michelle Obama’s public statements and writings offer plenty of material to understand her views on race, with or without the audio tape.

Like archaeologists uncovering artifacts to decipher a culture, we view Michelle’s extant words as a crystallization of a worldview which can be examined to understand her views on race in America. Michelle Obama wrote the quotes above in her Princeton thesis on race and in it acknowledges that that she is influenced by and utilizes the definition of black “separationism” offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. She writes:Stokely Carmichael guided Michelle Obama’s thesis on race? This is very important. Carmichael was not a mainstream academic source in his times. He was not the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of the 1960s, writing scholarly, brilliant works on black America. In fact, Carmichael, the Honorary Prime Minister of the Black Panther Party, espoused a violent black separatist philosophy which was diametrically opposed to Dr. King’s and the Civil Rights Movement’s struggle for integration and equality.

In his 1966 article entitled What We Want, in the New York Review of Books, Stokely Carmichael wrote, “about plots to ‘get Whitey‘” saying that “Black people don’t want to ‘get whitey,’” and in a 1969 article entitled Toward Black Liberation, Carmichael talks about racial incidents as “Git Whitey” “sensationalism.” Christopher Hitchens writes:

I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa’s most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, “You can’t say ‘Never Again’ to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you’re there forever.”

Consider for a moment that Michelle Obama built her thesis on the philosophy of a man who believed that “Before a group can enter the open society, it must first close ranks.”

Next consider her statement that she will “use all of my present and future resources to benefit [the Black] community first and foremost.” [Emphasis added]

Lastly, remember that the Obamas spent 20 years as active students of Jeremiah Wright’s odious racist rants. Think about that in mathematical terms. If they attended church for two hours weekly, that’s 2,000 hours of Jeremiah Wright, or one full year of working at a job 40 hours a week. That’s a lot of “United States of KKK-A.” The Obamas were, until recently, members of a church which describes itself in explicitly racial language:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian… Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain “true to our native land,” the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. [emphasis added]

In other words, the Obamas were active participants in a black separatist church, a church which explicitly emphasized skin color over salvation, heritage over faith, one group of people instead of the universality of spiritual needs.The ideology espoused from this church may sound innocuous to Obama’s supporters. But it’s an important question, in a diverse nation of 300 million. Do we want a couple in the White House whose stated influences include Stokely Carmichael and Jeremiah Wright instead of Martin Luther King? Or someone who said:

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country

Really, Michelle? Is it because Barack is so wonderful that only now you’re proud of your country or is there another reason you’re proud for the first time? Please tell us the reason. Or as Christopher Hitchens asks about Obama:

If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.

How in the world can Barack Obama aspire to run the Federal Government when he cannot even properly manage his own website?

Read this latest gem from the Barack Obama 2008 official campaign website (which was scrubbed yesterday once the blog world started looking at this outrage):

If a politician does not play ball with the Jewish Lobby, he will not get elected, or re-elected, and he will either be smeared or ignored by the Jewish-owned major media.

All Jewish lobbies and organizations are interconnected and there are hundreds upon hundreds of them. The leaders of the numerous Jewish Lobby Groups go to the same synagogues, country clubs, and share the same Jewish investment bankers. And this inter-connectedness extends to the Jews who run the Federal Reserve Bank, US Homeland Security, and the US State Department.

In other words, “Jews stick together.” Americans must know how extremely powerful the Jewish Lobby is and how it operates to undermine America’s interests both at home and abroad. At home – by corrupting America’s political system, and abroad – by dictating American Foreign Policy against America’s best interests.

Jews have a closed and elaborate social network; Jews conspire against American politicians; Jews control the banks; Jews have a corrupting influence on America: we have seen this rhetoric before, and we know what occurs when it is not suppressed. But for some reason it appeared on the official campaign website of Barack Obama 2008 before it was scrubbed yesterday. But they scrubbed it from the website only after Rezko Watch exposed the Obama campaign’s support for this anti-Semitic rhetoric. It still exists in Google’s cache, however, and No Quarter has exclusive screen shots of the entire page, which we reproduce at the bottom of this entry.

This is not the first time the Obama campaign has embraced anti-Semitism on its official website. We already discussed the leadership role Farrakhan ally and Illinois superdelegate Reverend Willie Barrow performs on the Obama campaign, and we discussed how she condemned Jews for resigning from the Illinois Hate Crimes Commisssion after Governor Blagojevich appointed a Farrakhan ally to the Board. Jewish members of the Hate Crimes Commission objected to the following:

Obama campaign religious advisor Rev. Willie Barrow seemingly approves of this rhetoric:

Notice how Farrakhan’s rhetoric resembles that found on the Obama campaign website. Jews, according to the Obama 2008 campaign website, are “corrupting.”

And according to Farrakhan, Jews “promote filth” and “bring you down in moral strength.” They also “control Congress.”

This is also very disturbing:

Pray to the Lord Jesus Christ to either convert the Jews or conquer them through the power of His Cross? Is this what the Obama campaign is advocating? Obama and his campaign seriously believe Jews should be conquered?

We do not know if this a genuine post by a real Obama supporter or a dirty trick by some person or group who wanted to trade on the already established fact that Barack Obama has ties to the likes of Farrakhan, Barrow, Wright and other anti-Semites. If this was a legitimate post it raises the question: Why do anti-Semites find Obama attractive? And why did the Obama campaign allow this rabidly anti-Semitic information on its official website? Demonizing, exterminating and conquering Jews is not a message of change that wil resonate with most Americans come the fall.

We also cannot discount that this was a dirty trick designed to portray Obama in the worst possible light. While this would exonerate him of the charge that he is playing footsie with Jew-hating bigots, it still leaves us with the uncomfortable realization that Barack cannot control the content on his website. It is one thing to allow a racist comment to appear, but a full blog posting? That is absurd. If he cannot manage the simple task of ensuring that only people who reflect his views can post on his website, then how in the world does Senator Obama think he can manage the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.

Barack Obama is in deep water and is showing he does not know how to swim very well.

A foreign policy adviser of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Zbigniew Brzezinski, accused members of the American Jewish establishment of “McCarthyism” in its attitude towards critics of Israel. He called the pro-Israel lobby “too powerful” and accused American supporters of Israel as being too ready to use the slur of “anti-Semitism” against critics of Israel. …

What if Hillary Clinton’s close ‘friend’ an advisor, or if Hillary had said this:

“Brzezinski is someone I have learned an immense amount from”, and “one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers”.

Then, imagine if that person made this statement:

It’s not unique to the Jewish community — but there is a McCarthy-ite tendency among some people in the Jewish community. They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising.

They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel.”

Paranoid? Jewish people are paranoid? Well, I guess so, one day they are heading off to work – the next day they are being shipped off to concentration camps (IF THEY WERE LUCKY) or worse- gas chambers.

So, forgive me Mr. Brzezinski if I do not buy into your ‘outstanding thinking’ that Jewish people ‘promptly wheel out anti-Semitism’.

Anyway- back to my point- If a Hillary supporter/advisor had made this statement…well, you know.

The full story at American Thinker is here. The Irish Independent news article on which it is based is here.

One more thing: Remember South Carolina?

The only way the Obama campaign could neutralize/devour Hillary’s support in the AA community was to paint her and her husband as racist. Is Senator Obama’s campaign now trying to neutralize or divide the Jewish community? He and David Axelrod have done quite a number on the Democratic Party. Divide the progressive blogosphere, divide the feminist, divide, divide, divide and conquer- but what exactly is Senator Obama and his campaign going to conquer?