I will vote Obama
I will vote for a man I know nothing about

I will vote because it is time for a black man in the White House

I will vote for a man I really haven’t researched, and I really don’t want to know anything bad about

Because I will feel noble and good that I voted for a black man

or a man who definitely is NOT George Bush

I will vote for a man whose mother left America on purpose and stated the Americans around her in Indonesia were “not her people”

I will vote for a man whose father and stepfather were not Americans or Christians even though I felt uncomfortable about that Romney fellow and his Mormonism

I will vote for a man whose father figure mentor in Hawaii was a communist and hated America and “white oppression”

I will vote for a community organizer, even though I don’t know what that is

Saul Alinksy is the creator of the community organizer concept

I will not Google Saul Alinsky

I will not Google ACORN

I will vote for a man who ran unopposed for his Illinois State Senate Seat

I will not Google how that happened to occur

I will vote for a man who allies himself with an unrepentant radical terrorist

But he is an “education reformer” now!

I will not Google Bill Ayers enough to find out what he wants to reform public education into

although my children go to public schools

I will vote for a man who listened to Reverend Jeremiah Wright for 20 years

I certainly will NOT Google Black Liberation theology, white oppression, and Marxism in the same search!

I will feel good about myself after I vote Obama

who is not George Bush

I will feel good that America voted for Obama

I will await the praise from the world’s opinion of us on our wise choice…

I will be surprised when they still hate us

I will be surprised when I start to hate who I voted for

I will vote “anybody but Obama” in 2012

The recent, reluctantly released papers from Obama’s time as head at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) and his time on the board of the Woods Fund sheds new light on his relationship with Bill Ayers and the seamy milieu of Farrakhan’s Chicago.

The CAC and Woods Fund money paved the way for Obama’s political career:

the monies doled out through the Woods Fund to these groups, including [Bill] Ayers own Annenberg Challenge, helped cement Obama’s political relationships and bond with key players in Chicago.

Stanley Kurtz said that CAC money did not go directly to schools:

“Instead of giving money directly to schools, they gave to what they called external partners, and these external partners were often pretty radical community organizer groups.”

And Steve Diamond writes that Ayers was focused on what:

Ayers calls “social justice” approaches to teaching and “small schools” as well as race-based approaches to curriculum in the public schools.

Ayers and Obama funneled money intended for education to race-based curriculum. Matthew Weaver reports:

let’s also not forget organizations that received funding from Barack and Bill [Ayers], such as:

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by husband and wife Rashid and Mona Khalidi. Maoist Mike Klonsky, another terrorist member of the Weatherman Children and Family Justice Center, Bernardine’s organization. Trinity Unity Church and Rev. Wright.

Ayers is an important part of the Chicago racial Left, a loosely affiliated group of churches, academics, and activists who include Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger, Farrakhan, the group ACORN, and many others. The racial Left is not committed to fighting racism — a noble cause — but instead looking at the world through a racial lens. This means that issues of class — which affects whites, women, gays, etc. — is frequently dismissed. Instead, there are disquisitions on “white privilege,” without discussing the fact that poverty knows no color. The racial Left, of course, is a class struggle between those who have and those who do not, and many of it’s proponents have attended the best schools and hold the highest positions in the academy and in government. It’s no accident that Bill Ayers, the scion of a wealthy family, is a primary member of the racial Left. And it’s no accident that Obama, surrounded by millionaires in San Francisco, pointed out that his difficulties in Pennsylvania were due to skin color (identifying those resistant to him as white) and then ridiculing them as religious, intolerant of immigrants, and as the owners of guns, all cultural indicators to the racial Left of the despised lower-income whites. He could just have easily said those who are bitter cling to Jeff Foxworthy, shop at Wal-Mart, and hump their sister, or any other stereotype used against low-income whites.

The racial Left is about protecting status:

Not only is Ayers using Obama’s rapid ascent to celebrity in order to capitalize on his own unquenchable thirst for fame by having his memoir Fugitive Days reissued in January 2009, he is also working with Hollywood to have his memoir turned into a movie. As if that’s not enough, he and his wife, Bernardine Dorhn, have authored a book, soon to be released, entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy.

Belying it’s title, this book is NOT about white supremacists, such as the Aryan Brotherhood, but instead states that “white supremacy is the dominant political system” in American’. From Amazon’s Product Description:

Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days—and that it is still very much with us—the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors’ own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.

Stanley Kurtz has uncovered that Obama attended Farrakhan’s Million Man March, and Obama’s close friend, Michael Pfleger, is close to Farrakhan:

Although it’s been discussed before (because it confirms that Obama attended Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March), a 1995 background piece on Obama from the Chicago Reader has received far too little attention. Careful consideration of this important profile makes it clear that Obama’s long-standing ties to Chicago’s most rabidly radical preachers call into question far more than Obama’s judgment and character (although they certainly do that, as well). Obama’s two-decades at Trinity open a critically important window onto his radical-left political leanings. No mere change of church membership can erase that truth.

As Matthew Weaver posted, Rev. Farrakhan just pronounced Obama the Messiah (watch the video here):

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

In addition to being the leader of NOI, Farrakhan is first and foremost a politician, and one of the most powerful in Chicago. And Obama has at least one NOI member on his payroll.

In a June article from Reuters entitled “BREAKING NEWS: Nation of Islam Activists on Obama Camp Payroll” states that

“Sen. Barack Obama employed and continues to employ senior staffers who belong to the Nation of Islam, and the presidential candidate has some “worrying” ties to the controversial group headed by Louis Farrakhan, a former key Obama insider told AARON KLEIN… The former insider confirmed Obama is directly aware of the Nation of Islam members on his staff.”

“A key constituency for Obama was Hyde Park, where Farrakhan lives. To be successful politically in that area, you need to be involved with Farrakhan, since he’s a strong power in the district,” said the former insider.”

“The former insider identified former Obama worker Shakir Muhammad as a Nation of Islam activist. Muhammad was paid by Obama’s office as a photographer…According to a black supremacist source tied to Farrakhan, Muhammad previously worked as a bodyguard for the Nation of Islam chief.”

In fact, according to the article, Cynthia K. Miller, a known Nation of Islam activist who served Obama in his early state Senate days and was treasurer for his U.S. senatorial campaign, and a paid consultant in 2003 and 2004, was the beneficiary of help from Obama by another one of his Chicago friends, Tony Rezko.

“The former insider said Obama asked indicted Chicago businessman and Obama financier Tony Rezko to get his treasurer, Miller, a state government job with
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.”

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.

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, Ayers, 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, Pfleger, Wright, and Ayers is incontrovertible; it’s all about skin color.

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?

Obama’s targeted use of Malcolm X’s super-charged racial code words (”hoodwink, bamboozled”), and his followers’ continuous charges of racism against Obama’s opponents as a political tool has been well documented. It shows that Obama has a studied understanding of the racial radicalism of Malcolm X, Farrakhan, Wright, Pfleger, and Ayers coupled with the cold-blooded instincts of a heartless politician. The Obama campaign has already smeared as racists vast swaths of the Democratic Party, people who were drawn to the Party for its commitment to civil rights. Now he employs the same tactics against John McCain, a champion of immigrants who has never had a hint of racism associated with his name.

Sinclair Lewis is frequently quoted as saying: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

In today’s upside down world, racism has come to America embodied in a multi-racial politician and carrying the banner of the Democratic Party.

NOTE: Below, the video, I typed the powerful words of Gov. Frank Keating, a former FBI agent, who appeared on MSNBC a short time ago. Gov. Keating strongly infers and correctly, I suspect, that Barack Obama is the front-man for these radicals.

Obama comes across to average people as a non-threatening, cerebral, cool type. However, in fact, Barack Obama is steeped in DECADES of influence by the likes of Bill Ayers, his wife Bernardine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, black liberation theologian Rev. Jeremiah Wright (his pastor for 2+ decades), extreme radical Father Michael Pfleger, former PLO member Rashid Khalidi, and on and on — all financed by the shady business dealings of deep-pocket Chicago rich who get, let’s face it, their rocks off doing some “social good” but BUY political influence via Obama.

In sum: Barack Obama is a front man for the radicals, and Barack Obama is a front man for the shady businesspeople who make millions by exploiting tax payers’ money by, for example, running the Illinois state pension funds and taking over previously public housing but not improving it.

Now, the words of McCain ally FRANK KEATING, former Oklahoma governor and Special Agent for the FBI, on MSNBC today:

[About Bill Ayers] It does suggest character and judgment. When I was an FBI agent, we were HOT after Bill Ayers. This is an unrepentant terrorist who said in 2001 they didn’t blow up enough.

Remember Barack Obama is a “set piece” [FRONT-MAN?] here — not as a radical and as a terrorist, but as a member of the Illinois state senate.

In 2000, he voted against the entirety of the state budget because it had too much money for corrections. Voted against capital punishment. Voted against people being able to defend their families in their own homes by the use of a firearm. Voted for needle exchanges. Voted against making it a felony for a gang member to go back to gang activity while on probation. These are reckless, extreme, anti-law enforcement leftist positions that I think the American public needs to know about because it shows a lot about somebody’s value system and character.

It all makes sense, the way Keating explains it.

Having been heavily influenced by Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Saul Alinsky, Wright and Pfleger and Khalidi, Obama did THEIR BIDDING when he was a state senator in Illinois.

He has laid low in the U.S. Senate. A smart move for a guy with his eyes set on the White House. He wouldn’t want to cause a stir.

Besides, he’d already accomplished the ONE thing he needed to do to excite “lefties” across the nation: He’d given that 2004 Keynote Speech at the DNC, which thrilled tens of thousands of left liberals who thought they’d found the next new and dynamic, unifying leader for the Democratic party.

They’re still so giddy over Obama that they cannot get sober long enough to see where he is really coming from and what he is really up to.

Let’s forget about the lefties. They won’t come to their senses.

But let us DO try to tell all of our neighbors, as well as all of our relatives and friends across the nation, about what Gov. Keating said this morning, and why Keating is so concerned as a former law enforcement official. Share that new video. Explain Obama’s long ties to Ayers and Dohrn, and the rest.

Send the post and a link to the video to everyone on your e-mail list. Let’s get the word out.

If you have to keep it simple, just ask them if they really want to elect a man who voted against the right of people to keep a gun in their own homes.

Ask them if they want to elect a man who voted against making it a felony for a gang member to go back to gang activity while on probation. (THAT VOTE has BILL AYERS WRITTEN ALL OVER IT — because Ayers’ “academic” specialty is “juvenile justice.”

What do you want to bet that Ayers “instructed” Obama to vote against that bill in the Ilinois state senate? Neither will ever ‘fess up, but it has to be true.

Why did Bill Ayers HIRE Barack Obama to head the $50 million Chicago schools program, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC)? To implement Bill Ayers’ ideologically extreme views of public education. And Barack Obama — who was really Bill Ayers’ STOOGE — went right along.

(That is what Steve Diamond and Larry Johnson and Stanley Kurtz at NRO have been trying to explain to people: That Barack Obama was Bill Ayers’ stooge for his radical vision of public education.)

But these days, of course, Barack Obama hides that position as chair of the CAC. He fears it will implicate him further in his ties to Bill Ayers. As so many people have said, it is amusing in that that is the sole executive position that Barack Obama has ever held, and what an experience that is for the next president of these United States. It sends chills down my spine.

The implications of the rest are mind-boggling. Share more in the comments.

– OPEN THREAD TOO –

Hold the phone, let me back up here.

The other night when my partner and I were at the airport, we had dinner at Chili’s while we waited for our next flight. All of a sudden, my partner said, “Ohmygosh, that’s James Carville!” Sure enough, it was. And he was sitting right beside us, presumably with his wife. They didn’t say a word to each other the whole time, so I’m pretty sure it was Mary (teehee). Anywho - they were both reading, and I wasn’t going to bother them, though I WANTED to ask, “So, James - why DID you stab Hillary in the back? Just wondering!” Ahem.

Then, we were making our way down the concourse to our next flight. My partner very kindly was getting me a beverage (iced latte with an extra shot, if you must know - yes, I am one of those who are addicted to fancy coffee drinks. I prefer cappuccinos, myself, and have my very own espresso machine which I use daily. A lot. And Peet’s is my brand, but they don’t have those here on the East Coast, so Starbucks it was. Aren’t you glad I shared?). I noticed these two men walking past me, and as the light dawned, I realized one of them was my old seminary professor, Cornel West (his companion looked like someone with whom I went to seminary). Yep, there he went, one of the premier philosophers of our time. Okey dokey, a trip down Memory Lane for me, but so what? I’ll get to that soon.

First, just a little background on Cornel West. Some of you may know him from one of his books, Race Matters, which propelled him into the national spotlight. That book was followed by Democracy Matters. He taught at Union Theological Seminary for a while, and is now at Princeton. This excellent article, Imagining Social Justice: Cornel West’s Prophectic Public Intellectualism, by Gary Darrien, also a professor at Union, is a great resource on Cornel West, and includes much of his history, in terms of his upbringing, his intellectual pursuits (he attended Harvard for his undergrad, and was admitted to the doctoral program in Philosophy at Princeton at the age of TWENTY), and how he came to be at Union:

By the mid-1970s West was already acquiring a reputation as an intellectual spellbinder. The first time that I saw him, in 1975, he had attracted a sidewalk crowd of a dozen people at Harvard Divinity School and was expounding exuberantly on the varieties of black nationalism. The crowd got larger as passersby judged, as I had, “That must be Cornel West.” Two years later he began his teaching career at Union Theological Seminary, which seemed to him the perfect home for his broad intellectual and activist interests.

“You know, my aim was always to teach at Union Seminary,” he later recalled. “Union Seminary, for me, was the real institutional site that brought together all of my interests. It was a Christian seminary, it was deeply shaped by progressive politics, Marxism, feminism, antihomophobic thought and black liberation theology.”

West continued about his decision to teach at Union:

“I decided to teach at Union Seminary for three reasons: It was (and still is) the center of liberation theology in the country; it was one of the best places for black theological education in the country; and it allowed me to teach and read widely in philosophy, social theory, history, literary criticism and cultural thought. Union was the perfect place to become a broadly engaged cultural critic with a strong grounding in the history of philosophy and criticism.”

That’s my alma mater! I took several classes with Professor West, and remember well an exchange that happened in one of his classes. But to set the stage, I was the Student Senate Rep from the Lesbian/Gay Caucus all three years of the M.Div. program, and was completely out. At some point in the classroom discussion the topic of which I cannot recall, I said, “Oh, for God’s sake,” to which one of the African American students in the class looked at me, and said, “for whose sake?” in such a way, and in context with the discussion that clearly implied I was not in a position to call on God given my sexual orientation. That pissed me off, needless to say. I got up and walked out. Another student, and African American woman, came after me to talk about it. We were sitting in the Student Union when class let out, and Cornel West came over to see why I had left class. After I explained to him what happened (he couldn’t hear it where he was), he just lowered his head, shook it, and said, “We have such a long way to go.” He didn’t just talk the talk about “antihomophobic thought,” he walked it, too.

Imagine my surprise then, when I read this:

(West) replied that it should be possible to defend the progressive possibilities of heterosexual marriage from a feminist and egalitarian standpoint without being accused of bigotry against gays, lesbians, and single parents. Repeating a central argument of his book on the family, West contended that children did best when raised by two biological parents that were married to each other. The empirical evidence on this point was terribly clear, and important, he urged. To set progressivism against it was disastrous for progressivism and for children: “We make it clear that this does not stigmatize single mothers and fathers, disqualify loving gay or lesbian parents, or preclude successful adoption of children.” He took no interest in bolstering discrimination against gay or lesbian parents. Progressivism had to be against that, just as it had to “put a premium on the well-being of children.”

Huh - that sounds a whole lot like McCain’s response to the Washington Blade the other day in response to a question on adoption. I admit I was a little surprised by West’s response. It is hard to reconcile his statement with the man who was upset by how I was treated in his classroom. Just goes to show that McCain’s position is not all that unique, even in progressive circles.

As I mentioned above, this is not just a trip down Memory Lane for me. You may recall that Larry Johnson had an excellent piece in No Quarter entitled, “Barack Obama’s Revolutionary Buddies,” in which he mentioned “Progressives for Obama.” Wanna take a guess who one of those Progressives are? Yep, you got it, Cornel West. He was one of those listed from this organization.

Now I should add, and the article from which I have been quoting is quite clear, that West is a socialist. Here is more from Prof. Dorrien’s excellent piece (bear with the introduction of two other socialists - it helps for the context):

Harrington was eloquent about the structural injustices of capitalism, but he passed over its equally devastating operations on the cultural level.

That was never true of West, who emphasized cultural criticism, writing about popular music, television, sexuality, identity politics, black culture, white supremacism, the culture of nihilism, and the cultural limitations of progressive organizations dominated by whites. West’s pamphlet for DSA, “Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism,” was a signature statement for him and the organization. (Emphasis mine.) Stressing the Marxist bias of most American socialist theorizing about racism, West delineated four main types. The first viewed racism as an epiphenomenon of the class struggle, subsuming racial injustice under the general rubric of working class exploitation. Eugene Debs, an icon of this approach, had a simple answer to the question of what socialism offered blacks: “Nothing, except socialism.” Debs took for granted that racism was a divide-and-conquer ruse of the ruling class. To him, a socialist revolution was the only solution to racial injustice and all other social evils; any solution outside the labor framework was racism in reverse. West acknowledged that Debs, having fought racism bravely, was an honorable example of the color-blind strategy; nonetheless, socialist reductionism was not the answer, since it ignored the complexity of the problem.

And this ties into Matthew Weaver’s outstanding piece, “Obama Is Hiding A Radical Past,” in which he details Barack Obama’s membership in the DSA, and its implications for this election. If you have not read it, I highly recommend it to you.

I have to say, though, in full disclosure, that Professor West originally supported Hillary Clinton. Check out this video from the State of Black America and his challenges to Obama’s ability (major H/T to WasLn, etc., for leading me to the New Zealand site, another one at which real investigation into Obama’s Socialist ties is taking place):

Too bad he didn’t leave it at that. Check out this video and how he introduces Obama (again, H/T to the New Zealand site):

Oh, dear. “Comrade”? Um, yeah. The evidence is quickly mounting that, indeed, Obama is a Socialist, and a card-carrying one at that. Now, I freely admit that I have socialistic tendencies insofar as I am a firm believer in sharing the wealth with those who are less fortunate - I think that is a biblical mandate. And, you would most likely win a game of Monopoly with me (”oh, you need some money? Here, take some of mine!”), but I am not running for president, nor am I a card-carrying member of an official Socialist movement with a capital “S.” There is a difference after all. But, Obama is. And many of his associates are.

I wonder when the MSM is going to pick up THIS story?? So far, it’s looking like NEVER. So the DNC has selected (and I am using that word intentionally) a card-carrying Socialist as the Democratic Presidential Nominee. I wonder how THAT’S gonna play in Kansas? I can tell you that I don’t think it would go over too well here in SC. And that is just the point - the majority of people have no idea that this is the case. Add to that his ties to Black Nationalism as expressed through the rantings of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (and really - since when is a millionnaire considered to be “poor”?), the connection of his church to the Nation of Islam in general, and Louis Farrakhan in particular (not to mention the proximity of Farrakan’s complex to both Ayers’ and Obama’s houses), and it is painting a picture of a man who, at the very LEAST, does not represent the majority of Americans. At most, it has the very real potential of putting a tremendous amount of power in the hands of a man whose mindset would lead us down a dangerous road.

The bottom line is this: Obama continues to be an unknown quantity, with less than a month to go before the election. The vast majority of Americans have NO idea who this man really is, and it seems his handlers have worked very hard to ensure that is the case. But thanks to the efforts of people like Matthew Weaver, Larry Johnson, and New Zeal Research Associates, we are finally learning more. I hope it is not too late…

UPDATE: Alert reader, hadenough, provided documentation that contradicts my claim that Cornel West had been a Clinton supporter before he became an Obama supporter. The information I had was erroneous, and hadenough was correct. It does not change the fundamental issues regarding Obama and his “comrades,” but in the interest of accuracy, I feel it is important to note this change. Here is the LINK to the documentation regarding West’s support of Obama.

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Please go to the third post for the remaining parts.

::::::::::::

Note: Here are links to the important comments posted by our readers in open threads last night, during and after the show: first thread, second thread, and third thread. (Readers continued to comment throughout the night.)

“The end of an empire is messy at best                                                          
And this empire is ending
Like all the rest
Like the Spanish Armada adrift on the sea
We’re adrift in the land of the brave
And the home of the free
Goodbye. Goodbye. Goodbye.”

Now why would Chicago educator unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers quote this poem on his blog this month?  Do you think he knows something, or hopes for something that we don’t? 

I do.  And it has something to do with the candidacy–and potential presidency–of Barack Obama. 

Packaged as the unknown longshot horse of change and hope,  and accompanied by blinding fireworks, large mobbing crowds, the endless drum of the media, and noise blaring to distract the view, the doors to the country have been opened by the hapless democratic party….now this monstrous, perfectly sculpted form sits facing the Statue of Liberty. 

The form appears impenetrable; not a scratch or line out of place; to some it was the most beautiful horse imaginable–a dream come true.  After all, it was painted with all those words that people wanted to hear about hope and change. There was no need to look any further.

Others found themselves looking through the smoke and beyond the mirrors, to the underbelly of the horse known as Obama. 

And there it was: a partially ajar trap door, with threads of the mystery hanging as if caught inadvertently in a door that was shut in a hurry. A few brave souls, many posting here at NQ and in other places, grabbed those threads, and without being absorbed into the horse, followed them with exceptional grit, determination and detail.  

Individual strings on campaign tactics, racism, misogyny, questionable associations, legislative “experience”, Rezko,  and mistruths taken together and seperately almost uniformly lead to the conclusion that Barack Obama is a danger to our country in ways too numerous to mention.  And no one seems to be paying attention.

                                                                        *****                                                         

We all witnessed the theft of the nomination from Hillary Clinton, and the theft of the democratic party from its base in these last several months.  As I have become profoundly aware that Obama is not who he says he is, I also wonder about his Manchurian Candidate chararacteristics.  What is inside this Trojan Horse? Who is he a front for?

A Profound Lack of Respect for America…..

The most noticeable characteristic of Obama to me is his profound lack of respect for America as shown with his behavior on the flag pin, the failure to observe decorum regarding the national anthem, the fake presidential seal, the printed announcement of his speech in Germany, the upside down flag on the tickets and behind Biden at the Convention, his airplane with painted-over American flag, and his detached and callous appearance at Ground Zero. By this behavior, Obama is mocking America, cheapening its decorum and symbols. 

Most people, when asked about when they learn about the flag, pledge of allegiance, the President, and national anthem, will indicate that this learning started from the First grade on. By the time most children have reached the Fifth grade, the “decorum” and basic respect for the flag, American symbols, and the national anthem are well known.  Therein the respect is learned, and accounts for the visceral incredulity when symbols of our country are mocked. I personally have a gut distaste for his disrespect and it makes me angry.

Where did Obama’s disrespect come from?

…Brought to You By…

I believe Obama’s disrespect is ingrained in how and where he learned about America.  A world view shaped by his parents, grandparents, mentors, and associations.

     …Ann Dunham

From her home in Kansas Ann’s parents moved to Seattle, Washington, then known as quite the hotbed of communist party activity. Ann Dunham attended Mercer Island High School  where many of her teachers had been investigated by the House Un-american Activities Committee, some listed as known members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).  In 1960 the Dunham’s moved to Hawaii.

Both of Ann’s parents seem to have also had communist leanings, and the move to Hawaii furthered that contact with members of the CPUSA.  As described below, the Communist Party was active  and had a strategic interest in establishing a foothold in Hawai’i.

Ann Dunham met Barack Sr. in a Russian language class in 1960, and quickly became involved with a ‘radical’ discussion group described by  Representative Niel Abercrombie in a March 27, 2007 article in the Chicago Tribune. Abercrombie attended the University of Hawaii at the same time as Ann Dunham and Barack Sr..

Within six or seven months of Barack’s birth, he was abandoned by his father.  Ann attended the University of Washington for a semester starting in February 1962, and went back to Hawaii in the fall of 1962 while Barack Sr was in Kenya and then went to Harvard. While there are still many unresolved questions about his birth place, there is no doubt that Barack Senior was not an influence on Barry from February 1962 until sometime in 1971.

We also know that Obama-Soetoro spent his formative years (grades 1-5; ages 6-10) in Jarkarta, Indonesia, beginning in 1966 or 1967 after his mothers marriage to and formal adoption by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Obama states that his mother taught him about America before and after his regular school he attended as ‘Barry Soetoro’, and that she was critically important in forming his world view.

As an aside, Ann took Barry Soetoro to Indonesia shortly after the overthrow of Sukarno and his replacement with General Suharto. During the period 1965-1966, over one million communists were murdered as part of the overthrow. Indonesia was still an extremely violent country through 1970’s.  With Ann’s communist leanings, why did she go to Indonesia at this time? And why would she bring a 5 year old boy into this situation?

Given this trajectory in the first 10 years of Barry Soetoro’s life, what was America according to the world view of Stanley Ann Dunham?  America as oppressor and colonizer; America and “the west” as agressor in Vietnam; American history from the standpoint of slavery, annihilation of Indian Tribes, and American imperialism? What was the American flag a symbol of to Ann Dunham?  Was America ever a symbol of freedom and democracy to Ann? Seriously, how did she relate the history of America to Barry? Was it a one-sided perspective, or inclusive? (Note: I am not denying that this is the history of parts of American policy and leadership, and that there are on-going problems that need resolution to ensure fairness in our country.) 

 …..Frank Marshall Davis…

When the Dunhams moved to Hawaii, they were soon befriended by Frank Marshall Davis, a poet, Black activist, journalist, and labor rights organizer, originally from Kansas, who moved to Hawaii from Chicago. “Frank” would later become a mentor to Barack.

[T]hrough Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

Melanie Phillips adds more:

Barack Obama is an integral part of a web of radical activists, whose roots go back to a clandestine Communist Party network in Hawaii centering upon his erstwhile mentor the late black poet Frank Marshall Davis, an agent of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Unlike Communists elsewhere, the CPUSA fused the twin ideologies of class and race oppression. In a speech last year to mark the reception of the CPUSA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University Gerald Horne, a member of the editorial board of the CPUSA journal Political Affairs, described how the CPUSA placed its emphasis on working class solidarity in tandem with staunch opposition to ‘white supremacy’.

In a dossier posted on the America’s Survival blog Herbert Romerstein, a former US government security investigator, records how Moscow micromanaged the CPUSA. In 1935, Moscow instructed it to establish a CP apparatus in Hawaii to develop a mass revolutionary movement there and promote the withdrawal from its territory of US forces – at that time essential for the defence of the US. This Hawaii CP network was perceived by government bodies to be a major threat to US national security.

A key figure was Harry Bridges, a CP agent and head of the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union. In 1948, Frank Marshall Davis came to Hawaii at the suggestion of Bridges and another secret CPUSA member, Paul Robeson.

America seen through the eyes of Frank Davis is steeped in the art, history, politics, and culture of Black America, its struggle to secure equality in white America.  He was active during the Harlem Rennaissance, a complex socioeconomic and political period leading up to WWII, as a poet, writer, labor activitivist, and collaborator with the CPUSA in Chicago before moving to Hawaii. 

Beginning with the publication of Black Man’s Verse in 1935, Davis quickly distinguished himself as a sharp–some would say strident–critic of the American racial status quo and an astute observer of African American urban life, particualrly in his adopted city of Chicago…(Miller, 2003, African American Review 37.2-3)

In the book The Film and Canvas of Frank Marshall Davis, author Helena Kloder describes Davis’ themes and style as varied and

consisting of love; the frustrated black American artist; the universal heritage and relationship that binds all men, regardless of skin color; the poor and the workers pitted against the powerful rich; middle class blacks; the hipocracy of American democracy and the myth of the American Dream

Beneath the surface of these words, Davis brought “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and  openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. He espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”

Before coming to Hawaii, Davis was accused of subordinating the black cause to the communist party.

What this seemed to mean in practice in Hawaii was an attempt to suborn the cause of black people’s rights to the cause of Communism. Romerstein recounts how Davis tried to convert the National Association for the Advancement of Color People, which tried to fight off what it perceived as infiltration by Communists who it believed betrayed the cause of black people’s rights, into a Stalinist front..

Davis’ poem, “To Those Who Sing America”, describes his feelings about America in the context of class and race:

My country! ’tis of thee…”
(On the shores of this, my country, swell Plenty in
a forty-room mansion and Poverty in a one-
room hovel…a nation turned prostitute for
the fat pimps of Politicians and Captains of
Industry…This my country with the star
spangled robe snatched away)
“Sweet land of liberty…”

More information on Davis’ Hawaii network is found in this very informative article by Andrew Walden , and is a MUST READ.

Obama was introduced to Davis by his grandfather Stanley Dunham (remember Stanley met Davis in 1960), who considered Davis a ‘strong black male figure’ and thought he exerted a ‘positive’ and significant influence over Obama during his high school years. To a long term associate of Davis, Kathryn Takara, Davis was just such a black role model for the young Obama and gave him ‘a sense of believing that change can happen through ‘living in a diverse world. The problem was that Davis believed ‘change’ could best be achieved through Stalinism’.

Obama’s oft-referenced story of his revulsion because his grandmother was afraid of a black panhandler was explained by Davis as, “What I’m trying to tell you is, your grandma’s right to be scared. She understands that black people have a reason to hate. That’s just how it is. For your sake I wish it were otherwise. But it’s not. So you might as well get used to it.”

Obama relates in Dreams that just before he went to college at 18, he was warned by ‘Frank’ “not to forget his ‘people’ and not to start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.” Frank also delivered to the young Obama the one key lesson which radicals have sought to inculcate in the mind of every black person whether under slavery, segregation or civil rights: “…you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same.”

So at the end of Barack Obama-Soetoro’s “formative years”–ages 6 through 17, we can only surmise as to what Obama’s view of America was. His mentors were decidely “left” with a disdainful view of America as colonizer, oppressor, racist, and imperialist. It was steeped in the principles of the communist party, revolution, the struggles of blacks in America, and the struggle of people everywhere against the American oppressor. He lived those moments through Franks accounts, an academic understanding, never experiencing them. 

Davis’ poems, prose and activism were executed to demonstrate the hipocracy of American democracy and the myth of the American dream. Is it any wonder, in this context, that Obama demonstrates careless treatment of American flag, the presidential seal, the constitution, and the national anthem? At best, Obama demonstrates disturbing detachment from America.

The Education Radicalization of Barack Obama

Largely due to his association with Frank Davis, Barack was sent to the mainland with a set of ready-made contacts and a set career path.  Potentially as early as high school, Barack was introduced to Bill Ayers. 

Barack Obama’s first public speech was at an Occidental College event sponsored by the Students for Economic Democracy a branch of the Campaign for Economic Democracy [CED]. Far Left radical Tom Hayden who met with Marxist officials several times during his antiwar career chaired this fringe group in the late 70’s and early ’80’s. Several of the CED principal activists were also veterans of the Hayden-campaign and of the very radical group, Students for a Democratic Society.

Hayden was an important anti-American figure in the Students for a Democratic-Society a militantly leftist organization. 60’s radical Tom Hayden played a pivotal role both as founder and as principal author of this student group’s basic manifesto, the “Port Huron Statement.” This document condemned the American political system as the cause of international conflict and a variety of social ills — including racism, materialism, militarism, and poverty.

The Port Huron Statement reflected certainly elements of the CPUSA ideology regarding the  national and international problems and results of the ‘American political system’.

In 1969 Hayden’s students for democracy group began imploding into factions. One of them, a group calling itself Weatherman, was elected to SDS leadership and proclaimed that the time had come to launch a race war on behalf of the Third World and against the United States. The Weatherman declared “war on AmeriKKKa” at its Flint War Council in 1969.

The new entity dissolved Hayden’s Students for a Democratic Society and formed a terrorist cult in its place, which was given the name Weather Underground.

It seems then that in the beginning of Barack Obama’s speaking career the group he was involved with had links to Marxists, the Weathermen, and Bill Ayers. Years after his first public speech at Occidental College Barack Obama found himself working several years with William Ayers, the founder of the terrorist cult Weather Underground, first in New York at Columbia, and then in Chicago.

After a short time at Occidental, Obama finished his undergraduate education at Columbia University in New York where he attended from 1981-1984.  Bill Ayers received a degree from Bank Street College in 1984.  Colombia and Bank Street College are only two blocks apart. It is likely that Obama and Ayers were neighbors in New York, and attended similar events like the “socialist conferences” Obama has admitted to attending in New York. As cited here at NQ,  Obama visited Pakistan with his college roommate in 1981 using an Indonesian passport.

In the crucible of radical left discussions  that are always present in the international city of New York, Obama is likely to have attended lectures by Khalid Al-Mansour, Louis Farrakahn, and other internationalists, socialists and black liberationists as Obama furthered his career. Al-Mansour’s viewpoints were described in an excellent post by Larry Johnson.  In his studies at Columbia in Political Science, he is likely to have studied Marxist thought, black revolutionary movements, and revolutionary techniques such as those espoused by Saul Alinsky, Maoists, the Black Panthers, and American left radicals such as Ayers.

From his book Dreams:

[Black]Nationalism provided that history, an unambiguous morality tale that was easily communicated and easily grasped. A steady attack on the white race, the constant recitation of black people’s brutal experience in this country, served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair. Yes, the nationalist would say, whites are responsible for your sorry state, not any inherent flaws in you. In fact, whites are so heartless and devious that we can no longer expect anything from them. The self-loathing you feel, what keeps you drinking or thieving, is planted by them. Rid them from your mind and find your true power liberated.

Speaking of the conflict he felt within himself about being both white and black, and feeling the need to choose sides, he writes in Dreams:

Their confusion made me question my own racial credentials all over again. …To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

This gives the impression of a man that has thought about and did indeed carefully choose his associates–Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger, and Michelle, among others.

The “Community Organizer ” turned Lawyer

After Columbia, Obama went to Chicago where he is hired as a “community organizer” for several groups including ACORN.  However, John Maki notes that Obama’s community organizing was more about political power than soup kitchens.    A ‘community organizer’ could have a rather simple explanation if not for the fact that the whole model of a “community organizer” just handily fits within the revolutionary framework espoused by American, European and Asian radicals for decades.

As Kincaid writes,

It was in Chicago that Obama became a ‘community organizer’ and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.

After Sarah Palin delivered her game-changing speech taking a swipe at Obama for being a community organizer,

the Obama campaign was forced to issue a pained defence of community organisation as a way of promoting social change ‘from the bottom up’. The impression is that community organising is a worthy if woolly and ultimately ineffectual grassroots activity. This is to miss something of the greatest importance: that in the world of Barack Obama, community organisers are a key strategy in a different game altogether; and the name of that game is revolutionary Marxism.

The seditious role of the community organiser was developed by an extreme left intellectual called Saul Alinsky. He was a radical Chicago activist who, by the time he died in 1972, had had a profound influence on the highest levels of the Democratic party. Alinsky was a ‘transformational Marxist’ in the mould of Antonio Gramsci, who promoted the strategy of a ‘long march through the institutions’ by capturing the culture and turning it inside out as the most effective means of overturning western society. In similar vein, Alinsky condemned the New Left for alienating the general public by its demonstrations and outlandish appearance. The revolution had to be carried out through stealth and deception. Its proponents had to cultivate an image of centrism and pragmatism. A master of infiltration, Alinsky wooed Chicago mobsters and Wall Street financiers alike. And successive Democratic politicians fell under his spell.

Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals further specifies the role of community organizer:

It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’. Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors.

Obama must have shown promise as a potential “stealth candidate” who could infiltrate the “march of institutions” to “capture the culture”, and “turn it inside out”. For the purpose of overturning western society. For in 1988, Bill Ayers began raising funds for his law school education,  likely through his contacts and Khalid Al-Mansour whom he had befriended in his association with the Black Panthers.  It was reported then that Percy Sutton was approached by Al-Mansour seeking a letter of entry to Harvard on behalf of Barack Obama.  I believe some serious strings were pulled to achieve Obama’s entry into Harvard. 

In 1989, Bill Ayers and his father Tom Ayers got Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin, where he met Michelle Robinson.  Recall that Bill Ayer’s wife, Bernadette Dohrn, also worked at Sidley & Austin and was the one who hired Michelle.  Recall that Michelle could be considered a black separatist radical in her own right from college days!

It was during this time that Barack Obama was introduced to Reverend Wright and the theology of black liberation. Obama is likely to have at least studied or been introduced to black separatism, black nationalism, and black liberation theology in New York.  James Cone is commonly cited as the founder of black liberation theology:

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering…Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity.” [A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64]

“Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God’s love.” [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]

In 1993 Ayers appointed Obama to the Woods Foundation, and in 1995 to the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. In 1995 Ayers and Dohrn hosted a coffee klatch for Obama’s political debut. By 1995, Obama has written his first book, Dreams, and in 2006 published Audacity of Hope, whose title he gained from a sermon by Reverend Wright. Obama served in the Illinois Senate until 2003, and then was elected to the US Senate in 2004.

Much can–and I hope will–be written about the funding and techniques employed in Obama’s various campaigns, including the use of ACORN, CPUSA, and the Annenburg Challenge funds; how he was funded to complete his books, especially Dreams, and the role of Dreams in creating a “storybook” candidate which has now been marketed to the public.  Notice how Obama, Axelrod, the Democrats, and the obots can’t stand challenges to the story of Obama.

 Revolution You Can Believe In

Well if  you’ve read this far,  I first thank you.  Second, you know that even this lengthy article just begins to scratch the surface of some very serious concerns that should be raising eyebrows among elected officials and the public.  We have not, for example discussed the incredible symbology being created for a world audience as Obama’s elaborate trips and stage craft are implemented.  For example, Obama’s campaign logo can be seen also to reflect the two most common symbols of Islam–the crescent and the sword…the logo contains a crescent with the stripe representing an Islamic scimitar.   The “rising sun over the west” –another significant symbol–is shown in Obama’s logo as the rising sun over the lands of America.

What started out as a simple observation–Obama’s lack of respect for America and American symbols–led to  connecting the dots on Obama’s background, motivations and backers.  And I see incredible stealth in his campaign.

Sometimes things seem just so obvious that we are lulled into complacent denial, thinking that it couldn’t be true– “Obama is too smart, he’s a U.S. Senator, he’s so nice, no that can’t be true!!” 

To openly discuss his communist and revolutionary mentors with such intensity and focus lays open the charge of “McCarthy” tactics, “racism”, “red scare”,  or “red baiting”, or ”doubting Obama’s patriotism”.  How convient that the Obama campaign has the race, class, gender, education, age,  and the “McCarthy” cards to obfuscate and distract from any serious examination of Obama’s motivation for seeking POTUS.  In my view, Obama is a perfect tool, agent, or mole to use in advancing an agenda that lies entirely hidden from the public.  His ego and insecurity can be manipulated for other goals.

In his run for the Presidency, Obama has structured his campaign  as small offices all over the country, something no other Presidential candidate has done.  Interesting that Howard Dean’s so called “50-state strategy” served as a perfect cover for Obama to move in and take over the apparatus of the democratic party. This kind of strategy is very much in line with Alinsky’s approach and the Marxist concept of revolutionary change.

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization…

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

Bill Ayers is a proponent of locally based revolutionary tactics. Ayers’ playbook is Mao Tse-Tung’s handbook. And Obama’s campaign structure follows Ayers’ matrix. A nationwide network of “Camp Obamas” controlled from Chicago has been established to train volunteers in some of the Alinsky techniques.

In particular, Alinsky advocates “in your face” techniques wherein the ends justify the means. Didn’t we just hear Obama call for his supporters to “get up in your neighbor’s face,” and argue with them?

What of Obama’s control over destruction of the Democratic party? Quite simple: according to Marxist revolutionary thought, a vanguard must be created which serves as the “point” of  leadership for the communist-style revolution to come.  Remember Brazile told us to stay home?   That is so the new democratic party–the vanguard led by Obama as trojan horse can begin the process of radical change in America.

Add to this mix Soros, the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, voting integrity, an Alinsky-style field operation and it makes me think that we are in serious trouble.

Obama is not stupid.  He is a bright man, very talented, very personable, and until recently, a man without much of a personal history.  But there is a shiftless, searching side to Obama’s personality.  Due to childhood neglect and abuse, he is a man without a conscience.  He was and remains the perfect front for Ayer’s –or any other revolutionary ideology–ongoing revolutionary campaign to subvert and subdue the United States of America. 

 The Trojan Candidate

There you have it–my theory on who this Trojan Horse named Obama is, and what I think he is bearing.  In my view Obama’s campaign has been a masterful deception designed to run out the clock, timed for this moment in American history.  Though Obama insisted in 2005 that he was not experienced enough to run for President, the timing according to someone is now.

But in actuality, he has been groomed for a long time.

It is a vulnerable moment for America: our armed forces are extended through two wars; the economy is a shambles; our reputation in tatters; Russia landed military aircraft in Venezuela and invaded Georgia; and a serious depression and exhaustion has descended over our country resulting from the last eight years of Bush.  We are vulnerable to suckers for the mantra of  “hope and change”.

Our forefathers foresaw revolution in the Declaration of Independence–”when in the course of human events, it becomes necessary….” whenever our freedoms are threatened by the government.  Do we want to control this change in our country, or give it over to overthrow by a stealth campaign?

I can only hope that the true vetting of Obama will be done, that the Berg lawsuit exposes his multiple citizenship (allegiances), and that his true leanings and agenda are identified.   I have never been so concerned about a Presidental election in my life, nor felt so acutely that we hold the fate of our country in our own hands. 

I feel that we might be here soon:

Can America dodge the strike?

                                                                             ****

The democrats who opened the door to this challenge will go down in history as having been captured by the far left radicals and letting the Trojan Horse threaten America.  This is a major reason why Obama must be convincingly defeated and his possible future influence on the democratic party sharply curtailed.  And when he is, we need to take our party back.

Though not a laughing matter, I will let Calvin have the last word on what should happen specifically to DNC officials.  I am happy to waive the fee for all involved.

He almost wrecked Barack Obama’s presidential dreams, and now firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright has helped destroy a Dallas church worker’s marriage - and her job, The Post has learned.

You’ve seen the disgusting video of Reverend Wright, in a Sunday sermon, doing the the “hump” to suggest that Bill Clinton “done us wrong”:

The background story to Wright’s second marriage calls into serious question Wright’s “right” to preach to anyone. Here’s more from the Post:

Wright has been married to his second wife, Ramah, for more than 20 years.

The preacher reportedly wooed Ramah away from her first husband in the 1980s, when the couple came to marriage counseling at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Now let’s see more reminders of Obama’s Reverend Wright. Remember this “America’s Chickens Come Home to Roost”?

The 37-year-old Elizabeth Payne admits to the affair but gives few other details.

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

She has since basically been excommunicated from the church, fired from her paid position in the church, and divorced. Her husband dashed to divorce court after the affair was discovered. She did have this to say about her life post-Wright:

Elizabeth Payne said she has been banished by Haynes and the flock at Friendship-West.

“I’m not a member of the congregation anymore; I’m not even allowed on the premises,” she said.

And she had this to say about her affair with Wright, her job and divorce:

“I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that’s why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me,” Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West “found out about the affair in the spring,” Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright’s anti-government rants came to light.

“Liz was by Rev. Wright’s side day and night during those days,” a church source said.

“It’s all true,” said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

In an interesting twist, Wright gave a sermon about trouble in relationships at a church in New Jersey. Here is more on that:

“There’s no such thing as a problem-free relationship,” he told a packed Elmwood United Presbyterian Church. “In life, you’ll have unexpected problems.”

Here are his words minus a controversial statement.

Payne’s husband, Fred Payne, 64, said he learned of the affair in late February, when he discovered e-mails between his wife and Wright.

“There must have been about 80 of them, back and forth,” he said. “Wright said things like he was going to leave his wife for Elizabeth.”

And now we need to be reminded of Obama on his spiritual mentor….

And we know that Reverend Wright/Wrong became a albatross around Obama’s neck. Obama did what he always has — he denied any knowledge of the sermons — the same way he denies responsibility for anything his campaign does!

And this is the man we want leading our country? Not!

Obama your “chickens have come home to roost!”

Two major elements of the developing meme that John McCain did not sufficiently vet presumptive vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin are highly suspect. Each contention is not provable, and there is strong reason to believe that each is almost completely, if not totally, untrue.

The first assertion is that McCain’s people did little if any vetting of Palin until a few days ago. The second is that McCain’s team has never looked at years of archived articles at Palin’s hometown paper.

Wizbang Blog reported on May 29 that a McCain advance man named Arthur Culvahouse was in Juneau, Alaska. Even three months ago, Wizbang Blog’s Kevin
already sensed the power of Palin being on McCain’s ticket:

Governor Palin would (in my estimation) make an excellent VP candidate for McCain. Thomas Cheplick at The American Spectator makes the case that she’s probably the only VP candidate who can balance the ticket against Obama. She’s also a potential magnet for disaffected Hillary Clinton voters, many of whom are just looking for a reason not to vote for Obama.

If conservative blogs were weighing the benefits of Palin months ago, one can be fairly certain that McCain’s lieutenants were vetting Alaska’s governor and conducting focus groups and polls on every conceivable angle of her selection.

On the Democratic side, however, any criticism of Obama was quickly shut down by the media. For example, David Sirota defended Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racial sermons and implied that Hillary was engaged in racial politics by bringing up Wright. Sirota wrote during the primaries: “Does the very reaction to Wright show he’s right about racism? Clinton seems to think so,” sniffed an indignant Sirota on the notion that Hillary would use Wright against Obama.

The hysterical reaction during the primaries to any criticism of Obama with accusations of racism has created a situation where an unvetted Obama faces the Republican Blitzkreig.

Below is a limited list of areas where the media has failed to investigate Obama. This list does not include Obama’s many policy reversals or outright fabrications, like the statement that the Kennedy family facilitated his father coming to the United States. It does not include Obama’s habit of voting ‘present’ as a member of the Illinois State Senate nor his strange maneuverings regarding a born alive bill. Instead, the list below concerns Obama’s associates and business dealings. It is a sordid group, comprised of the America-hating, anti-Israel, and explicitly racial Left. There is big money involved, as with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and bizarre organizations to which money was funneled. Obama’s milieu is the intersection of Chicago politics and the fringe Left; there is much to be explored and explained about Obama. Below is a partial list where Obama remains unvetted:

1. Trinity United Church of Christ. Obama’s 20-year membership in an explicitly racist church, a church with rhetoric too hot for Oprah.
2. Rezko. Obama’s ties to Tony Rezko and the 2005 purchase of the Obamas’ home. Obama funnelling money to Rezko’s sleazy businesses.
3. Ayers. Obama’s extensive ties to unrepentant terroist Bill Ayers.
4. Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Obama and Ayers together dispensing tens of millions of dollars supposedly for educational organizations. Although now just being investigated, it’s known that money was funnelled to Ayers’ friend, radical Mike Klonsky, a founding member of the Maoist Party of the United States.
5. Minister Louis Farrakhan. Obama is surrounded by people like Rev. Willie Barrow, a friend and admirer of the anti-white, anti-Semitic Farrakhan.

If the media doesn’t do their job, we can rest assured that the Republicans will happily do it for them.

Which church is the PAC referring to? “God damn Amerikkka,” anyone? And what about those radical, racist religious leaders he hung out with, regularly, in Chicago for over 20 years — from Father Michael Pfleger to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, both of whom are close to Minister Louis Farrakhan?

And will any evangelical buy into Obama’s all-out campaign to prove he’s a devout Christian? Especially with his strong voting record on abortion and long association with Planned Parenthood (which, it is claimed, instructed him how to vote)?

Or that he voted “present” on two Illinois senate bills on teaching “respect” in schools and on prohibiting sex shops near schools and places of worship?

From my December story, quoting a New York Times article:

Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.

In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.

In “Barack Obama Radio Spot Hits Christian Radio,” CBN Network’s Brody File column reports that the PAC is running this radio ad on James Dobson’s home turf in Colorado Springs, Colorado (!).

Now playing on Christian radio: Barack Obama!

The Brody File has learned that the Matthew 25 Network which is a religious political action committee supporting Obama has put together a radio ad in which Obama’s faith is highlighted. And get this….they are airing it on Christian radio in Colorado Springs, the home to James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

Part of their release, sent to The Brody File, is below:

The Matthew 25 Network today launched an initial radio ad campaign to reach Christian voters with Obama’s positive message of how faith informs his life and enhances dialogue in the public square.

The ad entitled “From his Heart,” comes on the heels of Senator Obama’s historic speech earlier today about the instrumental role faith communities play in caring for the “least of these” in our society and the importance of public partnerships with faith-based programs that have proven track records.

The Matthew 25 Network ad will first run in Colorado Springs, CO, home of James Dobson who garnered much media attention last week for attacking Senator Obama’s faith. The group will run run ads in Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, and other swing states.

Here is the script version of the radio ad:

Narrator: You know it’s an election year when certain people start grabbing headlines by attacking the faith of Presidential candidates. With all these stones being cast at Senator Obama, it can be hard to know what to believe. But in Luke, Jesus taught us that we must listen to what a man says because “out of the overflow of his heart, his mouth speaks.” So here are words from Senator Obama’s heart:

Obama: “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives” “kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

Narrator: Paid for by Matthew 25 Network, Matthew 25.org is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Matthew 25 Network is responsible for the content of this ad because we think it’s time for a better Christian witness in politics.

Dr. Richard Land, Chairman of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Association, was a guest on Just In with Laura Ingraham, her new Fox News show that airs weekdays at 5 p.m. ET.

Dr. Land pointed out that, no matter how much Obama pounds on the point that he’s a good Christian, his pro-abortion stand will be a certain deal breaker for evangelicals.

:::::::::

There’s something else that bothers me. Obama, by hammering on his insistence that he is a Christian, is also insulting Muslims. As I wrote recently:

To be clear: We at No Quarter have no concerns about Barack Obama having had a Muslim background; given the circumstances of his childhood, living with a stepfather in Indonesia who was Muslim as well as having relatives in Africa who are Muslim, it is simply a part of his background, and probably a plus to be exposed to the faith, although he was for the most part rather young to assess it.

Our issue is with Obama’s failure to be frank about his life history and — worst of all — his appearance of running from any past associations with Muslims, as if being evasive would protect him from voter concerns in an age of the Internet and 24/7 news. Instead — by insisting repeatedly that he is solely a “committed Christian” and has “never been a Muslim” — Obama may be insulting Muslims worldwide who are surely puzzled why he hides this past. Further, his obfuscations lose him credibility among voters who seek honesty and forthrightness in their presidential candidates.

Obama seems unable to grasp what most mature people understand: That hiding the simple truth damages one’s reputation far more than the fact that is being hidden.

We get it, Barack. We do. You’re desperate to kill the rampant rumors that you were or are a Muslim, or ever had any associations with any Muslims. But, the saying, “He doth protest too much,” applies here.

But this is going to backfire, I predict, because Obama’s positions on abortion and his astonishing voting record in the Illinois senate are going to come out, and NO devout Christian will vote for him.

Okay - let’s just stop right there. I hate to digress, but what does it say that the people he pursues the MOST are young, inexperienced people? I mean, really - the part of the brain that helps make good decisions isn’t even fully set until one is into adulthood. I’m not kidding! (Here is but one article on the topic of Decision-Making - there are TONS available online.) That is why, so often, you will hear someone exclaim, “I can’t believe SO-and-So drank and drove (or lied, or stole, whatever) - this seems so out of character for him/her,” and they are in their late teens or twenties. It is that part of the brain that isn’t fully formed that allows the Straight A, straight-laced student to go joy-riding, out of the clear blue sky, for example. Or to support a candidate because he seems “cool,” not paying attention to what he actually says, or has done. I think you know what I mean. Anyway, it is VERY telling that he constantly pursues YOUNG people. Just sayin’.

And this is the problem with people like McCaskill and Caroline Kennedy, among others, allowing thier CHILDREN to convince them to vote for Obama! Their children’s reasoning facilities are not yet physically or neuroogically set, and they are listening to THEM?? That is problematic on all sorts of levels, like why adults are acquiescing to their kids, for starters. I think we can all look back on our youth and remember how we were CERTAIN we were SO right about everything, and adults didn’t know anything. We knew so much more, were so much more with it, and our arguments were better. As we look back, we realize we didn’t know squat, cerainly not on the level we do now. And now there is scientific evidence that at least as far as reasoning is concerned, adults have better ability neuorlogically. So, yes, Claire and Caroline, by all means - let your KIDS tell you who to support! That’s the most reasonable thing to do - not.

Anywho - to get back to the topic, Obama is trying to woo Evangelical Christians. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, had some criticims of Obama, particularly his biblical interpretation. Dobson said (quote from the article mentioned below), “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said.”

I think we all know how well Obama deals with criticism. Ahem. He is not fond of it, and tends to lash out. Bear in mind that Dobson’s responses to him are based on a speech Obama gave in which he said, “that people of faith, like himself, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.” Hang on a moment - I am so busy having my head explode at OBAMA talking about not having religion “divide us,” that I can’t type…Whew. OK. I think I am better. Can I just say, Obama attends a church that is INCREDIBLY DIVISIVE and he has the “audacity” to say this?! After attending TUCC, the Nation of Islam supporting church for TWENTY years, he says this??? Wow. Just freakin’ wow. He added in his speech, “People aren’t reading their Bibles.”

Well, sure enough, he had THIS to say on Tuesday about Dobson’s criticism in an AP article, “Obama Dismisses Dobson Criticism About Bible“: “”I think you’ll see that he was just making stuff up, maybe for his own purposes.” Dobson is “making stuff up”? Gosh, he really IS eloquent, isn’t he?!? And this: “Asked about Dobson’s assessment, Obama said “somebody would be pretty hard-pressed to make that argument” that he was distorting the Bible.” Way to go about winning the hearts and minds of the Evangelical Christians, Obama! Insult one of their foremost leaders! That oughta do the trick! (And may I say - again - I have absolutely NO love lost for Dobson, and completely disagree with HIS interpretation of the Bible, but I am not trying to get any of his people to vote for me, either! Just to be clear - not a fan of Dobson’s.)

Honestly, I think Obama is unclear on the concept of bringing people into the fold, or has really internalized the hype about himself. He does seem to think he can say whatever derogatory comments he wants about leaders who represent millions of people, then get their people to fall in line behind him. That sure takes some nerve. Or something like that. Fill in your own word (hubris? Delusion?). I suppose this should come as no surprise to Hillary supporters, though - he pretty much reamed her time and time again, disparaging her character, making ad hominem attacks constantly, demeaning her, and women in general, with his sexist remarks, and overall responding with great arrogance - why WOULDN’T we just jump on board?!? Now he is trying it with James Dobson and Evangelical Christians! Let’s just see how well this works out for him, even with the help of people like The Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, a former Bush supporter. I daresay, more people have heard of Dobson…Like I said, this Obama sure has a unique way to try and win the hearts and minds…

Oh, wait! Speaking of Obama’s incredibly divisive church, and his claim that religions shouldn’t divide us, Father Michael Pfleger said on “Good Morning America” recently that he stands by the message he preached against Senator Clinton, her whole “entitlement” thing, as he is now calling it. As if Senator Clinton EVER claimed she was entitled to anything, especially in the racist way he depicted. That was ALL Pfleger, and near as I can tell, he broke one of the Big Ten by “bearing false witness against his neighbor” with that one. Here’s the link, in case you want to read it for yourself: Priest Who Mocked Clinton… What a piece of work, and how unfortunate that ABC is giving him any air time at all…Sheesh.

All righty - there’s just one problem with that name, though - it is VERY close to the name of an already established wing of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a name they have had since 2003: “This is an improper invasion of our trademark and we’ve retained legal counsel to notify the Obama campaign to stop this,” HSLDA’s co-founder, chairman, and general counsel, Michael Farris, told Roll Call on Monday morning. The conservative group plans to notify the Obama campaign later today.”

Oopsie doopsie!! Once again, Obama is busted for using someone else’s work. (Hey - maybe the Home School People can use this as a “teaching moment” on why it is important to do come up with your own ideas!!)

But that is not all. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family, is also weighing in on Obama, and his theology. In this article, “Dobson Accuses Obama Of ‘Distorting’ Bible,” we get a pretty good feel for how The Rev. Dobson feels about Obama. And I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for this man, but he DOES represent a fair number of American Evangelical Christians. The article reports (and all quotes below on Dobson are taken from this article): “As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement’s biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.

The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson’s Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization’s headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.”

Wowie zowie. “Fruitcake Interpretation” of the Constitution?? Apparently, The Rev. Dobson has not bought into Obama’s spin that he is a Constitutional scholar!! But wait, there’s more! Apparently, according to the article, Obama mentioned Dobson in a speech he made in 2006, and said: “Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?” Obama said. “Would we go with James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s?” referring to the civil rights leader. ”

Well, I think we know where OBAMA falls on that, or at least we can extrapolate from his twenty years at TUCC (more on that below). But it seems to me that criticizing the leader of an organization with which one then wants to join hands and sing “Kumbayah” is not the smartest idea in the world. Because James Dobson isn’t buying what Obama is selling: “Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy—chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, “a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”

Now THERE’S some biblical interpretation for you! And what does Obama have to say about that? “Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles”

Just bringing them all together, Obama is! Yep, Mr. Unity sure does have a way of doing that, doesn’t he? He wants to insert himself into this group, and thinks insulting them is the way to do it! Once again, from the article, “I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said. “… He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

C’mon, Reverend Dobson! Tell us how you really feel!! Oh, wait - he does! The article continues: “Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama’s argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion’s terms but in arguments accessible to all people.

He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the “lowest common denominator of morality…”

Gee - The Reverend Dobson does not even MENTION how Obama claims to be Pro-Choice, then says about those of us who are, in his most patronizing way possible, do not understand how painful a decision abortion is. Wow, talk about insulting! How dare Obama assert such a demeaning statement! How many women has HE escorted to a family planning center through throngs of Operation Rescue people going after the woman making the hard choice?? Hearing horible things yelled at her, the taunting, the berating? Just wondering. But I digress…

The article concludes with this paragraph: “Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of “American Values House Parties,” where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs.”

Well, that is certanly interesting! What do you think those Conservative Evangelicals will have to say about Obama’s personal theology? The theology of Black Liberation of which we have heard so much of late? How do you think they will respond to the following quote by Professor James Cone from the NY Times article, “A Fiery Theology Under Fire, ” in which he states,
“You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm…”

Oh, yeah - THAT should go over REAL well! While we are in the midst of two wars, based (erroneously in Iraq, not in Afghanistan) on retaliation against religious militants, we have a presidential candidate who for over 20 years has been a member of a church whose services are based on a theology linking Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.

The article continues, “As a young, black and decidedly liberal theologian, James H. Cone saw his faith imperiled.

“Christianity was seen as the white man’s religion,” he said. “I wanted to say: ‘No! The Christian Gospel is not the white man’s religion. It is a religion of liberation, a religion that says God created all people to be free.’ But I realized that for black people to be free, they must first love their blackness.”

Dr. Cone, a founding father of black liberation theology, allowed himself a chuckle. “You might say we took our Christianity from Martin and our emphasis on blackness from Malcolm,” he said.”

Yes, that should really help that discussion along! How in the world could Evangelical Christians have a problem with a candidate who has supported, both by his presence and by his donations, this kind of theology? How long will it take for them to make the leap between Black Liberation Theology and its militancy with fundamentalist Islamic militancy?? I am in no way saying they are the same, mind you, just pointing out the leap many will make between the two, ESPECIALLY when Obama’s relationship with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam is fully explored. It will not take long. Heck, I did it in two sentences! James Cone made the conection to militancy in one in the NY Times article: ““Deep down in all of us is that Malcolm X who cries out in such strong language,” said Dr. Cone, who is a professor of systematic theology at Union Theological Seminary.”

The Ny Times article also makes the connection between religion and militancy: “…For a black audience, its theology spoke to the centrality of the slave and segregation experience, arguing that God had a special place in his heart for the black oppressed. These theologians held that liberation should come on earth rather than in the hereafter, and demanded that black pastors speak as prophetic militants, critiquing the nation’s white-run social structures.”

For Obama to now claim that he did not always agree with his pastor, his mentor, his confidant, rings a bit disingenuous to me. In my experience, if parishoners do not agree with the message of the minister, or the church as a whole, and TUCC certainly seems to have embraced both Black Liberation Theology AND the Nation of Islam, they do not stay. They CERTAINLY do not contribute over $20,000 in one year, either. And if they do not agree with the message of the minister, I can also guarantee, they WILL say something, especially if the relationship is one of being in the Inner Circle, as it appears Obama was. His relationship with Wright was described by HIM as being familial. That he would have sat in the pew for 20 years, given large sums of money, been in the inner circle with the Senior Minister, and disagreed with the message of the minister and church all along seems far-fetched to me. People have left churches for a lot less, I can tell you. But Obama stayed - for years, only leaving when it began to hurt him politically. It wasn’t that his THEOLOGY changed, it was that his political aspirations were facing challenges. Such integrity (that’s sarcasm, by the way).

Once again, Obama is trying to reinvent himself, this time as a more mainstream Christian so that he can engage Evangelicals, and try to pull their votes away from McCain (again, assuming the Superdelegates do not come to their senses and nominate Clinton). Once again, he underestimates the intelligence of voters, as well as their communities, their belief systems, and their moral values.

And I am not just talking about white Evangelicals or even Pentecostals. The article claims that only about 25% of Black pastors adhere to some form of Black Liberation Theology. That leaves 75% who do not. The article continues: “Bishop Harry Jackson, a Pentecostal who presides over a 3,000-member church in suburban Washington, D.C., stands at the far pole from Mr. Wright. He defines himself as ultraconservative on matters of theology and politics and allies himself with conservative Republicans. He preaches a Prosperity Gospel, which holds that God wants black Americans to experience material success without guilt. (SIDE NOTE: evidently, given The Reverend Wright’s retirement home, and Barack Obama’ shome, they, too, ascribe to the theology of Prosperity!! Ahem.)

Most black liberation theologians revile this philosophy. Still Mr. Jackson would not deny the powerful currents of liberation theology; even his congregants put their toes in those waters from time to time.

“Most black church members want to see their ministers involved in defending the race and improving civil rights,” Mr. Jackson said. “The anger and bitterness that bleeds through in Reverend Wright’s comments are something that many blacks can sympathize with, even if they don’t want to hear it in the pulpit.” Black liberation theology may have taken modern flower in the 1960s, but its roots (no less than those of more conservative black theologies) extend deep into America’s historical cellar and its legacy of slavery.”

I should add that there are some positives to Liberation Theology, both black, and other Third World theologies, especially as they operate to comfort the oppressed. That is no small thing, in my opinion. But when they are used to attack others, to denigrate, to demean, to humiliate, well, that to me does not speak for a theology that is essentially based on love, in the words of Jesus (Cor.13:13). And it does not speak well of its adherents or proponents. No, indeed.

It will be interesting to see how Obama spins as the Wheel of Theology spins. Will he continue to distance himself from his church home of 20 years as he attmepts to transform his image to a more mainstream branch of Christianity? Will his connections with Wright, Farrakhan, Meeks, McClurkin, et al, continue to find daylight and expose him for the chameleon he is? Will he (finally) get sued for using someone else’s words? Will he finally be held accountable for his participation in, and support of, a theology that is exclusive and militant, which bludgeons those who have worked hard for the very community now attacking them? One can only hope. One can only pray, that truth will out, and Obama will get his comeuppance. “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” (Amos 5:24) Amen to that…

And then I got this email from Cathy in Michigan:

Larry,

I was a big Hillary supporter, but I just don’t understand why the negative stuff about Obama is coming from Dem Hillary supporters:

#1) Obama is ten times better than McCain

#2 The GOP will and is playing the race card (come on you got to face reality)

#3) I still think Obama and Hillary should run together

So where are you coming from? Do you really want McCain to win?

Cathy B.
Lincoln Park, Michigan

Fair questions Cathy, so here’s my answer.

I prefer that neither win. McCain, by virtue of temperament and his decision to put neo-cons in key foreign policy positions in his campaign, worries me. I cannot support him. But compared to Obama, McCain comes across as King Solomon. McCain at least has a history of legislative accomplishment and has demonstrated he can work with the most progressive of Democrats (McCain/Feingold anyone?).

Obama? He has no significant legislative accomplishments. He has claimed credit for things he did not do, but he has not actually put together the coalitions that he talks about in his stump speeches. The man, attractive and articulate, is an empty suit and a lightweight.

The color of Barack’s skin is irrelevant to the question of his qualification. People should not vote for him or against him because he is black. Doing either is racist. Similarly, you should not vote for or against Hillary because she is a woman. Her sex is equally irrelevant. Character and competence ought to be the issue and on both Obama is found wanting.

Consider how he has distanced himself from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, and the Reverend Michael Pfleger. [PHOTO: Father Pfleger, Rev. Wright, and Barack Obama.] We know now that these gentlemen espouse the most vile racist and homophobic messages.

Barack now claims he knew nothing about the views of these men. That is bullshit! Here is what Barack told Cathleen Falsani about his religious buddies in a 2004 interview:

GG:
Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:
Well, my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

GG:
Those two will keep you on your toes.

OBAMA:
And theyr’e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what’s happening to each of us in ways that are useful.

I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.

And do you remember when Barack had trouble remembering whether he had heard Wright damn America or say any of the other outrageous crap that he spewed? In fact, Wright denounced the United States in 2001 after the 9-11 attacks. Barack now says he doesn’t remember being at Church when Wright spoke those words. Well guess what? That is not what he told Falsani in 2004:

GG:
Do you still attend Trinity?

OBAMA:
Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.

Ever been there? Good service.

I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it’s kind of a meditation on race. There’s a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.

But it is not just on matters of faith that he lies and dissembles. As we have documented in this blog over the last two weeks he has changed his tune about his position on FISA, about public financing for presidential campaigns, and about NAFTA.

If Barack had simply taken time to chair a hearing on NATO’s role in Afghanistan or had traveled to Europe to fulfill his duties as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee with responsibility for NATO then I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to prepare himself. But he did not? Why? His words, not mine–he was too busy running for President.

And when it comes to playing the race card, Barack displays the gift of chutzpah. He recently told that Congressional Black Caucus that Hillary Clinton folks spread the rumor that he was a muslim. According to the Telegraph:

He reminded the congressmen and women that he had held his tongue even when Clinton allies had falsely suggested he was a Muslim and when the candidate herself had said he was not ready to be commander-in-chief.

It was not Hillary or her supporters. If anything, it was Barack himself who opened the door to the questions about Islam. He told Falsani:

As I said, we moved to Indonesia. She remarried an Indonesian who wasn’t particularly, he wasn’t a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you’d hear the prayer call.

We now know this was a flat out lie. He went to a Muslim school where he learned to recite the Muslim call to prayer. Nicholas Kristoff noted back in March of 2007:

Sorry to give offense to Alabama, but the reality is that Obama’s Muslim connections — his Muslim grandfather, his childhood in Indonesia, his middle name (Hussein), and, yes, his ability to recite the call to prayer — will turn off many voters in red states.

At the CIA we called that “no Shit” analysis. It is Obama’s own comments that raised the issue of his status as a Muslim (or not). That was not Hillary or her supporters. It was Barack himself. Like Nick Kristoff, I could care less if Barack is or was a muslim (I take him at his word that he was not affiliated formally with any religion until he signed up on the Jeremiah Wright Hate Train). What bothers me is he refuses to fully admit that Islam was a part of his life when he lived in Indonesia. He learned the call to prayer but nothing else? Yeah, that is change you can believe in.

Let me close with a terrific video, originating from New England Cable News (NECN), featuring Darragh Murphy. It is worth your time.

Once again, I am in the minority. While I stood and still stand as a member of the 18 million strong majority of Hillary Clinton’s supporters, I represent an infinitesimal minority as a member of the less than 10% of African Americans who did not vote for Senator Obama. In this peculiar, yet familiar position, I find myself reflecting on the current state of race relations as it applies to the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.

I have been shocked and saddened by the leeway and passes, concerning transgressions no non-black person would be permitted, that the black community, by and large, has given to Senator Obama, all in the name of “the struggle” (read: getting him elected). He has been allowed to blatantly discriminate against religious and ethnic groups.

Had it been McCain or Hillary doing the same to African Americans, there would have been outrage, and justifiably so. However, too many brushed it aside as “something he has to do to get elected.”

Senator Obama was allowed to defame the black church by conflating it with the racist rants of Rev. Wright in order to save his political career, and the majority of the black community acquiesced, some nodding their heads, others looking the other way.

Senator Obama has been allowed to ignore our community on several occasions.

A few of us got upset and spoke out, but were quickly silenced with threats and intimidation. I’m sure we all remember how Tavis Smiley spoke his mind:

And then, this happened:

Tavis Smiley, the bestselling author of the “Covenant With Black America,” is in a world turned upside down. He said he’s being “hammered,” “barbecued,” and is “catching hell” from black Americans for suggesting that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made a major mistake by declining to speak at the State of the Black Union event that Smiley plans to host next week in New Orleans.

“There’s all this talk of hater, sellout and traitor,” Smiley said to me in a telephone interview. Smiley even mentioned getting death threats, but wouldn’t elaborate. He said his office has been flooded with angry e-mails. “I have family in Indianapolis. They are harassing my momma, harassing my brother. It’s getting to be crazy,” Smiley said.

…

For Smiley, the tumult is a major turnabout. Until now he was a darling commentator in black America. His passion for the people endeared him to many. People listened to his commentaries on the popular Tom Joyner Morning Show, and snapped up so many copies of the “Covenant” that it made the top ten lists of the both the New York Times and the Washington Post. When Smiley talked, black people listened.

“One of my friends said, ‘you are being barbecued in the blogosphere,’” Smiley said. He told Black America Web writer Michael Cottman’s that “I’m catching hell.” In our interview, Smiley said: “This is the first time in my entire career that I have found myself in this kind of relationship with some folk in black America. I now know what it feels like to have the weight of the Internet world bearing down on you. Man, it’s an eye opener when you get caught in the middle of it.”

In the same breath, Tavis Smiley, a man who has endeared himself to our community and worked and spoken out on our behalf, is called a sell out for not unquestioningly supporting Senator Obama, a man we hardly know, who’s “credentials” with the black community pale in comparison, but Obama is praised and passionately protected for essentially selling us all out to get elected. Something isn’t adding up.

Currently, I believe too many of us in the black community are painting Senator Obama as someone and something he is not. Senator Obama is not a champion of the black community. I’m hard pressed to find one African American supporter of Senator Obama that can name one thing he has done for the black community, other than give a speech or two (for his own political gain) and run for president. None of which have anything to do with us as a community.

I’ve heard African Americans say, “Well, he’s trying to achieve Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream.” This, to me, is the ultimate disrespect and perversion of Dr. King’s dream.

Dr. King didn’t march, suffer abuse, get arrested and die so that Barack Obama, or any person of color for that matter, could be president. Dr. King was not so shortsighted. He fought for equality, for equal opportunity, so that all would be judged “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Dr. King fought so that if a woman or man of any color or creed were worthy and deserving of the presidency, then they would not be denied due to ignorance and prejudice.

Today, too many African Americans are simply judging Barack Obama by the color of his skin, and not by the content of his character, much less the depth of his achievements and length of his resumé.

There is no need to pretend that this is not the case for many (not all), for when we are in “friendly” company, the truth comes out. One woman looked me in the eye and said, point blank, “I’m voting for Obama because he is black. Why shouldn’t I? I’ve been voting for white men all my life.”

A friend of mine apparently had an African American male at a restaurant tell her, “A vote for anyone else is a vote for slavery. Obama ‘09 [sic]!” I know black Republicans who vehemently disagree with Obama on all policy issues, but are voting for him and have the audacity to chastise me for not supporting Obama and claim I’m “forgetting the movement.” That many of us feel this way is sad, yet understandable, but not tolerable.

If voting for Senator Obama isn’t about race, why have I been called an “Uncle Tom”? Why have I been called a “race traitor”? Why have I been called a “house n*gger”? Why is the harshest treatment of “dissenters” reserved for those of us of similar pigmentation to Senator Obama? It’s best we are honest with ourselves.

For all of the racism (yes, that is what it is) festering within the black community, the paranoia surrounding non-black racism (termed such because Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, etc. are being rampantly accused of racism as well. “White racism” does not begin to encompass the range of accusations) has reached fever pitch.

Many are and have been arguing that calling Senator Obama inexperienced is racism; recalling the truths that many of us believe that we must and often do have to be twice as qualified, if not more, than white candidates in order to be chosen for the same position. Academic studies bare out the truth of this, and the same truth for women of all colors competing against men.

Too many claim, loudly and directly, that any person, who is not African American who chooses not to support Senator Obama does so primarily due to racism. Yes, there are individuals who will not vote for Senator Obama because he is half African, but there are also people who refused to vote for Senator Clinton because she was female, and there are still some who will refuse to vote for Senator McCain because of his age (African Americans are not the sole targets of oppression). But these people do not make up the majority of voters. The majority of them voted for Senator Clinton, not against Senator Obama and vice versa.

Most importantly, for the overwhelming majority of those who did not vote for Senator Obama in the primary, and for those who will not do so in November, racism was not and will not be a factor.

I have written all of this because I believe we are at an important impasse. The way our community, and the American citizenry at large proceeds from now on will determine the trajectory of race, gender and generational relations for decades to come. I have thought for a long time about how to express an empathy but also a gutteral disagreement with the aforementioned sentiments as they apply to Senator Obama.

During my thoughts, my mind stumbled upon a memory of an episode of one of my favorite political satires, The Boondocks. The particular episode deals chiefly with R. Kelly, the allegations against him, and the reaction of the black community. As R. Kelly has recently been acquitted on all counts of child pornography, this episode holds even more relevance for the current time. Moreover, I find humor is often the best way to deliver the toughest message.

[Disclaimer: The Boondocks is a show aimed at political commentary and social satire of race relations, specifically as they apply to the black community, seen through the eyes of some in the black community. As such, while the following clip contains some offensive language, it should be viewed through the lens of satire and critique. Also, at roughly 2:00 in the video, it seems the original uploader has inserted music that is not original to the episode. Please disregard it.

Lastly, I will not respond to claims of "racism," concerning the video clip, in the comments (as a black woman, frankly, I am tired of them, and am fully capable of recognizing and critiquing racism when I see, exhibit or experience it). If you can't handle political satire, perhaps you should not be on the internet.]

For me, Huey’s speech (the young man with afro), beginning at 2:21, is the part I find most relevant and most in sync with my current viewpoints regarding Senator Obama and how many in the black community view him. Huey’s speech is as follows:

“What the hell is wrong with you people?!? Every famous n*gga that gets arrested is not Nelson Mandela. Yes, the government conspires to put a lot of innocent black men in jail on fallacious charges, but R. Kelly is not one of those men. We all know the n*gga can sing.

But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums? You a fan of R. Kelly? You wanna help R. Kelly? Then get some counseling for R. Kelly! Introduce him to some older women. Hide his camcorder. But don’t pretend like the man is a hero…and stop the damn dancing! Act like you got some G*d damn sense, people! Damn! I’m through playing around here!”

Huey, as our protagonist, speaks truth to power. I believe his general sentiment can be translated to the current situation within the black community regarding Senator Obama and his candidacy.

Every black man that runs for office is not a saint, nor a victim. It is not our responsibility as African Americans to vote for him, protect him from legitimate criticism, or turn a blind eye to his glaring short comings because of a coincidence of pigmentation. Yes, there is racism in our society.

Yes, many African Americans and other ethnic minorities, as well as women, have been qualified for positions, only to be told to work harder as they were passed over for a white, or younger, or male (or all three) lesser experienced individual. Yes, the United States Federal Government, state governments, and local governments, have propagated injustices, and continue to propagate injustices against African Americans.

Yes, many, including Republicans and Democrats have used dirty tricks, back room deals, and racism as a weapon against a plethora of candidates, black, white, female and male, robbing them of their ability to achieve and to serve.

But Senator Barack Obama is not one of those candidates. We all know the man is a decent public speaker. We all know he is the first candidate of color to come this close to attaining the presidency.

“But what happened to standards? What happened to bare minimums?” If you are a supporter of Senator Obama, and want to help him, then instruct him to go back to the Senate for a few years, at least serve his first term, and gain some experience. Introduce him to some non-radical non-domestic terrorist, non-racist and non-anti-semitic preachers, and non-convicted on 16 of 24 counts of corruption friends! Help him form a platform and a record, and teach him not to change his position on an issue every time he goes to a new state or switches from primary to general election mode. But do not pretend like he is above reproach, a saint, or a messiah. And stop covering up for him or threatening and intimidating those who disagree with you. He is a politician!

And please, stop the chanting and fainting. It’s creepy.

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.

Today’s lesson is: How To Counter The Claims By Obama Cultists That You Are A Racist Because You Don’t Support Obama. Listen carefully and learn well. This gentleman speaks the truth wisely. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Just Say No Deal

I have spent the past six months actively supporting Hillary Clinton by setting up a network of bloggers to ensure that Senator Clinton’s positions were understood by the electorate. My family and I campaigned on her behalf in the primaries. I supported Hillary Clinton because of her experience, knowledge of the issues, and her practical approach and commitment to the bread-and-butter issues facing this country.

During the campaign, I have become increasingly alarmed by the refusal of the media to properly scrutinize Senator Obama’s actions and associations. I have also been appalled by the political maneuverings of the DNC to ensure that their chosen candidate was selected—including, just as one example, breaking their own rules to ensure that the two states that supported Hillary were stripped of their delegates even though five states broke the rules.

Lastly, I have been aghast at the vitriol and name-calling being spewed by Obama supporters against anyone who has an honest disagreement with them.

As documented throughout by the “attack timeline” formerly found on the HRC website—the Obama campaign employed a concerted strategy of constantly questioning the likability, honesty, experience, and integrity of Clinton. While the candidate portrayed himself as ‘above it all’—his campaign relentlessly faxed pages and pages of material designed to stoke the fires of false controversies.

I do not believe that Barack Obama would make a good president of the United States. Frankly, I think there is a minimum standard of accomplishment and experience we should expect from a candidate for the toughest job in the world. By any metric Obama falls short. Kirk Watson couldn’t name Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. I can– two bills: to promote democracy in the African Congo and to name a post office. Certainly, Senator Obama’s 130 “present” votes in the Illinois legislature when asked to take a stand on controversial issues do not inspire confidence.

Many of the people that supported Hillary Clinton have similar reservations about Senator Obama’s fitness to lead. Thus, on Saturday, I helped organize an informational meeting and teleconference with John McCain for supporters of Hillary Clinton who were trying to decide whether to support Barack Obama or John McCain.

Less than 48 hours later, I was attacked, called “deeply racist”, a “lunatic”, “rabid” and with “a history of jobs, statements, actions and practice that leave her very vulnerable to accusations that she is a ‘racist’”. One site even claimed: “keeping black people out of the party has been a lifelong ambition of hers.” The basis of the attack was a controversy involving my husband’s ancestor, Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you have probably heard, some descendants of Sally Hemings, a slave in the household of Thomas Jefferson, have claimed that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings had three sons: Thomas Woodson, Madison Hemings, and Eston Hemings. Descendants of Thomas Woodson had their DNA tested 7 times—each time there was no match. Descendants of Madison Hemings declined to be tested. The white descendants of Eston Hemings had their DNA tested and were a match to a Jefferson, but the DNA tests could not determine if the Jefferson genes were from Thomas Jefferson or one of the 27 other Jefferson males that lived in the area at the time and visited frequently. Additionally, since Thomas Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eston’s birth and was suffering from prostate cancer, which often caused impotency, it is less likely that Eston was a son of Thomas Jefferson. A 2001 Scholars Commission of 13 prominent Jefferson historians (including the former chair of Harvard’s Department of Government), examined all the evidence for a year, and issued a 500-page report that concluded that the allegations of a relationship between Hemings and Thomas Jefferson were not true, and that was not enough evidence to determine Eston Hemings’ paternity.

During 2003, a member of the Jefferson family set up a Yahoo chat room for family members and Hemings descendants to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, discussions became strained and many individuals who disagreed that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings were barred from the site. Bloggers from both sides used assumed names to try to get information from the other side. When the moderator discovered me, a Washington Post reporter asked me if I was on the chat room under a pseudonym—and I—foolishly perhaps—answered honestly.

However, it was never a racial issue. Eston Hemings’ descendents (the only Hemings that applied) are, by any calculus, white. No doubt passions at the time were overheated, and honorable people can disagree. Part of the consideration was that as DNA typing becomes more sophisticated, a definitive analysis could prove the issue in the future.

This is the sum and total of the activities for which I have been vilified. I am a private citizen who has never held a position with either the Clinton or McCain campaign.

But, there is a curious double standard at work here.

Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of our party and possible President of the United States participated in a racist church for twenty years. A church whose “Black Liberation Theology” is the apotheosis of hate. In one year alone, Senator Obama contributed $22,000 to support the church. He has allied himself with other racists: namely Rev. James Meeks and Father Pfleger.

The National Review reported that in a single year, Senator Obama appeared on the cover of the church magazine four times. Three of those times, Senator Obama shared the cover with Louis Farrakhan. How is this double standard rational?

I am a mother of two small children living in a diverse community who has seen my life turned upside down by half-truths and vicious attacks. Some have printed my address and phone number. I have been harassed and threatened.

But, as far as I can tell, that has been the Obama campaign’s strategy all along—to isolate, to discredit, to destroy. But, Clinton supporters have seen this game before. You will not frighten us anymore. Even when four of our member networks were disrupted by mysterious viruses—with barely 24-hour notice—we managed to turn out thousands of HRC supporters on a conference call with John McCain. Supporters that will not, under any circumstances vote for a “democratic” party that disenfranchised us—not because we are racists, or ‘closet republicans,’ but because we are Americans.

And that must have you very worried.

============

View the videos of my appearances on television:

“Paula Abeles on the Obama Thugs’ Attacks” - posted the evening of June 20, 2008

“Paula Abeles on Neil Cavuto Today” - posted the morning of June 20, 2008

I guess I should have added “naive” to the list above. I naively thought the USA was better than this when it came to women. I don’t know why I did. Maybe because I worked my BUTT off several decades ago for more rights for women.

But I really should have known… Back then, people made an attempt at inclusive language. Not any more. Now it is “man” this, and “men” that when talking about BOTH men and women.

Maybe it was getting spoiled at my seminary - Union Theological Seminary in NYC - yes, the same one where Jim Cone is a professor of Systematic Theology (and was MY professor, I might add). At Union, ALL discussions, all papers, all chapel services HAD to be in inclusive language. Why? Because language shapes our reality. It does. There is no doubt about it.

But I have noticed over time that our commentators, newscasters, tv shows, movies, etc., have returned to exclusive language almost exclusively. That should have been a BIG ol’ clue for me right there.

Another place where I have seen a PREPONDERANCE of exclusive language, and this has bugged the BEJESUS out of me, is in WOMEN’S SPORTS. Especially after HOW HARD we fought for Title IX, for girls and women to actually have some tangible scholastic support in athletics. I cannot TELL you how many times I have written ESPN or whoever is covering college and national soccer teams when the announcers are saying things like, “She has a MAN on and needs to get the ball away.” Or, if someone is injured and off the field, “They are playing a MAN down now.” There is no MAN anywhere NEAR any of the WOMEN on that field. It is JUST as easy to say “One on” or “Player On!” or whatever.

What this does is translate down to the WOMEN or girls that they are basically substitute men. That they are not quite men. That MEN are the gold standard and the women are just men-wannabes. What the heck kind of message is THIS to pass on to our young people, both men AND women?!? It shapes them - it shape US.

And it is just this kind of mindset that leaves us with the most qualified woman, hell the most qualified CANDIDATE, playing handmaiden to the lesser qualified but MALE candidate because he is male. To see Hillary having to submit to Obama is almost too much to bear. Check that - it IS too much to bear. I cannot watch this new drama unfolding, myself. (Heck, I haven’t even been able to watch her speech from earlier this month.)

And that is why I can only hope that as Obama becomes vetted, as his REAL stance on issues comes out, as his REAL relationship with TUCC comes out, or Rezko, or Ayers, or, oh, you know them all - I’ll spare you, comes out, that the Superdelegates will FINALLY come to their senses and realize there is only ONE Democrat who can take back the White House, and that is the one who created all of the policy ideas herself, who knows the issues facing people, who is CONCERNED with solving the real problems that face us, and who WILL get us out of Iraq without all of the doublespeak and backpedaling on EVERY single position.

Hey, it can happen!! I am CLINGING to that hope - that their eyes will be opened, and they will see; that their ears will be opened and they will hear (to paraphrase Matthew 13:9). I have to cling to that belief, because the alternative is untenable to me. I cannot stand to watch this great woman be subjugated to this man. So, I will bitterly cling to, and hope for, a revelation to the Powers-That-Be to do the right thing, and to right things, in Denver.

I still believe, I still HOPE, that Hillary Can Rise…

……………..

From Rabble Rouser Ruminations.

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:

To be clear: We at No Quarter have no concerns about Barack Obama having had a Muslim background; given the circumstances of his childhood, living with a stepfather in Indonesia who was Muslim as well as having relatives in Africa who are Muslim, it is simply a part of his background, and probably a plus to be exposed to the faith, although he was for the most part rather young to assess it.

Our issue is with Obama’s failure to be frank about his life history and — worst of all — his appearance of running from any past associations with Muslims, as if being evasive would protect him from voter concerns in an age of the Internet and 24/7 news. Instead — by insisting repeatedly that he is solely a “committed Christian” and has “never been a Muslim” — Obama may be insulting Muslims worldwide who are surely puzzled why he hides this past. Further, his obfuscations lose him credibility among voters who seek honesty and forthrightness in their presidential candidates.

Obama seems unable to grasp what most mature people understand: That hiding the simple truth damages one’s reputation far more than the fact that is being hidden.

Today, on his Fox News “Special Report with Brit Hume,” the veteran reporter noted in his daily “Political Grapevine” segment on his weekday program at 6 p.m. ET:

From the Fox News print report:

Throughout his campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has assured his supporters that he is a Christian. He has been battling what his campaign calls an online “smear campaign,” which contends, among other things, that Obama was raised as a Muslim. There is even a statement on his official campaign Web site reading, “Obama has never been a Muslim and is a committed Christian.”

But, Obama’s half-brother is not so sure. Malik Obama tells the Jerusalem Post that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people — despite his Muslim background.

The article was also accompanied by an image of Malik Obama holding a photo of him and Barack Obama in Muslim dress — reportedly when the two first met in 1985.

See? The facts are not particularly shocking or troubling — at least to me.

But it’s Obama’s fear of acknowledging this part of his life story that most troubles me.

What troubles me are his incessant insistence that he is a “committed Christian” — and constant denials of any associations with Muslims — in desperately trying to cover up this part of his past.

Ironically, his frequent statements about his Christian faith are backfiring — thanks to the innumerable airings of the Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger rants.

Now, every single time he mentions he’s a Christian, the very first image that pops into my mind — and surely that of most voters — is Jeremiah Wright’s racist, separationist rants. Or Father Pfleger (who, by the way, is baaaaaack — more about that in an upcoming post).

I doubt Barack Obama will be able to “unring” that bell. Most Americans, once they’ve seen those tapes of the Revs. Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, James Meeks or Father Pfleger, will have those WORDs and SIGHTs indelibly imprinted on their brains as associated with Barack Obama.

Flopping Aces blog allowed us to feature their video of Obama’s “Wise Men.” If you missed it, here it is — it’s very well-done:

- From my post, “Judgment of This Unqualified Candidate.”

“He’s going to have a very hard time running away from who he is.”

Yes, Tom.

We know that.

Would that the DNC got a clue.

There’s still time to nominate Hillary Clinton, a more formidable opponent to John McCain, particularly since she won the battleground states that John McCain’s campaign has now set his sights on.

There’s still time … wake up!

::::::::

This video was posted at NoQuarterUSA’s channel at YouTube on June 15, 2008.