Ironic that on Inauguration Day, when President Barack Obama told Americans it was time to take personal responsibility and “grow up” as a country, some of his supporters behaved like spoiled children in booing George W. Bush.

And, sadly, neither Obama nor any leader in the public spotlight that day seized the moment to admonish the boorish behavior.

It would have been nice had Obama had the presence of mind in his inaugural speech to not only allude to scripture in saying it’s time to put away “childish things” but to also have told the boo-birds that their behavior was inappropriate and the embodiment of those “childish things.”

He might have said: “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me? When you boo the former president, you fail to understand what this solemn event is all about — the peaceful transition of power. This is not a football game. Nor is it a Third World bloodless coup. This is American democracy at work. If you can’t respect that, then leave. Now.”

Like I said, why the hell would Obama start now? He hasn’t bothered to say anything to any one of his minions at any point during the entire primary or election season, so why would he speak out for Mr. Bush?

And here is another little problem I have - him saying Obama should have said, “Isn’t it enough to be just happy for me?” Um, what? Yes, we should all be happy for The Boy Who Would Be Dictator because this has nothing to do with our actual country. Wowie.

Mr. Frederick’s shock continues:

But no one mustered the courage to say that. While I thought Obama’s speech was otherwise thought-provoking and worthy, he missed an opportunity to call out these boors and chastise their behavior. By not doing so, I am afraid that Obama essentially condoned this kind of mob intolerance. There is already a hateful mean streak among some Obamamaniacs. Left unchecked, it can fester into something quite un-American and un-democratic.

In case you missed it, when President George W. Bush was announced to the crowd, some booed loudly, shocking even the commentators on the official Obama network, MSNBC. One section of onlookers sang, “Nah nah nah nah, hey hey hey, goodbye.” And, finally, as Bush left the White House, one deep thinker took the opportunity to give the “one-finger salute,” thus saying more about himself than anything else.

This from a movement that fancies itself all about peace, love and global karma.

Where in the HELL Has this man been? Clearly, he cannot distinguish between the mantras of the Obama Party and the REALITY of the Obama Party. How many, many times have we written about this, the cruel, aggressive, demeaning, sexist, even misogynistic behavior of Obama’s followers, and that is just toward Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!! It would seem Mr. Frederick’s blindfold and earplugs served him well if he was unaware of these, um, “shenanigans.” The “one-finger salute? Like the one Obama gave to Clinton detailed in THIS article?

He continues:

Now look, it would be a mistake to paint all Democrats and Obama supporters with the actions of these few on Inauguration Day. And, according to news reports, some in the crowd tried hard to shush the boo-birds. That is a hopeful sign.

But let’s also not ignore the obvious. There is a growing faction of the American left that seeks revenge more than righteousness.

Intolerant of dissenting views, this faction thinks as comedian Janeane Garofalo does that some members of the opposing political party should be “jailed.” Terrorist acts (such as mailing envelopes of white power to Mormon temples because the gay marriage vote in California went the church’s way) are seen by this faction as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression.

But of course. Target the Mormons, thus the Senate Majority Leader (why does everyone always forget that Harry Reid is a MORMON, and ANTI-Choice? I just don’t get that.) So, yes, Janeane, let us completely deny that even before the election, the NY Times was predicting that it would be OBAMA’S supporters that would vote IN Prop. 8. That, in fact, was the reality. It was the African American community coming out in droves that tipped the scales, as detailed HERE and HERE.

Mr. Frederick does touch on the issue of race, too:

There is also an ugly racial component to it. We first saw it with Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who said, among other things, that white America had deliberately inflicted black Africa with AIDS.

When the Rev. Wright first hit the national stage, we hardly knew what to make of his irrational and separatist statements. Consequently, we pretty much ignored the substance of Wright’s racially divisive rhetoric and focused on it as a day-to-day political story. It made us more comfortable, I think.

But in light of the things we saw at the inauguration, it may be time to revisit the dangers of intolerance and hate — no matter the color of the person who makes them — and nip this ugly mean streak in the bud.

As our president said, it is time to grow up. (Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@reviewjournal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

Well, that is just laughable - to expect the most juvenile, petulant, arrogant, immature, empty-suit to tell his minions to grow up. HAHAHAHAHA!! Yeah, maybe when he does.

Beside that, though, is the convenient amnesia of Mr. Frederick regarding what the Rev. Lowery said at the inauguration (h/t to LisaB), highlighted in Pat Racimora’s article, “A Profound Prayer Until..>Wrong Turn!.” To recap, he said this:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Holy cow. Yeah, I think that qualifies as having a racial component.

But it also begs the question WHY Rev. Wright’s incendiary, separatist comments were not addressed more fully? And why his connection, as well as Louis Farrakhan’s, to Obama was continually glossed over by the majority of those in the MSM? Because they were afraid of being called racists? Or because they knew it would be real trouble for Obama if they actually did their job and exposed the belief system in which Obama was a willing participant? Some of us were paying attention, though. Do a “search at: NoQuarter on Rev. Wright, and you will get page after page after page of articles that at least have some mention of him, if not dealing with him directly (far too many to link to here), beginning with this one in March.

Same goes for the “boorish” behavior of Obama’s supporters. The Palin (and Clinton) t-shirts? The intimidation/bullying at the caucuses? “Iron My Shirt” buffoons? Obama turning away from Clinton without greeting her at the SOTU? Obviously, I could go on and on with examples, all of which have been well documented at NQ and other sites. Which raises this question: where in the hell has this guy been, expecting Obama to change his stripes NOW? Just because it was Bush being booed? Because at no time has Obama acted like a “grown up” when his crowds have gone off on his competition - not once. He has been their role model for boorish behavior from debates to rallies. So for anyone to expect anything different now just because he was sworn in a few times is nothing short of delusional.

So to recap, it is way past time to take off the blindfold and take out the earplugs. The booing? Typical. Comments like Garofalo’s? Typical. Intimidation of dissenters? Typical. (Don’t believe me? Just ask the Justice Department since they are suing the Black Panthers.) Racial division by clergy? Typical.

This is who Obama is. To expect him to challenge behavior in which he himself engages is nuts.

In Obama’s case, it has nothing to do with the color of his skin at all. It is because I think he is horribly inexperienced, a liar, a fraud, pals around with dangerous associates, has an ideology with which I completely disagree (you know, Paternalistic Socialism with a heavy dose of Nation of Islam-like attitude - just ask Rev. Wright), and is a major freakin’ misogynistic homophobe. That pretty much rules him out in my book. But that’s just me.

And apparently, Jonah Goldberg, who also doesn’t appreciate the frequent, no, RAMPANT use of the race card by the Obama Campaign and the DNC, as evidenced by this article, Racy Content
This? Racist! That? Racist!.

Goldberg makes some mighty good points in this article, beginning here:

Transcend means “to move beyond, to surpass.” At least that’s what I always thought. But I’m beginning to wonder whether it means instead: “Much, much more of the same, only this time really stupid.”

Exhibit A: the incessant, relentless, click-your-ruby-red-slippers-and-say-it-until-it-comes-true mantra that Barack Obama will magically cause America to “transcend race.” One hears and reads this everywhere, but less as an argument than as a prayer, an expression of faith, a “from my lips to The One’s ear” sort of thing.

It is, of course, total and complete nonsense. According to L.B.O. (Logic Before Obama), transcending race would involve making race less of an issue. Passengers on Spaceship Obama would see race shrink and then vanish in the rearview mirror.

Instead, Obama has set off a case of full-blown race dementia among precisely the crowd that swears Obama is leading us out of the racial wilderness. Rather than shrink, the tumor of racial paranoia is metastasizing, pressing down on the medulla oblongata or whatever part of the brain that, when poked, causes one to hallucinate, conjure false memories and write astoundingly insipid things. For instance, a writer for Slate sees racism when anyone notes that Barack Obama is — wait for it — skinny. What this portends for Fat Albert is above my pay grade.

OHMYGOSH - how much do you love, “LBO”?? It is SO true, though, isn’t it? Our whole vocabulary has been redifined as a result of Obama:

We need to rewrite those old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, because now virtually any adjective, noun, verb, or adverb aimed at Barack Obama that is not obsequiously sycophantic or wantonly worshipful runs the risk of being decried as racist. Community organizer? Racist! Mentioning his middle name? Racist! Arrogant? Racist! Palling around with a (white) terrorist? Racist! Celebrity? Racist! Cosmopolitan? Racist! This? Racist! That? Racist! The other thing? Oh man, that’s really racist.

The new Schoolhouse Rock cartoon: “Conjunction: a word that connects a racist attack and Barack Obama.”

Oh, perfect - I can just see that new “Conjunction Junction” piece right now. Anyone who disagrees will be yelled at, threatened, and called a racist over and over and over until they acquiesce. Perfect! Or, maybe it will go something more like this:

This week, an editorial writer for the Kansas City Star denounced John McCain and Sarah Palin for suggesting that Obama is a socialist because he wants to “spread the wealth around.” Don’t they understand that “socialist” has always been a racist codeword used by bigots like J. Edgar Hoover to demonize black activists like W.E.B. Du Bois?

A couple problems: First, as best I can remember, Marx, Engels, Lenin, George Bernard Shaw, Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, and Michael Harrington do not usually get a lot of attention during Black History Month. Second, as writer Michael Moynihan recently noted, Du Bois wasn’t merely a socialist, he was a Stalinist! (Du Bois was not entirely unsympathetic to the Nazis, either.) Besides, when did “socialist” stop being an anti-Semitic codeword for Jew? Maybe when the left started going batty over “neocons.” But that’s a story for another day.

Now, just hold the damn phone. How in the HELL can anyone claim that correctly acknowledging one’s political ideology, in this case, socialism, is RACIST??? Well, holy crap - all those times my buddies at Union and I joked about how we just CANNOT play Monopoly (we kept giving each other houses, money, whatever was needed) because we were socialists we were being RACIST!! Wowie zowie. Ahem. Really, this kind of BS has just gone way, way, WAY too far.

As is the idea that Obama will “transcend” anything, except morals, ethics, and common sense, but especially race:

The idea that Obama was ever really about transcending race flies completely in the face of his own writings. The overarching theme of his book Dreams From My Father is the story of (a) man who found it impossible to transcend race and instead explicitly chose to have a racial identity when he didn’t have to (he describes fellow multiracial students he met in college as sellouts). He then joined a black church whose theology is shot-through with black nationalism and whose longtime pastor believes that black brains are different from white brains.

But, yes, I know: The above paragraph reads: “Blah, blah, blah … racist, racism, racey-race-racism.”

Now, let us actually transcend race for a moment. Apparently for Obama, “transcend” isn’t a racial term so much as a euphemism for declaring victory. He says he wants to “turn the page” on the arguments of the ’80s and ’90s, by which he means conservatives should stop clinging to their guns and antiquated Sky God and join his cause.

Well, yes, because who could not be moved by such Rainbow-y, hope-y, change-y, pretty little unicorn-y type of rhetoric like,

“they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Oh, WHERE do I sign up?!?! Obama surely does have his own lexicon:

He told Planned Parenthood he wants to stop “arguing about the same ole stuff,” by which he means he wants people who disagree with his absolute support for government-funded abortion on demand to shut up already.

He doesn’t want to argue about his pals from the Weather Underground who murdered or celebrated the murder of policemen and other Americans, he just wants everyone to agree no one should care.

In short, Obama and his disciples only demand one kind of transcendence from all Americans. We must, as Obama likes to say, unite as one people, one nation, one American family and transcend all of our misgivings about Barack Obama. Then, and only then, will The One fulfill his wife’s pledge and fix our broken souls.

Only a racist could possibly disagree.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Apparently. You know, as a Southerner who grew up with African American classmates and friends, serving African American men in my grandmother’s little country store, doing a BUNCH of anti-racism work as an adult, to then be called a “racist” because I don’t support an unacceptable candidate is just a tad harsh. What I find to be racist are all of the people who support this unqualified candidate ONLY because of his skin-color, who refuse to hold him to the same standards as anyone else, and belittle those who try. THAT, folks, is racism, in my humble opinion, of course. But hey - it’s a whole new dictionary now, right??

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.

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.

“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!”

A group of House Republicans charged today that Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, the Democratic Presidential nominee, had appointed three ”anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian” members to the party’s ruling body and challenged him to dismiss them.Representative Norman F. Lent, Republican of Nassau, said the three members were appointed to the 400-member Democratic National Committee after the party’s convention last July in Atlanta as a gesture of conciliation to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the defeated Presidential contender.Mr. Lent identified the three as the Rev. Willie Barrow, executive director of Mr. Jackson’s Chicago-based Operation PUSH; Robert Farrell, a Los Angeles City Councilman and close Jackson associate, and Ruth Ann Skaff of Houston, whom he said was a spokeswoman for the pro-Palestinian Ad Hoc Committtee on Lebanon.Mr. Lent said that Mrs. Barrow and Mr. Farrell were supporters of the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, a radical Muslim leader who has made anti-Semitic statements. He said Ms. Skaff had led anti-Israel demonstrations. 

Barrow’s fondness for Farrakhan — a man who describes Jews as Satanic — is best summoned up in this quote:

Mrs. Barrow was quoted in a 1985 article in The Washington Post as saying, ”I love my brother, Minister Louis Farrakhan. The devil don’t like it, Chicago don’t like it, the world don’t like it, but we love it.” 

Not only does Barrow love Farrakhan, he returns the love to Barrow:

And Farrakhan has loved Willie Barrow back, affectionately quoting her in his sermons. During the recent NOI scandal Willie Barrow served as the chair of the Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes. When the Nation of Islam Minister of Protocol Claudette Marie Muhammad joined the commission, its Jewish members resigned after Muhammad invited other commissioners to a speech by Farrakhan filled with anti-semitic invective. Barrow, however true to her ties with the Nation of Islam, continued to defend Muhammad and condemn the commissioners who resigned. 

It’s now beyond doubt that Obama has surrounded himself with the leaders of the America-hating neo-left movement, a twisted form of “liberalism” which embraces and promotes anti-white and anti-Semitic rhetoric, fomenting resentment and demanding payback . Is America willing to accept and can it endure the moral relativism which Obama would bring to the White House? What would be the cost? 

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

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

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

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

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

Exhibit One attesting to the Obama/Pfleger closeness:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couple these words with Wright’s own view that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Hitchens asks:

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

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

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

This man’s arrogance is so boundless, he believes that he can get away with anything.

– He grabs his wife’s ass on stage before a TV audience of millions.

– He has invoked hip-hop singer’s Jay-Z “battle” anthem: “Stab the Ladies…Middle Finga To The Law” by giving Hillary Clinton the middle finger (by running his middle digit down his cheeck) and dusting her off his shoulder. Obama is a professed fan of Jay-Z, whose lyrics begin:

If you feelin’ like a pimp nigga, go and brush your shoulders off
Ladies is pimps too, go and brush your shoulders off
Niggaz is crazy baby, don’t forget that boy told you
Get, that, dirt off your shoulder (Read all.)

– He has quoted, numerous times, the words of Malcolm X in Spike Lee’s film (see the “Bamboozled” video below the fold).

As Mike’s America at the Flopping Aces blog asks, depressingly, “And they call Bush a cowboy?” Tom Maguire hits the nail on the head in his post, “The Chicago Way” at his blog Just One Minute:

1. I deplore this exhortation to random gunplay - what sort of a message does this send to America’s youth, too many of whom have grown up in a culture glorifying violence? Is Obama a serious Presidential candidate or yet another rapper with yet another beef?

2. I deplore the imagery of a black man waving a gun to settle a dispute …

If this were a laughing matter, I’d post this image and let you chuckle away:

But the only thing that’s amusing here is that Barack Obama is a joke of a candidate.

We could state the obvious: That this is speech unbecoming a presidential candidate who presumes he is fit to be the leader of the free world.

But it is more serious: Maguire is correct to point out that such language — such thinking (!) — is an abysmal example for children, teenagers, and young adults.

Already, hundreds of thousands of us who support Hillary Clinton or in any other way oppose Barack Obama’s candidacy have been subjected to the most ruthless attacks and unrelenting stalking by Obama’s followers who perpetrate these assaults on us around the clock, 24/7 in an unending effort to intimidate and frighten us.

We know that, if Barack Obama ever called on his followers to cease these Internet and real-life attacks, that those assaults would decline in number and frequency. But Obama never asks his followers to straighten up and to act like responsible adults — just as the innumerable verbal assaults on Hillary Clinton were rarely, if ever, properly and promptly dealt with by Mr. Obama. Even when his longtime intimate associate Father Michael Pfleger attacked Hillary Clinton before Obama’s own congregation at Trinity church in Chicago, Obama failed to apologize to Hillary Clinton or directly rebuke Fr. Pfleger’s nasty, racist remarks. (Obama’s primary action was self-protective, as he sought to distance himself, in a superficial public remark, from Fr. Pfleger — despite the fact that he and Pfleger were on the telephone often as recently as May while Pfleger acted as a go-between for the falling out between Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama.)

But Obama won’t call on his thuggish followers to cease and desist. He approves of the “new McCarthyism” from his followers.

Taking a different tack on this latest, and shocking, remark by Obama: It is disturbing that he has so little control over what he says that he cannot self-edit what he says in public.

We know that Obama is a candidate unusually dependent on a teleprompter in order to speak properly and coherently before an audience.

One of the most recent examples was when the unscripted Obama said that Iran (and other nations) are such tiny countries that they pose no serious threat to the U.S., and then the unscripted Obama, the next day in another speech, charged that Iran is a dangerous threat.

I’m sure that this kind of talk — “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” — is used all the time in Barack’s conversations with his thuggish extremist, radical pals in Chicago.

But it won’t play well in Peoria or Portland (Maine as well as Oregon) or, most certainly, not in Oklahoma City, which was devastated by horrific violence that began, after all, with just talking about guns and bombs.

Military leaders, both past and present, must be shaking their heads, worried to death that this “cowboy” could be the next Commander in Chief.

It’s no wonder that over 38 flag officers rushed to endorse Hillary Clinton because they know that she is not only highly knowledgeable about the military culture — which grasps the gravity of any suggestion or threat of violence — but that she would also be prudent in exercising military might or escalating any crisis situation without the most careful deliberations and consultations with her superb group of military advisers.

From the open letter sent in March 2008 by former flag officers — who were clearly concerned, deeply, about the perils of nominating an unqualified, unknowledgeable candidate:

[...]

It is imperative that our new President knows how and when to use force and diplomacy judiciously, to know how to deploy the olive branch and the arrow. The President needs to be ready to act swiftly and decisively in a crisis. And we think our next President must restore our moral authority and leadership around the world with the courage to meet with our adversaries when appropriate, and the wisdom to pursue diplomacy wisely.

It is especially important to understand the military and diplomatic challenges facing us in Iraq, and to end the Iraq war responsibly and safely. It is also important to rededicate ourselves to winning in Afghanistan, the forgotten front line in our fight against terrorism.

In these critical areas, it is clear to us that Senator Clinton is the candidate best qualified to be our nation’s next Commander-in-Chief.

We believe that she has real understanding of the military through her diligent service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has worked tirelessly to ensure our men and women in uniform are properly trained and equipped to be sent to battle. And she has fought to make certain that they are treated with dignity when they return home. We have personally and closely observed her respect for our armed forces, and she has earned their respect. And ours.

We hope that as a country, we will now turn our attention to the critical issues that will determine the future of our great nation.

General Wesley Clark
General Henry Hugh Shelton
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak, Jr.
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Rear Admiral Roland G. Guilbault
Rear Admiral Stuart F. Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone

Here is the video of Barack Obama acting out the lyrics of Jay-Z — the day after his deplorable failure in the ABC debate (the last one he permitted, so embarrassing was his woeful performance. You’ll see Obama giving Hillary Clinton the finger and then dusting her off his shoulder:

Here is the video of Barack Obama miming the words of Malcolm X:

Last, but not least, is the video of Obama slapping his wife on the ass before he spoke the night of the last primary contests:

That’s a dodge. Character is important, particularly when the resume is thin. As any psychology major will tell you, “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.” So, character, as shorthand for looking at a candidate’s pattern of behavior, is simply due diligence when a list of accomplishments isn’t helpful. Someone can fake a political position, but only someone with a psychopathology can even temporarily fake character.

Read the rest ->

When people perceive someone is hiding aspects of his character, such as past behavior or decision-making processes or long standing habits or relationships, it’s a problem. And the most problematic are those revelations of character that stand in contrast to stated beliefs. So, “family values” Republicans are hurt more by sex scandals, for example, than non “family values” politicians.

Many people feel Barack Obama’s speeches and presentations of himself on the campaign trail differ distinctly from what we see in his past behavior. We don’t see his words as congruent with his activities. Frankly, we think he’s being deceptive in any number of ways and at very fundamental levels.

An interesting article in the Washington Post about the Johnson vetting controversy addresses this as well.

The most dangerous stories for any candidate are those that raise questions about the core of his (or her) campaign narrative. One needs only to look back to the 2004 presidential race for evidence of this trend. John Kerry won the Democratic nomination for a variety of reasons, but the biggest of those was that his military record of service in Vietnam was seen as a shield against Republican attacks on patriotism, national security and foreign policy.

Enter the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their methods, effectively raised questions about the validity of Kerry’s service and, in doing so, sparked broader questions about whether the Massachusetts senator was who he said he was.

For Obama, any questions in voters’ minds about whether he truly is a change agent or is legitimately committed to breaking the alleged stranglehold lobbyists and other power brokers have over the political system is potentially disastrous. Because of the peril involved, it’s not terribly surprising that Obama moved quickly to “fix the glitch” once he realized questions about Johnson weren’t going away.

I would only note that even more “dangerous stories for any candidate are those that raise questions about the core of the” candidate himself. And that’s a problem with Obama. He seems internally incongruent, or, more to the point, his words don’t match up with his actions.

Politicians are, as a group, often less congruent than most people. That’s because they will say whatever the voters want to hear. Believe it or not, we all understand that and, typically, are not surprised when politicians don’t follow through or have fudged about small things. We do get angry and sometimes we’re just resigned. But we understand the bargain when it comes to political promises or positions. However, we’re less forgiving when someone has a “secret identity.” Senator McCain is familiar. He’s cranky; he has a temper; he can swivel on an issue with the best of them. But he is pretty much true to his character. Pretty much what you see is what you get. In terms of who he is anyway. Whether you like that or not is up to you.

Obama is another story. Many talk about his aloofness, his remoteness, his separateness from all the rest of us. This is simply code for: “we don’t know who this guy is.” Doesn’t that really mean “he could be anybody?”

Shelby Steele, in several books about race in America, describes AA “bargainers” and “challengers.” Bargainers are those AAs who interact with the majority culture from a standpoint of “I’ll assume you are not racist if you don’t hold my race against me.” Challengers, on the other hand, approach the majority culture from a standpoint of “you are not off the hook until you prove you are not a racist.”

(This is quite an oversimplification of Steele’s work. To understand, you should really read one of his books, including A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can’t Win).

Within the AA community, Obama presents as a challenger. He goes to a church based on Black Liberation Theology, associates with Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, Father Pfleger and other challengers and writes moving books about his search for racial identity as an AA where he also says:

“Any distinction between good and bad whites held negligible meaning.”

During the campaign however, Obama presents himself as a bargainer - offering himself up as a “post-racial” candidate able to bridge divides and speak to all people. His campaign is based on this premise. With so few years behind him in terms of political service and even fewer in terms of national service, Obama is asking us to vote for him based on our perceptions of his future behavior and ability to bring people together.

Some of us simply don’t buy it. Obama’s church, his long-term relationships with Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Rezko and the very words of his autobiography show many of us that he really is a challenger. And like any good scandal, the problem is not really in being a challenger after all. It is in the cover-up. It is presenting himself as a bargainer when everything in his past shows a different kind of person. That is a fundamental disconnect. People who believe Obama is a bargainer may see his past and feel he has lied about who he really is. People who support Obama as a challenger may feel betrayed by his creation of a bargaining persona.

Or maybe not. Some people will choose to ignore the disconnect and some may choose to take Obama’s changes as necessary to run for president of a multicultural society.
Steele believes Obama will not be elected because, at some point, his mask will be removed and we’ll see who Obama really is. Maybe we’ve already seen it. Folk wisdom, not requiring a college degree, says “when somebody shows you who they really are, believe them.” Some of us believe Obama has shown us who he is. Some people don’t believe their “lyin’ eyes.”

Right now I have 2 working theories: Self-Interest and Weak Executive.

Read the rest ->

Self-Interest

In this theory, I think everyone knows about Rezko and how much damage that means for Obama. While the success of his campaign was something of a surprise, I think the DNC is quite willing to “run with it,” scooping up new money, new voters and the gloss from having a “breakthrough” candidate. They know he is likely to implode but they are willing to ride it out and then profess shock, surprise, and, probably, sadness. Look for the DNC to push a suitable party elder for VP.

In this scenario, I think HRC knows exactly what is going on but opposes the DNC plan for her own reasons. She may not like the idea of waiting for something to simply happen or may think it will come back to haunt her if she benefits under those circumstances. Being a stalwart party member, she may simply not want to nominate someone who is likely to have a real scandal soon.

But why would Obama run for the Presidency if he is likely to be caught up in Rezko or even just grazed by it? He wasn’t going to run this year, and the Chicago machine intended Governor Blagojevich to run. Blagojevich apparently changed his mind, but what made Obama change his? What happens to Blagojevich’s campaign war chest (liberally pumped up by friends of Rezko)? And if Obama gets swept up in any of the Rezko indictments, could he use any left-over campaign funds for his defense? I understand there is some provision for just such a thing in campaign finance law but do not know if it would apply.

Weak Executive

In this scenario, the DNC got exactly the candidate they wanted and probably hope or are fairly sure Rezko will not be an issue. Perhaps the party would like a weak executive so a likely Democratic-led Congress can exert itself. Not really a conspiracy theory, but a political choice in terms of how power is allocated in Washington. After having a Republican unitary executive, Democratic leaders may be trying for a weaker executive, albeit a Democratic one. Of course, they may LIKE the unitary executive, as long as he owes them.

In this sense, HRC would not be a good choice, since she is considered more of a power, and her experience here, in particular, is unattractive to party elders. Since Bill Clinton often did not “play ball” with Democrats (earning him some serious grudges), party elders may feel HRC would do the same. They are probably right in this.

————————————
Here are some basic facts to work with:

1) Rezko and its potentialities are well known by all parties - the DNC, Obama, Clinton and anyone else who can read, since it is public knowledge. Under-reported because of its complexities, this federal investigation lays bare some of the Chicago politics that Obama came up in and benefitted from. It’s not pretty.

Although all details about Rezko are not known, and it’s a VERY tangled web, enough was known early on to indicate Obama at least has some very shady friends and potential terrorist connections at worst. I think all parties took Rezko into account in decision-making, but in what sense?

2) The DNC was trying to push out HRC as soon as possible. Despite all precedent and the close nature of the primary, party elders wanted Hillary to shut down sooner rather than later. Why? Why does this make sense?

3) The DNC was completely intransigent about FL and MI. Why? Rulz notwithstanding, the DNC went out of its way to antagonize the voters in two typically important swing states. Why? Surely something better could have been worked out than the half-assed decision they came to in the RBC. I think the DNC got what it wanted though.

4) Party elders and many superdelegates got on board with Obama earlier rather than later, despite long-standing ties to the Clintons and their history of service to the party. Again, why?

5) Why would a party completely throw under the bus its only successful president, since FDR, in Bill Clinton? How does this make sense?

6) Lastly, Obama has a lot of unusual negatives such as his 20 year association with a church espousing Black Liberation Theology, connections to the Nation of Islam, thin resume, attitudes toward whites as reflected in his autobiography and Michelle’s public comments. Gary Hart was “done in” by a picture, Howard Dean by a scream and George Allen by to “macaca.”

Opportunistic Factors

I do not think several aspects of this race played into the decision-making. This is not to say an opportunistic factor won’t have a serious impact on the outcome. I just don’t think these things were “knowable” beforehand and were not planned for or against.

Misogyny - Although I believe misogyny was present and may have been used as a strategy, I don’t really think it was the reason for any decisions. In other words, I don’t think “woman-hate” is why the DNC pushed HRC out although I do think it was a successful tool.

Pastors - Although explosive, I think the “pastor problems” Obama has had are also simply things that happen in campaigns. I don’t see how it figures into any calculus regarding why Obama was annointed.

Obamessiah - I think, although some people expected Obama to be an attractive candidate, the level of his success and the manner of it is still a surprise. This could not be planned for and might turn out to be a negative.

Split in the Party - I don’t think party elders saw the possibility of the Democratic party splitting along the neo-liberal and New-Deal (thanks, Medusa!) line very likely, if it occurred to them at all. It could now be a real problem.

Race - I doubt party elders expected race to play the kind of role it has so far. However, it should be noted that Obama’s early constituency was largely white, with many AAs warming up to him as the campaign went along. Also, as some have noted, Obama seems to be distancing himself, ever so slowly, from his AA community roots as he looks to gain ever wider support.
—————————————————–

So, what can you add? Do you have information on any of these areas? Is there something missing you can add? What ‘cha got?

The heart of Mr. Obama’s problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.

To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today’s racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.

Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists. Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.

Only by admitting to his own sins can Mr. Obama credibly claim that he has seen the promise of our country, in which Americans of all colors work together. Only then can he convince dubious white voters that he is ready to move beyond racial antagonism and be their president.

If Barack followed this advice he would finally have demonstrated for me that he has the courage and character to be a President. His continued refusal to take on this hard issue serves to remind me he’s not ready to handle other tough issues like Iran or North Korea. What will Barack do?

We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in emails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”

Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.

Huh? Are you kidding me? If it ain’t true say so.

But when a politician tap dances on nuance–Baby it is true. My sources have not backed off. They maintain they have a tape and will drop it on the Dems in the fall. Now if Barack said, “No, and hell no” I would be wondering about my sources. But he punted. He went for the weasel word. The non-denial denial.

It also is curious that the Obama folks put out the word that Michelle didn’t say “WHITEY”. Nope, according to them she said, “WHY DID HE.” Hmmmm. Why would you put that out if the recording of the event did not exist? Then you have the frantic scrubbing of Trinity websites. How about efforts to check the video files of Chicago TV stations? Stymied. The local ABC station says they will only give up a video if there is a subpoena.

So, sure looks to me that there a recording of Michelle’s racist rant exists in the hands of folks working to help elect McCain. Obama is hoping they won’t use it. But if you call what he said a denial then you yourself are in a state of (denial that is).

But what, exactly, is Obama leaving and what does he think he’s leaving?
In his statement about his resignation letter to Trinity, Obama said he and Michelle: “were withdrawing as members of Trinity,” in part because of “a cultural and a stylistic gap.”

A “cultural and stylistic gap?” WTH? Between what and what? Does he mean the gap is between what he believes and what is found in the church or is the gap between what Trinity believes and what the wider US population feels acceptable? What is he leaving?

In the Chicago Tribune, Obama is quoted: “But it’s clear that now that I am a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by any one associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long held views, statements and principles.”

So, clearly, the good Senator is not eager to be tainted by any more pastors or speakers at Trinity. Fair enough. But surely he can’t think that people will believe Trinity has “all-of-a-sudden” developed the belief system and atmosphere receptive to a Father Pfleger and Rev. Wright? Trinity is what it is and anyone attending for 20 years has got to know that. After all, it is easy to see from the video of Father Pfleger that he was well known at the church and appreciated by the congregation. Trinity’s current senior pastor, Otis Moss, was effusive in praising Father Pfleger both before and after his remarks.

And Senator Obama has publicly praised Pastor Moss.

So, if Senator Obama is concerned that people not conflate his views with that of the church he attended and its leadership he has praised for 20 years, then what are his views? What, exactly, is the gap between his church and his views?

Oh, but he said the gap was stylistic and cultural. Does he not agree with the way in which the views at Trinity were expressed on tape? Or was it the language, gestures, or tone he had a problem with? “Stylistic and cultural” does not sound like a problem with the beliefs themselves, merely the manner in which those beliefs were expressed.

Hmmmmm.

And why don’t we know? Well, no reporter bothered to ask at his news conference. Bummer.

So, is the “cultural and stylistic” gap more of a gap between Trinity itself and the wider population? Maybe so. Trinity, Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger have been problems, alienating many people from the Senator. Although most of the discussion has been about white voters not comfortable with what they see from Trinity, it seems logical to suggest other people might just be a wee bit bothered as well. Black Liberation Theology is not a widely held belief, after all.

Now, politicians do this all the time. They find that aspects of their lives are not received well by the voters they are trying to attract and so they adjust by dropping friends, attachments, etc. No news here. But Barack Obama has not been very honest about what he found these problems to be. He has called the problems “cultural and stylistic”, not problems with beliefs unacceptable or offensive to many people.

Powerlineblog makes this point quite nicely:

Obama also vaguely referred to “a cultural and a stylistic gap” as a source of the problem. Perhaps the entire saga is little more than a tribute to the incomprehension of unsophisticated outsiders. Such outsiders lack the tools necessary to understand the reflections of Reverend Wright and his ilk in churches espousing black liberation theology. As in “Cool Hand Luke,” according to Obama, what we have here is failure to communicate. Unfortunately, not a single member of the press sought further elaboration from Obama on that point.

Cool Hand Luke. Heh. Many pundits suggested the same thing when the first Rev. Wright kerfluffle hit. The good reverend was simply an African-American preacher that whites, in particular, could neither understand nor appreciate.

A “failure to communicate.” Nope. Don’t think so. I think most people understood quite well. I don’t think we like what we see. And it’s up to Obama to make any adjustments he sees fit. But I think he’s hedging his bets by calling all this “cultural and stylistic,” whatever that means.

What does he believe? He attended a church for 20 years but tells us now that he is leaving that church because somehow his values and beliefs are different and have been different (all that time? yesterday? a week ago?).

The senator also said:
“My faith is not contingent on the particular church that I belong to. I don’t think I’m going through a religious test.”

So, is it Trinity the senator is rejecting? Or is it Black Liberation Theology? Or is it just that he rejects the views of the wider population to both Trinity and BLT right now?
And who should feel more insulted? The wider population asked to believe Obama doesn’t now and never did hold the views espoused at Trinity? Or should the congregation at Trinity feel more insulted for providing a church home for 20 years, only to now see the undercarriage of the Obama “audacity of hope” bus?

—————————

Linda Chavez has an interesting article covering more ground at Commentary Magazine. She also suggests whites are not necessarily Obama’s problem.

Today’s Guardian (UK) has an article suggesting Obama’s momentum may be slowing.

One of the most interesting articles about the nexus of Obama’s faith and his participation in Chicago politics. An excellent read and WELL WORTH THE TIME.

That aside, Illinois politics has been famous during the last few years for the low quality but quite high quantity of its corruption. The current governor (a friend of Mr. Obama’s) looks likely to be indicted at some point. The last governor went to prison for corruption. Given the high office he holds and the relative speed with which he attained it, Mr. Obama must at least understand how the political machine works, even as he disputes his role in it. But evidence suggests he may be far more involved than that.

Direct reporting from the Chicago Tribune:

But notwithstanding both his church and his “professional contacts,” this is what I’d like to know: How can Mr. Obama be part of two communities like this and be the “everyman” we Americans typically look for in a President? How does he go from church on Sunday hearing that whitey is the root of all evil and then work in a spectacularly corrupt political system during the week and STILL say you are something unique and special?

Also, and probably more important - assuming his faith is as important to him as he says it is, how does he reconcile his likely participation in political corruption? I’ve heard the phrase “by any means necessary” from TUCC and from Elijah Muhammand, Louis Farrakhan and Malcolm X. Is Mr. Obama’s quick rise attributable to application of “by any means necessary?”

If the ends justify the means, what the heck are those “ends” likely to be?

Somehow, all this must make sense to Barack Obama. And I don’t believe these two systems don’t interconnect. I believe that somehow, they do. There must be links between his political life and his church life. That does not necessarily mean the links are bad or even troublesome. But they must exist.

And, even if we knew how these two parts fit, where does Bill Ayers fit?

An interesting piece about Obama’s faith and politics:is here.

WE HAVE A COUNTER-FORCE TO THIS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER!

AND IT IS YOU AND I!

As MacAddict wrote to me today:

I have not seen a strong response to Obama heading to Iowa (see “Obama To Spend Tues. Night in Iowa, Possibly Will Claim Victory“) and I think their needs to be a strong effort to get the narrative out that this is the Obama strategy to “Declare Victory Before it is Too Late.”

When Hillary wins Kentucky by double digits, it will be clear that Hillary has a plurality of the popular vote. Once the Rules committee votes to include FL and MI then she will also be closer in the delegate numbers and it will clear that no one will reach the magic number.

Hillary’s momentum is picking up and Obama wants to take it away before the MSM picks up on the fact that Hillary is the popular vote winner, has won the most key states, and has the best chance to beat McCain.

No one wins until the person reaches the magic number. The voters will determine the winner not the candidates nor the MSM. This strategy should be painted as a loser trying to take his ball and go home when there is still two minutes left in the game - two minutes left in a game where one team is ahead but the other team is catching up fast. No one would accept this strategy or accept this as victory. Even the MSM and maybe even Chris Matthews could understand this. Timmy would even understand that the Red Sox could not declare they won the World Series when they were ahead 3-2. This is the world series and Barrick was ahead 3-1 now it is 3-2 and he wants to declare victory before it is 3-3 ( after Kentucky when it will be clear she has the lead in the popular vote and he maintains a slim lead in the delegate count) and before it becomes 3-4 in favor of Hillary ( after additional wins in the remaining primaries).

Hillary and her campaign need to hammer this “Declare Victory Before it is too late - is the strategy of a loser.” It should not work in politics and would be a disaster as the policy of a sitting President.

Think of all the examples of from history where the US stood up under dire circumstances and went on to Victory -

The Alamo, Pearl Harbor, Bastogne, etc and think of the same thing in politics - “Dewey defeats Truman” (Truman was a fighter and so is Hillary) “Americans love a winner and can not stand a loser.” America also loves the underdog and the fighter. Obama’s strategy is the strategy of a a person who is afraid to lose and afraid to fight. It is the strategy of a loser. Obama is a loser.

My two cents.

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

DO THIS NOW — before it is too late.

And just yesterday it was revealed that the leader of The New Black Panther Party, Malik Shabbaz has endorsed Obama. Shabbaz said a few interesting things. Apparently the Nation of Islam believes that Obama is the chosen one spoken about in their theology. They believe he is the black man that will rule the world and restore Africa and black people to their rightful place as rulers over everyone else. And if that isn’t troubling enough, Shabbaz made it clear that his mentor Farrakhan has not only endorsed Obama, he is backing and supports him “”from a safe distance”.

So why hasn’t the media covered these revelations? What is it about Obama’s past that he finds the need to either hide from or run away from as fast as he can? Could it be his past experiences with Muslim theology? His father was Muslim. And we know that as a young child he was registered as a Muslim and bragged that he was able to speak Indonesian. Then when he matured a little and moved back to the United States his favorite book was The Autobiography of Malcolm X. In Obama’s autobiography, Dreams of My Father, he reminisced fondly about reading the official organ of the Nation of Islam, The Final Call.

I would occasionally pick up the paper [The Final Call] from these unfailingly polite men, in part out of sympathy to their heavy suits in the summer, their thin coats in winter; or sometimes because my attention was caught by the sensational, tabloid-style headlines (CAUCASIAN WOMAN ADMITS: WHITES ARE THE DEVIL). Inside the front cover, one found reprints of the minister’s [Farrakhan’s] speeches, as well as stories that could have been picked straight off the AP news wire were it not for certain editorial embellishments (”Jewish Senator Metzenbaum announced today…”).

“Dreams From My Father,” page 201

So we know that he is at least VERY familiar with the religion of Louis Farrakhan, long time friend of Obama spiritual mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And both of these larger than life religious leaders have nothing but contempt and hatred for white people. And very probably Obama shares some of that belief, belonging to a supposedly Christian Church that believes above all else in the supremacy of Black Liberation Theology.

Perhaps that is why Obama now claims to the people in Kentucky that he is an active member in the Trinity Unity Church of Christ. Because if he can hoodwink the good people of Kentucky into believing that he is one of them he believes he can turn things around. But I wonder how many of the average Kentuckians accept that the Black Value System and Black Liberation Theology are the same things they learn and sing about on Sunday mornings?

Was Jesus really Black?

Nonetheless, this is Obama’s new strategy.

Obama Campaign Responds to Cross Flyers

“These fliers are part of the Obama campaign’s sincere effort to communicate the values of Senator Obama’s own Christian faith and the hope that people of all faiths and moral backgrounds will come together to address the needs of the ‘least of these’ in our nation and in our world. We’re using them (the fliers) primarily at American Values forums and other campaign events. We are very careful to not campaign within houses of worship and respect both the philosophical boundaries between the church and the campaign, and the very real Internal Revenue Service restrictions related to campaigns and houses of worship.”

So apparently Obama has decided that the bitter people clinging to guns and religion isn’t exactly the most appropriate campaign slogan. Obama is probably following an Axelrod maxim: When in doubt lie. So Barack now LOVES people that go to church. He respects them so much he is one of them now. He is an active member in church except for when anything controversial or insulting to ordinary Americans is going on. Then he is always somewhere else. Nothing like a cross in the background to add a little legitimacy to one’s credentials. Even if the real credentials are membership in a radical Afrocentric church with strong ties to The Nation of Islam.

I think it is about time that the press did it’s job and started asking Obama some legitimate questions . So that we can ALL put this Muslim thing behind us.

Here are a few sample questions to help them get started.

1) Has Barack Obama ever met Louis Farrakhan? If so, what did they talk about.

2) Does he admire Farrakhan like his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright does?

3) Does Obama have members of the Nation of Islam employed on his Campaign or Senate staffs?

4) And finally, does Barack Obama agree with this characterization of Louis Farrakhan?

Transcript: Rev. Wright at the National Press Club

Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he didn’t make me this color.

Perhaps the good people of the Kentucky press will ask Barack Obama these questions. After all, they deserve to know whether Obama is serious about his religion. Or is he just using the thought of it to hoodwink the folks of Kentucky into believing that he is one of them?

To this day, Barack Obama continues to insist he was shocked and surprised to discover that Reverend Jeremiah Wright had bizarre racist views.

Now Tom Blumer has discovered images of Wright’s radical newsmagazine Trumpet—and look who was featured on the cover of that magazine at least three times: BizzyBlog - Attention Stanley Kurtz, Re Obama, Wright, Trumpet: I’ve Got You Covered.

Here’s one of the images, featuring pictures of Barack Obama, Rev. Wright — and Louis Farrakhan. Isn’t that cozy?

And if you think Barack Obama didn’t know he was featured on this cover, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. — Via LGF blog

BELOW: THE NAMES OF ALL in that montage:

LGF readers have identified several of the other people on this cover:

Adam Clayton Powell — 1st row, 1st from left
Dick Gregory — 1st row, 2nd from left
Shirley Chisholm — 1st row, 4th from left
O. J. Simpson attorney Johnny Cochran — 1st row, 5th from left
Rosa Parks — 1st row, 6th from left
Rapper “Common” — 2nd row, 1st from left
Is that Robert Mugabe? 2nd row, 2nd from left
Luther Vandross — 4th row, 1st from left
Ozzie Davis — 4th row, 2nd from left
Lou Rawls — 4th row, 3rd from left
Nation of Islam founder Elijah Muhammad — 4th row, 5th from left

Notice who’s missing? Martin Luther King, Jr.

Readers, who else?

NOW, more work must be done. We have that audio from last night — about which we are writing much more (and should have for you later today).

With this above in mind, listen again to this audio:

“Obama, The Fulfillment of Black Liberation”

Not my words or title. Those are the words of Malik Shabazz, head of the New Black Panther Party. Barack’s election will be the fulfillment of Nation of Islam theology. “As it was in the begining so it will be in the end.” So when a black man becomes President it is the sign that Africa will rise. Don’t take my word, hear the words for yourself.

malikzulushabazesq-2.mp3

LISTEN ESPECIALLY FROM 7:45 to end. To his description of the “Nation of Islam Theology.” THEY PLAN TO RULE ALL — and Obama’s faith and his spiritual advisers believe he is the new leader they have been expecting! …

[...]

Barack, at least while he was living in Indonesia, was raised as a muslim. But he left Islam behind. He was at best an agnostic during his teenage and young adult years. It was only after Harvard that he joined the church of Reverend Wright. But Barack did not join a Christian Church. He joined a church founded on the principle of black liberation. A theology that is the anti-thesis of mainstream Christianity. He was not taught, “in Christ there is no east or west, in Him no north or south.” To the contrary, he was taught and believed that there is a north/south split–a division between the white haves and the black have nots.

There is no denying Barack Obama is eager to put distance between himself and the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Malik Shabazz. But those gentlemen now know that they must hide their true feelings and understandings. They know that most Americans would not support the Barack Obama they know. But their rhetoric goes beyond seeking justice and equal rights for all black Americans. They embrace a theology that puts blacks above whites.

This is the disaster of Barack. Instead of transcending race, he has embraced and lived in the heart of a radical theology that preaches racial division and black dominance. I’ll stick with Martin Luther King. I want to be judged by the content of my character, not the color of my skin. Malik Shabazz certainly does not believe that. ..

ALSO in “Obama, The Fulfillment of Black Liberation” you will find links to previous stories we have done on the New Black Panther Party.

The filmmaker “hinted at a political conspiracy behind Wright’s recent, contentious attempts to justify his remarks.” Lee said, “It looks like he’s being paid to keep talking.”

“Jeremiah Wight needs to be quiet,” Lee said yesterday. “If he loves Obama he needs to shut up right now. It makes me question his motives for talking. I’m starting to wonder whether somebody has been contributing to the building funds of his church. Seriously.”

Of Wright’s sermon before a Dallas church on Sunday morning, before the evening Detroit NAACP dinner — in which Wright described his “public crucifixion” — the church’s minister told reporters that his congregants were thrilled to hear Wright again and enthusiastically supported his stands. So much for Spike’s conspiracy theory, although such “imaginative,” rationalizing explanations are common among Obamabots, and we do find them amusing.

Spike Lee is correct, however, that Wright should keep quiet (although we all know that Wright is so angry with Obama, he’s ready to do him in). Last night, Fox News anchor Brit Hume correctly noted that some truly shocking elements of the NAACP speech — including that black children’s brains work differently from white children’s brains, and that white college marching bands use “excellent European precision” — were overshadowed by the reporting of Wright’s Monday National Press Club Q&A. Therefore, Hume’s pundit panel discussed some of Wright’s Sunday NAACP speech — which, astonishingly, CNN “pundit” Roland Martin gave a “B” grade:

_______________________

Of note: We posted a four-part video of Wright’s NAACP speech in “Rev. Jeremiah Wright on PR Tour to Fight ‘Public Crucifixion’,” and CNN has a full transcript.

_______________________

A number of shocked experts have weighed in on the destructive, racist nonsense about left brain/right brain, including in this op-ed in the WSJ by Heather Mac Donald, a contributing editor of City Journal and the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute:

At the NAACP meeting, Mr. Wright proudly propounded the racist contention that blacks have inherently different “learning styles,” … [...]

How one learns from a teacher as “subject” by climbing on her, as opposed to learning from her as “object” — by listening to her words — is a mystery.

[O]ne thing is clear: Embracing the notion that blacks shouldn’t be expected to listen attentively to instruction is guaranteed to perpetuate into eternity the huge learning gap between blacks on the one hand, and whites and Asians on the other.

I can’t begin to describe how shocked I am by Wright’s racist differentiation between black and white children.

ALSO: It is clear, from the transcript of the NAACP speech, that these are theories that Wright has studied extensively, for years and years, and has SURELY spoken about before, probably countless times in his own sermons at Trinity — including sermons that both Barack and Michelle Obama had to have heard — and endorsed by their continuing presence, not to mention their many large donations to Wright’s church, the last in the amount of $26,000+ in 2007.

This portion of the Wall Street Journal article, “The Wright Side of the Brain” gets into Rev. Wright’s rationalizations for self-destructive behavior, crime, and the incarceration of blacks:

Approving of self-destructive behavior in school is just one part of the vast academic project to justify black underclass dysfunction. The academy has also singled out crime as authentically black, another poisonous idea that Mr. Wright appears to have embraced. In his NAACP speech, he mocked the tendency of “those of us who never got caught” to treat “those of us who are incarcerated” with disrespect. In other words, we all commit crime, but only some of us get nabbed for it.

This leveling argument recalls the bizarre doctrines of University of Pennsylvania law professor Regina Austin. In a widely reprinted California Law Review article from 1992, Ms. Austin asserted that the black community should embrace the criminals in its midst as a form of resistance to white oppression. People of color should view “hustling” as a “good middle ground between straightness and more extreme forms of lawbreaking.” Examples of hustling include “clerks in stores [who] cut their friends a break on merchandise, and pilfering employees [who] spread their contraband around the neighborhood.” It never occurs to Ms. Austin that these black thieves may have black employers who suffer the effects of crime — as do the larger neighborhoods of which they form the essential fabric. Officially incorporating crime into the black identity, as Ms. Austin and Mr. Wright do, is a pathetic admission of defeat and marginalization.

it was a shock, to me, to learn from Ms. Mac Donald that these nonsensical, racist, and divisive theories actually penetrate the mainstream, even the pages of the New York Times:

To understand how such ideas become mainstream, one need only read the front page of yesterday’s New York Times. There, television critic Alessandra Stanley thrills to the authentic voice of black America: Mr. Wright “went deep into context—a rich, stem-winding brew of black history, Scripture, hallelujahs and hermeneutics,” Ms. Stanley effuses. “Mr. Wright, Senator Barack Obama’s former pastor, was cocky, defiant, declamatory, inflammatory and mischievous.”

One might think that Mr. Wright’s promotion of the idea that black kids can’t sit still in class would raise some worries, even in a television critic. Surely Ms. Stanley would expect her own children to listen to their teachers. But the white elite’s desire to avoid charges of racism cancels out all reasonable reactions to dangerous nonsense when such nonsense comes out of black mouths. The coverage of Mr. Wright’s speeches beyond the Times has been just as silent about their crackpot Afrocentric pedagogy, meekly following the agenda that Mr. Wright set by asking instead whether the black church, and not Mr. Wright, was under attack.

Mr. Wright’s speeches have shown how quickly academic insanity becomes incorporated into practice. And now we may be on the verge of seeing such madness spread into the White House. The mainstream media have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into questioning Mr. Obama’s affiliation with Mr. Wright. By now, Mr. Wright’s 9/11 and AIDS diatribes are well-worn — and Mr. Obama’s repudiation of them a no-brainer. It is imperative that someone ask Mr. Obama whether he, too, believes that the way to “fix the schools” is through Afrocentric curricula and double standards in student discipline, and whether he, too, believes that blacks only think with the “right side” of their brains. …

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

Op-ed contributor Roland Nethaway wrote in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Wright’s point that the races are different, not deficient, brings up discredited theories of genetic differences among different races.

The American Anthropological Association declared years ago that all human beings are members of the same species, Homo sapiens, and that differentiating species into biologically defined “races” is a meaningless and unscientific way to explain differences and traits.

Nicholas Stojakovich wrote for Op-Ed News that “Rev. Wright’s remarks to NAACP on closer examination further polarize discussions of racism.”

Countless other experts have objected strenuously to Wright’s wild theories in his NAACP speech.

The core problem for us — as voters — is that Barack Obama, as well as his wife Michelle Obama, sat in that church for 20 years and listened to that gibberish and never saw fit to walk out.

I am left to conclude that — by their presence, their marriage by Wright, their children’s baptisms by Wright, the blessing of their $1.6M mansion by Wright, and their large financial gifts to Wright and his church — that the Obamas agreed with their pastor’s divisive, racist theories.

I am also left with the realization that Mr. Obama’s supporters have ready excuses for Obama’s active participation in such a racist, divisive culture.

Charles Krauthammer takes to task the “liberals” who’ve bought the various versions of Obama’s statements on Rev. Wright, and who make excuses for him:

On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright’s outrages. But hadn’t Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America’s history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama’s own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright’s racist rants.

Obama’s turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites– one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia — now stands discredited by Obama’s own admission of surprise. But Obama’s liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation.

Obama’s newest attempt to save himself after Wright’s latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed “race-baiting” (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

“On what grounds?,” asks Krauthammer, echoing the common-sense reaction of most Americans.

This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a “new politics,” rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It’s hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be “contextualized” as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

There’s that word “expediency” again. And the American people get that too.