Obama’s Grandmother A “Typical” White Person?

It seems that Senator Obama believes in the “typical white person”, one that harbors deep seated racial beliefs.  Such typical white persons will see a black person and believe the worst, apparently including Obama’s grandmother.  Where do you suppose Senator Obama formed this opinion, that there are “typical” white people, from his grandmother?  Most likely he formed this opinion, not from someone who gave him the kind of unconditional love reserved for one’s children, but from his minister of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.  When Political Night Train says we must understand the basis of Obama’s core beliefs and values, this is what we are talking about.  We know of no one who would characterize their grandmother, really, in his case, his mother, the way Obama has characterized his grandmother.  If he will characterize his own grandmother as a “typical white person” how does he characterize other white people.  Did he engage in racist dialogues in a back room with Jeremiah Wright at Trinity Church?  Are those his values? 

Sen. Barack Obama called into sports radio 610 WIP this morning, charming the usually rambuctious morning talk show hosts and winning their endorsements.  “The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. But she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know. . .there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way.

President Obama’s Neoliberal Theocracy – A Must Read!!

Political Night Train believes gaining insight into Senator Obama’s values and beliefs is essential to the 2008 election.  Lee Cary’s article below provides what is probably the most insightful article to date on how Obama would govern, if elected.  This is also the basis for the theology of many black churches.  If Obama has done nothing else related to religion, he has given white American’s a peek inside black churches.  Most white Americans view the black church based on those scenes of James Brown and the Triple Rock in the movie “Blues Brothers”.

March 16, 2008

A President Obama’s Neoliberal Theocracy

By Lee CaryBarack Obama’s first vocational choice was to help people in a poor African-American community. Later, he joined a church founded on black liberation theology. This combination could result in an Obama presidency that embodies something new in American history — a Neoliberal Theocracy.  When we in the West hear the word theocracy, we think of mullahs, fatwas, and human pronouncements issued with the presumptuous authority of divine edicts.  But not all theocracies are so dictatorially dogmatic. They range from the theocratic-lite nature of the United Kingdom’s monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, to the industrial-strength theocracy of Iran where the two top offices, Supreme Leader and head of the Guardian Council, are reserved for Shiite clergy. A new, softer-and-gentler American theocracy may be in our future.   What does “Neoliberal Theocracy” mean? In a Neoliberal Theocracy the principles of political liberalism that guide decisions of statecraft are aligned with beliefs thought to constitute a moral theology. In other words, the federal government, particularly the Executive Branch, acts in accordance with a defined, theological belief system. Neoliberal is to liberal as neoconservative is to conservative.  It represents the evolution of thinking that occurs when a stable ideological platform (contemporary political liberalism) is applied to new circumstances (Barack Obama’s deeply held theological belief system).  The social gospel of an Obama presidency could be traced back to the race-based class dialectic of the black liberation theology movement. That movement emerged as the theological wing of the broader Black Power movement of the late 1960’s – early 1970’s. Among a constellation of groups and personalities representing Black Power were: the 1968 Olympic Black Power salute; the Black Panthers; Malcolm X; Bobby Seale; the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (“snick”), etc.  Far and away the most important expression of Black Power was Dr. Martin Luther King’s historic leadership in the Civil Rights Movement. Black liberation theology forms the core identity of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ (UCC) – Obama’s home church for two decades.  Today, that congregation espouses a Black Value System.  It reflects the movement’s class dialectic that remains unabashedly race-based. The black values concept was first introduced by one of the founders of the black liberation theology movement, Dr. James H. Cone, in Black Theology & Black Power (© 1969, Harper & Row, 1969, p.127).  “To carve out a Black Theology based on black oppression will of necessity mean the creation of new values independent of and alien to the values of white society…They will be alien because white American ‘Christian’ values are based on racism.” While the media didn’t hesitate to probe the religious beliefs of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, reporters have been reluctant, until recently, to inquire into Obama’s religious principles. Perhaps political correctness has made them hyper-sensitive to giving the appearance of delving into racial issues. Their hesitancy persists, even though Obama has used biblical literary devices in his speeches.  He has copied several of King’s speech patterns and oratorical motifs.  And, he juxtaposes his interpretation of Christianity to those of the religious right who, he claims, have “hijacked” the faith.  It’s as though he has invited religion questions from a media too timid to ask. When addressing a faith-based audience, Obama, quoting largely from his book The Audacity of Hope (p.202), lent an existential spiritual tone to his campaign.   “They [Americans] want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives.  They’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them – that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness.”    Message: Obama, the helper, cares for those who hurt. In that same speech, quoting again from of his book (p. 207), Obama said, “I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change…Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.”   Message: The black church truly understands the social gospel. The channel of Christianity that Obama entered at Trinity UCC gave a theological motive to his preexistent passion to be a helper. There he found a social gospel that, today, undergirds his advocacy for an activist federal government more aggressively involved in social programs, both foreign and domestic.    How would this represent a theocracy of any kind? In this way: His presidential social activism would be based on an economic-based class dialectic that is theologically grounded. In language conveying near messianic overtones, the authors of his primary campaign document, The Blueprint For Change, wrote, He will help the world’s weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty…”   How might a Neoliberal Theocracy influence U.S. foreign relations?   Tyrants test adversaries they perceive as weak. Khrushchev interpreted Kennedy’s failure to provide American air assets at the Bay of Pigs as weakness, and tested him with missiles in Cuba. The November 26, 1979 cover of TIME magazine displayed a small photo of an unsmiling Jimmy Carter against the full page backdrop of a scowling Ayatollah Khomeini. The caption read: THE TEST OF WILLS.  Khomeini and Ronald Reagan won that test.  Our adversaries would test a President Obama if they perceived him as weak.  How? Imagine these ways: 

  • A company-sized, elite unit of North Korean commandos infiltrates across the 38th parallel, decimates a platoon-sized American unit, then hurries back across the border, taking their own casualties and a few captured U.S. soldiers with them.  Democrats in Congress ask: Why are we still in Korea anyway?  The U.S. protests the incursion to the U.N. Security Council. Then, as a condition of our gradual withdrawal from the Korean peninsula, the N. Koreans blandly apologize and blame the incident on a maverick military commander. Tensions between the two Koreas are eased in favor of N. Korean dominance as a formal end to the Korean War is negotiated.  
  • Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez denies any involvement when several hundred lightly-armed students, shouting anti-American slogans, spontaneously invade the U.S. Embassy in Caracas and hold the occupants captive.  Obama and Chavez meet face-to-face in Havana to ease tensions.  Subsequent discussions designed to resolve the crisis are assigned to a three-party Crisis Resolution Commission that includes the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC), since they claim involvement in the embassy take-over. Eventually, the future of the Organization of American States is called into question as Nicaragua, Ecuador, and a reluctant Bolivia begin talks to form a new regional alliance.
  • Late one morning, several of the new U.S. Consulates that the Obama Administration had recently opened in Africa, fulfilling a specific campaign pledge, are targets of suspected Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah terrorists, leaving hundreds dead.  A few African nations immediately ask the U.S. to downscale its diplomatic presence in order to lessen the danger to their citizens.  Kenya demands an increase in American aid to better fend off the threat from Islamic insurgents. 

 If you discount these as fanciful and impossible, remember: The last president to flirt with conducting foreign policy from a theological perspective was Jimmy Carter.   Here’s the hub of matter.  In his speech to the Democrat convention in 2004, then Candidate for the U.S. Senate Barack Obama said, “It is that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keep, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work.” That’s not so. While that may express Obama’s theological worldview, and is an ageless, altruistic principle behind countless good works, it is not what makes this country work.  What makes this country work is the fundamental belief that we are born with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The two beliefs – keepers of each other and inalienable rights – live independent lives.  And that’s why we should be very wary of a Neoliberal Theocracy, or any theocracy for that matter.  

What Does Barack Obama Believe? Can Obama Be Trusted?

Political Night Train is posting the following article in it’s entirity, because of the importance of the subject, namely, What Does Senator Obama Believe?  And When Did He Start Believing It?

CRC Open Sources

W. Thomas Smith, Jr., Director, Counterterrorism Research Center

 In this week’s CRC Open Sources we look at – among other issues – the inflammatory and potentially dangerous anti-Americanism exhibited by Barack Obama’s long-time pastor and staunch supporter, Jeremiah Wright.  Some of you might wonder why in “Open Sources” we are addressing what could be deemed political or ideological concerns. But as you will see in the ABC News video, Wright’s public comments – not unlike that spewed by the most radical Islamic fundamentalists – is the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that could lead to far darker actions on the part of followers. Don’t take our word for it. Read and watch.
According to ABC News (watch video):

“Sen. Barack Obama’s pastor says blacks should not sing ‘God Bless America’ but ‘God damn America.’ … Rev. Wright, who declined to be interviewed by ABC News, is considered one of the country’s 10 most influential black pastors, according to members of the Obama campaign. Obama has praised at least one aspect of Rev. Wright’s approach, referring to his ‘social gospel’ and his focus on Africa, ‘and I agree with him on that.’”


Obama’s pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Wright has asserted that the United States brought on the attacks of 9/11 because of “its own terrorism.”

Obama’s relationship with Wright is extremely close. Wright married Obama and his wife. He baptized their children. Obama has paid money to the church. Obama contends his church is not controversial. Obama credits Wright with the title of his book, “The Audacity of Hope.” And the two are close friends.

Wright said:


“Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a [n-word].

“Hillary is married to Bill. And Bill has been good to us. No, he ain’t. Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.

“The government gives him the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no. Not ‘God Bless America.’ God damn America. That’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating us citizens as less than human.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed in Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon. And we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans. And now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now been brought right back into our own front yard.”


To be fair, Obama has purportedly “denounced” some – though not all – of Wright’s inflammatory comments (Politically, he had no choice, and he did so only because he was backed into a corner about Wright). But Obama doesn’t believe his church is controversial, and the questions remain: why would a presidential contender stand – and carry on a 20-year relationship – with anyone as provocative, racist, and dangerous as Wright? And why would the American people and the mainstream media continue to give that contender a free pass?

Keep in mind, radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan also has announced his support of Obama. Again, why?

UPDATE: Late Friday, Barack Obama published a piece at the Huffington Post and on his website in which he said:  

“The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy  were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign.”
That means:
a) Obama is not telling the truth.
b) Obama is telling the truth, which begs the question: Do the American people want a president and a wartime commander-in-chief (responsible for all manner of strategic intelligence) who has exhibited as much stark cluelessness about anything as he obviously has regarding his pastor (and close family friend) and the church he was a member of – and donating money to – for 20 years?

Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright – Roots In Black Panthers??

As Mark Stricherz points out, Jeremiah Wright’s sermons may have more to do with how his values and beliefs were shaped by the likes of Eldridge Cleaver and Stokley Carmichael than by his theological beliefs.

Seeking the roots of Wright’s audacityPosted by Mark StricherzMr. Wright, 66, who last month fulfilled longstanding plans to retire, is a beloved figure in African-American Christian circles and a frequent guest in pulpits around the country. Since he arrived at Trinity in 1972, he has built a 6,000-member congregation through his blunt, charismatic preaching, which melds detailed scriptural analysis, black power, Afrocentrism and an emphasis on social justice; Mr. Obama praised the last quality in Friday’s statement.His most powerful influence, said several ministers and scholars who have followed his career, is black liberation theology, which interprets the Bible as a guide to combating oppression of African-Americans. Granted, the two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Every theology is rooted in some historical era. Yet readers of the two stories are confused. Does Wright’s theology owe more to “Soul on Ice” or “A Black Theology of Liberation.” (To her credit, Kantor quoted James Cone, the author of the latter book.)If the public were better informed about this question, they would know more about Obama and Wright.


WHAT Does Barack Obama Really Believe?

 Ron Kessler, writing in NewsMax poses the following questions about Sen. Obama’s values and beliefs:

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright’s church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright’s perspective, Michelle Obama’s comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense. Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

Why Hillary Wants To Be President

The single biggest problem Hillary Clinton has, aside from Bill and Hillary herself, is her desire to become the first woman President.  In her campaigning, Hillary presents herself as the first woman President, aka, Co-President with Bill.  And now she wants to be, you guessed it, the first woman President.  Contrast this to Obama who is campaigning not as the first black President, but just a Senator who wants to get elected.  Some say this country is not ready to elect either a woman or a black to the highest office.  Political Night Train says it is not an issue of race or gender, but an issue of policies and values.  Voters have shown time and again that they will vote for a woman or a black, if that person first runs on their policies and values.  Voters largely want to ignore the race and gender issue, if the candidates will let them.  So, as long as Hillary continues to run as a woman who wants to become President, she will loose a large segment of the voters, and she will never understand why.  This in light of the fact that there is very little difference between the political policies of either Hillary or Obama.

Hillary’s Communitarian Beliefs Revealed

Political Night Train believes every voter should know the core values and beliefs of the candidates.  Here is what we believe is the basis for Hillary’s.

 HATTIESBURG, Miss. (AP) – Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to backpedal Friday from comments she made in October suggesting Mississippi was a backward place for women’s progress. Speaking to radio station WJZD-FM in Gulfport, Miss., the former first lady said the comments she made about the state in the run up to the Iowa caucuses “were not exactly what I said,” even though they came directly from an interview she gave to the Des Moines Register in October. Clinton was on a campaign swing through Mississippi before Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary. The newspaper quoted the New York senator discussing Iowa and Mississippi being the only states that have never elected a woman governor or sent a woman to Congress. “How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That’s not what I see. That’s not the quality. That’s not the communitarianism; that’s not the openness I see in Iowa,” Hillary Clinton told the newspaper then—a remark that prompted immediate criticism from Mississippi Republicans.

Hillary Clinton has used the somewhat obscure term “communitarianism” on occasion.  An example is cited below, from her reference to the lack progress in Iowa and Mississippi on women’s issues.  For those of you who are, or are thinking of voting for Hillary should know more about the philosophy of communitarianism and how it fits into Hillary’s view of the world, your community and how it would influence her policies and how she would administer the government.


In it’s simplest form, communitarianism places the interests of the community above the interests of the individual.  In this form, communitarian philosophy, if it truly exists, is more closely aligned with many Asian philosophies than Western.  When Hillary argues, “It Takes A Village”, she is espousing a communitarian philosophy and is exposing the most inner of her core beliefs and values.  If Hillary becomes President, how will these core communitarian values and beliefs shape her administration, her legislative agenda, and who she is likely to pick as Cabinet members?  Hillary is most often described as a liberal, but how do liberal values and beliefs conflict with communitarian values and beliefs?

The following is from the Institute for Communitarian Studies at George Washington University:The values that define the American community include the belief that the society should provide its citizens with equality of opportunity, material well being, and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment, and that it should operate on the principles of fairness, justice and compassion.Communitarianism springs from the recognition that the human being is by nature a social animal as well as an individual with a desire for autonomy. Communitarians recognize that a healthy society must have a correct balance between individual autonomy and social cohesion. Much recent thinking has focused on an assumed conflict between the rights of the individual and the responsibilities of the government. When you put “community” back into the equation, you find that the apparent conflict between the individual and the government can be resolved by public policies that are consistent with core American values and work to the benefit of all members of our society.From Benito Mussolini, Fascism:  Fundamental Ideas The greater the readiness to subordinate purely personal interests, the higher rises the ability to establish comprehensive communities…. This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise of every truly human culture. From Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 11, Ralph Manheim translation What matters is to emphasize the fundamental idea in my party’s economic program clearly — the idea of authority. I want the authority; I want everyone to keep the property he has acquired for himself according to the principle:  benefit to the community precedes benefit to the individual. But the state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.Following the logic that if Hillary has a core belief system based on communitarianism, she is most likely to attempt to implement policies that place greater control of a central government over the rights and freedoms of individuals, all in the name of bettering the “village”, and thus benefiting all.  Hillary’s administration would effectively be the “National Village” and would implement policies that preempt individual rights.  Does this mean a loss of states rights?  Will states be able to enforce laws that deny benefits to illegals?  Under Hillary’s “village” or Communitarianism values, many states rights would be minimized.  I would expect Hillary’s Cabinet to be full of mostly women with like beliefs in the value of the “village” where the government intrudes on your health care, child rearing, educational options, investments, the list goes on.  These are Hillary’s millions of ideas, all those ideas she wants to implement, but has said we can not afford.