Why Bill Clinton Hates Barack Obama AND Hillary

Political Night Train has been tracking Bill Clinton’s activities for months now, and has reached an opinion on why he has been so ……….. erratic, making outrageous statements that seem to make Hillary’s lies pale in comparison. 

 

Much has been written about Bill Clinton’s character, and they essentially all paint a picture of an overinflated ego, narcissism (matched only by Hillary’s), fits of purple rage, self-loathing, and now, outright hatred for some.  There are currently no reasonable restraints on Bill.  He can do and say as he pleases.  But what more can be done to Bill?  He’s been Impeached by a vote of the US House of Representatives.  He’s lost law suits.  He’s been disbarred and lost his law license.  He’s apparently lost the love and respect of the black community (except perhaps for black women over 55).

 

To explain it all, understand that Bill Clinton, much like Jimmy Carter, is an ex-President in search of a positive legacy.  Carter sought his through the Carter Center in Atlanta and spent years seeking the one thing that would give him a lasting positive legacy – the Nobel Peace Prize.  But in winning the Nobel Peace Prize Carter had to share it.  And it was common knowledge that Carter only receive the prize as a political slap at George Bush.  So even the one thing that Carter wanted more than all else, like his Presidency, is tainted.  Compare Carter’s “shared Nobel” with some of the outright winners: Theodore Roosevelt, Jane Addams, Cordell Hull, Albert Schweitzer, George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, Begin & Sadat, Mother Teresa.

 

Now, is Bill Clinton really in the same league (Jimmy Carter excepted)?  And this is what Bill seeks to secure his place in history.  Oh, and Al Gore has a Nobel, just to put salt into Bill’s wounds.

 

So, what makes Bill hate?  First, to Hillary.  Bill may not exactly hate Hillary (although he has lots of reasons), but he does seem to hate the idea that she may get elected President.  Why?  A successful Hillary Presidency would greatly diminish Bill’s Presidency.  He would be reduced to a footnote in history, the spouse, former President to the more successful President Hillary Rodham Clinton.  So, deep inside, Bill wants Hillary to fail, and this in part explains may of his statements.  Simple enough, but what about Barack Obama?

 

Barack Obama is everything Bill is not (Jeremiah Wright excepted).  Obama is beloved by the press; is adored by his fans (Bill has always sought the “Elvis factor”); is a good orator; smooth; has not had any bimbo outbreaks; a nice wife and family; successful author; has 98% support from blacks, and most important, Obama IS black.  If elected, Obama WOULD be the first black President.  Bill would be just the first black President in name only.

 

Obama Declares, “Hillary Is Not A Lesbian”

See one of the great political spoofs at the following link:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i34411

 

Obama’s Church: Values and Beliefs Do Matter

The following article by John is quite interesting, and correctly so, Jeremiah Wright, like Louis Farrakan, is only the messager.  Barack Obama may have been present for only a few of Wright’s racist sermons, but Obama surely knew, and understood what Trinity United Church of Christ stood for, what the beliefs and values of the church are, and how those values and beliefs would be picked up by his wife and children.

Teachings of Obama’s church concern readers

It’s not Jeremiah Wright, it’s the church. The controversy over Sen. Barack Obama and the Rev. Wright is not about a sermon. Wright’s sermons represent what the church is all about, and Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years!

Obama’s church proclaims on its Web site: “A congregation committed to adoration … preaching salvation … seeking reconciliation … with a nonnegotiable commitment to Africa…” Notice the “commitment to Africa” and not to America? Michelle Obama said it herself, being for the first time “proud of my country.” After 20 years in this church, I see why.

I am not in opposition to this church’s right to believe and teach these things. Yet, is this your vision of America?

The presidency is the executive branch of our government and will employ many people picked by Sen. Obama. How many people will he enlist who hold the beliefs of his church? Is this the change you want?

JOHN MARSELLA

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/letters/story/277492.html

 

 

 

Bitter and Armed?

‘It’s not surprising then that 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.’

Thus quoted Barack Obama in San Francisco before a liberal audience of fat cats.  What was Obama thinking?  Did he not think white Americans in rural and small town Pennsylvania would be offended?  Is he so out of touch with middle American that he didn’t know when he was making an offensive remark?  Political Night Train believes Obama’s statement goes to his core beliefs and values, those beliefs and values that were formed in his early adulthood, and for 20 years reinforced by Jeremiah Wright.  Just as all liberals think they know what is best for everyone, so too, the true liberal knows, without asking why the rest of us think and act as we do.  If these words were spoken by a Republican about inner city blacks, there would have been hell to pay with the MSM.  Here’s how it would sound:  “It’s not surprising then that they get angry, that they turn to rap music and guns, or black liberation theology, or hatred toward people who aren’t black, or anti-government sentiment, or anti-education, as a way to explain their frustrations.”  Like how that sounds.  Many of Barack Obama’s statements, those that are uttered before liberals in mostly closed door sessions, sound like somewhat watered down statements from Jeremiah Wright.  Can’t you just hear Wright in a Trinity United Church of Christ sermon saying those same words as Obama, just with more hatred and racism.  No, Obama is not an elitist.  He is an extreme liberal, with a good measure of socialism rolled in, and influenced by 20 years of Jeremiah Wright’s brand of activism.  Yes, he has a smooth wrapper, and a politician’s style, but inside, he is most likely burning with some of Wright’s own values and beliefs.

Jim Wooten of the Atlanta Constitution had this to say about Barack Obama’s patriotism:

As a Southerner accustomed to a culture of God, guns and patriotism expressed as easily and comfortably as one’s preference for Fords or Chevrolets, I’m jarred by Barack Obama’s every attempt to explain his patriotism.

I don’t deny his patriotism.

I just don’t recognize his definitions.

In Wednesday night’s debate, he was asked a videotaped question by Nash McCabe of Latrobe, Pa. “I want to know if you believe in the American flag,” she asked. “I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don’t.”

“I revere the American flag and I would not be running for president if I did not revere this country,” he said. In no other country, he continued, would “my story” even be possible. And then this, which is where the words begin to jar:

“What I’ve tried to do is to show my patriotism by how I treat veterans when I’m working in the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee; by making sure that I’m speaking forcefully about how we need to bring this war in Iraq to a close because I think it is not serving our national security well and it’s not serving our military families and our troops well; talking about how we need to restore a sense of economic fairness to this country because that’s what this country has always been about, is providing upward mobility and ladders to opportunity for all Americans. That’s what I love about this country. And so I will continue to fight for those issues.”

This is not patriotism — or at least any form of it I recognize. Substitute any interest group — organized labor, trial lawyers, bartenders, Teamsters or insurance agents — after the phrase “I’ve tried to show my (compassion, support, patriotism) by how I treat (name the interest group) in the Senate. …”

Political Night Train agrees with Wooten.  Obama does have a way of explaining his patriotism that does not quite fit the definition the rest of us use.  This is in keeping with those liberation theology values and beliefs Obama shares with Jeremiah Wright and James Cone. 

ABC Quizzes Obama On Values and Beliefs

It appears ABC has been reading Political Night Train, and they finally get it!  When it comes to Presidential candidates, Values and Beliefs do matter.  As do Character and Competence.  Political Night Train has been posting for months now that the core values and beliefs of the candidates are indeed important.  Barack Obama would have us believe that his values and beliefs should have little bearing, that if we want to be part of something historical, we should all vote for him, the Black candidate.  Somehow this will heal all those old racial feelings between whites and blacks.

 

PHILADELPHIABarack Obama got the first real glimpse here Tuesday night of what he will face if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. Between now and November, the most important question he will be forced to answer is: Who is Barack Obama?

That was the subtext of the relentless questioning he faced at the National Constitution Center here on Tuesday. For the first half of the debate, ABC’s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos threw one question after another at Obama that all shared the same underlying themes: what are your values and what do you believe?

 

Obama was questioned over and over,  for nearly 45 minutes regarding such issues as his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, his obvious lack of a flag lapel pin to show his patriotism, his readiness to be Commander-In-Chief, his relationship with Weather Underground radicals.  Then Hillary piled on, as expected.  Today, Obama cried foul, complaining that the media was focusing on his words, in particular, his misstatements.  Obama seems to think we should all drink the coolade, accept his ideas and not question the underlying core beliefs and values that form the basis for those ideas.  And who’s ideas?  Are they Obama’s ideas, based on beliefs and values shared by Americans?  Or, are they ideas shaped by 20 years of association with Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and members of the Weather Underground.  How much of his core beliefs are shaped by black liberation theology?  Note that Obama answered on question that he had disowned Jeremiah Wright, then restated that he had disowned Wright’s statements.  Obama also denied that he had ever been in church when Wright make his racist remarks.  As Hillary would say,”that requires suspending belief”.  Twenty years and Obama didn’t hear any of Wright’s numerous racist remarks; twenty years and Michelle Obama didn’t hear any of those remarks; twenty years and neither heard Wright’s remarks repeated by other church members?  Churches are by nature social organizations, and one thing is true of social organizations:  People talk, they hear and they repeat, especially the words of their religious leaders.

 

Much as Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos think they are getting to the “who is Barack Obama”, they failed to ask the really probing questions, such as:  “How much of black liberation theology do you support?”, “And do you, Obama, believe that black liberation theology values and beliefs represent the values and beliefs of all votes, black, white, and otherwise?”

 

Obama also needs to be questioned further on how he would direct the US Military as Commander-In-Chief.  His answers Wednesday night showed an almost total lack of understanding of the relationship between the civilian branch of the government and the military. 

 

As an added note, want to see an example of “liberation theology” run amok?  Look no further than what is happening right now in Paraguay where former Catholic Bishop Fernando Armindo Lugo Mendez is likely the country’s next President.  The Catholic Church has disowned Lugo for his “liberation theology” beliefs.

 

Obama & Hillary: Trust Is The Key Issue of Their Character

After much review and thought, Political Night Train has distilled the Democratic candidates down to two key issues for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton:  Character and Competence.  Of those two issues, none is more important than Character, and under Character, for both Obama and Clinton the main are of focus is “Trust”.  One advantage of this rather long Democratic primary is that it has clearly shown that both Obama and Hillary have different, but major weaknesses when it comes to “Trust”.

For Hillary the trust issue has been along and winding road, going back many years and is due to her ingrained personality traits, those being, a major world class control freak, extreme narcissistic personality disorder, and as Bill Safire said, “a congenital liar”.  The lies have now become pathological.  Hillary just cannot tell the truth.  It all starts with her unwillingness to be truthful to herself, and this is simply a defense mechanism.

The Bosnia lie was not the latest.  Now Hillary tells a story about how her father taught her to shoot a gun.  That now makes her pro-gun rights.  Anyone who believes this latest story has been in deep freeze, or on another planet.  Here are a few more:

Lied about a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc. At issue was a $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment.

 

Lied about speculating in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.

 

Failed to correct false testimony (i.e., lies) by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial.

 

Lied about ordering members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.

 

Lied about and obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster’s documents in the Rose Law Firm.

 

In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster’s office on the night of his death and telling aides to lie about their removal. Of course, Hillary denied everything.

 

Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.  Then lied about it.

 

Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing records.

 

Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle Grande land flip con.

 

Lied about ordering the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office employees.

 

Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of Travel Office Employees (Travelgate). In May 1993, the co-president was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office, the better to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals, Linda Bloodworth Thomason and Harry Thomason. Hillary denied everything and when Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray investigated Travelgate, he concluded that there was substantial evidence that involved Hillary but not enough to warrant an indictment.

 

A Federal judge orders a trial on July 25, 1994 to determine if Hillary Clinton’s heath care task force illegally operated in secret.

Here then are some of the characteristics of a narcissistic personality disorder, note that Hillary displays all these characteristics:

Remember that a narcissist’s goal is attention. His or her whole life is a game of monopoly for it all. Keep in mind that attention comes in many forms, including regard, love, and respect.

 

Grandiosity

Slander others, or treat them like dirt

Lack of empathy, or play-acting empathy, such as tears-on-demand

It’s all about getting attention

Projecting a image of oneself, even if it means telling lies

Projecting an image of oneself such that others owe the person all their attention without having to ask for it.

Haughty attitude

For Barack Obama, the full picture has not yet developed as it has for Hillary.  However, we do know that there are major trust issues related to Obama’s long term relationship with Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ, and James Meeks.  Obama’s embrace of Black Liberation Theology, as preached by both Wright and Meeks has questioned whether voters should trust what he is saying on the campaign trail, or what he has practiced, through TUCC for the past 20 years. 

 

 

Obama’s Church Cries “Enough”, Wants to Restrict the Press

Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama’s church, and Jeremiah Wright’s church now wants to restrict press access to church officials, members and services.  It seems Pastor Otis Moss III is getting a taste of what others who have found themselves in the news have faced, unwanted attention.  Given that the attention is mostly negative and generated not so much by the church itself, as by it’s two most famous, and infamous members, it may seem reasonable the church is crying foul.  Political Night Train questions Barack Obama’s judgment for remaining in a church that openly promoted racism and tolerated Jeremiah Wright’s ran tings.  But Obama went a step further, naming Wright as an advisor to his campaign.  If Obama was truthful when he said he had disagreed with Wright in years past, why then did he include him as a senior advisor.  What advice was Wright providing to Obama, and was that advice tainted with racism?  Was Wright’s advice to Obama based on liberation theology?  Was Wright’s advice tainted by the Nation of Islam?  If elected, would Obama continue to seek and accept Jeremiah Wright’s advice, and how would that advice shape domestic and foreign policy?  These are all questions Barack Obama must address in the coming months.

The following article is by Frank James

Sen. Barack Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is fed up and not going to take it anymore. “It” would be the media intrusions that have come with the controversy over the by- now infamous comments of its retired senior pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The church’s new lead pastor, Otis Moss III, held a press conference yesterday to make two points. He called for a national conversation about race. And he wanted to read the riot act to some reporters who have gone overboard in the opinion of church members and others, in their pursuit of interviews with Trinity members.

The call for a racial dialogue gave the press conference a more elevated gloss than if it had been merely held for the purpose of telling reporters to cease and desist from bothering church members.

But one got the sense from watching the press conference that the main purpose was to tell the media to back off.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obamas_church_says_enough.html

 

Barack Obama’s Problems: Racism & Corruption

Barack Obama will continue to have two distinct and separate problems throughout the remainder of the primary, and if nominated, throughout the general election.  Those are racism and corruption.  Just as Bill Clinton had to deal with numerous “bimbo eruptions”, Obama will have to deal with weekly, if not daily racism and corruption eruptions.  While the media gave Bill Clinton a free pass, and the Right was not organized to fully exploit  Bill’s weaknesses, all that changed with John Kerry.  Swift-boating is already coming from the Hillary camp, and will increase dramatically if Obama is nominated.  Obama had a chance to be the first “post-race” black candidate.  His original campaign was run from the perspective that Obama was running as merely another Democrat, not as a black candidate, like Jessie Jackson.  If Obama had been able to continue to run as a “non-racial” candidate he would have been the true transitional candidate Democrats, Republicans and Independents hoped for.  But along the way, the Clinton’s, following their “win at any cost” strategy, screwed it all up for everyone.  Bill Clinton injected race as an issue, by saying there goes Barack Obama, another black candidate, winning SC, just like Jessie Jackson did.  Obama tried, but was unable to resist the bait.  Then, as if on cue from the Clinton’s, along comes Jeremiah Wright, a true race baiter and bigot.  Obama couldn’t resist the temptation.  He had to address the “race” issue head on.  In making his “race” speech, Obama did what no Clinton could do.  He acknowledged that he is in fact a “race” candidate.  This shows extreme poor judgment and character.  So, given what we now know about Barack Obama, here is a preview of what is likely to happen to Obama between now and November.

 

Pastor-gate:  Jeremiah Wright won’t go away.  Until Hillary drops out, the Clintons will continue to raise issues about Wright on a weekly basis.  Don’t be surprised if a video shows up of Wright preaching one of his anti-American sermons, and there’s Obama, Michelle and the children, right in the front.  Once Hillary is gone, then the swift-boaters from the Right take over.  There’ll be more and more information about Wright’s rants.  It won’t stop until November.

 

Black Liberation Theology:  There will continue to be questions about values, beliefs, and judgment.  How will Obama’s even tacit approval of black liberation theology taint his campaign.  Hillary will use it as a wedge issue to pull the Democratic bubba’s and rednecks over to her side.  This is probably the most serious issue Obama faces and the one that most deeply questions his judgment and core values.  How can Americans knowingly vote for someone who embraces a value and belief system that paints the white man as the devil incarnate?

 

Spiritual Advisor eruptions:  James Meeks has been one of Barack Obama’s primary spiritual advisors, second only to Jeremiah Wright.  Meeks will come under increasing scrutiny and there will be a lot of racially tainted statements linked to him.  Obama will have to explain away Meeks, just as he is doing with Wright.  Meeks anti-gay rants won’t go over very well with the gay and lesbian alliance that has good standing with the Democratic liberal left.  Here’s a sample:

 

A spring 2007 newsletter from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) named Meeks one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement”. The newsletter cites him as both “a key member of Chicago’s ‘Gatekeepers’ network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state” and “a stalwart anti-gay activist… [who]… has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level ‘family values’ pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in ‘clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.'”

 

Probable Corruption Eruptions:  Tony Rezko; Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland law firm; Blagojevich; John Stroger; Todd Stroger; Donna Dunnings; Susan Sher; Alexi Giannoulias.  Just to name a few Obama supporters that are tainted with charges of corruption.  Here’s a sampling:

 

Obama’s ties to the corrupt Daley machine began when he was dating his wife Michelle and she brought him into the fold. Valerie Jarrett, the deputy chief of staff to Mayor Daley, hired Michelle as her assistant in 1991. Daley made Jarrett the chairman of the Chicago Department of Planning and Development and Michelle worked as her assistant in that Department during 1992-93.

 

When it came time for Obama’s US Senate campaign, Valerie Jarrett became the campaign finance chairman and worked hand and hand with fellow finance committee members, Rita and Tony Rezko, and his former boss at the law firm, Allison Davis, in fundraising endeavors.

 

Jarrett is now the CEO of Habitat Co, a real estate development and management firm which manages the housing program for the Chicago Housing Authority, the entity mandated to administer public housing, and she serves as an unpaid advisor to Obama’s Presidential campaign.

  

Black Liberation Theology & Marxism & Islam – Is Obama The Nexus?

Political Night Train is reprinting the following article in its entirety

Liberation Theology in Kenya and the U.S. Elections

By David J. Jonsson

This is the sixth of a series of articles on The Clash of Ideologies and Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance

      We are seeing first hand the role Liberation Theology is playing in the Ideological conflicts in Kenya led by Barack Hussein Obama and the opposition leader, Raila Odinga. In spite of Obama’s and to some extent Hillary Clinton’s objections to involvement in the political situations in foreign countries we are see the fingerprints of Obama in his support of Raila Odinga and the implementation of Shariah law in Kenya.

      Similarly, we are seeing within the theme of “The Election of Change” the increasing role of Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology espoused by Barak Obama following the teaching of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

      Judaism and Christianity aim to solve the problems of an unjust world, but they reject revolution as a solution since the roots of evil and injustice lies not in economics but in man himself. Consequently, Judaism and Christianity are religions designed to change individuals before it and they can ever hope to succeed in perfecting the world. This is admittedly a considerably slower, hence less romantic process than fomenting revolutions, and many people will find its demands restrictive compared with the personal moral anarchy of revolution making. But Judaism’s and Christianity’s methods are infinitely more effective in achieving its results, for when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as cruel as their predecessors.” The promise of liberation theology is a grotesque lie. As a cynical perversion of language it ranks with the slogan posted above the portals of Auschwitz by another revolutionary movement: Arbeit Macht Frei – Work frees. The freedom which liberation theology proffers is the oblivion of the crematoria.

      As I commented in my article From the Mosque to the Schoolhouse to the White House of November 9, 2008 on the Global Politician:

      “The West has a worldview based on the analysis and actions influenced by looking through the lenses of politics and economics, whereas the Islamists look at the world through the lens of ideology. It is time for the West to place importance on looking at events happening around the world through the lens of ideologies. In the case of the Muslims, their worldview and subsequent actions are shaped by their vision for world domination, the establishment of Islamic kingdom of God on Earth – the creation of worldwide Caliphate and the End Times.”

The Growth of Dhimmi Doctrine

   The contribution of dhimmi (http://www.dhimmitude.org/) Christian collaborationism to Islam is even more important. It satisfies three objectives: 1) its propaganda shores up the mythology of past and present peaceful Islamic-Christian coexistence and confirms the perfection of Islam, jihad, and Shariah; 2) it promotes the demographic expansion and proselytism of Islamic propaganda in the West; 3) in the theological sphere it eliminates the Jewish Jesus and implants Christianity in the Muslim Jesus, in other words it facilitates the theological Islamization of all Christendom. See: Bat Yeor writing in the National Review on September 18, 2003, Eastern Christians Torn Asunder.

Liberation Theology and Marxism

   In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.  

   Religion will become obsolete, when humanity rejects the supernatural G-d of antiquity for the new dialectical deity, fathered by historical forces, leading its chosen to the land promised by Marx and Lenin. In this secular messianic vision, clearly there is no place for Judaism or Christianity, with its insistence on a G-d above and outside of history and obedience to His dictates, revealed in the Oral and Written Law.

   Liberation theologians agree with Marx’s famous statement: “Hitherto philosophers have explained the world; our task is to change it.” They argue that theologians are not meant to be theoreticians but practitioners engaged in the struggle to bring about society’s transformation. In order to do this liberation theology employs a Marxist-style class analysis, which divides the culture between oppressors and oppressed. This conflictual sociological analysis is meant to identify the injustices and exploitation within the historical situation. Marxism and liberation theology condemn religion for supporting the status quo and legitimating the power of the oppressor. But unlike Marxism, liberation theology turns to the Christian faith as a means for bringing about liberation. Marx failed to see the emotive, symbolic, and sociological force the church could be in the struggle for justice. Liberation theologians claim that they are not departing from the ancient Christian tradition when they use Marxist thought as a tool for social analysis. They do not claim to use Marxism as a philosophical world view or a comprehensive plan for political action. Human liberation may begin with the economic infrastructure, but it does not end there.

      The biblical notion of salvation is equated with the process of liberation from oppression and injustice. Sin is defined in terms of man’s inhumanity to man. Liberation theology for all practical purposes equates loving your neighbor with loving God. The two are not only inseparable but virtually indistinguishable. God is found in our neighbor and salvation is identified with the history of “man becoming.” The history of salvation becomes the salvation of history embracing the entire process of humanization. Biblical history is important insofar as it models and illustrates this quest for justice and human dignity. Israel’s liberation from Egypt in the Exodus and Jesus’ life and death stand out as the prototypes for the contemporary human struggle for liberation. These biblical events signify the spiritual significance of secular struggle for liberation.

      The church and the world can no longer be segregated. The church must allow itself to be inhabited and evangelized by the world. “A theology of the Church in the world should be complemented by a theology of the world in the Church” (Gutierrez). Joining in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors is an act of “conversion,” and “evangelization” is announcing God’s participation in the human struggle for justice.

      In an article by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – Benedict XVI, Liberation Theology written in 1984, he commented.

      “The moral challenge of poverty and oppression presented itself in an ineluctable form at the very moment when Europe and North America had attained a hitherto unknown affluence. This challenge evidently called for new answers which were not to be found in the existing tradition. The changed theological and philosophical situation was a formal invitation to seek the answer in a Christianity which allowed itself to be guided by the models of hope — apparently scientifically grounded — put forward by Marxist philosophies.”

      “[In] the new philosophical climate of the late sixties… the Marxist analysis of history and society was largely accepted as the only “scientific” one. This means that the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and Marxism. It also means that all reality is political and has to justify itself politically. The biblical concept of the ‘poor’ provides a starting point for fusing the Bible’s view of history with Marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the Marxist sense and thus justifies Marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible.”

Liberation Theology and Nazism

      In the U.S. elections cycle, we are seeing an increase in the influence of religiosity, however simultaneously we are seeing many diverse positions presented. Bruce Walker writing in his November 17, 2007 article on American Thinker, The Nazis and Christianity comments that: “Many atheists presume that the Nazis were a weird variation of Christianity.”

       ”Christianity had declined severely in Germany at the time the Nazis came to power, which is why the Nazis were able to come to power.  In his book, The Dictators, Richard Overy states that in the decades preceding the First World War Germany was becoming increasingly secular, and that after that war, from 1918 to 1931, 2.4 million Evangelical Christians formally renounced their faith as well as almost half a million Catholics.  In Prussia, only 21% of the population took communion and in Hamburg only five percent of the population took communion.  Before Hitler, German religious leaders were publicly condemning the rise of moral relativism and decline of traditional religious values.”

      “Weimar Germany largely had abandoned Christianity and increasingly was embracing hedonism, Marxism and paganism.  There, decline of Christianity in Germany led directly to the rise of Nazism. Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his 1937 book, The Third Reich, describes the religious life of the Weimar Republic as a place in which the large cities were “spiritual cemeteries” with almost no believers at all, except for those who were members of the clergy.  The middle class went through the motions, but lacked all living faith.  The workers, influenced by socialism, were suspicious of the church.  Even in the countryside, preachers had little influence on the people.  In the 1938 book, The War Against God, by Sidney Dark and R.S. Essex, describes pre-Nazi antipathy toward Christianity by noting that churches had lost all their vitality and that their services were lifeless.  Mower, in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, wrote that by 1920, God and Christianity had been in steady decline, a process that had begun in 1860.  Mower talks about a culture not so much casual as vicious about sexuality.  He writes of art sickened into atonal music, about the absence of any sense of sin, about entire graduating classes in high school turning up for birth control devices, and about the commonplace occurrence of abortion.” 

      Within a year of taking power, Hitler was saying: 

      “Christianity was incapable of uniting the Germans, and that only an entirely new world-theory was capable of doing so.” 

      Also within a year of the Nazis taking power, The Twenty-Five Theses of the German Religion, a conscious modeling of the twenty-five points of the Nazi program, was published in Germany. Thesis XV of that Nazi publication states: 

      “The Ethic of the German Religion condemns all belief in inherited sin, as well as the Jewish-Christian teaching of a fallen world.  Such a teaching is not only non-Germanic and non-German, it is immoral and nonreligious.  Whoever preaches this menaces the morality of the people.”

Liberalism and Fascism

      To quote Daniel Pipes in his article from the Jerusalem Post of January 10, 2008: Fascism’s Legacy: Liberalism,Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”“
 

      “Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday), First, he offers a “secret history of the American left”“:

  • Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism featured a “militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist” program, enabled by the exigencies of World War I.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fascist New Deal” built on and extended Wilson’s government.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society established the modern welfare state, “the ultimate fruition” (so far) of this statist tradition.
  • The youthful New Left revolutionaries of the 1960s brought about “an Americanized updating” of the European Old Right.
  • Hillary Clinton hopes “to insert the state deep into family life,” an essential step of the totalitarian project.

      “To sum up a near-century of history, if the American political system traditionally encouraged the pursuit of happiness, “more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.”“ [Economic Parity]

      “Second, Goldberg dissects American liberal programs – racial, economic, and environmental, even the “cult of the organic” – and shows their affinities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.” [Deep Ecology movement]

David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon Press 2005. His next book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance will we released in spring 2006. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and personal encounter, and presently writes on the subject for the Global Politician. Mr. Jonsson can be reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk

Update: Obama’s Pastor – Jeremiah Wright – Too Hot for Houston Baptist Church!

Upcoming Dallas-area appearances by Rev. Wright have now also been canceled. 

Political Night Train recently reported that Senator Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright was scheduled to preach sermons at a Baptist Church in Houston.  It seems that all the stories about Wright’s racist sermons are causing churches to rethink having him anywhere near there members.

Houston Chronicle — Obama’s former pastor won’t be giving sermons in Houston: “Security concerns have prompted the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to cancel his appearance at Houston’s Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church for the first time in two decades. Wright, who until February was minister of Sen. Barack Obama’s church, Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, was scheduled to preach three guest sermons in Houston on Sunday. … Widely publicized recorded excerpts from Wright’s past sermons, in which he quoted a former Iraq ambassador as saying that U.S. actions prompted the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and that the government created HIV to target people of color and harassed blacks through ‘three strike’ laws, prompted Obama to address race issues in a speech last week. Obama termed Wright’s comments ‘divisive,’ but also suggested that the snippets were not representative of the clergyman he has known for more than two decades.” Yesterday, a long-planned appearance by Wright at a Tampa revival was also canceled.

The Long Goodbye, Hillary Clinton Style

Jim Vandehei, an advisor to Hillary Clinton has told Politico that Hillary’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination are only 10 percent.  That’s one chance in ten!  Davidson has a better chance of taking it all in the NCAA.  The likely hood of an Obama bombshell is probably less than one-in-a-hundred.  For months now the Clinton camp has spread rumors that they have dirt on Obama.  Well, if it was Jeremiah Wright, they blew it big time.  Like so many political rumors, and this one sounds too much like a Carville-rumor, this one has, so far, been a bust.  But then, lying is a Hillary character trait, or flaw.

So, how long will Hillary play out her long goodbye?  The body appears nearly dead, but the brain is still thinking, calculating, conniving the next attack.  But like a poor archer who shakes at the critical moment, the Clinton machine can’t put a silver arrow through Obama’s political heart.  Makes one wonder just how well Hillary would respond to one of those 3 am phone calls.  Obama’s rope-a-dope straategy has worked, thus far.  Now while Hillary tries to defend her lies (remember, Bill Safire got it right when he said she is a “congential liar”), Obama is soaking up the sun in the USVI.

Much of Hillary’s character, style and campaign reminds one of Richard Nixon, especially whenhe ran against JFK.  But that’s another story, comparing Hillary to Nixon.  Recall, the Nixon-JFK, make or break moment came during the debate where Nixon looked tired and pale, while JFK, just back from a vacation, looked tanned and rested.  Will Obama look tan and rested next week in PA?

It is unlikely that Hillary will decide on her own to end the campaign.  It simply is not in her character.  Bill to the rescue, you say?  Bill shot his wad (no pun) in SC by injecting racism in the campaign.  His effectiveness is done, mostly to his own decision to inject racism.  Does Bill secretly want Hillary to fail?  Political Night Train believes this is the case.  A successful Hillary Presidency would do much to deminish Bill’s legacy.  This would explain why he’s committed numerous fatal compaign errors.  But more on that in a later article.

If not a self-imposed withdrawal from the campaign, then who will tell Hillary it is time to quit?  Bill Richardson, in his phone call to Hillary to tell her he is supporting Obama came close, but couldn’t make the leap.  Apparently he was taking a tongue lashing from Hillary.  Ted Kennedy can’t do it, as he is now in the Obama camp.  Pelosi is out, as she has taken what amounts to an anti-Hillary stand on the superdelegates.  The former Governor of NYS is out, er, on his way to a trial.  The DNC leadership is out, as they were appointed by the Clintons.  That leaves three likely candidates to do the dirty deed:  Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Al Gore.  Bill is unlikely to step up as he does not want to incur the wrath of Hillary, again.  Al Gore invented hating the Clintons, even more than he hates Bush.  That leaves Barack Obama to do the awful task.  Is Barack up to it?  Stepping up to the plate and telling Hillary she needs to quit would prove to all that he’s ready to lead.  What better way to prove his skills than to convince Hillary to get out?  So the question is, Barack, are you man enough to step up to the plate and take one for the team?  Or, willyou prove your real character and avoid the tough play?

Will Hillary Clinton Pull A Tonya Harding?

Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing ‘The Tonya Harding Option’March 25, 2008 3:44 PM

<!–

Jennifer Parker

–>ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

 I just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it’s not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it? What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory? She will have to “break his back,” the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable. “Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.'” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?” The Tonya Harding Option — the first time I’ve heard it put that way. It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn’t get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.(In this metaphor, presumably, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be Oksana Baiul. Does that make former President Bill Clinton Jeff Gillooly?)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html

  

So You Want Universal Healthcare? Obama or Hillary’s Plan?

Both Senator Obama and Hillary Clinton have proposed universal or “single payer” healthcare systems, though there is very little difference between the two approaches.  Both proposals currently contain some provision for private healthcare, but for how long.  Once we are down the road to government run healthcare, how long before a Democratic controlled Congress goes along and passes a true government run system?  Four years?  Eight?  And once in place, it will never be undone.  Political Night Train believes we need more light on how other universal healthcare systems are doing and because of a recent posting by a reader, we will run a series of articles that try to get at what the Canadian system offers, or does not offer it’s citizens.  Here then is the first, and perhaps one of the best articles we’ve seen.  You can read the entire article at http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/Articles/Opinion/Your%20Turn/2008/02/26/23084/ Your Turn: The real cost of “free healthcare”A letter to the editors Private healthcare does have its problems, but it is hard to argue that it is failing on the whole. With Canada being the main country of comparison for many healthcare arguments, it will be the main focus of comparison for this piece. A widespread myth about healthcare is that Canada’s universal coverage system is superior to the U.S.’s private system in terms of quality of care received. This is a vital dynamic of the healthcare system and claims against quality of care should not be taken lightly. A patient of Canadian healthcare waits 17.7 weeks, on average, for hospital treatment with residents of Saskatchewan waiting an average of 30 weeks. These waiting times are unheard of in America’s private system. In the United States, the occasional story of a death occurring while waiting for an operation, while unfortunate and heart-wrenching, is nothing short of ordinary in countries with socialized medicine. In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, described to the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor reported, “71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery,” and “44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation.” In short, 192 people either died or became too sick to have surgery before even getting a chance to be operated on. You say you want universal healthcare, like that being proposed by Senator Obama or Hillary?  You say the Canadians have universal healthcare and that it’s a great system?  Let’s read what the Canadians have to say.  The following article is an excellent example of how the elderly are treated at Canadian hospitals.  Still want to send your mama or grandpa to a universal healthcare hospital?

Almost euthanasia

 By Klaus Rohrich  Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Next time you feel like bragging about how great the Canadian healthcare system is you may want to consider what’s routinely done to elderly patients in some of our hospitals.  Recently an elderly woman, let’s call her Mary, had a stroke, which affected the left side of her body, meaning that the stroke occurred in the right lobe of her brain. Mary was admitted to hospital in a fairly timely fashion and was quickly diagnosed by competent medical staff, including a neurologist.  After the diagnosis she was given an intravenous drip (IV) containing blood thinners and other medications designed to ameliorate the affects of the stroke.  She also received a CAT scan, which established that the stroke had caused considerable damage to her brain.  The hospital informed the family that there wasn’t much that could be done for Mary and to prepare for the inevitable, even suggesting the withdrawal of the IV. The family was devastated at the prospect of losing Mary and hesitated in following the hospital’s recommendation, reasoning that withholding medication and nourishment was contrary to their belief in the sanctity of life. Here’s where the story gets interesting.  It took four days for the neurologist to contact the family regarding Mary’s prognosis, and when he finally did contact them he informed them that he had cancelled plans for Mary to have a speech therapist and physiotherapist.  His view of Mary’s prognosis was that the situation was completely hopeless, as a second CAT scan had revealed even more severe damage to the right lobe of Mary’s brain than the first.  “There’s nothing else to be done,” the doctor informed the crestfallen family members. Mary, however, had other plans.  As she lay in her hospital bed for over three weeks, she slowly began to regain her ability to speak and actually managed to move parts of her left side, starting with the toes on her left foot.  Throughout all this time Mary’s family and friends were at the side of her hospital bed caring for her and communicating their love to her.  On numerous occasions Mary was able to speak to relatives in Germany in her native German and related the conversation to family members at the hospital in English.  She also regained the ability to write—all on her own without help of a therapist. As her speech managed to improve, Mary began to express a desire to eat, as for the entire time that she had been hospitalized the hospital had failed to feed her.  When questioned by Mary’s family as to why they hospital refused to give Mary food, the nurses explained that it was a liability issue, as stroke patients were never fed until they had passed a “swallowing test”. Only problem is the person qualified to administer the swallowing test is an itinerant tester that apparently moves from hospital to hospital, covering, it seems, a fairly wide range of territory.  According to the hospital, during the three weeks that Mary had been hospitalized this tester had had only one occasion to visit the hospital to administer said swallowing test, but Mary was sleeping and was therefore not tested. It seems highly implausible that a community of over 20,000 people with an ultra-modern hospital wouldn’t have visits from a qualified professional tasked with testing stroke victims more frequently than once every three or four weeks.  Much more plausible is the doctor’s view that Mary’s life isn’t worth saving, given the results of the CAT scan, regardless of Mary’s remarkable progress. What happened to Mary under the Canadian government healthcare monopoly is frightening, albeit not unusual, as many other people have related similar stories.  What happened to Mary would under any other circumstances be described as an attempt at euthanasia.  But here in Canada they call it healthcare.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2048

Last month, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) released a new study showing that last year patients waiting for health care services in just four clinical areas cost Canada’s economy $14.8-billion in lost productivity and health expenses. It is clear that health care rationing and maintaining inappropriate wait times for medical care represent poor public policy. A study released last month by the European-based Health Consumer Powerhouse, comparing Canada’s health system to 29 European countries, ranked us 23rd overall, and last in terms of value for money spent. We can and should do better.

WHY ARE CANADIANS STILL WAITING FOR HEALTH CARE?

Wait lists for medically necessary health care are Canada’s shame, says writer Nadeem Esmail.  Canadians are generally proud of their universal access health insurance program, which ostensibly provides access to care regardless of ability to pay.  However, as Beverly McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, says, access to a waiting list is not access to health care. An examination of Canada’s lengthy wait lists can help put that statement in perspective, says Esmail:

  • In 2007, wait times for access to health care in Canada reached a new historic high: 18.3 weeks averaged across 12 medical specialties.
  • Canadians waited a median of 25 weeks for cataract surgery from the time their general practitioner referred them to a specialist to the time they received treatment.

More alarmingly:

  • Canadians waited a median of 42 weeks for joint replacement.
  • This means that those patients who were referred by the their general practitioner for a hip or knee replacement surgery on January 2, only half would have received their treatment by October 23 while half would still be waiting for care.

Consider the personal costs a wait line of that magnitude entails:

  • A patient may experience an adverse event while waiting.
  • The wait could cause a potentially more difficult surgery and recovery.
  • Any wait time entails some amount of pain and suffering, mental anguish, lost leisure, lost productivity at work, and strained personal relationships.

How concerned is the government about the personal costs associated with these lengthy wait times?  According to Esmail, not much.  Their main goal is to avoid serious negative health consequences rather than minimize waiting and, thus, personal costs all together.Source:  Nadeem Esmail, “Why are Canadians Still Waiting for Healthcare?” Fraser Institute, February, 2008.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15694

MORE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE IN CANADA URGED

The architect of Quebec’s now-overburdened public health care system is proposing a strong and controversial remedy that includes further privatization and user fees of up to C$100 (about U.S. $98) for people to see their family doctor.In a 338-page report, former provincial Liberal health minister Claude Castonguay concluded that Quebec can no longer sustain the annual growth in health care costs.  The province currently spends about C$24 billion (about U.S. $23.6 billion) annually on health care, or about 40 per cent of its budget.Other recommendations include:

  • A new tax, including a “health care deductible” based on income and the number of visits made to a doctor’s office or hospital in a calendar year. Low-income families and children would be exempt.
  • Encouraging private-sector involvement in the management of hospitals and medical clinics.
  • Lifting a ban that prevents doctors from practicing both in the public system and privately.
  • Raising the provincial sales tax by up to one percentage point.

In the report, provocatively titled “Getting Our Money’s Worth,” the working group headed by Castonguay also recommends an overhaul of the Canada Health Act, which “sooner or later must be adapted to today’s realities.”“If nothing is done, at one point we will reach a crisis point … this is why we say it is urgent to act,” Castonguay said.  “There’s no miracle solution, there is no simple solution.”Source: Sean Gordon, “More private health care urged: Report for Quebec government proposes fees, health act changes to help overburdened system,” Toronto Star, February 20, 2008.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=15608

  

More On Obama’s Liberation Theology Values and Beliefs

The following article at RepublicanAmerican http://www.rep-am.com provides great insight into how black liberation theology shaped Senator Obama’s values and beliefs.

Obama’s church espouses controversial doctrines

WASHINGTON — Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama’s church. 

Read the full article at http://www.rep-am.com/news/elections/326205.txt#blogcomments

Another Obama “Mentor” Eruption

Just as Bill Clinton had all those “bimbo” eruptions, seems Barack Obama is having weekly “Mentor” eruptions.  Developing into a bad news day . . .

Another Obama Mentor Turning Out To Be Inconvenient

Mar 23 2008 12:00AM
http://sayanythingblog.com/index.php
Uh oh… Long before Barack Obama launched his campaign for the White House, when he was considering a run for the US Senate in 2003, he paid an intriguing visit to a former Chicago sewers inspector who had risen to become one of the most influential African-American politicians in IllinoisYou have the power to elect a US senator, Obama told Emil Jones, Democratic leader of the Illinois state senate. Jones looked at the ambitious young man smiling before him and asked, teasingly: Do you know anybody I could make a US senator? According to Jones, Obama replied: Me. It was his first, audacious step in a spectacular rise from the murky political backwaters of Springfield, the Illinois capitalThe exchange also sealed an intimate personal and political relationship that is likely to attract intense scrutiny amid the furore over Obamas links to some of Chicago�s most controversial political and religious power brokersObama has often described Jones as a key political mentor whose patronage was crucial to his early success in a state long dominated by near-feudal party political machines. Jones, 71, describes himself as Obama’s godfather and once said: He feels like a son to me.

http://www.kxmc.com/printArticle.asp?ViewPrintable=True&ArticleId=221753

 

Barack Obama and Black Liberation Theology

Obama vs. Black Liberation Theology: no ‘unite’

Grant Swank
March 21, 2008

Since Barack Obama has exposed that Black Liberation Theology pits whites against blacks, he’s undercut the egocentric Black Lib strutters.

People like Jeremiah Wright have made money and pew numbers in frightening American blacks that whites are killing them off, per AIDS injections for instance.

Wrights of the movement have said that the “white value system” is the enemy. Therefore, whites are out to get the blacks.

Obama sat through tirade after tirade on that demonic doctrine. Now it’s out of the bag. But the Black Lib pushers are still going to want to keep their power clutch before the blacks before them.

Therefore, Black Libbers have split from Obama, the “Unite” messenger.

By the way, you don’t hear the repeated “Change” and “Unite” cry from Obama. Why? Because he’s blurred himself. The public is not sure of his profile. Who is he? What change would he bring about having been surrounded by so many “haters”?

Would whites be left out as Obama united blacks?

Would Black Libbers be left out as Obama clutches to his black self white groupies?

Obama himself displays a weak personality awareness. Dick Morris stated on TV news programs that Obama is not strong in making sound judgments. He sat through two decades of demonic theology and said nothing, per Morris.

Therefore, Morris concludes that he would not be quick to make crucial judgments if in the White House. He’s just not got it.

So who is Obama’s public anyway?

Black Libbers have been undercut by his call for “Unite.”

Whites have been informed that Obama is a part of a hate-white subculture.

There are actually some logical blacks who don’t buy into the anti-“white value system” and therefore don’t agree with Black Libbers.

Evangelicals have nothing to do with leftist Obama.

Moralist Catholics likewise have nothing to do with pro-choice Obama.

But for sure Obama has cut with Black Libbers who are making their dough and conceit levels pop with this divisive, unbiblical, screaming dogma like unto a cult.

Joseph Grant Swank, Jr., is a pastor at New Hope Church in Windham, Maine, and is the author of five books and thousands of articles that have appeared in various Protestant and Catholic publications. He currently writes a column for RenewAmerica.us, MichNews.com, Magic-City-News.com, AmericanDaily.com, NewsByUs.com, The Conservative Crusader.com, PostChronicle.com, TheConservativeVoice.com, Republican and Proud.com, FaithFreedom.org, Conservative Posts.us, ArriveNet.com, MosqueWatch.blogspot.com, EzineArticles.com, Chalcedon Report, and others.

He has been married for 46 years and has three adult children. He has BA and MDiv degrees, with graduate work at Harvard Divinity School.

Grant maintains a website at http://truthinconviction.us/weblog.php You can e-mail him at grantswank@roadrunner.com   

Barack Obama – His Core Values & Beliefs, Part 2

There is no denying that Senator Obama gave a very good ‘race’ speech with what Political Night Train calls “surface validity”, that is, it looks good on the surface, its when you dig into the core that you find problems.  Political Night Train is now questioning the basis of Obama’s core values and beliefs and whether they are the values and beliefs we want in a President.  Certainly Senator Obama has plenty of “surface validity” to be President, but does he have the inner values and beliefs we want in a President.  Americans do not deserve another President aka Bill Clinton, with an outer persona that looks good to many people (he was bubba to some, a black man to others), but with an inner core that no one knows.  Apparently Bill Clinton had no inner core of moral values, at least none that we would want to pass on to our children.  One wonders then, what core values are Barack and Michelle Obama passing on to their children?  Are they the beliefs and values you would pass on to your children?  There are many parents in this country who were raised in racist households, black and white.  Yet, at some point, as parents, they made the break, and overtly decided that they would not raise their own children in a hate filled, racist family, and church environment.  This is truly where racism begins to die off, and you can see the effects with the twenty-something’s that are now saying “race does not matter”.  Yet, Obama is not offering them the bridge to a racism free society.  No, he’s offering then explanations as to why people like Jeremiah Wright should get a free pass.  Sorry Barack, but I don’t want my children attending Sunday School with your children, because you’ve passed on the wrong set of values and beliefs. Gil Troy is right when he asserts in his article,(my bold) Here, then, remains the Obama campaign’s great mystery. Many Americans want to believe, to trust that he is what he purports to be, that his gift for words will translate into a genius for governance. But the questions cropping up are not simply about his inexperience but his inaction. He never confronted Jeremiah Wright. He sat silently by as the United Church of Christ to which he belongs passed a resolution advocating divestment from Israel.

Obama’s political rise has been launched on the wings of Americans’ hopes that the healers will defeat the haters. His political progress would be more sure if he could point to actions backing up this rhetoric, to moments when he confronted demagogues and healed rifts. Barack Obama is not too young to have had the opportunity to prove whether he stands by his statements. Americans have the right to ask what he has done when facing the world’s Jeremiah Wrights and Louis Farrakhans. Obama’s worst, and best, moments
By Gil Troy   March 22, 2008

On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in America tried to quell the controversy over his America-bashing, race-baiting, Israel-hating pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. For days, video clips of Wright spewing his poison threatened to neutralize Obama’s populist magic. Until Tuesday, the controversy showed Obama at his worst. His response to his pastor’s demagoguery was mealy-mouthed and disingenuous. It was impossible to believe Obama’s Clintonesque claim of ignorance, that he never “sat in the pews” during one of Wright’s wrongheaded riffs. And Obama’s failure over a twenty-year relationship to criticize his mentor’s venom stirred doubts about Obama’s judgment, patriotism, and commitment to the unity he celebrates. Yet once again, Illinois’ rookie Senator hit a grand slam with two strikes against him. Obama’s speech was thoughtful, thought-provoking, rich, complex, effective, poetic, and inspiring. Read the rest of this excellent article at http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12729.htm

Is This Another Bash-America Quote From Jeremiah Wright?

Is the following quote from Barack Obama’s pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright?

“God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I’m going to continue to say it. And we won’t stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place.  And if you don’t stop your reckless course, I’ll rise up and break the backbone of your power.”

No, it wasn’t Jeremiah Wright.  This is what Martin Luther King said about the Vietnam War at his own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Feb. 4, 1968:

Gov Bill Richardson Slams Hillary Clinton

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama, and is now suffering the fallout from the Clinton campaign.  Before the South Carolina primary Richardson was seen by many as a potential running mate for Hillary.  During every Democratic debate in which Richardson participted, he engaged in world class suck-up to Hillary.  Remember, Richardson was Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Energy and Ambassordor to the UN, and has the foreign policy experience needed to offset Hillary’s lack of experience.  But it seems Hillary wouldn’t give Richardson the time of day.  Almost at the same time as Richardson’s endorsement, the Obama campaign began to hammer at Hillary’s character, saying that she lacks the qualities to be President.  In particular, the Obama campaign called into question Hillary’s honesty and how she is misleading the public on her experience.  As Political Night Train has said in the article, “How Obama Wins”, this is the way to beat down Hillary.  Daily attacks on her character will take their toll.  See the Political Night Train article on “How Hillary Wins” for what her strategy should be. 

(CNN) – Bill Richardson criticized a Clinton campaign adviser Friday for suggesting his endorsement of Barack Obama is insignificant.

 

“I resent the fact that the Clinton people are now saying that my endorsement is too late because I only can help with Texans — with Texas and Hispanics, implying that that’s my only value,” the New Mexico governor told CNN’s John King.

 

“That’s typical of some of his (Clinton’s) advisers that kind of turned me off.”

 Earlier Friday, Clinton campaign senior strategist Mark Penn said he thought Richardson’s endorsement came too late to make an impact.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/richardson-calls-out-clinton-adviser/

Obama – Basis for His Values & Beliefs

Larry Elder writes an interesting article, “Obama: From Valiant to Victicrat”

Larry comments, ” Funny, some people actually thought that Obama might explain why he chose and attends a church led by a hateful, anti-Semitic, racist America-condemning pastor, a man whom Obama refers to as his “spiritual advisor.”

 Another good read is Larry Elder’s book, “Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card — and Lose.”

 And more from the article,

“Jeremiah Wright also helped to organize the Million Man March, spearheaded by the anti-Semitic, homophobic, anti-Catholic Minister Louis Farrakhan. Wright also, accompanied by Farrakhan, visited Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya. In an interview about whether this kind of activity might hurt Obama’s prospects, Wright said, ‘When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli (to visit Qaddafi) with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.’Larry characterizes Wright’s rantings as, “part David Duke, part Louis Farrakhan and part Moe from the Three Stooges “

visit his Web page at http://www.LarryElder.com