Religious language trips off Barack Obama’s tongue as if he were a native of the Bible Belt.
From the moment he emerged on the national scene, he has spoken to believers in a language few Democrats have mastered: the language of the Bible and of a personal relationship with God.
Sometimes he shares his adult conversion story, describing how he knelt beneath the cross at his Chicago church: “I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me,” he says. “I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works.”
This is a load of a substance found wherever well-fed cattle congregate, and a perfect example of the manifest water-carrying the media have been engage in for Obama. Anyone who knows anything about the theology of Obama’s church is aware that James Cone’s Black Liberation Theology (which he said TUCC is the most ideal example) is little more than a racist, marxist political project with a few trappings of Christianity hung on it to fool the gullible.
Satan can cite Scripture to his advantage, and that is what we are seeing here.
I think Obama realized something that few white Democratic politicians realize: that religion is a moral and a political force for progressive and compassionate action, and is not the monopoly of Republicans. And I think a large reason for the ease with which Obama speaks religious language has to do with Obama’s experience as a phenotypically “Black” person in America.
Undoubtedly, Obama has experienced some level of racism and discrimination, like most other Blacks in America. And like many fellow Blacks, Obama may have realized that his potential as a Black politician in America would be ultimately unfulfilled without linking himself to some force even greater than racism. That’s how Blacks in the South survived, by surrender to God, whether through independent Baptist churches, episcopal Methodist congregations, militant Black Islamic groups, or the Black Theology movements (which attempted to meld the compassion of Christianity with the ‘manhood’ emphasis of the militants).
Most white Democratic politicians avoid religion, perhaps because of the different cultural background of most Northern Democrats, compared to the cultural background of Southern Blacks who suffered first in a slave system often defended by recourse to both Genesis and the New Testament, and then in a segregated post-Reconstructionist system thoroughly permeated with the language of Christianity; and whose very survival depended upon critiquing such uses of religion and creating forms of Christianity more reflective of their experience of God as the Liberator and the Anti-Oppressor.
By drawing upon the African-American prophetic tradition, and by presenting Christianity compatible with social progress, Obama is able to draw not only liberal Northern Democrats, but also many Southerners who may have voted Republican in the past. Bill Clinton and Al Gore’s Southern roots were obvious, and also helps explain their victories. Obama, though not born in the South, is Black (as “Black” is defined in America, historically), and thus could more easily (when compared to a, say, John Kerry) draw upon the Black experience of religion not only a personal moral choice, but a definite political force.
Republicans go to church. Democrats play golf.
Republicans read the Bible. Democrats read sleezy show biz news.
Republicans follow God’s rules. Democrats follow the latest super star (believe Elvis is still in the building)
Bottom line – McCain good, Obama bad……tee hee – I’m a registered Democrat…..
New Troll, thanks for these good words. I’m weary of the perception out there (and, sad to say, on this blog) that all real evangelicals are Republicans.
[blockquote]Once again, it’s Satan knocking at the door. [/blockquote]
Uh, no. So much for the vaunted port-side ability to detect nuance.
My point was that pernicious ideas can be propagated through the mendacious citation of Scripture, and that is what we have with Obama. We are being sold marxism wrapped in a shell of insincere piety. Obama’s devotion to TUCC and Wright (which only diminished when Wright personally “dissed” Obama and his phony distancing from the views of his pastor) and the bigotry, racism and marxism of the church speaks volumes about his character and ideological bent. Whatever America’s ills may be, they will not be ameliorated through the imposition of collectivist policy and redistributionist programs.
Jeffersonian’s view of Wright’s theology is partially correct. He is incorrect in assuming that Obama shares those views.
the Marxism that most Black Liberation thoelogy sympathizes with has more similarity with Catholic social teaching than simply with Marx’s materialism. The concept is that the prophets called Israel to care about the poor, and that the bible is read most clearly through the eyes of the oppressed, who will see themselves in the Israelite nation freeing itself from Egypt. But it does not folow that a liberation thoelogian will believe in atheism or a dictatorship of the proletariat.
As far as “racism” this is incorrect. Not only have I visited Trinity, I was welcomed there. Plenty of whites visit on a regular basis. If it were truly racist, it would be like a black person trying to join the KKK.
There are good reasons to critique black liberation theology. The best general critique is asking what constitutes “whiteness” or “blackness,” which Cone has been taken to task on by people who are sympathetic to the deeply anti-racist project of James Cone. Cone sometimes seems to indicate that a white person who understands oppression and their role is “black.” In so far as whites have an interest in being “white” and “not black” they are inherently racist. Black theology is an attempt to use that concept of “blackness” and revers the years of oppression and find in it a sense of power and agency.
Is it a perfect theology? Not at all. Is it racist? Not in practice. It doesn’t preach black supremacy. Although there are some who do think that blacks are better than whites because, in this world view, whites are intrinsically violent and racist.
Not that I agree with such a view.
But Black liberation theology is as Christian as the Exodus, the Prophets, or the Sermon on the Mount.
[blockquote]He is incorrect in assuming that Obama shares those views. [/blockquote]
And you base this on….what, exactly?
Obama has made vague statements of disapproval of the tirades of Wright, Moss and Pfleger, but they amount to “if you’re upset about them, I disapprove of them.” At what level does Obama disagree with Cone’s racist theology (“white devils” isn’t racist, John?) and at what level does he agree with it? Ditto the marxism of the theology? And, if he disagrees so fundamentally with all of it, why did he spend 20 years shouting “amen!” to it?
Ideally, we’d have an inquisitive, informed press to ask about these basic, important questions. But I suppose it’s more important to get the word out about Sarah Palin’s tanning bed or Cindy McCain’s prescription drug problem, eh?
I confess that I have had to cut back on my own contributions to T19 lately not only because of lack of time, but also for my own spiritual health. I deliberately have avoided all discussions having to do with politics because of the virulence of the rhetoric. Reasoned discussion on blogs like T19 and StandFirm has become increasingly impossible. For example, both of the following appeared on T19 recently. One of them is balanced, although moderately critical. The other is simply bearing false witness.
[blockquote]”Gov. Palin is gifted and full of potential, and the media has been embarrassingly and abysmally condescending toward her,” said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a conservative Episcopal leader from Summerville, S.C. “She has much to offer but she is not ready to take on this assignment. She lacks the credentials – at this time – to be in this position. This is too much too soon.”[/blockquote]
[blockquote]We are being sold marxism wrapped in a shell of insincere piety. Obama’s devotion to TUCC and Wright (which only diminished when Wright personally “dissed†Obama and his phony distancing from the views of his pastor) and the bigotry, racism and marxism of the church speaks volumes about his character and ideological bent. Whatever America’s ills may be, they will not be ameliorated through the imposition of collectivist policy and redistributionist programs. [/blockquote]
The former produced 94 responses, each more vehement than the last, ranging from “very disappointed” to the use of expressions like “baby-killer,” and comments eventually had to be shut down. The latter (which appears above) has produced little response.
To suggest that Sarah Palin might not “be ready” is perceived by T19 readers as extreme, as unacceptable, as a betrayal of one’s Evangelical credentials. To call Barak Obama a bigot, a racist, and a Marxist, is perfectly acceptable.
My good friend David Koyzis has written a book entitled Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies (IVP, 2003), which won a Christianity Today award the year it was published. In this book, Koyzis argues that all political ideologies are inherently idolatrous. Conservative Evangelicals have been quite astute in recognizing the ideological captivity of those on the theological left to a political agenda. Unfortunately, the blogs have abounded with countless examples this election cycle of their inability to recognize their own ideological blindness.
Evangelicals lose all credibility in criticizing the religious left when they willingly embrace ideological apostasy themselves, simply worshiping different idols.
I’m rather proud of that passage, personally, Dr. Witt. There’s not a false word in it. Barack Obama has a history of alliances with those espousing bigotry, marxism and racism. When asked, he asserts that these are not his views. Well, what are his views and, if the views of those with whom he allied himself are so repellent, why did the alliances last for so long?
I’m not a plumber, but I thought I could still ask the question.
Dr. Witt, while I sympathize with much of your comment in #9 as one who has also had to cut way back on the blog reading and commenting for my spiritual health, I think you’re drawing an unfair and inaccurate parallel.
I don’t think it’s possible to create an equivalence between the responses to a comment (quote in a news article) by Kendall in a top level post, versus a comment by a reader in the comments. Many T19 readers don’t even read the comments unless they are going to comment on the article. Certainly I no longer read the comments on most threads unless it’s an article of specific interest to me, or unless it is obviously a “hot topic” with much discussion.
To suggest that Sarah Palin might not “be ready†is perceived by T19 readers as extreme, as unacceptable, as a betrayal of one’s Evangelical credentials. To call Barak Obama a bigot, a racist, and a Marxist, is perfectly acceptable.
Mr. Witt, I read most of the comments in the thread in question, could you point me to where anyone actually said that Kendal’s questioning of Palin’s readiness was “extreme”? Or are you taking artistic? or interpretive liscence by saying that it was “percieved” as extreme?
Similarly, your implication that the second comment you cite called Obama a racist and a bigot shows that you don’t read very carefully the comments you cite, for it was his church that was called those things.
Perhaps if you took the time to read what actually was said rather than reading into them your negative impressions we might have a more fruitful conversation. One others’ comments are distorted as you have done there is sense of bad faith in the critique.
Hi Jefferson,
Which views? That he is a racist? So, you think Obama, being half-white, might hold anti-white views himself? Entirely possible. He may have had a time where he didn’t like that side of his family who raised him. Wright might have tried to get him to deny it.
You also might want to notify Obama’s staff. Most of them are white.
Ane he might be a Marxist… in that libertarian University of Chicago kind of way. I admit, it is a very strange definition of Marxism but … whatever you say. I always found those policy wonks and Chicago Law School types to be a bit self-righteous in their conservatism (if smart and sometimes convincing), but perhaps they are crypto communists.
And perhaps
Warren Buffett, might be a Marxist.
Goolsbee might be a Marxist.
Perhaps [url=”http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/nation/na-furman11″]Jason Furman[/url] might be a Marxist.
Perhaps Obama will fire them, stop taking calls from Volcker and Rubin and make Nader the secretary of the Treasury. It’s an … interesting worldview, Jefferson.
I bet there are a few getting their guns ready once Obama invades Real America….
lol
Or, perhaps Obama wasn’t scared of people who hold views differently than he does. In his first book he describes his differences with Black Natonalists, and with Marxists. He was mature enough to remain friends with them without holding their views. He is, in many ways, post-ideological. [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122402888900234543.html]Ayers[/url], by the time Obama had met him, was well respected by the entire Chicago community and served on boards with several Republicans.
More important, I don’t think he needs to explain his friendships unless they are clearly influencing his policy. You’d have to show evidence that they are. You can’t. Obama, for example, doesn’t talk about Liddy, Singlaub or Pinochet.
That said, Obama is on the “leftist” side of the political spectrum. However, he has shown little evidence of being an ideologue (as far as being a liberal senator, there is little incentive for any Republican to provide evidence that he isn’t partisan).
[url=”http://jenni.uchicago.edu/”James Heckman[/url] once said, “I’ve never seen a campaign more interested in what the evidence shows.”
There is the evidence, Jefferson: people who actually have Obama’s ear.
Well, John, that’s some interesting theorizing. But as I said in #8, I prefer to hear it from Obama the Spreader himself. Not that the media would ever ask him what he actually believes as opposed to inviting him to denounce the certain specific acts of those with whom he allied himself over the decades.
I mean, just take Pastor Wright as an example. Did Obama cut ties with him when:
* He slandered Italians as “garlic noses?” Nope.
* He declared that America had it coming on 9/11? Not a chance.
* He called Condoleeza Rice a whore? Please.
* He Goddamned America? Huh-uh.
* He heaped praise on Louis Farrakhan? Heavens, no.
* Declared that the US government created AIDS to kill blacks? No.
No, this was all taken in stride. Nothing to see here, move along. But when Wright really did something outrageous, like engage in “a show of disrespect to me [and] an insult to what we’re trying to do in this campaign,†Obama finally knew his friend and mentor was over the top. Engaging in bigotry, embracing lunatics, peddling conspiracy theories: A-OK. Slighting The One: Out of Bounds.
But let’s turn this around, John. Let’s say that Obama is just intellectually secure and curious and doesn’t mind taking as allies those with whom he has profound disagreements. That doesn’t explain why those people, who supposedly have such disagreements with him, are endorsing him. Any clue?
Jeffersonian: It is virtually useless to argue with those who refuse to deal with reality and documented facts. But good luck anyway. It needs to be said regardless. In a few weeks many will be singing the Internationale as the new national anthem. Then God will damn America.
“In a few weeks many will be singing the Internationale as the new national anthem” —Athan-asi-us [#15]
And what will you say if they don’t? That they’re secretly humming it?
William Witt [#9]: Just saw your comment here. I understand your frustrations and share your concern about how blog wars can affect spiritual health. Yet many of us greatly value your comments, and I hope you will continue to participate.
Based upon Obama’s 20 year stint with Wright – his religious views are either disturbing or not genuine. Between Wright as a religious mentor and Ayers has a political mentor (having ones comming out political party at the home of an unrepent domestic terroist says a lot about a person’s views)- Obama is either a great con man or the scariest politician in my lifetime.
Chips [#18]: Are you seriously calling Ayers Obama’s “political mentor”?
Jefferson and Athanas-ius (and chips),
You’ll have to do a better job documenting your facts about Obama.
Jefferson does document some statements about Wright. Of course, we’d have to discuss further the nature of biblical rhetoric and black preaching a bit (of course, its not that much different than the way lots of conservative evangelicals have preached), but it seems that Jefferson’s insinuation is that Obama somehow believes what Wright does, secretly. Because Obama has repudiated what Wright has said clearly. Several times. That’s a fact. Jefferson seems to know what Obama’s heart is. But if he can find a place where Obama has said he subscribes to the things wright mentions – or can find a time when, since the beginning of the political campaign, either Wright or Ayers have advised the campaign – Jefferson’s views will have some credit.
Chips offers a no-win situation. Obama can’t, by his view, honestly have said, Wright is right about Jesus Christ’s centrality, but wrong about his politics. After all, he’s a pastor, not a politician. And he’s helping his community out in a way I find admirable.” It’s a manichean view that might not be accurate.
I think people who do support him are impressed by several things: his temperament; his cautiousness; his intelligence. Conservatives support him not because he is politically conservative. They say they support him because he has a conservative temperament.
Buckley, Wick Allison and Charles Fried, for example.
[blockquote] Chips [#18]: Are you seriously calling Ayers Obama’s “political mentor� [/blockquote]
I think that probably overstates it. “Political ally” certainly fits, however.
[blockquote]Jefferson does document some statements about Wright. Of course, we’d have to discuss further the nature of biblical rhetoric and black preaching a bit (of course, its not that much different than the way lots of conservative evangelicals have preached), but it seems that Jefferson’s insinuation is that Obama somehow believes what Wright does, secretly. Because Obama has repudiated what Wright has said clearly. Several times. That’s a fact. Jefferson seems to know what Obama’s heart is. But if he can find a place where Obama has said he subscribes to the things wright mentions – or can find a time when, since the beginning of the political campaign, either Wright or Ayers have advised the campaign – Jefferson’s views will have some credit. [/blockquote]
I’m reading Obama’s lips, John, but I’m also watching his posterior. And where his posterior was when he thought no one would notice (at least in an adverse way) was on Bill Ayers’ sofa and in Jeremiah Wright’s pew. But of course, back in those days Wright was a pastor whose views weren’t particularly controversial and Bill Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood.
I can’t look into his heart, but I can see what he does when he thinks no one is looking. And that’s really what defines a man, no?
Obama is a lawyer and a politician – he cannot use the argument that I did not know or I did not understand when it comes to Ayers and Wright. One cannot attend services for 20 years in a very politicized church and dedicate a book to the same preacher and then repudiate his views when it becomes a political liability. It is just not credible. Obama either 1) shares many of Wright’s views or 2) he is incredibly oportunistic in using Wright to gain street creds in the black wards of Chicago. My guess is that it is a lot of both.
Obama has more ties to Ayers than one fundraiser – but if I were to have my first political fundraiser to launch my political career at an unrepentant KKK Grand Wizards home or ex- SS officers home whose only regret was that they lost the war – the mainstream media would pound me into oblivion (for the record I am very much opposed to the Klan and the SS and would never hold a fundraiser at one of their homes). The fact is that Obama’s first fundraiser was at a former domestic terroist’s home (a literal left wing bomb thrower) – his only regret was that they did not plant more bombs. People have political fundraisers at homes of people who share their views and with whom they think likeminded people will come in order to give money and their support.
Obama is a lawyer and a politician – he cannot use the argument that I did not know or I did not understand when it comes to Ayers and Wright. One cannot attend services for 20 years in a very politicized church and dedicate a book to the same preacher and then repudiate his views when it becomes a political liability. It is just not credible. Obama either 1) shares many of Wright’s views or 2) he is incredibly oportunistic in using Wright to gain street creds in the black wards of Chicago. My guess is that it is a lot of both.
Obama has more ties to Ayers than one fundraiser – but if I were to have my first political fundraiser to launch my political career at an unrepentant KKK Grand Wizards home or ex- SS officers home whose only regret was that they lost the war – the mainstream media would pound me into oblivion (for the record I am very much opposed to the Klan and the SS and would never hold a fundraiser at one of their homes). The fact is that Obama’s first fundraiser was at a former domestic terroist’s home (a literal left wing bomb thrower) – his only regret was that they did not plant more bombs. People have political fundraisers at homes of people who share their views and with whom they think likeminded people will come in order to give money and their support.
Obama is a lawyer and a politician – he cannot use the argument that I did not know or I did not understand when it comes to Ayers and Wright. One cannot attend services for 20 years in a very politicized church and dedicate a book to the same preacher and then repudiate his views when it becomes a political liability. It is just not credible. Obama either 1) shares many of Wright’s views or 2) he is incredibly oportunistic in using Wright to gain street creds in the black wards of Chicago. My guess is that it is a lot of both.
Obama has more ties to Ayers than one fundraiser – but if I were to have my first political fundraiser to launch my political career at an unrepentant KKK Grand Wizards home or ex- SS officers home whose only regret was that they lost the war – the mainstream media would pound me into oblivion (for the record I am very much opposed to the Klan and the SS and would never hold a fundraiser at one of their homes). The fact is that Obama’s first fundraiser was at a former domestic terroist’s home (a literal left wing bomb thrower) – his only regret was that they did not plant more bombs. People have political fundraisers at homes of people who share their views and with whom they think likeminded people will come in order to give money and their support.
sorry for the repeats my computer jammed
Jefferson – let me get this straight. You think that Obama knew that Ayers was a “terrorist.” And that he knew Wright held the views you ascribe to Wright, and holds them himself. You insinuate that Obama holds terroristic views. Is that correct?
There are plenty of problems with that narrative.
Your statement that “what defines a person is what one does when nobody is looking” is interesting but it does throw the nature of politics into confusion. Politics is a public profession. If Obama had casually known a couple KKK guys and played poker with them once in a while, who cares? If he is busy sending money to them and joining their organization, well, that’s a public profession of sympathy. I suppose he should have done background checks on everybody he knew, but, that’s not something I would expect.
Another way to look at his “heart” is examine his choices. He could have, for example, decided to become a black nationalist. He could have gone the Jesse Jackson route of being an opportunist. He could have decided to become a corporate lawyer. Or taught Constitutional law and eventually hope for a nomination under a Democratic presidency for the Supreme Court. He could have gotten a divorce from his wife and married somebody else in the midst of a mid-life crisis. He could have also slid through school on the basis of his family connections (oh – wait – he couldn’t). Lets see – one wife, two kids, discipline to get through school through hard work rather than family connections. Nobody was looking, then.
In the end, I think you are pretty selective about the character issue. There’s not a lot of evidence that Ayers and Wright advise his campaigns, yet it dangles there before you. He MUST somehow, believe those things they do. After all, he sat on a couch, or in a pew, and listened to them. Therefore he must have approved of them.
Chips – I suppose if Obama knew what you know now about both of them you might have a point. And if you are saying that Obama is an opportunist, well, I’ll have to concede that point to you. And if you can find a politician without ambition and an opportunistic streak, well, you win.
But, as I’ve said before, I know Trinity church and to compare it to the KKK isn’t quite right. After all, I could have joined Trinity (and its in a white denomination) although I’m pretty white-ish. I couldn’t join the KKK being colored, since I’m not white enough. If Ayers had been an active member of a terrorist organization, then you’re right. But we only knew that Obama thought of him as an award winning education professor who had Republican friends. I’m pretty up to date on my 60’s history, and had never heard of Ayers’ connections until it was brought up in the election cycle. And I was living in Hyde Park!
Do I think that Obama, Wright and Ayers share some views? Probably. They probably lament the poverty of the inner city. They are concerned about urban problems. But Obama has taken a view that any change has to also include the broadest number of citizens.
[blockquote]Jefferson – let me get this straight. You think that Obama knew that Ayers was a “terrorist.†And that he knew Wright held the views you ascribe to Wright, and holds them himself. You insinuate that Obama holds terroristic views. Is that correct?
There are plenty of problems with that narrative. [/blockquote]
Unsurprising, considering it’s your narrative, not mine.
Ayers remains a marxist to this day. Obama has denounced Ayers’ terrorist activity, and he’s probably sincere. But he also saw no problem with launching his political career in the guy’s living room, nor with sitting on boards with him, passing out millions to folks like Ayers’ similarly unreconstructed Maoist SDS pal, Mike Klonsky. He also praised Ayers’ book in a blurb (on the jacket?…not sure).
So really, the question is what does Obama see virtuous in the views of a guy who headed an organization that, at one time, rhapsodized about sending reformable Americans to reeducation camps and another 25 million to their deaths? More importantly, what do Ayers and Dohrn see in Obama?
Somehow I get the feeling if Tim McVeigh, having gotten off from prosecutorial misconduct, had fostered a GOP candidate’s rise into power, you wouldn’t be so insouciant.
I’ll extend that to Obama’s relationship with Wright: We know Obama doesn’t like the things Wright said specifically about certain subjects and people and has denounced them. The question then arises as to why, knowing that Wright said these things (and please don’t insult both our intelligences that Obama was unaware of them), why did he not only stay at TUCC, but donate tens of thousands of dollars to Wright?
Why not go down the line of Black Liberation Theology’s tenets and ask Obama if he believes them? I’m sure we can both predict the answers now. Then the question is: If he is being honest now, why did he stay and prop up the institution?
Ultimately, John, we’re left with your ventriloquism of Obama because no one will ask him what he really believes and then compare it to what he has done and said. Ayers isn’t talking, and neither is Wright. You attribute all of these virtues to him, a propos of nothing.
But then again, I do know now that Sarah Palin has a tanning bed, so the MSM isn’t completely moribund.
Oh, and how do we know Obama isn’t a black nationalist?
That Obama did not know that Ayers was the leader of the Weatherman seems very unlikely – liberals look back at the 1960’s as the good ole days. And he had to know about Wright if he attended church – Oprah left because it was too radical.
Jefferson,
if Ayers had murdered someone himself, I think it would be a different story.
Your question is pretty simple.
Ayers was considered one of the premier professors of education in Chicago. Obama and Ayers had an interest in improving urban education. I am on boards with Republicans and a few who probably have much more radical views than I do. I don’t vet them. I haven’t.
What do Ayers and Dohrn see in Obama? That’s a fine question. Are they right? who knows? I think lots of people are putting hopes upon Obama that won’t be realized.
As far as knowing if Obama is a black nationalist….
You’re right. We don’t know if he is truly a black nationalist. Biden’s going to be surprised. As are most of his advisers. You must know something they don’t know.
We don’t know if McCain is … a member of the KKK. He’s hung with Anti-Semites. We also don’t know if he’s secretly a plutocrat. He’s also hung with people who blame 9/11 on Ameirican decadence, so perhaps he’s got more radical views than he lets on.
Eventually you’ll provide better evidence from the source, rather than using guilt by association.
[blockquote]if Ayers had murdered someone himself, I think it would be a different story.[/blockquote]
He founded and ran an organization whose purpose was destruction and murder, John, as a precursor to violent overthrow of the government, subjugation of the nation to sundry communist dictatorships and annihilation of a tenth of the population in death camps for thoughtcrimes against the new socialist megastate.
What does a guy have to do to get bad press in Hyde Park? Put a McCain sign on his lawn?
[blockquote]We don’t know if McCain is … a member of the KKK. He’s hung with Anti-Semites. We also don’t know if he’s secretly a plutocrat. He’s also hung with people who blame 9/11 on Ameirican decadence, so perhaps he’s got more radical views than he lets on. [/blockquote]
Possibly. I’ll admit McCain has associated for years with a guy from the Klan, but what can a guy do when folks in West Virginia keep sending him back to the Senate? I’m almost certain he doesn’t caucus with the guy, however. But wouldn’t McCain attending Klan rallies for 20 years just be evidence of his intellectual depth, being able to be around guys he doesn’t agree with for so long?
As for as the anti-semitism, well…[url=http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/confirmed-msm-holds-video-of-barack.html]you might want to keep that under your hat for now.[/url] But toasting a seething Jew-hater doesn’t mean anything, I’m sure. Doesn’t mean a thing that Trust Fund Billy was raising a glass at the shindig, either.
Jefferson, I appreciate the 60’s cold war hyperbole, but you might want to ask the Republicans who knew Ayers why they hung out with him as well. Perhaps they aren’t as convinced as you are that he’s as dangerous as people have made him out to be. But, while the WU was militant, I think you’ll have to provide some evidence that their ideology was fundamentally about murder. Unlike McVeigh, Ayers rejected killing innocent civilians.
But, you seem to be confused between Ayers and Obama. Likewise, you seem to be confused by Senator Byrd and McCain. I admit, I’m also surprised that Byrd, the former KKK member, would support a black nationalist muslim for president. It is fascinating.
But I believe the KKK is supporting John McCain. Why? And does it matter? Not really.
As far as that video, I suppose it makes good conspiracy watching. David Axelrod might want to know that Obama’s an anti-semite. But its pretty meaningless. Still grasping for straws.
We haven’t even looked at who McCain actually has employed.
John, Weatherman was about violent revolution. Their 1969 position paper, according to Wikipedia, called for “the destruction of US imperialism and [to] achieve a classless world: world communism.” Several of the group were killed when the nail bomb they were preparing for an officers’ dance at Fort Dix exploded on them. Let’s not minimize what they were and what they stood for. It’s not a bad idea to read the Wikipedia article, whatever your political stripe, because the gray shades come into it and we have an addiction to everything being black and white.
[blockquote]But, while the WU was militant, I think you’ll have to provide some evidence that their ideology was fundamentally about murder. [/blockquote]
[b]Pajamas Media:[/b] You stated in your interview in No Place to Hide that you wanted us to “imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.†A lot of people have now had the opportunity to listen to you, and contemplate the horrors these people planned. Can you recall who these people are by name, and who the ringleaders of this plan were?
[b]Larry Grathwohl:[/b] Conversations regarding this occurred in Cincinnati, Detroit, Flint, and Buffalo. Participants included Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Mark Rudd, Linda Evans, Jeff Jones, and many others.
[b]Pajamas Media:[/b] Was this merely an academic matter to them, or were they serious about killing 25 million Americans that would not bend to their political will?
[b]Larry Grathwohl:[/b] I suppose you could consider this a purely academic discussion in that the Weathermen never had the opportunity to implement their political ends. However, I can assure you that this was not the case. There was an absolute belief that they, along with the international revolutionary movement, would cause the collapse of the United States and that they would be in charge. Nixon was of great concern and how his end would be conducted. This may sound absurd in today’s context, but the Weatherman believed they would succeed.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJn5b8_weUY]LINK[/url]
And you might think again about what that bomb that killed Ayers’ girlfriend was intended for, John. It wasn’t for the destruction of property (as if that was acceptable).
Funny ideas you have in Hyde Park.
I’d like to be disabused of my suspicions about what’s on the tape, and all the LAT needs do is release it. Odd, this behavior from an organization nominally dedicated to disseminating information, no? There is the report from one who claims to have seen it, however:
[blockquote]Reason we can’t release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”
It would be really controversial if it got out. Tha’s why they will not even let a transcript get out.[/blockquote]
Protecting the people’s right not to know, the LA Times.
Lastly, John, are you sure about the [url=http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308]KKK?[/url]
You keep changing the subject, Jefferson. Obama knew Ayers and his views on education. You still can’t provide evidence that Obama holds terroristic views. It’s a nice fantasy, but one that is… untrue.
But if we’re going to go that direction, Jefferson, I’d note that Liddy and Singlaub weren’t exactly pleasant persons themselves. Know of them? Well, it doesn’t matter to me. I can tell the difference between McCain and Singlaub. For lots of people, Singlaub is a murderer himself. But one who killed communists rather than vice versa.
Did your read the article you sent? The support falls into two varieties:
We support Obama because he will start a race war and teach whites a lesson and and will help recruitment. Kind of the same reason why Osama likes McCain.
or
We support McCain, and all my friends are supporting McCain because Obama will take our guns and turn us all into Muslims.
Interesting worldviews. One is a lot like the Marxist world view “let capitalism crash for the next generation of communists.”
Re the quote about anti-semitism – the pronoun is deliberately confusing. It seems to indicate that Obama supports Khalidi and his ideals. Although perhaps when all conservatives gather they think the same, this has not been Obama’s mode of being. The professor happens to be someone who is fairly prominent and well-respected. Granted, among blogging anti-intelligensia people, he lacks positive soundbites and would not do well on Fox News.
Of course, there is the standard guilt by association. Vet his friends if you can’t vet his policies. Still grasping for straws. Obama supports the state of Israel. However, he does seem to know people who think differently. So what?
But personally, I don’t think anything is wrong with those two statements, myself.
Still grasping for straws, Jefferson. Eventually you’ll find a quote from Obama, himself.
[blockquote]You keep changing the subject, Jefferson.[/blockquote]
I’m not changing the subject, John, I’m rebutting your tangential assertions, none of which are holding a drop of water.
Regardless of motive, white supremecist idiots seem to be supporting Obama, giving the lie to your assertion. I haven’t seen Osama’s endorsement of McCain…or has this factoid also leapt solely from your imagination? It would seem the Jew-haters are lining up behind Obama, if the Rashidi gala is any indication.
[blockquote]Obama knew Ayers and his views on education. You still can’t provide evidence that Obama holds terroristic views. It’s a nice fantasy, but one that is… untrue. [/blockquote]
I have used a form of the word “terror” precisely once this thread, and it was in saying that Obama has denounced Ayers’ terrorism and that he was most likely sincere. I’ll thank you not to misrepresent my views. It’s becoming so common that one can only presume it is deliberate…and society has a word for people who persist in that sort of behavior.
That doesn’t change the fact that Ayers is still a revolutionary marxists and sees his educational theories as advancing said revolution by other means. Or did you miss his effusive praise for Hugo Chavez’s political indoctrination project in Little Venice?
[blockquote](M)y comrade and friend Luis Bonilla, a brilliant educator and inspiring fighter for justice … has taught me a great deal about the Bolivarian Revolution (i.e., Chavez’s movement) and about the profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, and I’ve come to appreciate Luis as a major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane…. [/blockquote]
This is the same “deeply humane” Hugo Chavez that has murdered political opponents and is now threatening to jail his current electoral foe.
As Sol Stern points out in [i]City Journal[/i], “Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children in the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.”
Puts all those CAC grants Obama handed out to Ayers, Klonsky, et alia into a slightly different light, doesn’t it? Johnny might not be able to read, factor a quadratic equation or understand Newton’s laws of motion, but under an Ayers/Obama education regime, he knows the dictatorship of the proletariate is just groovy.
But of course, Obama doesn’t know about any of this, hasn’t heard any of it and, despite being joined at the hip for 20 years with these urchins, doesn’t believe a word of it. Fair is foul, foul is fair.
[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477_pf.html]On Al-Qaeda Web Sites, Joy Over U.S. Crisis, Support for McCain[/url]
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true]Qaeda wants Republicans, Bush “humiliated”: Web video[/url]
So which gang of jihad-crazed lunatics do we believe?
Either way, I don’t particularly need Al Qaeda suggesting who I should or shouldn’t vote for.
Jefferson,
it does show some maturity to hang with people you disagree with. In dreams of ou r Fathers Obama has that cool sensibility. Learn form others, disagree when necessary. I happen even to be related to people I disagree with. And they’ve been around my entire life.
You offer a few anecdotes about the KKk supporting Obama, but you don’t analyze it. My point is that it doesn’t matter. They don’t speak for Obama. Nor do they advise him. It is a convenient way of avoiding what Obama actually does say on his platform.
You do say “joined at the hip” but is that accurate? How many minutes would you say that was? As I’ve said before, if you do really want to understand Obama, Jefferson, you might want to study Harold Washington. That’s who Obama was inspired by. Kendall has even linked to a great story about him.
Except, John, even by your own admission Obama agrees with Ayers’ educational philosophy, which I’ve shown is in lockstep with Hugo Chavez’s use of schools as marxist indoctrination centers. Obama spent years lavishing tens of millions on organizations that promoted this worldview, from Ayers’ own groups to Ayers’ Maoist SDS pal Mike Klonsky’s projects. The CAC project was deemed to be a failure, but I disagree…it all depends on what the true but unstated objectives were.
Obama does the easy thing in denouncing Ayers’ actions of nearly 40 years ago, but he has never said a word to disavow Ayers’ revolutionary philosophy, which is the real issue here. And virtually everything he’s done or said since has reinforced the idea that government is to be used as a tool for forcible redistribution of wealth. Even his denials are non-denials.