source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89109217 by Michel Martin

Photo: Stephen Voss

© 2007

The article begins with a description of how the author’s debate coach and fellow teammates remained silent when the white host of a reception ushered her into the back room to socialize with the maid 20 years ago, and how the coach recently apologized for doing nothing.

She then launches into an attack on Dr. Wright/Obama critics by saying this:

Setting aside the fact that I question how many of these people have actually darkened the door of any house of worship in recent years…

Which leaves unanswered the question of her own “darkening the door of any house of worship.” Obviously she didn’t learn too much about theology at her United Methodist Alma mater, and how many elements of Dr. Cole’s “liberation theology” contradict scripture. (I plan on doing a thourough analysis of liberation theology once I get my copy of Dr. Cole’s book Black Power, Black Theology which is the foundational theology of Obama/Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ).

Following this, she gives several illustrations of “good” people sitting idly by while others do or say bad  things. She then provides this example:

They would have sat right there just like countless good people do when their friends tell racist jokes, or when their employers refuse to return phone calls of applicants they suspect might be black or brown, or refuse to rent apartments or work with people of color.

So, because prominent figures tolerated evil, and “countless good people” tolerate evil, makes it okay to tolerate evil? I know I’m not the only person who has taken a stand against racist jokes in the work place. Last year there was a trio of neo-nazis whom I had the unpleasant experience of working with. They constantly slurred Jews, Blacks and Women using the worst possible words. They even asked me if I was Jewish. While I never considered them friends, or even open to having their minds change on those matters, they did know where I stood, and that I was offended by their vulgar langauge and hateful graffiti. You better believe it was hard. God does provide strength to say the truth when a  lie would be easiest of all. At least one person I worked with at the time did try to flatter them, by saying how she would never let her child date outside his/her “race.”

What people do or don’t do doesn’t mean an action should be considered acceptible.

She goes on to say this:

I know this because, over the years, I have met too many white people who have told me how they have struggled to find their voices when language or behavior emerges from people they otherwise care about — who they believe to be good people — but who, nevertheless, say or do things they think are wrong.

Okay, but Dr. Wright’s incindiary statements have spanned decades. Not only has Barack Obama tolerated these things, but he has exposed his children to them, again and again. I can say that, if my pastor started preaching incindiary racist hate then I would walk out of the message. If, after private discussion, I could not get him to see what the bible says about race, then I would leave that church and never go back.

Just because the right thing is hard to do, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

The author closes her article with this:

Obama has explained his relationship with his minister at some length. One is free to accept or reject his explanation. But please — spare me the moral outrage about what you would have done or would do in that situation. And just do it.

Obama has had an intimate friendship/mentorship/spiritual relationship with this man for decades. His repeated claims of ignorance and “amnesia” can only be believed if he never attended Trinity United regularly, as he has said he did. He has no excuse, regardless of what others have “gotten away with.” If he is a “devout Christian” who “prays to Jesus” as he as claimed several times, then he would have made some kind of stand. Jesus never prayed for the damnation of the Roman Empire, and they crucified him (in a legal sense).

There are plenty of things Barack Obama has done and supported that deserve “moral outrage” and I will do my part to expose them.

From People’s Weekly World(Exert, bolding added by me, italics my words):

Barack Obama’s appeal to the people to join in building a “more perfect union” touched a deep chord among millions of voters weary of division and hate peddled by the corporate ultra-right and their Republican agents in Washington.

It would seem Obama’s mentor has been peddling the hate as of late. His “retirement” and resignation from Obama’s religious outreach both seem all too convenient(as well as the expunging of the “black values system from Trinity’s website). His peddling of hate against whites and division finally became too much. Odd the Communists would rally against hate and division, since that is exactly what they desire to create against conservative people.

His 37-minute speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, March 18, has been hailed as “a speech for the ages.” It has been likened to John F. Kennedy’s speech in defense of separation of church and state when his candidacy was threatened by anti-Catholic bigotry.

Of course the communists don’t just want church and state seperation. Like in China and former Soviet Russia, they want the state to muzzle and starve the church to death, by taxes, property seizure and making religious belief illegal. Remember, these are the people who worship Marx and Engels.

With the media whipping up hysteria over the sermons of Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the speech was seen as a challenge to save his campaign. It was heard live by millions on cable and network TV. Afterwards, commentators said the speech had turned danger into triumph, reaching once again across racial and partisan divides to build support for his presidential candidacy.

Of course Obama’s smooth rhetoric and after the fact denunciations of some of the things Dr. Wright said will smooth over everything for all the “typical white (liberal) people.” Consider me still far divided from the Communist’s own racist Messiah candidate.

Source: http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12759/1/416/

The following exert is from the Communist Party, USA’s website. They consider Trinity United a “Key Church” I guess Dr. Wright’s constant denunciation of America, capitalism, and white people didn’t go unrewarded. It is particularly tragic to see America’s Christian community so diluted and distorted that Communists could come in by name and be accepted as partners. Remember, the party never compromises its principles: Atheism and socialism. They will use whatever means necessary to destroy America and its economic, religious, and social freedoms. The Communist Party joins the ever growing list of Anti-American groups (Nation of Islam, Hamas) who have been invited into or endorsed by Trinity United Church of Christ. The communists have also joined with the likes of the New Black Panthers(NBP) and Lois Farrakhan (Nation of Islam) to support Obama in his bid for presidency. While the Communists have not yet joined the NBP and Farrakhan in officially endorsing Obama, they defend and support him through their website. This is explored in my other post.

(From the CPUSA website)

Finally, I want to mention the tremendous protest movement that took place in many predominantly African American high schools against the injustice to the Jena 6. The National Rainbow PUSH coalition, churches and African American sororities and fraternities were also involved. We should do more to help build the movement around this case.

We hope this meeting will accelerate the process of building the fighting capacity of the party against racism and discrimination; of renewing, strengthening and expanding our relations with organizations and activists in the African American community. Whatever weaknesses we have cannot be solved out side of struggle. By stepping up our involvement and connection to struggles and movements already existing in the African American community, we will expand our relations with key activists and organizations – for example the National Rainbow PUSH, CBTU, some of the key churches like Trinity UCC, the Mt. Pilgrim Baptist Church, key community organizations like the South Austin Community Coalition, Kenwood Oaklawn Community Organization and others. We (The Communists!)have had working relations at various levels with many of these organizations over the years.

On the other hand, where coalitions get started around particular issues, it is essential for the party and YCL(Young Communist League) to play a role to guarantee that organizations of the African American community, and all core forces, are in the planning from the ground floor. I think we played a helpful role in getting the Oct. 27 coalition off on the right foot.
The Oct. 27 Midwest regional demonstration in Chicago offers a good opportunity for our clubs to renew or establish new relations with African American organizations and activists in our areas, to reach out and work together. This should be a conscious part of whatever plans are being made by the clubs. The rally is connecting the war with the funding crisis for education, health care, transit, etc. and provides a broad basis of unity. 

Source CPUSA.org pulled 3/26/08:

Suppose you walked into a bookstore. Upon looking around, you see that the shelves are lined with cereal, vegetables, breads and other things you would expect to see in a grocery store. Puzzled, you ask a sales associate where the books are. He says, “Why, there right there,” gesturing to the rows of produce, cereals and vegetables.

Such will be your experience if you try to find the truths of Christianity in the United Church of Canada(UCC), though such was not always the case. Today’s  UCC retains some of the forms of Christian worship, but has replaced the Bible with the knowledge of this world

    This statement does not seek to replace the Twenty Articles of Faith included in the United Church’s 1925 Basis of Union. The Twenty Articles have historical significance for the church, being an expression of the theological agreement negotiated among the founding denominations, which allowed significantly different bodies (the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist denominations and the Local Union Churches) to come together as one united church. -  Appendix A

However, it does. Those original Articles of Faith are basically the fundamental truths of Christianity. The new ambiguous  “Statement” of Faith merely views the Bible as “one truth” and Jesus as “a way.” The foundation of the United Church of Canada was undeniably and exclusivly Christian in nature:

We receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of God, as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God’s gracious revelations, and as the sure witness of Christ.  - Article 2

Compare that to these exerts from the “Statement of Faith(SOF)”

    The statement employs and honours the traditional image of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but also offers other images, such as Mother, Friend, Comforter, Source of Life, Living Word, Bond of Love. Words are a significant means of understanding and relating to the Holy, and the statement of faith recognizes the adequacy of all images or metaphors that speak faithfully of “the One on whom our hearts rely.” However, the first designation of God in the statement of faith, that of Holy Mystery, serves as a reminder that all subsequent attempts to name the Divine are simply that—attempts to describe a reality that is always greater than human language can encompass.    At times the use of inclusive language demands a certain amount of “verbal gymnastics” or awkwardness of phrasing, and perhaps this is not a bad thing. It reminds us that the object of worship is ultimately God and not our images of God. - SOF, Appendix B

The use of multiple genders and awkward verbal gymnastics only serves to transform the personal identifiable God into a new age androgynous deity of whom nothing can be known or understood. Essentially a form of monotheistic polytheism, whereby any and all images of god become God. If they sincerely wanted to know the names of God, all they would have to do is consult the Bible. Anything that creates confusion about God’s indentity is a bad thing. Changing the words of the Word of God is a bad thing(On a side note, one can see very evidently the change of not only words, but also meaning in Eugene Peterson’s terrible so-called paraphrase “The Message”).

     The United Church, in its use of scripture, exhibits an approach that seeks to take the Bible seriously, but not literally. Biblical study and interpretation in the United Church often take into consideration scripture’s historical context, its literary value and function, the diversity of voices and perspectives being represented, and the voices not being represented.  - SOF, Appendix D

The new SOF also attacks those who would take Biblical scripture literally in the main body of the “poem.” (This form presents an awkward expression for a Faith Statement, but given the current confusion of truth in the United Church, it is understandable).

 The Spirit judges us critically when we abuse scripture
by interpreting it narrow-mindedly,
using it as a tool of oppression, exclusion, or hatred. - UCC SOF Poem

Mat 7:13-15  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:  (14)  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.  (15)  Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Scripture is narrow, it proclaims Christ is the only name under heaven whereby man must be saved(Acts 4:12). It would be hard pressed to use scripture honestly interpreted for oppression(The Bible does state that the worker is worth his wages Matthew 10:10). The Bible does call the truth to be preached in love. The person who views the Christian rejection of same sex “marriage,” abortion, gender identity as hatred, has either met some false brethren, or has not stopped to examine the Bible’s message. The Bible has much to say about the sanctity of life and marriage. The Bible proclaims that truth is to be preached in love (Ephesians 4:15). The UCC proclaims that Love is to be preached at the expense of truth. In its earnest desire for social and political relevance, the UCC has changed its foundations. It attempts to be a church for all faiths united in diversity under different gods, and even the lack of God altogether.

The wholeness of scripture testifies
to the oneness and faithfulness of God.
The multiplicity of scripture testifies to its depth:
two testaments, four gospels,
contrasting points of view held in tension— UCC SOF poem

Compare that to the view in the Articles of Faith from the UCC’s founding:

We receive the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of God, as containing the only infallible rule of faith and life, a faithful record of God’s gracious revelations, and as the sure witness of Christ.  - Article 2

The Gospels complement each other, not contrast. The harmony of the Bible, inspite of its being written over the course of centuries by princes and paupers, global rulers and clergy, prophets and lawyers in 3 languages and several countries is simply miraculous. For thousands of years the scriptures have stood. More early manuscripts and witnesses attest to the accuracy of the books of the Bible than any other, and many newer works.

 So in short, if you live in, or plan on visiting Canada and you want to go to a Christian church, do not go to a United Church. They are a church preaching the broad way and forsaking the narrow way of Christ. In addition to my studies of their Faith Statements, from personal experience, I can attest that the United Church preaches nothing of the Bible. The one service I attended while on vacation in Canada was nothing other than singing a few songs and witnessing some bizzare meditation about finding “something” at the end of one of three paths.

   The New Black Panther Party for Self Defense has officially endorsed Barack Obama as the “ONLY choice” for the militant racial separatist in their magazine. This group openly longs for the killing of “white folks.” You might think that it is because he’s the first seriously  possible Black candidate for the US presidency. You can be assured that if this distinction were to go to someone like Condeliza Rice, Colin Powel, or Alan Keyes, that they would protest them with even more tenacity than they did Bush (you know, the Nazi). They would only come out and support a main stream candidate if that candidate was likely to advance in some way, their views on “whitey”.

After reading about the deletion of a supposed Black Panther Endorsement on Obama’s official website, I decided to check it out for myself. The endorsement was in fact real, as verified by The New Black Panther(TNBP):

In this same issue, here is the full page endorsement:

The 10th point in their official party platform is this:

10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION!
We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, “a liberated zone” (“New Africa” or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! “UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL!” BLACK POWER! History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man’s wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice.
Therefore, to the Red Man and Woman, to the Yellow and to the Brown, we say to you

“THE SAME RABID DOG THAT BIT YOU, BIT US TOO!” ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

*”We hold this truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” [the Declaration of Independence]

The concept of humans as animals ties right in with this slogan. In the book, it is shown to mean that all freedoms are bad, and thus a lack of freedom is best for all. However, in some cases, the freedom to do something may actually help to reduce the freedoms of all.

 ”Freedom” to die

    For example, the viewing of humans as animals reduces the moral qualms which may come from ending the life of an innocent person whether a full grown mentally impaired person like Terri Schiavo, or a person yet to be brought into this world (commonly referred to as “abortion). In this case, the granting of additional “freedoms” by the state could eventually pave the way for the state to use these “freedoms” against innocent Americans. Most Americans do not realize the dangerous president set when it is ruled legal to take innocent life for no other reason than convenience. Incidently, both Abortion and Euthanasia would fit in with at least one radical group’s “New World Order” dreams.

 ”Freedom” to use (illegal) drugs

There is a segment of the population both in America and abroad that want the freedom to use drugs without fear of prosecution. There are at least two reasons why a totalitarian government would benefit from allowing (and controlling) limited recreational drug use:

1: Additional profits

A government which was either the sole provider of, or licensor of providers would gain a large additional revenue. Even if the government provided it for “free,” it could still reap large dividends.

2: Control

A people addicted to some kind of drug would be willing to do anything to maintain their fix. In their desire to work for and obtain their drugs, they would be readily willing to cede freedoms to the government, and would be far less likely to revolt against the “Big Brother”who gives them everything they want.

  “Freedom” from God (or state-sponsored Atheism)

There has been much talk and progress of purging Christian elements from the public square and the legal code. A great wall is being built to separate God from the American Government. It was started in the 20th Century and work continues today. What is wrong with “separation of church and state?” It is from God that things called moral absolutes come from. A government that has been freed from God gains the moral ability to do whatever to whomever without fear or guilt. This is why the official religion of Soviet Russia and the “People’s Democratic Republic” of China is Atheism. America never had a state sponsored church, but always maintained a generic Christian foundation. However, beginning in the mid 1900s, this foundation began to be blasted. Today, only traces of this foundation remain. However, America, though separating from its Christian heritage is far from churchless. Atheism is effectively preached in the public schools, whereby children are indoctrinated to accept that humans are animals and life is an accident. This opens them to accept the moral standards of a secular society, namely, anything goes sexually, drug use is ok, socialism (or outright Communism in California, see SB 1322) is good, and people who believe in God or moral absolutes are bad.

The only other religious expression encouraged in the academic world is Islam. While this might seem contradictory, Islam’s tenants do allow for a considerable degree of moral relativism (especially in regards to martyrdom and revolution). It allow allows the foundation for a totalitarian government along the lines of Iran. No country set up on Atheistic or Qu’ranic principles will ever be a free and democratic society. It was the Christian foundation in America that gave rise to a government tolerant of freedom, and forced it to operate in a limited fashion. It is for that reason that America flourished. It was this moral foundation that worked so long and hard to end the sins America committed against her own people (slavery and segregation).

 ”Freedom” from offense

This would grant that almost everyone has the right to never be offended. This is already clearly evident in Canada, and even in the US, where the Canadian Human Rights Commission not only makes sure that “sexual minorities” are not offended, but that private Christian business are forced to work for them or be sued out of existence.

Now, as we plunge into a brave new world, the moral causes of the past are hijacked to further the causes of the moral relativists, namely the destruction of: Family, marriage, the unborn, and America. Presidential wannabes Barack and Hillary face off against a not so distant opponent. Barack and Hillary would rapidly accelerate the collapse of the American legacy,  bringing us ever closer to Big Brother/Sister.

 Recommended Reading:

1984, George Orwell

Masters of Deceit, J. Edgar Hoover

Holy Bible, KJV

Fahrenheit 451: A Novel by Ray Bradbury

The Bill of Rights

Barack Obama continues to “denounce” things his pastor said, and doesn’t consider him political. Maybe he should have told that to Dr. Wright. Wright claims the US ’s attack on Japan in WWII was terrorist, and that we brought 9/11 on ourselves.

Would you continue to go to a church that constantly said and supported things you opposed? Would you trust such a place to nourish your soul? Train up your children? Baptise them and marry you? Obama did all these things.

Could you imagine if John McCain or Mike Huckabee went to an Aryan Nations church? Could you imagine them saying that they “denounced” “some things” the pastor said, but that he was a personal friend?

Barack Obama’s pastor hates America, regrets that she won WWII, and continues to hate her. This Rev. Wright has fed and directed Obama and his family spiritually for years. If a little leaven leavens a whole lump, and birds of a feather flock together, how far removed from his pastor’s hell-inspired racism and noxious anti-Americanism can Barack be?

Do we want a person leading this nation who may very well hate it? (Hence the constant hammering of the “change” theme?)

Found on Obama’s Website. Rolling stone even had the disgrace to use the title of the original star wars (A new hope) to describe a man who’s bitter defense of late term abortion, and sickening regret about trying to save a starving woman would make a dark lord of the Sith Jealous. Utterly sickening messiah style worship here:

A New Hope

| March 06, 2008

By JANN S. WENNER

The tides of history are rising higher and faster these days. Read them right and ride them, or be crushed. And then along comes Barack Obama, with the kinds of gifts that appear in politics but once every few generations. There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline. It’s not just that he is eloquent - with that ability to speak both to you and to speak for you - it’s that he has a quality of thinking and intellectual and emotional honesty that is extraordinary. (if you like mega spending-americana83)

…Throughout the primaries, and during a visit he paid to our offices, we have come to know Barack Obama, his toughness and his grace. He would not be intimidated, and he declined to back down, when Senator Clinton called him “frankly, naive” for his willingness to meet leaders of hostile nations. When one of her top campaign officials tried to smear him for his earlier drug use, he did not equivocate or backtrack. On the matter of experience and capability, he has run an impressive, nearly flawless campaign - one that whupped America’s most hard-boiled political infighters. Indeed, Obama was far more prepared to run a presidential campaign - from Day One - than Senator Clinton. And at no point did he go negative with personal attacks or character assassination; as much as they might have been justified, they didn’t even seem tempting to him.

Obama has emerged by displaying precisely the kind of character and judgment we need in a president: renouncing the politics of fear, speaking frankly on the most pressing issues facing the country and sticking to his principles. He recognizes that running for president is an opportunity to inspire an entire Nation(of Islam-americana83).
Read the full article from Rolling Stone

(warning: Contains unadulterated messiah praise and worship of Barack Obama may induce nausea, vomiting or orwellian though control…)

Article source (same warning applies)

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/03/06/a_new_hope.php

In his continuing quest to “unite” America, Barack has indicated he would work to undermine on the federal level the Marriage protection amendments, laws and acts that have been passed by nearly every state.

From his website, you can get a sample of the “change” he would bring to America, and it certainly would not be limited to redefining marriage

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise
on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to
the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

-Barack Obama

His mind is already made up, from this it is clear that he will not compromise on this stance, and his only reason for listening is to CHANGE the minds of “those who still need to be convinced.” The only way we will “move forward together” is on his terms.

You  may have seen his obstinate unilateralism unintentionally revealed in one of his campaign ads where he said lobbyists would have no place “in MY whitehouse.” It may seem like a good concept, but just the way he said it. Just about every issue, whether gun rights, marriage, pro-life, free trade, abortion, gun-control, civil rights,(whether good or bad) these are all special interests.

It sounds like Barack would work unilaterally to change America.