Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘black’

Weekend Healthcare Vote, Weekend Rally in DC!

Posted by americana83 on March 21, 2010

Crowd estimates were around 45,000. The crowds persisted throughout yesterday and today, as the house is poised to vote on this bill. Prayers were offered in the name of Christ for our nation and our legislatures, and from what I heard at last night’s rally, this morning for the first time in about a 100 years a real prayer service was hosted in the capital! We held a prayer service outside on the lawn to correspond with the one inside. A congressman led the service. The crowd was awesome and the prayer was great.

Last night several congressman came out and said they were no votes, and that they could here us chanting from inside the house rules committee.

Please continue to pray as the rallies continue today, and as some groups are mingling with the protesters possibly desiring to stir up trouble. I hope you will join me in prayer that the hearts of our congressman would be turned to oppose a bill that will do far more harm than it will do good.

I had the opportunity to lead a small prayer service for some fellow patriots. The spirit of the people was amazing. The alleged racist event could not have been tea partiers, the spirit of the people was just so opposed to that. In fact, it was the most ethnically diverse crowd of American’s I’ve seen yet at the rallies. More and more people are rejecting the myth about this being a white thing or a republican thing. Freed0m is an American thing! I have a great interview once I have opportunity to post it.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Racism? Maybe MSN/Newsweek should look at the man in the mirror…

Posted by americana83 on January 25, 2010

Continuing in the vein of Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, and others, “the Root” has done everything but call Palin and the tea partiers nazis, though there can be little debate that they desire to do so and would do so with ecstasy if there was any proof. Consider the article‘s opening salvo:

It does not take a pollster, partisan or psychic to see a harbinger of things to come in Massachusetts voters’ choice of a Republican to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. If Barack Obama’s next three years in the White House are anything like his first, he will surely be a one-term president.

And for black America, that’s the good news.

Because if history is any guide, the truly awful news is that the smart money is on Sarah Palin to replace Obama in the White House.

Foreshadowing a Palin presidency is a perfect, gathering storm of economics, politics and tribalism, which is not to suggest that Obama is an innocent bystander in his reversal of fortune.

The so called liberal progressives are certainly tripping over the facts of wildly unpopular bailouts, record-setting deficits, outright marxists and maoists in the white house among other things in their mad dash to reach for the race-card. They are so blinded by their zeal to pin this all on “conservative racists” that they have no concern for truth, and would have black men and women run for their lives from a hockey mom. Does anyone think it condescending that articles like this tell “black folks” who they should run from? As if they need to be told, like children that “the evil tea party people are coming for you, because they hate Obama, and Obama is black, therefore they must be racists.”

Add to this some ignorant economic analysis:

Even before the recession hit, there were more maids, cashiers and waitresses in the United States than factory workers, and, when inflation is accounted for, workers have not had a raise in almost 40 years. The trillions of taxpayer dollars showered on Wall Street has produced record profits and fat bonuses, but has done nothing to loosen clogged credit lines. Lending in October of last year was down nearly 15 percent from the previous year—and the White House refuses to launch a New Deal-like jobs program, or provide any substantive relief to borrowers who are in over their head on mortgages, student loans or credit cards.

According to a recent Bloomberg News poll, only 8 percent of consumers say they plan to spend more in 2010, and with the circulation of cash slowing to a snail’s pace, you don’t need Paul Krugman to answer this question: If nobody’s lending, and nobody’s spending, how does your economy grow?

They fail to realize that unconstitutional government bailouts and explosions of spending are what cause inflation. In short, inflation is the government’s fault, and the logical connection then is that government is to blame for the assumed fact that workers have not had a raise in 4 decades. If Obama does launch more raw-deal styled spending, rest assured that inflation would accelerate its consumption of the earnings of the average worker.

Only 8 percent plan to spend more? That’s GREAT news. We as Americans have been spending way too much, maxing out credit cards, indulging the “must have now” syndrome that has taken over our culture. Further, citizens, unlike the government cannot extend their own credit lines or print more money to spend (it’s called counterfeiting, and the Federal Reserve is a master at it). Hugo Chavez’s government just stole 50% of the wealth in Venezuela in their quest to gain more money for Chavez to spend. Inflation is theft.

And now we get to some good ole fashioned libel a la racism:

A protracted stagnation will likely produce competing responses from voters in 2012, both of them bad for Obama. Polls show that African Americans continue to overwhelmingly support the president even though the unemployment rate for blacks is nearly twice the national average. That won’t change much, if at all, in the next three years. But will the laid–off African-American workers, who have exhausted their jobless benefits, turn out to vote in Gary, Ind., Detroit, Cleveland, Philly and Tampa with the same enthusiasm, and in the same numbers, as they did in 2008? Black New Yorkers certainly didn’t turn out last year for Bill Thompson, the African-American Democratic mayoral nominee, who lost narrowly to Michael Bloomberg, the Republican incumbent. Voter turnout was the city’s lowest in almost a century.

The only reason Obama loses the Black vote is that “they stay home?” Are you serious? There are many Black voices that decry the socialist march of Obama’s policies. Are they really implying in this article that Blacks should support a candidate merely because the candidate is black and liberal?

Conversely, while the economic climate is likely to leave the country’s most reliably liberal voting bloc demoralized and disengaged from an electoral process, this same dispossession has historically energized white, conservatives—particularly when cast in a racial hue. Consider the post-Reconstruction era, or the post-civil rights era, or even South Africa’s Afrikaners who responded to a fiscal crisis by electing the National Party which introduced apartheid in 1948. Today, you can see a populist, scattershot backlash, emerging in the form of the Republican-led “tea-bag” protests, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson’s heckling of Obama and the rock-star sized crowds generated by Palin’s book tour.

Large numbers of ALL people are demoralized by the catastrophic events that have taken place since that cold January 20th in 2009. Now because they have voiced loudly these concerns instead of “shutting up and getting out of the way” as the elitists get out their socialist mops to “clean up,” they are automatically racist segregationists ready to burn crosses and prepare hanging trees? Guess they missed the 9/12 march on DC, or perhaps more likely, they didn’t miss it but they could not process the fact that there were black men and women taking a stand against the anointed “post racial” president. Did they really mean to imply that Scott Brown’s election was the front of a movement that would usher in Apartheid?

But it gets better:

On the same show, NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell said: “There’s an anger out there, and I have not seen it since my very first campaign which was George Wallace. There is an angry subtext because of economic dislocation.”

Like the defiant, segregationist Alabama governor, Palin, the former Alaska governor, speaks the language of the white Southern and suburban voters who fear that the American way of life is under attack from an out-of-touch, Godless, effete and multiracial big-city crowd. With her folksy charisma and parochial values, Palin is the latest in a long line of demagogues —from post-Reconstruction governors in the Deep South to Father Coughlin in the ‘30s, from Reagan to Lou Dobbs—who’ve emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.

I think Palin would have a very real case for libel here. Palin has never condemned Obama & company for their race, has never advocated segregation, and has not behaved or spoken in a way that would lead any thinking person to conclude that she is a racist or a segregationist. Perhaps we should remember that it was Obama, who singled out the sole African-American supreme court justice as the one he didn’t think was- of all things- qualified for the position…

And now, that racial insanity has subsided, it is time for one more good suspension of common sense in the analysis of Scott Brown’s election:

…the problem is not, as much of the media alleges, that Obama and the Democrats have overreached. They haven’t gone far enough. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate in last week’s Massachusetts election, tellingly, made health care “reform” the focus of his triumphant campaign, traveling the state in an old, GM pickup truck, arguing, quite accurately, that the Senate health care plan would cost Americans more money, not less. According to one exit poll, Obama voters who opted for the Republican candidate Scott Brown in Tuesday’s election, said, by a margin of 3-to-2, that the Senate health care proposal “doesn’t go far enough.” Eight of 10 voters in the state continue to want a public option.

Again, are they serious? Brown’s campaign was against health care “reform.” 9/12, and other patriotic groups funneled money to his election because he promised to fight against it. They just can’t fathom that Ted Kennedy’s seat went to a man who pledged to use that seat to kill the legislative monstrosity that Ted helped to form. But then, this is the MSM, they were all “in the tank” for Obama. MSNBC still has that annoying “tingle up their leg” and cannot bear to see this president fail, or his agenda fail, because as his media arm, they would lose credibility… too late…

Sourced 1/25/2010. Quotes above claimed as a fair use critique of this article: http://www.theroot.com/views/how-barack-obama-paving-way-palin-presidency?GT1=38002

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Obama on race, what you may have missed…

Posted by americana83 on July 29, 2009

Obama and his campaign have talked about “post-racial” America. He ran a campaign on based on “unity” despite dividing his followers along racial lines on his campaign website. Consider the following brief exerts from Obama’s book, “Dreams from my father.” Whether Joyce is real, or a “composite” created by Obama (which is possible based on the preface, his feelings on racial identity are clear. Given his bi-racial heritage, he chose to adopt an African cultural identity. Certainly, no one can deny him that. And yet, when someone else decides to define themselves how they want, Obama lashes out viciously eviscerating them for not taking a “side” that he feels they should take (all of the exerts are from page 98-100 in the 2004 softback edition).

In his own words:

our worries seemed indistinguishable from those of the white kids around us. Surviving classes. Finding a well-paying gig after graduation. Trying to get laid. I had stumbled upon one of the well-kept secrets about black people: that most of us weren’t interested in revolt; that most of us were tired of thinking about race all the time; that if we preferred to keep to ourselves it was mainly because that was the easiest way to stop thinking about it, easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you. So why couldn’t I let it go? I don’t know. I didn’t have the luxury, I suppose, the certainty of the tribe. Grow up in Compton and survival becomes a revolutionary act. You get to college and your family is still back there rooting for you. They’re happy to see you escape; there’s no question of betrayal. But I hadn’t grown up in Compton, or Watts. I had nothing to escape from except my own inner doubt. I was more like the black students who had grown up in the suburbs, kids whose parents had already paid the price of escape. You could spot them right away by the way they talked, the people they sat with in the cafeteria. When pressed, they would sputter and explain that they refused to be categorized. They weren’t defined by the color of their skin, they would tell you. They were individuals.

It is clear by this that Obama has a disdain for those who reject a collective racialist identity for an individual one. It gets even better in the next section:

That’s how Joyce liked to talk. She was a good-looking woman, Joyce was, with her green eyes and honey skin and pouty lips. We lived in the same dorm my freshman year, and all the brothers were after her. One day I asked her if she was going to the Black Students’ Association meeting. She looked at me funny, then started shaking her head like a baby who doesn’t want what it sees on the spoon.

First, he builds up her physical attractiveness, especially to the black men. Then he goes for the kill. She doesn’t want to get involved with the BSA, so he converts her from a woman to a baby, ignorant and unwilling to get involved with something he believes is good. Throughout his book, Obama reveals how he self determined his own ethnic identity, molding himself into his own perception of an African man, not only rejecting the Anglo blood within himself, but connecting it with the rape of Malcom X’s mother. However, when Joyce attempts to chart her own ethnic identity, Barack slams her hard:

“I’m not black,” Joyce said. “I’m multiracial.” Then she started telling me about her father, who happened to be Italian and was the sweetest man in the world; and her mother, who happened to be part African and part French and part Native American and part something else. “Why should I have to choose between them?” she asked me. Her voice cracked, and I thought she was going to cry. “It’s not white people who are making me choose. Maybe it used to be that way, but now they’re willing to treat me like a person. No-it’s black people who always have to make everything racial. They’re the ones making me choose. They’re the ones who are telling me that I can’t be who I am….”

Its clear from this that Joyce has a diverse heritage. Why should she be forced to exclude any part of it (including the “something else” which Barack so smoothly derides. Barack makes it seem like the “they” she is talking about is African-Americans or blacks as a collective whole. But this is deceptive. The “they” she is referring to here is very likely the racialized radicals like Obama and his mentor Frank Marshal Davis and later on Reverend Wright. The radicals must have constantly harassed Joyce about being a sell-out or “uncle Tom” pressuring her to despise the totality of her heritage and cast her lot with the racialized marxists (as we shall see later in the paragraph after the discussion on Joyce). Obama continues to rip Joyce:

They, they, they. That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people. It wasn’t a matter of conscious choice, necessarily, just a matter of gravitational pull, the way integration always worked, a one-way street. The minority assimilated into the dominant culture, not the other way around. Only white culture could be neutral and objective. Only white culture could be nonracial, willing to adopt the occasional exotic into its ranks. Only white culture had individuals. And we, the half-breeds and the college-degreed, take a survey of the situation and think to ourselves, Why should we get lumped in with the losers if we don’t have to? We become only so grateful to lose ourselves in the crowd, America’s happy, faceless marketplace; and we’re never so outraged as when a cabbie drives past us or the woman in the elevator clutches her purse, not so much because we’re bothered by the fact that such indignities are what less fortunate coloreds have to put up with every single day of their lives-although that’s what we tell ourselves-but because we’re wearing a Brooks Brothers suit and speak impeccable English and yet have somehow been mistaken for an ordinary n***er.

Don’t you know who I am? I’m an individual!

So, based on the fact that Joyce refused to join herself to one organization, Obama concludes she avoided black people. He goes on to deride integration, painting “nonracial” culture as merely a white thing. This paragraph also makes the ignorant assumption that all cabs are driven by white racists, all women are fearful of black men, and all “coloreds” are less fortunate. Of course his derision of individuals and individualism has become a trademark of his campaign and presidency, most recently highlighted by his attempt to transform a confrontation between a cop and a belligerent uncooperative man into a national race war. Obama deals in collectivist mentalities not personal freedoms, liberties, or individuals. This is explained by the paragraph immediately succeeding the above, where he arrogantly claims to “understand” people like Joyce:

The truth was that I understood her, her and all the other black kids who felt the way she did. In their mannerisms, their speech, their mixed-up hearts, I kept recognizing pieces of myself. And that’s exactly what scared me. Their confusion made me question my own racial credentials all over again, Ray’s trump card still lurking in the back of my mind. I needed to put distance between them and myself, to convince myself that I wasn’t compromised-that I was indeed still awake. To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.

He only understood her in relation to his socialistic mindset. He basically says that Marxism is part of an uncompromised “black” identity! Then, he slams people who identify as “individuals” instead of collectives as being “confused.” His radicalization is also demonstrated in his choice of friends. “Birds of a feather flock together.”According He chose Marxists and radicals as his friends, and he did it carefully. Here he succeeds in tying his ethnic identity (Black) to radical ideologies (Marxism and leftist activists). Therefore, by his definition, Joyce, or any other multi-racial or African who rejects his mixture of leftist radicalism to embrace individualism or a western mindset would be a “confused” individual “selling out” their ethnic identity.

Someone with a truly post-racial mentality would not attempt to use race as a bludgeon or wedge to force someone off of the beliefs they hold dear. Barack Obama is stuck in a racist marxist mindset that has no place in an America that has been making continued strides towards a standard of true equality as far as laws and government can create such a standard. He himself is proof that progress only goes as far as individuals are willing to take it. For it takes only one person to revive the specter of government sanctioned racism, one judge that puts race above justice. Yes, an individual can almost single handedly turn the ride of progress back, and then use the resulting discord to further his degenerate ends. Sonya Sotomayor, Van Jones, Maria del Carmen, and other racists and Marxists are being selected for positions high in Obama‘s administration. Over two hundred years of progress in relations between Americans of diverse colors are being systematically dismantled by the man who was heralded as the culmination of racial unity and equality.

Posted in Barack Obama, deception, Election 2008, intolerance, news, Obama, Presidential, Racism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

What would MLK, jr say?

Posted by americana83 on August 29, 2008

No doubt you’ve heard about the official nomination of Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate. No doubt you’ve heard it was on the anniversary of King’s speech. I have read several accounts of the nomination in different Ohio papers. See if you can see the inherent Ironies, especially in this exert from an online article by the Columbus dispatch, one of the larger newspapers in Ohio:

Exactly two score and five years since an American icon brought forth his dream of a society based on the content of a person’s character instead of the color of his or her skin, Barack Obama last night became the first black presidential nominee of a major party in U.S. history.

Every paper I’ve seen highlighted Obama’s skin color. Obama accuses the Right of playing the race card. He says they oppose him because “He’s young and inexperienced, and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” He has been consistant in painting his opponents as racists, without calling them such. But he has no problem with asserting that they oppose him because of his name and color.

I wonder why he doesn’t get on those in his camp (as most major media is) for continuing to make race a main issue. It is being hit so hard, you’d think that to oppose Obama in any form, to question his past associations with terrorists and racists, is to attack a people group as a whole.

Would anyone accuse some of being racist for attacking McCain? I doubt it. It is time for the media to quit worshipping at the alter of Obamania and wake up to the fact that there are very real, very serious issues with Obama, all of which have nothing to do with skin.

Posted in Barack Obama, deception, Election, Election 2008, Obama, Presidential, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology: Love Redefined.

Posted by americana83 on June 30, 2008

Note: This is the beginning of a series of posts I hope to make regarding the Theology of Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama’s home church of ~20 years. TUCC’s pastor Jeremiah Wright based his theology and values system on Dr. Cone’s Work: Black Theology & Black Power. These are the values that Wright used when he mentored Barack Obama, and these are the underpinning of the beliefs and values that could influence the next President of the United States. I have and will expend considerable amounts of time both researching and writing these articles, not because I have a personal vendetta against any man, but because I believe that the truth must be known. Dr. Wright, when questioned on Fox News rigorously used Black Liberation Theology as a defense of his values system, and railed against his questioners for their ignorance of it. I wish that they had done their homework, because knowledge is power.

Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology: Love, Redefined.

What is love? Love is the foundation of the Christian Gospel. Without Love, God would not have cared if His creation had no way to heaven, and thus would have had no reason to provide a way though Christ. According to Webster’s, Love is:

To regard with a strong feeling of affection; to have a devoted attachment to; to feel great tenderness for; as, to love one’s family. 2. To regard with the feelings of one sex towards the other; to be tenderly affected toward; to be in love with; to be passionately fond of. 3. To delight in; to have great pleasure or interest in…(Webster’s pg 1007)

What does the Bible say about love? There are many passages about love, and they reflect closely to how Webster’s defines love.

Is love based on precondition?

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:8-10)

We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. (1 John 4:19-21)

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? (Matthew 5:43-47)

It is because of verses like these that Dr. Cone must go through great efforts to redefine Love, and thus redefine Christian love. He rightly asserts that a “new way of doing theology” is needed, because without it “there will always be this barrier between Black Power and Christian love(Cone, 50). Thus  he seeks to reinterpret “the message of salvation(49)” so that it will be palatable to those within the Black Power movement, whom Cone has no desire to make Christians out of, nor to “twist their language or to make an alien interpretation of it.(Cone 48).” While he has no problem preserving and accurately interpreting the words of man, he apparently sees no problem with forcing an interpretation on the scriptures that, as he willingly admits is alien to the life of Christ, and thus to the Biblical interpretation of love.

Cone goes through the two parts of the Great Commandment:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40)

He rightly says that when God’s love has gripped a someone that they should behave as if Christ is at the core of his being (Cone, 51). However, just a page later,  he says that, “because God is a God of power; of  majesty, of might, to love man means that he wills that the black man “reflect in the immediacies of life his power, his majesty and his might (Cone, 52).” He also erroneously says that “to respond to God’s love in faith means that he accepts as truth the new image of himself revealed in Jesus Christ (Cone, 52). The Bible teaches that our response to God’s love is to believe on Him:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.(John 3:16-18)

That the man becomes a new Creature, and does not merely emulate an image of such is a Bible truth:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

We do not see an image in Christ, by accepting Christ in faith, we become a new creature, God’s spirit indwells us and empowers us to do  his will, to show his love and deliver his message to a world in need. As far as power we as individuals are called to:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.(Matthew 10:16-18)

It is not for us to attempt to emulate God’s power and might. Throughout the Bible, God does occasionally use people to show his power, as was the case with Moses and the plagues. However, the showing of power was related specifically to giving glory and honor to God, as Pharaoh was scoffing and rejecting God’s revealed will. It was not an act channeled through the unbelieving, or the worshippers of false gods. Since Dr Cone has “no desire to make Christians out of those who see no relationship between their understanding of truth and Jesus Christ (Cone, 48), he asserts that God’s power, majesty and might can be demonstrated though sinful unrepentant man by accepting a new image “revealed in Christ.” Many religions have images of Christ,

Cone asserts that the black man take Paul’s teaching of being a “new creature” literally by telling him to “glorify blackness” as an acceptance of the black self as a creature of God. (Cone, 53).” It is absolutely clear that Dr. Cone misses the concept of the “new creature” The new creature is a direct product of the new birth, which Jesus described in his discussion with Nicodemus:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.(John 3:1-7)

The new creature is spiritual in nature. Man was born once as flesh and blood. The birth of the “new creature” is a spiritual event, an event open to “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord.” It has nothing to do with the glorifying or uplifting of the physical self.

By combining these unbiblical distortions of the new creature and God’s love, Cone has set the stage for his radical redefining of the word Love.

Dr. Cone says that “to love the white man means that the black man confronts him.” He goes on to assert that whites see blacks as “its” and the black man must confront them as a “Thou” The emphasis is not on the person hood, but on the confrontation as the manifestation of love between the “races.”

Cone further asserts that,

The black man must, if he is not to lose sight of his new-found identity in Christ, be prepared for conflict, for a radical confrontation. As one black man put it: “Profound love can only exist between two equals. The new black man refuses to assume the It-role which whites expect, but addresses them as an equal. This I where the conflict arises(Cone, 53).

There is no grounds for a “radical confrontation” for one not to lose sight of his identify in Christ. In fact, the one time where it was attempted, Jesus himself rebuked Simon Peter:

Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18:10-11).

Also, consider the actions of Stephen who’s preaching of righteousness resulted in severe injustice:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.(Acts 7:51-60)

Probably one of the most damnable heresies which Cone proclaims is the assertion that “profound love” can only exist between equals. With how much the Bible talks about God’s love for man, this sets up two situations, each equally heretical. Either God does not truly love man, and the Bible lies regarding this, or man is equal with God, in which case man has no need of God, or his salvation. So the question arises, are we gods, or is God a liar? Man’s fall in Genesis was at the beckoning of the serpent to “become as gods.” Cone here introduces that man is equal with God again offering up the same temptation, the quick and fleshly way of a bloody confrontation to lift up the self, the flesh.

It is this heresy that allows him to encourage the carnal demonstration of “God’s power” by ungodly men. He continues by saying that the “christian” love of whites makes the black man a nonperson. Cone goes on to say:

The black man’s response to God’s act in Christ must be different from the white’s because his life experiences are different. Christian love is never fully embodied in an act(Cone, 55).

This is false. Christian love was fully embodied in one act: the selfless giving of Christ on the Cross. To willingly give one’s self for his friends is defined as the greatest love in the Bible:

This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:12-13)

From this the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice is magnified, for not only did he give his life, but he did so, “While we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8)!” Such an act, by God completely embodies Christian love! There is no greater love, or demonstration of love!

Now compare this to the example of love offered up by Dr. Cone:

The violence in the cities, which appears to contradict Christian love, is nothing but the black man’s attempt to say Yes to his being as defined by God…If the riots are the black man’s courage to say Yes to himself as a creature of God, and if in affirming self he affirms Yes to the neighbor, then violence may be the black man’s expression, sometimes the only possible expression, of Christian love to the white oppressor(Cone, P 55).

Where in the Bible does it say we are to affirm our selves? Where in the Scriptures does it say that violence is a legitimate expression of Christian love to the neighbor? Remember, that Dr. Cone subscribes to Malcolm X’s description that theologically, calling whites the devil is not far from the truth. All whites are oppressors in the eyes of Dr. Cone (Cone, P 24).

However, Cone also insists that

White people should not even expect blacks to love them, and to ask for it merely adds insult to injury. “For the white man,” writes Malcolm X, “to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped…’Do you hate me?’ (ellipses in original quote) The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate.” Whatever blacks feel towards whites or whatever their response to white racism, it cannot be submitted to the judgments of White society.

Basically Cone’s definition of the love offered up to whites from blacks is the same as the hatred which whites should expect from blacks. Based on Cone’s definitions:

Love = Hate

Hate = Love

Further, he has attempted to insulate his perspective from any criticism. However, despite his linguistic and mental gymnastics, Love, Christian love does not equal hate.

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.(1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

It is clear from Dr. Cone’s radical redefining of Christian love, that his primary purpose is not to show how Christianity is compatible with Black Power, as he claims(cone, p48), but rather to conform the image of Christ and his love to that of a movement that is diametrically opposed to Christian Love and everything it stands for.

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:26-29)

References:

Black Theology & Black Power, 8th Printing, Nov 2006. James H. Cone (c) 1997 James H. Cone.

Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. (c) 1949 The World Publishing Co.

The Holy Bible, KJV

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, Election 2008, Obama, Presidential, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

“Everyone else did it” A brief critique of NPR’s defense of Dr. Wright

Posted by americana83 on April 5, 2008

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

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.

Posted in Barack Obama, Bible, children, Election, Election 2008, intolerance, Jesus, news, Obama, Racism, Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama, Forget Dr. Wright, With an endorsement like this…

Posted by americana83 on March 21, 2008

Update: 9/12/2010:

Now the New Black Panthers are denying they have any connection to Obama other than skin color. This group also has the audacity to claim the tea party is racist!

Our only connection to President Obama is the common color of our skin,” it states. “The same dog that bites President Obama bites us too. So I say, if you were wise, you would leave Obama alone as well because he is your last chance to save your country. You are mad because a black man has been elected to the presidency, and that affronts your oversized ego. SOURCE

See the original release here, at the New Black Panthers’ website.

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):

New Black Panther Endorsement

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

Panther's Endorse Obama Full Page

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!
This sentiment is shown nicely in this sample of a CD review from the April/May 2004 issue of TNBP:
New Black Panther CD Review

Posted in Barack Obama, Christianity, communism, deception, Election, Election 2008, Entertainment, Hillary Clinton, intolerance, Islam, moveon.org, Obama, Presidential, Racism, Spirituality | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Race to the Bottom: Planned Parenthood hates “black” babies!

Posted by americana83 on February 27, 2008

Here’s an excerpt from the article. For more about this, and the most recent atrocity, check out the article here:

“Students on campus are shocked and saddened that such a huge organization would have racist leanings in the present day,” she told WND. “They are surprised to hear the truth about [Planned Parenthood founder] Margaret Sanger, and how the African-American community is being hurt by abortion.

“There’s a lot of surprise out there. Planned Parenthood does an excellent job of covering up the facts,” she said.

Sanger supported eugenics to cull those she considered unfit from the population. In 1921, she said eugenics is “the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.”

At one point, she lamented “the ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” Another time, Sanger wrote, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Apparently murder of innocents is not enough to indict Planned Parenthood as an atrocity in the minds of Americans. Perhaps ugly unabashed racist rantings will help open our eyes to the evils of this organization

Posted in children, Racism, social spending | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Content of our Character: Why America has not come as far as we think

Posted by americana83 on February 23, 2008

As we near the end of Black History Month, let us consider the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

That is the dream, whereby man would look beyond the surface and judge men by their values, beliefs and standards. Much progress has been made in that direction in America.

We have gone from a time where the legal system looked another way when a black man whistled at a white woman. Racism has been evicted from America’s public square. By and large it only finds refuge in the hearts of men (and women) who’s hearts are hardened, who’s minds are narrow, who’s only claim to self worth is the putting down of another based on the color of their skin.

Today, however, skin color has again returned to America’s public square. As we race towards the 2008 presidential elections, change has become the buzz word. In many circles the prospect of a Black or woman president has trumped all other issues.

McCain, Bush, the Clintons are painted as stogy old white establishment types. Relative youth and skin color are trumpeted as the best assets of a candidate this year, in 2008.
The truth of the matter is this: once you peel off the surface, there is no substantial difference in the agendas that will be pursued by a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

There is a song that has been co-opted in some areas as a sort of theme song for this years election season: Matchbox 20′s “How far we’ve come.” The music video to this song seems to attempt a historical chronology of the women’s and civil rights movements, cumulating in cheering images of Barack Obama’s and Hillary’s supporters.

There is no doubt that the Civil Rights Movement and certain aspects of the women’s movement have legitimately leveled the social and economic playing fields. However, the problem comes when the cumulation of these efforts is presented as Hillary and Obama. The Euphoria over the potential of a “first” black/woman candidate has completely hijacked democrats and would be social progressives. Any attack that would be directed at Obama’s policies or values can, and sometimes is, twisted into racism. Gender and skin tone becomes a defense in liu of answers.

Barack Obama himself says he is gaging racism by whether or not whites vote for him.

“If I do well in Iowa, and if I do well in New Hampshire . . . then by the time we get to South Carolina, I think we will have dispelled the notion that somehow whites won’t vote for African Americans.” -SOURCE

This is audacious in every sense of the word. Ignoring the issues and diving straight for the cover all. I would vote for the President regardless of his or her color, that stands closest to what is best for America.

Barack Obama’s massive spending/taxing plans, advocacy for homosexuality, blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion views to the left of NARAL and NOW, coolness towards Israel, and his flippant attitude towards drugs will send this nation on a crash course with economic recession and moral decline. Ultimately the other 2 candidates, Hillary and McCain, are watered down versions of Obama’s radicalism (though in Hillary‘s case only very slightly so).

It will send the message: Skin matters more than issues.

It sure seemed like we’ve come along way since Dr King’s famous speech. However, here we are as a nation still judging people by the color of their skin.

It will only be a matter of time before we are all judged for our actions this year. This election has the potential to change the heart and soul of a nation.

If you LOVE America, if you sincerely want the best for this country look behind the smooth talking, the glitzy publicity war, the buzz words and rock concert style slogans and chantings.

Look at the issues. Pray. We’re not voting for the next American Idol here. Image and stage presence are not going to save us all.

King was murdered for his bold position, that all men are equal. If you love civil rights, if you support on any level the legacy he has handed us down through the civil rights movement, then reject the politics of “famous firsts.” Focus on the issues. Focus on America.

Let’s live the dream.

Posted in Barack Obama, children, Christianity, deception, Election, Election 2008, Entertainment, Hillary Clinton, International, Islam, Israel, Legal, Obama, Presidential, public schools, sexuality, social spending | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.