Showing posts with label Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jeremiah Wright. Show all posts

Friday, March 26, 2010

Wright and Manning: Similarities and Differences

Jeremiah Wright and David Manning: An interesting pair.  Jeremiah Wright is the racist, America-damning Black Liberation Theology pastor Obama sat under for 20 years.  David Manning is the pastor of a church best known for his rant predicting whites rising up and rioting in the streets.

Here are snippets of Jeremiah Wright’s now famous rants against America:

Now watch David Manning’s video HERE.

The contrast between the philosophies of these two men reminds me of a lesson in physics:  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  The same principle applies to social philosophy.

In Wright we have a black pastor who is unabashedly racist, dwelling on his condemnation of Europeans, whites, and America for all past sins.  Most of the theological distinctives of his church focus on themes* of…

  • Commitment to the Black Community
  • Commitment to the Black Family
  • Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
  • Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
  • Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
  • Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
  • Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
  • Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System."

Racist?  Oh yeah.  Imagine a church that used the word “White” instead of “Black.”  And “disavowal of middleclassness?”  What is that about?  Oh, its just the communist principle of a “classless” society.  All workers.  No middle class.  No elites.  No free enterprise.

In Manning we have a similar style of preaching by another black pastor, but the opposite and just as radical message.  By the way, “radical” isn’t necessarily wrong.  It is just not “main stream” or politically correct, at least at the moment.  In the Manning video, we see him playing the role of a prophet, proclaiming the whites have had enough of the Obama “Mack-Daddy” and predicting that there will be riots in the streets as a back-lash against decades of black affirmative action and resource- and initiative-robbing entitlements.  A big difference from Wright is that Manning agrees with those disgusted with the thieving entitlement mentality and would join whitey, in spirit if not in person.  He is not a racist as Wright is a racist.

It is interesting how the hyper-sensitive liberals are all bent out of shape over someone like Manning, but seem to have little problem, in fact, just love a President who sat for 20 years under a man like Jeremiah Wright and who obviously agrees with most if not all he preached during those 20 years. Manning is more likely to be stoned by the intolerant liberals than Wright is by the rest of us.  Manning has already been banned by YouTube.

I am becoming increasingly aware of the similarity in level of rabid intolerance among the left in this country and others, and the intolerance of the defenders and promoters of Islam toward free speech – the expression of of sometimes critical ideas and opinions.  Free speech should not be banned just because you disagree with it.  That is the test of true free speech.  The left and Islam are speaking from the same podium.  I can’t wait for liberals to discover exactly how un-liberal Islam is.  How quickly we will see their cum-by-Yah tolerance vaporize.

If you are curious, HERE are David Manning’s other videos form his website.

*From Trinity Church website in 2008.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

What Left, White Supremacists, Muslims Have in Common

The mainstream media portrays the shooting by the racist at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum as the work of a "right winger." Upon first blush, it appears that white supremacist was one of those fanatical far right wingers - the kind that Janet Napolitano warned us about a couple of months ago. That's the story line the left spins.

Upon more thoughtful consideration the facts are much different. Break down the components of belief systems clouded by popular labels and just the opposite is true.

The belief systems are:

The Left, etc........................The Right
* Authoritarian/dictatorial rule...* Self determination
* Anarchy............................* Rule of law
* Intolerance........................* Tolerance
* Anti-Semitism (anti-Zionism)...* Zionism

James W. von Brunn, the anti-Semetic murderer, fits the stereotypes of left wing liberals and Muslims much better than that of "far right fanatic."

von Brunn, the left, and Muslims (here referring to their legal system of Sharia law) thrive on authoritarian, top-down rule while the right thrives on "bottom-up" consensus building representative government. While von Brunn may have hated our government and appeared to be an anarchist, at the core he was an authoritarian fascist - the opposite of an anarchist.

von Brunn, the left, and Muslims tend toward extra-legal, radical "take the law into their own hands"-type actions instead of respecting the rule of law. The lefts' passivity toward enforcing our immigration laws is one example. Muslim's propensity to terror and mayhem is another.

von Brunn, the left, and Muslims are known for their intolerance and inflexible thinking while the right is known for tolerance and the rights of individuals. The left is generally intolerant of captialism, religion (except Islam), and individual liberty; Muslims hate the west because of our liberties and rights.

von Brunn, the left, and Muslims are all to some degree anti-Semetic. The left wants to squeeze Israel into tolerating its Muslim neighbors who have promised Israels' destruction. Muslims are the essence of Jew-haters, just like von Brunn. Obama's anti-Israel views are becoming more obvious. And not surprisingly after sitting at the knee of radical anti-Semite Rev. Wright for 20 years. In a recent interview the Reverand said he hasn't spoken to Obama since he became president.

"Them Jews ain't going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter that he'll talk to me in five years when he's a lame duck, or in eight years when he's out of office." That comment can easily be classified as anti-Semitic. And this is not just a recent or isolated gaff.

In short, von Brunn is a leftist. He shares the primary components of the leftist belief system: authoritarianism, radicalism, intolerance, and Jew-hating.

Most main-stream media prefer to paint the opposite picture. And many Americans, and inexplicably many Jews, follow along with this lie.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

One big happy radical neighborhood...

Portions of an old Bill Ayers book was posted on Michelle Malkin's web site. It fondly notes the close proximity of the homes of Bill, Barack, Muhammad Ali, and the another Muhammad supporter, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam - the same Louis who recently declared Obama to be "the Messiah." Not that neighborly proximity indicates mutual admiration. But in this case, expression of mutual admiration by the noted parties indicates mutual admiration - unless this is another case of, as Obama puts it, they are not the Bill or Louis I used to know. It makes no difference to him that they were anti-American radicals at the time he "used to know" them.

While on the topic of Luigi, did you know the Nation of Islam is nearly identical to mainstream and radical Islam except for one thing? The Nation of Islam is considered apostate by Islam because it differs in one respect: The Nation of Islam considers the white man the devil - Islam does not.

Jeremiah Wright. Tony Resko. Bill Ayers. And now Louis Farrakhan. Will non-racist America wake up to the fact that Obama was indoctrinated by, relates to, supports, and is embraced by America-hating racists?

Monday, March 31, 2008

Crying "judgmental" without being judgmental

That is an interesting trick.

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Just about anyone who has an opinion about a person, a religion, or a behavior is called a bigot nowadays. Oddly, this phenomenon more often than not results in the name caller becoming as much of a bigot as the accused. Either that or the term is overused and misapplied.

For example, if you provide indisputable evidence that the preponderance of terrorist acts are conducted by Muslims based on their Koranic scripture, you will be called a bigot, intolerant, or judgmental.

If you point out Jeremiah Wright’s numerous racist, inflammatory, and anti-American statements, you will be called a bigot.

If a presidential candidate states facts to bring to light contrasting positions of other candidates that are believed to be inferior to his own, he will either be accused of being a bigot or, at best, a negative campaigner.

Expressing any critical opinion about an individual or group or about their behavior is more politically incorrect than any time I can recall in the past 50 years. Calling someone a bigot has recently overtaken the overuse of the word judgmental!

What has happened to the ability of people in this country to express intellectually honest statements and opinions? Name calling, whether referring to someone as a bigot or judgmental is chilling to free speech and legitimate communications. Since when has it become inappropriate to speak accurate opinions, facts, and truth?

If you have a strong opinion about someone or something, and express it, chances are you will be called a bigot or judgmental. If you say you will not tolerate an individual's or group's bad or threatening behavior, you will be called a bigot or judgmental. What is wrong with being distrustful of Islamists when 99% of all terrorist activity is conducted by Islamists? And the "moderates" among them barely denounce this fact. Historically, that "judgement" has been characterized as "wise discernment." But no, not in today's lexicon. If you are “discerning” about the actions of an individual or a group, and express the basis for your discernment, you will be labeled a bigot or judgmental.

Bottom line. Our rabidly politically confused (the word "correct" should be replaced by the word "confused") culture has declared that there is no distinction between right and wrong. We shall not bring to anyone’s attention any distinction between right and wrong. Anyone who attempts to draw such a distinction will be chastised as either a bigot or judgmental.

You know what I’m thinkin’? I’m thinkin’ that anyone who labels any of my comments as bigoted or judgmental can go stick it. Why? Without things we can believe in as right, true, preferable, and desirable, as compared to things that are wrong, false, to be avoided, or undesirable, we are in deep trouble as individuals, as a community, as a culture and as a country. Without deeply held, well founded values that are worthy of defending, promoting, and contrasting with competing and opposing values, we might as well roll up the sidewalks and turn off the lights. Not everyone who has an opinion is a bigot.

What about those who do the name calling? What about the Muslims who accuse those who point out the violent acts of Muslims of being a bigot?

What about defenders of Jeremiah Wright who accuse those who point out his many racist, inflammatory, and anti-American statements of being a bigot?

What are these name callers up to? Can you see through their name calling? Are they being intellectually honest? Are they so desperately committed to the indefensible that they lose touch with rational thought? Or don’t care?
Keep that great probability in mind the next time you either hear someone making the accusation of “bigot” or “judgmental” or if you consider making those accusations yourself.

In too many instances (not all) such name calling makes the accuser one.

And, by the way, these are just fact-based opinions we're expressing. No need for name calling, like "judgemental" and "bigot." Chill! A person can't open his mouth today without some overly sensitive ass complaining and name calling.

Oops. Did I just say that? Good. I feel better.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Obama Presidency: Why we should be concerned

I recently reviewed Barack Obamas’ book “The Audacity of Hope.” [see previous blog] The two most troubling concerns I came away with after reading it were:

  • The self-described tentative manner he embraces his religious and moral beliefs, and

  • The influence he received in his childhood from his parents and his religious training


While he claims he was influenced little as a child by his Muslim/atheist parents or his Muslim and Catholic schooling, he also claims in essence that there isn’t a Christian principle in Scripture that he holds as an absolute standard. He appears to be avoiding any claim of holding an absolute standard about anything, except being totally opened minded to whatever he deems appropriate. This attitude makes for a great politician but a poor leader.

This moral/religious ambivalence would not be so troublesome if it were not for his Muslim background, and the potentially latent Muslim tendencies he may yet harbor beneath his politically-correct veneer. This veneer appears pretty thin, given his statement that he could be dead wrong about any Christian principle he believes at the moment.

So, on one hand, Barack has a Muslim family heritage that goes back to beyond his great grandfather plus his Muslim education, and on the other hand he claims a recent conversion to Christianity, with a self-avowed open mind revealing that he could be dead wrong on his Christian-beliefs-of-the-moment.

To me, this adds up to a giant red flag. And this is what I gleaned from his own book, not from his opponents.

I was asked why I am concerned about Barack’s Muslim heritage. Why would I be concerned about a president with potential, latent Muslim tendencies while America is not afraid of a Catholic or even a Mormon President? Do I really hold a “double standard?” It seems so patronizing of me to have to explain my answer – the distinction seems so obvious to me. Some of the reasons are so old and so often restated that many have become immune to their significance – or, bless your heart – many may not have learned or been taught these things. So here goes…

  • Our nation was created as a haven for Christians to avoid religious persecution.

  • Our constitution and laws were established by those who were Christian of one form or another.

  • The principles of Christianity were the bedrock for the system of laws and legal system adopted and embraced here.

  • While indeed this nation was a melting pot, the primary heritage is Christian. The melting pot was comprised initially mostly of Christians.

  • In our most recent century we have maintained a Judeo-Christian value system which shares basic moral, legal, and ethical value.

  • Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, and Jews are all on the same page with regard to the foundational and continuing values of this nation.

  • To the contrary, the prevailing beliefs and teachings of the Islamic faith have, especially in the last several decades, demonstrated that they are diametrically opposed to the nature of the freedoms and principles that this nation upholds.

  • The training in many if not all Islamic schools for children and adults throughout the world and in the United States promote Sharia law and a disdain for western Judeo-Christian principles. We have yet to learn or accept these facts.

  • Moderate Muslims are not as moderate as they put on. One day they will expound a moderate sounding Koranic prayer in the US Senate, and the next will be advocating the violent imposition of Sharia law in this nation and installing a mullah as our leader.

  • The differences are as day and night between these two value systems. One teaches tolerance and forgiveness and free choice of religion and a government influenced by all sects and not controlled by any. The other teaches retribution, intolerance, the superiority and necessity of Sharia (Islamic) law, offers only three choices for religious preference: conversion to Islam, dhimmi status (second class citizenship), or death.


The liberals of this nation have a logic problem they are not facing. Liberals purport to be so open minded, somewhat libertarian, embrace the ACLU which fights for the most perverse minority rights. Freedom, freedom is their call. However, liberals also appear to be defenders of the Islamic faith which stands 180 degrees opposite their own expressed values. Or if they are not defenders, they seem to recognize no distinction between the Islamic faith and most others. Just the contrast between the liberal’s call for “freedom of choice” in all things, including sexual orientation of marriage partners, gay rights, abortion rights, and religious diversity compared with the Islamic mandate for absolute adherence to unforgiving Islamic law that absolutely prohibits these choices should get the liberals’ attention. But it doesn’t. Do they ever draw a line? I think this explains how the blind momentum of a species causes their eventual extinction.

Why am I wary of Barack Obama? With his tentative embrace of Christian values, he could easily, in the blink of an eye, flip over to his Islamic heritage. If such flip is not announced, there will always be the strong potential for his latent Islamic biases to influence his choice of advisors, his choice of alliances and his choice of policy, all to the detriment of the value system that enables this nation to remain free and prosper.
____________________________


Here are two more voices in the wilderness expressing concern about Baracks’ background:

http://www.out2.com/ 's independent contrarian columnist, Andy Martin says:


“His grandfather was named 'Hussein.' That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.


"Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, our own Barack Obama, Junior. Again, his name was an Arabic and Koranic.


Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama's stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions. [Obviously he must be referring to the non-Sharia law loving Muslim, whereever they may be found. ed.]]


"Fiction: Obama Senior was a harmless student 'immigrant' who came to the United States only to study. Fact: Obama was part of one of the most corrupt and violent organizations in Africa: the Kenyatta regime. Obama's father ran back to Kenya soon after the British left. It is likely Obama's father had Mau Mau sympathies or connections, or he would not have been welcomed into the murderous inner circle of rapists, murderers, and arsonists. I believe Obama's secret shame at his family history of rape, murder and arson is what actualizes him. Our research is not yet complete. We are seeking to examine British colonial records. Our investigation to date has drawn on information on three continents.


"And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? More secrecy, more prevarication.


"It is time for Barack Obama to stop presenting a fantasy to the American people. We are forgiving and many would still support him. It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel. His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support," Martin states.


"Our investigation is continuing. In he meantime, Crown Books should stop selling Obama's novelization of his life. We have asked Crown to do that. Obama is living a lie."


Nicholas Stix says http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804obamafaith.htm :


Obama the Christian is a devout believer in unlimited abortion rights. He denies the existence of Hell. He came to Christianity through social organizing with activist religious. His devout Christianity derives from the secular humanist "values" his atheist mother imbued him with. He believes, with all his heart, in the separation of church and state – except when he campaigns in black churches, in violation of that separation, and in violation of the tax code. Obama wears his religion on his sleeve in churches, but in dealing with the mainstream media criticizes such behavior.


The only recognizably Christian position Obama takes is his opposition to same-sex marriage, due to the "religious connotations" of marriage. ("Religious connotations"? What about "civic religion"; the "separation of church and state"; the "enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate"? Don't ask.) This is surely due to the fact that blacks are the racial/ethnic group most adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, and Obama does not want to rile the one voter bloc on which his candidacy is most dependent. However, I would expect his position on same-sex marriage to begin "evolving" around, say, … November 3. Once Obama is safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, he knows that his base will stick by him, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse. Then he will doubtless begin the sort of "education" of the Christian black electorate in matters of same-sex marriage, which black leaders earlier conducted in the matter of abortion.


Regarding Obama's religiosity, which appeared out of nowhere during his social activist work, following his graduation from law school, a line from Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass comes to mind, when the latter explained why Mike Ditka was not prepared for political life. "Ditka doesn't need a political life. And he hasn't spent decades planning for the scrutiny."
Obama's closest religious advisers -- Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity. The transcendent-non-transcendent motto the Rev. Wright has given Trinity is, "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."


According to State Sen./Rev. James Meeks' humble, personal church Web page, "Meeks' practical and charismatic style of instruction motivates the hearer to take action and has resulted in accomplishments of miraculous proportions." When the good Senator/Reverend is not accomplishing miracles and other feats "never before documented in history," he serves as the executive vice president of Jesse Jackson Sr.'s National Rainbow-Push Coalition. Why a man of God would want to be identified with Jackson's personal den of iniquity is a question only the Rev. Meeks can answer.


Now that Obama has a Republican opponent in Alan Keyes, Obama's media acolytes are working hard to discredit Keyes, a talk-show host who is a former ambassador, and presidential and senatorial candidate. Meanwhile, Obama, who when Jack Ryan was his opponent wanted six debates, has no desire to debate Keyes. Obama & Co. had better stick to their new script or Keyes, a brilliant man who knows the Constitution better than "Professor" Obama does, and whose own Christian faith comes not from Karl Marx or black nationalism (or possibly Unitarian Universalism), but from Christianity, might put some hard questions to Barack Obama.