Much of what used to be on the church’s website has recently been scrubbed in order to fool the public about the church’s theology, so it might be hard to the public to get objective information from their site.  As to listening to the full sermons, whether one has or has not, there is no context under which Wright’s racist and anti-American rants are acceptable to many of us. If statements as those we have seen do not bother you, then good for you, but I guarantee you if Hillary’s pastor, mentor and “spiritual adviser”  of 20 years had made racist and anti-American statements like those of Wright’s, her political career would be over. But more to the point, Americans must learn about the nature of Obama’s so-called religion itself.  The “theology” that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it.  The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called “black liberation theology.”  Wright admits this and it is stated on the church’s website.  Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed.  This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white.  This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of “theology.”  Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple from the writings of James Cone: (1) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people.” (2) “While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”  (3)  “All white men are responsible for white oppression.”  (4)  “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.”  (5)  “If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it.”  (6)  “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”  *** To objective observers, these teachings are fundamentally racist and divisive.  Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years, and now because of exposure by the press, he tries to fool the American public once again.

You figured that out, eh Aegrus?

It rarely takes long.

Education is SOOOO vital to curing this, but it’s just not available enough.

Nearly ALL racism these days is based on ignornace.
Now of course I said ‘nearly all’ because there are highly educated people who are still racist in their mentality.

But..that’s where most of it comes from these days. And, notice how TWP rails against even the WHITE educated, throwing them in with the ‘elite’ who are just as horrific, (at least in his mind) as are people of color.

An EDUCATED person would KNOW that yes, there were many indentured servants ‘at the beginning’. The Irish, the Italians, the the Germans and yes others, all had their turn at being indentured classes.

ONLY the people of color remained that way however, for the next 200 or so years.

ONLY blacks could not easily escape, because…THEY WERE BLACK, and easily identified. Typical White Person however, (and in this case, he might very well be ‘typical’) would ignore that part of history. He would totally dismiss the ‘black codes’ that were actually the law for decades. TPW..just type in Black Codes, and you’ll find an amazing stucture of law that existed for ever.

Check Plessy v. Ferguson, which is a very important case in US Constitutional Law.

And as you progress, read the Fugitive Slave Act that ALLOWED for black slaves to be ‘captured’ and returned to their white ‘owners’. Actually, it was a law that citizens were required to follow. If they knew of an escaped slave, they were supposed to ‘turn them in’. Why? Because they were PROPERTY, according to the law, and that’s the deal. The owners (by law) had every right to recover their ‘property’. 

This law actually created a constitutional crises in American History, not unlike the one we’re living through now, with the legalized torture, and the spying, and all the rest.

So, while SO MANY AMERICANS would prefer to selectively quote from history, just as they’ve chosen to ‘selectively’ air snippets of Wright’s sermons, there is no value to anyone, in maintaining a false view of history.

John McCain and others are anxious to avoid the discussions of what history should have taught us. But, we CAN’T sweep history under the rug, and we have to deal with the boogiemen of history, if ever we are to heal.

I had the priviledge to hear the whole speech on the Michael Baisden’s show yesterday. From listening to what he said I was really amazed how the media took a snippet of what he said and turned him into this racist, America hating person. His message is talking about “us” as a country including every race. How this turned into blacks against white is really buffling. Not to mention that when he said “The chickens are coming home to roost” is not his saying but a quote of an interview given by Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq under President Reagan, in a FOX News interview on 10/10/01, who by the way is a white man. This was conveniently not mentioned by anyone in the media.

CNN should play the whole sermon on CNN so that people can get the full picture of what this Rev. was talking about. This election has turned into a joke because CNN has come up with more speeches that Rev. Wright has said. Is this man running for President or is Obama? I’m really confused.

As for senator Clinton saying that she would leave the church if that was her church is just ludacris. She goes on to say that “We don’t have a choice who our relatives are but we have a choice when it comes to our pastors.” Well, this is ironic considering we also have a choice on who our spouses are. This is a woman who was humiliated in front of the whole world and decided to forgive her husband. Who is she to tell Senator Obama that he can’t forgive his pastor of 20 years.

Here’s something interesting. Well, maybe ‘interesting’ isn’t the right word. It’s actually very depressing, but we’ve seen it coming for weeks, and many of us have been predicting it all along…with dread.

This is a piece from Robert Perry at Consortium News. As some may know, they’ve run an independent media outlet for over 10 years now, and the political insight provided is always right on the mark. Unfortunately, this is too. More of the truth that we all see, but so many refuse to acknowledge.

The problem here of course, is that Hillary hasn’t only sunk herself. Most of us can recognize that these antics have taken the rest of us down with her. Hopefully it will be a wakeup call to any REAL democrat, that actually wants to get our government back from the hijackers.
*************

Hillary Sinks with the ‘Kitchen Sink’

The Bush family wrote the book on how to neutralize your own high negatives by driving up those of your opponent. But Hillary Clinton has found that her similar approach, throwing the “kitchen sink” at Barack Obama, may have only dragged her down more.

March 27, 2008
Ever since George H.W. Bush went into “campaign mode” in 1988 and exploited black convict Willie Horton to dirty up Michael Dukakis, it’s been a staple of modern politics that you can negate your own high negatives by driving up those of your opponent.

Except in 1992, when the “Passportgate” scheme for demeaning Bill Clinton’s patriotism blew up in Poppy Bush’s face, some effective smear has been associated with every Bush national campaign. Think of John McCain’s “black child,” Al Gore’s “delusions” and the Swift Boat lies about John Kerry’s heroism.

Indeed, dirty politics has been a hallmark of the Bush Family Dynasty – and Bill and Hillary Clinton clearly were taking notes. [For details on the Bush schemes, see Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep.]
So, perhaps it should have been expected that Hillary Clinton would borrow the Bush family’s playbook when her presidential campaign prepared to throw “the kitchen sink” at Barack Obama. Sen. Clinton, who has long suffered from high negatives, needed to boost up those numbers for the Illinois senator.

Sadly for the Clinton campaign, however, the strategy appears to be backfiring. Though the coordinated attacks against Obama’s character and judgment may have damaged him some, a new poll shows that Sen. Clinton may have hurt herself more.
“Both Democrats, and especially New York’s Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

“Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton’s support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.” [WSJ, March 27, 2008]

More at the link

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032708.html

You shame America.

Didnt know African was a skin color. and if you read the story you will see that they are speaking of white people that happen to be Irish, It is just like the Jews saying ,they had the only Holocaust. And not all blacks were slaves, some blacks were sellers. MONEY,MONEY,MONEY.

Gee whiz, I didn’t know Irish was a skin color. The statement was specifically addressing people being oppressed for the color of their skin.

Do you really not see how weak your arguments are? Are you beyond the capability of logically observing your own thoughts and ideas in an objective way? Please, spare us your bogus rhetoric. You’re not helping anyone. Not even yourself.

By Outrage
In America, white people have NEVER been oppressed simply because of the color of their skin.  To attempt to make this type of crossover analogy is bunk.  White people HAVE oppressed black people in America, that is A FACT.

You’re equating two completely separate kinds of servitude. You’re not making a good argument. You have no valid points. Try being objective, hmm?

Yeah, you’re a racist.

No one has made a claim stating only Africans have been slaves.

It’s like only the Jews had a Holocaust, which is akin to only blacks being slaves, which in itself is a bullshit statement, especially when you stop and look to Africa and see the millions killed by their own.

four or five parts.You can say white will never know what it was like to be a slave, very true, and neither will very few others unless they are over 90 years old.

by Michael A. Hoffman II ©Copyright 1999. All Rights Reserved

Two years ago, Prime Minister Paul Keating of Australia refused to show “proper respect” to Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II during her state visit. In response, Terry Dicks, a Conservative member of the British Parliament said, “It’s a country of ex-convicts, so we should not be surprised by the rudeness of their prime minister.”

A slur such as this would be considered unthinkable if it were uttered against any other class or race of people except the descendants of White slavery. Dicks’ remark is not only offensive, it is ignorant and false. Most of Australia’s “convicts” were shipped into servitude for such “crimes” as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat’s estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.

The arrogant disregard for the holocaust visited upon the poor and working class Whites of Britain by the aristocracy continues in our time because the history of that epoch has been almost completely extirpated from our collective memory.

When White servitude is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary “indentured servitude” or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The “convicts” transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.

The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master’s silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.

Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they were America’s first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were. This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.

Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.

The Establishment has created the misnomer of “indentured servitude” to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called “custom of the country,” as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved “forever.” The service of Whites bound to Berkeley’s Hundred was deemed “perpetual.” These accounts have been policed out of the much touted “standard reference works” such as Abbott Emerson Smith’s laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.

I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more “servitude” on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York’s Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship’s hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. “Oh,” said the worker, “the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.”

Before British slavers traveled to Africa’s western coast to buy Black slaves from African chieftains, they sold their own White working class kindred (“the surplus poor” as they were known) from the streets and towns of England, into slavery. Tens of thousands of these White slaves were kidnapped children. In fact the very origin of the word kidnapped is kid-nabbed, the stealing of White children for enslavement.

According to the English Dictionary of the Underworld, under the heading kidnapper is the following definition: “A stealer of human beings, esp. of children; originally for exportation to the plantations of North America.”

The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities of Britain and Scotland

Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing ‘by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.’ Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns…So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town.” (Van der Zee, Bound Over, p. 210).

White slaves transported to the colonies suffered a staggering loss of life in the 17th and 18th century. During the voyage to America it was customary to keep the White slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A White slave would be confined to a hole not more than sixteen feet long, chained with 50 other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks. The weeks of confinement below deck in the ship’s stifling hold often resulted in outbreaks of contagious disease which would sweep through the “cargo” of White “freight” chained in the bowels of the ship.

Ships carrying White slaves to America often lost half their slaves to death. According to historian Sharon V. Salinger, “Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants at certain times equaled that for [Black] slaves in the ‘middle passage,’ and during other periods actually exceeded the death rate for [Black] slaves.” Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.

Foster R. Dulles writing in Labor in America: A History, states that whether convicts, children ‘spirited’ from the countryside or political prisoners, White slaves “experienced discomforts and sufferings on their voyage across the Atlantic that paralleled the cruel hardships undergone by negro slaves on the notorious Middle Passage.”

Dulles says the Whites were “indiscriminately herded aboard the ‘white guineamen,’ often as many as 300 passengers on little vessels of not more than 200 tons burden—overcrowded, unsanitary…The mortality rate was sometimes as high as 50% and young children seldom survived the horrors of a voyage which might last anywhere from seven to twelve weeks.”

Independent investigator A.B. Ellis in the Argosy writes concerning the transport of White slaves, “The human cargo, many of whom were still tormented by unhealed wounds, could not all lie down at once without lying on each other. They were never suffered to go on deck. The hatchway was constantly watched by sentinels armed with hangers and blunder busses. In the dungeons below all was darkness, stench, lamentation, disease and death.”

Marcus Jernegan describes the greed of the shipmasters which led to horrendous loss of life for White slaves transported to America:

“The voyage over often repeated the horrors of the famous ‘middle passage’ of slavery fame. An average cargo was three hundred, but the shipmaster, for greater profit, would sometimes crowd as many as six hundred into a small vessel…The mortality under such circumstances was tremendous, sometimes more than half…Mittelberger (an eyewitness) says he saw thirty-two children thrown into the ocean during one voyage.”

“The mercantile firms, as importers of (White) servants, were not too careful about their treatment, as the more important purpose of the transaction was to get ships over to South Carolina which could carry local produce back to Europe. Consequently the Irish—as well as others—suffered greatly…

“It was almost as if the British merchants had redirected their vessels from the African coast to the Irish coast, with the white servants coming over in much the same fashion as the African slaves.” (Warren B. Smith, White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina).

A study of the middle passage of White slaves was included in a Parliamentary Petition of 1659. It reported that White slaves were locked below deck for two weeks while the slaveship was still in port. Once under way, they were “all the way locked up under decks…amongst horses.” They were chained from their legs to their necks.

Those academics who insist that slavery is an exclusively Black racial condition forget or deliberately omit the fact that the word slave originally was a reference to Whites of East European origin - “Slavs.”

Moreover, in the 18th century in Britain and America, the Industrial Revolution spawned the factory system whose first laborers were miserably oppressed White children as young as six years of age. They were locked in the factories for sixteen hours a day and mangled by the primitive machinery. Hands and arms were regularly ripped to pieces. Little girls often had their hair caught in the machinery and were scalped from their foreheads to the back of their necks.

White Children wounded and crippled in the factories were turned out without compensation of any kind and left to die of their injuries. Children late to work or who fell asleep were beaten with iron bars. Lest we imagine these horrors were limited to only the early years of the Industrial Revolution, eight and ten year old White children throughout America were hard at work in miserable factories and mines as late as 1920.

Because of the rank prostitution, stupidity and cowardice of America’s teachers and educational system, White youth are taught that Black slaves, Mexican peons and Chinese coolies built this country while the vast majority of the Whites lorded it over them with a lash in one hand and a mint julep in the other.

The documentary record tells a very different story, however. When White Congressman David Wilmot authored the Wilmot Proviso to keep Black slaves out of the American West he did so, he said, to preserve that vast expanse of territory for “the sons of toil, my own race and color.”

This is precisely what most White people in America were, “sons of toil,” performing backbreaking labor such as few of us today can envision. They had no paternalistic welfare system; no Freedman’s Bureau to coo sweet platitudes to them; no army of bleeding hearts to worry over their hardships. These Whites were the expendable frontline soldiers in the expansion of the American frontier. They won the country, felled the trees, cleared and planted the land.
The wealthy, educated White elite in America are the sick heirs of what Charles Dickens in Bleak House termed “telescopic philanthropy”—the concern for the condition of distant peoples while the plight of kindred in one’s own backyard are ignored.

Pa
Today much of what we see on “Turner Television” and Pat Robertson’s misnamed “Family Channel,” are TV films depicting Blacks in chains, Blacks being whipped, Blacks oppressed. Nowhere can we find a cinematic chronicle of the Whites who were beaten and killed in White slavery. Four-fifths of the White slaves sent to Britain’s sugar colonies in the West Indies did not survive their first year.

Soldiers in the American Revolution and sailors impressed into the American navy received upwards of two hundred whiplashes for minor infractions. But no TV show lifts the shirt of these White yeoman to reveal the scars on their backs.

The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White working class “rednecks” and “crackers” (both of these terms of derision were first applied to White slaves), to live next door to the Blacks.

Little has changed since the early 1800s when the men of property and station of the English Parliament outlawed Black slavery throughout the Empire. While this Parliament was in session to enact this law, ragged five year old White orphan boys, beaten, starved and whipped, were being forced up the chimneys of the English parliament, to clean them. Sometimes the chimney masonry collapsed on these boys. Other times they suffocated to death inside their narrow smoke channels.

Long after Blacks were free throughout the British Empire, the British House of Lords refused to abolish chimney-sweeping by White children under the age of ten. The Lords contended that to do so would interfere with “property rights.” The lives of the White children were not worth a farthing and were considered no subject for humanitarian concern.

The chronicle of White slavery in America comprises the dustiest shelf in the darkest corner of suppressed American history. Should the truth about that epoch ever emerge into the public consciousness of Americans, the whole basis for the swindle of “Affirmative action,” “minority set-asides” and proposed “Reparations to African-Americans” will be swept away. The fact is, the White working people of this country owe no one. They are themselves the descendants, as Congressman Wilmot so aptly said, of “the sons of toil.“rt 3

Part 4

There will only be racial peace when knowledge of radical historical truths are widespread and both sides negotiate from positions of strength and not from fantasies of White working class guilt and the uniqueness of Black suffering.

Let it be said, in many cases Blacks in slavery had it better than poor Whites in the antebellum South. This is why there was such strong resistance to the Confederacy in the poverty-stricken areas of the mountain south, such as Winston County in Alabama and the Beech mountains of North Carolina. Those poor Whites could not imagine why any White laborer would want to die for the slave-owning plutocracy that more often than not, gave better care and attention to their Black servants than they did to the free white labor they scorned as “trash.”

To this day, the White ruling class denigrates the White poor and patronizes Blacks.

If this seems admirable from the pathological viewpoint of Marxism or cosmopolitan liberalism, the Black and Third World “beneficiaries” of White ruling class “esteem” ought to consider what sort of “friends” they actually have.

The Bible declares that the man who does not take care of his own family is “worse than an infidel.” This also applies to one’s racial kindred. The man who neglects his own children to care for yours has true love for neither.

White, self-hating liberals and greed-head conservatives who claim to care for the “civil rights” of Black and Third World people, discard the working class of their own people on the garbage heap of history. When they are finished with their own they shall surely turn on others.

Those who care for their own kind first are not practicing “hate” but kindness, which is the very root of the word.

————————————————————————————————————————

Michael A. Hoffman II is the author of “They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America and Industrial Britain”.

Lets see, White slavery in America, I recall the Irish being oppressed and forced to take all the jobs that the wealthy wouldnt take, so to even say white people have never had to experience racism is false.

Mr Schaeffer, so sorry you hated your father so much but actual I have never heard of him!!!!!!!

Jack, I have seen the FULL VERSIONS so just stop the spinning.  The “Out of Context” is no different than the whole thing.  Just wilder.

Hinnis, this is a trait of Cyrena just throw any kind of crap at someone and Her favorite thing is I am going to report you!!!  You are sick, you need drugs, or maybe your taking drugs.  Then She also insinuates everyone on a thread is on her side. Did you get her role of public service???  That really laughable when its cyrena, louise, and outrageous who agree with her.  WHO NEEDS HELP ????

You two are the racists.  Your posts are completly nuts.  You are the ones who need to be reported to someone for you sick, sick, sick, creepy posts. Your nasty attitudes are turning some people around.  There are some who have voted for Obama in the primaries who now want their delegates not to vote for Obama.  This is the reason Hillary said the delegates are not obligated to anyone !!!!

It is fear and hate. You can say you have a distaste for racism, but you really aren’t looking at your position objectively and comprehensively. Yes, there are double-standards and hypocrisy’s everywhere in the world. A lot of them serve a purpose, and a lot of them hinder progress. You’re arguing about ideology and perfection, and everything in life is imperfect. Being alive is a hypocrisy. Deal with it.

Double standards which do matter?

Politicians have to say everything perfect all the time while our mass medias (which are supposed to protect us by always telling the truth to a standard of perfection) are fully allowed to employ opinionists, spin and lies 24/7 while ignoring real issues.

Bailing out the swindlers involved in selling poor people their sub-prime mortgages, but offering no help to the people baited and lied to is a double standard which needs addressing.

I’m not going to sit here and type out a whole story about how it is wrong for many blacks to feel injustice at every turn (which, by the way, Barack Obama addressed in his speech last week *I’m sure you didn’t hear that part*). However, it has to be taken into account that the skepticism of some blacks and other minorities about the government is rooted in truth and history. Their distorted claims must be corrected, but their believing in these distorted untruths has to be taken with a grain of salt.

I am not a racist, I have never been a racist, no one in my family has ever had a slave and we fought against slavery in the civil war. Just because I will never vote for Obama does not mean I am a racist it means I don’t think he is president material. THE RACIST IS REV WRIGHT!!!!!

You show all the same traits of the MSM attempting to drum some sort of propaganda down our throats.  Make shit up long enough, repeat it over and over and people will believe.

Your knee jerk editorials based on sound bites qualify as shit to me and demonstrate your proIsrael or Rovian yammerings.

Many of the Clintons own pastors, preachers and reverends (church of the week) have come out supporting Wright and have stated all this media hype has been taken out of context.

The bigger question is, who owns most of the media and what is their agenda, as glaringly obvious as it is. 

The more U.S. citizens pay attention to this the less attention is being paid to the bulldozers in the occupied territories of Palestine.

Jack, with all due respect, it is not fear, it is distaste for and opposition to racism.

No…I don’t think so Maani/Hinnis/whomever you are. You’ve overplayed you hand, and not just with me, but with everyone here.

So, you’ve ‘crossed the line’, and you know it, but there’s something that just won’t let you stop…(maybe a supply of pharmaceuticals?)

So yeah, it only takes a minute for me to zap all of this stuff into adobe format, and that’s what I’m doing.

Several interns have already been monitoring and analyzing your comments as ‘Maani’, and so they’ll just keep looking at them, and working the stuff up. It’s an on-going project.

Meantime though, you still have to be brought to the attention of professionals/officials, because the project interns can only do so much.

Don’t think though, that I’m going to ‘ignore’ the stuff you’re trying to pass off here. I won’t. I will continue to challenge it, for the same HONEST reasons that you fraudulently claim.

You can hang together with Limbaugh and Rove, and your drug induced claims of ‘freedom of speech’, but your boys in the “Big House” have changed a whole bunch of laws in the past 7 ½ years, and you’re playing a dangerous game in not knowing how easily you could be swept up by them.

I AM paying attention. It’s my patriotic duty.

Now I’m really starting to feel sorry for you. These rants of yours are “way out there,” if you know what I mean.  Maybe you and I should just decide to agree to disagree and ignore each other.  I really think that would be best.

One more thing, Cyrena; why are you so afraid to answer the question I put to you?  I have been asking for your response for two days, now. Is it that hard to say yes or no.  Just put your mouth together and say either; yes, I support racism, or no, I do not support racism.  Or, if it’s the way you feel, you can say, I only support racism if it is black against white.  Any way you want, but don’t be so afraid to just answer the question.

Hinnis/maani/whoever you are…(and I’m not leaving Chalmers out of this possible equation either, though that could be coincidental – just two psychopaths hitting up the same web site)

At any rate, people who are as psychologically disturbed as you are don’t realize how much you reveal about yourself. But, there are those of us who can in fact pick it up, and that’s what you don’t get. It’s part of your disorder.

Anyway, I’m one of them, (who can pick it up) and I’ve monitored this stuff for a while now. In all honesty, if I didn’t have the time that I do now, I wouldn’t have noticed it. Even when I did, I didn’t think it was particularly harmful. Now I see that it is. It’s severe psychological decompensation. All the signs are there.

So here’s the deal. I’ve gathered up the majority of this stuff, and I’ll turn it over to those who are far more ‘expert’ than I, in determining what should be done. I don’t know what they’ll decide. I only know that it can’t be ignored any longer. You are a danger to society.

Damn! Just when I thought I was gonna get a little break. Seems like I just can’t get away from my role in ‘serving the public’ even when I’m not getting paid.

So, we’ll see what’s to be done with you. Meantime, don’t expect to drag anybody else into this sickness and trap of your own fears/insecurities/paranoia. Nobody is gonna read up on Black Liberation Theology any more than their inclined to study existentialism or the philosophies of the Zoroastrians for the purposes of political discussion in terms of the 2008 elections.

Now you’ve warned us and threatened us time and again, (and yes, I’ve saved all of those posts) that you will not go away, and that you’ll continue to harass and threaten everyone who doesn’t agree with your insanity. However, we’re not going to be terrorized by you either, whatever your name is.

So…just so you know that it’s time. Remember when Nixon’s guys had to make that long walk, to tell him that he had to surrender? Well…the guys in the white jackets are on the way for you. You need help, and we have the right to defend ourselves.

(sound familiar?)

Cyrena:  I wasn’t going to respond to you anymore because there is no point, but you’re really starting to creep me out.  I haven’t the faintest idea what you are rambling about; all these people in your mind.  If you can substantiate any of the wacky theories you’ve put forth, please do; otherwise, seriously, you may need some professional help.  I wish you well.

Let’s all be honest about this race issue.  There is a huge double standard operating here, and whether one wants to admit it, I think it is rather obvious to us all.  Hillary discusses Martin Luther King, Jr.’s cooperation with Lyndon Johnson in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and Obama plays the race card.  Bill Clinton tries to correct the false impression Obama has given about his alleged continual opposition to the Iraq war by calling Obama’s portrayal of his Iraq position a “fairy tale” and Obama plays the race card.  (For those who doubt these last two statements, go back at look at the debate where Tim Russert busts Obama for four pages of press releases regarding these issues and the race card Obama was playing).  Don Imus makes a racially insensitive statement on the air, and Obama calls for his firing and complains that he doesn’t want his children to be exposed to such things.  Geraldine Ferraro made just one statement which Obama thought was inappropriate, and he hit the ceiling.  However, we are supposed to ignore 20 years of racist and anti-American rants from Obama’s “mentor and spiritual adviser” because he made a good speech.  WHY DON’T WE HOLD OBAMA TO THE SAME STANDARD HE HOLDS OTHERS?  You Obama apologists, just admit it – it is your view that racist statements are only deplorable when made by those who have no connection to Obama. Go ahead and admit it, at least to yourself.  The truth will set you free.

OBAMA’S NEW PASTOR COMPARES REV. WRIGHT TO JESUS—CHICAGO — The new pastor of Barack Obama’s church delivered a defiant defense of its retiring reverend Sunday, comparing media coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to a modern-day lynching that resembles Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans.  In a sunrise Easter sermon, Rev. Otis Moss III implied that his mentor, who has delivered sermons in which he likened the U.S. to the Ku Klux Klan and declared it damned for its “state-sponsored terrorism,” is facing the same challenges Jesus did.”No one should start a ministry with lynching, no one should end their ministry with lynching,” Moss said.  “The lynching was national news. The RNN, the Roman News Network, was reporting it and NPR, National Publican Radio had it on the radio. The Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Times all wanted exclusives, they searched out the young ministers, showed up unannounced at their houses, tried to talk with their families, called up their friends, wanted to get a quote on how do you feel about the lynching?” he continued.

I’M SURE OBAMA HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THIS, EITHER, EVEN THOUGH IT HAPPENED IN JULY OF 2007—JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama’s Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s Declaration of Independence.  The Hamas piece was published on the “Pastor’s Page” of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks landed Obama in hot water, prompting the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech earlier this week.  Hamas, responsible for scores of shootings, suicide bombings and rocket launchings against civilian population centers, is listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

Very, very, very sick and creepy.

And, hinnis/Maani/chalmers has figured out that I have figured him out.

He’s a sickie. I think we need to bring this to somebody’s attention.

•  “…but by a desire to explore the issues and inform those who are less informed…”

And to INFORM those who are LESS “INFORMED”.

See…I told you guys..this is Maani. And what he really means is what he’s said before…he’s a die hard PROGANDA (wanna be) authoritarian, that could have been an apprentice for Hitler’s Ministry of Propaganda.

In other words, he’s gonna MAKE you believe what he wants you to believe. And if you look back, this has been his main theme from the beginning. Remember, he was fanning the flames of the Rev. Wright thing from day one, and long before it turned into the fireball that he intended. But then, once it did, he got burned himself, because Obama took it up with his bare hands, and threw it right back at him, turning the whole thing to his own advantage, and bringing the nation some much needed INFORMATION at the same time. For THAT, Maani/hinnis was unprepared.

However, when one is motivated by that degree of visceral hate, they don’t give up, but rather become more and more frantic. So, that’s why he’s managed to pick this James Cone and Black Liberation Theology out of the air. The ORIGINAL ‘Liberation Theology’ (minus the black) originated in Latin America, (Guatemala was particularly active) and it was as far back as the early 80’s, when all of the terror was going on there. It was practiced primarily by prominent members of the Catholic Church, in service of the peasants who were being oppressed and terrorized by the minority but dominant white Hispanic culture. (the elite). Sound familiar? Anyway, Archbishop Oscar Romero, who had taken up this cause of Liberation Theology

Meantime, back to Maani/hinnis. Needing to keep the fire burning, and without the intended results from the Wright bon fire, he’s added the alleged ‘mentor’ to Wright, along with the now Black Liberation Theology.

Keep in mind that Maani once claimed to be a ‘preacher’ himself. Then he AND NOT ONLY HE, responded to my mention of Liberation Theology not long ago.

And guess who else is just as creepy, with some similar ‘tendencies’? Yep…Chalmers. ALL of these ‘personas’ are bona fide Obama haters, and routinely preach all of this religious stuff, and claim to support Hillary.

I think they might just be all one in the same. Radical right repugs maybe, and very anti-Catholic as well. (at least Chalmers is). Now who else feels like that? Try John Hagee, the preacher endorsement solicited and embraced by John McCain. He calls the Catholic Church “The Great Whore”.

I think these guys have some serious issues. I already knew it about Chalmers…downright creepy he is. But…hey…Maani is diabolically crazy too…and less obviously so to those who might not have time to pay as much attention.

So, I dunno. I have a feeling this site has been infiltrated by someone even more diabolical than Karl Rove.

Yes…creepy. Very creepy. Not just racist…though that’s one of the ‘signs’. But downright pathological, and the dumber ones that have signed on since, who really are nothing more than ignorant racists, are sucked right up. People like Joe in Maine.

Yep…that’s the deal. Another ‘coup’ of this website, not unlike the “Coup” that highjacked us in Dec. 2000.

Maani/hinnis/chalmers..they all creep me out. But, they’ve been identified for who and what they are. Jacob Freeze could be another ‘associate’.

Outraged:  I don’t think you read the article very well.  As is obvious when read, the article is about how Obama betrayed his friend and political mentor in his quest for his first elective office. The portion you have reproduced is actually a slam at Obama.  If you go back and read it, she is saying that she “does not” concede the flaws that Obama’s team found in her signatures.  That means that she still believes that she deserved to be on the ballot to run against Obama, in spite of Obama’s successful attempt to have her thrown off.  Inadvertently, I’m sure, you have actually made my point.

Louise:  If you think I am incorrect in my representations regarding black liberation theology, then study it for yourself.  Then, after gaining the knowledge to discuss this with me on an intelligent basis, you feel that I am wrong, I’d be happy to discuss it with you.  Also, you mentioned my words of hatred—which words are those?  Please give me a quote from one of my posts of my words of hatred, so that we may discuss those words.  Also, it is really amusing to me that you accuse me of being the one who is hateful.  I am just talking to you, not calling you names.  You’re the one who is calling me “divisive”, “hateful”, and a “hard right Republican.”  Exactly who is the hateful one, here? Finally, don’t think that I don’t notice that no one on this thread who attacks me can intelligently discuss the subject matter of my posts; black liberation theology.  No, instead, without really understanding the issue at all, they go into attack mode.  That’s why I keep on recommending to my detractors that they read up on this issue before leveling their attacks.  It would make for a much more intelligent discussion.

Outraged:  I am merely pointing out the racism of Rev. Wright and Rev. Cone.  I don’t believe in excusing racism, whether the perpetrator is black, white, green or blue.  And yes, SOME white people have oppressed blacks, but that is not an excuse to preach hatred of all white people.  Be honest, how many “white people” have power over black people.  I know I don’t, nor does anyone I know or have ever known.  In fact, to suggest that “white people” do have power over black people is racist in and of itself. The fact that some “white people” have oppressed some black people is not an excuse to subscribe to a so-called “theology” which preaches that, according to James Cone, “Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy.”  The truth of what I am saying is so self-evident, that I feel rather silly even having to explain it to you.  I don’t believe in racism, nor do I believe in racial stereotypes. For example, according the the U.S. Department of Justice, in 2005, homicide offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.  Now, should I then conclude that all blacks are murderers?  Of course, not. Black on white homicides were almost three times higher than white on black homicides.  Do you think that it would be fair to make sweeping generalizations about “black people” as a result of these figures?  Absolutely, not.  As I’ve said in other posts on this subject; racism and hatred are wrong, no matter what the race or status of the perpetrator.  If that is hard for some to understand, then they just do not wish to.

AS TO CYRENA, HER POST IS NOT WORTHY OF REPLY.

Outraged…

“..They also HATE any white person who would side with anyone of any race that they don’t consider part of the “supreme race”.  In fact, I find they hate people like me even more than they hate anyone of ethnicity.”..

Sadly, or so sadly…this is TRUE! I started noticing it about 40 years ago..

Speaking of which…don’t hinnis and Maani sound like one in the same to you?

They do to me.

hinnis

In America, white people have NEVER been oppressed simply because of the color of their skin.  To attempt to make this type of crossover analogy is bunk.  White people HAVE oppressed black people in America, that is A FACT.

And Maani, I am starting to wonder if in fact you aren’t racist.  Your posts are full of hate.  I find that you now hate me because I won’t immediately accept your mindset.  I have encountered this quite often from white people who hate not just blacks, but anyone who isn’t white.  They also HATE any white person who would side with anyone of any race that they don’t consider part of the “supreme race”.  In fact, I find they hate people like me even more than they hate anyone of ethnicity.

First of all hinnis, do NOT speak for me. I can and do speak for myself just fine without any help from you.  I have read the article link and haven’t found it to be anything like your interpretation.  I would encourage EVERYONE to take the time to do that.  As it shows the amount of inaccuracy in hinnis’ assessment of it.  I copied this from the article:

“Palmer to this day does not concede the flaws that Obama’s team found in her signatures. She maintains that she could have overcome the Obama team’s objections and stayed on the ballot if she had more time and resources.

It was wrenching to withdraw, she said. “But sit for a moment, catch your breath, get up and keep going. I’m a very practical person. Politics is not the only vehicle for accomplishing things.” She became a special assistant to the president of the University of Illinois and is now retired.”

Frankly hinnis, or whoever you are, I don’t believe you. I don’t think you care one iota about theology, liberation, black, or black liberation theology. Or much of anything else for that matter.

Your obsession with convincing us all you are the ultimate expert in all things religious would be laudable, were it not for your words of hatred that overcome anything that could be seen as religious in nature.

Your complete obsession with negative attack comes across as divisive, hateful and anything but liberating. Certainly not informative. Honest debate gets lost in your shouting. And your shouting is repetitious and finally boring. So no points there, just a lot of folks clicking to something else.

And for you to suggest you sound hateful because you are quoting black liberation theology, Obama and Wright is not only disingenuous, but truly shows what you are really all about.

Frankly my dear, I think you are a hard right republican who has only one goal. To destroy Obama in the run-up to the convention, so you can destroy Hillary in the general election. But we’ll never know, will we. Cause you’ll just change your handle again and begin your attack with re-hashed and warmed-over vigor.

p02:  Can it be true that you really fail to see the difference between your analogy and the situation regarding Obama and Rev. Wright?  In order for your narrative to be analogous, here is how it would have to be framed:  Jane goes to a Catholic church for 20 years; the priest at that church is a pedophile, tells the members of the church that he is a pedophile, and continues to be an open pedophile throughout the whole 20 years that Jane attends.  Jane not only attends, but develops a close personal relationship with the pedophile, such that she considers him to be her “mentor and spiritual adviser.”  NOW, PO2, that is analogous, and clearly not the case regarding the average member of the Catholic Church.

Most of the posts to which you refer are not motivated by hatred at all, but by a desire to explore the issues and inform those who are less informed.  For example, my posts on black liberation theology are relevant to this election, because that is the theology of Obama and Rev. Wright.  The posts may seem hateful, however, the language of hate is that which is directly quoted from proponents of black liberation theology.  Louise, those who oppose hate and racism will not be silenced, merely because the perpetrators are those whom you support.

Debbie: First, please post your source for this story. Second, as has been said many times, we don’t pick our parents, but we do pick our “mentors and spiritual advisers.”  Even if this story were true, it would say nothing about Hillary.  Obama’s story is much different.  He CHOSE to enter into and stay in a 20 year relationship with his racist and anti-American “mentor and spiritual adviser.”  The arguments coming from Obama’s apologists on this site are getting rather ridiculous, and point out the paucity of logic and analytical thinking which has heretofore been the hallmark of right wing nut job Bush supporters.

I have a life. so unfortunately I have to leave occasionally and get back to it. But every once in a while I check back in to read the pearls of wisdom. And they are always there, and I thank you ...   you all know who you are.

While I try to read all sides of every issue, in this case it’s difficult to make myself focus, stay on point and read every comment. I mean after a while they all read alike! hinnis and/or maani and Joe and that typical white “person” and a few others, make it quite impossible to take away any message other than, “We hate. And don’t you forget it!” Unfortunately your ranting is so forgettable I cant even remember your handles! But one thing does occur to me. Most hard-right republicans have serious sex hang-ups. Maybe you-all need to get together and see if you cant relieve some of your inhibitions.

Who knows? You may find being honest can be very liberating. You may even come to like it!
Honesty I mean ...

Jack, it’s not just the sermons which are disturbing, it is the racist nature of Wright’s theology.  The “theology” that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it.  The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called “black liberation theology.”  Wright admits this and it is stated on the church’s website.  Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed.  This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white.  This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of “theology.”  Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple of James Cone’s quotes: (1) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people.” (2) “While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”  (3)  “All white men are responsible for white oppression.”  (4)  “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.”  (5)  “If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it.”  (6)  “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”  *** These teachings are fundamentally racist and divisive.  Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years, and now because of exposure by the press, he tries to fool the American public once again.

March 26, 2008:  A new Gallup poll indicates that 28 percent of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama should she not get the nomination.

Figure it out, folks. Obama and Clinton are about even in the polls right now regarding Democratic voters.  McCain gets most if not all of the Republican vote and almost 30 percent of the Democratic vote.  Unless Obama can figure out a way to be more effective in his deceptive campaign tactics, he will lose in November.

I know you guys, Obama was just mistaken the first several times because he was busy—or maybe Hillary actually took all the money and Obama didn’t even know anything about it—or maybe the Chicago Sun-Times is lying about Obama.  Yes, guys, he just forgot about $250,000 of donations from his friend of 17 years.  Have I left out any of the excuses you were about to make?

Chicago Sun-Times, March 16, 2008: For the first time, Sen. Barack Obama put a figure Friday to the amount of campaign contributions that indicted political fund-raiser Tony Rezko raised for the senator’s campaigns, and the number—about $250,000—was far more than he previously acknowledged.  Obama’s estimate exceeded his campaign staff’s previous estimates of Rezko’s fund-raising during Obama’s 12 years in politics. In November 2006, Obama’s staff estimated Rezko raised $50,000 to $60,000 over the senator’s career. In the last year, Obama’s campaign fund has given charities more than $157,600 in donations it linked to Rezko, his family, friends and business associates.

Cyrena:  I still haven’t heard your answer, yet.  Do you agree with the racist rants of Rev. Wright’s mentor James Cone, or not?  Why can’t you answer a simple question like that?  Is it so hard to say “yes” or “no”?  Let me just show you one of them, and you can answer just this one, OK?  Cone said the following about Obama’s “religion”:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

Now, Cyrena, do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Cyrena:  I still haven’t heard your answer, yet.  Do you agree with the racist rants of Rev. Wright’s mentor James Cone, or not?  Why can’t you answer a simple question like that?  Is it so hard to say “yes” or “no”?  Let me just show you one of them, and you can answer just this one, OK?  Cone said the following about Obama’s “religion”:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”

Now, Cyrena, do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Thanks Jewels…

This sounds like most of the preachers I’ve heard, (when I’ve been more or less forced to listen).

AND, just imagine. If either one of these candidates were NOT running, we’d never have heard any of this stuff, from ANY preachers.

Or…at least I wouldn’t have…it’s been eons since I’ve attended a church sermon.

Don’t tell me Outraged—I know, the article from the Chicago Tribune is false—no that’s not it, Alice Palmer was a terrible person and Obama had to stab her in the back - no, that’s not it, Alice Palmer wanted Obama to stab her in the back—no that’s not it—Clinton was really the one who stabbed her in the back.  HAVE I COVERED ALL OF THE POSSIBLE EXCUSES YOU WILL MAKE FOR OBAMA’S TREACHERY?  IF I’VE LEFT ANY OUT, DON’T BOTHER TO LET ME KNOW.

I had to laugh out loud at this…

“..I have to hand it to you; you never give up, in spite of the facts.  Let me ask you something Outraged; in your opinion, has Obama EVER lied about anything, and if so, please tell me what he has lied about…”

Maani, Oh..I mean hinnis, has given it his absolutely all in the smear exercise, and he says Outraged NEVER GIVES UP!! Ommigod…no doubt he fails to see the irony.

And now he’s all frustrated, because people smart enough to know what’s going on, aren’t fooled by the effort.

It doesn’t matter a whit to hinnis, whether or not reasoned supporters of Obama actually DO have some LEGITIMATE criticisms of him, (as I do) but ONLY if they can just somehow prove that he has lied. And if they can’t prove that he’s lied, then they’ll look for something else, and ‘attach’ that, no matter how indirect the connection, they will CREATE one.

It’s like, whatever it takes to smear him, the same overall tactic as others before him..throw as much shit out there as they can, and hope that something will stick.

WHO won’t give up? That is just too much.

Meantime, Outraged has proven yet again, that she has the patience of a saint. (or whatever the non-religious equivalent of that is).

My hat is off to you for sitting though all of those videos.

HOW OBAMA OBTAINED HIS FIRST ELECTIVE OFFICE—A close examination of Obama’s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.  One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama’s petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.  “Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?” Askia said. “He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?”  In a recent interview, Obama granted that “there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.”  But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. “To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,” Obama recalled.  Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: “I think they ended up with a very good state senator.”  Alice Palmer, a friend and mentor to Obama, served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.  But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.  Obama not only refused to step aside for the woman who was his friend and had recommended him for the seat, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer’s hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw.  “I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant,” Obama said. “It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently.”  Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer’s elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama’s electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed.  “He wondered if we should knock everybody off the ballot. How would that look?” said Ronald Davis, the paid Obama campaign consultant whom Obama referred to as his “guru of petitions.”  In the end, Davis filed objections to all four of Obama’s Democratic rivals at the candidate’s behest.  All other candidates were disposed of by Obama’s challenges.  He then went on to win the election.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1

The “theology” that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it.  The brand of theology which Wright has been teaching Obama and the others at his church is called “black liberation theology.”  Wright admits this and it is stated on the church’s website.  Black theology is based upon the premise of the white oppressor against the black oppressed.  This is why, for example, that Wright refers to Jesus as black, and his killers as white.  This is the only way the story of Jesus fits within this brand of “theology.”  Rev. Wright cites James Cone, another proponent of black liberation theology, as his theological inspiration. Here are just a couple of James Cone’s quotes: (1) “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people.” (2) “While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”  (3)  “All white men are responsible for white oppression.”  (4)  “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man “the devil.”  (5)  “If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it.”  (6)  “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.”  *** These teachings are fundamentally racist and divisive.  Obama has chosen to belong to this racist church for 20 years, and now because of exposure by the press, he tries to fool the American public once again.

Outraged:  Give it up. You have proven yourself to be an uninformed Obama apologist.  Please do some homework yourself, and then come back and play with the big boys. By the way, you never answered my question. Can you come up with even one single time your messiah has lied to the American public?  I am awaiting your answer, Outraged.

If you really want to understand black liberation theology, read the books of Rev. James Cone, Rev. Wright’s mentor. Then you will understand.

Who show the most lack of judgement? and who is the biggest liar.

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_bosnia_morris/2008/03/25/83058.html

I do believe that Obama’s comment was IN RESPONSE to the blow up.  But as I said, I don’t find Rev. Wright particularly controversial personally.  I think it’s an overblown taken out of context political smear. And I’ve said as much early on.

As for “Black Liberation Theology”, a cursory check in Wikipedia does not describe it as any type of radical or racial theology.  However, I will investigate further to get a more accurate picture.  Give me some time, I just sat through all those videos!

This is the same eighteen-second sound byte, did you link to it accidentally…?

This is an eighteen second sound bite.  I’d have to hear more of the conversation to make any type of determination of context of the discussion.

Yes. This does not show strong opposition to the war.  Not one of our front running candidates did show enough opposition.  I agree.  However, all of them also NOW claim that they will withdraw troops (dems).....  What does that mean..?

“Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President”  O…kay.  But I’ll concede that he has said that, but as far as I know not during this campaign.  The fact that he’s said that makes me like Obama more.  Gives me hope.

I’m sorry.  Again, I don’t see it.  How did he lie?  He said he voted for it and also that his state has more nuclear power than any other state.  So to me that’s not surprising.  I didn’t catch any lie in that video.  I did notice that the rerun footage of the Nevada Debate cuts out Obama after the question is asked and proceeds to show Clinton answering the question.  What’s with that…?

This from Media Matters:

“On the March 18 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade discussed the release by Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign of a list of campaign contributions raised by indicted fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko—which the campaign says will be donated to charity—and asserted that the list was of “people that donated to his campaign for Senate and for the presidency.” Co-host Steve Doocy replied, “Well, actually, I think it’s just during the presidential campaign.” In fact, as Politico staff writer Kenneth P. Vogel noted in a March 15 article, “the only presidential campaign contribution on the list” came from “financier and Hollywood producer Thomas Rosenberg.”

Indeed, Rosenberg’s two $2,300 contributions were the only ones made after Obama established his presidential exploratory committee on January 16, 2007. In his article, Vogel provided a “list of all the Rezko-linked contributions Obama”

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180008

There was a lot of slanting of the truth in regards to Rezko also.  To me it’s obvious Chris Matthews is pulling for Clinton…. Matthews is a propagandist windbag.

As for the property purchase as far as I know that is accurate but I haven’t heard that there was something amiss there.  Have you…?

I have to hand it to you; you never give up, in spite of the facts.  Let me ask you something Outraged; in your opinion, has Obama EVER lied about anything, and if so, please tell me what he has lied about.  Thank you.

During Hitler’s Germany, many if not most of the religious denominations in Germany were complimentary of him and his movement.  While I am in no way comparing Snyder to Nazi apologists, I am suggesting that hearing Rev. Wright on a couple of occasions is not the same thing as truly understanding his theology.  I am absolutely certain that if Snyder understood the fundamentals of black liberation theology, he would not have issued the statement; because to suggest otherwise would be to suggest that he is a racist, and I have no reason to believe that is so. Finally, am I to blindly follow and believe Snyder on Rev. Wright, or am I to believe my own eyes and ears?  I opt for the latter.

This one is an outright slanting of facts and has been disproven over and over again.  He said something to the effect “if Musharrif won’t do something” (paraphrased), watch it again. The pundits slanted those facts.

Keep looking further, Obama’s representative is confronted about Obama lying about this, and merely acts like it’s not a big issue because the lobbyist is a state lobbyist, not a federal lobbyist.  On another matter, Obama supporters will try their best to defend Obama’s lies, even when they are right in front of them.  This is not an indictment of you, personally, just a statement born of experience.

I couldn’t hear what Obama said here.  The pundit afterwards said Obama denied it.  I couldn’t hear it.  And shaking his head doesn’t necessarily amount to a denial.  It’s a common reaction to hearing what one doesn’t want to hear.  For me the jury’s out on this one, simply because I can’t hear him SAYING anything.

Look to where Tim Russert confronts Obama with 4 pages of race card talking points from Obama’s press secretary.  Notice that Obama does not deny it at all, but simply tries to change the subject.

Watched this one, I don’t agree.  Simply because they TITLED it Obama lies, frankly I didn’t see.  More stirring up of contentions with the obvious purpose of projecting Clinton as “innocent” of campaign tactics.  Working on the rest.

Before the Rev. Wright blowup, Obama says his pastor is not controversial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T1fnIafC0

This one is particularly funny to watch:
Obama supporting Rumsfeld and other Bush appointees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPA37n0oOU

Obama supporting Rumsfeld and other Bush appointees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPA37n0oOU

Russert confronts Obama on his phony “opposition” to the war and his position on the war resolution vote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbO-kgB-ZI4

Obama lies about his previous position regarding single payer health care plans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAkIidChxic

Obama misleads on Yucca Mountain and nuclear energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2P0sGcy1LE&feature=related

Obama is caught purposely midleading about his connection to Tony Rezko, the now-indicted slumlord:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqhbihfwgx8

Obama lies in the debates about his Pakistan policy:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kkGGqufu2c

Obama misleads in the debates about his relationship to a pharmaceutical lobbyist as his state campaign chair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYVrMA9PkKo