He’s Back. Rev. Jeremiah Wright Blasts Obama for Having Done Nothing for Blacks

  Bookmark and ShareJeremiah Wright lost all credibility many, many years ago.  He actually lost that credibility long before Barack Obama started worshipping in Wright’s church and before Barack finally denounced him and distanced himself from Jeremiah.

So it goes without saying that what Jeremiah Wright says these days is still not very credible.  Or is it?

In a recent a recent interview with Ed Klein, [hear the interview in the video clip below provided by Gateway pundit] , the author of ‘The Amateur“, Jeremiah Wright claims that President Obama has done nothing for the African-American community.

Wright goes on to state that what people, or as he more specifically suggests, black people, must understand that he [Barack Obama] was selected before he was elected.  Wright explains that what he means by that is that President Obama was selected by the powers that be who paid for him to get elected.  Wright references Wall Street, GM, Chrysler, and Ford as examples as he asks why do you think Obama bailed out Wall Street and why do you think the big three got a buyout.? Wright says it’s because they selected him.  He even claims that Jews own and selected President Obama.  To make that he point he asks why do you think he stands up and says “I am a Zionist”?

While the Reverend is not someone whom I seek to raise as a legitimate source of facts, I do find it interesting to see how a segment of the black community remains dissatisfied with President Obama.  From my perspective those on the left who are dissatisfied with him are unhappy simply because in their eyes, President Obama has not been extreme enough for the socialist agenda.  The problem is that those extremists will never be pleased.  But the most interesting thing here is how as President Obama heads in to his reelection campaign, it would seem that he has gotten to a point where he pleases no one.

For instance, while some like Rev. Wright and Minister Louis Farrakhan see Barack Obama as a Zionist owned by the Jews, a large portion of the traditionally liberal Jewish voting bloc that is unusually quite loyal to Democrats, do not agree.  Many of them feel that President Obama is no friend of Israel and have been quite offended by the shabby a nd disrespectful treatment that the President gave to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  In fact anti-Obama sentiments now run quite strong in the Jewish community.  That is why last years special election in New York City to replace disgraced Congressman Anthony Weiner in a district t that is overwhelmingly Jewish and has a 3 to Democrat to Republican ratio,  went to Republican Bob Turner.

At the time, White House 2012 wrote about the surprise results and included the following analysis;

“As demonstrated in NY-9, the general anti-Semitic impression that the President’s actions and policies has generated within the Jewish community may not affect him very much in states with low Jewish populations like Utah, but many of those states are not expected to vote for President Obama anyway. But in a state like Florida which has one of the largest Jewish populations in the nation, the Jewish vote can make all the difference to President Obama’s reelection chances. There, without the Jewish vote, President Obama is sure to lose and without Florida, there are few if any realistic mathematical combination of state electoral votes that he can piece together to arrive at 270 electoral votes.”

So it is clear that the Reverend Wright is wrong as usual.  President Obama is not in the pocket of Jews.  But Rev. Wright is right about one thing.  President Obama has not done, as he stated, “much for the black community“.  He is correct on that point but for all the wrong reasons.

Wright believes that President Obama has not used the federal government enough to empower African-Americans with federal handouts and special programs aimed specifically at such things as even more funding than he has provided for school districts occupied by a majority of black students, or initiatives to promote and legalize forms of reverse discrimination intended to promote blacks over whites simply because of the color of their skin.

The truth though is that President Obama has done nothing for African-Americans, not for any of the reasons Jeremiah Wright ascribes to the President.   It can be said that he did nothing for them onlky because his policies have not empowered any individual Americans, not just African-Americans.

Under President Obama,  his policies of more government, more government spending, and more government control ,have taken power and opportunities away from the people.  All people.  The Obama economy has increased our national debt so much that for the first time in our history we have seen our national credit rating lowered, we have seen the entrepreneurial spirit doused, and are experiencing one of the longest sustained periods of near record  high unemployment in decades.  Under such an economy, no one is being empowered.  Instead they are being made  slaves to the Obama federal bureaucracy.

And under this economy it just so happens to be that African-Americans have been harder hit than most other ethnic demographics.  In fact, under President Obama, black unemployment surged to 16.7%, the highest rate of joblessness among African-Americans in 27 years.

So next time Jeremiah Wright wants to tell you that Barack Obama has done nothing for the black community in America, tell him the he is once again wrong and then correct him.  Remind him that President Obama has done something.  He’s done something to them, not for them.  He has hurt them with his failed economic policies, failed policies that have left more African-Americans out work than there have been in decades and which  in turn have taken away a great deal of the economic empowerment that African-Americans should have.

Bookmark and Share

Isn’t Obama a Theocrat?

Much has been made of Rick Santorum’s recent comments about Obama’s bad theology.  The media has tried to turn it into Santorum questioning Obama’s Christianity.  This is odd since the media at the same time is attacking Santorum for his Christianity.  Apparently Democrat brand Christianity is fine.

But this got me thinking, isn’t Obama a theocrat?  Obama definitely believes in the religion of Global Warming.  How can we forget Obama’s speech that generations from now people will look back and see his Presidency as the moment that the oceans would stop rising and the planet would begin to heal?  And Obama has accomplished his religious purpose by stifling American energy production, funneling billions of dollars to “green” energy, and engineering a takeover of a large portion of the US auto industry.  No where is federal ownership of private companies or green energy subsidies in the constitution.  These are things that Obama has done under the loose legislative framework of the stimulus package and TARP.

What about Obama’s belief in social justice?  Obama’s presidency is a prime example of liberation theology in action and the search for the religious concept of social justice.  Obama has taken Christ’s commands to give to the poor, help the afflicted and needy, and he has turned those things into federal responsibilities mandated by law.  No longer must someone tithe or give in order to be charitable.  Obama, like the Presidents before him, has turned the federal government into the largest charitable organization on the planet.

Obama invoked God when it came to his housing bill.  He indicated that God wants the federal government to provide jobs to people.  Obama unwittingly danced around a conservative idea of self-sufficiency while promoting his bill as God’s will.

Unlike Bush, who used faith based organizations to defray costs of social programs, Obama has leveraged the government’s relationship with faith based organizations to infiltrate them with his own social justice theology.  Obama now holds these institutions hostage by threatening them with fines and forcing closures of charities who don’t obey the radical liberal theology.  The unholy infiltration of religious institutions by the religious left has led to things like closures of Catholic orphanages.  This is all part of the Obama religion.

When it comes to taxes, Obama famously misquoted Jesus, saying that to those whom much is given, much will be required.  Of course, Jesus may have had spiritual things in mind.  But Obama’s interpretation is that people who have a lot (because if you have wealth it must have been given to you) should pay more in taxes according to Scripture.

Early on in Obama’s Presidency, CBS noted that Obama invoked Jesus Christ far more often than evangelical Christian President George W. Bush did.  Obama invoked God several times in his prayer breakfast speech, crediting God for his inspiration on everything from Obamacare, which forces Christians to pay for abortion, to Dodd-Frank.

Obama is a global warming believing social justice Christian, and he has tailored his governmental policies around that.  Included in Obama’s religious view of social justice is a brand of social equality for women that demands that contraception and abortion be provided by employers, even if the employers are religious institutions.  Access to abortion at no cost to the mother is a less advertised plank of mainstream liberation theology.  Don’t be fooled by his lack of explicit rhetoric on the issue, Obama’s theology inspires his determination on providing free federal abortion more than it does any piece of Wall Street regulation.

So why are we scared of Rick Santorum?  Don’t be fooled into thinking that it is because Santorum is the theocrat.  It is because Santorum is not a liberation theocrat.  Santorum does not believe that the government should redefine marriage.  Santorum does not believe that the federal government should provide equality of circumstances and end the perceived societal oppression of blacks and women.   Santorum is much closer to the brand of Christianity that authored the first amendment, not Obama’s brand that seeks to overturn it.  He believes that baby murder should be illegal, not free and equally distributed.

Once upon a time, the GOP agreed with Santorum.  Today we are too afraid of Obama’s faithful followers and their witch hunts.  GOP candidates are refusing to speak up for personal freedom, responsibility, and the lives of the unborn because they see Santorum burning at the stake.  In fact, some establishment GOP’ers are standing along side the liberation faithful, tossing sticks on the fire to prove their own loyalty to the social liberal faith.

Make no mistake, 2012 is all about religion.  Will we continue to have freedom of religion and self determination?  Or will we all be forced to become worshipers of Obama’s God, even more so than we are already.

From one radical to another?

Just how radical is Rick Santorum?  Yes, it is very frustrating that the media will ask this about Rick when they completely ignored any sign of Obama’s radicalism or the radicalism of many of the Democrats in Congress.  But that is what separates conservatives from liberals.  Conservatives don’t seem to actually want a candidate who appears too radical.  We have this unhealthy fear of independents and moderates.

Not so with Obama.  Obama has no fear of those middle of the road voters as demonstrated by his decision to force religious institutions to to pay for abortions.  In fact, it’s been a long three years so many might not remember that one of the first things Obama did in office was reverse the United States’ Mexico City policy making it so that our tax dollars are going to pay for abortions overseas.  Obama’s latest budget is textbook tax and spend liberalism.  Instead of funding our military, Obama’s budget cuts funding for our troops and adds funding to buy off radical Islamic groups in the middle east.

Is Rick Santorum as radical as advertised in comparison?  There is no question that Santorum is a very conservative Christian.  There is no question about whether he has been paying attention in church for the last 20 years.  Santorum may or may not use contraception, but would he really ban it?  One thing is for sure, he wouldn’t make catholic charities and institutions pay for it.

There is a candid interview circulating liberal circles because of some things Santorum says about his social conservative values.  In the interview he also talks about the limited size of the Federal government, but most liberal bloggers are ignoring that part.  Santorum also talks about moving more funding to the states and decentralizing of the government.

Santorum is not nearly as radical as Obama because Santorum does not believe the government is the answer to everything.  However, Santorum does have an unhealthy view of the government’s role in encouraging the traditional family.  Santorum would do what every politician before him and likely every politician after him would do and would use the tax code to encourage the traditional family and the bully pulpit to keep the national conversation going on the way a family should be.  Basically that puts Santorum in the same class as every politician except Ron Paul and Rand Paul.  But don’t expect a flat tax from Santorum.

Part of Santorum’s problem is that his bully pulpit is easily mistaken for gestapo type policy advocacy where government officials would enter people’s homes and steal their condoms lest they have sex with their spouse for any reason other than procreation.  Let’s get real.  Santorum is not Obama.  I doubt he will have websites where you can report your friends who disagree with him.

Santorum may make it easier for states to ban abortion.  Since when is that not a plus for conservatives?  Oh yeah, since we became scared of the moderates and independents.  Just a refresher for my conservative friends, abortion can be the brutal, torturous death of a human being.  Best case scenario, it is the end of a human life.

I don’t agree with Santorum on some social issues.  The question is, when Santorum talks about what he believes, is he saying what he will do as President or simply what he believes to be true?  Obama doesn’t say what he believes on the campaign trail, then he forces his beliefs on the country.  Santorum needs to be clearer about what he will implement as President.  In this interview he says many things that liberals have jumped on, but at 24:04 Santorum gives a key response to the question of what his ideas about education would look like on the federal level.

“It wouldn’t happen on the federal level.”

He needs to say that more.

 

Cain Not Catering to Sissies

It has been a busy news day for Herman Cain.  First, he said he’s been to 57 states so far, then it came out he’s been in a church with a racist pastor for 20 years, then he gave a speech and kept confusing Iraq and Afghani….oops, sorry, that was all Obama.

Cain screwed up on his Libya answer.  It took Cain more time to think of if he agreed with Obama’s decision to invade our Libyan allies than it took Obama to think about doing it in the first place.  I’m sure you’ve seen the video by now, and it’s pretty painful.  Not quite Perry painful, but still painful.  You can see the video here.

Darn it!  That was Obama again.  My bad.

Cain is in trouble though for something pretty legitimate.  Something that will cost him the Liberal female vegan vote.  Apparently, Cain said he likes a lot of meat on his pizza.  Of course, with his recent sex scandals, we all know what he really meant.

Do you think I’m joking?  Apparently Donna Brazille, Democrat strategist, read into Cain saying he wanted more toppings on his pizza in light of his “woman troubles”.

If disrespecting women by saying he likes more toppings on his pizza wasn’t bad enough, Cain made it even worse by insinuating that “manly men” like more meaty toppings on their pizza and that wanting vegetables on your pizza makes you a “sissy”.  We have not received the official response from PETA yet.

If the left thinks that loving meat on his pizza is going to make Republicans decide to not support Cain, they have another thing coming.  If they think attacking Cain for saying veggie pizza is for sissies is going to do anything other than infuriate Republicans who are sick and tired of obvious media bias, they really haven’t been paying attention.

On a personal note: I don’t like Cain’s 9-9-9 plan and I do think he lacks foreign policy smarts (not quite as bad as Obama, but pretty close).  But if the media keeps attacking him for stupid stuff like this, I’m gonna have to support him purely out of spite.

Democrat Ad Highlights Class Warfare Through Romney Meeting with Trump

Bookmark and Share    Today, as Mitt Romney becomes the latest Republican presidential candidate to kiss Donald Trump’s ring, the Democratic National Committee took the opportunity to reinforce their pathetic attempts to wage class warfare in the 2012 election.  In an ad entitled “Trump, Romney; You’re Fired[see ad below this post], Democrats attack both individuals as privileged rich men who merely victimize the middleclass in an attempt to gain more wealth.

In the first opening lines, the ad charges that both Romney and Trump have done well for themselves.

Stop! Stop right there.

Let’s analyze that.

Is it not un-American to attack someone because they have done well for themselves?  Or is it that ideology the and Party that believes in that ideology which are un-American because both seek to demonize individuals for being successful and because both try to make others dislike people because of this success?  Perhaps the DNC does not remember that 6 of the ten richest members of Congress are Democrats.  Maybe they forget that people like former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, former Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry, as well as Senators Jay Rockerfeller, Diane Feinstien, Frank Lautenberg, and Richard Blumenthal, are just some of those who are the richest.  But as we will see, wealth is not a bad thing if you’re a liberal.  Only if you’re a Republican.

President Obama recently accused Republicans of charging him with waging class warfare.  His response was that he is not waging war, he is actually just a warrior for the middleclass.  Well the truth is, this ad makes it clear that the President and his Party are indeed waging class warfare.  The first three lines of his Party’s new ad makes this painfully obvious.  And as for being a “warrior for the middleclass”,  President Obama is not fighting for the middleclass, he’s destroying the middleclass.  Under his Administration, America’s poverty rate has increased to extraordinary highs that we haven’t seen in decades.  Under his Administration, the middle class is seeing the longest recession in history and one of the highest long-term unemployment rates in our history.  Under the Obama Administration, the middle class is seeing prices rise faster than the salaries of those who are lucky to have a job.  And under leadership of President Obama, the middleclass has seen their interest on the national debt multiplied many times and while our national economy is growing by a painfully low rate of 1.7%, our national debt is growing at a rate of 15.21%.  Is it any wonder why our credit rating has been downgraded?

With the points about President Obama and the left waging class war fare and who is really the middleclasses’s enemy,  made clear, let’s go on with the rest of the ad.

With images of limousines and private jets, President Obama and his Party claim that the G.O.P. is promoting policies to help only the rich and corporations, and they resort to their typical scare tactics of senior citizens by claiming Republicans are trying to kill Social Security and Medicare.  The DNC attack ad goes on to blame Republicans for cutting funds to schools, research development, and healthcare, and of eliminating investments that can help cretae jobs and keep America competitive.

 These arguments may sound good on the surface.  But unfortunately for the left and the President, they only sound good to the left, not mainstream America.  Mainstream America has come to understand that the left is waging class warfare, scaring senior citizens, and creating policies that are making America less competitive in the world and preventing investment, economic growth, and job creation.  Simply put, most Americans have come to accept that the Obama economy and the liberal policies that account for the Obama economy, are not working.

Americans have come to understand that when liberals mention a buzzword like “investment”, what they really mean is more stimulus spending and higher taxes.  They understand that when the left talks about jobs, they mean government spending and when they throw out phrases like “save Social Social Security and Medicare, they mean deficit spending and an array of tax increases ranging from payroll taxes to death taxes and higher rates that no matter who they are raised on, are passed on to consumers.

Many have come to understand that Republicans seek not destroy Medicare or Social Security, but they do seek to insure that it is solvent for those who are on it now and that there is way for a form of the two to exist for future generations not yet paying in to those sytems yet.  They realize that when Republicans talk about jobs, they are referring to self-sustaining private sector jobs that are created by private sector investment, and sustainable econmomic growth, while at the same time, trying to get government under control so that our economy is growing at a rate faster than our national debt.

So this new atack ad is preaching to the liberal choir.  Like Jeremiah Wright preaching hatred to his flock, the DNC is preaching hate inspired rhetoric to its audience, an audience of liberals who they want to insure do not sit home on Election Day 2012 because they are embarrased by their Party’s performance.

The new liberal attack ad takes this opportunity to preach to their choir, by trying to tie Mitt Romney together with Donald Trump.

There are some negatives that do go with such a meeting.  Personally, I despise Donald Trump.  As I have written before, I believe he is an assclown.  I believe he hurts the conservative cause more than helps it and given his record of business scandals and failures, I believe he is the very last person in the world that the United States should call upon to lead it.  Ultimately, I would appreciate a Republican presidential candidate who stands up and makes that point.  I would even be more appreciative of them if they refused to feed Trump’s ego by kissing his ring.  But Trump has vowed to make his opinion known in 2012. He has even claimed that if he doesn’t like the Republican nominee, he will run for President himself.  My opinion of Trump aside, many Americans are driven by the pop culture mentality that is ruled by reality TV programs such Trump’s The Apprentice (and let us not respect the despicable lowlifes of the Jersey Shore).  So the reality is that between his money and popularity, no matter how I feel about Trump, he could be a factor in the 2012 election.  Therefore, there is a line of candidates waiting to meet with Trump.  Mitt Romney is merely the latest.

However, the Democratic National Committee sponsored web ad does not raise any of  my concerns.  It simply focusses on trying to associate Mitt Romney, a top contender for the Republican presidential nomination, not so much with Trump, but with rich people in general.  In other words, they are trying desperatley to wage class warfare. This new ad merely uses Donald Trump, not for any of the positions that they may disagree with him on.  They don’t use Trump because they want to focus on the issues or his record.  They merely use him because he is rich and because his meeting with Mitt Romney provides the DNC with the opportunity to advance their class warfare campaign against a potential opponent by demonizing the wealthy and highlighting Romney’s wealth through guilt by association ad.

Yet as I told you earlier in this article, demonizig the rich or those who are well off becuase they have been successful is only bad if you are Republican.  Need proof?  Do you think the D.N.C. will be running an ad featuring Warren Buffett as the speaker at a Chicago-area fundraiser benefitting President Barack Obama’s re-election bid on October 27th?  I doubt it.

Bookmark and Share

AP Gets Early Start on Nov 2nd, 2012 Headlines

A Perfect GOP Candidate Is Hard To Find. Yes, that is the unbiased AP headline of a story published today by AP writer Phillip Elliot. Elliot then presents us with an expose on exactly why every potential Republican candidate in the 2012 primary season is unworthy of Republican votes.

John Huntsman worked as an ambassador for Obama. Mitt Romney implemented Romneycare in Massachusetts. Newt Gingrich had two affairs and two failed marriages. Sarah Palin has had “countless impolitical moments”.

An infamous premature headline

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For every potential candidate, Elliot has a reason why they should lose.

Santorum is no good, he lost a Senate election in 2006. I wonder if Elliot knows that Abraham Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate race to Stephen Douglas, before defeating that same Stephen Douglas two years later in the Presidential race.

Tim Pawlenty apparently is too much into green energy. And of course, Haley Barbour is a racist, southern hick.

Of course, no freshman Republican is even considered in this article. After all, anyone can tell you that two years as a Senator does not give someone enough experience to run for President. Not if you are a Republican, that is.

I don’t remember the article about finding the perfect Democrat candidate in 2012. If Barbour has to defend his statements on segregation, should Obama defend his anti-white statements in his books? What about Obama’s church affiliation? How about his many “impolitical moments”?

Beyond mere gaffs and embarrassing associations, Obama brought us the failed stimulus plan that increased our debt over a trillion dollars with nothing to show for it. He gave us the unconstitutional Obamacare law and is currently in contempt of court for his executive order banning oil drilling in parts of the gulf. Obama’s attorney general has refused to follow through with voter intimidation prosecutions, refused to uphold more than one federal law on the books, and has betrayed his own racist leanings. Obama has now plunged us into a conflict with Libya where no one seems to know what the goals or end game is and where the only objective seems to be to blow stuff up but ensure that we are not responsible for winning.

But it’s not just Republicans who have reasons to not re-elect Obama. After promising to walk the picket lines wherever union rights are being denied, Obama was absent in the union showdown of our generation in Wisconsin. Obama has reversed his promise to close Guantanamo Bay, and continues to push back the date to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Obama’s legacy in Afghanistan is a surge strategy headed up by General David Petreaus. While Republicans are frustrated by the incompetent handling of the attacks on Libya, Democrats (if they are consistent) should be upset that we are getting involved at all. Obama is turning out to be more of a war hawk than his predecessor. He went back on his campaign promise to avoid an insurance mandate, skipped single payer, and extended the Bush tax cuts.

Where is the AP story about how hard it is to find a perfect Democrat candidate for 2012? The story of the 2012 election is not written yet. That is up to the voters. Do we want four more years of President Barack Obama?

%d bloggers like this: