Recently I heard some of the stories and saw video regarding Barack Obama's Pastor of 20 years, REV. Jeremiah Wright, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST. It is easy to google it to find out more, or go to these links:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/story?id=4443788
YouTube also has several videos of Wright, from the sermon DVD's that his church sells.
To me this is pretty scary. He says things like the rich white men invented aids to wipe out the black race, and basically that America is run by racist white men that have it out for blacks. See it for yourself, he is a very extreme black racist, and very anti-American. Obama has been attending this church for 20 years. He was married by Wright and both of his children were baptized my Wright. Since all this has come out in the media, Obama has said that he "vehemently disagrees" with Wright, and that he is like a "crazy old uncle in the family", but if that is the case, then why has he attended and been a part of the congregation for so long? I would feel very nervous about anyone in office, much less the president, participating in and having these kinds of ideologies a major part of his life and person. I think it is naive to say that an influence such as this would not influence his decision making.
Political parties aside for a minute. Regarding personal character, I know that John McCain has gotten a lot of criticism on this blog- and for good reason, but personally I would take McCain's bad temper over a black separatist ideology. What bad choices we have this time around.
Interested to know what you all think about this...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I agree with you Hyrum. I was also bothered by Obama's connection to that pastor. But I also cannot support Obama because of the fact that most of his views, in the areas of most importance to me, I strongly disagree with. He is very much a liberal democrat. If he becomes president, we can look forward to more Supreme Court nominees like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, legalized "gay" marriage in all states, homosexuals openly able to serve in the military, more power and influence to groups such as the ACLU, etc. Also, since he failed to take a stand against his pastor's bigoted, hateful opinions until he was called on it, what makes us think that he would take a stand against any other kind of corruption, injustice, or wrong which he encountered as president, unless it served his political interest to do so? He is in my mind a better choice than Hillary, but not by a whole lot.
Though John McCain would not have been my first choice as Republican nominee, and though I would have much preferred Romney, I will still support McCain as the best candidate available who has a good chance of winning. He is certainly a far, far better choice than the Huckster, and as long as he doesn't choose the Huckster as his running mate (thankfully, this is not likely) then I will vote for him, though with somewhat of a plugged nose. Here is how I would rate the past & present candidates:
1) Mitt Romney
2) Fred Thompson
3) John McCain
4) Rudy Giuliani
5) Ron Paul
6) Barack Obama
7) Hillary Clinton
8) John Edwards
9) Huckabee
Sorry to some of you for not putting Ron Paul up higher, but I just cannot stomach his hard line stance on immediate Iraq troop pullout. I feel strongly that would be a terrible mistake, and for me it trumps his very sound economic policies. If I were to rate the candidates solely on economic policies, he would be at the top with Romney.
As far as I can tell, McCain is very much a Neo-conservative (wants bigger government but not as fast as the democrats type of guy.) Now that Ron Paul is out, for all intents and purposes, I realize that I am going to have to accept that. I also have to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans favor that kind of a politician.
The one thing that I am very fearful about with McCain, is that his hot temper, strong militaristic past, and strong support for the war will get us into another war with Iran or who knows where else. To be honest, I am still trying to decide if that is a rational fear or not. After all, realistically, the president can't get away with some ridiculous decision, that the public doesn’t support and expect to get away with it. Judging from the support that America has for the Iraq war, it seems unlikely that another war would happen, short of us being attacked.
As I feel now, I would rather take that chance then put up with the guaranteed social, moral, and economical decisions that Obama or Hillary would put in place, which I feel would be very destructive.
I agree though, definitely another close pin vote this November.
I am curious to know why people favor Obama to Hillary. Most of the Democrats I know support Obama, but when I ask them why, they say that they don't really know of any difference between them, but they just like Obama. I know for me, there is such a bad stigma about Hillary, and the corrupt Clinton family. That is reason enough, but does anyone like Obama better because they think he has better policy or can get more done?
Regarding Obama vs Clinton, policy-wise, as near as I can tell, they are not that different. Some conservatives think that Obama is actually more left-leaning than Clinton, but that he is better at hiding it. Both, in my opinion, are more beholden to the far left "moveon.org" and George Soros' people than they would ever admit. My opinion is that Clinton just has too much baggage and that many people like Obama better because they feel he is more electable.
I was not impressed by his recent remark implying that "people turn to religion and guns" to vent their frustration with the government. It makes one wonder just how "Marxist" his true colors are, since that remark sounds too Marxist for my comfort level.
Quite frankly, Obama terrifies me. Why, you might ask? Because so many Americans are fawning at his feet as the candidate of "change!" Well what kind of change does he plan to bring about? What has the man accomplished in his very few years as a Junior Senator from no where? And what has he said he's going to accomplish once he's in the white house? My knees are shaking!
It scares me, as a teacher, to sit amongst several of my colleagues each day in the teacher's lounge and hear them spout off about how "gorgeous" Obama is, or how "charismatic" he is, or what a great speaker he is, like he was the Messiah himself! Any reasons of substance to place one's vote for the man? Not from these sycophants. "It's about time we had a black man in the white house," I heard one teacher say. "America is ready for a black man!" Shoots out another.
Who are we kidding here? Is that why hundreds of thousands of Americans are voting for this political hack? You must be joking. I certainly would laugh, if it weren't so terrifying.
From the man's pastor of 20 years, to the scripted women fainting at each of his stumping spots (Look it up on youtube. He uses the exact same line about getting a woman some medical assistence in about ten different cities because these mysterious women keep swooning in his awe-inspiring presence) I just don't think he can be trusted with one of the most powerful positions in the world.
But I have to agree with you Hyrum....This is definitely a close-pin vote for me as well.
I love your post Brandon!
With Bush's approval rating, or lack thereof, and the unpopular war this is the Democrat's election to lose. Added in is the fact that the Republicans have selected someone as lackluster as John McCain (at lease he's better than Bob Dole). All the Democrats had to do was field a credible candidate, which they did until the exposure of Jeremiah Wright. I almost feel sorry for them. In the Democrat's defense they don't have many credible candidates to choose from. I can just see John McCain and Co. "licking their chops" when they listen to Jeremiah Wright's racism. Sadly the average electorate votes more on sound bites than policy and the good pastor was kind enough to provide the republican party with ample sound bite ammunition to patronize white voters keeping the red states the same color and winning McCain the election.
As for the difference between Obama and Clinton... there is no important difference. They are both senators and have virtually the same voting record.
In the eyes of many it boils down rectifying the wrongs of the past. They ask themselves: "Who has gotten a worse deal in America Women or Blacks?" then they vote for the one they feel sorriest for.
Then there is the "excitement factor" that Obama generates because of his youth. He also isn't as divisive as Clinton because he hasn't been around long enough to step on as many toes, has a better sounding voice, and doesn't have a wild look in his eyes like he's about to attack.
Hilary claims "experience" on her side because she was first lady for eight years.
Personally out of the two I don't care who would win, but I don't think either will.
I listened to an interesting analysis the other day on the radio about just how far left Obama really is. I am amazed that when you get down to the nitty gritty he is a pure marxist and humanist. Phil, you commented on that comment he made about guns and religion -the contempt of such a statement (even taken in "full context" of his "sermon" to those liberal constituents in S.F) is a blatent slap in the face of all of us normal people who believe in the constitution. A statement like that doesn't just display his contempt for the common man but also displays his belief, like Marx himself, that the suffering masses trap themselves in pitiful self appeasement filling their lives with faith and God -forever remaining ignorant and unworthy of the revolution that more avante gaurde thinkers would unleash upon the world. So the concept of God is was keeps us miserable, ignorant, and, apparently to Obama, beneath contempt.
I wish I could explain more fully to what extent Marxist dogma pervades Obamas politics but I lack the complete knowledge that particular host had of the situation. Needless to say between his lack of any sort of leadership in the Senate (honestly Mr Junior Senetor Barack, you haven't even authored a bill much less crossed party lines to "UNIFY" with republicans on ANY sort of legislation -how are you supposed to unify the country?)his shady ties to not only Rev Wright (and thus to HAMAS) but a whole litany of persons with questionable intent, he doesn't even know how supply side economics work. To Those who think that Hilary and Obama pose an equal danger to the US, I say you haven't paid enough attention. We at least have had a preview of a Clinton administration, Obama comes to us with no proven track record, strange and disturbing associations, and evidence of being the FURTHEST left Senator in the whole Senate. I'd take Hilary any day. Now if we'd only get a great VP candidate to run with McCain so he can kick the bucket during his term and leave the country in competent hands -yah Romney would be a dream.
Interestingly enough I've heard rumors he is wanting Condoleeza Rice to run w/him! Interesting news.
Nice Bryan, I never thought of that before. McCain is old enough so he just might kick the bucket in office, so I guess conceivably there is still hope for America. yeah, it's no wonder though that he's holding off to choose his running mate. If Hillary gets the nomination, it would be a good idea to get a woman as his VP. I guess he'll have to find a black man if Obama gets the nomination. I still think it's a crazy sad reflection of the American voters that virtually all African Americans vote Obama, and tons of women vote Hillary.
It is very surprising to me that all of these things that have come out against Obama have done almost nothing to change the minds of the current Obama supporters, although they may have effected a lot of middle of the road voters that he'll need in the general election. In any case I'll be very surprised if he doesn't get the nomination. The numbers are just too much in his favor.
“I wish I could explain more fully to what extent Marxist dogma pervades Obamas politics but I lack the complete knowledge that particular host had of the situation.”
How do you know if the radio host was being honest when he called Obama a Marxist?
Bryan you’re accusations of Obama being a Marxist are unfounded and inflammatory. Just because you “listened to an interesting analysis on the radio” about how Obama is a Marxist doesn’t make him one. You have not offered any evidence to support that claim. I don’t support Obama and would probably rather see McCain in the white house, but I still appreciate his ideas and what he is trying to do to help our country. I believe that Obama’s heart is sincere and that he really does want to make America a better place. Even though I disagree with some of his ideas I try to study them with an open mind.
In reference to the famous “guns and church” comment; I think Obama did a good job of explaining himself during the Pennsylvania debate against Clinton. In a nutshell what he meant to say was that many people are sick and tired of politics in America (true) and therefore they cling to traditions in their lives like guns and religion (true). That statement does not say anything against guns or religion. Anyone who is under as much scrutiny for as long as a presidential candidate will slip up and say something in the wrong way, we all do sometimes. One of the stupid things about politics is that these slip ups get more attention than the issues. The same thing goes for acquaintances, just because you exchange ideas with someone does not mean that you believe them. Although I think that Obamas close ties to Wright for 20 years warrant scrutiny I see no reason to vilify Obama to his loose affiliation with other individuals.
“To Those who think that Hilary and Obama pose an equal danger to the US, I say you haven't paid enough attention. We at least have had a preview of a Clinton administration, Obama comes to us with no proven track record”
The fact that Obama doesn’t have a proven track record as the Clintons doesn’t automatically mean that he would be worse; I could argue in fact that this is better. What is better no credit or bad credit?
Clinton and Obama’s senate voting records are almost indistinguishable he cannot be the “farthest left in the senate” as you claim. Here is one of the few policy differences that I have found between them: Clinton wants to mandate health care for everyone, while Obama just wants to mandate health care for children. Which policy sounds more “Marxist” to you? Obama on the other hand wants to raise the capitol gains tax by more than Clinton.
Although I have traditionally voted Republican and probably will this time in some ways I would welcome a Democrat victory. I don’t think the Republican party has kept their pledge to control spending and limit big government. While Democrats will expand government health care I think that they will spend far less than the Republicans because they plan to withdraw from Iraq, a war that we cannot afford… that is pushing us further into bankruptcy. Democrats are more realistic about our current financial situation than are Republicans because they don’t increase spending and cut taxes at the same time like our last administration has done. At least when they increase spending they are honest enough to raise taxes.
Sparrow, In my excitement to post perhaps I underestimated my ability to communicate what I felt was "bad news" for Obamas supporters. I also regret my lack of strong representation of information when referring to what I had heard on the radio. Perhaps first I should have explained the tenets of Marxism and humanism, how those ideas have evolved since their inceptions, and how they have become a normal part of left leaning political belief? I dunno, perhaps. It is without question that communism has its most fundamental roots in marxism (The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07 [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/Marxism.html]). It is also apparent that, generally, the aim of left wing politics is to improve society by evening out the playing field for everyone -essentially creating a "classless society" (the DNP http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html). The recent political scene (last 20-30 years has been (as far as I understand it) a battle between adopting communist/socialist/MARXIST ideaology into our government and autosufficiency. State Healthcare is the obvious example of a marxist ideal adopted by us evil free market westerners.
What else but socialist thought explains the tax structure under which we live? where at 260k per year you are RICH and thus taxed disproportionantly to your 240k earning neighbor. The over achiever is punished so that we can fund all our social programs (programs almost exclusively taken advantage of by the poor -the proletariat if you will). Do I need to explain that democrats generally want to grow government in order to create a strong state entity that enforces the homoginous society it creates? I suppose I could if it weren't 3 in the morn...
What I'm getting at is that the radio host I listened to didn't need to be "honest" he mearly connected the dots between voting habits, verbalized beliefs, and other public displays made by obama to Marxism. I will try to find a transcript for reference. If I had a show prep team Im sure i could have given you the same complete and "interesting analysis" he gave me. Even without those specific points though, based on what Barack votes for, as well as most left voting people vote for we can say in a general sense that they are 1.voting for more powerful government regulation of industries (oil, health, vice industries (smoking ect.) 2. voting to make each citizen more dependent on the government for help/sustenance 3. voting to limit what people can and cannot do, can /cannot say, and can / cannot express.
As far as Barack's lame explanation goes, that was prepared political drivel meant to mitigate the damage done. Take note that when Barack speaks he's a smooth criminal unless doing so without prepared notes or prompts (in other words when he's supposed to use his own heart or head to explain things) he drops a lot of "uhhhhhhhh"s. he must have gone to the same school as Bush. He's looking more and more like a clown on a unicycle backpedaling from a bear on a trike. If the left can jump all over bush for his ineptitudes then barack is free game.
I agree that repulicans have shown themselves to be pretty big wussies these last several years -talk about letting down your constituents.
Lastly, I think Ron Paul should have been picked on by a bully when he was a kid -he, along with most of the left don't understand that turning your back on an enemy will get you punched in the back of the head. Pull out of Iraq? I guess thats a different blog eh? I can't fathom anything more brain dead than ignoring our generals over there by bringing home our troops. BTW should we start mass producing invitation cards to the insurgants letting them know when we'll be officially out so they can start the reign of terror or do we want ot suprise them? I just can't decide... On the one hand they wont have enough bullets, IED's, and RPGs to kill everyone they've seen helping the US. Whereas, on the other hand, the spontinaity might be a welcomed break for them. Perhaps Jimmy Carter or Louis Farrakhan can put us in contact with Al-quaida to find out which option they would prefer? Pulling out might save us money but it will NOT make us stronger in the world community like Hilary thinks. You know how to win a fight? Look up Kalib Starnes -formerly of the UFC -thats what you're asking our military to do by removing them without finishing the fight. No one will trust us again.
To me it seems like claiming Obama is Marxist is mostly propaganda. It's true that in order to be entertaining, radio hosts and much of the media in general go for that shock value. I will admit, by the way, it is very entertaining. As far as I understand Marxism, Karl Marx was going for a great Utopian society, with no poor people, and economic and social equality. I too watched that last Democratic debate in PA, and it seems like all I heard from Obama, (when he wasn't stammering trying to defend himself), was that he was going to make sure that families could afford to pay their bills. That they wouldn't have to sit around the kitchen table and worry about how to pay for their health care, or gasoline, or whatever else. The fact of the matter is that he wants many ideals similar to Marxist philosophy. Take away from the upper class to give freebies to the lower class, in simple terms. That being the case, I don't think it is incorrect to compare Obama's philosophies with Karl Marx's. The propaganda "shock factor" of it is though, that in America, "Marxist" is a dirty word (even though many of us are a lot closer to it then we think), which we equate with un-American, and the communist regime. By fallacious interpretation, I'm sure one could hear that and assume Obama is a communist.
Also, what Obama painted in the debates as "loose affiliation" with very questionable people doesn't really seem to be the case. He has very close friendships and campaign contributors with very shady radicals, similar to his pastor. When he gets called out on it, he tries to throw them under the bus as much as he can, but I think there is a lot of concern there about what is the mental make up of this man. To me it is as just as important as the issues at hand, because we get an idea of what kind of policies he will come up with. Who exactly is he going to be "fighting for" in the white house? This is especially true with Obama, because he has no history. He keeps talking about all of these fantastic changes he will make, but he hasn't been a Senator for long enough to do anything; who knows what kind of policy he will try to implement. The only reason why his voting record is the same as Hillary is because he hasn't had a chance to vote on many things at all. Therefore, the sentiment that he is very far left, has to be based on what he talks about, and his ideals.
Regarding what Sparrow said about the irresponsible spending attitude of the current administration, I do agree, but it's funny to me that no one was worried about the cost of the war when we went in to it. Also, in the debates, Hillary and Obama talked about how they would lower taxes. The only tax they talked about raising at all was the capital gains tax, which Charles Gibbs pointed out in the debate has increased government revenue by being lower by creating more incentive to invest. It is Ludicrous to say that they will be any more responsible with money.
Again, I do agree that the Republican Party is no where near a balanced budget. (Romney and Ron Paul maybe would have). To the party's defense though, the American people don't want a balanced budget, and they will throw anyone out that tries. Remember when Newt Gingrich went as far as halting the Federal Government because he wouldn't approve Clinton way overspending? That, of course was after Clinton insisted on vetoing any balanced budget proposition that came his way. What happened? Nothing short of political suicide for Gingrich actually trying to solve the problem. Same thing that happened to Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger when he tied to debunk the unions power, except instead of political suicide, since he couldn't beat them he just joined them. Similarly, no politician will touch our Social Security disaster with a ten foot pole, or they will immediately get thrown out of office by all of the collectors. We can thank FDR for that one. That’s what happens when people become dependent on government. Democracy becomes ever less effective. In my view, most Democrats and Republicans are going the same direction now, but I believe at different speeds, which is why I plan to vote for McCain... I want to get there slower. I hate to be a pessimist, but I can't imagine anything short of a huge crisis to wake people up. Our economy seems to be falling fast though; maybe we are closer than we think.
Bryan, sorry my comments saying that you did not have any proof to support your arguments. I think it's stupid of me to pretend that this needs to be an exchange of facts only and not ideas as well. I read my comments today and realized that I sounded like an idiot. Anyhow, thanks for following up with all the info. I can't wait to read it and get back to you when I get the chance. I really appreciate your point of view.
The major difference between Communism and Democrats is that Democrats don’t believe in classless society like Communists do as you claim. Democrats do believe that it is the government’s responsibility to correct inequalities in society to a certain extent but not to eliminate classes by force. I think that it’s important to not confuse socialism, communism and the Democratic Party. Labeling groups with such broad brushstrokes confuses the issues and adds unnecessary hype. Calling a democrat a communist for example is just like calling a republican an anarchist. True, republicans are closer to anarchist than democrats and democrats are closer to communism than republicans but it is totally confusing the issue to lump them together. The difference between a democrat and a communist are very huge, it is divisive to lump them together, but then again divisive is a good adjective for “conservative” talk radio. I do like your three points about how Democrats want more control of our lives, “the strong entity that enforces the homogenous society that it creates as you put aptly put it”. It is frightening for me to see so many people who want to give up their independence for government control.
As far as pulling out of Iraq, the constitutions was purposefully written so that it was hard to get into war (congressional majority) and easy to get out of war (commander and chief’s decision). Allowing a general who is not elected by the people to decide the duration of a war dilutes the checks and balances that were wisely incorporated into the constitution. The president is for leadership, generals are for management.
I disagree with your opinion that if we leave Iraq will automatically be run by insurgents. That will be up the Iraqis, they need to fight for their country instead of expecting us to when it is not in our national interest. For that matter other countries in the area need to look after their own national interests and help stabilize Iraq. They have as much motive to do that as a communist has to get a job with us over there. And I wouldn’t worry to much about no one ever trusting us again… no one trusts us right now. A lot of people worried about the cost of the war before we went into it unfortunately not very many of them were our elected representatives in a republican congress and senate.
Post a Comment