52 Comments

• 1. Dennis  |  March 26th, 2008 at 3:13 am

  This is pure agitprop, straight out of the extremists’ playbook from either end of the spectrum.

  It’s plain old toxic waste that anyone with a computer and enough idle time can produce on anybody, anywhere on the political spectrum. I’ve seen Cheney and Guiliani look even worse by the same technique, and thought it just as dishonest. As the saying goes, idle hands are the devil’s workshop.

  You guys really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren’t you? What’s the matter, did you run out of material or just forget your Christian upbringing?

  On a more humorous note, someone had to take real effort to make Obama appear to stutter, whereas George W. Bush looks foolish enough without any special effects at all.

• 2. Freedom1  |  March 26th, 2008 at 5:19 am

  Devastating video!

• 3. Freedom1  |  March 26th, 2008 at 5:46 am

  (Video) BARACK OBAMA Pastor ANTI-AMERICAN Rev Jeremiah Wright Racism

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw&feature=related

  I found some very interesting information about Barack Hussein Obama at the website “Black Republican”…

  “Obama’s Blind Spot on Race and Character” - Black Republican

  By Frances Rice -a lawyer and retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, is the chairman of the National Black Republican Association

  …Without flinching, Rev. Wright damned his own country, declaring that innocent Americans deserved to be killed by Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001. Since Obama refuses to end his ties to Rev. Wright and has put forth a false face as a presidential candidate, we need to look behind the mask and examine his past to see the real Barack Obama.

  Obama’s Slave-owning Relatives

  Notably, in his speech, Obama mentioned the slavery history of the family of his wife, Michelle. He failed to say one word about the unsavory slave-owning past of his own white relatives. Historical records uncovered by researchers and posted on the Internet at: http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm show that Obama’s maternal forbearers were slaveholders. In fact, one of Obama’s ancestors, George Washington Overall, owned two slaves as is recorded in the Nelson County, Kentucky 1850 Census. The same records show that another one of Obama’s ancestors, Mary Duvall, also owned two slaves. All of Obama’s slave-owning forbearers were Democrats.

  Obama, following in the footsteps of his white ancestors, is also part of the Democratic Party that: (1) fought to keep blacks in slavery; (2) started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize Republicans—black and white; (3) passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws; (4) fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s; and (5) attacked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights protesters with skin-burning fire hoses and vicious dogs.

  http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

  Read the whole thing. There’s more information on Obama worth posting - ie. “Obama’s Legislative Actions”, and his “Muslim Connections”.

• 4. winnowhead  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:02 am

  “Freedom”1, I’m sure you’re not suggesting that in addition to the attacks surrounding Rev Wright, you’re also suggesting that Obama is supportive of or sympathetic to the institution of slavery?

  You guy are such f’in race baiting fools. And what is pathetic is you don’t even see it.

• 5. TiredofLibBullSh**  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:40 am

  minihead,

  “You guy are such f’in race baiting fools. And what is pathetic is you don’t even see it.”

  Uh, so I guess the rants of:

  “If you don’t vote Democrat another black is going to burn.”
  The political ads about the dragging death of that black Texas man to push “hate crime” legislation.
  The antics of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson et al, pimping for the Democrat Party.

  …and other such racial nonsense - even in this campaign!

  Don’t mean anything to you. Talk about “words don’t matter” - you and your ilk are hopeless.

• 6. Retired Spook  |  March 26th, 2008 at 8:06 am

  On a more humorous note, someone had to take real effort to make Obama appear to stutter, whereas George W. Bush looks foolish enough without any special effects at all.

  Dennis, you obviously haven’t seen Obama speak without a teleprompter. Without that visual aid, he’s not an appreciably better speaker than Bush.

• 7. FoolYouTwice  |  March 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am

  Dennis, you obviously haven?t seen Obama speak without a teleprompter. Without that visual aid, he?s not an appreciably better speaker than Bush.

  Spook, you get more crazy every day. You can’t even admit there is one thing about Obama that is better than your hero. You are losing the ability to think objectively more and more.

• 8. Bigfoot  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:49 am

  This video, agitprop or not, even with the fake stuttering, has a valid point, which is the contradiction between Obama trying to tell us that words matter, and then asking us to ignore or disregard the invective of Reverend Wright. You can’t have it both ways, Barry. If “I have a dream” matters, if “we hold these truths” matters, if “we have nothing to fear except fear itself matters”, then so do “God [bleep] America” and “the U. S. of KKKA”.

  Senator Clinton’s husband, in 1995: “Words have consequences.”

• 9. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am

  Bigfoot … you’re absolutely right. Words do matter. His 20 year relationship with a racist and America hater does matter. Liberals don’t want us to continue to talk about it - how dare we - because deep down, they know it’s going to hurt Obama.

• 10. Almiranta  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  Stuttering can either be a speech mannerism, a speech defect, or a reaction to the situation of trying to find something to say.

  True speech defects are devasating to those who have to endure them, and not fit topics for ridicule.

  Speech mannerisms, such as those of Bush, have nothing to do with intellect or of striving to find an apt word or phrase. Bush doesn’t stutter as much as he occasionally stammers a little. But his West Texas speech mannerisms have always been grist for the mills of elitists who think that southerners, and Texans in particular, are stupid because they have different speech patterns.

  In her book “Giant” Edna Ferber addresses this, briefly, when her heroine comments on the intelligence and cunning of those who speak so slowly and don’t meet the superficial standards of Leslie’s Virginia upbringing.

  I’ve spent a LOT of time in Texas, and understand both the intellectual snobbery that elitists direct at the down-home speech styles and the fierce intellects those styles often hide.

  I have heard Obama stammer when speaking off the cuff and not from prepared statements, and I have often felt that he was groping for words or phrases. Big deal—we all do it. But he also does often come across as disingenuous when he stammers and stutters so much when trying to defend indefensible positions. And no wonder….it’s pretty hard to come up with answers that might appease those disgusted with the racism and anti-Americanism he has apparently supported for a couple of decades, without at the same time alienating the radical black philosophy represented by his church.

  He is in the awkward position of trying to avoid being called an “Uncle Tom” or “Oreo” by the strident anti-white faction of his race, a la Rice and Powell, while at the same time trying to tell people who are offended by bigotry that he doesn’t have bigoted views. One side demands that he be a bigot, and the other side demands that he prove he is not.

  He’s between a rock and a hard place, and I think his stammering shows that he knows this. But there is no need to amplify it artificially. He’ll do just fine on his own.

• 11. Dennis  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  Spook, I’ve listed to more Bush speeches than anyone else I know. I’ve heard most if not all his State of the Union addresses and many, many press conferences. And you have got to be kidding.

  Never once have I heard Bush rise to the level of eloquence. Nor have I once ever heard Obama say anything resembling, “When I’m talking about myself, and when he’s talking about myself, all of us are talking about me,” or “More and more of our imports come from overseas,” or “I think - tide turning - see, I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of - it’s easy to see a tide turn - did I say those words?”

  Your man is on drugs.

• 12. Dennis  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm

  Almiranta, how many ways are there to understand “If this was a dictatorship it’d be a heckuva lot easier”?

  This wasn’t said just once by Mr. Bush, but on at least three separate occasions - once while governor of Texas and twice as president.

  If the “truth is oft spoke in jest,” and words do matter, might we presume there’s something terribly twisted about Mr. Bush’s conception of his own capabilities and self-importance?

  Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has made it clear through both his career path and his public utterances, articulate or otherwise, that he regards himself a public servant. He is not given to foolish jesting or braggadocio. He has listened to people from all across the spectrum, and placed a clear distinction between the convictions of himself and those of others.

  If people are not able to take Mr. Obama seriously at face value perhaps it’s because they’ve been negatively conditioned by exposure to the strutting, self-aggrandizing president of the past seven years. As another person aptly asked on another thread, why in the name of heaven are so many here so opposed to raising the standard of our presidency?

• 13. Michael  |  March 26th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  Recently, Michelle Obama, wife of candidate Barack Obama was speaking at the University of South Carolina and part of her speech were these words:

  We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance… That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?

  Words against America from the same woman whose anti-American words have had bad reactions already.

  Source:Gateway Pundit

• 14. Dennis  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

  Michael, these are not anti-American words. They are anti-ignorance, anti-stereotype.

  That in America one is free to be ignorant and hold negative stereotypes is also what she is saying, but ultimately she issues a challenge to move beyond these qualities and realize the potential Americans have to be something greater and better.

  This post is really quite a credit to Michelle Obama. Any thinking person should applaud these ideals. The question is, why are so many stuck on seeing any challenge to being better as an anti-American polemic? Can it be anything other than willful ignorance?

• 15. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

  Why does Michelle Obama feel the right to spew her anti-American comments at everyone else? It’s bad enough she subjects her children to it every Sunday. Shame on her.

• 16. Michael  |  March 26th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  Michael, these are not anti-American words. They are anti-ignorance, anti-stereotype.

  She clearly stated that ” It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance… That’s America.” To me, that it is a trait of America (and Americans) to feel justified in your own ignorance.” That is an insult to America. That is not an accurate description of America, at not least the America I know. It is insulting, and frankly reeks of victim-speak.

  …the potential Americans have to be something greater and better.

  I think America is the best country in the world. It has areas where it can improve things, but if we really were “comfortable in our ignorance” we would be incapable of improving. So Michelle Obama is speaking in paradoxical fashion.

  Any thinking person should applaud these ideals. The question is, why are so many stuck on seeing any challenge to being better as an anti-American polemic? Can it be anything other than willful ignorance?

  ‘

  I guess all who disagree with that screed are not “thinking people” and the reason is their “willful ignorance.” That’s quite a worldview there. Is this your idea of debate? Michelle Obama buttered up her “challenge” with Anti-American words that have been pounded into her skull by her far-left upbringing and education and reinforced every Sunday in church. I would give her the benefit of the doubt if this were her first such attack on America, but as we all know, it is not. I wonder why Barack doesn’t shut her up. Maybe he has her out there saying what he’s unable or afraid to say. Anyway, it will hurt him - watch what the Hillary camp does with it.

• 17. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 3:39 pm

  13. Michael | March 26th, 2008 at 12:55 pm

  Her speech here is Psychology 101. This is part of human behavior. People like comfortable and predictable. What she is saying is it’s time to let go and move forward. To not be afraid of new things or people. I do not understand how it is anti-American to describe what is taking place or how people act. It’s an inherent problem in America and the rest of the world for that matter. What she is trying to get at is that America should be the leader again. Grab the reigns and show the world races, classifications and labels are not something to fear. Some of the best people you may ever meet could be labeled something you do not approve of. But until you cast the label aside you’ll never know.

• 18. celticman  |  March 26th, 2008 at 4:27 pm

  anyone that attended this vhurch for 20 years,tithed and help keep this church thriving for 20 years,hd their kids baptised at this church,got married at this church.

  Calls this hate monger “uncle like”,and refuses to seperate himself from this racist.

  IS NOT FIT TO SERVE AS OUR PRESIDENT!!!

  (if it were a white man making the same remarks, and McCain had been there for 20 years,you can bet you butt that there would weeping and gnashing of teeth on the left)

• 19. Dennis  |  March 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  Michael, you say “Michelle Obama buttered up her ‘challenge’ with Anti-American words that have been pounded into her skull by her far-left upbringing and education and reinforced every Sunday in church.”

  I grew up in an extremely religious environment (a white preacher’s kid) and attended conservative church schools through my first year of college - mostly in the American South. I have nothing resembling a left-wing background and remain a Bible-believing Christian today.

  And yet I understand and agree totally with Michelle Obama’s statement above. Her thinking is neither anti-American or leftist - it is taking Christ’s question of “who is your neighbor” and pushing the envelope with it, daring Americans to be good Samaritans and more, even in their ordinary social intercourse.

  You say “if we really were ‘comfortable in our ignorance’ we would be incapable of improving. So Michelle Obama is speaking in paradoxical fashion.”

  That so much of America is indeed comfortable in its ignorance and racial isolation is a reality you haven’t yet been able to wrap your mind around - which is why her plain statement appears paradoxical to you.

• 20. Michael  |  March 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

  This is part of human behavior.

  That is not what she said. She said ” It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance… That’s America.” If it is indeed human nature, why did she single out America? Extra credit for understanding the difference between being comfortable and “to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance” The defense that its nothing important whenever one of the Dems says something objectionable is getting old and nobdy’s buying it anymore.

  But until you cast the label aside you’ll never know.

  The left spends a lot of time focusing on what people “are” and very little on what they “do.” They have labels for everything and run them through the PC filter to come up with labels that are correct. A couple I can think of are “gay” for homosexual and African-American for Negro and the worst one they’ve come up with is “choice” for abortion. So sorry, I look at what people do, not what they claim to be. And Michelle’s speech quoted above had Anti-American phrases in it. It should not surprise anyone since she is a serial hater and has proved it several times already. Too bad Obama can’t seem to shut her up. Even Hillary managed to shut up Slick for a few weeks anyway.

• 21. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

  “If it is indeed human nature, why did she single out America? ”

  For the same reason a Band singles out the town or country they are playing in that night. If she has said ‘World’ people would be questioning why shes talking about the world when her husband in running for president of the US.

  “The left spends a lot of time focusing on what people “are” and very little on what they “do.” ”

  What people ‘are’ and ‘do’ are two completely different things. For instance some people ‘are” members of the KKK or Trinity church, but not all members ‘do’ things which are racist. Though the Label would have you believe it. Another example, after columbine, anyone who wore trench coats or appeared to be ‘gothic’ were out casted because of what they ‘are’. But in reality only few of them ‘did’ commit violent crimes. This is exactly what Michelle was getting at in her speech. If you can only take what she said literally no arguement will be sufficient for you.

• 22. Typical White Person  |  March 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

  You can’t even admit there is one thing about Obama that is better than your hero.

  He’s a Marxist, a lyar, and he hates America. I’ll admit those.

  Does that help?

• 23. Freedom1  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm

  “He’s a Marxist, a lyar, and he hates America. I’ll admit those. Does that help?” - Typical White Person

  Works for me. Obama is not qualified to be President of the USA.

• 24. Timothy Horrigan  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

  Michelle Obama would indeed be a very different type of First Lady from the open, easygoing, extremely relaxed and always humorous Laura Bush. But no one expects Michelle Obama to be Laura Bush: Laura is one of a kind.

• 25. kimberly4victory  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

  Timothy … I couldn’t agree more. Laura Bush has been a wonderful first lady.

• 26. Typical White Person  |  March 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

  “Lyar.” Oops, I’m not in the UK yet. Not for 50 days. I meant “liar.”

  See, the spelling nazi errs, but, unlike the LIbErals here, he owns up to his errors…

• 27. Michael  |  March 26th, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  Rev. Wright still at it:

  “(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him. The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”

  Now he is after the Italians. Just more words from Obama’s “crazy uncle.”

  Source

• 28. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  “So sorry, I look at what people do, not what they claim to be. And Michelle’s speech quoted above had Anti-American phrases in it.” - Micheal

  I agree with you about looking at what people do and not what they claim to be, but this is exactly the point Michelle is making in her speech. I am at a loss at how you do not seem to pick up on it or maybe are ignoring it.

  Michelle says this…

  “You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community.”

  before she says this…

  “Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance… That’s America.”

  Do you see that shes talking about why people are not taking advantage of the diversity and culture around them. What she’s pointing out is that people are not talking to each other because of ‘who they claim to be’ instead of ‘who they are’. This is not anti-American. In fact it is simply America. Talk to any highschool student about ‘clicks’ in their schools, ‘jocks’, ‘nerds’, ‘drama club’, etc… Or College students about ‘Fraternities’, ‘Faculties’, ‘Stoners’, etc… on their campus. How about how ‘Poor’, ‘Working Class’, ‘High Society’, etc… associate and view on another. As the saying goes, ignorance is bliss. So I say again it is not anti-American but simply America.

• 29. Michael  |  March 26th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

  For the same reason a Band singles out the town or country they are playing in that night.

  Boy, that’s quite a stretch! By that reasoning she should have singled out universities or the state she was in but she aimed her insult to all of America. Sorry, your explanation is just a little too labored for me. It sounds like something Hillary would come up with.

  some people ‘are” members of the KKK or Trinity church, but not all members ‘do’ things

  If you belong to a racist, hate-spewing organization, then you get to get painted as one of their members and that you support what they stand for. Otherwise you would not belong in the first place or would quit. So if you belong to a racist organization, you are a racist. Again your explanation is a real Hillary-style spin. BTW, I did take her statement literally, to claim it says something else is meant, you have to ignore what it says literally.

• 30. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  “Boy, that’s quite a stretch! By that reasoning she should have singled out universities or the state she was in but she aimed her insult to all of America.”

  Considering it was a speech which see knew would be echoed across the nation is it really a stretch? She also addressed the students there with the reference to their campus. And like any good politician I’m sure she said it was great to be where she was calling the city and university by name. (How’s that for spin?)

  “If you belong to a racist, hate-spewing organization, then you get to get painted as one of their members and that you support what they stand for.”

  Tell that to Muslim’s who practice the true teachings of Islam. They get lumped in with AQ, OBL, Saddam, Iraq, etc… all the time. Or true Christians who get painted as Evangelicalists.

  How about Dr. David Duke. I’m almost sure you can learn a thing or too from this man if you set aside the fact he was a member of the KKK. Sure somethings he says you will not agree with and will be appalled by, but the point is there is an open discussion. He may learn a few things from you or at least understand why you think the way you think and vice-versa. It doesn’t mean you’ll convert each other just that you would have an understanding of another form of culture.

  You do not need to ignore what it ‘literally’ says to get the ‘meaning’ of the ‘entire’ speech. However to miss the ‘meaning’ requires to take each sentence ‘literally’ as if there is nothing before or after it.

• 31. Sue  |  March 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  LOL “Or true Christians who get painted as Evangelicalists.”

  So Evangelicals are not “true Christians”? What makes you think that you can decide who is a “true Christian” or who is a “fake Christian”?

  You’re showing your bias and bigotry.

• 32. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

  31. Sue | March 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  Sue, I never said evangelicals are ‘fake Christians’ granted I can see how you could interpret it that way so let me clarify. Their beliefs are extreme in nature, not unlike Muslims with extreme beliefs. Does that make them any less Christian or Muslim? That is not for me to decide. In hide site I probably should have said ‘Christians’ instead of ‘true Christians’ my mistake. But it does not make the point I was trying to make any less valid.

• 33. Some Assembly Required  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:11 pm

  31. Sue | March 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

  In case you missed it heres the last Paragraph of the post for which you say my bias and bigotry are showing….

  You do not need to ignore what it ‘literally’ says to get the ‘meaning’ of the ‘entire’ speech. However to miss the ‘meaning’ requires you take each sentence ‘literally’ as if there is nothing before or after it.

• 34. Freedom1  |  March 26th, 2008 at 9:35 pm

  SAR,
  You say that evangelicals’ “beliefs are extreme in nature”.

  The only thing “extreme in nature” is your ignorance about Evangelicals and Christianity.

  Billy Graham Evangelistic Association

• 35. js  |  March 26th, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  God isnt a socialist. He gave us a choice. What we do with that option is up to us. Its not about religion, its about knowing the difference between right and wrong, and applying that knowledge in our lives.

  If Barak Obama is “the best” man we can muster for the President of the United States, we are in trouble people. This man is lying to us, he is a professed devotee of socialism and a racist. 20 years of history is how you weigh the man, not on how creative a liar that man is.

  Charisma is not a representation of integrity, we learned that with Hitler. The speeches may sound good, but the truth is a bloody mess.

• 36. Dennis  |  March 27th, 2008 at 12:31 am

  Js, you say God isn’t a socialist.

  Yet Jesus told the rich young man, “If you want to be perfect, sell all you have, give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me.” Matthew 19:21.

  Following the Master’s teaching, the early Christian church was indeed very socialistic in their economics. “Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according to his need” Acts 4:34, 35.

  I’m not saying that ought to be the way our government operates. The giving was voluntary among Christian believers, motivated by love. Yet if there is any economic principle we can derive from all that, it sure sounds a lot like socialism to me.

• 37. Dennis  |  March 27th, 2008 at 12:45 am

  “20 years of history is how you weigh the man, not on how creative a liar that man is.”

  20 years of history? Upon graduating from college Barack Obama went to work for the poor and out-of-work. And upon graduating from Harvard Law School, instead of taking a six-digit income from a corporate law firm, he went into Chicago’s worst neighborhoods to help people. Public service, it is called.

  Obama has been a public servant all his adult life. Probably the first big chunk of money he ever made was from writing a best-seller book - one that many thousands still find inspirational. He never took the easy route to fortune, as most in his circumstances would have done and do all the time.

  And now people here - who’ve done exactly what in public service? - take it on themselves to say of Obama “He’s a Marxist, a lyar, and he hates America.”

  What qualifies you to make these judgments? From what height do you look down on this man to call him a liar? Uncritical inferences drawn from equally unfounded character judgments of certain people with whom Obama has associated over the years. Who is spewing hate here?

  A true Christian, Sue, would follow Christ’s injunction, “Judge not, lest you be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged.” A true Christian will be found emulating Christ and following his teachings, which does not include slandering and reviling political opponents.

  Obama is working for a new vision of politics that transcends this kind of garbage. He made clear that he rejects the polarizing and inflamatory views of Rev. Wright, yet he still loves the man himself. That is the very way Christianity works.

  And it follows that some people are beside themselves with rage that Obama is aiming for a higher road. They are the ones slinging insults and accusations, that he would dare have such a friend.

  Of course the scribes and Pharisees were enraged that Jesus was a friend of sinners too.

• 38. Mark Noonan  |  March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 am

  Dennis,

  Our Lord did not, however, say to the rich man, “take money from others and use it to provide welfare programs”. The rich man was to sell his own goods and give it to the poor - and then he was to follow Him. Just selling the goods wouldn’t have done the trick - likely because Our Lord knew full well that this rich man’s problem ws his attachment to worldly goods, and until he was rid of them, he wouldn’t be able to follow the Truth.

  Being wealthy isn’t the problem - it is when a person places wealth in the central place only God should occupy…but, also, even charity can be a sin, if you place your charitible work at the center of your existence, rather than God. Someone who is endlessly harping on how we must help the poor and how everything must be geared towards various schemes to raise up the poor is being just as much a sinner a the rich man who feels that all must be subordinated to increasing the national wealth. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God, after all - and make sure you do that, because if you don’t then everything you’ve done is rather a waste of time.

• 39. Jeremiah  |  March 27th, 2008 at 1:14 am

  Mark Noonan | March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 am–

  Good work! :)

  –Jeremiah–

• 40. Mark Noonan  |  March 27th, 2008 at 1:17 am

  Jeremiah,

  Thanks - if only it would get thru to them that if we really all lived as Christians, even for a week, we’d change the whole world…including helping all those poor people they want to help. But, alas, being a Christian would also mean giving up a lot of toys, and our liberal friends are too attached to them.

• 41. Freedom1  |  March 27th, 2008 at 1:53 am

  38. Mark Noonan | March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 am

  Well said, Mark! Very well said! :)

• 42. Dennis  |  March 27th, 2008 at 2:19 am

  Yay Mark. Rounds of beer all around. You da man.

  While all your friends who cheer you revile the one man in this campaign who actually is conducting himself, and his campaign, like a real Christian.

  See post 37, and have one on me.

• 43. Mark Noonan  |  March 27th, 2008 at 2:29 am

  Dennis,

  I dispute the notion that Obama has rejected Wright’s teachings - he has parsed himself a bit on them, but a rejection of Wright’s views takes a far more forthright, condemnatory statement on Obama’s part, and it hasn’t been forthcoming. Obama is dishonestly trying to have it both ways - keep his “black” street cred, while also appearing as someone who concerned about America in the larger sense.

  Far from being the man to elevate our debate, Obama is actually dragging it down even further - McCain is the only candidate for President who is behaving with honor and decency.

• 44. Dennis  |  March 27th, 2008 at 3:38 am

  “A rejection of Wright’s views takes a far more forthright, condemnatory statement.”

  Meanwhile you elicit and make the most blatantly vitriolic statements about liberals, and encourage calling Obama a Marxist, a liar, a racist etc.

  If this isn’t hate speech nothing is. You point fingers at others while having a plank in your own eye - all the while speaking of your Lord and playing the role of moralist.

  How very fine and righteous of you, my sophistic brother.

• 45. Dennis  |  March 27th, 2008 at 4:36 am

  If nothing else, Mark, I hope this exchange helps you see how Christianity is defamed in the eyes of your more liberal brethren.

  Many of whom, I might add, actually have acute social and spiritual consciences - they only reject your terms and prejudices.

• 46. js  |  March 27th, 2008 at 8:01 am

  So you take offense in people calling Obama a liar dennis? strange.

  Lets see what evidence we can gather to that effect, because there is a big difference between gossip and the truth, eh?

  —————————–

  “I feel sad having to expose Barack Obama,” says Martin, “but the man is a complete fraud. The truth is going to surprise, and disappoint, and outrage many people who were drawn to him. He has lied to the American people, and he has sought to misrepresent his own heritage.

  “Obama’s life story is vastly different from the one he portrays. My point: if he will lie about his mother and father, what else is he lying about? Can we expect ‘bimbo eruptions?’

  “Fiction: Obama stated in his Convention speech: ‘My father … grew up herding goats.’ The ‘goat herder’ claim has been repeated endlessly. It is a lie. Fact: Obama’s grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama’s father, was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman.

  “Fiction: Obama was given an ‘African’ name. Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion. I am a strong supporter of the Muslim community, and I believe Muslims have been scapegoated. Obama has a great opportunity to be forthright. Instead, he has treated his Muslim heritage as a dark secret. His grandfather was named ‘Hussein.’ That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, ‘Baraka.’ Baraka is an Arabic word meaning ‘blessed.’ Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.

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

  Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama’s stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions.
  ———————————–

  Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times, who is an unabashed Obama-lover, is also an honest journalist. She too, way back in 2004, questioned Obama’s use of fiction as fact, and stated, “It is impossible to know who is real and who is not.” (Sun-Times, 2/20/07, see http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/264478,CST-NWS-sweet20.article). Indeed, Ms. Sweet, it is not impossible at all. “Obama” is not real. Mr. Obama is a fictional creation of a very talented and very intelligent bunkum artist, Barry (Barack) Obama. From end to end, from start to finish, Barack Obama is an imaginative self-invention.

  http://www.bufford.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=737
  ————————————————–

  Obama is truely a liar. His core, the very thing that makes him what he is, his family, his history, his roots. He lies. He is a habitual liar, much like Billy Clinton. They get caught after a while. But they dont learn, much as Obama did not learn in 2004, when his claims about his family were debunked.

  So, Obama was a muslim in Indonesia. Its pretty simple to claim as true, yet, Obama obscured this and lied to us. Something like his Pastor of 17 years, in a church he attended for 20 years, do we think this guy waited until Obama was missing from the pew’s before he went on his tyrades against whitey? Or pulled the tapes of those recordings off the shelves, when Obama did show up?

  We have to be absolutely naive to believe Obama didnt know what was going on in the Church he attended, the church his wife attended, and the church they sent thier children too. Obama “IS” a liar, not because we pass judgement upon him, it is a direct conclusion of his own actions that we draw this conclusion, after an assessment of the facts, we know that Obama cannot be trusted.

• 47. FoolYouTwice  |  March 27th, 2008 at 11:00 am

  “He’s a Marxist, a lyar, and he hates America. I’ll admit those. Does that help?” - Typical White Person

  Works for me. Obama is not qualified to be President of the USA.

  Freedom1, which is it? Is Obama a Marxist or a Muslim? You can’t even keep your stories straight now.

  Is he going to turn the USA communist or institute Islamic Law?

  After calling him a racist, a marxist, and a muslim fails, what is your next line of attack? Maybe you can claim he is an alien who plans on blowing up the earth or something fun like that.

• 48. Freedom1  |  March 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  FoolYouTwice,

  Read JS’s post above. Obama is a liar. Obama was a Muslim. Perhaps Obama still is a Muslim (who knows? Obama lies and lies and lies). Obama belongs to a Marxist, racist, America-hating “church”.

  The only one who can’t keep his stories straight is Barack Hussein Obama.

• 49. Freedom1  |  March 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

  About Obama’s “church”:

  “Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation”

  By Anthony B. Bradley

  One of the pillars of Obama’s home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is “economic parity.” On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with “America’s economic mal-distribution.” Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

  Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. His PhD dissertation is titled, “Victimology in Black Liberation Theology.”

  http://archives.subscribermail.com/msg/762bf98a7dd84386a6e7f53c33025f7a.htm

• 50. Some Assembly Required  |  March 27th, 2008 at 4:22 pm

  48. Freedom1 | March 27th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

  Your contradicting yourself. If he is a Muslim how can he also be a Marxist belonging to a racist America-hating Christian church…

  I must say, I really do get a laugh out of the hogwash you site from articles. The kicker being when I check them out they are often ‘far-right wing’ and ‘religious right’ websites. Just the other day you cited one which linked to a letter to Oprah. This one from The Glenn Beck Program. He thinks condoms should be taken out of schools (just from a quick read of the page you sited). Enough said.

• 51. Freedom1  |  March 27th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

  SAR: “Your contradicting yourself. If he is a Muslim how can he also be a Marxist belonging to a racist America-hating Christian church….”

  It’s called taqiyya (aka lying which is allowed in Islam). Read up on it before you make a fool of yourself any further.

  http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/011-taqiyya.htm

  SAR: “…‘far-right wing’ and ‘religious right’ websites. Just the other day you cited one which linked to a letter to Oprah.”

  Most of the articles I cite are from the AP, Reuters, AFP. Get a clue. That letter to Oprah was printed in Barack Obama’s church bulletin June 10, 2007. Not funny in the least.

• 52. Randee&hellip  |  May 27th, 2008 at 12:23 am

  Randee

  After reading this, I can see why people keep leaving comments. I hope this isn’t rejected, cause i would really like to read more. Can you post some more good literature?