Martin Luther King “In spite of the glowing talk about the welfare of the masses, Communisms’ methods and philosophy strip a man of his dignity and worth, leaving him little more than a depersonized cog in the ever turning wheel of the state.

 

Barack Obama, a Communist, is no Christian

In his book, Strength to Love, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “a true Christian cannot be a true Communist.” While Barack Obama enjoys comparing himself with Dr. King, under King’s standards, Obama could not be a true Christian.

Obama’s policies and personal beliefs directly oppose the tenets of Christianity and are directly in line with Communism.

According to King, “Man cannot save himself, for man is not the measure of all things and humanity is not God. Bound by the chains of his own sin and finiteness, man needs a Savior.” Yet in 2004, Obama stated “I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”

If this is the case, why, as Columnist Cal Thomas asked, did Jesus suffer and die for our salvation? Jesus himself said in John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the light. No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

In The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote “Communism…abolishes all religion and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis.” Obama, in claiming that “we are no longer a Christian nation”, seems merely intent on abolishing the Judeo-Christian roots of our society. After all, Communism according to King “is the only serious rival to Christianity.”

King wrote “Communism is based on ethical relativism and accepts no stable moral absolutes. Right and wrong are relative to the most expedient methods for dealing with class war.” For Obama there are no moral absolutes. When asked when life begins, for example, Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade.” In an essay on the teachings of Karl Marx and their relationship to abortion that appeared in Australia's official Communist Party newspaper in 1988, pro-choice activist, feminist and author Rebecca Albury wrote, that for Marxists, the determination of fetus as a person is decided by “someone of higher wisdom.”

Yet in Jeremiah 1:5, God tells us where life begins: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.”

Obama instead applies moral relativism to the abortion debate. It is not only when life begins, that Obama struggles with, it is also when and if that life is important.

Obama fought successfully to keep blatant infanticide legal in Illinois. As the sole opponent to speak out on the State Senate floor against legislation designed to protect viable, living babies who survive late-term abortions, Obama adamantly opposed any medical care to these babies in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Obama stated “what we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I won’t support that.”

Again, Obama’s positions lie more with Communism than Christianity. Albury wrote “biological processes do not carry automatic moral values as Right to Life suggests…Human economic, social and political relationships create moral values.” Like other communists, Obama places a higher priority on economic, social and political ramifications, than on human life.

Whereas Obama, sees a baby as punishment or a means to a political end, King believes Christianity affirms man is "a child of God, made in God’s image.” Psalm 127:3 tells us “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb.”

In contrast to Communism, King wrote “Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values and affirms that God has placed within the very structure of this universe certain moral principles that are fixed and immutable.” What greater fixed and immutable principle than that of the sacred marriage between a man and a woman?

Genesis 2:24 commands “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.”

While a majority of Christian Americans oppose gay marriage, Obama believes state marriage amendments are “divisive and discriminatory” and fully intends to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

Obama told the Advocate “Well, my view is that we should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word “marriage”, which has religious connotations to some people. But my job as president is going to be to make sure that the legal rights that have consequences on a day-to-day basis for loving same sex couples all across the country, that those rights are recognized and enforced by my White House and by my Justice Department.”

Here again, Obama’s and Marx’s goals are one in the same. Marx wrote “What is the present family based on, the acquisition of private property? It exists of its meaning only for the Bourgoise…and will vanish when capitalism vanishes. Are you accusing us that we want to end the exploitation by parents of their children? We confess to that crime…”

Obama is intent on ending capitalism with his communist policy of redistribution of wealth, and again is directly opposed to Christian values. Jesus may have been a “community organizer” as Obama supporters claim, but we must not forget a group of sinners Jesus called on to repent: the tax collectors.

While government leaders should be bound by the Eighth Commandment: Thou shalt not steal, we, as Christians, are obligated to help the poor, but not enable the idle. Proverbs 19:15 tells us “Laziness casts one into a deep sleep, and an idle person will suffer.”

King recognized this when he wrote “In spite of the glowing talk about the welfare of the masses, Communisms’ methods and philosophy strip a man of his dignity and worth, leaving him little more than a depersonized cog in the ever turning wheel of the state.”  (more)
Excerpted from: http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?&p=2419

 

 

 

Recently, Obama surrogate and U.S. Representative Marcy
Kaptur (D-OH), warmed up a crowd for Obama by telling them that America
needed a "second Bill of Rights" that gives all Americans guaranteed
welfare from the state.

 

    Yet Undecided and Independent Voters Reject Wealth Redistribution to
        Achieve 'Social Justice' According to New ATI-News/Zogby Poll
        WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- After nearly two years of
        campaigning, Americans are finally learning about the real Barack Obama. In
        an interview with a Chicago public radio station, Obama complained that
        "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
        wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in
        this society. "Recently, Obama surrogate and U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), 

        warmed up a crowd for Obama by telling them that America needed a "second Bill of Rights" 

        that gives all Americans guaranteed welfare from the state.
        (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030425/ATNLOGO)
        "It is clear that Barack Obama will not seek to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,'

        " said ATI-News president Brad O'Leary. "Rather, he will change the Constitution to suit his ideology

        -- an ideology that is far different from the one held by our Founding Fathers."    

O'Leary points out that a second Bill of Rights, one that gives welfare
        guarantees from the state, is something that Obama's long-time and current
        Constitutional advisor, Cass Sunstein, has advocated. In his book, The
        Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it Now
        More Than Ever, Sunstein writes that "all legal rights are, or aspire to
        be, welfare rights." Sunstein also believes that "if the nation becomes
        committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution
        itself."
        According to a recent ATI-News/Zogby poll, undecided and Independent
        voters reject Obama's redistribution philosophy. (The poll surveyed 1,214
        likely voters nationwide and has a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percentage
        points.)
        ATI-News/Zogby asked likely voters: "John McCain and other critics say
        Barack Obama is heavily influenced by people and organizations which seek
        social justice through redistribution of wealth in America. Do you agree or
        disagree with efforts to bring social justice by the redistribution of
        wealth?"
        By a more than 2-1 margin, undecided voters disagree with such efforts
        to redistribute wealth. In total, 57 percent of undecided voters said they
        disagreed, while only 24 percent said they agreed (19 percent are not
        sure).
        A majority (52 percent) of self-identified Independent voters also
        disagree with efforts to bring social justice through wealth
        redistribution. Only 39 percent of Independents agree (10 percent are not
        sure).
        For an example of how welfare rights "migrate" into a Constitution, one
        need only look at Venezuela and examine the handy work of Dictator Hugo
        Chavez.
        Chavez's socialist revolution depended upon the organization of the
        poor into powerful institutions, which Chavez called the "tools for
        building socialism."
        When Obama served as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he
        and Bill Ayers helped fund and develop what they called "Local School
        Councils." These Local School Councils are very similar to the program
        Chavez implemented to control teachers and education in Venezuela and
        create an authoritarian regime.
        Just two years ago, Ayers (who formerly served as Obama's boss) stood
        next to Chavez at the World Education Forum in Caracas and praised "the
        political educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the
        leadership of President Chavez." Ayers continued: "I look forward to seeing
        how ... all of you continue to overcome the failures of capitalist
        education as you seek to create something truly new."
        O'Leary notes that Ayers and Obama tried to undo this "capitalist
        education" in Chicago, and now, Obama is taking their crusade to America's
        national stage.
        "The Constitution of our Founding Fathers guarantees God-given rights,
        but Obama's new Constitution would create state guarantees to welfare,"
        said O'Leary. "In Obama's new society, citizens would no longer look to God
        and the Constitution for their freedom, but rather, would look to paternal
        government for their rations of bread, clothing and housing."

Excerpted from: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-30-2008/0004915681&EDATE=
        

"We live in isolation, and because of that isolation, we fear one another... [Barack Obama] is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation.

... Barack Obama will require you to work....that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed.

... We have to fix our souls - our souls are broken in this nation..We can change the world!!..We can!..We can!..We can!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOVPSlz8DM8        (The background tune is very catchy!)  (If you read the comments (real eye openers)  with all the Che videos you see how much he is admired by the Palestinian and other youth around the world. (I wouldn't be suprised if Barack Obama didn't admire him too.)

 

Comment on: Gabrielle Cusumano

Obama for Che Guevara? Palestine for Che Guevara?

 

This photo of an Ohio judge appeared in USA Today. That is Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara next to Obama. While Barack cannot control who will or will not support him, it is revealing the politics of his supporters.

 

Obama for Che Guevara?

The campaign volunteer who hung the Che poster is named Maria Isabel (second photo above) and according to the Lone Star Times, she hung similar banners from her balcony at home. Apparently she's no "low-level" volunteer either. She serves as a campaign 'precinct captain" and the co-chair of the Houston Obama Leadership Team.

Most interestingly, she is a middle-aged woman who was born in Cuba and lived there as a child during a period when Che Guevara was Cuba's chief executioner and second in command. At the time Cuba had the highest political incarceration and execution rate on earth, far surpassing that of their Soviet mentors and suitors. Pictures have surfaced (see Babalu blog.com) of Maria Isabel at several Obama campaign functions; arm in arm with Barack, in a bear hug with Michelle Obama, and apparently, very heavily involved in the Obama campaign.

Naturally, regarding the Che banner incident, the Obama campaign had nothing to fear from the mainstream media, even though conservative sites and talk radio spread the story.

Finally, there emerged a formal disavowal, of sorts. "We were disappointed to see this picture," read the terse campaign statement, "because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views." Not a hint that the campaign honchos or candidates themselves found Guevara "offensive."

Michelle Obama's recent speech at UCLA might provide a clue on the lame tone of the Obama campaign's response.  In fact, her rhetoric rings with an express socialism that calls for a more perfect individual and champions Obama as a social redeemer:

In "Socialism and Man in Cuba," which is widely regarded as his Magnum Opus, Che Guevara emphasized strikingly similar notes, calling for a complete individual who throws off his lack of knowledge to reach "total consciousness as a social being:"

By many media accounts, the Obama campaign plans inroads into the traditionally and overwhelmingly Republican voting habits of Cuban-Americans. Apparently these Cuban-Americans must -- in the words of Michelle Obama -- "move out" of their Republican "comfort zones."

It seems, however, that Obama wants Cuban-Americans to move very far out of their comfort zones, indeed. Besides proposing to meet Raul Castro without pre-conditions as President, Obama also proposes to lift the limited U.S. travel restrictions to Cuba.  "Lifting the travel ban to Cuba would be a gift to the Castros," explained Cuban defector Alcibiades Hidalgo, who until 2002 served as Raul Castro's Chief of Staff.

Fidel Castro has already endorsed his dream ticket for 2008: Obama/Clinton. Nicaraguan Sandinista "leader" Daniel Ortega has also endorsed Obama. "(The U.S.) is laying the foundations for a revolutionary change," he predicted.  So far, Obama indicates that he does plan a revolutionary change in regard to Cuba.  And Michelle Obama's eerie depiction of her husband as a type of socialist strongman requiring the American people to work doesn't suggest that the Cuban people can expect that it will be change for the better.

---

Humberto Fontova is the author of Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him. Visit www.hfontova.com   http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F5EBBE20-0A17-44CE-8ADD-801A912C1374

" He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. "

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 4 March 2007

(EI Illustration)

 

Excerpted from: page: electronicintifada.net/v2/article605.shtml

Michelle Obama and Barack Obama listen to Professor Edward Said give the keynote address at an Arab community event in Chicago, May 1998. (Photo: Ali Abunimah)

Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can "bundle" small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it's worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama's legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.)

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

Ali Abunimah is the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse

 

 

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.../fifth_column/      (this entry is at the near end of the blog page)

"Obama has claimed in the last two days that he never heard his pastor make anti-American or hate-filled remarks. Perhaps he needs to be pressed on what he classifies as "anti-American." Davis also recounts a statement by Wright made to the New York Times last year that certainly sounds like Obama was well aware that his pastor's rhetoric could be a problem for him - meaning he was well aware of the kinds of thing Jeremiah Wright had said:

Political pundits have suggested that Obama's problems with Wright are not ones based on faith, but pure politics. The upstart presidential candidate needs to pull most of the black vote to have any chance of snagging the Democratic nomination. Obama's ties to Wright and the activist African American church helps in that effort."

 

I Don’t Believe Obama
By Aaron Goldstein Saturday, March 15, 2008     Excerpted from: http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=2&t=9026

On March 13th, an ABC News report revealed incendiary excerpts from several sermons recorded on DVD by Obama’s spiritual advisor, The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Until his retirement last month, Wright was the pastor at the Trinity United Church in Chicago.

Reverend Wright suggested amongst other things that the United States government “lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” He also claimed the United States bore some responsibility for 9/11 attacks. Wright said, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

In one sermon delivered in April 2003, a month after the War in Iraq began, Reverend Wright said, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No! No! God ###### America for killing innocent people. God ###### America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God ###### America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

When Obama was initially asked about this quote by a reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama appeared unconcerned. “Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it’s important to judge me on what I’ve said in the past and what I believe,” said Obama.

However, that did not quiet the storm. On March 14th, Obama issued a statement concerning the controversy. “I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies….In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue,” said Obama.

Yet I cannot bring myself to believe that Barack Obama is telling the truth where it concerns The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

It is because of the following paragraph in Obama’s statement:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links
to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

The preceding simply does not pass the smell test.

Obama has been a member of Reverend Wright’s congregation for nearly two decades. Reverend Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama. Reverend Wright baptized their daughters.

Does Obama really expect us to believe that in nearly two decades he never attended a service where Reverend Wright uttered an unkind word about America? Did Reverend Wright only go off the deep end on the Sundays when Obama wasn’t around?

Does Obama really expect us to believe that in nearly two decades, the man whose sermon inspired his book The Audacity of Hope, never told him face to face he believed the United States was responsible for spreading HIV against people of color? Or what he really thinks about Israel?

Does Obama really expect us to believe he would not demand a white Republican politician disassociate with a church whose pastor denounced African Americans? Not on your life. Even if that pastor’s retirement was imminent.

If he does, Obama must really think the American people are stupid. One would hope that Democratic Primary voters might begin to clean their rose colored glasses. This, however, might not be in the offing. If Obama should prevail against Hillary, I suspect it will not be the last time we hear the name Jeremiah Wright.

People are judged by the company they keep. It is hard for me to believe that Obama would title one of his books based on one of Wright’s sermons and yet be unaware of what he preaches. That Obama should protest he only became aware of Wright’s views at the outset of his presidential campaign and yet retains him as a national leader of his campaign’s African American Religious Leadership Committee descends to the depths of disingenuousness. Now that’s what I call audacity.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2248

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49Ly5CwkvI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnlRrxXv-v8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDaO7N-JujU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UGWdVOJcBI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DABB7gslebo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q49Ly5CwkvI&feature=related

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7004204&ch=4226716&src=news

'Newsmax Obama's Church: Cauldron of Division

Jim Davis, senior reporter for the Kansas City Business Journal.

NewsMax article written by Jim Davis, August 9, 2007, says Barack Obama was in attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago on July 22, 2007, when Davis attended the service. In that service, Davis says Jeremiah Wright used profanity throughout the message and referred to the "United States of White America," and "white arrongance" during his sermon - to nodding agreement by Barack Obama. Here is part of Davis' account of that service:

Wright's strong sentiments were echoed in the Sunday morning service attended by NewsMax.

Wright laced into America's establishment, blaming the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the woes of the world, especially the oppression suffered by blacks. To underscore the point he refers to the country as the "United States of White America." Many in the congregation, including Obama, nodded in apparent agreement as these statements were made.

The sermon also addressed the Iraq war, a frequent area of Wright's fulminations.

"Young African-American men," Wright thundered, were "dying for nothing." The "illegal war," he shouted, was "based on Bush's lies" and is being "fought for oil money."

In a sermon filled with profanity, Wright also blamed the war on "Bush administration bulls--t."

Davis also lists some of Wright's more controversial statements over the years. Remember, this article was written last August, long before this became a raging controversy this week:
Several prior remarks by Obama's pastor have caught the media's attention:

• Wright on 9/11: "White America got their wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to r