Hillary ain’t never been called a trigger

As I noted yesterday, race is continuing to seep into the Democratic Presidential sweepstakes.

Since yesterdays post about Geraldine Ferraro saying that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” Ms. Ferraro has resigned from her loose connections with the Clinton campaign.

Today, however there is more news on the race front. As I have mentioned before Barack Obama has a black racist as a Pastor. It seems that Obama has been attending this Church for twenty years and considers Rev. Jeremiah Wright a sort of mentor. This Rev. Wright Married the Obamas, baptized their children, and his Church has been the major recipient of the Obama’s charitable giving over the years.

Now, this is no casual relationship between Pastor and parishioner. Barack Hussein Obama obviously likes what he sees in his Pastor which is confirmed by the reality that Rev. Wright is now connected to the Obama campaign.

Here we have this cozy relationship between these two men. Isn’t it profitable for us that Rev. Wright’s sermons have been transcribed over the years so that we can have a peek into the kind of Spiritual mentor that Obama has esteemed over all these years?

Quoting Rev. Wright from some of his sermons,

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people, Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“God d&*% America for treating its citizens as less than human. (We’re living in the) “US of KKK A.”

So here we have this Holy Man who has been so profoundly influential on Barack Hussein Obama. We know that the Obama’s have been listening to this kind of Black whitey hatred for 20 years. Now, we can understand, perhaps, why Mrs. Michelle Obama recently said,

For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.”

If I sat under the kind of preaching that constantly gave doses of how Black people were victims and were being hustled by White people I likewise might say for the first time in my life I was proud of my country, if I saw my spouse making headway in a campaign for President.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a window into the soul of Barack Hussein Obama. It is a dirty window, that not even a forced resignation of Rev. Wright could clean. For twenty years Wright has been, in Obama’s own words, his “sounding board”, “moral compass”. “mentor”, and “spiritual inspiration.”

II.)Political Calculations

Of course this does irreparable harm to Obama both now but more so if he makes it to the general election. As this becomes more widely known you can forget about the White Middle Class Union workers of Pennsylvania voting for Obama in the upcoming primary. Also if he makes it to the general election the rantings of Rev. Wright will be played every day on every radio talk show in the nation, with the results, as I’ve said before, that White America will not elect a Liberal Democrat Black man.

In the end Obama is no different then Jesse “New York City is Hymie Town” Jackson or Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton. In a sane country these revelations would destroy a candidate, reducing him to being able to garner only black voters.

BUT America is not sane so who can say what will happen.

Election Cycle 2008

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”

Geraldine Ferraro
1984 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee

For decades the Democrats have pushed the idea of affirmative action and race and gender quotas which teaches that people who are of politically correct skin hue or who have the politically correct genitalia must receive primary consideration for competitive government contracts, and placement in University programs above people who are more qualified then those whose skin hue isn’t dark enough or above those who used to be required to ride side saddle in order to be considered a lady.

Now they are in the position of complaining about the very standards that they helped to create. Ferraro is correct… if Obama weren’t a black man he would not only not be being considered to be qualified to be President but he also would not have been considered qualified to have been a U.S. Senator. His primary qualification to be President is that he is a Black man living in the midst of White, nominally Christian people who have been convinced that they need to feel guilty about being White and Christian and who further have been convinced that the way that their corporate guilt can be atoned for is by providing reparations by way of voting for an inexperienced black guy with a Muslim name that doesn’t strike them as being either to black or to Muslim.

The really ironic thing in all of this is that the Democratic party is going to rip itself apart trying to determine which minority (women or blacks) are the greater victims, who because of that higher victim status, deserve to have one or the other of their unqualified candidates at the top of the ticket. In any other election cycle a Al Gore or a John Kerry would cakewalk into the White House against a Republican party candidate that doesn’t appeal to his own base. Not so in election cycle 2008.In this election cycle the Democrats, because of their quota requirements, are going to offer up a candidate who is unqualified and who will represent a party that will be divided because some great victim group who will once again be victimized. Does anybody think the black vote is going to turnout for the Democrats if Hillary gets the nomination? Will the feminists be energized if Barak gives Hillary the shaft?

Already I can tell you that the Presidential election of 2008 is not going to about who can win but rather it is going to be about who can avoid losing. On the Republican side there will be no great passion for McCain by his base and on the Democratic either candidate will be damaged goods no matter what face they will try to put on it when it is all said and done. Voting will come down to a decision of who people hate less.

If you are a Christian why not vote US Constitution party and be able to live with yourself after you come out of the voting booth?

We’re In The Army Now

“The coming of National-Socialist State should not fall into the error of the past and assign to the Army a task which it does not and should not have. The German Army is not to be a school for the maintenance of tribal peculiarities, but rather a school for the mutual understanding and adjustment of all Germans. Whatever may have a disruptive effect in national life should be given a unifying effect through the Army. It should furthermore raise the individual youth above the narrow horizon of his little countryside and place him in the German nation. He must learn to respect, not the boundaries of his birthplace, but the boundaries of his Fatherland; for it is these which he to must some day defend.”

Adolph Schickelgruber (nee – Hitler)
Mein Kampf

“Military service was an essential civic duty, and it was the responsibility of the Army to educate and to unify, once and for all the population of the Reich.”

Sir Winston Churchill — British Prime Minister
The Gathering Storm — pg. 143

I am an opponent of Christians in These United States encouraging their children to consider military service. I know that when children hit 18 they can decide for themselves on this issue over their parents objections and pursue a military hitch or career. Yet, parents can have a huge influence on their children years before they reach the point of considering the military as part of their future.

The reasons I am opposed to the covenant seed going into military service is,

1.)US military is the enforcement agency of the US State.

Christians have to begin to realize the vast implications of what the US State is doing. The US State, comprised of people from both major Parties, are currently seeking to turn America into a pluralistic national entity along with the countries of Mexico and Canada. This arrangement would be prelude to the Babel like larger vision of building a Global Nation State. Christians should oppose this for the same reason that God opposed the same kind of attempt pursued as recorded in Genesis 11. The attempt to build a Global Nation New World order is in direct defiance of God’s unique sovereignty. Such a World State clearly has God like aspirations that would require men to live, move and have their being in the State. No thoughtful Christian can or should support this by being part of the enforcement arm of the State used to muscle acquiescence to the larger program. To join the US military at this time puts one in the position of helping to build an Idol that is intent on replacing the God of the Bible and so, as a general rule, Christian young people shouldn’t join the military.

2.) Per the quotes above the Military, like the educational system in America, is a place where loyalty to the Nation State is to be built over confessional, regional or familial loyalties. The feminization that one finds in the US military is not being done because it works. It is being done so that all those who do a hitch in the military can be brainwashed that this kind of interchangeable male and female parts in part of what it means to be ‘American.’ The same holds true for the homosexulization that one finds in the military with the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. I am convinced that the current primary role of the US military is, like the secondary educational system in America, is to make, by the State’s autonomous standard, ‘good citizens.’ Since this standard is not particularly beholden to a Christian mind, I’m not sure why Christians would want to go to a place where they are going to be bullied into a belief system not their own.

I fully understand and recognize that exceptions would exist for this general policy. There may be Christian young people who may believe themselves called to go into the US military with the idea that they are going to honorably serve their country and if that means disobeying unconstitutional orders then they are willing to face the consequences. I don’t meet many 18 years olds like that but I’m quite willing to admit that they could exist. Also, I suppose the argument could be made that going into the military in a field (like the Army Band) where one would not be as directly involved in what I’ve mentioned is acceptable.

Overall, I’ve come to conclude that since both the US educational system and the US military are committed to the same goal of making ‘World Citizens’ who will aid in the building of the pagan New World Order that Christians will think long and hard about attaching themselves to such agencies.

I realize that this veiw is probably not a popular position. I realize that Christians have and do serve faithfully in the US military. I don’t think Christians who are serving and who have not thought this through are evil. I’ve come to believe however that the interest of the US State are diametrically and diabolically opposed to the interests of the Kingdom of Christ, and as Christians can’t serve two masters I think it is time we started thinking about which of our citizenships we should prioritize in this world.


“It is our traditional belief that man was given liberty to ennoble him. We may infer that those who would take his liberty away have the opposite purpose of degrading him…. Now we are at the point where regimentation, which used to be suggested with apologies, comes couched in the language of prerogative. The past shows unvaryingly that when a people’s freedom disappears, it goes not with a bang, but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for. That is the dire peril in the present trend toward statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by a willingness to resist, and to reject the favors, rather than to give up what is intangible but precarious, it will not be long be found at all.”

Richard Weaver — American Social / Political Philosopher

Here we find part of the reason that those who reject statism have such a difficult time in persuading others. Statists come to us in honey and sweetness. Those who are part of that system that just wants to ‘care for us’ are just trying to be ‘nice.’ This damn niceness is going to kill us all. It is exactly that observation, and the way it is stated, that causes others to recoil at those who are anti-Statists. Anti-statists reject the niceness of the government ‘help,’ and that rejection is seen as ‘not-nice,’ hostile, belligerent, and even mean-spirited. Those who are for the freedom that Weaver mentions are those who resist, reject, and who actively push away those Statists who advertise themselves as just trying to ‘care for people.’ The problem with the caring State, of course, is that, over time, it exponentially, discovers more and more reasons that people need to be cared for, thus perpetuating and increasing people’s need for the State’s care. The problem with the caring State is that it knows that once people get a taste for being cared for the invalid class will perpetually vote for their caretakers and against those who believe that people should be responsible to take care of themselves. The problem with the caring State is that it can only take on the burden for all this increased creative caring by increased destructive stealing. The problem with the caring State is that it knows what it is doing and what it is doing isn’t offering help but rather it is degrading men by making them slaves. And eventually all this caring is done more for the administrators then it is for the patients.

Those who see this agenda then react violently, and those who don’t see this agenda can only see the violent reaction and wonder at why these pro-Freedom people are so mean. Well, let me try to explain. The reason we are so ‘mean’ is that we love you. We understand that the more you let the State care for you the more what makes you noble is going to atrophy. We understand that all this caring is going to suffocate your humanity. We understand that ‘he who takes the King’s coin is the King’s man,’ and we’d kind of like to think you’d like to be your own man, beholden to nobody but Christ.

And being mean, and being free, we don’t like going silently into the night. So, put up with our dire warnings just a little longer. It will be soon enough and our breed will die out and you can go back to your velvet chains, and lick spittle obedience.

What’s In A Name?

Recently the name of the leading Democratic Presidential contender has wormed its way back into the news. Specifically we are being told that it is fear mongering to mention that Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name is ‘Hussein.’ Such mewling from the Democrats on this issue serves them well due to their every expanding, ‘poor me, I’m a victim’ party creed. Quite beyond that I want to briefly examine the issue of the name itself.

First keep in mind that the use of middle names among Presidents has a long and storied tradition. Just off the top of my head, without looking I can give you,

Warren Gamaliel Harding
John Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Clark Hoover
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman (The ‘S’ stood alone)
Dwight David Eisenhower
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (along with his brother Robert Francis)
Lyndon Baines Johnson
Richard Milhous Nixon
Leslie Lynch King (sometimes known as Gerald Rudolph Ford)
James Earl Carter
Ronald Wilson Reagan
George Herbert Walker Bush
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
George Walker Bush

Some of these President’s were trademarked by their monograms, which of course included their middle initial (FDR, JFK, LBJ). The sum of the point is that the awareness and usage of middle names among those who are Presidential aspirants is not uncommon. So, given that reality why is it that Barack Hussein Obama is complaining that the usage of his middle name, by his opponents, is fear mongering?

The answer to that is twofold. First, Barak Hussein Obama, by complaining about this issue, morphs the issue from being about his Muslim origins into an issue about being victimized. Second, by complaining about this issue as fear mongering Barak Hussein Obama achieves the elimination of a story that potentially has real legs. What of Obama’s past? What kind of difference did it make growing up with Muslim Dads? Keep in mind here that the issue isn’t that Barak, or even his Dad’s were active Muslims. The issue here is (or at least should be) answering the question of the ways that the Islamic cultural matrix that Obama grew up in influenced him. The Americans listed above grew up in a culture largely defined by Christian categories. Some of them might have been unfaithful to those Christian categories but nobody can deny that those Christian categories influenced them. How did Muslim categories influence and shape Barak Hussein Obama?

This is also an issue because what Democrats are asking Americans to do, with the nomination of Barak Hussein Obama, is to elect somebody that only partially belongs to Ameri-euro culture. Take a look again at those names listed above. They are all Anglo Saxon Christian names and those men reflected, often times quite imperfectly, Anglo-ized Saxonized Christianized Culture. With the election of Barak Hussein Obama the case can be made that, at least symbolically speaking, America will have turned its back on its ethnic and cultural roots and will have officially embraced becoming a ‘World Nation’ as opposed to a Anglo-ized Saxon-ized Christianized nation where the oppressed of the world are welcome.

Many people who believe that nationality is bound up in abstract ideas that people of different cultures can abstractly embrace don’t find the above notion to be a problem. I think we are going to find out if they are correct. A look at how Nations around the world, where the kind of ethnic and cultural differences exist that we are insisting can make for a cohesive Nation, are pulling apart at the seams suggest that they are not.

Voting for Barak Hussein Obama may reveal if a radically polyglot nation can really be E pluribus unum.