Obama’s radical roots Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Barack Obama tossed his church - now his former church - under the bus last week, claiming to be shocked and disappointed in what it had become. Of course few, to include myself, believe that what we've seen out of Trinity UCC is something new or recent. In fact, what we have seen out of Trinity is its "spiritual" basis and the staple of its existence. It is, unashamedly, a black liberation theology church and has been for years, to include the time in which Barack Obama attended.
Stanley Kurtz writes a very important piece about Obama and Trinity that deserves a lot of attention. It's a long piece and you need to read it all, but the nut of his argument is that while Obama can claim the church doesn't represent him or his views and disavow his association with it, a look into his past makes such claims and disavowals pretty hollow:
Although it’s been discussed before (because it confirms that Obama attended Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March), a 1995 background piece on Obama from the Chicago Reader has received far too little attention. Careful consideration of this important profile makes it clear that Obama’s long-standing ties to Chicago’s most rabidly radical preachers call into question far more than Obama’s judgment and character (although they certainly do that, as well). Obama’s two-decades at Trinity open a critically important window onto his radical-left political leanings. No mere change of church membership can erase that truth.
By providing us with an in-depth picture of Obama’s political worldview on the eve of his elective career, Hank De Zutter’s, “What Makes Obama Run?” lives up to its title. The first thing to note here is that Obama presents his political hopes for the black community as a third way between two inadequate alternatives. First, Obama rejects, “the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation — which helps a few upwardly mobile blacks to ‘move up, get rich, and move out. . . . ’ ” This statement might surprise many Obama supporters, who seem to think of him as the epitome of integrationism. Yet Obama’s repudiation of integrationist upward mobility is fully consistent with his career as a community organizer, his general sympathy for leftist critics of the American “system,” and of course his membership at Trinity. Obama, we are told, “quickly learned that integration was a one-way street, with blacks expected to assimilate into a white world that never gave ground.” Compare these statements by Obama with some of the remarks in Jeremiah Wright’s Trumpet, and the resemblance is clear.
Having disposed of assimilation, Obama goes on to criticize “the politics of black rage and black nationalism” — although less on substance than on tactics. Obama upbraids the politics of black power for lacking a practical strategy. Instead of diffusing black rage by diverting it to the traditional American path of assimilation and middle-class achievement, Obama wants to capture the intensity of black anger and use it to power an effective political organization. Obama says, “he’s tired of seeing the moral fervor of black folks whipped up — at the speaker’s rostrum and from the pulpit — and then allowed to dissipate because there’s no agenda, no concrete program for change.” The problem is not fiery rhetoric from the pulpit, but merely the wasted anger it so usefully stirs.
Kurtz provides you with a number of links all of which you need to click thorough and read - such as one which discusses his membership in ACORN.
And when you finish that, read Erik Erickson's article about Obama and the "New Party". As you're going to learn, Obama comes from left wing radical roots which he sought out and nurtured. Now, as he expands his horizons outside of Chicago politics, where those roots are mostly acceptable, he's trying mightily to spackle over them and pretend those connections never existed, or if they did, they were minimal.
Research by both Kurtz and Erickson seem to say otherwise.
Leaving the church is no big sacrifice for Obama, since he evidently never listened to the sermons, talked to the other members of the congregation, or bothered to find out what the church taught his daughters in Sunday school. Finding a new one will not be difficult since they all sound and look the same (i.e.,mainstream).
I’ve come to the conclusion we will get an Obama-like candidate, if not Obama himself eventually.
We have a generation of young people for a bunch of reasons believe the Obama vision. This generation is growing.
In the Democrat Party, the nuts are running the asylum. They will keep offering radicals to the public. But you still have a bunch of people voting Democrat on the brand name alone.
Then as an alternative, we have McCain. Someone determined to foist Amnesty on us. If he manages to take office in 2008 I won’t imagine he’ll do much to encourage the public to move right or stay with Republicans.
My guess is that the voting public is going to have to learn this one the hard way. And I think it will be quite a lesson. It may end the Democrat Party or at least de-thrown the nuts.
But, we’re unfortunately headed for an Obama first. If it isn’t in 2008, it will be 2012 or 2016. And if not Obama, it will be his clone (probably better vetted this time).
Then I have ask. Which is better? Four years of Obama or four years of McCain followed by four years of Obama?
Where did you find "disavow" in any of Obama’s statements about Trinity, except to say that he wasn’t disavowing Trinity ? He said he was leaving because of the excessive attention that his membership had brought to the church.