Today's Toon

What is Black Liberation Theology?

With the recent revelation of Barack Hussein Obama’s long time pastor, spiritual advisor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright preaching a message from his church pulpit that was anti-American, full of hate and had very strong political leanings…I thought it was necessary to consider the basis for what he was doing. Mr. Wright claims to be a student and practitioner of this so called “Black Liberation Theology”, a biblically unsound doctrine that found its beginnings in the racially sensitive decade of the 60's.

According to Wikipedia this racially divisive teaching "...seeks to interpret the gospel of Jesus against the backdrop of historical and contemporary racism. The message of black theology is that the African American struggle for liberation is consistent with the gospel--every theological statement must be consistent with, and perpetuate, the goals of liberation." What is missing from this "gospel" is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" (ESV). This means that in this so called theology you will hear about the freedom of the black man as they would define it, but you will not hear about the true freedom that comes with knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 8:31-32).

James Cone is considered to be the leading "theologian" (and i use that term loosly since theology is really the study of God and knowing God...which isn't what this black liberation theology is about) in this field. His book, A Black Theology of Liberation is considered the foundational work for what amounts to being nothing more than a racial and political bias that fuels hatred and anger. It is in this book that Cone wrote, "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us, if God is not against white racists, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods that do not belong to the black community." (Page 27) This is the "god" that is being proclaimed from the pulpit of Jeremiah Wright and that Barack Hussein Obama has listened to for the last 20 years.

Cone also writes, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism...The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God's own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ, the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering...Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity." (Page 63-64) While God is all about liberating mankind, Cone and Wright are greatly mistaken to think that it is about liberating one race for political gain.

God's liberation is for mankind from the penalty of their own sin. The sins of one race are no greater than another in God's eyes, because sin is sin...and all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; apparently this fact is ommited from the black liberation pulpits since the "sins of white America" are the only ones that truly matter in their warped opinions. Once again the Apostle Paul said, "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." (Romans 3:21-25).

For 20 years Barack Obama has sat under the teachings of Jeremiah Wright...and for 20 years he had every opportunity to leave the Trinity United Church of Christ if he disagreed; but he didn't. Is this really what we are looking for in our next president?

The War on the War

Today marks the 5th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq after Saddam Hussein repeatedly refused to cooperate with an other wise useless UN to release and reveal the truth about a possible weapons program. Obviously this has brought out every anti-war kook from sea to shining sea...and for many of them, it appears that this is the one day of the year they actually get up before noon.

In their honor i thought i would help them advertise their ignorance a little bit. A few weeks ago, after the city of Berkley decided to ban the United States Marine Corps from maintaining a recruiting office in their granola city (full of fruits, nuts and flakes) Comedy Central decided to send an under cover reporter in to interview the anti-war lefties. This chosen warrior once served in the USMC himself and seems like a fitting choice to me to venture into the code pinkies. Here is the video:


My favorite part of this is when one protester says it's their free speech right to protest the Marines, and the the interviewer then asks, "If only there was an organization that was sworn to defend that free speech..." (like the USMC.)
Her response was, "Wouldn't that be great!"
It's always good to know who could possibly be cancelling out my well researched, thought out and educated vote.

Obama's duck and run

Finally people are starting to realize with Barack Hussein Obama that all that glistens is not really gold. With so many on the right being criticized for keeping and maintaining traditional and Biblical values that are no longer considered "politically correct" by many on the left, i was wondering if Sen. Obama would continue to get a free ride based on his membership for the last 20 years at a church that preaches against the United States of America, seeks racial division and uses the bully pulpit to make political statements.

I've personally been annoyed with the constant emails telling me that Obama is a muslim or Obama is the anti-Christ...to the point of actually having to defend the man; but his membership with the racially divisive and hate mongering Trinity United Church of Christ is indefensible. His pastor Jeremiah Wright, a self professed follower of the "liberation theology" of the 60's (which is no where near being Biblical or Christian theology) has turned his worship services into anti-American rants, attacks on our national leaders and even attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Now keep in mind, that if a conservative Southern Baptist pastor were to do such a thing, not only would they be hung in effigy, they would quickly lose their tax exempt status and have the IRS locking the doors quicker than you can say "tithe".

Obama apparently has thrown his spiritual leader under the back of the segregated bus because in an effort to cover his backside and do damage control Sen. Obama went as far as to allow himself to be interviewed by that "evil, right winged, conservative mouth piece" Fox News...pretty desperate, huh. You can watch the clip here: Barack Obama Fox News Interview

I do want to point out one thing Obama mentions in this interview, "If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis of his sermons, then yes, I don't think it would've been reflective of my values or my faith experience...If I had heard them repeated, I would've quit."

He is the member of a large and very well known church where all one has to do is a simple search on You Tube to find videos from Jeremiah Wright from up to a year ago...with the same hateful and race baiting filled venom we have seen clips of over the last couple of days. All Obama had to do was contact anyone at this so called church to find out what kind of propaganda was being proclaimed from the pulpit of Jeremiah Wright...or better yet, does a church this side not put out a newsletter? How about the church website Sen. Obama? In short, only an idiot would have not known what kind of filth was coming from the mouth of Jeremiah Wright on Sunday mornings.

I pastor a church where we have 80-100 people on most Sunday mornings, and apparently news travels pretty fast as to what i preach. I maintain our church website personally and it will tell the casual seeker what we believe, why we believe it, and what i am preaching on. Even 20-30 miles away people seem to know what i preach, and if i were to preach something controversial it would get around even quicker. So i really find it hard to believe that Barack Obama had no idea that Jeremiah Wright was preaching such rhetoric and propaganda being a 20 year member of this organization.

I hope this is not over just because Jeremiah Wright has allegedly left the Obama campaign as an advisor; because i think Barack Obama still has a lot of explaining to do. "I'm not there enough" is not nearly a good enough excuse and does not excuse the fact that Barack Obama has said in public that he is "proud" of his race baiting pastor.

And just for the record to all of you well intentioned (but misguided) liberals out there wanting to split hairs, John McCain being endorsed by John Hagee whose end of times theology might appear to be anti-Catholic fails in comparison to Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. John McCain was endorsed by Pastor Hagee, a basic political endoresment...John McCain has not supported the ministry of Hagee for the last 20 years; so don't try to compare apples and oranges. I'm sick of the double standard and the hypocrisy of the left, and i think it is about time this is coming to light!

The New Front to the War on Terror

One of the struggles our men and women in uniform have had with our war on terror is knowing who the enemy is. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan those militant Islamofascists can easily blend in with the landscape and the way of life with the average Muslim until their time to strike comes. It has made things difficult to say the least according to many reports from these heroes protecting our freedoms abroad.

Apparently we have a new front to the war on terror, right here within our borders and the primary target is our own US military. Last week's cowardly bombing of a military recruiting station in Times Square is just one of many attacks on our military various ways. Michelle Malkin is keeping track of this for us and reports the following:
***March 2003. Ithaca, NY anti-war zealots plot to pour blood on the walls of a recruiting center. On St. Patrick’s Day, wielding cups of their own blood, they entered a Lansing military recruitment office and splashed the human blood over recruiting posters, military cutouts and the American flag.

***January 20, 2005. At Seattle Central Community College, Army recruiter Sgt. Jeff Due and his colleague, Sgt. 1st Class Douglas Washington were surrounded by an angry mob of 500 anti-war students. The recruiters’ table was destroyed; their handouts torn apart. The protesters threw water bottles and newspapers at the soldiers…

***Feb. 1, 2005. At a South Toledo, Ohio recruitment center, unhinged protesters hurled manure all over the building. They broke windows and sprayed vulgar grafitti … on office property.

***Mid-Feb. 2005. 20-year-old anti-war goon Brendan Walsh is sentenced to five years in federal prison for hurling a Molotov cocktail through the window of a Vestal, NY military recruitment office in 2003.

***Jan. 2007. Anti-war radicals lay siege to the US Capitol and smash windows at the recruitment center on 14th and L. [In] Pittsburgh anti-recruiter organizers shut down a military recruitment station for a whole day. They brandish hateful signs [reading]: “Recruiters are child predators.”

***Jan. 2008. The Code Pink/City Council siege at the Berkeley recruiting center reaches a boiling point. Protesters chain themselves to the station to shut it down and vandalize the windows with bloody handprints.

***Feb. 2008. Anarchists trash the recruiting station at 14th and L in Washington, D.C., which has been subjected to multiple attacks.

***March 2008. A bomb goes off at the frequently targeted Times Square recruitment center.

It is one thing to fight an enemy like Islamofascism from the outside that hates our way of life and our freedom; but for us to also have to fight anarchists and hate filled liberals from within is nothing short of treason!
And in the fall, when some of these groups go to the polls...keep in mind who they will be voting for!

The Audacity of Hope: A Second-Generational Query (An open letter to Senator Obama)

Dr. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, has been one of the great defenders of the sanctity of life and traditional marriage in our time. One of his students, Sherif Gergis, a 2008 Princeton Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, has written a powerful letter to U.S. Senator Barack Obama on the subject of the protection of unborn human life. Professor George has asked that the following letter be read carefully and distributed widely.

Dear Senator Obama:

As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”

But do you mean it?

As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.

As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”

You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

(Crosspost at CGC)

General Wes Clark Endorses Laura Bush for President

Okay, that's not exactly what Wes Clark said, but it still works:

If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security.

By that reasoning, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan should have been elected Commander-In-Chief.

In short, it's full of holes, and I expect McCain's campaign to rip it to shreds very soon.

Cross-posted at CCG.

Those crazy liberals!

I often listen to these leftist-liberal spin doctors and politicians and follow what they have to say with a simple question, "Are they nuts?". Well, apparently they are.

The Gallup organization published a survey back in November of 2007 that asked Americans what they thought of their own mental health, and the results were as clear as Red and Blue apparently. According to this Gallup study nearly 2/3 of Republicans (58%) view themselves as having excellent mental health, while only barely over 1/3 (38%) of Democrats would say the same of themselves. Wow...and to think that these people get to cancel out my well thought of, well researched and mentally capable vote in November.

One psychiatrist, D. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., actually goes as far as to say that liberalism is a form of mental illness. "Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

Hey may actually have a point in his research when Dr. Rossiter says, according to World Net Daily, that the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

Personally i have always questioned the mental capabilities of anyone who could listen to the rhetoric of Hill the Shrill or Barack Hussein Obama and hear nothing but a neo-Communist Manifesto...now i really will have to do that even more.