posted September 25, 2009 11:57 AM            

The offending language in the "Lesson Plan" supplied by the Dept of Education is well known and well reported upon.

That language is totally missing from the lesson plan you just posted.

So katatonic, why are you being disingenuous to readers here?

It's obvious this is the REVISED LESSON PLAN...the one written AFTER the first lesson plan for American students blew up in O'Bomber's face.

The original lesson plan asked school children to write letters to themselves about..."How can I help President Obama"?

The original lesson plan asked school children to think "How President Obama will inspire me".

If you want further proof katatonic...and sidekick acoustic...you only need to refer to the opening article on this thread which is dated September 2, 2009 and details what the original lesson plan said.

You can then read down the page and find that on September 3, 2009, I posted this article titled:

"White House Withdraws Call for Students to 'Help' Obama"

I note the lesson plan you posted here...and upon which your sidekick acoustic commented was not written until September 8, 2009 or for those in Rio Linda, CA...or other areas of the "Left Coast...5 days after O'Bomber withdrew the original lesson plan asking "How can I help Obama".

Anyone can see the revised lesson plan and read the date to confirm it says September 8, 2009 and it can be read here: http://www.ed.gov/teachers/how/lessons/prek-6.pdf

I never cease to be amazed some will try any shabby stunt to keep from admitting the obvious.

posted September 25, 2009 02:40 PM              

what i posted was the actual, factual - STUFF THAT HAPPENED. yours is ephemeral as most paranoid fantasies are.

would you care to come up with it? as i said many times, the rabble-rousing oppositional fringe keep taking credit for things that DON'T happen. where's the proof that it ever was going to happen, man?

i didn't say that was the original, but that is what they got. how about you PROVE or at least give me REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE that your paranoias are grounded in reality?

and explain why president bush the first thought it was okay to address kids without ANY parental warning or inclusion, and why it was okay for him (and his son later) to encourage kids to snitch on their friends, for whatever reason?

your original post is the one that thinks it's okay for MRS obama to talk to the "disadvantaged black youth" about education, but her husband is not qualified (because he was raised by white people) to do the same job.

this was not an address for the "disadvantaged black youth" but ALL youth, though one can argue that public school can be a HUGE disadvantage for a lot of kids, especially those whose parents have to work 3 jobs to feed them and pay their medical bills...

posted September 25, 2009 03:20 PM            

Another question in there was/is:

Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

These could very well be Republicans. What partisan indoctrination is he spewing there? How is he undermining Republicans by asking the children to support Republicans?

posted September 25, 2009 04:29 PM            

You remember your attempt to parse the word "indicted" with me katatonic?

You remember your attempt to parse the word "most" with me acoustic?

The original lesson plan asked students to write themselves letters ABOUT "How can I help O'Bomber". That's the message and that's the offensive part of the lesson plan O'Bomber had to scrap and have re-written.

It is indisputable the revised lesson plan bearing the date Sept 8, 2009 was written after the date of the first article posted on this thread on Sept 2, 2009. It's also indisputabe the article posted on Sept 3, 2009 predates the revised lesson plan dated Sept 8, 2009.

It's also indisputable you attempted to slip in the revised lesson plan katatonic as the original...in an attempt to say...what's all the fuss about. This doesn't say a word 'helping O'Bomber'.

posted September 25, 2009 05:35 PM            

Furthermore, Jwhop, you don't have a shred of proof that what Katatonic provided is the revised lesson plan. Of course, I found the unrevised plan in a matter of moments, and you have to really look to find the difference.

Nor do you have proof, not even in your own article, that the question was how to help President Obama. I quote from your own article:

After the great event, the department suggests that teachers of younger students (Pre-Kindergarten to Grade 6) should instruct their students to write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president (**The small 'p' president**). These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10582301/President-Obama%E2%80%9 9s-Address-to-Students-Across-America-September-8-2009

quote:

---

It is indisputable the revised lesson plan bearing the date Sept 8, 2009 was written after the date of the first article posted on this thread on Sept 2, 2009. It's also indisputabe the article posted on Sept 3, 2009 predates the revised lesson plan dated Sept 8, 2009.

---

What's indisputable is that his speech was given September 8th, so it would make sense that the materials were dated for that day. Duh.

posted September 25, 2009 05:44 PM              

you have no proof without the "original" that there was any change made at all to the "lesson plan"

and actually it is completely disputable that i "attempted to slip in the revised lesson plan katatonic as the original...in an attempt to say...what's all the fuss about. This doesn't say a word 'helping O'Bomber'.

because that was never my intention in the first place. sure got a rise though!!

where's the nasty one that had to be revised? i would think an impeccable debator like yourself would make sure to nab a copy before it was too late so you could back up your claims that it was the objectors who "forced" revision.

posted September 25, 2009 06:06 PM            

Yours says:

Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.

Mine says:

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.

posted September 25, 2009 11:26 PM            

"A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome".

Your attempting to parse words with me again acoustic. That's error on your part.

The proof is in the articles...to wit: that O'Bomber and the Dept of Education had changed the associated lesson plan by removing the offensive phrases. Can't you read with comprehension?

O'Bomber is the President.

O'Bomber was giving a speech to school children.

THE President being spoken of in the original lesson plan was O'Bomber and there's no other interpretation possible than that school children were to think of ways to Help O'Bomber and write themselves a letter on that subject.

posted September 26, 2009 04:15 AM            

quote:

---

In that agenda is an attempt to induct young students into his cult of personality by requiring these young students to write letters...the subject of which is...How can I help O'Bomber? Further, teachers are to hold students accountable as to how well they perform that task. ~ Jwhop, Sept. 2

---

quote:

---

Imagine the reaction of one of these anti-Obama parents to a first grader who comes home proudly announcing that our whole class made promises about helping President Obama.
...
And if the purpose is encouragement for educational excellence, rather than political promotion of the President and his agenda, why not give some additional time to Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, whose black single mother worked by cleaning homes and taking in laundry, not as an anthropological researcher?

A number of teachers have reacted with appropriate indignation to the misuse of public resources and precious school time to encourage the cult of Obama worship.

...
The idea of using government schools to force students to bond with the maximum leader might seem appropriate for Cuba or North Korea, but it’s clearly out of place in a Constitutional republic.

~ Jwhop's article

---

There is a rather distinct difference between

Idea 1
An over-reaction that sought to paint a picture that Obama was inducting children into his cult of personality, forcing kids to make promises to President Obama, and "political promotion of the President and his agenda"

and

Idea 2
Students writing letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.

Of course it's correct to think that the president and President Obama are one and the same. The difference is in the framing of what was the huge evil proposed by the Right, and the reality of the situation. In the Right's major FREAK OUT, it's Obama soliciting the help of kids like a creepy perv. In reality, it was the President not asking for anyone to consider his identity or celebrity in any explicit terms, but rather think upon the symbology of what the president is, and think about what you can do to help the president. Huge difference.

So, yes, I will indeed parse words when you so clearly don't get it. It's not an error on my part. It's me giving you yet another lesson in understanding language in general. You made a HUGE deal over something that didn't amount to anything remotely similar to the evil you and yours presented. His speech wasn't an indoctrination into cult worship of himself. It was nothing of the sort. It was a speech about education, and doing the right thing.

posted September 26, 2009 02:27 PM              

slight difference, the other guy is NOT the president, and since republicans in general are basically standing together against everything this administration stands for, he is a ridiculous "equivalence". the only thing they have in common is "mixed" blood and the fact that they are politicians.

posted October 04, 2009 10:19 PM            

O'BOMBA is such a total d1ckhead and i'm afraid the American people were complete a$$es to be hypnotized by his voodoo bullsh1t.

He is a modern day Hitler in this respect.

posted October 05, 2009 02:37 AM            

He's no way near close to being Hitler.

Adolf Hitler was racist that was responsible killing over 5 million people because he hated their ethnicity.

Barack Obama Jr. is nothing like Hitler in any type of way.

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 05, 2009 09:52 AM            

huh?

It has nothing to do with his colour and everything to do with his immoral standpoint! How many millions will he make as President.

By voodoo i mean that he has a similar ability to Hitler ro entrance the masses onto his side with his speeches and delivery... they all think he is a messiah just like they did with Hitler. When Hitler got into power, this is when he turned to the dark side. Same with Obama - just different Centuries and where Adolf was direct, Barak is more subtle.

posted October 05, 2009 04:05 PM              

he is just about now getting into a conversation with the military about afghanistan, which i don't believe was his idea, but he went along with the guys with the experience only to find they are doing their usual "well it's not working lets throw more troops at it" m.o....

people seem to have a very simplistic idea of what being a president in the u.s. (or anywhere else i'm sure) consists of.

posted October 05, 2009 05:05 PM            

He is not some authoritarian ruler like Adolf Hitler was.

I think that there is too much generalization about us Americans.
not all nor most Americans think that he's a messiah. not all nor most liberals,democrats think that he's a messiah. not all nor most non-whites(especially blacks) don't think that he's a messiah.

I certainly don't. Please don't insult us by generalizing us as believing that he's a messiah,drinking his kool-aid,and leading blind sheep.

Many of us are relieved and glad to have President Bush out of office and not deal with Bush-like policies.

many democrats,liberals are glad and relieved to have a democrat,liberal president.

Barack Obama might be inspirational and charismatic,and a very good orator but that doesn't make him like Hitler. His life story is not even close to being Hitler's when it comes to things like education and relationships as well as ideology. Adolf Hiter was a far rightwing politican. Obama is a leftwing politician.

many celebrities are inspirational and charismatic too.
The very first one that comes to mind was the late Michael Jackson. He certainly didn't have a Hitler mentality.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was charismatic,inspirational,and a very good orator,and that didn't make him a Hitler.

I feel that President Obama made too many promises as president. He was a bit idealistic in what he could accomplish as president. His idealism helped him to be believe that Americans could get past prejudices,racism,and discrimination to elect him. He believed that he could help build bridge the gap of not only races,but also political parties,and heck even the world. He also seemed to want to take after the 16th US president,Abraham Lincoln.

also when he did his speeches, it wasn't about "Yes..I can!"
It was about "Yes..We can!" That was the main theme of his candidacy.

The way I see it, President Obama is being forced to be more pragmatic and practical. Things are a lot harder to accomplish as president as he thought. He can only do so much, and that's all limited to what Congress decides as well as the people.

He has taken over a mess of things that happened on Bush's watch,and he's trying to help fix it.

oh that Voodoo mention, well...a lot of people would thinking applying that word to him is racial prejudice

After all, Voodoo is a spiritual tradition with Black African origins.

Haitian Vodou or Vaudou (French pronunciation: [vodu], Anglicised as Voodoo) is a syncretic[1] religion originating from the Caribbean country of Haiti, located on the island of Hispaniola. It is based upon a merging of the beliefs and practices of West African peoples, (mainly the Fon and Ewe; see West African Vodun), with Roman Catholic Christianity, which was brought about as African slaves were brought to Haiti in the 16th century and forced to convert to the religion of their owners, whilst they largely still followed their traditional African beliefs.[2]

Haitian Vodou or Vaudou (French pronunciation: [vodu], Anglicised as Voodoo) is a syncretic[1] religion originating from the Caribbean country of Haiti, located on the island of Hispaniola. It is based upon a merging of the beliefs and practices of West African peoples, (mainly the Fon and Ewe; see West African Vodun), with Roman Catholic Christianity, which was brought about as African slaves were brought to Haiti in the 16th century and forced to convert to the religion of their owners, whilst they largely still followed their traditional African beliefs.[2]
Contents
[hide]

Vodun or Vudun (Gbe pronunciation: [vodṹ] — that is, with a nasal u on a high tone) (so spelled in the Fon language of Benin and the Ewe language of Togo and Ghana; also spelled Vodon, Vodoun, Voudou,"Voodoo" etc.) is a traditional Polytheistic organised religion of coastal West Africa, from Nigeria to Ghana. It is distinct from the unorganised traditional animistic religions in the interiors of these same countries, as well as from various religions with often similar names of the African Diaspora in the New World, such as Haitian Vodou, the similar Vudu of the Dominican Republic, Candomblé Jejé in Brazil (which uses the term Vodum), Louisiana Voodoo, and Santería in Cuba, which are syncretized with Christianity and the traditional religions of the Kongo people of Congo and Angola.

The word vodún is the Gbe (Fon-Ewe) word for spirit. When the word is capitalized, Vodun, it denotes the religion. When it is not, vodun, it denotes the spirits that are central to the religion. "Voodoo" is the most common pronunciation amongst English speakers. Vodun is practised by the Ewe, Kabye, Mina, Fon, peoples of southeastern Ghana, southern and central Togo, southern and central Benin,and (under a different name) the Yoruba in southwestern Nigeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 05, 2009 05:33 PM            

Ummm, any of this sound familiar?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."...Barack Hussein O'Bomber

Shades of Hitler's Brown Shirts and the Nazi Gestapo.

Sieg Heil comrades; your papers please!

Let's see, anyone who opposed O'BomberCare is by definition racist...but O'Bomber is not a racist.

Hmmm, seems like only yesterday O'Bomber was setting at the feet of his "spiritual mentor", the Reverrrrend Wright learning all about "Black Liberation Theology".

The main component of this so called religious doctrine is quoted from it's founder, the Reverrrrent Cone.

Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology:

"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 and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

Oh, but O'Bomber is not a racist. He ONLY sat in that Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years...AND O'Bomber never, ever heard any of that.

O'Bomber also never ever heard the Reverrrend Wright say white men created the aids virus to kill black people. Nope, he never ever heard that....and neither did his little girls who were sitting in that same church with him.

posted October 05, 2009 05:59 PM            

Eventually Cone developed a “black theology” of liberation from oppression, racism, and poverty — and independently of the work of Gustavo Gutiérrez. Cone argued that the white church and white theologians had all failed in their duties to uphold biblical principles of helping the poor and marginalized of society. Indeed, Christians had become actively complicit in making the lives of others worse.

Because of this, it was no longer acceptable to leave the interpretation of the Bible to white Christians. Blacks must take responsibility for their own religion and their own relationship with God. Black liberation theology has a great deal in common with the Black Power movement that also developed in the 1960s. In his book Black Theology and Black Power, Cone writes:

“A moral or theological appeal based on a white definition of morality or theology will serve as a detriment to our attainment of black freedom. The only option we blacks have is to fight in every way possible, so that we can create a definition of freedom based on our own history and culture. We must not expect white people to give us freedom. Freedom is not a gift, but a responsibility, and thus must be taken against the will of those who hold us in bondage.”

White Christians in America might have preached a message of love and peace, but at every turn they failed to live up to their own words. The existence of segregated denominations and segregated churches proved this. Cone could also point to the long history of Christian theologians using religious arguments to defend both slavery and segregation.

Although Cone’s most obvious target was racism, his message was actually much broader. He also criticized middle-class black churches and argued that racism was only part of the problem. The much larger issue was the failure of Christianity to properly motivate people to care for others. Instead of acting on Christian principles of love and charity, they remain isolated in social or cultural groups.

Cone could also at times find some good things to say about white European theologians. He pointed to the examples of Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, at great risk to themselves, used their theological writings to aid resistance to Hitler. Against this Cone contrasted the passivity of American theologians in the face of oppression aimed against blacks and other minorities.

Most of the time, though, Cone was critical of the ideas of European theologians that were part of the American experience. He noted, for example, that many white Christians emphasized ideas like justification by faith and grace as central Christian themes. Against this he argued that, from the perspective of black Christians, the idea of liberation from oppression was much more important and had a much more immediate relevancy to their lives.

The story of the Jews’ liberation in the book of Exodus naturally figured prominently in Cone’s arguments. Cone also cited the prophets, many of whom were frequent critics of the status quo and the failure of Israel to properly fulfill their duties to the poor in society. In both the Old and the New Testaments, Cone identified the establishment of justice for all, rich and poor alike, as the key principle that God has been trying to get humanity to understand.
http://atheism.about.com/od/theology/a/lib_black.htm

Raymond

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 05, 2009 06:05 PM            

THE GROUNDSWELL OF broad support for Barack Obama (both among Blacks and whites) is a phenomenon that deserves a serious analysis and understanding. It cannot be down played by passing it through the lens of pure-and-simple lesser-evilism.

Some radicals dismiss the mass phenomenon, because Obama is a candidate of a ruling-class party. That simplistic rejection of Obama’s campaign and its mass support is sectarian: The issue isn’t whether to vote for a Democrat, but rather our response to a development that is having a wide-scale impact. How many times, in state after state, have we ever seen citizens of all races line up for hours to hear an African-American man talk about “hope,” on a platform that is fundamentally no different than his opponents?

While I do sympathize with those activists choosing the Green party campaign of Cynthia McKinney or the “independent” Ralph Nader for their more progressive political program, I believe progressives and socialists should focus our attentions on critically engaging Obama supporters, identifying with their desire for a “new type of politics and direction for the country” — while explaining that Obama is no answer to stop the aggressive wars of U.S. imperialism.

In that spirit of critical engagement, an objective evaluation of Obama’s support, and why it’s grown, is instructive.
Mass Appeal Beyond Electoralism

The mass sentiment for the Obama campaign represents more than pure electoralism. It indicates a possible shift in political consciousness, which can either lead to broad-scale disillusionment or begin to awaken the new young generation to engage in more radical politics when the first African-American president acts like all his predecessors in defending the imperial state.

The Obama phenomenon is a result of fears and frustrations, and of hopes that the country can be better. Most Blacks, of course, are excited by an unprecedented possibility of a “Black president.” Others, including many white workers, are fed up with standing still or going backward as the country enters a recession. Obama taps these multiple anxieties. His mass rallies show the desire for change.

The “messiah effect” is why Obama could take on the issue of “race and racism” in the way he did on March 18 in Philadelphia. It’s appropriate to look at that speech and fallout — some 40 years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. — to see the complexities of racial progress.
Outstanding Speech

As a Democrat and mainstream politician, Obama’s speech was far superior to what anyone on the left or the country likely expected. Some have criticized it for not analyzing the institutional racism deeply embedded in capitalism — another case of looking much too narrowly at what Obama means for tens of millions of people.

Overall, this was an outstanding speech. Obama refused to throw his former Chicago minster, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, under the moving bus for Wright’s sermon outlining the history of violence by the rulers of the United Stares.

(It should be noted that Obama later told the ABC daytime talk show, The View: “Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and was inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws — then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying there at the church.”)

The speech’s significance, however, is not what he said or didn’t say about Rev. Wright. It is the fact that Obama dared to elaborate on the topic to a national audience even if it hurt his chances to win the presidential nomination or to be elected in November. It confirmed to his followers and detractors alike that he is a different kind of mainstream politician.

Obama outlined the origins of American racism from the dawn of English colonialism and Independence to the present — the slave trade, chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation and the racism still prevalent in society, especially among many whites who speak and act certain ways in private, not necessarily consciously but because of cultural upbringing.

Obama told the story of his white Kansas grandmother, who feared Black men even though she loved him. These honest views are felt by all ethnic groups. Everyone has similar family contradictions.

Obama did not discuss institutional discrimination and disadvantages that “people of color” still face for simply being Black, Latino, Native American or Asian — something a white person has never experienced. That discrimination is why some employment and other opportunities are not offered, or the benefit of the doubt not given, by a mostly white male-dominated power structure.

Yet he went further than I expected, which is the only way to view his comments on Rev. Jeremiah Wright and racial politics. It’s why what he said about Wright rang true to the audience:

“Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation [of Rev. Wright’s ‘divisive’ comments] are not enough.... But the truth is that isn’t all that I know of the man.

“The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.... who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community (by) housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS…

“Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the Black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother....”
Wright is No Hatemonger

Reverend Jeremiah Wright is no “hatemonger” as slandered by the right and many Clinton supporters. He did not give a “hate” speech. His sermons are, in fact, in the best tradition of Black Liberation Theology.

Read what Rev Wright (now retired) said in his now infamous December 2007 speech:

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, and the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, and non-military personnel,” he preached.

“We bombed the Black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. ‘Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.’ [This is a reference to the seldom-quoted final two verses of Psalm 137, which was Rev. Wright’s text for this sermon on the dangers of revenge lust —ed.]

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go to work that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are [here the congregation joins in completing the sentence —ed.] coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador [a U.S. diplomat previously quoted in Wright’s sermon —ed.] said that y’all, not a Black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

True or false?
King’s Precedent

In 1967 and 1968, shortly before his assassination, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at the Riverside Church in New York City about the Vietnam War. This is what he said:

“The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.”

King called for the immediate end to this “madness.” In his 1968 speech at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, he returned to the theme:

“It is said on the Statue of Liberty that America is a home of exiles. It doesn’t take us long to realize that America has been the home of its white exiles from Europe. But it has not evinced the same kind of maternal care and concern for its Black exiles from Africa. It is no wonder that in one of his sorrow songs, the Negro could sing out, “Sometimes I feel like a motherless child.” What great estrangement, what great sense of rejection caused a people to emerge with such a metaphor as they looked over their lives.”

He added:

“There are those, and they are often sincere people, who say to Negroes and their allies in the white community, that we should slow up and just be nice and patient and continue to pray, and in a hundred or two hundred years the problem will work itself out because only time can solve the problem.”

“I think there is an answer to that myth. And it is that time is neutral. It can be used either constructively or destructively. And I’m absolutely convinced that the forces of ill-will in our nation, the extreme rightists in our nation, have often used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words of the bad people and the violent actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time.

“Somewhere we must come to see that social progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated Individuals. And without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation. And so we must help time, and we must realize that the time is always right to do right.”

Wright and King delivered the same message of truth.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1469

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 05, 2009 06:06 PM            

This political mixture of the Black Christian church and militancy has deep origins in the African-American community. It is called “Black Liberation Theology.” It is rooted in Black Nationalism and the traditions of Black radicalism. It goes back to the resistance to slavery. The modern version arose during the civil rights movement. It basically combines the philosophy of the Black Christian church and Black Nationalism.

Supporters of the ideology of Black Liberation Theology believe that the system can be reformed and Blacks can bring themselves up by the bootstraps and become full equals in U.S. society. The advocates see a future where the poor can become middle class and CEOs of major corporations; and, of course, elected U.S. Senator or even President of the country — some day.

One of the main intellectual articulators of the theory is the Rev. James Hal Cone of Arkansas. As part of his theological analysis, Cone argues for God’s own identification with “Blackness.” He explains in A Black Theology of Liberation:

“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.” (63-64)

Based on the preeminence of “Black experience,” Cone defines theology as “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ.”

Cone’s theology asks (and seeks to answer) the question, “What does the Christian gospel have to say to powerless Black men whose existence is threatened daily by the insidious tentacles of white power?” His answer emphasizes that there is a very close relationship between Black theology and what has been termed “Black Power.”

Black Power is a phrase that represents both Black freedom and Black self-determination “wherein Black people no longer view themselves as without human dignity but as men, human beings with the ability to carve out their own destiny.” Cone says Black theology is the religious counterpart of Black Power. “Black Theology is the theological arm of Black Power, and Black Power is the political arm of Black Theology.” And “while Black Power focuses on the political, social, and economic condition of Black people, Black Theology puts Black identity in a theological context.”

Black Nationalists (self identified or not; few are today) — whether of the Booker T. Washington philosophy of seeking to reform the system, or the more militant Black power ideology of Marcus Garvey and the 1960s followers of Malcolm X — all argued that Blacks must pull themselves up and stand on their own two feet.

Wright’s United Church of Christ congregation includes middle-class Blacks like Obama but in the majority are poor and working class. Rev. Wright speaks to the reality of Black history and the subtle and actual racism that his typical church goer has experienced.

His sermons are mainstream, and not anti-American — or against capitalism. He is a “patriot,” as Obama described; but he is the Black American version, who serves as a medic for the Marines, fights the wars and comes home to face racial discrimination!

To Rev. Wright there is no contradiction in condemning real racism and urging Blacks to take more personal responsibility for the problems of their community. This is not “radical” or “hate” speech. His criticisms are based on hard facts, not make-believe or white liberal conservative views of patriotism. Its that understanding that enables him to make the comparison between the U.S. empire today and that of the Roman era.

In Wright’s speech before the National Press Club, he identifed himself with Black Liberation Theology and pointed out that the attack on Obama and him by the corporate media and others is in reality an attack on the Black community.

Barack Obama, the former Chicago community organizer, learned his roots as a Black man at his wife’s church. He learned his internationalist outlook from his white mother, who worked among the poor in Indonesia. But he is not an advocate of Black Liberation Theology even though he listened to Wright for 20 years. That’s why he can say he never heard Wright speak the words he did last December. He did, and probably nodded in agreement — but as a mainstream presidential candidate with a chance of winning the presidency, of course, he must disassociate from Wright.

Those who expect otherwise are not realistic. The way he did so, by rejecting but not throwing Wright under the bus, was a nod to his youthful base and recognition of his historical roots in the Black community.

Obama is obviously aware of what is called the “Bradley effect” where a certain percentage of whites will never vote for an African American as president. (The Bradley factor refers to Tom Bradley, the African-American former mayor of Los Angeles, who had a double digit lead in the 1982 California governor’s election days before the vote. He then narrowly lost due to racial dynamics — whites telling pollsters one thing, and voting the opposite.)

Barack Obama is also a strong proponent of modern day Black capitalism. He told Business Week (April 14 issue) that, “My opponents to the right like to paint me as this wild-eyed liberal. But I believe in the market. I believe in entrepreneurship.”

(Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson is one of most prominent advocates of the market system and Black capitalism. The concept of Black capitalism has evolved over the decades. It used to mean advocating an independent “Black economy” —- tied to the nationalist goal of “Black control of the Black community” — tapping the $800 billion spent by African Americans within the American economy. Today it means striving and believing it is possible to become a capitalist like Bill Gates.)

Ironically, there has been more success in gaining a foothold in big business then in the political arena where Obama is the only Black in the U.S. Senate. Several African Americans have become heads of major corporations. Forty years ago there were none. African American Stanley O’Neil, for example, was CEO of Merrill Lynch, one of the largest investment firms on Wall Street. His grandfather had been a slave.

Since the decline of the civil rights and Black Power movements in the 1970s, the conservative pro-big business wing dominates the discussion on improving the lives of African Americans. Traditional Black Nationalism, including those who reject “Black Capitalism,” has few advocates today.
What Next

If Obama happens to get the Democratic nomination and wins the presidency it can sharpen the debates even more. That’s good for society. The real test is yet to come when the Republican right launches its inevitable race-baiting. To this point, the integration of elite African Americans in business, media, the military and politics has made that less effective.

The most interesting aspect about the Obama campaign for me, and what should be for those on the left of the political spectrum, is the mass consciousness unfolding in front of our eyes in support of a “color blind” or nonracial society. It is evident in all 50 states where “race does not matter” the way it did in the past.

Obama’s speech on race, and more importantly his campaign, has initiated a broad discussion about American history including its violence, racist past and why young people need to engage in politics. It could not happen if that change in attitudes weren’t taking place.

The left in particular should resist a sectarian response towards this unique mass phenomenon for Obama. The critical choice isn’t about voting for Obama, or even a third party alternative. Progressive political consciousness at the end of the day is not primarily an intellectual transformation. For most, it occurs by joining struggles to end wars and occupations like Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting racism and ending economic inequalities.

I for one think it is important to critically embrace those backing Obama’s campaign. It is not a betrayal of socialist principles to do so.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1469

------------------
"Nothing matters absolutely;
the truth is it only matters relatively"

posted October 05, 2009 07:25 PM            

"SAME SH1T; DIFFERENT DAY"

Obama is only a front man... the guys pulling his strings are authoritarian leaders

BAA