A recent event in Chicago illustrates the arrogance and narcissism of the Progressive-Left – and in particular the anti-war Progressive-Left. During Easter services at Holy Name Cathedral Catholic Church in Chicago, six anti-war protesters staged a political demonstration disrupting religious services. They shouted generic anti-war slogans and squirted fake blood on themselves and the parishioners in attendance. Their goal was to attract attention to themselves and – therefore – their cause. It worked.

The group of three men and three women, who call themselves Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War (interesting self-commentary on the three “men” involved), issued a statement saying they purposely targeted Holy Name Cathedral – specifically on Easter – to reach a large audience, including the press, which usually covers the services.

A representative of the International Solidarity Movement told the Chicago Tribune that he attended the protest to serve as a witness for the Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War.

Chicago Police removed the protesters and charged them with one count of felony criminal damage to property and two counts each of misdemeanor simple battery.

Where to begin…

First, we should examine the base element of the Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War and their supporters.

Catholic School Girls Against the War
The website for the Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice (which evidently hosts the group’s Internet presence) describes the group as:

“…a humorous, political street threatre group composed of college students and young adults.”

It is obvious to even the most intellectually challenged that the designation “street theatre group” is an attempt to inoculate their actions; an attempt to re-define any of their civil disobedience – criminal acts – as “theatre.”

As far as the “humorous” description goes, I suppose humor is in the eye of the beholder, although I don’t believe that any of the young children in attendance at Holy Name Cathedral, children who were frightened by the actions of this group in their place of worship, a place that is meant to provide sanctuary, found the splattering of fake blood and shrieks of agenda-driven “humorous.”

Illinois Coalition for Peace & Justice
In their Structure & Statement of Values, the Illinois Coalition for Peace & Justice, which is linked to the Progressive Democrats of America website, claims their organization:

“…models a just and peaceful society…[resolving] to use our work in the Illinois Coalition for Peace and Justice as a model of equal and supportive relationships in a peaceful and just society…”

The ICPJ is by definition an anti-war protest organization. Where they claim to act as a coordinating organization, they facilitate the activities of a number of activist groups, including the American Muslim Council, the Campus Anti-War Network and Code Pink, to name just three.

Interestingly, their Structure & Statement of Values declaration says they:

“…work in common for: alternatives to militarism, global community, lives of active nonviolence, human rights for all, preservation of the environment…”

By disrupting a religious service and, in the process, creating fear among children and angst among adults, it is hard to see how the ICPJ – through its member organization, the Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War – promoted any of these tenets and/or values, especially “global community,” “nonviolence” or “human rights.”

International Solidarity Movement
The organization that sent a representative to act as a “witness” for the protesters, the International Solidarity Movement, is an anti-war organization but only where the United States and the West are concerned. In fact, it can be argued that they are vehemently anti-Western and anti-American.

The International Solidarity Movement is, according to Discover the Networks,

“…a radical, anti-Israel organization that recruits Westerners to travel to Israel to obstruct Israeli security operations…[they justify] Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians…”

Though the organization claims to adhere to a commitment to non-violence, its members openly call for the “liberation of Palestinians by any means necessary…[including] legitimate armed struggle.”

One of the groups officials, Hisham Jam Joun, a veteran of the Marxist-Leninist terror group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, led pro-Palestinian protests against the Israeli security barrier.

In 2003, two British nationals executed a suicide bombing in an Israeli bar that killed three people and wounded more than 50. In the course of their investigation into the bombing Israeli officials discovered that the bombers had met with International Solidarity Movement leaders just prior to carrying out the attack. This prompted the Israeli government to formally accuse the organization of maintaining ties to Palestinian terror entities. Said one IDF officer:

“…as far as we are concerned, ISM is not an international organization or a peace organization. It’s a pro-Palestinian organization, set up by Palestinians, funded by Palestinians and linked to Palestinian terror.”

In addition, the group continues to advocate for the release of Marwan Barghouti, a leader in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. Barghouti was convicted of committing acts of terrorism and with the murders of 26 people through the facilitation of several suicide bombing events that took place in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

To put it mildly, there is nothing peaceful about the International Solidarity Movement or their actions. The causes for which they advocate are about as far away from “humorous, political street theatre” as one can get.

The Question of Constitutional Rights
The violent, intolerant, hypocritical and narcissistic nature of these groups exposed, the facet of this story that is truly shocking is this: These intellectually stunted malcontents attempted to deny the people attending Catholic Mass at Holy Name Cathedral their constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their religion, yet charges to this affect are not being explored. Instead they are being charged with felony criminal damage to property and misdemeanor simple battery.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution specifically states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This guarantee of non-intervention by government with regard to religion, speech and assembly has been interpreted over the years to provide for the sanctity of religious practice, the protection of free speech and the inviolability of peaceable assembly.

By interrupting a religious service on its most holy of days (the resurrection of Christ, signified by the celebration of Easter, is the most glorified event in the Catholic faith, not Christmas, which signifies the birth of Christ) the Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War denied the parishioners their constitutional right to freely practice religion, they denied Cardinal Francis George his constitutional right to freedom of speech and religious practice and both their right to peaceably assemble.

That federal authorities are not exploring the possibility of charging, not only the six malcontents from Catholic Schoolgirls Against the War but the leaders of both the Illinois Coalition for Peace & Justice and the International Solidarity Movement, with violating the constitutional rights of the Cardinal and the parishioners of Holy Name Cathedral is a testimony to how little value we place on our constitutional rights, how delinquent we are in understanding the ideology behind our constitutional rights and our apathy in defending them when they are attacked.

Ingenuous protest is one thing and it is perfectly acceptable, but anarchist indignance goes beyond anything that can be deemed acceptable. Charge them, prosecute them and make an example out of them.

Share on digg

Barack Obama recently issued another of his linguistic masterpieces in addressing the issues of racism, hate-speech and his spiritual mentor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. His speech was pretty. It was eloquent. It was impassioned. It attempted to approach the true issue in danger of being overshadowed by a sensationalistic mainstream news media; racism in the total of American society, including the Black community. It even included a condemnation of specific statements by Wright, a man Obama says, “…has been like family to me.” But Obama’s speech fell short in answering some important ideological questions about his belief system and in doing so exposed the Achilles heel of the Progressive-Left where race is concerned: The Progressive-Left, in its quest for a multicultural utopia, simply can’t have racial harmony.

One of the biggest buzz-words used by the Progressive-Left – America’s Fifth Column – is “diversity.” They used the idea of advancing diversity as a means to achieving what they hoped – what they “knew” – would be a racially and culturally symbiotic utopia where “all men are created equal.” The problem with this line of thought is that celebrating diversity factionalizes people; it does not help to bring people together under a commonality. By exposing the great racial and cultural divides that exist in the United States – within all racial and ethnic communities – Barack Obama is forcing an examination of the ideology of multiculturalism versus e pluribus unum (out of many one), much to the chagrin of the Progressive-Left.

By its very definition, multiculturalism encourages the promotion of individual cultures within a society rather than in only one common culture. Since the “cultural revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s, our society – guided by the counter-cultural elites – has embraced the ideology of multiculturalism. In doing so it became “politically incorrect” to identify oneself as simply “an American.” To do so was to identify with “the establishment.” Instead, mainstream Americans began to refer to themselves as hyphenated Americans: Italian-Americans, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans, Mexican-Americans and so on. In that single vestige of multiculturalism the American Fifth Column achieved two things: they marginalized the importance of identifying ourselves as Americans while culturally mandating the reconfiguration of our identities to emphasize ancestral origin.

In placing the emphasis on ancestral origin, the American Fifth Column encouraged the Balkanization of the United States. The American-Black community rallied around organizations and individuals that championed their African heritage. The American-Mexican community united around organizations and individuals that championed their Mexican heritage. The American-Italians gravitated toward their Italian heritage, and so on. This established individual and separate communities not just in the physical sense, within geographic locations, but in the cultural fabric of our nation. We, as a people, encouraged by the American Fifth Column and manipulated by their false-promise of a racial and cultural utopia, abandoned our American ideology for multiculturalism. We stopped being Americans, although that’s the way the rest of the world identified us (and still does), and became an association of different cultures that needs to employ “tolerance” towards other cultures in order to function as a cohesive nation.

A funny thing happens when you encourage people to factionalize; they revert back to the basic human desire to achieve the alpha status; the fundamental desire to be “in charge;” to be the one individual or faction in the community whom the others follow and defer to. This primal aspiration leads to a quest for superiority. That quest results in the division of society into competitive entities which serves to further bind the factional elements as they quest for superiority over the other factions. It is culturally destructive and a vicious self-fueling cycle, about as far away from cohesiveness as one can get.

When the nation witnessed the bigotry and racism of Barack Obama’s spiritual leader, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, we were witnessing the by-product of the multicultural ideology; we were witnessing the rage born of a Black supremist questing for his faction’s superiority. While it cannot be denied that the Black community has had to overcome incredible inequities and hardships throughout its American experience, so too it cannot be denied that today is not yesterday and few in the White community, as it exists today, are culpable for the inequities of the past.

That Jeremiah Wright’s assertions were divisive, aggressive and mired in the false-proclamation of victimhood is understood by anyone willing to be honest about the issue. But if honesty is to prevail in a real conversation about race and culture in today’s United States of America we must all take responsibility for our actions, our anger, our rage and admit that for all the rhetoric about bridging the racial and cultural divide we must move forward in action and deed, casting aside the race-baiters and haters and their cultural heroin of victimhood.

That the United States is a diverse nation is a true statement. We are a collection of families and individuals originating, whether in the present generation or generations past, from the four corners of the earth. But the ethos that would most cohesively bind us together, the ideology of e pluribus unum, the commonly held desire for freedom to craft our lives with limited interference from the government – liberty – has been abandoned. If our country is to survive we must abandon the failed ideology of multiculturalism before it is too late. We must reestablish our commitment to the American ideology.

Politically, no matter how Obama and his handlers try to free his campaign from the issues of Jeremiah Wright and the racial divide that exists in our country. the damage to his campaign has been done. Obama’s poll numbers are dropping and the question of whether or not he is actually electable is being discussed in serious circles. Rather than quelling the “firestorm” (Obama’s words) that has erupted around the indignant and racist remarks of his spiritual leader, Obama’s speech provoked caution about his candidacy from within his own party. It indicated to the Progressive-Left that he is willing to chance the examination of one of their core tenets – multiculturalism and, through it, diversity.

 

The real questions are these: Is Barack Obama willing to forfeit his chance at the brass ring – the Oval Office – in order to move the much needed examination of the racial and cultural divides forward? Or did he bite off more than he could chew by playing the race card in trying to salvage his political career?

The longer these questions go unanswered the more damage his campaign endures.

Share on digg

There has been a tremendous amount of talk about “change” this presidential election cycle. Many have pointed out that change for the sake of change is seldom – if ever – a good thing. Unless explicit details of what is to be changed, why it needs changing and just how it is to be changed for the better are given in no uncertain terms, there exists too much chance for political and ideological malfeasance. To that extent, “change” is simply a Pavlovian buzz-word that sets the politically naïve to salivating.

If real change is to be instituted in federal government we must look beyond the names that adorn the ballots. Truth be told, each candidate is supported by an incredibly powerful set of operatives and handlers. While the names of the candidates may change over time – especially with regard to the Executive Branch – the names of the behind the scenes operatives and financiers almost always remain the same. This is true of all political parties, movements and organizations. If the American people truly want change, they have to expose, remove and then replace the political operatives behind the scenes. This is an incredibly difficult thing to achieve.

John McCain
Given that the presumptive 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, began his political career in 1982, it is safe to say that he is comfortably ensconced within the Republican/Conservative mechanism in place in Washington DC and on the national level, though some would argue to what degree he – as an individual – is Conservative or Republican. RealClearPolitics contributor Robert Robb says, while McCain “trends towards conservative positions, he is not ‘anchored by the philosophical tenets of modern American conservatism.’”

Regardless of his Conservative bona fides, because McCain will be the standard-bearer of the GOP he will have the support of such Conservative inside-the-beltway operatives as Grover Norquist (whose wife, Kuwaiti-born Samah, served as the director of the Islamic Free Market Institute and public affairs specialist for Arab and Muslim outreach at the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs at USAID) and David Keene of the American Conservative Union.

Acquiescing to the notion that McCain is a political insider, a closer look at the two Democrat “agents of change” is warranted, especially where their chief operatives are concerned.

The Clinton Campaign
Hillary Clinton’s campaign hierarchy is filled with many recognizable names, many “connected” to organizations that should alarm We the People. These are names that have existed in Liberal and Progressive politics for decades; Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn and Harold Ickes to name but three.

Terry McAuliffe, of course, was the Democrat National Committee chairman from 2001-2005, national co-chairman of the 1996 Clinton-Gore Re-Election Committee and is a superdelegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. He currently serves as chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President Committee.

In addition to his Progressive-Liberal credentials, McAuliffe is no stranger to federal investigation, including his $18 million windfall from a $100,000 investment in the telecommunications company Global Crossing, that windfall occurring in just eighteen months. Global Crossing was later awarded a $400 million Pentagon contract after McAuliffe facilitated a presidential golf outing for Global Crossing’s CEO, Gary Winnick, the result of that outing being a $1 million contribution to Bill Clinton’s presidential library.

Mark Penn, described as Hillary’s “strategic genius” (I guess genius is a relative term on the Left) has served as a fellow at the Progressive New Politics Institute (NPI), which instructs and aids Progressive-Leftist political candidates in tailoring their message and maximizing their electioneering dollars.

NPI is affiliated with the Hispanic Strategy Center, which supports blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens residing in the United States. The organization’s founding hierarchy includes: Gina Glantz, a founding member of America Coming Together and former aide to the President of the Service Employees International Union; Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and former President of America Votes; and  Simon Rosenberg, President of the Progressive New Democratic Network. Rosenberg was also a former candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Harold Ickes is working with the Clinton campaign as a political strategist. Ickes is the co-founder and unofficial director of the Democrat Shadow Party, a nationwide network of unions, non-profit organizations, activist groups and “think tanks” whose agendas are ideologically Progressive-Left and which campaign and advocate for the election of Progressive Democrats in a quest to Socialize the nation.Ickes facilitated the relationships between the architect of the Democrat Shadow Party and founder of the Open Society Institute, George Soros and activists Andrew Stern, Ellen R. Malcolm, Steven Rosenthal, Gina Glantz, Cecile Richards, and other leftwing Democrats seeking ways to circumvent McCain-Feingold’s soft-money ban. Ickes worked closely with Soros to create the organizations that formed the Democrat Shadow Party’s core: America Coming Together, America Votes, the Center for American Progress, the Media Fund and the Thunder Road Group, to name but a few.

In addition, the Clinton campaign is affiliated, in one form or another, with: Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, Wesley Clark, Vernon Jordan, and Steven Rattner.

The Obama Campaign
Barack Obama, although rising popularly to the top faster than his experience would justify, is no stranger to the political machine. Obama, a former Illinois House Representative and Senator, grew up under the tutelage of Chicago’s Daley Machine, one of the most politically powerful organizations in the history of American politics. Chicago’s Mayor, Richard M. Daley, has equaled – if not surpassed – the political power of his father, Richard J. Daley – the “Boss”, who, during his tenure as the “godfather” of the Democrat Party, was the ultimate political “kingmaker.”

Obama, who clandestinely removed a vehement anti-war speech from his website in the midst of the 2004 election cycle, proves, through his choice of campaign personnel – David Axelrod and Robert Malley, to name two) that “change,” for all his rhetoric on its need, is nothing more than that Pavlovian buzz-word we mentioned earlier.

David Axelrod, who serves as Obama’s media consultant, began his official political career when he joined US Senator Paul Simon’s 1984 campaign as communications director. He was promoted for his prowess within weeks to co-campaign manager.

Axelrod is a longtime political strategist for Chicago’s Richard M. Daley and fancies himself a ’specialist in urban politics’. Axelrod has consulted for: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s 2006 campaign (Oops!); Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s 2006 campaign; John Edwards’ 2004 bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination; and served as the chief political adviser for US Rep. Rahm Emanuel’s 2006 mid-term congressional campaign. It should be noted that Emanuel is the chairman of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee.

Perhaps the most disturbing of Obama’s operatives is Robert Malley. Malley serves as Obama’s foreign policy advisor and is the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which receives funding from the Open Society Institute founded by George Soros. Prior to joining ICG, Malley served Bill Clinton’s administration as Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs, as National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s Executive Assistant, and as the National Security Council’s Director for Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs.

It is interesting to note that Malley – whose father, Simon Malley, a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party, confidante of Yasser Arafat and a blazing anti-Semite – has penned numerous articles condemning Israel while exonerating the Palestinian Authority of any and all acts of violence and for breakdowns in peace negotiations in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is also in favor of the US abandoning its policy of isolating terror states and terrorist organizations, advocating for America to “reach out” to countries, organizations and individuals such as Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Muqtada al-Sadr. Obama’s camp plays down his influence over Middle Eastern policy in spite of Malley’s official position as foreign policy advisor to the campaign.

The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same
We can see from a quasi-examination of just three of Hillary’s main players and two of Barack Obama’s that whether it’s Hillary or Obama, these behind the scenes operatives and financiers are all cut from the same cloth. They are life-long political and ideological operatives who serve their organizations, their parties, their advocacy groups and their special interest groups above all. In fact, in most cases, the only reason they commit to a candidate at all is simply because the candidate’s name will be on the ballot.

National politics – and to a lesser extent state politics on down – is always more about the organization that elects the office holder than it is the elected official. We all need to realize that “operatives” end up becoming cabinet members, executive staff members, advisors, appointees and nominees. These operatives – and through them their national organizations, parties, advocacy groups and special interest groups – wield a tremendous amount of power. To believe that a freshman US Senator from Illinois is going to “change” that is to be as naïve as it gets. Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the The New Media Journal Internet radio program broadcast globally on NetTalkWorld global talk radio. He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist.

Share on digg

Much is being made of Barack Obama’s oratory skills. True, he is quite good when it comes to captivating a crowd of sycophants and this includes the lemmings in the mainstream media. But if words matter, as Obama (and surreptitiously Duval Patrick) claims they do, then we must acknowledge that in this case words do make the man, in this case Mr. Obama must be judged in his words and in the deeds that back-up those words.

Ironically, I agree with Mr. Obama when he says that words matter. One of the harshest criticisms I have had of the Bush Administration is that communication between the presidency and the American people has been, at best, horrible. While I can lay much of the blame on a hateful mainstream media who wouldn’t cover the White House if it was on fire, a gaggle of journalistic abortions hell-bent on achieving an anti-Bush/anti-Republican agenda, so too blame must be laid at the feet of an administration that failed to use all the tools available to the bully pulpit to get its message across.

Words do matter. In a society that has grown so delinquent in teaching its populace critical thinking skills, words – and the choice of words – have become the upper-tier chess pieces in the tactical game of attaining and holding on to power. Of course, this is nothing new.

Great people through time have understood the importance of words, their meaning and their successful communication. Cicero, Aristotle, Plato, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes certainly knew the importance of words. Through their philosophy the seeds of our uniquely American ideology were planted. Those who understood the importance of their message, their words – Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Madison – were able to manifest the American experience, to motivate a people to the quest of freedom and liberty. These great men – our Founders and Framers – also had a penchant for words as is evidenced by the Charters of Freedom, which stand alone in their ideology of liberty.

But just as there were great people who used words to move humanity to good, so too were their very evil, narcissistic men who used words to manipulate masses of people into ideologies of oppression and inequity, who used words to capture power from people, who used words to steal liberty, usurping the Natural Law of man.

Adolph Hitler used words to cajole a nation into ceding their collective will to a tyranny that would affect a litany of horrors perpetrated on the innocent, simply because of their religions, their skin colors and their birth origins. Josef Stalin used words to motivate an oppressive class to – as we now understand – eclipse the horrors of Hitler. And the totalitarian rhetoric of Pol Pot and Chairman Mao Zedong served to ideologically and physically imprison generations of people from freedom while filling graves beyond capacity.

While the tyrants and murderers listed above left their legacies in blood, slaughter and the destruction of humanity, still other despots – ideological despots – worked to enslave the minds of million of people.

One such ideological despot is Karl Marx, whose code of belief culminated in the Marxist-Leninist dogma of Communism, commonly considered a faction of the broader Socialist Movement. This oppressive ideology brutally discouraged liberty of the individual, many times to the point of torture and execution, and placed the State above all else. The goal of this oppressive and maniacal creed, a socio-political system in which property, the rights of the individual and the distribution of wealth were subject to control by the community; “It takes a village to raise a child.”

Today, we experience the pain of Marxist-Leninist ideology in the unlegislated tenets of political correctness, a belief system that has crept into the mainstream thinking of the Democrat, Progressive-Left political community.

Yes, words – and the deeds that ratify words – do matter. It is because of this truth that two issues surrounding the life and candidacy of Barack Obama strike me as disturbing.

Let me reiterate something that I stated in a recent piece, Can an American President Be a Muslim Apostate. I believe Barack Obama when he says that he is a Christian. I do not subscribe to the idea that he is a “clandestine jihadi” just waiting to be inaugurated so that he can hand the country over to Wahhabism. That said, it really doesn’t matter what Barack Obama declares at all. What matters is what the fundamentalist Islamists believe. What matters are the words of their belief system.

To a fundamentalist Wahhabi – the belief system of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi royal family – Barack Obama is a Muslim apostate and, therefore, lower than any other form of human life. In the ideology of Wahhabism Obama’s punishment for leaving his Muslim birthright is death and he is not to be seen as an equal under any circumstances. Further, by the Wahhabist tent of al Taqiyya, it would be permissible for a fundamentalist Islamist, i.e. the Saudi royals, etc, to disregard any accords or treaties made with Obama. It would be permissible and, in fact, encouraged, to deceive the “infidel” in an effort to promote the well being of Islam and Muslims anywhere and everywhere.

That said, the words of the Wahhabists matter more than Barack Obama’s declaration of Christian faith.

To remain in the realm of religion, we need to address Barack Obama’s own words when it comes to his past, specifically his declaration that he was not influenced by his “brief” Islamic indoctrination.

Recently Jonah Goldberg wrote about a 2007 New York Times interview of Barack Obama with Nicholas Kristof, who documented,

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated…Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’”

For someone who wasn’t “influenced” by his “brief” stint in the Islamic faith, Mr. Obama certainly has command of a difficult language (words) and fond memories of a prayer that translated literally means,

“Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Hasten to the Prayer, hasten to the Prayer. Hasten to real success, hasten to real success. Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest. There is none worthy of worship but Allah.”

Of course, these are “just words,” like, “I have a dream…” and “…We hold these truths to be self evident…”

Another disturbing element to Barack Obama’s past is his loose association with William Ayers, a former member of the domestic terror group the Weather Underground. Ayers and his Weather Underground terrorists bombed the US Capitol building, The Pentagon and the US State Department building. The group literally declared war on the United States. In a September 11, 2001 New York Times interview (strange how these “words” always grace the pages of the New York Times) Ayers said of the bombings, 

“I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”

In 1995, Barack Obama, in the Chicago tradition of paying respect to political “Godfathers,” paid homage to Williams Ayers, doing so at Ayers’ residence on the commencement of  Obama’s political career. In essence, Barack Obama courted the political blessing of a self-avowed domestic terrorist who holds no regrets that he declared war on his own country; “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Of course, these are “just words,” just words like,

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Or…

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Or…

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Yes, words matter, Mr. Obama, they matter quite a bit…and so far your words – through your speech and your deeds – ring hollow of substance. They lead me to believe that you are dangerous for our nation.

Share on digg

Where some among the disingenuous Left will try to characterize this as a criticism of Barack Obama’s campaign, it is not. I have a complete and potent set of arguments against electing Barack Obama to the highest office in the land, among them: his lack of tangible experience leading anything, his lack of significant political achievement, his affection for Marxist ideology in the form of his emulation of Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis and his pilfered penchant for manipulating the more susceptible among the American people with his hollow rhetoric of Clintonian “change” and “hope.” That Obama is unqualified to be President of the United States is an understatement of the most dramatic kind, but this missive is not about Obama’s lack of qualifications.

No matter where we go in the United States it is hard to escape the insincere blathering of those who promote tolerance and diversity, the American Fifth Column. We see commercials that promote racial, cultural, religious and sexually oriented harmony but the fact is it is less practiced than we would be led to believe. To prove this point all one has to do is dress up like a Marine and walk down the streets of Berkeley. Or try to bring up a cogent point that takes issue with one of the more vulnerable points of Al Gore’s argument about global warming in Los Angeles. Or try to explain to the Columbia University faculty why those who hide behind the false label of the “religion of peace” should answer for their committed atrocities against not only women in their culture but against all those who do not submit to the will of Allah. Try employing any of these actions, and more, in the presence of the American Fifth Column and you will be branded a murderer, a truth denier, a bigot, a racist.

But getting back to the “race card” issue…

Where racial diversity and “colorblindness” is concerned there seems to be an inordinate amount of hypocrisy emanating from the black community. Now, don’t think for a second that you can get away with calling me a racist. That would be to expose a “knee-jerk reaction mentality,” prevalent among those in the American Fifth Column. Where the issues of race is concerned I am in step with the thinking of Ward Connerly, former University of California Regent, who believes that in order to erase the race issue from the American lexicon we must “erase race.” That everyone would understand the brilliance of that statement.

The truth of the matter is that the American Fifth Column race-baiters – socio-political charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (and panders like the Clintons) – demand that all other ethnic communities strive to become colorblind while they do very little to move their culture to the middle as well. This is not to say that there aren’t good people in the black community trying to motivate their brethren to quest for goodness and it isn’t a declaration that a people has to move away from their cultural origins to “fit in” to society. There are good people, concerned people, like Bill Cosby who gets heckled all the time for telling the truth about the societal short comings of the urban black culture. And it is a good thing to remember from whence you came, both the bad and the good. But at the end of the day we must move beyond the mental barriers of race so that we can stand together as Americans on the world stage because that’s the way the world sees us.

It is because I believe in “erasing race” and becoming cohesive as an American society – unique in the world – that this Democrat primary contest is proving to be quite disturbing indeed.

Data compiled by the New York Times through local and state election commissions – where available – about the racial breakdown of voters in Democrat primaries reveal a stunning preferential bias within the black community for Barack Obama:

California
Obama State Total: 42.5%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 81%

Connecticut
Obama State Total: 50.7%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 74%

Florida
Obama State Total: 33.0%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 73%

Georgia
Obama State Total: 66.4%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 89%

Illinois
Obama State Total: 64.6%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 94%

Iowa
Obama State Total: 37.6%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 72%

Maryland
Obama State Total: 59.7%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 84%

Massachusetts
Obama State Total: 40.8%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 66%

Missouri
Obama State Total: 49.2%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 76%

New Jersey
Obama State Total: 44.0%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 82%

New York
Obama State Total: 39.9%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 63%

South Carolina
Obama State Total: 55.4%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 78% 

Virginia
Obama State Total: 63.6%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 89%

National Averages
Obama State Total: 49.8%
Blacks Voting for Obama: 78.5%

This would be less alarming if Barack Obama was a man of deep intellect or if he was showcasing implementable solutions for the problems facing our country, but he isn’t. He is a man of little accomplishment peddling hollow rhetoric that panders to the vulnerable and he just so happens to be half black. In looking at the primary voting breakdown of the data available concerning race, it is undeniable that the black community is voting for Obama because he is black and for little else.

If the charlatan race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton want to expand their shelf-life with the American people they would be wise to counsel the black community to begin practicing the diversity and tolerance that they have been demanding of the rest of us. Further, if the true leaders in the black community want to prove that the days of racism and special interest are over – as Obama opines – then they would be wise to start scrutinizing Obama’s words instead of sitting silently on the racial divide as a blatant act of racism decides who leads the free world. Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the The New Media Journal Internet radio program broadcast globally on NetTalkWorld global talk radio. He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist.

Share on digg