TCUnation
social network for conservatives
Should Nancy Pelosi Resign?
Should Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi Resign?
Be sure to take Poll on the homepage and discuss here.
Be sure to take Poll on the homepage and discuss here.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa Lowe on -
Respectfully, DUH! It will never happen, she would have to be dragged out kicking and screaming. She has proven that her motives are not to serve her country.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy LeBlanc on
-
she should have NEVER been put in that position. She is nuts
-
Permalink Reply by scott miller on
-
Nancy Pelosi should be drummed right out of Congress! She is a disgrace to her office and a disgrace to the people she represents. It's amazes me how even when caught in a lie she continues to lie. Gees show a little self respect and JUST GO!!!!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Blackwell on
-
YES. Third in line to the presidency, and director of the CIA can't coexist with this conflict. (How demoralizing to the soldier overseas to know that there is a split at the highest level of the government of his country.)
-
Permalink Reply by Allan Ostashev on
-
With out doubt, she is the total opposite of any thing we stand for.I believe with all my heart she and Obama and the rest of that sick groupe are the for runners of the one world government and the [ANTICHRIST.]
Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
From: jose
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 08:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest.
What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly God? Money.
Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently
from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our
time."
- Karl Marx; essay, The Jewish Question; 1844
Not having a theology degree, nor even a Ph.D., and being, too, a bit
naïve regarding matters of high-brow philosophical currents throughout
the ages, I have to admit that when I first read Karl Marx' essay, The
Jewish Question, I was actually stunned by its contents.
First off, my rather cursory education in various philosophies and in
Marxism, particularly, did not prepare me for the bitter thrust of old
Karl's potent anti-Semitism. In fact, until reading this particular
essay, I would have never, in a million years, connected much of
anything whatsoever Marxian with Jew hate.
Who would?
After all, Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew. Hitler and many others
blamed the Jews for Communism, thanks to the number of Jews who played
prominent roles in the Russian Revolution. I naturally associated
twentieth century Anti-Semitism with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.
Ironically, if Karl Marx had still been alive and residing in Germany
or any of the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII, he would have
perished along with his brethren, despite his own "self-loathing-Jew"
status.
Marx envisioned a society "which would abolish the preconditions for
huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering," because
this classless society "would make the Jew impossible."
Personally, I find the opinion of some that Marx was a genius, to be
downright laughable. Regarding his opinions on the Jews, one is left
to ponderously consider which ones were dumb, and which were dumber.
Evidently Karl Marx was as utterly ignorant of the true tenets of
Judaism (Self-sufficiency does not equate to "huckstering.") as he was
of the diabolical possibilities inherent in his own words, once they
were in the hands of one Adolph Hitler.
This atrocious irony might be merely a historical oddity if old Karl's
words were not still bouncing around in the heads of those who wish to
lead new revolutions based upon them. But Marx' words still dominate
much of what happens on the world stage today, even in our own
republic.
The word emphasis has changed a bit. The industrial proletariat is no
longer the focus. But as a newly prominent American politician is wont
to remind us: words do matter.
Yes, of course, words matter, as many leaders of ambitious movements
have mightily declared.
...the power which has always started the greatest religious and
political avalanches in history rolling has from time to immemorial
been the magic of power of the spoken word, and that alone.
Particularly the broad masses of the people can be moved only by the
power of speech.
- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.
The Oppressed Vs. the Oppressors
Just words.
But where do they come from, and what do they mean in America today?
I might never have delved into the subject of the oppressed vs. the
oppressors if I had not gone to Chicago in January seeking answers
about a man who would be president.
When I visited Obama's church, still under the directorship of
Jeremiah Wright, I came away with far more questions than answers, and
one thing leading to another, have spent the last several months
trying to fathom how Marxist political philosophy wound up emblazoned
with a cross and a pulpit, and pretending to rely on the Bible for its
authority.
It is somewhat difficult to imagine a more contorted blasphemy, with
the single possible exception of Hitler himself claiming to be acting
by divine decree in the interests of Christianity. Which is precisely
what Hitler did do, while hoodwinking the German people into electing
him Chancellor.
Hitler sprinkled Mein Kampf with Christian language, most likely to
fit with the predominantly Christian German population, and appealed
to voters on the strength of his Christian "calling":
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting
for the work of the Lord.."
As most junior-high Sunday schoolers know, however, a Christian is
judged on actions, not words, and Hitler was no Christian. He was a
bamboozler of the lowest imaginable order.
Jeremiah Wright is the tiny tip of Obama's spiritual iceberg
The phenomenon that raised so many questions for me in January, when I
visited Trinity United Church of Christ, was not Jeremiah Wright's
sermon, which turned out to be just a call for all good congregants to
support Barack Obama for President. It wasn't the sermon that caught
me off guard; I was prepared for that. I had watched video of Wright,
giving five of his fiery sermons.
The thing that really got me to thinking, reading and searching for
answers was the church bookstore.
Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a
practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100
various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic. In all of
those places, one thing tied together the books for sale:
Christianity.
Not so in Obama's church bookstore.
I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many
claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian
thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific.
And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a
more political than religious nature. The books by James H. Cone,
Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.
Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's
congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only
conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not
Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of
Karl Marx.
"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles."
"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-
master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in
constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now
hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a
revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common
ruin of the contending classes." (emphasis mine)
- Marx and Engels; The Communist Manifesto; 1848
If Marxism can be summed up in only a couple of phrases, now familiar
to nearly every modern person, they would be "class struggle" and
"oppressed vs. oppressors."
James H. Cone, the unquestioned modern-day mentor of all the black
power preachers, claims to have created a new theology, uniting the
Muslim black power tenets of Malcolm X and the Christian foundations
of Martin Luther King, Jr.
All he has really done, in my opinion, is take original liberation
theology from Latin America, developed in the early 1960s by Catholic
priests, and painted it black.
Liberation Theology vs. Traditional Christianity
The teaching authorities of the Catholic Church, have for more than 20
years now, been attempting to stamp out these heretical liberation
theologies, denouncing them as vehemently antithetical to the Catholic
Christian faith, and have been strenuously combating this Marxist
counterfeit Christianity on many fronts within the Church herself.
Of course, the Medieval, iron-fisted clamp of the Catholic Church's
authority, even within the Church herself, is routinely overstated,
and there are renegade priests all over the place (more on another of
Obama's spiritual mentors, a liberation theology Catholic priest in
Chicago, in Part Two next week).
Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has no authority
whatsoever over those claiming to represent protestant interpretations
of the Christian faith, such as Cone and Wright.
But it is important to note here that liberation theology, including
black liberation theology, has not gone unnoticed by the learned
biblical scholars within the Vatican, and liberation theology has been
roundly denounced as both heretical and dangerous, not only to the
authentic Christian faith, but even more so to the societies which
come to embrace it.
Just one nugget from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of
Liberation':
"...it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond
which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept
elements of the marxist analysis without recognizing its connections
with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the
class-struggle and of its marxist interpretation while failing to see
the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads."
- (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict
XVI; written in 1984)
Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to
look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between
Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam." They are two
prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using
different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims.
As Cone himself writes in his 1997 preface to a new edition of his
1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power:
"As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of
my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious
perspectives. God's reality is not bound by one manifestation of the
divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered
to fight for freedom. Life-giving power for the poor and the
oppressed is the primary criterion that we must use to judge the
adequacy of our theology, not abstract concepts. As Malcolm X put
it: ‘I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I
have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my
people, I say to hell with that religion'." (p. xii; emphases mine)
And, to drive his Marxist emphasis even further, Cone again quotes
Malcolm X:
"The point that I would like to impress upon every Afro-American
leader is that there is no kind of action in this country ever going
to bear fruit unless that action is tied in with the overall
international (class) struggle." (p. xiii)
(Ironically, considering the formal Church teaching regarding
liberation theologies, this book of Cone's was published by Orbis,
owned and managed by The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America,
a Maryknoll religious entity. So much for the totalitarianism of the
Catholic Church.)
It is this subjugation of genuine Christianity to the supremacy of the
Marxist class struggle, which marks the true delineation between
traditional Christianity and black liberation theology, as Pope
Benedict XVI (writing in 1984 as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) sums up
thusly:
"For the marxist, the truth is a truth of class: there is no truth
but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class."
Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly
proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united
with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus,"
and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p.
111)
And Cone brings it all the way home with this proclamation of
liberation from traditional Christianity itself:
"The appearance of black theology means that the black community is
now ready to do something about he white Jesus, so that he cannot get
in the way of our revolution."
Move over Jesus and make way for Cone, Wright and Obama.
The revolution is at hand.
And presto-chango, once we've followed Marx, Cone, Wright and Obama
down the yellow brick road to revolution, Christianity as we've known
it for millennia ceases to exist.
Obama was raised by his mother, the agnostic anthropologist, to regard
religion as "an expression of human culture...not its wellspring, just
one of the many ways -- and not necessarily the best way -- that man
attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths
about our lives." (Audacity of Hope; p. 204)
However, when Barack Obama met Jeremiah Wright in the mid-eighties,
between his years at Columbia and Harvard Law, he found a "faith"
perfectly accommodating to his already well-formed worldview.
From The Audacity of Hope:
"In the history of these (African people's) struggles, I was able to
see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against
death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world." (p.
207)
As Obama explains further, it was Wright's (and presumably Cone's, as
required of new members at Trinity) peculiar form of Christianity that
Obama found palatable:
"It was because of these newfound understandings (at Trinity under
Wright) -- that religious commitment did not require me to suspend
critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social
justice...that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of
Trinity...and be baptized."
Wright's vision of Christianity was perfectly appetizing to Barack
Obama; he didn't need to change a thing.
Liberation Theology and the New Order of Things
James Cone devotes many words in all of his books to instructing his
disciples to beware of those resistant to the necessary change in the
power structure, warning that,
"those who would cast their lot with the victims must not forget that
the existing structures are powerful and complex...Oppressors want
people to think that change is impossible." (James H. Cone; Speaking
the Truth; p. 49)
Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) give an
equally stringent message to Catholics about liberation theology
regarding the perversion of the Christian understanding of the "poor":
"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the
preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of
their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies
of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of
the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx. In this way they pervert
the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for
the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological
perspective of the class struggle."
According to Pope Benedict's instruction on liberation theology, our
understanding of the virtues, faith, hope and charity are subjugated
to the new Marxist order:
Faith becomes "fidelity to history."
We are the ones we've been waiting for, to bring about the final
fruition of the class struggle.
Hope becomes "confidence in the future."
Yes, we can change the world; we don't need God. Our collective
redemption comes when we engage in the Marxist class struggle.
Charity becomes "option for the poor."
All are not created equal. Special political privilege for the
oppressed, socialism, will set us free.
It's the dawn of a new age.
-
Permalink Reply by Patricia G. Golas on
-
yes, I do think she should resign!
-
Permalink Reply by Donna Turner on -
YES
-
Permalink Reply by Jane P. Cisneros on
-
Dear Folks:
Absolutely Nancy P. (use your imagination here) should get the blazes our of our capital and every where else she could end up in our hair or our soup. She is nothing but trouble and she is a liar. liar with her pants on fire. Hates to be her! But it not good to be us with her down there in control. She needs to come down now. I vote we get her out before she does any more damage or lies to anyone else. Let's clean up Washingon D.C starting with her.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew R. Profaci on -
It may be more beneficial for us to keep her on as the democratic leader whose a phony. Should be more helpful with elections, at least we would have the option of swinging back to the right. No matter what the next Repub is going to be a conservative or else there will be no beating the Liberals if we dont subject their extremes measures to opposing views.
-
Permalink Reply by James Andrews on
-
Having almost wrecked my car the other day when a talk radio host referred to Nancy Pelosi as a "Skank", I tend to lean towards....."ABSOLUTELY!" I am a two time vet, having served in both the US Air Force and Army. How DARE SHE! Never...Never...place my brothers/sisters in the military in danger because of your stupidity! Resign is TOO kind for Nancy Pelosi. REMOVED is more appropriate! Maybe I'll get lucky and upon Nancy being removed...Then impeachment proceedings will begin for OBAMA! They are both like peas and carrots...They make me want to vomit!
-
Permalink Reply by richard haller on -
Yes, I demand her to resign now. I VOTE YES!
© 2013 Created by Earl B.
