Recently in They Who Malign Christ

Category

After watching the four-minute-plus interview with Michelle Obama on ABC's "Good Morning America," I counted no more than approximately five/seven full eye-blinks and a number of partial blinks (half-lowered fluttering eyelids but not full blinks) by Michelle Obama; the woman is anything but mesmerizing and to the contrary, continues to present a frightening presence.

I also watched this afternoon's Bill O'Reilly broadcast with special attention to the "Body Language" segment (one of my favorites); the professional opinion from the "body language expert" is non-judgemental about the absence of blinking, but O'Reilly mirrors my concerns as to what the absence of blinking by Michelle Obama "means" otherwise -- I think the body language expert got this wrong because Michelle Obama's non-blinking, steely persistent and wide-eyed-open staring is utterly abnormal. What abnormality it represents, that's the issue.

In my view, it represents extreme dominance and what I mean by that, is that it's not credible dominance (as in, leadership) but aggression attempting to be dominant (as in, not leadership; perhaps, even, threating). It's a very big red flag as to who this person actually is -- and also reason to consider the possibility that Michelle Obama's displaying some abnormal physical behaviors due to drug side-effects; in the case of wide-open non-blinking eyes, that's indicative of an amphetamine or hyper-active-inducing drug of some sort.

For balance, there's this segment from Greta Van Susteren (Susteren interviews the editor of MARIE CLARE magazine about their interview with Barack Obama - "the wife" is emphasized in both).

I searched the news otherwise from this past week and spliced-in between the media hounding the Obama's so-called-vacation-while-raising-funds-in-Hawaii with panting questions -- about, oh, the second hand on their watches -- I find a number of links to Barack Obama's complaints about FOX News, as he alleges, as being responsible for creating a bad rap about his wife, MIchelle. Obama gets more publicity by talking about himself, when he isn't talking about his wife and blaming anyone else for not talking about both of them enough or well enough or at all -- for that, there are always the gossip blogs among the Left, who can be counted on to promote themselves and the Obamas (and Oprah, et al.) while hatin'-on the Right.

He opines:

"I think that if you've been watching Fox News then probably she's been misunderstood because I do think there's been a fairly systematic attempt by the conservative press to paint her in a completely false way. Michelle is very comfortable in her own skin and I like that skin, of course. So I don't want her changing and I don't think she's looking to change. Michelle's not somebody who wants to be deeply involved in policy development."

(Violins here.)

I agree with Karl Rove from his comments on FOX (August 11, 2008), and that is, that, there is meaning (validity, cause) in criticising Michelle Obama -- and I dismiss the Left's attempts to duck down a rabbit hole about Michelle Obama from whence they yell about Conservatives "attacking Michelle."

To the contrary, it'd be an act of "self-attack" by this nation not to critically evaluate Michelle Obama (even if she was as moderate and modest as imaginable but in her specific case, she's not only demonstratively politically Left but has also devoted a great deal of her life to that pursuit.) Michelle Obama's history literally disproves Obama's allegation that she "does not want to be...involved in policy development." And that statement by Obama (above quoted in-full) is yet another one of those wiggle-waggle expressions from Obama wherein he can certainly have it mean anything he may want it to ("deeply involved in policy" and thus, almost certainly, be "involved in policy development", the ever-splitable Obama-terms-to-infinity).

Michelle Obama deserves the bad reputation she has made for herself based upon herself. I can't say anything decent about her character other than she's raising children and is a mother and is married. Beyond that, she's a bad person in my view, based upon who she is. In her own words, in other words, she's condemnable in reference to the White House.

So this is no aimless person in Michelle Obama, and it is misleading for her to be lauded by the Left, so the Left defends her, as being an "outspoken woman" -- it's wrong to extend her special privilege to offend if not threaten, based upon her gender and to attempt to bury or suppress the specifics about who this person (though female) is: a socio-politically-radical, specifically antagonistic socio-politically motivated person in conflict with a great deal of what our nation is about.

The only enthusiastic comments I've yet to read about Michelle Obama are from associated media and from her husband (understandable, but, he's identifiable by his associations and he should be man enough to understand that, that he'll be evaluated by his relationships, including as to his activist wife) and from other persons who share in Michelle Obama's beliefs -- who are involved in Black racial supremacy movements or hold those beliefs.

In other words, she's being promoted by Black racial supremacists (among all races, people who seem to think that because she's Black, because her husband is Black, that that somehow bestows upon her/them some special advantage -- to support and enjoy her/them because they're Black; while I see no reason to reject them because she/they are Black, there is also no reason to woo either for that reason, that reason alone, unless one is racially motivated).

But the "zombie-staredown" Michelle Obama just enacted on ABC today is more than enough to concern me. Call it instinct.

This article is exeptionally ghastly:

"Obama More Alpha Than McCain." The writer of this piece must really, really believe that TRANSFORMERS was a true story -- she obviously is far too easy to please with any tidbit of information about anyone with two legs, two ears and, well, that's about it, she's pleased.

"Alphas" don't hangout on the beach and smoke dope, including crack-cocaine (but Obama has), are not lost for anything meaningful if not cogent to say without prepared speeches (but Obama is), do not limit visits with troops on "international jaunts" to grabbing "a few of them" to play basketball with so he can have some neat photos taken (but Obama has - the list of depressing character failures by Obama is extensive here but the Left is impervious to them). It's horrible to think that, to the Left, Barack is "alpha." Leaves me wondering just how they have come to so confuse so many terms to such extrents ("up" is "down," "down" is "up," "alpha" is a dog food, etc.). And, anyway, aren't (actual) alpha males those men the Left so hates and ridicules? You know, the ones who win the wars (and fight them), shoot guns, don't like shopping, guard the remote, like to plot and plan and compete and...

So, overall, the media continues to fawn and mist over these two people, Barack and the wife; perhaps this will provide more incentive to people to run in the opposite direction -- at least, to smart people.

Here are some very interesting "screen shots that Obama doesn't want you to see."

Michelle Obama supports partial birth abortion

Michelle Obama's senior thesis says her primary commitment is to the Black community, not to all Americans. (This is consistent with Barack Obama's Black Nationalism as described in "Dreams From My Father");

and...

Michelle Obama's Partial-Birth Abortion Fundraising Letter

What a difference two weeks make. It's encouraging to find that this week, there are people other than myself who are displeased, if not horrified, at the media onslaught-for-Obama, the excessive hyperbole on the internet by onslaughters-for-Obama, and, as to the most concerning, the politics being attempted by both those in coordination with their dim-messianic idol, Barack Obama.

I wonder which came first, the gullible and easily misled or the maladjusted, badly intended who mislead them. But does it really mattter to know the answer to that, except in some archaeological, sociological question after-the-fact.

The German people from an after-the-fact perspective were willing and certainly gullible in their respective present-day, if many of them could be believed when later questioned (and questioned, and questioned) as to how it was they enabled what they did in the 1930's and 1940's, and yet no one appears to have seen any farther down-the-line of developments as bad things occured, as to what could, would and did develope, what the dominoes were as they were put in place and then fell in wretched assault before being scattered.

What concerns me about the "Obama Messianic" fervor occuring today is that it is eerily similar to what history tells us occured in Germany in those bad days, that resulted in a politcal party ("National Socialists" - which, in acronym reference, translates to "Nazis") and a Socialist figure associated with that politic, also back then, rising to cult status, to cult "leadership" of the politic. And encouraged in being such because there were just enough people then who were eager for something that should never, ever occur: a human figure supported in some other-wordly proportions and then run amok.

Which is what those other-wordly proportions in the socio-political tense result in, when there are not enough other people to demand the first bunch come back to earth and get realistic, or, in extremes, to expose and overcome the conditions that mislead many to such conclusions that they'd pursue this type of fervor and lose reason themselves. Try to explain how it was that Castro did what he did and remains in place in Cuba even today, try to explain why it was that Adolf HItler did what he did in Germany and remained in place as he did long enough to do what he did there, or Stalin, or other Socialist dictators (cult figures, all) and the explanations reveal gradual changes in-time with just enough fervor that was not challenged by just enough reason, culminating in the bad ends that the first bunch rationalized abandoning means to accomplish.

And what about these cult figures? They appear throughout history to come along only after first-hand experiences of regret replacing bravado by those who experienced the worst have died out. Obama as messianic figure, followers as the cultish, fervor-struck entranced, the politics pursued as "collective" based upon "taking away" from others to redistribute the undefined illusion to the followers -- Socialism run amok, the extreme kind that degenerates into dictators and deprivations of individual conditions, penalizing even so much as minor variations from the collective or cult themes -- are conditions that attempt to replicate the same conditions that existed in Germany in the 1930's. The conditions are only possible today because to few individuals are informed and/or aware of what conditions actually existed in times past.

And so the fervor regenerates and decidedly among the very same mindset as in times past: people demanding government as "parent" or provider, figure of government, so-called, as "savior" or so unique as individual as to represent some bogus-divinity. And what you get is fervor that is unreasonable, as the "hope"s are also irrational.

I'm concerned a great deal about the media, that there are too few people among most media today who can see beyond their desks and look at what's actually taking place, and instead, who supplant reality with these irrational demands for a kind of hypnotic illusion.

The other political opponents of the United States of America as republic are all lined-up in advocacy of Barack Obama (Hugo Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, to name a few), and I wonder if it's because Obama is perceived as peer or easy mark. Either perception spells disaster for the world and for our nation.

For the interested, here is a realistic, informative article by Ralph Rieland and the Mises Institute, written in 1998 when "market conditions" and other socio-political alarms were already being sounded (emphasis added):

In 1944, Ludwig von Mises published one of his least-known masterworks: Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Drawing on his prewar experience in Vienna, watching the rise of the national socialists in Germany (the Nazis), who would eventually take over his own homeland, he set out to draw parallels between the Russian and German experience with socialism.

It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."

The difference between the systems, wrote Mises, is that the German pattern "maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets." But in fact the government directs production decisions, curbs entrepreneurship and the labor market, and determines wages and interest rates by central authority. "Market exchange," says Mises, "is only a sham."

Mises's account is confirmed by a remarkable book that appeared in 1939, published by Vanguard Press in New York City (and unfortunately out of print today). It is The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism by Guenter Reimann, then a 35-year old German writer. Through contacts with German business owners, Reimann documented how the "monster machine" of the Nazis crushed the autonomy of the private sector through onerous regulations, harsh inspections, and the threat of confiscatory fines for petty offenses.

"Industrialists were visited by state auditors who had strict orders to examine the balance sheets and all bookkeeping entries of the company or individual businessman for the preceding two, three or more years until some error or false entry was found," explains Reimann. "The slightest formal mistake was punished with tremendous penalties. A fine of millions of marks was imposed for a single bookkeeping error."

Reimann quotes from a businessman's letter: "You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except 'distributing the wealth.' Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.

Read the whole thing...

Related:

BARACK OBAMA'S STEALTH SOCIALISM

OBAMA'S SOCIALISM (reveals relationships and connections with National Socialists)
-- Part One
-- Part Two
-- Part Three

...lends an informed perspective to just what "community organizing" actually means...

This news from the U.K. is prime example of why Socialism doesn't "work". To follow, "Abu Qatada," a face not even a mother could love, released in the U.K. from prison, will be relegated to a few restrictions such as no internet, no contact with Bin Laden (d'oh), no visitors except family, doctor and lawyer (not like that has infringed on terrorists before), among a few other minor inconveniences like being required to wear a security cuff and maintaining "a 22-hour curfew" (but then there's those other two hours a day, unaccounted for):

"Terrorise the non-believers, orders 'Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe' after he is freed on bail."

And I quote:

Suspected Al Qaeda leader Abu Qatada is celebrating his release from prison with the release of a book in which he urges Muslims to commit terrorist attacks in the West. In the 71-page tract, published in English translation on the internet, he repeatedly claims that fighting jihad, holy war, is obligatory for all Muslims and urges them to 'terrorise' non-believers.

And again, I quote:

Referring to supporters of democracy, Qatada proclaims in his book that 'rising up against them with weapons and with force is an individual obligation upon every Muslim'.

He says Muslims should ' prepare to terrorise the enemies of Allah and incite believers to fight'.

Twenty-stone Qatada arrived in Britain 14 years ago on a forged passport, and was granted asylum the following year.

And again I quote, having saved the worst news for last:

A VERY EXPENSIVE GUEST

* Since Qatada claimed asylum in 1993, he and his family have already cost the taxpayer well over £1million and the bill will now rise dramatically.

* Legal aid for his initial battle to remain came to about £20,000.

* Between 1993 and 2002, he and his expanding family are said to have received £1,000 a month in state handouts. Total £108,000.

* Since he was locked up six years ago, the Muslim cleric's wife and five children have continued to receive an estimated £800 a month. Total £60,000.

* The cost of keeping him behind bars for the last six years is estimated at £300,000, while his marathon legal quest to avoid extradition to Jordan is thought to have cost another £500,000 since

* Out of prison, he will have to observe a 22-hour curfew, wear a tag, and live in a MI5 safehouse. At great expense to the taxpayer, he will also be under round-the-clock surveillance by police and the security services.

Total cost of all this is estimated at between £300,000 and £500,000 per year.

And this cleric really hates the generous U.K. and advocates Muslims "commit terrorist attacks" upon "the West" ("nonbelievers: [anyone not a Muslim]).

I wonder why: he -- and all family members -- were not immediately deported to a land far, far away, or, the nutty guy was not kept permanently in a dungeon while his family members were immediately deported to a land far, far away, or, the guy was just taken out for a long walk one day and left to explore Beachy Head from the edges, or, perhaps sent floating in the North Atlantic on a used plank that he could consider conquered and under rule all of his own (as in, no one's coming after him to seize it and he can just float, float away and rule the plank as long as he is able).

I'm not being flippant -- I really do wonder in cases such as this how it is we are to tolerate and also luxuriate upon those who advocate very bad things be done to us and our Western civilization. This is a classic case of why amnesty for illegal aliens and all who seek asylum (some, fine, my point is that not all who do are the stuff from whence good citizens are made) does.not.work ("work" in any sensible, productive sense, to benefit or compliment the targeted nation).

This guy, though, reminds me, unfortunately, of the Obama campaigners and how they behave on the internet toward everyone else. I think there's more than meets many eyes as to this association, by the way. I realize I just changed the subject, but, not really.

From the TimesOnline, U.K., this tenderly misleadingly-worded article:

"Barack Obama sets up internet 'war room' to fight slurs - Internet 'war room' will rebuff false rumours"

This quote (emphasis added for purposes of discussion, here):

...The "war room" comes as the Obama campaign prepares a series of biographical speeches, television advertisements and campaign appearances to tell his life story, an attempt to make voters more familiar with him. Despite his long nomination fight against Mrs Clinton, his campaign aides concede that millions of Americans still feel that they do not really know him.

Mr Obama's Kenyan father, who left the family when he was 2, was a Muslim, but not particularly religious. The Illinois senator lived in Indonesia from the age of 6 until 10 with his white, American mother and Indonesian stepfather, who was a Muslim.

Mr Obama has never been a Muslim, or worshipped at a mosque. He moved from being agnostic to finding Christ in his 20s, with the help of his former Chicago pastor: the Rev Jeremiah Wright, a figure whose incendiary sermons now haunt his candidacy and has increased suspicions among some voters about his patriotism.

A poll in mid-March found that 13 per cent of Americans think that Mr Obama is a Muslim -- a 5 per cent increase since December 2007. Another found that 23 per cent of Democrats who hold negative views of him believe that he is a Muslim. The same survey showed that 61 per cent of voters view him as patriotic, compared with 76 per cent for Mrs Clinton and 90 per cent for Mr McCain.

Barack Obama attended a Muslim school in his youth. By sheer fact that his father -- whether enthusiasitcally Muslim or not, still Muslim -- was Muslim, renders his son, also, a Muslim in the perspective of Islam.

The operative, significant aspect here -- Obama wants the Presidency of the U.S.A., he either knows these primary points or he's lying about being impervious to them (and in that, by calling others who raise these points, liars) -- is that he is a Muslim in the fullest sense of the theology of Islam. Thus, he's Muslim to a great many people on the globe and it's not complicated to understand how that conclusion is made.

Moreover, Barack Obama's intentional selection of Jeremiah Wright to "learn" "Christianity" from is telling because what he's been indoctrinated with is a false message that does it's most concerted to defame Christ, Christianity and Judeo-Christian theology. If Barack was "agnostic" (so he's said to claim in this article) "before" he exposed himself for twenty-plus years to Wright's antithesis messaging, he certainly remains unredeemed if not continually blasphemous in claiming he's "Christian," as Wright does, also.

It's not the greater humanity who is "lying" about Barack Obama and his beliefs (and probable intents as also motivations, based upon, if anything at all, his proven associations and their identified intents, motivations and beliefs, most of which are contrary to Christianity, Judeo-Christian theology and the United States as a place of "free men" functioning in a democracy), it's not the observations of Obama that are somehow false or "unfair," it's not individuals who question what Obama is actually about -- beyond the hype and showmanship -- but what Obama is actually about that is the issue.

That he needs to silence individual opinion (nationwide or globally, because the internet on which he's seeking to suppress opinion carries global opinion, is not limited to opinion by and from only U.S. residents, much less citizens and voters), calls into question what Obama is about, and grants greater credibility to those who have raissed these issues about him: who is he, what are his (actual) beliefs, what theology influences him, what are this man's political intents, what are his morals, his beliefs, who is the guy?

We can easily, readily view stage presentations and affable, mostly celebrity, performances from and by Obama. That tells us little other than he's a somewhat talented performer with a booming enough voice that many people stop and listen to what he's saying. The same was said about Adolf Hitler. But, many people today realize, as they did about Adolf, that Barack isn't saying much they can support but he sure does speak well: the best, then, so far, that can be said about Barack Obama is that he's a talented performer, and most of us by now know what Adolf's grand performances amounted to.

Based upon what I've read and heard on the internet and in media from those enthusiastic about Barack Obama, they find him appealing not because they are Christians or believe in Judeo-Christian theology, but, rather, they deem Obama appealing because he does not challenge anyone from a Judeo-Christian theological perspective, that he avoids doing so. That same personna renders many people "popular" in a celebrity sense, but it does prove, if anything, that they are messaging an antithesis. Antithesis is appealing to some, but it does not represent Christianity and a Christian, and I refer to a Christian because that's the pretense Obama attempts to apply to himself, yet is in the opposing process of the antithesis of that.

Same can be readily said about Jeremiah Wright, the misguided, lost "Rev. Pfleger" -- both of whom represent as "good works" while defaming the body of Christ, just as candy offered to the vulnerable is the vehicle of leading them astray -- and several other if not all the "advisors" Obama claims he has, what his influences, past and present actually are. They're political influences and associations, they're not "Christian" or those of Christianity.

Whatever Obama's "religion" is, I'd say it's somewhere around persistent Agnostic and untrustworthy betrayer of terms. That he's now having to scope the internet to attempt to suppress opinions is an indication that he's not functioning with faith, hope and good intentions for the hopes and wishes of the "free man."

Perhaps what Obama is actually busy about is establishing the Global Church of Creepy.

Related:

HamNation: Obama On Your Shoulder

"Can a Catholic Be for Obama?"

Pope Benedict XVI, in a speech to European politicians in 2006, offered some instruction for the Catholic conscience: "As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages... recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children."

Christian theology as it is identified by the Catholic Church advises against voting Catholics to support pro-abortion candidates and more, and, the Democratic Party is an active proponent by party platform alone of abortion on demand -- including Obama and his dubious religious views, influences and associations but not limited to Obama, but extending and applying to all Democrats, by sheer party association (party association represents "membership" in that party platform -- shared, accepted positions). Persons presenting as "Catholic" and yet involved in advocating for very primary principles that defy Christian theology as it is identified by the Catholic Church are the misleaders if not liars among our humanity.

Today, some of these can be seen in all walks of life and associated with just about all denominations who use the Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologies (and, several others) for and as socio-political tools, yet who defame if not utterly denigrate the theologies they assume to associate with.

Obama's not going to silence opinions nor beliefs, regardless of how feverishly and elaborately he and his usefully misled work to try to do so.

More:

Obama's Lies

More Obama Lies the Media Will Ignore

Obama's Documented Lies: 50 and remarkably still growing

Obama IIII - 58 Lies

Obama Lies

Kerry Lies, Helps Obama Flip-Flop

Video: Kerry lies about Obama's willingness to meet personally with Iran

On the Second Amendment, DON'T BELIEVE OBAMA

YouTube Search Results: "Obama Lies"

Barack Obama's speech yesterday and repeated remarks today do little to nothing to expel the Wright infection. It's great that Obama's maneuvered toward a correction about Wright's influence in his life -- even so little as appearing to hop away, however modestly -- but the reality of the Jeremiah Wright-Barack Obama "relationship" is that it's set in stone. Obama can say anything he may want to now, but the reality is that he's suffering from a bad infection he should have taken steps to avoid contracting many years ago -- but many years ago, the infection was useful to Obama.

Today, however, damages are done, Obama's suffering the negative consequences of something similarly real to biological fact: even if you try to pretend some infections don't exist, they can still ruin you and in some cases, as this, they do not pose a good outcome, whether you admit their existence or not.

Excerpt from Obama's Speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008:

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 - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Nothing new has been introduced by Wright, from Wright, about Wright from that date forward. Wright's televised ugliness from yesterday does not capture anything "new" or amending as to what his beliefs and offensive opinions are, that have not already been abundantly captured on film and in-the-real on tape and on stage for the past several decades.

Obama participated in Wright's social and political environment for several decades, he's gone so far as to have (what appears to be extensive) private confabs with Wright, there's just no way Obama can even begin to be believable that he had no idea as to the extent of Wright's disturbed mind. Until yesterday. What it appears to be is Obama admitting he's only yesterday recognized Wright's level of disturbance, which still reflects badly on Obama, that degree of lack of awareness.

So Obama only yesterday declaring his rejection of Wright and his beliefs is hollow. It's Obama self-saving and being insincere, or, it's Obama being so slow to realize reality that it's a very bad statement about his level of competentcy. What I think it was was Obama being self-saving, the act of a man doing whatever he could do to attempt to bargain his way out of corner, a sick corner, trying to avoid a quarantine.

Another one of Jeremiah Wright's offensive, outrageously cheap and flat-out wrong rant points is confronted by Glenn Beck in his latest column, OBAMA'S PROBLEM:

Glenn: Here's one thing about Reverend Wright that I don't really understand. I don't understand how he feels honestly about God, because I want you to listen to this last part of this answer about Lewis Farrakhan.

(Audio played.)

Glenn: Is he your friend?

(Audio played.)

Glenn: That's the question I want to know. Here's the question: He didn't put me in slaves. He didn't put new chains. Who did? Who did you, sir. You. Who put you in chains? It's my contention that you put you in chains because there are no literal chains that are hanging around you now. The chains are created by you and that's a mighty nice multimillion dollar chain that you have there that you call a house. So, you are putting you in chains and then he says, He didn't create me this color. Who created you this color? Is this a problem with God? Do you have a problem with God creating you that color, quote, unquote?

Here's another quote. He said, God set me free to forgive stupidity. He set me free to praise God in spite of an oppressive government. Your government has been oppressing folks since we stole this country from the Comanche, but I'm going to praise him in spite of the government. Our government has been oppressing folks since it defined the African‑American man as three fifths a person, but I'm going to praise him in spite of our government.

Okay. You're going to praise him in spite of. So, I don't understand that relationship, but here's something else. And I wanted to make sure I was absolutely right and I called professor after professor after professor yesterday to make sure that I was right on this. The three fifths of a person drives me crazy because it shows people's ignorance of history. It's related to Article 1 of the Constitution. Representatives and direct portions shall be apportioned among several states which may be included in this unit according to their respective numbers which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound as service for a number of years and excluding Indians not taxed three fifths of all other persons.

Now, he says, Reverend Wright keeps saying that you have to consider the context of everything. They're taking me out of context. They're only using a sound bite, kind of like you quoting the founding fathers by same I'm only three fifths a person. Well, let's just look at this in context. This was pro ‑‑ this was pro abolition. It was the proslavery faction that wanted to give the slaves the full human status. Why? Why? Because they wanted more representation in Congress. It would have maximized the congressional representation of the southern states. It was the abolitionists who wanted to completely do away with slavery, that didn't want black individuals to count at all. They said, Let's not let them count at all because then their population in the south will be very small and we'll have a chance to overturn it in Congress. It had nothing to do with rejecting someone's humanity, but to preserve and strengthen the anti‑slavery majority in Congress. It was not a ‑‑ proslavery southerner but an anti‑slavery northerner. His name was James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Why does Pennsylvania play such an important role? Oh, I remember, because Ben Franklin was one of the first big abolitionists. It was James Wilson that proposed the three fifths compromise.

Now, why, why would you do this, Jeremiah Wright? Why would somebody who is anti‑slavery propose this? It kept the southern slavery views in check. It reduced their political power by limiting their representation in the House of Representatives. That's why it happened. Frederick Douglas, quote, it gives representatives to the south for three fifths of its slaves but what does that amount to? It's a down right disability laid upon the slave holding states, one which deprives those states of two fifths of their natural bias of representation. Instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of two fifths of political power to free over slave states, end quote. Frederick Douglas.

I am so sick and tired of people distorting our history for their own political gain. I am so sick and tired of people teaching my daughters, your family lies about our founding fathers and lies about our country. We are a good country. We are a decent people. Our founding fathers were God inspired and they did not hate others, period.

I'm closing this post today with these final remarks:

There is no "Black Church," as Wright harps on about every other second or so, alleging criticism of Wright is criticism of "the Black Church" -- there is a Christian Church, the Body of Christ but what Wright is involved in is deception about just who it is he's serving, though I admit that he's probably convinced he's not human but megalomaniacal as a figurehead of that which he's serving.

I think Jeremiah Wright's overall message to the world can be summarized best as: "I'm a deceiver."

And I think Obama's been deceived and has a distance yet to go to be able to confess to what degree he's allowed himself to be taken.