Jerry McDaniel's blog

Cross-Posted at Illinois Conservative

If America is spared the devastating effects of a socialist administration presided over by Barack Obama we have the Trinity United Church of Christ to thank.  By now, unless you’ve been on an extended vacation off the planet, you have probably heard and seen the video clip of Father Pfleger’s Sunday morning sermon at Obama’s church often enough to have memorized the content.  

For those who may not be familiar with Father Pfleger, he is a long time social activist and Catholic Priest, and close friend of Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama.  He has been Pastor of Saint Sabina Church on Chicago’s south side since 1981.  The Archdiocese has attempted several times to transfer him to other parishes, as is the custom in the Catholic Church.  Each time, he has been able to organize protests by his parishioners resulting in the Cardinal setting aside Church policy and allowing him to stay on at St. Sabina.

In many ways his career has been more entwined with the career of Barack Obama than Jeremiah Wright’s has.  He worked closely with Obama when Obama was a community organizer in Chicago and they have maintained the relationship ever since.  Pfleger has contributed to Obama’s campaigns and Obama has directed “earmarks” to his church programs for years.  Between 1995 and 2001 Pfleger contributed a total of $1500 to Obama’s various campaigns.  In January 2001 Obama announced $225,000 in state grants to St. Sabina projects.

As a guest speaker at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday, Rev. Pfleger ridiculed Senator Hillary Clinton, accusing her of feeling entitled to the Presidency because she was “Bill’s” wife and because she was white.  In a performance reminiscence of a “Saturday Night Live” comedy skit, he mimicked Hillary’s tearful response to a supporter’s question at a campaign rally, saying, “"When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on, I really believe that she just always thought this is mine. I'm Bill's wife, I'm white and this is mine…”

In the aftermath of Pfleger’s sermon Obama supporters have been scrambling to moderate the effects on Obama’s campaign.  From accusations of “guilt by association” to drawing a moral equivalency to McCain’s support from Pastor Hagee, they are regurgitating all the excuses used to explain away Obama’s twenty years as a member of Jeremiah Wright’s church.  This episode, however, is more problematic for Obama than any of the others for a number of reasons.

Using a candidate’s religious views or the theological doctrines of a candidate’s church as fodder in a negative political campaign is a dangerous precedent.  So are “cherry-picking” statements from a pastor’s sermons when those statements are based on theology, whether or not they are politically correct by today’s community standards.  If the practice of demanding that a candidate disassociate himself from any pastor or church where politically incorrect language has ever been used in a sermon, it will eventually be impossible for anyone who regularly practices their religion to run for public office.

Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Buddhists or any other religious group have many doctrines that, when enunciated from the pulpit, could be considered offensive to those outside that religious belief.  Attempting to apply politically correct standards to religious thought is detrimental, not only to the religion involved but to society at large.  Furthermore, when you prevent someone from speaking their mind by political correctness, it is not only contradictory to the American principle of freedom of speech; it also prevents an accurate understanding of other peoples’ true character.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are perfect examples of this point.  Had they not been exercising their freedom of speech or if they had been careful to speak only in politically correct terms we would have no knowledge of their true beliefs.  Having said that let me point out that the sermons under consideration are not theological.  Instead, they are racist and political with little or no valid theological content, unlike those by Hagee and Falwell used as a moral equivalent by Obama supporters.  As unpleasant and ill advised as the statements by Hagee and Falwell may be, they are grounded in the theological doctrine of God’s sovereignty over the affairs of man and nature.  Those by Wright and Pfleger are grounded in racial hatred and a hatred for the American culture and social structure.

It is their right to believe whatever they choose and to share that belief with anyone who chooses to listen.  In fact, I am grateful they shared them with the world.  Now we know where we stand with them and can react accordingly.  In addition, their sermons give us an insight into the character of the man many would like to see as President of the United States.  You might ask, how can that be, since he was not even present and has denounced the offensive remarks by both Wright and Pfleger?

At this point the politically correct comment would be “I’m sure Obama does not agree with their views”.  This is the accepted caveat used by almost all commentators, columnist and talking heads in the media.  The truthful comment, at least for me, is “I’m sure he does agree with the worldviews expressed by these preachers“.

The worldview expressed in their sermons is the motivating factor that underlies the profession of community organizing of which Obama often boasts.   It is the belief that members of a community are victimized by unjust actions and oppression by those in power that forms the basis for community organizing efforts.  It is also compatible with the socialist’s worldview of what they believe to be the universal injustices in the capitalist system.

Furthermore, the enthusiastic reaction from the congregation to Pfleger’s sermon, so evident in the video, indicates this type of message is not unusual for this particular church but rather is the expected fare.  Obama’s twenty-year membership and his continued loyalty to the church should be proof positive to any unbiased observer that he is in agreement with its views.  It does not matter what he says or does at this point.  The opportunity to disassociate himself from Wright and the Church has passed long ago for anyone who is truly concerned.

These latest revelations may affect Obama’s chances in the general election but they are not likely to prevent him from becoming the Democratic nominee.  I heard someone today opine that the Democratic Party’s rules committee meeting this weekend would probably switch their support from Obama to Clinton in response to the growing controversy.  That is not likely.  The socialist dominated base and leadership of the Democratic Party has invested too much time and money in the Obama candidacy to change course now.

This is just the type of bombshell Hillary has been waiting for and it could supply her with the incentive to keep her candidacy alive until the convention.  Whether it will do any good or not remains to be seen.  Obama has been groomed and promoted by the leadership of the socialist movement for most of his adult life for just this moment, and they are not likely to pass up the opportunity to usher in a socialist era in America with his election.

If after the Denver convention Obama is still their candidate we will know for sure the Democratic Party is really the Democratic Socialist Party.  If he is elected President in November, we will know the American people are ready for a democratic socialist government.  If he is rejected by the voters we should all be thankful to Unity Church, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger for waking up the American people.  

According to the British press, a committee of Parliament is recommending that all British subjects be issued carbon credit cards which they would need to present when buying gasoline, paying for their electricity or purchasing items that produce greenhouse gases.  Canada is considering placing a carbon tax on activities that produce CO2.  Commodities brokers like the Chicago Carbon Exchange are gearing up for a booming business in the trading of carbon credits.

It does not require a crystal ball or a genius level I.Q. to see the future that awaits America in a few short years if the conservative movement fails to turn back the tide.  The chances of that happening are growing less every day.  Millions of Americans and thousands of reputable scientists understand that the claim of anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than a colossal international hoax.  In spite of this, the environmentalist movement is continuing to win the debate at every turn.  

There are a number of reasons for this.  First, conservative opinion makers have conceded the basic premise of man-made global warming and are concentrating on mitigating the damage caused by the proposed schemes for curbing CO2 emissions.  Second, politicians view the widespread acceptance of climate change as an opportunity to expand and consolidate their power base.  Third, major corporations are seizing on the phenomenon of the world wide epidemic of “enviromania” as an opportunity to increase profits by catering to those infected, and from emerging markets in “green“ technology.

The next three years promise to be the most critical in our nation’s history.  The great experiment in democracy launched in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention is on the verge of following the Russian experiment in communism into oblivion.  The nation will survive, the government will survive, but America as a land of liberty will not.  The good news is that the majority of the American people will not feel the loss of liberty as much as former generations would have.

Like the proverbial bullfrog in a pan of water, most of the present generation has been gradually habituated to the loss of liberty through the gradual encroachment of government on their daily lives since the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt.  The biggest problem facing America today is the failure of the public to understand the nature, strength and agenda of their domestic enemies.  

The coalition between the environmentalist, the socialist movement and the leadership of the Democratic Party that has formed over the past decade has become a fifth column in America working to impose the international agenda of socialism on the United States.  Should they gain the victories they expect in the 2008 elections some of the things we can look forward to are, open borders, increased taxes, rationed energy---either outright or through taxation, increased prices due to carbon taxes added to products we buy, and an inferior quality of nationalized health care.

The conservative movement is without the leadership necessary to counter the threat which leaves the rank and file conservatives dependent on what they can do on their own.  The danger of backing John McCain in the coming election is that his supporters will spin his possible victory as vindication of his agenda and campaign strategy, marginalizing the influence of the conservative base of the Republican Party.  

If he wins the election, among the first initiatives he will propose will be a cap-and-trade system for controlling CO2 emissions and “comprehensive” immigration reform.  His $5,000 per family health insurance tax credit is little better than Obama or Hillary’s socialized healthcare schemes, so far as bringing down the costs of health care is concerned.  It will be even more difficult to successfully oppose these threats from McCain than if offered by a Democratic President because Republicans in Congress will feel some compulsion to support the policies of their new President.  

One course I am considering, but not recommending---at least not yet--- is to vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote while supporting conservatives running in local elections.  This strategy would probably assure the election of Obama, but would put the Republicans in Congress on notice that their future depends on conservative support.  Perhaps it would encourage those left in Congress to develop the backbone needed to stall the socialist policies proposed by Obama for two years while the conservative movement regrouped.

For those of us who are concerned about international terrorism and looking for the security offered by McCain as President, perhaps we need to admit the threat from the enemy within is more immediate than the enemy without.

The incompetence of Obama and the negative potential of his policies will become evident, even to the most distracted voter, during his first couple of years in office.  Hopefully such an eventuality would have the effect of Clinton’s first two years in office resulting in the conservative takeover of Congress in 1994.  I would be interested in seeing readers’ comments on the subject.