War of Ideas against Islam Chapter # 14 Obama, the Chicago years
The story of Obama is epitomized by the years he lived in Chicago. His first view of the Windy City was in 1982; from 1985 until 1988 when he became a director for a neighborhood development project under the auspices of the Catholic Church. Also in 1988 be became a Summer intern in a law office where he started dating Michelle. But things were not this simple. A new 2107 biography of Obama spells out the details. This is in reference to David Garrow's nearly 1500 page opus, _Rising Star: The Making _ (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062641832/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&t ag=worldnetdaily-20&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=006264 1832&linkId=a65ddb922e4de24dfc3db0447bb935de) of Barack Obama. About which not very much is all that relevant to anything except for Obama worshippers, but there are a number of discoveries that are noteworthy such as information about a torrid affair that Barack had with Sheila Jager, a University of Chicago anthropology grad student, something which endured into the time when Barack and Michelle were romantically involved -hence no wonder that this information was suppressed until now. Especially since Miss Jager (pronounced "Yaeger") wasn't even mentioned in Dreams from My Father except by way of a few attributes conflated with those of two other young ladies presented as one woman, and only mentioned in passing. Jack Cashill has written several reviews of different parts of the book and his comments are as definitive as things get; he uncovers a number of basically damning facts that may now finally drag Obama's reputation through the mud which he so richly deserves: Despite the fact that Garrow, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a 'card-carrying Leftist who started out as a devoted Obama true believer. Yet Garrow, like other people on the Left, became disillusioned and his book lets it all hang out. And allows Garrow to indulge his new passion for Bernie Sanders, free of all guilt. For example, to use a quote from the book as supplied by Cashill, “Dreams from My Father was not a memoir or an autobiography; it was instead, in multitudinous ways, without any question a work of historical fiction.” That is, and as Cashill demonstrated years ago in gory detail, Dreams is loaded with false facts, is unashamedly self-serving, and basically misrepresents many of the people who appear in its pages. And to speak of ingratitude, Dreams includes lengthy passages based on letters he wrote to Sheila Jager that she supplied to him while he was compiling the notes that were later turned over to Bill Ayers, when Ayers actually wrote the final manuscript for the book. Alas for Miss Jager, there wasn't even a thank you for services rendered. And no wonder that Jager, who kept mum from 2008 past 2012, finally decided to spill the beans to Garrow. Obama is quite a piece of work, he basically is a dirty sonovabitch. About Ayers, Cashill has researched the story in considerable depth and there really is little doubt that most of Dreams was hammered into shape by him even though Obama did more writing than once seemed to be the case, as a guess maybe 25%. That even this much is now plausible is also due to Garrow's investigations, someone who unearthed the story of an incomplete book manuscript that Barack worked on with his buddy Robert Fisher, an economist and classmate in Law School. Still, this changes nothing as far as published material is concerned, of which, until full books began to appear, there is precisely zero. Possibly Fisher contributed some text to Dreams, Garrow thinks so. But the evidence is strongly suggestive that most of the final form of the book was Ayers' work, which, as Cashill has observed, closely paraphrases passages from his published writings and -this is conceded- Ayers is fairly competent as a writer and even has somewhat of a sense of style. Hence just about all of the praise heaped on Dreams From My Father by the literati simply shows that the elite scribbling class is just as uncritical as, say, a class of freshmen students in English 101. That is, it you are a writer and you are black, you are golden. Which is not said with any glee, quite the opposite. Because it is doubly unfortunate for African American writers with actual talent, who must compete for recognition with mediocrities. But this seems to be the sober truth. Cashill's most recent study of Ayer's is his May 18, 2017 article from American Thinker, "So When Exactly Did Bill Ayers and Barack Obama Meet?" The official story, repeated ad nauseum, is that the two men did not know each other until some time in 1995, after Dreams either was in galley form or already in print, hence Ayers could not have been Barack's ghost writer. But Cashill, always vigilant about facts that don't add up, pointed out that Obama and Ayers once dated the same woman in New York City in 1984, namely Genevieve Cook, and that Ayers relocated to Chicago in the exact same time period as Barack, 1987-1988. Indeed, Ayers, someone who has an extreme case of what Jamaican author Petrine Archer-Straw once characterized as "negrophilia" -obsession with black people regardless of merit or absence of merit- was for all intents and purposes in love (in a non-sexual sense) with Obama and did everything he could to help him along. As Cashill put it: "To advance Obama's career, it appears, Ayers finished up Dreams, got Obama appointed chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant, and launched his state Senate run, all in 1994-1995." Which Barack along with Michelle reciprocated. >From 1995 until 2004, Ayers and his Communist wife, Bernardine Dohrn , socialized almost nightly with the Obamas, sometimes in the company of Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian jihadi-in-everything-but-name. But if Obama did not write his putative biography, why not? The answer can be inferred from an observation based on Garrow's book that was published in The Guardian newspaper on May 7, 2017, in a David Smith essay. It seems that, apropos the Sheila Jager story, the couple, when they spent evenings together to "study," it was Sheila who did the studying. "Barack read literature, not history." Presumably novels and maybe a "classic" or two in the process, perhaps something by James Baldwin or Langston Hughes -to refer to two black homosexuals lionized in other contexts by Obama. In fairness, the jury is still out on Hughes' alleged homosexuality even if there is no question about Baldwin. Exactly when Obama hit upon a narrative about how his life has featured a 'road to blackness,' to black consciousness as his destiny, is uncertain but 1987 seems to be the best candidate for the year. Which is what he eventually made it, of course, hence, for openers, his determination to seek the affections of Michelle Robinson. As Garrow concluded, from some point in the later 80s, this was the course that Obama was on. Why? Because he wanted a political career and his base would need to be the black neighborhoods of the South Side of Chicago. He wanted to be the next Harold Washington, the city's first black mayor, who died unexpectedly in 1987. Unfortunately for everyone else, fate intervened to very different effect. Cashill had additional comments in another article from American Thinker, this for May 10, 2017, "New Obama Bio Is Not Just Exhausting, It’s Insulting," which is a delightful piece to read if you are a fan of sarcasm, which I am. For example: "It is hard to imagine another author going deeper. Garrow spent ten years on the project. He interviewed more than a thousand people. There is much not to like about Garrow’s Obama, but the faithful need never fear learning anything worse than that their man was shallow and self-centered." But mostly the review sticks to plain facts, as when he discussed Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's Stalinist role model: "To his credit, Garrow admits Davis was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA and a pornographer with at least a fictional taste for the under-aged and the male." The theme of homosexuality arises more than a few times in the book. Garrow himself, for all of his hero worship of Obama, often was highly critical of the lad from Hawaii and Indonesia. As Jamie Weinstein of the Daily Beast said: "Garrow is extremely critical of what he sees as the shallowness of the media’s coverage of Obama’s history -which, to date, has not reported, at all, about the years Barack was a state senator in Illinois. But Garrow goes much further and is dismayed at Obama’s central lack of character or moral compass. Garrow was interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-Span. During the event he said that what most disappointed him was to see Obama's transformation while president from an idealistic Leftist political star to a star struck stage Johnny, fawning over Hollywood celebrities. Obama also became money hungry, which is increasingly apparent in the time since he left the White House. Essentially, said Garrow, Obama is "hollow to his core." Some of us can say with complete honesty, "I told you so." But it is difficult to argue with someone's religion, and Obama, for millions of Democrats, was their religion. He was someone to have faith in. How terrific it felt to be "saved," hallelujah. Except that he was a hypocrite like no-one else, a charlatan, and a false messiah. ------------------------ To return to the narrative about Obama's life, after his hiatus at Harvard he returned to Chicago to stay in 1992. Barack married Michelle that year and she was a help to his career from the outset. One of her best friends was Santita Jackson, the daughter of Jesse Jackson. Michelle also worked as an assistant to Chicago's mayor, Richard M. Daley. That same year, 1992, the young couple joined _Trinity United Church of Christ_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ) and Barack became close friends with its pastor, Rev, Jermiah (his spelling) Wright. Obama had attended on an occasional basis during his previous stay in Chicago but from then on, until the 2008 election campaign, his church attendance was frequent, especially since, as we are told that there were "hundreds" of meetings between the two men -as reported in Edward Klein's biography of 2012, The Amateur, about the career of , as he saw it, a very inept Barack Obama Klein, it should be noted was the former editor of New York Times Magazine. as liberal a publication as you can find. His expose of Obama was not the work of a Right-wing fringe character. Edward Klein was simply the first of a steady stream of Leftists who became disillusioned with the mediocrity that they had helped elect to the presidency. These facts are called to the reader's attention because at the time of the Rev. Wright scandal in the Autumn of 2008, Obama was publically minimizing his membership and said that his attendance was sporadic and that he had never heard any of the inflammatory sermons that Wright had preached over the course of years. The worst of these black racist diatribes was a sermon that Wright preached in 2003, a recording of which the church had for sale in its gift shop in 2008 and which was picked up by Fox News. Here is the direct quote: "The government gives [black men] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," ..."God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." The news media took Obama at his word, his public disavowals, that is, and downplayed the Barack-Rev Wright connection, giving the impression that there really was no meaningful connection at all. Which , of course, the public, certainly most of the public, bought -just as surely as the masses eagerly purchase consumer goodies on "Black Friday" immediately following Thanksgiving. At a minimum the Chicago press knew better, much better, but chose to conceal the actual facts from Americans. It turns out that on the eve of his 2004 campaign for the US Senate, Barack gave an interview with the religion writer for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, Cathleen Falsani. She had asked Obama about his church attendance in the past which included the question: “Do you still attend Trinity?” Here was Barack's reply: "Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service. Ever been there? Good service. I actually wrote a book called Dreams From My Father.... there's a whole chapter on that church and my first visits to Trinity." Obama then, as reported by Fred Lucas on May 29, 2012 for CNS News, made it clear that the thought so highly of Wright's sermons that the title of his second (ghost written) book, The Audacity of Hope, was lifted directly from a Wright sermon. To make sure a Newsweek reporter understood that he really attended the church on a regular basis - usually "every week"- Obama supplied the information that “Trinity was always packed, and so you had to get there early. And if you went to the morning service, you were looking at -- it just was difficult. So that would cut back on our involvement.” We also learn that Wright talked with Obama about Islam and that the "reverend" assured Barack that Christianity is compatible with Muhammad's religion. Based on what we are not told, possibly because of Wright's involvement with Louis Farrakhan and the Black Muslims, but in any case Obama's Christian faith was about as un-Christian as anything gets, all the while as he internalized the view that faith in Christ is whatever you want it to be as long as you feel good. Jack Cashill wrote an essay on the subject of Obama's "faith" which analyzed Barack's 'loose' interpretation of Christianity. The article, "Barack Obama's Jesus Gambit," published on May 23, 2012, makes it clear just how heterodox (completely) it really is. Hence we get this quote from the Audacity of Hope: “When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations.” In other words, if we take this statement literally, Obama was claiming the status of someone like Amos or Haggai or Habakkuk, free to add new material to the Bible as he saw fit, no regard for consistency in his case, disregarding every orthodox (lower case "o") view that the canon is closed. You can do this, of course, if you are willing to take the heat while starting a new religion, but Obama, oblivious to such niceties, seemed unable to comprehend what his own words meant. And his position also says, in so many words, that it isn't necessary to do any serious scholarly research of the Bible so that you are sure of exactly what it really says and understand the best way to interpret the Holy Book. That is, Obama's approach to faith is latitudinarian, "anything goes." Which actually is an anti-Christian viewpoint, repeatedly condemned over the centuries as unacceptable by the Church -any Church or any "church." With Obama you get a customized (invented) Jesus "willing to override the rest of the Bible, Old Testament and New." This was especially clear with respect to the way that Obama changed his public views about homosexuality, Cashill noted. Speaking at Saddleback Church in 2008, where celebrity pastor Rick Warren presides, Obama said: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,”...“Now, for me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Indeed, as any good Bible scholar can tell you, sodomy is discussed in 30 passages in the Bible, 15 times in each Testament; in all cases this kind of behavior and set of values is uncompromisingly condemned. The problem is also that Obama was lying. As Cashill reported: "In 1996, about a decade after finding Jesus chez Reverend Wright, Obama told a gay newspaper, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” In 2014 Obama returned to his original position of 1996. There was no "evolution" of his views, he simply concealed his real values for political reasons, and dusted them off at a later date -and it worked. No matter how phoney Obama seemed to many Independents, let alone to conservatives back in 2008, several million Evangelicals voted for him. They were snookered and snookered badly. Just as they were by George W. Bush, but that is a different story. But Evangelicals, not all, but certainly a significant percentage, are hopelessly naive about such things, often are ridiculously uninformed about politics, and don't know what they are doing when making political decisions calling for something other than obvious choices over "black vs. white" issues. Which is said with deep regret, anything but smug self-satisfaction, since I share many values with more usual Christian believers. However, things are what they are, and about this there is a mess to contemplate. On this subject see Brandon Showalter's article, "Like the Republican Party, Is American Christianity Collapsing?," in the July 21, 2016 issue of the Christian Post. My own view is that we need a radically new form of Christianity; the traditional versions either are untenable now or soon will be -across the board. What should we expect of Evangelicals when, on the issue of homosexuality? The only recourse of most is the Bible and only the Bible, a "strategy" that simply does not work in our pluralistic and largely secular society. With regard to scientific evidence there is close to no interest in becoming informed, and almost no-one makes the least effort to study the subject Why not? I'm too busy with "important" matters. Its not a concern of mine, besides, it is so unseemly. I trust in God the take care of this. I don't have time for this kind of issue. In the long run this will all pass away. All you need is prayer and the problem will be solved. Maybe if we re-interpret the Bible we can work this out. All such sad excuses for "arguments" are all the reason I need to seek a new kind of faith that is allied with science and allied with all people who share fundamental social values regardless of their religious traditions. Did evangelicals really believe that Obama was on their side in the controversy over same-sex marriage? All those who were self deluded sure did. A review of Garrow's book by Alex Pfeiffer in The Daily Caller for April 26, 2017, tells us about Obama's first serious encounter with a homosexual during the time he was a student at Occidental College. The information is sickening to think about. It seems that Barack took classes with an openly homosexual assistant professor named Lawrence Goldyn. Since Garrow had access to a good deal of personal information about Obama, spending no less than 8 hours at various times talking with him and, toward the end listened to Barack Hussein's comments about the chapter that discussed Goldyn. As Garrow tells it, quoted in the Alex Pfeiffer review, "Obama enthusiastically said, ‘my favorite professor my first year in college was one of the first openly gay people that I knew…" Indeed, Obama and Goldyn were close friends for the remainder of Barack's time at Occidental. Obama admitted that he considered Goldyn's appeals to take part in homosexual activities with him but eventually declined. Still, there was no moral objection; Barack didn't see anything wrong in it. Such sexuality remained an option, in other words, perhaps something for the future under other circumstances. There is a small literature on the Web about Obama and homosexuality during part of the time he lived in Chicago before marrying Michelle. I was uncertain what to think of this material before now. Some of it seemed very plausible on the face of it. Some other material seemed specious and was easy to dismiss, but the plausible content could not be overlooked, including photographs of a youthful Obama in such poses as legs intertwined with another male in what is best interpreted as part of a homosexual relationship. There are also reports about night spots Obama visited that were known hangouts of the limp wrist crowd. There are names and dates. Garrow's book tells me all I need to know, to proceed, and make good use of this material. This leaves us with Obama's "witness" to the truths of the Christian faith. What about all those passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality, passages that have been the source of popular opinion on the issue since the very beginning of the Republic? That isn't how Obama sees things. For him all traditional Christian values consist of "society’ s prejudices" with no justification whatsoever, since, after all, truth is whatever Obama says it is, his opinions on such topics shaped by Frank Marshall Davis' Communist views from years before. Did Jefferson write Virginia Law that classified sodomy -homosexuality- as a crime deserving death? Did Teddy Roosevelt condemn sodomy? Did every state in the Union that had laws on the books about sexuality classify sodomy as a felony? None of this mattered to Obama because he is a near-illiterate as far as American history is concerned, as he is a near illiterate in terms of the Bible. He makes stuff up as he goes along and cons everyone he meets who needs a savior as long as this savior isn't Jesus. After all, the famous pericope in Matthew 11 with the words, "alas Chorazin, alas Bethsaida," includes a pointed condemnation of sodomy -which Christ characterized as utterly depraved and deserving punishment in hell. Sure, there is a "golden rule" in the Gospels, it is generally true, but when Jesus specifically condemned homosexuality you would think that his words on the subject meant something. But not to Obama. What else does not mean anything to Barack Hussein is research. There exists an extensive literature on the subject of homosexual pathology, that is, homosexuality as a mental illness. Clearly, Obama is unfamiliar with any of it. What he is familiar with is homosexual mythology, with outright falsehoods about the supposed normality of homosexuality perpetrated by the mainstream media, repeated year in and ear out by homosexual activists and their supporters in politics, especially leaders in the Democratic Party but now including some important Republicans like Senator Portman from Ohio, Laura Bush, and, of course, Donald Trump. Even Jared Kushner, a so-called Orthodox Jew who, however, doesn't give a rat's ass for the Hebrew Bible and regards his faith as a matter of observance of rituals and of food prohibitions -and social identity. Which is not "religious faith" at all, but social conformism in the guise of religion -something which deserves no respect whatsoever. But what is more important to most modern Americans on the issue of homosexuality is the testimony of science -of which hardly anyone has any idea at all. That is, it isn't only Obama who does no research on the issue, but just about everyone else, certainly well in excess of 90% of the general population. On the basis of this near total ignorance political leaders from the time of Ronald Reagan (a close friend of 'flaming faggot' Rock Hudson) to William Clinton, to virtually all of the DNC and most recently, Barack Hussein Obama, approve sodomy and demand that everyone else should also condone this form of mental illness. This is not the place to discuss this issue in any length; I have written a large number of scholarly papers on the subject in the past and have written three unpublished books about it, including a book in the year 2000 that did earn me a 3-hour guest appearance on CBS Radio here in Oregon on the Victor Boc show, plus a number of letters to me that were favorable to my work. I do know what I am talking about, in other words. But self-reference is less than an ideal way to provide evidence to substantiate a case. Therefore, let me list a small number of publications that, each in its own way, provides solid evidence that, contrary to the crap in popular culture on the matter, homosexuality is pathological, it is detrimental to one's physical and emotional health, is psychologically morbid, and is unjustifiable on any objective grounds. My argument has never been debated in any public forum at any time in the past except for a 2 hour lecture I gave at the University of Oregon in late 2008 -which, needless to say, was controversial. But there has been no formal debate in the political realm, no serious discussion in any public venue. And none of the so-called "other side of the issue" presentations on TV or in other media begin to examine the issue the way I approach it, with my set of arguments that 99. 9% of people have no idea of, all of which is basically unrelated to anything that Jerry Falwell has ever said, or Pat Robertson, or any other clergyman you have ever heard of. Censorship of my views has been not quite 100% total. But you can look up some of my prime sources, which are available to the public, and which I have drawn upon heavily in my writings even if, to repeat, the use I make of the information in question is nothing like what anyone else does with it. Here are some excellent references: * O. R. Adams, As We Sodomize America, 2001 O. R. Adams, "A President Who Promotes Sodomy," 2011 * Michael Brown, "LGBT Talking Points 'Not Supported by Scientific Evidence,' Report Finds; How Will Gays Respond?," Christian Post, August 26, 2016 * Paul Cameron, "Domestic Violence Among Homosexual Partners," Family Research Institute, date uncertain but ca. 2005 Paul Cameron, How Do the Kids of Homosexual Parents Turn Out? The Best Evidence, Family Research Institute, 2005 * Sigmund Freud, "Certain Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia, and Homosexuality," 1922 * Nathan Hale, The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States, 1995. * Johann Hari, "The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists," Huffington Post, October 21, 2008 * Kenneth Lewes, Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality, 1988. * Lara Melton, "Medical Records Reveal Diseases and Maladies Associated with ‘Gay’ Sex and Homosexual Behavior," Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, February 19, 2012 * Joseph Nicolosi, "Why Reveal the Dark Side of the Gay Movement?" NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, date uncertain but ca. 2005. * Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage, 2010 Judith Reisman, "Military sodomite abuse: The untold story," WorldNetDaily, May 15, 2013. * Samuel Smith, "No Scientific Evidence That People Are Born Gay or Transgender, Johns Hopkins Researchers Say," Christian Post, August 22, 2016. * Charles Socarides, Homosexuality: A freedom too far, 1995 * Neil Whitehead, Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems, ca. 2010. In short, homosexuals are substance abusers at rates that dwarf those of heterosexuals, they commit acts of violence against each other (and sometimes against heterosexuals) at rates that exceed those of normal men and women several times over, they are child abusers at rates that are a magnitude greater, they suffer from a large number of non-sexual mental illnesses and pathologies at very high rates, they are sadistic and/or masochistic at astronomical rates, and so forth. These empirical facts add up to legitimate identification of homosexuality as a clinical mental illness, a psychopathology. Special mention should be made of a paper written by Kathleen Melonakos, "Why Shouldn't Homosexuality be Considered a Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?" publication date uncertain, ca. 2000. There is no clearer link shown than Melonakos' itemization of diseases she was familiar with first hand as a Registered Nurse working with homosexual patients in San Francisco: Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Obama ignored all of this evidence. ----- We really need to understand that Black Nationalist "Christianity has little or nothing to do with actual Christian faith. The word "Christian" in a black nationalist context is a false flag, intended to not only deceive other people but to hoodwink those who join such churches but want to have a clean conscience to the effect that their demonization of white people and their tirades against American government are noble causes which Jesus would have approved. It is Marxism in drag, Herbert Marcuse in blackface. Waving the bloody shirt of Civil Rights struggles of the past has little or nothing to do with today's hate-inspired identity politics or identity religion. Black Nationalist 'Christianity' is a form of war against Christianity, a war waged in the name of Christianity. It is the African-American version of the Church of Aryan Nations. Its as simple as that. And it is a big part of what Obama sincerely believes in. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
