The Media That Ignored Obama’s Beliefs Goes After Mitt’s Mormonism

When the former junior state senator from Chicago, one Barack Obama—a man no one knew diddly about—decided, “Hey, I’m gonna run for president!” people were eager to learn more about this promising upstart. Uncle Joe Biden was curious about Barack. Joe said at first blush that Obama seemed “clean” and “articulate,” which, I think, would be a hate crime if a conservative said that about him.

Anyhoo, Obama impressed many chiefly because he could enthusiastically read vague, cliché-riddled speeches off a teleprompter that included lots of big words like nobody’s business! This ability to read hazy political speeches in public without putting folks into a full-on level IV coma left the bedazzled masses wondering, “Who is this masked man? Who are his buddies?” and … “Are there more like him? He’s a doozy!”

Yep, people wanted to know from whence he came, what books he read and what groups supported him because he was three words: A-May-Zing! As the various news outlets started finding out that BHO’s buddies were sordid, anti-American fellows of the baser sort; his favorite book was dedicated to Lucifer; his endorsers included Communists and Hamas; and his folks weren’t exactly the Huxtables, the mainstream media decided, “Eh, let’s not talk about his past and his present friends and philosophy but rather how inspiring his fuzzy speeches are and how skinny he is.”

Indeed, everybody was like, “Well, those are some strange playmates, and those books are interesting—really not the ones we would read, but who are we to judge? And haven’t we all had, at one time or another, one or two friends in our past who dedicated riot-inducing books to Satan, set off a bomb in the Capitol Building and hated Israel with a passion? Would we like it if people painted us with our friends’ bizarre brush?”

Gadfly Sean Hannity wouldn’t leave well enough alone in ‘07 and decided to investigate not only Obama’s pals but Barack and Michelle’s pastor/mentor and religion that they had enjoyed for the last two decades. Boy howdy, did Hannity and others stumble onto some interesting revelations about Obama’s church. Stuff like …

· Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories

· The advocacy of bizarre, pseudo-scientific racial ideas

· Opposition to interracial marriage

· Praising Communist dictatorships

· The denunciation of black “assimilation”

· The belief that the American government created AIDS to kill black people

· Preaching that America deserved 9/11 terrorists attacks

· The fact that Reverend Wright was, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, a “close confidant” of Obama

When common folks discovered Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s religious views were racist, Marxist and nuttier than a squirrel’s turd, some rightly wondered if BHO also believed this bogus smack, and if not, why he would sit for twenty years listening to those race-baiting beliefs if he fundamentally and radically disagreed. Why, they wondered, did he not vehemently condemn this cuckoo stuff?

The media, however, decided for us cattle that Reverend Wright’s racially-charged sermons, his black liberation theology and the fact that Obama sat for two decades under this slow drip of heresy wasn’t newsworthy and bypassed those tasty morsels. Instead, they crucified anyone who dared question Obama’s affiliation with his class warfare junkie Jeremiah (who was swiftly tossed under BHO’s campaign bus).

Fast-forward to 2012 and Mitt Romney and his religion.

The same media that ignored information about Obama’s racist religious roots steeped in Marxism is already queuing up with queries about Romney’s Mormonism as somehow being weird and a tad white. MSNBC led the charge this past week wondering aloud if and when Mitt would rebuke Mormonism’s disallowance of blacks into the Mormon priesthood until 1978. The duplicitous journalists who saw no story in the well-documented anti-honky rhetoric of Wright’s/Obama’s “religion” now want to paint Romney with the racist brush? How convenient.

As an evangelical I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t get Mormonism, but I do get Marxism, and we’re now seeing the political fruit coming from Obama’s ignored and divisive theological roots. Which leads me to this conclusion as an evangelical: I don’t care if Mitt is crazy rich and wears magic Mormon underroos. In 2012 I will take a quasi-conservative Mormon who has been ridiculously successful over an uncompromised Marxist any ol’ day.

And lastly, a word of advice for the MSM: I would leave Mitt’s Mormonism well enough alone unless, of course, you want Obama’s religious roots to be exposed, as well. I believe Americans will find in Mormonism more pro-traditional American sentiments than they will in Reverend Wright’s greatest sermon collections.

YouTube non-fan comments: “Are you proud to be Canadian, or a Canadian wishing to be a Yank?”

Just when I thought folks had stopped poking me with their pointy sticks about my politics and the name of my site called “ProudToBeCanadian”…

I guess he’d seen where I criticized Canada, or something, in one video or another. Possibly the one where I show how Bill O’Reilly niggled the stupid state-owned CBC Politics show for billing itself as the one politics show on television wherein “the spin stops here.” That was amusing but possibly annoying to liberals on at least two levels: (1) that very commercial “no spin zone” bit of salesmanship has been Bill O’Reilly’s commercial “trademark” line from the beginning of time; and I pointed that out; and (2) the state-owned and supposedly non-commercial, socialism-reliant CBC is the very epitome of an anti-conservative, pro-left-wing/progressive spin zone which spins faster than another state-sponsored ballerina or CBC reporter/political opinion columnist; and I’m clearly against that concept. But somehow, I would, you see, therefore, rather be “a Yank”, possibly, if I understand him correctly. If I don’t like their vision, as stated more plainly in other iterations of this “proud to be Canadian” complaint, then I should move out — help them to cleanse the nation of the likes of me, and be “a Yank” instead. Usually a Texan. Don’t worry: this makes sense to a liberal, so it must be you who doesn’t understand.

Possibly it’s because in my YouTube channel I feature a lot of clips from Fox News Channel instead of, say, clips from the state-owned CBC (and as a result, Fox News Channel has enjoyed the free advertising resulting from the millions of views my videos have enjoyed). Possibly he doesn’t know that the lawyers from the state-owned media once sent state-owned postal express dispatchers to me and my wife’s home with legal documents threatening to sue me to kingdom come (“kingdom come” are not the legal terms they used, they’re my words, but the state media’s lawyers surely agree that if I didn’t relent, they would ruin me and my wife’s lives, financially, forever more) for using tiny seconds-long clips from the state-owned CBC in my YouTube videos critical of… the state-owned CBC, years ago. They made me agreed not to use them any more.

That sure made me proud.

Possibly he’s another knee-jerk liberal ass who doesn’t get that the name of the web site isn’t a statement in and of itself, but rather a question which raises other questions about the extent to which one might be “proud to be Canadian.” He doesn’t see (or want to admit) that it’s not conservatives, like me, who want to fundamentally transform Canada (the Canada they nonetheless claim to “love” and which they are irreducibly “proud of”) from its foundational Judeo-Christian roots in which a deeply ingrained personal and family responsibility-driven spirit (rather than a government-driven one) prevailed and then built our nation. Or transform from one where our rights were derived from God, not government, and in which we believed in the supremacy of God rather then the supremacy of government (pace our current constitution in which it states that we do in fact believe in the supremacy of God). Or from a country where private ownership and where an entrepreneurial, free-market, capitalism-based economy was the vision. Or from one in which government was to be somewhat limited in size and scope to that of maintaining mere “peace” and “order”, rather than grown and nurtured until it’s all encompassing and totalitarian and into something much more, shall we say, Russian. It’s liberals and socialists — progressives writ large — who want to do that to the country they nonetheless “love” and are so damn “proud of.”

He should remember that it was a conservative who started a web site called “ProudToBeCanadian” and registered that domain name with the internet registry, and then spent years working on it at his own personal expense for years on end — not liberals, who didn’t even bother, but who rather spent all that time bashing the very concept — incongruous to them — that one could be at once a conservative, economically, socially, politically, and be “proud to be Canadian”. The fact is that it — the site and its name — are so pernicious to them because it’s all incongruous to them. They say they love something and are proud of something that they want to fundamentally transform. And they don’t tolerate the concept, or even the minority truly conservative faction of Canadians themselves — which calls itself really Canadian and happy with the foundational tenets of the country. This liberal stance is itself an anti-Canadian tenet, even to a liberal. But it’s not limited to this. The conflicts inherent in their “principles” abound.

And possibly he is like a racist. I say “like” a racist because of course Americans are our sisters and brothers and cousins and not of a different race. But let’s say they were of a different race. To speak of Americans the way most liberals and progressives do, would clearly make them abject racists. So they’re pretty lucky that way. As it is, all we can safely call them is ugly xenophobes, to the extent of being horribly (and usually openly) anti-American, selectively. Not anti-East Indian or Somalian or Indonesian — just anti-American. No let’s just go ahead and call them racists and intolerants, because they actually are.

And we are to take all that as being a “good” Canadian, apparently. Another source of “pride,” as triangulated by or professed by another genius anti-conservative — a liberal or socialist — another progressive.

But in fact if you visit more than once, you’re bound to see the sub-head in the lower-right of the PTBC banner which auto-rotates between “It’s a Question” and “Your Right”, and has done so exactly like that for years. For those liberals who don’t understand, that means “Are you proud to be Canadian? Then prove it. And if you aren’t, it’s certainly your right to be, damn it. So tell us all what it would take. Etcetera.” But to them it just means I’ve stolen their line and as a conservative, I’m obviously misusing it.

And as always, I’ll have none of it. But to answer the question, and for the record (write this down, liberals!), I’m proud as I can be, to be Canadian, and so I seek to conserve it rather than fundamentally transform it. I’d be as proud to be “a Yank.” I’m not so sure progressives who want to fundamentally transform their country could say the same of their Canadian or American citizenship.