Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions

Obama: Sermon on Mount Justifies Same-Sex Unions
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
March 03, 2008

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told a crowd at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Sunday that he believes the Sermon on the Mount justifies his support for legal recognition of same-sex unions. He also told the crowd that his position in favor of legalized abortion does not make him “less Christian.”

“I don’t think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state,” said Obama. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.” ((Hear audio from WTAP-TV)) St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans condemns homosexual acts as unnatural and sinful.

Obama’s mention of the Sermon on the Mount in justifying legal recognition of same-sex unions may have been a reference to the Golden Rule: “Do to others what you would have them do to you.” Or it may have been a reference to another famous line: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

The Sermon, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, includes the Lord’s Prayer, the Beatitudes, an endorsement of scriptural moral commandments (“anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”), and condemnations of murder, divorce and adultery. It also includes a warning: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

The passage from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, which Obama dismissed as “obscure,” discusses people who knew God but turned against him.

“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised,” wrote St. Paul. “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

On the topic of abortion, Obama said his support for keeping it legal does not trespass on his Christian faith.

“I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view,” Obama said about abortion. “Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.” (Hear audio from WTAP-TV)

Obama opened his town-hall-type meeting at the college with a short speech and then provided lengthy answers to a handful of questions. One questioner, Leon Forte, a Protestant clergyman, asked Obama about evangelical Christians who were concerned about his position on issues that conservatives consider “litmus tests.”

“Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians because I believe that they believe in the social agenda that you have, but they have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus tests as to who is worthy and who is not,” said Forte. “So, I will ask you to speak to those two questions.”(See transcript)

Obama volunteered that he believed Forte was talking about abortion and homosexual marriage, and then he gave answers on both issues that were not as explicit as positions he has staked out on these issues in other venues. Last Thursday, for example, as reported by Cybercast News Service, Obama published on his Web site an “open letter concerning LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) equality in America.”

In that letter, Obama said he favored same-sex unions that were equal to marriage–including adoption rights–and that he was open to states codifying same-sex marriages.

“As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws,” Obama said in the letter. “I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples–whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”

In Ohio on Sunday, before mentioning the Sermon on the Mount, Obama insisted he was against “gay marriage” and did not mention his support for allowing same-sex couples to adopt children and have the same “family” status as heterosexual couples.

“I will tell you that I don’t believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them,” said Obama on Sunday. “So, I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other. I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That’s my view.”

Obama also has been more aggressive in framing his pro-abortion position previously than he was on Sunday. When he was in the Illinois Senate, for example, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labor abortion and was born alive.

In a 2001 Illinois Senate floor speech about that bill, he argued that to call a baby who survived an abortion a “person” would give it equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment and would give credibility to the argument that the same child inside its mother’s womb was also a “person” and thus could not be aborted.

When the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade–and that the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass–Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

Yet, in Ohio on Sunday, Obama depicted abortion as a tragedy to be avoided, while being kept legal.

“On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue,” he said. “I think it is always tragic, and we should prevent it as much as possible …. But I think that the bottom line is that in the end, I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington. That’s my view. Again, I respect people who may disagree, but I certainly don’t think it makes me less Christian. Okay.”

Before discussing his views on same-sex unions and abortion, Obama told the crowd he was a “devout Christian.”

“In terms of my faith, there has been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through emails and so forth, so here are the simple facts,” he said. “I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years, pray to Jesus every night, and try to go to church as much as I can when they are not working me. Used to go quite often.

“These days, we haven’t been at the home church–I haven’t been home on Sunday–for several months now. So, my faith is important to me. It is not something that I try to push on other people. But it is something that helps to guide my life and my values.”

Make media inquiries or request an interview with Terry Jeffrey.

Europe is a dying continent

Major Shift

Created 2008-03-02 23:22
A quote from Yale Daily News, 29 February 2008

Europe is a dying continent. I say this not as a criticism, but rather as a statement of fact. In Europe, an acute failure to produce the next generation has created a looming demographic crisis. […] Given present trends, within about a century, Europe will cease to be a white, Christian continent.

No one wants to talk about racial or religious issues, but it merits consideration that the vast majority of immigrants to the European Union are Muslims from North Africa, the Middle East and Turkey. By the year 2150, barring a major shift in either native European fertility rates or immigrant nationality, Europe will be a largely Muslim continent with whites and Christians as minorities composing less than 20 percent of the population. Much of Europe has come to terms with that possibility, but a significant portion of the population is uncomfortable about the prospect of a change in Europe’s continental character, warranting wider spread support for xenophobic political parties across the continent.

Obama Is Our First Muslim Presidential Contender In The Same Way That Clinton Was Our First Black President

Obama Is Our First Muslim Presidential Contender In The Same Way That Clinton Was Our First Black President

Posted By Phyllis Chesler On March 1, 2008 @ 4:00 am In Culture: Religion, Elections & Political Parties | 6 Comments

Someone should ask Senator Obama where he stands on the persecution of “infidels” in Muslim lands and the proliferation of Muslim-arranged marriages, polygamy, face-veiling, wife- and daughter-beating, and honor murders in America.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Obamessiah’s sermonizes on the Sermon on the Mount; supports Jeremiah Wright

The ‘Hussein’ memory hole

The ‘Hussein’ memory hole

Bruce Thompson

In responding to Hillary Clinton’s latest ad, the Obama campaign has once again slipped the name “Hussein” down the memory hole. Specifically Saddam Hussein. Obama’s answer to the question as to who is best prepared to take a 3 A.M. call is that he is better than Clinton because he did not support dealing with Saddam to a final conclusion.
Just because Clinton does not want to open the issue doesn’t mean others cannot. Obama needs to be grilled on what other actions should have been taken against Saddam. A recent 60 Minutes segment with FBI agant George Piro revealed Saddam’s plans directly from Saddam
“In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. “The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there,” Piro says.
“And that was his intention?” Pelley asks.
“Yes,” Piro says.
“What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?” Pelley asks.
“He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program,” says Piro.
“Chemical, biological, even nuclear,” Pelley asks.
“Yes,” Piro says. “
So Obama wanted us to mimic the Three Little Monkeys, who See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil. Then Saddam’s efforts to bribe the venal through the Oil for Food program and fool the willfully ignorant like Obama, would have given us a bloodthristy dicatator who was re-developing “Chemical, biological, even nuclear” weapons”.
That’s quite a resume enhancer (at least in Kos Kiddieland)!

Obama and his 2003 Vote:Lacking Intelligence

Obama and his 2003 Vote:Lacking Intelligence

Clarice Feldman

These days Obama cannot remind us enough that he voted against authorizing force in Iraq and Clinton authorized it. As Tom Maguire joked of Obama’s response to Hillary’s latest  red- phone- ringing- in-the-White-House-at- 3 am.- advertisement:”Obama’s response we have only heard about ten thousand times – if the phone rings at 3 AM we can be sure that he won’t invade Iraq in 2003.”
But earlier on –in  an interview in November 2006–he was more candid about what separated his and Hillary’s votes on this important issue–She knew more about the matter than he did:
[Question:] Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton,
[Obama:] You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined-one of the most disciplined people-I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test. (Emphasis supplied.)
h/t: syl

Obama Bends McCain’s Straight Talk

Obama Bends McCain’s Straight Talk

Lee Cary

John McCain’s straight talk about the possible length of U.S. presence in Iraq opened him up to a distorted quote by Barack Obama.  
On January 3, 2008, at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, McCain said this to a man who began his question, “President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years,”
“Make it a hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we been in Japan for 60 years.  We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or more. That would be fine as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.  That’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every day.”
Later, when questioned by a reported from Mother Jones, McCain used hyperbole to stress his point, saying U.S. troops could be there a thousand, or a million years. 
The “100 years” comment gave the Obama campaign an opening to distort McCain’s straight talk to their advantage.  In the months ahead, we’ll likely see frequent airings of Obama’s ad wherein he bends McCain’s statement out of its original context.
“Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired in Iraq for 100 years, which is reason not to give him four years in the White House.”
The comparative worldview of the two candidates could hardly be more diverse.  One, Obama, promises near instant gratification for those passionate to abandon Iraq.  The other, McCain, takes the long view because he understands better the arc of history. 
The heads-up for the McCain campaign going forward is to prepare to (1) make a clear and compelling case for long-term U.S. engagement with the Middle East as being in our best interests, as well as in the best interests of the people of the region.  And (2), when Obama plays word games, like inserting “mired” into a quote where the qualifying context of the statement explicitly excluded the concept of “mired, McCain needs to immediately push back, saying something like,
“Senator Obama is a fine orator, except when he takes other people’s straight talk and bends it to his own purpose.  That’s the kind of word game that keeps people’s opinions of politicians mired in mud.”   

Obama’s Multicultural Moment, and Ours?

Obama’s Multicultural Moment, and Ours?

By Steven M. Warshawsky

There is a Barack Obama video presently circulating on the internet in which a group of celebrities, mostly black and Hispanic, proclaim the great and wonderful changes — a cleaner world, a more peaceful world, a brighter future for all — that will be ushered in by the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.  All performed over an inspirational soundtrack, with the hypnotic chant of “O-bam-a, O-bam-a, O-bam-a, O-bam-a . . . .” in the background.  (HT:  View From The Right.)

Two important messages come through in this video, which the American people should consider very seriously as they decide for which candidate to cast their votes this November.  (Barring a stunning Hillary Clinton victory this coming Tuesday, I fully expect that Obama will be the Democratic Party nominee.) 
One, the Obama campaign truly has taken on a cult-like quality.  His starry-eyed supporters actually believe that simply electing Barack Obama as president will solve, not just this country’s, but the world’s most difficult problems – problems that have been with us since the dawn of history:  human conflict, economic scarcity, pollution, fear, and so on.  Obama may believe this fantasy himself.  Witness his messianic campaign slogan, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which is repeated several times near the end of the video.
Anyone who spends a few minutes thinking about this, knows that a President Obama never will be able to deliver on this dream of “change” and “hope.”  And not just because his actual policy prescriptions reflect standard liberal tax-and-spend collectivism.  Under any set of policies, the problems facing this country, let alone the world, are not going to go away anytime soon.  They are part of the human condition.  At best, they can be managed and ameliorated. 
Yet how will Obama and his supporters react when they realize that his achievements as president, whatever they may be, will never match his — or their — aspirations?  Will they react in a mature manner, or will they lash out in anger against those whom they perceive as standing in the way of “progress”?  Will they make a good faith effort to work with independents and conservatives, or will they vilify their political opponents (including with charges of “racism”) and try to exclude them from meaningful political participation?  Frustrated idealists are not known for their calmness, rationality, and willingness to compromise.  If Republicans decide not to go along with Obama’s agenda, the domestic political situation could get very ugly.
Which brings me to the next main point to take away from the video.  Although many commentators have remarked on the increasingly cult-like quality of Obama’s presidential campaign, few have observed — at least not openly — that an Obama presidency would represent the triumph of multiculturalism in this country.  As one of the celebrities in the video explains, an Obama presidency promises to “chang[e] America’s face to the world.” 

What does this mean?  It means that the United States no longer will be seen as a “white” country.  Whether true or not, this is what people mean when they speak of Obama’s campaign as ushering in a “post-racial” America.  After all, there are few-to-no such things as a “post-racial” person.  Obama has a race (he is considered black, despite having both black and white parents).  So does John McCain.  

Hence, a “post-racial” America means an America in which the white European population — which, until the post-1960s immigration boom, represented the overwhelming majority of Americans — is no longer the dominant demographic and cultural group.  It is as simple as that.  More than anything else, this is the “change” that Obama’s supporters yearn for.  The video makes this clear.
The question is whether the American people are prepared to make this leap, from a country with a predominantly white European population that promises tolerance and civil rights to all citizens, regardless of race, color, or creed, to a country in which multiculturalism is not just a faddish academic ideology, but a demographic and political reality.  The Obama campaign, with its theme of personal and societal transformation, presents this question as never before to the American people.  The answer, which we will know something more about in November, will have profound consequences for the future of the country.

Obama’s Language Games

Obama’s Language Games

By Lee Cary

Barack Obama, the candidate, has used nuanced language to evade and deflect in order to avoid being candid.  Here are three examples of Obama language games concerning (1) Louis Farrakhan, (2) driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, and (3) reparations.

1. Cleveland Debate – February 26, 2008 – On Louis Farrakhan
Tim Russert asked Obama, “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” His first answer was evasive.
“…I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments…I did not solicit his support…it is not support I sought.  And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
Hearing no answer to his question, Russert pressed Obama, “Do you reject his support?”
Obama used humor to deflect the question.
“Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter)  You know, I – you know I – I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.”
Russert, now distracted from his original query, followed the line-of-questioning about Judaism toward which Obama had deflected the inquiry. Russert asked Obama to react to Farrakhan labeling Judaism a “gutter religion.”  Obama denounced Farrakhan’s statements. Meanwhile, the original question remained unanswered.
Not willing to let the Judaism line-of-questioning die, Russert teed up an opportunity for Obama to give a pro-Israel speech with this question:  “What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?”  Obama answered with a 350-word monologue about why his candidacy is supported by Chicago’s Jewish community.
Hillary Clinton heard the evasion, and refocused Russert back to the original question. The exchange ended with Obama conceding that he both denounced and rejected a non-existing offer of help from Minister Farrakhan. 
By the end of his answer, the air was out of a question that Obama had obfuscated into a discussion of word definitions.  Obama could have answered “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” with a simple “No,” if, in fact, that represents his sentiment.   Instead, he played a clever language game to evade the original question by giving the appearance of having answered it, all the while making Russert and Clinton look like they were nitpicking him.
2. Las Vegas Debate – November 15, 2007 – On Driver’s Licenses 
After Clinton fumbled her answer to the New York drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants question in an earlier debate, Wolf Blitzer questioned Obama’s position on the issue: “I take it, Senator Obama, you support giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Is that right?”
Obama evaded Blitzer’s present tense question (“Do you…?”) with a past tense answer. 
“When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that Illegal aliens get trained, get a license…”
Then he deflected the subject, using humor, toward another issue – comprehensive immigration reform.
“…I have to make sure that people understand the problem we have here is not driver’s licenses.  Undocumented workers don’t come here to drive. (Laughter) they don’t go – they’re not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger. That’s not the reason they’re here.  They’re here to work. And so instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let’s focus on actually solving the problem that…(Blitzer cut him off here, but Obama continued)…this administration, the Bush administration, has done nothing about.”
Blitzer heard Obama’s attempt to evade (by minimizing the subject to a “wedge issue”), and, with emphasis in his voice, pushed the original question: “Do you support or oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants?” 
Obama’s answer to the redirected question was, perhaps, his worst performance in all the Democrat debates.  The audience laughed when he said,
“I am not proposing that that’s what we do. What I’m saying is that we can’t – (interrupted by laughter). No, no, no, no, look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver’s licenses at the state level can make that happen. But what I also…(an impatient Blitzer interrupted him)
Blitzer suggested that he hadn’t received a straight answer from Obama, and the audience laughed, cheered and applauded when Blitzer transitioned saying, “Either you support it or you oppose it.  Let’s go down and get a yes or no from everyone starting with Senator Edwards.”
Obama would never again be so clumsy with his language games in a Democrat debate, but he didn’t stop playing them.
3. South Carolina Debate – April 26, 2007 – On Reparations
After playing a video question submitted by a South Carolina (SC) citizen, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked, “Senator Obama, [what is] your position on reparations?”  Obama said,
“I think the reparation we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example in our schools.  I did a town hall meeting in Florence, South Carolina, in an area called the corridor of shame.  They’ve got buildings that students are trying to learn in that were built right after the Civil War. And we’ve got teachers who are not trained to teach the subjects they’re teaching and high dropout rates.  We’ve got to understand that there are corridors of shame all across the country.  And if we make the investments and understand that those are our children, that’s the kind of reparation that are really going to make a difference in America right now.
Did Obama answer the question?  Cooper seemed to hear his answer as opposed to reparations.  His follow-up was addressed to all the candidates:  “Is anyone on the stage for reparations for slavery for African-American?”  Dennis Kucinich was; he grabbed the question and ran.
Obama had deflected the topic away from reparations to corridors of shame and, thereby, evaded a candid answer to the original question.  His candid answer might have been, “Yes, I favor reparations, but not in the form of checks written to African-Americans.”  Here’s a case to support that suggestion.
Reparations was an issue in Obama’s senate race against Alan Keyes. In November 14, 2004, as Obama toured the state after his election win, Chicago Tribune reporters Rudolph Bush and David Mendell reported that,
“Asked in Moline about a controversial demand by some blacks for reparations for slavery, Obama spoke about how slavery had left a stain on the country that has yet to be eradicated.  Still, he said, he opposed ‘just signing checks over to African-Americans’.”
In February 2007, the CBS news affiliate in Chicago quoted Obama on the issue of reparations.
“The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training.”
Now, we return to the SC debate where the audience would immediately associate “corridors of shame” with a legal battle that began in 1993 when almost half of the state’s 91 school districts sued the state (Abbeville County School District v. State of South Carolina) alleging violations of funding statutes that resulted in substandard education for may SC students, particularly those in poorer rural districts.  The case is still being litigated.  Many in the audience had probably seen the controversial documentary aired by SC’s Educational Television Network (ETV) entitled “Corridors of Shame,” featuring the crumbling buildings Obama mentioned in his answer. 
Obama’s Blueprint For Change document includes multiple programs aimed at improving public education.  In a National Public Radio interview he said this:
“And that [his K-12 education plan] would all cost about $18 billion a year — a significant increase in federal funding, focused on schools all across the country, but with a great emphasis on poor urban and rural school districts that really need resources.”
Does this proposal represent reparations?  
Institutions and publications that most influence any presidential candidate are worthy of examination.  The theo-sociological platform of Obama’s Trinity United Church Christ, where Obama has attended for 20 years, is well established.  Among the books recommended and sold through the church’s website is The Debt: What America Owes To Blacks, by Randall Robinson (Penguin Putman Inc., 2000).  Here are several quotes from Robinson’s book:
“This book is about the great still-unfolding massive crime of official and unofficial America against Africa, African slaves, and their descents in America.” p. 8
“Whether the monetary obligation is legally enforceable or not, a large debt is owed by America to the descents of America’s slaves.”  p. 231
“It is obvious that in any effort to balance America’s racial scales, education, defined in the broadest sense, must be assigned the very highest priority.  Sadly, the very idea of public education, perhaps the most important load-bearing pillar of our society’s future, has been under assault for decades.  Even the segregated schools of my Richmond, Virginia childhood were safer and had healthier academic environments than many public schools operating today — particularly those in deteriorating urban centers where public school populations were made up increasingly of children who are both black and poor.” p. 79
“To do what is necessary, of course, will require a virtual Marshall Plan of federal resources, far in excess of anything contemplated between the nearly touching poles of conventional palliatives.” p. 107
At the end of his book, Robinson endorses reparations through educational programs similar to those found in Obama’s Blueprint For Change
“I believe that such a trust would have to be funded for at least two successive K-through-college educational generations, perhaps longer.  Among other programs funded from the trust would be special K-12 schools through the United States with residential facilities for those black children who are found to be at risk in unhealthy family and neighborhood environments.  The curricula for these schools would be rigorous…the schools would emphasize the diverse histories and cultures of the black world.  For blacks who remained in the public schools, much the same would be provided by special-purpose schools funded to supplement public-school offerings in a fashion not dissimilar to the role performed by weekend Hebrew schools for the Jewish community. All fees for these schools would be fully funded from the trust.   Further, all blacks who qualified academically and were found to be in financial need would be entitled to attend college free of charge.”  p. 245 
So, when asked by Anderson Cooper for his position on reparations, Obama’s answer may have evaded a candid response such as:  “Yes, I believe in a form of reparations designed to repair public education, particularly where it has historically failed many black children.”
If nominated, and certainly if elected, Obama will want to offer a persuasive case to the American people for wide-spread educational reparations.  For now, though, he seems to be playing language games with us.   

Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-Western jihadist hate

Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-Western jihadist hate

It isn’t as if we haven’t seen this coming. For years now I have pointed out the shallowness and flimsiness of condemnations of terror by American Islamic groups, and noted that American mosques and schools have no programs to teach against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, as one might have expected them to institute after 9/11 if they really stood where they claimed they stood.

And in 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani testified before a State Department open forum that eighty percent of American mosques had extremist leadership. And then there was the January 2005 report from the Center for Religious Freedom, “Saudi publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques” (pdf here).

“Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism,” from WorldNetDaily (thanks to TCS):

An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.

“So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist,” an official familiar with the project said.

Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.

Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that “the vast majority” are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.

The project, headed by David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on sharia law, has finished collecting data from the first cohort of 102 mosques and schools. Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:

* Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.

* Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim’s duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called “martyrs” are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.

* Solicitation of financial support for jihad.

* Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom.

Though not all mosques in America are radicalized, many have tended to serve as safe havens and meeting points for Islamic terrorist groups. Experts say there are at least 40 episodes of extremists and terrorists being connected to mosques in the past decade alone.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C., area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques indentified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.

It was founded and is currently run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams there preach what is called “jihad qital,” which means physical jihad, and incite violence and hatred against the U.S.

Dar al-Hijrah’s ultimate goal, investigators say, is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.

Another D.C.-area mosque, the ADAMS Center, was founded and financed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.

Even with such radical mosques operating in its backyard, the U.S. government has not undertaken its own systematic investigation of U.S. mosques….

Which is an ongoing scandal.