New Book Casts Doubt on Obama’s Christian Identity

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The liberal media have harangued figures such as Franklin Graham when they have refused to state categorically that Barack Obama is a Christian. Now comes author Edward Klein telling Sean Hannity that Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of United Church of Christ in Chicago, told him that he “made it comfortable” for Obama to accept Christianity “without having to renounce his Islamic background.”

All of this is consistent with our point, made in 2010, that Muslims could join Wright’s church without giving up their Muslim faith. And while Obama accepted Christianity, in the sense of calling himself a Christian, there is no evidence that he was ever officially baptized into Wright’s church. We pointed out that Obama’s claim about his own baptism, as reported in his second memoir, The Audacity of Hope, is subject to interpretation because of the lack of detail about how and when he was baptized and by whom.

Edward Klein’s unauthorized biography of Barack Obama, The Amateur: Barack Obama in The White House (Regnery) has generated some criticism from the right for badly mangling the facts about Obama and infanticide. The book is also being strongly attacked by the Soros-funded media machine as a “smear.”

But he has the goods on Obama—in the form of tape-recorded conversations with Wright, who is spilling the beans on Obama’s “conversion.” Sean Hannity’s website has posted some of the blockbuster Klein-Wright tapes.

Janet Maslin of The New York Times calls the book “skimpy, bitter,” but does not dispute the statements from Wright. Instead, she dismisses them, saying that “any biographical subject has bitter ex-friends and associates. And if they feel snubbed enough, they will talk.”

She writes, “The Rev. Jeremiah Wright asserted to Mr. Klein that during the last presidential election he was offered a bribe by the Obama camp, a payoff to stop speaking in public. Mr. Wright also says that even when Mr. Obama made this request directly, he would not cooperate. Among the reasons: he had speaking engagements scheduled, a family to support and college tuitions to pay.”

There is no reason, however, for Wright not to talk openly and honestly about his conversations with Obama when he wanted to join Wright’s church.

As we have pointed out in the past, Obama acknowledges in Dreams from My Father that his grandfather was a Muslim (page 104) and that he spent two years in a Muslim school in Indonesia studying the Koran (page 154). In The Audacity of Hope, he says (page 204) that “my father had been raised a Muslim” but that by the time he met his mother, his father was a “confirmed atheist.”

His stepfather was not particularly religious and his mother professed “secularism,” Obama wrote (pages 204-205), but as a child he went to a “predominantly Muslim school,” after being first sent to a Catholic school. His mother, he said, was concerned about him learning math, not religion.

According to Klein’s book, Wright told Obama, “Well, you already know the Muslim piece of your background. You studied Islam, didn’t you?” Obama replied, “Yeah, Rev, I studied Islam. But help me understand Christianity, because I already know Islam.”

Asked if he converted Obama from Islam to Christianity, Wright said, “That’s hard to tell. I think I convinced him that it was okay for him to make a choice in terms of who he believed Jesus is. And I told him it was really okay and not a putdown of the Muslim part of his family or his Muslim friends.”

The phrase “That’s hard to tell” is mind-boggling, in view of Obama’s claim to be a practicing Christian.

When Obama’s statements as President are examined, we find something else curious. The Koran teaches that Jesus was not divine. Obama, in his Easter message this year, spoke of Jesus as “a son of God,” not “the Son of God,” which is what the Christian faith teaches in John 3:16-18.

Obama’s statements about the importance of Islam are so numerous that they have been put into a video with over six million views titled “Obama Admits He Is A Muslim.” The video concludes with film of the 9/11 attacks and the quotation “…I am one of them,” as if Obama admitted being a Muslim. But Obama’s statement, “…I am one of them,” is taken from an Obama quotation shown earlier in the video, in which he says, “Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country—I know, because I am one of them.”

The video has been picked apart by critics, who also note that it leaves out instances in which he calls himself a Christian. But Wright’s words to Edward Klein are enough to raise the controversy all over again.

As for Wright, author Ed Klein notes his “Marxist ideology” and says that “Wright’s influence on Obama was unrivaled for more than twenty years,” the time when Obama attended Wright’s church.

However, when he writes about Wright being Obama’s “substitute father, life coach, and political inspiration wrapped into one package,” he is missing one step in the process. Obama’s first substitute father was Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, who was Obama’s mentor during Obama’s teenage years in Hawaii.

As the result of this omission, Klein’s book ultimately fails the test of completely explaining Obama. The public will be able to fill the gap when Paul Kengor’s book, The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, comes out in July.

As we have pointed out before, the Obama campaign apparatus, which has claimed Obama is a baptized Christian, also asserted that the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, was just a black civil rights activist. We know better. The ruse is over.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Trial by Media and Chaos

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

This new age of civil rights; is it a step forward or two steps back? The Houston Chronicle presented coverage of a trial in which a police officer was found not guilty after having been accused of official oppression for alleged use of excessive force while arresting a felony suspect based on a few seconds of raw video footage taken during the arrest.

“After State District Judge Ruben Guerrero announced the jury’s decision about 11:30 a.m., Quanell X and other activists from the National Black United Front and the New Black Panther Party exploded in anger and expletives in the hallway outside the courtroom. They hammered prosecutors and the all-white jury – two women and four men – for racism. Blomberg is white; the beating victim, Chad Holley, is black.”

Race baiters stood at the front of the line pointing their fingers, “He’s guilty”; but don’t let the facts presented to the jury get in the way. “We saw the video, that’s all we needed to see, he’s guilty,” a choir of angry protesters shouted, their voices echoed off the court house walls.

“What they did today is send a message to black people, to all of us, that our lives aren’t worth a damn in this city,” Quanell X said.”

Well, I wasn’t there during the arrest and neither were you Quanell. Isn’t that why we have a trial, to find out all the facts rather than base our final judgment on a few seconds of video splashed across the television screen during the ten o’clock news?

Folks like Quanell X don’t give a damn about facts; they want to stir up the Black community, increase racial tension so the next opportunity might actually break the back of civilized society and bring about the long awaited triumph of the ever persecuted Black race. Isn’t that what’s being foisted upon us, all in the name of bringing about justice?

Guilt by accusation and trial by media have become the bully pulpit for an insidious force that moves freely among us; a force which presumes to take the place of “innocent until proven guilty” and a judicial system which acts to review the merits of each case brought before it. It’s so much easier to take a few moments from a video clip and pretend those few moments represent the entire incident, especially if those moments match with your agenda to racially divide and incite riot.

Quanell hammered our racist society, “There is no way an all-white jury could provide justice in this case, he said. “That was not a jury of our peers, Chad’s peers, or the city’s peers.”

There was a jury pool which had a diverse cross-section of possible jurors and included several Black individuals. In fact, but you won’t hear Quanell X mention it, three Black people were presented as possible jury members for this trial; but were dismissed from the jury pool because they had already determined the guilt of the accused based on having observed a newscast presentation of the video clip, a video clip which was played over and over again covering the space of several days.

I watched that same video clip and my stomach tightened as damning “evidence” was presented; but at the same time I’m aware that a few seconds of video doesn’t constitute “evidence,” only a portion of what may or may not be evidence in the legal sense.

Evidence is determined by the court, not the media and not the public at large. This is important if we are to live under the rule of law. Are we civilized enough to live under the rule of law is the next question; either that or admit we would rather be savages who have no rules, no laws or social order; chaos is a poor alternative to the rule of law.

Trial by media is a dangerous substitute for the justice system we depend on. Trial by media depends on knee jerk reactions rather than a reasoned thought process.

It’s so much better for ratings if your viewers grab torches and march on the courthouse square demanding justice. That isn’t to say there aren’t flaws within the justice system; but hysteria induced lynch mob mentality is a step backwards, not forward.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, pointing to a printed clip of the original video clip before the camera, pandered to her constituents, “Every citizen deserves due process and their right to a trial by a jury, but also every victim deserves a thorough review of their case to determine if justice has truly been rendered.”

Every citizen except the police officer, isn’t that what you meant to say Congresswoman Lee? Every victim deserves a thorough review of their case, except this police officer; we only needed to watch a few seconds of a video to know he was guilty. The double edged sword of hypocrisy cuts deep if you turn their words around on these race pimps.

What have we learned, that three possible black jurists might have served had they not been prejudiced by a video clip which was widely circulated among most of the local news media? No, I don’t have a good feeling about any of this as we go toward the summer months. There’s still the Trayvon Martin mess to deal with in Florida; a mess which has been intentionally distorted from the very first moment by these very same race pimps.

What purpose does it serve to throw a nation into chaos based on racial tension, real or imagined? My gut feeling comes from a very dark place, the kind of feeling that leaves a bad taste in your mouth even before you say it.

If you connect the dots then we are being driven towards a particular end, that being the destruction of the rule of law and our constitutional republic. There are those among us who would prefer we abandon everything civilization has achieved in favor of their notion of social justice regardless of right or wrong; victory at any cost, even if it means total chaos.

Race baiting is nothing new; but add to their arsenal instant video taken by cell phones or random camera placements around the city combined with repeated media hype and we are one step closer to chaos. If we permit information presented on the television, radio or internet to take the place of “evidence” or “proof” without following time tested judicial protocols then we also must accept that we no longer live under the rule of law and in its stead have become a society which favors trial by media.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”


The debate continues on Martial Law. Would Barack Hussein Obama use it to postpone the elections in order to remain in power?

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

I have been one of those concerned conservatives who try to anticipate the unexpected tactics of our would-be Muslim Dictator in Chief. In my previous analysis’s I equated Barack Hussein Obama to a cornered rat who would do anything to stay in power. When Obama authorized the killing of Muslim leaders in al-Qaida I stated it was more for publicity than anything else. When I anticipated what Obama would do if his popularity declined and his reelection became in doubt, I suggested that he would support and encourage the Occupy protesters up to the point of them causing widespread civil unrest and then Obama would declare Martial Law and use the public safety as a reason to postpone the November elections.

Now, WND.com has an exclusive commentary by Barry Farber who seems to doubt that Barack Hussein Obama would do such a nasty thing. Farber does mention a few more reasons why Obama should be booted out of Washington but he still does not agree that Martial Law will be or would be invoked.

Will Obama impose martial law?

Exclusive: Barry Farber offers take on theory prez has plans to repress Americans

My inbox seems more and more aflame with articles quoting un-named insiders warning Americans that the Obama administration is secretly-but-ardently preparing for “organized disorder” intended to warrant the imposition of martial law so the presidential election can be canceled and Obama can continue to rule “indefinitely”! Details seem to be amazingly abundant. The deliberate violence will be just bad enough, you see, to make the American people grateful for the martial law. And the government is allegedly stockpiling everything needed to build and maintain “concentration camps.” And on applications for the military they’re now asking questions like, “Would you forcibly take guns from your fellow Americans?” Also, “Would you kill them?”

At this point I should emphasize I’m as opposed to this administration as I can arrange to get, but I’m totally unconvinced by all such talk. In fact, if brain scientists are looking for a real “complacent” to study – one who actually says, “It can’t happen here!” – I’m their man, provided it pays at least as much as jury duty.

Further down in his comments, Mr. Farber says: “will American troops nonetheless conclude, “Gee, I guess it’s time for us to go kill our own people to save the country”?” This innocuous statement sounds similar to The Oath Keepers who are appealing to law enforcement people to abide by their sworn oaths to uphold the Constitution and refuse orders to arrest or harm innocent civilians or confiscate their guns. Just how in hell is a cop going to know that his orders are unconstitutional or that any civilian was innocent when he was told otherwise by his superiors. How are the National Guard troops going to know they should not follow orders if they are mobilized to confront rioting Occupy forces. And whether they did or did not follow orders has nothing to do with the imposition of Martial Law. And what if there was a possibility that law enforcement people or military people would not follow orders? Did anyone ever consider that Obama could go to the United Nations and declare a national emergency and ask for a U.N. Peace Keeping force be sent to American soil? I am certain those troops from Uganda or the Congo would have no compulsions against killing American civilians.

Any government that would authorize the construction of civilian detainment centers (i.e. concentration camps) or ask for an amendment to the NDAA National Defense Authorization Act to allow the arrest and imprisonment without trial of any American who the government has determined was a threat is certainly capable of doing anything it wants to remain in power. The power that the government has already acquired in the Patriot Act and the above mentioned issues can be used against anyone they choose to use it against, whether it be genuine Islamic terrorists or right-wing conservatives. And do not forget, the Obama Dept. of Homeland Security has already defined whom it considers to be a potential threat.

Who or what you call a terrorist is not the same as what the Dept. of Homeland Security calls a terrorist. When you think of a terrorist you probably have in mind the radical Muslims who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. These people are whom the original Patriot Act was designed to go after. But the Patriot Act is simply a tool that provides law enforcement extra special powers, it is up to the government to define who those powers will be used against. It is like a powerful weapon that a good person carries but then it falls into the hands of someone who is not a good person.

As I wrote on Feb. 13, 2010 in this blog: You have probably heard about Dept. of Homeland Security’s controversial document that was published in 2009. It was one of the first things Obama had his DHS do. It is called (U//FOUO) Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. It is available here: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf Two weeks before this was published, Dept. of Homeland Security published another document called (U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon, that described the definitions it was using. It is available here: http://www.tdbimg.com/files/2009/04/30/-hsra-domestic-extremism-lexicon_165213935473.pdf

The DHS document (U//FOUO) Domestic Extremism Lexicon also includes precursors to the ill-fated “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” report, which prompted outrage from legislators and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. For example, the lexicon contains virtually the same broad-stroke language the right-wing extremism report used. And all right wing extremists are considered domestic terrorists

“Right wing extremism,” the lexicon defines as those “who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly anti-government and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to right wing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The left wing Democrats in Washington want to tie all their plans into a neat bundle. Taking into consideration that DHS has virtually declared that you and I are both “Right Wing Extremists” now consider that Atty Gen. Eric Holder has proposed legislation to prohibit any person considered a domestic terrorist or right wing extremist from owning a firearm.

The only question that remains is who is going to fire the first shot. Maybe we need to study the history of our first American Revolution and read about Lexington and Concord to find the answer.

My name is Nelson Abdullah and I am Old Ironsides.