Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Obama Mentions the VAT (Remember Our Prophet Krauthammer? [March 22nd, 2010]) -- PLUS, Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future"
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.
Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."
After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that calls the such a tax "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."
For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.
"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.
After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT.
Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill's production work and so on up the line to the retailer....
Just a reminder that all taxes put on a "corporation" or business are incurred by the people buying the product or the person who works for the company (thusly, putting the burden of the tax on the families Dems are "trying to help":
Monday, April 19, 2010
Obama's Spending Habits
Wall Street Journal (January 2010)
(Source)WSJ – Mr. Axelrod wrote that no one is entitled to his own facts, even as he argued that George W. Bush is responsible for Barack Obama’s deficits. He argued that Mr. Bush forced the hand of this administration by leaving office in the midst of a sharp recession.
That argument won’t fly for two reasons. First, at some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It’s also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.
By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.
Mr. Obama’s spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.
Mr. Bush’s deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama’s plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade.
Team Obama has been on history’s biggest spending spree, which has included a $787 billion stimulus, a $30 billion expansion of a child health-care program, and a $410 billion federal spending bill that increased nondefense discretionary spending 10% for the last half of fiscal year 2009. Mr. Obama also hiked nondefense discretionary spending another 12% for fiscal year 2010.
Mr. Bush did move to give voters more control over their tax dollars. Both his Social Security reform ideas and the drug program he created offered templates for driving federal spending curves in the right direction, counter to what Democrats wanted to do.
Democrats, for example, proposed creating a prescription drug program as an alternative to the one Mr. Bush proposed that would have cost a projected $800 billion over 10 years. The Bush drug benefit was originally expected to cost half that amount and today costs a third less than what it was initially expected to cost because it uses market forces to drive prices down.
Mr. Axelrod claims the pork-laden stimulus package has been a success. But Mr. Obama told Americans that if it were passed, unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%. It is now 10%. The president also said it would create 3.7 million jobs, 90% of which would be in the private sector. By Mr. Obama’s standards, the stimulus failed miserably.
Mr. Bush did sign the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) into law and loaned $240 billion to banks. But those loans are being returned at a profit to the Treasury. Rather than using those funds to pay down the deficit, Mr. Obama wants to use them for new spending. What’s more, he has lavished some $320 billion from TARP on car companies, union allies, and pet causes that will never be fully returned.
Mr. Axelrod boasts Mr. Obama’s proposed health reforms will “not add to the federal deficit.” But if that turns out to be true, it will only be because Massachusetts voters just elected a senator who promises to vote against those reforms.
In going after Mr. Bush’s fiscal record, Mr. Axelrod unwittingly revealed why Democrats are losing. Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have made a mess of the nation’s finances and are desperate to pin the blame on someone else. It’s not likely to work.
- Obama’s One Big Accomplishment: Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents
- CBO: Obama Budget To Generate $10 Trillion In Budget Deficits
- Karl Rove Sets the Record Straight
- Obama racked up a record-high monthly budget deficit of $220.9 billion in February
- CBO Paints Grim Picture: U.S. Budget Deficit 1.2 Trillion Higher Than Predicted
Washington Examiner (Feb of 2009!)
Back in 2006, when Democrats were hoping to win control of the House and Senate, party leaders worked themselves into a righteous outrage over the issue of out-of-control federal spending. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the Republican budget “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” because it increased the amount of U.S. debt held by foreign countries. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of going on “an unprecedented and dangerous borrowing spree” and declared GOP leadership “the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of our country … no other president or Congress even comes close.”
You won’t find too many defenders of George W. Bush’s record on spending these days, even among Republicans. But a check of historical tables compiled by the Office of Management and Budget shows that the spending that so distressed Pelosi and Reid seems downright modest today. After beginning with a Clinton-era surplus of $128 billion in fiscal year 2001, the Bush administration racked up deficits of $158 billion in 2002, $378 billion in 2003, $413 billion in 2004, $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006, $162 billion in 2007, and $410 billion in 2008.
The current administration would kill to have such small numbers. President Barack Obama is unveiling his budget this week, and, in addition to the inherited Bush deficit, he’s adding his own spending at an astonishing pace, projecting annual deficits well beyond $1 trillion in the near future, and, in the rosiest possible scenario, a $533 billion deficit in fiscal year 2013, the last year of Obama’s first term.
And what about the national debt? It increased from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the Bush years, leading to dramatically higher interest costs. “We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years,” Pelosi said in 2007. “That’s fiscal irresponsibility.”
Now, under Obama, the national debt — and the interest payments — will increase at a far faster rate than during the Bush years.
“We thought the Bush deficits were big at the time,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told me this week as he prepared to attend Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Summit. “But this is going to make the previous administration look like rank amateurs. We could be adding multiple trillions to the national debt in the first year.”
At some point last week, the sheer velocity of Obama’s spending proposals began to overwhelm even experienced Washington hands. In the span of four days, we saw the signing of the $787 billion stimulus bill, the rollout of a $275 billion housing proposal, discussion of Congress’s remaining appropriations bills (about $400 billion) and word of a vaguely-defined financial stabilization plan that could ultimately cost $2 trillion. When representatives of GM and Chrysler said they might need $21 billion more to survive, it seemed like small beer.
The numbers are so dizzying that McConnell and his fellow Republicans are trying to “connect the dots” — that is, to explain to the public how all of those discrete spending initiatives add up to a previously unthinkable total. Obama’s current spending proposals, Republicans point out, will cost more than the United States spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the general war on terror and Hurricane Katrina in the last seven years. And that’s before you throw in the $2 trillion fiscal stabilization plan.
“This is big government, man,” McConnell exclaimed, his matter-of-fact manner giving way to sheer amazement. “It makes previous attempts at big government pale in comparison — they’re going to go beyond the New Deal and the Great Society by far.”
The new spending guarantees that the problems that so disturbed Pelosi and Reid just a couple of years ago — high interest payments and an increasing number of foreign debt-holders — will get worse. Yet so far, the Democratic leaders have refrained from using words like unpatriotic, irresponsible and dangerous to describe Obama’s budget.
Of course, they would never use such phrases to attack their own team. But the most important thing to understand about Pelosi and Reid is that while their rhetoric has changed, their substance hasn’t. Back in the Bush days, when they were denouncing Republican over-spending, they were also pushing the congressional leadership to spend more, not less, on just about everything. Now, returned to power, they’re doing the same thing. Only bigger.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
POLAND PAPER: 'Obama Goes Golfing Instead of Attending Kaczynskis' Funeral'... Obama Plays 32nd Round of Golf During Presidency -- Bush Played 24 Over Span of 8 Years
...Mr. Obama has played golf far more often than former President George W. Bush. In his eight years in office, Mr. Bush played just 24 times. His last time as president was Oct. 13, 2003.
He said in 2008 that he gave up golf "in solidarity" with the families of soldiers who were dying in Iraq.
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," Mr. Bush said in a White House interview Saturday with the Politico. "I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
He stopped playing after he received word of a deadly attack in Iraq while playing golf during a stay at the family ranch near Crawford, Texas....
...(read more)...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Did Obama Give 95% of Peaople a "Tax Cut"? (Responding to a recent recantation of this 95% myth)
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2008
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Say What! The Many Obamas'
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. combat brigades from Iraq, with the pullout being completed by the end of next year. 'Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was,' Obama said." -- Obama calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, AP, Sep. 12, 2007 [emphasis added]
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Our Journey As A Country Over The Past Year
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
~ Ronald Reagan ~
Thursday, March 18, 2010
FOXNews Interviews Barack Hussein Obama - 2-Parts (Obama Doesn't Answer Much -- Lots of Platitudes Though; Plus: Lapel Pin On [check]; and, Hawaii Earthquake??)
(Breitbart/Gateway Pundit h/t)
Gateway Pundit: What earthquake in Hawaii? In 1868 there was a major earthquake in Hawaii that killed 77 people. In 1975 an earthquake in Hawaii killed 2 people.BAIER: Do you know which specific deals are in or out, as of today?
OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.
BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?
OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though.
Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.
(CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.
Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those. So, at the end of the day, what people are going to be able to say is that this legislation is going to be providing help to small businesses and individuals, across the board, in an even handed way, and providing people relief from a status quo that’s just not working.
(Video -- Prophecy?)
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Obama Adds 8.5 Trillion in 10-years
...(read more)...President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday. Proposed tax cuts for the middle class account for nearly a third of that shortfall.
The 10-year outlook released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is somewhat gloomier than White House projections, which found that Obama's budget request would produce deficits that would add about $8.5 trillion to the national debt by 2020....
Friday, March 05, 2010
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
MSNBC Ratigan and Racism... where were you on this buddy?
Just a reminder for Ratigan:
Obama -- Christian, Muslim, or Neither?
 Some history: The NOI was created by Wallace D. Fard, also known as Wallace Fard Muhammad. Fard claimed to come from the Islamic city of Mecca. He began a mosque in Detroit in 1930. He taught that Christianity should be rejected since it was the "slave-master's religion." In 1934 Fard disappeared and was neither seen nor heard from again. Fard was succeeded by Elijah Muhammad (Elijah Poole). Elijah Poole was born in Sandersville, Ga. on October 7, 1898. He changed his name to Elijah Muhammad after joining the NOI. After Fard disappeared, Elijah took over the leadership of NOI..... The Nation of Islam claims that God is a man. "God is a man and we just cannot make Him other than man" (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman in America, [Chicago: Muhammad's Temple No. 2], p. 6). The NOI teaches that Fard was Allah in physical form (Elijah Muhammad, The Fall of America, p. 236, as reprinted in "The Mother Plane," The Final Call 15, no. 25 [July 16, 1996]: 19). According to Elijah Muhammad, Fard told him, "My name is Mahdi; I am God" (Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman, p. 17). The NOI continues to teach that Fard is Allah. The current NOI statement is published in every issue of their weekly newspaper, The Final Call, in an article titled "What the Muslims Believe." It states, "12. WE BELIEVE that Allah (God) appeared in the Person of Master W. Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long-awaited 'Messiah' of the Christians and the 'Mahdi' of the Muslims." The NOI denies that God is spirit. The NOI claims that Christians worship an "invisible spook somewhere in space"(Elijah Muhammad, Message to the Blackman, p. 5). According to Elijah Muhammad, "God is in person, and stop looking for a dead Jesus for help, but pray to Him whom Jesus prophesied would come after Him. He who is alive and not a spook" (Ibid., p. 3). 
I wish to say that I have gone to one church for a decade, and if my pastor brought in David Duke for an award (“A Lifetime Achievement Award”), I would firstly let the pastor know my thinking on the subject, and then I would leave the church forever. Likewise, if I were a politician, I would find it curious why the church’s magazine would publish full-length articles and cover photo’s of David Duke and still attend such a church. ============================================================ "The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
=============================
============================= "The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
|
[video] Rev. Jeremiah Wright Returns with Ether-’Them Jews Won’t Let Him (Obama) Talk To Me’ - Watch more Music Videos at Vodpod.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Obama's Dueling Personalities (He Controlled Weather Before He Couldn't Control Weather)
Which one is it, can you can't you control weather?
(see the 2:55 mark below)
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
God Blessed Racism Video and Quotes (wanted it all in one place for my use)
"How many books of Cones have you read!?"
This is the $ quote from the interview above with Obama's past pastor . So I did. Could you imagine if McCain or Bush went to a church for twenty years headed by a pastor whom -- a) brought you to your faith, b) married you and your wife, c) baptized your kids, and was d) on your campaign staff -- sold hitler's Mein Kampf in the church's bookstore. Not only that but on national television recommended this same book? We would never hear the end of it. Never. In fact, this fictitious person would never make it on a ballot.
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
- The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods. (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.62
- White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality. (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.64
=============================
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
- There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.63
- Christianity is not alien to Black Power, Christianity is Black Power. (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.38
- In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God's blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing. (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.65
=============================
"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" ~ Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf
- These new theologians of the Third World argue that Christians [liberation theology accepting Christians] should not shun violence but should initiate it... (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.32
- It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it. (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.14
- It is this fact that makes all white churches anti-Christian in their essence. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people! (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) Black Theology & Black Power, James Cone, p.151
- It [black liberation theology] is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both "anti-Christian" and "unpatriotic.".... Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the American Way,... (Book from Obamas Churchs bookstore) A Black Theology of Liberation, James Cone, p.55-56
=============================
(Below are quotes from James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation ~ a book sold in Obama's church's bookstore the entire 20-years he attended.)
"It is dangerous because the true prophet of the gospel of God must become both 'anti-Christian' and 'unpatriotic.' (55) …. Because whiteness by its very nature is against blackness, the black prophet is a prophet of national doom. He proclaims the end of the 'American Way...'" (56
"But this does not mean that religion is irrelevant altogether; it only means that religion unrelated to black liberation is irrelevant." (58-59)
"... it is that whites are incapable of making any valid judgment about human existence. The goal of black theology is the destruc¬tion of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods. The God of black liberation will not be confused with a blood' thirsty white idol. Black theology must show that the black God has nothing to do with the God worshiped in white churches whose primary purpose is to sanctify the racism of whites and to daub the wounds of blacks. Putting new wine in new wineskins means that the black theology view of God has nothing in common with those who prayed for an American victory in Vietnam or who pray for a "cool" summer in the ghetto.... There is no place in black theology for a colorless God in a society where human beings suffer precisely because of their color. The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism.... Because God has made the goal of blacks God's own goal, black theology believes that it is not only appropriate but necessary to begin the doctrine of God with an insistence on God's blackness." (62-63)
"White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity. That is why whites are finding and will continue to find the black experience a disturbing reality." (64)
"In contrast to this racist view of God, black theology proclaims God's blackness. Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who black persons are and what they are doing. " (65)
"God comes to us in God's blackness, which is wholly unlike white¬ness. To receive God's revelation is to become black with God by joining God in the work of liberation.... Becoming one of God's disciples means rejecting whiteness and accepting themselves as they are in all their physical blackness." (66)
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution.... What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." (70)
"God is black because God loves us; and God loves us because we are black. Righteousness is that side of God which expresses itself through black liberation. God makes black what humans have made white.... Love is a refusal to accept whiteness." (73-74)
"If creation 'involves a bringing into existence of something that did not exist before,' then to say God is creator means that my being finds its source in God. I am black because God is black! God as creator is the ground of my blackness (being), the point of reference for meaning and purpose in the universe.... Rather it is incumbent upon me by the freedom granted by the creator to deny whiteness and affirm blackness as the essence of God. That is why it is necessary to speak of the black revolution rather than reformation. The idea of reformation suggests that there is still something 'good' in the system itself, which needs only to be cleaned up a bit. This is a false perception of reality. The system is based on whiteness, and what is necessary is a replacement of whiteness with blackness." (75-76)
"Being white excludes them from the black community and thus whatever concern they have for blacks will invariably work against black freedom.... Certainly if whites expect to be able to say anything relevant to the self-determination of the black community, it will be necessary for them to destroy their whiteness by becoming members of an oppressed community. Whites will be free only when they become new persons—when their white being has passed away and they are created anew in black being. When this happens, they are no longer white but free, and thus capable of making decisions about the destiny of the black community." (97)
- Born Again: "They [white people] would destroy themselves and be born again as beautiful black persons." (103);
- Sin: "This means that whites, despite their self-proclaimed religiousness, are rendered incapable of making valid judgments on the character of sin.... In a word, sin is whiteness..." (106, 108);
- Salvation: "Salvation, then, primarily has to do with earthly reality and the injustice inflicted on those who are helpless and poor. To see the salvation of God is to see this people rise up against its oppressors, demanding that justice become a reality now, not tomorrow." (128)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)