• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

The naïve American public and their dumb political leaders believe that Barack Hussein Obama has cleared his past with leaving the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and stating that he has severed “outraged” and “insulted” his relation with the then senior pastor of that church. In reality, however, this close relationship of 20 years, which I don’t think is broken, makes clear who he is and where his philosophy is rooted.

When you add to these roots some friends like Saul Alinski and Frank Marshall Davis and his Islamic education in Indonesia, you get an idea of his radical Socialist an un-American background. A lot has been written about Obama and his relationships. Cliff Kincaid asks, “Is he a mole?” My answer to that question can only be “yes, he is.”

Now he resides in the White House. It seems he is nothing but Mr. President, and his past doesn’t exist anymore. I am appalled at a government establishment that ignores the need for a thorough investigation into his eligibility and lets him enslave this and future American generations. Coming from a country with a criminal godless background, I know that the past is not cured with words but only with convincing moral change. I went through it. Obama, however, has not changed and is the same ruthless person he always was as a leading part of the organized killing machine of more than 50 million innocent unborn human beings. Let’s look at his foundation.

Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., former senior pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, stated that his theology “is based upon the systemized liberation theology that started 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, ‘Black Power and Black Theology.’” That book stands for “the destruction of the white enemy,” describes S.A. Miller in the Washington Times. Wright explains on his website that in his church all theological perspectives start from the vantage point of black liberation theology. Black theology, however, is not the beginning of modern liberation theology; it is a local version of the Latin American original which is aimed at Catholics in Latin America. Black theology, on the other hand, is aimed at African-Americans here and Africans, for instance in South Africa. There are other versions for American natives, Asians and women. The liberation they are talking about is not the teaching of liberation from selfishness and sin through Jesus Christ but about ending the economic exploitation by capitalists, whites or males respectively. The message is divisive and subversive. “We are agents for God,” says the mission statement of what was Obama’s church, for 20 years. Maybe they listen to Satan and not to God. They are no agents of God.

Reading or listening to the explanations of what liberation in this context means by their Spanish, German, English speaking professionals, you notice the same line of argument – abundant Christian language, themes and apologetics. But underneath there’s a subtle shift to liberation as an economic criteria which Obama wants to get into our Constitution. We are dealing here with fake Christians who wage a class war for the “end of exploitation.” He played the race card as a deflection.

I spent a great part of my adult life in various countries of Latin America. That’s where I came across the theology of liberation. I read the literature and listened to leaders like the Brazilian priest Leonardo Boff, visited the priest Gustavo Gutierrez in his home in Peru, and discussed this theology in UNAM, the state university of Mexico, with the German Theology Professor Johann B. Metz. The ideas in his book “Political Theology” led to the articulation of the liberation theology. During this discussion in Mexico, the Argentine Enrique Dussel named communist leader Che Guevara and the top Sandinista Thomas Borge as the new types of man for the society of tomorrow. This event, like many others, served as instrument to attack “American imperialism” and make Soviet agents acceptable to Catholics.

Gustavo Gutierrez is acknowledged as founder of the theology of liberation. He made a good impression on me. He had lived a great part of his life as a priest among the very poor in Peru. In other words, he had his heart where his mouth was. His concern was how to make the poor into a power for economic change through political and social liberation. He had a list of priorities, but unfortunately the liberation from selfishness came at the end of it. The Vatican sanctioned Boff and many others because of heresy but not Gutierrez, as they most likely had the same impression as I had.

What happened then, I believe, was that Marxists, without interest in the liberation from selfishness, picked up the idea of social and political liberation and pushed the movement to the left into the global establishment of class war but without getting rid of the religious label. It is now a subversive communist political movement, not a serious theology. Theologist Julio Giradi defined: “Christian love only is a historical force if it takes up class warfare.” That of course is complete nonsense. I have been in many of these “favelas,” the living areas of the poor in Latin America at the borders of the big cities. It is true, that they live in subhuman conditions, and your heart goes out to them. But morally they are no different from the “rich.” They steal and lie as Western politicians do. In Rio de Janeiro I was in the home of the leader of such a settlement. From the outside his “house” looked as terrible as all the others. But inside it was a normal, comfortable home. He was rich compared to the poor since he took a cut for himself from the collections he was authorized to make for the payment of electricity, garbage removal, etc. It is like Congress taking our payments to Social Security for re-elections. In Rio de Janeiro I was with the communist leaders of the Port Workers Union. Their wives were not hungry but resented their husbands having other women beside them – a vice also very popular in this country – and were unhappy in their marriage and their lives. That changed as the husbands realized that the new world order they were promoting did not even work in their own families. They changed their lives. It is not the change Obama has in mind.

Barack Hussein Obama has been a member of the Trinity Church of Christ church for 20 years. His daughters were baptized, and he got married there. I have seen and read about its liberation fundamentals: hatred and class war. It is more than doubtful that he as an extraordinary intelligent person has not become aware in 20 years of the ideological orientation of his church. In an interview in the “Hannity & Colmes” show of Fox News on March 2, 2007, Rev. Wright expressed himself as a trained ideologist and not as a pastor. The video with a “sermon” he made in another church is even worse. He must have a strange view of God’s commandments. Obama’s explanation that he does not agree with everything that Wright says is no explanation at all. We are not talking about occasional anger but about the moral and religious fundament of a church. To raise during the election campaign a racial issue and throw the ball into the camp of the whites was a brilliant trick to fool everybody. His and Wright’s ideology is socialist/communist world power.

What kind of Christianity did Wright teach Obama that this man can believe that a politician can be a Christian by tolerating hatred and making abortion part of his political platform? Barack Obama has a hidden agenda. He is closer to the Nazis than to our Founding Fathers


  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.