Black Liberation Theology and Republican Hypocrisy

The right wing political tacticians are testing the waters to see if the strategy and tactics of the 2008 election they lost can be retooled.  There were lines drawn, ethical boundaries which to his credit John McCain would not cross.  Not so much his fake family values Vice Presidential candidate, popsie half-term governor Sarah Palin, the queen of twit and quit.
Let examine what the two main areas are that the right is trying on for size, calling Obama a Muslim, and black liberation theology.  But if he was Muslim, that's fine; we have no religious test for office.

We have liberation theology, and we have faux pundits like Sean Hannity trying to link the president to Islam through religious figures like Louis Farrakhan.  Herman Cain, the right wing's token negro and full time Uncle Tom has come out and condemned Obama as well for his affiliation with Reverend Wright's church .........why does Cain get a pass for the same thing?
It is true that President Obama grew up exposed to a greater first hand knowledge of Islam, living in other parts of the world during a part of his childhood.  At no time did he join that religion, and if knowing about it, more so than any of the other candidates,which is likely to be incredibly helpful in his role as President, is wrong, are we to condemn everyone who has a familiarity with other religions? to be consistent, we then have to condemn everyone who has studied world religions or taken comparative religion classes.  Those are required at some religious affiliated institutions of higher learning, and they are elective classes used to fulfill humanities requirements in others.
What the tame conservative liar Cain DOESN'T happen to mention, which makes him a flaming hypocrite as well as an apparent serial sexual harasser and possible adulterer, is that he himself is prominently affiliated with and claims to have been strongly influenced by a black liberation theology church with ties to Islam, Malcolm X.  That would be the prominent Antioch Baptist church in Atlanta, Georgia, under the leadership and preaching of Rev. C.M. Alexander.  According to this bio, Cain is an associate minister of the Antioch Baptist church (my emphasis added - DG):

Cain also serves as an associate minister at Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, which he joined at the age of 10.^[37] The church is part of the National Baptist Convention^[38] and is politically liberal and theologically conservative; the church's senior pastor, Rev. Cameron M. Alexander, does not share Cain's political philosophy.^[39][40]

So apparently Herman Cain is all too familiar with being a long time, active member of a church that preaches black liberation theology, while disagreeing with the senior pastor.  Except in this case it was the senior pastor who repudiated the politics of Herman Cain, unlike Obama repudiating the views of Rev. Wright.

I don't recall ever seeing or hearing a single right wing pundit criticize Herman Cain or question him about his religious association with a church that has been prominent for black liberation theology.
Newsvine's Bonos Rama did an excellent article on Herman Cain and his religious views, which make Cain's puppet speech recently criticizing Obama all the more clearly hypocritical.  From the newsvine piece:
If it is true that a person can be held responsible for the words of their preacher and can be said to embrace their preacher's philosophies by sitting in a pew, why has no one on the right spoken out about Herman Cain's pastor, Reverend C.M. Alexander? Reverend Alexander is affiliated with the extremely liberal Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta, Georgia. The main page of Antioch's web page mentions how Alexander was drawn to liberation theology:

Like early African American preachers, Alexander is drawn to the power of those texts. Indeed, during slavery, black prophetic preachers saw the Bible as a tool for social justice. Rejecting the racist politics of the white church, which erroneously taught that God ordained slavery, early black preachers chose to worship a God of liberation.

The church's website also mentions that Alexander considers Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X to be one of his influences:

Influenced by civil rights luminaries like Malcolm X, Mary McCloud Bethune, Dr. Benjamin E. Mays and Rosa Parks, Alexander says he’s always been involved in civil rights in one way or the other.

http://www.antiochnorth.org/ourpastor.htm
Now, Malcolm X was an avowed racist who taught that white people were a race of devils, and also proclaimed the following:

"The common enemy is the white man."
and
"I'm not going to sit at your table and watch you eat, with nothing on my plate, and call myself a diner. Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American.... No I'm not an American, I'm one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy.... I'm speaking as a victim of this American system. And I see America through the eyes of a victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare."

So why has Cain been sitting in this church for years, listening to his preacher, who espouses liberation theology and counts Malcolm X as his influence -- and IS HIMSELF A MINISTER IN THAT CHURCH? If the right is correct and sitting in a church makes you responsible for all of the philosophies espoused by its preacher, and if liberation theology is, as they claim, racist, then Cain should have to answer for sitting in a church that espouses the philosophies of Malcolm X and liberation theology. So why has the right given him a pass on this?
******************
President Obama seems to have conducted himself in a manner far more consistent with family values than Herman Cain has.  President Obama has done more to clarify how his views differ from those of Reverend Wright than Herman Cain has.  And as for being 'anti-American', as distinct from being legitimately critical of some aspects of America, including government, I would point out that Rev. Wright has a very distinguished CV in terms of performing his patriotic duty, one that is rather more distinguished than that of Herman Cain:

In 1961 Wright left college  and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division attaining the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.^[11][12] Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House Physician, Vice Admiral Burkley, personally wrote Wright a letter of thanks on behalf of the United States President.^[13][14][15]

I think that service gives Wright the right to have a constructively critical opinion of some aspects of the United States.  Further black liberation theology is just one subset of a larger theology of Christian Social Justice that is not race specific.
Apparently the right is only concerned with anti-white racism; anti-black racism is perfectly acceptable in religious bigotry in their candidates.


I don't have a problem with Mitt R-money's religion; I have a problem with Mitt R-money being a liar, and espousing disaterous economic policies, I have a problem with him not standing up for what is right against Rush Limbaugh, and for his past apparent racism and bullying.  And he was cruel to his dog.. I believe R-money is, as Rick Parry called him, a vulture capitalist, or more correctly a vampire capitalist (sucks all the resources out of companies until they are dead). I think Herman Cain is simply a pig with incredibly poor ideas about economics who should learn to keep his hands to himself, along with his more private body parts, and who should be less of a flaming hypocrite. He will never be president of the United States; I doubt he could get elected local dog catcher, and that is unlikely to change. His time to be the token black person the GOP trots out to replace Michael Steele, is likely to be short lived until they can find some other black conservative to take his place.

To give you an example of what is so objectionable about Mitt R-money and Herman Cain, and what THEY think is ok, Big money man Ricketts, who is spreading around big amounts of cash all over Wisconsin on behalf of Scott Walker, and who put up millions for the campaign to smear Obama, including the criticism of his association with Reverend Wright, is seeking corporate welfare for the upgrades and repairs to the stadium where his baseball team plays THAT HE OWNS.  Because while he spends his own money to play politics in the millions of dollars, he wants the city to subsidize his business assets.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The Ricketts family, the eighth ownership group  in the 136- year history of the Cubs, acquired a 95 percent controlling interest in the team, Wrigley Field and 25 percent of Comcast Sportsnet Chicago in 2009. Joe Ricketts' children -- Pete, Tom, Laura and Todd -- are on the board.   

The Cubs team, which claimed back-to-back World Series titles in 1907 and 1908 and hasn't won the championship since, is seeking support for a proposal to relax Wrigley's landmark status and boost its advertising and sponsorship revenue.

The possible changes range from more outfield signs to street closings every game day to make space for street fairs. The stadium is among the city's top tourist attractions.The team also wants to use about $200 million in projected growth from existing amusement taxes to construct a building near the stadium to house its offices, a restaurant, parking, hall of fame, pro-shop and ticket windows.

Because this is how Republican policies work - spend money to end government spending for others, while hijacking as much public money for personal profit and advantage as possible, without regard to the hardship taking money from the pockets of ordinary, 99%er citizens might cause.  The right are hypocrites, supporting hypocrite policies and hypocrite politicians.  It's a bonus for them when they can throw in a little racism, religious bigotry and general intolerance and divisiveness.  THIS is why I oppose the right.  This is why YOU should oppose the right too.

World Bank definition of corruption - use of public office for private gain.  Sounds like Ricketts to me; he appears to be paying for the election of public officials to contribute to his private gain.