The ‘Chains’ of Progressive Politics

A story from Family Security Matters.

The ‘Chains’ of Progressive Politics


The uproar over the "chains" comment made by Vice President Joe Biden continues, and rightly so. The comment Mr. Biden made while addressing a predominantly Black audience at a campaign rally in Danville, VA - a town on the border of swing states Virginia and North Carolina - was not only racist in nature (whether intentional or not), it was also operational. That is why President Obama, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, senior campaign advisor David Axelrod and the full contingent of Obama campaign mouthpieces issued statements in defense of Mr. Biden; statements that refused to condemn the language.

True, it is a documented fact that Mr. Biden has a long and incredible history of making racially insensitive gaffes, but a cursory examination of the stage at the event shows that the dais was adorned with teleprompter hardware, meaning that his talk was scripted. Whether Mr. Biden chose to go off script we will never know, but his perceived gaffe certainly achieved four things:

1) It changed the subject from the nomination of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate;

2) It changed the national dialogue from a serious dialogue about the ideological crossroads a which our nation stands (Liberty v. Democratic Socialism), back to the inanity of yet another Progressive Chicago Machine smear side topic that has nothing to do with the very real issues facing our country this election cycle.

3) It got the race-baiting slavery innuendo out there for the media and Progressive activists to feast on;

4) And, most importantly, at a time when the Obama Administration's Justice Department is under fire for myriad racially charged actions of "social justice" bias, it afforded Mr. Obama to state - for the record - that he and his campaign do not engage in racial politics.

To the last point, a greater affront to the truth has never been uttered by a President of the United States. Mr. Obama's entire "social justice" crusade is an exercise in divide-and-conquer, Alinsky-inspired racism. The fact that Mr. Obama intentionally went out of his way to defend the racist words of Mr. Biden - the man who said, on camera, "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking..." - suggests that that there is some semblance of agreement with Mr. Biden's statement regarding the "chains" of slavery.

And why should we not feel that the President may identify with Mr. Biden's so-called "gaffe"? Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, spent twenty years in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ, a church that preaches Black Liberation Theology, identified by DiscoverTheNetworks.org as:

"...closely related to the broader phenomenon of liberation theology, which calls for social activism, class struggle, and even violent revolution aimed at overturning the ‘capitalist oppressors of the poor' and installing, in its place, a socialist utopia that will finally enfranchise the poor and downtrodden. As an extension of this movement, black liberation theology similarly seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor but one founded on racial rather than class solidarity."

Now, I am not one who signs on to the blatant impossibility that someone can sit every Sunday in a church pew listening to - arguably - a dynamic speaker like Rev. Jeremiah Wight and not take anything from it. The congregation at Trinity United Church of Christ isn't like a congregation that attends out of a sense of obligation. It is a congregation that is engaged; that feeds off the message being delivered. To believe that Mr. and Mrs. Obama "didn't take anything away" from their time at Trinity United Church of Christ is to believe in the tooth fairy.

This is why I believe that Mr. Obama defended his Vice President; there was a part of him - and maybe a large part of him - that agreed with what Mr. Biden said. Given the dogma of Black Liberation Theology the argument can be made successfully.

But I digress...

While the President may or may not (ahem) agree with the statement Mr. Biden made - contemptible at best, racist in the least, it was an operational statement. What do I mean by an operational statement? Mr. Biden's statement served several purposes, as stated above. It is a tactic used by unscrupulous lawyers, opportunistic Chicago politicians and disingenuous tyrants.

Just as a dirt-bag lawyer will blurt out something that he knows the jury is not supposed to hear, so too did Joe Biden blurt out something that the Obama campaign could never officially sign on to. After all, Mr. Obama ran in 2008 as a post-racial candidate who wanted to unite the country after the evil and divisive years of George W. Bush (a man who, incidentally, takes his Christian compassion quite seriously). No, the reality of the matter is this: just like the dirt-bag lawyer, the Obama campaign wanted that statement out there so that they could capitalize on the racial component; the racial antagonism that it would achieve; the win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burn Alinsky-style politics of divide-and-conquer.

A quick examination of David Axelrod's history of smear-and-destroy politics adds yet more credence to this argument.

Mitt Romney has stated that he believes Barack Obama is a good man, a good family man, a "nice guy." And while I sign on to the fact that Mr. Obama cares for his family, I would counsel Mr. Romney to open his eyes to the fact that Mr. Obama is only a "nice guy" to those who share his Progressive, "social justice," Black Liberation Theology mindset. To everyone else, he is simply another power hungry Chicago politician; a Chicago politician with a very anti-American agenda. And just like the rest of his ilk - just like every other grafting Chicago Progressive - he and his team of Axelrod, Jarrett, Plouffe and Cutter will stop at nothing to retain power.

To wit, I ask you...if Mr. Obama and his team were willing to throw his spiritual mentor under the bus for political gain, who is really willing to push Grandma over the cliff?