Barack Obama's racist church

[White Shogun]

Hey Poop, thanks for the English lesson!

I see your point and it is well made.

When I asked about sources, I didn't mean the Bible. I thought perhaps you (and JD) might have had some websites or books that explained the ideas you presented in greater detail. I have no interest in quoting Bible verses back and forth, either! It is a fruitless proposition from the beginning.

JD, there is a lot I would disagree with in the condensed version of Jewish history you've posted, but the point is moot because I think we can agree that the religion of the Old Testament ended in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

 

[Kaptain]

David Duke is a good source. I checked out the New Testament quotes (a long time ago) and they are all correct. What's more is that if you continue to read the new testament before and after the quoted verses it further supports the quotes - thus they are not taken out of context.

The Christian Party is another good source.

duke

Duke Bible quotesEdited by: Kaptain Poop

 

[Kaptain]

JD, I guess technically Jesus was not a Jew as he was not from Judea but born in Nazareth and lived in Galilee. Jew orginally refered to those from the land of Judea - not a race I guess. The covenants were made with the "tribe of Israel" - a people not an area of land. Jesus was a decendent of the Israelites, I understand. Later, people confused "Jews" with "Israelites" like people today confuse all Mexicans with Hispanics - one refers to a country (land) and one to an ethnicity.

For more on this search: the christian party "Jesus was not a Jew"Edited by: Kaptain Poop

 

[Deus Vult]

I, of course, have no problem with voluntary separatism. My bone of contention is that the mainstream media would not allow this if it where a white separtist church. I also would not vote or "salute" a person who wants our country to support African, Africa, and black causes. I would support someone supporting white causes. A white supporting pro black causes at the expense of whites is treasonist to your own race.

Your also wrong in believing that the media promotes true diversity. Media diversity really means "anything anti-white or less white." Obama's church fits this description. I see no where in Obama's church about returning to the homeland of Africa. Forcing black ideals on a majority white nation is anti-white.

Lets also remember what a controversy Mitt Romney's mormonism has been and yet nothing about Obama's church. More proof that our media is not interested in giving us the truth in news or even stories that our truly newsworthy. Obviously, the free market in news is a complete falisy. For example, stories and interviews with Ron Paul always result in higher ratings - so why not more mainstream exposure if true competition exists?
Don't you think Obama's church story would also be a hot news item that people would find controversial or interesting? Then why all the silence? The media has an agenda not remotely related to competition in the news market.

I do not support Obama as candidate or as a politician, and I did not mean to imply same. I support his right to attend a black-racist church, and applaud his choice. I don't support his cause. I applaud him to the extent that he is a separatist, only to the exent that he believes in blacks practicing self-help and non-integration. He and other blacks do not have power to oppress whites. As I said, whites are the problem. Our deracinated (or worse, anti-white) brothers and sisters are our problem.

I don't recall suggesting that the media "promotes true diversity," or that the media is in any way fair. Or even legitimate. The MSM has an anti-white agenda. Media bias is well-documented. How they cover one story versus another is not relevant to the merit of any idea or act.