Who Is Rick Warren?
Rick Warren is an influential evangelical pastor who does not support abortion or homosexuality. He is the popular author of the book, The Purpose Driven Life.
In 2006, Rick Warren invited Democratic Senator Barack Obama to his Saddleback church to speak from his pulpit on addressing HIV/AIDS. Warren received scathing criticism from evangelicals and the religious right for inviting Obama into his church.
One conservative wrote:
Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit – a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition – to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?
A pro-life group wrote:
In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren’s decision to ignore Senator Obama’s clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God.
Dr. Wiley Drake, second vice-President of the 42-million member Southern Baptist Convention said:
“You can’t work together with people totally opposed to what you are. This kind of conference is just going to lead people astray.”
Warren stood his ground and defended his invitation to Obama. Please listen to Warren’s words about why he could work with Obama even though he is a staunch pro-life supporter.
Liberal Blogs Chastised Evangelicals Who Criticized Warren for Allowing Obama to Speak
Taylor Marsh wrote:
Tomorrow is World AIDS Day. But “Christians” would rather complain about choice, condoms and cause a commotion than do the work that needs to be done to make a difference. Evidently, being a Democrat matters more than the millions who are dying from AIDS, with abstinence more important than effectiveness. Now you know why I refer to these “Christians” in quotes.
Rod 2.0 wrote:
To his credit, Rev. Warren has defended his decision and Barack Obama will speak on Friday. But why the opposition? The senator is just speaking at the summit, he’s not addressing the congregation. It’s amazing to compare the compassionate message of Obama’s denomination—the United Church of Christ—with the hatred evangelism of these fundamentalists. Either they want to fight AIDS or they don’t. A new survey says conservatives don’t care about the epidemic … and making these silly pre-conditions to discuss the topic is proof.
Americablog wrote:
The battle continues between the moderates and the extremist wing. This time the extremists are furious over an invitation to Barak Obama to speak at an upcoming event.
Famed pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren on Wednesday defended his invitation to Sen. Barack Obama to speak at his church despite objections from some evangelicals who oppose the Democrat’s support for abortion rights.
Obama is one of nearly 60 speakers scheduled to address the second annual Global Summit on AIDS and the Church beginning Thursday at Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif.
Sounds reasonable to any reasonable person, but not to the lunatics on the right.
Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign wrote:
For further evidence of how evangelicals have lost their way, look no further than to the flap over Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation to Democratic Senator Barrack Obama to discuss the global AIDS crisis on a panel at his church. Christian conservatives were apoplectic that the pro-choice Senator should be allowed to participate in the event. Some even called Obama “evil.”
Obama’s ‘Rick Warren’ Moment
Donnie McClurkin, an African American gospel singer who does not support abortion and homosexuality, has decided that while he campaigned for George Bush in 2004, this time, he is now going to campaign for Barack Obama by joining Obama’s gospel tour in SC. McClurkin said:
“I believe in his stance. I believe in his platform and his agenda. So when they asked me if I would be a part of it, there was no problem…We don’t have to agree on everything, but we do have to agree on the main thing: that there needs to be change and I believe he is the candidate to bring it.”
You’d think that liberal blogs would be open to this given their lashing of evangelicals who criticized Rick Warren for working with Obama, but the response was different.
Bloggers’ Responses To Obama’s ‘Rick Warren’ Moment
Taylor Marsh writes:
The disgusting views of McClurkin are only a small part of this issue for me. Having Barack Obama invite him in on a South Carolina tour is the same as embracing McClurkin’s dangerously bigoted view of homosexuality, all based on the fact that he was molested as a child and now — praise the Lord! — is “cured.” Right. But that the most visible black leader today is embracing McClurkin in order to win a state is not only disgusting but dangerous.
Rod 2.0 writes:
The 2008 election cycle cruises into a fresh round of gay-bashing. On the same weekend the Republican presidential candidates pander to the Christian Right and attempt to cast themselves as “true” social conservatives, the Barack Obama campaign announces a gospel concert tour across South Carolina to create some much needed traction. The line-up is disturbing.
Americablog writes:
That’s nice, Senator. You strongly disagree with the bigot who thinks I need to be cured, and who has declared “war” on me and my people, but you’re going to put the guy on stage with you anyway in order to make a few bucks. Nice. I wonder what Obama would say if Hillary invited David Duke to speak at an event but then said, not to worry, she really loves black people – kisses!
If you’re afraid to lead, Senator, then maybe you’re not the leader we thought you were.
Huge mistake.
Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign writes:
There is no gospel in Donnie McClurkin’s message for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and their allies. That’s a message that certainly doesn’t belong on any presidential candidate’s stage.
Conclusion
There is no way to unify this country if people on both sides refuse to be in the same space as those with whom they disagree. It is fine to disagree and be vocal about your disagreement, but you absolutely can’t make progress without even talking to each other. Both sides need to stop being intolerant and threatened by those who are different from them. We need more Rick Warrens on the conservative side and Barack Obamas on the progressive side.
As I’ve said before, if the soldiers in Iraq can work together on the frontlines in harm’s way across all their differences–gay, straight, black, white, Republican, Democrat, pro-life, pro-choice, conservative, liberal–the least we can do over here is to do the same. After the fiasco we have them mired in, we owe those kids to be more focused and gracious than that.
October 26, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Great post! AMEN!
October 26, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I believe this is the best post I have read since this (non-) issue began. I think that it vividly articulates the very nature of current American political discourse on which Senator Obama has based his whole approach to this campaign. It does this country to simply replace one party for another, we must make a paradigm shift that reaffirms to ourselves that this greatest of experiments in human governance is still valid.
October 26, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Brilliant post. Keep up the good work.
October 26, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Phenomenal post! Excellent work! One of your best!
Would you care to cross-post this at One Million Strong? (I’d promote it to the frontpage there in a heartbeat.) Or on MyDD or DailyKos?
October 26, 2007 at 3:49 pm
The comparison of McClurkin to David Duke is particularly simplistic and galling. McClurkin, misguided though he is on what makes people gay, has insofar as I’ve been able to determine, never urged any policy position or law that would discriminate against gays. He has a theological belief that I and many Obama supporters think is irrational, but he’s no David Duke. Oh, and McClurkin was of course invited merely to sing, not to deliver any message about gay rights or other social issues.
October 26, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Nice piece, and some great history I didn’t know.
Still, I’m unconvinced and unmoved by your attempted parallel. You cannot pray the gay away. There is nothing for me to say (and no way to “dialog”) with an “ex-gay” Preacher convinced he has all the answers and that I’m sinful and God abhors my “lifestyle” and I need to change something that’s as basic as my eye color in order to avoid eternal damnation. Were it a political position, we would have some room for discussion, but it is a religious doctrine, not subject to facts, science or reason.
I have no place at their table, and never will. They are not people I can compromise with.
October 26, 2007 at 4:08 pm
What a great post.
One of the things that has been most galling about the outrage-fest of the last few days has been the treatment of Mr. McClurkin. The one ‘given’ that nobody seems willing to question is whether Donnie McClurkin deserves to be vilified as the evil face of all things hatful and bigoted in the world. As compassionate as we progressives like to think we are, few of us seem willing to give McClurkin any consideration as a human being. Forget the abuse in his past (though we’d certainly count it if he were on death row), how about the fact that he never seems to have arguedues that anybody’s rights should be taken from them, or that any person ought to be hated.
I don’t defend any of the supremely ignorant things Donnie McClurkin has said – but it really bothers me that ignorance is being spun into hate. As a Jewish person I know intimately what it is like to live in a world where people hold ignorant ideas about who I am. If I attached the word ‘hate’ to every person who expressed the opinion that he ‘only way to heaven is through Christ’ – who would listen to me? And if I refused to vote for anyone who ever stood on stage with somebody who’d said that – who would be left to vote for?
Donnie McClurkin may indeed be a bigot. For all I know he may indeed have hate in his heart. But we don’t know. And as progressives we ought to be above vilifying people carelessly. To see this guy compared to David Duke or have people get away with saying, ‘he wants to take away my rights” without evidence of him actually saying so – bothers me. Not because I agree with a word the guy says – but because it is simply unjust. Whether you think ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ is bullshit or not –
it clearly isn’t bullshit to Donnie McClurkin. The fact that he supports Obama at all (who would surely legislate from a pro-LGBT perspective) demonstrates as much.
So yes – clearly Obama made a political mistake. But I think on a moral level he made no mistake at all. Unless there is something more inflammatory that Donnie McClurkin has said that I have yet to read where he really does promote violence or legal discrimination, he simply does not deserve to go through life with a scarlet “H” (for Hate) on his forehead. He’s already put a scarlet “I” (for Ignorant) there for all to see. Isn’t that enough?
Anyhow – I’m pretty sure this was a vetting error. But I also feel pretty confident that the Obama camp has at least partially refused to dump the guy because they refuse to participate in the lynch mob mentality that has sprung up around McClurkin. And for that – I say good for them.
Yours,
TomP
October 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm
[...] Difference Between a Dialogue and a Tour: Obama, McClurkin and Warren This piece by a pro-Obama blogger on the McClurkin flap really made me stop and think. The main premise is that when Rick Warren, the evangelic pastor who [...]
October 26, 2007 at 4:55 pm
NO NEED TO SPECULATE . THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN WAS THE INSTIGATOR OF THIS WHOLE SMEAR ON OBAMA. HERE IT IS REPORTED IN THE WASHINGTON POST:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502421_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter
“The Clinton campaign, many journalists say, is the fastest and most aggressive at dealing with blogs. Last week, Clinton aides sent journalists a Huffington Post column criticizing her major Democratic rival, Barack Obama, for a planned appearance with a gospel singer who is hostile to gays. Time blogger Ana Marie Cox posted the item — but added that Clinton had been endorsed by a minister who preaches against homosexuality. The Clinton camp quickly obtained a correction saying that the minister had praised Clinton but not endorsed her. “
October 26, 2007 at 5:42 pm
psericks: sure! feel free to share.
adam: i don’t believe mcclurkin is asking you to his table. in fact, he is the one who is overlooking his views to come to our table to campaign for a progressive candidate and to promote a candidate who supports your agenda. you should also study the story of carlton pearson an evangelical pastor (who ironically has recorded with McClurkin) and once shared McClurkin’s views but has now changed them and is actively campaigning for the rights of gays and lesbians.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/bishop-carlton-pearson-other-clergy-march-for-gay-rights/
donna: thank you for that important info. the clintons have some nerve to take this pervasive problem in the black church (of which they are fully aware) and then use it to play blacks and the LGBT communities against each other rather than to promote a message of unity.
October 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Terrific post. I wish you would cross-post this on MyDD, Kos, and Open Left.
October 26, 2007 at 7:32 pm
You may be a bit confused, but contrary to the last paragraph of your post – gays cannot serve in Iraq. Thank you evangelicals.
October 26, 2007 at 7:37 pm
don’t ask, don’t tell
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/14/MNG6AOKQP61.DTL&feed=rss.news
October 26, 2007 at 7:44 pm
I can tell no-one responding to this post is gay. McClurkin has said he’s fighting a war against gays and says we are trying to kill your children. That is unacceptable. Sorry but Obama is dead to me and I really supported him before. On the up side now we know not to elect him and have him sign another DADT. There are still many good candidates in the dem field.
October 26, 2007 at 7:44 pm
This post has been linked by Sullivan.
October 26, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“McClurkin has said he’s fighting a war against gays and says we are trying to kill your children. That is unacceptable. Sorry but Obama is dead to me and I really supported him before.”
The point is that whether you like him or not, McClurkin (and everyone who believes what he believes) is an American. The whole lot of them have an opinion and a vote. They are here and they aren’t going away. So you can either shut down all conversation or you can try to engage. You can close your eyes, wrap yourself in self-pity and do nothing to improve the situation or you can reach out. Even if you don’t want to reach out, at least Obama is. You should be thankful for that.
October 26, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Excellent post. I was concerned when I first heard about this brewing “controversy.” Obama is making an attempt to bridge some divides that, at times, seem unbridgeable. I believe we call this sort of thing: LEADERSHIP. Imagine that, a candidate showing some leadership.
Hey Hillary! You watching?
October 26, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Great post, because it made me rethink my position. All the squawking you refer to in the post is exactly the same as when Bush said, “You are with us, or with the terrorists.”, which is just another way of saying either agree with me all the way or get lost.
One of my criticisms of him is he talks a good game, but we haven’t seen much in the way of actions. Obama took political risks in both appearances. In my book, it HELPS him politically by showing he can work with people who have very different ideas about important issues.
October 26, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Jersey, could you provide a link that backs up that claim? I’ve seen a lot oF FUD thrown around with regard to McClurkin but not alot of hard facts, so I’d love to learn more if you can help me out. Thanks!
October 26, 2007 at 9:00 pm
http://www.americablog.com/2004/08/gop-convention-entertainer-gays-trying.html yeah this guy’s someone worth conversing with. Especially when he suposedly has been have gay sex during this whole anti-gay tiraid
October 26, 2007 at 9:10 pm
As a gay man in a long term committed relationship I gotta tell you I’m so very sick of what’s been going on these last 7 years since Bush came in and has continuously threatened my existance and don’t act like it hasn’t been going on, google gay hate crime killings and you’ll find plenty. I really had a lot of hope and respect for Obama and am crushed that he’s promoting this kind of anti-gay thinking. He should have confronted this man not “brought him along for dialog”. Sorry but this dialog thing is just B.S. He’s only doing this to pander to that segment, arguably a larger segment than the gay supporters, who have used us so very effectively in the past to drum up support. It’d be crushing if we didn’t have other dem noms who are as good as Obama in all regards and better in this one.
October 26, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Luv you.
This post rocks.
Thanks so much for you and this blog.
October 26, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Great post! Nice to have someone interject perspective into this insane situation.
Someone please post this on Americablog. John Aravosis needs to be reminded of what a reasonable person is and sounds like.
October 26, 2007 at 9:26 pm
This is hardly leadership.
October 26, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Terrific post. Very thoughtful, nice bit of research. Also, kudos to you for stating your “pro-Obama” slant upfront. It would be nice if folks like Joe Solomonese (HRC, indeed!) and others did the same.
October 26, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I beg to differ. Of course, many of the bloggers have gone over the top in their criticism. They’re angry and self-righteous.
But what you are completely overlooking is the fact that Obama by his own admission (see the Advocate interview) says that McClurkin was not well vetted. If Obama had to do it over again, McClurkin certainly would not have been invited. The entire mess is the result of poor political strategizing.
The Obama campaign was asleep at the wheel. With that in mind, Obama’s decision not to fire McClurkin but supplement him with a pro-gay preacher seems a too-little, too-late afterthought. Obama did not take intentionally take a principled pro-tolerance stand. He was caught in a major goof and tried to stake out a middle ground while saying, “Read my lips, not my actions.” All the supposed principle of Rick Warrenesque tolerance is just expediency dressed up to sell the voters.
You seem to forget that Rick Warren invited Obama to speak about ideas, and did so for principle. Obama is not engaging in dialogue with McClurkin. He’s hired an entertainer and in the aftermath refused to do the principled thing–fire him–for sheer political calculation that it’s the best of a bad lot of options.
October 26, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Keith — Aravosis doesn’t want to know about reconcilliation. His ego is riding high on all the atttention he is getting for services rendered as Hillary’s shill. I thought I had seen it all in the Bush years — but this ugly episode merely portends things to come if the Clintons manage to get in power again.
October 26, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Just brilliant — thanks for this.
October 26, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Oh jeez go ahead and vote for him but when he throws you under the bus don’t say you didn’t see it coming. I can see he’d pull a Clinton in a heartbeat from this episode.
October 26, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Great post. Thanks for treating this reasonably and dispassionately.
October 26, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Jersey put on your kimono and go cry in your pillow. Don’t worry no one is out to get you. You’re flinching at a bus that doesn’t exist. Don’t you know you sound as irrational as the over the top pro-life evangelical nut jobs? I guess you need some tissue for your tears but no one is throwing you under any bus so take it easy.
October 26, 2007 at 11:29 pm
The gay community has shown us all that it is filled with a variety of people juat as all other communities are. Some with reason and some living with their finger on the triiger every time someone says the word ‘gay’. I hope that the people in the gay community can see that Obama is a man of character and heart. And if you cant see that now, then you wouldnt be able to see it no matter what community you were in. Weather you were black white asian indian,gay straight or republican… you would find something to attack this man for.
Give me a break if you think theres another canidate out there that can win that is more about uniting all people together than Barack. You know it aint true, so stop your victimisation please. We arent in the picket in your face 80’s anymore… and again if you cant see or hear Obama then you arent listening.
October 27, 2007 at 12:39 am
Ok, I’m going to go put on my kimono (nice stereotyping by the way) and not that anyone’s gonna click on these but this is what comes about as the result of folks like your beloved McClurkin so go ahead Obama bring him on along. Btw these are just a few from the last few weeks, I could have retrieved several more.
http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2006/11/michael_sandy_u.html
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3055
http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=7852
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=105091
October 27, 2007 at 12:41 am
Hi Jersey,
In the interest of fairness, I checked out the Americablog post you linked to. The only quote that really disturbs me, (and it does disturb me) is the one from the 700 club. However, knowing the 700 club, I also know they have a way of taking quotes out of context even from people who they generally support to support their own agenda. And so without actually reading his quote in context, I can’t say whether he’s actually saying gays want to kill our children, and even what he means by that. However those are the only quotes I see that go above beyond what the majority of Christians believe.
The other quotes are saying that homosexuality is a sin that can be cured through the power of God, but while those quotes are obviously hurtful, they are also very common among Christian circles, including as has been pointed out other ministers who support some of the Democratic presidential candidates. And many of these individuals, while sharing a belief that is hurtful to gays, really do struggle with this conflict between wanting to serve their God, and at the same time not wanting to have beliefs that they acknowledge hurt their fellow neighbor. This is the conflict Obama talked about at the end of his speech at the Call to Renewal address. Some of these people would sacrifice themselves for you if it came down to it. And you have to reconcile on the one hand the fact that they think your actions are sinful that can be cured, and on the other hand that these same people would make sacrifices on your behalf. If you cannot understand how someone can think your homosexual actions are sinful and can be cured, and yet also that the same individual would sacrifice themselves for you, then you have yet to truly understand the beliefs of these individuals. Which is a part of what “loving your enemies” is all about.
Of course if you do understand it than I am glad. And I would hope such understanding translates to you treating these people with love and respect.
Also, I want you to think about the consequences if Obama did denounce this person as a bigot, and took him off the tour. What would it say to the millions of Christians who also think homosexuality is a sin and can be cured, yet also think the war in Iraq is wrong, that we should be fighting genocide in Darfur, that we need universal health care? The message is “you’re not welcome in the democratic party”. And such a message would make it that much more difficult to build the kind of public support we need to take successful action on these issues.
I will say though that if this individual really does believe that gays want to literally kill children, that changes things.
Lastly, I want to share a bit from what I’ve learned about Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement, and why it was so successful. One reason it was successful was because King understood that the people that were bigoted were just as much victims as they were victimizers. And he believed that if we on the one hand denounced their views, but at the same time let them know that we truly loved them, wanted the best for them, tried to understand their views, and treated them with dignity, that we could not only change their behavior, but transform their hearts. Hate can cause someone to change their behavior, but love can change a person’s heart.
And with that I leave you with MLK’s sermon, “Loving your Enemies” http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/571117.002_Loving_Your_Enemies.html
October 27, 2007 at 12:42 am
Great post! I am a born again Christian that is whole-heartedly against abortion and gay MARRIAGE (not to be confused with gay civil relationships- allowing the couple to have the same tax and government benefits as heteros- This I am for). I support Rick for inviting Obama because lets face it, no one is ever going to completely agree with someone else, especially in politics. I just hope and pray Obama beats out Hitlary!
http://uriahministries.wordpress.com
tim kurek
October 27, 2007 at 1:21 am
Jeff thank you for that post. Bringing up MLK makes me wish Coretta were still around so he could invite her. All I’m trying to say is that when we gay people hear of Obama bringing along a man like this those people in my other links come immediatly to mind. This kind of stuff happens daily, I’ve seen attacks several times myself when out in Philly and know of one aquaintance who was killed over X-mas two years ago in a gay bash incident here. This is where the gay community is coming from on this issue. Believe me I’m just very sad Obama brought this guy in, why couldn’t he have picked someone else. Surely you don’t think his views are very christian? Perhaps I’m just hoping Obama will check a site and see why we’re so insenced. Anyway, I appreciate your kind words and understanding.
October 27, 2007 at 2:34 am
Short of buying Donnie Boy’s book, I tried to research his “gay” life. I couldn’t find it. Only references to “tendencies.” This is suspicious, to say the least. I realize that the man went through a terrible childhood, but adding a “lifestyle” to the list of terrible things does not indicate any knowedge of it and is misleading. I think he knows that. Also, his “tendencies” seem to focus on his teenage years: not a concrete time in life to label yourself as “gay” or anything else for that matter.
October 27, 2007 at 4:35 am
[...] of thing when I read it, so I haven’t paid the story all that much attention, but via Sully, this post at a pro-Obama blog gives pretty much the 100% best response to this howling that one could [...]
October 27, 2007 at 7:37 am
[...] Donnie McClurkin to campaign with him, I’ve found a post via Andrew Sullivan that seems very sane and has made me change my mind on the [...]
October 27, 2007 at 9:07 am
Last I checked David Duke “is an American,” too, as one commenter says of McClurkin. And “there are a whole lot of them.” This is NOT to equate McClurkin with Duke. It’s just to say: just because someone is an American and has views doesn’t mean that, if I abhor those views, I have to vote for a candidate who stands on a stage with him.
I would be a lot more willing to read this post with an open mind if it weren’t for the incredible intellectual dishonesty of identifying McClurkin’s views only by saying he “does not support abortion and homosexuality.”
October 27, 2007 at 9:24 am
I guess I find the rhetoric here alarming because it can be so broadly applied. If one has principles, one doesn’t just embrace all views that happen to exist among some constituency in America — right? Or is the expectation that we truly “work across all our differences,” however repellent some views may be? If not — where do you people draw the line? I’m really curious. Some views are obviously beyond the pale, right? Or not? Or are they only beyond the pale when someone other than the candidate you like supports them?
October 27, 2007 at 9:57 am
What a great dialogue! One of the best comment threads I have ever read. I got a better understanding of why this preacher is so offensive to gay people and also believe even more strongly now that Obama made the right joice in not ditching McClurkin. I see McClurkin as more hurt and than hateful.
I don’t know if this issue has legs, but maybe it could even help Obama in being seen as the different kind of politician he is. The part about HRC machine helping to get this issue started was especilly interesting.
October 27, 2007 at 10:22 am
I have enjoyed reading the comments. I think they have been quite reasonable as well.
I appreciate Jeff’s link to the MLK speech. Because I strongly believe in that transformational love I strongly believe in a welcoming, open space for McClurkin even though I vehemently disagree with his espoused views on homosexuality.
In one of the links Jersey posted, McClurkin says he receives 80 to 100 emails per day from people who are confused about their sexuality. That’s as many as 36,500 people per year contacting him about this issue.
I don’t have that kind of influence on that issue. No one has ever emailed me confused about their sexuality. I assume most of us don’t have that influence either. However, no matter how confused he might be, McClurkin does have that influence.
I would much rather have him over here working with us than stuck in a conservative anti-gay echo chamber because we slammed the door in his face. If we were to be a positive influence on him (again the story of Carlton Pearson shows that black evangelicals can change their views on such issues) what would it mean for he 36,500?
So I please ask that if you can’t be strong enough to accept McClurkin’s help for his own personal struggles, please be strong enough for the 36,500. As long as we know who we are, what we stand for, and it’s him coming to campaign for us and our agenda, we’ll be fine.
October 27, 2007 at 10:55 am
This is a very interesting post but I’m not sure that I buy the analogy. I don’t know if I would equate a World Summit on AIDS/HIV and the Church with a gospel tour in support of a presidental candidate. HIV, similar to other world wide scourges and natural disasters, is something that we should all come together behind, regardless of the political ideology or belief systems of the people helping. It shouldn’t, and luckily doesn’t appear to matter to the Red Cross who their donations are coming from or who is packing their donation boxes. This works because no one is beholdened to the people making the donations.
However it does matter who a candidate accepts support from. This is because the people making the donations do expect the candidate to be beholdened to them. Accordingly candidates often return the donations of people they do not want to be beholdened to, or do not want to appear to be beholdened to. Thus the problem with Obama and McClurkin. By accepting McClurkin’s support, Obama is indicating a willingness to be in debt to a constituancy that many other potential supporters do not. That choice is Obama’s to make, and he is entitled to his choice. He shouldn’t however be surprised if people hold him accountable for it.
October 27, 2007 at 10:56 am
I’m sorry, just because someone is a demagogue with the power to cause further pain to 36,500 people already in pain does not mean I want Obama to work with him. If I wanted that, I would vote for Giuliani.
October 27, 2007 at 11:34 am
Rabbit: “Some views are obviously beyond the pale, right? Or not? Or are they only beyond the pale when someone other than the candidate you like supports them?”
=====
Of course some words are beyond the pale Rabbit — and McClurkin is obviously a seriously conflicted person. I won’t argue with you that what he has said has been hurtful and stupid. But he is not devising GLTB policy for Obama. He has merely offered to sing in support of his candidacy — and Obama is pro-GLBT. Doesn’t that tell you that McClurkin is obviously in a state of transition? Couldn’t that be construed as a positive step?
But McClurkin is not what I want to talk to you about Rabbit. Something else is at work here that goes beyond gay and straight and gets to the heart of our democracy and our free will. Please RE-READ your words quoted above and stay with me for a moment: “…the candidate you like supports them?”
Your words suggest that you have bought into the smear that Obama SUPPORTS McClurkins views. RE-READ your words again. Do you actually believe that Obama is a homophobe? Likewise, if you don’t think Obama is a homophobe, can you explain how you chose the words you did? Its not a simple mistake. You have fallen for the smear. This is how classic bait and switch propaganda works — its under the radar and works unconsciously. Think SADDAM=911.
I noticed another bait and switch episode recently that shows how insidious and deceptive the practice is. Running simultaneously to this smear is another blog promoted smear that Obama is unpatriotic. There is a photo from Time Magazine taken at the Harkin Steak Fry in Iowa which shows Obama standing at attention with his hands folded while Hillary and Richardson next to him have their hands on their hearts during the national anthem. SO what’s his problem — does Obama disrespect our flag — the symbol of our country?
Here is my point — Is it actually customary to hold your hand over the heart for the STAR-SPANGLED BANNER? Do you? I don’t — never was taught to do so in all my years in public school. We were all taught to place our hand on our hearts for the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. The smear uses the term the National Anthem — which is clever because people don’t pay close attention and unconciously conclude that Obama refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine that he would refuse to pledge the flag? No — he was standing respectfully listening to a performance of The Star Spangled Banner. It sounds ridiculous, but repeat this story often enough and it becomes conventional wisdom — along with the meme that Obama is a Muslim, Osama/Obama, anti-semite, flag pin, and now GAY-BASHER. Where is all this propaganda coming from?
Well — we now know via WaPo that the McClurkin story was pushed by the Clinton campaign. They also pushed the anti-semitism story. I think the flag pin and pledge smears are coming from the right wing. The Muslim story — well — its still murky — check out The Nation article. What I can say with utter confidence is that ALL OF THESE STORIES are now being promoted and exploited by the Clinton campaign through their shills on the internet and in the media. Obama is threat to Hillary’s candidacy –and she is out to destroy him by any means necessary.
Yes Rabbit — some words really are beyond the pale. So are some candidates. They’ll play on people’s fears and prejudices without a second thought. Goodbye democracy.
October 27, 2007 at 11:51 am
If your response is akin to, “Yes, but our situation is different because…” then that’s the entire point of the post. Each side is going to have an exception and a reason why they believe their claim or situation is more fundamentally important or different from the other. The point is to be confident in who you are and to be strong enough to engage each other on the issues on which you agree.
For example, in response to “Yeah, but the HIV/AIDS summit was different and something we should all work on…” I could say, “Well, McClurkin believes the need for change is different and that it’s something we should all get behind regardless of our differences.”
In response to, “Yeah but this is a campaign appearance…” I could say, “Well, Obama speaking at Saddleback was from the ’sacred pulpit’ and some evangelicals made the claim that Obama’s appearance was akin to a political endorsement of his pro-choice views.”
For pro-lifers who agree to work with progressives, their position is a matter of life and death for them. Rick Warren believes 40 million babies have been killed because of pro-choice policies. Yet he said, “I can work with you on HIV and save 40 million affected by the virus.” McClurkin says, “I can work with you on getting our foreign policy straight and save however many of those lives we can save.”
In response to, “Yeah, but the campaign should have just vetted better as they have admitted…” I could say, “Well then should they have also vetted Mary Mary who have made similar statements? How about Hezekiah Walker who has made statements?” I’d be surprised if any of the artists on the tour have not made such statements at some point. Then we go through all of Hillary’s black religious people who have made statements…and then Edwards’…
You can do all the vetting in the world, but given the pervasiveness of homophobia in religious circles you would eventually run into this issue at some point when a country starts unifying and progressives start pulling in cross-over evangelical voters. I think it’s good that this issue came up, because people being pushed out of their comfort zone is a sign of change. It’s less a matter of *when* this issue was going to come up or *with which artist.* (It just happened to be Donnie McClurkin, but it could have been Angie and Debbie Winans, Joyce Meyer, Marvin Winans, T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Bishop Eddie Long, Bishop Paul Morton, Bishop Noel Jones, or Juanita Bynum. Need I go on? All of them have made similar statements to McClurkin and we could be having this same conversation about them. In fact, I know Bynum has already expressed her support for Obama and desire to want to campaign for him. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the others wanted to stump for Obama as well.) It’s less a matter of *which artist* but more a matter of *how progressives are going to deal with it* when it eventually happened.
We can get into this neverending back-and-forth of debating who is so fundamentally different that we can’t even work with them on anything, or we can recognize the many things on which we do agree (health care, social security, bringing the troops home, changing our politics, HIV, education, etc.) and get something accomplished.
October 27, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Kevin,
Right now I would worry more about Hillary Clinton being beholding to the telecoms,
Rupert Murdoch, medical insurance companies and the military industrial complex
more than I would wory that Obama would turning his back on GLBT rights.
October 27, 2007 at 12:28 pm
One thing i love about Barack Obama is that he does not discriminate. If you have different views he will express that our views are different, but, he will not uninvite you to the table. Which to me is a form of discrimination and censorship. Barack believes in the constitution of the United States…this is why he is able to disagree with certain views but will still eat with you and even worship the Lord God with you. Our different views have nothing to do with the many commonalities people in general share. None of us want to die or see our loved ones suffer and die. Saying that some one should have a legal right to abort their child does not mean that you are condoning the practice. It simply means that you support that persons right to make their own decisions ~ separate from your own views. It does not mean you’re going to be in their with the vacuum and paying for the procedure. Personal choice and decision means just that. When you start taking away the people’s right to make decisions you are coming real close to violating ones human rights to procede in life without coersion or force of opinion not your own. That’s my view and i’m sticking with it until i find a better view for me not you.
October 27, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Found this link on onemillionstrong:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/27/2241/3006
I Sho’s Don’t Think No Bad ‘Bout Obama! I Sho’s Don’t!
How low will this sink?
October 27, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Donna, allowing someone to be part of your big tent is different from appearing on a stage with them, smilling and shaking their hand. I’m not saying Obama holds actively homophobic or anti-choice views, himself. But he supports them by welcoming McClurkin onto his stage. He has a choice.
In the heat of this, I wrote to the Obama campaign to say I would no longer support him. I am not so sure any more. But the rhetoric in the comments here sickens me. Why do we think we have to accept so much bullshit from the candidate of change?
October 27, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Isn’t it because he’s the candidate of change that he’s able to bring these people into the big tent. I really like to think that insistence on ideological puruty is the domain of right-wing ideologues, being that virtually all the people I know have a progressive bent, but are far from embracing of political correctness.
It’s disheartening to me to see this kind of bile coming from the left. Jersey, you’re wrong to assume no one here’s gay. I’m a gay reader of this blog, and while GLBT issues aren’t generally what come to the forefront to me, I’ve picked Obama as my preferred top-tier candidate because I believe he has the leadership to have the best chance to advance the progressive agenda across the board.
If you’re looking for someone who will subvert the values of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, I’d feel more threatened by Hillary who screens comments on her youtube blog (and presumably the campaign one, I havent seen it yet tho) and who directs the mainstream media toward these kinds of stories to stoke the fears of the PC crowd.
October 27, 2007 at 1:56 pm
[...] 27, 2007 I read this over at Think on These Things. Check it out, one of the best blog posts I’ve read in a while. There is no way to unify [...]
October 27, 2007 at 2:01 pm
BTW, I’m pretty sure this kind of violent outburst reaction from both sides is the reason half the people don’t vote.
October 27, 2007 at 2:08 pm
If it’s true that she’s behind this, this fiasco is really showing the ugly side of Hillary. Obama is for the full repeal of DOMA. For Hilalry to oppose the full repeal of DOMA then try to win votes from the LGBT community by cynical scandal-mongering is the worst kind of triangulation. If we elect Hillary get ready to see the underside of the bus, progressives.
October 27, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Leave McClurkin alone. I am so tired of politics being reduced to who is screwing what sex and if someone thinks it is okay to kill their baby. I would like to think that we have more meaning than that, but I have followed elections for years and the loudest are the homosexuals and people who want the right to feel good about killing a kid. Neither issue is a political issue, but moral ones. When people don’t want to look inside for truth (their own convictions) they hate anyone else who has convictions. I am not gay, but I will defend your right to screw who you want. I will not help someone get an abortion because the time for choice was when you tried to trap a guy and he balked or when you had unprotected sex just for the fun of it. There are too many people who cannot have children who want some while some selfish chick is flushing hers down the toilet because she could not live the idea of someone else raising her kid. See what I mean about selfishness.
My point is that the American public is fickle. One day something is the worst thing, but the next it is ok. The truth is that people will compromise if they think they will win.
October 27, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Rabbit — I know you are hurting. You feel betrayed. But you probably would agree that people are a bit more complex than the one possiblly offensive view they may hold. Take a look at my Daily Kos link above — a racist no less — but a self-identified progressive gay and a person that will probably vote for the democratic nominee.
All I would suggest is that you keep your eye on the big picture. The support of both the african-american community and the GLBT community is essential for the democrats to regain the white house. Both Obama and Clinton are actively coutring these votes. The big difference is that Obama is trying to find common ground, while the Clinton campaign is turning these groups against each other.
I am sure you will sort this out in a way that you feel OK with. Best to y
October 27, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I don’t often comment on blogs and while I’m interested in politics, I’m not an expert at any of it. Just an average guy looking for a candidate. Obama had my attention for a while. But I have to say, this whole thing has really soured me on him. I doubt I could vote for him now. I agree with the poster who said that there didn’t seem to be many gay posters up on here. It’s quite easy to dismiss Obama’s misstep if it’s not as close to home. Being gay is not my primary “identity” but is becoming more and more of a defining issue when it comes to who gets my vote.
If Donnie McClurkin were a true Obama supporter, he would have quietly volunteered to step down to save Obama the flack. Obama found himself in a lose/lose situation because he campaign didn’t do their homework before extending the invitation. But Obama told me loud and clear that he is more afraid to offend the black Christian vote than the gay vote. That’s fine. His choice.
I think dialogue should be for everyone. And if wants to have an event talking about the different views of homosexuality and the church then more power to him. But standing up front with someone who has said some of the things McClurkin has said – no dialogue, no issue – just smiling for a photo op. Nope. My vote is gone.
October 27, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Daniel,
Do you also want Mary Mary and Hezekiah Walker to step down from the tour for their comments as well?
This thing is bigger than Donnie McClurkin.
October 27, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Well Daniel,
I may not be gay — but I am jewish and this situation hits VERY close to home for me. Only a few weeks ago the Clintons pulled this same stunt by enlisting their proxie Alan Dershowitz to hurl a charge of anti-semitism against Obama’s foreign policy advisor Brzesinski accompanied by a demand that Obama publically repudiate him or risk being labelled an anti-semite too. This happened right after Brzezinski’s endorsement of Obama. The smear was intended to accomplish two things. First, to frighten jewish voters back to Clinton and secondly, to discredit Obama’s foreign policy by attacking one of his most pretigious advisors. As it turns out Obama stuck with Brzezinski and it probably did cost Obama some jewish support. But sure as hell not this jew! Because my identity is more than my ethnicity. I am an American and this crude, brazen smear offended my sense of fair play. I want to make a clear choice based on the issues not propaganda. I don’t want or need Clinton via Dershowitz or Aravosis manipulate and f**k with my head.
I trust Obama to be fair, wise and reasonable in his policies towards Israel and the middle east, the same way I trust him never to betray the rights of GLBT people or african-americans. He has never purposefully frightened or trashed or exploited any minority group. He is not your enemy. The same cannot be said for the Clintons. DOMA. DADT.
October 27, 2007 at 8:38 pm
This was by far the best, most reasoned post about this whole issue. I applaud how Barack Obama handled this matter. I don’t want a president who lets the MSM or interest groups make decisions for him. I want a president who can think for themselves, has a heart and a soul, and truly cares about all people.
Thank you for this post!
October 28, 2007 at 3:53 am
Remember Rick Warren?
This is a fantastic and much needed post by Think on These Things (a pro-Obama blogger) regarding Barack Obama and the Donnie McClurkin scandal. McClurkin was the anti-gay pastor who was invited to participate in a gospel singer campaign swing throug…
October 28, 2007 at 9:39 am
I did a blog post doing a rundown of responses to this blog. Sagereader was also cited by [Chris Bowers http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2096 of Open Left yesterday.
Kind of amazing what a link from Andrew Sullivan can do. Great work, sagereader!
October 28, 2007 at 11:24 am
Great post. I think Obama’s outdone himself once again. I’ve read up on McClurkin the best that I can, and I really don’t see a basis for the hysteria against him. In my view, he’s a gay black Christian and that ain’t an easy thing to be. So he’s struggling with it in public. He’s also a victim of child molestation and he’s struggling with that in public as well.
I don’t agree with his opinion that gays can or should be “cured,” but at the same time I don’t believe that a guy named Jesus Christ, was born of a virgin and died for my sins 2000 years ago either. But I respect the rights of others to do so, and, who knows, they could be right and I’m going to hell when I die. I won’t know the answer to that one for sure until pretty late in the game so to speak.
What I do know, however, is that this whole idea that some people need to be ostracized from all politically correct events, dialogues, political parties, social movements, etc., because they have opinions that we may disagree with is insane. As a black person, for example, I truly believe that it’s impossible to grow up white in America (this whole world really) and not have racist beliefs. Does that mean that I can’t work with white people on common objectives? Of course not. But I will confront that racism when and where I can, especially amongst friends.
I imagine the same holds true for GBLT people. I’m sure they probably believe that no straight person is 100% free of homophobia and they’d probably be right. It’s endemic to every nook and cranny of our society. But does that mean that gays and straights can’t work together on a common agenda?
I think the best idea would be to take a deep breath, realize that Donnie McClurkin is just another gay person trying to find happiness and fulfillment in this world (albeit in a manner that with which we vehemently disagree) and keep our eyes on the prize — Obama for President in 2008.
October 28, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I am yet to understand why sexual orientation is a basis of whom you are electing as president. Only a candidate committed to defend individual rights, the constitution and human values matter.
October 28, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I got this link to a You Tube video about the right to gay marriage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukWP7AynybA
It’s a question asked of Edwards at the CNN Democratic debate; but at about the 3:03 minute mark of the video, Anderson Cooper asks Obama about same sex marriage.
Obama responds that we need to ensure that everyone is equal under the law, including same sex couples. That all rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same sex couples as well as hetero couples.
It is up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But, in terms of the the rights of individuals under the law – including the right to transfer property and have hospital visitation – all of those civil rights conferred by the government – should be equal for all.
October 29, 2007 at 12:13 am
I am a Black person. I understand discrimination all too well. If I found that someone who I felt spoke negative against Blacks, was singing for one of the candidates that wouldn’t change my opinion about the candidate. I would need to know where they stand on the issue not some singer.
I wasn’t for Obama prior to this. Now I believe that he will fight for what is right. He will try to unite and not divide. For him to keep Donnie when he strongly disagrees with him shows that he is not bull headed and is willing to work with everyone. For the first time I see him as a true leader. He isn’t firing someone for their beliefs or opinions.
October 29, 2007 at 3:54 am
To whoever directed me here from my blog, don’t be calling me a hypocrite, when I never supported Obama or Hillary, ever. Bill Richardson is my pick, and he has a better pro-gay record than those 2 imbeciles combined.
Obama supports McClurkin, who has said “the gloves are off”, towards gays and lesbians. This was a call to physical violence towards these people. Perhaps McClurkin watched a gay porn and got pissed that he hadn’t had dick in a while, prior to making this comment.
McClurkin, and all of the so-called “ex gays” (including Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas, Mike Ensley, etc) promotes Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron has repeatedly called for the extermination of gays since the early 80’s – and all of the “ex gays” repeats his rhetoric. McClurkin has called for the killing of gays, and Obama’s support of McClurkin makes him guilty by association. That’s how it is in my book. Sorry, but I will not support a potential president who’s all buddy-buddy with some pissed off queen who wants all gays killed, because he got rejected one too many times.
If you want to kiss his ass, have a field day. I’ve already convinced one person to stop sending Obama money, and will continue to do so with as many as possible. They won’t be paying Obama to have me sent off to some death camp that these “ex gays” suggests as they masturbate themselves. Fuck that, and fuck anyone who supports these “ex gays”.
October 29, 2007 at 4:35 am
This is an excellent analysis of this issue. You’ve gained yourself a new reader.
October 29, 2007 at 9:18 am
Hey Scott —
I seem to recall on the HRC forum on Logos that Richardson was asked if he thought homosexuality was a choice and he said “YES, I believe homosexuality is a choice. ” There must be some youTube clip of it. The looks of shock and horror from the questioners and audience were rather noticeable. It seems Richardson hadn’t a clue and continued digging an even deeper hole for himself. I think afterwards someone pointed it out to him that he had screwed up and he made a revised statement saying he didn’t understand the question — more likely he was afraid of hostile repercussions from people like you.
The point is that Richardson’s true beliefs came out uncensored — giving credence to the definition of a political gaffe — a gaffe is when a politician accidentally says what he really thinks. Richardson can still be your guy — but then you have to accept that he can believe homosexuality is a choice and still support your right to live the way you wish. Is that a problem for you? If not, then how do you reconcile why Obama — who has stated clearly his support for gay rights and belief that homosexuality is a natural and normal state for some people — is now enemy #1 because he accepts the support of McClurkin? Has McClurkin or anyone associated with Obama called for gays to be thrown in DEATH CAMPS — or is that just hyperbole in your part?
By the way, I am not sure who sent you to this site — but I am sure they did it because they thought you might learn something. You do have a choice Scott — you can live as an openly gay man and conduct yourself with DIGNITY and respect for others or you can keep clinging to your VICTIMHOOD and lashing out like an immature child. Which road do you think is going to get you where you want to go?
October 29, 2007 at 9:29 am
Here Scott:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB8bW4vDaOk
Bill Richardson and the HRC Presidential Forum
October 29, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Donna,
Most people don’t care to read up on these “ex gays”, and believe they’re unimportant, but do some research on them sometime.
I don’t know where you’re getting the “victimhood” thing. But when a group of pissed off “ex gays” are going around and whispering “kill the gays” to the religious nuts, I believe they need to be stopped at all costs. For that matter, it’s the “ex gays” who have supplied the most violent rhetoric to the “christian” anti-gay groups over the years. The “ex gays” are so bitter, they have also have became holocaust revisionists, saying it was homosexuals who were behind the nazi’s. The “ex gays” throw around Paul Cameron’s extermination rhetoric, so anyone who supports the “ex gays” also supports this rhetoric.
And for you trying to change my mind and have me support McClurkin and Obama, I believe you support Paul Cameron’s rhetoric too.
They don’t call me “hysterically assertive” for nothing LOL. And I still like Richardson.
October 29, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I get it. Rick Warren gives a platform to someone who wants to be inclusive, and the Chisto-fascists complain is the same as Obama giving a platform to a hater in order to raise cash, so the Democrats better not complain or they’re as bad as the Christo-fascists? Sounds reasonable to me.
October 29, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Look, I wish I could believe Obama when he says he fully supports equal rights for LGBT people–but I don’t. This argument is not trivial. He’s running for President, for crying out loud. There’s no such thing as forgetting to vet somebody who will be a highly-publicized promoter for his campaign. There is no chance his people would have overlooked statements that would have offended many people for racial or religious reasons.
Still, I don’t judge a candidate by one mistake, so I went to his official website. You can find LGBT people mentioned once, under “People”, an entry that looks to me as if it was added only after this controversy kicked off. LGBT rights are not mentioned among the issues addressed front and center, or even in the “Answer Center” (although 128 other questions are answered there). So as best I can tell, in an Obama Presidency LGBT people would be, at best, an afterthought. Can you give me any reason to believe I’m wrong about that?
October 29, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Scott —
Here is your logic as I understand it:
Adolf Hitler = Paul Cameron = ex-gays = Donnie McClurkin = Barack Obama = ANYONE who supports Obama.
Wow. That’s a lot of people to have to hate Scott. You have my sympathy.
October 31, 2007 at 1:13 pm
good grief — this majic person represents the bigotry that gave fuel to the ruckus — Please do not conflate or confuse his views with Obama.
If anyone is interested — most jewish denominations accept homosexuality, ordain gay rabbis and will perform marriage rights for gays. Only the orthodox and fundamentalist ultra-orthodox express anti-gay views. The way majic sites jews and muslims is specious — I assume his bigotry goes farther than bashing gays.
October 31, 2007 at 11:44 pm
[...] Think On These Things had a terrific write up: There is no way to unify this country if people on both sides refuse to be [...]
November 5, 2007 at 4:09 pm
[...] Obama’s supporters are trying to paint him as a principled saint, a voice for moderation and tolerance … and the liberal blogosphere as bunch of rabid, angry, irrational haters. The truth is in between. [...]
November 23, 2007 at 1:22 pm
[...] read this over at Think on These Things. Check it out, one of the best blog posts I’ve read in a while. There is no way to unify this [...]
December 20, 2007 at 10:46 am
Ben Stanfield is a total wacko and should not be involved in any way with the Obama Campaign. Ben slandered every Democrat in VA and then moved to Maryland. What a creep.
January 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Good… i support u..
http://barackobama2u.blogspot.com/2008/01/further-barack-obama-overcome-hillary.html
March 19, 2008 at 6:51 pm
why would you suport somone oposed to freedoom
April 19, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS
Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm
May 10, 2008 at 1:33 am
Obama isn’t going to win. Clinton isn’t going to win. McCain isn’t going to win. Does anybody know who’s going to win.
May 10, 2008 at 1:34 am
TADA the media!!!! and the internet.
May 10, 2008 at 1:43 am
Obama makes me laugh. Real change you can believe in. I haven’t heard enough of his economic policies to help the middle class and poor. He’s basically useless. As for Clinton I think she also hasn’t explained enough neither. McCain is the biggest flipflopper. Therefore, I’m voting for nobody this election. I voted for Kerry last time and the country reelected the flake to another term. We elected a democratic congress and still we get danruff in the form of Pelosi and Reid. Why should I vote at all is my question? We get the same thing election after election.
May 10, 2008 at 8:36 am
^^
Re: “I haven’t heard enough of his economic policies…”
Let me guess. Did you even bother to go read what his economic policies are? Perhaps that’s why you haven’t heard enough of them.
Here, let me get you started…
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/barack-obama-economic-economy-plan-platform-proposal/
June 1, 2008 at 2:05 am
I’m sorry, but I’m still bitter over the bitter, clinging to Bibles and guns comment. I guess there should be no doubt then, why I wrote and recorded this song:
I’ve Got one hand on my Bible (The other, on my Gun)
Dr BLT
words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008
http://www.drblt.net/music/OneHandRegDem2.mp3
June 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm
It’s amazing how the Obama supporters continue to use nasty insults towards Clinton supporters, who are dissatisfied with the DNC’s decision to blow off Hillary. This ongoing disrespect and arrogance is part of the reason why many, many Clinton supporters will either move towards McCain, or stay home in November.
June 11, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Hey, I am looking forward to when Bush leaves office much like everybody else. Come check out our “End Of An Error” Bumper stickers. They are to celebrate the 1-20-09 inauguration date for our new president. Check out our website at http://www.one-twenty-09.com to get your “End Of An Error” Bumper stickers.
June 19, 2008 at 10:56 am
what makes obama the right choice to be president? He is to inexperienced with running a entire nation. Tell me why i should vote for him?
July 10, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Obama is not the right person for president, and for that matter McCain isn’t either!
July 25, 2008 at 11:19 am
If you want to know why you should vote for Obama, First read his book “Dreams From My Father” then read “Audacity of Hope” then go to a web site such as “savagepolitics.com” and read of the hate and fear mongering there. Then you will know why we should vote for a breath of fresh honest air.
September 14, 2008 at 9:52 am
I recently helped Tom Army, the Headmaster at The Rectory School in Pomfret, CT., make a 4 minute video about the importance of experience in a presidential race. I would like to invite you to look at what Tom, a very serious historian has to say. You can find the short video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXn5xNrh_S0 Thanks for taking a look.
October 13, 2008 at 6:31 am
What browns me off is theat the Evangelical Right go on and on about Abortion when they don’t even address the issue of the already millions of people alive and dying because of malnitrition or being sent off to fight in ridiculous wars!
October 14, 2008 at 3:56 pm
we should all be reminded that mccain was born in panama. he does not have the right to become president.
check out this satire
http://thrillabuster.com/
October 16, 2008 at 12:08 am
This site has no relevant information regarding important issues. On top of that, all this idiots talking about things like McCain born in Panama therefore has no right to become president… — 4 generations of service to this nation, and americans themselves decide to support the typical demagog who has less affiliation with americans in his blood, in his believes and his background. I don’t like nationalism, but the opposite (what is happening) is just ridiculous.
Go ahead, support the typical demagog who tells you all you want to believe, without telling you how. Just remember: it is very easy to believe what you want to believe. Words like hope are very powerful to our feelings, but when reality kicks-in, we will free fall very fast.
I am an independent who opposed the war, don’t like republicans but recognizes demagogs when he hears them.
Don’t let the politicians convince you…
October 19, 2008 at 8:22 am
Obama will ONLY raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. That is now. Sales tax started at 1%. How long will it take before there is not enough money coming from people making over $250,000? Then where will the money come from? I hope I do not have to give you the answer.
October 19, 2008 at 8:32 am
Bush was a mistake. It shows by how low his approval rating is. Congress is also a mistake which is shown by their lower approval rating. But, hating Bush is NOT a reason to vote for Obama. Hitler was elected because the German people wanted anyone but who was in power. That, of course, gave a lot of work to the people that ran the ovens. Please think clearly before you vote.
October 19, 2008 at 8:50 pm
It makes me sick to think I gave up 6 years of my life in the Navy to defend a country that has voters that would seriously consider voting for someone that attended a racist church, was/is friends with a person responsible for bombings in the U.S. and associated with the New Party (a group of Socialists). If I had known that American citizens would be so gullible I would never have enlisted.
October 19, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Jeremiah Wright was a military veteran and served LBJ at his bedside during his surgery. I think framing Trinity as a “racist church” is highly simplistic.
October 20, 2008 at 1:33 pm
People just judge so ignorantly… Rev. Wright is not something or someone you can hold against Obama.
arrg.
http://theEvolutionofGod.wordpress.com
tim
October 20, 2008 at 2:35 pm
The only question I have is, “Have all of you lost your minds?” Barrack Obama is a liar, he avoids questions, he is a racist, he has soooo many questionable relations I’ve lost track. I guess since the devil has beautiful words you would follow him to hell too. Have a nice trip…..let me know how the weather is down there.
October 20, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Wendy…
Please re-read your statement and look at how assinine it is…. Please.
Also read the blog below…
http://theevolutionofgod.wordpress.com/2008/10/20/the-failure-to-understand-by-jim-palmer/
October 21, 2008 at 8:59 am
Why should I expect more from this forum….do you really want to take that chance?
Follow on, the only assinine thing is you following a man who avoids issues. Explain his relations, why did he sit in a hate mongers’ church for 20 years? Why would you follow someone who states in his books that he holds his mothers race in contempt? Never mind, I expect that from someone who would read anything from the blog you posted. You obviously have a skewed view of Obama’s “vision”. Clearly, you have a problem with religion of any kind. Hope you like wearing a turbin…if Obama gets elected you likely will.
October 21, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Better watch out there Wendy, U seem as angry as a fundamentalist muslim about to go jihad on someone!
What ignorance! Have you even researched what you are talking about? If you did you would know that what you are saying is TOTAL CRAP!!!!
Be real!
October 21, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oh, thank you so much for changing my mind..What would I do without such informed people as yourself? You are brilliant. We need so many more people like you. Why couldn’t I have the gift that you have? What is your job? I bet you have no job, and you want someone to give you something (spread someone else’s wealth) for free. Just in case you are wondering…I have a job and it’s a great one. I don’t sit on the couch smelling books and I am up by noon. By the way, I have a big smile on my face…. you make me laugh.
October 21, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Oh, and what I love most about this country is that we can agree to disagree on subjects such as these and we don’t have to worry about the guillotine…yet.
October 23, 2008 at 6:23 pm
List one accomplishment Obama has had…ever.
October 24, 2008 at 8:54 am
His greatest accomplishment is that in running he has showed us how many fearful biggots there are in this country still!
October 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
McCain: ‘Popular means qualify’?
Every time John McCain is confronted about Sarah Palin’s qualification he decrepitly responds, “look, she is the most popular governor…†Saddam Hussein and many other leaders had over 90% rating that we occasionally blame on slow evolution, isolation, the ignorance of their people, and/or the iron fist of those leaders. Alaska is the republican village where Mr. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Senate Republican reigns longer than Palin and with higher ratings but presently under corruption charges. So a Republican governor or senator who lords over rich Alaska ‘village’ with little over half a million people cannot mean s/he can lead a populated U.S and ‘populated world’ with limited resources. As the Alaska village grows in population and evolution, numberous ‘Ted Stevens’ will face corruption charges, ‘Sarah Palins’ will be accused of power abuse and the most honest republican/democrat will not have extremely high rating or reign forever like the embattled ‘king’ called Ted Steven. Mr. Steven is popular and the longest serving republican senator but is he among the most qualified… senators?
McCain desperately chose Palin to primarily win women votes as evident in his appealing ads specifically to women just before picking Palin. Obviously, he miscalculated the intelligence of women to follow any “popular†woman who is not only at odds with women issues but simply mistaken on simple issues that transcends gender. Palin is not even fit to be a governor, much more a president. Alaska just happens to be rich and less problematic that an unqualified king who comfortably ruled rich Africa millennia before Africa was invaded will not be able to properly rule a small town of today’s Africa. May be McCain thought the most popular female governor/senator will mean the most qualify running mate to win female votes. Alaska is such a republican village that they are yet to elect a non-republican senator. Their mild republican governors are replaced with extreme republicans. So the hunting-mum who enjoys fighting quickly runs out of democrats to run into republicans and that is what McCain misinterprets as “reformist…†or secondary argument for “the most popular governorâ€. Beside personal attacks, what new reforming proposals has Palin presented yet? Or should I write another article: ‘fighter means reformist’?
McCain is also saying anything just to win votes ignoring the fact that people can think and his opponents will question his claims. Accusing Obama of “Socialism†just because he wants to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 to its prior level during the Bill Clinton era is unwise. Why didn’t he accuse Mr. Bill Clinton of “socialism†then? Now he is basically asking Americans do you prefer the popular and successful “socialism†of Bill Clinton or the failed and ‘qualify’ “capitalism†of George Bush? Obviously, Americans who enjoyed the “socialism†of Bill Clinton will opt for the capitalism of Obama. So we cannot blame McCain’s decadence on Palin alone, McCain is making very dumb moves that is out of the topic: ‘popular means qualify’?
The strong appeal to female voters has even landed Obama in the wrong direction of confronting Black males and hip-hop. Obama’s harshest words politically is accusing hip-hop of “misogynyâ€. It may be advantageous politically but it is beguiled, apathetic, short sighted, backward, and unfounded that black males or hip-hop can be blamed for the social ills that plaque our society. Admittedly, there are mistaken black men mainly due to retaliation against imposed culture and mistaken hip-hop artists for similar reasons. I will defend this black race, especially the men, more than Palin defended her pregnant teenage daughter. I will urge for learning and tolerance on my mistaken children except the deserts who sully their own unnecessarily. If Obama is open minded enough to listen to Iran, Joe the plumber, blood-stain senators etc then hip-hop deserves a listening ear and debate before unfounded castigations. We will gladly teach him the true ‘Dreams of his Father’ or the nightmares that cause our stunning retaliations. Otherwise we are ready to war with ‘him’ and every arrogant woman until one of his daughters grows to teach him and the world that criticisms, misunderstood terms or faulty words does not amount to misogyny. Life is a distinctive test from collective tests. Whether or not ‘popular means qualify’, urban music will dominate the Americas and influence the world.
On International affairs, it seems as ‘popular means qualify’ only if you are a republican. The international world, including European leaders, show more support to Barrack Obama than McCain but McCain claims more qualify on foreign affairs. It is important for the American people to understand the relation between desirable working relationship and indolence striving relationship. It will be lot harder for John McCain to convince world leaders in a global village where America can be brought to her knees by few resisting small countries. The days of bullying to excel are over. If ‘popular ever means qualify’ then history should credit McCain. May God bless Showlove Trinity: Let’s learn, let’s work, let’s have fun.
By Jigster, An African Philosopher
Did you notice every paragraph is questioning if ‘popular means qualify’ ?
Jigster is the founder of the http://www.mbioc.net movement.
October 28, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Dear Jon,
I notice you are making the Obama Presidential coin and I would like to offer you my personal condolences for this outrageously, repulsive idea. I also feel it necessary to warn you that this idea is a total waste of time, which will consequently ruin both you and your company financially and reputably. In a nut shell, I believe this coin belongs in the Smithsonian Institution right next to the Chicago paper that said ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’?
Obama will never become President of the United States because ‘we’ the true American ‘Christian’ people believe Obama to be both a Muslim and the antichrist. For those naïve Islamic sympathisers who disbelieve the election of Obama is a horror foretold, please see Revelation 13.
http://www.obamagoldcoins.com and http://www.wewwewlondon.com
October 28, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Dear Jon,
I notice you are making the Obama Presidential coin and I would like to offer you my personal condolences for this outrageously, repulsive idea. I also feel it necessary to warn you that this idea is a total waste of time, which will consequently ruin both you and your company financially and reputably. In a nut shell, I believe this coin belongs in the Smithsonian Institution right next to the Chicago paper that said ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’?
Obama will never become President of the United States because ‘we’ the true American ‘Christian’ people believe Obama to be both a Muslim and the antichrist. For those naïve Islamic sympathisers who disbelieve the election of Obama is a horror foretold, please see Revelation 13.
October 28, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Over the last few days there has been a lot of media coverage concerning the Obama Gold Coin, which was first minted in Birmingham, England. We, (Winston, Elizabeth and Windsor) created the coin, as a piece of art and a symbol for hope and change.
Winston, Elizabeth and Windsor (WEW) were the first and original company to create and found the concept of a Barack Obama Presidential Coin. The concept was generated after hearing Barack Obama’s moving speech in Europe, which was like a breath of fresh air that came over the Atlantic and promised hope for the future.
The people of Europe felt they were able trust, empathise and communicate with Mr Obama, as a true leader of the people; for the people. As a result, (WEW) felt it necessary to honour Mr Obama due to his past and present lifetime achievements, as a man of great influence and a true leader for the people.
Some critics have stated; ‘the Democratic Party should denounce the coin’s production as inappropriate, as no coin should bear the image of a living person’. However, the people of England and mainland Europe feel that Mr Obama is exempt from this rule, as he represents a great nation, which finally deserves a great leader.
Mr Obama will never back down in the face of great difficulty or challenge but instead gives birth to an idea; the possibility that anything or anyone can rise up and achieve their ambitions – even the American dream?
October 28, 2008 at 4:21 pm
WEW confirms; we are minting a normal run of unlimited (Obama Gold Coins) and also a limited edition of (500 Solid-Silver Obama Coins) both hallmarked in Birmingham, England with 20% of all sales going to a US charity.
WEW confirms, ‘yes’ it is true; a number of celebrities in the USA and UK have personally requested that we reserve a range of both Gold and Silver Obama Coins.
WEW confirms, ‘yes’ it is true; the first public display of the Obama Gold Coin was shown at the Birmingham Arts Fair in England and was hosted by UK Fine Arts. During the show England’s number one, world-renowned artist Mr Willard Wigan MBE also submitted his endorsement for Mr Obama and his campaign stating;
‘he would like to volunteer his personal services towards the Obama campaign’.
Mr Willard Wigan’s work is described, as ‘the eighth wonder of the world’ and was reportedly sold for $22 million dollars also submitted his personal endorsement.
Thank you for taking the time to read this statement and I hope you continue to give your support…
________________________________________________________________________
–This Coin is Limited Edition For Collectors and for an Historical Event that may take place on November 4th 2008 when Senator Obama may become president of the United States of America. If Mr Obama gets in the White House, he will have done this with ‘Class and Dignity’ and will become the First African American to be President… We are offering this magnificent and beautiful coin which was manufactured by one of the most Experienced Coin Makers in Birmingham, England. It will NEVER loose its value and each coin is hallmarked and has a serial number on the side of the coin for Authenticity.
We are in the process of making an additional 9 coins which will only be available on this Ebay account. A number of these are being presented to some states people in America and people like Oprah Winfrey, Denzel Washington, George Clooney along with London’s Famous Mayor Boris Johnson
. All coins will be sent recorded delivery with Insurance!! For all enquiries contact us on obamacoin@gmail.com and please take into account there maybe a 28 day waiting list. Please Note: Our company will be donating 20% of all money raised to a Charity to help children n Africa with Education and Sports
Barack Obama Silver Coin [B/O3-SSS-BOX] We take this great opportunity to offer you a historical and very special investment opportunity. This coin is a unique portrait of a common man who rose above the rest in the name of ‘change’! Solid, Sterling Silver (British Hallmark 925) – £295.00 Solid, Sterling Silver Coin. Stamped with British Hallmark 925. Hand-finished in Birmingham, England. Limited edition design complete with Certificate of Authenticity. Embossed engraving highly polished with a Collar style finish around the sides of the coin. 60mm in diameter, 3.5mm thick, and an impressive 97g of pure British Sterling Silver in weight. Only a limited edition of 500 will be produced in honour of ‘change’… The coin comes housed in a magnificent, wooden box (as seen on the photograph) which is handmade in Birmingham in England.. The box is lazer engraved ‘The President, In God We Trust’ This coin is blank on the back side for you to have your own personal message engraved.
————————————————————————————————————————-
The Barack Obama Presidential coin is no longer a coin or an illusion, it is a piece of art; described by those that have seen it, as Slick, Sexy, Elegant and Daring!
These are not our words but the comments of world renowned movie stars and politicians ranging from Madonna and Barbra Streisand, Tony Blair, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Barbra Berlusconi, the daughter of the Italian Prime Minister.
Most recently the Barack Obama coin was unveiled in Italy were it received an overwhelming reception; considered by most, as an iconic symbol for peace and change. This idea of peace and change gathered further momentum, as one was personally requested by a member of the Vatican who stated ‘the race is now in the hands of god’.
On a more sombre note, we have recently received a lot of negative comments and ignorant feedback with regards to why the Barack Obama coin has been created in Birmingham, England. The reason is simple; the English silversmiths are the best coin makers in the world with over 300 year’s experience. Creating coins for the Royal family and other Monarchs; we believe the President of the United States deserves to be treated with the same respect and dignity. Further more; we would also like to add that with each coin sold an America charity will benefit directly with 20% of the proceeds being donated.
To conclude, we believe the Barack Obama coin represents peace, diplomacy and prosperity for the future, which is what this world is crying out for?
________________________________________________________________________
Democrats Approve Obama’s Deification: “President Obama” Coins
Obama’s image, like that of Roman emperors and European monarchs, to appear on commemorative coins
by Bill Levinson
It is illegal for the U.S. Mint to produce a coin that bears the image of a living person, and the U.S. Postal Service never puts a living person’s picture on its stamps. This taboo probably dates back to the War of Independence, when the Founding Fathers decided that the United States would never exalt an individual, no matter how prominent, in the manner of Roman emperors and European monarchs.
This law does not apply, of course, to private mints that produce commemorative (non-legal-tender) coins, and United States law does not apply to British subjects either. This does not mean that the Democratic Party has to approve the effective deification of its candidate in the manner of a king or a Roman emperor, as one British firm is doing. Windsor, Elizabeth, and Windsor is stamping commemorative coins with Obama’s face, with his jaw protruding in an appropriately heroic pose, in front of the White House.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Gold & Silver Obama Coins Go on Sale to the Public.
The Obama Coins which recently caused quite a stir due to the inscription “President of the United States” are now on sale to the public. The firm behind the coins has also responded to some of the controversy.
crooksandliars@gmail.com
October 28, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Mr Willard Wigan MBE From HRH Price Of Wales.
________________________________________________________________________
Over the last few days there has been a lot of media coverage concerning the Obama Gold Coin, which was first minted in Birmingham, England. We, (Winston, Elizabeth and Windsor) created the coin, as a piece of art and a symbol for hope and change.
Winston, Elizabeth and Windsor (WEW) were the first and original company to create and found the concept of a Barack Obama Presidential Coin. The concept was generated after hearing Barack Obama’s moving speech in Europe, which was like a breath of fresh air that came over the Atlantic and promised hope for the future.
The people of Europe felt they were able trust, empathise and communicate with Mr Obama, as a true leader of the people; for the people. As a result, (WEW) felt it necessary to honour Mr Obama due to his past and present lifetime achievements, as a man of great influence and a true leader for the people.
Some critics have stated; ‘the Democratic Party should denounce the coin’s production as inappropriate, as no coin should bear the image of a living person’. However, the people of England and mainland Europe feel that Mr Obama is exempt from this rule, as he represents a great nation, which finally deserves a great leader.
Mr Obama will never back down in the face of great difficulty or challenge but instead gives birth to an idea; the possibility that anything or anyone can rise up and achieve their ambitions – even the American dream?
WEW confirms; we are minting a normal run of unlimited (Obama Gold Coins) and also a limited edition of (500 Solid-Silver Obama Coins) both hallmarked in Birmingham, England with 20% of all sales going to a US charity.
WEW confirms, ‘yes’ it is true; a number of celebrities in the USA and UK have personally requested that we reserve a range of both Gold and Silver Obama Coins.
WEW confirms, ‘yes’ it is true; the first public display of the Obama Gold Coin was shown at the Birmingham Arts Fair in England and was hosted by UK Fine Arts. During the show England’s number one, world-renowned artist Mr Willard Wigan MBE also submitted his endorsement for Mr Obama and his campaign stating;
‘he would like to volunteer his personal services towards the Obama campaign’.
Mr Willard Wigan’s work is described, as ‘the eighth wonder of the world’ and was reportedly sold for $22 million dollars also submitted his personal endorsement.
Thank you for taking the time to read this statement and I hope you continue to give your support…
________________________________________________________________________
–
————————————————————————————————————————-
The Barack Obama Presidential coin is no longer a coin or an illusion, it is a piece of art; described by those that have seen it, as Slick, Sexy, Elegant and Daring!
These are not our words but the comments of world renowned movie stars and politicians ranging from Madonna and Barbra Streisand, Tony Blair, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Barbra Berlusconi, the daughter of the Italian Prime Minister.
Most recently the Barack Obama coin was unveiled in Italy were it received an overwhelming reception; considered by most, as an iconic symbol for peace and change. This idea of peace and change gathered further momentum, as one was personally requested by a member of the Vatican who stated ‘the race is now in the hands of god’.
On a more sombre note, we have recently received a lot of negative comments and ignorant feedback with regards to why the Barack Obama coin has been created in Birmingham, England. The reason is simple; the English silversmiths are the best coin makers in the world with over 300 year’s experience. Creating coins for the Royal family and other Monarchs; we believe the President of the United States deserves to be treated with the same respect and dignity. Further more; we would also like to add that with each coin sold an America charity will benefit directly with 20% of the proceeds being donated.
To conclude, we believe the Barack Obama coin represents peace, diplomacy and prosperity for the future, which is what this world is crying out for?
________________________________________________________________________
Democrats Approve Obama’s Deification: “President Obama” Coins
Obama’s image, like that of Roman emperors and European monarchs, to appear on commemorative coins
by Bill Levinson
It is illegal for the U.S. Mint to produce a coin that bears the image of a living person, and the U.S. Postal Service never puts a living person’s picture on its stamps. This taboo probably dates back to the War of Independence, when the Founding Fathers decided that the United States would never exalt an individual, no matter how prominent, in the manner of Roman emperors and European monarchs.
This law does not apply, of course, to private mints that produce commemorative (non-legal-tender) coins, and United States law does not apply to British subjects either. This does not mean that the Democratic Party has to approve the effective deification of its candidate in the manner of a king or a Roman emperor, as one British firm is doing. Windsor, Elizabeth, and Windsor is stamping commemorative coins with Obama’s face, with his jaw protruding in an appropriately heroic pose, in front of the White House.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Gold & Silver Obama Coins Go on Sale to the Public.
The Obama Coins which recently caused quite a stir due to the inscription “President of the United States” are now on sale to the public. The firm behind the coins has also responded to some of the controversy.
I notice you are making the Obama Presidential coin and I would like to offer you my personal condolences for this outrageously, repulsive idea. I also feel it necessary to warn you that this idea is a total waste of time, which will consequently ruin both you and your company financially and reputably. In a nut shell, I believe this coin belongs in the Smithsonian Institution right next to the Chicago paper that said ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’?
Obama will never become President of the United States because ‘we’ the true American ‘Christian’ people believe Obama to be both a Muslim and the antichrist. For those naïve Islamic sympathisers who disbelieve the election of Obama is a horror foretold, please see Revelation 13.
October 28, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“Obama will never become President of the United States because ‘we’ the true American ‘Christian’ people believe Obama to be both a Muslim and the antichrist. For those naïve Islamic sympathisers who disbelieve the election of Obama is a horror foretold, please see Revelation 13.”
Are you serious? People like you make me sick you ignorant Viper! Obama is not a Muslim, nor is he the antiChrist… For you to make such a claim is racist, ignorant, and very telling your kind of Christianity, the kind that repulses the one true God! May he spit you out of his mouth fast and may you not leave an aftertaste!
tim kurek
http://TheEvolutionofGod.wordpress.com
October 29, 2008 at 11:16 am
Tim, Why don’t you check your own back pocket for some racism, I think thou does’t protest to much….stop calling people names and answer the questions that people ask you. Your’e as bad as Obama about pointing fingers but not answering questions. You still haven’t answered the questions that I posed to you and I believe someone else asked you to name one accomplishment that Obama has ever had. You still haven’t come up with one thing. “Showing us how many fearful bigots” there are is not an accomplishment…..for that matter you could list how he showed us how much of a racist that Jeremiah Wright is and then include himself in that racist list because he sat in the pew listening to that crap for 20 years….and even you can’t deny that. He admittedly sat there and he even put it in his book that he holds his mothers race in contempt. Guess what, that is a racist. You are white so he hates you too. Sorry.
October 29, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Wendy,
I see NO Jesus in your words or spirit. I see no love. I see nothing but ignorant pride.
I have met Barack before and he is not what you say. You throw the labels muslim and racist around because they are tools of fear. You are adding to the problem and not helping with anything.
What has Sarah Palin or McCain done that is so great? Palin is as loony as Rev. Wright!
I think your focus needs to be less on discrediting people and more on loving people. Effect change in the areas you have a voice, in the raising of your kids or sharing the love of Christ to those who need to hear it. Stop barking your conspiracy theories as if you actually know anything. You don’t know Barack’s heart.
With that, I’m done. The ignorance displayed on these comments makes me sad to be under the same label of Christian as you, and makes me sad that America harbors verbal terrorists, whose ignorace is unmatched.
tim
http://theevolutionofGod.wordpress.com
October 29, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Tim,
I have not shown any of the qualities that you describe and I won’t defend my Christianity to you or anybody else. That is between myself and my savior. John McCain has given his country 6 years of his life (in a prison camp) Obama would have tucked and run and John McCain defends its rights and values and displays it still today. I see now why you defend Obama…you were star struck when you met him. I’ll not call you Christian or otherwise. I don’t pretend to know what is between you and God. You still haven’t answered any of the questions posed to you. Sarah Palin has never preached hate. If you think that you are just a woman hater. I guess you think I should go back to the kitchen with my bare feet and pregnant self. HAAA
October 30, 2008 at 6:58 am
“star struck”
Oh how you assume… What are the first three letters in that word? Just curious.
Sarah Palin hasn’t preached hate but watch her on her interviews!!! She’s an idiot!!! That doesn’t make me a woman hater…
Lol maybe you should stay in the kitchen because you aren’t presenting rational thought here by making such extreme judgements that are so misinformed.
October 30, 2008 at 7:33 am
Still haven’t answered the questions posed to you regarding Obama, keep on avoiding those. The only thing I see you doing is making ASSumptions and accusations that have no basis. I don’t see any facts.
October 31, 2008 at 4:29 pm
check out the last 30 seconds of this video and you will know why we need to vote REPIBLICAN http://video.nbc6.net/player/?id=797441
October 31, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Sarah Palin has more practical experience than obama the FACT is he has NEVER sponcered a bill or law that has changed anything 75% of his votes were present not or no what is up with that not very presidential he has voted to raise taxes 95 times but i guess an Ozombe can’t see the writing on the wall just drink the koolaid and shut the f— up kind of like joe the plumber he did nothing but ask a question and they dried to destroy him obama gave the answer##$@!!^&*^^%
November 2, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Let me say this. I worked in hospitals prior to the passage of Roe v. Wade. The butchery of illegal abortions will have every man and woman in this country cringing at the horror. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will be the fathers and mothers, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles, neighbors and church peers who will experience the horrendous suffering of women who do not want nor cannot provide for unexpected pregnancies. To say you protect the lives of unborn children is an absurdity unless you deliberately choose to provide housing, food, education, child care, psychologists and family counselors for the difficult road ahead in adolescence as well as prepare this unborn life for college and survival in the nearby national and worldwide depression. Put your money where your mouths are…and find your heart and compassion. “For whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.”
November 2, 2008 at 9:10 pm
DLo,
Baloney…..Who is the voice for the unborn? That bell that you have been ringing..has tolled for many a dead infant. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. I don’t believe that it needs to be…but there has to be a stop to people using it as birth control. Partial birth abortion is insanity. That is what should be punishable by death of anyone involved. Don’t let the fear of Roe v. Wade being overturned influence your vote. We will have alot more problems if we can’t get health care because you have to wait 6 to 8 months to even get a Dr.’s appointment. That is the definition of Obama’s plan. That pregnant mother will get her appointment just in time to give birth so if she doesn’t want her child then she will go looking for someone to perform a late term abortion.
November 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Not even a week after the president election the blond topblogger from Sweden, Linda Ekholm speaks out loud about Obama!
And I really believe this is truly written by heart. Scary!
http://www.finest.se/userBlog/?uid=30701&beid=1040511
December 13, 2008 at 7:23 pm