It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Obama hoping a Racial Civil war breaks out in the US?

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:06 AM
a reply to: Lil Drummerboy

Stoking a Race War has been on Obama's Agenda since he took office. But it's really just one pot on his fascist stove of rotating-crises. Ebola (which was NEVER a real threat to the U.S.) is dying off, so it's time to move the always-simmering Ferguson to the front burner and stoke it up!

And now we have another tangent, that we're supposed to believe is related to Ferguson. But it actually falls under "militarized police and practicing for Martial Law":
"The Massachusetts State Police plan to conduct a tactical-response drill from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. today at the Statehouse. State Police say there may be a "large volume of troopers and police vehicles around the Statehouse and on Beacon Street," and say passersby should not consider the police presence as a reason for alarm.

"The drill, which will take place in the annex basement and the sub-basement on the House side of the building, is not open to the media or the public.

"Officers will be dressed in "full protection equipment" and will be using non-lethal simunition cartridges, according to officials.
They include "surveillance mode technology (to) improve officers' situational awareness."

(While I am all for law enforcement being able to protect themselves while on dangerous assignments, this continued "militarization of local police" is worrisome.)

edit on 30-11-2014 by MKMoniker because: correction

edit on 30-11-2014 by MKMoniker because: content added

edit on 30-11-2014 by MKMoniker because: clarify

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:16 AM
The link here, tentative though it may be, is that President Obama attended a Christian church, at which the pastor and others regularly spoke from a basis of (as FlyersFan would have it) the religion of Black Liberation Theology. And the tacit followthrough that it seems we are to pick up is that this Black Liberation Theology Religion calls for violence and the overthrow of the American government.

Now, are these Black Churches the only ones deploying such rhetoric? Hardly:

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Article by Frank Schaffer - My Father was a Republican Hero

Mr. Schaeffer continues:

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.

And further ... his father, invited to dinner at the Ford White House, also said ...

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Or possibly the following words of Dr. George Grant ...

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations.”

Christians are Deadset on Overthrowing Democracy

Why pretend that only one Christian Religious group is advocating such things as violent overthrow of the US Government?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:24 AM
a reply to: MKMoniker

"Stoking a race war" has been on the Republican media's agenda since before anyone really even thought much about Senator Obama. As demonstrated above, Michael Savage was accusing Hillary Clinton in 2006 of wanting to start a race/civil war (as linked earlier in the thread).

The accusations of race war/civil war have nothing to do with anything President Obama has done, it is clearly seen to be but one tool in the box used by partisans.

A dangerous tool, one might add.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:33 AM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm mostly befuddled by your comment. What have I said here that you disagree with? What evidence do you offer in return? Why is my metaphorical jibe about "alternate universes" so critical, in your opinion?

Let's focus on the common point, rather than uselessly trying to convince each other of our position.

You say it's like talking with people from different universes, correct? The evidence is roughly the same for all parties and yet the interpretations, as different as they are, seem so very obvious to both sides.

What use is it to bicker over the differences? Wouldn't it be more productive to pursue solutions rather than waste time trying to wake people that are pretending to be asleep? Debate over interpretations of evidence is the very tool that is used to manipulate the social landscape to favor conflict over resolution.

I think that an enormous amount of common ground could be discovered if we discussed actual solutions rather than argue interpretations of an event which none of us actually experienced.

Are you more interested in conflict or solutions?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:46 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good post, but I doubt you'll be making much headway. The Liberals have turned American graduate schools into bastion of un-critical thinking, where "narrative" is more important than "facts."
"Although apparently unrelated to each other in their planning and execution, the three controversies exhibit a shared sensibility -- and possess a common root. Each reflects a cardinal tenet of the powerfully reinforced brand of left-liberalism inculcated on university campuses in this country.

"The administration’s MISLEADING OF THE PUBLIC reflects a teaching that is common to much literary theory, sociology, anthropology, political theory, and legal theory on college campuses today: Knowledge is socially constructed, and therefore the narrative is all.

"The problem, in the president’s eyes, was not that he failed to set forth facts accurately, not that he fell short in showing how his policy and conduct were consistent with constitutional principles, and certainly not that his programs were flawed, but that he neglected to craft an engaging and uplifting tale.

(I guess we should have listened closer when Team Obama started rewriting history. Most of us thought it was a little strange, but just a quickly-passing quirk. Nope. These folks have over-reached to skew the whole Facts versus Lies landscape, to the point that this is what is being taught in our graduate schools!)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:49 AM

originally posted by: Jainine

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Do you have something of substance to add to what I said or to counter it?

You come on here with an attitude of superiority, insulting ATS and it's membership and then you come out with this? Hypocrisy. This is ATS. Love it or leave it. Make up your mind. If this place is as bad as you claim, and yet you keep coming back, then there is something wrong with you.

Every President would LOVE to have more power. George Bush accumulated more power when 9/11 happened. Obama doesn't have a 9/11 to take advantage of. I have no doubt he'd love to hype up and take advantage of civil unrest. The next president would most likely do the same. They are all corrupt.

It was only insulting to those that feel they may be one brainwashed fools I was talking about. I did not say it was all of the members or ATS as a whole.

I was asking you if you had something of value to add to the convorsation, or if you just came on to say this:

If it's supposedly so bad then quit whining and go use the exit door. Bu-bye.

Ya, that's an intelligent response, huh?

The entire point is that there is absolutely no reason to believe Obama wants a race war. It has been part of the Right-Wing narrative even before he came in to office, and yet some people fall for the tactic over and over again. There is also no reason to believe that Obama would "love to hype up and take advantage of civil unrest". That statement is complete conjecture and is not rooted in any facts whatsoever.

Now if that is insulting to some.....tough cookies.

It's about time we inject some common sense and have a discussion that based in reality. Unfortunately, most of these anti-Obama/Democrat threads are not rooted in reality and it even borderlines on complete stupidity.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:50 AM
a reply to: Serdgiam

I absolutely agree that solutions are the important issue. For a specific example, I have long maintained that whatever is causing climate change the really important thing for humanity is to prepare to adapt to what is happening and what may happen.

I do not mean to, nor will I, argue climate change.

The problem I see is that solutions will involve many of us, if not all of us.

How do we get there from here, when here is where we can't seem to parse a 5 or so minute speech by the President of the United States and get even slightly similar meanings from it?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 10:53 AM

originally posted by: FlyersFan
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
What proof do you have that BLT has much sway over Obama? Educate us please.

So sitting in the pews for 20 years, week after week, listening to the garbage spewed out isn't going to effect anyone? As was pointed out earlier, Obama called Rev. Wright one of his greatest mentors. Obama named his book after one of Wrights sermons. And you want to claim that 20 years in that cult hasn't effected his thought process? Really? No matter WHAT religion a person belongs to, be it Catholic or Protestant or Muslim or whatever, if they sit there for 20 years and dont' walk out the door that means they are comfortable with what is being said and when they go on to claim the leader of the group was one of their greatest mentors and name books after speeches that preacher gave, then that means there's a lot of influence going on in the persons life.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

All that is irrelevant. What has he done to make us think he is trying to start a race war?


What has he done to make us think BLT has influenced his decision making as president?


posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:01 AM
a reply to: MKMoniker

Making much headway with what? Changing the hearts and minds of Republicans and right-wingers here at ATS?

That's not what I'm doing; even I am not that foolish.

Which liberals have turned which graduate schools into bastions of un-critical [sic] thinking?

What graduate programs at what colleges and universities do you have specific experience with in order to have some sort of factual basis to what you are saying?

"Liberal Arts" and "Liberal Education" are not synonymous with modern liberal political thought; I hope that was some sort of joke on your part and not a serious statement. Both terms hark back to the ancient Greeks as the material skills and knowledge that any "free person" should have.

Your quotes are, interestingly enough, the narrative of one man, Peter Berkowitz. Surely you are not confusing the opinionated narrative of one individual with actual facts that can be established and proven???

Surely not; that would simply be mind-blowingly ironic.

Simple question: Was the concept of a "race war/civil war" related particularly to Democratic candidates a topic of discussion (and empty accusation) on the part of various right-wing Republican political pundits, or not?

If so, (and it's so), doesn't that demonstrate fairly conclusively that the question of race war/civil war is a mere political ploy rather than anything that any reasonable person should take seriously?

edit on 11Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:04:08 -060014p1120141166 by Gryphon66 because: added "any" to the final sentence

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:03 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I've shown the dictionary definitions ...What are you offering? Your interpretation and your memories.

Uh ... no. You gave A dictionary definition while ignoring the OTHER dictionary definition. I am not 'offering my interpretation' but I am providing the dictionary and psychology definition of cult. You just don't like it.

Frankly, why are you so insistent on calling BLT a cult?

Frankly, why are you so insistent on NOT calling black liberation theology what it is?
It's a cult by definition.

Since the terms are equivalent in your eyes, why not refer to BLT as a religion?

Why should I? I am using the correct terminology.
No need to change it just to make you feel better.

Are you going to pretend that the Christian religion itself is not filled with violent imagery?

Wow ... it's like you've never read anything I've ever posted. I'm the first one to say that Christianity and Judaism and Islam .. all three of the Abrahamic religions ... are full of awful brutality and absurdities. So whatever you were going to try to do with that ... don't bother.

FULL Definition of Cult by Merriam Webster

Full Definition of CULT

1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

You can argue if black liberation theology is spurious or unorthodox or not. It would depend on who you asked. A race based cult branching off from mainstream christianity is considered spurious to most Christians. But either way, black liberation theology fits the rest of the definition of 'cult', as do all of the abrahamic religions.

ATS Thread on Obama's Church

What Obama's Church believes in -

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Is that spurious? Opinions would vary.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 11/30/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:08 AM

originally posted by: Jainine

originally posted by: Gryphon66
what does your assessment of Sheepslayer's posting behavior have to do with the subject at hand?

The same thing that HIS opening statement assessment of other ATS members posting behavior has to do with the subject. Not a darn thing. How about you address HIS off topic insults which were posted first?

another long-term ATS member?

That 'long term' member says he rarely posts here due to the alleged stupidity of posters. It doesn't matter if someone is here one day or ten years, for anyone to come on and start posting nonsensical off topic insults and then insist others stay of topic is absurd. If it's supposedly that bad then use the log off button and don't come back.

As for my position - asked and answered. My position has been clearly stated. Presidents are power-hungry and exploitative. Bush43 or Obama. No different.

If my comments were off-topic and insulting , don't you think the post would have been removed? Have you considered the idea that my comments, although a bit harsh, may be correct?

This thread is full of comments that are not rooted in facts, yet seem to parrot the same rhetoric pushed by the right-wing propaganda machine. Sorry, but that is fact.

Some people may not like the reality that their "opinion" is not really their "opinion. It's only a regurgitation of what they have allowed to be fed to them.

It is that which should be insulting to the membership and it is that mindset that is a threat to this country.....not an Obama race war.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:11 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
All that is irrelevant.

So if George Bush had spent every week for 20 years attending Klan meetings and listening to them blame the black man for everything wrong, would that be irrelevant as well? Would you think it was unimportant? I would find it very troublesome. Cones used some pretty hard core anti-white pro-violence rhetoric and that is what a lot of the black liberation theology is based on. It's not irrelevant. Combine that with the fact that the modern day Presidents - both Republicans and Democrats - have used national tragedies and unrest to gather themselves more power and common sense says that it is very POSSIBLE that ANY President could hope for civil unrest in order to grab more power. It's something to watch for. None of them can be trusted.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:13 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here's an article that discusses how many churches nationwide are reacting to the Ferguson crises. I'm not reading "agitation" from Wash. DC, or Black Liberation Theory. I'm reading about churches with real soul-searching to help find solutions, while keeping their congregants individually strong thru their "faith".
“I have been living with this quote, ‘Do your little bit of good where you are,’” Lawler says, citing the words of Desmund Tutu. “‘It’s those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world.’”

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:18 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes, it is something we need to keep an eye on but it is not a reason in and of itself for us to make any claim that Obama wants to start a race war....because he has not attempted to do any such thing.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:25 AM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
Yes, it is something we need to keep an eye on but it is not a reason in and of itself for us to make any claim that Obama wants to start a race war....because he has not attempted to do any such thing.

Hey we agree. Gotta' keep an eye on it no matter who is in office

In closing I'll just point out that the OP didn't claim that Obama wanted to start a race war. He (or she) asked the question if Obama was/might be ... but didn't state absolutely that Obama did try to start one.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:29 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Was that the first or preferred or common or regular definition of the word "cult" FlyersFan? No? Okay then.

So, your postulate is that it doesn't matter how a word is actually defined and utilized in either common speech or in academic study, so long as there is a definition there that meets your personal and individual criteria for what you want the word to mean, rather than what common use, history, and formal study all tell us the word means ... that it's technically okay?

Sure. Whatever. Call religions cults and cults religions if that gets you somewhere.

In my last post, I already started speaking in terms of religion rather than a cult. Why are you harping on it?

According to you, Black Liberation Theology is a religion. Isn't that the point? Aren't you continuing to push the idea that the word cult really means religion and the word religion really means cult?

What other point are you trying to make? I already gave in and started using your terminology of "religion" rather than "cult."

Why would you do that???

I think you made it quite clear, finally in your last post. I wish you had said this earlier and we could have saved our pointless semantical diatribes.

You want to view Black Liberation Theology as non-Christian, or at least, non-mainstream-Christian because of the comments of some members regarding violence and government overthrow. And yet, you failed to address the counter-example of Christian Dominionists seeking to establish a theocracy, as well as the long-term (from the 1970s at least) voiced advocacy on large swaths of the Christian Right to overthrow the American government unless it conforms to their desires.

Respectfully, despite your vague gesturing toward what you think other Christians may or may not think, I propose that you own your opinion that Black Liberation Theology is any more subversive or dangerous than any number of other Christian cults, as you wish to use the word, have stated, or, really, what the basic religion of Christianity focuses on .. violent death, sowing dissention among families, threatening those that disagree with their tenets with very literal fire and sword as well as metaphorical punishments inducing terror in those that listen to such garbage.

As to your reference to the opinions expressed in the other thread, is there anything specific that you wish to bring into this one? I don't want to venture off the topic of whether the President wants a race war.

As to your reference to "What Obama's Church Believes In" ... are you referring to the Trinity United Church of Christ?

I don't find that list on their website as any sort of Declaration of Faith, Mission Statement, et. al.

I'll do a bit more research on their site and report back on what I find.

ADDED IN EDIT: Here is their statement of faith, directly from their website: Trinity United Church of Christ - Statement of Faith

What We Believe

United Church of Christ Statement of Faith—adapted by Robert V. Moss

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, who is made known to us in Jesus our brother, and to whose deeds we testify:

God calls the worlds into being, creates humankind in the divine image, and sets before us the ways of life and death.

God seeks in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin.

God judges all humanity and all nations by that will of righteousness declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, our crucified and risen Lord,God has come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the whole creation to its Creator.

God bestows upon us the Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races.

God calls us into the church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be servants in the service of the whole human family, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share in Christ’s baptism and eat at his table,to join him in his passion and victory.

God promises to all who trust in the gospel forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace,the presence of the Holy Spirit in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in that kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto God.

Sounds pretty mainstream Christian to me, Flyers. Your mileage may vary.
edit on 11Sun, 30 Nov 2014 11:35:06 -060014p1120141166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 11:44 AM
There actually is another element that is somewhat similar to what you offered, Flyers, although their version is a lot more fulsome and gives Biblical and Christian references for each of their points:

Trinity UCC - Black Value System

I encourage you to review the actual document at their site, if you'd like a more fulsome description.

However, that is hardly their Statement of Faith, but is rather simply inspirational in nature:

Dr. Manford Byrd, our brother in Christ, withstood the ravage of being denied his earned ascension to the number one position in the Chicago School System. His dedication to the pursuit of excellence, despite systematic denials, has inspired the congregation of Trinity United Church of Christ. Prayerfully, we have called upon the wisdom of all past generations of suffering Blacks for guidance in fashioning an instrument of Black self-determination, the Black Value System.

While I certainly find all the religious trappings superfluous if not obnoxious, I can find no fault in the ideas of commitment to family, to the pursuit of education and bettering oneself, faithfulness to one's community, pursuing excellence, and encouraging a strong work ethic, self-respect and self-discipline ...

Can you?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:54 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The problem I see is that solutions will involve many of us, if not all of us.

That is indeed a stumbling block isn't it? I also like that you brought up a topic that is unrelated, because choosing conflict is something that occurs in nearly every topic imaginable. Though some are more volatile than others..

How do we get there from here, when here is where we can't seem to parse a 5 or so minute speech by the President of the United States and get even slightly similar meanings from it?

A very good question. Perhaps it would be good to speak on this rather than anything else.

Maybe choosing conflict over resolution is simply part of our nature, but it could most certainly be used against each other to maintain control and steer society.

Now, the question becomes; can this be done intentionally or is it simply something which is beyond our control and understanding? If the answer is the latter, then humanity could be seen as a lost cause. If it is the former, would those in power use it to their advantage?

I feel the answer is "yes." This nation is more divided than ever, and we keep getting pummeled with information about events that seem to drive the wedge deeper. It isn't the events themselves that accomplish this, but the evidence and how it is presented.

This only works with our consent. Pursuing resolution as a conscious choice breaks the "spell." With Ferguson specifically, we see more talk about innocence or guilt. At most, vague cries for "justice." But what actual solutions are we going to act on that will fix the system itself rather than focusing solely on individuals?

Police brutality is a serious problem, a common problem regardless of race. I believe all of us could not only find common ground along these lines, but actually affect positive change. If only would work together..

You are right though, it will take numbers to succeed. That means *you*. And me. People whose perspectives disagree about this particular event.

So, do we continue to spend our time debating our limited interpretations or use that diversity to get a glimpse of the bigger picture?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:04 PM
a reply to: scattergun

Do you think the Nobel Committee wants their Peace Prize back?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 05:37 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

I find it unfortunate that you disagreed with so much that I have said, because I agree with almost everything you just did.

When I think about these issues, there are two factors that I believe to be conjoined: psychological and developmental.

We will give developmental a bit of a priori importance because here I'm talking about the body itself, the actual physical structure of the brain systems, the endocrine systems, etc., and the way that those systems came to be over time.

Biologically speaking, at any rate, we are primates. All of the larger primates (chimps, apes, bonobos and orangutans) are very naturally both very social, very loving and cooperative within their own troupe and family group, and exceedingly violent toward others.

As our psychology can be said to follow our development, of course, we have lots of "conscious, rational, and emotional" reasons for these behaviors, categorized both in our histories and our myths and religions. (In fact, these are wide scale examples of the phenomenon writ large.)

Another way to consider my musing point is basic brain structure, the basal limbic system versus the frontal lobe in the cerebral cortex.

I realize that these systems are not as discrete as portrayed here.

So basically, I think we are at constant war with ourselves. To identify with ever larger and more inclusive groups encouraging cooperative efforts versus restricting the group of valued others down to a mere few categories and defending those identifications at all costs.

Of course, the relatively modern phenomenon of a completely autonomous individual is a new development for the great majority of the species (enjoyed earlier, I would say, only by the Alphas of a given "tribe") and that sets a more triadic dynamic than "the good chimp versus the evil chimp" or whatever framework is most palatable.

We need to focus on solutions to problems. We need to at least achieve some sort of parity between cooperative and defensive/aggressive behavior.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in