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.


Obama uses National Prayer Breakfast to defend Islam and criticize Christianity

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 07:18 PM

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate for president, promised fairness and justice for blacks if elected. In a letter to a black church official, Wilson wrote, "Should I become President of the United States they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing for everything by which I could assist in advancing their interests of the race." But after the election, Wilson changed his tune. He dismissed 15 out of 17 black supervisors who had been previously appointed to federal jobs

and replaced them with whites. He also refused to appoint black ambassadors to Haiti and Santa Domingo, posts traditionally awarded to African Americans. Two of Wilson's cabinet ministers, Postmaster General Albert Burelson and Treasury Secretary William McAdoo, both Southerners, issued orders segregating their departments. Throughout the country, blacks were segregated or dismissed from federal positions. In Georgia, the head of the Internal Revenue division fired all black employees: "There are no government positions for Negroes in the South. A Negro's place in the corn field." He said. The President's wife, Ellen Wilson, was said to have had a hand in segregating employees in Washington, encouraging department chiefs to assign blacks separate working, eating, and toilet facilities. To justify segregation, officials publicized complaints by white women, who were thought to be threatened by black men's sexuality and disease.


Obama doesn't seem to know much about history...

edit on 6-2-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 07:31 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Did the President mention political party in the speech?



Wilson did not create Jim Crow laws. Perhaps you need to brush up on history yourself. Try 1877-1880 in the South (Reference.) Making no apologies for Wilson, aside from that, truly equal treatment for Blacks on the part of the Federal government did not come for another 40 years at least, something a student of history would know well. One of the first real acts in that direction was by a Democratic President, Harry Truman: Executive Order 9981 issued on July 26, 1948 that ended racial discrimination in the Armed Forces.

The origin of the Civil Rights Acts (which finally abolished the last of Jim Crow) was the DemocratIC Party.

Also, speaking of the South, you know as well as anyone here that the source of "Democratic" (that is the name of the Party after all) animus towards Blacks was the Southern States, which, by the by, are all now solidly Republican with little change in attitude.

If you're going to quote history as your reference, don't rewrite it, or misrepresent it.
edit on 19Fri, 06 Feb 2015 19:40:24 -060015p072015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 07:38 PM

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Well if Obama really wanted to irritate people, he could have mentioned the incidents of cannibalism the Christian Crusaders did...

EDIT: To include some historical perspective...

Maarat was not as rich as the crusaders had hoped and they were still short of supplies and food as December progressed. Most of the soldiers and knights preferred to continue the march to Jerusalem, caring little for the political dispute between Bohemond and Raymond, and Raymond tried to buy the support of the other leaders. While the leaders negotiated away from the city, some of the starving crusaders at Maarat reportedly resorted to cannibalism, feeding on the dead bodies of Muslims.

Siege of Ma'arra - Wikipedia

Humm. According to the claims the ones who did these deeds were known as "the Tafur", generally poor pilgrims who supposedly didn't have money for swords and used any blunt weapon they could get their hands on. But if we were to discuss this, then we would also have to discuss whether these people were a myth or real. According to the same claims made of "the Tafur" they wore no shoes and wore sackcloth". If these stories were real then the majority of these people called "the Tafur" should have died during the crusades due to infections since they wore no shoes.

Then we would have to discuss why in the article it states "some crusaders resorted to cannibalism" but you aparently generalized that statement to include all crusaders.

edit on 6-2-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:28 PM
Muslim Conquest of Jerusalem: 637 AD ---> Reference

When at last the Greek Orthodox Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem was forced to surrender in 638 A.D., Umar is believed to have traveled to Jerusalem personally in order to receive the surrender. Umar had become the second caliph following the death of Abu Bakr, making him one of the earliest successors of Mohammed himself. His procession into the city was a humble one: the caliph was clad in simple attire, leading a camel. His conquest of Jerusalem, once the city had surrendered, was marked by its lack of further killing and destruction. The Christian holy sites were one and all left intact.

When Umar asked Sophronius to guide him to the city’s holy places, the patriarch took the caliph to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Famously, Umar refrained from praying within the church itself, as that would have transformed the church into a Muslim holy site. Instead Umar prayed outside in the streets of Jerusalem.

First Crusade, Conquest of Jerusalem: 1099 AD Reference

The massacre that followed the capture of Jerusalem has attained particular notoriety, as a "juxtaposition of extreme violence and anguished faith". The eyewitness accounts from the crusaders themselves leave little doubt that there was great slaughter in the aftermath of the siege. Nevertheless, some historians propose that the scale of the massacre has been exaggerated in later medieval sources.

After the successful assault on the northern wall, the defenders fled to the Temple Mount, pursued by Tancred and his men. Arriving before the defenders could secure the area, Tancred's men assaulted the precinct, butchering many of the defenders, with the remainder taking refuge in the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Tancred then called a halt to the slaughter, offering those in the mosque his protection. When the defenders on the southern wall heard of the fall of the northern wall, they fled to the citadel, allowing Raymond and the Provençals to enter the city. Iftikhar al-Dawla, the commander of the garrison, struck a deal with Raymond, surrendering the citadel in return for being granted safe passage to Ascalon. The slaughter continued for the rest of the day; Muslims were indiscriminately killed, and Jews who had taken refuge in their synagogue died when it was burnt down by the Crusaders. The following day, Tancred's prisoners in the mosque were slaughtered. Nevertheless, it is clear that some Muslims and Jews of the city survived the massacre, either escaping or being taken prisoner to be ransomed. The Eastern Christian population of the city had been expelled before the siege by the governor, and thus escaped the massacre.

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:41 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, first of all you are apparently assuming that I stated Wilson created this law, when what I wrote is that he enacted the Jim Crow Laws.

verb en·act i-ˈnakt

: to perform (something, such as a scene in a play)

: to make (a bill or other legislation) officially become part of the law

So you are making a wrong assumption about what I wrote. Wilson didn't create the Jim Crow Laws, but he enacted them during his time as President. The Jim Crow Laws were enacted between 1876 and 1965.

Jim Crow laws, enacted between 1876 and 1965, mandated de jure racial segregation in the public facilities of southern states.

Source: Boundless. “Jim Crow Laws.” Boundless U.S. History. Boundless, 14 Nov. 2014. Retrieved 07 Feb. 2015 from

Then you go on to state that any good student of history would know that, and I quote:

The origin of the Civil Rights Acts (which finally abolished the last of Jim Crow) was the DemocratIC Party.

But it is obvious that you do not know the history of the Civil Rights Act.

First, of all, there were other Civil Rights Acts.

The first one, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was introduced by Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull and was enacted April 9, 1866, but was later vetoed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson.

The second one, the Enforcement Act of 1870 , aka Civil Rights Act of 1870 was also introduced by a Republican, Senator John Bingham.

The third one, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and was also part of the reconstruction after the Civil War, came to be because Republican President Ulysses S. Grant requested Congress to address the problem of the KKK violence. Again, this Act was framed by Republicans like the others before it.

Same thing with the fourth Civil Rights Act from 1875 which was introduced by another Republican, Senator Charles Sumner.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1966 was introduced by ANOTHER Republican, Senator Lyman Trumbull (1866). Not to mention that the large majority of Republicans in the north voted in favor of the Act.

As for the majority of Democrats in the South and the few Rinos in the south who voted against it? Just because a person calls himself Republican doesn't make them so. The majority of the people in the south were Democrats, as people in the south became Republican what started happening in the south? could you tell us? The idea that all people, no matter their color, is equal began to be accepted even in the south. Are there people in the south who are still racist? sure, and there are people in the north as well.

A Republican, as it was originally is a person who, among other things, knows that All men and women were created equal. It doesn't matter the race, the color, the religion, or the creed of that person.

There are a lot of Rinos (Republicans In Name Only) right now in power as well who try to pass as Republicans but they don't even know what that means.

Has the Republican party been converted into the travesty that it is now for the most part? sure, and we have progressives and Democrats to thank for this for allowing international bankers to take control of the U.S. economy through the Federal Reserve Act and the IRS as they exist now.

Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild.

The Rockefeller-Founded Trilateral Commission (TC)

On page 405 of his Memoirs, David Rockfeller wrote:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If thats the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

As for who is trying to rewrite history?...

edit on 6-2-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and correct statement.

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah. You can try now to rearrange what you said any way you want; Wilson did not create or enact "the Jim Crow laws." He was a racist ass, because he was a Southerner, and he filled his Cabinet with Southerners, but you were just clearly mistaken on the "enacting" bit, why not just admit it?

Good point, I wasn't specific. The only effective and lasting Civil Rights Acts were passed in 1964 and 1968. Because the Democratic Party FINALLY stood up to the Southern "Dixiecrats" (now Republicans) and said ENOUGH.

You have got to be kidding. You are, with a straight face, going to claim greater racial awareness in the South as a hallmark of Republicans??? Would that have started when that well-known Republican President Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard and sent General Graham to tell George Wallace to get away from the UAB door and let African Americans in?

Oh wait, Kennedy wasn't a Republican, was he?

Or did it start with the infamous "Southern Strategy" developed by Democratic Senators Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon?

Let's see what your friends at Wikipedia have to say about it:

The strategy was successful in winning the five formerly Confederate states of the Deep South (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.) for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, but he won in only one other state, Arizona, his home state. The Southern Strategy also yielded five formerly Confederate states (Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee) in Richard Nixon's successful 1968 campaign for the presidency. It contributed to the electoral realignment of some Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party. As the twentieth century came to a close, the Republican Party began attempting to appeal to black voters again, though with little success.[8]

In 2005, Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for ignoring the black vote and exploiting racial conflicts.

Oh wait, Goldwater and Nixon were REPUBLICANS ... right.

Progressives and Democrats are so well-known as the great supporters of banks "too big to fail" right? Yes, those de-regulating Progs and Dems are the ones who removed every reasonable safeguard and allowed ludicrous speculation to crash the banking system in 2008, and it was that well-known Democrat GW Bush who bailed out those banks, right?

Or was it the Republicans who cut the banksters loose to rape and pillage and then have that great Republican GW Bush bail them all out?

I can't help you with your conspiracy theories that the Democrats ruined the Republicans; that's just plain silly.

For your final question: YOU are the one who utterly mischaracterized Wilson's relationship to Jim Crow and then doubled-down and tried to paradoxically claim he enacted it even as you were stating the laws were enacted in 1877, roughly 40 years earlier.

And it was YOU who mischaracterized the modern Democratic party when you are fully aware that the Southern States were folded into the Republican Party based COMPLETELY on the capitalization of Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes of southern racism (admitted to by the Republican Party in 2005) and then YOU had the temerity to try to claim that it was Republicans of the modern era who helped promulgate racial equality in the South.

Answer to your query: YOU ARE.
edit on 22Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:39:58 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:39 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah. You can try now to rearrange what you said any way you want; Wilson did not create or enact "the Jim Crow laws." He was a racist ass, but you were mistaken, why not just admit it?
... is what I wrote...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Oh, and btw, did Obama forget that the Jim Crow laws were enacted by a "progressive DEMOCRAT" President known as Woodrow Wilson?... The same idiot who gave international bankers power over the U.S. economy through the implementation of the Federal Reserve Act and the IRS as they exist to this day?...

The one mistake i made is that i should have written "the Jim Crow Laws were "also" enacted by a progressive democrat President known as Woodrow Wilson...

I stated enacted for a reason instead of "he created"... Then there is the fact that YOU did claim that "The origin of the Civil Rights Acts was the Democratic party"... If anyone is lying and trying to rewrite history, it is you.

edit on 6-2-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:42 PM
His words are chosen very carefully. Notice how when describing ISIL, it's in the name of religion. Not in the name of Islam, the Prophet or Mohammed. With the Crusades and the Inquisition, he has no problem saying in the name of Christ.

ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion,

Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ

Am I over analyzing? Sure, but just pointing that out.

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:42 PM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah. Now you're tripling down.

Wilson did not enact Jim Crow laws in ANY sense of the word. He was a racist bigot true to his Southern roots, the same roots capitalized on by Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan and the modern Republican party.

See, here's the difference between you and I. I immediately congratulated you on pointing out my (fairly minor) mistake. The only effective and lasting Civil Rights Acts were in 1964 and 1968, about the same time, coincidentally, that Mr. Goldwater and Mr. Nixon were implementing the Southern Strategy of inciting racial bigotry in the South and winning elections thereby, at least Nixon did.

I admitted my mistake ... you're still trying to enshrine yours.

The truth is just ... obvious.

Do we really need to talk about Lee Atwater and Mr. Reagan as well?

edit on 22Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:48:42 -060015p102015266 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:02 PM
a reply to: NYCUltra

Why stop there, why not quote a little further from the President's remarks?

So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt -- not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.

Our job is not to ask that God respond to our notion of truth -- our job is to be true to Him, His word, and His commandments. And we should assume humbly that we’re confused and don’t always know what we’re doing and we’re staggering and stumbling towards Him, and have some humility in that process. And that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse His name to justify oppression, or violence, or hatred with that fierce certainty. No God condones terror. No grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives, or the oppression of those who are weaker or fewer in number.

And so, as people of faith, we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion -- any religion -- for their own nihilistic ends. And here at home and around the world, we will constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom -- freedom of religion -- the right to practice our faith how we choose, to change our faith if we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.

Even though I find his faith and associated sentiments ludicrous, personally, any reasonable person would have to admit that the words, at least, reflect a faithful man.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:07 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fairly minor mistake?... You claimed that the Civil Rights Act originated from Democrats, when that is not true at all. That is a major lie.

Golwater, who was a minority amongst Republicans, was one of the reasons so many southerners who were Democrat turned Republican during that time, because Goldwater was against the civil rights movement, and for this main reason so many Democrats in the south turned Republican.

BTW, do you even forget that Reagan was a lifelong Democrat before changing parties? Reagan was in his late 40s when he changed parties, and even then there were policies that he implemented that were more Democrat than Republican.

But after his initial victories on tax cuts and defense, the revolution effectively stalled. Deficits started to balloon, the recession soon deepened, his party lost ground in the 1982 midterms, and thereafter Reagan never seriously tried to enact the radical domestic agenda he'd campaigned on. Rather than abolish the departments of Energy and Education, as he had promised to do if elected president, Reagan added a new cabinet-level department--one of the largest federal agencies--the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Though his budgets requested some cuts in some areas of discretionary spending, Reagan rapidly retreated and never seriously pushed them. As Lou Cannon, the Washington Post reporter who covered Reagan's political career for 25 years, put it in his masterful biography, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, "For all the fervor they created, the first-term Reagan budgets were mild manifestos devoid of revolutionary purpose. They did not seek to 'rebuild the foundation of our society' (the task Reagan set for himself and Congress in a nationally televised speech of February 5, 1981) or even to accomplish the 'sharp reduction in the spending growth trend' called for in [his] Economic Recovery Plan." By Reagan's second term, the idea of seriously diminishing the budget was, to quote Stockman, "an institutionalized fantasy." Though in speeches Reagan continued to repeat his bold pledge to "get government out of the way of the people," government stayed pretty much where it was.

This hasn't stopped recent contemporary conservative biographers from claiming otherwise. "He said he would cut the budget, and he did," declares Peggy Noonan in When Character Was King. In fact, the budget grew significantly under Reagan. All he managed to do was moderately slow its rate of growth. What's more, the number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. (By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.)

Reagan also vastly expanded one of the largest federal domestic programs, Social Security. Before becoming president, he had often openly mused, much to the alarm of his politically sensitive staff, about restructuring Social Security to allow individuals to opt out of the system--an antecedent of today's privatization plans. At the start of his administration, with Social Security teetering on the brink of insolvency, Reagan attempted to push through immediate draconian cuts to the program. But the Senate unanimously rebuked his plan, and the GOP lost 26 House seats in the 1982 midterm elections, largely as a result of this overreach.

But again, to discuss this we would have to discuss why the international bankers have been trying to destroy the Republican party by corrupting it, and confusing the political parties on purpose. But you see, when you try to muddy and confuse the political parties, because you are trying to get rid of what once was known as the party of the people (the Republican Party) not everything turns exactly as you hope. Still, the end result has been more "progressive and leftist" policies being implemented. The same types of policies that international bankers have been talking about implementing for decades.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 01:23 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

BTW, before you even try to claim the opposite. i am not demonizing all Democrats, just like there are "some" Republicans in power who have not been completely corrupted, there have also been, and there are "some" Democrats in seats of power who have not been completely corrupted by the international bankers. Unfortunately, they are few, on both sides of the isle.

edit on 7-2-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:26 AM

originally posted by: NYCUltra
His words are chosen very carefully. Notice how when describing ISIL, it's in the name of religion. Not in the name of Islam, the Prophet or Mohammed. With the Crusades and the Inquisition, he has no problem saying in the name of Christ.

Am I over analyzing? Sure, but just pointing that out.

Not at all, I would agree with you, he picked them very carefully. Or at least his speech writer did, who knows. The point remains the same however. But that is not because he's some super secret muslim who's plotting to end all Christian culture. That is paranoia. He 's not calling them Islam because all that does is reinforce the idea that ISIL represents the whole of Islam which it doesn't.

I know that's what everyone on Fox news and all the Right Wing talking heads and Pro-War Corporate Profiteers and whoever else is claiming but it's not what's happening. In fact that is exactly what he's trying to say in this speech. It's about people hijacking the name of Religion and doing horrible things. It doesn't matter what Religion it is, it's been happening within all Religions throughout time and continues today, nobody gets and excuse.

Everyone needs to start looking past all labels all together because they don't mean sh*t. At the root of it all is just people. There are good ones and bad ones and any label they choose is just a mask of which any person can choose to wear, one on top of the other. But remove them all and what you have is just person and their actions. I keep hearing the same argument from all sides. You point to a radical christian and the defense of others is that they aren't a true christian. Point to a muslim and you get the same defense. Jew, same. Atheist, same. It's all meaningless and no individual or group of individuals represent any sizable order, ever. The reality is that there are some people who will do anything to gain power and control over others, that's it.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 03:39 AM
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Now you're just blustering in not-so-quiet desperation.

1. Civil Rights ACT? You mean only one? Are you now lying? Wow, how desperate are you to be right? Your post sounds silly.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Introduced in the House as H.R. 7152 by Emanuel Celler (D–NY) on June 20, 1963. (What does the little "D" mean again? Oh, that's right: Democratic.)

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Introduced in the House as H.R. 2516 by Emanuel Celler (D–NY) on January 7, 1967. Democratic.

As I said, the facts speak for themselves.

2. Goldwater was a MINORITY among Republicans??? HE was their PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 1964! That's an odd position for a "minority" member. Look up "Southern Strategy" and educate yourself on some history.

3. What was Reagan's party affiliation when he entered politics? Republican.
When he supported and campaigned for Goldwater for President? Republican.
When he was elected Governor of California, and then President of the United States? What was that? Republican?

Right you are.

I heard he once ate Chinese food too in his younger days. Did that mean he came from Beijing? That's about the most desperate argument I've seen.

4. Your long quote takes up screen and seem important. Does nothing to address Reagan's blatant racism.

Here's an actual Reagan quote from the time:

“If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so.”


5. Lee Atwater, (who trained under Dixiecrat and Segregationist Strom Thurmond and held Nixon as a "personal hero", also happened to serve as the political director of Reagan's 1984 campaign, the manager of George Bush's 1988 campaign, and then the Chairman of the Republican National Convention gave this infamous summation of the Southern Strategy that got Nixon and Reagan elected:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N—, n—, n—.” By 1968 you can’t say “n—” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut taxes and we want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N—, n—.” So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.

Again, truth speaks.

Let's get back to Mr. Obama's speech. Are we in agreement that the Jim Crow laws were an abyssal moment in American History? Were they favored by Christians?

Many Christian ministers and theologians taught that whites were the Chosen people, blacks were cursed to be servants, and God supported racial segregation.
Source: Ferris University

But all that was long ago and far away, right? Right???

As though there weren’t enough pyrotechnics for the Fourth of July weekend, over in the town of Beaverton, in Lamar County, an organization called Church of God’s Chosen capped off its three-day “Annual Pastors Conference” with a “Sacred Christian Cross Lighting Ceremony.” If you wonder why a church in the Bible Belt would choose to set fire to the icon of the Son of God’s crucifixion, the answer could be gleaned from a flyer that advertised the event, and a phrase upon it: “All White Christians Invited.”

The pastor of Church of God’s Chosen is Rev. William Collier, and he believes that God’s chosen are “the white race,” as he told Alan Collins of Fox 6 News. According to Collier, the invitation to whites-only was a response to not having received any invitations to black, Muslim or Jewish events. Besides, as he explained, “We don’t have the facilities to accommodate other people.”

What was the date on that? July 11, 2012

Take off the red and blue colored glasses, friend. Both "sides" are an illusion ...

... and focus on truth, not what the Right Wing Media Echo Chamber produces.
edit on 3Sat, 07 Feb 2015 03:42:38 -060015p032015266 by Gryphon66 because: Format

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:23 AM
a reply to: infolurker

Not quite an opening post. What happened to the member opinion required to start a thread?
On topic. SO? It's true isn't it?
What you're getting stars and flags for I have no idea.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 05:53 AM

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657

What you're getting stars and flags for I have no idea.

My theory is that some members work in groups, either official or unofficial to push a certain agenda and star each other with the idea that the more stars, the more other people will think the post is credible.

In other words, they're polishing up their "info turds" and selling them as tasty treats hoping that others will gobble them up without realizing they're actually digesting useless crap.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:16 AM
Christians : Not very good at turning the other cheek, even when victims of an imaginary slight.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 08:32 AM
If the speechwriter had just a tiny bit more testicular fortitude, he wouldn't have bothered with the old Crusades/Inquisition geehaw nor babbled about Jim Crow. He would have instead gone right to the present-day heart of Christian terrorism both in this country and worldwide. (KKK, Army of God, Christian Identity, Aryan Nation, Dominionists, Anti-Balaka Militants, National Liberation Front of Tripura, NCSN "Nagaland for Christ" in India, etc.)

Obama in no way, shape, form or fashion "defended" Islam. Everything he said is quite true, except of course for all the religious mumbo-jumbo.

That's why you see only one quotation repeated over and over here.

Here's the thing, I think some have been so thoroughly brainwashed they don't even have the capacity to see the truth. We can quote from the speech, show videos of the speech, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt exactly what President Obama actually said ... and they will STILL hear only what Fox News, or Rush, Hannity, et. al. conditions them to hear.

We have a population of around 25-30% that are basically the equivalent of right-wing Manchurian Candidates, just waiting for the go-codes.
edit on 8Sat, 07 Feb 2015 08:34:03 -060015p082015266 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:18 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

We have a population of around 25-30% that are basically the equivalent of right-wing Manchurian Candidates, just waiting for the go-codes.

And you know what's the worst? Having FAMILY MEMBERS that won't watch anything else - educated people who have been bewitched by Fox News.

posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: Atsbhct Its a prayer breakfast! What a perfect venue for him to attack Christians. What a psychopath he is .I'm surprised he didn't break out his prayer rug. His twisted communist ways endanger us all. The Christians responded to the muslims taking country after country sound familiar?

new topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in