Casino game

There is no hostility, no anger, certainly no bigotry. These types of catchwords are ones that liberals love to throw around because by doing so, they believe they will shut people up out of some sense of embarrassment. The one who should be embarrassed here is Mr. Obama, and by association, you.

You don’t think Mr. Obama is a hypocrite? You believe that he is fully above board? Sadly, it’s because of your lack of study and your own lack of knowledge of his situational ethics that you think as you do.

You said, “Mr. Obama is addressing a core element to his election. We have seen this before in both parties, whether it be soccer mom’s, women’s groups,” yet there is one huge difference.

Mr. Obama is addressing a specific ETHNICITY and you said it yourself, while other presidents have addressed groups, those groups were not divided by ETHNICITY. Soccer moms and women’s groups contain women of all ethnicities. If a white president stood up and spoke directly to WHITE America, what do you think would happen? Surely you cannot be naive enough to believe that this would be considered normal for a sitting president or any white candidate for that matter? You would likely be among the first to condemn such words and actions by white president. There is something seriously flawed in logic (such as it is) that you profess to have.

I’ve seen a number of minority candidates use this practice of trying to draw their ethnic constituency together, which is actually a very bigoted way of doing things because it assumes that if the candidate is Latino or Asian, all other Latino or Asian voters will agree wholeheartedly with that candidate solely based on race or ethnicity.

While I’m aware that the Black community voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama, you might be interested to know that there were numerous Black leaders who decried it because they knew that those within the Black community were voting for someone solely based on the color of his skin. It didn’t seem to matter that Mr. Obama is a socialist or Marxist at heart. They simply wanted a Black individual as president. Personally, I would vote for anyone of any ethnicity or gender provided that individual was willing to obey the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, understanding it for what it is – as the founding document of this country.

Instead, Mr. Obama prefers to ignore or even change the Constitution to suit himself. This also is absolutely appalling because it shows the height of arrogance on his part.

While you’re cheering for Mr. Obama, I can only assume you see nothing wrong with the way he has attempted to change this country.

Setting his play to the Black community aside, his mini-speech is nothing less than a call toward Socialism. He wants everyone to have a piece of the pie. That’s fine, but for him to say this with all of his own wealth and a decided unwillingness to give any of it up is also hypocritical at best.

I never said I did not understand what Mr. Obama was talking about. My objection to his speech has to do with the two things mentioned. They amount to demagoguery and class warfare.

Regarding the churches of the 60s, yes there were absolute problems. However, let’s be clear that not everyone in a church is a Christian (which is the result of a spiritual birth, not merely claiming to be a Christian). Jesus Himself stated that the visible Church is filled with “tares” that exist right alongside the wheat. People either forget that or simply do not know it.

Regarding Newt or Santorum, there is unfortunately no perfect candidate. Mr. Obama has also proven that, yet the media prefers to focus on the alleged problems of the GOP. Though Larry Sinclair has accused Mr. Obama of drug use and gay liaisons and has written a book about it, he is essentially ignored by the media. There are quite a few allegations of illicit behavior on the part of Mr. Obama but as long as the mainstream press refuses to shed light on these things, or even acknowledge that they exist, the playing field will be forever uneven, slanted in Mr. Obama’s favor.

The goal is to eliminate the GOP candidates one by one so that Mr. Obama will be elected by default. Where are all the accusers of Herman Cain? Gone with the wind. They served their purpose and either the media are no longer interested in what they have to say or the women themselves have been dropped like hot potatoes. What’s Gloria Allred doing now?

Would you like to talk about JFK and his sexual dalliances? He was a very good president, yet he often succumbed to cheating on his wife with one affair after another. How is that different from Newt? Your inference that Newt would make a terrible president because of his affairs would also have to be applied to JFK, yet most completely overlook that because of the qualities of the JFK presidency. It would be nice if we could find a perfect GOP candidate, but that won’t happen. Having a moral compass or not is not a make or break deal with regards to the presidency.

Regarding Santorum, you believe he’s a moron. I don’t. Not sure I’d vote for him, but at least he is willing to say what liberals like yourself find unpopular and even harmful to his candidacy. That tells me that the man has a moral compass that he is willing to follow.

Getting back to Mr. Obama, because he’s Black, he believes he can use the Black community to his advantage. That’s not only a shame but it is tragic that he assumes all Black people think as he does. Talk about demagoguery…

Having witnessed the absolute bigotry and hatred that many churches fostered back in the 69′s (and many still do as we saw an example in KY recently), and marching with MLK, I totally understand what Mr.Obama was referring to when he briefly talked about history. And let us not forget that this is Black History Month. And if you ask why do we need such a month, all one has to do is read a standard history book and realize how much is truly left out, and how skewed it is. We read very little about the actual treatment of the Indians and other minorities (such as the Chinese).

So 3 Cheers for Mr. Obama and maybe the the republicans can still find a true candidate that truly represents the best in America and it’s ideals.

You are FAR from writing rationally. Everything about your words stems from an emotion. You ignore the truth because you DON’T LIKE IT.

By the way, there is no such thing as a “Palestinian.” That’s a lie that Yassar Arafat started. Years ago anyone who lived in Palestine was considered Palestinian, whether Jew or Gentile. “Palestinians” as such do not have a unique culture or language. They (you) are merely of Arab descent. Today’s “Palestinians” are merely Arab creations of the PLO. That’s another lie you are living.

Oh and by the way, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a “racist” where Islam and Muslims are concerned since ANYONE of any ethnicity can be a Muslim. Being a Muslim began within the Arab culture, but there are many non-Arabs who are Muslim. I cannot be racist toward a group that is multi-racial. Think twice before you make wild accusations.

I thought I stumbled upon a scientific article of Christophobia… but sorry dear, you racism and superficiality has disappointed me… I am into more rational writing..

I wont write a single word back !!

Check into the situation in Dearborn(istan), Michigan, Islamberg, NY, or DeKalb, GA. You think I’m making things up? Think again. The tide is turning and much of the problems that Muslims create and have created will come back on them.

You have only yourself to blame, whether you like it or agree with it or not, Sami the Bedouin. People are sick and tired of the double standard and you are part of the problem, not the solution. You do what all other Muslims do who refuse to acknowledge the truth – you blame others. You’ve simply proven what I’ve said in the article I wrote. Thank you.