Comments on: Black Liberation Theology: Marxism in a Clerical Collar

By: Black Desk

Black Desk — Sat, 23 May 2009 16:59:50 +0000

The United States of America is based on White Supremacy Racism. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not created for the benefit of non-whites. When these documents were written, Blacks were held in slavery while the Native Americans were robbed of their lands and nearly exterminated out of existence. It was white people who imposed these horrors.

Despite the Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Rights act of 1964 et al, White Supremacy Racism still operates in the United States today. U.S. Census statistics of every year on record show that Blacks receive lower salaries than whites– EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAME EDUCATION!

Reverend Wright has merely addressed White Supremacy Racism truthfully. White people have done serious and CONTINUING wrongs against Blacks. Any resulting Black hatred for whites is the logical consequence.

By: margot schulzke

margot schulzke — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:07:48 +0000

FYI, I trust Hannity and Limbaugh — but OReilly is a large question mark. As to what you can do: Read up on it, check out what you can Googling. You might even want to read James Cone’s book. Read what Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, has written about Islam. Then letters to editors of newspapers or blogs are helpful. People are likely to be interested in what other people are interested in. Minds are changed one at a time. Stick your neck out and tell people what you think: mail your observations to friends; recommend the books you’ve read, if you found them helpful.

By: Tom Hudson

Tom Hudson — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:25:32 +0000

Someone needs to get to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc. and ask them why they have not either researched this more or let more be known about Barack Obama and the Black Liberation Theology. If I can help in any way, please tell me how.

By: Gravitas

Gravitas — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 06:46:47 +0000

Attention should be focused, by someone, somewhere, in the responsibility the Rev. Wrights of this country have for inciting crime. He has accountability not only for the direct victims of crimes he incites with his hate speech, he is responsible for the incarceration of the criminals he inspires. To them for their loss of liberty, to their families, and to the taxpayers who foot the bill for all of the above. When is someone going to call Rev. Wright to account? Hate speech is actionable in courts of law. But does a connection have to be proved between that speech and a specific crime, or is hate speech actionable in and of itself?

By: Fantasia

Fantasia — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 05:28:28 +0000

Obama’s reaction last year to Don Imus’ tasteless remarks: “I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”
This was claimed at the same time Obama continued to attend the services of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who routinely, not just once, vilified whites and spewed hate at them. Obama’s claims about who would continue working for him were an out and out fraud. He is a Class A hypocrite.

By: April 38

April 38 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:08:11 +0000

How much black on white crime–which is hugely disproportionate in numbers as well as vastly underrreported in the media–is generated and justified by preachers of anti-white hatred? How many black men are serving prison terms for crimes incited by the Jeremiah Wrights of North America? He has railed against Three Strikes laws; it’s on the videos. How many men from his own congregation are currently in the tank because he encouraged them to violence?
Last but not least, how many judges Obama appoints to the bench would release such criminals from prisons before their time, if , as it appears to be the case, he believes in the violence against whites discussed in this post?
Sorry to ask such questions, but the answers are better searched out now than later. Thinking in terms of specifics is a necessity when a civilization is under attack.
While we would love to think that such questions overstate the threat, Central America and South American history of the last fifty years says that ain’t so.

By: margot

margot — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:15:02 +0000

The National Council of Churches has had a long history of sympathy with Marxism and was at one time “an overt supporter of the Communist left.” Created in 1950, or perhaps we should just say “renamed” it grew out of a Communist front group and still sits far to the left. No help in dealing with this will come from them.
Hopefully, the force of public opinion, as generated through blogs and talk radio, will have an impact. Brighter ideas would surely be welcome–at least on the right.

By: Robert

Robert — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:27:24 +0000

Reference the last sentence ” Without radical treatment, however, it is not the last we will hear of it.”
What “radical treatment”, under the freedom of speech provisions in the constitution, is possible?
Shunning? Boycotting? Yawning? How about the “Christian” community (especially evangelicals) speaking out about Black Liberation theology? For the most part, have not the national councils been silent over the years?