A large and growing coalition of African-American pastors has expressed opposition to president Obama. Reverend William Owens, president of the 1,300-member Coalition of African-American Pastors, stated, “We were once proud of President Obama, but our pride has turned to shame." President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder recently snubbed the group by rejecting an invitation to meet together to discuss the moral direction of the country. Owens' group has begun a petition at 100000signatures4marriage.com and the reverend has made it clear that spiritual priorities trump the race card stating, “Some things are bigger than the next election."
President Obama has been detrimental to society on many levels. His controversial "Obamacare" entails enforced enlistment in an insurance-hospital network and Christians in particular see this as a possible setup for the required use of RFID chips, which are being developed for use mainly in US hospitals. The use of RFID chips is seen as a key sign in biblical prophecy. And it is not outside the realm of possibility that health care could eventually be denied to people who refuse to take the chip. The following video is a bit misleading in that it implies that RFID microchips will be required by all Americans according to the new legislation. Though this does not seem to be the case, the video does point out how the law does clearly call for the centralization of all information related to all currently implanted medical microchips.
Though Obama supports a version of civil rights in the form of gay marriage, president Obama has done extreme harm to civil liberties in signing the NDAA authorization December 31, 2011. Obama campaigned as the 'anti-war' candidate but he has continued the preemptive aggression of his predacessor George W. Bush. Minorities are the ones who suffer most during times of war because they are more likely to see military enrollment as the simplest way to become gainfully employed and to take steps towards financing a college education.
For more information on Reverend William Owens, see this linked article, Black pastors target Obama at The Washington Examiner. Article was noted at Infowars.
Tags: Obama loses support of blacks, Spiritual priorities supersede racial issues, Obama snubs black pastors, Obama is losing religious support base, Obamacare and RFID chips - mark of the Beast, Does Obamacare mandate microchip implants?
Related
Obama's Pastor: Obama Offered me Bribe and Threatened Me
Obama Signs NDAA on New Year's Eve: Welcome to Prison Fellowship!
The 'Other' 2012 Christian US Voters Guide
And thus we see how paranoia and disingenuousness can cause people to vote against their best interests -- or perhaps so.
ReplyDeleteUnless this pastor is planning on starting a left-wing third party, voting for Romney is far worse for his flock than voting for Obama, *independent of race*.
Let's look at some of these claims:
President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder recently snubbed the group by rejecting an invitation to meet together to discuss the moral direction of the country.
Considering that the group seems fundamentally opposed to many of his policies, I fail to see why he should bother giving them the opportunity to take potshots at him.
Owens' group has begun a petition at 100000signatures4marriage.com and the reverend has made it clear that spiritual priorities trump the race card stating, “Some things are bigger than the next election."
So, denying people the right to marriage is more important than the economy, other civil rights issues, etc., etc., and so forth. This shows where his priorities are -- and they're not good for any of his parishoners.
Christians in particular see this as a possible setup for the required use of RFID chips, which are being developed for use mainly in US hospitals. The use of RFID chips is seen as a key sign in biblical prophecy.
Funny -- the post you linked to has the debunking of the claims in the comments.
And, of course, health care for everyone is less important than the chance that one particular interpretation of one particular prophecy *might* *possibly* come closer to being implemented.
Though Obama supports a version of civil rights in the form of gay marriage, president Obama has done extreme harm to civil liberties in signing the NDAA authorization December 31, 2011.
And do you think this would have been any different under a President McCain or a President Romney?
I'm not happy about it, either -- but considering the alternatives, Obama is still clearly superior.
Obama campaigned as the 'anti-war' candidate but he has continued the preemptive aggression of his predacessor George W. Bush.
Interesting -- Bush started two wars, one of them completely unnecessary. Obama has ended one war, spun one war down, and engaged in small-scale anti-terrorist actions. To compare the two so lightly is disingenuous at best, downright dishonest at least.
Minorities are the ones who suffer most during times of war because they are more likely to see military enrollment as the simplest way to become gainfully employed and to take steps towards financing a college education.
Agreed -- of course, which party is trying to gut college grants and loans right now? Oh, right, the party that wants Obama out of office.
So, in other words, a narrow religious viewpoint is causing these people to propose their flocks vote against their own best interest.
More paranoid ravings. Besides that, who cares about gay marriage? Is anyone forcing people to marry people of he same gender? Is anyone forbidding straight marriage? How is allowing gay marriage attacking traditional marriage?
ReplyDeleteGood grief. How's about worrying about the economy or something that really is a problem instead of just butting into what people are doing in their homes?
Imnotandrei,
ReplyDelete>Unless this pastor is planning on starting a left-wing third party, voting for Romney is far worse for his flock than voting for Obama, *independent of race*.
- Most Christians would probably consider Romney a lesser of the two evils at this point, *independent of race*.
>Considering that the group seems fundamentally opposed to many of his policies, I fail to see why he should bother giving them the opportunity to take potshots at him.
- The Obama's have recently been playing the religion card, including quotes about Jesus. However, like Bush, they play the religion card but don't even consider themselves regular church goers. Snubbing this group simply underscores the pharisaical hypocrisy.
>So, denying people the right to marriage is more important than the economy, other civil rights issues, etc., etc., and so forth.
- As noted in the article, Obama is perhaps one of the worst influences on civil liberties yet in the US. His influence on business is not any better.
>I'm not happy about it, either -- but considering the alternatives, Obama is still clearly superior.
- It seems only homosexuals would want to support Obama at this point. Are you one?
Interesting -- Bush started two wars, one of them completely unnecessary.
- Both Bush and Obama have been deceivers and warmongers.
On December 31, 2011 Obama openly declared outright war on US citizens and the US Constitution. See article, Obama Signs NDAA on New Year's Eve: Welcome to Prison Fellowship!
http://templestream.blogspot.com/search?q=ndaa
>Funny -- the post you linked to has the debunking of the claims in the comments.
- Actually, I agree with you somewhat on this point. The legislation does not seem to require all Americans to get chipped. However, it does clearly call for the centralization of all information related to all implanted devices. Thus, it may be seen as a step in that direction.
- Most Christians would probably consider Romney a lesser of the two evils at this point, *independent of race*.
DeleteOnly if they considered gay rights and abortion rights issues to be the only important things. On matters of social justice, helping the poor, aiding the weak, and those other things Christians are allegedly interested in, then Romney is by far and away the worse candidate; he is for the wealthy, the warmongering (many of his foreign policy advisors are from the Bush administration), and the anti-science.
- As noted in the article, Obama is perhaps one of the worst influences on civil liberties yet in the US
Considering he's only continuing the policies of his predecessor, I find this, as I said, disingenuous at best.
- It seems only homosexuals would want to support Obama at this point. Are you one?
Homosexuals, the poor, the discriminated against -- after all, the very same Republican party that nominated Romney wants to do away with the Voter's Rights Act, for example -- those who love peace, women (and those who believe in their bodily autonomy), those who do not believe money should be allowed to dominate the political process -- that seems a very large coalition.
- Both Bush and Obama have been deceivers and warmongers.
As I said -- one of them started two foreign wars. (And it is worth noting that the NDAA is said to inscribe into law things already granted in the AUMF that *Bush* asked for.)
Again; I am not happy with Obama over this. Not at all. But he is the one who has drastically *reduced* commitments overseas, rather than starting a war there was no need for. (I notice you did not respond to this point.)
So calling them both "warmongers" is hardly appropriate. Indeed, it is the same sort of false equality that would have you say that "Republican Senators filibustered more in 2010-2012 than any other set of senators in history, but Democratic senators used the filibuster in 2006-2008, therefore they're both filibusterers."
Thus, it may be seen as a step in that direction.
So might the invention of the RFID chip. Indeed, so might the efforts to drastically expand domestic surveillance under the Bush administration. And the expansion under Nixon. And all the other expansions.
You seem to want to portray Obama as the villain, independent of the reality that the Republican party behind Romney is far worse on civil liberties and warmongering.
Oh, and 2011 Obama openly declared outright war on US citizens and the US Constitution
Actually, he signed into law something the Senate and House had sent to him. That's not "declaring war". Now, invading another country for no good reason, as Bush did, that's declaring war.
Imnotandrei,
ReplyDeleteObama has been shown to be "for the wealthy" in a manner so far not equaled by Romney. Obama has supported crony capitalism and the corruption of the elite in the worst manner.
Instead of protecting whistle blowers and supporting transparency, as Obama promised, he has done the opposite.
UBS Warburg's Bradley Birkenfeld, who in 2007 blew the whistle on the biggest tax evasion scheme in US history, was the only one sent to prison under Obama.[5] Robert Wolf, the chair of UBS Americas, was Obama's prime fundraiser. Birkenfeld pointed out US politicians were hiding their wealth in offshore Swiss accounts but all the while it was Birkenfeld's neck that felt the tightening noose, as Obama chose rather to make golf arrangements with his partner Wolf rather than make good on his campaign promise to defend whistle blowers.[6]
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/07/civil-rights-movement-in-reverse-whos.html
Why is a former Monsanto lobbyist currently serving as the FDA's food safety czar waging war on small dairy farms that produce fresh milk?
Because Obama appointed him to that position.
http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-dump-former-monsanto-lobbyist-as-fda-food-safety-czar
Why is the US about to enter war against Iran, a war that has not been provoked by an attack from Iran?
Because President Obama is helping to pursue an illegal war, one not authorized by congress.
EDITORIAL: Obama, warmonger - Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/obama-warmonger/
You seem to be a bit naive as to the true nature and positions of your favorite candidate. I see Romney as the lesser of the 2 evils but would much rather have seen Ron Paul, as banners at my blog obviously point out.
>You seem to want to portray Obama as the villain, independent of the reality that the Republican party behind Romney is far worse on civil liberties and warmongering.
- The left-right Democrat-Republican paradigm is basically a ruse. They are both controlled. In my opinion Romney is the lesser of the 2 evils by a very small margin. But, as I pointed out, Ron Paul seems to have been a better choice. The sad fact is that many people depend on mainstream news and are apathetic about finding out the truth.
Obama has been shown to be "for the wealthy" in a manner so far not equaled by Romney.
DeleteWell, considering that Obama's the president, he's had a lot more power to do so. Though I think your point is still ludicrous -- consider which one of them *is* a vulture capitalist, and
Obama has supported crony capitalism and the corruption of the elite in the worst manner.
The person who created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that has been held up by Congressional Republicans?
"The worst manner"?
You're being wilfully blind; finding a few problems with a person who's tried to do better, while ignoring the fact that the other candidate is *buried* in problems.
Why is the US about to enter war against Iran, a war that has not been provoked by an attack from Iran?
Because the Republican party, led by John Bolton, has been pushing for war with Iran for years? The same John Bolton who's one of Romney's foreign policy advisors?
(Actually, I don't even believe it's true that we're about to enter war with Iran -- but I think that Romney is far more likely to do so than Obama, due to his foreign policy associations."
Your editorial link, BTW, is to an essay about *Libya*, which criticizes Obama for not being *more* forceful there, and not going to Congress to declare war, but instead being restrained and working within an international framework. This hardly supports your point.
I see Romney as the lesser of the 2 evils but would much rather have seen Ron Paul, as banners at my blog obviously point out.
Indeed -- though why you'd rather support a racist(1) who believes in destroying the social safety net(2), supporting discrimination(3), public education(4), and women's bodily autonomy(5) is beyond me, given your alleged Christianity.
1.http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1229/Racist-newsletter-timeline-What-Ron-Paul-has-said
2. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/, http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
3. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
4. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/
5. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
I'd rather have Romney, who I consider a political tool with no backbone of his own, who might at least listen to the regular poll results that suggest Americans like having things like public schools, health care, and some level of abortion rights, to someone like Paul, whose extremism serves the rich and powerful. He claims to support liberty, but strips away many of the governmental protections against the wealthy's abuse of power.
You think it's bad now? Remember that a lot of the organizations you're complaining about being corrupted? The FDA's responsibilities would be eliminated or drastically reduced under a Paul administration -- so is no regulation at all better than regulation by someone who *might* be compromised? And remember -- each Federal agency has a large number of long-term employees; that's why the government's attitude doesn't change 180 degrees each time the administration changes.
So -- you'd rather have no FDA?
Actually, looking at that timeline, I must correct myself: it does not itself provide evidence that Ron Paul is racist.
DeleteHe is either:
a) racist,
b) a liar,
or
c) incompetent to manage something as small and easily containable as his own private newsletter.
None of which speak well for his qualifications for President.