BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY IS MARXISM WITH A CHRISTIAN FACADE AND ODUMBO BELIEVES IN IT!!!!!!

[Marshall]

The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology

By Jeffrey Schmidt


Now, suddenly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is misunderstood. Suddenly, so-called black liberation theology is misunderstood.

Wright's successor at Trinity United Church of Christ, the Reverend Otis Moss III, won't bow to the wishes of "they" to shut up. It begs the question: "Who are they?" The larger white cultural? Or liberals and Democrats who see all this unfavorable publicity hurting the election chances of Barack Obama?

The sad truth is that neither the Reverend Wright nor black liberation theology is being misunderstood. Both, thanks to the candidacy of Barack Obama, are being exposed. God, in fact, works in mysterious ways. And unless it's the aforementioned liberals and Democrats who are trying to hush up Wright, Moss and others of their ilk, sensible Americans want to hear more, for knowledge is power, the power to combat hate.

And make no mistake, what Americans are hearing, they don't like. In the Rasmussen poll, 73% of voters find Wright's comments to be racially divisive. That's a broad cross section of voters, including 58% of black voters.

In an article in the Washington Post, unnamed ministers commented that black liberation theology "encourages a preacher to speak forcefully against the institutions of oppression..."

And what might these institutions be? They are not specified. But it is safe to say that they are not the welfare state or the Democratic Party. Given that black liberation theology is a product of the dreary leftist politics of the twentieth century, the very vehicles employed by the left to advance statism certainly can't be the culprits.

For the left, black liberation theology makes for close to a perfect faith. It is a political creed larded with religion. It serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. Here, again, The Washington Post reports that "He [Wright] translated the Bible into lessons about...the misguided pursuit of ‘middle-classness.'"

Not very Martin Luther King-ish. Further, all the kooky talk about the government infecting blacks with HIV is a fine example of how the left will promote a lie to nurture alienation and grievance. To listen to Wright -- more an apostle of the left than the Christian church -- the model for blacks is alienation, deep resentment, separation and grievance. All of which leads to militancy. Militancy is important. It's the sword dangled over the head of society. Either fork over more tax dollars, government services and patronage or else. And unlike the Reverend Moss and his kindred, I'll specify the "else." Civil unrest. Disruptions in cities. Riot in the streets.

Keeping blacks who fall into the orbit of a Reverend Wright at a near-boil is a card used by leftist agitators to serve their ends: they want bigger and more pervasive government -- and they want badly to run it.

If any further proof is needed that black liberation theology has nothing to do with the vision of Martin Luther King -- with reconciliation, brotherhood and universality -- the words of James H. Cone, on faculty at New York's Union Theological Seminary, may persuade. Cone, not incidentally, originated the movement known as black liberation theology. He said to The Washington Post:

"The Christian faith has been interpreted largely by those who enslaved black people, and by the people who segregated them."

No mention of the Civil War involving the sacrifices of tens of thousands of lives; no abolition or civil rights movements. No Abraham Lincoln. No Harriet Beecher Stowe. No white civil rights workers who risked and, in some instances, lost their lives crusading in the south to end segregation. And since the civil rights movement, society hasn't opened up; blacks have no better access to jobs and housing; no greater opportunities. The federal government, led by a white liberal, Lyndon Johnson, did not pour billions of dollars into welfare programs and education targeted at inner cities in an attempt to right old wrongs. And still does so. A black man, Barak Obama, on the threshold of winning his party's nomination for president, has in no way done so with the help of white voters in communities across the land.

In the closed world of Cone, Wright and Moss, Jefferson Davis and Bull Connor are alive and well. Black victimhood is the doing of white society, not the doing of angry black leaders and leftists, who see advantage and profit in keeping too many people in black communities captive.

Barack Obama knows all this, as a seventeen year congregant at Wright's church, and as a liberal community activist prior to his election to the Illinois Senate. That he feigns innocence, or that he professes forbearance for some of Wright's words because of the goodness of others, is not the line one expects from a post-racial politician. It is what is expected from a man whose career is steeped in racial politics, a politics that does great harm to the very people it purports to serve.

on "The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology"

[Marshall]

Beck's 'Obsession' with Black Liberation Theology Thoroughly Justified

By Kyle-Anne Shiver


You know liberals are scared whenever they use the O-word -- "obsession" -- to smear a conservative's effectiveness in an important argument. So when the Los Angeles Times published an editorial yesterday by Tim Rutten called "Glenn Beck's Liberation Theology Obsession," I was quite intrigued.

Since I spent a whole year studying James H. Cone's Black Liberation Theology in the context of Latin America's liberation theology developed within the Catholic Church, I was quite curious to see what an esteemed LA Times columnist had to say about Beck's so-called "obsession."

After reading Tim Rutten's column, I must admit I was completely flummoxed. How could someone with such an impressive bio write such errant tripe and get paid big bucks for it? Only in Obama's America, folks.

So, in the interest of public enlightenment, I'll just throw a few substantiated facts into this little fray, which will demonstrate to anyone with a grain of Christian education exactly why Beck's "obsession" with Black Liberation Theology is indeed thoroughly justified.

First off, our esteemed Mr. Rutten makes the astonishing claim that there is no "evidence" that ties our current president to Black Liberation Theology. It's an astonishing claim because the only theology to which Barack Obama has ever been exposed (outside the Muslim training of his youth) is indeed Black Liberation Theology.

Wise observers already know this. But for the record, let's remember that Barack Obama was raised by an anthropologist mother who openly disdained the "bitter clingers" of religion.

In Barack's own words, from his chapter on "Faith" in The Audacity of Hope (page 204), speaking of his mother's teachings on religion:

Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways -- and not necessarily the best way -- that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives.

Writing on "Faith," in The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama went to great lengths to explain that his own "conversion" was enabled not by orthodox Christian awakening, but by the explicitly political nature of the Black Liberation Theology preached by Jeremiah Wright, Jr. And the thrust of Obama's entire chapter on faith in his own book was to show how his own liberation theology should not frighten secular progressives because it bore little to no resemblance to the religion of those Bible Belt "bitter clingers." And as observant Americans know well, Barack Obama was so ardent a follower of Jeremiah Wright's brand of Christianity that he named his book after a Wright sermon, The Audacity of Hope. While it is true that Barack Obama never (that I know of) used the explicit words "Black Liberation Theology" in his speeches or his books, everything about his claims to faith in his writing, his speeches, and his current actions as president is filled with the tenets of this fringe system of beliefs.

And what was that "hope" to which Wright referred? It was not the hope of individual salvation, which is the bedrock of orthodox Christian belief. No, Wright's hope, the same hope where Barack Obama found his "conversion," was in "collective redemption" through a political, material redistribution of power and wealth from the "white oppressors" to the "black oppressed." Quite contrary to Mr. Rutten's assertion that no "evidence" ties Barack Obama to liberation theology, Obama himself has used the phrase "collective redemption" regularly.

When Jeremiah Wright, Jr. was a guest with Sean Hannity in March 2007, the Reverend Wright waxed eloquent on his devotion to Black Liberation Theology. When Hannity asked Wright to explain the "black value system" to which his congregants were asked to pledge allegiance, Wright used Black Liberation Theology as his explanation:

If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the '60s, (inaudible) black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone ...

Wright went on to badger Hannity about his apparent lack of familiarity with Cone's Black Liberation Theology, saying that if anyone wanted to understand Trinity United Church of Christ and its particular brand of "black value system" Christianity, then a thorough understanding of Cone's writings was necessary.

Well, I was so intrigued that as Barack Obama was about to seal the Democrats' nomination for the presidency, I went to Chicago and visited Trinity myself, heard Jeremiah Wright, spent time in the church bookstore, and returned home with my own stack of Cone's books. If only Mr. Rutten had done likewise, he might have wisely steered clear of the topic altogether. Instead, he has dug himself into a pit of theological quicksand.

Contrary to Mr. Rutten's assertion that Cone is not, as Beck has stated, "one of the founders of Black Liberation Theology," the truth is that Cone credits himself with being "the founder." When NPR (perhaps Mr. Rutten has heard of this outfit) interviewed James H. Cone in March, 2008, as the founder of Black Liberation Theology, Cone was attempting to put a genial spin on Jeremiah Wright's "G*d-damn[ing]" America from his "Christian" pulpit. Cone's books belie that spin, however.

As Wright was never coy in his hate for "white oppressors" in America, neither is Wright's mentor, James H. Cone.

Cone, writing in Black Theology and Black Power:

Whiteness, as revealed in the history of America, is the expression of what is wrong with man. It is a symbol of man's depravity. God cannot be white, even though white churches have portrayed him as white (p. 150).


The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us (p. 150).

Negro hatred of white people is not pathological -- far from it. It is a healthy human reaction to oppression, insult, and terror. White people are often surprised at the Negro's hatred of them, but it should not be surprising (p. 14).

Cone, writing in God of the Oppressed:

Black people must be aware of the extreme dangers of speaking too lightly of reconciliation with whites. Just because we work with them and sometimes worship alongside them should be no reason to claim that they are truly Christian and thus part of our struggle (p. 222).

Cone, writing in Speaking the Truth:

Liberation is not simply a consequence of the experience of sanctification. Rather, sanctification is liberation. To be sanctified is to be liberated -- that is politically engaged in the struggle of freedom. When sanctification is defined a s a commitment to the historical struggle for political liberation, then it is possible to connect it with socialism and Marxism, the reconstruction of society on the basis of freedom and justice for all (p. 33).

And Cone, writing in A Black Theology of Liberation:

What need have we for a white Jesus when we are not white but black? If Jesus Christ is white and not black, he is an oppressor, and we must kill him. The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution (p. 111).

Now, Mr. Rutten rightly asserts that the original liberation theology sprouted within Catholicism during the 1960s in Latin America, but he strangely omits the fact that both Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI have strenuously denounced all liberation theologies as purely political perversions of the Catholic faith, which are inherently intertwined with Marxism (as Cone's quote above reiterates).

Mr. Rutten claims that Glenn Beck has condemned liberation theology as "demonic." While Rutten gives us no Beck source for his claim, I happen to know the source of the "demonic" quote quite well, since I'm the first person to have unearthed it, and I used it in a column I wrote in February 2008, "Obama's Politics of Collective Redemption."

Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.

The original quote comes from the book Truth and Tolerance, p. 116, written by Pope Benedict XVI when he was still Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (2003). Writing under a sub-heading, "The Crisis for Liberation Theology," the Cardinal is expounding upon the failure of Marxism and all the liberation theologies that came from it. He goes to great length explaining Marxist liberation theology as man's eternal quest to grapple with real "poverty, oppression, unjust domination of every kind, the suffering of the righteous and of the innocent" as these are "the signs of the times -- in every age."

In man's attempt to make sense of a suffering world that seems not "to correspond to a good God," there arose in the 20th century a political ideology which joined itself to Christian language and seemingly Christian precepts. The only thing Cone did -- and he admits this himself -- was to join Latin American liberation theology with the black power political movement in the United States.

And anyone who had taken the trouble to visit Trinity United Church of Christ would have known all about it prior to the election of 2008. But as we know now, liberal journalists actually conspired to hide this story from public view and do all they could to help Barack Obama bamboozle the American public, using his Wright-mentored "Christianity" in a bold gambit to close the God-gap among voters.

That Glenn Beck is now reviving this issue and spreading a little truth on Obama's bold religious claims makes liberals understandably nervous. And it would take a ninny living under a rock in Los Angeles not to have noticed that the only church at which Barack Obama has ever -- before or since -- regularly worshiped was the one that unabashedly preached nothing but Black Liberation Theology.

[Marshall]

Obama, Black Liberation Theology, and Karl Marx

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time."
- Karl Marx; essay, The Jewish Question; 1844

Not having a theology degree, nor even a Ph.D., and being, too, a bit naïve regarding matters of high-brow philosophical currents throughout the ages, I have to admit that when I first read Karl Marx' essay, The Jewish Question, I was actually stunned by its contents.

First off, my rather cursory education in various philosophies and in Marxism, particularly, did not prepare me for the bitter thrust of old Karl's potent anti-Semitism. In fact, until reading this particular essay, I would have never, in a million years, connected much of anything whatsoever Marxian with Jew hate.

Who would?

After all, Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew. Hitler and many others blamed the Jews for Communism, thanks to the number of Jews who played prominent roles in the Russian Revolution. I naturally associated twentieth century Anti-Semitism with Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

Ironically, if Karl Marx had still been alive and residing in Germany or any of the Nazi-occupied countries during WWII, he would have perished along with his brethren, despite his own "self-loathing-Jew" status.

Marx envisioned a society "which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering," because this classless society "would make the Jew impossible."

Personally, I find the opinion of some that Marx was a genius, to be downright laughable. Regarding his opinions on the Jews, one is left to ponderously consider which ones were dumb, and which were dumber.

Evidently Karl Marx was as utterly ignorant of the true tenets of Judaism (Self-sufficiency does not equate to "huckstering.") as he was of the diabolical possibilities inherent in his own words, once they were in the hands of one Adolph Hitler.

This atrocious irony might be merely a historical oddity if old Karl's words were not still bouncing around in the heads of those who wish to lead new revolutions based upon them. But Marx' words still dominate much of what happens on the world stage today, even in our own republic.

The word emphasis has changed a bit. The industrial proletariat is no longer the focus. But as a newly prominent American politician is wont to remind us: words do matter.

Yes, of course, words matter, as many leaders of ambitious movements have mightily declared.

...the power which has always started the greatest religious and political avalanches in history rolling has from time to immemorial been the magic of power of the spoken word, and that alone.

Particularly the broad masses of the people can be moved only by the power of speech.
- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf.

The Oppressed Vs. the Oppressors

Just words.

But where do they come from, and what do they mean in America today?

I might never have delved into the subject of the oppressed vs. the oppressors if I had not gone to Chicago in January seeking answers about a man who would be president.

When I visited Obama's church, still under the directorship of Jeremiah Wright, I came away with far more questions than answers, and one thing leading to another, have spent the last several months trying to fathom how Marxist political philosophy wound up emblazoned with a cross and a pulpit, and pretending to rely on the Bible for its authority.

It is somewhat difficult to imagine a more contorted blasphemy, with the single possible exception of Hitler himself claiming to be acting by divine decree in the interests of Christianity. Which is precisely what Hitler did do, while hoodwinking the German people into electing him Chancellor.

Hitler sprinkled Mein Kampf with Christian language, most likely to fit with the predominantly Christian German population, and appealed to voters on the strength of his Christian "calling":

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

As most junior-high Sunday schoolers know, however, a Christian is judged on actions, not words, and Hitler was no Christian. He was a bamboozler of the lowest imaginable order.

Jeremiah Wright is the tiny tip of Obama's spiritual iceberg

The phenomenon that raised so many questions for me in January, when I visited Trinity United Church of Christ, was not Jeremiah Wright's sermon, which turned out to be just a call for all good congregants to support Barack Obama for President. It wasn't the sermon that caught me off guard; I was prepared for that. I had watched video of Wright, giving five of his fiery sermons.

The thing that really got me to thinking, reading and searching for answers was the church bookstore.

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic. In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale: Christianity.

Not so in Obama's church bookstore.

I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific.

And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature. The books by James H. Cone, Wright's own mentor, were prominent and numerous.

Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright's congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

"The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." (emphasis mine)
- Marx and Engels; The Communist Manifesto; 1848

If Marxism can be summed up in only a couple of phrases, now familiar to nearly every modern person, they would be "class struggle" and "oppressed vs. oppressors."

James H. Cone, the unquestioned modern-day mentor of all the black power preachers, claims to have created a new theology, uniting the Muslim black power tenets of Malcolm X and the Christian foundations of Martin Luther King, Jr.

All he has really done, in my opinion, is take original liberation theology from Latin America, developed in the early 1960s by Catholic priests, and painted it black.

Liberation Theology vs. Traditional Christianity

The teaching authorities of the Catholic Church, have for more than 20 years now, been attempting to stamp out these heretical liberation theologies, denouncing them as vehemently antithetical to the Catholic Christian faith, and have been strenuously combating this Marxist counterfeit Christianity on many fronts within the Church herself.

Of course, the Medieval, iron-fisted clamp of the Catholic Church's authority, even within the Church herself, is routinely overstated, and there are renegade priests all over the place (more on another of Obama's spiritual mentors, a liberation theology Catholic priest in Chicago, in Part Two next week).

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church has no authority whatsoever over those claiming to represent protestant interpretations of the Christian faith, such as Cone and Wright.

But it is important to note here that liberation theology, including black liberation theology, has not gone unnoticed by the learned biblical scholars within the Vatican, and liberation theology has been roundly denounced as both heretical and dangerous, not only to the authentic Christian faith, but even more so to the societies which come to embrace it.

Just one nugget from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation':

"...it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads."
- (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Understanding that black liberation theology is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity helps explain why there is no conflict between Cone's "Christianity" and Farrakhan's "Nation of Islam." They are two prophets in the same philosophical (Marxist) pod, merely using different religions as backdrops for their black-power aims.

As Cone himself writes in his 1997 preface to a new edition of his 1969 book, Black Theology and Black Power:

"As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious perspectives. God's reality is not bound by one manifestation of the divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered to fight for freedom. Life-giving power for the poor and the oppressed is the primary criterion that we must use to judge the adequacy of our theology, not abstract concepts. As Malcolm X put it: ‘I believe in a religion that believes in freedom. Any time I have to accept a religion that won't let me fight a battle for my people, I say to hell with that religion'." (p. xii; emphases mine)

And, to drive his Marxist emphasis even further, Cone again quotes Malcolm X:

"The point that I would like to impress upon every Afro-American leader is that there is no kind of action in this country ever going to bear fruit unless that action is tied in with the overall international (class) struggle." (p. xiii)

(Ironically, considering the formal Church teaching regarding liberation theologies, this book of Cone's was published by Orbis, owned and managed by The Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, a Maryknoll religious entity. So much for the totalitarianism of the Catholic Church.)

It is this subjugation of genuine Christianity to the supremacy of the Marxist class struggle, which marks the true delineation between traditional Christianity and black liberation theology, as Pope Benedict XVI (writing in 1984 as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) sums up thusly:

"For the marxist, the truth is a truth of class: there is no truth but the truth in the struggle of the revolutionary class."

Which is precisely why Cone and his disciples are able to boldly proclaim that if the Jesus of traditional Christianity is not united with them in the Marxist class struggle, then he is a "white Jesus," and they must "kill him." (Cone; A Black Theology of Liberation; p. 111)

And Cone brings it all the way home with this proclamation of liberation from traditional Christianity itself:

"The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about he white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution."

Move over Jesus and make way for Cone, Wright and Obama.

The revolution is at hand.

And presto-chango, once we've followed Marx, Cone, Wright and Obama down the yellow brick road to revolution, Christianity as we've known it for millennia ceases to exist.

Obama was raised by his mother, the agnostic anthropologist, to regard religion as "an expression of human culture...not its wellspring, just one of the many ways -- and not necessarily the best way -- that man attempted to control the unknowable and understand the deeper truths about our lives." (Audacity of Hope; p. 204)

However, when Barack Obama met Jeremiah Wright in the mid-eighties, between his years at Columbia and Harvard Law, he found a "faith" perfectly accommodating to his already well-formed worldview.

From The Audacity of Hope:

"In the history of these (African people's) struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world." (p. 207)

As Obama explains further, it was Wright's (and presumably Cone's, as required of new members at Trinity) peculiar form of Christianity that Obama found palatable:

"It was because of these newfound understandings (at Trinity under Wright) -- that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice...that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity...and be baptized."

Wright's vision of Christianity was perfectly appetizing to Barack Obama; he didn't need to change a thing.

Liberation Theology and the New Order of Things


James Cone devotes many words in all of his books to instructing his disciples to beware of those resistant to the necessary change in the power structure, warning that,

"those who would cast their lot with the victims must not forget that the existing structures are powerful and complex...Oppressors want people to think that change is impossible." (James H. Cone; Speaking the Truth; p. 49)

Pope Benedict XVI (writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) give an equally stringent message to Catholics about liberation theology regarding the perversion of the Christian understanding of the "poor":

"In its positive meaning the Church of the poor signifies the preference given to the poor, without exclusion, whatever the form of their poverty, because they are preferred by God...But the theologies of liberation...go on to a disastrous confusion between the poor of the Scripture and the proletariat of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle."

According to Pope Benedict's instruction on liberation theology, our understanding of the virtues, faith, hope and charity are subjugated to the new Marxist order:

Faith becomes "fidelity to history."

We are the ones we've been waiting for, to bring about the final fruition of the class struggle.

Hope becomes "confidence in the future."

Yes, we can change the world; we don't need God. Our collective redemption comes when we engage in the Marxist class struggle.

Charity becomes "option for the poor."

All are not created equal. Special political privilege for the oppressed, socialism, will set us free.

It's the dawn of a new age.

[Old-T]

Marshall, other than the color involved, please tell me the basic difference between BLT and White Seperatist philosophies? Essentially nothing.

Hate is hate. Whether from Jeremiah Wright or William Pierce--or people who distort facts on boards like this. It's comforting to know that you want to tell us all the right religeon to follow, the right morals to have, and the right way to think on all things. Why don't you just come out and admit you want to be our next Divine Despot? Quit the pretence and bring on your thought police--you really do want to obliterate anyone who disagrees with your view of how the world should be. And if you were in charge I wonder how far you would go to eliminate dissident thought and speach. I bet you would do Uncle Hermann and Uncle Felix proud.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Old-farT

Marshall, other than the color involved, please tell me the basic difference between BLT and White Seperatist philosophies? Essentially nothing.

No white seperatist has ever been elected POTUS.....I don't know if white seperatist preach marxism.....do you guys believe in marxism, or just your cell?

BTW: I noticed you've turned into one of my groupies who follow me around on this board and respond to my posts which aren't directed at you....your fellow groupies must be jealous that you got my attention when they didn't....you guys love my attention because it makes you feel important when you get it........you'll probably print out my responses to your post and show them to your grandkids in 20 years.........HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Sorry, you can't have my autograph! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! I'm just like Kathy Griffin with my gay groupies.....you're the head gay! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Old-T]

I will be quite honest with you, I read your posts when I am boared or when I need to laugh at a buffoon. I am killing time at the airport today and stepping on the roaches running around the airport is too much trouble in the heat. Anyway, roaches--by comparison--serve a useful purpose. You only provide slapstick humor to the masses, but then there may be some perverse humor in that. Getting your attention is not any great accomplishment, it's about as difficult as putting rotting flesh in the sun and waiting for the maggots. That's why I have to be very boared before I spend the time shaking your cage--you jump into hysteria far too predictably.

As I suspected you can find no real difference between hate on the right vs hate on the left vs hate in your posts. Hate is hate, and it has consumed you.

Rant on, oh hate filled man! The world mocks you and you are too oblivious to notice, and to far gone to care.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Old-farT

I will be quite honest with you, I read your posts when I am boared or when I need to laugh at a buffoon. I am killing time at the airport today and stepping on the roaches running around the airport is too much trouble in the heat. Anyway, roaches--by comparison--serve a useful purpose. You only provide slapstick humor to the masses, but then there may be some perverse humor in that. Getting your attention is not any great accomplishment, it's about as difficult as putting rotting flesh in the sun and waiting for the maggots. That's why I have to be very boared before I spend the time shaking your cage--you jump into hysteria far too predictably.

As I suspected you can find no real difference between hate on the right vs hate on the left vs hate in your posts. Hate is hate, and it has consumed you.

Rant on, oh hate filled man! The world mocks you and you are too oblivious to notice, and to far gone to care.

you still haven't discredited any serious point I made.....you can't even out-Marshall Marshall..........HA! HA! HA!HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!.....

[Old-T]

That's because you made no serious points, windbag.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by Old-farT

That's because you made no serious points, windbag.

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!