What’s Coming Down The Pike (Part II)

Of course Genesis hinted that the Gospel would be extended to the Gentiles, and if it turns out the traditionalist view of homosexuality is wrong I’m sure that our grandchildren will find lots of Biblical hints that we missed, too.

Are you arguing that homosexuality is a sexually compulsive behavior in a different sense than heterosexuality is a sexually compulsive behavior? Eating, drinking, and sleeping can all be compulsive behavior and if it’s compulsive, it’s a problem. If it causes harm to others, like Jeffrey Dahmer, it’s a problem. If it’s neither compulsive nor harmful to others, then I think you need to be sure you’re on solid ground before you condemn an entire group of people for having the same human desires for love and acceptance that you have.

First, we should note that Matt is playing with a relativistic Bible. It is not that the Biblical view of homosexuality is wrong but rather the traditionalist view. In Matt’s world the Bible has no objective meaning but rather its truth is reduced to ‘views.’

Second Matt has made the ‘no harm to others’ argument as being the foundation of why Buggery should be accepted without taking into account of how it harms people who are involved in it and without taking into consideration how the spread of it will harm others who get involved in it. Still, even were it true that mutually consenting Buggery doesn’t harm anybody Christians would still need to oppose it because God’s Word says it is sin.

Third, while people caught in Buggery do have the same human desire for love and acceptance that most people have they have twisted it and invoking the need for love and acceptance as a reason why that which is wicked should be brought into the Church is hardly convincing. Should love and acceptance from others in a twisted fashion be purchased at the cost of the hatred and rejection of God for defying His word?

I’m a fallen human with fallen human perceptions, so of course I can’t KNOW to a 100% certainty that I haven’t misinterpreted a particular text. Neither can you.

Once again Matt, you are revealing your relativistic undergarments. Since neither of us can allegedly have 100% certainty therefore we must allow for the possibility that anything could be true. The problem Matt is that you do claim 100% certainty in some areas. For example you seemingly are 100% certain that we can’t be 100% certain. How can you know with certainty that there is no certainty? I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove the affirmation that certainty can’t be had.

Can you give me some assurance that 22nd or 23rd Century Christians won’t be shaking their heads wondering how mainstream Christian thought in our time managed to miss the boat on homosexuality?I get your point that it seems obvious; well, so did “Ham shall be the servant of Shem forever” and Nehemiah’s ban on inter-racial marriage. And again, it wasn’t only the lunatic fringe that gave those passages a racist interpretation; 100 years ago it was mainstream.

Christians sometimes getting things wrong doesn’t prove that Christians don’t often times get things right. Following your reasoning would lead the Church to being ethically paralyzed. Maybe it really isn’t the case that pedophilia or bestiality is wrong. After all, we’ve been wrong about others things, maybe we are wrong about those things as well. Maybe we should take a wait and see attitude on moral questions such as grownups taking children into their beds. I mean, after all, those areas seem obvious also.

And you know what Matt? Your position demands that you allow for that since it is the only way that you can make wiggle room for the acceptability of Buggery. People no longer recoil at the thought of Buggery due to the success of mainstreaming that perversion but they still do recoil at the other perversions since those haven’t yet been successfully mainstreamed. The only way that people can even begin to take you half way seriously is because Buggery, due to cultural conditioning and political correctness, has eroded the Christian immune system.

Finally, this argument that we might regret not moving slower in our opposition to Buggery cuts both ways. You ask for ‘assurance’ that the Church of the future won’t be woefully regretting that the Christians of the present were so thick as to not see that we should have accepted Buggery in the Church. I could just as easily ask you for assurance that the Church of the future won’t be woefully regretting that the Christians today were so thick as to even begin to consider the legitimacy of Buggery in God’s Church. After all, Matt, there are also many cases in history also (The German Church between 1933-1945 comes to mind) where God’s people have refused to do what God clearly revealed should be done.

Maybe Matt we should ‘wait and see’ if this itching desire to embrace homosexuality in the Church isn’t more of that sort of nonsense?

Bret, you’ve just demonstrated why your side is losing this particular battle. You’re basically reduced to arguing that being gay is about nothing more than promiscuous sex and that it’s yucky, disgusting and repulsive. And that argument used to work before gay people started coming out of the closet. Now that most people actually know gay people and know that those stereotypes aren’t true, you may as well save your breath. It’s like arguments the Klan used to make about how Blacks are smelly and dirty and stupid and oversexed. Yeah, just enough Blacks fit that stereotype to keep it alive among racists, but people with Black co-workers and neighbors and Sunday school classmates stopped paying attention a long time ago.

I myself find the idea of gay sex repulsive. I also find the idea of eating sushi repulsive, but I don’t go around making doctrines about it.

No, Matt my side is losing the battle because they aren’t willing to call sin, ‘sin’ in the face of cultural pressure that opposer’s of God’s word, like you, bring. The Scriptures say do not be transformed to the World, and yet that is exactly what happens as the Church gives in to the voice of the serpent.

Let’s grant you your assumption above. Let us say, for the sake of argument that those who practice Buggery are clean, erudite, well-spoken, and a thrill to be around. That description fits some of my gay friends. Those facts don’t change anything Matt. God says all Buggery is sin, even the kind that finds lipstick on a pig. The fact that anybody would find Buggery repulsive or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that God finds it repulsive.

Oh … and you’ll be glad to know that God hasn’t weighed in on sushi, therefore that is a red herring.

People see the blatant injustice of the regime you would impose. You yourself would never agree to live under the rules you would promulgate for gays; why should they?

I would never agree to live under the rules that God’s Word promulgate for pedophiles and pederasts either but the reason they should have to is because God’s Word says what it says. Sinners never want to live under the rules that God’s Word promulgates. That is one reason why they are called sinners. They desire there way above Gods.

Does the Bible say that all gay people go to hell 100%?

The Bible says that all who don’t trust Christ alone go to hell. The Bible also says that lifestyle Buggery is the kind of behavior that does not inherit the Kingdom of heaven. Those who struggle with the sin of buggery, like all sinners who are in Christ, must be constantly repenting of their sin.

What does it mean for a gay person to be repentant? It’s not exactly something you can turn on and off, if you follow me.

Somebody who is a kleptomaniac could make the same argument Matt. They could just as easily say, ‘stealing is not just something I can turn on and off,’ and yet we would say that the Holy Spirit of Christ can give us victory over sin. This would include the sin of kleptomania and the sin of Buggery. We would also say that there is forgiveness for where we fail in our struggle against sin.

My church has a gay couple. One of them started coming on his own after not coming to church for a while and, when we made him feel welcome instead of kicking him out, and he started to grow in the Lord. After he’d been coming for about a year he confessed that he had stolen some money from a former employer and needed to make restitution, and because of the growth he had experienced in our church, found the courage to do so. His partner got saved a while later and they started coming as a couple. His partner had a drug and alcohol problem which the Lord has delivered him from. I don’t see how anyone can claim that God isn’t working in their lives – a thief made restitution, and a drug addict is now clean and sober. And if we’d kicked them out, we would have missed the blessing of seeing it happen. If their relationship is sinful, maybe at some point God will deal with them about it. Maybe that won’t ever happen. But the fruits of new life in Christ are clearly evident. Yes, there were some righteous people in the church who were upset when they started coming. But the righteous were wrong in Jesus’ day, too.

Matt, can we come to Jesus while still embracing our sin? Does Jesus receive people who are willing to repent of some of their sins and not of other sins?

The fact that people become moral is no sure sign that God is working in their lives. Mormons, in many ways, are some of the most moral people you will ever meet but that doesn’t mean that God is working in their lives.

Matt if I had a young couple who were living together attending the Church I pastor and if one of them got saved I would tell them that they immediately need to either marry their live in or they need to quit being involved in that sinful lifestyle. I would tell them they could not serve to masters. And yet you want to suggest that because there is a little moral clean up, people knee deep in Buggery are model Christians.

Surely, we want to reach out to people struggling with the bondage of homosexuality but it is not reaching out or being kind to them by ignoring their bondage.

Besides Matt, why would you ever think that stealing and addictive habits are wrong? Maybe those are behavior patterns that we should take a ‘wait and see’ posture on. I am a little ashamed that your church might have brought pressure upon them to give up something that future generations of the Church might see as really being approved by God.

You’ve fallen into a trap often set by social conservatives that basically consists of thinking that because one standard is in error, that no standards are possible. No, being pro-gay has nothing to do with theft or substance abuse; each of those issues stands on its own merits.

It’s like the oft-repeated canard that liberals don’t believe in moral absolutes. Of course liberals believe in moral absolutes; they simply disagree with conservatives as to what they are.

And you are missing the reality that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Perhaps it is the case that you would like substance abuse and theft to still be seen as sinful and wrong. But what of the ‘Substance abusers for Jesus’ lobby? Why shouldn’t we listen to their case that since the Church has gotten things wrong in the past that we should take a ‘wait and see’ posture about the sinfulness of substance abuse?

You want moral absolutes? Fine. Now prove them from Scripture. Do so would mean beginning to attempt what you haven’t even begun to attempt.

Lying is a sin, but in a case which someone sins by lying, there was another course of action they could have taken that would not have been sinful, i.e. telling the truth. But with being gay, there is no other way for them to go…they can’t just be straight. Since one sign of repentance seems to be stopping, as much as possible, the sin in question, then homosexuals can’t be repentant unless they’re just supposed to stop acting on it and ‘live a lie’ so to speak.

Are you actually arguing that stopping ones sexual urges is not possible? Are you actually arguing that being chaste isn’t possible?

Homosexuals can be repentant by not yielding their members to sin and when they stop acting on their sinful urges, they are for the first time ‘living the truth,’ so to speak.

What’s Coming Down The Pike (Part I)

The conversation started off with my making the following observation regarding homosexuality seeking to draw some comparisons,

What would people think if Wheaton College invited a pederast or pedophile or someone who likes to bed farm animals to come and declare that these kind of perversions are ‘justice issues.’ Now I think (definitely not sure) that people would freak out over such an invitation precisely because such perversions are clearly beyond the pale. After all, who is nut case enough to actually want to listen to that kind of disgust? Is an invitation, to come speak at a Christian college, extended to somebody who is pro-buggery, indicative of the fact that among Christians Homosexuality is no longer seen as beyond the pale – every bit as detestable as pederasty, pedophilia, or bestiality?

Matt the pro-buggery advocate chimed in,


If somebody wanted to argue that God smiles upon pedophilia I would be dying of curiosity to know what his argument is so I would be inclined to give him a hearing just to find out what he had to say, even while expecting to disagree with him.

To answer your question, my perception is that among most Christians, even conservative evangelicals, homosexuality no longer is beyond the pale. The conservative church isn’t quite ready to embrace it just yet, but that’s the direction in which things are moving.

And there are two possibilities. One possibility is that the traditional position is true, God hates it, and judgment is coming. The other possibility is that the Holy Spirit is moving and it is a justice issue, and fifty years from now the church will view its previous anti-gay prejudice with shame, much like racism. (The racists had a pretty impressive set of proof-texts too.) Since we can’t predict the future, maybe taking a wait and see approach isn’t a bad idea. The Holy Spirit has surprised us before.


Let’s get this straight… you’re saying that you would be willing to suspend disbelief that it is prima facie true that pedophilia is an abomination before God and you would allow that it is possible that there might be a legitimate Biblical argument that grown men having intercourse with children from the age of 3 and above is perfectly acceptable? You might expect to disagree with him but you are admitting that it is within the realm of possibility that you could agree with him.

Immediately we must hold as suspect everything you will now say in the future on any subject touching morality. If it is the case that your moral compass is so broken on the issue of pedophilia (and presumably pedestry and bestiality as well) why should we entertain what you have to say about buggery?

Second, I would say that Christians are likely apostate Christians if they accept buggery, though unfortunately I have to agree with you that the acceptance of buggery seems to be the direction the Church is moving. Still, you certainly wouldn’t argue that all because the German Church between the years 1933-1945 moved in the direction of seeing Jews as less than human that made the idea that ‘Jews are less than human’ to be true. Counting noses has seldom been shown to be a acceptable way at arriving at truth Matt.

Third, I categorically deny that there exists an equivalence between the issue of civil rights and homosexual rights that you are trying to introduce into the conversation. People are born black but there is not one shred of non-homosexual science anywhere that people are born buggers. Certainly the case can be made that differing amounts of skin melanin alone should not be the determining factor in how people are treated. People didn’t choose to be black, it is the way that God made them. However, people do choose to be buggers and if we start extending civil right to whatever perversion people choose what will happen is that the civil rights of people who don’t choose those perversions will be violated.

Fourthly, all because we can’t predict the future, that doesn’t mean taking a wait and see approach is a good idea. What should we, who oppose buggery, be waiting for? Should we be waiting until it becomes even more widely accepted before we accept it? Are we waiting for a homosexual Church to report a Pentecost experience thus proving the Holy Spirit is surprising us? Should we wait for the ‘Holy Spirit’ to whisper to us that God’s Word is wrong? What are we waiting for?

Good night, Matt, you could drive a Mack Truck through this reasoning. All because we can’t predict the future and all because the Holy Spirit has surprised us before we should therefore take a wait and see attitude towards prostitution, or towards mass murder, or towards pedophilia, etc.

Finally, the Holy Spirit has NEVER surprised us before by bringing into the Church sin. Even with the issue of race, which you are trying to glom on to in order to support this ‘line of reasoning,’ the Church, following the Scriptures and the Spirit, sought to fold the black man into the Christian faith.

Responding to another conversant Matt offered,

The attempted gang rape at Sodom is no more a fair reflection of all gays than Ted Bundy is a fair reflection of all heterosexuals.

But here’s what I see as the issue: If you had been asked to predict, in advance, that the Gospel would be extended to Gentiles, or that Messiah would have two comings, or the Protestant Reformation, I doubt you could have done it. In hindsight there were hints, but absolutely nobody saw any of those coming. How can you be so sure this isn’t yet another example of the same phenomenon?

Remember Gamaliel? When the Pharisees were wondering what to do about the church, he advised them that if it was of God they couldn’t stop it, and if it wasn’t of God it would die of its own accord. That’s not bad advice.

Actually Matt, the attempted gang rape as recorded in Genesis was intended to communicate that it was a fair reflection of all gays in Sodom. Also keep in mind that God’s anger was kindled against Sodom precisely because of the presence of sodomites — whether they were of the gang rape or non gang rape variety (Genesis 13:13). Still, perhaps you are right. Perhaps you can show me from Scripture that God’s disposition towards non-gang raping sodomites is different than His disposition towards gang raping sodomites.

Secondly, it was the Scriptures that were appealed to in order to teach the inclusion of the Gentiles and the two advent appearance of our Lord Christ. It was the Scriptures that were appealed to in order to bring about the Reformation. Are you suggesting that an appeal to Scripture will reveal to us that God is not only not opposed to Buggery but quite to the contrary, the Church having been wrong from Genesis onward, that God approves of Buggery? Is that what you are arguing? In short the way we can know that God being pro Buggery is not an example of another phenomenon like inclusion of the Gentiles is that Scripture doesn’t teach it.

Finally that God used Gamaliel’s advice to help the cause of His people doesn’t suggest that should be our response towards evil.

Here’s why I think it’s at least possible that Wallis may be right: the clear, unmistakable Biblical and historical trend is to include people who had previously been excluded. I know of no case in which God limits grace more narrowly than it had previously been understood; he always expands it and finds a way to bring people in. Wallis’s theology certainly fits that pattern.

What you’re missing here is repentance from Sin Matt. God always expands grace and determines to bring repentant people in. You are advocating a Gospel that has a God without wrath bringing people without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross (HT — Richard Niebuhr). Both you and Wallis are fitting into that pattern Matt.

Here’s what I think it will ultimately come down to: Is homosexuality something a person IS (like being a Gentile) that they have no control over, or is it something a person DOES (like fornicating). What exactly are we talking about here? Because if it turns out that we are talking about a fundamental part of a person’s identity – like being a Gentile – then I think it’s all over for the traditionalist position.

Well I will have to agree here Matt. If it comes down to finding a Buggery gene the Homosexuals will have won, temporarily. I say temporarily because if homosexuality is genetic and if homosexuals don’t breed then I’m not sure how they reproduce both themselves and their position. This is one reason I don’t believe that homosexuality is genetic because if it were genetic it would have largely died out and whatever presence it might have would be of such a minuscule report we wouldn’t be having this conversation. No, Buggery is either chosen or learned Matt. Ontologically speaking God did not constitute Man perverted though with the fall Man may certainly have predispositions to certain varying besetting sins.

What’s Coming Down The Pike (Introduction)

Recently I posted a link to an article on Wheaton College inviting pro-buggery Champion Jim Wallis to speak on their campus. After posting that link I entered into some conversation with a ‘Christian Homosexual’ advocate on the issue of Buggery in the Church. This is important because this issue has already torn apart the Episcopalian and Methodist Churches in the West and threatens to make serious inroads into other denominations. It is also important as it is being pushed in Government schools as I mention below. If pro-buggery arguments end up being successful in the Church and in the Schools and in the media then there will be no resisting a pro-buggery Church or a pro-buggery culture.

Now, I want to say at the beginning that an apologetic against these pro-buggery advocates on this issues isn’t going to make them go away, just as an apologetic against pro-Women in office advocates didn’t make that issue go away. I don’t make the arguments here with this gentleman (Matt) because I think that he is will see the light of day, though I certainly pray that he would. I make this argument because I think that it is possible that many Christians will end up accepting as reasonable some of the ridiculous arguments that Matt is making.

I also want to say that I believe sexuality is closely tied to the image of God in man. God made man male and yet as only male man wasn’t complete. In order to complete man as man God made woman. Together Adam and Eve were man and reflected fully the image of God, especially as that image reflected God’s intra-trinitarian communion. God made man and woman to correspond to one another in every way just as the members of the Trinity correspond to one another in every way. When we strike out at our sexuality we are striking at the way God constituted us. In my estimation when we attempt to crush and reorient our sexuality we are attempting to crush and reorient, in the most physical and tangible way possible both God and the image of God upon us. Sexual perversion then may be rebellion against God in its most thorough, highest, and complete expression.

This is why Buggery should be so adamantly opposed. We don’t oppose it primarily because it is ‘yucky’ (though it certainly is). We oppose it primarily because it may very well be the apex expression of the highest rebellion against God.

It is necessary for God’s people to familiarize themselves with this issue of socially accepted buggery, if only because it is being pushed on us from all quarters. Just today I came across the following news report,

Homosexual activists are making significant inroads in US schools, as a booklet titled, “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth,” is set to be distributed to all 16,000 school districts in the country.

The 24-page booklet by the National Education Association and American Psychological Association, tells students that homosexuality is a “normal expression of human sexuality”.

The booklet particularly targets the idea that homosexuality is a condition that can be changed. It instructs educators, ‘Schools should be careful to avoid discussions of transformational ministry in their curriculum.’

Now of course the readers here the immediate fallacy of anything that begins it’s title with ‘Just the Facts…’ Readers here know that it is impossible to have ‘Just the Facts’ without a philosophy of fact and in the quote above we see that ‘Just the Facts’ is biased by the philosophy of fact that Buggery is acceptable.

With all that as introduction we move to the conversation that is coming to your Church just down the block, or from the college where your children are attending, or from your neighbor across the street.

The format here is what is called ‘fisking,’ which is a kind of point, counterpoint moving dialouge.

Christ Died For God

“Indeed, if one reflects even for a moment on the sinful condition of the race vis-a-vis the holy character of God, it will become clear that its Godward reference was the cross’s primary reference. The Bible plainly teaches the doctrine of the wrath of God. It teaches that God is angry with the sinner, and that His holy outrage against the sinner must be assuaged if the sinner is to escape his due punishment. It is for this reason that a death occurred at Calvary. When we look at Calvary and behold the Savior dying for us, we should see in his death not first our salvation but our damnation being borne and carried away by Him!”

Dr. Robert L. Reymond
A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith — pg. 639

There is a bit of a contradiction in this otherwise fine quote from Dr. Reymond. Early on in the quote he says that, ‘it will become clear that its Godward reference was the cross’s primary reference.’ Yet later Dr. Reymond can say of the cross work, ‘we should see in his death not first our salvation but our damnation being borne and carried by him.’

Because Dr. Reymond was correct the first time Dr. Reymond should have said in the later quote something to the effect that, we should see in his death, not first our salvation, nor even first our damnation being borne and carried by him, though those are both fundamentally true, rather what we should recognize in his death first, precisely because Christ’s cross work was Godward in its primary reference, is that Christ was clearing any doubt about the Character of the Father being both just and merciful. In the death of Christ the Father’s justice is upheld regarding His opposition to sin thus showing that He does not leave guilt unpunished. In the death of Christ the Father’s mercy is revealed in the reality that God, in the incarnate second person of the Trinity, would rather take upon Himself His own just wrath then visit that Wrath upon His own people. At the cross we should see in Christ’s death first the vindication of God’s name and then and only then should we see that in the vindication of God’s name the Father showers the Son by giving Him a people (Isaiah 53:11).

In short the cross is not primarily about us. Christ died for God before He died for us. To be sure our fate was tied up in His but the blessing that we receive from Christ’s death is a blessing because the Father was the Son’s primary consideration.

Now this reality blows holes in most evangelistic efforts which often tend to communicate that people were at the center of Christ’s death. Christ died for people, or so we often say, and that is true in a secondary sense. But if Christ died first and foremost for people then it seems what we are saying is that the chief end of Christ was to glorify people so that He might fully enjoy them forever. Yet we know that even in the death of Christ the chief end of Christ as 100% man was to glorify God.

The reason that this idea needs to be trumpeted is that we have tended to make the good the enemy of the best in our evangelism. Because we tend to think that the death of Christ was first and foremost about us and forget how God’s glorious name was first and foremost we tend also to diminish God’s glorious name in how we craft the message. Because we tend to think that the death of Christ was first and foremost about us we tend to craft a Gospel message that is more sensitive to fallen sinners and their feelings then a Gospel message that is reflective of the work of Christ who prioritized the Father’s desires. I sometimes wonder if it is the case that because we think the Son’s death was first and foremost about us that we end up communicating a Gospel that has God prioritizing sinners repenting over the character of His name being upheld. (Yes, Yes, I know …. there shouldn’t be that kind of dichotomy in our thinking since the only way sinners will genuinely repent is if God’s name is upheld, but such are the times that such dichotomies seem to exist in people’s thinking.)

Another thing we should interject here before we finish is the idea that it is not the case that in the Christ’s atonement the Father was changed from being mean to being nice. We must remember that it was the love of Father that sent the Son. The atonement did not cause God to be gracious but rather was indicative of the already existing character of our eternally gracious God. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The love of God for His glory required His Holy opposition to sin. The love of God for His justice visited His punishment for sin upon Christ. The Love of God for a company to publish His glorious character sent Christ to be our propitiation. Herein is Love indeed!

The atonement was the revelation of a Father’s love who loved His glory so much that He would rather win a people by bearing His own punishment in the incarnate second person of the Trinity then have the character of His mercy come into question. His love for His own glory became the overflow for our rescue.

The Race In November

Increasingly it looks like Barak Hussein Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008. Already the Republicans are running focus groups on how to deal with the race problem that Barak Hussein Obama represents. The conventional wisdom that seems to be gaining strength in the ‘Stupid Party’ is that McCain will have to walk on eggshells in the general campaign for fear of shooting himself in the foot the way that George Allen is perceived to have done with his ‘Macaca’ comment in the last Virginia Senatorial election.

The fact that race is already a reality that people are being sensitive to can be seen by the tactic of popular neo-con mega radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh has assigned the position of ‘official critcizer of Barak Obama’ to one of his black employees. Obviously, Limbaugh believes that the only person who can criticize a black man is another black man . On the most listened to talk radio show in America we see the fear of being seen as ‘racist’ already haunting Limbaugh as it is also haunting the Republican Party?

Clearly in all this we see the Marxist effect of political correctness in this country. White males have descended to the point that they are afraid of criticizing a black person for the things about which he needs to be criticized. Who cares if Obama is coffee latte colored? What matters is that Barak Hussein is the biggest Socialist this Party has coughed up since George McGovern in 1972.

You see race has already come into this campaign in more ways then you can shake a stick at. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 his previous Marijuana toking became a national issue. By all accounts Barak Hussein Obama has drug using in his past but you don’t hear about that anyplace but on the fringes of the media outlets. Why are the two men held to different standards? Could it be due to the race issue? Could it be that those white people campaigning against and reporting on Barak Hussein Obama are paralyzed by the handcuffs of political correctness? Another recent example was when the wife of Barak Hussein Obama said that, ‘For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.’ Now if the wife of a white candidate said that would it get the kind of media pass that Michelle’s comment recently received from the media? Obviously not, because people tend to think that black people are entitled to think that way since liberal politically correct thinking believes that white America has been so universally mean, nasty and hateful to black folk. The thinking seems to go something like … “Well, naturally she has never been proud of her country… she’s black after all.”

If you want to find Racism in this campaign all you need to do is look on the other side of the aisle. Barak Hussein Obama attends a Church with a mega racist pastor (Jeremiah Wright) who has said some of the most racist things imaginable against white people. I guarantee you that if any white candidate even attended one service (never mind being a member) where the kinds of things are said against blacks that Rev. Jeremiah Wright has said about White people the major media would still be writing about it 200 years from now. And yet, nobody inquires about Obama’s membership in a Race mongering Church. Why is that? Well clearly it is because in Marxist politically correct America it is not possible for anybody but White people to be racist.

Let us continue to talk about racism. Barak Obama has most recently had his praises sung by one of the most racist men in America (Louis Farakhan). Now the Media went gonzo when Ron Paul received a little money from outlandish groups going so far as to demand that Congressman Paul send the money back. Tell me though, have you heard any demands from the media for Barak Hussein Obama to disassociate himself from Louis ‘Spaceship’ Farakhan? No, and you won’t either because racism is only a one way street in America.

Barak Hussein Obama is a Black Socialist with a drug using and Muslim past but it is doubtful whether or not anybody will attempt to lay a glove on him on these issues solely because the virtue of being Black in America is that if one even questions the qualifications of somebody who is black that is proof positive that somebody is a racist.

And if anyone reads this and concludes that I am a racist, then it proves that you’ve swallowed the Marxist politically correct Kool-aid.