Farrakhan hails Obama as 'hope of entire world'

you guys believe there isn't race issues involved?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Quazga
Obama is making a ton of money off of people like me. His main source is people who are consistently giving him $50 to $100 every week.

I meant in terms of organizations. Believe it or not, all candidates depend on those $50 and $100 donations...

Absolutely correct...and Obama has been able to tap into the "surge" of interest of the basic American voter...that's called "good campaigning." 100mill in donations from small donors in no small task....his donors still have room to give more and that's why Hilary is losing and McCain is complaining about the F.E.C. rules for the general election.

Originally posted by rjmelter

Originally posted by Quazga

Originally posted by andy1033
msnbc love obama and shove him in to all peoples faces. The american people are weird.

I wonder if there is a difference between Jim Jones and Obama, and are we just watching another cia cult get going.

You must be a sad little man.

You insulted ^^^ This person.

So are you defending this... Farrakhan?

Gee Rj I think it's time to climb down off your flagpole,
Quazga was giving an opinion just like you and everyone else unless of course you're a sad little man as well.

Originally posted by Deon
you guys believe there isn't race issues involved?

Awesome! Here we go with the "if you don't vote for Barack Obama, you're racist." Fantastic!

You're right though, it's all about race. No question about it. There is no possible way that anyone could disagree with his policy or stances on the issues. The only reason any person would vote against him is because of race. I mean, even black people can't vote against him, since Obama is half-white! If they do, then they are racist against white people!

And if you vote against Hillary, it's because you're sexist. So, really, this election is a choice between each and every American's inner racist or inner sexist.

Personally I feel that this campaign cycle has been little more than a two year long episode of Survivor except the canidates are the ones voting themselves out. Honestly I believe Hillary started this mess way too early on the calculation that the people would become bored with it all and not show up to vote come this November.

Myself, I have been watching the after the primary rallies for the supporters to glean some insight to how they are. Watching Ron Paul wearing a simpleton grim and begrudgingly "raising the roof" told me what I wanted to know. It was comicially pathetic. Not as damaging as the Howard Dean "meltdown", which being elected head of DNC wasn't so bad. RP's choice of demographic was the young and never voted, not a very strong group to pander votes from but it was a niche and wide open. He jams his foot deeper in his behind everytime he does say something. I myself am a strong constitutionalist, but wow. A good example he was asked about what we should do about the genocide in Dalfour. His response (to paraphrase for those still with RP blinders), the constitution says FU and so do I.

Guliani never was handed the memo that most people are tired of the war, so riding on the 9/11 popularity was best summed up in the Eddie Murphy bit of "Eddie, what have you done for me lately." He might have taken the office in 2004 by making the unprecidented move of running against a seated president. Rudy would have made anyone a great VP had he ignored 9/11 and focused on what all he did to clean up NYC's smut industry.

McCain...lol I could beat him in a republican debate by ramming his amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy down the throat of every diehard conservative and moral majority proclaimer. I'd make it his swift boat or Willie Horten for those that recall Dukakis.

Hilary, if elected will be impeached. No doubt in my mind, unless of course she is assassinated first. Never forget that Billy was taken down by investigating her business dealings when Monica fell into Ken Starr's lap

Huckabee? Well # me. (sorry had to borrow that from Red State Update). I know nothing about this guy nor his policies and promises. He has made it farther than I would have in the field of 10 or so canidates. Personally I think McCain forces him to remain in to divide the RP support.

Mike Gravel...he is still in there...Despite many democrats calling for the return of Fair Time policies to combat the Rush/Hannity radio talk shows, Mike get zero equal air time to the other democrat contenders.

Obama. I have a hard time having an inspired trust just from looking at his goofy Alfred E Nueman grin. But that is as superfical as supporting or declining the man based on race. So I listened to what he says in his stumping. My goodness, Hilary is right. There are some convoluted pipe dreams being smoked there. A president has zero control over wage ratio of CEO's to laborers. Anyone that says they can is deluded or needs to visit Moscow for a few years. The only way there will be an equalisation of wealth is if we are all poor as dirt. Unfortuately we all already on that path so any attempts of a "change" could indeed speed up that process. Farrakhan's endorcement didn't help Rev. Jessie Jackson's presidential bid, although in all fairness it was not a glowing as this one. I wonder if Don King wrote it?

Ralph Nader: Corvair unsafe at any speed and he is unelectable in any year. But Hilary or Obama are going to need him in this year to divide McCain's votes.

Funny thing is, this could honestly be Hulk Hogan's best chance of winning this dog show.

Obama is just another very liberal Democrat, don't let the "Change Train" fool you.

Ask a supporter of him these questions:

What are his 3 main economic platform points. In Detail.

What are his 3 main Foreign policy points. In Detail.

What are his 3 main Domestic pollicy points. In Detail.


That should clear things up for most. Obama is great at giving a great impression that he has real answers but it is almost all fluff and no substance.

Imho the only safe way to choose for a candidate it NOT listening to what they say they'll do, or listening to any of their words (or watching the screenplay performances they put up during electrions ...)

But, do a thorough and deep history and background check on them. Look at where they have been, what they have done and these days, most important of all, who they are connected to.

A pitty that by those standards, not a single one of the candidates would be even remotely safe, because unfortunatly, anyone who makes it to becoming a presidential candidate has roots and connections deep in the same sespool as all the others.

reply to post by thematrix


I totally agree -- but I don't agree with you about the 'not a single candidate' part. Do a history check on Ron Paul... check his record, see what he stands for. The only one thing anyone can even remotely dig up that may 'suspect', is that he had a newsletter written in his name by a ghost writer 20 years ago that had racist remarks. If that's enough to make you forget everything else he's achieved... then I don't know what to say.

The man is as honest as it gets, and he's spotless.

reply to post by ergoli


It is a gimmick. He can't get the troops out until 2013? That's sounds more influenced by his own success in politics than it does the actual earliest timetable for withdrawal. If America sees their boys being pulled out heavily in 2012, who do you think they're going to re-elect? Just another politician, breaking promises instead of making tangible progress.

I can't think of a better reason to vote against Obama than having Farrakhan' support. And that even means Ted Kennedy's support, which I didn't think could be surpassed any of my reasons not to vote for Obama.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by kyred]

Barack Obama is Dick Cheney's 8th Cousin (Lynn Cheney let it slip on a radio show). kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2007/10/anyone-can-become-president-cheney-and.html

He is also in the CFR (along with Clinton and McCain). Does everybody know about the Council on Foreign Relations? They have chosen our presidents for 50 years:

Nearly every U.S. President since its inception has been a CFR member. Even the non-CFR Presidents have had administrations full of members. For instance Ronald Reagan wasn’t a CFR member, but his Vice President George Bush was CFR, and so were 28 members of his transition team alone. George W. Bush is not a CFR member either, but his father and uncle are, his Vice President Dick Cheney is, and his administration is swarming with them. At the founding meeting of the United Nations there were 74 CFR members. The Clinton administration had over 100 CFR members. The Nixon administration had over 115 CFR members all in key Executive branch positions, most of whom continued through the Ford years, and a few of whom are still in power today.

The Council on Foreign Relations (like Skull and Bones) always promotes candidates from both the Democrat and Republican parties, thus ensuring a win for the New World Order. In 1952 and 1956 CFR “Republican” Dwight Eisenhower ran against CFR “Democrat” Adlai Stevenson. In 1960 it was CFR-Republican Richard Nixon against CFR-Democrat John F. Kennedy. In 1964 neither candidate was CFR, but Barry Goldwater was a Freemason, and Lyndon Johnson’s administration was full of CFR members. In 1968 it was CFR-Republican Richard Nixon versus CFR-Democrat Hubert Humphrey. In 1972 is was Nixon again versus CFR-Democrat George McGovern. In 1976 CFR-Republican Gerald Ford lost to CFR-Democrat Jimmy Carter. In 1980 was Mason-Republican Ronald Reagan versus CFR-Democrat Jimmy Carter and CFR-“Independent” John Anderson. 1984 was Reagan again against CFR-Democrat Walter Mondale. In 1988 CFR-Republican George Bush ran against CFR-Democrat Michael Dukakis. 1992 was Bush again running against CFR-Democrat Bill Clinton. In 1996 Clinton was challenged by CFR-Republican Bob Dole. In 2000 CFR-Democrat Al Gore lost to Skull and Bones Republican George W. Bush (with CFR running mate Dick Cheney). In 2004 Bush was challenged by brother Bonesman and CFR-Democrat John Kerry. The CFR owns the monopoly market on both Presidents and Presidential candidates. In the current 2008 presidential race, the CFR has propped up “Democrats” Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and “Republicans” Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The only two 2008 candidates not belonging to secret societies or in favor of a New World Order are/were Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

"The chief problem of American political life …has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." -Dr. Carroll Quigley, “Tragedy and Hope”


[edit on 26-2-2008 by freight tomsen]

The CFR is a private group not affiliated with the U.S. government, but made to look that way. Just as the “Federal Reserve,” the name “Council on Foreign Relations” sounds official to the uninquiring ear, and they even print a magazine called “Foreign Affairs” to help pacify the organization in the public mind. But the truth is, the CFR is not a council belonging to the U.S. government and is, in fact, a secret society masquerading as an official organization. If they called it “Republicrats for World Government” or “Demopublican Global Governance Group” then the herd might notice. Even if they called it “the American Royal Institute for International Affairs” the sheeple might raise an eyebrow. This is the same reason our American leaders are called Presidents and not Prime Ministers, even though they are all royalty.

Admiral Chester Ward, was a US Judge Advocate General of the Navy and CFR member for sixteen years. He said the purpose of the CFR was “promoting disarmament and the submergence of US sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.” In his book, “Kissinger On The Couch,” Ward wrote, “(the) … lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership, and particularly in the leadership of several divergent cliques that make up what is actually a polycentric organization.”

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people.” -Harpers, July l958
“The Council on Foreign Relations is ‘the establishment.’ Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship.” -Congressman John Rarick, 1971

CFR membership is made up of past, present, and future Presidents, Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, Ambassadors, Senators, Congressmen, Judges, Federal Reserve System presidents and chairmen, bankers, military leaders, media owners/personalities, lobbyist lawyers, corporate executives, think-tank executives, and university presidents.

CFR membership is composed of the most influential Americans of the century. Just look at the household names belonging the the CFR: George Bush, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Herbert Hoover, Robert Kennedy, Al Gore, Condoleezza Rice, Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, Strobe Talbot, James Woolsey, John Dulles, Michael Dukakis, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards, Michael Bloomberg, John Kerry, Thomas Kean, Henry Kissenger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jonathan Bush, Angelina Jolie, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Consuelo Mack, Warren Beatty, William Buckley Jr., Newt Gingrich, Alan Greenspan, Paul Wolfowitz, Averill and Pamela Harriman, David, Nelson, and Jay Rockefeller, William and McGeorge Bundy, Brent Scowcroft, George Shultz, and Paul Warburg.

Here is just a sampling of the CFR’s Corporate Members: ABC News, American Express, Bank of America, Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, De Beers, Exxon-Mobil, FedEx, Ford, GE, Google, Halliburton, Heinz, IBM, Lockheed Martin, MasterCard, Merck, Merrill Lynch, Motorola, NASDAQ, News Corp, Nike, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Shell Oil, Sony, Time Warner, Toyota, Verizon, and Visa.

“Although the membership of the CFR is a veritable ‘who’s who’ in big business and the media, probably only one person in a thousand is familiar with the organization itself and even fewer are aware of its real purposes. During its first fifty years of existence, the CFR was almost never mentioned by any of the moguls of the mass media. And when you realize that the membership of the CFR includes top executives from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Knight newspaper chain, NBC, CBS, Time, Life, Fortune, Business Week, US News & World Report, and many others, you can be sure that such anonymity is not accidental; it is deliberate … They control or own major newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks, and they control the most powerful companies in the book publishing business.” -Gary Allen, “The Rockefeller File”

Originally posted by Quazga

Oh please, can we not experiment with someone who is not a washington insider? Someone who has the audacity to approach politics in a completely different way.

If he wasn't graded the most liberal senator in Washington with one of the worst records for any kind of bipartisan politics I just might vote for him. I just feel the democrats want to roll their dice this time in some kind of gamble for change. The problem is I really do not see any so called "change” coming from him.

Even though McCain was not my choice he has been the one to buck the system many times and work with the democrats. He is the one to speak against just about everything Bush has done while still holding on to his Republican roots. If I was going to look at either Obama or McCain I would see McCain as the person who would buck the system and work with both sides successfully.

Originally posted by West Coast

What ignorance... You just knowingly insulted every white person living today who had nothing to do with past atrocities by clumping all whites over the past 500 years together, as"one." Your racism knows no end, as you conveniently mention whites, while disregarding pass atrocities by different races. As has already been pointed out, everyones "had it," and still does even today. Get over it.

"But then again, your perspective is one that is classic "White". "

That is blatant racism in itself.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by West Coast]

It's not racism.. it's a fact. I am white. And I have taken the same perspective as the original poster whose perspective I called classic "White", because that is exactly what everyone of the African Americans I know call this.

Anytime a white person claims racism because someone like Farakahn does not include him, they don't realize how completely moronic they sound. I didn't get this at first, because I'm white and have not had to deal with the racism which conditions the African American viewpoint that this stance is classic "White".

Yes I know there have been several other cultures which have been horrid, and the Europeans probably got theirs from the Romans who enslaved them before. But while at the same time you say that you are not to blame for the atrocities of the last 500 years you don't seem to see the overpowering effect that knowing your great grandmother was owned by a white person has on a mind.

It is plain ignorance to stick your head in the sand and act as if teh white race isn't obecjtified for this reason when they call racism when Farakhan doesnt support them.


Would you expect Malcom X to represent white men? No.. you wouldnt, so why expect Farakhan to?





[edit on 26-2-2008 by Quazga]

The "Obama fever" is a bit silly, but of the three remaining candidates with a shot, he is easily the least objectionable one by my lights.

If anyone (black or white) thinks that an Obama presidency is somehow going to undo the effects of 500 years of oppression, they're kidding themselves.

But it's not going to hurt...

I disagree with the portrayal of him as partisan, he is far less partisan than Hillary Clinton, and has (like McCain) shown a willingness to walk across the aisle and talk.

I also think the "positive vibe" people get from him is a good thing if it inspires people in a positive way.

I disagree with Obama on several issues, but he is the best of the lot IMHO, and I will vote for him in November.

A little note I thought was interesting - Obama worked with Senate Republicans to pass a measure explicitly forbidding the kind of sweeping weapons seizures we saw in New Orleans after Katrina - Hillary Clinton was one of a very few Senators who opposed the bill.

Originally posted by Quazga

It's not racism.. it's a fact.

it is a "FACT!" that is "RACISM

I am white.

*pats on head*

And I have taken the same perspective as the original poster whose perspective I called classic "White", because that is exactly what everyone of the African Americans I know call this.

then they are being racist, and you, the good little uncle thomas are too afraid to call it

Anytime a white person claims racism because someone like Farakahn does not include him, they don't realize how completely moronic they sound. I didn't get this at first, because I'm white and have not had to deal with the racism which conditions the African American viewpoint that this stance is classic "White".

Erm, it is racism because Farakahn is excluding a race, you dig- regardless of what racist African Americans dictate to you

Yes I know there have been several other cultures which have been horrid, and the Europeans probably got theirs from the Romans who enslaved them before. But while at the same time you say that you are not to blame for the atrocities of the last 500 years you don't seem to see the overpowering effect that knowing your great grandmother was owned by a white person has on a mind.

oh man tha funny, so wrong and so funny on so many levels- who, who owned this great grandmother, is this fella still alive and is the great grandmother- if not, and if you are attributing guilt to people who never owned a slave and in all probablilty neither did their ancestors, purely because of their white skin, then that is racist, and any African American you hang out with who suggests this should be called out as a racist and confronted quite vigorously- you up for that Tom?

It is plain ignorance to stick your head in the sand and act as if teh white race isn't obecjtified for this reason when they call racism when Farakhan doesnt support them.

shambolic statement

Would you expect Malcom X to represent white men? No.. you wouldnt, so why expect Farakhan to?

thats like saying you don't expect the KKK to represent black men so they aren't racist- honest to goodness you need to grow some balls in front of your black racist mates







[edit on 27-2-2008 by blueorder]

reply to post by Navieko


I agree Navieko. Even though I feel somewhat Quixotic by still supporting Ron Paul, I just can't bring myself to vote for someone just because they actually have a chance at winning.

My biggest continuing concern with the USA election process is that through apathy or a feeling of disenfranchisment, the majority of eligible voters simply won't participate. And, the majority that do vote, do so without taking the time and effort required to educate themselves on the issues and candidates.

Though the race and gender considerations were inevitable, is that what a majority of voters are really going to base their decisions on? I hope not, but my juandiced opinion of the general population says yes probably.

Really... I don't think anyone outside of his cult takes Farrakhan seriously... no one on the left anyway.

His endorsement of Obama means nothing.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Quazga
Would you expect Malcom X to represent white men? No.. you wouldnt, so why expect Farakhan to?

thats like saying you don't expect the KKK to represent black men so they aren't racist- honest to goodness you need to grow some balls in front of your black racist mates


[edit on 27-2-2008 by blueorder]

See this is how blind people usually are on these matters.

The original poster that I chimed in on stated that he was upset that Farkahn was not mentioning white people under those who need to be represented.

Since the vast (real vast) majority of people in power since the inception of the US have been white, they don't need representing.

To act as if Farakhan should include white folks in his "people who need to be represented" speech, is completely detached from the reality of the black experience. The black experience is that Whites have been represented well enough. Whether this is a fact or not is irrelevant.

So to actually be upset that whites were not mentioned is, and I stand by this, a classic "white" perspective. Racist or not, it's the reality of the situation.

You want to act as if we are all one big happy family and everyone should just get on board with that. You feel everyone should be inclusive when they are striving for representation. But that is a quixotic mission.

If I'm not mistaken, Martin Luther King wanted every color or creed represented.