Search This Blog

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Jesus, Jeremiah and Barack Obama

*preface* I am a Christian. To me, that is a way of life and not just a label. I have no desire to hurt anyone else and, if I am critical, it is in the cause of truth and justice and intended for the good of all. I have studied the Bible for 29 years, gone to seminary and Bible conferences, taught and preached in churches and conferences...so I am not a novice...nor am I anything special, for there is a vast army of people who have studied the Word and worked to advance Christianity. I only wish to say that my experiences with the church and Christianity are not a cut-and-paste from wikipedia or etc.

It is the Easter season, a time when Christians celebrate the death, burial and especially the resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ. In most churches around the world, pastors are speaking on that subject, with a mind to encourage their flocks to minister to others and to bring the lost souls to Jesus. However, one church in Chicago is quite different. The Trinity United Church of Christ. This Sunday, the message was entitled, “How to Handle a Public Lynching.”
This is a church that continues to preach "Liberation Theology" rather than Christ. This is a church that concentrates upon and rekindles racial antipathy and pushes an agenda of socialism rather than discipleship. This is the church that Barack Obama will not leave, where Jeremiah Wright would shout, "God Damn America" and the congregation would loudly agree, almost dancing in glee as he did so.

Why does this matter?

In part, it is because of the lack of judgement involved when a candidate for President associates himself with such an organization, one that promotes hate and distrust. But far more important is the probability that Barack Obama does agree with the basics of what that church teaches about faith and how to live that faith out...in other words, it is a window into his worldview.

The Jesus that is preached in Obama's church is a black man who, as Wright has stated, "a poor black man from Palestine." This is no surprise, for Wright is a preacher of Liberation Theology rather than Christ and there is a big difference. See Cone, Wright, Trinity UCC and black liberation theology for details, but here is one telling excerpt:

"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God's love." [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70] - James Cone

In the view of Cone, taught by Wright and absorbed by Obama, Jesus was a poor black man who sought to unite his people against white oppressors of Rome and give them power that had been denied to him. But evil Rome caught Him and crucified Him. In this view, the followers of Christ intended to take over rule and this is why they followed Him throughout Judea.

As a matter of fact, there was a large sect of Jews during the time of Christ known as the Zealots, one of whom was none other than the disciple Simon. The Zealots were devoted to the overthrow of Roman rule, although Simon changed his alliances upon joining Christ. Judas Iscariot is also thought to have been either a Zealot or associated with Zealots, in part because of his surname. The betrayer of the Christ may well have been thinking along the lines of James Cone, as it happens...

In any event, many of the Jews were waiting for a Messiah who would free them from Roman rule, whereas the Old Testament scriptures and Jesus Himself proclaimed a Savior who would free people from far more than a political situation. Jesus came to "seek and to save those that were lost" and to provide an answer to sin and death and man's separation from God.

When Jesus came into Jerusalem at the end of his time on earth, crowds sang his praises and laid down palm leaves before him, crying "Hosanna, hosanna to the Son of David" for they believed that Christ had come to conquer Rome on their behalf. They believed this in part for it is what they had been taught by rabbis who were themselves unclear on the nature and purpose of the ministry of Christ. So, as He came into Jerusalem to celebrate Passover, he was being hailed as a hero. Within hours of His celebration of Passover with his disciples, that same crowd was calling for His crucifixion and desiring the release of a murderer, Barrabas, rather than Jesus. It was a crowd that had been led to believe in the kind of Jesus that Trinity UCC preaches about, a Jesus who brings violence and hatred in His wake.

Truth? Jesus was a Jew, a Semite, a descendant of Shem. There were records kept in the temple that pinpointed the genealogy of His mother and His (step)father. Matthew specifically traces the genealogy of Joseph from Abraham but of Mary all the way back to Adam, in Luke. Now there were three sons of Noah, from whom all the nations of the world are descended (you can find my posts on this subject) amongst peoples of the world that name this descent by naming a son of Noah if not Noah himself). One son was Japheth and his descendants tended to go North and East. In terms of skin color, most of the descendants of Japheth are white or yellow in shading. Ham was dark and his descendants went mainly South and West and these peoples tend to be various shades of dark brown or black. The Shemites, or Semites, largely populated the regions around the Mediterranean and the Mideast region and are most often olive or lighter brown in complexion. Jesus was absolutely a Semite. He was brownish or olive colored and absolutely not a black man! Those who claim otherwise are liars.

Jesus was not a black man.

Secondarily, Jesus had little to do with Rome because His mission, as the Christ, was to go first to the Jews to present Himself as the Messiah. He says little about Romans, but He had very harsh words for the religious leaders of the time, for He exposed their hypocrisies and threatened their place in the hierarchy. A carpenter by trade before beginning His ministry, He may well have been without a source of income during his mission but it appears that the disciples always had some source of funds. Judas Iscariot was the man charged with keeping the money for the group and they always seemed to be well fed and well able to travel at any time. Before His ministry began, as I said, Christ was a carpenter, which was a well-regarded trade. He would have been a middle-class citizen by wealth in the world of Judea before He began to preach and, even at His death, roman soldiers gambled for the rights to his cloak, for it was a well-made and expensive piece of clothing.

Jesus was not poor.

Jesus Christ preached against sin and hypocrisy. He preached against outward obedience coupled with inward rebellion. He preached about doing good and showing love to others. Never did He call upon anyone to rebel against Rome. His Words were radical in the ears of the Jews who had been taught to follow a set of rules and regulations and make several kinds of sacrifices in order to be right with God. Why? Because the Law had been put in place until Jesus would come to fulfill the Law, for no man had ever been able to keep all of the Law until Christ. Jesus lived a perfect life and took the penalty for sinners so they could be legally declared forgiven in the eyes of God. He then would be killed and would willingly take all the sins and penalty for sins upon Himself so that man could be free to live forever in eternity with God. There was nothing in his ministry that sought to overthrow Roman oppressors.

Jesus did not come to overthrow a government.

Christ came to free man from sin, not from other sinners. The Zealots and others among the Jews who did not accept these teachings became angered at Him, one group because He was not going to lead a revolution, and the other because He put them to shame and threatened their standing with the Roman rulers. Thus, it was Jews and not Romans who sought to put Him to death and pressured Pontius Pilate to sentence Him to die.

Liberation Theology is nothing more than a modern form of Zealotry, a philosophy of rebellion and socialism accomplished by any means available. The Otis Moores and Jeremiah Wrights of the time of Christ were the ones running around shouting for Jesus to lead their rebellion and then, when disappointed, called for His crucifixion so that their brother Barrabas might go free. Liberation Theology is at odds with Jesus Christ and His teachings and therefore it qualifies for the warning given by Paul in the Bible in II Corinthians 11, verses 3 & 4 - "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

And Galatians 1:7-9 - "which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

It was men who believed as James Cone and Jeremiah Wright and Otis Moore and, apparently, Barack Obama, who called for Jesus to be crucified and rejected His teachings. They are those who continue to reject His teachings to this day. Jesus was not a black man attempting to free a people from a group of oppressors. He was a brown man with a mission to save the world from its sins, the greatest oppression of all.

If Barack Obama did not agree with the basics of Liberation Theology, in fact in Black Liberation Theology, he could not for 20 years sit and listen to the teachings of Trinity UCC and Jeremiah Wright. He would have withdrawn himself from the congregation.

It may be that Barack doesn't agree with the most outrageous of Wright's quotations. But why will he not leave the church and completely disassociate himself with those basic teachings? One must conclude it is because he believes in them. Consider what James Cone taught...

Blacks must hate Whites:

"It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man's strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it...But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. Racism, according to Webster, is 'the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its rights to dominance over others.' Where are the examples among blacks in which they sought to assert their right to dominance over others because of a belief in black superiority?...Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 14-16] - James Cone

Whites are demonic:

"For the gospel proclaims that God is with us now, actively fighting the forces which would make man captive. And it is the task of theology and the Church to know where God is at work so that we can join him in this fight against evil. In America we know where the evil is. We know that men are shot and lynched. We know that men are crammed into ghettos...There is a constant battle between Christ and Satan, and it is going on now. If we make this message contemporaneous with our own life situation, what does Christ's defeat of Satan mean for us?...The demonic forces of racism are real for the black man. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces." [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 39-41] - James Cone

Christianity is all about black power:

"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!" [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140]. - James Cone

Jesus: Matthew 18:2-4 - "He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'"

John 18:33-37 - "Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?"


Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."


"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.

Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'"

How wonderful if Barack Obama would renounce this church and the teachings of Black Liberation Theology. How awesome if he would turn away from this pseudo communist/racist/rebellious philosophy disguised as "theology." How glorious if he would come to know the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God who cares not one whit for the color of your skin but only the condition of your soul and spirit. If he did so, perhaps he would be worth consideration as a leader of us all. But for now, he has been revealed as being in tacit agreement with anti-American haters who are as far away from Christ as the Zealots who called for Christ to be crucified. I am sorry to write these words, for although I previously disagreed with Obama politically, there was a time when I believed he was a nice guy, a Christian guy who simply has a different idea about how to accomplish things than I do. Now that I know where his world view is coming from, I believe it would be a tragedy for such a man to be in a position of power in this nation. If he has received Jesus in his heart, he needs to turn away from these teachings and, if not...well, may his heart be turned to the Jesus Christ of the Bible rather than the false christ of black power.

God bless you all on Easter. He has risen indeed! My prayer is that these words will clarify an area of dissent and controversy during these last few days and perhaps in the end lead many to reconsider the truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. I doubt Barack Obama himself will deign to read this blog. If he or any of his followers eventually find Christ because they have read these words, then all the hours I have spent writing these essays have been well worth it.

12 comments:

chaos_engineer said...

Liberation Theology is nothing more than a modern form of Zealotry, a philosophy of rebellion and socialism accomplished by any means available.

Are we sure that Rev. Wright subscribes to the "by any means available" bit? I haven't heard any sound-bites where he advocates violence, and I assume that if there had been any they'd be all over the Internet by now.

I did manager to find the text of one of his more offensive sermons at: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.html

That's the one where he said that the US brought 9/11 on itself. Now, a genuine by-any-means-necessary radical would say, "If the ruling class brought on 9/11, then we need to get rid of them as soon as possible, before they cause any more trouble."

But Rev. Wright doesn't call for that. He warns against perpetuating the cycle of violence, with the chilling phrase: "[Too many people of faith] have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed children."

And then he says that people's first priority should be to examine their relationships with God: "How much time do you spend trying to get right with [God], or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right?"

I don't agree with his premise, but it's not like he's some kind of bomb-throwing radical, either. (And, again, his rhetoric is excessive, but you can hear stuff just as bad from any number of mainstream-Republican preachers. Did you know that Rev. Hagee is now claiming that Sen. McCain sought out his endorsement?)

Ham was dark and his descendants went mainly South and West and these peoples tend to be various shades of dark brown or black.

This bit kind of surprised me. I thought that most modern Biblical scholars rejected the idea that Noah's three sons were the fathers of three separate populations?

What do you make of the story in Genesis 9, where Ham's son is condemned to be the servant of Shem and Japeth? Is that just a random bit of historical trivia, or is it something that's relevant to life in the present day?

DQ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

esus was not a black man.

Why can't he be? Even assuming everything you said is true, Jesus could still have been a black man.

Jesus is the son of Mary and God, right (even though I don't know much about religion, I believe this is a correct statement)? You provide support for knowing Mary's race and you seem to think Jesus took Mary's genetic characteristics and, thus, her race. What about the other half of his chromosomes? What makes up the rest of his genetic information?

Yes, I know this is a little off point- LT probably believes Mary was black and Jesus came down from a black lineage on Mary's side.

But, couldn't God have made Jesus any race he wanted? Couldn't he have made him every race? Isn't there no real way of saying Jesus was white/black/hispanic/eskimo...?

~lava

radar said...

chaos,

I know Wright stands by and associates himself with Cone's teachings, for he has said so and vehemently. Personally I think that he and Obama both believe in using non-violent means to radically change the system. I am appalled at the ideas behind what changes they would make. I will agree with you, however, that I have no evidence and don't believe that either of them are seeking to provoke violence. Some who follow the way of Cone certainly do...

The point, to me, is that anyone who subscribes to the views of Cone has a racist point of view and a socialist point of view and any changes they seek to bring about in society will tend to be detrimental. It is time to end racism, period, from any point of view whatsoever.

You have to separate Bible scholars by determining whether they are seeking to understand and interpret or are, as the "Higher Textual Critics" such as Barth and Brunner actually seeking to prove that the Bible is not inspired and therefore not a legitimate source of knowledge from God.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/11/hit-or-myth-scholarship.html

and

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2006/12/textual-criticism.html

Finally, the Ham servant story...First, I don't think it means that God has condemned Ham's descendents to be slaves. I think it was prophetic. Slavery was common in those days and much of what they called slavery was equivalent to what we call a job these days. By the 1800's, the slavery that was common in the US was often a brutal and inhuman condition. No way do I believe God was condemning black people to slavery, I believe he was simply predicting what would be in that the black race would be generally subject to slavery longer and therefore be associated with slavery more than other races.

Slavery still exists in the world.

http://www.newint.org/issue337/facts.htm

radar said...

Lava,

God could have made Jesus look like anyone He wanted, yes. But Jesus was a Jew and furthermore the Bible states that He was not unusual in appearance in any way. We can therefore infer that in height and weight and hair/skin/eye color he appeared to be a common Jewish male. I suspect he had olive colored skin, very dark hair, brown eyes and a relatively big nose.

He had to be a Jew for the Messiah had to be of the people of the children of Abraham. Therefore, he could not have looked like that so-called "picure of Jesus' with the caucasian features and flowing Breck Girl hair. Nor would he resemble a black man or an far east Asian individual.

Unless you buy that the shroud of Turin is genuine (and it may well be) we have no paintings or drawings or sketches of Jesus Christ nor any particular physical description of Him. I am quite sure that God wanted it that way.

When I think of Jesus, I don't consider race or color or height or weight...He didn't come to promote one race over another. I wouldn't even comment on that if it were not a fact that the Trinity UCC teaches their congregation that Jesus was a black man and His mission is primarily about helping black people in a mission against white people...that teaching should be as offensive as anything that you would hear from the KKK or Aryan Nation or the Black Panthers. Hate is hate, racism is racism, dressing it up as religion won't change the fact.

I HATE RACISM IN ALL FORMS!!! I am sick of it. David Dukes is a racist and so is Louis Farrakhan. There is no race that has a "right" to use racism and there is no superior race. We are all people. God help us, one day we can all be just people.

Did you know that the ghetto first referred to an area where Jews were confined?

There will be no preferred race in Heaven.

Mark K. Sprengel said...

Seems to that Wright and those who make such a big deal about Christ being a black man, besides being factually wrong, only give encouragement to white racists who make a big deal about Christ being "white" and in their way also ignore what is really important.

Christ did something much greater than being this or that ethnicity.

Anonymous said...

I APPRECIATE AND AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST ANY RELIGION THAT RELISHES HATE.
HOWEVER, THE ASSUMPTION THAT BARACK OBAMA IS OF THAT MIND, AND DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRUE CHRIST IS TO CALL HIM A LIAR.
AM I STATING A CERTAINTY THAT HE IS NOT A LIAR?
OFCOURSE NOT, BUT, WHEN ONE ACTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A POLITICIAN IS LYING IN THEIR STATEMENT ABOUT THEMSELF, THEN WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO BASE YOUR VOTE ON?
YOUR PERCEPTIONS DO IN MANY WAYS GO DIRECTLY AGAINST WHAT MR. OBAMA STATED ABOUT HIMSELF AND HIS BELIEFS IN HIS RACIAL SPEACH. I PERSONALLY WATCHED THE WHOLE SPEACH, AND I FOUND SOME PARTS OF HIS SPEACH DISAGREEABLE, AND SOME PARTS RIGHT ON. I PERSONALLY FELT THAT THE FLAWS AS WELL AS THE GOOD POINTS OF HIS SPEACH SHOWED HIM TO BE HONEST, AND IN REALITY, I THINK ALOT OF AMERICANS CAN RELATE TO FEELINGS OF MIXED LOYALTIES.

AS A WHITE REPUBLICAN I MUST SAY THAT AFTER LISTENING TO HIS SPEACH, EITHER BARACK OBAMA IS NOT THE VILLAIN OF YOUR BLOG, OR HE'S WILLING TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AS A WHOLLY DIFFERENT PERSON THAN THAT WHICH HE TRULY IS.
AT THIS POINT IN THE ELECTION, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE BIGGEST RACE TO WORRY ABOUT IS BARRACK OR HILLARY? A COMPLAINT AGAINST CLINTON IS A BOON FOR OBAMA, AND VICE VERSA.
AFTER THE MAY PRIMARY IT WILL OFCOURSE BE A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT

IF I HAD TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE EXCESSIVELY LIBERAL, MUD-SLINGING CAMPAIGN EMBRACING HILLARY CLINTON, AND BARACK OBAMA, BASED ON THE SPEACHES I'VE HEARD OF HIS, I WOULD PICK BARACK OBAMA NO CONTEST!

HOW ABOUT YOU?
HILLARY OR BARACK?

I WAS ABLE TO FIND THE SPEACH AT www.myfoxchicago.com. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE SPEACH HAS TO BE WATCHED IN ITS ENTIRETY
TO CLAIM THAT YOU UNDERSTAND BARACK'S STANCE ON THIS ISSUE

radar said...

Anonymous, I have found that it is true in life that actions speak louder than words. Politicians utilize clever speechwriters to make powerful points and spin issues in the way they wish them to be viewed. This is why unscripted debates are a bit more meaningful to me, by the way, since the politician is called upon to express him/herself without benefit of a speechwriter to do it for them.

But I digress. Barack Obama said far more eloquently with his actions things that the most lyrical of speeches could possibly say. I cannot tell whether Obama stayed in that church because he was in agreement with Wright, or simply for political gain, or because he simply has absolutely no clue spiritually. Not one of those choices is palatable to me.

I would not vote for either Obama or Hilary Clinton, personally. I think she is very scripted and doesn't think well on her feet and she has all sorts of credibility issues. Obama now has all sorts of credibility issues as well.

But I hope you keep in mind that the focus of my article is more on what Black Liberation Theology represents than the candidacy of Obama.

There are racists among white folks and racists among black folks. Neither side is justified and I truly hate to see a representative of such views find himself in a position of political power in this country. A blowhard like Al Sharpton is a minor player and probably his agenda is basically the promotion of Al Sharpton. But if Obama is a promoter of BLT, he is espousing a cause that is anti-American and racist at its very core.

I denounce and decry the idea that black people have a "right" to hate whites because of the past. That is the path of anger and bitterness and violence and most especially, division. Martin Luther King believed in the Christianity that Jesus Christ preached. He believed that Godly men could bring about change without violence and hatred. He was struck down by a hater. The secret is to eliminate the haters, not promote them.

cranky old fart said...

"Slavery was common in those days and much of what they called slavery was equivalent to what we call a job these days."

I love the way fundies pass off their god's endorsement of slavery as something other than what it was.

Is slavery wrong, or isn't it?

radar said...

Cranky,

You can't just slap the word "slavery" on all sorts of different situations and make it one issue.

I would hope most of my readers are smarter than that. We who work for a corporation joke about being "wage slaves", but there is a real comparison to servanthood in antiquity. There were and are many different kinds of servanthood and slavery in the world.

Many people don't realize that in today's world there is slavery of various kinds-forced child labor, arranged and unwilling marriages, people lured to foreign lands supposedly for work opportunities and then becoming imprisoned, the sex slaves kept by many in the Middle East and so on. Slaves are still commonplace in Africa and Asia and the Middle East. In most cases this kind of slavery is NOT what is discussed in the Bible.

In Bible times, there were also degrees of slavery. The vast majority of slaves/servants were the equivalent of the working lower middle class. They had an obligation to work for someone, who then provided for their living. These servants would have families and children and often had the option of choosing to leave the "employment" of their master to go elsewhere should they wish to do so.

You want to ask if slavery is wrong? Tell me what kind you are talking about. The servant of a rich man in the days of Jesus would have devastated if you came along and "freed" him. What would he and his family do, live off the land? Be beggars? In the system that prevailed at that time, such a "slave" was commonplace. You either had a specific trade that allowed you to be your own man (fisherman, for instance), or you were rich, or you begged...or you were a servant. You go ahead and tell me if that is "wrong."

The style of slavery that was practiced in the days of the Old South in the United States was forced and sometimes cruel labor. I would never support such a thing. This doesn't exist in the United States or England although it still does in Africa. If you are willing to research, you will find that Christians were at the forefront of the movement to end such slavery, both in England and the United States. You will also find that non-Christian African natives were the ones capturing and selling other Africans into slavery...and non-Christian European/Americans were doing the bulk of the buying.

So, just what is your point? What does it have to do with the election, or Black Liberation Theology or Barack Obama? Or is there any point at all?

Jack Shepard 4 Senate said...

Jack Shepard vs. Norm Coleman
1. I, Jack Shepard am a contender for the U.S. Senate running in Minnesota against Sen. Norm Coleman in the Minnesota GOP Primary for the U.S. Senate on Sept. 9, 20008. I , Jack Shepard as Minnesota’s next US Senator; wish to lead a reawakening in the Lords commandments; there is and has to be redemption in Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus taught us we have to show our neighbours there is forgiveness, there is real redemption and they are welcome in our communities if they start living by the Lords Commandments

3. Senator Norm Coleman refuses to forgive and he will never let Jesus in to his heart.
4. Not matter what Senator Norm Coleman say we must offer people who make a mistake a chance for redemption and forgiveness.
5. Norm should start to read the Bible and ask for forgiveness for the crimes that he has done; the souls he sent to Prison rather then work for forgiveness with them and the US Department of Justice though President Bush’s Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program
6. Present Senator Norm Coleman has no heart to forgive and he only works for HIMSELF; Norm Coleman he does not wish to help struggling Minnesotan’s.
7. No second chances with from Sen. Norm Coleman after he sent 1000’s to prison for the same pot smoking he did.
8. Jesus taught us we have to show our neighbours there is forgiveness, there is real redemption and they are welcome in our communities if they start living by the Lords Commandments.
9. http://www.jackshepardforsenate.com/Norm_Coleman_1.html
10. Our ex-offender as still literally abandoned; American leads the world in number of people in living in prison with over 33% there for the same crimes Norm Coleman did when he was in college; if elected my first concern would be to write legislation to give tax breaks to individual, companies or corporation that hire ex- offenders. I would work with the US Department of Justice though President Bush’s Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program that the president created to help lower the crime rate and help ex-offenders by increasing it’s funding.
11. I CALL NORM COLEMAN A HYPOCRITE FOR AS A MINNESOTA PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR 17 YEARS HE HAS SENT TENS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND STUDENTS TO PRISON FOR POT POSSESSION A CRIME THAT HE ALSO WAS GUILTY OF FOR YEARS BUT ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS HE DID NOT GET ARRESTED FOR IT ! THAT IS WHY HE IS A HYPOCRITE.
12. While Norm Coleman in 1971 was at Hofstra University NY; as a pot-smoking
student hippie activist protesting the war and lambasting U.S. policies which he still denies.
13. Not and Never a veteran- a chicken ;as a pot smoking hippie activist anti-Vietnam War Protester he tricked military draft board and went on a crash diet so the Military Draft Board classified him as to skinny to go to serve his country in Vietnam.
14. This is a guy, Norm Coleman who was hippie freak leader of the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] that helped take over buildings protesting an unjust war in Vietnam who is now a cleaned-up Republican Senator who’s had his teeth done, his hair styled and his face remodelled to look like the classic politician that he once opposed. That’s the essence of hypocrisy The laws that we broke back then could have put Norm Coleman in jail and stopped him from ever becoming members of the bar and lawyers and senators.. Own up to who you were and tell the truth that we engaged in 1967.” “How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968, he might just be getting out of jail now?”
15.
Norm Kent: “Kent and Coleman both attended Hofstra University from 1968-1971, where they were friends, pot smokers and student activists against the U.S. Policy.
You can read now- www.jackshepardforsenate.com
lets see what Captain Jack Shepard (1971) volunteering for the USAF at the University of Minnesota was doing while Norm Coleman 1971 at Hofstra University NY a pot-smoking student hippie activist seen on www.jackshepardforsenate.com protesting the war and lambasting U.S. Policies.
Norm: “How about admitting that if the Rockefeller drug laws were applied to Norman Bruce Coleman on Long Island in 1968, or to me, or to our friends, and fellow students, you might just be getting out of jail now?” Smoking Pot, Block and closing down a University campus- the campus police would maybe shot you today??
Vote for Dr.Jack Shepard, a contender for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate in the Sept. 9, 2008 Primary in a race against a No believing non forgiving Senator Norm Coleman!

WomanHonorThyself said...

welcome back Radar!!