The Rebuilding of the Third Jewish Temple

Rebuilding the Jewish Temple 


The Temple Mount Faithful are ready right now to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. But it will require a dramatic change of the political equation. 'Peace and security' must be fully assured for the Third Temple to be constructed on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This rebuilding is prophesied to go forward. So who will have guaranteed the peace? And how will it have come about? Click on the link: Rebuilding the Jewish Temple below for more details.
Third Temple LOCATION FOUND!!! - Blogger

seraphimre.blogspot.com/...third-temple-location-found.html

HOW THE HUMAN RACE EVOLVED

THE ORIGIN OF RACE
By Cooper P. Abrams, III
*All rights reserved.

CONTENTSIntroduction.
What is Race?
Biblical Passages which have been Supposed to Indicate the Origin of Race.
The Role of Genetics in Race
Conclusion

INTRODUCTION.         An explanation of how the races came into being is quite puzzling for the average Christian. It is not uncommon to hear Christians responding to this question with explanations, which have roots in evolution and other unbiblical teaching. Many times we hear false explanations such as: the tanning effects of the sun on people who settled in Africa causing the development of very dark skin; or people in the Far East (because of a more moderate climate) resulting in the development of the yellow tones of Oriental peoples; or Caucasian peoples of the Northern hemisphere having lighter or white skin because of being exposed to a lesser degree of sunlight. Other explanations often offered as the origin of race are the curse on Cain (Gen. 4:10-15) and on Ham's son Canaan (Gen. 9:20-25). Such explanations are false and are not supported by the Bible, or by science.
         At some point in the life of every Christian we will be confronted with what is called the "racial problem." When this occurs, Christians and churches often respond in ignorance to the truth regarding the origin of race. The problem is compounded both by false interpretations of the Bible and erroneous teachings of evolution, which have caused many to doggedly support false ideas. In order to face the issue and make a correct biblical based response, the Christian first needs to understand what the Bible has to say about this matter. Secondly, he needs to supplement biblical knowledge with information from modern sound and unbiased scientific investigation.         It is the author's objective to present an explanation of how the races of man came into existence from a Biblical and scientific point of view. It is not the intent of this paper to deal with sociological issues or cultural influences, but to explore an epistemological route to the matter. A correct and unbiased explanation, of the origins of race, is actually quite simple.
WHAT IS RACE?      We first need to examine the definition of the word race. Race is commonly thought of as being three divisions of mankind; the Caucasian, the Mongoloid and the Negroid races. Webster's New World Dictionary provides the following definition:



 RACE:   Any of the major biological divisions of mankind, distinguished by color and texture of hair, color of skin and eyes, stature, bodily proportions, etc: many ethnologists now consider that there are only three primary divisions, the Caucasian (loosely ‘white race ), Negroid (loosely ‘black race ) and Mongoloid (loosely, ‘yellow race ), with various subdivisions: the term has acquired so many unscientific connotations that in this sense it is often replaced in scientific usage by ‘ethnic stock  or ‘group .”

     It is interesting to note that the above definition infers that the term is a loose one and that modern science is replacing with another definition, which is, essentially "race is determined by physical characteristics." Traditionally biblical scholars have concluded that the three races were the progeny of Noah's three sons, Shem, Japheth and Ham. ¹

 
    Japheth is the father of the Caucasian race; Shem of the Mongoloid race; and Ham of the Negroid race. Some have interpreted Noah's prophecies of his sons in Genesis 9 to be the Scriptural basis for discrimination of one race against another. Particularly, the supposed curse on Ham's son, Canaan, was purported to be biblical support for Negro slavery. We will deal with that later in this paper.
     Basically, race is a vague term and is difficult to define. If race is based upon the color and texture of hair by what guidelines are we to classify the different shades of hair from black to blonde? A look at any group of people indicates that hair color has little to do with what we think of as race. In any group of Caucasian people, no two hair shades are alike. Hair texture and a person's stature also differ between one individual and another. Although skin color appears to be an easier method of distinguishing one race from another, a closer look reveals that this too is only a vague rule of thumb. The problem lies in determining how to classify all the varying shades of color between black and white. In order to accomplish this, one must increase the number of races and list various subgroups. As the classification process continues it tends to make classification less significant and definable.
     Thus, the task of defining race is highly subjective and therefore, unscientific. We can consequently conclude that race is not clearly definable and is not a good term to use in describing variations among people.
     The question we must first answer is: "Are there races of men?" The difficulty of classifying man into races has been shown. Perhaps a better term would be "varieties" of man. Even evolutionary science concludes that all existing varieties of man are members of the same species.²   Inter-racial marriages are common and children are produced with no biological difficulties. Prominent anthropologist, Ruth Benedict in her book, "Race: Science and Politics" stated the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.³
     Once supposed biological differences, such as dissimilarity in blood, have proven to be incorrect. Blood is classified according to type, and all types are found within all supposed races of man. Blood transfusions are based on types A, B, AB, and O and are given without regard to race.⁴   It has also been supposed that different races have differing intelligence levels. This false and racist idea concludes that the Caucasian race is the most intelligent with the Negroid race being the least intelligent. This idea originated with Charles Darwin's false, inflammatory, and evolutionary idea that man is a descendent of primates. He concluded quite unscientifically that the Negro is more closely related to monkeys and apes because they look more like a primate. Since a Caucasian looks the least like a primate, Darwin said they were higher up on the supposed evolutionary chain and was more intelligent. Often the Oriental is portrayed as being the more advanced species of man because of less body hair.
     Modern testing of the races has shown that intelligence is not a measurement of race, because intelligence levels differ greatly with individuals within every race. Further cultural influence and advantages account for most supposed examples of differing intelligence. ⁵
    The next question is "Can race be Biblically defined?" The term race does not appear in the Bible. The Bible refers to differing peoples in terms such as family, tribe, people and nation. It groups people according to familial relationships and then into nationalities. An example of familial relationship is found in Genesis 10, where the genealogies listed are grouped by family and tribe. It should be noted that nowhere are the sons of Noah associated with race or color. An important passage on this matter is found in Genesis 10:5:

     "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations" (Gen. 10:5).

     Note that familial and national division is shown, as well as division by geography and language (tongue). The significance of this will be discussed later in this paper. Nowhere in the Bible is prejudice based on what we determine as race; i.e. color of hair, skin, eyes or physical characteristics. When God commanded the children of Israel to be a separated people or to utterly destroy other peoples, it was always based upon the principle of separation from sin. The same principle of separation is presented in the New Testament when Christians are commanded to come out of the world and not be unequally yoked with the unsaved. (See 2 Cor. 6:14)
     In Scripture, there are several references to problems in which people with different racial backgrounds were involved. In each case, the instruction is clear that God made no distinction between races regarding salvation or blessing. In Numbers 12:1-16, Miriam and Aaron openly criticized Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman. However, the issue was not racial, but jealousy over Moses' leadership, and the criticism was over marrying a foreigner, any foreigner, and not because she was an Ethiopian (see Number 12:2). In Acts 13:1 we read of "Simeon that was called Niger" and "Luis of Cyrene". Simeon was also referred to by his Latin name "Niger" ("Niger" translates as "black" in English).
     Lucius was from Cyrene (Cyrene was an ancient city in North Africa; ancient Cyrene the modern city of Shahhat, Libya Simeon and Lucius are therefore thought to be black men who had an active place in the church at Antioch. Their names and countries are the only clues given regarding their race. As we see here in Acts 13:1, and in other parts of the Bible, when God spoke of groups of people, it was always in the context of their nationality and not their race. The most notable reference to racial prejudice was the Jews unfavorable feelings for the Samaritans. The Samaritans were racially mixed people that the Assyrian colonists brought in order to settle Palestine, after Israel was taken captive and only a remnant of Jews were left in the land. The Jews who were left in the land inter-married with these non-Jews, which were forbidden in Israel. These groups not only mixed racially, but also merged their religions into a Judaistic cult which the orthodox Jews hated.
   The Jews also perverted their special position with God into a false national and ethnic pride that looked down on all Gentiles seeing them as "dogs." They considered themselves as superior to all other peoples, however, their ethnic pride did not come from God but from their sinful hearts. When God called Abraham, as Genesis 12:3 records, he stated that "In thee all the families of earth would be blessed." Genesis 22:18, says that from Abraham's seed ". . .all the nations of earth would be blessed." Both these passages are Messianic references to the coming of Christ, the Savior of the World as Paul explains in Galatians 3:6. God's offer of salvation was to the entire world (see Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 1:8; 10:1-11:18; I John 2:2).
    See the following classic passage in Romans 10:11-13:
     "For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:11-13).
     Both the Old and New Testaments show that God does not hold any significance to race. God sees all people as one people called "man." Physical characteristics are not a part of God's evaluation of man ". . .for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart" (I Samuel l6:7).
     God states clearly He is not a respecter of persons, and that includes race or nationality.. "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But inevery nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10:34-35)
     Race, as defined by Webster's Dictionary, is not a Biblical term and nowhere can it be shown that physical characteristics of people are a reason or a guide to distinguish one from another.
BIBLICAL PASSAGES WHICH HAVE BEEN
SUPPOSED TO INDICATE THE ORIGIN OF RACES.
    The Curse on Cain
Genesis 4:11-15
     Often we hear the mark of "Cain" being related to the black race. To briefly deal with this erroneous idea it should be simply pointed out that the Hebrew word "oth" does not mean "mark" as an outward physical token or mark placed on Cain. Leupold says that the word is better translated "sign."⁶ Also, the text does not say that God set a mark "in" or "on" Cain and certainly does not even hint at the mark being related to his skin color or physical characteristics. The word used indicates God gave him a sign of guaranty, or an assurance that he would be protected. Ryrie says it was a sign to reassure him of God's gracious protection of his life.⁷ Furthermore, even if one were to take the position that Cain was given the mark of being black, all of his progeny died in the flood and since Noah's sons were Sethites (Genesis 5) the curse would have ended with the flood, rendering the issue moot.

The Curse on Canaan. 
Genesis 9:18-27
     One of the great tragedies of this erroneous biblical interpretation has been the interpretation by some of Genesis 9:18-27 bring related to a curse upon the black people. Specifically, some individuals have used the prophecy of Canaan being the "servant of servants" to mean that he would be the slave of Shem and Japheth.
     Leupold believes that the curse was on Canaan and did not include Ham's three other sons.⁸ If this is a correct interpretation, it would be difficult to relate the Negroes of Africa to the descendants of Canaan who settled in the Middle East.
     Henry Morris believes the curse was addressed to Canaan, but included all of Ham's progeny as well. He reasons that the prophecy seems to have worldwide implications and that if the curse was limited to Canaan and his descendants then historically the prophecy has not been properly fulfilled. He states that although the prophecy is addressed to Canaan, it was Ham who committed the sin.⁹    He explains that the servant of servant”  phrase does not mean slave of slaves” and in history this has not occurred among Ham's decedents.¹⁰
     A strong argument against this passage having any racial implications is the fact that Ham's descendants are not all black. Ham's progeny includes the Egyptians, Sumerians, and Ethiopians. Further, Canaanites who settled in the Middle East do not appear to be black. Morris also states that these three streams are not three races which is not what the Bible teaches, nor what modern anthropology and human genetics teach."¹¹
     No matter which view is held, the passage cannot be used to support the idea that the Negro or black people originated in the curse or that slavery is justified.

 
Genesis 11:1—9
     The search for a correct understanding of the varieties of man (races) is found within these passages. To begin, verse one states that all mankind spoke the same language. This is completely contradictory to evolution, which teaches that language evolved from animal sounds to speech, and finally to language. Because there was no language barrier, all men on earth conversed freely with all others. Just think of what that would do toward relieving international tensions today. Men could communicate with each other with full understanding; however, man lost that ability due to his sin.
     Such was the situation at the tower of Babel. The people congregated and built a great city which was in direct opposition to God's expressed command to scatter and populate the earth. (Genesis 9:1) Because of their disobedience, God "confounded" their language and scattered them over all the earth (Gen. 11:7-8). The scattering of these groups all over the earth, which created genetic isolation, is the real cause for the origin of modern races of people.
     The act of confounding the language of man records that many different languages were created and that each family of people had their own separate language. This division was not based on skin color or physical characteristics, but on familial relationships. Families or tribes of people were given a common language, and they separated from other groups speaking a different language. The passage also says that God scattered them over the entire surface of the world. It is important to realize just what was occurring in this incident. As the people began to group themselves together, based on their common language, they began to migrate in all directions away from Babel. At Babel, they were a homogeneous people, but with God giving them different languages, they separated and in time became heterogeneous.
     God did not indiscriminately change the languages among the people, because to do so would have broken up and confounded families. The genealogies in Genesis 10 extend beyond the time of confusion of languages so it would seem that God kept families together by giving them the same language. Furthermore, Genesis 10:5 states that God divided them by language, family and nations.
     At this point, it is very important to keep in mind that as these groups of people migrated further from the Middle East they became isolated from other groups. This separation caused isolation from other groups resulted in breeding within a specific smaller number people. Because of isolation, genetics then began to limit the physical characteristics of their offspring as the dominate genes began to emerge.

The geographical direction of different
families in accordance with Genesis 10.
     In the dispersion, families were grouped together and for the most part, migrated in one general geographical direction. To illustrate, the following is a selected list of names from the genealogies of each of Noah's sons with the general geographical location associated with each, from the historical record.

The Descendants of Japheth: The Indo-European of western Asia and of Europe. (Gen. 10:2-4)
Gomer: Probably the Cimmerians which are mentioned by Homer as the people of the far north (Odys. xl. 14). They are believed to be identical with the Cimmerians of Roman times and the Cymry of Wales.¹² Magog: Josephus and Greek writers generally relate them as the Scythians of Southern Europe. Also associated with the Tartars of Russia.¹³ Madai:  Medes who lived in area of Caspian Sea.¹⁴ Javan: Comes from the term Ionian which means Greeks.
The Descendants of Ham: The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites. Gen. 10:6-20.
Cush: Peoples of central and Southern Arabia.¹⁵ &nbshp; The Ethiopians are shown as being inhabitants of both sides of the Red Sea. Furthermore, they had a skin of a different appearance. (Jer. 13:23) Pictures on monuments show that they were a mixed race, some Negro, some Semite and some Caucasian.¹⁶ This is a very important fact and will be referred to later. Mizraim: Refers to areas of upper and lower Nile River of Egypt thus a reference to Egyptians. Phut: Generally associated with the Egyptians and more specifically Libya.¹⁷ Canaan: The area settled by Canaan and his sons was west of the River Jordan. His first born Sidon (Zidon) name stood for the whole Phoenician coast.¹⁸
The Descendants Shem: The peoples of the Middle East and Southern Asia. Gen. 10:21-32.
Eber: Abraham was the sixth generation of Eber who settled in Mesopotamia in the area of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11). Elam: Geographically the region beyond the Tigris River, east of Babylonia. The Elamites became a strong nation and were recognized as sovereign by the Babylonian states.¹⁹ Asshur:  The Assyrians of the head waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Lud:  The Lydians of Asia Minor. Aram: Aramaeans of Syria and Mesopotamia.
     From these observations it seems that Shem's progeny settled in the Middle East, Ham's people went south into Africa, and Japheth's descendants migrated north into Western Asia and Europe.
     It is important to recognize that from the Bible and from history, specific statements cannot be made that Shem fathered all Orientals, Ham all black people or Japheth all white people. Note that the Ethiopians are represented as being all three colors. This is a good example which shows that Ham produced peoples of varying colors. This point will become more evident when one sees the importance of genetics and how it works.

 THE TABLE OF NATIONS FROM GENESIS 10

THE ROLE OF GENETICS IN RACE
How genetics work.
     At this point, three things should be evident. First, race is a term which attempts to define physical characteristics of peoples, and seeks to group them together.
     Second, the physical characteristics appear to be closely associated with geographic locations. People who have the same combination of physical characteristics generally come from the same area on earth.
     Third, as in the case of Ham being the progenitor of white, black and yellow peoples; the same physical characteristics can appear within any group of people.
     The explanation of these seemly confusing conclusions is found in the study of genetics or the physical characteristic generator in man, the "gene."
    Webster defines gene as:



      In ‘genetics, any of the elements by which hereditary characters are transmitted and determined, regarded as a particular state of organization of the chromatin in the chromosome; factor: theoretically, each mature reproductive cell carries a gene for every inheritable characteristic, and thus an individual resulting from the union of two such cells receives a set of genes from each of its parents.”

  It can be seen from this definition that it is the gene which determines the physical characteristics of men. Each parent contributes his or her genes to their offspring, and the child is a product of both.    The father of genetics, Gregor Mendel made this observation:
"A gene may be recessive and, in the presence of a dominant gene, it becomes latent, not causing the formation of its trait. In a later generation it may occur, not accompanied by its dominant partner and so produce its characteristic trait.” ²⁰"
     When the male sperm fertilizes the female egg, the genes of each are mixed. Some genes are dominant over other genes and these predominant genes produce the physical characteristics of the offspring. The weaker or non-dominate genes remain in a regressed state and do not reproduce. An example would be a mother having brown eyes and a father with blue eyes. They could produce either brown-eyed or blue-eyed children. If the child produced would have brown eyes, it means that the genes which produce brown eyes won out over the blue eye producing genes and are the dominant ones. The blue eye producing genes are called "latent" and although they did not produce blue eyes in this mating, they are present in the child, and they could reappear in later generations.
     When we look around us today and see all the different physical characteristics in people and relate this to Adam, who was the first man. We can see that in Adam, the potential combination of genes was enormous. Francesco Ayala states that:


      On the basis of only 6.7% heterosis the average human couple could have ten children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number is far greater than the number of atoms in the known universe!" ²¹

     Considering this fact, it is easier to understand how Adam produced all the varieties we see in people today. Furthermore, very important is the evidence that after a number of generations, there appears to be strong evidence of certain genes become pre and the variability of characteristics is limited.²² This does not mean that other genes are not present. However, it does mean some genes, once they reach a point, become dominant and continue to be dominant in future generations. This only occurs within breeding or selective breeding.
     An example was my FDS (Field Dog Stud Book) registered Irish Setter "Bryan's Red Sun" (we just called him "Sam"). He was the product of selected breeding over many generations. As a dog breeder, one basic rule, I quickly learned was that to produce an Irish Setter, I had to breed a male and female Irish Setter. This is where the term "pure breed" comes from. In other words, in Sam's historical blood line for several hundred years only dogs of the same family were bred together. No other breed of dog was allowed to "cross breed" into his blood line. The key to producing a particular breed with specific physical characteristic is in isolation from other breeds. The genes which produced the red-colored hair and general physical appearance of the Irish Setter have become dominate by selective breeding, and consistently produce the same characteristics repeatedly in every generation.
     Through the example of Sam, we see that isolation of a group of dogs from other groups of dogs produces what could be called "race." Note, however, that even within the "race" or "breed" called Irish Setter, there is still much potential for variation. My Irish Setter was a "field dog" bred for hunting. Although he had similar characteristics as other Irish Setters his appearance showed he was not bred as a "show dog." He was muscular and stocky not like the thinner show dogs. He was bred to be a hunting dog which the physical characteristics for hunting.
Isolation of peoples and genetics.
     In this paper, we have seen that the decedents of Noah's three sons were generally dispersed over all the earth. Furthermore, the physical characteristics of any of his sons were not exclusive to his progeny. Each could and did produce offspring with different characteristic.
     The most important factor in reaching an explanation for the origin of race is the understanding that as the migration from the Middle East proceeded, contact with other groups became less frequent, and in time each group became isolated from all others, and became smaller. Because of this isolation men and women married within their own group and breeding took place within an isolated group and between kin.
     An example of how isolation caused particular characteristics in a group of people would be the American Indian. DNA shows that the American Indian originated from oriental peoples who came across the Bering Strait which connected eastern Asia and Alaska. As they migrated south and east, they became isolated from the peoples of Asia. American Indians are considered to be Mongoloid people, but differ from Asian Mongoloids of China and Japan. isolated from their original tribes, caused the American Indian to be somewhat different from other Mongoloids of Asia. Their numbers were small at first and they married among their kin from within his group. The dominant genes of the group surfaced within a few generations and began to produce the general characteristics which are common to the American Indian today.
     Some groups moved further south into Mexico and South America, and they, too, became isolated. This isolation caused somewhat differing physical appearances in each group. Thor Heyerdahl, the anthropologist, studied the people of North America and the Pacific islands for years.²³ He has shown that the Polynesian people came from North America and migrated (in boats) to the Pacific Islands. The isolation of these people produced the Polynesian peoples.
     Without isolation, it is unlikely that "race" would have ever occurred. It is a vital part of understanding how genetics caused the different physical characteristics of isolated groups of people which we call races.

CONCLUSION      As Noah's decedents migrated from the Middle East after the Tower of Babel, their numbers grew smaller as they extended further out. As the groups grew smaller, close kin inter-married and the certain genes within the human gene pool became dominate, while others became latent. Within a few generations, these genes produced the skin color, hair color and texture, bone structure and other physical characteristics that made each group distinctive within its isolated geographical area. Generally, the people of northern Europe were white. Africans were black. People of the Middle East and the Far East were yellow. Of course there are variations of color in all these groups of people.
     This paper has tried to show that the findings of modern science in genetics have offered a reasonable and logical model, which when combined with Scripture, explains how the races came to be. I have deliberately ignored the evolutionary model of the origin of races in this paper, as my primary purpose was to present a biblical and scientific model. There is no empirical evidence for the hypothesis of evolution and it has never been shown that evolution happened in any degree. Evolution in all aspects, including theistic evolution, is contrary to the Word of God and true science. All of the empirical evidence supports the Creation Model. The lie of evolution has been the source of ethnic genocide since its inception. This false humanistic idea has been at the heart of the decline in morals of the once great United States. At best, evolution's explanation for the origin of race is silly and a child's fairy tale.
     The model or explanation or the origin of race as presented in this paper can afford the Christian with a basic understanding of how race came to be. It is easily understood when all the evidence is considered. Racial differences can never honestly be said to be the result of curses placed on people by God, or the nonsensical theories of evolution. Race occurred because of the work of the physical laws of human genetics that Almighty God instituted and race has no spiritual significance.
  

Were Adam and Eve Caucasian or black?

Were Adam and Eve Caucasian or black? Is the whole world related? How did black people occur?

These questions have been on people’s lips for ages. The answers provided in history have been wide-ranging and varied. The Bible is clear: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27)  But what about the different races and skin colors? How did they come about? One thing that we do know is that God created the human race and that we all came from Adam and Eve. Is the whole world related? Acts 17:26-28 says, “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and have our being …’For we are also His offspring.’ ” These verses tell us that mankind has come about from one gene pool which God created, and we all have the same limitations. We can only use human blood for transfusions and not insect or bird's blood to sustain life. The times that affect us-–birth, death, Jesus 1st and 2nd coming, the seasons, the prophecies of the Bible--have the same effect on all of the human race. Our very length of life in a sinful world is determined by God. None of us will live forever without Him, in spite of medical science and all it's advances. So why are some people black and some white? The Bible doesn’t give a definite answer to this question. Because man is curious and often wants to know what God has not told us, he begins to speculate. This is not sin as long as we don’t turn our answers into dogma.  Let's not forget that what we think is just that – not revelation.  For the sake of this question, let's take a look at some of the ideas people have considered in an effort to explain the races.  Please keep in mind that Word of Truth Radio.com does not accept, endorse, support, or promote any of these ideas! One idea that has surfaced comes from Genesis 4:15. After Cain killed Able the Bible says that Cain felt insecure about life and God said, “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” and “the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.” Some have concluded that this “mark” was black skin. First of all, we don’t know what the mark was, but is it possible that the black gene was started with Cain and carried onto the ark in one of Noah’s sons or daughter-in-laws? Not very likely at all. That would be a very prejudiced viewpoint in our opinion, and a view that has no Scriptural evidence. Others have jumped on Genesis 9:25 (This is the curse Noah placed on Canaan for his father Ham's lack of respect.) “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren.”  Some have tried to suggest that the people of Africa can trace their ancestry back to Ham.  Here the conclusion is drawn that the black race has been in slavery more than any race in human history; therefore, it is concluded that this curse was genetically followed into Ham’s offspring. However, the curse was placed on Canaan, not Ham.  Canaan's descendents where the Canaanites and they dwelt in what is now modern Israel (Genesis 9:15-19). People wanting to bolster the doctrine of slavery in the Southern United States in the 1800’s advocated this theory of black people being "cursed". Obviously, this is a very rude and prejudiced idea that is totally lacking in supportive evidence. Some Christians believe that just as man is currently tinkering with the genes of plants and animals (and humans), scientists of Noah’s day tinkered with the genes of the animals and altered animal life, producing the prehistoric monsters we now know as dinosaurs. If we want to daydream, perhaps we could wonder if they also manipulated human embryos. Who knows? Maybe this is why God is silent on the matter. Why give the sinful heart an idea God deplores? A better conjecture is the idea of variety. When we investigate our world, we see that God has put in place a gene pool that has made possible a whole panorama of color and shapes: in the flower world, in the breeds of dogs that are possible, etc., etc. The same is true with the human race: we have a spectrum of profiles and colors, as this seems to have been God's plan from the beginning.  We don't have to explain it; we only need to accept it.  Some scientists arrogantly suggest that Caucasians are farther up the ladder because they have reached a superior level of evolution.  Does this sound like something that our loving Creator would allow?  Of course not!  We can be sure that the devil is behind this type of absurd reasoning.  Let's not forget that all men are equal in the sight of God.  "For man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." (1 Samuel 16:7) Click here to read a great article on skin color! --Thanks to George Blumenschein for contributing to this question!  Although we would like to know everything, our humans minds are limited. God has not revealed the answers to all of life's questions, but he has given us enough information for that which is most important in life: a relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ.  That's what really matters! The good news is that every human being has equal access to His Heavenly Kingdom, regardless of our skin color.

WHAT BLACK LIVES MATTER ORGANIZERS ARE NOT TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Crime Stats Alarm Black Leaders

JANUARY 26, 2014   AFP  

• Shocking new study on youth arrests lays bare facts about crime and race in America

By Victor Thorn

The implications are shocking: Nearly 50% of all black males and 38% of white men will be arrested by the age of 23. These statistics, compiled by four college professors between the years 1997-2008, were published in the January 6 edition of the journal Crime & Delinquency.

The biggest question one takes away from this study is what types of crimes are these young adults committing? Not surprisingly, there exists a great deal of variance depending on the perpetrator’s race.

A 2012 study by the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention revealed that in 2010 black youths committed six times more murders, three times more rapes, 10 times more robberies and three times more assaults than did their white counterparts.

Similar statistics were released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the “Uniform Crime Reports.” They determined, “In the year 2008, black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58% for homicide and 67% for robbery.” By contrast, the only categories where white youths surpassed blacks were in liquor law violations and driving under the influence.

Even black civil rights advocates such as Van Jones, President Barack Obama’s former green jobs czar, confirmed these findings. In his October 5, 2005 article, “Are Blacks a Criminal Race?” Jones wrote, “African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests [and] were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites.”

To better comprehend this trend, on January 10 AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with veteran journalist and author Alan Caruba. When questioned about the proliferation of black crime, Caruba explained, “The black community is afflicted with all kinds of problems based on a long history of failing to integrate fully into the overall community.”

Pointing to current events, Caruba explained: “The knockout game is a good example of what’s wrong today. It goes straight to the heart of how [blacks] are raised. It’s a disturbing trend that all of us need to pay more attention to.”

The so-called “knockout game” was made popular largely by gangs of teenage blacks who select a random person and try to knock them unconscious with one punch to the head or face.

Although few publications other than AFP have the courage to buck political correctness and address the actualities of this social cancer in a forthright manner, in a2011 speech Philadelphia’s black Mayor Michael Nutter offered the following admonishment to black youths:

“You have damaged your own race,” he said. “Take those damned hoodies down. Pull your pants up and buy a belt because no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”

Summarizing this entire matter was former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy who, on September 30, 2005 declared:

“Some identifiable groups . . . commit crime at a rate that is higher than the national rate. Blacks are such a group. That is simply a fact.”

IN ORDER TO SUMMARIZE HERE ARE THE HARDCORE FACTS:

WHILE ONLY AROUND 12% OF THE U.S. POPULATION ARE
OUT NUMBERED BY OTHER RACES BY 9 TO 1:

AFRICAN AMERICANS COMMIT BETWEEN 51% AND 60% OF THE MURDERS

AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE ARRESTED FOR 57- 61% OF THE ROBBERIES

AFRICAN AMERICANS COMMIT OVER 50% OF THE ROBBERIES

AFRICAN AMERICANS COMMIT OVER 50% OF RAPES AND CHOOSE WHITE WOMEN AS THEIR VICTIMS

OVER 50% OF BLACK MALES WILL BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH A SERIOUS FELONY IN THEIR LIFETIME

BLACK VIOLENT CRIMES TARGETS WHITES OVER 50% OF THE TIME

The FBI Uniform Crime Reports are available on the Internet at

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.

 

Slavery and Emancipation under President Lincoln

September 21, 2012 By Sarah Pruitt

"Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”

ABRAHAM LINCOLN ACCURATELY PREDICTED THAT BLACKS AND WHITES COULD NOT CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY IN AMERICA. GIVEN THE RECENT SHOOTINGS WHICH TOOK PLACE IN DALLAS, TEXAS AGAINST 5 WHITE POLICE OFFICERS AND THE CIVIL UNREST WHICH IS TAKING PLACE AROUND THE COUNTRY, IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT HIS STATEMENT AS A SELF FULFILLING PROPHECY.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation

On September 22 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, in which he declared that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in states in rebellion against the Union "shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." To commemorate the occasion, we invite you to consider some surprising facts about Lincoln's views on slavery, and the complex process that led him to issue the document he later called "the central act of my administration, and the greatest event of the 19th century."

1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count slaves for the purposes of representation in the federal government. In a three-hour speech in Peoria, Illinois, in the fall of 1854, Lincoln presented more clearly than ever his moral, legal and economic opposition to slavery—and then admitted he didn’t know exactly what should be done about it within the current political system.
Abolitionists, by contrast, knew exactly what should be done about it: Slavery should be immediately abolished, and freed slaves should be incorporated as equal members of society. They didn’t care about working within the existing political system, or under the Constitution, which they saw as unjustly protecting slavery and slave owners. Leading abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution “a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,” and went so far as to burn a copy at a Massachusetts rally in 1854. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists.

2. Lincoln didn’t believe blacks should have the same rights as whites.
Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to blacks and whites alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason slavery was inherently unjust.
Like his views on emancipation, Lincoln’s position on social and political equality for African-Americans would evolve over the course of his presidency. In the last speech of his life, delivered on April 11, 1865, he argued for limited black suffrage, saying that any black man who had served the Union during the Civil War should have the right to vote.

3. Lincoln thought colonization could resolve the issue of slavery.
For much of his career, Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery. His two great political heroes, Henry Clay and Thomas Jefferson, had both favored colonization; both were slave owners who took issue with aspects of slavery but saw no way that blacks and whites could live together peaceably. Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization in 1852, and in 1854 said that his first instinct would be “to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia” (the African state founded by the American Colonization Society in 1821).
Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.” Lincoln’s support of colonization provoked great anger among black leaders and abolitionists, who argued that African-Americans were as much natives of the country as whites, and thus deserved the same rights. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January 1863.

4. Emancipation was a military policy. 
As much as he hated the institution of slavery, Lincoln didn’t see the Civil War as a struggle to free the nation’s 4 million slaves from bondage. Emancipation, when it came, would have to be gradual, and the important thing to do was to prevent the Southern rebellion from severing the Union permanently in two. But as the Civil War entered its second summer in 1862, thousands of slaves had fled Southern plantations to Union lines, and the federal government didn’t have a clear policy on how to deal with them. Emancipation, Lincoln saw, would further undermine the Confederacy while providing the Union with a new source of manpower to crush the rebellion.
In July 1862 the president presented his draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet. Secretary of State William Seward urged him to wait until things were going better for the Union on the field of battle, or emancipation might look like the last gasp of a nation on the brink of defeat. Lincoln agreed and returned to edit the draft over the summer. On September 17 the bloody Battle of Antietam gave Lincoln the opportunity he needed. He issued the preliminary proclamation to his cabinet on September 22, and it was published the following day. As a cheering crowd gathered at the White House, Lincoln addressed them from a balcony: “I can only trust in God I have made no mistake … It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment on it.”

5. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.
Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union.
Despite its limitations, Lincoln’s proclamation marked a crucial turning point in the evolution of Lincoln’s views of slavery, as well as a turning point in the Civil War itself. By war’s end, some 200,000 black men would serve in the Union Army and Navy, striking a mortal blow against the institution of slavery and paving the way for its eventual abolition by the 13th Amendment.

A final word:
What About The Debt Blacks Owe To America?

Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born, and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans -- created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white Christian Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still be slaves. If not for the dedication of Americans of all ethnicities and colors to a society based on the principle that all men are created equal, blacks in America would not enjoy the highest standard of living of blacks anywhere in the world, and indeed one of the highest standards of living of any people in the world. They would not enjoy the greatest freedoms and the most thoroughly protected individual rights anywhere. Where is the gratitude of black America and its leaders for those gifts? For the answer to that question go to the link below:

New “Reparations” Website Asks Whites to Pay ... - Infowars

THROWBACK: OCTOBER 15TH, 2014- POPE SAYS "GAY MARRIAGE IS OK". THIS PROVES POPE IS A RELIGIOUS FRAUD!

Published on Oct 15, 2014

The pope and the vatican have now opened the door for Same Sex Marriages, as all civilized countries are doing. Soon, we say about a year or two, Same Sex Marriage will be legal nationwide in the USA, as will happen in all civilized countries, and the primitive religious countries that don't advance as societies, will eventually cut themselves off from the world and die off completely, or adapt and thrive, allowing Same Sex Marriage to flourish.

MY REBUTTAL TO THE ABOVE STATEMENT:

I saw Homosexuals in Hell

Leviticus 18:
22“Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.

Romans 1:26-32
     26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

      28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New King James Version (NKJV)
⁹ Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor HOMOSEXUALS,^[a] nor SODOMITES, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 

Sexual unions such as same sex marriage which are clearly forbidden in God's Word are contrary to God's Divine order for decent relationships expected in a family. These sexual unions result only from unnatural and uncontrolled lust. If allowed to go unchecked, such unions as same sex marriages will eventually destroy human society. When this kind of moral filth becomes incurable, God is left with no other recourse but to destroy the nation(cf with Genesis 19:1-38).

HAS GOD ALREADY RESPONDED TO THESE ABOMINATIONS WITH CALAMITIES?
CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW AND READ IT FOR YOURSELF:

ACLU Says Christians to Blame for Orlando Attack

Has the United States Invited God's Wrath? — Charisma News

THE BOTTOM LINE: IF GOD WANTED SAME SEX MARRIAGE HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO BY CREATING ADAM AND STEVE INSTEAD OF ADAM AND EVE!
(cf GENESIS 1:26-28).

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON HOW THE POPE IS HELPING TO  ADVANCE THE HOMOSEXUAL/LESBIAN AGENDA AROUND THE WORLD,
 CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW:
[PDF]

Chapter 13: Documentation of the Homosexual …

www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/chapters/...

Redeeming the Rainbow 202 THE HOMOSEXUAL MANIFESTO By Michael Swift, "GayRevolutionary." Reprinted from The Congressional Record of the United States Congress.

Faggot Obama Hid His Gay Lifestyle to be President !

IF YOU THINK THAT THIS STORY IS A BUNCH OF CROCK, WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW WHERE

MICHELLE OBAMA AKA "BIG MIKE" 

ADMITS THAT SHE IS A TRANSGENDER MAN

 

IN VIDEO BELOW OBAMA

REFERS TO MICHELLE AS

MICHAEL AND I

 MORE VIDEOS EXPOSING 

OBAMA'S FAGGOT LIFE

 

 

GO TO LINK BELOW FOR MORE

VIDEOS ON HOMOSEXUAL OBAMA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t5RMWyGlr0&list=PLQjod8slcwTvWr5Bco4_mpR9hp8nRuLOz&index=31

Chapter 13: Documentation of the Homosexual Agenda

I LOVE IT WHEN YOU CALL 

ME FAGGOT OBAMA 😆

Three Members of Obama’s Church Killed

Investigator close to case believes there’s more to the brutal murders than mainstream press is letting on.

By Victor Thorn

Is a Barack Obama bombshell lurking in the shadows, waiting to derail one of the biggest Cinderella stories in recent history?

While most political prognosticators in the mainstream press presume that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, they still wonder aloud if Hillary Clinton (or some other entity) has something up their sleeve.

The bombshell may involve the murder of Donald Young, a 47-year-old choir master at former Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ—the same congregation that Obama has attended for the past 20 years. Two other young black men that attended the same church—Larry Bland and Nate Spencer—were also murdered execution style with bullets to the backs of their heads—all within 40 days of each other, beginning in November 2007. All three were openly homosexual.

What links this story to Barack Obama is that, according to an acquaintance of Obama, Larry Sinclair, Obama is a closet bisexual with whom he had sexual and drug-related encounters in November 1999.

Further, Sinclair claims that Obama was friendly with at least two of these deceased parishioners, and that choir director Donald had contacted him shortly before being murdered from multiple gunshot wounds on December 23, 2007.

These killings are receiving a number of different reactions. Mike Parker, reporting for CBS in Chicago, wrote, “Activists fear gay African-Americans are being targeted for murder,” while Marc Loveless of the Coalition for Justice and Respect queries, “Are we under attack? Is this a serial killer?”

An even more sinister aspect of this case is being investigated. According to Sinclair in an affidavit to the Chicago Police Department, Donald Young had informed him that he and Barack Obama were “intimate” with each other. Sinclair, it should be noted, declared on a January 18, 2008, YouTube video that on two separate occasions in November 1999, he engaged in sexual acts with Obama, and that Obama smoked crack cocaine—once in a limousine and the other time at a hotel in Gurnee, Ill.

Sinclair has also asked: why would Young—whom he had never met—initiate these calls by contacting him on cell phone numbers known only in the Obama camp? Further, a private investigator connected to the Chicago Police Department told the Globe, “Donald Young was silenced because of something he knew about Obama. Donald was in a position where he heard a lot of things and saw a lot of things concerning Barack.”

Another questionable Obama associate is openly homosexual. That person is Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, who was listed during the 2008 campaign as being part of Obama’s “technology initiative.”

In April, Lessig showed a video at a Google seminar entitled Jesus Christ: The Musical where “Jesus Christ lip-syncs Gloria Gaynor’s late 1970s disco hit I Will Survive during which he strips down to just a diaper, effeminately struts along a city street, and finally gets run over by a speeding bus.”

Are three murders within the span of 40 days among members of America’s most discussed church—one run by the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright—enough to arouse the suspicions of Chicago law enforcement officials and members of the national media?

Or, as Sinclair wrote in a May 18 email, was the murder of Young “made to look similar to other recent murders as to make it look as if it were a hate crime” because he had become a political liability?

One can only hope that this isn’t the beginning of another body count eerily reminiscent of that associated with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Victor Thorn is the author of Hillary (And Bill): The Clinton Trilogy. Volume 2—The Drugs Volume—detailing how Hillary (and Bill) turned Arkansas into a narco-republic in return for campaign cash—is now  available from AFP for $25 until June 15. After that it will be $30. Order volume One (The Sex Volume) and Two (The Drugs Volume) together for just $55. No S&H inside the U.S. Call AFP at 1-888-688-NEWS toll free to charge to Visa or MasterCard.

SUNDAY, JULY 3, 2016

Obama's Gay Secret -- Dr. Jerome Corsi Reveals Details

And Obama's Down Low Club

  

(2008) Larry Sinclair Press Conference Exposing Barack Obama (FULL)

A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.

“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.

“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.

DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website HillBuzz.org, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”

“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”

Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”

Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.

“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.

WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club, which has some 10,000 members, is not a “gay” facility.  But it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym,”  where homosexuals meet and engage in sexual activity.

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.

WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.

DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.

“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.

“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.

‘Obama’s secrets’

DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”

He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.

DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”

“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.

He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.

“Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.

DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on BlogTalkRadio.com, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.

Man’s Country

Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.

“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.

He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”

Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.

DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.

Writing in HillBuzz.org Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”

DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”

“Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”

 PROOF IS EMERGING THAT THE PICTURE BELOW OF BARACK OBAMA DRESSED IN  LEATHER DRAG IS GENUINE AND NOT PHOTO SHOPPED AS MANY CLAIM IT TO BE. SEE LINKS BELOW FOR MORE EVIDENCE:

N.Y. POST STORY SEE LINK:

Exclusive | Barack Obama told ex, 'I make love to men daily.

See picture below

AUTHENTIC PHOTOS OF OBAMA IN DRAG QUEEN OUTFIT. SEE LINK BELOW PROVING IT'S NOT A PHOTO SHOP

https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/More-evidence-that-the-picture-in-drag-is-Obama.pdf&chrome=true

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE GAY/LESBIAN HIDDEN AGENDA SEE THE VIDEO BELOW:

 

 

1.