Select Page

(Originally printed in the Fall 2009 Issue of the MCOI Journal)

A Historic Election

The 56th Presidential Election on November 4, 2008 wit­nessed the first time in our history an African-American was chosen to occupy the office of President of the United States of America. For many, this looked like a demonstration that we are a post-racial nation. Are we though? Actually, we would sub­mit that most of us passed into post-racialism a long time ago. Certainly, there are some citi­zens (of all races by the way) who unreasonably and stupidly misjudge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character; but our society as a whole has left them behind. No one can fairly say the general behavior and tenor of the American people is racist. Well, there’s Jimmy Carter, but who ever accused him of being fair? The type of racism Carter speaks of is largely dead-dead as the pro­verbial doornail. Who, except maybe for some crackpot skin­head, would believe a qualified Black man is incapable of lead­ing this country? Yet, we all know racial relations are not rosy in our nation-certainly not as people of goodwill would want them to be. Blacks and Whites are angry with each other. Hollywood surely does nothing to al­leviate the situation, portraying most Whites-especially male conservative Christians-as greedy racists and most Blacks as violent gang bangers or helpless victims of circumstance. The anger is also used by people with an agenda, and it is routinely and calculatedly stoked by those who have an interest in keeping the fire burning. It is also interesting to note the resentment today between the races largely seems to be funneled into ideological passion. Skin pigmentation has nothing at all to do with it. In other words, liberal Blacks are not angry with liberal Whites as a rule, and conservative Whites get along just peachy with conservative Blacks. It is sad to us Christian Blacks and Whites cannot seem to rise above the anger to work together more effec­tively, as evil winds of a dissolute culture blow furiously against all of our houses, and dark spiritual forces lead captives away to Hell. We are one body, with one Lord and one baptism (Eph. 4:4- 5), but sometimes you’d not know it. But we digress …

The demise of pigmenta­tional racism (for lack of a “real” word) has not solved all the problems of life for many in the minority com­munities, however (or in anyone’s community, if the truth be told). Although most people would heartily agree to the idea of “equal opportu­nity for all,” equal opportuni­ty certainly does not always guarantee equality of out­come. This is from whence, we believe, comes the ap­peal of Barack Obama’s “Hope and Change” mantra. A handsome man, articulate and well-spoken, serenely confident, Obama expresses concern for the poor and under privileged-Black or White, brown or tan, frankly, anyone- who may have felt left out of the “American dream.” He openly called for a transformative change in America, which most of his admirers chose to interpret as more and better opportunities for the poor, rather than a radical redistributive reordering of our entire system to achieve the very elusive goal of “equality of out­come”-Utopia, as it were. The hope for Utopia in and of itself may not be evil, but more evil has been done in the pursuit of this elusive “impossible dream” than any other we know or can imagine, and only burning embers are ever left in its wake. Still, dreamers continue to step up to lead the ill-informed to Paradise only to come to a very bad end. The road to Utopia often leads to Hell on Earth.

The 56th election also raised the issue of religious worldviews to the fore more than we can remember during any previous election. This may seem surprising since, over the last several decades, there has been a concerted effort to banish God and Christian reli­gious speech and symbolism from the public square. Remember the uproar when George W. Bush said the name “Jesus” in a debate? You might have thought he was promising to appoint the Pope as his “education czar.” Nevertheless, God remains very popular in this country; and in this election, it seemed God backed all candidates with each one trying to demonstrate how they are deeply religious.

On the Republican side, the candidates narrowed down to a choice of three: Mitt Romney (Mormon), the relatively unknown Mike Huckabee (Evangelical), and John Mc­Cain (raised Episcopalian; now attends a Southern Baptist church). Secularists seemed to fear Huckabee; while some, perhaps many, Evangelicals worked hard opposing Mitt Romney for fear the Mormon Church would use his presidency as a drawing card to re­cruit converts for the Mormon Church.

On the Democratic side it narrowed down to Hillary Clinton (United Methodist) and Barack Obama (Trinity United Church of Christ a.k.a. TUCC).

One very funny sideshow in the Democratic primary race was the contest between the racialists for Obama vs. the feminists for Hillary. You were a racist if you did not vote for Barack Obama and a sexist if you did! And they were serious!! We suppose you could be both racist and sexist if you didn’t vote for either of them!

Candidate Barack Obama calls himself a “Christian” and even mentioned the name of “Jesus” a time or two, if memory serves. For some strange reason, however, the main-stream media (hardly main stream anymore!) did not go all ape on him for this lapse of “tolerance.” We cannot judge anyone’s soul; however, we can point out that TUCC where Obama attended at least 20 years is rooted far more in race than in grace. It promotes Black Liberation Theology (BLT), which at its core is Marxism wrapped in Christian-sounding terminology. This view promotes an angry racist form of Afro-centrism, and it is the predominant worldview under which Barack Obama sat, by his own admission, for over 20 years. When confronted with his pastor’s (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) racist and anti-American rhetoric, Candidate Obama claimed to be ignorant of the worst manifestations of it, explaining that he had not been in attendance when these offensive slurs were hurled. Jeremiah Wright married Barack and Michelle, and baptized their daughters. 20 years Barack sat in the pews — 20 years he saw or heard no evil … Does anyone truly believe this? Comedian Jackie Mason comments,

And [Obama] also pays great tributes to his pastor-how he was involved with him, connected with him-how he learned so much from him-how he was his spiritual guide, his leader, his thinker. And then after all his tributes to him that he couldn’t live without his leadership, they asked him did you ever listen to him? Never, never, I never actually listened to him … I remember him talking but I don’t remember listening.1Jackie Mason ‘08 Vlog 24 Obama’s Fraud;

Did Evangelicals Play A Part In The Election?

Evangelicals were not united behind one candidate in this election if they ever really are. Evangelicals were divided into differing factions which we think may have had an impact on the outcome of this election. One such segment is the Emerging Church (some of whom like to refer to themselves as “Obamagelicals”) represented by Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, and others in the emerging Evangelical Left. For the uninformed to grasp who the Emerging Church is, one need only remember Paul’s warning in 1 John 2:19 about false teachers, saying, and we paraphrase, THEY EMERGED FROM US BE­CAUSE THEY WERE NOT OF US. The Emergents fully understand Obama’s plan is to redistribute America’s wealth nationally and internationally, but they like that. They favor Socialism over Capitalism (even though they personally have done quite well financially with their book sales and speaking fees).

It just seemed there were rather large objections to all of the conservative candidates, which made the Primary kind of a nightmare for conservatives. Some were pro abortion, such as Rudy Giuliani. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, which many Evangelicals recognize as a heretical sect. By derailing Romney, these Evangelicals, though certainly not in favor of Obama, may have inadvertently helped his cause. With Romney eliminated, the unintended consequence was that the widely disliked John McCain bubbled up to the top. Mike Huckabee put up a good fight. He was a relative unknown who did remarkably well with little money; who remained in the race up to the bitter end-a week or two before the na­tional nominating convention. Such a drawn-out contest between these two men may have hurt McCain’s chances if that was possible. It is likely McCain was beaten before he was out of the gate, however, because a large segment of Evangelical conservatives wouldn’t have voted for McCain if he were the last annoying “Maverick” turncoat on Earth, and so this group simply boycotted the election. Most people are still not entirely sure for whom McCain was rooting to win the election.

Thankfully we still live in a free country. Anyone can use their vote to make their choice for or against anyone else. However, all of these factors-or, perhaps, one could blame the choices that were offered-certainly did not help the conservative cause during this election. For our part, we generally accept that in most elections of our lifetimes, we are simply voting for whomever we consider to be the lesser of two evils. All of this is interesting to us, but Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. (MCOI) is not a political activist organization. We hold to the truth of Scripture that God, Himself, establishes governmental leadership and places men in positions of authority over us (Romans 13:1). And, in any case, we are absolutely certain no government or politician will save us; but God certainly may use one to bless or punish a nation. Sometimes, He puts His servant in charge; and other times, He gives rebellious people the leader of their choice and allows them to suffer the consequences of that selection. As long as MCOI does not advocate for a candidate or party, we are legally free to comment from a religious perspective on issues of ethics and morality. The online article “The IRS, Churches, & Politics” is helpful in clarifying this point:

Next, the standards for political impartiality, and strictures on what churches and other non-profit organizations can say or do in the political arena, are far narrower than many people suppose. Roughly, the basic rule is: an organiza­tion may freely endorse any stand on any issue. What it may not do (whether explicitly or by clear implication) is endorse, or contribute 0money to support or oppose, a particular candidate or party by name.2The IRS, Churches & Politics, James Altena;

Messianic Expectations For Obama

Barack Obama’s followers and the main-stream media give him a nearly messianic allegiance. Chris Matthews of CNN’s Hard Ball admitted Obama gave him tingles up his leg. He and Michelle must have a hard time sleeping with all those Hollywood “beautiful people” and news anchor people in the bed with them. How they must “ooh and ah” if Mi­chelle wears sleeveless pajamas! Some school teachers have had their students sing songs of praise to him, which seems very weird indeed. This kind of reverence is not normally be­stowed upon American presidents-at least until one is dead for 100 years or so. The adora­tion is partly due to Obama’s personal charisma, his good communication skills (compared to President Bush especially), his good looks and attractive family, and the aforementioned historic nature of his Presidency, which has spawned a “cult of personality” that he, per­haps naturally, does nothing to dispel. We live in an age of celebrity worship, which is also a factor in his ascendancy. He’s cool … he’s hip … he’s like a rock star! He gives the “fist bump.” Add to that the vast unpopularity of President George Bush and the uninspired and ineffectual candidacy of John McCain, and it seems there was a “perfect storm” of factors that delivered the White House to him.

With the supposedly “watch dog” press panting at his heels, how much did the aver­age voter actually learn about Obama, his plans, the people who really influenced him, and whom he would appoint to advise him? Not much, we fear. Now though, even quite a number of people who voted for him have become alarmed at the radical people with whom he has surrounded himself and the radical policies he is pursuing. What few seem to realize is nearly everything about his presidency originates from his religious worldview. His ideas and choices are informed by Black Liberation Theology, which he was taught in his home church for 20 years:

One of the pillars of Obama’s home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is “economic parity.” On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with “America’s economic mal-distribution.” Among all of controversial com­ments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical frame­work for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).3The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology; Anthony B. Bradley, PhD;

President Obama would very likely vehemently deny he is a Marxist; and yet, Black Liberation Theology is based upon Marxist principles, and many of the people with whom he has surrounded himself are Marxists. What is Marxism? How does it differ from Socialism? Socialism is the generic; Marxism is a name brand. Marxism is a type of Socialism; however, not all Socialists are Marxists, but all Marxists are Socialists.

Here are the two definitions of the word Socialism from The American Heritage Dictionary:

1 Any of various theories or systems of social orga­nization in which the means of producing and distrib­uting goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the econo­my.

2 The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which col­lective ownership of the economy under the dictator­ship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Marxism has failed miserably everywhere in the world where it has been tried, and it has killed millions around the world in the process. In addition, European-style Socialism is quickly losing popularity even as Barack Obama and the radical Leftists in Congress and Emerging Church seem determined to implement it here on our shores.

Americans traditionally have rejected both Marxist and So­cialist views. The indications are they still will, once they under­stand what is at stake. However, in a BBC interview and later at the UN, Obama said:

The danger I think is when the United States or any coun­try thinks that we can simply impose these values on another country …4Obama says US cannot impose its values: BBC interview: http://www. d.1731&show_article=1

Nevertheless, doesn’t he now have the power and seemingly the determination to “impose” his radical “values” on the citi­zens of the United States even if it must be against their will and to their detriment?

More About Black Liberation Theology

Trinity United Church of Christ, Michelle and Barack Obama’s former home church, (the Obamas left their church when Rev. Jeremiah Wright refused to relinquish his time in the national spotlight and instead kept embarrassing the candidate with his nationally televised hateful rhetoric) is by no means just another Christian Church with a few crackpot people and ideas. As we mentioned earlier, it is a church that embraces Black Lib­eration Theology. Dr. Jerry Buckner, one of MCOI’s Advisory Board members and host of Contending for the Faith radio pro­gram,5,,236518,00.html calls Obama’s chosen faith: “The Cult of Black Libera­tion Theology.” We would certainly agree with his assessment. However, we must interject it is possible Barack Obama does not fully embrace Black Liberation Theology, but so far, he gives no indication he does not.

How can Black Liberation Theology be understood? Let’s ask the 44th President’s mentor-Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In 2008, after his “G – – D – – – America …”6“Obama’s Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11” story?id=4443788&page=1
spiel went international, Jer­emiah Wright appeared in a television interview on FOX News’ Sean Hannity Show. At that time, he helpfully explained to Hannity that unless one reads the writings of James Cone, with whom Wright claimed to wholly agree, they cannot understand Black Liberation Theology.

Recently, another television talk show host, Glenn Beck (who is a Mormon, although his show is not a “Mormon” pro­gram) revealed a good thumbnail sketch of Black Liberation Theology. He quoted directly from James Cone, the source who informs and guides Jeremiah Wright. Cone writes in his book, Black Power and Black Theology:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black commu­nity. If God is not for us and against white people, then He is a murderer and we had better kill Him. The task of Black Theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the Black community …7Barack Obama’s Black Liberation Theology , Glen Beck on YouTube;

It has long been charged by racial agitators that one is a rac­ist merely by disagreeing with Black liberal political positions. It is interesting to learn their belief that God Himself is a racist deserving of death if He dares to differ from the goals of the Black community! Wow, I guess that puts independent thinkers of the human variety in very elevated company.

Even being aware, as we are, of the lethal doctrinal drift that has overtaken the church in recent years, it is nevertheless difficult to accept that Obama has found so much support from popular Pastor Rick Warren (he opened the DNC convention in prayer), Donald Miller (he opened one of the DNC sessions with prayer) and Brian McLaren (headed up a large group of the rising Evangelical Left). The common denominator in varying degrees is their acceptance and/or promotion of Socialism, and it leaves one wondering: Do they understand the view of God which Obama has imbibed for over 20 years? But let’s let Cone speak to that:

Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white en­emy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black People to de­stroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity we must reject His love.8Barack Obama’s Black Liberation Theology , Glen Beck on YouTube;

Must God participate in the “holy activity” of “the destruc­tion of the white enemy?” What god IS this? It is certainly not the God of the Bible. This teaching puts in our minds the gods of the pagan religions. My god is going to get you-unless your god gets me first.

Concerning Black Liberation Theology, Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council well states:

It is an alternative doctrine of the church that em­braces big government. It advances a collectivist idea and it says the state not the individual is central to so­ciety and that is very disquieting but it also gives you a better understanding of the undergirding of Senator Obama’s big government liberal philosophy that would increase spending, would increase taxes, weaken our military and our position in the world.9Barack Obama’s Black Liberation Theology , Glen Beck on YouTube;

Ken Blackwell clearly explained this prior to the election, but very few listened.

Religious Socialism On The March

As we sat and watched the government takeover of General Motors (GM), the huge bank bailouts, the disastrously expensive “cap and trade” legislation making its way through congress, and the mounting debt that will bury our children and grand­children, all happening while we are in the midst of a very pain­ful recession with very high unemployment rates, we just had to wonder what was the thinking behind these disastrous deci­sions. In fairness to President Obama, President Bush had led the way with the first 700-something-billion-dollar bailout package for the banks in 2008. Bush had big spending, big government tendencies also, which outraged his base and led to his fairly low approval ratings even among conservatives. But Bush looks like an absolute piker compared to his presidential successor, Barack Obama. Why is this happening? Why is there no concern on the part of congressional leaders and the President himself? Obama has stated our debt is unsustainable”10“U.S. Debt “Unsustainable”: Obama”
and admitted we have no money, and yet, he proposes to spend trillions (with a “T”) more. Does Obama not understand what he is doing? The President is a smart man. Consequently, it seems implausible to us that he does not, indeed, understand exactly where his wild spending is taking us.

Is his worldview leading him to work toward eliminating individualism and capitalism to a high degree and make the col­lectivist “state central to society?” Obama denied, for example, that he wanted to take over GM, right before he fired the CEO and set up his own crew to oversee things there. It would be like the burglar you confront as he is heading out the door with your TV, saying he has no desire to rob you.

And yet, this seems preposterous. WHY?-Why would Obama and his cronies want to bring this country down econom­ically and impoverish her children? It’s just not rational, is it? Look at cults; look at Islamic suicide bombers … Ideology often trumps rationality. What would “fundamentally change” Amer­ica faster than shackling her children under massive debt? And it seems this administration is intent on weakening us militarily as well. Are America’s chickens comin’ home to roost? American Leftists of various stripes are very contemptuous of their coun­try. This hatred seems ingrained in Marxism. So, could this be the explanation-could this spending us into oblivion and weak­ening our country militarily be intentional-or are these harmful decisions Obama is making due to naiveté or incompetence? We cannot answer that; perhaps, time will tell.

Ironically, even the Russian news agency Pravda was shocked at what is happening to America, and the speed at which it is being carried out. They even recognized the role of the church in assisting in this Socialist/Marxist transformation pro­cess. This is something MCOI has been pointing out for several years. In the Pravda article “American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper,” they write:

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then [sic] Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist [sic] politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.11“American Capitalism Gone with a Wimper”, Stanislav Mishin : http://

Sadly, Pravda seems to be right on-target concerning where we presently are headed:

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money print­ing has been a [sic] record setting, not just in America’s short history [sic] but in the world. If this keeps up for more then [sic] another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.12“American Capitalism Gone with a Wimper”, Stanislav Mishin : http://

Barack Obama And The Borg

For the first time since its founding, America is led by an adherent of a New Religious Movement. The fears some Evan­gelicals had that the Mormon Church might use a Mitt Romney presidency as a recruitment tool pale in comparison to Black Liberation Dogma being the official guide of an American ad­ministration. However, we tend to think President Obama is more committed to Marxist/Socialist principles in general than he is to Black Liberation Theology in particular. This is our “Borgian theory.” The Borg is a fictional civilization which was introduced in the Star Trek: Next Generation television se­ries. The Borg functions as a collective where all are equal with the exception of the Borg Queen. They have but one goal: To conquer and assimilate all other civilizations with whom they come in contact. We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile” is their prime directive. The Borg expands their empire by brute force. One’s traditional culture and beliefs are surrendered and incorporated into the Borg. The many truly become one-with one purpose and one destiny. The Queen, or leader of the Borg, is the only one who has real personhood; en­joying free thought and action. The Borg will assimilate cultures they attack or if they are unable to do that, it will destroy them.

The Far Left is like the Borg-a conglomeration of many different Marxist-leaning organizations-from radical Marxist environmentalists to far-Left educators to “community orga­nizations” like ACORN. They are different organizations with seemingly different goals, but all really working toward the same radical change of our system of government; and, perhaps, the whole world. Indeed, we think radically changing America is only one step toward forming a “New World Order” and in­stituting world governance. Obama reluctantly threw his Pastor Wright under the bus to save his candidacy. Will he throw Bill Ayers or ACORN or anyone else under the bus to save his Presi­dency if he feels he has to- anything to keep the all-important Borg moving forward? Nevertheless, we still will comment on the Black Liberation Theology dogma Obama sat under for so many years, as it surely has molded his worldview, and surely still influences his thinking and decision-making.

Liberating The Oppressed

On the surface, liberating the oppressed sounds like a fine pursuit. And it is, as long as it is carried out in a righteous man­ner. In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus talks about providing for those who are hungry and destitute and caring for and visiting those who are sick or in prison. Jesus is for the voiceless and defense­less. But Jesus was not a radical community organizer and, certainly, not a Marxist. We do not find him leading a revolution or seeking to punish a particular race of people for what others of the same race did decades or centuries before. In fact, He re­ally exemplified the opposite. At that time, the Romans were the oppressors; and, yet, when asked about paying taxes or tribute, He said to: “… Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). He did not suggest that His followers rebel against the hated Romans, but told them if they “… compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain” (Matt. 5:41). This was a reference to the occupying soldiers who by law could compel a citizen to carry the soldier’s equipment for one mile but no more. This is the very reason why Black Liberation Theology must reconstruct Jesus, for they have no use for Him unless, as Cone said:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Black commu­nity. If God is not for us and against white people, then He is a murderer and we had better kill Him. The task of Black Theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the Black community …13Barack Obama’s Black Liberation Theology , Glen Beck on YouTube;

As mentioned earlier, Black Liberation Theology at its core is racist. Thomas Sowell, who is himself a person of color, noted what he believes was a public demonstration of Obama’s racism in his article “A Post-Racial President?:

Those who were shocked at President Obama’s cheap shot at the Cambridge police for being “stupid” in arresting Henry Louis Gates must have been among those who let their wishes prevail over the obvious im­plications of Obama’s 20 years of association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Anyone who can believe that Obama did not understand what the racist rants of Jeremiah Wright meant can believe anything.14“A Post-Racial President?”; Thomas Sowell, Capitalism Magazine;

In Black Liberation Theology, the “oppressed” are defined primarily by skin color and political affiliation, rather than the actual definition of oppress as meaning “to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority” (Merriam-Webster). Has the attempt to tear down capitalistic companies and processes and nationalize them been prioritized, because they are viewed as being owned and/or controlled by what is termed the oppres­sive “white enemy” and must, therefore, be taken over? Are whites being “punished,” and the institutions put in the hands of “the people,” which really means the hands of the “new and improved” government? It’s possible — it depends upon just how much the President agrees with the teachings of BLT, which again, he sat under for over 20 years!

Ironically, the White people’s votes (those evil oppres­sors!) put Obama in office. Even though Blacks voted almost monolithically for Barack, the numbers to win just weren’t there without White support. Many Whites actually thought once we got a Black President, racial animosity would subside; and we would enter a new era of peace, love, and harmony. Oh the joy!!! The rapture!!! The triumph of false hope over rational thought! Of course, it should have been evident to all before the inau­guration that the people’s high Utopian hopes Obama’s election would end the Liberals use of “the race card” would be seri­ously dashed as soon as any real opposition to his policies arose. Don’t we already have evidence that anyone who disagrees with Obama and points out his Socialist policies is called “racist?” (And what about those Black men such as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams? Has anyone noticed they are considered even worse than “the white enemy” and are singled out for the se­verest censure?) As soon as people started publicly declaring Barack’s policies as Socialist, his defenders ridiculously asserted that “Socialist” is the new “code word” for racists or the “N-word.”

… you start to wonder whether in fact the word so­cialist is becoming a code word, whether or not social­ist is becoming the new N-word …15“MSNBC Anchor: ‘ “Socialist” Is Becoming the New N-word’ ”

Someone responded that we need to know the “code word” for “Socialist” so we can use that, because that is what we are talking about when we say “Socialist.”

Nation of Islam* (NOI) leader Louis Farrakhan has outright called Obama the Messiah:

You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care any­thing about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.

[emphasis ours]

but he seems equivocal, because later he says he:

“… is not the Messiah for sure, but …”16“Will MSM Report on Louis Farrakhan Declaration of Obama as the Messiah?”

Additionally, Farrakhan told his followers people shouldn’t become pacified by the election of the first Black President.

“This can pacify you and lull you to sleep in a dan­gerous time, making you think that we live in a post-racial America-when the opposite is true,” he said to loud applause.17“Farrakhan: Don’t be ‘pacified’ by Obama election”: Breitbart (emag) Oct 18 08:44 PM US/Eastern:

Do you find it interesting when Jeremiah Wright and other Black racists make derogatory racial remarks they are so often excused and sometimes even defended, when racism in general is regarded as evil? Why is that?

But is President Obama, himself, really a racist? After all, he surrounds himself with White advisors and appointees-David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel are his right-hand men. And he does not speak hatefully toward White people in speeches, ex­cept for the rare off-the-teleprompter ad lib comment:

… the Cambridge police acted stupidly …18“Obama: Cops Acted “Stupidly” in Professor’s Arrest” entry5181436.shtml

Obama may or may not be a racist. Even Jeremiah Wright is probably quite cordial to Caucasians he encounters in his every­day life, and he probably has liberal White people who he counts as friends. We do not believe we are able to judge the inner thoughts and motives of people, even if we might disagree with them religiously or politically. And to us, the answer to that is not nearly as important as other issues. But we refer our readers back to our assertion that the racist Black Liberation Theology is just one facet of the all-important Marxist/Socialist conglomerate Obama appears determined to lead to the new Promised Land.

However, since we cannot read Obama’s mind, we have to judge him more or less by the company he keeps. We will follow his advice to “judge me by the people who surround me”19“Obama: ‘Judge me by the people who surround me’” just as he himself challenged people to do during the campaign. When Obama was pressed about his friendship with Bill Ayers, co-founder of the terrorist group the Weather Underground,20Weather Underground Organization; Weather_Underground_Organization Obama responded first by saying of Ayers:

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, … who I know, and who I have not received some official en­dorsement from.21“10 things to know about Bill Ayers”,CST-NWS-ayers12.article

The evidence seems to demonstrate Obama is being hugely dishonest here, and that he should be judged by the people he chooses to be surrounded by and goes to for advice. He said his advisors were Warren Buffet, Joe Biden (who seems to con­tinually and inadvertently take public positions in almost hilari­ous opposition to Obama), and other more or less mainstream characters. It does not seem as though Obama is currently tak­ing much economic advice from Warren Buffet, who has even cautiously criticized some of the President’s actions. Of course, the main-stream media did not look into his relationship with Bill Ayers, and they still won’t. But then, the main-stream media seems very comfortable themselves with most of the Borg. The truth which is now becoming more common knowledge is that the radical Ayers is NOT simply “a guy who lives in my neigh­borhood,” but he is a personal friend and mentor of Obama and some contend he is possibly the ghost writer of Obama’s book Dreams of my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. We have not forgotten the radical era of the Weather Underground as we were young adults in their malevolent 1970s heyday. For those who know little about Ayers and his co-conspirators:

With a charismatic and articulate leadership whose revolutionary positions were characterized by anti-imperialist, feminist, and Black liberationist rhetoric, the group conducted a campaign of bombings through the mid-1970s, including aiding the jailbreak and es­cape of Timothy Leary. The “Days of Rage,” their first public demonstration on October 8, 1969, was a riot in Chicago timed to coincide with the trial of the Chi­cago Seven. In 1970 the group issued a “Declaration of a State of War” against the United States government, under the name “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO). The bombing attacks mostly targeted govern­ment buildings, along with several banks.22Weather Underground Organization; Weather_Underground_Organization

It is true Ayers and his aging radical pals are no longer blow­ing up Federal buildings and trying to kill “pigs” (police). How­ever, they have never repented of those evil deeds, and Ayers was quoted in a Sept. 11, 2001 article published in the New York Times as saying:

I don’t regret setting bombs … I feel we didn’t do enough.23“No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life with the Weathermen”¬sives-memoir-sorts-war-protester-talks-life-with.html?pagewanted=1

He felt they really should have committed even more acts of violence to change the system. Never in our wildest dreams did we imagine back then that these criminal radicals would one day have a friend in the White House. Although Obama does not ad­vocate violence, his views line up remarkably well with those of the Weather Underground. We should really take up Obama’s challenge and judge him by the company he keeps. After all, the Apostle Paul wrote:

Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” (1 Corinthians 15:33, NASB)

Dancing With The Czars And Other Friends Of Barack

Obama tells us he selects his friends “carefully:”

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black stu­dents. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marx­ists professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.24Barack Obama, Dreams of my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance; Books on Tape, (2005) read by Barack Obama

It appears the common denominator among Obama’s com­panions is being anti-Capitalist and pro-Marxist. Recently, this penchant of Obama to cultivate non-sellout, Marxist/Socialist friends has been coming to light. A number of Obama’s “Czars,” appointees, and organizations which are writing this nation’s legislation are being exposed as Marxists and Socialists. Self-de­scribed Marxist Anthony “Van” Jones was appointed by Obama as the Special Advisor for Green Jobs. He recently resigned when it was revealed that:

The administration’s “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, has a “very checkered past” deep-rooted in radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism.25“Fox News Notes Communist Past of the ‘Green Jobs’ Czar”; http://

Obama’s chosen Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, is enamored with Venezuela’s Marxist Dictator Hugo Chavez and is very impressed Chavez has taken control of the national media in Venezuela thereby shutting down media criticism of dear leader Chavez:

In Venezuela, Chavez really had an incredible rev­olution, a Democratic revolution to be able to put in place things that were going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.26National Conference for Media Diversity, 6/10/2008;

Lloyd is upfront about his plans to shut down conserva­tive media in the United States.27FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd discussing plans to shut down con¬servative media; It remains shocking to us, ten months after the election, to hear this high government official of the United States speaking with admiration regarding dictator Chavez because he was able to silence his opposition and shut down freedom of the press in Venezuela!

Then there is Jeff Jones, co-founder with Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground:

Jeff Jones was a domestic terrorist in the late ‘60s and a fugitive from justice throughout the ‘70s-yet now he’s a leader of an influential, taxpayer-funded group.

Jones was a fugitive from justice for 11 years. His own account at his Web site says: “As a leader of the Weather Underground, Jeff evaded an intense FBI manhunt for more than a decade. In 1981, they finally got him. Twenty special agents battered down the door of the Bronx apartment where he was living with his wife and four-year-old son.”28“NY’s Tax-Funded Ex-Terrorist”; opinion/opedcolumnists/ny_tax_funded_ex_terrorist_ktSaBCwrr6MD¬K2gMz7xqhN

Shockingly, this same Jeff Jones-who was instrumental in bombing the Pentagon and responsible for the deaths of a num­ber of policemen-was Chair of the Apollo Group, which wrote Obama’s stimulus package:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently credited Apollo with helping write the stimulus bill and getting it passed. Yet the stimulus’ “green jobs” provisions funnel federal tax dollars to unions, green groups and community organizers-that is, the organizations that make up Apollo.29“NY’s Tax-Funded Ex-Terrorist”; opinion/opedcolumnists/ny_tax_funded_ex_terrorist_ktSaBCwrr6MD¬K2gMz7xqhN

In other words, the Apollo Group wrote the stimulus bill as a way to fund themselves from the Federal coffers in order to be able to advance the agenda of Marxism at the taxpayer’s expense. This was passed by Congress!

More information is being revealed every day about Obama’s radical friends and associates. There is way too much disturbing information to be included here. Very likely, we will continue to learn even more of the same. We could continue, but these ex­amples and Obama’s description of the carefulness with which he chooses his affiliations, attest to the commitment he maintains to radical Marxists groups and causes. Although race, indeed, may be important to him, the whole of Leftist ideology takes center stage in Obama’s choices of his selection of friends and advisors. The Borg’s the thing, as always. Whether America will be recog­nizable when the Czars are done with her is anyone’s guess.


Black Liberation Theology is also anti-Semitic. One of the best known American anti-Semites is Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam who was honored by Barack’s home church (TUCC) in December 2007 as a great leader with their “Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpet­eer award.” 30“Obama’s Minister Honored Farrakhan”¬khan/2008/01/14/64332.html
Does their ongoing association demonstrate that because Farrakhan is anti-Semitic, that Wright and, more im­portantly, Obama are anti-Semitic? Again, we cannot know the mind of another. All we can do is examine what Black Libera­tion Theology teaches, and to what we know the President was exposed for so many years. What does the available evidence show? In the Black Liberation Theology worldview, the roles of oppressor and oppressed are based on genetics and skin color. The color of one’s skin and line of ancestry defines one as ei­ther oppressor or oppressed, not the content of one’s character. Black Liberation Theology views the two primary oppressors as Whites and Jews. It is fully consistent with this Black Liberation Theology worldview for Obama to claim the U.S. (i.e.: White oppressors) cannot impose its values on other nations, while at the same time working hard at imposing his will on Israel, the Jewish oppressors (or as he called the Israelis, “the occupiers”) as he demands Israelis stop construction in East Jerusalem,31 which is geographically part of the their nation. He then turns a blind eye while Muslims (whom he considers the oppressed or occupied) build on Jewish lands without permits and unlawfully. Black Liberation Theology has a view of Jews very akin to that which Islam holds of Jews. This was emphasized again when Barack declared that America is not a Christian nation (even though it was founded largely on Judeo/Christian principles and beliefs) and shortly thereafter asserted that numerically, America is one of the largest Muslim nations. What a strange thing to say! He and the White House did not participate in the National Day of Prayer this year, but did host a kick off at the White House for the Muslim Feast of Ramadan. (Brian McLaren also celebrated Ramadan and asked other Christians to participate as well.)32Ramadan 2009: Part 1 What’s going on?, Brian D. McLaren; http:// It makes sense in view of the Black Liberation Theology dogma of “oppressors and oppressed” and seems to be a strong indi­cation of anti-Semitism. This is not just idle speculation-with her “best friend” suddenly cooling towards her; Obama’s world­view could have dire implications for Israel’s peace and security. Israelis see it also- according to a Jerusalem Post poll, only 6 percent of Israelis (even very liberal Israelis!)33‘Jerusalem Post’/Smith Poll: Only 6% of Israelis see US gov’t as pro-Israel; GIL HOFFMAN ; Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1245184872947 believe that President Barack Obama is a true friend of Israel. How sad. And remembering God’s Word spoken to Abram the Hebrew at Gen­esis 12:3 (NIV): “… I will bless those who bless you, and who­ever curses you I will curse; …” the implications for America may not be good either.

A New Morality

President Obama spent his first weeks in office signing orders overturning pro-life mandates. Biblical morality, which has been the primary basis used against abortion and against the legalization and recognition of homosexual marriage, has been abandoned, and it is now viewed as antiquated, bigoted, and unreasonable-what Obama refers to as “worn arguments and old attitudes”34“Obama Laments ‘Worn Arguments and Old Attitudes’ Holding Back Gay Liberation,”;¬tion When Barack Obama spoke at Notre Dame earlier this year, he claimed being prolife is an extremist posiposi­tion. This “new morality” declares protecting innocent human life is immoral. However, Obama holds what we consider to be an extreme view concerning infants who accidentally survive the abortion procedure. On April 4, 2002 on the Illinois Senate floor in opposition to SB1663 (a companion bill to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that would have required an abortionist to call a second physician to assess a baby aborted alive) Obama said it:

“… is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce la­bor and perform an abortion.”35“Obama caught on tape arguing against giving medical attention to aborted babies”
(underline ours

According to him, such newborns have no protection of law and must be allowed to die and not interfere with the “original deci­sion” of the mother. No comfort given, no mercy extended. The doctor doesn’t get sued, because no one would know he per­formed a botched abortion. This view is despicable to us. That same, all-powerful mother, however, should she choose to give the child life, cannot choose alternative educational opportuni­ties for her child. Abortion choice=good. School choice=bad.

On the other end of the spectrum, Muslim terrorists who have attacked his own country have tugged at Obama’s heart strings. Does Obama have a country, or is his only allegiance to the Borg? He doesn’t want terrorists to be afraid of the big, bad interrogators. He considers using water for up to 40 sec­onds to simulate drowning in order to gain vital information to protect American lives from a terrorist to be one of the “brutal methods”36“Two Administrations, Torture, and National Security”
of interrogation. So, let us get this straight. Doing something which causes no actual physical harm (water board­ing) is bad and one of the “brutal methods” of interrogation, but using a vacuum to dismember a baby, or burning an infant to death with a saline solution, or cutting open the base of the skull and sucking out the brains of an innocent is perfectly accept­able. We have a suggestion. Since he considers these alternatives as “civilized procedures,” why not use these approved civilized procedures on the terrorists to extract information? Obama may shrink from this, but we are unsure why. (Disclaimer: We do not truly advocate the chemical burning, dismembering, or sucking out the brains of terrorist prisoners. Even more so, however, we certainly do not advocate murdering innocent babes in such bru­tal fashion or any other way.)

This also works itself out at the other end of life. Many were horrified that what were referred to as ‘death panels’ were included in one proposed Socialist healthcare plan. We haven’t read that section of that particular bill and so cannot comment directly on it, but two things seem to arise from this.

One: American families do need to consider and, perhaps, discuss amongst themselves end-of-life questions. What is the fine line between keeping a person alive artificially and sim­ply good, life-prolonging care? What does it mean to be merely “kept alive by machines?” The elderly along with their fami­lies, perhaps, need to participate in making healthcare decisions and preparations early on in order to help eliminate the family’s difficult decisions later on while under terrible stress and grief. Perhaps, these decisions should be made even younger; after all, the elderly are not the only people who daily face death-we all do! But, the key here is that such things should be discussed by the family and not some random, all-powerful bureaucrat in Washington, DC.

Two: If what the government is proposing is not yet euthanasia, we probably will face government implementation of that sometime in the near future, for two reasons: First of all, our nation is aging rapidly. Within a few decades, the baby boomers will begin filling up assisted living and nursing facilities. Who is going to pay for our care? The government already has spent the money we, as taxpayers, have paid in; and Social Security and Medicare are facing bankruptcy in the next few years. Who then is going to pay to provide that care? After all, through abor­tion, we (not all of us, but too many) have killed off millions of the generations who were to follow us. To put it in practi­cal and crass terms: Our generation has murdered the children (many millions) who would have grown up to be taxpayers and contributed funds to our old age care. And we have also lost the taxpayers to whom they would have given birth. The pro-choice/ pro-abortion motto has been “every child should be a wanted child,” thereby devaluing life to match our own selfish desires. May not our youth-who will be saddled with the terrible finan­cial burden of our care and especially facing the huge deficits we have left to them-decide tomorrow that “every grandma should be a wanted grandma?”

Secondly, why not? Upon what moral basis will our future leaders see our old hides as having value, once we are no longer “useful” to the state? Euthanasia presents itself as the next logi­cal step from abortion and very easily flows from a Socialist worldview. Voluntary euthanasia is already a “choice” you can make in many Socialist nations and in the state of Oregon. How big of a step will it take to slide into compulsory euthanasia-to oh-so-compassionately end the life of those deemed to have no good reason to live-and save the state some much needed money as a bonus? Socialism is utilitarian in its decision mak­ing, and social Darwinism has always played a front and center role there. The 1920’s and 1930’s Socialists in America (they called themselves “Progressives”) such as Margaret Sanger, advocated abortion to weed out and breed out the inferior races. The Socialist party of WWII Germany began what ended in the Holocaust with infanticide of handicapped children, abor­tion, and over time advanced to euthanasia. “ ‘Burdensome lives’ and ‘useless eaters’ ”37“T4 Program” and “The Nazi Analogy on Bioethics,” Journal article by Nat Hentoff, Daniel Callahan, Gary E. Crum, Cynthia B. Cohen; The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 18, 1988
“For instance, beginning in 1933, the Germans began killing “defectives” of various kinds, in part because they were unproductive (“useless eaters”) and therefore were costly …”
were weeded out and breeded out, and only those with “lives worth living” (such worth was given by the government) were allowed to live. The elderly and infirmed, the mentally and physically handicapped, were not contributors and, therefore, were expendable. Will our culture come to that? God forbid.

Redistributing The Wealth

What about redistributing the wealth? Couldn’t that be a GOOD thing? We’re not rich and have often struggled with fi­nances; we could always use a little more taken away from some nameless, faceless, fat cats! Why should we worry? And anyway, isn’t it good to try to provide aid to the poor?

Of course, it is good and even biblical to aid and help the poor. However, at least biblically, that aid is an individual re­sponse which one chooses to do, not one that is to be done under compulsion. But when we, as Christians, voluntarily give to god­ly causes and people with needs, we are rewarded by God. The giver is blessed, and the receiver is grateful. A personal connec­tion is made. This is a wonderful thing. On the other hand, com­pulsory “giving” is extortion. The “giver” not only is resentful, and the receiver not grateful, but also the receiver takes the “gift” as his due. The government “middleman” pockets a huge portion of the extorted funds as a “handling fee.” Millions of bureaucrats are needed and very well paid to run the system while producing little of value; and they finally retire with great benefits that have to be paid by future taxpayers, and pretty soon we’re all living the California dream-on the verge of bankruptcy.

What Does The Future Hold?

Fighting Socialism has been ongoing since at least the 1800’s in the United States. We were intrigued that the 1944 Presidential Candidate from the American Socialist Party wrote in 1944:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, un­til one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened. He went on to say, “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.38Did Norman Mattoon Thomas ever say the American people will nev¬er knowingly adopt Socialism But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program?; WikiAnswers; http://wiki. name_of_liberalism_they_will_adopt_every_fragment_of_the_social¬ist_program

Will Socialism win the battle this time? Will Obama, per­haps, lead us even further into outright Marxism? Only God knows. There are way too many unknowns for us to even haz­ard a guess as to whether Obama will fulfill his dream, fall by the wayside, or end up with some of both success and failure as most presidents do. That he wants to implement Socialist/Marx­ist policies, put a great deal more of the nation’s economy under government control, and radically transform America seems un­deniable. But whether he will succeed or not is another matter. In his favor is the fact his party has firm control of Congress, and most of his party back his Borgian efforts. The out-of-power party has some Borgists in their ranks as well, but he does not even need them to accomplish anything. On the other hand, he has slipped very badly in the polls-even many who voted for Obama have become dissatisfied with the way things are going. It seems most Americans who are knowledgeably involved in the political process are still very wary of Marxism/Socialism. Certainly, we recently have seen that most reject socialized med­icine; but at this point, it seems as though Congress is going to ram the legislation through anyway. They do not seem to have much respect for their constituent’s wishes. But it may become more difficult to push through an unpopular agenda once the Congress remembers the next elections are right around the cor­ner. If Obama ultimately fails, he may find himself under that old bus with Jeremiah Wright; but the Borg will still go on, find a new queen, and come back to fight another day.

Times That Try Men’s Souls

The challenge to the Church is to articulate and teach the core of the faith on a regular basis to the flock. Government will not save us, and in fact, there is no guarantee it always will be friendly toward us. We have enjoyed unprecedented free­dom of speech and freedom to worship as we please in this country, and our country has been greatly blessed by God even though she was far from perfect. The early Christians lived in a society that was hostile to their faith. Their regular gatherings focused on learning sound doctrine, fellowshipping, sharing meals, and praying together. There was no compromising on doctrine in order to make unbelievers feel more comfortable. Their evangelism happened mainly outside the church meet­ing by educated and trained believers who cared for and about the unbelievers around them, and who quite aggressively chal­lenged the worldviews of those outside the church. Their goal was not to change society in order to make it a more comfort­able place in which Christians could live, but rather, it was to win the lost to Christ. Today, many Christians live in nations hostile to Christians and Christianity. They face real persecu­tion for their faith, something we have not yet encountered. But with the great advances non-Christian and even anti-Christian worldviews have made in our nation and the world, and the rise of politically correct views of “tolerance,” which puts Chris­tianity at odds with these worldviews, who knows what we someday may face? The true Church-Red and Yellow, Black and White-may find we really need each other and put our differences aside for good. We are all sinners, after all; all of us are either saved by God’s grace alone or not at all. God’s fam­ily, not our human tribe, is our true identity.

Is Barack Obama A Christian?

First, anyone who has read the MCOI Journal for very long would know this is a question we cannot answer with any cer­tainty. We do not see anything in Barack Obama that would indi­cate he is a Christian by any biblical or historical understanding of the term, but we do not know the man’s heart. To be a Chris­tian, biblically, one must believe Jesus died, was buried, and rose again (1 Cor. 15:1-8) and call on the name of the Lord (Jesus) to be saved (Rom. 10:9-13). Secondly, the answer to the question would neither qualify nor preclude him from being President of the United States. There is no religious test in the Constitution and we have had non—Christians (Thomas Jefferson immediately comes to mind) as well as Christians occupy that office in the past. This is not a question of political affiliation for we have had presidents and currently have members of the House and Senate across all party lines who hold to a diversity of religious and secular worldviews. The question at hand in this article has to do with Obama’s public claims of being a Christian. What we can summarize are some aspects of Black Liberation Theology as follows:

1) Black Liberation Theology espouses a doctrinal posi­tion that God hates Whites and is in the business of having them killed and elevating Blacks. Any other view of God is unacceptable.

2) Anti-Semitism is strongly supported in spite of God clearly declaring in His Word that He would bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews. (Gen. 12:3)

3) An insistence on abandoning biblical moral values and replacing them with new, politically correct and racially driven moral values.

The “Cult of Black Liberal Theology” is definitely more akin to the Borg (Marxist/Socialism) than to biblical Christianity.

Nevertheless, we do not say that anyone who attends that church cannot be a true Christian. True Christians do fall prey to false doctrine and false teachers. Most of the New Testament was written to correct false doctrine into which Christians had fallen! Christians are instructed to pray for their leaders, so they may live in peace, (1 Tim. 2:1-2) and do the work they were called to do. Certainly, it is very important to pray for wisdom for those in charge in this chaotic world. The more wisdom they appear to need and possibly the more we disagree with them, perhaps, the more we should pray for them.

And most importantly of all, we need to remember our God is in loving control of our lives and our destinies, and we trust Him with our future.

*Nation of Islam= Not to be confused with the Islamic religion founded in 610 by Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah, Wallace Fard Mu­hammad founded NOI in Detroit, Michigan in July, 1930.

06 Don V07 Joy V

Don and Joy Signature

Don and Joy Veinot are co-founders of Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., which is a national apologetics ministry and mission to new religious movements based in Wonder Lake, IL. He and Joy, his wife of 37 years, have been involved in discernment ministry as missionaries to New Religious Movements since 1987. Don is on the Board of Directors for Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), a consortium of discernment ministries. In addition to being staff researchers and writers for the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. Journal and co-authors of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life, they have been published in the CRI Journal, PFO Quarterly Journal, Campus Life Magazine and other periodicals. Don was ordained to the ministry by West Suburban Community Church of Lombard, IL at the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem, Israel in March of 1997. They have two adult children and three grandchildren.


Link partner: pokerseri autowin88 vegasslot77 mantra88 ligasedayu warungtoto luxury138 luxury777 bos88 bro138 sky77 roma77 zeus138 batman138 dolar138 gas138 ligaciputra babe138 indobet rtp zeus luxury333 ligagg88