President Obama declines to become a Stalwart and fight White Genocide

President Obama has declined our invitation to become a Stalwart and fight White Genocide.

But somehow we will soldier on.

The White House removed from its petition site our STOP WHITE GENOCIDE petition that invited him:

Join our group of Stalwarts that sign petitions Against WHITE GENOCIDE on the first of each month

The ongoing program of White Genocide is a reality for white people everywhere in the world.

Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for EVERYBODY.

Demanding from EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to take in hundreds of millions of immigrants from the third world and to assimilate with them is Genocide.

It is vitally important to have an open public discussion of this global issue. But those who tell the obvious truth about it are represented by the others as Heretics of our time. They say they are anti-racist. What they really are is Anti-White. Anti-racist is just a code word for Anti-White.

Our group of Stalwarts sign petitions Against WHITE GENOCIDE on the first of each month. Mr. President, we invite you to join us too at goo.gl/3SY5n

That petition was removed in November, and is our first STOP WHITE GENOCIDE petition that the White House site has removed of the 54 we’d posted there in the past year up to that time. We had run that particular one in a previous month with no difficulty.

——-

[To click on links to our  STOP WHITE GENOCIDE messages that are currently on public display at the White House, click on the blue, animated "Stalwarts...first of the month" icon in the right hand margin of our pages]

Join the BUGS Team, and post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Share/Bookmark

2 comments for “President Obama declines to become a Stalwart and fight White Genocide

  1. December 23, 2013 at 10:01 am

    White People do not have a Country anymore . !!

  2. Whatistrue Notsure
    December 23, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    Is it possible ? That, the petition site is operated by a private contractor not connected with the gov. on any level that way the gov. can disavow any knowledge of anything posted there? That way activists can use the site to dismiss petitions posted by they- (the activists), or outsiders, that are concerned with issues the activist running the site don’t like and make it look like (to the public outsiders) that the gov. condones the dismissal of posts not liked by the activists running the site. I was just wondering, because that is a common practice in marketing. You see it a lot when you check out product reviews , if you were to check who runs the product review site you most likely will find a connection (financial), with the product maker through the back door.

Something on your mind? Have your say!