It would be an honest presentation of the facts if you didn't bring it up constantly as an intended slur on Obama. Since there is nothing wrong with him belonging (or formerly belonging) to a "racialist" church, the only way in which it can work as a slur on Obama is if the intent is to confuse the word with a similar word, "racist," which would indeed be alarming.

As for your suggestion about Obama "ruling over a white majority population," and concerns over his "racialist" background for that reason, a person would have to share your own racist views in order to find that any more of a problem than having a member of an evangelical church doing the same. Personally, I have more in common religiously with Obama than I did with Jimmy Carter, although admittedly that's not saying a lot.

If you want me to believe that you're honestly presenting the facts, stop using the word "racialist" in that context. Say instead that Obama belonged to a black Christian church; since all black churches are "racialist" you will imply the same meaning without the linguistic confusion. If the confusion is, as I believe, your deliberate intent, you won't do this; if not, you won't mind. Ball's in your court.

That's not something wrong with Rev. Wright, it's merely a case where Rev. Wright is wrong. Since, if the government had done that, it would be very much in character and similar to other things that it has done in the past, there is nothing particularly wrong with his jumping to that conclusion. He's incorrect, but it's an understandable mistake.